a Lease for four years the Lessee entred and the Lessor did grant the Land habendum from Midsomer next for life the Lesses after Midsomer did attorn and adjudged that the Grant was void and in Barkwicks Case 5 Rep. the reason thereof is given because that if the Grant should be good the Grantor should have a particular Estate scil during the first day of the date or in the mean time untill the Grant did begin to take effect without any Donor or Lessor which is against the Rules of Law And although this Grant of the Reversion be but for years yet is it all one for the diversity is between a Lease for years made Tenant in Fee or for life to commence in future and a grant of a Reversion for in the first Case it is but a future Charge upon the Land so that the Lessor hath his former Estate untill the Lease doth begin and the Lessee hath no Term but only interesse termin and therefore Hil. 38. Eliz in the Common Pleas between Row and White it was agreed that if the Lessor be disseised before the Lease begins the Lessee after the day of the Commencement may grant the term otherwise where a Lessee for yeares in possession is outed by an estranger for there his Term is turned into a Right but in the first Case he hath not any Term in esse and therefore it cannot be turned into a Right nor any wrong done thereunto And for direct Authorities in this Case 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas the Countesse of Kents Case Where one having a Reversion in Fee does grant this Habendum after the death of I. S. for years and it was adjudged a void Grant And Trin. 39 Eliz. Johnson and Somerset in the Common Pleas Lessee for life grants the Reversion Habendum a die dat for ten years and adjudged a void Grant And in the Comment 155. by Brown If one having a Reversion does grant it habendum after a day to come for years this is a void Grant for if it may be granted from a day to come the Grantor shall have a particular Estate in the mean time by his own making which cannot be that one may be Lessor to himself or diminish his own Estate and there it is taken for a Rule that when there is a Rent in Esse or a Reversion c. a man cannot make this to be in esse for a time and to cease for another time or to grant it to another after the death of any or from a day to come relinquishing to himself an Estate in the mean time And in the Comment 197. b. Adams against Wortesbey agreed there that a Reversion cannot passe as a Reversion according to the common understanding thereof from a day to come But Haughton conceived that this Case being a bargain and sale whereby the use doth passe first this may well passe from a day to come Quod nullus dedixit Thirdly It is not averred that the twenty acres in which the Distresse was taken was not part of the Closes excepted so that it may be part of them and then no Distresse for the Rent can be taken there And although it may be gathered by some words in the Bar to the Avowry that the place where c. was parcell of the Land devised to Wiseman yet this shall not help the Conusans as in Cokes 7. Rep. fol. 24 25. where one having Land in Fee and another Land for years did grant a Rent for life out of both the Grantee distrained for the Rent and avowed that the Rent was granted out of the Lease land amongst other lands whereas he ought to have alledged the Rent to be granted out of the Land in Fee only and although the Plaintiff in his Bar to the Avowry hath shewed the truth of the Case yet this will not make the Avowry which wants substance to be good Judgment And all the Court did agree the Avowry to be naught for this exception Wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff in the Replevin Mich. 14 Jac. Webb and Jucks Case against Worfeild Rot. 266. IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas for the now Defendant against the now Plaintiffs In which the Plaintiff did declare that the Defendants the fourteenth of Febr. 9 Jac. at Ponick in a place called Brancefords Court did take an Oxe from the Plaintiff ad damnum forty pounds The Defendants did acknowledge the taking of the said Oxe as Bayliffs to Elizabeth Ligon Widow for that the place where c. contained two acres of Land and that one Anne Ligon was seised in Fee of the Scite of the Mannor of Bransford and of seven Messuages three Gardens and a hundred and fifty acres of Land forty two of Meadow sixty six of Pasture five of Wood and seventy of Furzes and Heath in Ponick aforesaid Bransford Leigh Newland and Wick whereof the place where c. is parcell That the sixth of September the twenty fourth of H 8. Anne Ligon did devise this to John Parsons and Anne his Daughter for seventy years after the death of Elizabeth his wife if they or either of them shall so long live rendring five pounds four shillings eight pence Rent at the Annunciation Christmas Midsummer and Michaelmas That the eleventh of August 1554. Elizabeth Parsons died whereupon John and Anne Parsons entred And Ligon dies whereby the Reversion descended to Sir Rich. Ligon her Son and Heir and Sir Richard died wherby the same descended to William Ligon his Son and Heir who died also whereby the same descended to Richard Ligon his Son and Heir who died also and the same descended to Sir Richard Ligon his Son and heire who Hil. 33 Eliz. did levy a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the said Elizabeth Ligon then his Wife for life the Remainder to the Heirs of the body of Sir William the Remainder to the right Heires of Sir William 10 May 4. Jac. John Parsons died Pasch 6 Jac. Sir William Ligon and Elizabeth his wife did levy a Fine to the Plaintiff to the use of the Plaintiff for the life of Sir William the Remainder to the said Elizabeth for her life the Remainder to the Plaintiff in Fee Sir William dies whereby the Reversion does remain to Elizabeth his Wife And for seventy eight pounds six pence of the said Rent for three quarters of a year ending at Christmas 9 Jacob. they did acknowledge c. and they averred the lives of the said Elizabeth Ligon and the said Anne Parsons Bar. The Plaintiff said that the Fine levied by Sir William and Elizabeth his wife was to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs and justified the putting in of the said Oxe by the license of the said Anne Parsons Absque hoc that the said Fine was to the use of the Plaintiff for the life of
Defendants Father was seised in Fee of divers Lands and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life the remainder to the Defendant his Son in Tail with divers remainders over with power of revocation by writing under his hand and Seal and publisht in the presence of three Witnesses And then for the consideration of four hundred pounds did enter into this Recognizance to the Plaintiff and dies And whether this Land were extendable or not against the Son was the question And I conceive that by the Statute of the 27. Eliz. this Recognizance may be extended against the Son the words of which Statute are And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid that if any person or persons have heretofore sithence the beginning of the Queens Majesties Reign that now is made or hereafter shall make any conveyance Gift Grant or Demise Charge Limitation of Use or Uses or Assurance of in or out of any Lands Tenements or Hereditaments with any Clause Provision Article or Condition of Revocation Determination or alteration at his or their will or pleasure of such Conveyance Assurance Grants Limitation of Uses or Estates of in or out of the said Lands Tenements or Hereditaments or of in or out of any part or parcell of them contained or mentioned in any Writing Deed or Indenture of such Assurance Conveyance Grant or Gift and after such Conveyance Grant Gift Devise Charge limitation of Use or Assurance so made or had shall or do bargaine sell demise grant convey sell or charge the same Lands Tenements or Hereditaments or any part or parcell thereof to any person or persons bodies Politick or Corporate for money or other good consideration paid or given the said first Conveyance or Assurance Gift Grant Demise Charge or Limitation not by him or them revoked made void or altered according to the power and authority reserved or expressed unto him or them in and by the said secret Conveyance Assurance Gift or Grant That then the said former Conveyance Assurance Gift Grant or Demise as touching the said Lands Tenements and Hereditaments so after sold bargained conveyed demised or charged against the said Bargainees Vendees Lessees Grantees and every of them their Heirs Successors Executors Administrators and Assigns and against all and every person and persons which have shall or may lawfully claim any thing by from or under them or any of them shall be deemed taken and adjudged to be void frustrate and of none effect by vertue and force of this present Act. So that this Statute doth not only aide Purchasors of the Lands but those who for a valuable consideration have any charge out of the Land or upon the Land But it may be objected that the Statute doth make the revokable Conveyance void only against the Bargainees Vendees Grantees Object and Lessees but does not speak of any Conuzee But I answer that it appears by the foregoing words Respons that the Statute intends to aide not only Bargainees c. but also all that have any charge out of the Land or upon the Land and although the last words of the Statute doe not speak expresly of Conuzees yet the Statute shâ—ll be expounded to extend to them and the Statute of West 2. cap. 1. Quod illi quibus tenementa data sunt in Taile potestatem alienandi c. which words seem only to restrain the Dâ—nee in Tail yet in the 5. Edw. 2. Form 52. the issue is thereby restrained and 3. Edw. 3. Formedon 46. that Tenant in tail cannot charge the Land no more then alien can forfeit the Land so that if he grant a Rent or acknowledge a Statute or Recognizance or commit Felony or Treason and dies the Issue shal have the Land discharged And this Statute hath alwaies been taken as to the equity thereof to releive Purch sors and those who have and therefore in Coke R. 3. 82. B. Standen and Bullocks case Mich. 42. 43. Eliz. where a man had conveyed his Land to the use of himself for life and then to the use of divers others of his blood with future power of revocation as after such a Feast or after the death of such a one and after and before the power of revocation commenc'd he for a valuable consideration did bargain and sell the Land to another and his Heirs this bargain and sale is within the remedy of the Statute for although the Statute saith the said first Conveyance not by him revoked according to the power by him reserved which seems by the literall sense to be intended of a present power of revocation for no revocation may be made by force of a future power untill it comes in esse yet it was holden that the intention of the Act was that such a voluntary Conveyance which was originally subject to the power of revocation be it in present or in future shall not be good against a Purchasor bona fide upon valuable consideration and if other construction be made the Act will signifie very little and it will be easie to evade such an Act. And so if A. hath reserved to him a power of revocation by the assent of B. and then A. bargains and sells the Land to another this bargain and sale is good and within the remedy of the said Act. The King against Sir John Byron Knight IN a Quo Warranto for that the Defendant for a year past hath used and yet doth use without any Warrant within the Mannor of Colswick in the County of Nottingham within the bounds of the Kings Forest of Sherwood and within the reguards of the said Forest to have a Park within the said Mannor with a Pale Hedge and Ditch inclosed being two hundred acres of Pasture and a hundred acres of Wood within the said Park Et ad venandum capiendum occidendum apportandum in the said Park and two hundred acres of Pasture and a hundred acres of Wood omnes omnimodas damas Domini Regis Forrestae suae praedict in parcum praedict praedict 200. acr pasturae 100. acr Bosci aliquo tempore venand occidend Ita quod Forrestini Domini Regis forestae praâ—dict nec aliquae aliae personae quaecunque intromittantur ad venandum fugandum intra parcum praedictum 200. acr pasturae 100. acr Bosci sine licentia defendentis The Defendant pleaded that John Biron Knight the Defendants Grandfather was seised in Fee of a Messuage of a hundred acres of land two hundred acres of Meadow three hundred acres of pasture and a hundred acres of wood in Colwick in the County aforesaid now and time out of mind called the Mannor of Colwick within the meets and bounds of the Forâ—st aforesaid And that the said John Byron the Grandfather and all those whosâ— Estate the said John Byron hath in the aforesaid house and a hundred acres of land two hundred of Meadow and three hundred of Pasture and a hundred of Wood in Colwick aforesaid have had
But in our Case the act being done by the issue in Tail himself shall not enable him to make voyd the Lease made by his Mother no more then if a Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for years and levies a Fine with proclamations to the Donor and dyes having issue yet the Donor shall not avoyd the Lease Vid. Lord Aberganies Case Cook 6 Rep. And although that the Wife were a Ioyntress within the Statute of 11 H. 7. yet is this Lease clearly out of the Statute because that it is no bar or discontinuance to the Estate in Tail as it is in Sir George Browns Case Cook 3 Rep. for this Lease was voydable by the issue unless he had bar'd himself by his own Fine And I conceive this Lease is also good against the Devisee for when a Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for years or grants a Rent common c. or acknowledgeth a Statute or doth in some other manner charge the Land this is a good Lease Grant or Charge to binde the Tenant in Tail and all other except the issues in Tail and those in Reversion And the reason of this is because the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 1. that was made to avoyd such charges does not ayd any persons except the issues in Tail and those in Remainder and Reversion And therefore if Tenant in Tail grant a Rent or acknowledg a Statute and dyes the issue shall not be charged with it and so shall his Feoffee but if the Tenant in Tail himself after such charge infeoffs another and dyes the Feoffee shall hold the Land charged and if a Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for years and dyes and the issue doth accept the Rent the Lease is made good and is absolute but if he dyes seised of the Estate-Tail the issue hath his election either to make the Estate good by his acceptance of the Rent or to avoyd the Lease by his entry and if he infeoff a stranger before entry the Feoffee shall never avoyd the Lease and if the issue doth accept the Rent he maketh the Lease good for his time and as the Feoffee of the Tenant in Tail and all those who come to the Land by any assurance made be the Tenant in Tail whereby the Estate in Tail is barred or discontinued shall hold the Estate charged with the Leases and charges made by the Tenant in Tail so shall all those in like manner who come to the Land under the said Tenant in Tail although the Estate-tail doth remain not barred or discontinued saving the issues in Tail who are ayded by the Statute of Westminster the 2. And therefore if Tenant in Tail grants a Rent in fee and takes a Wife and dyes the Wife shall hold charged with the Rent and so if a woman Tenant in Tail grants a Rent and marries and hath issue and dyes the Husband being Tenant by the curtesie shall hold the Land charged for they are not ayded by the said Statute and so if Tenant in Tail grants a Rent in Fee and makes a Lease for three lives warranted by the Statute of the 32 of Hen. the 8. and dyes the Lessee shall hold the Land charged Cooks Rep. 9. Count. Bedfords Case And in the said Case of the Lord Abergeveny it is said that the surviving Ioyntenant by acceptance of the Lease hath deprived himself of the way and means of avoyding the charge for vis accrescendi was the onely means of avoyding it and the right of survivor is gone by the Release And so in our Case the issue in Tail might have avoyded this Lease by his entry but he hath quite barred himself by his Fine And as to the Statute of the 11 H. 7. cap. 20. I conceive that nothing is prohibited by this Statute but onely such Acts as are a bar of the Estate-tail or a discontinuance thereof for so are the words of the Stature viz. If any woman shall discontinue alien release or confirm with Warranty c. And in Sir George Browns Case in Cooks Repor fol. 350. it is there argued Whether a Discontinuance without Warranty be within that Statute but it was resolved that these words with Warranty doe refer onely to Releases and Confirmations which make not discontinuance without Warranty for the intention of the Statute was not onely to prohibit every bar but also every discontinuance but here in this case there is no bar or discontinuance for the woman hath made a Lease for years rendering Rent by which the Estate-tail is neither bound nor discontinued but she remains Tenant in Tail as she was before and so dyed seised of such Estate and therefore if it had not been for the Fine levyed by the issue in Tail himself she might have entered and have avoyded the Lease and this is not like the Case there put by Anderson where Feme Tenant in Tail in Ioynture within the Statute does accept a Fine sur conusans de droit come ceo c. and therefore does grant and render the Estate for 1000 years for though this be no discontinuance of the Estate-tail yet is it a bar of the Estate during the time And Hillar 22 Jacob. I argued this Case again and all the Court viz. Doderidge Jones and Whitlock did agree That the issue in Tail was barred by the Fine to avoyd this Lease and that although the Estate-tail was barred yet is it not extinguished but remains in esse to support the Lease so long as any issue in Tail does remain alive and so they agreed the Lease to be good Wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Judicium George Bishop of Chichester Plaintiff John Free-land Defendant 1 Caroli Rot. 607. THe Case was That a Bishop was seised in fee of a Park to which there was the office of a Keeper belonging with a fee of five marks with a Livery granted from time to time by the Bishop And the Bishop does grant the said Office together with the fees necnon cum pastura pro duobus equis in eodem Parco which Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter The Bishop dyes and another is made Bishop And whether this Grant was good to binde the Successor was the Question And I conceive that this is a good Grant against the Successor and will binde him And first I conceive it will not be denyed but that if a Bishop hath a Park he by the Common Law may grant the Office of the Keeper of that Park to whom he will with such fees and wages and for such an estaâ—e as he will and this being confirmed by the Dean and Chapter is good to binde the Successor and therefore it is to be considered Whether any alteration of the Law be made in this point by reason of any Statute In the Bishop of Salisburies Case Cooks 10 Rep. it is there resolved that by the Statute of the first of Elizabeth Bishops are thereby generally restrained from making any estate or interest of
one could enter into an Advowson therefore no Livery can be made and 11 H. 4. 3. 6. An Advowson in grosse cannot passe without Deed 9 Ed. 4. 47. a. One cannot grant Proximam advocationem without Deed Dyer 323. Advowson of the Vicaridge of D. doth passe by the Grant of all hereditaments in D. although it lies not in Livery nor is visible and Coke 9. Rep. 96. An Advowson is not manuall but is Haereditas incorporata and so Littleton 3. of things which do not lye in manuall occupation or possession as an Advowson he shall not plead as seised in his Demesne as of fee but as of fee and so Littleton 139. If Tenant in Taile grants the Advowson it is no discontinuance And the reason is apparent because that nothing can passe by Livery but that whereof possession may be taken by the Feoffor or Donor and given to him by the Feoffee or Donee And it is more colourable to say that he in Reversion upon an Estate for life may make Livery for although a Reversion be not visible or mannuall yet Terra revertens which the Grantee shall have after the Estate determined is manuall and yet I conceive that none will hold that such a Reversion so long as it continues a Reversion may passe by Livery If it be admitted that an Advowson may passe by Livery yet it shall be intended by this Verdict that it doth not passe because it is found that Valentine did grant it by Deed and there is no doubt but it may passe by Deed without Livery and therefore no Livery being found Livery shall not be intended for it shall not be intended to be a discontinuance whereby the Tenant in Taile shall do wrong when the Advowson may well passe by Deed which is no wrong And therefore I conceive that notwithstanding this objection that here is no discontinuance but only a grant of an Advowson which is determinable by the death of the Tenant in Taile who made it from whence it follows that Sir Richard at the time of his grant of the Lease had only a Remainder in fee in the Advowson determinable on the death of Valentine his Father which Estate is only charged by his confirmation for as Issue in Taile he cannot make any confirmation because he had nothing in him at that time 10 Ed. 3. 2. Confirmation 22. If the Son confirmes the Estate of the Disseisor in the life of his Father and the Father dies the Son shall not be barred by his confirmation without Warranty 13 Ed. 1. Confirmation 19. If one doth quit Claime for him and his heirs all his Right before that his Right doth happen the quite claim is nothing and so is Littleton 106. Releases and the reason of these Cases is upon the Rule of the Common Law which is that one cannot grant or charge that which one hath not By which it plainly appears that this implyed Confirmation made by Sir Richard does make the Lease good only for so long time as he hath Estate in the Advowson which is determinable by the death of Valentine And to prove that it is so determinable it is a certain Rule that all Grants and Charges made by Tenant in taile are determined with his life and so is Littleton Discontinuance 139. If Tenant in taile of an Advowson or Common does grant this in fee it is no Discontinuance for the Grantee hath no Estate but for life of the Tenant in taile who made the Grant 22 H. 3. Discontinuance 52. If a Rent be granted to husband and wife in fee and the husband grants this in fee and dies yet the wife may distrain and shall not be put to her Action 36. Assise 8. Tenant in taile of a Reversion grants the same in fee with Warranty and dies leaving Assets the Tenant for life dies and the Issue enters and his entry congeable for the Grant is meerly determined by his death so that the Warranty cannot work 38 H. 8. b. Discontinuance 35. If the King Tenant in taile grants the Land for lifâ— it is no discontinuance for a Grant without Livery makes no discontinuance but this shall not bind but during the life of the Grantor 26 H. 7. 4. Fineaux Tenant in taile of Services is like Tenant for life and by his Grant nothing doth passe but for his life and after his death the Issue may distrain but if he brings a Formedon he shall be barred by the Warranty for then he admits it to be a Discontinuance And Hil. 39 Eliz. Rot. 941. In the Common Pleas between Keen and Cox Thomas Jennings Tenant in taile the Remainder to John his Brother made a Lease for three lives according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. with Warranty and dies without Issue John being his heire who entered and agreed good for the Estate of the Lessee was determined by the death of the Lessor without Issue wherefore the Warranty could be no bar to the Remainder And although the Issue in case of Grant of a Rent by his Ancestor may have a Formedon yet that is no proof that the Grant is not determined for although it be determined yet may he admit himself out of possession if he will and is like to the Case where one takes my Rent yet he gains no possession by this but that I may distrain notwithstanding yet if I will I may admit the possession to be out of me and so maintain an Assise against the Pernor And as to the opinion in the case of Fines in the 3. Rep. That if there be Tenant in taile of a Rent or a thing which lies in Grant who grants the same by Fine and dies before the Proclamations made that the Grant is not determined but that the Proclamations may be made is grounded upon the reasonable construction of the Statute of the 4 H. 7. of Fines for otherwise the provision of the Statute that the fine shall be a bar cannot be for that is the reason there given But it hath been objected Object that because it was not found by the Iury that Sir Richard Knightley was dead it shall be intended that he is alive and then his confirmation remains in force To which I answer 1. That his being alive cannot be presumed Answer because it is not so found for although a Fee-simple being once alledged shall be intended to continue untill the contrary appears yet is it not so of an Estate-taile or such other particular Estate but he who will take advantage of such Estate ought to aver the continuance thereof and that is a certain Rule in pleading as in the 15 Ed. 3. Tenant in Taile of a Rent grants the Rent over the Grantee when he makes Title there ought to aver the life of the Tenant in Taile for by his death the Grant is determined vide Dyer 73. 19 H. 6. 73. 5 H. 7. 39. 15 Ed. 4. 6. And although there is a speciall Verdict in our Case which shall be taken more
173. Judicium And after many arguments in this Case Hillar 20 Jacob. the Court agreed that the Demise was good and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Periman against Pierce and Margaret his Wife TEnant in Socage had issue by his first Wife Joan Elizabeth and Agnes and Alice and Elizabeth by his second Wife Katherine Mary William and Joan by his third Wife and by his Will did Devise his Land to Joan the younger for her life rendering 13 s. 4 d. Rent to William the remainder to William in Tayl the remainder to Elizabeth and Mary for life the remainder propinquo sanguinitatis of the Devisor for ever William dyes without issue Joan the younger dyes without issue Elizabeth had issue William Stokes and dyes Mary had issue William Pierce and dyes Joan the elder dyes having issue John Periman and William Periman Agnes and Alice dye without issue John Periman had issue John Periman the Lessor and dyes Elizabeth and Mary dye Katherine dyes without issue Elizabeth had issue George Dean and John Dean Elizabeth deviseth her Land to John Dean and his Heirs and dyes John Dean hath issue John Dean and dyes the Lessor enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff who enters and is ejected by the Defendants by commandment of the said John Dean the son upon which the Plaintiff brought an Ejectment And it seemeth to me that judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for all the Land or at least for part thereof And therefore in the first place I conceive that when William the son dyed without issue the remainder in fee did vest in John Perriman who was the eldest son of Joan the elder who was the eldest daughter of the Devisor for although the Devisor had many daughters yet his intent appeared in the Will to a single person and not to divers also it appears that he doth not intend that this remainder should vest in William his son for he deviseth to him a Rent during the life of Joan the younger and afterwards an Estate Tail cannot be in Joan the younger or any of her issues because that an express Estate for life is limited to her nor in Elizabeth or Mary for he deviseth a remainder to them for life nor in any other of his daughters for then he would have named them either by their proper names or as his daughters and not by such circumlocution as is pretended in this Case Also the words of Remainder in fee cannot extend to those daughters for they are proximae consanguinitatis which does clearly exclude his own sons and daughters for they cannot properly be termed to be of consanguinity of the blood of the father as it is said in Sir William Herberts Case Cooks Rep. 3. that filius est pars patris and this is proved by the usual pleading of a Descent for if the Plea be by any except son or daughter the form is to say That the Land descends to him as Cosin and Heir and shall shew how but if by the son or daughter then to plead as before And 30 Assis 47. Land was devised to one for life the remainder to another for life the remainder propinquioribus haeredibus de sanguine puerorum of the Devisor there it is agreed that the sons and daughters are excluded by that Devise And so here in this Case neither William the son nor any of the daughters of the Devisor can take any thing by this Devise for they cannot be said de Consanguinitate de sanguine of the Devisor but the Issues of the Children of the Devisor are comprized within these words And then I conceive that the limitation being in the singular number viz. proximo consanguinitat all the issues of those Children shall not take but one onely and that as I conceive shall be the eldest son of the eldest daughter of the Devisor which was John Periman father of the Lessor of the Plaintiff as in the 20 H. 6. 23. In an Account supposing the Defendant to be his Receivor from the Feast of St. Michael it shall be taken to be the principal Feast of St. Michael the Archangel and not the Feast of St. Michael in Monte Teneb And 13 H 4. 4. 21 H. 68. 37 H. 6. 29. If father and son be of one name scil of J. S. If J. S. be named generally in a Writ Recovery or Deed it shall be intended the father for that he is most worthy And so Pladwels Case in this Court Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. If a woman hath a Bastard and two legal issues and Land be given to one for life the remainder to the eldest issue of the woman the eldest legal issue shall take and not the bastard although he be the eldest issue for general words shall always be taken in the most worthy sence And so here the Devisor did dispose of his Estate to Joan the younger rendering Rent to William his son the remainder to William in Tail the remainder to two of his daughters scil to Elizabeth and Mary for life the remainder proxim consanguin c. in fee By which words it is apparent that the Devisor intended that for the default of the issues of William and after the death of Elizabeth and Mary the Estate should remain to one who was next of blood to him and that is John Periman the eldest son of his eldest daughter But admitting that all the issues of the daughters shall be in equal degree to take by this remainder as well as the eldest son of Joan the eldest daughter yet I conceive that those daughters who had an Estate devised to them by Will are excluded Cooks 8 Rep. 95. B. Always the intention of the Devisor expressed in his Will is the best Expositor and Director of his words and therefore if Land be devised to one in perpetuum this shall pass a fee although it be otherwise in a Grant So if one deviseth Land to another to dispose of or sell at his pleasure this is a fee to the Devisee Litt. 133. 19 H. 8 9. B. And so in our Case the intent of the Devisor appears to dispose of his Land among his Children and their issues as in Trin. 38 Eliz. Ewre and Heydons Case Heydon was seised of a Messuage in D and of three houses and certain Land in Watford did devise his Messuage in D and all his Land in Watford it was judged the houses in Watford did not pass in regard of the express mentioning the houses in D. and this was affirmed in a Writ of Error Edmund Meskin against John Hickford Administrator of Henry Machin IN an Audita Querela because that the 11 Ed. 1. it was Enacted That in regard that Merchants which heretofore had lent their goods to divers persons were fallen into poverty because they had not such speedy remedy provided for them for the Recovery of their Debts Ac ratione inde multi Mercatores desistebant venire in hanc terram cum Merchandizis
the Receipts and there being three other Co-trustees with him the Plaintiffs Councell conceived that he ought not to be charged with more then he himself received especially for that the other parties trusted and who received the profits were or were reputed to be men of ability and responsible Touching which last point being that where on the Plaintiffs Councell chiefly insisted for the reversall of the said Decree as against the now Plaintiff It appeared unto this Court that Challoner Father of Thomas the Infant did heretofore make a Lease of the said Lands to one Weeks for five and thirty yeares and afterwards conveyed away the Reversion to Thomas Challoner his Brother and after the death of Francis according to an Award made between the said Weeks and Thomas Challoner the Brother who was Vncle to Thomas the Infant the Lease of five and thirty years and the Reversion in Fee-simple were to be assigned to parties trusted by the said Weeks and one Barbara Challoner Mother of the said Infant and by the said Thomas the Vncle the Lease to be intrust for Weeks for life the remainder to Barbara for life the remainder to Thomas the Infant and the reversion in fee to be in trust for the said Thomas the Infant But upon the limitation or Condition that the said Thomas the Infant when he came of age should make some assurance to Thomas the Vncle according to the Award wherein if he failed then the trust limited to him should cease and the Trustees should be seised for Thomas the Vncle. In pursuance whereof the now Plaintiff and the said Forster were trusted together with one Langworth and Lovell to take the Estate in the Lease and did take an Assignment thereof from Weeks the 12th of June 9. Jacobi And all the Trustees sealed the Counterpart and the same day the now Plaintiff and Forster assigned their moyity in the said Lease to one Mr. Peacock and Robert Forster who were not privy nor acquainted therewith and on the thirteenth of June the ninth of King James the said Thomas Challoner the Vncle passed over the Inheritance to the now Plaintiff and Thomas Forster whereby it was probable that the said Assignment made by the now Plaintiff and Thomas Forster of their interest in the moyity of the Lease was to keep the same from being extinguished After which assurance so made Weeks during his life and Barbara after him during her life received the profits of the said Lands and Barbara in the year of our Lord 1614. dyed And it appeared that soon after the death of the said Barbara viz. 23. of March 12. Jacobi Langworth one of the Trustees of the Lease being dead whereby his interest in the moyety survived in Lovell that Thomas Challoner the Vncle procured the said Lovell to assign over his interest in the said Lease to the said Thomas Challoner the Vncle lyable to the said trust as by a Copy of the Assignment now read appeared And it appeared by the confession of the now Plaintiff and by his answer to the former Bill and by the Acquittances now produced that the now Plaintiff joyned with the said Thomas Forster in giving acquittances for the three first half years Rents but it did not appear that he ever received any after or gave any more Acquittances but it doth appeare by the proofs that the said Thomas Challoner the Vncle who had the Assignment from Lovell did receive the Rents of the Tenants and payd the same over to the said Thomas Forster and that when the Infant came of age he called the said Thomas Forster and Thomas the Vncle to an account and that they did account And that the said Thomas Forster did then deliver him a Book of account which the Defendant now produced in Court by which it did appear that for the three first half years the Rents were received by the said Thomas the Vncle and by him paid to the now Plaintiff and the said Thomas Forster for the use of the Infant but for all the subsequent time the same were received by the said Thomas Challoner the Vncle and by him paid to the said Thomas Forster alone who as was not now denyed was at the time of such receits generally taken to be of great ability and responsable as it also appeared by the proofs that the said Infant after he came of age had declared the said Thomas Forster to be his Debtor and did by his Will read in Court give the said summe of one thousand seven hundred pounds to the said Mountford as a Debt owing by the said Thomas Forster solely not mentioning the now Plaintiff Vpon all which this Court was fully satisfied that the now Plaintiff received no penny of profits after the three first half years but whether he ought to be charged with all that the said Thomas Forster received being a Co-trustee with him in respect the said Forster is now declined in his Estate as is conceived this Court somewhat doubted and although a president was produced wherein this Court had charged parties trusted but onely according to their several and respective receits and not one for the other yet in respect the Defendants Councel opposed the same alledging many presidents to be on the other side and the Lord Keeper conceived the case to be of great consequence and thought not fit to determine the same suddenly but to advise thereof and desired the Lords the Iudges assistance to take the same into their serious considerations and to assist him with their advice therein whereby some course might be settled that parties trusted might not be too much punished lest it should dishearten men to take any trust which would be inconvenient on the one side nor that too much liberty should be given to parties trusted lest they should be emboldened to break the trust imposed on them and so be as much prejudicial on the other side And the Lord Keeper and the Lords the Iudges assistants afterwards conferring together and upon mature deliberation concerning the case to be of great importance his Lordship was pleased to call unto him also Mr. Iustice Crook Mr. Iustice Barcley and Mr. Iustice Crawley for their assistance also in the same and appointed presidents to be looked over as well in this as in other Courts if any could be found touching the point in question whereupon several presidents were produced before them some in this Court and some in the Court of Wards where parties trusted were chargeable onely according to their several and respective receits and not one to answer for the other but no president on the contrary was produced to them Whereupon his Lordship after long and mature deliberation on the case and serious advice with all the said Iudges did this day in open Court declare the resolution of his Lordship and the said Iudges That where Lands or Leases were conveyed to two or more upon trust and one of them receives all or the most part of the profits
Estates yet in Wills the intent of the Devisor is sufficient either to limit the Estate or to describe the person that shall have it And therefore if Land be given to one in perpetuum if it be by Grant or Feoffment yet there passeth but an Estate for life but if it be given by Will it is an Estate in Fee and 4 Ed. 6. Estates 78. If one deviseth his Land to another paying 10 l. to his Executors or any other person the Devisee hath an Estate in Fee so if one deviseth his Land to give or dispose of or sell at his will this is a Fee-simple 19 H. 8. 96. 7 Ed. 6. Devise 38. And the reason in all these cases is because that by these words the intent of the Devisor doth appear that a Fee shall pass and therefore the defect of words shall not defeat his intent And as the intent is sufficient without apt words to make an Estate so is it also to describe the person who shall take the Devise although he be not formally named according to the precise rule in Grants as in 21 R. 2. Devise 17. where one devised Land to one for life the remainder to another for life the remainder to the Church of St. Andrews in Holborn and it was adjudged that after the death of the Devisees for life the Parson of the Church shall have the Land for in as much as the Church was not capable it shall be taken that the intent of the Devisor was that the Parson who is as it were the Father of the Church and so the Head of it should have the Estate And in the 13 H. 7. 17. In every Devise the intent of the Devisor shall be taken for if a man deviseth all his goods to his Wife and that after his decease his Son and Heir shall have his House although that no Devise of the House be made to the Wife by express words but by implication because the Heir is not to have the House during the Wifes life yet because the intent of the Devisor was that the Son should not have it during the life of his Wife she shall have the House for her life To which all agreed Then in our case 1. The Devisor willeth that a Chaplain shall celebrate for his Soul and that he shall have eight Marks out of his Tenements yearly for his stipend but if he had stayed there the Devise should have been voyd for the Chaplain is not such a person as may take these eight Marks as a Rent and therefore he goes further and first he limits what service the Preist shall do and this he appoints to be done by the disposition of the Parson 2. He doth dispose of the residue of the profits of the Tenement for such a time viz. until R. shall be 24 years of age and be a Priest and doth devise that he shall be preferred to the Chantery before any other if he will accept it and if not that he shall have nothing 3. He makes provision for the perpetual continuance of the Chaplain in these words scil That the Parson and four of the best of the Parishioners shall present and finde a Chaplain to perform the said Chantery for ever de tenementis meis superius non legat which is the said Tenement out of which the said eight Marks are limited to be payd 4. He doth inflict a penalty upon the Parson if the Chantery should be voyd scil That the other Land devised by him to the Parson shall go to the Wardens of L. Bridg for the reparation thereof 5. He makes a perpetual disposition for the residue of the profits of the Tenement viz. That they shall be put into a Chest under the custody of the Parson and four of the Parishioners to buy ornaments and Books for the Church And these parts of the Will being well considered as I conceive it will be clear that the intent of the Devisor was that the Parson should have this Tenement for here the main scope of his Will is that a Chaplain shall be maintained perpetually and that he shall have eight Marks stipend out of that Tenement and that it shall be provided and found by the Parson and four of the Parishioners and that the residue of the profits shall be bestowed by them to buy ornaments and Books for the Church so that a perpetual charge is imposed upon the Parson scil to finde the Priest and to buy ornaments c. and this charge is to be defrayed with the profits of the Tenement and that can be done by none but by him that shall be owner of the Tenement and therefore it follows that the Parson shall have the Tenement And that such implication in a Will is sufficient to make an Estate is proved by the 15 H. 7. 126. If one devises his Land to be sold for payment of his Debts the Executor shall sell the Land for because the charge to pay Debts lies upon the Executors his intent shall be taken to have them sell the Land and 22 and 23 Elizab. Dyer 171. A man seised in Fee of divers Mannors doth devise them to his Sister in Fee except my Mannor of D. which I do appoint to pay my Debts and makes two Executors and dyes and one Executor dyes and the other sells thâ— Mannor and adjudged good for so his intent shall be taken and not to relinquish it to his Sister and 19 H. 6. 24 and 25. and 1 Edw. 6. Devise 36. If one devise that his Executor shall sell his Land this is no devise of the Land to them but an authority for they may perform the Devisor to sell the Land although they have no Estate therein and the Vendee shall be in by the Devisor but if one devise that his Executors shall grant a Rent-charge out of his Land or that they shall give the Land in Fee or in Tayl to I. S. this is an implyed Devise to them for otherwise they cannot perform the intent of the Devisor Trin. 9 Eliz. 516. and so in the 40 Assis 26. One did devise his Land in L. to A. and his Heirs to finde twelve Marks for two Chaplains and grants that the Parson and the Parish may distrein for this if it be behinde and there it is debated whether the King shall have the twelve Marks or not and it is agreed there that the Chaplains have no Estate in it because they are removable at the will of A. but because the Distress is given to the Parson who is perpetual it was adjudged that the King shall have the twelve Marks whereupon I do observe that by this Distress limited to the Parson and the Parishioners the twelve Marks were vested as a Rent in the Parson and so made it a Mortmain Object But it may be objected That the last clause in the Will for the disposing of the residue of the profits does go onely to the Land devised to Wardens of the Bridg. Answer But this
of the most and the rest of all my Land there which is Freehold I give to Henry and Michael upon condition that if they sell it to any but to Matthew my Son then he to enter as of my Gift and then he declares That of all these Bequests his Sons shall bear part and part-like out of all his Copyhold Lands and Free to pay to Elizabeth his wife for her Dowry 40 l. a year during her life and that Son which shall refuse to bear his part shall not enjoy any part of his Bequest but it shall be to the residue c. Sir William Lock dyes Henry and Michael enter and pay their parts of the 40 l. Henry dyes and then Michael dyes And now the Question is Whether the Defendants being Heirs of Michael shall have the Land or the Plaintiffs who claim under the Devisor And for the better arguing of this Case I will first observe that here is not any express words of limitation of an Estate to make any greater Estate to pass then an Estate for life and then I will shew that here are no words in any part of this Will to signifie any certain intention in the Devisor to make an Estate of Inheritance to pass by this Devise And as to the first the Devise is onely to his two sons viz. The rest of all my Houses and Lands there which is Freehold I give to Henry and Michael Lock and these are all the words of limitation of the Estate and these without question in a Deed or Feoffment will not make a greater Estate then for life And so is Littleton 1. If one purchase Land in perpetuum or to him and his Assigns in perpetuum this is but an Estate for life because it wants these words his Heirs which words make the Inheritance in all Feoffments and Grants and this is an infallible Rule in Grants unless it be in some special Cases as in Frankmarriage or Frankalmoine which being words of art do pass an Inheritance with these words Heirs And in Cases of Grants no intention of the Grantor although it be apparent in the Grant will make an estate of Inheritance to pass as in 19 H. 6. 73. 20 H. 6. 36. A Gift to B. and C. haeredibus with Warranty to them and their Heirs is no Fee-simple because the words of limitation are incertain to whom haeredibus shall be referred and so all one as if it were omitted and then the clause of Warranty although it does declare a certain intent to give an Estate in Fee will not amend the matter in a Grant And so in the 1 Rep. Shelleys Case if one gives Land to one liberis or eitibus suis or semini suo it is but an Estate for life and not an Estate in Tayl yet there is an apparent intent but that will not suffice in a Grant But I agree that in Case of a Devise although the apt words to make an Estate of Inheritance to pass are omitted yet if the intent of the Devisor does appear by any express matter contained in the Will an Estate of Inheritance shall pass for it is sufficient to pass the Inheritance And so Litt. 133. 6. 19 H. 8. 9. 6. If one deviseth Land to another in perpetuum the Devise by these words shall bar an Estate in Fee so if one devise Land to another to give dispose or sell at his pleasure this is an Estate in Fee-simple 19 H. 8. 9. 6. 7 Edw. 6. B. But yet the Law hath restrained such intent For first it ought to be agreeable to Law and not repugnant to it for although in Scholasticas Case in the Comment it is said that a Will is like to an Act of Parliament yet a Will cannot alter the Law or make a new form of an Estate which is not allowed by the Rules of Law as an Act of Parliament is and so adjudged in the Common Bench Hillar 37 Eliz. between Jermin and Ascot Cooks 1 Rep. 85. in Corbets Case That by a Devise a man cannot give an Estate and determine part thereof by a condition and make the residue to continue And if Land be devised to one in Tayl he cannot determine the Estate as to the Devisee himself and yet preserve the Estate to the issue as was endeavoured in this Case And 28 and 29 H. 8. Dyer 33. If Land be devised to one in Fee and if he does not perform such an Act the Land shall remain to another the remainder is voyd for no such remainder can be limited by the Rules of Law This intent ought to be exprest in the Will and collected out of the words of the Will and cannot be averred or supplyed by any forreign matter as in Matthew Mannings Case 8 Rep. 95. 6. Always the intention of the Devisor expressed in his Will is the best Expositor Director and Disposer of his words And Lord Cheyreys Case 5 Rep. 68. Sir Thomas Cheyrey devised certain Land to Henry his Son and the Heirs males of his body the remainder to Thomas Cheyrey of Woodley and the Heirs males of his body upon condition That he or they or any of them shall not alien and the Question was whether there could be an averment that the intent of the Devisor was to restrain H. and his Heirs from aliening and resolved that no such averment could be received for construction of Wills ought to be collected out of the words of the Will The intent of the Devisor ought to be manifest and certain and not dubious as in a Devise of Land to one for ever here the intent is to give an Estate in Fee-simple for no other Estate can continue for ever so if the devise be to one and his Heirs and if he dyes without Heir that it shall remain to another his intent â—y tâ—ars that the word His in the first Devise shall be taken for the Heirs of his body for the Law will sooner presume him to be dead without issue then to be dead without Heir And now to examine our Case with the Rules of Law There are three clauses in this Will as I conceive upon which the pretences of the Defendants are founded to have an Estate in Fee pass by this Devise to which I shall make answer severally The precedent clause to the Devise And as touching my Lands at T. my Son Matthew is joyned Purchaser with me of the most and the rest of all my Houses and Lands there which is Freehold I give to Henry and Michael Lock c. And as to this I conceive that here is no colour to enlarge the Estate to the Devisees but this clause is onely a description of Land which he does not intend to devise and which in truth he cannot devise because that Matthew ought to have it by survivor and is principally named therein because of preventing any question between Matthew and the two Devisees after his death for otherwise they might perhaps have pretended that all
anothers land hath nothing at all to do with the Land any more then a meer stranger but only to put therein his Cattel and to let them feed there with their mouths and it is not his own Common until his Cattel have fed there 14 H. 8. 10. The Owner of a Common cannot grant the Common to anothers use Et 27 H. 8. 12. A Praecipe does not lye of a Common for it is not my Common untill my Cattell have eaten of it and therefore that which another hath is not mine therefore I cannot have a Praecipe against him who hath not that which I demand and in the 22. Assise 48. and 12. H. 8. 2. If a man hath Common in another mans Soile and a stranger puts in his Cattell there the Commoner shall not have an Action of Trespasse for although he hath Common yet the Herbage doth not belong to him neither can a Commoner do any thing upon the Soile which tends to the melioration or improving of the Common as to cut Bushes Ferne or such things which do much impaire the Common neither can he make a Fence or Ditch to let out the water which spoiles the Common But if he be utterly disturbed of his Common he may have an Assise or a Quod permittat and if any damage or annoyance be made upon the Land whereby he loseth his Common he may have an Assise And as the Commoner may not meddle with the Soile so cannot he meddle with any thing arising out of the Land or that doth grow or is nourished by the same otherwise then to have his Cattell to feed there and therefore it is adjudged Mich. 5. Jac. that a Commoner cannot kill Conies there but may bring his Action on the Case But I agree that a Commoner may distrain Cattell Damage feasant because their being there is a damage not onely to the Owner but also to the Commoner and a Commoner may abate a Hedge or a Gate that hinders him from comming to his Common wherefore I conclude this first matter that the plea as to that is utterly insufficient by the Law if there were not a speciall custome alledged by the Defendant And therefore it is to be considered whether this prescription alledged by the Defendant to hunt and kill Conies there for preservation of his Common be good or no. And I conceive it is unreasonable and not good because it is to the prejudice of the Owner of the Soile without any consideration And it is unreasonable for two causes first because it is too generall for the Defendant may hunt and kill as many Conies as he will for he doth not claim to kill a certain number that do surcharge the Common but generally the Conies there Secondly as this plea is the Defendant makes himself his own Iudge to kill the Conies as often and when he pleases Also it is against Law for it is to the destruction of the Inheritance of another which no person can justifie by custome or prescription unlesse for the benefit of the Common-weal 13 H. 8. 16. It is Law to pull down a House if the next house to it be on fire and so the Suburbs of a Town may be pulled down in time of War and if Enemies be on the Coast it is good Law to come upon another mans Land and make Bulwarks there for the publick good is preferred before any mans private benefit But when it is only for the private benefit of a man it is otherwise 43. Ed. 3. a. The Abbot said that he was Lord of the Town of A. and did prescribe that when the Tenant ceased for two yeares that he might enter untill he be satisfied his arreares And it was held by the Court to be an ill custome to put a man out of his Inheritance yet is that more reasonable then this case for the time when the Lord shall enter is certaine and the time that he shall hold the Land is also certaine and 19. Elizab. Dyer 357. A custome that all Tythes let or granted for more then six yeares of Land in such a Towne was held void by the Court because it is contrary to reason and to the liberty of the estate of him that hath a Fee And 9 H. 6. 44. B. Custome in a Leet that if the petit Iury do make a false Presentment and this found by the grand Inquest they shall be amended and it was held by the Court to be no good custome and against common right but if the custome were that if the petit Iury concealed any thing they ought to present them to be amerced this may be a custome And to prove that Conies are part of the Inheritance see Coke Rep. 7. in the case of Swans But it may be objected that this usage may have a legall beginning viz. That it was so agreed at the time of the grant or creation of the Common I answer That then it ought to have been specially pleaded for else it shall not be so intended as it is proved in the 35 H. 6. 28. Simon Eyres case where a Custome was pleaded in London that if the goods of any man be pawned to a Citizen for a debt due to him that he may detain them untill he be payed his debt and it was urged because that it may be good to bind the Debtor because it may be intended it began by his own grant but it was ruled that it shall not be so intended unlesse it be specially alledged And that a man shall not be Iudge in his own case is proved by 22. Edw. 5. 13. B. The Defendant pleaded that at another time he accounted to the Plaintiff in the presence of A. B. was found in arrear wherefore he was committed to prison there it was adjudged that the party himself could not commit him to Prison and that an Action of false Imprisonment did lie against the Plaintiff And Cook R. 8. Dr. Bonhams Case And in the 5 H. 7. 9. B. If one prescribes that if any Cattel be taken upon his Land damage feasant that he may distreyn them and put them into the Pownd until amends be made according to his own will this was held not good because then he should be his own Iudg which is against reason And in the 19 Edw. 2. gard 127. A Custom was alledged in Ipswich that when an Infant could count and measure that he should be out of Ward and holden to be voyd 13 Edw. the 3. where a Custom was alledged that when one could count 12 d. and measure a yard of cloth he may alien his Land and did aver that the Demandant was of such age but because he did not alledg the age in certain it was adjudged against the Demandant And Dyer 91. a. One grants to another all his Trees which may be reasonably spared agreed that this was a voyd Grant for the incertainty And in the 20 H. 7 8. B. If Cestuy que use of a Mannor does
bargain and sell 10 l. Land parcel of the Mannor no use is changed for the incertainty Trinit 18 Jacob. Ponesley against Blackman IN an Ejectment upon a Lease made by Richard Perriam the 19 of May 18 Jacobi of a Messuage and Land in Thacham and Colthrop in the Parish of Thacham Habendum from the Annunciation last past for three years whereupon the Plaintiff entered and was possest until the Defendant the 20 of May in the same year did Eject him ad dampnum c. The Defendant pleaded Not guilty The Iury gave an Especial Verdict viz. That before the Ejectment John Curre was seised in fee of the said Lands and the seventh of January 10 Jac. for 300 l. did bargain and sell the same to William Perriam and his Heirs upon Condition that if the said John Curre his Heirs Executors or Assignes should pay to the said William his Heirs or Assignes at the house of C. B. in Westminster 300 l. in manner following viz. 10 l. the 9 of July then next coming 10 l. the 9 of January next after which shall be in the year 1613. 10 l. the 9 of July 1614 10 l. the 9 of January next after 10 l. the 9 of July 1615. 10 l. the ninth of January next after 10 l. the ninth of July 1616. 10 l. the 9 of January next after 10 l. the 9 of July 1617. and 210 l. the 9 of January next after that then the Indenture should be voyd Proviso semper And it was agreed by the said Indenture and the said parties that the said William Perriam his Heirs and Assigns shall not take and intermeddle with the actual possession of the said Tenements or with the receit of the Rents issues or profits thereof until default were made of the payment of the said 300 l. or any part thereof contrary to the limitation in the said Indenture And they found likewise that the said William Perriam did not enter into the said Tenements And that afterwards and before the first day of the payment the said Curre did demise the said Tenements to William Dibley and Richard Carter by two several Demises habendum for six years and an half rendering Rent That the said Dibley and Carter by vertue of the said several Demises did enter and take the profits during the said term claiming nothing but by the said several Demises and that they payd the Rents during all that time to Curre and that at the end of the said term they surrendered the Estate to Curre That 11 Octob. 16 Jacobi William Perriam made his Will in writing and thereby did Demise the said Tenements c. to Richard Perriam and dyed That the said Richard Perriam the 19 Maii 18 Jac. did enter and made the Lease to the Plaintiff who entered and was possest until the Defendant did Eject him That the said Richard Perriam was yet living But whether the Defendant were guilty or not they prayed the advice of the Court and if it seemed to the Court that he was guilty then c. It was argued on behalf of the Plaintiff That this agreement by Indenture that the Bargainee shall not meddle with the possession is a Lease for years to the Bargainor Admitting it to be no Lease for years yet is the Bargainor Tenant at will and when he makes a Lease for years and the Tenant enters he is a Disseisor and then when the Bargainor enters he is Tenant at will again and so the Bargainee may very well Demise the Land And as to the first point to make a Lease the Law does require but the agreement of the parties that the Lessee shall enjoy the Land and take the profits and it is not necessary to have any precise words of a Demise or Grant as in 5 H. 7.1 by Frieux If I make one Bayliff of my Mannor for certain years and that he shall have the profits without interruption this is a Lease for years But it was objected that there is no express words that the Bargainor Object 1 shall have the Land or the profit but onely that the Bargainee shall not have it But it was answered that the words did amount to so much Respons for when the Land is sold to the Bargainee by the Law he ought to have the possession and profits but when by the same Deed it is agreed that he shall not intermeddle with the Land it follows that the Bargainor shall have it for he had it before and there was nothing to exclude him but onely this Deed and although by the Deed the Land is conveyed to the Bargainee yet when by the same Deed it is agreed that he shall not have the possession it follows that the possession shall remain in the Bargainor in whom it was before the making of the said Deed for no alteration is made thereof as to the possession As in the 8 Assis 34. one made a Feoffment on condition that if such an act were not done that the Land should return c. and the Feoffor re-entered for the condition broken and there it was objected that his entry was not congeable because he must recover the Land by Action but it was adjudged that his entry was good and the same Law if the words were that for not performing the Feoffor should retake the Land But it was objected That it could be no Lease for the intertainty Object 2 of the time It was answered that notwithstanding it was a good Lease Respons for first it is certain to continue until the time limited for the first payment and if that be done then it is a good Lease until the second payment and is like to the Case where one lets Land for a year and so from year to year as long as both parties shall please this is a good Lease for one year and for every year after when he hath entered before any disagreement And as to the second Point it is clear that the Bargainor is in at the will of the Bargainee because he enters by his agreement and then when the Tenant at will makes a Lease for years and the Lessee enters he is the onely Disseisor but if the Tenant at will infeoffs a stranger then both are Disseisors by the Statute of Westm 2. Cap. 25. And in the 12 Ed. 4. 12 B. If Tenant at will makes a Lease for years this is a Disseisin And the reason hereof is apparent for the Tenant at will hath no Estate in the Land and therefore he hath nothing to transfer to another And in the 23 H. 8. B. If I let anothers Land for years and the Lessee enters he is a Disseisor And 21 H. 7. 26. a. If Tenant at will makes a Lease for years and the Lessee enters this is a Disseisin to the first Lessor And if the Tenant at will be outed by the Disseisor and re-enters he hath reduced the Estate to the Lessor as in the Lord Abergevenies Case reported briefly by the Lord Dyer
cannot be First because that the Land devised to them is onely a Chamber and a mansion of little value and that is to repair the Bridg and that is a work of such charge that no surplussage can be intended Secondly The clause is Id quod clarum fuerit ultra solutionem reparationem c. which are the very words in the clause used for the disposing of the residue to R. for the time and cannot be referred to the Devise of the Wardens of the Bridge because that the things devised to them are apparently to be for the reparation only and no payment is limited out of it but the Tenement out of which the Stipend is to be payd is first charged with this payment and then with the reparation of the Tenement and then with the Ornaments and Books for the Church And afterwards this Case was argued by Coventrey the Kings Sollicitor for the Plaintiff and by S. Chibborne for the Defendant And Mich. 16. Jac. The Barons viz. Tanfeild Bromley and Denham did openly declare their opinion that the Land was not demised to the Parson by this Will and thereupon they commanded Iudgment to be entred for the Defendant which was entred accordingly Trinit 15 Jacob. John Adams against Roger James Knight and others IN a Replevin for taking of twelve Cowes and two Calves the twenty fourth of May the 14. of King James at Upminster in a place called Nelfeild alias Newfeild ad damnum 10 l. The Defendants did justifie the taking c. as Bayliffs of Thomas James and Moily Deale for that the place contained twenâ—â— acres of Pasture And that William Latham was seised in Fee of the Mannor of Upminster whereof the said twenty acres are parcell and the twenty fifth Maii 13 Eliz. devised the same to George Wiseman excepting one Close of Land or Pasture called Crouckfeild containing by estimation fifty acres and a parcell of a Close called Ecrowchfeild containing by estimation sixty acres and all Woods and Frees and Profits of Court Leets Waifes Estrayes Escheats Hermots Reliefs Goods and Chattels of Felons and Fugitives Deodands and Treasure Trove Habendum from Michaelm 1576. for sixty one years rendring forty pounds Rent at the Annunciation and Michaelmas The first of Octob. 1576. George Wiseman entred The twentieth of August 35 Eliz. William Latham by Deed inroled for the consideration of two thousand pounds did bargain and sell the Mannor to Roger James Father of the Defendant Roger in Fee and the 15 Decemb. 39 Eliz. Roger James the Bargaines did devise the third part of the Mannor to John his Son after whose death John was seised of the third part in Fee The seventh of August 11 Jacob. John James by Indenture for a thousand pounds paid by Thomas Fryth did bargain and sell to the said Thomas Fryth and Moyle Deale the said Reversion of the said third part Habendum from the said seventh of August for a hundred years ex intentione that they should grant or assign the said term to Thomas Fryth or his Assignes upon condition that he should pay a thousand pounds to the said Roger James viz. five hundred pounds the seventeenth of August 1614. and five hundred pounds the seventeenth of Febr. next after And because sixty pounds thirteen shillings foure pence was behind to the said Thomas James and Moyle Deale for halfe a yeare ending at Mich. 12 Jac. they did well justifie the taking c. The Plaintiff said that after the seventh of August Bar. 11 Jac. and before the said Mich. 12 Jac. viz. the ninth of August the 11 Jac. the said Thomas James and Moyle Deale did bargain and sell to the said Thomas Fryth all their Estate in the said third part whereby he was and yet is possessed Replication The Avowants replyed that the Bargain and Sale was upon Condition to pay the said thousand pounds to the said Roger James at the said days of payment and that Thomas Fryth did not pay the said five hundred pounds the seventeenth of August 1614. Rejoynder The Plaintiff rejoyned that after the said ninth of August 11 Jac. scil 10. August 11 Jac. the said John James was seised in Fee of the Reversion of the third part expectant upon the estate of the said George Wiseman And that the tenth of August 11 Jacob. John James by Indenture inroled did bargain and sell the said Reversion to the said Thomas Fryth and his heires That the seventeenth of August 11 Jac. John James by Indenture dated the aforesaid seventh of August 11 Jac. fâ—r a thousand pounds did bargain and sell the said third part to the said Thomas James and Moyle Deale Habendum from the said seventh of August 11 Jac. for a hundred years and that they after scil the aforesaid seventeenth of August 11 Jac. did bargain and sell to the said Thomas Fryth upon condition before expressed Absque hoc that the said John James did bargain and sell to the said Thomas James and Moyle Deale the said Reversion before the said tenth of August 11 Jac. and absque hoc that the said Thomas James and Moyle Deale before the said tenth of August 11 Jac. did bargain and grant the said Reversion to the said Thomas Fryth on condition as aforesaid Vpon which the Avowants demurred and shewed for cause that this is a departure from the Bar and that the said Rejoynder is in it self repugnant And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff in the Replevin for that the Conusance is utterly insufficient for three causes 1. The Defendants make Conusance as Bayliffs to Thomas James and Moyle Deale and do endeavour to entitle themselves to a third part of the Reversion and Rent upon the Lease to Wiseman by the Devise of Roger James and it doth not appear in all the Conusance that Roger James was dead before the Grant made by John James to the said Thomas James and Deale for it is not set forth that he died but only by implication scil the bargain and sale by Latham is pleaded to Roger James lately dead which doth refer to the time of the plea which was long after the Grant to Thomas James and Deale and after the Rent due and the taking of the Distresse then it is alledged that after the death of Roger James the Devisor John James entred which is not sufficient because it is not alledged in fact that he dyed or when he diâ— dye And all the Court agreed the Avowry insufficient as to this exception Secondly the bargain and sale of the Reversion by John James to the said Thomas James and Moyle Deale is pleaded to be made the seventh of August 11 Jac. Habendum from the aforesaid seventh of August for a hundred years whereby the day it self is excluded and so the Grant is to take effect in the future which cannot be by the Rules of Law as in Bucklers Case 2. Rep. where Buckler Tenant for life in Mich. Term 20 Eliz. made