the use of himself and his wife for their lives the Remainder to the use of the eldest Child of the said W. H. and the Heirs of the body of such eldest Child the Remainder over A Fine was levyed accordingly and after his wife died without issue and W. H. married another woman and by her had issue a Daughter his eldest Childe and a Sonne his younger It was a Question which of them should have the Remainder It was the opinion of the Justices That the Daughter should have the Remainder and not the Sonne for that was the intent of the Ancestour as they conceived though puero in Latine is intendable rather to an Issue Male than Female and yet they said That many Authors have taken the word indifferently to extend to both Sexes Mich. 17 18 Eliz. Andrews Case 239. Q. Imp. The Case was A Tenant in Tayle the Remainder to the Lord Mountjoy in fee of a Mannor with an Advowson appendant bargained and sold the same by Indenture not enrolled to I. S. and his Heirs rendring 42 l. rent with Clause of Distress and Nomine pene and covenanted for further assurance to levy a Fine to the Bargainee Proviso that the Bargainee grant the next Avoydance to A. for life and if it happen not void then one life to his Executors A and I. S. afterwards levyed a Fine with the render of a Rent of 42 l. to A. in tayle the remainder to I. S. in fee B. in his life did not grant the Advowson to A. and dyed the Church became void A. entred for the Condition broken It was in this Case resolved 1. That the Proviso made a Condition 2ly That the Fine levyed had not extinguished the Condition 3ly That no time being limited for the regrant the Bargainee was bound to regrant it without request at his peril during the life of the Bargainor if he were requested in the life of the Bargainor and because the Bargainor dyed the Condition was broken Fox and Colliers Case 240. Ejectione firme the Case was E. G. Bishop of York 6. Nov. 18. had made a Lease from the date of the Indenture of Lands for 21. years to the Plaintiff which Lease was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter at which time there was unexpired 4. years of an antient Lease made for 40. years Afterwards E. G. was removed to Canterbury and S. elected Bishop of York the 4. years expired the Plaintiff entred The Defendant upon a Lease made to him by S. after the 4. years ended put him out It was resolved by all the Justices and Barons in the Exchequer Chamber That the Lease made to the Plaintiff was good yet they agreed it should be void if it was not for the Confirmation 2ly They held that the Lease now in Question being to commence presently in Estoppel but not in Interest was not void by the Statute of 1 Eliz. neither within the letter nor the intent of the Statute not within the letter because it is not prejudicial to the Successor and the Statute is satisfied in the intent it not being a Lease longer than 21. years and having the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter it is now good although it was not good by the Statute of 32 H. 8. Knowles and Lines Case 241. Ejectione firme The Case was Sir Francis Englesfield was seised in the right of K his wife of the Mannor of S. whereof a Messuage and Lands in question were Copyhold demiseable for 3. lives 1 Eliz. Sir Francis Englefield went beyond Sea with license for 3. years after his Licence expired the Queen sent a Privy Seal to him commanding him upon his Allegiance to return he spretis Mandatis of the Queen continued there and adhered to the Queens Enemies This being retorned a Commission issued to seize his Lands upon which the said Mannor of S. was seized The Queen at the Suit of K. his Wife for her Releif granted the Mannor to St. John and Fetiplace the Friends of K. for her Releife quamdiu in manibus nostris fore contigerit who entred and were thereof possessed accordingly and then the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives was made After which the Defendant procured a Warrant from the Lord Treasurer to C. and F. joynt Stewards for the Queen to hold Court within all the Lands of Sir Francis Englefield and to grant Copyes according to the Custom of the Mannor C. alone executed the Grant and granted the Messuage and Lands to the Defendant's being Copyhold In the Case was two points 1. If the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives had taken away the Estate of St. John Fetiplace and reduced the Mannor again to the Queen 2ly If the Court holden by C. only being a joynt Grant of Stewardship was good Resolved 1. That the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives was made in affirmance of the Common law and did not give the Queen any new thing but added only some Circumstances to it and therefore the Grant made to St. John and Fetiplace stood good so as the Queen could not oust the Patentees and so by consequence the Grant of the Copyhold to Lines the Defendant was not good 2ly They held that the Court holden by C. only was good For it was said a Disseasor c. might hold Courts and make admittance and take surrenders and the like because he is but an Instrument of Conveyance but he could not grant Copyhold estates 242. Note by the Justices If a man be to make sufficient proof it may be made by Witnesses produced as by Jury 243. A man seised of Lands parcell Copyhold and of Lands at the Comon Law and by Licence of the Lord makes a Lease of them for 21. years Provided if the Lessor or his Wife or his Heirs or Assignes or any of them give warning to the Lessee that the Husband or Wife or their Heirs will dwell there that then the Lessee should avoid Except that the Lessor or his Heirs shall pay to the Lessee then 20 l. The Lessor and his Wife dyes and the Reversion of one part discendeth to the eldest Son and the Reversion of the other to the youngest and the youngest purchaseth the Reversion of the eldest and then the youngest gives warning to the Lessee It was the opinion of the Justices that the warning given by him was good and that the Law which hath severed the Reversion hath severed also the Condition although at the begining they were entire and so for one part as Heir and for the other part as Assignee he shall take advantage of the Cndition 244. A man makes a Lease of Land and of an House for years reserving one Rent for all and afterwards the Lessor grants the Reversion of all the Lands saving the Reversion of the House to himself Resolved that by agreement betwixt the Lessor and grantee in the Reversion in pays the Rent may be apportioned if it be according to the quantity and quality of the Land
was adjudged Murder for the Malice which he had to Herbert 208. A man made a Lease for years upon Condition if the Rent was behind the Lease to be void the Rent is behind the Lessee continued possession for 3. years after the Lessor brought debt for the Rent for all the time Quaere if it doth lye the Justices were divided in opinion Moreton and Hopkins Case 209. In a second Deliverance by A. against H. the Defendant he made Conusance as Bayliff to I. S. and M. his Wife The Case was the Plainâ—iff 17 Octob. 4. 5. Mar. by deed granted a Rent of 10 l. to B. and to E. and W. the younger Son of the said A. Habend for the life of E. to the use of E. and gave seisin of it W. and E. so seised W. dyed E. took Husband I. S. who for 5 l. Rent arrere avowed The Plaintiff said That the said I. S. Z October 7. Eliz. acknowledged that he had received 5 l. of the Plaintiff of the said Rent It was adjudged that the said receipt and acquittance of I. S. the Husband was a good barre of the Conusans Howse and the Bishop of Elys Case 210. In Debt the Plantiff declared that the predecessor of the Bishop granted to him the Office of keeping the Mansion House of D. of the Bishop for the Term of his life with the Fee of 2 d. per diem to be issuing and paid out of the profits of the said Rents and Farme of D. by the Receiver of the Bishop and also an yearly Robe which grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter the Bishop dyed the Annuity and Robe was not paid for which the Plaintiff brought his Action against the Successor Bishop who pleaded that the Plaintiff did not exercise the said Office and because D. was within the Isle of Ely where the Kings Writ did not run a Venire was to the Sheriff of Cambridge from S. next adjoyning to D. in the said â—sle of Ely who found for the Plaintiff and he had Judgment to recover the Annuity and the Arerages and the Robe and that the grant did binde the Successor Luken and Eves Case 211. In Replevin The Defendant avowed for that A. was seised of the Mannor of D. in Fee and had a Leet within the Mannor to be holden in the Feast of c. and let the Mannor to the Defendant for years And that the Defendant held the Court Leet such a Feast and that the Plaintiff was an Inhabitant within the Leet at the time and being Summoned to appear at the said Leet did not appear which being presented by the Homage he was Amerced 5 s. which was afferred and for the Amercement the Defendant did destrain The Defendent pleaded that he was not a Resient within the Leet at the time which was found against him wherefore the Defendant was adjudged to have a Return of the Cattel and his damages Stephens and Clarks Case 212. Quare Imp. King Henry 8 seised of the Mannor of D. and the Advouson Appendent presented I. S. the Mannor with the Advouson by Discent came to the Queen who granted it to the Lord Stafford and his Wife and the Heirs of the body of the Lord the Lord Stafford dyed His Wife and eldest Son granted the Mannor and Advouson to I. D. and his Wife for their lives The Incumbent dyed who during the Avoydance granted the Advouson to the Plaintiff It was Resolved That the grant of the next Avoidance to the Plaintiff during the Avoidance was void in Law Playn and Crouches Case 213. A Villein was Regardant to a Mannor the Lord of the Mannor had not seisin of the Villein nor any of his Ancestors from 1. H. 7. to this time but they had seisin of the Mannor to which the Villein was Regardant and if seisin of the Mannor was seisin of the Villein was the Question The Issue in an Assise being upon the seisin Quaere It was not Resolved It was Conceived that in favore Libertatis the Lord could not now seise the Villein No Judgment was in the Case 214. If the Husband be seised of Land in the Right of his Wife the Husband makes a gift in Tail of it rendering Rent and afterward the Husband and Wife grant the Reversion by Fine It was holden it should bar the Wife of the whole but if they had granted the Rent only then the Wife after the death of the Husband might enter into the Land 215. A man Leaseth a Mannor for years rendring Rent with a Reentry a stranger recovers in Debt against the Lessor and hath Elegit upon the Judgment Resolved he shall have the moyety of the Reversion and the moyety of the Rent in Execution and the Condition is suspended for the whole vide before 216. Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for 21 years and afterwards makes a Feoffment in Fee with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery who enters and ousts the Lessee and make Livery Adjudged It was a discontinuance And it was said That it was adjudged in the Earl of Warwicks Case A man made a Lease for life and afterwards made a Feoffment in Fee and a Letter of Attorney to make Liver who ousted the Lessee and made Livery That it was a good Feoffment and if the Lessee for life reentred the Reversion remainder in the Feoffee 217. A maid Servant conspires with her Lover to rob her Mistrisse the Man comes in the night the Maid hides him and after the Man kills the Mistresse Adjudged Murder in the Man and Petty Treason in the Maid Servant Symonds Case 218 A. 24. H. 8. Covenants with I. S. that all persons who were Feoffees of Certain of his Land should be seised thereof to the use of the said A. for life and after his decease to the use of W. his Son and M. S. and the Heirs of their bodies begotten and for want of such Issue the remainder to the Right Heir of A. and after he makes a Feoffment to those uses W. and M. S. intermary A. dyeth After 27. H. 8. the Husband aliens the whole and dyeth his Wife enters into the whole Adjudged her entry into the whole was not Lawfull but only for a moyety and it was agreed that several moyeties may be of an Estate tail aswell as of a Fee simple between Husband and Wife 219. A man made a Feoffment to the use of a Woman for â—â—fe who was a Feme sole at the time the remainder to the right Heirs of their two bodies the remainder to his right Heirs in Fee after they intermarried and the Husband having Tenants at Will of the Lands Devised that the Wife should have the Reversion in Fee so as she pay his debts and Legacies and performe his Will and by his Will deviseth his Tenant should have the Tenements for life and dyeth the Wife takes another Husband who ousts the Tenants at Will It was Resolved the same was no forfeitute of her remainder But if the Will
of B. was behind for which the grantees destrained by their Bayliffs In this Case it was Resolved 1. That this demise and Lease was joynt and entire and so was the Condition of it notwithstanding the several Reservations of the Rents 2. That the grantee of parcell of the Reversion could not take advantage of the Condition but that the Condition as to the grantee was determined 3. That the bargainee was a sufficient Assigne within the Statute to take advantage of the Condition by the Statute of 27. H. 8. of uses which gives Cestuy que use the possession and the Estate of the Feoffees and all the advantages which the Feoffes might have and they agreed the Condition to be determined upon this difference viz. When it is entire one cannot divide it by his own act but by act of Law in may be divided and apportioned and so it was in this Case Hunks and Alboroughs Case 232. A man made his Will and gave divers Legacies and in the end of it he gave all the rest of his goods to his Wife who he made his Executor to pay his debts she took Husband who made the Defendant his Executor and dyed against whom the Wife Executrix brought Detinue of the goods of her first Husband and adjuged maintainable because she took the goods not as Legatee but as Executrix Harwell and Lucas Case 233. A. seised the Mannor of K. leased 6. acres parcel of it to I. S. for 21. years without any Remainder and after lets the 6. Acres to I. D. for 26. years to begin after the expiration of the first Lease rendring rent and afterwards made a Feoffment of the Mannor and all his Lands to the use of the Feoffees their Heirs upon Condition if they did not pay 10000 l. within 15. dayes then it should be to the use of himself and his wife the Reversion to their second Son in tayle with divers Remaâ—nders over the Remainder to his right Heirs Livery was made of the Land in possession and not in the 6. Acres the Money was not paid afterwards the first Lessee for years attorned the Husband and wife dyed the first Lease ended the second Lessee dyed his Wife married the Defendant The Son of A. distreyned for the Rent It was adjudged in this Case That although the reversion of the 6. Acres did not passe by the Livery without attornment yet the attornment of the first Lessee was sufficient and although the use to the Feoffees and their Heirs was determined before the attornment yet the attornment was good to passe the Reversion to the last contingent use and so the Title of the Sonne of A. to the Rent was good Cranmers Case 234. King Henry 8. made a Lease of Land for 21. years the Reversion came to E. 6. who Anno primo of his reign granted the same to Cranmer Bishop of Canterbury He 6 E 6. granted the Reversion to D. and C. to the use of the Bishop for life the Remainder for 20. years to the use of the Executors of the Bishop the Remainder in tayle to the Grantor the Remainder to his right Heirs The Bishop in time of Queen Mary was attainted of Treason and all his Lands and Chattels given to the Queen by Act of Parliament The Queen was possessed of the Term for 20. years and granted the same to I. S. It was adjudged That the term for years in remainder was never in the Bishop to forfeit but it was only an authority to nominate Executors in whom the Term should vest by purchase and because by reason of his Attainder he could not make Executors the Term for 20. years did never rise and so the Grant of it by the Queen Mary to I. S. not good See Dyer 310. contr Plastow and Batchâ—llors Case 235. Aâ—man brought a Formedon in Discender and pending it he brought a Writ of Estrepment which he delivered to the Defendant who notwithstanding the Writ afterwards committed Waste It was adjudged the Plaintiff should recover his Dammages and Costs Manwoods Case 236. Wast was brought and assigned in digging of Clay and selling of it and in plowing of Meadow and cutting down of 100. Oaks The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty as to all but cutting down of 6. Oaks which grew in a Hedge row which he said were Pollards not sufficient for building upon which it was demarred and adjudged for the Plaintiff Calthrops Case 237. Ejectione formae The Case was A. seised in Fee 26 H. 8. in consideration of Marriage between E. his Brother and F. the Daughter of W. and 200 l. of Money paid by W. covenanted to execute an Estate of the Mannor of N. to the uses following viz. of Lands of the value of 20 l. to the use of the said E. and F. for their lives and after carnal Copulation to the use of the Issues of their Bodyes with remainder over to E. and the Heirs of his Bodye the remainder to the right Heirs of A. and of the residue to the use of A. for life the remainder to E. F. for their lives and after carnal Copulation the remainder as before and afterwards he executed the estate by Fine and Recovery to the said uses The Marriage did not take effect but E. by another Wife had Issue 3. Daughters A. took a Wife and had Issue by her and dyed E. and F. dyed C. conveyed the Mannor to D. upon whom the eldest Daughter of E. entred and made a Lease of her part In this case It was resolved 1. That the use for the life of E. and F. did well rise although the marriage took no effect the use being declared upon an Estate executed which needs not any consideration but otherwise if it had been upon a Covenant to stand seâ—sed upon consideration of Marriage and Money for there without Marriage no use would rise although the Money was paid 2ly That the Election should go to him who was to take the use 3ly That the limitation was not void for the incertainty 4ly That in this Case although the Cestuy que use did not make the Election during his life yet he in the Remainder might after his death 5ly The Court doubted whether the Remainder did take effect because the Marriage did not take effect and they conceived it was not the intent of the Parties that should be advanced with so much Land if the Marriage did not take effect The matter was afterwards ended by Arbitrament Lane and Coopers Case 238. The Case was The Mannor of H. to make a Joynture was conveyed by a Deed in Latine to himself and his VVife for the Term of their lives the Reversion Seniori puero de corpore ipsius W. H. Haered de corpore suo legitimo procreato the Remainder to the general tayl to the Husband the Remainder to I. S. in fee thereof Afterwards by an Indenture between him and I. S. in English he covenanted that he and his wife should levy a Fine to B. and C. to
of the Justices that for want of Certainty no use is created by the said Covenant and Consideration but the same amounts to a Covenant and no more and the words Discend come and remain cannot create an Use but to the Heir apparant only 254. In Trespas the Case was The Custom of a Mannor was Quod quilibet tenens per Copiam poterit dimittere terras suas for life in Fee or alâ—ter and that a Woman Cooperta viro poterit devise her Copyhold Lands to any other or to her Husband by the assent of the Husband The Court held that the custome was not unreasonable but because it was poterit devisorre where it should be usi sunt devisorre and also because it appeared that the Plaintiff was Tenant in Common with the Defendant It was adjudged against the Plaintiff 255. A seised in Fee of a Messuage and of divers Lands time out of minde occupied with it let parcel of the Lands to a stranger for years and afterwards made his Will in this manner viz. I will and bequeath to my Wife my Messuage with all the Lands thereunto belonging in the occupation of the Lessee and after the decease of my Wife I Will that it with all the rest of my Lands shall remain to my Younger Son It was the opinion of the Justices that the Wife should not have the whole but only that which was Leased before and therefore that the remainder thereof could not be in the Younger Son till after the death of the Wife and that till the death of the Wife the Eldest Son Heir at Law should enjoy it 256. A man bound himself in an Obligation that he and his Wife would levy a Fine upon reasonable request of the Obligee he made the Request the Wife being very sick so as she could not travail Resolved that her sicknesse did save the Obligation from being forfeited 257. A Copyholder in Fee by License of the Lord made a Lease for years Rendring Rent and having Issue a Son and a Daughter by one Woman and a Daughter by another dyed his Son within age who before any Rent incurred or any admittance dyed Adjudged The Eldest Daugter should have the Land and that the discent of the Reversion is possessio fratris quae facit sororem esse haeredem Kenrick and Burges Case 258. A Lease in Reversion for years was granted to I. S. who dyed Intestate his Wife assigned it to B. and afterwards took Letters of Adminâ—stâ—ation and made an Assignment of it to the Plaintiff Resolved that the last Assignee should have it Trinit 25. Eliz. in Exchequer The Queen Her Almoner and Coxeheads Case 259. The Case was I. S. Anno 9. of the Queen took the Office of Bayliff of the Hundred of A. and 11. Eliz. became indebted to the Queen by Obligation and 13. Elz. he being seised of Land Covenanted with C. in Consideration of Mariage with his daughter to stand seised to the use of himself for life and after to the use of C. and the Daughter in Tail and afterwards he took the Office of Woodwardship of the Mannor of S. and became indebted for that also and then granted a Rent Chaâ—ge for years out of the Land and then C. and I. S. joyned in a Fine to the use of the said I. S. for life the remainder to C. and afterwards I. S. having purchased the Rent and possâ—ssâ—d of goods and Chattells because Felo de so for which his Lands and goods were seized It was the opinion of the Justices the Almonor had no title to his goods because the Patent did not extend to the goods of a Felo de se against the Queen for her debt because it wanted the Words Licet tanget nos and that the Lands and goods of the said I. S. were chargeable as well for the debts which were due by the Obligation as also upon the accompt aswell before the Conveyance as after Wherefore C. paid the Queen her debts and had the Lands cleered Newtons and Barnardines Case 260. A. had Issue 3. Sons F. R. and G. F. dyed his Wife with Child The Father A. devised in this manner viz. To the Child my Son F. his Wife now goeth with 28 l. yearly to be paid to the use of the Child for 20 years And if my Son R. dyeth before he hath Issue of his body so as my Lands discend to G. before he come of the age of 21. years then my Executors shall occupy it till G. be of the age of 21. years the Father dyeth R. enters a Daughter is born who enters and lets the Land to the Defendant rendering Rent It was adjudged That R. in this Case had an estate Tail by Implication of the words of the Will and that the entry of R. was a Lawfull eviction of the Terme and destroyed the Rent Hâ—dons Case 261. It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case An Abbot made a Lease for 8. years of Lands of the possession of the Abby a Copyhold estate being in esse at the time that it was an estate in being as did make the Lease for years void by the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries The Case of the Skinners of London 262. In Intrusion the Case was A. a Cittizen and Freeman of London seised of divers Messuages and Tenements of the yearly value and profit of 30 l. 6 s. 8 d. by his Will before the Statute of 1 E. 6. devised the same to the Corporation of Skinners and that 42 s. 8 d. thereof should be imployed upon an Obit and 12. Marks yearly thereof upon the Priest and the Residue to be imployed upon poor men of the Corporation decayed by misfortune who inhabited the said Messuages and Tenements and appointed the said poor men to pray for his soul and further with the profits to repair the Messuages and Tenements and after the Statute of 1 E. 6. of Chauntries was made It was the opinion of the Court 1. That Lay Corporations are Excepted out of the Statute for their Lands which they have to increase their Treasure for the good of the Corporation but not for Lands which they have to imploy to superstitious uses 2. Resolved that all the money which was given for the Obit and the finding of the Priest was a superstitious use and given to the King by the Statute but that which was given for the maintenance of the poor men and although it was appointed them to pray for his soul which was a precept suteable for that time and which was given for the Reparations of the Messuages c. was not given to the Crown by the said Statute and Turnors Case was vouched to be adjudged Where Land was given to the intent that his Feoffees should keep an Obit with so much of the profits of it as they should think fit in their discretions that the Land thereby was not given to the Crown but so much of the yearly Rent as the Feoffees imployed to that purpose
the Rent that the Lessor should not enter which being immediately sworn and the Records of the Outlawries against him produced the Justices dismissed the Lessee and that the Lessor should enter upon him Broughtons Case 269. Broughton a Justice of the Peace brought an Action upon the Case against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield because he wrote a Letter to the Earl of Leycester one of the Privy Council wherein he wrote That the Plaintiff was a Vermin in the Common wealth a false and corâ—upt man an Hypocrite in the Church of God a Dissembler He hath used many corrupt practises to work his VVill He procured my Register to be indicted of Extortion He willingly and wilfully hath boulstred out one Greenwood a Convict man of many offences and knowing him to be an Evil man maintaineth him against me without Law Conscience or Honesty Upon Not Guilty it was found for the Plaintiff and 300 l. Dammages It was objected the Action did not lye not being an overt Act but words written in a Letter Resolved the Act on did well lye being writ to a Stranger but otherwise if it had been written to the Party himself and it was also resolved That although but some of the words will bear Action yet the Dammages are well assessed because they are put in to increase the Dammages In this Case it was said if a slanderous Bill be exhibited in the Star Chamber against one the Action doth not lye because it is a Court of Justice and hath Jurisdiction to redress things but to exhibite a slanderous Bill into a Court waich hath not power to redress the thing is scandalous and an Action will lye for it Griffith and Clarks Case 170. A Writ of Disceit by the Lord of the Mannnor upon a Fine levyed of the Land within antient Demeasne The Defendants pleaded that the Lord of the Mannor in the time of E. 2. did release to one who was Tenant of the same Land de omnibus servitiis consuetudinibus salvis servitiis infrascriptis viz. pro una virgat terrae 2 s. rent suit of Court and Releife It was resolved The Custome of the Antient Demesne was extinct by the Release but the Rent Releife and suit of Court remained as parcel of the Seignory by the saving Ivors Keales Case 271. A. seised of Lands in Fee borrowed 20 l. of B. and they are agreed to assure Lands for it They went to the Land and A. there said to B. I am endebted to you 20 l. If I do not pay you at Michaelmas then I bargain and sell this Land to you and if I do pay you I am to have my Land again B. continued upon the Land a little space the Monyes was not paid at Michaelmas Adjudged the Land passed to B. upon a Condition subsequent for payment of the Mony by B. Mildmay and Standiskes Case 272. Action upon the Case for Slandering his Title In which the Defendant justified the Case was A. seised of Lands in fee had Issue 3. Daughters V. G. O. V. dyed without Issue The Father for love and affection and the better maintenance of G. and O. covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for life the remainder to G. in tale of one Moyety the remainder to O. of the Moyety in Tail Provided it shall be Lawfull for the said A. for the payment of his Debts and Legacies and better preferment of his Servants and other good Considerations to devise the said Lands by his Last VVill and dispose of the same for lives or years and afterwards he devised the said Lands to F. and the said O. his wife for 1000. years and dyed wherefore the Defendant published the said Lands were assured for 1000 years upon which it was demurred It was said that the said V. might at any time determine any of the said uses and induce other Estates at his pleasure and the payment of his Debts and Legacyes with good considerations for the Leases But it was resolved for the Plaintiff because the Proviso was against the Law to enduce an Estate to a Stranger by way of Lease upon Covenant of Considerations to raise uses but such power might be good upon an Estate executed Or a Proviso good which did extend to determine the Estate but not to give another Estate to Lessees Veere and fâ—ofryes Case 273. It was Resolved That if the Metropolitan grant Administration where the Intestate had not bona notabilia indivers diocesses it is voidable only but not void But if a Bishop of a Diocesse grants Administration which belongs to the Metropolitan the same is void Russells Case â—74 Trover and Conversion of goods by the Executors of R. against Husband and Wife of the goods of the Testator which came to the hands of the Wife dum sola fuit The Defendant pleaded a Release of the Plaintiff after the death of the Testator and after the Trover and Conversion The Plaintiff said he was then within age It was adjudged that because there was no Consideration alledged for the Release it should not binde the Executor because it should be a Devastavit in him Twineos Case 275. Grandfather and Grandmother Tenants in special Tail before the Statute of 27 H. 8. the remainder to the right Heirs of the Grandfather The Father by deed enrolled Fine and Proclamation conveyed the Lands to the Queen and her Heirs and Successors in the life time of the Grandmother It was Resolved that by the Statute of 32 H. 8. by the Fine and Proclamation the Issue in Tail was Barred Vâ—ncent and Lees Case 276. It was adjudged in this Case That when a man devised that his Sons in Law should sell the Reversion of his Lands without naming their particular names and that some of them dyed That the Survivors could not sell the Land Sir Peter Carewes Case 277. It was Resolved in this Case That the Lord of a Mannor for life or a particular Tenant having interest in the Mannor might grant Copies in Reversion although they were not executed in the life of the grantor Moris and Franklyns Case 278. The Statute of 27 H. 8. which began 4. Feb. Anno 27. H. 8. and ended 14. April gave Monasteries of Petty value to the King The Abby of T. being of Petty value viz. 100 Marks per Ann. was mean between the 1. day and the last day Surrendred to the King It was holden the King should be in by the Statute and not by the Surrender Thorrowgood and Tarvors Case 279. In Trespasse The Defendent pleaded in bar the Release of the Plaintiff of all his right in the Land The truth was the Plaintiff was a man unlearned and the Release was read unto him only as a Release of the Arrerages of an Annuity It was the opinion of the Justices that he might plead Non est factum to it and it should nor bar him Dorrell and Thyns Case 280. Error was assigned in a Common Recovery That no Warrant of Attorny was
was attainted of Treason The first Question was If the Uses limited to I. S. and others were good or not Resolved they were void because they wanted a good consideration but if he had made them Executors and chargeable to the payment of his debts then the same had been good Second point If the use limited to William Pagett should begin presently after the death of the Lord Pagett or should expect untill the 24. years were incurred after the death of the Lord Pagett or not at all Resolved That the use should be in William Pagett presently before the 24. years were expired Wiseman and Barnards Case 328. The case was Tenant in tail for the advancement of his Blood Name and Issue covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself in tail the remainder to the Plaintiff in tail the remainder to the Queen in see and died his issue entred and suffered a common Recovery and died without issue he in the remainder entred Resolved That the consideration that the Land should continue in his Name and Blood was no consideration to raise the use to the Queen 2. Resolved that he in the Remainder was barred by the common Recoverie and the Remainder not preserved by the Statute of 34. H. 8. because it was not of the Provision of the Queen but of a common person Chenyes Case 329. A seized of Lands made a Lease for years thereof to B. and C. upon confidence for the preferment of the wife of A. and afterwards he made a Feoffment to B. and others to certaine uses of the same Lands the point was If the Lease for years were extinguished by the Feoffment Resolved That the Terme was not extinct but was saved by the Proviso in the Statute of 27. H. 8. of uses which preserved all Interest which the Feoffees had in the Lands to their own uses and here B. had the Term to his own use and therefore not extinguished Pimbs Case 330. A committed Treason 18. Eliz. and was attainted 26. Eliz. In the interim he was Conusee of a Fine levied by I. S. which fine was to the use of the said I. S. and his wife Afterwards I. S. and his wife bargained and sold the Land for money to Pimb It was conceived that the Land was in the Queen upon the discovery of the Treason and Attainder which intitles the Queen to all the Lands which Traitors had at the time of the Treason or after so as the estate of I. S. and his wife was thereby destroyed by the Relation of the Attainder Wherefore Pimb sued to the Queen and she granted him the Land by her Letters Patent Beckwiths Case 331. Husband and Wife seized of Lands in the right of the Wife levied a Fine The husband detained the uses solie one way and the Wife detained the uses upon the Fine another way It was resolved that both the Declaration of the uses were void and so by consequence the uses upon the Fine should be to the use of the Wâ—te and her Heirs The Lord Mountjoys Case 332. The Case was this A Mannor which did consist of Free Rents of 7. l. copyhold Rents of 3. l. and of domaines which had used to be devised for several Rents and Farmes to which Mannor an Acre of waste parcel of the Mannor of the yearly value of 12. d. Heriotts Court Baron Leet and perquisits of Court which never were devised for Life years or otherwise did appertain and were incident was by a private Act of Parliament given to A. and B. in tail with diverse remainders over and the Donees were restrained Quod non facerent aliquid ad Nocumentum or disinheritance of the Tenant in tail or them in remainder and that they should have power to make a Lease for Life Years or at Will rendring the true and ancient Rent of the said Tenements to be demised and that all other acts should be void Tenant in tail accepted of a fine from a stranger of the Mannor by which they granted and rendred the Mannor for 300. years rendring rent yearly amounting to the free Rents Copy rents and Farme Rents and 18. d. more and 12. d. for the waste to be paid at two Feasts whereas the ancient Rent was paid at four Feasts Tenant in tail died and if the Lease for 300. years was to be avoided by the clause of Restraint was the Question It was Resolved 1. That although by the purview of the Act That all Estates restrained by the Act should be void yet the same should not avoid the Lease as to the Tenant in tail himself but it should be avoided by the Issues in tail 2. Resolved That in respect the Acre of waste was never devised before that the Rent which is entire reserved out of the whole cannot be said the true and antient Rent 3. Resolved That the reservation of the Rent at two Feasts where the antient Rent was payable at four Feasts made the Grant and Render void for that was to the hurt of the Issues in tail for it was more beneficial to have the Rent at four Feasts then at two Feasts and all beneficial Qualities of the Rent ought to be observed and for these causes and others the Lease for years was to be avoided by the Issue in tail Knights Case 333. The Case was a Prior seised of divers houses with the consent of his Covent made a lease of them for years rendring rent of 5. l. 10. s. 11. d. at four usual Feasts upon condition that if the Rent was behind in part or in all at any of the said Feasts he and his Successors to reenter The Priory came to the King by surrender the King by his Letters Pattents under the Great Seal granted one of the houses to the Lessee and another in Fee and afterwards it was found by Commission under the Exchequer Seal that parcel of the said Rent was behind at one of the said Feasts the King before the Commission returned granted the residue of the houses to I. S. in Fee It was resolved in this case amongst other things That although without Office found the Lease was not void and although the Office was not returned before the date of the Letters Pattents made to I. S. yet forasmuch as the Office was found before the Grant and afterwards it was returned of Record that the grant was good and that in this case of Reentry without seisure the Lease was void Owens Case 334. Upon a Fine levyed the Lands were rendred to A. and to his wife and to the Heirs of the body of A. A. suffered a Recovery with Voucher in the life of his wife and afterwards died the wife died It was resolved in this case that the Recovery suffered by the Husband only did not bind him who was in the Remainder for betwixt husband and wife there are no moyeties and the joynt estate was not severed by the Recovery against the Husband only and the husband was not the only Tenant to the
was deceived in her grant 2ly That the Patent a die Consectionis for life was void 3. Resolved That the Lessee for years could not be an Occupant against the Queen Banks and Whetstones Case 487. A Recovery and Judgment was in a base Court in a Plaint in detinue of 4 l. of mony the Judgment was Reversed because that Action nor a Replevin doth not lye of money Hawle and Vaughans Case 488. In a Writ of Entry in the Quibus brought in Wales the Defendant pleaded Non disseissivit pendant which plea the general pardon 35 Eliz. was made by which all Fines Amercements and Contracts were produced It was Objected the Defendant ought to have been Amerced because the general pardon did not discharge the Amercement Resolved the Original Cause of the Amercement was the Tort and contempt that he did not render the Land to the demandant and the Original Cause being pardoned the Amercement which is the Consequent of it is pardoned Oland and Burdwicks Case 489. A Woman who had her Widdowes estate of Copyhold Land sowed the Land and before severance took Husband The Lord took the Emblements and adjudged Lawfull because the estate of the Woman determined by her own Act. Short Tucker and others Case 490. In Replevin the Defendants avowed as Bayliffs of the Queen for an Amercement and then one of them dyed Adjudged the sute should not abate Harbin and Bartons Case 491. Two Joynt tenants in Fee one made a Lease for years to begin after his decease and dyed Resolved it was a good Lease against the survivor Vide Sharpner and Hardenhams Case adjudged in the Dutchy Chamber accordingly Gramminham and Ewres Case 492. The Condition of an Obligation was whereas the Obligee is bound in certain Obligations the Obligor is to deliver them to the Obligee before Mich. or else if the Obligor seal an acquittance to the Obligee such as the Councel of the Oblige shall devise then the Obligation to be void Resolved that the first part of the Condition was a Condition the 2d part of it gave an Election to the Obligor but if there be not any such devise of Acquitance yet the Obligor is to performe the first part if there be such devise of an Acquittance the Obligor hath his election but if the Councel devise no Acquittance it is no discharge of the whole Condition Castleman and Hobbs Case 493. Words viz. Thou hast stolen half an Acre of Corn innuendo Corne severed adjudged the words not actionable But if he had said he had stolen so many Loads or Bushels there the innuendo shall be intended Corn severed Wilson and Patemans Case 494. The next of blood sued to repeal Letters of Administration granted to a stranger pendant which the stranger sold the goods and afterwards the Administration was Repealed and granted to the Plaintiff It was Resolved that in this Action the Defendant was not Chargeable though he Converted the goods The Action was Trover and Conversion and the fale good for any thing appeareth in the Case Watsons Case 495. Debt against Executor who pleaded fully administred the case was the Wife of the Defendant was made Executrix and she by fraud to deceive the Creditors made a gift of the goods before her mariage with the Defendant and yet she kept them and took Husband the Defendant and dyed and the Husband had in his hands so much of the goods as were sufficient to pay the Creditors It was adjudged against the Defendant because he had confessed himself Executor by his plea of fully Administred and the property of the goods did not passe from the Wife by the grant the same being by fraud Richardson and Yardleys Case 496. A man devised Lands to his Wife for life and after to his Son and if he shall dye without Issue to the Child which his Wife goeth with she being great with Child and its issues in Tail And if my Wife dye and my Children without Issue of my Children living then Land to remain to I. S. and his Wife and after their death to the their Children The point was if I. S. had an estate Tail or an estate for life the remainder in Tail to his Children The Court was divided in opinion but the better opinion seemed to be that he had an estate Tail Quaere Reynolds and Claytons Case 497. Debt upon Obligation of 60 l. The Case was it was agreed between the Plaintiff and Defendant 14 December that the Plaintiff should lend the Defendant 30 l. to be repayed the first of June following and that the Plaintiff should have 3 l. for the forbearance if the Plaintiffs Son should be then living and if he died then to repay but 26. l. of the principal money It was Resolved that it was an Usurious contract within the Statute of 13. Eliz. of Vsury Roos and Awdwicks Case 498. In Ejectione firme the case was A. seised of Lands made a Lease to I. S. Habendum to him and his Assignes for his own Life and for the lives of two of his Sons the Lessee made a Lease at Will and died he in the Reversion entred upon the Tenants at Will Resolved It was a good Lease for three Lives against the Lessor and if the Lessee made an Assignment of it it shall be good for the three Lives but if he do not the Occupant shall have it for the two Lives after the death of the Lessee himself Wrights Case 499. Quare Impedit It was Resolved in this Case That if a Church become void by Cession viz. by making the Incumbent Bishop that the Queen shall have the Presentation and not the Patron Hide and the Dean and Canons of Windsors Case 500. Covenant The case was Lessee for years covenanted Reparare sustentare domus c. ad omnia tempora necessaria durante Termino and did not covenant for him and Assignes Upon Issue joyned it was found for the Plaintiff Error brought because the Issue is non permisit essem de casu and the Covenant is Reparare The Court held it no Error because non reparare is all one with permittere esse in decasu 2. It was Resolved that the Covenant did lie against the Assignee though Assignees were not named in it because it was a Covenant inherent to the Land Marshall and Vincents Case 501. In a Scire facias against the Bail he pleaded that the Plaintiff had arrested the party who was condemned in Execution in the Staâ—nary Court so as he could not render his Body Adjudged no Plea because he might remove his Body with a Corpus cum causa and so bring him into this Court. Sawyer and Hardys Case 502. A Lease was made to a Widdow for 40. years upon this Condition Si tamdiu vixerit vidna inhabitaret supra praemissa She died within the Term being a Widdow Adjudged the Term was not determined but should go to her Executors Otherwise if the Lease is made for 40. years if she shall so
one saith he hath Title or Interest to anothers Land an action doth not lye although he hath no Title but when he saith that another hath Title he cannot salve the same by applying the same to himself for his Justification Shaw and Thompsons Case 536. A Woman recovered Dower of a Copyhold within the Mannor and 40 l. damages because her Husband dyed seised and she brought Debt for the damages in B. R. adjudged it did not lye because the Court Baron could not hold plea not award Execution of 40 l. damages although the damages were there well assessed Huntbage and Shepheards Case 537. The Issue in an Ejectione firme was if Jemet the Wife of the Defendant was alive at the time The Jury found Julian the Wife of the Defendant was alive It was the opinnion of the Justices they cannot be intended one person without finding that by the Custome of the Country Weomen baptized by the name of Julian had been called Jemet Stile and Buts Case 538. Trespas for carrying away Clay the Defendant Justified by a Prescription as a Tenant of the Mannor but because the Clay was digged by another and not by the Tenant the Justification was ruled not to be good Doggerell and Pokâ—s Case 539. Covenant upon an Apprentiship the Defendant pleaded a By-law in London where he was Apprentice by the Common Councell That if any Freeman takes to Apprentice the Son of an Alien the Bonds and Covenants should be void It was adjudged no plea for that the Common Councel cannot make the Bonds and Covenants void but may Impose a Fine upon the Master for taking such an Apprentice Bab and Clerks Case 540. False Imprisonment the Defendat Justified That the Borough of St. Albans had authority by Charter to make By-lawes and they made a By-law That if any Burgesses give opprobrious words to the Major he should be Imprisoned of the Major at his pleasure and that he being Major sent an Officer to the Defendant being a Burgesse to come to the Common Hall for the affairs of the Town and he sent him this Answer Let the Major come to me if he will for I will not come to him Adjudged the Justification was not good that the By-law was not Lawfull and that the words were not opprobrious words Reynold and Purchowes Case 541. Assumpsit where the Plaintiff had recovered 4 l. against the Defendant in Consideration the Plaintiff had given him 3 l. he promised to acknowledge satisfaction and had not done it It was said it was no Consideration to pay that to him which is due The Court held the Consideration good because speedy payment will excuse and prevent travail and expense of Suit Gregory and Blasfields Case 542. Error of a Judgment in Ludlow upon the Statute of 4 and 5 Mar. for weaving of wollen Cloathes It was assigned that the Statute of 5 Eliz. had abrogated that Statute The Court said the Statute of 5 Eliz. had not abrogated it but encreased the penalty But because the Suit was there by Bill or plaint but ought not to be but by Writ or Information the Judgment there was Erroneous 543. The Custome of a Mannor was layed to be That if a Copyholder hath 2. Sons and a Wife and dyes and the eldest Son hath Issue and dyeth in the life of the Wife the younger Son shall have the Land The Issue being upon the Custome The Jury found the Custome That the younger Son shall have the Land unlesse the eldest was admitted in his life and paid the Lords Fine The Court held the verdict to be insufficient to prove the Issue Walter and Dawes Case 544. Assumpsit upon a promise to pay 20 l. yearly for 10. years to the Testator of the Plaintiff in consideration the Testator had granted him the Office of the Clerk of the Fines in the Counties of B. C. and Glamorgan The Defendant pleaded he did not exercise the said Office and the Venire was awarded in the County of Worcester It was adjudged against the Plaintiff because there they cannot take Notice of the Issue Necton and the Wardens of Wexchandlers Case 545. The Plaintiff sued a Prohibition against the Defendant upon Libell exhibited by them for a Legacy given to them by the Testator of the Plaintiff The Plaintiff surmised that there were divers Obligations for monies depending and Suits But in Conclusion the Defendants had a Consultation upon security to repay the Legacies to be there recovered by them if any things were Recovered by the Excecutors upon the Obligations Vide this case more largely Reported in Cr. 3. part 467. Wright and Major and Commonalty of Wickhams Case 546. Error was brought to reverse a Fine viz. that the Ancestor dyed mean between the Teste and the Return of the Writ of Covenant The Defendant pleaded that after the death of the Father the Plaintiff entred into parcell of the Land and made a Feoffment It was the opinion of the Court that he was barred by his entry and Feoffment of part upon the difference If a man hath an Action to Land if he suspend or extinguish it in part it is extinct in the whole but if he hath right to Land he may Release or suspend it in part and remain good for the Residue and upon this point the Judgment was reversed Welshes Case 547. Note It is the same case with the case of Attonwood Reported at Large in Cook 1. p. of his Reports upon the points there more largely debated and adjudged and therefore I have forborn here to abridge it I shall mention this case put by Pirriam Justice viz. If Tenant in tail be the remainder in tail the remainder to the Queen and Tenant in tail commits Treason and the Queen makes a Lease and the Tenant in tail dyeth without Issue and afterwards he in the Remainder dyeth without Issue that this Lease shall continue good upon the Reversion Lord Darcies Case 548. Quo Warranto for using a liberty to be exempt of Purveyance The Defendant pleaded that King Edward 4 granted to the Dean and Cannons of St. Pauls and their successors the said liberty within all their Lands and averres that they were seised of the Land in which at the time of the Grant and that afterwards the said Lands came to Edw. 6. who granted the same to his Grandfather and his Heirs with a Clause de tanta talia consimilia libertates c. quae quot qualia quanta the Dean and Canons or their predecessors ever had by reason of any Charter Grant of any of the Progenitors of the said King with a general non obstante aliquo Statuto c. It was Replyed that 27 H. 8. it was enacted by Parliament that the Kings Purveyors should execute their Commission in all places aswell within Liberties as without any Charter c. notwithstanding The Court was of opinion for the Queen because at the time of the Grant of tot tanta talia libertates the
have a Writ of Disceit after a Fine levyed and the Kings Silver paid 22. If one comes to a Justice of Peace and complains that I. S. is a Felon and hath stolen certain goods and the Justice commands the party who complaines to be at the next Sessions and prefer a Bill of Indictment against the Felon and give Evidence against him who doth accordingly Adjudged That neither he nor the Justice shall be punished in Conspiracy although I. S. the Felon be acquitted 23. A man made a Lease for 40. years by Deed and in the Deed Covenanted and granted to the Lessee that he might take Convenient Housebote Firebote c. in his whole Wood called S. within the Parish of S. which Wood was other Lands and not parcel of the Land Leased Resolved the grant was good and the Lessee should have it during the Term and his Executors shall take the same as his Assignes and the grant shall not restrain him but that he shall have Housebote Firebote also in the Lands Leased to him 24. A man seised of a Mannor parcell in Demesne and parcell in service deviseth to his Wife for life all the Demesne Lands and all the services and chief Rents for 15. years and deviseth the whole Mannor to another after the death of the Wife Resolved That the Deviser should not take any effect for any part of the Mannor till after the death of the Wife and that the Heir of the devisor after the 15. years spent and during the life of the Wife should have the services and cheif Rents 25. Tenent in Dower makes a Lease for years rendring Rent and takes Husband the Rent is behind the Husband dyes Adjudged his Executos shall have the Rent 26. A man destrains for 10 l. Rents due at Mick Cattel which were not of the value of 40 s. and afterwards destrains for the Residue Adjudged he cannot avow for the distresse is not good and it was his folly so to distrain But if a man be behind of hiâ— Rent at several dayes and he take a distresse for one day at one time anâ— for another day at another time it is good 27. Resolved That a Custome That a Lessee for years may hold the Land for half a year after his Term ended is no gâ—oâ— Custome But the Lord of a Copyhold may by Custome Lease thâ— same for life and 40. years after and it is good 28. Upon an Extent the Sheriff returned that he hath extended a Tenement at 20 s. paid but doth not make mention of any House Land nor pasture which should make the Tenement Adjudged the nor Extent was void for the incertainty 29. If a man be Robbed and afterwards for mony he agreeâ— with the Felon that he will not give evidence against him for which the Felon Escapes It was doubted whether he was accessary to the Felon But it was agreed That if after the Robbery hâ— pursue the Felon and take his goods of which he was Robbed and so suffer the Felon to escape the same is a Concealment of the Felony but he is not Accessary to it 30. A Women Tenent in Tail makes a Lease for years to her Husband and dyes The Husband being Tenent by the Curtesie surrenders to the Issue Adjudged the Issue shall avoid the Lease 31. A man says I will you shall have a Lease for 21. years of my Land in D. paying 10 s. Rent make a Lease in Writing and I will seal it Adjudged It is a good Lease in years by paroll though no Writings be made of it 32. Land was let to I. S. Habend to him for life and for the lives of I. his Wife and his Son Quaere What estate I. S. shall have and if there shall be an Occupancy in the Case It was not Resolved 33. If my keeper of my Park will not serve a Warrant which I send him nor suffer it to be served Resolved it is no forfeiture of his Office but only a Disobedience and a Misfeasance which is not a forfeiture But cutting down of Trees is a forfeiture of his Office 34. A man made a Lease for years the Leasor sold the Trees growing upon the Lands the vendor cut them down The Cattel of the Lessee which were in the Close destroyed the springs Resolved That the Leaser could not take the Trees growing upon the Land and it was a wrong in him to cut them down and it is not reason that he should by his own wrong should compel the Lessee to enclose the Lands wherefore Adjudged it was no Wast 35. In a Replevin the Plantiff being Lessee for years prayd in aid of his Leasor and upon Issue joyned upon a false verdict it was found for the Avowant The Plantiff and the prayee in aid joyned in Attaint and pendent the Attaint the prayee in aid which was his Lessor dyed Resolved That the Writ should abate for the prayee is dead who ought to recover the Reversion by the Attaint and his Heir should be at great mischief If the Attaint be found against the then Plaintiff who then should louse his Reversion 36. Resolved by the Court That if an Obligation or a grant be raised after the ensealing of it it is void but it is otherwise of an Indenture if it agreeth in words with the other Indenture and it was agreed If a man be bounden in an Obligation which is rased and the Obligation is endorsed with a Condition to perform the Covenants in an Indenture and the Indenture expresserh the debt notwithstanding the rasure of the Obligation the Plantiff must shew the Indenture to prove the Bond good 37. Action upon the Case for words viz. Thou art a False Knave a Wretch and a Whoremonger Adjudged actionable although for the word Whoremonger he might have his remedy in the Spiritual Court 38. A man hath Issue a Bastard and after marryes the same Woman and hath Issue by her divers Sons and then deviseth all his Goods to his Children Quaere If the Bastard shall take by the Devise But if the Mother of the Bastard make such a Devise It is clear the Bastard shall take because he is known to be the Child of the Mother 39. Lessee for years Proviso he shall not assign the Term nor any parcel of it without the assent of the Lessor Resolved He cannot give grant or sell it without assent of the Lessor But agreed That the Executors of the Lessee may assign it without assent of the Lessor 40. Resolved That if the Lessor makes a Letter of Attorney to his Lessee for years to make Livery of the Land in Lease to a Stranger who doth it accordingly That it is not a surrender of his Term for he doth not make the Livery in his own right but as Servant to his Lessor and by his authority 41. Resolved That if the Lessor infeoff a Stranger and makes Livery the Lessee for years being upon the Land who agrees to it It shall enure as an
Attornment and not as a Surrender but if the Lessee be not upon the Land then it is not a Feoffment and when the Lessee enters again he shall have his Term and the Feoffee the Reversion and if the Lessee be upon the Land and denyes the Lessor to make Livery notwithstanding that Livery be made nothing passeth by the Feoffment nor is a grant of the Reversion 42. Lessee for life of a Mannor seizeth an Estray and dyeth before the year and the day passed Resolved the Executors of the Lessee shall have it and not he in the Reversion for although the Lessee had not an absolute propriety in it during his life yet when the year is past the property shall have relation to the time of the Seizure 1 2 Ma. Stapleton and Trewlocks Case 43. Debt by Executors of I. S. against A. Trewlock Administratrix of Rich. Trewlock The Will was That the Testator made the Plaintiff and Rich. Trewlock his Executors but said further in his Will I will my Friend Rich. T. shall pay to my other Executor all such debts as he oweth me before he shall meddle with any thing of this my Will by reason I have made him one of my Executors for the discharge of the said Debt The Defendant averred Trewlock in the Will and Trewlock the Intestate to be one and the same Person and said He in his life had paid to the Executor the debt in demand and all other debts which he owed at the time of the death of the Testator Adjudged that the Dfendants plea was not good because she ought to have pleaded an Acquittance of the said debt for that payment without an Acquittance is no plea and for the other Debts she ought to have shewed them certain and pleaded payment of them and she should have shewed that T. administred with the other Executor Agar and Bishop of Peterborough's Case 44. Quare Imp. And for Title to the Avoidance the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. taking a second Benefice with Cure was pleaded Issue was upon the Induction By which it seemed to be admitted That Admission and Institution did not make the first Benefice void without Induction 45. Resolved That upon an Appeal of Manslaughter the Party may challenge 20. peremptorily as well as upon an Indictment 46. Upon an Habere facias seisinam upon Recovery of Dower of 3. Mannors Resolved The Sheriff cannot give her seisin of one Mannor but he must give her seisin of the third part of every Mannor But if the Recovery be of all Lands viz Meadow c. Pasture the Sheriff may assign her her Dower in the Meadow only The Queen and Deans Case 47. Writ of Disceit by the King and Queen upon a Fine levyed by C. to D. of Lands in antient Demesne who rendred to C. for life reversion to K. D. dyed pendent the Writ Resolved The Writ shall not abate because it is in the nature of a Trespasse which doth not demand the Land but is to punish the Disceit Tuck and Frenchman's Case 48. A. seized of Lands in Fee holden in soccage devised the same to C. F. and the Heirs males of his body and if he dyed without Heirs males of his body the Remainder c. C. F. dyed without Issue male of his body Resolved That C. F. had not general tail but special tail to him and the Heirs males of his body Joslin and Chelstons Case 49. Assumpsit In consideration of a Marriage of the Son of the plaintiff with the Defendants Daughter the Defendant assumed to pay to the Plaintiff 40 l. in 7. years next following by equal portions Found upon Non Assumpsit for the Plaintiff and because one of the 7. years was to come at the time of Action brought the Judgement was stayed 3 4. Ma. Eaton Colledge Case 50. A Lease was made by the Dean and Chapter of the Colledge was of Eaton whereas they were incorporated by the name of Dean and Chapter of the Colledge of St. Maryes of Eaton Resolved the Lease was void for the Misnosmer Stokes and Porters Case 51. Debt upon an Obligation against the Defendant Executor of I. S. who pleaded that he was not Executor nor administred as Executor It was found that he received a Debt of 7 l. which was due to the Testator and made an Acquittance thereof and took possession of other Goods of the Testator and converted them to his own use Adjudged That it was an Administration Hill 2 Eliz. Helior and Okedens Case 52. A Lease was made to I. S. of the Mannor of F. Habend from Mich. last past for 20. years and by the same Deed it was agreed That after hold expiration of the 20 years that the said Lessee his Wife and their Son should have hold and enjoy the Mannor Habend for their lives cuilibet diutius vivent and he made a Letter of Attorney to make Livery secundum formam of the said Grant and Lease Resolved If the Deed was delivered by the Attorney and Livery made at one time it was a good Lease for years with a Remainder for their Lives but if the Deed was first delivered by the Lessor to the Lessee and after Livery and Seisin by the Attorney there the Livery was void Thorn and Rolfes Case 53. Dower The Defendant pleaded that the Husband of the Demandant was alive at Canterbury in Com. Kent The Defendant said her Husband dyed at F. in the Parish of P. in the said County of K. upon which they were at Issue Day given to make Proofs the Plaintiffe examined her Witnesses in Court the Defendant examined no Witnesses Judgement was the Plaintiffe should â—â—cover her Dower Hill 3 Eliz. Corket and Sheldons Case 54. A. in consideration of a Marriage intended betwixt him and B. by Deed covenants with S. to execute an Estate in Fee to the use of the said A. for life and after to the use of the said B. for by and untill the Son or one of the Sons of the said A. of the body of the said B. begotten shall accomplish the age of 21. years The Marriage takes effect A. dyed without Issue between them and before any Issue had Resolved That B. had a good Estate for life before any Issue and in Case there was no Issue But if there had been Issue which had accomplisht 21. years the Estate of B. had been abridged 3 4 Eliz. in C. B. Gower and Andrews Case 55. In Trespass for cutting down of Trees the Case was A. a Woman in her Widdow-hood by Indenture bargained and sold to B. and C. all those Woods Underwoods and Hedgerowes as have accustomedly been used to be fallen and sold standing growing and being in upon and within the Mannor of D. to have and to hold for the life of the said A. B. dyed C. survived and cut down by vertue of the said Bargain the VVoods and Underwoods growing and standing at the time of the making of the said Deed. Resolved upon this Bargain
when the Vendee had once cut down the Woods and Underwoods that he could not cut them again if Woods were standing and growing notwithstanding the words in the Grant viz. To Have c. for the life of the said A. Wilson and Wise Case 56. In Trespass for taking of his Cow The Defendant justified that he was seised and held of I. S. as of his Mannor of C. by Fealty rent suit of Court of I. S. And that within the said Mannor the Custom was That the Lord of the Mannor time out of mind c. after the death of every Tenant of any Messuage or Tenements of the said Mannor dying seised used to seise the best Beast of the Tenants found within the Mannor for an Heriot and if the Tenant had no Beast or if it were esloyned out of the Mannor before the Lord seized it Then the Lord had used to seise the best Beast Levant and Couchant upon the Messuage Lands and Tenements It was demurred upon the Custom and it was adjudged that the Custome was void and unreasonable and Judged for the Plaintiff 57. An Infant by his Prochin Amy brought a Scire facias to execute a Plea by Fine limited to his Grandmother The Defendant prayed that the Attainder might demur Resolved it should not But if the Defendant had pleaded the Deed of the Ancestour of the Infant in Barre there the Plea should have stayed 3 Eliz. Austin and Bakers Case 58. Attaint was brought into the Common Pleas upon the Statute of 23 E. 3. cap. 3. against the Executors of I. S. and the Terre Tenants and adjudged it was well brought although the Statute is that the Attaint shall be between the Parties of the first Judgement 59. A Subsidy is granted by Parliament That every one who expends in Land above 20 s. shall pay A man is assessed and before payment he dyes the Lands in the hands of the Heir shall be charged with it because it is a Duty upon Record and the Land chargeable with it 60. Judgement being against two upon an Avowry in Replevin They brought an Attaint depending which one of them dyed It was adjudged that the Writ should abate and it differs from the Case of Nonsuit for the Nonsuit is the Judgement of the Court that the Heir may proceed in Suit but when one is dead it is not so for then no act is done by the Court. 61. Note It was resolved That after a Verdict given it is no Plea for to say that the Jurors did eat and drink mean between the Court and their Verdict given but such Exception ought to be before the Verdict given 62. A Lease for years the Remainder for Life the Reversion in Fee Lessee for years committed Waste he in Remainder for Life dyed It was holden by the Justices That he in the Reversion in Fee should have an Action of Waste for waste done before the death of him in the Remainder because that the mean Remainder was the Cause that he could not have the Action at the first but when that Estate is ended the Action is maintenable because it was to the dis-inheritance of him in the Remainder in Fee 63. Tenant in Dower had power to cut down the Trees growing upon the Land and she covenanted with him in the Reversion that it should be lawfull for him every year to cut down 20. Trees and afterwards she cut down and destroyed all the Trees It was the opinion of the Justices That an Action of Covenant did lye against her and it was agreed by them That if a Covenant be that it shall be lawfull for the Covenantee to take the Trees and sell them or imploy them to his own use That in that Case the Covenantor cannot cut down the Trees because he hath given a propriety in the Trees to the Covenantee Mich 2 Eliz. 64. Trespass The Case was A man made a Lease for years of Lands a Stranger entred upon the Land let and cut down Trees growing and made them Tymber and carryed unto the Land where the Trespass is supposed and then gave the Timber to the Plaintiff and the Defendant entred into the Land and took the Timber It was the opinion of the Justices That in all Cases where a thing is taken wrongfully and altered in form If yet that which remains is the Principal part of the Substance the Notice of it is not lost and therefore if a man takes Trees and makes Boards of them The Owner may retake them quia major pars substantiae remanet and so in the principal Case But if an House had been made of the Timber there it had been otherwise 65. Father and Son made a Feofment in Fee with VVarranty the Father dyed The Feoffee impleaded brought a Warrantia Chartae against the Son unde Chartam Patris sui habet cujus haeres ipse est and in his Count shewed the Deed was made by them both It was the Opinion of the Justices the Count was agreeable to the VVrit and that the VVarranty against the Son was double the one of his Father the other of himself and that each of them warranted the whole so the Action well brought 66. Resolved by the Justices If Lessee for Life makes a Lease for years and afterwards purchaseth the Reversion and dyeth within the Term the Lease for years is determined But if one who hath nothing in the Lands makes a Lease for years and afterwards purchaseth the Lands and dyes if it be by Indenture his Heir is estopped to avoid the Lease 67. Two Copartners are one grants her Part and warrants that the Grantee shall have and hold it in common without partition It is a void Warranty because it is against Law 68. A Lease was made to Husband and VVife for years Provided that if the possession of the Lands came to the hands of any ther than the Husband and VVife and their Issues then upon tender of 100 l. it shall be lawful for the Lessor to reenter the Husband dyed the Wife took an other Husband the Lessor tendred the 1000 l. It was the greater opinion of the Justices That the Condition was not broken because that the second Husband was not possessed by vertue of the Lease but in the right of his Wife But the Court doubted of it It was adjourned 68. A Capias ad satisfaciend was awarded and an Extent and between the date of the Writ and before the Sheriff took the Inquisition the Defendant sold his Goods It was the Opinion of the Justices That the Sheriff might extend the Goods which were sold and it was said That if the Tenant in a Precipe allien after the date of the Writ and before the Retorn yet he continnes Tenant to the Action 69. Note it was holden by the Justices That if an Infant for Monies by Indentures bargain and sells Lands and afterwards levyes a Fine Sur Conusans de droit with Proclamations the Indenture is not void but voidable and
the Use passeth to the Bargainee and then the Fine being levyed upon it the Bargain is irrevocable if not by Error 70. Lord and Tenant by Knights service the Tenant dyes his Heir being a Daughter within age of 14. years the Lord seizeth the VVard and after at 13. years she marryeth without the assent of the Lord It was the opinion of Wray Justice That the Lord should not have the forfeiture of the Marriage without tender but otherwise of the value of the Marriage because that de mero jure pertinet ad Dominum 71. Lessee for years hath Execution by Elegit of the Moyety of the Rent and Reversion against his Lessor the Lease being upon Condition Resolved That it is a suspension of the whole Condition during the Extent and although but the moyety of the Rent was extended yet the entire Condition was suspended and cannot be proportioned being entire 72. A man was bound in a Bond to make a sufficient Lease to the Obliger before such a day the same to be made at the Costs of the Obliger In Debt upon the Bond it was a holden a good Plea That the Plaintiff did not tender the Costs to him and if then that he was ready c. The Lord Windsors Case 73. A Precipe was brought against him It was Edwardo Domino Windsor de London Militi and because the word Militi was after the name of Dignity the VVrit abated 74. Entry sur Disseisin was brought the Writ was of an Entry in duas partes in tribus partibus dividend unius Messuagii and not in duas partes unius Messagii in tribus partibus dividend and yet adjudged good Pasch 3. Eliz. 75. Debt upon Obligation conditioned if the Obligator pay all such sums which he was Obliged to pay by his several writings Obligatory that then c. The Defendent said That there were not any writings Obligatory by which he was to pay any sum Adjudged to be no plea because it is repugnant to the Condition and he is estopped to say against the Condition 76. Wast The Case was Lease for life Covenanted to repair the houses at his proper Costs during the Terme The groundsels of the houses were rotten and the Lessee cut down trees upon the Land to repair them Resolved he might do it and it was not Wast and his justification of it good notwithstanding the Covenant which shall not exclude him from that benefit which the Law gives him 77. Debt against an Executour of an Executor the Defendant pleaded That the Executor his Testator had fully Administred and so nothing in his hands It was found that he had Assetts upon which a Fieri fac issued to the Sheriff who returned he had nor any thing adjudged a void Return and the Sheriff was amerced for if he had not goods of the Testator he should be payed of his own goods because when he pleads the first Executor had fully administred he doth not deny but Assetts remained after the death of his Testator 78. A grant was made per nomen Messuagii sive tenement It was holden by Dyer that neither a Garden nor Land do passe by the Grant but nothing but the House and Carthage Weston said the Garden should passe with the Messuage with an Averment that they have been occupied together Quere The Earl of Worcesters Case 79. Debt was recovered against the Earl and the Plantiff had an Elegit in the County of M. The Sheriff returned he had no goods nor Cattels Land nor Tenements within his County It was holden that after the year he might have a scire facias and upon that that an Elegit And it was holden that the party might divide his Execution and have several Elegits into Several Counties and to that purpose diverse Presidents were shewed by Lenard one of the Prothonotories Lady Audleys Case 80. Detinue A Woman delivered Goods to rebayl and after took Husband who after his Intermarriage released all Actions to the Baylee Adjudged the Release was good for that by the Intermarriage the Property of the Goods was in the Husband 81. In Dower The Tenant vouched the Heir of the Husband within the same County and he appeared and entred into Warranty as he who had nothing by Discent Judgement shall be given presently and the Sheriff by a special Writ shall put the Woman in Possession of all the Lands of the Tenant and that to avoid Circuit of Action betwixt the Tenant and the Vouchee Then the Question was If the Heir had nothing by Discent but Lands in tayle if they should be assigned to the Woman for her Dower It was the greater opinion she should not have Dower of the Lands intailed because the Execution for the Wife against the Vouchee is given only for Avoidance of Circuit of Action betwixt the Tenant and the Vouchee and therefore it follows That she shall not have Execution of other Lands whereof the Tenant could not have Execution against the Vouchee and the Lands intayled cannot be rendred in value 82. A Lease was made to 3. Habendum to them and the Survivor of them modo forma sequente viz. to one for Life the Remainder to another for Life the Remainder to the 3d. for Life It was holden they are not joynt Lessees by this Lease but they take by way of Remainder but if the viz had been before the Habendum or no Habendum had been then they had taken a joynt Estate notwithstanding the Limitation by the viz. because the viz. is but a declaration of the precedent Text and shall not confound the same mala est expositio quae corrumpit textum Skernes Case 83. A. by Indenture let an House to I. S. for 40. years The Lessee by the same Deed covenanted with the Lessor that he would repair the House during the Term and that it should be lawfull for the Lessor his Heirs and Assigns after the 40. years past every year during the Term to come into the House to see if the Reparations were sufficient by the Lessee his Executors or Assigns and if it should be repaired upon the view of the Lessor that then the Lessee should hold the Lease during 40. years after the first years ended I. S. granted over his Term by these words Totum interesse terminum terminos quae tunc habuit intenementis illis It was resolved in this Case That the words in the Assignment did not extend but to the first Term and therefore the possibility of the future Term did not pass but that by the Assignment there was a separation between the first Term and the possibility and by consequence the possibility determined 2ly That the want of the word Assignes did not hinder the possibility for it was a thing inherent which passed without such word But yet they held That if there had been the word Assignes yet the Assigns could not have taken the possibility 84. Debt upon Obligation The Defendant said he was to pay 20 l. at a
make it void 104. Note by the Justices where in a Praecipe quod reddat brought against Tenant for life he makes default and he in the Reversion is received he shall hear the Count made by the Tenant and shall answer presently and cannot have an Imparlance 105. Resolved by the Justices That Tenants in Comon cannot joyn in Waste against their Lessee but it is otherwise of Copartners or Joynt Tenants 106. In Debt the Defendant pleaded to Issue and afterwards brought a Writ of Priviledge out of the Exchequer because he was a person Priviledged there The Court dissallowed of the Writ because by his pleading he had affirmed the Jurisdiction of the Court. Hawle and Kirkbyes Case 107. Covenant upon an Indenture dated 20 April 4. E. 6. The Defendant pleaded in Bar a Release made 3 Eliz. of all Actions Suits Debts Executions and Demands which ever before he had or may have ab origine Mundi to the day of the date of the Release adjudged no bar because it was before the Covenant broken 108. A man leaseth Lands for years and afterwards by Deed Indented bargains and sells the same Lands to the Lessee and his Heirs without any word of guift or grant in the deed That nothing passeth if the deed be not Enrolled for without Enrollment the Freehold doth not passe and it is not any Confirmation The Lord Sands and Brays Case 109. A scire facias by the Lord Sands against the Defendant to have Execution of Lands whereof the remainder was entailed to his Ancestors by Fine The Defendant said The Plaintiff was within age and prayed The parol might demur till his full age The opinion of the Court was That the parol should not demur and by award of the Court the Defendant was put to Answer 110. A man bargains and sells his Land by deed Enrolled The bargainee by the same deed Covenants That if the bargainor or his Heirs pay to the bargainee or his Heirs 20 l. such a day that then the bargainee and his Heirs and all other seised should be presently seised to the use of the bargainor and his Heirs before the day the bargainor tenders the mony to the bargainee and he refuseth it Resolved that by the Tender the Covenant is not performed for the Covenant alters the use upon the payment and nothing rests in the bargainor till payment 111. It was Resolved by the Justices That if a man by deed Leaseth certain parcel of Lands and names them severally and afterwards the Lessor raseth the deed and puts one parcel out of the deed that the whole deed is void for the deed is entire in it self and cannot stand for part and be void for part But yet notwithstanding the Lease being of Lands the Lessee may plead it as a Lease parol Trinit 4. Eliz. 112. Tenant in tail the remainder in Fee Tenant in tail aliens and dyes without Issue he in the Remainder recovers in a Formedon brought being within age Adjudged he shall not be in Ward because a Right of remainder discended only to him and not a Remainder in possession 113. A man made a Lease for life and afterwards was bounden in a Recognizance and afterwards he granted the Reversion to another and the Tenant for life attorned and dyed the grantee entred and the Recognizee sued Execution against the grantee If the Execution was well sued upon the grantee Quaere the Justices were divided in opinion 114. Debt upon Obligation The Defendant pleaded that the plantiff by deed Indented betwixt them Covenanted and granted that if the Defendant paid him certain monies at a day certain the Obligation should be void and that at the day he tendred the money and he refused it The Court held the plea good without saying uncore prist 115. Debt upon Obligation the Condition was if the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff or his assignes 20 l. at such a day and place that then c. The Defendant said that the Plaintiff appointed one A. to receive the mony of him at the day and place and that he tendred the same accordingly to the said A. which he refused Resolved the plea was good without alledging payment in fact 116. A. made a Feoffment in Fee rendering rent with Clause of distresse and afterwards bound himself in a Statute and the day being incurred Execution was sued by the Conusee and the Sheriff returned the Conusor dead and that he had extended the Rent The Heir of the Conusor within age brought an Audita Querelâ— and adjudged it did well lye because there was an Exception in the Writ of Extent that if the Lands are discended to any Enfant that the Sheriff should surcease to extend 117. Debt against Executors at the Pluries Distring as they appeared and pleaded that they had fully Administred the goods of the Testators before any Notice given them of the Suit The Plaintiff said That upon the Original the Sheriff had returned them Summoned It was the opinion of the Court it was no Estoppel against them for it may be they were never Summoned notwithstanding the return of the Sheriff The Archbishop of Yoâ—ks Case 118. An action brought by him upon the Statute dâ— scandalis Magnatum against I. S. because he put in a slanderous Bill against him before the President of the Council of the North surmising that he was a Covetous and Malitious Bishop Resolved the words were not sufficient to maintain that Action 119. A. seised of a Mannor holden by Knights service devised 2. parts there of to 2. strangers severally and all the Residue he devised to his Heir in Tail the remainder over to another in Fee It was the opinion of the Justices that when he had devised 2. parts he had done all which he could by the Statute and the devise of the resiâ—ne was void but the devise shall enure to the Heir of a third part of the 2. parts that the devise which takes effect at the death of the devâ—sor may take effect and that especialle by reason of the Remainder and so the Heir shall have a third part of the 2. parts vide 3 H. 6. accordingly 120. A. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of another in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of Tenant in Tail in Fee Cestuy que use in Tail before the Statute of 27 H. 8. made a Feoffment in Fee the Feoffee dyed It was the opinion of the Justices That when the Feoffee dyed during the life of Cestuy que use in Tail the first Feoffees could not enter for the discent was when they had no title of Entry for by the Feoffment the Feoffee had title during the life of Cestuy que use in Tail wherefore during his life they could not enter nor make claim But they agreed that the Heir of Cestuy que use in Tail had not any remainder but by the Entry of the Feoffees 121. A man made a gâ—ft entail upon Condition that if the Donee or his issue
be 159. Dower brought the Defendant pleaded that he had assigned to the Wife 20 acres of Corn out of the Land in recompence of her Dower and adjudged a good barr as well as of Rent or any other profit out of the Land 160. Three Coparceners Daughters the one of them and her Husband enter into the whole the other being supposed out of the Realm in the right of his Wife and afterwards the other two return and release to the Husband and Wife and their Heirs It was holden that the Release should enure only to the Wife and her Heirs because the same enures only by way of Extinguishment and the Baron is seised in the right of his Wife But admit the Husband and Wife both enter and are Disseisors then the Release shall enure to them both and then when the Wife survives the Husband she shall have the whole 161. It was held by the Justices upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries That if a Woman who hath a Widdows estate of Lands holden by Copy whereof the Inheritance was in the Abby That if the Abbot will make a Lease of the same in reversion it is no good Lease by that Statute but otherwise it is of a Lease at will by the Common-law 162. Note by the Justices If Issue be joyned if a Church be void by a Cession Deprivation or Resignation it shall be tryed by the Country because it is a thing mixt for the Avoydance is Temporal and the Deprivation is Spiritual But habilitie Bastardy ne unque accouple en loyal Matrimonie shall be tryed by the Certificate of the Bishop but Bastardy pleaded in a Stranger to the VVrit shall be tryed by the Country 163. VVords spoken of an Attorney of the Common-Pleas viz. He is the falsest Knave in England and by Gods blood he will cut thy Throat Adjudged Actionable 164. A man devised his Land to his wife for life the Remainder to another for his life and after their deaths he devised that the same Lands should be sold by his Executors or the Executors of his Executors he dyed after the Wife and he in the Reversion dyed and during their lives one of the Executors dyed intestate It was the opinion of the Justices That the Executors of one Executor should not make the sale for they had authority joyntly and if one of them fail the other cannot execute the Testament and so it was said it was adjudged in Franklyn's Case where a man devised that I. S. and I. D. by advice of the Parson of D. should make sale of his Lands after his death and before the sale the Parson dyed the other two could not sell the Lands 165. Wast assigned in a Marsh for that the Lessee suffered a Sea wall adjoyning to the Marsh to be ruinous by which by the flowing of the Sea the Marsh was drowned The Court conceived That if it was a small breach in the Wall and the Lessee did not repair it but suffered it to continue it was waste bet if it was suddenly done by the violence of the water the Defendant might plead that matter in barr Sir Edward Bray and Andrews Case 166. Action for words viz. My Master was not content to take my Living from me but sent his Man Andrews to kill me Resolved the Declaration was not good for the incertainty for the words My Master comprehends a generality and doth not refer to any Person certain and therefore it cannot be intended the Defendant intended to tax the Plaintiff more then any other Person and it may be he had at that time many Masters and it ought to appear to the Court of what Person certain the Defendant intended the words 167. An Action upon the Statute of Apparel The Writ was Ad respondendum Dominae Reginae quam I. S. Resolved the Action was not well brought because the Queen and the Party cannot joyne in the Action but they ought to have several Actions viz. the Queen shall have an Action for her part and the Informer for the other part For although by the Premises of the Statute it is an entire duty yet the sequel of the Statute determines how the penalty shall be taken and it is as several forfeitures The Earl of Northumberlands Case 168. Resolved one cannot have a VVrit of Forfeiture of Marriage without a Tender made to the Heir contra of a Writ De Valoâ—e Maritagii 169. Upon an Exigent a Writ of Proclamation issued which was returned served but the Name of the Sheriff was not to the Writ Quaere if it be Error The Court would advise of it Felton and Capells Case 170. In a Formedon in the Discender the Tenant vouched to Warranty I. S. who entred into the Warranty and vouched I. D. It was the opinion of the Justices That is a good Counter plea that the vouchee nor any of his Ancestors had any thing after the guift so as he could enfeoff him who vouched him 171. In Debt upon an Indenture the Defendant pleaded that it was rased after the delivery by the Plaintiff But he cannot plead That it is not his deed and give in Evidence the rasure but he ought to plead the special matter 172. A Bishop made a Lease for years which was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter and after he let the same Land to another for 20. years and afterwards before any Confirmation of it he let the same Lands to a third person for 60. years and the last Lease was first Confirmed and after the Lease in Reversion was Confirmed also Resolved that that Lease was good and the Confirmation good notwithstanding the last Lease was first Confirmed for the Lease is not to have any Interest by the Confirmation but only to make it perdurable and effectual Squier and Reads Case 173. It was holden by the the Justices in this Case That it is a good Challenge in a Writ of Right to the 4. Knights that they are not gladiis cincti And a Challenge to them must be made upon their appearance for after they are once sworn they are not Challengeable Also the 4. Knights are to make the Pannell and they need not to put their Names to it at the Return of it as the Sheriff useth to do and they ought to return to be of the Grand Assise but 12. persons besides themselves 174. A man had Judgment to recover in trespasse and had Execution of the Reversion of a Lease for years and of the Rent It was the opinion of the Justices that the Rent and Reversion was presently in him and that he might avow for the Rent without alledging any attornment of the Lessee for years 175. Debt upon Obligation conditioned to pay mony to the Obligee and the Parishoners of D. at such a Feast payment to the Obligee and two of the Parishoners of the Parish is good and it is not requisite the payment be made to all the Parishoners 176. In an Assise of Novel desseisin the Assise
Lawfull before he had a discharge of this Office or perfect notice of a new Sherff Johnson and Smiths Case 318. Action upon the Case for slandring of his Title and declared That he was seised of Lands by discent from hâ—s Father and was agreed with I. S. for a sale of the same Lands and I. S. went to the Defendant being an Attorney and prayed his advice for the making the Assurance and that the Defendant said to I. S. that he had heard that the Father of the Plaintiff had granted a Rent Charge out of the Lands in Fee by reason of which words I. S. refused to buy the Lands and all other persons for fear of the said Incumbrance to his damage c. The Defendant said he was an Attorney at Law and I. S. came to him for Counsell in secret he said the words spoken in the Declaration It was strongly urged that although he was an Attorney that would not excuse him because an Attorney is allowed to give Counsell and the utterance of the words in private did not excuse being spoken to the buyer himself But it was Resolved the Action did not lye and adjudged against the Plantiff Dawbney and Goores Case 319. In Disceit D. G. and G. were Joynt Merchants they made F. and S. their Factors in Barbary G. and G. conspired with S. to demand allowance of 1000 l. which was allowed them upon accompt by which D. was damnified for that the money was not due and the truth was S. only made the Account The poynt was if one Factor might make an Account for both and if the two Merchants might take an Account for them all three It was said that they all ought to joyn in Account but one solely might Assigne Auditours to take the Account on the other side it was said there was no Joynture in Merchandize and that one Merchant shall have an Account against his Companion Quaere the Case was not Resolved Hill and Morses Case 320. It was Resolved in this Case That a Copyhold without a special Custome could not be entailed 321. An Enfant acknowledge a Fine before the Cheif Justice but the Conusee would not have the Fine ingrâ—ssed till his full age The Enfant came now with the Note of the Conusance and prayed a Wriâ— of Error and examination of his age which the Justice agreed unto and that an Entry be made thereof and by that save to him his advantage 322. A man sold his Land and Covenanted to save the Vendee harmlesse upon request It was said if the Land be extended by force of a Statute before the request the Covenant is not broken for that now the Covenant is become impossible by the negligence of the Covenantee himself but if he had made request before the extent there the Covenant should be broken for default of saving harmelesse Foreman and Bobâ—ams Case 323. Repâ—evin The Defendant avowed for a Rent charge of 3 s. 4 d. â—issâ—ing out of the place where c. which was one parcell of the Mannor of W. of whâ—ch Mannor I. S. was seised in Fee and 33 H. 6. made a Feoffment of the said Close rendering Rent with distresse and dyed seâ—sed and it discended to his Son who bargained and sold the Mannor with all Lands Rents Reversions services and herediraments which are parcell or had been deemed reputed or taken as part parcell or member of the Mannor and the Defendant as Bayliff of the Heir of the Bargainee made Conusans for the Rent and whether the Rent did passe as parcell of the Mannor was the Question by the bargain and sale It was said it did nâ—t passe by the word parcell but it passed by the words reputed parcell if it were so reputed parcell at the time of the grant Quaere the Case is not Resolved in this Book but vide Pasch 26 Eliz. in B. R. Leon. 1. part 13. there the Judgment was given against the Avowant Justice Windhâ—ms Case 324. A Lease was made reciting that whereas he had made a Lease of one Close to the Lessee for â—0 years rendring 8 s. Rent and another Lease of another Close to the same Lessee for 40 years now he demised to the same Lessee both the said Closes for 40. year from and after the determination of the several demises It was a question if the last Lease was good because there is not any certain time of the begining of it Resolved the Lease was good and the Law shall make an Interpretation of the demise reddendâ— singula singulis how the Terme shall begin Vide Cook 5. part the same Case Dolman and Vavasors Case 325. A. seised in Fee of Lands 15 Eliz. suffered a Common Recovery to B. which Recovery was executed by Habere facias seisinam After the Recovery had it was declared by Indenture between the parties that the Recovery should be to the use of the said A for life without impeachment of Waste the remainder to the first begotten Child of his body and the Heirs male of such first begotten Child and so to his 9. Issues and for want of such Issue to V. the Tenant or Defendant and the Heirs male of his body and if these Indentures were sufficient to declare the uses of the Recovery was the Question It was Resolved that these Subsequent Indentures were sufficient to declare the uses of the said Recovery for so was the Intent of the parties as appeareth by the Indentures and it was adjudged that the declaration by the subsequent Indentures should stand good because there was not any other declaration of any other use Scroggs and Lady Greshams Case 326. Debt upon an Obligation against the Defendant Executrix of Sir Thomas Gresham The Defendant pleaded several Obligations made by the Testator to the Queen amounting to 8000 l. solvendum eidem Doâ—inae Reginae quando requisitus â—uisset ultra quam non habet upon which the Plaintiff demurred because the Obligation not being upon Record but taken in paâ—s was not good for that the Queen could not take but by matter of Record and also the solvendum is not to the Queen and Successors and the Queen is not to have the preferment of payment of her debts unlesse they be debts upon Record But yet in such Case if the Queen first sue she shall be preferred although she hath Judgement after another who sueth The Lord Pagetts Case 327. The Case was the Lord Pageâ—t seised of divers Mannors by deed Indented Covenanted with I. S. and others that in consideration of discharge of his Funerals payments of his Debts and Legacies and advancement of his Son and others of his blood to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of the said I. S. and others for the Life of the Lord Pagett and after to the use of C. P. and other for 24. years and after the expiration of the said Term of 24. years to the use of William Pagett his Son in tail Afterwards the Lord Pagett
Praecipe but the Recovery as to the estate of the Husband took effect only by way of Estoppel but it was no bar as to him who was in Remainder and in this case it was said That if Lands be given to husband and wife and the heirs of their two bodies and the Husband alone suffers a common Recovery that the same should not bind the Estate tail although the husband doth survive the wife Martin and Wilks Case 335. It was adjudged in this Case in B. R. That Land in Antient Demesne is extendable upon a Statute Staple or Statute Merchant Hill 11. Jac. in t C. B. Cox and Barnesbyes Case adjudged accordingly Wolstan Dixies Case 336. A seised in Fee of Lands in London made a Lease to I. S. for years and after by Deed enrolled in the Chancery he sold the reversion to Dixie and his wife and afterwards the Rent was behind and he brought debt against I. S. The Defendant said That after the Lease and before the Sale to Dixie A. the Lessor by Deed enrolled in London bargained and sold the Land to him It was adjudged a forfeiture of the Term and judgment was for the Plantiff Rudhall and Milwards Case 337. Rudhall Serjeant at Law Cestuy que use before the Statute of 27. H. 8. Devised the use to C. his younger Son and the Heirs Males of his body the Remainder to I. his eldest Son and his Heirs upon condition that C. should not alien nor discontinue but for the Joynture of his Wife and only for the life of such wife C. after the death of his Father entred and levyed a fine to a stranger and declared the use to himself and his wife and to the Heirs Males of his own body the Remainder to the right Heirs of his Father afterwards C. having Issue male died the Wife died the Heir of I. the eldest Son entred upon the Lessee It was adjudged that because the Statute of 27. H. 8. gave the possession in quality and condition with the use and also gave to Cestuy que the same advantages as the Feoffees had that the said Heir was enabled to take advantage of the Condition be it a Condition or a Limitation The Vis-Countess Bindons Case 338. The Executors of Viscount Bindon brought Detinue against the Widdow of the deceased Viscount and declared upon the Detainer of certain Jewels The Defendant did justifie the Detainer of them as her Paraphronalia It was agreed in this Case by the Chief Baron and others That Paraphronalia ought to be allowed to a Widdow having regard to her Degree and in this Case the Husband of the Defendant being a Viscount that 500. Marks was but a good allowance for such a matter Mich. 28 Eliz. in Cur. Wardor Mounsons Case 339. A Commission in the Nature of Diem clausit extremum after the death of Robert Mounson issued to Enquire what Lands and Tenements he had the day of his death of whom by what services the yearly value of them who was his next Heir and of what age he was It was found that the Father of Robert was seised of the Mannor of B. in Fee and gave the same to Robert in tail the remainder to G. brother of Robert the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father That G. died in the Life of Robert and Robert died without Issue and that F. the Son of G. was within age and the Lands holden of the Queen in Capite and that Robert long before his death was seised in tail of H. Farm and N. and 17. Eliz. levied a Fine to the use of himself in tail the Remainder to F. the Son of G. in tail and died such a day without Issue of his body and upon this Office one Mounson the Heir general prayed a new Office for it was said that the said Office was insufficient to entitle the Queen to the Wardship of F. the Son of G. It was the opinion of the Court that the Office was good to entitle the Queen to the Wardship of F. the Son of G. But if it was not then a Melius inâ—quirendum should issue forth and not a New Office Branches Case 340. In the Case of a Prohibition It was Resolved that an Union of Copyhold Lands and of the Parsonage in the hands of the Parson as Parson Impersonce was no discharge of the Tythes of the Copyhold Lands and in this Case also it was adjudged That a Farmer of Lands might prescribe in modo Decimandi but not in non Decimando Moor and Williams Case 341. Assumpsit The Case was Lessee for years the reversion to M. the Lessee in defence of the Plantiffs Title spent such a Sum money and prayed contribution or recompence Moor said in consideration thereof he should have the like Lease after the expiration of the Term which Williams the Defendant required and the said Lessor refused to make upon which Williams brought Assumpsit Resolved it did not lie because the Consideration was executed before the promise Stanley and Bakers Case 342. A man possessed of a Lease for years devised the same to his eldest Son and the Heirs of his body and if he died without issue to his youngest Son and the heirs of his body and for want of such Issue that the Term should remain to his Daughters he died having two daughters and afterwards another daughter was born The eldest Son sold the Term and died without Issue the youngest Son died without Issue the three daughters entred It was adjudged they all three should have the Term although the youngest Daughter was not born at the time of the death of the Devisor Owens Case 343. Tenant in tail the Remainder in tail Tenant in tail bargained and sold to him and his Heirs and levied a Fine which was not alledged to be with Proclamation It was adjudged that the Bargainee was not such a Grantee of the Reversion as should maintain Wast because it was no discontinuance and but for the Life of Tenant in tail Higham and Harwoods Case 344. A man had houses and Land which had bin in the tenure of those who had the Houses and he devised his Lands with the appurtenances It was adjudged That the Lands did pass by the words with the appurtenances for that it was in a Will in which the intent of the Devisor shall be observed Watkins and Ashwels Case 345. A seised in Fee made a Feoffment upon condition that if he or his Heirs paid such a sum such a day to reenter He died his Son and Heir within the age of 14. years The Mother of the Infant without the privity of the Infant and who was not Guardian in Socage in the name of the Infant tendred the mony at the day It was resolved it was an Insufficient tender otherwise if she had been his Guardian in Socage Carewas Case 346. The Abbot of M. was seised and made a Lease for years De scitu Manerii Rectoriae suae de omnibus aedificis
c. de Decimis eidem pertinent spectant Habendum dectum scnum cum pertinenciis The question was what estate the Lessee had in the Tythes at Will or for years It was the opinion of Manwood Chief Baron that he had an Estate in them for years and not at Will for where several things are in a Grant and after the Habendum comes to limit the Estate it is superfluous to recite the particular things in the Habendum and the Tythes being particularly recited shall therefore pass by the Habsndum which limits the Estate for years Crops Case 357 A man made a Lease for years reserving Rent at Mich. and the Annunciation and if it be behind by the space of a month to reenter The next day after Mich. the Lessor sent the Rent by his Servant to the house of the Lessor who tendered it to his person and he refused it and afterwards upon the last instant of the day it was demanded upon the Land It was adjudged a good tender and the Lessor could not enter Beverley and the Bishop of Canturburyes Case 348. A seised of an Advowson in gross presented K. who was Inducted the Advowson afterwards desdended to B. and C. Coparceners B married I. S. C. married T. B. and had Issue C. died T. B. the Plantiff being Tenant by the Curtesies the Church became void by the deprivation of K. and because they could not agree in the presentment the Clerk of B. the eldest Sister was received by the Bishop which was since dead so the Plantiff Tenant by the Curtesie presented and being disturbed brought the Writ The Incumbent being presented by the Queen pleaded thae K. being inducted accepted a second Benefice of the value of 8. l. and so the Church was void by the Statute of 21. H. 8. of Pluralities It was adjudged for the Plantiff for that the deprivation of K. and the Plurality of the Clerk of the eldest Sister since dead were not denied after the acceptance of the second Benefice Saunders Case 349. Information upon the Statute of 1. E. 6. for landing of goods at Ratcliff Custom not paid nor agreed for It was pleaded in a Bar A. was seized of the Mannor of S. in Sussex and had wreck of the Sea appertaining to his Mannor by Prescription and that the Mannor Contigue adjâ—câ—t mare altum and said the goods were wreck and cast upon the land of the Lord and that he seized them and so justified Qu. If a good Justification Morris and Wâ—â—bors Case 350. The Case in effect was this A man was divorced Causa â—rigiditatis and afterwards took another wife and had issue It was argued by the Civilians and also by the Justices if the Issue was Bastard or not It was adjudged that the Issue by the second wife was not a Bastard For that by the Divorce the Marriage was dissolved â— vinculo Matrimonii and each of them might marry again But admitt that the second marriage was voidable yet it stands good till it be dissolved and so by consequence the Issue born during the Coverture is a lawful Issue Term. Hill 29. Eliz. Fanshaws Case 351. In Ejâ—ctione firme the Case was shortly thus King Henry the Seventh erected and Founded an Hospital by the name of Mâ—ster and Chaplains of the Hospital of King Henry the Seventh de le Savoy And afterwards in the time of Queen Mary a lease was made of Lands parcel of the Hospital by the name of Master of the Hospital Henrici nuper Regis Angliae septimâ— vocat le Savoy and if it was a good Lease or not was the Question The Case was first argued in the Exchequer and there adjudged that the Lease was void by the Judgment of two Barons Afterwards a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber there the Case 3. Eliz. was argued again but it was not adjudged but afterwards the Case was compounded but the better opinion of the Justices there seemed to be that it was a good Lease and that the words De le Savoy vocat le Savoy were idem sensu Crosman and Reads Case 352. Debt against the Defendant Executrix of T. R. her former husband upon an Obligation of 200. l. The Defendant pleaded fully administred It was found she had Asserts to the value of 80. l. parcel of the 200. l. and that the said T. B. borrowed of F. R. her late Husband 60. l. and that the Defendant being Executrix to T. B. took the said F. R. to Husband who died the Court gave Judgment that the Plantiff should recover the 80. l. and for the residue in misericordia pro falso clamore so as the Court conceive the 60. l. was not Assetts in her hands Rous and Artois Case 353. A man was Tenant for another mans life of a Mannor Cestuy queuse died The Tenant continued possession of the Mannor and held Courts and made voluntary Grants by Copy It was adjudged he should not bind the Lord for he was but Tenant at Sufferance who had not any Interest and so he was a Disseisor of the Mannor Broke and Smiths Case 354. The Case was Lord and Tenant the Tenant levied a Fine to the King who afterwards gave the Land Tenendum of the King by Knights Service The Lord distreined the Patentee for the Rent and Services If the Seignory was revived was the Question It was conceived it was and that it was suspended only for the time in the King Qu. It was not resolved Knowles and Powels Case 355. The Queen seized in Fee made a Lease for years to one who was Out-lawed at the time of the Lease made and afterwards the person was Out-lawed again and before seizure came a generall Pardon of all goods and chattels forfeited In this Case Resolved First that a man Out-lawed was capable of a Lease from the Queen as a Farmer to the Queen and that the Pardon with restitution was sufficient to revive the Term forfeited Secondly That a man Outlawed and Pardoned had property in his goods Bonds Case 356. Bond erected a Pigeon-House upon certain Lands which he held in Lease for years the reversion in the Queen being parcel of her Mannor of F. in the County of S. It was the opinion of Manwood Chief Baron and Gent. That none could erect a Dove-house but the Lord of the Mannor or the Parson and said that in ancient time it was accounted a Common Nusance presentable in the Leet 357. Note by Manwood Chief Baron where it is ordained by the Statute that for doing misdoing or not doing of a thing the Offendor shall forfeit such a Sum not expressing to whom there the forfeiture shall be intended to be to the Queen unless the penalty be assessed for taking Goods Chattels or other things in which the Subject hath a Property and then he which hath the loss shall have the forfeiture Warrams Case 358. A Protection was granted to him by the Queen and it was Quod Praerogativa
Covenant he devised to each of the Daughters 10. l. to be paid at their several ages of 21. years One of the daughters sued his Executors in the Spiritual Court for her Legacy and upon suggestion by the party that he is bound to pay her 10. l. at her age of 21. years a Prohibition was granted and the intent of the Devise was that he should not be twice charged 369. One sued an Administrator for debt upon pleinement administr The Jury found Assetts for part to the value and Judgment for that part for the Plaintiff and that for the residue the Defendant eat siae die and now he brought a Scire fac surmising Assetts to the value of the Residue It was the opinion of the Court that it did not lie 370. Debt upon Obligation with condition if the Obligor pay to the Obligee 10. l. or four Kine such a day at the then Election of the Obligee the Obligation to be void It was the opinion of the Court that the Obligor is to tender both at the day appointed by reason of the words at the then Election which word then shall have relation to the day appointed 371. A Lease was made to three Habendum to them for 99. years viz. to the first for 99. years if he should so long live and if he died to the Second pro residuo termino anaorum tunc ventur if he should so long live and if he died within the Term then to the third pro residuo termino annorum ad tunc ventur It was the opinion of the Justices that it could not enure by way of Remainder because there was not any Estate in esse during the particular Estate Yet they conceived the Estate of the second was good because it did enure as a new Grant Qu. 372. In a false Imprisonment against a Mayor he justified because he being a Magistrate the Plantiff said he was a Fool It was the opinion of the Justices that if he called him Fool in the place and exercise of his Offic◠that the Imprisonment was lawfull otherwise not Vdeson and the Mayor of Nottinghams Case 373. Vdeson was in the custody of the Mayor upon the Statute of 23. H. 8. and he would not let him at liberty upon Sureties wherefore he sued by Bill here and and Declared against the Mayor in Custodia Marischalli and recovered by Verdict It was the opinion of the Justices that by the Statute of 18. Eliz. none should sue for any penalty upon a penal Law but by original Writ or Information and so it was said it was adjudged in the Bayliffs of Bosworths Case Griffiths Case 374. It was was Resolved by the Justices That Error lyeth in the Kings Bench upon a Judgment given in an Ejectione firmae in Wales given before the Justices there 375. A Draper having a Servant to sell Clothes in his shop the Servant took the clothes and converted them to his own use It was adjudged that Trespasse vi armis lyeth only against the Servant because he had the possession as Servant and it was Resolved That in all cases where the Servant hath not a speciall nor general property Trespasses lyeth 376. One made a Lease for years the Lessee devised the Term to his wife for so many years as she should live and after to his Son the Wife purchased the Inheritance and sold the same again and covenanted that it was discharged of all Incumbrances and died The Son claimed the Term it was adjudged the possibility to the Son was a forfeiture of the Covenant and Bond of the Wife Sir Thomas Gorges Case 377. The Queen seised of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant and granted the Mannor una cum advocatione Ecclesiae the Church being then void Adjudged the Avoidance did not pass but the Queen should present pro hac vice 378. A man who was bound in a Recognizance for the good Behavior was indicted that he called one Pealer Lier Druakard and said I will make thee a poor Kirton and also Quare clausam fregit averia cepit injustè detinet It was Resolved by the Justices in B. R. That these were not words which threaten a battery of his Body without which the Recognizance is not forfeited 379. Debt brought in the City of Oxon The Defendant pleaded that he was one of the Barons of the Cinque Ports within the County of Kent and pleaded to the Jurisdiction of the Court upon which the Plaintiff demurred Qu. If a good Plea It was not Resolved Hayward and Bettesworths Case 380. Replevin the Defendant avowed for Rent the Case was The Father was seised in Fee and let the Land to the Plaintiff for years rendring Rent and afterwards he infeoffed a Stranger and executed livery upon parcel of the Land in a Close called D. the Lessee nor any of his Cattel being there but being in the house It was adjudged that nothing passed by the Livery but that the reversion of the whole descended and therefore it was adjudged for the Avowant Pigott Palmers and Grangers Case 381. The Case was A. was seised of Land which he intended to sell to the Father for 160. l. of which 140. l. was paid by G. in consideration of the Marriage of Pigott with the daughter of Granger and that the Land shall be conveyed for the Joynture of the daughter and the Heirs Males of their Bodies they intermaried and had Issue the Plaintiff Pigot died the wife took Husband Palmer the Defendant and they accepted a Fine of a Stranger with a render to the Stranger for 100. years rendering the ancient rent the wife died It was resolved that the taking of the Conveyance with the render for 100. years made the Estate of the wife void by the Statute of 11. H. 7. Zouth and Bamfields Case 382. In a Formedon in the Discender brought of the Moiety of a Mannor The Defendant pleaded in Bar that the Grandfather of the Demandant levied a Fine sur Conusance de droit c. with Proclamation of the moiety of the said Mannor by which Fine it was granted and rendered to the Grandfather and his Heirs whose estate the Tenant in the Formedon had The Defendant replyed that at the time of the Fine levyed and after the Demandant was seised of the Land in his Demesne as of Fee It was Resolved That the Defendant being Heir in tail against such Fine levyed by his Ancestor whose Heir he is was estopped to aver his seisin and continuance thereof as a stranger at the time of the Fine levyed Nor to add Quod partes finis nihil habuerunt Against which it was objected 1. That by the Statute of Donis It is provided Quod finis ipso jure sit nullus 2. That the Statute of 27. E. 1. of Fines doth not extend to Heirs in tail but to Heirs in Fee and that the Issues in tail are not bound by Fines which enure by way of Estoppel 3. That the Statute of Fines
extends to Fines ritè Levatis and that a Fine is not ritè Levatus when partes finis nihil habuerunt To all which it was Answered and Resolved That the Issue in tail is not excepted in those Statutes and therefore is bound by the very Letter of the Acts 2. Although the Issue in tail was not bound by any Fine by his Ancestors untill 4. H. 7. yet in such Case he was ousted to add Quod partes finis nihil habuerunt being privy as Heir to him who levyed the Fine first 3. That a Fine may be said ritè Levatus although partes finis nihil habuerunt and it may be ritè Levatus although it be a Fine meerly by Conclusion Elmer and Goales Case 383. In Ejectione firmae the Case was The Abbot of West was seised and let the Lands for 60. years to a Stranger the Abby was dissolved and King Henry 8. united it to the Bishoprick of London The Bishop 12. Eliz made a Lease for three Lives the Lease for 60. being in being for 16. years which Lease was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter the Lease for 60. years expired the Lessees for three Lives entred and were seised untill the Bishop entred upon them and made the Lease upon which the Action was brought The point was if the Lease for three Lives were good It was Resolved it was good and stood good because the Statute of â— Eliz. which made Bishops Leases was not pleaded and the Statute being a private Act of Parliament the Judges were not to take nâ—tice of it if it were not pleaded Butler and Babers Case 384. The Case was A. seised of the Mannor of Toby in Fee and A. and his wife seised of the Mannor of Hinton to them and the Heirs of their bodies the Reversion to A. in Fee Toby amounting to the value of two parts and Hinton to the third part both holden in capite A. by his Will devised the Mannor of Toby to his Wife for life upon consideration that she should not take her former Joynture in Hinton with divers remainders over the Wife in pais disclaimed and waved her Estate in Hinton and agreed to the Mannor of Toby and entred upon it and if the Devise was good for the whole Mannor of Toby or for two parts only was the Question It was Resolved in this Case by the greater part of the Justices upon argument in the Exchequer Chamber that the waving of the Joynture by the Wife made an immediate discent by Relation to the Heir and that the Devisor was not such a person having Lands as could dispose of it according to the Statute and in this Case it was agreed by the Justices That if one deviseth Land in which he hath nothing and afterwards he purchaseth the lands that the same is not a good Devise within the Statute of Wills because he is not a person having c. Priscot and Chamberlains Case 385. In a Replevin the Case was Tenant for Life the Remainder in Tail jâ—yned in a Lease for years afterwards he in the Remainder in the life of Tenant for life suffered a Common Recovery the Recoverers sued execution upon the Lessee for years and afterwards enfeoffed Lincoln Colledge in Oxon to whom the Son and Heir of the Tenant in Tail in the life of his Father released with Warranty the Lessee for years reentred the Tenant for Life and he in the Remainder in Tail both died the Son of the Tenant in Tail had issue who by his Bayliff distreined the Chattel of the Lessse for years as damage Feasants upon the Land and he brought a Replevin The point was if by the common Recovery oâ— the Release of the Issue in tail with Warranty the tail was barred It was agreed by all the Justices that the Issue in tail was not barâ—d by the Recovery nor by the Warranty but whether he should avoid this Recovery in this Action being a possessarie Action or put to a rent Suit was the doubt whâ—ch was not resolved The Case was adjourned Hennage and Curtes Case 386. Trespass for breaking his Close in Hainton The Defendant justified that there was a Foot way leading through the said Close from Haâ—mon to the Foot-way of Horn-Castle for all persons travelling from Hainton to Horn-Castle they were at Issue upon the Prescription and because the Venire was de Hainton only whereas it ought to have bin from Hainton and Horn-Castle It was said that the Tryal was erroneous and the Judgment was reversed Bonnet Halsey and others 387. The Plaintiff was taken in Execution at the Defendants Suit by the Sheriff of B. and by an Habeas Corpus he was brought to Smithfield by the Goaler of B. and there at Eight of the Clock of night the Prisoner went into Southwark and there continued all night and the next morning he returned to Smithfield to his Keeper and there continued with him till the return of the Writ at which day he brought him to the Lord Chief Justices Chamber at Serjeants-Inn and he returned his Writ and the Chief Justice committed him to the Marshalsey It was judged it was no Escape in the Sheriff and adjudged upon an Audita Querela brought by the Plaintiff for the Defendants Wray Street and Coopers Case 388. The Prior of M. was seised of three Messuages in the Borough of Southwark and held them of the Bishop of Canterbury as of his Borough of Southwark The Priory came to King Henry 8. by surrender Afterwards the Bishop gave the Burgage to the King which Gift was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter The King anno 36. gave the said three Messuages and others to C. and D. Tenendum libero Burgagio by Fealty only and not in Capite and C. and D. gave the Messuages to W. and his Wife W. died his Wife survived King Edward 6. gave Totam Burgagiam de Southwark to the Mayor and Burgesses of London In the time of Queen Mary the Wife W. dyed by which the Messuages escheated Queen Mary gave them to one who gave them to A. who gave them to the Defendants The Mayor and Burgesses of London entred The Question was if the Tenure should be in Capite or in Burgage and if they passed to the Mayor and Burgesses by the Grant of Edw. 6. of Totam Burgagiam de Southwark It was adjudged against the Mayor and Burgesses of London because there could not be several Tenure foâ— these parcels Tenendum ut de Burgo and another Tenure for the Residue of the Lands in other places which could not be holden de Burgo and also because the Patent having two intents the besâ— shall be taken for the King Pasch 30. Eliz. The Queen and Bishop of Lincolns Case 389. Quare Imp. The Case was The Bish of Lincoln Patron and Ordinary collated to a Benefice in 8. Eliz. The Incumbent took another Benefice without Qualification by which the first was void The Successor Bishop 18. Eliz. presented one E. but non constat if
the Cause and they do award an Erroneous Process or Misaward a Capias by which the party is taken in Execution yet it is a lawfull Execution and the Sheriff is chargeable with the Escape and he is not to examine the Error of the Court in avoiding the Execution Second that the Conviction of the Felony was no discharge of the parties Execution and it was adjudged against the Defendant 412. Debt brought in Co. B. for an Amercement in a Court Baron the Defendant would have waâ—ed his Law the Court doubted of it and some Presidents were shewed as Trin. 6. Eliz. Tindal and Tuckers Case that he might in such Case wage his Law Quare The Queen Bishop of Lincoln and Skiffings Case 413. Quare Imp. The Case was the Countess of Kent had two Chaplains by Patent a third had no Patent of Chaplainship but he was first Retained and took two Benefices by Dispensation It was adjudged he was Lawful Chaplain for the Patent is not of necessity but only in Case where he hath Cause to shew it and he hath no cause to shew it because her Retainer was good without a Patent Bâ—rd and Adams Case 414. In this Case a Case of a Prohibition to stay a Suit in the Spiritual Court for Tythes of the Rakings of Lands after the Crop of corn was carried away It was holden That the prohibition would not lye but that Tythes should be paid of Rakings But vide 42. Eliz. in B. R. in Gree and Haales Case It was adjudged that by the Custom of the Realm Tythes should not be paid of Rakings Battey and Trevillions Case 415. Replevin The Defendant avowed That I. and A. his Wife were seised in Fee in the right of his Wife and devised the Land in which to I. H and I. his Wife with E. their Daughter for 60. years rendring four Marks Rent Afterwards 38. H. 8. I. and A. his Wife levyed a Fine and the Conusees rendred the Land to A. for Life the remainder to Tho. their Son in tail with remainder over A. died Tho. entred upon the Lessees and made a Feoffment to I. D. and others to perform his Will the Lessees reentred Tho. 7. Eliz. by his Will ordained that his Feoffees should stand seised untill they had levied sufficient to pay his debts and Legacies which were not payed and therefore the Defendant as Bayliff to the Feoffees made conusance and as to the rest he avowed for that Tho. was seised in Fee of the place in which c. and 6 Eliz. devised the same to H. L. and M for Life rendring 30. s. Rent and afterwards entred upon the Leslees and levyed a Fine thereof to the use of himself in Fee and afterwards infeoffed thereof the first Feoffees to the use of his Will the Lessees reentred and he made his Will as above and died and for 3. l. rent for two years he made conusance as Bayliff to the surviving Feoffees The Plantiff to the first Avowry said that Tho. was seised in Tail by the render of the Fine and the tail descended to H. his Son and then E. one oâ— the Lessees who survived to husband the Plaintiff bâ—que hoc that Tho. enfeoffed the Feoffees to such uses as the Defendant hath a ledged and as to the other Conusance the Plaintiff demurred in Law The Jury found the seisin of A. and her Husband and the Lessee for years to the three persons and the Fine and Render to the seisin of Tho. and the Feoffment of Tho. to I. D. and others to perform his Will and they found a Letter of Attorney to persons whereof the said I. H. one of the Lessees was one conjunctim divisim to enter in all the Premises and take possession and deliver the same to the Feoffees or one of them and that after Tho. made his Will as before and that C. one of the Attorneys to one of the Feoffees and D. another of the Attorneys delivered seisin to another of the Feoffees There were divers points in this Case First because the Jury have sound a Devise of Land and no Tenure if the Justices could judge the Tenure to be Knight Service or Soccage this point the Justices said they would not meddle with Second point admit the Land to be holden in Capite and that the Land passed by the Willâ— they held that but two parts of the Land passed by the Devise 3dly When he devised that his Feoffees should stand seised and he had not Feoffees but he himself was in possession the Justices held it was devise of the Land it self 4thly They held where one of the Lessees made Livery as Attorney to the Lessor that he did not thereby extinct or surrender the Term. 5thly When an Authority is to four conjunctim divisim to execute Livery that one might execute Livery in one part and the other in another part 6thly They held when Tenant in tail of Lands in lease for years makes a Feoffment and the Lessee reentred it was a discontinuance 7thly They held when Tenant in Fee simple of a Reversion expectant upon Lease for years deviseth two parts of the Land that no part of the Rent passeth 8thly In this Case because the avowry is made for the whole Rent and it appeareth he hath title but to two parts It was holden he should not have a Return for any part 9thly They held when the Avowant makes title but to two parts of the Rent and the Jury assesse damages for the whole Rent that the Avowant could not have Judgment unlesse he Released the damages 10thly When the Lessor entred upon his Lessee for life and made a Feoffment and the Lessee reentred the Justices doubt if the Rent was revived Keale and Carters Case 416. False Imprisonment the Defendant Justified that he was Constable and that the Plaintiff brought a Child of the age of 2. years and no more into the Church and there left it to the intent it might dye for want of sustenance wherefore he Imprisoned him till he agreed to take away the Child It was the opinion that the Justification of the Defendant was good because the Act of the Constable was but to prevent a felony which he might do by virtue of his Office Fenwick and Mitsorths Case 417. The Case was A. man seised of Lands in Fee Levyed a Fine thereof to the use of Wife for life the remainder to the use of his eldest Son and the Heirs males of his body the remainder to the right Heirs of the Conusor The Conusor made a Lease for 1000. years to B. the eldest Son dyeth without Issue having a daughter the Conusor dyeth the Wife after dyeth the eldest Son Leaseth the Lands to the Plaintiff It was adjudged in this Case it was a Reversion and no Remainder and this limitation to his right Heirs was meerely void Sir Moiâ—e Finch and Throgmortons Case 418. The Case in effect was this The Queen made a Lease for years rendring rent
Consideration of Blood Covenants with B. his brother to stand seised to the use of himself for life and after the use of B. in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of B. Provided that if A. by himself or by any other during his Natural life tender to B. a Gold ring to the intent to make void the said use that then the said uses should be void Afterwards A. 26 Eliz. is attainted of Treason and Outlawed for it and the King makes a Lease of the Lands to C. and D. for 40 years The attainder is confirmed by Act of Parliament and Enacted That the said Act shall not extend to make any Lease void made by the K. after the said Treason Also Enacted that all persons which claim an estate or interest in Land not enrolled since 18 Eliz. shall within 2. years after the Session of that Parliament shew and bring into the Court of Exchequer his or their Grant or assurance to be void The King reciting the Proviso and benefit thereof given him by Act of Parliament authorizeth E. to deliver the Gold ring to B. to the Intent to make void the uses he reads the Patent to B. and makes a tender to him which he refuseth to accept of E. certifies the same into the Exchequer This Case was very largely and Learnedly Argued by all the Serjeants and others at the â—arre which vide in the Book at Large afterwards it was argued by all the Barons in the Exchequer and there amongst other things it was Resolved by them That the Condition in the principal Case viz. the tender of the Gold ring was not annexed to â—he person of A. but that any one might make the tender and thaâ— it was given to the King by the Act of Parliament and when a Statute gives a Condition to the King the performance of it which is the substance and which is not inseparably annexed to the person is given to the King 2. That the Tender and Certificate of it was good without Office found 3. That presently by the tender the uses were determined and the Land vested in the King by force of the Act of Parliament The Earl of Northumberlands Case 434. A. 15 June 22 Eliz. bargained and sold the Mannor of D. to the Earl of Northumberland and his Heirs who because the Land was holden in Capite 3. Sept. the same year purchased a License of Alienation in Octob. the same year a Fine was Levyed for further assurance and in Novemb. the same year the Deed was enrolled The Queen seised the Lands for a Fine for Alienation without License It was adjudged the Queens hands should be removed from the Land because the bargainee was now in by the Fine and not by the bargaines and sale and also because the Licence did precede the Fine the Alienation was not made without License Yardley and Prestwood and others Case 435. In a Quare Impedit It was holden by the Justices in this Case That a double usurpation upon the Queen did put her out of possession of Advowson and put her to her Writ of Right of Advowson But the Law hath been taken since that time and so adjudged that a double usurpation did not put the Queen out of possession of her Advowson Vide 33 Eliz. Hassies Case Tr. 4. Jac. The King and Champians Case accordingly Isabell Mordants Case 436. An Enfant Levyed a Fine to the Queen The Queen granted the Lands to Bowes Treasurer of Barwick Error brought to reverse the Fine Bowes pleaded in Barre the Statute of 18 Eliz. It was Resolved that notwithstanding that Statute the Writ of Error did lye for that Statute did not extend to make grants good of such persons who could not make grants by the Common Law as Enfants persons of Non sane Memorie c. Sir Mayle Finch and Hen. Finches Case 437. The Mother of Sir Moyle Finch and the Defendant in her Widdowhood levyed a Fine to the use of her self for life and after her death to the use of her Executors for 5. years and after to Sir Moyle in Tail with divers remainders over and afterwards she maried I. S. and she with I. S. granted the Terme of 5. years to Sir Moyle and after that she and her Husband levyed a Fine to Sir Moyle and I. D. and after that the Wife with her Husbands assent made her Will and made the Defendant her sole Excecutor and dyed the Defendant entred It was agreed by the Justices 1. That the use limited to the Excecutors was good 2. That the Wife could not grant it in her life time 3. That it was extinguishable in the Wife by a Fine come ceo c. but not by a Release 4. That the Fine sur Conusans de droit c. had extinguished the Terme and the said Fine had made such a disturbance of the possession that the use being future at the instant of her death in the Excecutors could never rise 5. That a Feme Covert with the assent of her Husband might make a Will but not thereby to dispose of Legacies 6. It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the Wife who had the estate for her life had levyed a fine sur Conusans de Droit c. 438. Action upon Indebitatus Assumpsit solvere It was Resolved the Plaintiff could not give in evidence matter of specialty to prove his debt but he might give in Evidence matter of Contract Fitzherberts Case 439. He was Arrested in Execution by the Sheriff of Derby the 3. day of Feb. at 7. of the Clock in the Morning and the same day at 10. of the Clock he was elected a Burgesse of Parliament for the Borrough of New Castle It was agreed in Parliament because he was arrested before he was chosen Burgesse he could not have the Priviledge of the House Hunger and Freys Case 440. A man had recovered in Debt and had Judgment and an Elegit and had an extent delivered him and Nihil as to goods Afterwards he suggested the Defendant had more Lands goods and chattells in the same County and had a New Elegit and upon that he had a Lease for years in Execution and no other Land was found It was adjudged that the sale of the Lease for years by the Sheriff and delivery in Execution was good Townsend and Walleys Case 441. A man had 6 l. Land in possession and Lands in Peversion upon an estate for life and by his Will he deviseth all his Lands to his Excecutors for 10. years to pay his Debts and perform his Will and after the 10. years ended that his Executors or one of them or the Executors of his Excecutors or any of them should sell his Lands and he made diverse Excecutors and gave 40 l. Legacies by his Will and dyed After the 10. years 2. of the Executors sold the Land 1. Resolved that the Land in reversion might be sold as well as the Land in possession 2. That the sale by the 2. Executors was
abate upon the Plaintiffs own suing Strowde and Willis Case 521. Debt upon an Obligation The Condition was If the Obligor shall pay the Rent of 37 l. yearly at two Feasts according to the intent of certain Articles of Agreement made between the Obligor and Obligee during the Term that then c. The Defendant pleaded the Articles did contain That the Obligor Dimisit ad forman tradidit to the Defendant omnia talia domus tenementa terras in Parochia de Y. in quibus the Obligee had an Estate for Life by Copy according to the custom of the Mannor Habendum for 21. years if the Obligee should so long live rendring to the Obligee during the Term 37. l. to be paid at the Castle of C. and further pleaded That at the time of the making of the Articles the Obligee had not any Estate in any Lands Houses c. in Y. for term of Life by Copy upon which Plea the Plaintiff demurred There were two points in the case 1. If nothing passed by the Articles and so the Reservation of the Rent is vod 2. If the Obligation for payment of the Rent was void It was Resolved upon the first point That no Rent is reserved for the Lease did never begin and therefore the Rent should not For the second point the Court differed in opinion Fenner Justice held the Condition of the Bond is to pay the Rent according to the Articles which is That if the Lessee have not the Land the Lessor shall not have the Rent Papham cont That the Obligor is bound to pay it although nothing was dimised to him for that by the Bond he hath made it a Sum in gross and it is altered from the nature of a Rent and he is bound to pay the Rent or Sum and if this be either of them he must pay it Qu. There is no Judgment in the Case upon that point Alsop and Claydons Case 522. Assumpsit That the Defendant upon good consideration promised to pay the Plaintiff 5 l. when he should be required The Jury found that the Defendant promised to pay but found no Request wherefore it was adjudged against the Plaintiff Perin and Corbets Case 523. In an Appeal the Defendant was acquitted of the Murder and found guilty of Man-slaughter It was agreed in that case that the Plaintiff could not be Nonsuit Brown and Brinckleys Case 524. The Plaintiff declared that he was produced for a Witness the Defendant said he was disproved before the Justices of Assize by the Oath of K. innuendo that he was disproved in his Oath Adjudged that the Action did not lie for the innuendo cannot supply such intendment Adderby and Bouthbyes Case 525. Assumpsit in consideration the Plaintiff would be Bail for one F. in a Plaint that Adderby had brought in London against F. the Defendant did promise to save the Plaintiff harmless touching the Bail and shewed a Recovery was against F. and 2. Cap. returned non est inventus upon which Process issued against the Bail who paid the money and the Defendant had not saved him harmless It was found upon Non assumpsit the first Action was entred by the name of Adderby and the Bail accordingly and that the Decleration was by the name of Adderley It was adjudged that although the Jury found the Assumpsit yet the special matter proves the Plaintiff had no cause of Action for he was not damnified by reason of the Bail at the Suit of Adderby for which the Assumpsit was but he was wrongfully taken if he was Bail for Adderley against whom the Recovery was had whereas in truth he was not Bail for him wherefore it was judged against the Plaintiff Austin and Twins Case 526. The Patronages of two Churches adjoyning within one mile were belonging to one Parson and both being void and of the value of 7 l. in the Queens Books the Ordinary made an union of them at the request of the Patron which was afterwards confirmed by the Patron and the Queen Qu. If a good union Tusking and Edmonds Case 527. A Lease was made of Tythes rendring Rent at a place out of the Parish with clause to be void upon non payment Adjudged the Lessor is to make his demand of the Rent at the place and for not payment the Lease is void Broughton and Mulshoes Case 528. False Imprisonment The Defendant justified that he was Constable and the Plaintiff being in the presence of a Justice of Peace not having opportunity to examine him commanded he Dedant to take the Plaintiff into his custody till the next day which he did accordingly It was adjudged a good Justification though not alledged what cause the Justice had to imprison the Plaintiff Megs and Griffins Case 529. Words viz. I. S. told me that he heard say That thou didst poyson thy first Husband and that he died of that poyson with an averment that I. S. near told the Defendant so Yet adjudged that neither words nor the averment of them were sufficient to maintain the Action Brokes Case 530. Words spoken of a Merchant viz. He is a false man and I will prove it and be keepeth a false Debt-book for he charged me with a Piece of three Piled Velvet which I never had Adjudged the Action did not lie without saying That by disswasion of Customers or other they did not deal with him nor that they would not trust him The Lord de la Ware and Pawlets Case 531. Words spoken of the Plaintiff in open Sessions viz. You have perverted Justice and to your shame and dishonour I will prove it adjudged the words actionable Weekes and Taylors Case 532. Words viz. he hath laid in wait to rob and was one of them that would have robbed me adjudged actionable though he was not robbed Carters Case 533. Words viz. Carter is a proging pilfring Merchant and hath pilfred away my coâ—n from my Wife and my Servants and this I will stand to adjudged the words are not actionable Bowyer and Jenkins Case 534. Action upon the case for words spoken at B. in the County of S. the Defendant justified that he spake the worda at C. at a Tryal there being produced as a Witnesse by Subpoena and sworn The Plaintiff said de injuria sua propria and found for the Plaintiff and because the venire was from B. whereas it ought to have been from C. where the Justification was It was adjudged Error Penniman and Rawbanks Case 535. Action for slandring his Title That the Plaintiff was seised of Land and put it to sale and the Defendant said I wish not any man to deal with the Land for I know one that hath a good Title to it and the parties will not depart with their interest for any reason The Defendant Justified that he had a Lease in Reversion of it and at will of other part It was replied de injuria sua propria and found for the Plaintiff Resolved by the Justices If
the Lands in question without mentioning of any estate after the death of his Wife and paying 10 l. a peece to his daughter when they enter and if any of the Sons marry and have Issue male of their bodies and dyeth before his enty in the Land then that issue to have his part D. takes a Wife and hath Issue male in the life of the Devisor and the Wife of the Devisor dyeth and he enters and pays the portion of 10 l. a year to the Daughters and after dyes B. the eldest brother enters upon the Issue male of D. It was adjudged in this case That D. had but an estate for life and not in Tail for there were three things precedent to the Tail the Mariâ—ge the having Issue male his death before his entry and when it appeareth he did not dye before his entry therefore he had no â—ail and by the word paying 10 l. to the Daughters he had not a Fee simple but that is intended to be for the estate which he had Grey and Willougbyes Case 626. The Venire bore date in December which was out of Terme but retornable at a day in the next Terme and the Issue upon distresse was afterwards tryed It was held the same was but a misconveying of proces which was helped by the Statute of Jeofailes but if the Agard upon the Roll had been had at a day out of the Terme then the Court held the same to be Error Tiping and Bunnings Case 627. Note It was adjudged that if a Copyhold be granted for life the remainder to another in Fee the admittance of the Tenant for life is the admittance of him in the Remainder because the Lord is not to have a new Fine upon the death of the Tenant for life Cheney and Hawes Case 628. Assumpsit to deliver to the Plaintiff in London certain monies when he delivers to the Defendant certain broad Cloathes there the Defendant pleaded Non Assumpsit The opinion of the Court was that the Defendant ought to have said by way of Answer that the Assumpsit was special have traversed the general Assumpsit in the Declaration Stowels Case 629. If there be two Joynt Tenants and one sole brings Trespas against a stranger who pleads Notguilty Resolved the defendant cannot give in evidence the Joynt Tenancy but he ought to have pleaded it Core and Hadgills Case 630. After Execution awarded supersedias issued quia improvidè emanavit executio but no cause of Restitution was in the supersedeas for which it was said that Execution was done before the supersedeas awarded The Court awarded a non supersedeas with a clause of Restitution in it Coles Case 631. He was Indicted of Burglary the Indictment was quod burglarit ' domum cujusdam Richardi fregit without naming his Sirname and the Judgment holden good Saundleys and Oliffs Case 632. A man was seised of a Messuage and granted the Messuage with all Commons appurtenant and in Trespas the Defendant did prescribe for Common and did aver that all the Farmors of the said Messuage in the place where c. and because it did appear that there was unity of possession of the Messuage and Land in which the Common was claimed the Common was extinct but if the grant had been all Commons usually occupied with the Messuage it would have passed the like Common and so it was adjudged Lewes and Bennets Case 633. The next Avoydance was granted to 2. the one Released to the other who brought a Quare impedit in his own name It was adjudged maintenable because it was before the Church was void Dover and Stratfields Case 634. King H. 7. gave Land in Tail to I. S. his Issue was disseised a stranger being in possession levyed a Fine with Proclamation and 5 years passed the Reversion remaining in the Crown It was holden that the Issue of him was only bound in whose time the Fine was Levyed and no other Issues and that by the Statute of 32 and 34 H. 8. 635. Action upon the case because for money he sold to him Tythes sciâ—ns that he had not any right in them Adjudged the Action did lye by the sciens though there was no direct saying that he had not any right in them Beamounts Case 636. He was taken upon an Excommunicato capiendo and the significavit did not mention that he was commorant within the Diocesse of the Bishop at the time of the Excommunication and for that cause the party was discharged Collins and Willies Case 637. The Father promised 10 l. in mariage with his Daughter the Daughter in consideration thereof promised to pay the 10 l. to the Father upon which promise action upon the case was brought against the Husband It was Resolved that ex rigore juris the Action was maintainable but if the Defendant had pleaded the Covin betwixt the Father and Daughter Popham said the action would have destroyed the Action However the Judgment for the practice was stayed Suliard and Stamps Case 638. Assumpsit that if he being Sheriff would execute a Writ of Execution that he would pay him his Fees due per leges Statuta Angliae and the Plaintiff shewed his Fee was 3 l. the Execution being 60 l. found for the Plaintiff Ir was moved in stay of Judgment that the Plaintiff ought to have shewed the Statute upon which the Fees are due but it was dissallowed because the Action is not an Action upon the Statute so as the Statute ought to be snewed Popworth and Arches Case 639. It was holden in an Accompt that the Defendant cannot wage his Law in accompt for the profits of 14. acres of Land for 6. years Hoe and Beltons Case 640. A Scire fac to have Execution of Damages The Defendant said that the Plaintiff had assigned the damages to the Queen and that the Sheriff by Process out of the Exchequer had extended his Lands for them It was adjudged a good Bar though the Sheriff had not retorned his Writ Hoe and Marshals Case 641. The Defendant was Bail for one F. at the Suit of the Plaintiff F. did not pay the money nor render his Body in a Scire facias against the Defendant the Bail he pleaded that the Plaintiff had released to him all actions after the Bail and before the Judgment It was adjudged the Release did not bar the Plaintiff because the Release was before any duty was due for no duty was by the Bail before the Judgment Coo. 1. part Griffin Lawrence and others Case 642. In Ejectione firme two of the Defendants were guilty and the other not he who was found not guilty died Resolved That the Plaintiff should have Judgment against the others for this Action is but in the nature of Trespass in which the death of one shall not abate the Action Garraway and Braybridges Case Ejectione firme the case was A had Issue F. his eldest Son and B. the Defendant his youngest and conveyed the Lands to the use
any essence and also because the possibility of the Wife was included in the Fine Ferry and Redings Case 718. Two were bound in a Statute to make such assurance as should to devised by the Conusee or his Councell upon Notice Assurance was devised and notice thereof given to one of them who refused but no Notice was given to the other It was Resolved that by the Refusal of one of them the Statute was forfeited and should bind both of them Strangewayes and Hicks Case 719. The Defendant knowing that the Plaintiff was an Enfant within age procured him to enter into a Recognizance of Debt to him for wares bought of him and for this the Defendant was fined in Star Chamber 100 l. and Imprisoned Lewes Case 720. He being Clark of the Assises in the County of S. and hearing his Deputy reading an Indictment of Murther the 31. day of June whereas June hath but 30. dayes and because he did not discover the same to the Justices of Assise before the Tryal of the person for that cause he was fined in the Starre Chamber 40 l. and the Judgment and execution of the party respited Rosses Case 721. A. levyed a Fine to the use of himself for life the remainder to his Excecutors untill they have levyed 300 l. for the performance of his Will and dyes The Executors permit a stranger to enter who receives greater profits then will pay the 300 l. afterwards the Excecutors enter and make a Lease for years Resolved that the estate of the Excecutors was determined by their own negligence and although the words of the Will are they shall have Levyed It is intended untill they might conveniently have Levyed the 300 l. 722. King Hen. the 8. Mortgaged certain Lands to Citizens of London upon condition of Redemption by payment of the money by the King to them They did not demand the money at the Receit of the Exchequer which was so found by Office It was the opinion of the Justices that the King might enter upon the Land Wherefore the Mortgagees and their Heirs were compelled to compound de Novo with the Queen for the Land and paid ten years purchase and took new grants from the Queen of the Lands Townsend and Kingsmills Case 723. Ejectione firme The Defendants pleaded that the Dean and Canons of Windsor was seised and made a Lease for years and the Lessee assigned the Terme to the Defendant who was possessed till the Lessor of the Plaintiff ousted him and disseised the Dean and Canons and made the Lease to the Plaintiff The Plaintiff Replyed and confessed the seisn and Lease of the Dean and Canons and made title to the Terme by the assignment made by the Lessee to his Lessor before the assignment to the Defendant and Traversed the disseisin It was the opinion of the Justices that the Traverse was not good because he confessed and avoyded and also Traversed Vide Helyors Case before pl. 709. Barres Case 724. Information in the Exchequer against divers Merchants some Aliens some English After issue the Aliens prayed tryal per medietatem Linguae It was denyed by the Court because the English who were Defendants could not have that tryal Lewen and Coxes Case 725. A. seised of Lands in Fee devised them to his 2. Sons equally and their Heirs If it was a joynt estate in them or they were Tenants in Common was the Question It was said the words equally had 2. significations in the one it referreth to the estate in the other to the quantity of the Land It was said in a Devise of Lands to 2. equally they were joynts But if a Devise were to 2. and their Heirs equally or part and part like it is a Tenancy in Common At last after long debate it was adjudged it was a Tenancy in Common and so it was affirmed in a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon the opinion of 4. Judges against 3. of them Lovedon and Windsors Case 726. Quare Impedit the Case was L. had 2. Presentations and W. the 3. of Inheritance perpetual L. presented P. who was Institute and Inducted and afterwards in the time of Queen Mary was deprived because a Married man wherefore he again presented D. who was Inducted Afterwards P. was restored with Declaration that he had good Title Afterwards P dyed W. presented H. L. brought the Quare Impedit It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the sentence declaratory for the restitution made a nullity in the deprivation of P. and upon that P. was restored without new Presentation and so avoyded the Incumbency of D. and so L. had good Title to present as his second Turne and W. had no title to present as yet 727. Upon the Statute of 39 Eliz. Cap. 6. Of Charirable uses these poynts were Resolved by the Justices 1. That although the Bishop of the Diocesse be a Commissioner by the expresse words of the Act yet it is not necessary that he be present at the execution of the Commission but if it be directed to him and others they may proceed in it without the Bishop but it must be directed to the Bishop else it is void 2. If it be directed sede vacante the Metropolitan is not to be named in it because he is not Bishop of the Diocesse and if a Bishop be made before the Execution of the Commission the same doth not take away the force of the Commission 3. If the Commissioners decree a Lease or Feoffment to be void it is void in interest and estate and if the Lord Chancellor c. after decree the estate good it is again good in interest but the Chancellor cannot make any decree in it if the former decree of the Commissioners be not against equity 4. If a Lease be made in deceit of the Charitable uses which is assigned to one who hath not notice of it for good and valueable Consideration The Commissioners have power to decree the Assignment void 5. The Commissioners may decree the mean profits long time before taken to be repaid by the party his Excecutors or Administrators and had received the and misimployed them as well as they may the profits which are to come 6. The Commissioners cannot by decree estabblish a Corporation of Churchwardens or others to take for Charitable uses but they may Decree Land to a capable body Politique without danger of Mortmain be the Land holden in Capite or not because the Queen is bound by the Statute Yet afterward the Justices altred their opinion in one of the poynts viz. That they could not decree the Lease or estate void of one who came in without Notice and upon good Consideration Druries Case 728. The Case shortly put was this A Countesse being a Widdow retained two Chaplins and afterwards she retained a third Chaplain which third Chaplain purchased a Dispensation to have two benefices with Cure his first benefice being of the value of 8 l. per an It was Resolved after long Argument that
The Wife entred and elected one yard Land and a half A. entred upon her Resolved that the use for the Life of the Father did cease in it without entry into the Land of the Wife and that she should haue the Election The Lady Burghs Case 791. A seised of Land bargained and sold the same to B. and C. with power of Revocation by tender of 20. s. to them or one of them in the Hall of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster in Westminster A. tendred the 20. s. in the Hall none of the Bargainees being present nor having any notice of it Afterwards A. covenanted to stand seised to the use of I. S. her Nephew It was Resolved in this Case that the tender of the 20 s. was no performance of the Condition to avoid the Estate 2. That the conveyance by Covenant to stand Seisor for consanguinity should make void the former Conveyance containing the power of Revocation wherefore it was adjudged for the Plaintiff Paramour and Veralls Case 792. The Town of Sandwich did prescribe that if any Goods of any Freeman of that Town came to the hands of a Freeman and citizen of London the Mayor of Sandwich c. had used to write to the Mayor c of London to take good order for restitution and it they refused and did not return the Answer to the Mayor of Sandwich c. and did not make Restitution within 15. days then they of S. used to detain the Body of any Londoner which they should find there till restitution was made It was Resolved by all the Justices that such a Prescription was not good Diggs Case 793. The case is very long but this in effect A man seised of Lands in Fee for diverse considerations covenanted to stand seised thereof to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of his Son in tail Provided that at any time during his Life with consent of divers by Deed indented to be enrolled in any Court of the King to revoke the said uses and estates and to limit new uses and afterwards by Deed indented enrolled in the Chancery he revokes the uses in part of the Land and limits the same to him and his Heirs and afterwards by another Deed he declares that from the time of the enrollment of the Deed in the Chancery that all the first uses in the first Indenture shall be void and that the Land shall be to the use of himself in Fee and after he levyes a Fine of all the Land and after the Deed is enrolled in the Chancery In this case these points were Resolved 1. That he might revoke part at one time and part at another time but he could revoke one part but once 2. That where the Revocation is to be by Deed Indented to be enrolled it is as much as to say by Deed Indented Enrolled for it is no Revocation till enrollment 3. That there was not a compleat and perfect Revocation till the Deed was enrolled in the Chancery 4. That the Fine before the Enrollment had extinguished the power of Revocation 5. If the Fine had not been levyed then by the Revocation the ancient Uses had bin destroyed without entry or claim because he himself was Tenant for Life and he could not enter and Acts of Revocation are as strong as a claime 6. That by the same conveyance the ancient Uses might be recovered their Uses might be limitted Costard and Wingates Case 794. A Lay-man presented to a Benefice before the Statute of 13. Eliz. made a Lease for 60. years which was confirmed by the Patron and Ordinary After the Statute his Successor became bound in an Obligation that the Lessee should enjoy the Term and after he was absent from his Living 80. days It was adjudged the Obligation was not void by the Statute of 14. Eliz. because the Lease for years was good and the Bond for enjoyning it which the Successor cannot avoid 795. Resolved by the Justices of the Kings Bench that if the Sheriff hath a capias against one to find Sureties for the good behaviour he may break the House and enter and arrest the party as well as he may do upon a capias utlagatum Talbots Case 796. He was indicted for Recusancy That being of the age of 16. years and more non accessit ad Ecclesiam c. by the space of 6. months It was said the Indictment was not good for Existens aetatis 16. annorum shall be referred to the time of absence from the Church and not to the time of the Indictment but the Court held the Indictment to be good Lovegraves Case 797. A man sued in the Spiritual Court for calling him Goose Woodcock he being a Clerk A Prohibition was awarded and in this case it was said the High Commissioners could not hold Plea for slanderous words spoken of a Clerk but for laying of violent hands on him they might Binghams Case 798. The case was this Grand-father Father and Son the Grand-father held the Mannor of D. of B. as of his Mannor of S. by Knight-Service and levyed a Fine thereof to the use of himself for Life the remainder to the use of the Father in tail and after to the use of the Right Heirs of the Grand-father the Father died his Son within age B. the Lord suffered a Recovery of his Mannor of S. unto the use of himself and his Wife in tail the Remainder to the use of C. and his wife in tail the Remainder to the Right Heirs of B. B. and his Wife died without Issue C. entred into that Mannor the Grand-father died his Wife died the Son entred and made a Lease for years It was Resolved in this case that as long as the Grand-father lived no Wardship of the body or Land was due because the Reversion remained in himself and the mean man could not be in ward during the Life of the particular Tenant for Life and in case of a Subject as long as the Reversion remained in the Donor or his Heir the Issue in tail should not be in ward to the Lord Paramount when the Son in remainder in tail died his Heir within age â— 2. Resolved that a man shall never have the Wardship of the Heir when the Land was never in his Fee or Seignory of him or any of his Ancestors at the time of the death of the Tenant Bullock and Thornes Case 799. The case upon the matter was shortly this A man conveyed Land to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of divers of his blood with a future power of Revocation as after such a Feast and afterwards and before the power of Revocation began he for valuable consideration sold the Land to one and his Heirs It was Resolved that this bargaine and sale is within the Remedy of the Statute of 27. Eliz. of Fraudulent Conveyances for the Act will not that such voluntary conveyance originally subject to a power of Revocation should stand
Resolved it was a good Saving and that all Justices in their Sessions to be holden within the city might hear and determine Offences committed in the County but no offence done within the city though in the time of the Sessions Heydon Smith and others Case 857. Audita Querela The case was A. and B. seised of Capite Lands and P. seised of Soccage Lands they all three acknowledged a Statute of 8000 l. to R. A. and B. levyed two several Fines of their moyeties to C. and W. to the use of themselves and their heirs until default of payment was of certain Annuities and then to the use of C and W. they after default of payment sold the Lands to H. and D. H. released to D. who devised the Land in tail and died the Devisee in tail died without Issue the Wives of the Plaintiff were Heirs to D. to whom the third part of the Capire Land discended R. had extended the Lands upon Statute before the default of payment of the Annuities and before the Bargain and Sale and although he sued the extent against A. and B. and also P. yet the Sheriff extended the Lands of A. and B. and to defeat the extent and to have Restitution because the Land of P. was not extended the Audita Querela was brought The principal point in this case was if the Bargainee and those which claim under him should have no Audita Querela for the extent made before his time Another point was if the Coheirs should have an Audita Querela without the owner of the two parts all of them being Tenants in common and equally grieved with the extent The case is very learnedly argued pro con but not Resolved Salter and Botelers Case 858. A Rent was granted to A. his Executors and Assignes for the Life of B. out of Bl. acree A. died living a Cestuy que use The Executors of A. distreined for the Rent and averred the Life of B. It was adjudged the Distress was not lawfull because by the death of the Grantee the Rent was determined but if the Rent had been granted to the Grantee and his Heirs the Heir of the Grantee should have bin a special Occupant and he might distrein for the Rent Ewer and Moiles Case 859. In a Replevin by E. in the Kings Bench against M. M. being an Infant appeared there by Artorney also an Imparlance was entred Petit licentiam interloquendi usque and no day was named and Judgment being there given for these Errors the Judgment was reversed Boulton and Bastards Case 860. A. and his Wife seised in the Right of the Husband of the Mannor I. exchanged the same with S. and D. for the fourth part of the Mannor of S. A. died the Wife entred into I. and evicted it for her Life It was adjudged it was a defeating of the Exchange for ever because the exchange was of Land in possession and yet the Justices held that a Reversion might be exchanged for Lands in possession and Note It was said that unequall value or quantity in the one more then the other should not avoid the exchange but otherwise it is of unequality of Estate Stephen and Tots Case 861. T. and his Wife being divorced in the spiritual Court à thoro mensa The Father of the Wife devised a Legacy to her for which she sued the Plaintiff his Executor in the Spiritual Court he there pleaded the Release of the Husband which the Spiritual Judges would not allow of It was the opinion of the Justices in this Case that the Release of the Husband was good notwithstanding this Divorce Sparke and Sparkes Case 862. A man made a Lease for life and after made a Lease for 99. years after the death of Tenant for life if the Lessee for 99. years should so long live and if he dyed within the Terme the Lessor granted that the Land should Remain to his Excecutors and Assignes for 21. years after the death of the Survivor of both the Lessees The Lessee for 99. years granted the Lease for 21. years rendring Rent and dyed Intestate having survived the Lessee for life the Administrator brought Debt against the Assignee of the Terme for 21. years for the Rent It was adjudged that the action did not lye because the Contingent foe 21. years never vested in the Lessee for 99. years the Intestate nor ever was in him to dispose or grant Bridge and Atkins Case 863. Words viz. Thou art an old perjured Knave and that is to be proved by a stake between the ground of such and such adjudged that for these words the Action did not lye Bothes Case 864. He was arraigned of Felony for a second forgery after Cónviction of a former forgery in the Star Chamber upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of writings concerning the Lands of I. S. In this Case Resolved that no Accessary can be in Forgery but all one principally 2. Resolved that for Felony the Kings Bench might commit one to the Fleet or unto any other Prison and also that a Prisoner who is condemned to perpetual Imprisonment was not Baileable nor Removeable Shaw and Norwoods Case 865. A man by his Will devised 40 l. to two Infants equally the Executrix delivered the money to one to whom the Defendant was Executor who made a Bill testifing he had received the 40 l. to the use of the Infants one of the Infants dyed Intestate his Administrator brought Debt against the Defendant the Executor of the Baylee It was adjudged the Action was maintainable and the specialty although it was not made to the Infants yet it was a sufficient Testimony of the debt Fort and Wards Case 866. A Copyholder had Common of Estovors in the Lords Woods appurtenant to his Copyhold and he purchased the Freehold of Inheritance in the Copyhold and had words in his deed of purchase of all Commons appertaining to the said Messuage Yet it was adjudged that the Common which he had to the Copy estate was extinct but if there had been special words in the Grant of the like Common as he had in the Copyhold before the surrender it had been good and as a new grant of Common Morgan and Slades Case 867. It was Resolved by all the Justices of England that an action upon the Case upon Assumpsit lyeth upon every contract Executory as well as an Action of Debt Seymayne and Greshams Case 868. G. and B. were Joynt Tenants of a house in Lond wherein they had several goods B. acknowledges a Statute and dyed a Writ of Execution came to the Sheriff of Lond. who came to the house with a Jury to extend the goods of B. G. seeing them and knowing the Cause of their comming to the intent to frustrate the Execution shut the Door of the house so as the Sheriff could not do Execution For which the Plaintiff brought his Action upon the Case and layd it to be to his damage of 2000 l. It was adjudged against the
condition that if there should be default made of Reparations upon Warning given within 6. Months the Lessor to reenter Resolved the warning in this Case must be given to the person and not at the place and both to the person of the Lessee as the person of his Assignee Wilmot and Knowles Case 884. A. and his Wife seised of Land to them and the Heirs of the Husband bargained and sold them to I. S. upon Condition if they or any of them or the Heirs or Assignes of the Husband pay 500 l. at such a day to I. S. it shall be Lawfull for the Husband and Wife and the Heirs of the Husband to enter and to hold in their former estate and that after the payment all Fines and Assurances should be to the use of the Husband and his Heirs and to no other use A Fine was Levyed before the enrollment of the Deed the Husband dyed having a daughter married to I. D. who in the right of his Wife payed the money and entred The Defendant in the Right of the Wife of A. entred It was adjudged his entry was Lawfull because upon the point the use was revested in the Wife as it was before the Fine and the last part of the Fine declaring the use to the Husband and his Heirs was void Atkins and Longviles Case 885. King H. 8. Anno. 33. of his Raign bargained and sold Land to the Ancestor of the Defendant without any words of grant It was adjudged it was good enough by the Expresse words within the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries which makes all Patents Indentures and writings made by the King after 4. Feb. Anno 27. of Monastery Land to be made within 3. years after the Act to be good 886. In Trespas the Record of Nisi Prius was of a Trespas 12 Jan. 25 Eliz. whereas the Declaration was of a Trespas 12 Jan. 45 Eliz. found for the Plaintiff I was adjudged the Plaintiff could not have Judgment nor the Record of Nisi Prius amendable by reason of this variance Fitzwilliams Case 887. A. suffered a Recovery to the use of himself and his Wife with a Remainder to their Son Provided it shall be Lawfull for him and his Wife by their joynt Deed sealed and delivered before three Credible Witnesses to alter change revoke determine and make void any use estate or estates limited in the said Deed and to limit new uses and from thence forth the Recovery shall be to the new uses A. and his Wife made a Deed and by the same declare That it was their intent to alter change and determine revoke and avoid all the former uses to their Son and thereupon without more words they limited new uses It was adjudged it was a good revocation of the old uses and a good limitation of the new uses Vide Cook 6. part 33. Brown and Nichols Case 188. It was Resolved in this Case that a Conduit to carry Water to an house shall passe with the house by the word Appertenant and the owner may come upon the Land of another to mend it so it be done at a convenient time and that without either Prescription or Grant Pudsey and Neusons Case 889. The Condition of an Obligation was that if the Obligor make all reasonable acts c. which shall be for assurance c. to be required by the Obligee before sueh a day c. Adjudged a general request is sufficient and the Obligor at his perill is to make it otherwise if it had been to be devised by the Obligee or his Councell there he must shew that he had required such a particular Assurance viz. a Fine or a Feoffment c. Milliner and Robinsons Case 890. Ejectione firme A Lease was made by two Coparteners the Declaration was Quod demiserunt ruled not good because it is a several Lease of each of them or his part The Case further was A. devised his Land to his brother I. and if he dyed having no Son that the Land should Remain to W. for life and if he dyed having no Son to Remain to the right Heirs of the Devisor Resolved I. had an estate Tail but W. had it but for life or at least to his Heirs Females for having no Son is meer Contingent Frewwater and Rois Case 891. Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail Remainder to the right Heirs of Tenant in Tail Tenant in Tail Covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his Heirs untill marriage and after to the use of himself for life the Remainder to his Wife for life with divers Remainders over in Tail and after he suffered a Recovery and dyed It was adjudged it was a bar of the Ancient Tail because by the Covenant to stand seised there was not any alteration of the estate of the Tenant in Tail 892. A Parson sued for Tythes of Fodder the Parishioners prescribed in Non decimando because the Fodder was for their Cattell which manured their Land It was holden no good Prescription but it was agreed Tythes should not be paid for Agistments nor for Wood for hedgwood to enclose the Corne nor for Fewell Rye and Fuliambs Case 893. A. was divorced from his Wife for Incontinency he after took another Wife living the first Wife Adjudged the second Marriage was void because the Divorce was but à Mensa Thoro and not à Vinculo Matrimonii Ward and Sudmans Case 894. The Case was The Bishop of Exeter in Consideration of service and other Considerations gave Lands to T. his Servant and to S. his Kinswoman in Tail Quaere if it was a Joynture within 11 H. 7. because no Consideration was expressed but service and the Consanguinity is but a Consideration implyed The Court doubted of it The Case was not Resolved Errors Short and Hellyars 895. Trespas Quare clausum fregit blada tritici ad valent ' 40 l. messuit conculcavit consumpsit nec non herbam ad valent ' centum solid ' pedibus ambulando conculcavit Consumpsit found for the Plaintiff Error assigned 1. Because the Venire facias was returned upon Sunday which was not dies juridicas 2. Because he supposed the Continuance of the Trespas inâ—depasturatione herbae whereas the Trespas is not supposed in the pasturing but only in conculcatione consumptione herbae pedibus ambulando The Court held the first was amendable by the Statute of 18 Eliz and for the second they said it was but surplusage Sir George Hennage and Curtis Case 896. Trespas for Trespas done in his Close in H. the Defendant justified and prescribed by reason there was a Common Foot way from H. thorow the said Close unto another Foot way from H. to K. in the same County Issue was upon the Prescription the Venire facias was only of H. whereas it ought to have been of H. and K. and for that cause the Judgment was reversed Holt and Tilcocks Case 897. Assumpsit against the Defendant
Attorney to sue the principal in his name It was adjudged for the Plaintiff in B. R. and upon Error brought the Judgment was reversed because it was an insufficient Consideration Dickenson and Sheres Case 942. Upon the awarding of the Venire facias upon the Roll the day of the return of it was omitted this being assigned after verdict for Error was holden by the Court not to be Error 943. Note it was Resolved by the Justices that an action lyeth for the Rector of a Parsonage against the Parishoners for not seting forth of their Tythes although the Statute of a Edward 6. drâ—h not appoynt who shall have the action English and Bowers Case 944. Covenant upon an Indenture of demyse of the Rectory of S. in the County of O. The Indenture was made at London and the Venire Issued to the Sheriff of O. It was assigned to be Error but the Court held it good because it shall be of the County where the Land lyeth Heley and Rigs Case 945. A Bill was exhibited in the name of Rigs per Johannem Keeling attornaâ— ' suum and the Warrant of Attorny was posuit lcco suo Gulielmum Keeling the same was assigned for Error but the Justices caused it to be amended and affirmed the Judgement Maylard and Kesters Case 946. Assumpsit In Consideration the Plaintiff would sell and deliver to the Defendant pannos laneos pro funer alibus of a Clark he promised to pay him for them cum inde requisitus esset and alledged he sold and delivered divers Cloths to him viz. 31. yards of black Cloth for 19 l. and recited divers other particulars amounting to 160 l. upon Non Assumpsit found for the Plaintiff Error brought in Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment was reversed because Debt properly lay and not Assumpsit Wolley and Mosleys Case 947. Action of Assault and Battery in B. R. upon a demur the Plaintiff had Judgment to recover It was a Warded upon the Roll à Fierifac to enquire of damages returnable die Martis post tres Trinitatis and the Writ was in facto returned die Mercurii post tres Trinitatis which was the very date of the return upon the Roll and the Plaintiff had damages and Costs 40 l. Error was brought and assigned whereas by the Record of the Continuance the Plaintiff appeared by I. P. his Attorney that before that time he was dead The Court held that to be no Error because the Record is to be credited before the allegation of the party 2. Because there was variance between the Roll and the Writ the Court held that was amendable 3. That the Writ is executed the same day of the Return that was holden to be no Error and so it was said it was adjudged Mich. 37. and 38. Eliz. in Gawen and Ludlows Case In the Court of Wards The Queen and Savages Case 948. A. seised of Lands holden in Capity by Knight service by License 27 H. 8. conveyed the same to his Son and Heir apparent and F. and their Heirs in consideration of Marriage betwixt them who intermarried and 2 E. 6. by Fine regranted the Land to the Father who rendred it to the Son and his Wife and to the Heirs of their two bodies begotten the Father dyed the Son haveing Issue three Daughters dyed 5 Mar the eldest Daughter had Issue Fran. Mooâ—e and dyed 25 Eliz. F. took second Husband W. Savage and they 28 Eliz. Leased the Rectory of K. to I. S. for 60. years and after granted the Reversion of the Rectory and Leased the Mannor to A. Savage for the life of F. Afterwards a Common Recovery was had in which S. and his Wife were vouched The Queen prayed to have the Wardship of Fran. Moore and to have the primer seisin and profits of the Land after the death of the Wife W. Savage averred the Recovery was to the use of himself pretending thereby that the Issues in Tail of the Son of Agnes and F. were barred In this Case it was Resolved for the Queen for one moyety and that the first Feoffment by A. to his Son F. before Marriage was not within the Statute of 11 H. 7. but when they Reconveyed back the Land that was a Conveyance of each of them their parts and then the render of the whole to them in special Tail as to the moyety of the Son the gift of the Father to the Son and his Wife within the Statute of 11 H. 7. but as to the gift of the Wife by the Fine was not within the Statute but the Recovery as that should bind the Issue Fishers Case 949. It was found by Office that A. seised in Fee of divers parcells of Lands holden by Knight service in Capite 21. Eliz. by License conveyed them to I. S. and E. his Wife Daughter of the said A. and that afterwards by Indenture he Covenanted for Fatherly love and affection that after the sealing of the said Indenture he would stand seised of the premises to the use of the said I. S. and E. his Wife in Tail Remainder in Fee to a stranger It was not found when the said Indenture was sealed and delivered nor that I. S. and E. his Wife were seised in Tail nor was it found in the Office Sic inde Seisitus did Covenant Notwithstanding these Exceptions it was Resolved that the Office was sufficient wherefore a Travers was to the Office Gervoyes Case 950. A. seised of the Mannor of N. in the County of W. and of Lands called F. in the County of of S. in Consideration of Marrage and for a Jointure for his Wife Covenants that he and his Heirs shall stand seised of the Mannors Lands c. to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives after their deceases to the use of the Heirs of the body of A. The Lands in F. are recovered by verdict from A. only during the Coverture between them A. dyeth his Heir within age It was Resolved in this Case that the Wife should have recompence for the Lands which were Enrolled during the Coverture although she accepted of the Residue of her Joynture after the death of her Hâ—sband Forsters Case 951. The Husband seised of Land in the Right of his Wife which was holden in Knight service the Heir being in Wards committed wast in the Lands Resolved the Husband should be charged to the value of the Lands and lose the possession of the Lands so long as his Wife should live Georges and Stanfields Case 652. Lands by Act of Parliament were assigned to the Countesse of Bindon during her life the Reversion to her Daughter who was in Ward to the Queen the Viscountesse took Husband and she and her Husband committed wast in the Land For the punishing of which a Bill was exhibited in the Court of Wards Resolved that the Court of Wards could not adjudge treble damages for the wast in this Case and therefore the Case was dismissed to Law Bridges Case 953. A. bargained and
sold Lands to B. and C. by Deed enrolled they suffered a Recovery to the use of A. and his Wife who was the Daughter of B. for her Joynture the Remainder over in Tail to their Issues A. dyed his Heirs within age Resolved in this Case it was an Assurance by A. himself for the advancement of his Wife and her Issues within the Statute of 34 H. 8. and the Heir of A. should be in Ward for the third part of the Land The Earl of Bedfords Case 954. The Case was this Francis Earl of Bedford made a Feoffment in Fee of the Mannor of D. to the L. St. John and others to the use of himself for 40. years and after to the use of John his second Son and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Afterward Edward Lord Russell Heir apparent of the Earl dyed without Issue male of his body having issue Eliz. and Anne Daughters Afterward Francis by Indenture between him and I. S. and others for the advancement of the Heirs males of the body of the said Earl and the establishing of his Mannors in his blood Covenanted to stand seised of the said Mannor to the use of himself for life and after his decease to the use of Francis Lord Russell his youngest Son and the Heirs males of his his body with divers Remainders over Afterwards Francis Lord Russell dyed having Issue Edward Lord Russell and after dyed and if the Daughters of the said John Lord Russell or the Earl of Bedford should have the Mannor of D. was the Question in the Court of Wards It was Resolved the Daughters should not have the said Mannor but the Earl because there was no right Heir to take as purchasor when the estate Tail was determined by the death of John Lord Russell without Issue male for the Remainder to the right Heirs cannot be preserved by the mean estate for years for it ought to be a Freehold at least which ought to preserve such a Remainder till there be one to take it by the name of a purchasor as right Heir Andrews and Sheffields Case 955. A. hath Issue three Sons B. C. and D. and seised of Lands in P. by Will deviseth them in this manner viz. I will that all my Lands in P. shall Remain after the death of my Wife to C. my Son and his Heirs and if it fortune that D. liveth untill the said Lands come to C. then I will that C pay to D. 10 l. every year as long as D. liveth A. dyeth C. commeth to the Lands and payeth the Rent hath Issue and dieth It was Resolved that in this Case the devise did enure as a Rent-seck for the life of D. and the Lands in the hands of the Heir or Assignes of C. should be chargeable with the same Wrotesleys Case 956. A. seised in Fee of the Mannors of N. and W. of the Mannor of D. in Tail Covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife and to his own right Heirs Afterward he dyed seised of these Mannors and also sole seised of other Lands in Fee The Mannor of D. was holden in Capite It was found that A. dyed his Heirs within age the body and Lands of the Mannor of D. was committed to I. S. and I. D. the committee ousted the Wife of D. It was Resolved that the Wife of A. should have recompence to the value of the said Mannor of D. out of the other Lands of the Heir of which his Ancestors dyed seised Boydell and Walthalls Case 957. The Case was A. seised of Land in Fee an Indenture was made purporting a Feoffment to B. and C. with Waranty There was another Indenture bearing date the same day with the first between the Feoffees and the Feoffor whereby the Feoffer reciting the former Feoffment to them granted that immedâ—atly after the said Feoffees and their Heirs and Assignes have taken and received the profits of the Lands during the Terme of 100 years then it should be Lawfull for A. his Heirs and Assignes to reenter and have the said Lands in their first right and Title It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case that the Intent upon the Livery was that the Feoffor should have the Lands after the 100. years quit possession of the Feoffees and that the use did immediately arise to the Heirs of the Feoffor as soon as the Lands had been enjoyed for 100. years and that by the Statute of 27 H. 8. the Heir of the Feoffor might enter The Earl of Rutlands Case 958. Ed. Earl of R. seised in Fee of and in the Reversion or Remainder of the Mannor of E. expectant upon the death of B. Countesse of B. who held the same for life for the augmentation of the Joynture of I. his Wife Covenanted 21 Eliz. with I. S. and I. D. before the last day of Trinity Term next following by Fine or other assurance to assure the Reversion or Remainder of the said Mannors to them and their Heirs and the parties thereof seised should stand seised of and in the Reversion and Remainder of the said Mannor to the use of the said Earl and the said I. his Wife and the Heirs of the said Earl for ever Afterwards in the same year by another Indenture made between the said Earl the Lord Treasurer and the said I. S. and others of the other part for the advancement of him who should succeed him in the Earldom and the advancement of the Heirs male of T. late Earl of R. his Grandfather to convey the Castle and Honor of B. and the said Mannor of E. amongst other Lands to the said Lord Treasurer and others to the use of the said Earl and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the Heirs males of Tho. his Grandfather with divers Remainders over and by the last Indenture further Covenanted that if the said Earl before the Feast of our Lady next should not sufficiently convey all the said Honors Mannors c. in the last Indenture in manner and forme as therein is mentioned that then he and all other persons seised should from thenceforth stand and be seised to the uses in the last Indenture No Fine was levyed of the Mannor of E. before the end of Trinity Term but in Mick Term a Fine was levyed of the said Mannor within the time limited in the last Indenture and another Fine was levyed of other Land but not of the Mannor of E. and after the Earl died The Quest on in this case only was whether I. the wife of the said Earl might during the Life of B. Countess of B trayerse the Office found after the death of the Earl viz. That the Fine levyed of the Mannor of E. was not to the uses limited in the latter Indenture Resolved that the Office was insufficient for the Incertainty where it found the Earl was seised of the Reversion
or the Remainder and therefore no traverse could be to it but they conceived if it was a Reversion a Traverse did presently lie if a Remainder that it did not lie till after the death of the Tenant for Life which was B. Countess of B. Worleys Case 959 A seised in Fee of the Mannor of D holden in capite with 500 l. to be sold having a long intent to sell the same that he might more freely dispose of his other Lands and satisfie a just debt of 60 l. which he owed to I. S. by Deed indented and enrolled in consideration of the said Debt and other considerations viz Vpon trust and confidence that he should pay to W. his Executors or Assigns within one year so much mony above the said 60 l. He bargained and sold the said Mannor of D to I. S. and his Heirs W. within one year died no mony paid his Heir within age It was Resolved his Heir should not be â—n Ward because neither the Land nor Surplusage of the same ought to come to his Heir by the Trust nor be paid to the children or wife oâ— W. Drowâ—s Case 960. A. seised of divers Messuages in the Parish of S. in London made a Lease thereof for 31. years to B. and M. his Wife paying yearly during the Term 60. l. at four Feasts viz. The Nativity c. or within 28 days after each of the said Feasts afterwards he covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of his eldest Son and his Wife and the Heirs of their two Bedâ—es and then for mony he bargained and sold the Land by Deed enrolled to I. S. to hold to him and his Heirs during the Life of the Lessor I. S. dyed seised of that Land and of other Lands holden in capite his Heir within age It was found by Office that A. died after the Feast of the Nativity and within the 28 days next following Resolved the Rent was due to him in the Remainder and that the Wardship of the Land being but a Freehold discendable did not belong to the Queen Digbies Case 961. A Tenant in Tail in the Mannor of C in the County of W. the reversion in the Crown and in Fee of Lands in the County of D. and in C. aforesaid and of Lands in the County of B. by his Will devised that his Lands in D. which he appointed to be a third part of the whole should discend to his Heir the Manner of C. and all his Lands in B. he devised to his Wife in recompence of her Dower for Life so long as she should be Soâ—e and then to his Son and Heir and he charged his Lands in B. with Annuities to his younger Sons and portions to his Daughters Afterwards by a Codicill annexed to his Will he devised to I. S. and I. D. and their Heirs all and singular his Lands in C. whereof himself was then seised to him and his Heirâ— in Fee simple to the use of his Son and Heir so long as he and all claiming under him should suffer his wife and children to enjoy the Lands and Annuities devised to them and he should interrupt or deny it then he devised all his Fee-simple Land to his Wife and his younger Sons A. died his Son and Heir within age It was in this case Resolved that the Qâ—een by reason of the Wardship of the Heir should not have more of the Fee-simple Lands in D then so much as would make the entailed Land to be the third part of the whole Creswâ—lls Case 962. Certain Lands called S. were holden of the Mannor of P. by rent and Suit of Court P. was holden of the Mannor of G by Rent and Suit of Court the Mannor of G. came to the Crown by the Statute of Disâ—olutions The King H. 8. granted the Mannor of G. to I. S. and his Hâ—irs to hold by Knight Service in capite I. D. purchased the Mannor of G and afterwards he purchased the moiety of the Mannor of P. and the Lands called S. I. D. died the Lands purchased by him discended to his Son who purchased the other moiety of P. and afterwards enfeoffed C. of the Lands in S. It was Resolved in this case that I. D. held the Lands called S. by Knight Service in capâ—te by a whole Knights Fee Lâ—mâ—oâ—s Case 963. It was Resolved in this case in the Court of Wards that if the Jâ—ry do not find an Office according to the direction of the Court they shall be committed to the Fleâ—t vide diverse Presidents there accordingly Sir William Knoâ—ts Case 964. The case was A. died seised of Lands purchased by him and discendable to the Heis Males of his Body holden by Knight Service in capite of the value of 140 l. per annum and also of capite Land discendable to his Heirs general of the value of 13 l. per annum and an executed Estate for the advancement of his Sons of Soccage Land in capite to the value oâ— 48 l. B. was his Son and Heir Male and the two Daughters of his eldest Son deceased were his Heirs general It was Resolved that no Livery nor Primer Seisin should be of the Lands executed for advancement because the Queen was satisfied by the discent to the Heirs Males of the Livery and Primer Seisin of more then of a third part of the Lands Strangways and Sir Henry Newtons Case 965. The case is very long put but in effect was this The Father limited divers Mannors and Lands by Indenture to the use of himself and his Heirs untill the marriage of his Son with the Daughter of I. S. and after marriage to the use of the Father for Life only and after to his Sons Wife for Life for her Joynture The Father died before Marriage and afterwards the Marriage took effect The Question was if the use should rise to the first Wife Note That the Father before his death made his Will and thereby devised portions to his Daughters to be raised out of the said Land by his Executors and then died his Heir within age The two chief Justices doubted much this case but they enclined to be of opinion that if there was a devise of the Land that the same had interrupted the raising of the Future use for the Joynture c but they doubted of the Devise because he devised portions out of the Lands but did not devise the Lands themselves Framptons Case 966. A seised in Fee of the Mannors of M. and B. and of the moiety of the Mannor of V. covenanted to levy a Fine to I. S. and others of the said Mannors viz. of all the said Mannors to the use of himself for Life and afterwards of the Mannor of M. to the use of I. his wife for her Life and after to such Heirs of the Body of A. as be should afterwards beget of the Body of her or of any other woman which he should after marry
levyed another Fine to all the said uses but only the Estate for 20. years to his Executors and made his wife his Executrix the wife married Sir Robert Remington It was adjudged in this case that by the second Fine the Lease for 20 years to his Executors was extinct Littletons Case 971. A seised of Lands holden in copite in consideration of a Marriage of M. his Daughter with W. L. Son of Sir John and of 1300 l paid by Sir John the Father of W. levyed a Fine of part of the Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to W. and M. and the Heirs of the Body of W. upon the Body of M. the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. and the residue to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his first Son in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. with power to make a Joynture â—o his second Wife and to make Leases for Twenty one years or three Lives The marriage took effect A. took a wife and had Issue by her I. and died I. his Son and Heir within age W. died without Issue G. L. being his Brother and Heir the second wife of A. living and also M living It was upon â— Melius Inquirend found that M. was the Daughter of A. It was Resolved in this case that the Queen should have the Wardship of the third part of the whole Land during the minority of I. the Son of A. Also it was Resolved by them that although money was paid and so the consideration of the Marriage was a mixt consideration yet â—hat should not alter the Law for the duty to the Crown 1. and one Ciffias case was cited to have been so adjudged The Lord Ross and the Earl of Rutlands Case 972. H. Earl of Rutland 2 Elâ—z levyed a Fine with Proclamation to the use of himself and B. his Wife and the Heirs of his own Body and died B. married the Earl of Bedford they covenanted with Edward Earl of Rutland Son of H. Earl of Rutland to levy a Fine which Fine was levyed with Proclamation sur concâ—ssit of the said Mannors and Lands by the said Edward Earl to the said B. for Life Afterward Edward Earl of Rutland 29 Eliz. covenanted with the Lord Burâ—eigh and others to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of himself and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the Body of Thomas Earl of Rutland his Grandfather Edward Earl 29 Eliz. died without Issue Male having a Daughter which was the Lady Roâ—s the Mother of the Lord Ross the plaintiff B. died the entail made by the Earl of Rutland and the discent to the Lord Ross the Plaintiff was found by Office It was Resolved by the Justices in this case That the Mannors did belong to the Plaintiff the Lord Ross as Issue in tail of Henry Earl of Rutland notwithstanding the Fine levyed by Edward Earl of Rutland because the Fine being sur concessit the same remained a Bar no longer then during the Life of B. Also they held the taking of the Fine by B. to be a surrender of her Estate but to be no discontinuance because not seised of the Tail at the time 3. Resolved the Lands should be in the King during the Minority of the Lord Ross Anno 1. Jacobi 973. It was Resolved by the Justices that Informations for the Queen alone in any Latin Court should not abate by the Demise of the Queen and so like of Informations tam pro the party quam for the Queen and so also it was of Informations in English Courts they were not discontinued by the Demise of the Queen Handall and his Wife and Browns Case in Chancery 974. The case was A. possessed of a Term for years had Issue a Son and two Daughters and by Will he devised his Term to John his Son and if he died to his two Daughters and if they died to his Wife he made his Son his whole Executor who entred claiming by the Will and after Probate he died Intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and for mony sold the Term to Brown the Defendant It was the opinion of the Justices that the Assignee of the Administrator should have the Term and not the two Daughters and Decreed in Chancery accordingly 975. Upon the cases of claims at the Coronation of the King these points were Resolved by the Justices 1. That where a Barony or a Mannor or Land holden by grand Serjeanty to do special Service at the Coronation is come to many hands by purchase there each Tenant is chargable with the whole Service but the King may appoint which of them shall do the Service and he which doth the Service shall alone have the Fee but if the Division be by Copartners there the eldest is only to do the Service and the other shall contribute to the charge and the eldâ—st shall have the Fees but if each Sister sell her part the Feoffee of the eldest shall not have the preheminence 2. Resolved where Grand Serjeanty is to be done at the Coronation by Tenure and the Lands come to an ignoble person who is unmeet to do the Service the Lord Steward may appoint a Noble or meet person to do the Service as Deputy to the Tenant of the Land 3. Resolved where Land is given to hold as to be Hostiarius Câ—merae Regis or the like In such Case the Tenants are to make their claims yet they are not to be admitted to the said Services by the Commissioners for claims or the Lord Steward but they are to be referred to the King himself their Tenure being perpetual and continuing Leigh and Helyers Case 976. A man supposing he had Title to certain Lands which were in the possession of I. S. contracted to sell them to I. D. and sealed a Lease for years to a third person to the use of I. D. with whom the contract made and the year and day long before expired Resolved it was maintenance by the Common Law but not within the Statute of 32. H. 8. Foster and Kings Case 977. A man made his Will and gave diverse Legacies and devised that the rest and residue of his Goods after his Debts and Legacies paid to his wife and after in the same Will he devised that his Overseers should enter into the Lands and cut down so much of the Woods as would suffice to pay his Debts Quere in this case if the Debts and Legacies shall be paid of the Woods if the Goods be not sufficient to pay them Skipwiths Case 978. Tenant in tail and he in the Reversion bargaineth and sells the Lands to the King and before enrollment Tenant in tail suffers a common Recovery Quere if the Issue in tail be barred by the Recovery not Resolved Lucas Case 979 Resolved in this case that before the Statute of 13 R. 2â— Murder was pardonable by the name of Felony but since that Statute the
for not paying of Prisage she pleaded she was Libera foemina de London and pleaded the Charteâ— of 1 E. 3. vide the Charter at large put in this case in Buâ—strodes Reports It was after many loâ—g Arguments adjudged in this case that the husband of the Defendant was a compleat citizen in every respect and that those Wines remaining in the hands of his wife were bona civium and so within the discharge to be freed from the payment of Prisage Wheeler and Heydon Case 1056. Debt upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tythes and declared that I. S. was Parson of S. and let him the Rectory for six years if he so long lived and continued Parson there It was found that the Parson made the Lease for six years and the words if he continued Parson there were omitted in the Lease It was the opinion of the Justices that this variance betwixt the Lease and the Declaration and the Lease found is all one in substance and the addition in the Declaration is no more then what the Law tacite implies Heydon Shepherd and others Case 1057. Error in Parliament the case was In Assize brought against the Defendant Judgment was given for the Plaintiff he brought Error in the Kings Bench and there the Judgment was affirmed and upon that Judgment he brought Error in Parliament It was Resolved that a Writ of Error did not lie in Parliament to reverse a Judgment given in the Kings Bench in Error brought there for that there is a double Judgement and the reversal of a Judgment in a Writ of Error given shall not reverse the first Judgment but that execution shall issue upon the first Judgment in the Assize The Case of the Sheriffs of Bristol 1058. The Commissioners upon the Statute of Bankrupts committed a Bankrupt to their custody for refusing to be examined upon Interrogatories and they let him escape whereupon Action upon the case was brought against them It was objected the Action did not lie because he was not committed till satisfaction of the Debt But Resolved the Action did well lie the commitment being only for refusing to be examined upon Interrogatories although it doth not appear what the Interrogatories were so as the Court might judge whether they were lawful or not for they shall be intended lawfull till the contrary be shewed Hill and Hawkes Case 1059. Trover and Conversion of four Bushels of Wheat The Defendant justified that the Bayliffs of L. time out of mind had used to choose one to be Bell-man for keeping the Market-place clean and the Bell-man and his Predecessors had used time out of mind c. to take out of every Sack of Corn which contained more then a Bushel a Quart for the Toll of the corn brought in Sacks to the Market to be sold and that he was chosen Bell-man by the Bayliffs and that the Plaintiff brought a Sack of corn containing four Bushels to be sold and he took a Quart for Toll It was adjudged a good custom although the corn was not sold but only brought there to be sold but without a special custome Toll shall not be paid of Corn brought to sell if it be not sold 1060. Debt upon an Obligation The Defendant pleaded non est factum it was so that the Bond was sealed and delivered by the Defendant but that afterwards viz. Vicecomiti Comitatus Oxon without the privity of the Plaintiff were interlined in a place not material wherefore adjudged it was a good Bond but if it had bin in a place material or with the privity of the Plaintiff the Obligor the Bond had bin void Poole and Godfreys Case 1061. Action upon the case against the Defendant a Sommoner in the Spiritual Court and having a Citation against the Plaintiff he retorned that he had summoned the Plaintiff whereas in truth he never summoned him for which the Plaintiff was excommunicated to his great damage It was adjudged that the Action did lie Mansfields Case 1062. Information against him because he being a Recusant convict went five miles from the place of his confinement he pleaded a License of four Justices of the Peace but because he did not show that he did take the Oath of Allegiance before the License nor that the License was granted by the privity of the Bishop or the Lieutenant the Plea was disallowed Jesson and Bruns Case 1063. Debt in Yarmouth there the Bail was taken The Cause was removed in B. R. and there new Bail found and the same Term a Procedendo was awarded Adjudged the first Bail should stand and was not discharged by removing of the Record but otherwise if the Procedendo had been awarded in another Term. Wrights Case 1064. It was Resolved in this Case That if any English Court holds Plea of a thing whereof Judgment is given at the common Law a Prohibition lies upon the Statute of 27 E. 3. cap. 1 and 4 H. 4. cap. 23. And therefore whereas the Plaintiff brought Trespass in B. R. and Judgment was against him and after he exhibited a Bill in the Court of Dutchy for the same matter a Prohibition was awarded Worrali and Harpers Case 1065. A seised in Fee of the Mannors of G and N. both holden in capite covenanted to stand seised of G. to the use of himself and his wife and the Heirs Males of their two bodies the Remainder over in tail and of N. to the use of himself and his wife for their Lives the remainder to the Heirs of his own body Afterwards he purchased Soccage Lands and devised that they should be sold by his Executors who sold them to the Plaintiff It was Resolved that the Devise was good for two parts of the Soccage Lands only and not void for the whole Soccage Lands for they held that the Reversion expectant upon the Estate tail of the Land holden in capite was a good Impediment to devise more then two parts of the Soccage Lands Glanviles Case 1066. The case was A Jewel of Gold with a Diamond was sold by Glanvile to Courtney It was affirmed by Glanvil to be a good Diamond whereas it was but a Topaz so as Courtney was deceived for the Jewel was sold to him for 300 l whereas in truth it was not worth 30 l. Glanvil got a Judgment in the Kings Bench against Courtney for 800 l. upon non suum informatus by assent of the parties Upon a Bill preferred in Chancery and upon examination of the cause it was decreed that Glanvil should take back the Jewel and should have a 100 l. and should acknowledge satisfaction of the Judgment which he refused to do and for breach of this Decree he was committed and upon an Habtas corpus brought in B. R. he was discharged and it was said a Suit in Chancery after a Judgment at the common Law and to be reversed was not good by the Statute of 27 Ed. 3. and the Statute of 4 H. 4. and divers
123. 130. 156. 233. Of Offices 5. Of Marriage 12. 30. Of Copyhold 24. 40. 65. 89. 108. 174. Forgery 173. 185. 225. Fraud and fraudulent Conveyances 110. 173. 208. 224. Frankmariage 182. Freshsuit 186. Fugitives 46. G. GArdian in socage 179. 251. Gavelkind 257. Grants of Comon persons 13. 37. 38. 62. 81. 102. 123. 194. 267. Grants of the King 31.43 46. 51. 60. 71. 79. 100. 108. 120. 124. 128. 147. 190. 193. 208. 223. 235. 247. Grand Serjanty 220. Gleab Lands 23. H. HAbeus Corpus 245. 246. Habendum 22. 74. Heriot 9. Heirs 33. High Commissioners 132. 172. Hundred were not chargable with Escape of Felons 173. I. IDeot and Lunatique 2. Inholders and Inkeepers 34. 59. 264. Indictments at Common Law 3. 95. 135. 172. 188. Incumbent 162. Inclosures 229. Informations 48. 52. 122. 168. 159. 177. 220.265 268. Ingrossors 167. Inrollments 18. Intrusions 40. 52. 107. Imparlance 17. 31. 187. Joynt-Tenants 144. 183. Joynder in Action 20. 29. 129. 187. 269. Joyntures 16. 194. 211. 216. 262. Issues joyned 202. 241. 257. Judgment and Judges 159 Justification 13. 35. 66. 75. 92. 116. 117. 118. 140. 148. 248. 257. 259. Jurisdictions 159. 175. 211. 249. 266. Jurours 10. 17. 41. 151. 168. 205. 215. Justices of Peace 249. K. KIng Deceived in his grant 22. L. LAw Construction of it 62. Leases 5. 11. 16. 21. 26. 31. 32. 34. 52. 67. 70. 101. 109. 111. 120. 132. 147. 167. 179. 224. 225. 229. 230. 232. 243. 258. Leases by Spiritual persons within the Statutes of 1 and 13 Eliz. and other Statutes 30. 46. 82.88 132. 172. 263. Legacies 145. Leets 37. 102. 124. 163. Libells and Libellers 176. 237. License 244. Liberate 142. Limitations 22.44.88.92 100. 108. 110. 111. 124. 150. To Uses 140. Livery and Seisin 8. 81. 91. 131. M. MAintenance 3. 86. 185. 222. Mannor 26. Marriage and Marriage mony 61. 164. 194. Market Overt 104. 175. Master and Servant 230. Misnosmer 8. 32. 75. 86. 104. 147. Moyeties betwixt Husband and Wife 39. Monasteries and Chaunteries 28. 52. upon Dissolution to whom Election is given Modus decimandi 73. 141. 256. Monopolies 190. Mortgages 18. 57. Monstrans de Droit 98. Monstrans de Faiâ—s 5. 249. Murder 36. 222. 223. N. NOnsuit 115. 132. Non est factum 16. 21. 58. 152. 272. Notice 130. 131. Nusances 64. 169. 258. O. OBligations 68.77.114 126. 159. 181. 183. 192. 234. 257. Occupant and Occupancy 5. 109. 111. 176. 197. Office and Officers 139. 235. Office and Inquisition 71. 96. 181. 180. 210. Ordinary 257. Out-Lawry 33. 88. 180. Ouster le mayne 96. P. PArdon 95. 109. 162. 221. 223. 227. 253. 257. Payment 22. 30 23. 50. 81. 199. Parliament 154. 241. A Clergy-man cannot be of the House of Commons nor a Lay-man of the Convocation 232. Paroll Demurr 10. 18. 33. Paraphronalia 72. Partition 15. 41. Patents 109. Parson Patron and Ordinary confirmation of the Patron and Ordinary extended to all possibilities 140. 141. Perjury 176. committed in the Chancery punished there Petition of Droit of Dower 180. Perpetuities 72. 94. 177. Pipowders 241. Piracy 223. Pleadings 7.108.111.131 140. 151. 198. 226. 254. 261. Plenarly 7. Pledges 161. Pluralities 85. 90. 128. 149. 159. 191. Possessio Fratres 259. of Copyhold 51. Posse Comitatus 185. Possibilities 80. 178.235 242. Perogative of the King in the Lands of Fugitives 46. Presentations to Benefices or Churches 3.24 74. 85. 88. 111. 132. 158. 265. Presentments in Courts 122. Prescriptions 73. 124. 132. 133. 141 163. 171. 173. 194. 207. 224. 226. 239. 241 265. 274. Priviledge 17. 81. 97. 154. Primer Seisin and Livery 216. Privy Seals 193. Prisage 242. Proofs 47. Prohibitions general 132. 244. 263. 273. Prohibitions to Spiritual Courts 79. 121. 130. 173. 262. 266. 373. 274. 278. 279. Prohibition to the Admiralty 271. 278. Property 5. 6. 62. 76. 113.242 Proviso 56. 92. 105.177 where a Condition 22. 25. 45. 121. where a Covenant 62. 207. Repugnant 165. Proof 64. 247. Protections 77. Protestation against the ground of the cause of the Action is not good 101. Purchase and Purchasors 98. 114. Q. QVare Impedit 35. 65. 77. 84. 122. 162. 256. 259. 260. 262. 272. Que Estate where traversable where not 267. Quod permittat 258. Quod ei deforceat 113. Quo Warranto 93. 189. R. RAsures 5. 18. 30. 244. Ravishment of Ward 24. Recaption where it lyeth 4. Recognizance 49. discharged upon an Arrest by Commissioners 49. Capias upon a Recognisance in Chancery 90. Records a Deed sealed by the King and brought into Court and there lost is a Record 190. Rectory 62. Redissisin 65. Recusants and Recusancy 144. 172. Recitalls and Misrecitalls 53. 95. Relation 69. Refusal of Executorship 89. Release not due upon a Freeffarme 60. in the Case of Safforn and Walden Releases 14.57.144.188 238.251 Of Actions not extinguish Annuity 53. 137. Remainder 44. 45. 80. 116. 141. 142. 156. 191. 224. Remover of Record 16. Remitter 17. 262. Recits 4. 24 60. 67. 92. 93. 115.150 176. 180. 212. 214. Reparations 192. Repleader 258. Replications 134. Requests 51.115.130.193 Replevin 191. Reputation 67. Resceit 15. 78. Rescous 122. 200. Restitution 88. 133. 135. 183. 231. 262. Reservations 115. 264. Return of the Sheriff 2.13 19. 33. 125. 127. 153. Return of Writs 127. Retainer 2.85 Of Chaplyns 159. Reversion 70. 72. Revocation 15. 171. 233. Of Uses 193. 217. Reviver 76. 92. 177. Riotts 233. Robbery and the hundred Charged with it 265. S. SAles 33. 62. 97. 98. 104. 149. 163. 166. Of Officers and Accomptants Lands by the King 184.231 Seales 263. Scire facias 3.13.106.146 162. 229. Seisin 16. 22. 38. 200. Scandalum Magnatum 19. 240. Search for the King 180. Seats in Churches 265. Sheriffs 66. 149. Summons and Summons severance 1. 149. Sewers and Commissioners of Sewers 241. Sollicitors 185. Star Chamber 156. 177. 227.231 233.238.239 Jurisdiction of it 59. Statute Merchants and oâ— the Staple 114. 146 Rent extendable although the Statute speaks only of Lands and goods 17. Statutes Particular Of 8 H. 6. Forsible Entry 3. Of 32 H. 8. of Conditions 42. Of 13. Eliz. of Fugitives 46. Of 5 Eliz. of Tillage 48. 49. Of 21 H. 8. Pluralities 49. 74. 149. Of 1 E. 6. Chauntries 52. 86. 184. 185. 199. Of 32 H. 6. Maintenance 16. 185. Of 18 Eliz. 96. Of 4 and 5 Ma. Wollen Cloathes 118. Of 1 and 2 M. Distresses 130. Of 3 Jac. Recusancy 262. Of 31 Eliz. of Symony 265. Of 21 H. 8. Nonresidence 148. Of 23 H. 6. cap. 10. 149. 179. Of 39 Eliz. Charitable uses 158. Of 8. E. 4. Retainers 159. Of 4 and 5 Ma. Trade 169. Of 27 Eliz. Fraudulent Conveyances 173. Of 32 H. 8. Wills 180. Of 39 Eliz. cap. 7. 184. Of 11 H. 7. cap. 20. 210. Of 43 Eliz. Charitable uses 240. 269 Stannaries 270. Supersedeas 21. 33. 135. 190. 247. Subsidies assessed upon the Land charged upon the Heir 10. Subpena 155. 176. 234. Supplicavit 21. Surplusage 195. 202. Surmises 274. 276. Suggestion 272. Surrenders 6. 102. 179. 180. Summons and Somoners 132. Surrenders of Copyhold 100. 167. Suspension 12. 76. 119. 253. Symonie 159. 181. 230. 277. T. TAile 52. 67. 105. 249. 257. Tales 101. 145. Tenures 1. 21. 84. 91. 177 215. 221. Tender 18. 30. 50. 80. 96. of mony 74. 152. 171. of Rent 74. of the Demie mark 226. Tenant by the Courtesee 89. Tenants in Common 17. 129. 157. Title 35. 65. 130. Toll 139. 243. Traverse 99. 125. 154. 157. 206. 267. 260. Treason 174. Trespass 11. 80. 112. 151. 236. Triall and Mistriall 83. 113. 137. 163. 166. 230. 251. 256. 261. 269. Trover and Conversion 57. 87. 110. 175. 198. 246. Trusts 161. 166. 214. 222. 224. 235. Tythes 23. 73. 90. 121. 126. 131. 145. 149. 146. 173. 208. 226. of what things paid of what not 274. 275. how to be paid of Lands in London 276. V. VAriance 16. 96. 193. 209. 243. 258. Valore Maritagii 165. Venire facias 37. 147. 201. 251. 259. 269. Ventre inspiciendo 144. Verdict 17. 129. Vicar and Vicarage 271. Vi Laica removendae 133. 231. View 17. 31. Villein 38. Uxor Prist 19. Vnion and Consolidation of Churches 73. 116. 186. Vnity of Possession 25. 145. 146. Usurpation 96. Voucher lieth not in Partione facienda 10. Vses 17. 56. 68. 70. 97 150. 170. 171. 217 249. raised 50. 69 142 151. 152. 197. 216 contingent 43. wherâ— raised upon an Estatâ— executed 44. what Superstitious what noâ— 52. 184. 200. Vsury 111. 222. W. WAles 190. Wast 5. 10. 17. 31. 32. 33. 43. 73. 155. 237. 256. Way 259. Wardships 18 63. 79. 172. 210. 211. 214. 215. 217. 219. Warrantia Chartae 253. Warranâ—y 11.26.41.143 137. destroyed by reprisall of an Estate 32. Waife and Estray 162. Wager of Law 90. 136. 203. Waver of Execution of a Joynture in par 83. not of a Devise of a Freehold in par 104. Wills and Testaments 63. 97. 114. 126. 259. 263. 180. 184. 210. Woods and Underwoods 101. Wreck of the Sea 75. Writs 1. 13. 113. 209. Of Disceit 3. Of Propertate probanda 113. Of false Judgment 253.