did grant the lands unto the said Donee in fee in that case it was adjudged that the reversion did pass unto the Donee although the words of the reversion were not contained in the Patent although that the King in that case did think that he granted a possession but the reason of that was that although the Patent was not inrolled yet by law it should have been surrendred unto the King nevertheless because that was the collection of the King and not the suggestion of the partie that the King was seised by vertue c. therefore the collection being false shall not make the Patent void for all there that came of the suggestion of the partie is true but our case is otherwise for here the intention of the King was that he had the land in possession when he had made the grant and in truth he had but a reversion also if the Patent should be good great prejudice would or might ensue to the Queen thereby for put the case that the Queen had annexed a condition to this lease or that she had reserved a greater rent upon it this condition or increasing of the rent was the cause that the Queen had made this grant and that if the second grant should be good and the first not determined that the Grantee may claim his first estate and so defeat the Queen of her rent and of his condition to have benefit of either and this was the reason why the Patent was adjudged void in the case of Barwick Coo. lib. 5. fo 94. because some parcels were not surrendred to the Queen and therefore they were not subject to conditions or rent reserved upon the second Patent and for a second reason he argued that the acceptance of the second Patent is not a surrender in Law of the first Patent because the first Patent is meerly void as it appears in Fulmerston and Stewards case Plowden 107. that the reason why the taking of a second lease shall be a surrender of the former is because both the estates cannot be in one and the same Parson at one and the same time but this reason holds not in our case because no estate passeth by the second Patent in regard it is void and therefore this case may be resembled unto the last case in 23. Eliz. Dyer where a man taking a second benefice incompatible without dispensation doth not make the first benefice void by the Statute against Pluralities because he never was a lawful Parson of the second benefice in respect the never subscribed to the Articles according to 13. Eliz. cap. 12. and in Harries and Wings case the second Patent was void but a third reason was he thought that these words Quam quidem sursum redditionem acceptamus have not aided this Grant for the second Patent is made in consideration of a surrender made by the Patentee and therefore there ought to be a good surrender made by him or otherwise the consideration is false for the King in consideration of a surrender made doth grant lands where in facto there was no surrender as if the King grant black acre in consideration of a surrender of white acre which in facto was not done this grant is void also this appears by these words modo habens et gaudens sursum reddidit et restituit c. that the intention of the Queen was that the Lord Seymor had surrendred before and that he had no estate at this time of the making of the grant for these words modo habens et gaudens ought to be interpreted according to the rules of Grammar and for that in 9. H. 7.16 b. the Court consulted with Grammarians touching the exposition of Latine words and was by them directed and he said that this word modo had divers significations for this signifieth nuper interdum aliquando but most properly it signifieth nuper or interdum modo Paratus eâ—at Codrus erit subito qui modo Craesus erat modo ad hunc diem c. there it signifieth the present Tense or time but in the principal case if modo should signifie the present tense then it would not stand with this word sursum reddidit which is the preter tense but if here it be construed that modo signifieth the present tense this may well stand with sursum reddidit and the meaning of the Queen ought to be taken to be that the Queen was deceived and the Patent void although in the principal case here was a good surrender before the second patent yet until agreement nothing vests in the Queen and therefore if a man pleads a surrender made by the lessee to him in reversion he ought to plead an agreement to this surrender and 13. H. 4. that this is not in him before agreement and entrie and 32. E. 3. Bar 262. that until agreement nothing vests in him it was lately adjudged in the Common Pleas where an incumbent had resigned yet until the ordinary did agree unto it he remained an incumbent still and for that in asmuch as the Queen had not agreed before the second Patent made nothing vesteth in her till then and then she was deceived for she thought that she was in possession thereof at the time of the grant and therefore he concluded that he conceived the Patent was void Brock to the contrary and he divided the case into three points First whether here be an actual surrender found to be made in Law Secondly if the acceptance of the second lease be good or if the Queen reciting the estate and that he had surrendred which the Queen had accepted and that in consideration thereof she made the Grant whether this be made good although there be no actual surrender Thirdly admit that here he no actual surrender in facto whether this grant be aided by the Statute of 43. Eliz. cap. 1. but first before he would enter into his argument he said that he would wash away the Rubs cast in his way to make his way the smoother and first where it hath been said that if the Queen should take by contract or bargain without record that great mischief would insue for by that means the Queens title should be tried by the Countrie and in proof thereof he cited the Lord Latimers case in 12. H. 7.10 11. which he thought to be no authoritie for that purpose for there the opinion of the Court was delivered concerning the shewing forth of Letters Patents but not concerning matter of inrolment also the case was of an estate of inheritance to be conveyed from the King but the case now in question is but for an estate for life which may in law more easily be determined than an estate of inheritance conveyed also the case of 19. Eliz. Dyer 335. cited of the other part proves not this case for first the question was not there whether the King took any thing without inrolment but whether the Deed may be inrolled in the time of another King Secondly if
Earl of C. now dead and found that by fine and recovery he conveyed an estate in this land to the use of his brother that now is Earl of C. in tail the remainder over to c. and died having a daughter now Countess of Dorset who moved by Dodderidge the Kings Serjeant in the Court of wards that this office was insufficient for by the pretence of the said Countess the first estate given to the Cliffords by E. 2. was a general tail and then the fine levied and the recovery suffered by the last Earl her father is no Bar but that it may discend to this Countess as his heir in tail and therefore Serjeant Dodderidge said to the Lord Treasurer then present in Court that if this should be allowed that Iurors may finde generally a grant made and shew no quallitie of the conveyance nor any place or time but if this were a grant of reversion or of a possession he said that many men by such offices should have their lands given away whereunto they had no means for uncertainties to take a Traverse and as to insufficiency of this office he said that the insufficiency therein consisted first in matter Secondly in form for the insufficiency of the matter is two fold First because that the office findes only that King H. 6. by sufficient conveyance not limited any manner of conveyances nor any qualitie thereof which ought to be shewed and it is material because we may give a different answer thereunto for against letters Patents we may plead one thing and against an other conveyance we may plead another thing and so our answer differeth according to the qualitie of the conveyance Secondly it is insuffient in matter because it is found that H. 6. granted the possession and that he granted the reversion nec non manerium which is repugnant for if the King grant a reversion then no possession passeth and if he pass a possession then no reversion passeth and therefore it is repuguant to say that he granted Reversionem nec non manerium which implieth a possession also he said that his exceptions to the office as to the Mannor of it are two-fold First the office doth finde any time of the grant made by H. 6. and this is material for the grants upon Record take their force from the time of their date as appears by Ludfords Case in Plowdens Commentaries and he said that at this time the case is material to be exprest in respect that H. 6. was for part of his reign deposed and after restored and it might be in the time that he was deposed by Edward the fourth but unto that it was answered by the attorney of the wards that the office found that H. 6. granted c. that it was not in the time when he was deposed the second insufficiency in the Mannor is because it is not found at what place H. 6. made the said grant and that this is material to be found by office he vouched 36. H. 6.32 and he said that it is very requisite that in such offices all circumstances ought to be expressed in as ample certaintie as in a declaration so that the partie prejudiced by the office may know where to search for the conveyance but the Attorney general said that there needs no such express finding of all circumstances by a Iury as it ought to be in pleading for it shall be taken by intendment in divers cases but yet he said that it appears by 1. Eliz. Dyer 174. it is a good plea to say that A. granted a reversion c. to the King without shewing how much more in office which is the Act of the Iurors and therefore Serjeant Harris cited the Book of 14 15. H. 7.22 where an office found an estate tail without mention of the Donor and yet good and the Attorney general said also that it appears by the finding of the Iury in Fulwoods Case Cook lib. 4. that the Iury need not precisely to finde all circumstances for if there be convenient certaintie the residue shall be supplied by intendment as it is there said and the Attorney said that whereas it hath been objected that the issue is evil because it is found that H. 6. granted the reversion and also the Mannor and Castle aforesaid and doth not limit incertaintie that the King granted a reversion or that he granted a Mannor in possession to that he said that it is clear that the King may after recital of a particular estate grant the reversion nec non terras sive manerium and then be the land in lease or be the lease void in Law yet the land shall pass and this is his course alwayes in granting the Kings lands to others and therefore the Iury did well to finde the truth without determining what should pass for admit that there were no estate precedent in being yet by this finding it appears plainly that the Mannor and Castle should pass by the grant in the time of H. 6. to which the Lord Cook agreed for Law and so he said it was his use when he was Attorney general to which also the Lord Treasurer Flemming chief Justice and Tanfield chief Baron agreed and the Attorney general said that his use was if A. had a lease from the King of B. acre which by effluction is to determine in Anno. 1612. and the said A. doubting that this lease was not good in Law prayed to have a new lease that in this case he recited the first lease in the new letters Patents and thereby granted the land for twentie years from c. which shall be in Anno 1612. or from the sooner determination of the former lease and the Iudges allowed it to be good and Dodderidge Serjeant said that after the difference taken between the pleading and the finding of the Iury it seemed to him that there is a great difference between them but after the finding of the Iury upon an office as our case is and a pleading there is no difference for the office is a thing to which an answer may be made but a verdict given upon issue joyned between the parties hath no other proceeding but to judgement immediately and therefore such a verdict shall be divers times supplied by the construction of the Iudges but a verdict upon an office ought to be as certain as an indictment because the partie may Traverse and to prove that upon such uncertain offices there is no remedy by Traverse he vouched the case of 3. H. 4 5. upon an insufficient office after the outlawry of A. and no time is found of the outlawry and he observed out of the said book that the partie outed by the said insufficient office had no remedy by Traverse but was compelled to make a motion to the Court and after this case for difficultie was referred to the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron to consider upon who the said Term at Serjeants Inne appointed it to be
the letters Patents is not material for he said it seemed to him that in rei veritate the particular estate cannot be sufficiently surrendred by this bare giving up of the letters Patents by the Tenant for life as it appears by Walshes Case cited in Altonwoods Case Cook lib. 1. and therefore he insisted not upon that Secondly he argued that a recital in the Kings Patents of a thing material if it be false and come by information of the partie is all one as a false Consideration and not otherwise and he said that it appears by Brook tit Patents pla 100. that all Considerations valuable although they are false do not avoid a Patent as where the King grants lands prodecem libris sibi solutis although that in facto this is false yet the grant is good also it appears by 26. H. 8. and Sir Thomas Wrothes Case and by 21. E. 4 fol. 48. that a consideration executed avoideth not a grant although it be false but he said that it appears by the Case of 18. Eliz. Dyer 352. that if the King make a lease in Consideration of a surrender of a precedent lease which in truth was void by some that the King may avoid the lease but others contrary because it was not done upon the suggestion of the partie but for a consideration executed and the surrender of the estate precedent was the material cause and consideration of the grant and he said that although in this Case there be not a good surrender of the letters Patents yet the Consideration being only the surrendring of the estate that is not material for as it is said in Altonwoods Case Cook lib. 1. if the King in Consideration only of the surrender of precedent Patents makes a grant in this Case there needs no averment of an estate for the surrender is not material of the letters Patents Also it appears Cholmleys Case Cook lib. 2. that if the King recite an estate to be made with Condition although that at the same time of the recital this is not Conditional yet if once this were Conditional the King is not deceived although the condition be now released and he cited also the Lord Chandos Case Cook lib. 6. where it appears that if the King recite a thing untruly which cometh not of the information of the partie this shall not hurt the Grant except it be part of the consideration and he said that Harris and Wings Case differs from this Case for there the King had a Tenant who held a Tenement by the yearly rent of six pounds and another Tenement of him by the yearly rent of nineteen pounds and he made a new lease of both those to the said Tenant without any recital of the former leases reserving but Nineteen pounds for both and there it was adjudged that the second lease was not good but he said that the reason of that judgement was not because the antient lease was not recited but by reason that a loss in the rent came to the King and so by intendment he was deceived and this was also upon the matter the reason of the resolution of Barwicks Case and also in Mack-Williams Case for there was not a surrender of the estate as the King intended which ought to be but in our Case the estate is well surrendred clearly and he thought that these words modo habens may well stand with the Kings intent aswel to a surrender in Law as to an actual surrender The Attorney generall to the contrary First for the recital that the information of the partie was that the King should have an actual surrender and so was the Kings intent collected upon the information of the partie Secondly that here is not any actual surrender Thirdly that by consequence it followeth that the Queen is deceived Fourthly here is no surrender in Law in this Case Fifthly although here were a surrender in Law yet that is not sufficient to make the grant good to the first point be said that alwayes a familiar construction ought to be made of the Kings grants and therefore if the King grant all his portion of Tithes in D. this doth not pass his Parsonage in D. although he had no other Tithes there so if the King grant all his Titheable lands within the Mannor of B. although the lands of Coppiholders are parcel of the demeasnes of the Mannor of B. yet these lands in such Case do not pass Cook lib. 1. Bozuns Case and Cook lib. 1. Altonwoods Case fo 46. aâ—so it appears by the pleading in Plowden in Wrothesleys case and in Adams case and also in Fulmerstons case that although the antient particular estate be gone in Law by the acceptance of a new estate yet it ought not to be pleaded as a surrender and therefore it shall not be construed that the King intended such a surrender which pleaders in their pleading do not accompt a surrender also he said that in regard that the Queen saith quam quidem sursum redditionem acceptamus it seems by that that she did not intend a surrender in Law and therefore accepted nothing but gave an estate c. and must be meant such a surrender to which she is partie by her acceptance also where the words are modo habens et gaudens and therefore it is inferred that the Queen intended an estate containing in the Patentee this is true for although that the Queen intended an actual surrender precedent to be made by the Patentee yet his estate continues against the Queen untill an acceptance of a surrender by her although also this may be called a surrender like unto a surrender of a benefice untill an acceptance by the ordinary also although it was found that the Queen made a new lease or letters Patents of the said Land to the said Lord Seymor yet it appears not that the new letters Patents were accepted by the Lord Seymor until a moneth after the making of them when he made a lease to Johnson and until that time without question there was no surrender either in fact or in Law and where it hath been objected that these words modo habens implie only the present time he said that the word modo will alwayes signifie such a time as the Verb with which it is joyned will signifie and therefore Cicero saith modo hoc malum in hanc Rempublicam invasit also the words Jam et nunc are of such signification as this word modo is and these words are alwayes governed by the Verb as Jam venit c. so in the Bible the story of Naaman and Gehesey Jam modo venerunt duo behold two young men are come to me c. and as to the second point it is clear that here is not any actual surrender for the King cannot take by an actual surrender without matter of Record And therefore it was holden in the Lord Stanleys Case that the King took nothing although his officers by his command did
the world if he will or inflict a pain upon any who shall Trade into such place inhibited so may he do upon any commoditie either inhibit it generally or upon a pain or Impost and if a subject use the Trade after such inhibition or import his wars and pay not the impost it is a contempt and the King shall punish him for it at his pleasure and as to that which is said that it is a burthen to the Merchant that is not so for the burthen layeth it only upon the better part of the subjects and if it were a burthen it is no more then they themselves imposed which was in their hands by commission in the time of Queen Eliz. and they have raised the prices to subjects more then the value of the Impost and it is not to be intended that the King by any Impost will prejudice the cause of Merchants for the Trade in general is to him more beneficial then any particular Impost the case of the 11. and 14. H. 4. of Aulnageor is not to be compared to this Case for there the King had made a grant to a subject and it was also of a thing which was granted before to a Maior and also of a commoditie within the land and not transported and for the case of Darcy for the monopoly of Cards it is not like for that is of a commoditie within the land and betwixt the Patentee and the King and not between the King and the subject and as to the exception taken to the Information that it is Vsitar and doth not prescribe this needeth not for it is a prerogative wherein lieth no prescription for every prerogative is as antient as the Crown and as to the conclusion of the Information it was objected that it is not good for the informer ought to pray the forfeiture but this belongs to the Court to Iudge of what shall be lost or forfeited the offence being a contempt and therefore the conclusion good enough and so for all these reasons judgement shall be given for the King Flemming chief Baron touching the exceptions to the Information they are of no force for the first Vsitat c. it hath been well said that the King needs not prescribe in any prerogative for it is as antient as his Crown is 2. E. 3. and for the conclusion viz. that he in contempt c. that deserves no other answer but that which hath been given before for it is enough without doubt warranted by infinite presidents but for the Bar it is an increase of the Defendants contempt and no sufficient matter to answer an indigested and confused tale with an improper and disobedient conclusion and there is in it multa non multum but the conclusion is without president or example for he saith that the imposition which the King had laid is indebite injuste et contra leges Angliae imposita and therefore he refused c. in the case of Smith for Allom the conclusion was moderate and beseeming a subject judgement if he shall have Impost by his grant and in the case of Mines the Defendant being a great Peer of the Realm concluded upon his grant and interest in the soyl and that he took the Mettal as it was lawful for him and did not confront his Soveraign with terms of injuste indebitè and the like and the King as it is commonly said in out Books cannot do wrong and it the King seise my land without cause I ought to sue to him in humble manner Humillimè supplicavit c. and not with such terms of opposition in the Information and all his matter had been saved to him then as well as now or he might have pleaded his matter and said wherefore he refused as it was lawful for him but for the matter it is of great consequence and hath two powerful objects which it principally respecteth the one is the King his power and prerogative his Treasure and the Revenues of his Crown and to impair and derogate from any of these was a part most undutiful in any subject the other is the Trade and Traffick of Merchantdise transportation in and out of the land of commodities which further publick benefit ought much to be respected and nourished as much as may be the state of the question is touching a new custome Impositions or customs are duties or summs of money newly imposed by the King without Parliament upon Merchantdise for the augmentation of his revenues all the questions arising in the case are aut de personis de rebus vel de actionibus viz. form and proceeding the persons are first the King his power and authoritie Secondly not Bates the Defendant nor the Venetians but all men who import Currants the imposition is properly upon Currants and for them and is not upon the Defendant nor his goods who is a Merchant for upon him no imposition shall be but by Parliament The things are Currants a forraign commoditie and a Victual the 5. s. for impost which is said to be great the action formed or Process is the command by the great Seal and the word therein are Petere et recipere if they be sufficient and if good without Proclamation or other notice and how notice shall be given and if it be good without an ad quod damnum and the case of Mines in Plowden which is the sole case in the printed Books of Law to this purpose hath in it foure reasons of the judgement First the excellency of the King or his person Secondly the necessitie of Coyn for his state Thirdly the utillitie of Coyn for commerce Fourthly the inconvenience if the subject should have such royal possessions and these reasons are not extracted out of the Books of Law but are only reasons of policy for Rex est legalis et politicus and reasons pollitick are sufficient to guide Iudges in their arguments and such cases and presidents are good directions in cases of judgement for they are Demonstrations of the course of antiquitie where upon my judgement shall consist upon reasons politick and presidents the case in Dyer 1. Eliz. fo 165. was not like to the case in question but only a conference and the case there was for an impost upon cloath a domestick commoditie in this case are recited their Grievances but it was paid and it is denied here but there was no resolution thereof at the same time was the impost of Wines increased and paid and no petition or complaint thereof and the custome of Englands commodities were at the first imposed by the Kings will for no Statute giveth them viz. for Wool Woolfels and Leather and it was called the great custome and that it was paid it will not be denied and yet now it is doubted if the King can impose it upon forraign commodities the King may restrain the person as it is in Fitz. Nat. Br. à fortiori he may restrain the goods there was no custom for home Commodities
demurrer joyned George Crook for the King conceived that the lease made in the 26. Eliz. is good first he said that although the Queen cannot take an inheritance of freehold without matter of Record yet she may take Chattels upon a surmise made that they were granted unto her and therefore he vouched 21. H. 7. fo 19 that an Obligation may be granted to the King without inrolment of the grant and 40. Assise pl. 35. Brook tit suggestion pl. 5. it appears that the King shall have a Chattel by a demise by parol upon a suggestion made thereof in the Exchequer without a Record and in the 15. H. 7. fo 15. the Kings Baylie who is not of Record may be compelled to accompt upon a suggestion made Brooks suggestion pla 31. and in the 37. H. 6. fo 7. 18. if the King gives goods with his hands this is good although no record be made thereof because it is but a Chattel and by the same reason he inferred that he may also accept of Chattel without a Record but admitting that he cannot take without a Record it seemeth that here is a thing well enough Recorded to intitle the King after the return made by the Commissioners for the Commissioners are officers of Record to this purpose and they endorse the prayer of the partie to have it Recorded and this being after the return is a sufficient Record to intitle the King and he vouched the 2. H. 7. fo 10. where the servant of Iustice Catesby after the death of the Iudge made a return and this was good and the 8. H. 4. a Record certified by a Iudge after he was displaced and 43. Assises if a Coroner makes his Rols and dies before he certifie them they may be certified after his death and so here this acknowledgement and prayer being certified may at any time after be inrolled and although it seemeth by the Book in the 19. Eliz. Dyer fo 355. that a grant being made to the King and acknowledged before one of the Masters of the Chancery and inrolled in the time of another King maketh not the Grant good yet he said that it was adjudged for another grant made to the King by the Duke of Somerset and acknowledged before one of the Masters of Chancery and inrolled in the time of another King was good enough to perfect the grant and this was by a grant made by the Duke of Bozoms Inne in London and he said that it is not reasonable that the Law should adjudge otherwise for it may be that the Clark will not inroll it untill such a time viz. a moneth within which time the King may die should it now be reasonable that it should not be inrolled at all he said it was unreasonable and he said that it appeareth by the 37. H. 6. fo 10. that a deed delivered at the Kings Coffers is good enough to avoid his lease made in the 44. Eliz. for although that it be true that a grant of a reversion shall never operate to the destruction of a right of a third person yet it seemeth that an Act commenced may be confirmed well enough to the destruction of a mean interposed Act and it seemeth that the inrolment here is but a confirmation of a precedent lease and not a relation to make a thing which was not before and therefore to examine what thing an inrolment is and it seemed to him that it is no matter of Record as it appears 24. E. 3. and 29. H. 8. fo 15. and therefore it appears by Wymacks Case Cook L. 5. that a deed inrolled ought to be pleaded hic in Curia Prolat which proveth that the deed and not the inrolment thereof is the thing which passeth the estate and therefore he vouched the case in the 6. E. 6. Brook title faits if one joynt Tenant sells all his land in D. and after his companion dieth and then the deed is inrolled yet a moitie only shall pass and 41. Eliz. Cook Perimans Case lib. 5. if a man make a feofment of lands and inroll the Deed within the Mannor as by the custome it ought to be yet the inrolment shall pass nothing and therefore it is there said the inrolment may be good enough after the death of the parties so by the same reason aforesaid it is put in the same Case of Perimon and also in Butlers and Bakers Case Cook lib. 3. that if a man deliver a writing as an escrow to be his Deed upon certain conditions performed and after the Obligor and the Obligee die and then the Conditions are performed the Deed is good for there was traditio inchoata in the life of the parties and this being after consummated takes his effect by force of the first delivery and acknowledgement and therefore also he said that it was lately adjudged that if two men are mentioned to be bound by one Obligation and the one seals at one day and the other at another day this is as good as if it had been at one day and therefore he said that there is no doubt but if a lease be made to the King by a Bishop and after another lease is made also of the same land or if the Bishop die yet if after the first lease be inrolled this is good and therefore also he cited a case to be adjudged in Banco Regis 41. Eliz. between Collins and Harding that if a man be seised of freehold and Coppihold land and makes a lease of both for years with licence rendring rent and after he grants the reversion of the freehold and makes a surrender of the Coppihold to the use of the same person and an attornment is had for the freehold and the presentment of the surrender for the Coppihold is not made untill a year after yet he in reversion shall have an action of debt for all the rent for the presentment of the surrender is but a perfection of the surrender before made also he cited the case as I observed him to this effect in the 9th of Eliz. in the Abbot of Colchesters Case where he said that the Abbot of Colchester committed treason and after made a lease for years and then he surrendred to the King all his lands and after an office found the treason and it was holden the lease is good against the King who took by the surrender and not by the treason committed before but as Walter said the case was adjudged that the King should avoid the lease for now he is in by the treason paramount the surrender Phillips against Evans IN an Ejectione firmae brought up three acres in the forrest of Kevington in the Countie c. the Defendant pleaded not guiltie and the Venire facias was awarded de vicineto of the forrest and the Defendant moved in arrest of judgement because the Venire facias de vicineto of the forrest was not good for as Stephens for the Defendant said that a forrest and the name thereof is but
the said resolution and he said that the case concerning parcel of the land contained in S. the Deed come in question in Parliament in the 43. Eliz. and it was then commanded that the Deed should be inrolled and also he compared it to a case put in Shelleys Case that the heir shall have land as by discent from his father although that the conveyance be not inrolled in the life of the father also he said that the Queen dieth not as to her body politick to the third point he said that the confirmation need not to be inrolled for it passeth nothing and is but a bare assent and therefore differeth from the case of Patron and Ordinary and of a disseissee for the disseisee hath right to grant end the Patron and Ordinary have interest in R. but Bishops are seised in their own right and therefore their lease wants the approbation only of the Dean and Chapter and he vouched Cook lib. 3. the Dean and Chapter of Norwiches Case and the writ of Sine Assensu Capituli in the Register proveth it for the tit confirmation pl. 30. observes and Littleton in the end of his chap. of discontinuance saith that a parson may charge the Gleab by the assent of the Patron and Ordinary and the opinion of Brook in the case of the 33. of H. 8. tit confirmation pl. 30. agreeth to this opinion and so are some opinions in the 7. H 4. fo 15. 16. and he said that this point was adjudged accordingly in the first of Ma. but he had not the record thereof and therefore he would not insist upon it and he vouched 1. and 2. of Ma. Dyer fo 106. and Cook lib 6. fo 15. Hodges Case that the acceptance of the Patron is good enough to make a confirmation to the fourth point he said that the confirmation was good notwithstanding it be before the inrolment of the lease for the lease shall stay his operation until all the Ceremonies be used for the perfection of the estate and he vouched Littleton fo 122. and 6. E. 6. Dyer fo 69. where a parson made a lease to commence after his death the Patron and Ordinary in the life of the parson confirmed it and this is good and he vouched also Anne Maiowes Case Cook lib. 1. where the father confirmed the sons grant when he had but a possibilitie and yet good and he vouched Dyer 2. 3. Eliz. fo 194. where a grant was incertain and the inception was before the confirmation after makes it good and therefore he said if disseissor and disseissee bargain land although it be but a confirmation of the disseisee which may be well enough without inrolment of the Deed by a bare delivery yet this shall hinder the operation until the inrolment of the Deed which should pass the estate from the disseisor and by Cook lib. 5. Fitz. Case it appeareth that one part of the assurance shall stay his operation until another part hath his perfection and therefore he concluded that here the confirmation in judgement of Law should stay his operation until the lease be inrolled which passed the estate see the argument of Serjeant Nichols to the contrary and also the argument of Thomas Crew in Easter Term and Trin. 7. Jac. Pasch 7. Jac. in the Exchequer Catesbies Case Pasch 7. Jac. in the Exchequer TAnfield chief Baron said that in the year 31. Eliz it was adjudged in Goar and Peers Case if Tenant for life infeoffe A. and his heirs to the use of the feoffee and his heirs during the life of the feoffor that this is a forfeiture because these words during the life of the feoffor shall be but to the use limited and he put the case which Serjeant Nichols put at the Bar of the Lady Catesby which was that a man suffered a recovery to the use of William Catesby and Anne his wife and of the longer liver of them and of the Executors of William for forty years if one Elizabeth Catesby should so long live William Catesby dies and the reversion came to the King by forfeiture and he pretended that Elizabeth Catesby being dead the estate is also determined in regard that these words if Elizabeth shall so long live refer to all the estate but Curia avisari vult It was said by the chief Baron that if a man plead a deed in writing and the other partie do not pray Oyer the same Term he shall not have Oyer in another Term in the Common Pleas but in the Kings Bench Oyer shall be granted in another Term. It was found by office that Elizabeth Bowes was convicted of Recusancy in 35. Eliz. and that a lease for years was made unto her in the year 36. Eliz. in trust and that she had conveyed this lease over according to the trust and a question was demanded if the King shall have this term or not for her Recusancy and it seemed that he shall because she is not capable nor lyable of any trust and therefore the conveyance made by the Recusant was as if it had been without any compulsion by reason of the trust If a Coppiholder of the Kings Mannor pretendeth prescription for a Modus decimandi against the Parson the right of Tithes shall be tried in the Exchequer and a prohibition was granted to the Ecclesiastical Court in this Case Owen Ratliff was lessee for years of the King rendring rent and he assigned his Term to Sir Thomas Chichley in trust for payment of the debts of the said Owen Ratliff and after the Debts were paid Chichley resigned it but in the interim between the assignment and the resignment divers rents incurred to the King and the Barons agreed that these arretages in Law may be levied upon the land of Chichley notwithstanding the trust but because the Court was informed that the Executors of Ratliff had assets and continued farmer of the farm at that time they compelled him to pay it and being present in Court they imprisoned him untill payment made and allowed him his remedy by English Bill against Chichley and that by the agreement Chichley was to have paid the rents to the King The Earl of Cumberlands Case IT was found by diem clausit extremum after the death of G. Eearl of Cumberland that King E. 2. gave to the Lord Clifford inter alia the Mannor of Skipton in Craven to him and to the heirs of his body and found further the discent in a direct line until the time of H. 6. and that the first Donee and all others to whom it descended were seised prout lex postulat without determining any estate in certain in the Donee and they found that H. 6. by sufficient conveyance concessit Revertionem nec non manerium de Skipton in Craven to Thomas Lord Clifford to whom the estate given by E. 2. was descended and his heirs by force whereof the said Thomas was seised prout lex postulat and found the discent to the
Common Law it is also to make an obligation in the name of another to be forfeitable although it was not at the Common Law so if we will have a confidence or a trust to be forfeited we ought to have a Statute made to this purpose and as to Pauncefoots case he said that the King had a title by the indictment of recusancy before the conveyance made by Pauncefoots but so it is not in our case whereby appeareth a plain difference betwixt the cases see the 14. H. 8. fo 8. the Attorney general to the contrary at another day and first he spake to the quality of the offence viz. the contempt and this offence as he said is aggravated by these circumstances First the command of the King himself came and not of any inferiour officer as Sheriff c. and it is immediately directed to the partie himself Secondly the command is that he shall return upon his faith and allegeance which is the strongest compulsion that can be used Thirdly the thing required by the King is the principal dutie of a subject viz. to be at the command of the King for service and not as the common summons in Law is to answer at the suit of I. S. and he said that this contempt is to be accompted in quality of a contempt from the very time when the privy Seal came to his hands for the words quod indilate c. and it hath been in all ages the course and use to punish contempts of this kinde by seising their lands and he vouched in proof thereof the presidents of John de Brittons case in 19. E. 2. and of Edward de woodstock in the time of E. 2. and the case in 2. Ma. Dyer fo 128. 2. Eliz. Dyer Barners case fo 176. and 23. Eliz Dyer 375. and Englefields case Cook lib. 7. moreover he argued in so much it is clear that the King shall seise his lands for this contempt it is to be considered what estate or interest the King shall gain by this seisure and as to that he thought that the King hath an estate at the least for the life of the effendor and that he conceived is proved by the presidents for these words are used in the seisure c. donec aliter duxerimus ordinandum c. and he said that this is proved by Englefields case and also by the way and manner of the seisure and disposing of the land for such contempt in 23. Eliz. Dyer 375. by the Statute of 13. and 14 Eliz made against fugitives also he used this reason to prove that the King had an estate for life viz. because the offender by this contempt had impliedly deserted his land and left it to the Kings dispose and then it is all one as if he granted the land to the King to hold and use as long as he pleaseth and such an express grant will create an estate for life in the King as is proved by 35. H. 6. where it is agreed that if I give land to A. as long as he will this is an estate for life and so here by this implied Art c. also as to that that may be pretended in this case that the King granted licence in this case to Sir Robert Dudley to travel for a time certain which time is not yet expired and therefore the contempt qualified or satisfied by reason of this licence to that he said that notwithstanding that was the case yet the contempt is all one as if he had no licence at all in regard it is countermanded by the privy Seal which injoyns him to return and to prove that this licence is alwayes countermandable by the King he said that besides the common usage and obedience of countermands of this kinde he said that it was to be proved by reason also and authority of our books for although here be a licence indeed yet there is great adversitie between a licence indeed which giveth interest and a licence indeed which giveth only an authoritie or dispensation as in our case for the one is not to be countermanded but the other is as appeareth by 5. H. 7. and 1. Ma. Dyer 92 and admit that after this licence and before the departure of Sir Robert Dudley the King had said unto him you shall not go this had been a good countermand as seemed to him and he vouched 9. E. 4.4 and 8. E. 4. if I licence A. to stay in my house for three dayes yet I may put him out in the mean time but otherwise it is if I licence A. to hold my land for 3. dayes because there an interest passeth and the reason wherefore this licence in our case is countermandable is because all licences of this kinde have tacite conditions annexed to them for no Act or licence wil. free a subject from his allegeance as appeareth by Doctor Stories case in the 13. Eliz. Dyer fo 300. and no man can put off or be dismissed of duties which belong to a subject no more then he can put off his subjection and this is the reason that an honor or dignitie intailed ought to be forfeited although it be intailed for the honor which is given by the King hath a tacit condition in Law annexed unto it and it ought not to continue in him who committeth Treason nor in his posteritie although that the partie had but an estate tail therein see Nevels case Cook lib. 7. and so had the King his licence which is but a dispensation for the time and countermandable by the King and he said that the Book in 2. Eliz. Dyer fo 176. makes it a doubt but he thought it clear for the reasons aforesaid and as to the material point viz. if this land shall be priviledged from seisure by reason of this bargain or not and he said that it shall not be priviledged for this conveyance which is revokable at the will of the Bargainor is meerly fraudulent against any interest of forfeiture for otherwise the Kings subjects are but as ferae naturae which when they are out of their pale the King had no means to reduce them within the Park again for in this case had no means directly to punish this offence upon the body of the offender but by the depriving him of the means of his maintenance and although there be no fraud here in the parties Bargainees yet the fraud in the Bargainor makes the conveyance void against the King for as it appeareth by our books the King cannot be an instrument of fraud although he may be party thereunto see 17. and 21. E. 3. so in the case of an infant cited before by Mountague all which and many others to this purpose of fraud are cited in Farmors case Cook lib. 3. fo 48. and whereas it was objected that here can be no fraud intended in the offender in regard he had a licence to travel and it cannot be intended that he presupposed any countermand of this licence and
convicted of the intrusion and Moil said that he ought to shew matter sufficient whereupon he upon the intrusion aforesaid ought to be convicted so that a thing is demanded of us to give out judgement in which is not in question before us and therefore no judgement at all may be given here wherefore it is not needful for us to dispute other matters in the case and as to the questions in Law which were argued by George Crook and others Tanfield chief Baron nor Altham spoke not at all because they might come before them again to be adjudged upon a better office but Bromley and Snig Barons spoke to the matters in Law and their opinions were as follow and upon the plea of Moil the case was this that the Tenant pleaded protestando that the Priory of Bister was not founded by the name of the Priory of Saint Mary and Saint Egbert of Bister as the inquisition supposeth for plea he saith that one Thomas Banbury Prior of the Church of Saint Mary and Saint Egbert of Bister infeoffed him of the Mannor of Caversfield by the name of the Moity of his Mannor of Caversfield as also by the name of all his lands and Tenements in Caversfield and that the said feofment was made by the name of the Prior of Saint Egbert of Bister and that it was known aswel by the name of Saint Egbert as Saint Mary and that the Mannor of Caversfield was well known by the name of the Moity of the Mannor of Caversfield and that the Prior had no other land in Caversfield and shewed also that there is another in Caversfield which is called Langstons Mannor the which heretofore was the Priors and allotted as a Moitie of a Mannor in the same Mannor of Caversfields and those and other circumstances he used in his plea to the intent to shew that all the land of the Prior shall pass to him and he shewed that this Mannor sold to him was known by the name of Langstons Mannor Bromley Baron the Corporation is mis-named in the Grant because it is a thing material viz. the omission of the word Saint Mary for the name of assent in a body politick is as the name of Baptisme in a body natural and the name of Baptisme cannot be missnamed as it appears 3. H. 6. and 1. H. 7 if Iohn by the name of Thomas make an Obligation this shall not binde him if he doth not admit it and therefore it shall not conclude the King see the 11. Eliz. Dyer 279. where in some cases the estate shall pass by livery and seisin by what name soever it be made but a Corporation cannot pass an estate from them but by Charter and it may be conceived that the founder intended two things the one was Religion or more properly superstition the other was that it may remain to posterity as a Monument of the piety of his Ancestors and then if the name should be altered the remembrance would also decay and therefore what name soever is first imposed ought alwayes to be observed and that the omission of Saint is material and he vouched Eaton Colledge case 3. and 4. Ma. Dyer and 35. H. 6.31 the case of the foundation of Saint Peter and Paul c. but he agreed the case in 11. Eliz. Dyer 278. that omission of the word undivided is not prejudicial because no material variance Secondly it seemed that all the Priors Mannor of Caversfied passed by this grant for by 20. H. 6. and 22. H. 6. it appears that a feofment of 20. Acres by the name of a Mannor is good and 6. and 7. E. 6. Dyer if a man grant his Mannor in S. containing 10. Acres yet if it contain 20. Acres it is good and the word Omnia greatly inforceth the case as it seemeth wherefore c. Snig Baron said that the mis-naming is a material variance which avoids the grant also it seemeth that Omnia alia shall not be intended to refer to more then was granted by the other words except there were other lands besides the Mannor and therefore he thought that only a Moity of the Priors Mannor passed super totam materiam Sir Henry Browns case before HObert Attorney general it seems to me that the plea is not good for divers causes see the beginning before fol. he said that first every issuable plea ought to express a place but if the issue be triable by the Record or witnesses a place is not necessary 11. H. 7. fo 1. if there be no place there is no plea and therefore if it be beyond the Sea it is no plea. Secondly in our case there is no place alledged from whence the venue should come to trie the entrie in this case to be of all the premises for it is to trie the entrie but in one particular parcel but I agree as it hath been said of the other part if the entry had been alledged to be in the premises then the venue shall come from all the premises for here the plea of the entrie pleaded by the Defendant is double and yet it is good because of necessitie it cannot be otherwise intended in this case but I cannot plead in this case that I have not entred into two Closes parcel of the premises for that is Negative preignans as is in 9. H. 6. fo 44. in debt upon a bond where the Defendant was bound to require a house the Defendant said that A. by the command of the Plantiffe disturbed him the Plantiffe shall not be admitted to replie that A. did not disturb him by his command but by protestation that A. did not disturb him for plea that the Plantiffe did not command him c. 6. H. 6. fo 9. in a writ of entrie the Tenant pleads that the demandant confirmed after the last continuance the demandant shall not say that he did not confirm after the last continuance 5. E. 3. fo 1. in a per quae servitia of the grant to the husband and wife the Defendant said that the wife released while she was sole the other cannot replie that she did not release when she was sole but ought to deny the deed and so in our case if you will say by protestation that the place where the entrie is supposed is not parcel c. for plea that you have not entred after the last continuance then the issue ought to be joyned if we please or not and this shall not have any reference to the premises but only to the two Closes and then the venue shall come from the two Closes wherefore c. also by this plea so uncertain the Plantiffe is prejudiced for admit that in this case Hawkins the Defendant had re-entred before the day of nisi prius this had made our writ good again as appears by 26. H. 8. fo 10. and 36. H 6. and 8. H. 7. and then if here the Defendant will say that the Plaintiff had entred before the issue now it shall not be
this be confessed that the King there should take nothing without inrolment yet this is not like to our case for here this is but to merge a particular estate which differs much from the case of conveying of an inheritance also this is confessed if there had been a Memorandum made in the Margent then the surrender had been good and the want thereof is the laches of the Clark and then if it should not be a surrender before the Memorandum made the Clark should make the surrender and not the partie and as to the Book of 37. H. 6. it is not answered for to say that the King hath no right to the thing granted before inrolment but that he hath the propertie that cannot be and to that which hath been objected that there doth not appear any intention of the surrender because that although the Patents are surrendred the estate remained the Book of 32. E. 3. Monstrance of faith 178. proveth nothing for there it is said that a man may plead that a Dean and Chapter did not lease modo et forma without shewing any Deed for there this pleading is not to devest any thing out of c. and also it appears in the principal case that his intent was to surrender for the Iury do finde that the Letters Patents were restored by the command of the Lord Seymor to be cancelled and to that which hath been objected if the second Patent should be good that the Queen might lose her Rent or condition because the first lease hath his continuance to that I give answer that the first lease hath not his continuance and therefore no loss can grow to the Queen and to that which hath been objected that the Queen is deceived it appears by these words modo habens c. restituit c. that the intention of the Queen was that the Lord Seymor had surrendred his estate before and that he now had nothing because that the word modo being joyned with the word reddidit signifieth the time past but as to that it seems to me that although modo poetica licentia in the strict construction of Grammer may signifie the time past yet the signification thereof shall not be so taken in the letters Patents for there it shall be taken in common construction and not to the deceipt of the King and therefore in the Dean and Chapter of Bristols case 7. E. 6. Dyer the words are nuper in Tenura I. S. et modo in Tenura A. B. there nuper is taken for the time past but modo for the present time and in 11. H. 7. Rogerum Townesend modo militem is to be intended that he is now Knight and not that he was a Knight in time past and not now also it is so to be observed here that these words habens et gaudens are annexed to this word modo both which are in the present time and restituit comes afterwards and so modo is not annexed to restituit but unto habens et gaudens also although the word shall be referred unto restituit yet all may well stand together for restituit may be referred unto the time present as siquae fuerint in 35. H. 6.11 and to that which hath been objected that until the Queen agrees unto the surrender the estate is not in the Queen he thought that where Tenant for life surrenders before agreement he in the reversion is Tenant to the Praecipe although he shall not maintain a Trespass before entrie for by 21. H. 7.12 it appeareth that an estate for life may be determined aswel by word as by surrender so in 9. H. 7. where the Tenant dies without heir the freehold is immediately in the Lord but yet he shall not have an action of Trespas before entrie now as to the first point he conceived it to be an actual surrender although there be no Vacat made nor any Memorandum and to examine it he did relate what Acts might make a surrender and to that purpose he said that words being used which do prove an assent of the Tenant that he in reversion shall have an estate that shall be a surrender without express words of a surrender for a man may surrender by these words Remisit or resignavit for the words are not material if so there be substance as in 40. E. 3. placito 14. and 40. Assises pl. 16. if a lessee for life saith to his lessor that you shall enter and I will that you shall have this land this is a good surrender So in 28. H. 8. Dyer 33. if a Termor agree that he in the reversion shall make a feofment that is a surrender so in 8. Eliz. Dyer 251 252. lessee for life is content that he in the reversion shall have the land and his interest that is a surrender but in that case it appeared that a rent was reserved and an agreement that the lessee should have it againe if he survived the lessor and therefore appearing plainly that it was not intended to pass by way of surrender it was at the last adjudged no surrender so in 14. H. 8. the Grantee of a Rent did surrender the Deed and that held to be a good surrender of the Rent it is daubted in 2. Eliz. Dyer in Sir Maurice Barkleys case 156. if the surrender of the Patent of an Office unto a master of the Chancerie out of the Court be good without beliverie of the Patent to be cancelled but that Book proveth nothing but that a delivery of a Patent to be cancelled shall be a good surrender though the Patent be not cancelled in facto it hath been objected that it matters not what commandment the Lord Seymor did give nor in what Court the Patents were given up nor before whom but to that he said in asmuch as it is found that the Patents were given up by the commandment of the Loâ—d Seymor to be cancelled that being it was by his command it was his own surrender also it appears that the letters Patents were under the great Seal of England which alwayes issueth out of the Chancery and therefore it cannot be cancelled in any other Court and it shall be intended that they were given up to be cancelled there also this word restituit signifieth to restore and a man cannot restore any thing but where he had it and he had it out of the Chancery and therefore it shall not be otherwise intended but to be there restored so in Baggots Assise 9. E. 4.7 it is pleaded Quod restituit litteras Patentes Cancellandas and sheweth not to whom nor where and it was held to be very good but it is there pleaded Quod sursum reddidit Patentes Domini Regis and shewed in special to whom they were surrendred because it may be to any that hath power at the time of the surrender but a man cannot restore unto any but such a one who granted unto him and therefore needs not shew unto whom he did restore
of the 28. Eliz. according to this opinion there was a judgement now lately in the Common Pleas as the chief Baron Tanfield said but if a Recusant be not convicted of Recusancy an informer may have advantage against him according to the Statute of the 23. Eliz. notwithstanding any thing in the Statute of the 28. Eliz. Jacksons Case UPon a motion made by Sir John Jackson in a suit by English Bill between Jackson and another Tanfield said that it had been decreed in the Chancery betwixt one Gore and Wiglesworth that if A. agree with me to lease black-Acre for certain years to me and after before he makes my lease according to his promise he infeoffes B. of that Acre for a valuable consideration and B. had notice of this promise before the feofment made unto him now B. should be compelled in the Chancey to make this lease to me according to the promise and by reason of his notice and so the Court agreed upon a motion made in the like case by the said Jackson for as before the Statute of 27. H. 8. a feoffee upon valuable consideration should be compellable in the Chancery to Execute an use whereof he had notice so here Sir Edward Dimocks Case argued before BRomley the puisne Baron thought judgement should be given for Sir Edward Dimock against the King for the matter in Law he argued but three points First that the lease made to Queen Elizabeth in the year 26. is not good clearly without a matter of Record for although that he agreed that personal Chattels may be conveyed to the Queen without matter of Record yet Chattels real can not for they participate in divers qualities with inheritances and freeholds and therefore if a man possest of a Term for years demiseth it to A. for life the remainder over to B. that this is a good remainder adjudged now lately in the Common Pleas but otherwise it is of Chattels personal as it appears by 37. H. 6. the case of the devise of a Grail Secondly the acknowledgement of the lease before Commissioners and the prayer of the Bishop to have it inrolled makes it not a record before inrolment for it appears by the 21. H. 7. that if the Sheriff by vertue of a writ doth any thing yet it is no matter of Record until it be returned and so is the 9th of Ed. 4. fo 96. that if the Phillizer of a County enter Process of outlawry in the room of a Phillizer of another County this is not a Record in judgement of Law although that it be a thing recorded and so he conceived that it was no sufficient Record in regard the Commissioners have not certified this recognizance and the prayer of the Bishop Lessor in the life of the Lessee and Lessor whereby as he said he admitted that if this were certified by the Commissioners in the life of the Lessor and Lessee that then without inrolment this had been a sufficient record to intitle the Queen who was Lessee Thirdly he argued that the inrolment subsequent in this case in time of the King that now is maketh not the lease good which was made to the Queen for he thought that the interruptions hindred the operation of this lease by interruptions he meant the death of the Bishop Lessor and of the Queen Lessee as it seemeth and the lease in possession of Sir Edward Dimock by force thereof without inrolment and therefore he said it was adjudged if a man covenant to stand seised to the use of his wife which shall be and there he makes a lease of the land and then takes a wife this lease by him is such an interruption that the use shall not arise to the wife but in Wintors case in Banco Regis 4. Jac. and also in Russels case although it seemed to be there agreed that the lease for years should be good yet it was not resolved but that the wife may have freehold well enough by vertue of that Covenant and he also vouched and agreed to Bret and Rigdens case in Plowden Com. where the death of the devisce before that the devisor died did frustrate the operation of the will and so of the death of the Queen being Lessee also he vouched the Duke of Somersets case 19. Eliz. Dyer 355. First as to the exceptions taken to the Bar by the Attorney general which were two it seemed to him that notwithstanding them the Bar is good for whereas it was objected that the Bar is that the Commission and acknowledgement of the lease were not returned by Hamond and Porter who were the two Commissioners who returned it to that he answered that the information mentions the acknowledgement and the return before them two and therefore there needeth no answer to more then is within the information also it cannot be intended to be returned by the other two Commissioners in regard that they were only to the connizance Secondly as to the other exception viz. that where the information saith that May Bishop of Carlisle by his certain writing of demise had demised c. for the Bar is that the said Bishop made a certain writing purporting a demise c. that this shall not be intended the same writing mentioned in the information and 6. E. b. Dyer 70. Ishams case for Ilebrewers Park vouched in maintenance of this exception and he said that it cannot be intended but that the Bar intends the same demise mentioned in the information for here the lease mentioned in the information and the lease mentined in the Bar agree in eight several circumstances as it was observed by the Councel of Sir Edward Dimock see the argument of Bandrip and 1. H. 6. fo 6. where a scire facias was brought against I. S. the Sheriff returned that according as the writ required he had made known to I. S. and doth not say the within named I. S. Altham Baron accordingly as to the matters in Law there are five points to be considered in the case First he said that the making of the lease to the Queen without acknowledgement is not good nor matter sufficient to intitle the Queen and he vouched 5. E. 4. fo 7. and 7. E. 4. fo 16.4 H. 7. fo 16.21 H. 7. fo 18.1 H. 7.17 and 3. H. 7.3 the same Law when awardship is granted and so an use cannot be granted to the King without matter of Record 6. E. 6. Dyer 74. that the Kings Lessee for years cannot surrender without matter of Record Secondly it seemeth that the confirmation of the Dean and Chapter is good notwithstanding it wanteth inrolment and notwithstanding the confirmation made before the inrolment and so before the being of the lease for here is only an assentor the Dean and Chapter for the Bishop hath his land in right of his Bishoprick and an assent may be aswel before the lease as after insomuch no interest passâ—th so also may an attornement be good before a grant of the reversion
Slade and Morleys case a case was put which proves it to be according Snig Baron agreed that Iudgement ought to be given for the Plantiff and by Tanfield if I take your goods and detain them until I have caused you to pay me 10. l. a general Action of Trespass lieth and not an Action upon the case and it is cited 7. H. 4. or 7. E. 4. to be accordingly but yet he agreed that judgement should be entred and so it was appointed to be done but then Chibborn for the Defendant said that here is a mistrial for if this trust be not material because it is not effectually shewed in the Declaration as you have argued then the Venue shall come only from the parish where the Wares were laid upon the land and not from the parish also where the appointment or trust was made by the Plantiff and therefore the trial also being from both parishes is a mistrial and the Court agreed that this is a mistrial upon that reason for now the appointment or Trust is but an inducement and therefore needs not to be shewed within what parish it was made and therefore a new Venire facias was granted and upon that a new trial and damages more then before and judgement was given accordingly Arden against Darcie NOta a good case of Attornament which was decreed in the time of Baron Manwood betwixt Arden and Darcie and it was this one Arden was seised in fee of divers lands in the County of c. and made a lease for years and after made a feofment with words of Grant of those lands to A. and B. to the use of the feoffor and his wife for their lives the remainder to Arden his son in tail and after the feoffor said to the Lessee that he had conveyed his land which the Lessee held in lease to the uses aforesaid and the Lessee said I like it well and after he paid his rent to the feoffor generally and it was decreed in the Exchequer Chamber that this is no Attornament because the Attornament ought to be to the feoffees and it appeareth not that the Lessee had notice of the names of the feoffees and therefore it cannot be said to amount to an Attornament but notwithstanding that Decree Arden the same to whom the remainder was limited had his Action depending in the Kings Bench to trie the point again as he said to me also this Term a point concerning the said Decree was in question upon another Bill exhibited in the Exchequer Chamber by Sir Edward Darcie against Arden and the case was as followeth Sir Edward Darcie exhibited his Bill here in the nature of a scire facias against Arden to shew cause wherefore the said Edward Darcie should not have execution of a Decree made in the time of Baron Manwood and the Defendant shewed that Darcie in his first suit supposed by his Bill that he had a grant of the land then and now in question from Queen Elizabeth rendring rent as it appears by the letters Patents and in facto there was no rent reserved upon the Patent and that the Defendant gave answer to the said Bill and admitted the Iurisdiction of the Court and after a Decree was made against the Defendant and the Defendant now having shewed this special matter demurred upon this Bill in respect that by his pretence the Court had not jurisdiction to hold plea in the first suit and here it was shewed that the first decree was made upon a matter in Law not properly examinable by English Bill and that in facto the Law was therein mistaken and therefore the Defendant prayed that the decree may be re-examined Tanfield chief Baron it is usual in the office of Pleas that if an action be brought as a debtor of our Lord the King this is good although that de facto no suggestion be made thereof if it be not shewed on the other side and therefore a writ of Error for this falsity shall not cause the judgement to be reversed as it was resolved in a case in which I was of Councel and so here as it seemeth Altham Baron here we are in equity wherein we are not tied to so strickt a course as if it were in the office of pleas Brock of the Inner Temple for the Defendant in a Court of equity it is in the discretion of the Court to deny Execution of a decree if good cause be shewed and in 18. E. 4. fo 1. judgement was given against a married wife by the name of a feme sole and reversed although she did not shew in the first suit that she was married and in 8. E. 4. judgement was given in the Kings Bench in a suit and by writ of error was reversed although the Defendant had admitted the Iurisdiction of the Court and the chief Baron and all the Court inclined that Arden may exhibit a Bill to reverse this Decree made against him and may shew what point in Law the Iudges mistook in the Decree or otherwise we should not do as Law and Iustice requireth for it is not expedient to be examined by way of Bar to this Bill in the nature of a scire facias and after Arden according to the Decree of the Court and their direction did exhibit his Bill in the nature of a writ of error Comprising how the first decree was erroneously made and prayed that the said decree might be reversed and in his Bill he shewed the point in Law which was decreed and that upon divers long conveyances appears to be thus and so it was agreed by Councel on both parties that Arden the father was seised of the Mannor of Cudworth in the County of c. and was also seised of the Mannor of Parkhal in the same County and of Blackclose c. which was parcel of the Mannor of Cudworth but lying neer unto Parkhal and alwayes used and occupied with it and reputed parcel thereof but in truth it was parcel of Cudworth and that Arden the father made a Conveyance of the Mannor of Parkhal and of all the lands thereunto belonging and reputed as parcel thereof or occupied with it as part or parcel thereof and of all other his lands in England except the Mannor of Cudworth to the use of Arden his son that now is Plantiffe here and if Blackclose will pass to the son by this conveyance or if by intendment it shall be excepted by the exception made it was the question here and was decreed in the time of Baron Manwood that it is excepted by the exception but all the Barons now thought it to be a strong case that Blackclose is not excepted by the exception of the Mannor of Cudworth and so the first decree was upon a mistake out of the Law and Tanfield chief Baron said that the point is no other but that I infeoffe you of Blackacre parcel of the Mannor of D. exceyt my Mannor of D. this doth not except the King
last matter it seems that the Statute of 1. Jac. cap. 4 hath discharged this Land admitting that it was not discharged before wherein the words are and if any Recusant shall hereafter die his Heir being no Recusant That in every such Case every such Heire shall be freed and discharged of all and singular the penalties charges and incumbrances happening upon him or her in respect or by reason of his or her Ancestors recusancy and as to Walter de Chirtons Case who being an Accomptant to the Ring purchased Lands of A. with the Kings money by Covin and took the profits neverthelesse upon Inquisition it was adjudged that they should be seised into the Kings hands for his debt I agree that to be good Law because A. when he received the said money of Walter de Chirton that being the Kings monie A. immediately thereby became a Debtor and an Accemptent to the King and then into whose hands soever these Lands do after come they are still chargable for that money and therefore c. Sawyer against East AN Ejectione firme was brought by Sawyer against East for certain Mills in East-Smithfield in the County of Middlesex the Case upon a speciall Verdict was this Queen Eliz. 28. of her raign demised two Mills one Messuage and one Curtilage to Potter for 40. years Potter makes Mary his Wife Executrix and dies Mary marries one Burhill who in 33. Eliz. did demise one Messuage and one Curtilage to Wilkenson for 20. years and dies and Mary intermarries one Hitchmore who by deed inrolled in Chancery 20. Marcii 44. Eliz. reciting the originall Lease and that he had the whole Right State and Interest and term of years which Potter had and that he surrendred the estate and term of years aforesaid to the Queen reciting the matter mentioned in the surrender and that the Interest and Term which Potter had is come to Hitchmore and that Hitchmore had surrendred the whole right aswell for 30. l. as for that that Hitchmore did assume at his proper charges to repaire and new build the said Mills being in great decay and to give security for the same did demise the Mills Messuage and Curtilage for 40 years to the said Hitchmore rendring rent with a Covenant to be void for not payment c. and after the King demised the premisses to Ferrers and Philips two contractors who enter and demise to Sawyer who was possessed untill ejected by East who claimed under the lease to Hitchmore and the Iury found that in the Letters Patents to Hitchmore were contained ordinary Covenants to repaire the Mills and to leave them in good repair and the Iury also found that Hitchmore had not given any security for the building and repairing of the Mills and that the Mills were not new built nor repaired and that Hitchmore had pulled down one of the Mills and that the Term of twenty years is yet in being and if upon the whole matter c. Bromley the Puisne Baron saies that it seemed to him that judgement ought to be given for the Plaintiff First the suggestion or surmise in the Patent being false in matter of value and in such a thing which is proper for the information of the Lessee causeth the Lease to be void as in 18. Eliz. Dyer 352. An Abbot makes a Lease for 60. years the Lessee demiseth to I. S. for 80. years the reversion comes to the Queen the 60. years expire the second Lessee surrenders to the Queen his Term and Interest which was nothing in substance to the intention that the Queen should re-grant to him for 20. years this falsitie avoids the Lease and yet it is no such Lease which of necessity ought to be recited and so is 8. H. 7. fo 3. by Vavisor if the King at the suit of I. S. grants the Mannor of D. of the value of 50. marks and this is of the value of 100. marks and this upon the information of the party in this case the grant is void and so is 8. H. 6.28 by Juine if the King be informed by petition that such Land is but of the value of 8. l. a year which in truth is of greater value the patent is void 11. Ed. 4.1 The Patentee suggests that a surrender was made whereas in deed there was no Surrender at all there also the Patent is void and so is 3. H. 7. the Prior of Norwich his case but there it is expressed in the Patent that the party had informed the Queen of a thing which is false and this is not expressed in our case yet it seems to me that there is no diversitie between that case and the case in question for it is plaine that in our case that the surrender and consideration are the information of the party which was the motive to induce the Queen to her grant for the suggestion is grounded upon the surrender the which surrender is fraudulent and deceptive and therefore the Patent is void Altonwoods case Cooke Lib. 1.40 The King grants the Mannor of Riton and Condor where in truth they were two Manners there neither of them passe Fitzh Grants 58. and so here the suggestion is grounded upon the words of the Surrender which are false and deceptive and therefore the Patent is void also it seems that when the Queen grants in consideration that the Grancee did assume to repair and it is found that he had not repaired this not performing of the consideration avoids the Patent and this is proved by Barwicks case Cook lib. 5. if the King will make a Patent for a consideration which is for the Kings benefit be it Executory or executed of Record or not if it be not true or duly performed the Patent is thereby void And here the Covenant or assumption not being performed according to the Queens intention and the consideration of the Grant will also make void the Patent And it may be construed as a Proviso in an Indenture within some Cases doth amount to a Covenant and condition also as it was in the case of Simpson and Titterell and also in the case of the Earl of Pembrook vouched in Cook lib. 2. in the Lord Cromwels case and therefore I conceive that the words super se Assumpsit aedificare is parcell of the consideration aswell as if it had been pro eo quod aedificabit and so avoids the Patent by the not performance thereof Altham Second Baron saies it seems to me that the Iudgement ought to be given for the Planthere are three things considerable in the Case First whether the Lease made to Hitchmore were ever good or not in respect of a false suggestion Secondly whether in that the consideration that he did assume upon himself to repair and the Queen indeed never had any precedent information made of the want thereof do avoid the Patent in the foundation Thirdly admit it be good in the foundation whether the Lease become void afterwards for not repasting And first I
Dyer the Lord Dacres surrendred a patent of an office granted to him before Sir Nicholas Hare Master of the Rolls but the surrender was not recorded nor the patent Cancelled nor a Vacat entred upon the inrolment this is void and shall not be aided now after the death of Sir Nicholas Hare per optimam opinionem in Kemps case Dyer 195. but it will be said that it appears not there that the surrender was made in Chancery and therefore differs from our case but see 19. Eliz. Dyer 355. which is direct in the point where an exchange of land was with E. 6. by deed acknowledged to be inrolled c. but not inrolled it cannot after nor be inrolled nor vest any interest in the Queen either as heir or Purchasor so hereby it appears that before inrolment an estate vests not in the King and he said that he had heard Popham late chief Iustice say that the opinion of the Iudges was that in this case nothing vests in the King until inrolment and for that there was a private Act made in 39. Eliz. to relieve this particular case so the Memorandum makes the record and not the delivery of the patent to be cancelled but the opinion of Davers in 37. H. 6.10 may be objected against me where he saith that if a man make a feofment to the King and deliver the deed in the Exchequer or at the Kings Coffers it is good without inrolment which by the Court is intended for goods and not to a feofment made to the King for this is only the opinion of Davers which I denie to be law and also all this may be admitted for law and yet prove nothing for when the partie surrenders to the King and delivers the deed to be inrolled so that he had done all which in him is to pass the land to the King then it may aptly be said in common speech that the right of the land is in the King because he of right ought to have it after inrolment although he had not the propertie of the land before the Deed be inrolled then if nothing vest in the Queen in the principal case before the patent made in 37. Eliz. the words subsequent in the patent will not help the matter viz. quam quidem sursum redditionem acceptamus per praesentes because the King had taken nothing before and the recital in the patent concludes not the Queen it hath been said that the not making of a Memorandum is the fault of the Clark and this shall not prejudice the partie in so great a mischief but I answer that the same mischief will insue where a man sells land by indenture and delivers it to the Clark to be inrolled and he inrols it not within 6. moneths nothing shall pass by the sale yet this is only the fáult of the Clark but in this case he may have his action upon the case against the Clark if so it be that he had paid all his fees the fame law in the principal case but admitting that yet great mischief will insue if it be so that the estate shall pass to the King before inrolment for then the estate and interest shall be tried by the Countrie and not by the record and then also in what place should a man search to finde the Kings estate and perhaps for want of knowledge thereof every grant of the King will be avoided and this would be a great mischief to the subjects but admitting that this should be a good surrender without a Memorandum or Vacat yet this is not shewed in this case for it appears not here that his intent was to surrender it for although he deliver up his Letters patents yet his estate remaines and then the consideration of the patent in 37. Eliz. being of a surrender of the first patent and also of a surrender of the estate if the estate be not surrendred as well as the patent the consideration is for that false and then the patent is void and to pâ—ove that the estate remains although that the patent be surrendred it appears by Fisher 12. H. 7.12 where Tenant in tail of the gift of the King loses his letters patents his heir is not at a mischief for he may have a Constat and this shall be good in evidence but he cannot plead it and this appears by the Preamble of the Statute of 13. Eliz. cap. 6. Dean and Chapter Lease land this shall be by Deed and in this case although that the lessee redeliver his deed it is no surrender of the estate but he shall not plead it without shewing a Deed of the assent of the Chapter but he shall give it in evidence and good because he had once a Dâ—ed thereof as it appears by 32. E. 3. Monstrance of Deeds and it appears by 32. H. 8. Patents Br. 97. that if the Kings Patentee lose his letters Patents he shall have a Constat and by 32. H. 8. surender Br. 51. and 35. H. 8. tail that if the King give in tail and the Donee surrender his Patent the tail thereby is not extinct so although letters Patents are necessary for pleading of the Kings Grant yet they are not requisite for the essence and continuance of the estate also it is found that the said Patents were restored to be cancelled per mandatum Domini Seymor it is not found what manner of authoritie the Lord S. gave nor found to whom the letters Patents were delivered nor at what time and peradventure they were delivered after the second Patent made and then is the second Patent false because then there was no surrender and this is one of the reasons put it Kemps case 3. Eliz. 195. The second point admitting that there is no actual surrender if notwithstanding that the Patent of 37. Eliz. be good and as to that I say if this Patent be good it is because the Queen had recited the particular estate and therefore is not to her damage or because the second Patent is a surrender in law of the first and the rather because it appears to be the intention of the Queen that the acceptance should be a surrender by these words quam quidem sursum redditionem acceptamus per praesentes and as to the first reason it seems to me that the Queen recites this as a particular estate determined and not as an estate continuing for by these words modo habens et gaudens it appears that the meaning of the Queen was that the Lord Seymor had not an estate continuing in the intent of the Queen at the time of the making of the second Patent but the Lord Chandos case in Coo. 6. fol. 55. seems to impugne me in this opinion where the King made a gift in tail and afterward by Patent reciting the former Grant and also that the Patentee had delivered up the Patent into the Chancerie to be cancelled by vertue whereof he thought himself to be seised in demeasne as of fee