in tayl the issue should be barred After which Statute as I intend the Law was such that when Tenant in tayl levied a Fine of such a thing as he might discontinue and the Fine executed in possession allthough the words of the Statute were Ipso jure sit nullus yet the issue was put to his Formdone but if it were a Fine Executory then by the death of the Tenant in tayl the issue was remitted and the Fine voyd But now by the Statute of 4 Hen. 7. the Law is made otherwise and for that here it is to be granted that he cannot discontinue the estate tayl because the reversion is in the King as it was now lately adjudged in the Exchequer in the case of Gillebrand ergo here the estate doth not pass to the Feoffees by the first Fine when he took an estate again to himself for life the remainder to the Lord Seymer in Fee but a Fee simple determinable then when the Lord Seymer was attainted Queen Mary had such an estate as the Lord Seymer had which was a Fee determinable and she had another Fee absolute in jure Coronae After when he sued by Petition he did not shew to the Queen what estate he had nor what estate the Queen had but that it was to the disinherision of him and his heirs then the Queen grants reversionem inde adeo plene libere integre as she had it or as it came to her by the Act of Parliament And I think when the Queen gives by generall words she doth not give any special Prerogative And for that 8 Hen. 4. fol. 2. A grant to the Bishop of London to have catalla c. and 9 Eliz. 268. in Dyer the case of the Dutchy of Cornwall 8 Hen. 6. the King pardons all Felonies this is no pardon of the Outlawry and especially when the Queen hath two interests it shall be construed beneficially for the Queen as 9 Edw. 4. Grant of an Office where the Grantee was no denison see there Baggots Assise and 38 Hen. 6. the King grants Land to J. S. for the life of himself and J. D. and after grants the reversion upon the life of one of them And further the case in Dyer where Queen Mary grants in Manerium de Bedminster in Com. Somerset 5. 13 El. fol. 306. a. Then Sir the Patent is that the Queen intendens dare congruum remedium in praemissis c. and when he iueth to the Queen by Petition Petition certain all titles ought to be in the Petition 3 Hen. 7. 1 H. 7. a Latin case the case of the corody and this is in nature of a Petition therfore ought to be certain then the Patent is Et ulterius ex uberiori gratia sua concessit omnes reversiones quae ad manus suas devenerunt ratione actus Parliamenti c. aut in manibus suis existunt vel existere deberent c. and they are not to be expounded so largely as to make the reversion to pass for if those words ratione c. were before admanus suas c. or after in manibus suis existunt then it cannot be intended but the reversion shall not pass to Bainton Now when in manibus suis existunt come after these words References ratione c. for references are to be intended according to the meaning of the parties Devise 29 lib. Ass 14 Eliz. Dyer Devise of all Acres except a Lease for 30 years And those words aut existere deberent ought to have some relation ergo it ought to be intended quae in manibus suis existunt ratione attincturae c. and this will not make any grant of the reversion For the meaning of the Queen was because Bainton had no recompense of the other Lands No use to give him these for no use was in him by the covenant of Seymer as it is agreed 1 Maria fol. 96. so nothing passed but that which was in the Queen by reason of the atteynder of Seymer For the other matters I think that A. Baynton is not Tenant in tayl by the grant again but admit him so yet he cannot discontinue neither is he bound by the Statute of 4 Hen. 7. for the Statute doth not extend but to such things which are touched by the Fine things which are not touched doe not pass as Commons Rents Wayes Claim per lessee purâ—ans alit postea si soit en post c. Br. Fines 123. 30 Hen. 8. fol. 32. And it hath been adjudged in Sanders case 21 Eliz. that Lessee for yeares need not to make claim within five years and vouched the opinion of Br. tit Fines 121. accordingly that the issue shall not be barred And as the King is privileged so are his possessions allthough that afterwards they come into a subjects hands Generall restraint And where one hath a special Grant allthough a general Restraint come after if he doe not speak specially of this the Grant shall be good in many cases as 19 Hen. 6. fol. 62. the Parson of Edingtons case Br. Patents 16. and the case of the Abbot of Waltham 21 Ed. 4. fol. 44. Br. tit Exemption 9. in 19 Hen. 8. it was doubted if the issue of a common person should be barred ergo the issue in tayl the reversion being in the King is not barred And the Statute of 32 Hen. 8. is generall as well for those which were of the gift of the King as others and therefore afterwards there was another Statute made which excepted those which were of the gift of the King as it was before the Statute of 32 H. 8. and it was a vain thing to make this Statute of Exception if it were a bar before by the Statute of 4 H. 7. And for authority I have a report delivered me by a Sage antient in the Law that in 16 17 El. in Jacksons case where Lands were given in tayl the remainder to the King in fee the Tenâ—nt in tayl levyed a fine after the Statute of 32 H. 8. by the opinion of the Court Difference per enter rem reversion in le Roy. this was a bar but the Court then sayd that otherwise it should be if the reversion were in the King as our case is wherefore seeing there is neither discontinuance nor bar in the case his entry is congeable and the Action not maintainable Walmisley to the contrary I will agree that it is not any discontinuance yet he may admit him out of possession if he will as in 18 Edw. 3. Where Tenant in tail the Reversion in the King makes a Lease for life and hath two Daughters and died and Lessee for life was impleaded and upon his default the two daughters prayed to be received and so they were and as me seemeth the Petition made by him to the Queen shall not prejudice or hinder the Grant ex mero motuâ— and vouched 3 H. 7. fol.
of the wife For if the Husband have an Advowson in right of his Wife and the Church become voyd and the Husband dye the Executors shall have the presentation and the Serjeant sayd that there be many Books in that point Anderson I know it well but I doubt of the Law in the case Allso I would have you to argue if this be within the Statute of Demurrers in 27 Eliz. For if this be not matter of substance then it shall goe hard with the Plaintif therefore let it be argued again another time 11. ONe Brook was Plaintif in a Replevin Copyhold the Case was such Tho. Speek was seised of a Mannor in which were Copyholds according to the Custom and the place in which the taking was supposed was a Copyhold and the sayd Tho. Speek being so seised took to wife one Anne B. and died seised after whose death the sayd A. in the time of King Edw. 6. demanded the third part of the Mannor for her Dower by the name of Cent. Messuagiorum Cent. Gardinorum tot acr terrae tot acr prati c. and was endowed accordingly of parcel of the Demesns and parcel of the services of the Copyholds and after she granted a Copyhold and if this be good was the question for if she had a Mannor the Grant was good and otherwise not And the opinion of all the Court clearly was against the Grant for when she demanded her Dower she was at liberty to demand the third part of the Mannor or the third part of Cent. Mes Cent. Gard. Cent. acr c. and when she demanded it per nomen Cent. Mes c. Mannor a corporation she could have no Mannor For a Mannor cannot be claimed except by his name of Corporation as Anderson termed it and not otherwise and then Cent. Mes and Cent. acr c. cannot be sayd a Mannor and then the Grant of a Copyhold by her which had no Mannor was utterly voyd and this was the opinion of the Court clearly Quod not a. 12. SHuttelworth shewed how one Knight was Plaintif in a Replevin Visne 〈◊〉 Ass pl. 42. and they were at issue upon a prescription for Common in Newton appendant to land in another place and the venue was of Newton onely and it was found for the Plaintif and he prayed his judgment for the tryall may be in the one place as well as in the other as in annuity where the seisin is alleged in one County Annuity and the Church in another it may be tryed in any of the Counties Anderson But we think otherwise for it ought to be of both places when the matter ariseth in both and if they had been in severall Counties Counties joyn the Counties ought to have joyned Shuttelworth So is 10 Ed. 4. fol. 10. But our case being after a verdict I think we ought to have judgement Anderson and Windham The verdictdoth not amend the matter if it be mis-tried as this case is Rodes agreed that it was a mis-triall Mis-trial and therefore evill and that mis-trialls are not helped by the Statute of Jeofayles Shuttelworth I agree to that if you say that the triall is not good Windham So we say New Venire facias Then Shuttelworth advised his Client to take a new Venire facias 13. WAkefield brought a Replevin against Costard The Lord. who avowed for damage fesaunt Comptons case and the Plaintif prescribed for Common that all the inhabitants of Dale except the Parson and infants and such a house Prescription for Common have used to have Common in the place The Avowant sayd that the house whereunto the Plaintif claimed Common was built within thirty yeares last past and if he may have Common to this new house by prescription or no was demurred in judgement in Michaelmas Term and then Shuttelworth argued for the Plaintif that he should have his Common by prescription but not of common right And Gawdy argued for the Avowant that the Plaintif shall not have Common because the prescription is against all reason that he should have Common time out of mind to that which is but of thirty years continuance And allso he excepteth the Parson and infants and such a house and by the same reason he may except all which is not good Then one of the Judges sayd that if this be good Antient inhabitants hereafter there shall be no Common for the ancient inhabitants Improvement Peryam By such a prescription he shall for ever barre the Lord from improving any Common Common entire which is no reason Anderson All Common is intire for if a man have Common to three Mesuages and he infeoffee one man of one Mesuage and another of the second and another of the third the Common is gone And by this reason allso the new house cannot have Common And now this Term Gawdy demanded of the Court if they were resolved in the poynt Anderson We are all agreed that the prescription is utterâ—y voyd for it is impossible to have Common time out of mind for a house which was built within thirty yeares and then he commanded to enter judgement if nothing were sayd to the contrary by the next day Shuttelworth We have sayd all that we can say my Lord. Anderson Then let judgment be entred against the Plaintif 14. SNagg shewed how the Earl of â—Kent had brought an action of debt against a Londoner for rent behind Grant and shewed how the Countesâ— of Derby was tenant in Dower of this land and took to husband the Earl of Kent and that Henry Earl of Derby had granted it to the Earl of Kent habendum after the death of the Countess for certain yeares and he shewed how the grant was made by the name of a reversion also Lease in reversion Grant in reversion difference and that the Tenant had attorned and alleged the death of the Countess And the Court said that the Attornment is not necessary for it is but a lease in reversion and then no rent passeth thereby Anderson If you had been privy to the case of Talboys in the Kings-bench you would not have moved this doubt Peryam It is allso the very case of Throckmorton in the Commentaries Snagge But here in my case he hath granted it by the name of the reversion allso and then the reversion will carry the rent Curia Then is your grant voyd for a man cannot grant his reversion habend after the death of another and therefore quacunque via data you shall have no rent And thereupon Snagge conticuit cum rubore 15. MOunsay was Plaintif in debt upon an obligation against Hylyard Jeofayle and the Defendant pleaded the Statute of Usury because it was made for the sale of certain Copperas and he took more than was limited by the Statute and that it was made by shift and chevisance and other matter he alleged to prove it within the Statute the
and the one with force and the other not as if I command one to make a Disseisin and he makes a disseisin with force and allso if one enter with force to my use and after I agree he is a Disseisor with force and I am not so and those cases will answer the Books of Assises for in those cases they were present Present but in these not and so I hold that he which is present when force is made is a Disseisor with force Then it was moved if the Statute of 8 Hen. 6. doth extend to fresh forces VVyndam It doth extend to them by express words and Fleetwood cited a case in 44 Edw. 3. 32. that an Attaint lieth of fresh force Then for the other matter of trebling of damages increased the Court made no doubt but that they shall be trebled and they said that so it was lately adjudged here in a case of Staffordshire 19. PUckering shewed how an Attaint was brought upon a false Oath made in a Replevin Challenge where the Defendant made Conusance as Bayley to one Hussey and in the Attaint surmise was made that the Sherif was Cosen to Hussey and thereupon prayed Process to the Coroners and Puckering moved that no Process should issue to the Coroners for Hussey was not party to the Attaint and then this is but matter of favour and he cited 3 Hen. 7. And all the Court accorded with him that it is but matter of favour onely and no surmise to have a Writ to the Coroners but VValmisley would have put a difference between Lessee for years and a Bayley Lessee pur ans for as he pretended in the case of a Bayley it shall be a principall challenge but not in the other case but all the Court was against him and that it is no principall challenge in the one case nor in the other The last day of the Term it was moved again and the Court was of the same mind as before 20. IN a Quare impedit Adverson it was said by Anderson and agreed by all the Court that if a man make a Feoffment in Fee of a Mannor without deed and without saying with the appurtenances yet the Advowson shall pass and cited 15 Hen. 7. where it is adjudged that it is parcell of the Mannor and lieth in Tenure 21. IN an Action of debt Anderson cited a case which was before him at the Assises in Somersetshire Pleading an Action of Battery was brought in London and a Justification made in Somersetshire Absque hoc that he was guilty in London and the Plaintif replyed de injuria sua propriae absque tali causa and Anderson said that a man shall never plead de son tort demeasne where the matter ariseth in a Forein Country 22. AN ejectione firme was brought by Clayton against Lawson Bar. the Defendant pleaded in Bar a Recovery had in the Kings Bench against the Lessor of the Plaintif And Fenner moved that it should be no Bar no more than in Trespass Anderson I think it to be a good Bar. For this Action is as strong to bind the possession as a Writ of right is to bind the right VVyndam I think it is no Bar no more than in Trespass Anderson This is more than an Action of Trespass for in this he shall recover his Term. Rodes This case was moved the last Term and the opinion of the Court then was that it was a good Bar. Fenner True it is if it were between the parties themselves but here the Plaintif is but Lessee to him which was Barred Anderson Allthough that it be so yet he claymeth by the Lease of him which was Barred and during the Lease of the other his Lessor could have no right and what shall he have then Fenner That which is between the parties cannot be an Estoppell to the Plaintif here which is but a stranger Estoppell Anderson I know that he shall not plead it by way of Estoppell but he shall conclude Iudgement si Actio Peryam If in an Assise a Recovery in another Assise be pleaded in Bar Assise he shall not conclude by way of Estoppell but Iudgement si Actio and there he is driven to a higher Action and so here and the Law shall never have end if after a man is Barred in his Action he may bring the same Action again therefore I think it a good Bar and that he is driven to a higher Action VVyndam Lessee for years can have no higher Action Anderson Peryam If one which hath a Lease for years and no more Tenant for years disseisor of tenant in Fee simple enter upon him which hath a good title he is a disseisor of all the Feesimple Wyndam If two claim by Lease from one man and one bringeth an Ejectione Firme and is Barred what Action shall he have then Anderson None for he hath no Right VVyndam That is hard Anderson What Action shall he have which is Barred in Formdone surely none Fenner This is another case Anderson Aliquantulum incensus truly it is a plain case that he shall be Bared whereunto Peryam and Rodes agreed clearly 23. IN a praecipe quod reddat View the Tenant demanded the view and an habere facias visum issued and the Tenant came not to the Sherif to take the view it was said by the whole Court that the Sherif may retâ—urn that none came to take the view and he shall never have the view again Anderson The habere fac visum is the suit of the Tenant and then when he doth not come to take the view this is a default and then good reason to exclude him from the view Gawdy Such a retourn was never seen before and therefore it is to be noted the case was between Hoâ— and Hoo for Lands in Norfolk 24. IOhn VViseman of the Inner Temple Apportionment brought an Action of debt against Thomas VVallenger the case was this A man seised of three acres of Land in Fee makes a lease reserving xxx s of Rent and after devised the Reversion of two acres to a stranger and the third acre descended to the Heir and he brought an Action of debt for xij d. being behind and Puckering moved if they were agreed of their judgement in the case Rent extinct by the grant of part of the Reversion Anderson If a man let two Acres of Land rendring Rent and grant the Reversion of one of them all the Rent is gone as it is in Dyer and at the Common Law before the Statute of W. 3. there was no apportionment and the Statute speaketh of no such apportionment as this is Rodes Surely no Book in all the Law will warrant this apportionment Fenner Yes Sir 5 Ed. 3. If a man have a Rent of xx s and grants parcell thereof and the Tenant Attourns this is good Rodes This is another case But shew us the case which was in the Kings Bench
Priority which is not corporall neither ought it to be put in view in Assise and 21 Hen. 6. a. Tenant of the Land shall Attorn upon the grant of a rent charge and 33 Ed. 3. Priority shall hold place when the remainder falleth and not when it is granted 17 Ed. 2. and Dyer Tr. 23 Eliz. pl. 1. Then Sir when the foundation out of which the rent is issuing is gone the rent is allso gone and therefore let us see what authority Tenant in tayl hath in the remainder At the Common Law there was no Formdone in descender or remainder and the Statute of W. 2. cap. 1. provides but for two persons viz. he in reversion and the issues but Formdone in remainder is taken by the equity 50 Ed. 3. If Tenant for life be the remainder in tayl to another the remainder in fee to the Tenant for life and he makes wast Wast Bargain de remain Tenant in remainder shall punish him and Fitzh nat br fol. 193. a. Cui in vita by a wife which was Tenant in tayl upon the alienation of her husband And I think that if he in remainder bargain his remainder that it is voyd and he cannot grant to another that he shall dig in the soyl for by 2 Hen. 7. he in reversion cannot doe so 12 Ed. 4. Recovery suffered shall bind the issue 7 Ed. 3. no attaint lieth for him in remainder of a verdict given against Tenant for life Nul attaint pur tenant in rem then in this case he in remainder cannot enter and the Grantee shall not be in a better estate than his Grantor and then if he shall never enter frustra est illa potentia qua nunquam reducitur in actum The reason for the grant is good for when Tenant in tayl dyeth without issue he in remainder shall be in by the first gift in proof whereof is 33 Hen. 6. he in remainder shall be in ward Ward and in 11 Hen. 4. in Formdone in descender Formdone he shall say that the possession was given to his father Prebendary And a Prebendary cannot charge before induction Ioyntenants But if two Jointenants be and the one charge all and the other disclaimeth the charge is good from the beginning And the Recoverer here is not under the charge for allthough he hath that estate which he in remainder should have if Tenant in tayl had not aliened yet is he a meer stranger and in by another title 10 Ed. 3. If two Jointenants be Charge per Ioyntenant and the one charge this is good conditionally that he which chargeth shall survive And if Tenant pur auter vie charge and die occupans shall hold it discharged So in this case for he is not in of this possession Moreover there is a mischief if this charge be good for then the Land may be charged by two severall persons at once which shall not be suffered but yet if cestui que use charge and the Feoffees charge both are good for the one is by the Common Law Charge per cest que use Feoffees 28 Ed. 3. 10. b. and the other by the Statute Law So if Lessee for years charge and he in reversion charge and after Lessee for years surrender but this is in severall respects and I put this case for Law Ch. per lessee per enreversion that if he in the remainder bind himself in a Statute Merchant Stat. Merch. per test en rem ne charge le poss this shall not charge the possession And if in this case he will grant the rent over none ought to Attorn and therefore voyd and Littleton saith that he in remainder shall not falsifie No attornment Falsifying and 26 Hen. 8. the Grantee of lessee for years shall not falsifie for the nature of falsifying is properly to find a fault wherefore it should not be good and what fault can he find in this case surely none Successor lie per confession 4 Hen. 7. 1. a. 20 Hen. 6. Abbot confesseth an Action the Successor is bound And further it is within the Statute of 27 El. for fraudulent deeds and we need not to plead the covin for the Statute is generall Fraudulent faits and vouched Wimbish case in the Comentaries and so the Replevin is maintainable And after at the motion of the Justices the Defendant agreed that the Plaintif should amend his Plea and allege the Covin Et adjornatur untill Michaelmas Term following because there were so many Demurrers hanging to be argued in Trinity Term next But afterwards judgement was given against the Rent charge 12. KIng Hen. 8. gave certain lands to Sir Edward Bainton Trespass Knight and to the heirs males of his body engendred who had issue Andrew and Edward and dyed Andrew afterwards convenanted with the Lord Admirall Thomas Seymer that he would convey an Estate of those Lands to himself for life the remainder to the Lord Seymer in Fee and in like manner the Lord Seymer convenanted to convey an Estate of other Lands to himself for life the remainder to Andrew Bainton in Fee Afterwards Andrew Bainton levyed a Fine and executed the estate according to the covenant on his part Afterwards the Lord Seymer before performance of the covenant on his part was attainted of High Treason and all his Lands forfeited to King Edward the sixth who dyed without issue and the Lands descended to Queen Mary to whom Andrew Bainton sued by Petition and shewed how she had those Lands to the disinherison of him and his heirs and Queen Mary by her Letters Patents ex certa scientia ex merâ— motu c. granted to Bainton all those Lands and Tenements which he had covenanted to convey to the Lord Seymer and all reversions thereof in as ample manner as she had them Et ulterius ex uberiori gratia sua she granted all reversions claims and demands qua ad manus suas devenerunt ratione c. aut in manibus suis existunt aut existere deberent Afterwards Andrew Bainton levyed a Fine of those Lands to one Segar in Fee and dyed without issue then Edward Bainton entred and Segar brought his Action of Trepass Puckering It seemeth that the entry of Edward Bainton is congeable and so the Action not maintainable First let us see what passeth by this Grant of Queen Mary to Andrew Bainton and then whether a Fine levyed by Tenant in tayl the reversion being in the Queen be a bar to the tayl by the Statute of 4 Hen. 7. The first Fine as it is pleaded is not pleaded with proclamations and therefore but a discontinuance and remains but as at the Common Law At the Common Law before the Statute of Dâ—nis conditionalibus a Fine levyed was a bar to all men for all Inheritances were Fee simples then by that Statute it was ordained Quod neque per factum neque feofamentum of the Tenant
still for in 31 Edw. 3. an advowson descended to three persons and the youngest is in ward to the King and he granted it to Queen Philip his Wife Advoson to 3 parceners and she granted it over to the Earl of Arundell who granted it to the eldest parcener the Church became voyd the King had the presentation for when the King was possessed of the wardship of the youngest he was intitled to present for all and when he granted the ward over this did not devest the title of the two eldest which was vested in him before and 37 Hen. 6. the Grant of the King upon a false suggestion is voyd False suggestion and in Littleton he shall have account against Executors and yet the Law is clear Account that an Action of Account will not lie against Executors so for all those Reasons Judgment shall be given for the Plaintif Several reserâ—ations Fenner to the contrary And first I agree that they are severall reservations and so is the case which hath been remembred in 8 Ed. 3. A Lease was made of eight Acres of land reserving eight shillings of rent viz. for every Acre 12 d. thiâ— is severall and to that which hath been sayd that the condition is a proviso I deny that for a proviso Provisio quid sit as me seemeth either is in the affirmative that a thing shall be done or in the negative that it shall not be done but here it is neither directly affirmative nor negative and therefore they have found it without commission Agreement but I confess that agreement extends to rent 22 Hen. 6. 14 Hen. 8. then the Jury which was of Mtdlesex have found the four usuall Feasts in London viz. St Johns c. and this as it seemeth they cannot doe because it is a thing in another County especially they being but an Inquest of Office Further they have found that 37 s was behind at one Feast and this is impossible for then the entire rent should amount to 7 l. And further the Lessors have purchased the reversion before the return of the Inquisition and Commission and then the Queen cannot be intitled because she hath not the Freehold for it hath been adjudged here that if a man fell his lands and afterwards makes livery thereof and after inrolls the sale this shall not have relation to the date of the deed because it takes effect by the livery which was before the inrolment And 8. Edw. 3. Feoffment puis atteynder A man attainted of Treason makes a feoffment of his land after he is restored yet he shall not have the land yet if he had not made the feoffment he should have been restored to the land with the mean profits Then if the King grants the reversion if he shall have the condition remaining and I think not for the King hath it by express words of the Statute as the Prior had it and if the Prior had granted parcell of the reversion De percell de Reversion the entire condition had been gone and the King shall be in the same case for Cessavit is given by the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 21. eodem modo as in the Statute of Gloucester cap. 4. This doth not ly of an estate tayl no more than a Cessavit by the Statute of Glouc. 8 Ed. 2. And so I think Judgement shall be given for the Defendant De Term. Trinitat Anno xxviij Eliz. Reg. 1. ROdâ—s Justice Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif First I agree that they are severall rents and yet this question doth not goe to the overthrow of the Action in proof whereof both great reason and authority is copious For if the Lessor had entred into parcel this had not suspended the entire rent or if the reversion of parcel thereof were granted this shall carry no more than that which is granted so it was held by the Justices when it was granted to Cordall Parcel entred into And 2 Hâ—n 6. if I reserve an entire rent and the Lessee will pay but parcell c. 17 Ed. 3. fol. 52. by Sharde 11 Ed. 3. lib. Ass If I make a Lease of two Acres reserving for the one Acre x. s to me and to mine heirs and for the other Acre x. s generally And Dyer fol. 308. b. Lib. Ass pl. 23. If three Coparceners be and rent be reserved for equality of partition but one Scire fac shall be brought for it is brought but upon one record 1. Scire fac and Littleton pl. 316. but one action of debt for Tenants in common but severall Avowries so I hold that they be severall rents in this case and yet but one condition And for that let us see if by grant of parcel the entire condition be gone In the case of a common person it is all gone as it was adjudged here in Hill last where a man makes a Lease for years reserving xx l. for rent Sum in gross and rent reserved upon cond and allso a sum in gross of xxvl was to be paid to the same Lessor upon condition if the rent or sum in gross were behind then a re-entry to be made Afterwards the Lessor took an Estate back again of parcell of the term the sum in gross was not payd and it was adjudged that he shall not take advantage by the condition for when he took an estate back again the rent was suspended and then for the sum in gross he shall not re-enter because the condition was entire Cond entire but all though that the case of a common person be so yet the Princses case differs for she shall have her Prerogative and for the Preheminence which the Queen shall have I referre you to the argument of Iustice Weston in the case of the Lord Barkley Coment And that the Queen shall have her Prerogative in a condition I will remember the case of the Abesse of Sion 38 Hen. 6. 21 Hen. 7. the King may make a feoffment in fee upon condition that the Feoffee shall not alien Feoffment in fee upon cond reservation and 2 Hen. 7. 35 H. 6. he may reserve a rent to a stranger and 21 Eliz. the Queen grants her debt to another and he in reasonable time will not prosecute the Queen may take it again gain Grâ—â—t of a debt and may sue And allso Cranmers case where King Hen. 8. gave lands to the use of him for life and after to the use of his Executors for twenty yeares Rent charge after atteynder after he was attainted the Queen shall have this rent as a rent charge and yet she had the reversion before And in reason it seemeth the Queen may apportion her condition for if this condition by the grant to Cordall shall be avoyded four principles shall be overthrown for it is a principle That the King shall not be deceived in his grant 2.
had warranty to detain Garrâ—nty and they made partition the one could not vouch without the other Vâ—uâ—her and therefore she should pray in ayd and then both to vouch Paramount and so the Statute which giveth pâ—â—tition between Joyntenants saveth their warranty otherwise it were gone And so if two Joyntenants make a lease for years reserving rent upon condition Partition of a 〈◊〉 and after they make partition as they well may having the reversion and the freehold in them I hold the Law clearly that the one nor the other shall enter for the condition broken Then in the case of the King I hold the Law that it shall not be apportioned and yet I agree that the King shall have his Preâ—â—gatives for his present lands and goods Prerogative but he shall never have Prerogative when wrong shall be done to any man Rent charge appâ—rtioned If the King have a Rent chage and after Purchase parcell of the Land charged it shall be apportioned 21 Hen. 7. he may well condition that his Feoffee shall not alien for in those cases there is no prejudice to others but all those cases run upon other grounds And in Bartlets case the King is bound by the Statute of donis conditionalibus for it was a wrong that the Donee at the Common Law should alien the inheritance And this case as me seemeth is not within the concourse of Title Câ—â—â—â—urse of â—itle as my Brother Rodes hath argued neither is the King deceived as hath been said For when the King enters he shall be seised in pristino statu suo Dyer and this is a principall reason in Winters case 16 Eliz. a person makes a Lease reserving Rent upon condition that if it be behind lawfully demanded that then he shall re-enâ—er Deâ—and after the reversion cometh to the King he shall not maâ—â— demand I agree well thereto the reason is because the demand is a thing which goeth to the person of the King Then Sir the Statute is that the King shall have it as the Prior had it which is meant of the estate and not of the person of the King Then Sir it is impossible that the King should have the land as the Prior had it ut in pristino statu suo if he doe not utterly defeat the grant made to Cordall then here the condition is gone The Kings grant against the Law is voyd but not by any grant as it hath been moved but by the operation of the Law And 49 Ed. 3. the King grants that lands shall be devisable it is voyd because it is against the Law and it is against the Law that a condition should be apportioned ergo the King shall not apportion it But admit this question against me then let us see what title the Queen hath by this commission First the commission is to enquire if Cordall his Assigns and Farmers have performed all covenants and provisoes contained in the Indenture Proviso as for that I hold the law clear that they have auâ—hority by those words to enquire of the condicion but for other reasons I think the Commission void For the Commission is to enquire per bonos legales homines de Com. nostre Mâ—dd and it doth not appear here that the Jurors were of Middlesex and therefore the inquisition is not good Further Severall spespecial finding they have found a thing in another County and this they cannot find but I hold that the Jury in one County may find the generall issue in another County Allso I hold that when the party cannot plead that which is the great matter of the Action they may find it in an another County because the party cannot pleade it as in 9 Ed. 2. in debt against Executors c. And for these reasons I hold judgement is to be given for the Defendant 2. RIchard Heydon Misre-cital in Letters Patentt Gentleman demands against Benjamin Ibgrave Gentleman the third part of 40. Acres of Land with the appurtenances in three parts to be divided in Sarrot in the County of Hartford as his right and Inheritance and to hold of our Lady the Queen in Capite and Laies the Esples in the time of Ed. the sixth and that such is his Right he offers himself c. And the aforesaid Benjamin put himself upon the great Assise whether it be his right or no c. And now the Assise made by the four Knights appeared at the Bar Challenge Snagg Serjeant for the Plantif we challenge A. B. for that c. Nelson chief Prothonotary all the Court you cannot challenge because it was made by the four Knights and the Assise is now at the Bar. Snagg well Sir then we will give evidence Anderson for whom are you Snagg for the Plantif Anderson then you shall not give evidence first for the Tenant affirms that he hath more right Evidence and that ought to be first proved Rodes and all the Court So it was here rul'd five years ago in Nowells case and thereupon Puckering gave evidence for the Tenant that it was Parcell of the Mannor of Sarrot which Mannor the Tenant hath and this was granted by the Counsell of the Defendant And in conclusion upon the evidence given the Defendant would have had the Tenant to have Demurred upon his evidence and discharge the Inquest but the Tenant would not in effect this was the doubt K. H. 8. by his Letters Patents gave among other things all the Lands which were in the Tenure of one Whyton and demised to Johnson in the Parish of Watford And it was true that the Lands were in the Tenure of Whyton but not demised to Johnson Misre-citall and allso they were not in the Parish of Watford if this shall be helped by the Statute of Misrecitall and not Recitall is the question and the party did not aver that the intent of the King was to pass this Parcell now in question to the Patentee and the opinion of all the Court was that it is not within the Statute clearly but they said to the Jury that they may find all this matter if they will or otherwise say what they will And thereupon after they were agreed they came again to the Bar and then all the Court told them that yet they might give a speciall Verdict The Jury said we are all agreed that the Tenant hath more right to hold these Lands as he now holdeth then the Demandant as he demands them Anderson then are you discharged and as I think you have done well So they gave their Verdict according to the opinion of the Court for the Statute of Misrecitall and yet Peryam was well content to have them give a speciall Verdict and the Demandant was demanded who appeared and thereupon Judgement finall was given for ever against him 3. ONe Tirrell brought an Action of Debt against a Hundred in Essex Hâ—e and Cry for
stand seised to the use of Adams untill he made default of paiment of the said sum and then they should stand seised to the use of the Queen untill she were satisfied and payed and then to the use of Adams and his Heirs And after Adams by deed enrolled sold the Land to a stranger in Fee and after the said stranger failed in paiment of the said yearly sum whereby the Queen seised the Land and so continued untill she was satisfied now the question was who should have the Lands Adams or the Bargainee Anderson Ifyou will take the case according to the words it is short tell me what Estate had Adams by this Limitation Puckering A Fee determinable Anderson How then can the Bargainee have it when the Estate is determined Puckering But the Fee was limited to Adams and his Heirs Possibility cannot be granted nor released Anderson This is but a possibility which cannot be granted over And if I were a Chancellor Adams should not have the Land but upon the words I tell you my mind alii Justie conticuerunt 3. DAniel Bettenham Plaintif against Debora Harlackendon Reversion upon a devise the case was this one Harlack was seised and deviseth it to the Plaintif for years the Remainder to the Defendant being his Wife for life and provided that the Lessee should pay the Wife xx l. a year for Rent at two Feasts and after the Plaintif failed of payment wherby the Wife entred for the Condition broken Anderson Wherefore may not a man make Reservation upon a Devise Peryam A man may reserve to himself or to his 〈◊〉 but this is to a stranger Anderson Every man which takes by a Devise is in in the per by the Devisor quod fuit concessum wherefore then shall not this be as a Reservationto the Devisor and as a grant of the Reversion to the Wife Gandy If it shall be a firm in gross Sum in gross yet I think that she ought to demand it which she hath not done Anderson and Rodes denyed that case clearly and that the contrary hath been adjudged Anderson If I Devise Lands to a man for years rendring Rent to me and mine Heirs Devise of a Reversion after a Term. And after I Devise the Reversion he shall have the Rent as incident to the Reversion Peryam This may be agreed but the cases are not like adjornatur 4. IN debt by Rostock Waging of Law the case was that the Plaintif and another made a Contract with the Defendant and the Plaintif alone brought the Action and Walmisley moved the Court if the Defendant may wage his Law for it is not the same Contract and he cited 20 Hen. 6. account before Auditors where it was but before one Auditor he may wage his Law 35 Hen. 6. is an express case in the point And so was the opinion of the Court Anderson absente 5. A Writ of Entry sur diss Voucher was brought by Sir Thomas Sherly against Grateway who vouched one Brown and he entred into the Warranty saving to himself a Rent issuing out of the same Land and this was allowed by the Court and the Voucher was in a Writ of entry for a Common Recovery to be had 6. EDward Smith brought his Action of the case against Winner Slander for words viz I was robbed of goods to the value of 40. l. they were stollen by Smith and his Houshold ipsum Edwardum ac quosdam Eliz. xuorem ac L. F. servientem ejus muendo and the issue was found for the Plaintif And the Defendant spake in arrest of Judgement because S. alone brought the Action But all the Court said that the Action is well brought for the slander is severall And Peryam that if 〈◊〉 a man say that three have robbed him Vno flatu and name them uno 〈◊〉 every of them may have a severall Action 7. IN an Assise by Thatcher where he was Redisseised Redisseisin the Redisseâ—â— was found in part and thereupon the Court was moved if Redisseisin will lie in as much as it is not but of part and the Writ is if he be Redissesitus de â—odem teneâ—â—nto then Redisseisin lieth but the Court held that Redisseisin lieth of part and that he shall recover damages as they are assessed by the Jury and not by the 〈◊〉 Then it was moved if Redisseisin lieth in Middlesex or 〈…〉 Fleetwood saith that the ancient Expositors have taken it that it doth not lie there because it is not coram lustic itinerant but all the Court held the contrary And Walmisley said that there be Writs in the Register accordingly 8. THe Earl of Kent brought debt upon an Obligation indorced with Condition Time convenient that if the Defendant do permit the Plaintif his Exâ—cutorâ—s and Assignes not onely to thresh the Corn in the Defendants Barn but allso to cary it away from time to time and at all times hereafter convenient with free Egress and Regress or else to pay 8 l. upon request that then c. and in truth the Defendant permited the Corn to be there two years in which time Mice and Rats had devoured much of it and then the Defendant threshed the Residue and the Earl brought his Action and there was a demurrer entred Walmisley the Bond is not forfeit for the Earl hath not taken it out in time convenient for he ought to take it in time convenient and time convenient is that which is not prejudiciall to any person which the Justices privily denyed and here it is a prejudice to the Defendant if the Plaintif will not carry away his Corn and thereupon he cited many cases that things shall be done in time convenient Arbitrement as in 21 Ed. 4. arbitrement ought to be made in time convenient Anderson Your cases are by act in Law but here you have bound your selves and the Condition is at time convenient and if he will come in the night or on the Sabbath day this is no convenient time but allthough that he come in a long time after yet it may be at time convenient and the words are not within time convenient and so was the opinion of the Court. And Windham said that if it had been within time convenient there would have been a difference 9. MIchael Hare and 3 others brought an Action of Trespass quare clausum fregit Trespass and Assigned the place in sixteen Acres of Land called Churchclose Contents of a new assignment and the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury found a speciall Verdict that Churchclose conteyneth fixty Acres whereof those sixteen were parcell and that diverse men were seised of divers other parcells of the said close and that Hare only was seised of the said sixteen Acres in which c. exposuit eas to the three other Plaintifs to be sown and that he should find half the seed and they three should find the other
as primo Mar. 100 is Then if the Sherif inquire of one term and sell another as our case is the term sold was never found by our Inquisition and for that the sale not good quod Fenner concessit yet the Lord Popham sayd that if it had been found by the Inquistion generally that he is possessed of such land for term of divers years adhuc ventur which they have prised to such a sum this had been good insomuch as they have not any means to come to the knowledge of the certainty of the term But when by Inquiry a Term in particular is found Que estate refers as well to the estate as to the person they may not vary from that and sell another and he sayd that these words Cujus statum Henrici Fry shall be referred as well to the state precedent found as to the person of Fry And so is the common intendment in pleading of a que estate And he said to Mr. Tanfield that if he had taken any note of their first opinions that he should raze that out of his Book again and after the parties agreed in Court that Hauger should give to Fry 200 Marks more for his term and then Fry should make assurance to him of the term for confirmation of the sale 106. NOta per Cook Attorney Generall Difference between Feoffmenâ— to an use and covenant to raise an use If a man Covenant in consideration of naturall love to his son to stand seised of certain Land to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the same son in Fee with a Proviso that it shall be lawfull for himself to make Leases for 21 years or three lives Now he may not make such Leases notwithstanding this Proviso being by way of Covenant to raise the use And so it hath been resolved Contra Peradventure if it were by way of Feoffment to uses After Mr. Walter said that now lately in one Sharingtons case it was adjudged in this Court upon a Writ of Error That if a man Covenant with his Eldest son in consideration of naturall love A proviso with speciall limitaâ—n good to stand seised to the use of himself for life the remainder to his Eldest Son in tail with Proviso that he himself might make Leases to his second son or to any other of his kindred for 21 years or 3 lives and he made Leases to him accordingly this was holden good for they to whom the Leases are made are within the consideration to wit of the blood and for that the use may well rise to maintain those Leases But if the Proviso had been to make Leases to any man howbeit that after he made Leases by force of that to his second son These Leases are void for they are not within the consideration of the Covenant by Intendment of Law at the first for the Law at the beginning adjudged the Proviso meerly void quod nota 107. RObinson brought Debt upon an Obligation against May Counterbond the Condition was that the Defendant should discharge or save harmless the Plaintif of an Obligation for which the Plaintif as surety with the now Defendant was bound to I. S. The Defendant by way of bar pleaded Vsury that the Obligation made to I. S. by him and the Plaintif was upon a corrupt and usurious bargain and pleaded the Statute of Usury and concluded sic non daâ—â—ificatus It was moved at the bar that this was no plea for the Condition is that the Defendant shall discharge or save harmless c. And the Plaintif was impleaded by I. S. for that debt and hath paid the condemnation Tanfield Contra For if this shall not be allowed for a good plea the Statute of usury will be utterly defeated For by a compact between the surety and the Usurer the surety shall pay the usurer and the surety by that counterbond shall have double recompence against the Principall which will be mischievous But the whole Court held the plea not good sed quare 108. HObbs sued an Audita querela in the Kings Bench against Tedcastle Audita querela for a speciall bail and upon a demurer the case was recited by Moor of the Temple to be this Tedcastle sued a bill of debt in this Court against one Hallaway in Custodia Marescali which found bail the said Hobbs and an another which entred bail according to the common course of bail And after Hallaway was condemned in the said Action and then the said Hallaway died without paying the condemnation or rendring his body to Prison for which a scire facias was sued against the bail and upon two nihils retorned Execution was awarded against them Whereupon they sued this Audita querela supposing that the death of Hallaway hath discharged the bail Moor argued for the Plaintif that the bail ought to be discharged upon the matter for Hallaway had Election to discharge the bail by paying the condemnation or rendring of his body to Prison Now by the Act of God it becomes impossible to perform the one to wit to yield his body to prison And therefore the Law will discharge him of the other and by consequence his bail And that he proved by Arundells case 9 Eliz. 262. 6. 7 Eliz. 231. Sir Edw. Walgraves case Popham Quemodo constat here but that there was convenient time after the Judgement to perform the one or the other Kemp Secondary The course is allwaies here after Judgement to award a Capias against the Defendant and if upon that he do not render himself or pay the condemnation then to sue Execution against the bail and not before but here there was never any Capias awarded against Hallaway the Defendant in his life time Popham Gawdy Fenner This seemeth very reasonable not to sue Execution against the bail untill a default be retorned against the Principall and the recognisance of the bail which is that the Principall shall yield himself c. is intended to be upon Process awarded against him But no Process was awarded against him in his life and now it is impossible that he should yield himself to Prison being dead Iudgement and therefore the bail is discharged And so they awarded Judgement for the Plaintif in the Audita querela 109. MAtures brought an Action of Covenant against Westwood And the case was such Covenant for an assignee of a reversion for years Adams Lessee for 20 years made a Lease for 10 years of the same Land to Bowes by indenture whereby Bowes did Covenant at the end of his Term of ten years to avoid and to leave peaceable possession to Adams his Executors or Assignes Adams granted over his Reversion to Matures the now Plaintif The question is if the Plaintif by the Statute of 32 Hen. 8. cap 34. as Assignee may maintain an Action of Covenant for his Covenant broken or not Nota that this case was moved divers times And first it was moved if
Brough against Devison 143 58 Forfeiture of Copyhold 143 59 Lease for years Knevit against Poole 143 60 Prohibition Rame against Patison 145 61 Partridge against Nayler 145 62 Forfeiture 146 63 Quare impedit Lord Zouches case 146 64 Assumpsit Thornton against Kemp. 146 65 Prohibition Sherington against Fleetwood 147 66 Trust VVildgoose against VVayland 147 67 Reservation of Rent 148 68 Action for a Robbery 148 69 Outlary reversed 148 70 Fine with proclamation 148 71 Feoffment to a use 148 72 Tenure and Wardship 149 73 Devise 149 74 Prohibition Benefield against Finch 149 75 Oyer of a bond 150 76 Ejectione firme Beckford against Parnecole 150 77 Writ of Error Harecourts case 151 78 Trover Easts case 152 79 Writ of Error Wiseman against Baldwin 152 80 Assumpsit Pine against Hide 154 81 Prohibition Jacksons case 154 82 Trover and conversion 155 83 Assumpsit Chessins case 155 84 Assumpsit Dixon against Adams 156 85 Ejectione firme Ross against Ardwick 157 86 Trover Harding against Sherman 158 87 Debt upon a bond Paytons case 158 159 88 Trespass quare clausum fregit 159 89 Debt upon a bond Allen against Abraham 159 90 Account Huntly against Griffith 159 91 Scire Facias Lady Gresham against Man 160 92 Prohibition Ramsies case 161 93 Account 161 94 Indictment Hom's his case 162 95 Fine of Lands 162 96 Ejectione firme Robins against Prince 162 163 97 Scire facias Hoo against Hoo 166 98 Mackerell against Bachelor 168 99 Information Goodale against Butler 169 170 100 Scire facias Foe against Balton 170 101 Contra formam Collationis 111 102 Ejectione firme Cootes against Atkinson 171 103 Action for words Pollard against Armeshaw 172 104 Elegit Palmer against Humphrey 172 105 Covenant 173 174 106 Debt upon a bond Robinson against May 174 107 Audita querela Hobs against Tedcastle 174 175 108 Covenant Matures against Westwood 175 109 Assault and battery Sims his case 176 110 Trespass Goodale against Wyat 176 111 Ejectione firme Sayer against Hardy 179 112 Rent Walter against Walter 180 113 Debt upon an Escape 108 114 Vtlary after Judgement 108 115 Fine levied Sir Henry Jones case 181 116 Evidence Tutball against Smote 181 117 Debt Richard Thornes case 182 118 Debt Humble against Glover 182 119 Evidence Maidstone against Hall 182 120 Speciall Verdict Dickins against Marsh 182 183 121 Covenant Cole against Taunton 184 122 Grant 184 123 Error Brewster against Bewty 187 124 Trespass Pannell against Fen 185 125 Repleuin Second deliverance 185 126 Action for words Stitch against VVisedom 185 127 Accessary to Felony 185 128 Debt Thin against Chomley 186 129 Lease Harbin against Barton 185 103 Action for words Baddocks case 186 131 Debt upon a bond Staples against Hankinson 187 132 Error Boyer against Jenkins 187 133 Grant over 187 134 Ejectione firme Thomas against King 187 135 Trespass Oland against Bardwick 188 136 Error Ascough against Hollingworth 188 137 Trespass Bodeam against Smith 189 138 Name of purchase 189 139 Perjury 189 140 Obligation 190 141 De Term. Pasch Anno Elizab. Reg. xxviij 1. WAst war brought by Constance Foster Wast and another against Lessee for years in effect the case was such A man makes a Lease of certain Lands 44 Ed. 3. 34. b. 46 Ed. 3. 22. 28 Hen. 8. 19. a. excepting all manner of Woods the Lessee cuts down Trees and he in Reversion brings an Action of Wast and by the opinion of the Court the Lessee is not punishable in Wast for they were never let and therefore the Plaintif is driven to his Action of Trespass at the Common Law 2. THe Sherif returneth in a Writ of Right four Esquires to make the pannel Return and doth not say that there be any Knights it was sayd by the Court that he ought to return them which be and that there be no more 3. WAst was brought for digging in Land Wast and taking away Okes the Defendant pleaded in bar That the Queen by her Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England granted unto him that he might dig for Mines of Cole in the Land and prayed that it might be entred verbatim and a Grant under the Seal of the Exchequor was entred whereupon the Plaintif Demurred Now came Walmisley and would have amended it and by the opinion of the Court he cannot amend it after the Demurrer be entred Demurrer but Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif if he shew no other matter 4. A Man seised of Lands in Fee Devise and sale by Executors Deviseth to his Wife for life the Remainder to his Son in tayl and if his Son dye without issue of his body that then the Land shall be sold by his Executors and maketh two Executors and dyeth the Wife dyeth one Executor dyeth the Sonne dyeth without issue the other Executor selleth the Land and Gawdy the Queens Serjeant moved whether the sale be good or no and it seemeth to him that the sale is good and vouched the Case in 30 Hen. 8. Brook Devise 31. And now lately it was adjudged in the Kings-bench where a man did Devise his Lands in tayl and for default of such issue that the Land shall be sold by his Sonnes-in-law and dieth having five Sonnes-in-law the one dyed the others sold the Land and this was adjudged a good sale Anderson It seemeth the sale is not good for if one make a Letter of Attorney to two to make Livery and Seisin Livery if the one dye the other cannot doe it So if one grant the Office of Stewardship to two the one of them cannot hold Court alone Stewardship And if one of them may sell to what intent was the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. cap. 4. that those which take the Administration may sell Windham The Statute will not prove the case but it seemeth the sale to be naught And there is a difference where one giveth an interest to two and when he giveth but an authority Interest for an interest may survive but an authority cannot Authority Rodes to the same intent and cited M. 4 Eliz. fol. 219. a. 177. 210. 371. 5. BAttery Battery by Webster against Pain the Action was layd in London and in truth the Battery was committed at Uxbridge in Midlesex the Defendant pleaded that such a day and year at A. in the County of Huntington 11 H. 4. f. 3. 11 H. 4. f. 61. 22 H. 6. f. 33. 21 H. 6. f. 9. 9 E. 4. f. 46. 43 E. 3. 23. the Plaintif made an assault upon him and the hurt c. absque hoc that he is guilty in London Snag moved that the Traverse should not be good Anderson Will you have him to say absque hoc that he is guilty that he ought not for by the speciall matter he hath confessed the Battery and you will not deny but that if his Plea be true he hath good cause to bar the
Plaintif wherefore if we shall not allow this Plea we shall take the Defendant from his remedy to plead which God forbid And in 2 Ed. 4. fol. 6. b. In Trespass the Defendant shewed speciall matter in London where the Action was brought in Midlesex Tota Curia Nelson Prothonotarie hath shewed a president in 2 Ed. 4. where such a Plea as this was pleaded wherefore the Plea is good 6. NElson Trespass Prothonotary brought a Writ of Trespass against another in effect the case was thus The Abbot of Westminster was seised of Lands Vnity of possession of Common to which he had common in the Lands of a Prior afterwards by the Statute of Dissolutions as well the Lands of the Abbot as of the Prior were given to King Hen. 8. And after that the Dean of Westminster had a grant of the Mannor which the Abbot had and Nelson had the other Mannor which the Prior had into which a Tenant of the Deans put his beasts 11 H. 4. 5. 14 H. 4. 24 E. 3. 25. Br. Extinguishment 14 Ass pl. 20. claiming Common as once it was in the hands of the Prior and Nelson brought his Action of Trespass Walmisley moved that the Tenant should have his Common Peryam Is this a new case It hath been adjudged heretofore that by the union of possession the Common is gone Anderson to Walmisley Have you any reason why the Common shall not be gone Walmisley No my Lord if the Statute will not help us for the Statute is that the King shall have it in the same plight as the Abbot had it and the Abbot had Common ergo c. Windam So is the Statute but the Statute doth not say that it shall continue so in the hands of the King and it is impossible that it shall continue in the hands of the King as it was in the hands of the Abbot therefore the Common is gone Rodes assented 7. MOor brought a Quare impedit Quare impedit after Judgment had a Writ to the Bishop of Norwich and at the alias the Bishop returned that after the awarding of the first Writ and before the receipt of the second the Queen had presented the same Defendant by her Letters Patents who is admitted instituted and inducted so that c. Shuttleworth moved that the Ordinary might be amerced for his evill Return for when he had Judgement to Recover he ought to have the effect of his Judgement for else it shall be in vain to sue a Quare impedit and thereupon he avouched the case in 21 Hen. 7. 8. 21 Eliz. 364. Dyer that the other Clerk shall be removed Anderson the Return is not good for me seemeth in a Quare impedit when one which hath title Paramount presents Title Paramount en qu. imp hanging the Writ then allthough the Plaintif hath Judgement to Recover yet his Clerk shall not be removed but if it be under or after the title of the Plaintif or Defendant then his Clerk shall be removed and here he hath returned that the Queen hath presented the same man which is Defendant and therefore he shall be amerced Windham to the same intent and cited the case of Long 5 Edw. 4. fol. 115. b. Rodes cited the case in Fitzherbert Quare non admisit fol. 47. k. and Bassets case in 9 Eliz. Dyer Alit en pr. quod reddat fol. 260. Anderson In a Praecipe quod reddat if the Sherif return upon the habere facias seisinam that another hath recovered by title Paramount against the Defendant and hath execution he shall be amerced Peryam How doth it appear to us that he which the Queen hath presented is the same Defendant Shuttleworth By the Return Peryam No Sir and therefore it is good to be advised And after Windham doubted for the same cause Et adjornatur 8. TRistram Ayscough Dower and Eulaleia his Wife brought a Writ of Dower of the endowment of her first Husband the Defendant pleaded in bar that an Annuitie was granted to her first Husband and her self in recompense of her Dower which she after his death accepted and the Plaintif replyed quod recusavit praedict annuitatem after the death of her husband Gawdy The Plea is nor good Anderson Your intent is Disagreement in pais for that she disagreed in the Country and not in a Court of Record that the disagreement shall not be good but I think not so for if she say in the Country that she will not have the sayd Annuity this is a good refusall and if she once disagree she can never agree afterwards quod tota Curia concessit but peradventure recusavit is no good pleading 9. FRancis Windham Quid juris clamat one of the Justices of the Common Pleas brought a Quid juris elamat against the Lady Gresham to have Attornment of certain lands comprised within the note of a Fine levied to him by one R. Read The Lady pleaded that certain persons were seised of those Lands and held them of King Hen. 8. by Knights service and enfeoffed W. Read and the Lady then his Wie to have and to hold to them and the heirs of the husband who devised the reversion after the death of the Lady to the sayd R. Read in tayl the remainder c. and that the said R. Read levyed the Fine c. whereupon Windham demurred in Law Gawdy The Plea is not good for divers causes the one is for the pretence of the Tenant for that the Lands were held by Knights service the Devise is voyd for the third part so that therein the Conisor hath nothing but she doth not shew who had the reversion of the third part which she ought to shew and thereupon he vouched 30 Ed. 3. fol. 7. 34 Ed. 3. quid juris clamat 14 E. 3. Fitzh Quid juris cl The Defendant said that he held not of the Conisor he ought to shew who had the inheritance and 30 Hen. 6. fol. 8. in Wast brought by Radford Another cause is for that in the end of her Plea she demandeth Judgement Eisdem si pro eisdem duabus partibus she ought to Attorn and she doth not speak of any two parts before and therefore it is not good and vouched 7 Ed. 6. in the Comentaries Parliament held praedict 28 Ap. 9 Edw. 4. bona praedict J. S. and doth not speak of any J. S. before Then for the matter in Law for that the Conisor was but Tenant in tayl this notwithstanding it seemeth she ought to Attorn and therupon he cited the case in 48 E. 3. fol. 23. in per quae servicia 24 E. 3. Tenant in tayl of a reversion of a Mannor levies a Fine the Tenant for life ought to Attorn And 3 Ed. 3. quid juris c. It is there ruled that Tenant for life shall Attorn upon a Fine levied by Tenant in tayl and therefore she c. And by the opinion of
Livery per baron and would have made Livery but the Wife would not agree to the Livery yet notwithstanding the contradiction of the Wife the Livery was Adjuged good 33 Hen. 6. Husband and Wife are Plantifs in an Assise Nonsuite del feme and the Husband would Prosecute but the Wife would be Nonsuite the act of the Husband shall be accepted and the act of the Wife rejected So if the Husband will make an Attourny and the Wife wil dissavow him Attourny yet he shall be their Attourny And as I think this Limitation by the Husband shall bind the Wife in perpetuity Case per fine indentare Difference Juris clamat For if the Husband make a Lease of the wifes Land for 100 years the Wife may avoid it after his death but if after they both Levy a Fine the Lease shall be good-for ever And 11 Hen. 4. He in Reversion and one which hath nothing Levy a Fine quid juris clamat shall be brought against them both And as I conceive it it shall be counted her folly Reentry per condition that will take such a Husband as will Limit such uses For if a Wife hath an Estate in Land upon condition for not payment of Rent that the Feoffor shall reenter if she take a Husband which doth not pay the Rent whereby the Feoffor or his Heires reenter the Estate of the Wife is utterly defeated And in 4 Ed. 2. A woman Tenant takes a Husband Cessavit who ceaseth by two yeares whereby the Lord bringeth a Cessavit and recovereth the Inheritance of the Wife she shall be bound And this appeareth in Fitzh in Cui invita 21. And it shall be so if the Wife hath but a Freehold Wast as it is in 3 Ed. 3. A woman Lessee takes a Husband who maketh Wast whereby the Land is recovered and 48 Ed. 3. fol 18. Husband and Wife sell the Land of the Wife this is onely the sale of the Husband but if after they Levy a Fine this shall bind the Wife And for express Authority it is the case in Dyer Joynture fol. 290. a pl. 2. And so it is a Common case if a man seised of Lands takes a Wife who hath a Jointure in his Land and he makes a Limitation of uses and after they both Levy a Fine this shall be the Limitation by the Husband because it shall be intended that the Wife consented if it doth not appear to the contrary Whereby the Declaration of the use here by the Husband shall be good to bind the Wife and therefore Judgement ought to be given for the Plantif Feâ—ner to the contrary for here the Inheritance is in the Wife and where the Husband limits further than he hath Authority there the Law shall make a Declaration of the uses for the Husband cannot Limit uses of that which he hath not 21 Ed. 3. A man takes a Wife seised of Lands in Fee Atteynder del feme and before that the Husband was intitled to be Tenant by the Curtesie the Wife was attainted of Treason Homage the Land shall be forfeit and 44 Ed. 3. He shall not make Homage Conusans before he be intitled to be Tenant by the Curtesie 12 R. 2. Conusans shall be made by the Bayley of the Husband in the name of the Husband and Wife Warranoy And in this case the Conisee is in in the per by the Wife and Warranty made to the Husband shall inure to the Wife and 18 Ed. 3. A man seised of a Mannor in right of his Wife Villain to which there is a Villain regardant the Villain Purchaseth Lands the Husband shall be seised of the Perquisite in right of his Wife And yet otherwise it is where a man is Lessee for years of a Mannor to which c. For he shall be seised of the Perquisite in his own Right Divorce 12. lib. Ass If he be Divorced his Estate is gone Lease Rent ch diversity And I agree to the case put by my Brother Shut Where the Husband makes a Lease for years and after he and his Wife levy a Fine there the Lease shall be good but if the Husband grant a Rent charge and after he and his Wife Levy a Fine I do not agree that this is good for in the first case the Conisee found one which had an Interest in the Land but not in the last Then Sir here the Husband hath no power to Limit the use for the Land of his Wife to indure for ever Feoffee al use 28 Hen. 8. The Feoffece to use at the Common Law Limits an use to a stranger this Devesteth the first use but if he limit is to cestui que use then it is an ancient use and not new And so it is if Tenant for life and he in Reversion levy a Fine this shaâ—l be to the use of him in Reversion 2 Loyntenants And so if two Joyntenants be in Fee and they limit severall uses this shall be good according to their limitations for the Moities of either of them and for no more And if Husband and Wife levy a Fine to the use of the Husbands Sonne Fits del baron yet this is to the use of the Wife but if he be the Wifes Sonne allso then this is a good consideration and the use shall be accordingly And these cases I put to this intent that when a man limits an use which is repugnant Vse repugnant or further than he hath Authority the Law shall make a Declaration of the same use for Bracton saith Nemo potest ad alterum plus juris tranferre quam ipse habet And I take the Law if Husband and Wife levy a Fine of the Lands of the Wife and render back to the Wife in Tail Fine levie de terres del feme Oâ—e râ—eder al feme en tail and the Husband dye and the Wife discontinue that this is not a Purchase of the Husband within the Statute of 11 Hen. 7. And so it was here adjuged in 18. of Eliz. in Alexanders case And I agree to that which hath been said that the Wife only cannot limit uses but because the Jury hath found for â—he Defendant if the limitation by the Husband be not good as I think it is not then Judgement shall be given for the Defendant Concessum Adjornatur 14 WIlliam Knight Eject firm as Eessee for yeas to Sir John Fortescne and Rich. Thikston Gentleman brought an Executione firme against W. Breâ—h of one Mesnage with the Appurtenances in Themilstreet in the Parish of St. James Clarkenwell the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury appeared at the Bar and Evidence given on both sides And at the length the Plantif Demurred in Law upon the Evidence given for the Defendant Demurrer al evidence and thereupon the Jury were discharged And now Gawdy the Queens Serjeant
Item that when concourse and equality of titles come together 4 Principles for the King that King shall be preferred 3. Item in entire things he shall have all 4. Item that his grant shall not extend to severall intents or purposes For the first if the King be deceived in the operation of the Law his grant shall be voyd as where he grants to a man and his heirs males Release several this shall be voyd 6 Hen. 7. release of all demands 11 H. 7. 10. release of all action and yet in those cases there is matter of interest and not prerogative and yet nothlng passeth if she be deceived For the concourse of title 4 Ed. 6. a man makes a feoffment in fee upon condition that the feoffee shall not commit treason after the feoffee commits treason the King shall have the land Treason 44 Ed. 3. per Thorp tenant of the King c. he shall have the rent again And for the case of the Lady Hales in the Comentaries where lands descend to a villain For entireties 44 Ed. 3. the King and others give lands to a Monastery the King shall be sole Founder The. King sole founder 19 Hen. 6. he shall have the intire obligation where the one obligee is outlawed Obligation and in 11 Hen. 7. 2 R. 3. two are indebted to the King Release to the oblige and he releaseth to one of them then his grant shall not inure to two purposes Baggâ—ts Ass And so if the King give lands to his villain this shall be no enfranchisment to him So for all those reasons I hold the condition may well enough be apportioned Villâ—in Then for the third matter when the commission issueth to enquire of all covenants and provisoes if the condition be within those words and for that point I think that the Plaintif shall recover for allthough it be not within the words yet the commission is generall after but yet I hold that is within the words 21 Hen. 7. fol. 37. per Fineux If I let land for term of years rendring c. I shall have debt or covenant at my election and Dokerayes case 27 Hen. 8. Proviso is a condition and so it was held here in the case of the Lord Cromwell and Andrews Then when the Jury found that 37 s 5 d. ob were behind if this office be good or no and in my conscience that which is good shall be taken for the Queen and the rest shall be voyd for offices between party and party may be voyd for uncertainty as the case is in Dyer 3 4 Eliz. Office in Beverley c. fol. 209. Or they may be avoyded for falsity Proviso is a condition 1 M. Culpepper fol. 100. b. Or for insufficiency as in my Lord of Leicesters case in the Comentaries Offices voyd but this is only for the Queen and therefore shall be taken favourably and therefore I will â—ompare it to a verdict where surplusage is found 3 Hen. 6. Plene administravit Superplusage in a â—erdict and the Jury found that they have more than Assets 47 Ed. 3. the Jury found that he which prayed to be received had nothing in the land where the issue was joyned whether the particular tenant had a fee. And 39 Hen. 6. 9. surplusage in an Inquisition 5 Hen. 5. fol. 2. Resceit Cobhams case where they found a Divorce in Kent c. Inquisition Allso Sir Offices may be good for that which is certain and voyd for that which is uncertain and good for the King and not for a subject Strenes case in 15 Edw. 4. 14 El. Office found after the death of the tenant by the curtefie 29 H. 8. Br. tit Office devant Escheetr 58. Dyer And if a commission be awarded and the lury say that dâ— quo tenetur ignorant then a melius inquirend shall goe forth but if they say per quae servicia ignorant then nothing shall be done but it shall be intended Knights service and so is the experience of the Exchequer And here they have found that more was behind ergo they have found that so much was behind Quia omne majus continet in se minus Then if this be within the Statute of 18 H. 6. c. 16. And it seemeth that it is not for that Statute as I think is but an exposition of 8 H. 6. and that speaketh of Leases by Treasurer and Chancellor and for that see the case of the Duke of Suffolk 3 4 Ph. Mar. Dyer fol. 145. And so I think for all these causes judgement shall be given for the Plaintif Peryam Justice to the contrary For the first matter I agree that they be several rents for the viz. here doth expound the matter and when the viz. may stand with the premises Videliceâ— then it is good and otherwise not and for that the case in 17 lib. Ass which hath been vouched Difference between an annuity and a rent charge and disseisin of one is not disseisin of the other rent And there is a plain difference between an annuity and a rent service because for an annuity it is the book in 29 Edw. 3. fol. 51. 29. lib. Ass 3 Parceners and rent reserved for equality of partition c. vouched by Rodes but if I grant you xl s out of my Mannor viz. x s out of parcel in the tenure of A. and x s out of another parcell Rent limited out of an intire mannor this is voyd for first there was a grant out of the entire Mannor 9 lib. Ass yet this is one lease but one reversion but one condition the condition is entire and that is wel proved by the express words of the condition totaliter reentrare and this proved by Winters case in 14 El. and Rawlins case adjudged Totaliter where the sum in gross was behind Dyer the case vouched by Rodes Cond is undevidable 33 Hen. 8. in a common persons case it cannot be divided neither by title nor by the act of the party If surrender be made of parcell Surrender of parcel the rent shall be apportioned but the condition is utterly gone Dyer But peradventure it will be objected that in 17 Eliz. the condition there was divided where he aliened parcell with the consent of the Lessor and the other parcell without consent and in that the Lessor entred for the condition broken Cond â—pportioned I grant this case and yet this doth not prove that a condition may be apportioned for the reason in that case is when he made such a condition the condition extended but to that which he aliened without license and to no more and so I hold the Law where a lease is made of twenty Acres with condition Eviction c. and parcell is evicted And warranty at the Common Law cannot be divided for if two Coparceners were who
every Wife may be defrauded of her land by joyning in a fine which were a great inconvenience and contrary to this ground in Law that the Husband cannot dispose of the Wifes lands without her consent And although that if the Wife had not shewed her agreement or disagreement then it should have been to the use limitted by the Husband yet here she hath shewed an express disassent and so by their variance both their declarations are void Quare impedit as in a Quare impedit by two if both make severall titles both shall be barred and so judgment shall be given against the Plaintif No Vse limited Peryam to the same intent First it is a plain case that if a Husband and Wife levie a fine and limit no use then the use is to them as the land was before Vse what it is for the use is the profit of the land and the Wife alone cannot limit the use for during the coverture she hath submitted her will to the will of her Husband Silence And if they both levie a fine and he onely by Indenture limits uses Limitation after fine if she do nothing then his limitation is good and the case of Vavisour adjudged here that a limitation after the fine is good And here the Husband hath limited the use to himself for life Who shall limit uses and afterwards they both agree in the limitation now if the residue in which they agree shall be good I will shew my opinion therein likewise because that also may come in question hereafter And I think that this shall not bind the inheritance for it is a ground in Law that limiters of uses shall be such as have power interest and auctority of the land and no further As if Tenant for life and he in reversion joyn in a fine Fine Tenant for life shall limit but for his life but here by the death of the Wife the ability of the Husband is gone for he had no issue by her and therefore his use shall bee gone allso for otherwise it should be a great inconvenience but if they had joyned in the limitation then the inheritance of the Wife had been bound Inheritance shall be bound by agreement and so it is if the Law can intend that she had agreed And to say that the Conisees shall take it from the Husband and Wife and therefore the Wife to be concluded is but small reason for she may confesse the Record well enough as appeareth by the case of Eare and Snow in the Com. and no man can limit uses further than he hath the land and here the limitation for the inheritance after the death of the wife cannot be good and for their variance both are void And so I think judgment shall be given against the Plaintif Rodes to the same intent for the Jury hath found that the Wife did not agree and this speciall finding shall avoid all other common intendments Intendment And the intendment of the party shall overthrow the intendment of the Law and he cited Eare and Snowes case where it was found that the wife had nothing And he cannot limit uses farther than he hath estate in the land and therefore judgment shall be given against the Plaintif Anderson then enter judgment accordingly 14. AN Action upon the statute of Hue and cry was brought against the hundred of Dunmow in Essex Robbery in the night and the Jury found a speciall verdict that the Plaintif was robbed about three a clock in morning before day light and thereupon prayed the advise of the Court And now all the Judges were agreed that for because the Robbery was done in the night and not in the day therefore the Hundred shall not be charged and they commanded to enter iudgment accordingly 15 BEtween Cogan and Cogan the case was Copulative that the Defendant had sold certain land sowen with oad to the Plaintif and that if any restraint shall be by proclamation or otherwise that it should not be lawfull to the Plaintif to sow and make oad then he should have certain mony back again and after proclamation came that no man should sow oad within four miles of any market Town or clothing Town or City or within eight miles of any Mansion House of the Queen and the Plaintif shewed the Land was within foure miles of a Market Town and because he did not averr that it was a Cloathing Town also the Defendant demurred in law And all the Judges held that he had shewed sufficient cause of his Demurrer for the meaning was to restrain by the proclamation aswell all manner of market Townes as those market Townes which were clothing Townes And after Puckering shewed that the restraint was onely from sowing oad and not from making and their Contract was that if any restraint should be from sowing and making in the copulative whereby he thought the Plaintif should be barred quod Curia concessit 16. BEtween Cock and Baldwin the case was Pas 29. Eliz. that a lease was made for 21 yeares to one Trâ—w penny and Elizabeth his wife Rot. 1410. if he and shee Copulative or any child or children between them lawfully begotten should live so long And after they were married the wife died without issue if the lease be thereby determined or no was the question because it is in the conjunctive he and she and now one of them is dead without issue and this case is not like Chapmans case in the Commentaries where one covenants to infeoff B. and his heires for there it is impossible to Emfeoff his heires as long as B. Lease to a for life shall live and therefore there it shall bee taken in the disjuctive and the same Serjeant said that if A. Lease for life of 2 lets land to two for life if one dye the other shall have all by survivour because they took it by way of interest Difference but if I let land to two to have and to hold for the lives of two other if one of them dye the lease is gone quod fuit concessum and here the lease shall be determined by the death of one because so was the intent Rodes the meaning seemeth to be conrrary for by the or which commeth afterward it appeareth that they should have their lives in it Peryam Anderson and Wyndham said that it appeareth by the disjunctive sentence which commeth afterward that the intent was that the lease shall not be determined by the death of one of them and the reason which moved the Lord Anderson to think so was because the state was made before the marriage and so it is as a joynture to the wife and therefore not determined by the death of the one And after they all gave judgment accordingly 17. WAlgrave brought trespass quare vi armis against Somersetbeing Tenant at will Trespass vi armis against Tenant at Will
de D. and a Lease had been made by name de Minister domus de D. omitting this word Dei every one will agree that this is voyd but if a further addition be made to the Corporation the Lease is true Addition superfluous shall not hurt allbeit that it be varying as if the Lease had been Minister Dei omnipotentis the addition of this word omnipotent shall not hurt sic de similibus And allbeit that it be not agreeing in words yet if it agree in common understanding Common understanding it is good but if in common understanding the grant may not be taken according to the Foundation if it be not wrested to an unexpected understanding there it is not good and if the Foundation had been in English words Minister of God of the poor house of Donington and the Lease by name of Minister of the poor house of God of Donington every one will agree that this is palpable variance and the Lease not good And I doubt of the case of Everwick for there the Prior beatâ—â— Mariae brought an action by name of Prior beatâ—â— Mariae extramures civitatis Ebor and if this case were now to be adjudged that would be variance as the case of Bristoll Prior beatae Maria de Bristoll made a Lease by name of Prior beatae Maria juxta Bristoll and this Lease was adjudged voyd but if the case had been de Everwick juxta mures civitatis Ebor. this had been no materiall variance for it had been but an explanation which will never hurt and for that the Court was so divided in opinion that is to say two against two and the case concerned a poor house They moved the parties to comprimise 8. RUswell brought disceipt against Vaughan Disceipt and declared that the Defendant sciens that he had no title to the Advowson of D. took upon him to be owner of that and sold the profits of the sayd Advowson to the Plaintif pro quadam pecunia summa And it was pleaded in arrest of Judgement for that the Plaintif did not aver ubi revera the Defendant had no title non allocatur 9. THe case was that the Queen made a Lease for years Burrough versus Taylor rendring rent at the receipt of her Exchequer or to the hands of her Baylif upon condition that if the rent be not payd that the estate shall cease Payment of rent the reversion being granted away by the Queen after the Queen granted over the reversion and whether the rent shall be now tendered upon the land or at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the person of the Assignee of the reversion was the question and it was adjudged that the Grantee of the reversion ought to demand the rent upon the Land or otherwise he shall not re-enter for the condition broken that for two causes the one for that that when the reversion was in the Queen Election the Lessee had election to pay it at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the hands of the Queens Baylif and when the Queen had granted over the reversion the election of the Lessee is tolled by which now the rent shall ensue the nature of other rents reserved by common persons The common receipt of the Exchequer and those are payable upon the lands another reason is every rent reserved by the Queen is of common right payable at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the Baylifs of the Queen without words appointing at what place it shall be payd for these are the usuall receipts of the Queen and so the words which appoint that to be payd at the receipt of the Excheq â—r to the hands of the Baylif of the Queen are idle words for that the Law appointeth so much of common right ex praerogativa Regis but when the reversion is transferred into the hands of a common person No prerogative can be granted over there this Prerogative ceaseth for it cannot be granted to a common person and by consequence the rent shall be payd upon the Land 10. THomas VVelcome Error Executor of Anthony VV. Executor of John VVelcome brought a Writ of Debt against S. S. in the Common-place and Judgement was given and entred quod praedictus Johannes VVelcome recuperet where it should have been quod praedictus Thomas VVelcome recuperet No amendment in point of judgement and for that Error was brought and Serjeant Heale moved that the Record might be mended for that it was the mis-entring of the Clerk but adjudged to the contrary for the Judgement is the act of the Court and not of the Clerk 11. EDmund Nevell brought an Action of Trespass against J. Sayle Abuttals and declared Quare clausum fregit in quodam loco vocato Claveringfield abuttan super quoddam molend in tenura J. S. Opinio Curiae If the Plaintif do not prove his Buttals he is gone And for that he could not prove that the Mill was in the tenure of J. S. the Jury being at bar was discharged and howbeit that there be a way between the Close and the Mill yet the Buttall is good 12. RIchard Somerstailes brought an Action upon the case for slanderous words Slanderous words that is to say R. S. is a very bad fellow for he made J. S. drunken in the night and consened him of an hundred Marks and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintif and Judgment was stayed for the words are not sufficient to maintain an Action 13. IF the Heir of the Morgagee is in Ward Mortgage and the Morgager payeth the mony his entry is not lawfull upon the King but shall be put to monstrans de droit per Popham chief Justice 14. HAmond brought Debt upon an Obligation against Hatch Award of paâ—t onely and the Condition was That if the Obligor do well and truly perform and keep the Award of J. S. Arbitrator indifferently chosen between the Plaintif and the Defendant for and concerning the matters contained in 9 severall Articles bearing date the day of these presents So that the same be given up under the hand and seal of c. And the Arbitrator made an award of 7 of the sayd Articles omitting the other two and whether the Obligor ought to perform this Award was the question Man I think he ought to perform the Award for that he is bound by Obligation to perform it and to prove that he cited 5 Edw. 4. 19 Hen. 6. 17 Edw. 4. Gawdy The words of the Condition are so that the same Award be given up in writing before such a day and that shall have reference to all the Articles for the Submission was conditionall as 14 Elizab. And after Judgement was given quod quer nihil capiat per billam 15. How against Broom and others A Man leased a House and a Close rendring rent and the Lessor entered into the house and pulled that down and after
shall have the corn for if Lessee for life leaseth for years and this Lessee for yeers sowe the land and the Lessee for life dye now the Lessee for yeers shall have the corn by reason of his right to the land at the time of his sowing and never lawfully devested by any Act done by himself and he denyed the cases put by Mr. Tanfield and so concluded Gawdie The lessee for yeers of the Tenant for life shall have the corn and he denyed some of the cases put by Mr. Tanfield for in the case where Tenant for life sowes the land and after assigns over his esttae now if Tenant for life dye the Assigne shall have the corn as well as the Executors of the Tenant for life if he had not assigned over his estate But I agree the case of the devise for life of land sowed with the remainder for life for there he in remainder shall have them and the laches of the not entry of the Lessee for yeers shall not prejudice him Lessee for years ousted for it appeareth by 19. H. 6. if Lessee for yeers of Tenant for life be ousted and after the Tenant for life dye yet the Lessee for yeers shall have trespasse with a continuando for all the mean profits The which proves that they belong to him so is it in 38. H. 6. Lessee at wil ousted If Lessee at will be ousted and after the Lessor dye now the Lessee shall have a trespasse with a continuando without regress for when he may not enter Regress the law supplyeth it and the mean profits do belong to him And by consequence in this case the corn belongeth to the Lessee for yeers Ground let for life after sowing of the Tenant for life Popham Sir Henry Knevit shall not have the Corn for if a man lease for life ground which is sown and the Lessee dye now the Lessor shall have the Corn and not the Executors of the Lessee for life And he agreed with Mr. Tanfeild in the case of the Assignee of Tenant for life of ground sowed and the Tenant for life dye that he in Reversion shall have the Corn Disseisor sow the land of tenant for life And if a Disseisor sow the land of Tenant for life and the Tenant for life dye now the Executors of the Tenant for life shall have the Corn and not the Disseisor nor he in Reversion and by consequence the Lessee for years of the first Lessee for life in this case Fenner was of the same opinion and after it was adjudged that Knevit should have the land and that Poole should have the Corn because of his possession 61. RAme sued a Prohibition against Patteson Prohibition for Dotards and the question was if Trees which are above the age of twenty years become rotten and are cut down for fuell shall pay Tyths or not and the opinion of the Court was that they shall not for Tythes are payable for an increase and not for a decrease and being once privileged in regard of hie nature this privilege shall not be lost in regard of his decrepitage 62. PArtridge brought an Action of Debt against Naylor upon the Statute of 1 2 P. M. 12. Empounding For taking of a Distress in one County and driving it into another and the case was that three men distreined a flock of Sheep and them impounded in severall places and if every of them shall forfeit a hundred shillings severally or but all together a hundred shillings Common place The Court was divided for the words of the Statute is that every person so offending shall forfeit to the party grieved for every such offence a hundred shillings and treble damages but Walmisley thought that every one should forfeit a hundred shillings and he put a difference between person and party for many persons may make but one party 63. BY Popham chief Justice of England by the Statute of 28 Ed. 3. cap. 10. Fine for Error in inferior Courts Erroneous Judgement in London was a forfeiture of their Liberties but after that by the Statute of 1 Hen 4. cap. 15. this was mitigated and was made finable as in Chester if they give an erroneous Judgement they shall forfeit an hundred pound for these inferior Courts which have peculiar Jurisdictions ought to do justly for if these Courts shall not be restrained with penalties Justice will be neglected and before the Statute of 28 Ed. 3. those of London might not reform Errors in London 64. NOta per Doctor Amias in the Lord Souch his case Caveat if a Church become voyd and a stranger enters a Caveat with the Register of the Bishop that none be instituted to that Church untill he be made privy thereunto and the Bishop before that he have notice of the Caveat institutes an Incumbent the Institution is meerly voyd in the Spiritual Law for the Register ought to notifie the Caveat to the Bishop and his negligence in that shall not prejudice him that entered the Caveat and if the Bishop have notice of the Caveat and gives day to him that puts that in and before that day he institutes an Ineumbent this is meerly voyd for the entering of the Caveat is as a Supersedeas in our Law 65. THornton brought an Action upon an Assumpsit against Kemp Day of payment and declared that the Testator was indebted to him in ten pound and in consideration that the Plaintif would give day to the Defendant being Executor to pay that until Michaelmas he assumed to pay that in facto dicit that he hath given day and yet the Defendant hath not that payd The Defendant pleaded in bar that post praedictam assumptionem factam and before Michaelmas the Plaintif did arrest him for the same Debt and demands Judgement and upon that the Plaintif demurred Gawdy When he hath given to him day of payment usque ad Michaelmas allbeit he arrest him before that time yet if he do not receive the money before Michaelmas the consideration is performed Fenner I deny that for to what purpose is the giving of day of payment untill Michaelmas if in the mean time he may sue him Popham I agree with my brother Gawdy for insomuch that he onely forbears the payment untill Michaelmas and doth not promise to forbear to sue him the payment is forborn if the money be not received 66. SHerington â—ued a Prohibition against Fleetwood Parson de Orrell Prohibition in Com. Linc. for that that the sayd Parson libelled in the Spiritual Court for Tyths of Agistments and the now Plaintif being Defendant in the Spirituall Court pleaded that he had allwayes payd twelve pence by the year for every Milch Cow going in such a Pasture and for this payment he had been discharged of payment of Tythes for all Agistments in that land Payment for one thing shall not discharge another Popham This payment of money for Milch
a Grantee of a Reversion for years be within the Statute or not Gawdy Well enough For the words of the Statute extend to that quod fuit concessum Then it was moved that this was a meer collaterall Covenant between the persons and not concerning the estate of the land and for that not within the Statute Popham sayd Covenant reall which concerneth the estate If nothing be sayd to the contrary intretur Judicium for the Plaintiff afterwards the case was moved again Gawdie It seems the case is Assigne which in regard of his reversion as of a Covenant may well maintain this action by the Statute of 32. Fenner This Covenant is not any Covenant to be performed during the estate or terme of the Defendant but it is a Covenant to doe a thing in the end of his term and for that is not a Covenant of which the Assignee of the reversion shall have benefit by the Statute for that he hath not any reversion depending upon any estate when the Covenant is alledged to be broken for the Defendant when he breaks that Covenant is but Tenant at sufferance Gawdie contra the Covenant is not to doe a thing after the terme determined but at the instant of the determination of the term and therfore it is a Covenant annexed to the State and runnes with the Land and therefore the Plaintiff shall have advantage over it 110. TRespasse and assault was brought against one Sims by the Husband and the Wife for beating of the woman A Child born living but bruised Cook the case is such as appears by examination A man beats a woman which is great with child and after the child is born living but hath signes and bruises in his body received by the said batterie and after dyed thereof I say that this is murder Fenner Popham absentibus cateris cleerly of the same opinion and the difference is where the child is born dead and where it is born living for if it be dead born it is no murder for non constat whether the child were living at the time of the batterie or not or if the batterie was the cause of the death but when it is born living and the wounds appeare in his body and then he dye the Batteror shal be arraigned of murder for now it may be proved whether these wounds were the cause of the death or not and for that if it be found he shall be condemned 111. GOodale against Wyat in trepasse The speciall verdict found that Sr John Pagginton was seised of the land in question in Fee Mortgage and morgaged it to one Woodliff upon condition that if he or his Heires did pay to the Heires Executors or Administrators of the said W. within one yeer after the death of the said Woodliff 50 l. That then the said deed of Feoffment and the Seisin thereupon given should be void and afterwards Woodliff infeoffed Goodale of the same land and gave notice of the said Feoffment to Sr J. P. and after Woodliff dyed and Sir J. agreed with the heir of W. to wit one Drew Woodliff to take 30 l. for the said 50 l. but when the 30 l. was to be paid Sir J. paid to the said Drew VV. all the fifty pounds and after such payment made Drew VV. gave back to the said Sr. J. 20 l. parcel of the 50 l. Altam 2. points are in the case The first is to whom the payment of the money as this case is ought to be made and I think to the Feoffee because the Heir hath nothing to do in the land and to prove that he cited fundamenta legum 17. Ass 2. 6. R. 2. Plesingtons case and the case of one Ramsey 19. Eliz. was such a man infeoffed three Ramseys case upon condition that if the Feoffor paid to them or their heires 100 l. that then he might re-enter and after one of the Feoffees dyed and the Feoffor tendred the money to his Heir and adjudged a void tender And also Littleton proves that but tif the condition might be performed to the Heirby payment that ought to be precisely performed for he is now as a stranger having nothing in the land and the Covin between the Feoffor and the Heir must not hurt my Olient for by 4. E. 2. câ—i in vita 22. If cui in vita be brought against a Prior and hanging the action he is deposed by Covin this shal not abate the Writ and it was adjudged in this Court where a man was bound by Obligation to deliver a bond and after he got a judgement upon it and then delivered the bond and holden no performance of the condition because the intent was not performed and 20. E. 3. accompt 29. in accompt the Defendant pleaded a Deed whereby the Plaintiff granted that if the Defendant made a Recognisance to him that then the Writ of accompt shall be made void and he shewed how he made a Recognisance But the Plaintiff said that after the making and before deliverie of that to him Composition by Executors the Defendant took it from the Clerk and therefore was adjudged to accompt Precisely named and by 18. E. 4. 20. If a man be bound to license another to carrie a 100. Oakes if he do license him and then disturb him the condition is broken and the common case of Executors will prove this for if an Executor have but 20 l. assets in his hands and is in debt to two men in 20. l. to either of them if he pay but 10 l. to the one and have an acquittance of him for the whole debt of 20 l. yet the other 10. l. that remains in his hands shall be assets to the other for no compacting between strangers shall prejudice my right per quo c. Payment upon a mâ—rgage good to the Executorrs cleelry Gawdy I think cleerly if the payment had been intirely made to the Heir without collusion it had been good for that he is preisely named for none will deny but that if the payment had been made to the Executors it had been good but the Covin between the Heir and the Feoffor peradventure will make no payment Father enfeoff the son and for that 34. E. 1. Warrantie 88. If the father infeoff the Son to the intent that this land shall not be assets to the Sonne to bar him in a Formdone this Covin will not serve to aid him Covin by administration and 2 3 Mar. the Husband dyed intestate and administration was committed to the wife which tooke another husband and the second husband and his wife as Administrators brought an action of Debt hanging which suit the Sonne of the intestate by fraud and covin between him and a Debtor obtained other letters of Administration to him and the woman joyntly and after judgement the sonne by covin to defeat the execution released to the Debtor all demands and executions and after the Husband and
the Statute 134. NOta per Cook Attorney Generall Distinct grants that the Lord Keep 〈◊〉 that is was of Counsell in a case inter Harlakenden and A. where it was adjudged that if a man make a Lesse for years of Land excepting the Wood and after the Leasor grants the Trees to the Lessee and the Lessee assigned over the Land to another not making any mention of the Trees now the Trees shall not pass to the Assignee as annexed to the Land for the trees and Land are not conjoined for the Lessee had severall interests in them by severall Grants 135. THomas against King Ejectment and the Title of the Land was between Sir Hugh Portman and Morgan And the Ejectment was supposed to be of 100. Acres of Land in Dale Sale and the Jury found the Defendant guilty of 10 Acres but did not shew in what Town they lay whereupon Haris Serjeant moved in arrest of Judgement for that it doth not appear where the Sherif may put the Plaintif in Possession Et non allocatur for the party at his perill ought to shew unto the Plaintiff the right land for which Judgement was given for the Plaintif 136. O Land against Bardwick and the case was this that a woman being possessed of Coppihold land for her Widowes estate sowed the land Forfeiture of a particular tenant and after took the Plaintif to Husband and the Defendant being Lord of the Mannor entred and took the Corn and the Husband brought an action of Trespass Clinch I think the Woman shall not have the corn Lease by Tenant for life but if the Wife had Leased the Land and the Lessee had sown it and after the Wife had maried and the Lord had entred yet the Lessee shall have the Corn. But in the case at bar the Woman her self is the cause of the Determination of her estate for she committeth the Act and therefore shall not have the Corn no more Forfeiture than if Lessee for life sow the Land and after commit forfeiture and the Lessor enter in this case the Lessor shall have the Corn. Fenner At the first the State of the Woman was certain viz. for her life but yet determinable by Limitation if she mary And if a man which hath an Estate determinable by Limitation sow the ground and before severance the Limitation endeth the state yet the party shall have the Corn which he hath sown And in the case at the bar there is no Forfeiture committed which gives course of Entry nor no dishinheritance or wrong made to the Lord as in the case where Tenant for life after his sowing commits forfeiture and if a man enter for breach of a Condition Entry for condition broken he shall have the Corn and not he that sowed the same for that his entry over-reacheth the state of the other but in this case the entry of the Lord doth not overâ—ach the Title of the Woman for he shall take that from the time that the Limitation endeth the Estate and not by any relation before For the Act of the Woman is Lawfull and therefore no reason he shall lose the Corn Popham Chief Justice It is cleare Forfeiture if Tenant for life sow and after commit a Forfeiture And the Lessor enter he shall have the Corne 〈◊〉 the like is it if the Lessee after the sowing surrender his Term the Lessor Surrender or he to whom the Surrender was made shall have the corn but if Tenant for life make a lease for yeares Lease by Tenant for life and after commit a Forfeiture and the Lessor enter now the Lessee shall have the Corn and in the case at bar if the woman had Leased for yeares and the Lessee had sowed the land and after she had taken Husband now the Lessee and not the Lord shall have the corn for the act of the Woman shall not prejudice a third person but when she her self is the party Knowledge and hath knowledge at the time of the sowing what acts will determineâ—er estate then is it reason if she by her own act will determine her estate that she shall lose the Corn For if Lessee for life sow the land Lessee praies in aid and after pray in aid of a Stranger now if the Lessor enter he shall have the Corn And so if Tenant at Will sow the Land Tenant at will determines his own Will and after determine his own Will the Lessor shall have the Corn but otherwise it is if the state be determined by the act of law or of a third person so that no folly was in him that sowed Fenner If the Husband and Wife were Lessees during the coverture Determination by the act of the Law of a third persoâ— and after the Husband sowes the land and then the Husband and Wife are divorced yet the Husband shall have the Corn for that the Husband at the time of the sowing had no knowledge of the Act which determined his interest Divorce So in this case the Woman at the time of the sowing did not know of the future Act which determined her interest and therefore no rason she should lose the Corn for the Corn is a Chattell in her Grant for if she had either granted them or been outlawed after the sowing and then had taken a Husband Now the Queen in the case of the outlary or the Grantee in the other case and not the Lessor Outlary shall have the Corn. Popham I will agree the case of the divorce to be good Law For that is not meerly the Act of the party but allso of the Court but in the case at bar the taking of the Husband is the Voluntary Act of the Woman per que And after Judgement was given against the Husband which was the Plaintif 137. A Scough brought a Writ of Error against Hollingworth upon a Judgement given in the Common place in a Writ of Debt brought upon a Statute Merchant Statute Merchant And the case was that Ascough came before the Maior of Lincoln and put his seal to the same Statute and the Kings seal was also put thereunto but one part did not remain with the Maior according to the Statute of Acton Burnell And it was adiudged a good Obligation against the Partie albeit it is no Statute Godfrey I think the Judgement ought to be affirmed and he cited 20. E. 3. accompt 79. And it is clear that a thing may be void to one intent and good to another by 10. Eliz. but Popham and Fenner were of opinion that it was hard to make it an Obligation for in every contract the intent of the parties is to be respected Intent in every contract And here the intent of the parties war to make it a Statute for the Kings seal is put to it and a Statute needs no deliverie butan Obligation ought to be delivered otherwise it is not good