haeredes de corpore and we are not to devise a new form in such case but it is sufficient to shew the speciall matter to the Court. Also the words of the Writ are true for they are Heirs to Sir Roger Lewknor and the count is sufficient pursuant and agreeing to their Writ for they are Heirs although they are not speciall Heirs of the body and so the Court was of opinion that the Writ was good notwithstanding that Exception And Anderson and Periam Justices said That the case is not to be compared to the case in F. Nat. Br. 57. c. for there he cannot shew by whose Demise the Tenant holdeth if he doth not shew the speciall conveyance viz. that the land was given to the Husband and Wife and the Heirs of the body of the Wife Nor is it like unto the case of 26. H. â— 6. for the same cause for alwayes the demise of the Tenant ought to be especially shewed and certainly which it cannot be in these two cases but by the disclosing of the Title also to the Reversion Another Exception was taken because that the Writ doth suppose quod tenuerunt which as they conceived is to be meant that tenuerunt joyntly whereas in truth they were Tenants in common Walmesley contrary because there is not any other form of Writ for there is not any Writ which doth contain two Tenuerunts And the words of the Writ are true quod tenuerunt although tenuerunt in Common But although they were not true yet because there is no other form of Writ it is good enough As Littleton If a lease be made for half a year and the Lessee doth waste yet the Writ shall suppose quod tenet ad terminum annorum and the count shall be speciall 40. Ed. 3. 41. E. 3. 18. If the Lessee doth commit waste and granteth over his term the Writ shall be brought against the Grantor and shall suppose quod tenet and yet in truth he doth not hold the Land 44. Ed. 3. and Fitz. If one make divers leases of divers lands and the Lessee doth waste in them all the Lessor shall have one Writ of waste supposing quod tenet and the Writ shall not contain two Tenets And such was also the opinion of the Court The third Exception was because that the Writ was brought by the two coparceners and the Heir of the third coparcener without naming of the Tenant by the Courtesie And thereupon Snagg cited the Case of 4. Ed. 3. That where a Lease is made for life the Remainder for life and the tenant for life doth waste he in the Reversion cannot have an Action of waste during the life of him in the Remainder So in this case the Heir of the third coparcener cannot have waste because the mean estate for life is in the Tenant by the courtesie And to prove that the Tenant by the courtesie ought to joyn he cited 3. E. 3. which he had seen in the Book it self at large where the Reversion of a tenant in Dower was granted to the Husband and to the Heirs of the Husband and the tenant in Dower did waste and they did joyn in an Action of waste and not good And so is 17. E. 3. 37. F. N. B. 59. f. and 22. H. 6. 25. a. Walmesley contrary for here in our case there is nothing to be recovered by the tenant by the courtesie for he cannot recover damages because the disinheresin is not to him and the term is expired and therefore no place wasted is to be recovered and therefore it is not like unto the Books which have been cited for in all those the tenant was in possession and the place wasted was to be recovered which ought to go to both according to their estates in reversion But it is not so here for in as much as the term is expired the land is in the tenant by the courtesie and so he hath no cause to complain And such also was the opinion of the whole Court viz. that because the term was ended that the Writ was good notwithstanding the said Exception Then concerning the principall matter in Law which was Whether the Writ were well brought against the second Lessee or whether it ought to have been brought against the first Lessee It was argued by Shuttleworth that it ought to have been brought against the first Lessee for when he granted over his term excepting the trees the Exception was good Ergo c. For when the Land upon which the trees are growing is leased out to another the trees passe with the Lease as well as the Land and the property of them is in the Lessee during the term and therefore when he grants his term hee may well except the trees as well as the first Lessor might have done And that is proved by the Statute of Marlebridge Cap. 23. for before that Statute the Lessee was not punishable for cutting downe the trees and that Statute doth not alter the properties of the trees but onely that the Lessee shall render damages if he cut them down c. Also the words of the Writ of Wast proveth the same which are viz. in terris domibus c. sibi dimissis Also the Lessee might have cut them down for reparations c. and for fire-wood if there were not sufficient underwoods which he could not have done if the trees had been excepted And in 23. H 8. in Brooke It is holden that the excepting of the trees is the excepting of the Soile And so is 46. E. 3. 22. Where one made a Lease excepting the woods and afterwards the Lessee did cut them down and the Lessor brought an Action of Trespasse quare vi armis clausum fregit c. and it was good notwithstanding that Exception was taken to it And it is holden in 12. E. 4. 8. by Fairfax and Littieton That if the Lessee cut the trees that the Lessor cannot carry them away but he is put to his Action of Waste Fenner and Walmesley Serjeants contrary and they conceived that the Lessee hath but a speciall property in the trees viz. for fire-boot plough-boot house-boot c. And if he passe over the Lands unto another that he cannot reserve unto himselfe that speciall property in the trees no more then he who hath common appendant can grant the principall excepting and reserving the Common or grant the Land excepting the foldage The grand property of the trees doth remain in the Lessor and it is proved by 10. H. 7. 30. and 27. H. 8 13. c. If Tenant for life and he in the reversion joyne in a Lease and the Lessee doth wast they shall joyne in an Action of Wast and Tenant for life shall recover the Free-hold and the first Lessor the damages which proves that the property of the trees is in him As to that that he was dispunishable at the common law that was the folly of the Lessor and although it was so at the
afterward the Husband suffers the wood to grow five and twenty yeers and afterwards hee dieth The question was Whether the Wife being Tenant for life might cut that Underwood And it was moved What shall be said seasonable Underwood that a Termor or Tenant for life might cut Dyer Chief Justice and all the other Justices held That a Termor or Tenant for life might cut all Underwood which had been usually cut within twenty yeers In 11. H. 6. 1. Issue was taken If they were of the age of twenty yeers or no. But in the Wood-Countries they may fell seasonable wood which is called Sylva caedua at six and twenty eight and twenty thirty years by the custome of the Country And so the Usage makes the Law in severall Countries And so it is holden in the books of 11. H. 6. and 4. E. 6. But they agreed That the cutting of Oakes of the age of eight yeers or ten years is Waste But by Meade Justice the cutting of Hornbeams Hasels Willows or Sallows of the age of forty yeares is no Waste because at no time they will be Timber Another question which was moved was That at the time of the Feoffment it was seasonable Wood and but of the growth of fourteen or fifteen yeers If this suffering of the Husband of it to grow to 25 years during the Coverture should bind the Wife so as she cannot cut the Woods Gaudy Serjeant said That it should not bind the Wife For if a Warranty descend upon a Feme Covert it shall not bind her So if a man seized of Land in the Right of his Wife be disseised and a Descent be cast during the Coverture it shall not bind the Wife but that she may enter after the death of the Husband But by Dyer Chief Justice and all the other Justices This Permission of the Husband shall bind the Wife notwithstanding the Coverture for that the time is limited by the Law which cannot be altered if it be not the custome of the Country As in the case of 17. E. 3. Where a man makes a Lease for years and grants that the Lessee shall have as great commoditie of the Land as hee might have Notwithstanding these words he cannot dig the land for a Mine of Cole or Stone because that the Law forbids him to dig the land So in the principall Case The Wife cannot fell the Wood notwithstanding that at the time of her estate she might and afterwards by the permission of the Husband during the coverture the time is incurred so as she cannot fell it because the Law doth appoint a time which if it be not felled before such time that it shall not be felled by a Termor or a Tenant for life but it shall be Waste Hill 23. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 7. A Man makes a Lease of a Garden containing three Roodes of Land and the Lessee is ousted and he brings an Ejectione firme and declares that he was ejected of three Roods of Land Rodes Serjeant moved That by this Declaration it shall be intended that he was ejected of the Garden of which the Lease was made and so the Ejectione firme would lie And it was holden by the Lord Chief Justice Dyer That a Garden is a thing which ought to be demanded by the same name in all Precipes as the Register and Fitz. N. Brevium is And this Action is greater then an Action of Trespasse because by Recovery in this Action he shall be put into Possession But Meade and Windham Justices contrary And they agreed that in all reall Actions a Garden shall be demanded by the name Gardinum otherwise not But this Action of Ejectione firme is in the nature of Trespasse and it is in the Election of the Party to declare as here he doth or for to declare of the Ejectment of a Garden for a Garden may be used at one time for a Garden and at another time be ploughed and sowed with Corn. But they conceived that the better order of pleading had been if he had declared that he was ejected of a Garden containing three Roodes of Land as in the Lease it is specified Hill 23. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 8. SErgeant Fenner moved this case That Land is given to the Wife in tail for her Joynture according to the Statute of 11. H. 7. The Husband dieth the Wife accepts a fine Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. of a Stranger And by the same fine grants and renders the Land to him for an Hundred years whether this acceptance of a Fine and Render by the Wife were a forfeiture of her estate so as he in the Reversion or Remainder might enter by the Statute Mead and Dyer Justices it is a forfeiture and Mead resembled it to the Case in 1 H. 7. 12. where it is holden That if Tenant for life do accept of a Fine Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. that it is a forfeiture and the Lessor may enter But Fenner asked their opinions what they thought of the principall case But haesitavernut because they said it was a dangerous case and is done to defraud the Statute of 11. H. 7. Pasch 23. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 9. A Man made a Feoffment in Fee to two to the use of himself and his wife for the term of their lives without impeachment of waste during the life of the Husband the remainder after their decease to the use of I. his son for the term of his life And further by the same Deed Vult concedit that after their three lives viz. of the Husband Wife and Son that I. S. and I. D. two other Feoffees shall be seized of the same Land to them and their heirs to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Son begotten It was moved That by this deed the two later Feoffees should be seized to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Son begotten after the death of the Husband Wife and the Son But it was holden by all the Justices That the second Feoffees had not the Fee because by the first part of the Deed the Fee-Simple was given to the first Feoffees and one Fee-Simple cannot depend upon another Fee-Simple Notwithstanding that after the determination of the former uses for life the Fee-Simple should be vested again in the Heires of the Feoffer and that the words That the second Feoffees should be seized should be void But Dyer Chief Justice and the other Justices were against that because there wanted apt words to raise the later use As if a man bargain and sell his Reversion of Tenant for Life by words of Bargain and Sale only and the Deed is not Enrolled within the six months but afterwards the Tenant for Life doth attorne yet notwithstanding that the Reversion shall not passe because Bargain and Sell are not apt words to make a Grant And that Case was so adjudged in the Common Pleas as the
the Justices did agree that the assignement was good but that the two assignees could not work severally but together with one stock or such workmen as belonged to them both And Cook who reported the opinions of the Justices was of Counsel with the Lord Mountjoy And note in that case it was said That Proviso being coupled with other words of covenant and grant doth not create a Condition but shall be of the same nature as the other words with which it is coupled Pasch 25. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 25. WEBBE and POTTER'S Case In an Ejectione firme the Case was this JOhn Harris gave Land in Frankmarriage to one White And the words of the Deed were Dedi concessi I. W. in liberum maritagium Joannae filiae suae Habendum eidem J. W. haeredibus suis in perpetuum tenendum de Capitalibus Dominis fâ—odi c. with warranty to the Husband and his heirs Periam Justice although the usuall words of gift in Frankmarriage are not observed yet the Frankmarriage shall not be destroyed for the usuall words are In liberum maritagium cum Joanna filia mea in the ablative case And it was holden by all the Justices that notwithstanding that the Frankmarriage was good Also a gift in Frankmarriage after the espousals is good as it was holden by all the Justices And see Fitz. Tit. Taile 4. E. 3. and 2. H. 3. Dower 199. And he said That a gift in Frankmarriage before the Stat. of Donis c. was a Feesimple but now it is but a special tail and if it should not be in law a gift in Frankmarriage then the Husband and Wife have an estate but for their lives for they cannot have an estate taile for that there are not words of limitation of such estate in the gift And hee cited 4. E. 3. and 45. E. 3. 20. to prove his opinion and hee much relyed upon the intent of the Donor which ought to be observed in construction of such Gifts according to the Statute And because the Habendum is repugnant to the premisses and would destroy the Frank-marriage it is void and the premisses shall stand good and to prove that he cited 9. E. 3. 13. E. 1. 32. E. 1. Tit. Taile 25. 3. H. 4. by Hill And he took this difference Where a Remainder is limited upon a Gift in Frankmarriage to a stranger and where it is limited to one of the Donees for in the first case the Remainder is good for the benefit of the stranger but in the second case it is void And he said that if a Rent be reserved upon such a Gift that it should be void during the four degrees but afterwards the Reservation should be good And if the Donor grant the Reversion over and the Donee in Frank-marriage attourn now he shall pay rent to the Grantee for by Littleton he hath lost the Priviledg of Frankmarriage viz. the Aquitall and no privitie is betwixt the Grantee and the Donees 10. Ass 26. 4. H. 6. That it is not any taile if it be not Frankmarriage Windham Justice Although it be no estate in Frankmarriage yet is it an estate taile and he cited 8. E. 3. although there want the word Heirs Also if a man give lands to another semini suo it is good 45. E. 3 Statham taile If it be not Frankmarriage yet it is a good estate in taile 19. Ass Land was given to Husband and Wife in Frank-marriage infra annos nubiles and afterwards they are divorced the Wife hath an estate in taile Meade Justice did agree with Windham and said That although there be not any Tenure nor any Aquitall yet it may be a good Frankmarriage as if a Rent Common or Reversion be given in Frankmarriage it is good and yet there is not any Tenure nor aquitall Dyer Chief Justice conceived That it is not Frankmarriage because that the usuall words in such Gifts are not observed for he said that the gift ought to be in liberum Maritagium and not Joannae filiae suae for that is not the usuall form of the words And he said That if the word Liberum be omitted that it is not Frankmarriage for that he said is as it were a Maxime and therefore the usuall words ought to be observed And by the same reason such a Gift cannot be with a man but ought to be with a woman also such a Gift ought to be with one of the blood of the Donor who by possibilitie might be his Heir Also there ought to be a Tenure betwixt the Donor and Donee and also an Aquitall And if these grounds and ceremonies be not observed it is not Frankmarriage Also if it once take effect as a Frankmarriage and afterwards the Donor granteth the Reversion over or if the Reversion doth descend to the Donees yet it shall not be utterly destroyed but shall remaine as an estate taile and not as an estate for life because it once took effect in the Donees and their issues as a Frankmarriage 31. E. 1. taile 116. If a man give lands in Frankmarriage the remainder to the Donees and the heirs of their bodies yet it is a good Frankmarriage And if a man give Lands in Frankmarriage the Remainder to another in taile it shall not destroy the Frankmarriage because that the Donor hath the Reversion in Fee in himself and the Donees shall hold of him and not of him in the Remainder in taile but if the Remainder had been limited to another in Fee simple then it had been otherwise Also if the Donor grant the Services of the Donees in Frankmarriage reserving the Reversion to himself it is no good Grant although that the Donees attourne for that the Services are incident to the Reversion but if he grant the Reversion then they do passe And he concluded That the Husband had the whole and that the Wife had nothing for she was no purchaser of the premisses because that the Gift did not take effect as a gift in Frankmariage And he said that he doth not construe it so by the intent of the Gift for here is an expresse limitation of the Fee to the Husband and his heirs which shall not be contradicted by any intendment for an Intendment ought to give way to an expresse Limitation as a consideration implyed ought to give place to a consideration expressed And afterwards this yeer it was adjudged that it was not a Frankmarriage nor a Gift in taile but that it was a Fee simple And the Justices said that although the old books are That where it takes not effect as a Frankmarriage that yet it shall take effect as an estate taile those Books are against Law But they agreed That where once the Gift doth take effect as a Frankmarriage that by matter ex post facto it might be turned to an estate in taile Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 26. MEade and Windham the other Justices being absent were of opinion That a
any remedy in this Court. Also he saith That he hath paid but doth not shew where and the other may say nâ—n solvit and so an issue shall be and no place from whence the Visne shall come Godfrey contrary If one be a lay man and the other a spirituall man then the tryall shall be at the common Law as it is holden 31. H 6. and 2. E. 4. And the defendant here is a lay man who makes prescription of a Modus decimandi for the discharge of Tithes in kind As to that which Cook said That he prescribes that he hath used to pay to the Parson and doth not say That it was due to the Parson and if he pay the Vicars Tithes to the Parson he doth wrong to the Vicar He saith That he hath paid and used to pay 4d. to the Parson in full satisfaction c. and reddâ—ndo singula singâ—lis it is good enough As to the doublenesse or repugnancy of the Prescription he said That the prescription is set forth according to the truth of the matter As to the place for that no issue can be taken upon it he answered That he conceived the issue will bee upon the Custome or Modus decimandi And Gawdy Justice agreed to that Suit Justice There is no Modus decimandi alledged for when he saith That he hath paid to the Parson that which the Vicar demands that is no answer Gaudâ— Justice The prescription is repugnant as Cook said and he said That the herbage is for all Kine as well for those which have Calves as those which have not No Prohibition granted Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 64. WINDSMORE and HULBORD's Case THe Case was this A man gave lands to J. S. Habendum to him and to three other for their lives â—t eorum diutius viventi successivè The question was What estate J. S. had and if after his life there were any occupancy in the Case Cooke That J. S. had an estate but for his life onely because he cannot have an estate for his life and for the life of another where the interest commenceth both in praesenti but he may have an estate for his own life in present interest and the remainder thereof for anothers life But this Habendum by no means can create a Remainder And he said that as a Lease to one for life Habendum to him primogâ—nito filio suo was no Remainder primogenito filio although some held to the contrary So a Lease for years Habendum to him and to another was no Remainder to the other Also the word successivè doth not make a Remainder as 30. H. 8. Br. Joynâ—ts 53. where a Lease for life to three or for yeers to three Habendum successivè yet they have a joynt estate and successivè is void for he said It is uncertain who shall have it first and who secondly Also one cannot have an estate for his own life and for the life of another at the same time in present interest for the greater will drown the lesser But if the greater be in praesenti and the lesse in futuro as a lease for his own life the Remainder to him for another mans life it is otherwise As a lease for his own life the Remainder for yeers is good But if I make a lease to you for your own life and 100 years both to begin at the same time the Lease for yeers is drowned and an estate for his own life is greater then an estate for anothers life and shall drown the estate for anothers life Vide 19. E. 3. Surr. 8. where Tenant for life of a Manor did surrender to Tenant for life in Reversion And 12. H. 7. 11. and Perkins 113. That if there be a Lease for life to one the Remainder to another for life and the Lessee for life doth surrender to him in the Remainder it is good So Dyers Reports A lease is made to one for the term of another mans life without impeachment of Waste the Remainder to him for his own life he is now punishable for waste for the first estate is surrendred Gaudy Justice If a lease be made to one for his life and so long as another man shall live quaere what estate he hath 2. If there can be any Occupancy in the Case for if the estate be void the limitation upon the estate is void therefore if the estate for the other mans life be drowned in the estate for his own life that can be no Occupancy Also the Occupancy is pleaded That such a one entred and doth not say claiming as occupant For if one come hawking upon the land he shall not by such entry be an Occupant and in the book of Entries it is pleaded that he entred clayming as Occupant Clenche Justice Every Occupancy ought to be in possession for otherwise the Law casts the interest of it upon him in the Reversion But Gaudy and Suit Justices were utterly against him in that for then they said there should be no occupancy if the party were not in by Lease or such like means Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 65. DIKE and DUNSTON'S Case IN an Action of Trespasse brought the defendant did justifie as Lessee to the Lord Mountagu and said that the Lord Mountagu for him and his Farmors had used to have a way over the land in which the trespass is supposed to be done And that by rooting of a cart wheel the way was so digged and drowned that he could not so wel use his way as before and that therefore he did fill up the cart roots and digged a trench to let out the water upon which the plaintiffe did demur in law For 15. H. 7. is that a Commoner cannot meddle with the soil so is 12. 13. H. 8. So he who hath Warren in the land of another man cannot meddle with the soile and as to that that he could not use his way so well as before it is not good for he ought to have said That he could not use his way at all otherwise the plea is not good As 6. E. 4. One is to lop his tree and he cannot do it unless it fall upon the Land of another there he may well justifie the felling of it upon the others Land because otherwise he could not lop it at all So if I give to one all the fish in my Pond he cannot dig a Trench to draw out the water unlesse he cannot otherwise take the fish as with Nets c. Also he justifies by reason that the Lord Mountagu for him and his Farmors c. And he was a Lessee and paid no rent therefore no Farmor Cowper contrary He shall not have an Action of Trespass for it is no losse or hinderance unto him but it is for his profit for the Land is the worse being drowned with water If a man do disseise me and fells trees upon the Land and doth repair the houses in an
licence be to A. and B. or C. some conceived that A. or B. might alien but not C. Et èâ—converso Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 105 IT was agreed by the whole Court That a Partition made by word betwixt Joyntenants is not good See Dyer 29. Pl. 134. and 350. Pl 20. doth agree and see there the reason of it Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 105 IT was holden by the whole Court That if the Father do devise Lands unto his Son and Heir apparant and to a stranger that it is a good Devise and that they are Joyntenants for the benefit of the Stranger Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 106 FULLER'S Case A. Promises unto the eldest son that if he will give his consent that his Father shall make an Assurance unto him of his Lands that he will give him ten pounds If he give his assent although no assurance be made yet he shall maintain an Action upon the promise But at another day Periam Justice said that in that case the son ought to promise to give his assent or otherwise A. had nothing if his son would not give his consent And so where each hath remedy against the other it is a good Consideration In Hillary Term after Fenner spake in arrest of Judgment upon the speciall Verdict That because that the Assumpsit is but of one part and the other is at liberty whether he will give his consent or not that therefore although that hee do consent that hee shall not recover the ten pounds Also he said That the promise was that if hee would give consent that his Father should make assurance to him and here the assurance is made to A. to the use of the Defendant and his Wife in taile so as it varies from the first Communication and also it is in tail Shuttleworth contrary in as much as he hath performed it by the giving of consent then when he hath performed It is not to the purpose that he was not tyed by a crosse Assumpsit to do it but if he had not given his consent he should have nothing At length Judgment was given for the Plaintiff And Periam Justice said in this Case That if a covenant be to make an Estate to A. and it is made to B. to the use of A. that he doubted whether that were good or not Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intratur Hill 28. Eliz. Rot. 1742. 107 WISEMAN and WALLINGER'S Case A Man seised of two Closes called Bl. Acre makes a Lease of them rendring Ten Shillings rent The Lessee grants all his Estate in one of them to A. and in the other to B. The Lessor doth devise all his Land called Bl. Acre in the tenure of A. and dieth The Devisee brings an Action of Debt for the whole Rent against the first Lessee And the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Action would not lie because they conceived That but the Reversion of one Close passed and also that the rent should not be apportioned in that Case because a terme is out of the Statute and a Rent reserved upon a Lease for years shall not be apportioned by the act of the Lessor as where he takes a Surrender of part of it But otherwise by Act in Law as where the Tenant maketh a Feoffment in Fee of part of the Land and the Lessor entreth And at another day Anderson Chief Justice said That if the Lessor of two Acres granteth the Reversion of one Acre that the whole Rent is extinct Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas 108 A Lease for years is made of Land by Deed rendring Rent the Lessee binds himselfe in a Bond of Ten Pound to perform all Covenants and Agreements contained in the Deed the Rent is behind and the Lessor brings an Action of Debt upon the Bond for not payment of the Rent the Obligor pleads performance of all Covenants and Agreements the Lessor saie That the Rent is behind it was holden That it is no Plea for the Obligor to say That the Rent was never demanded But in this Bar he ought to have pleaded That he had performed all Covenants and Agreements except the payment of the Rents And as to that That he was alwayes ready to have paid it if any had come to demand it but as the first Plea is it was held not to be good And as to the demand of the Rent the Court was of opinion That it was to be demanded for the payment of the Rent is contained in the word Agreements and not in the word Covenants and then if he be not to performe the Agreements in other manner then is contained in the Deed of that agreement the Law saith That there shall be a demand of the Rent But if the Lessee be particularly expressed by covenant to pay the Rent there he is bound to do it without any Demand Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 109 HOLLENSHEAD against KING THomas Hollenshead brought Debt against Ralph King upon a Recovery in a Scire fâ—cias in London upon a Recognizance taken in the Inner or Ouster Chamber of London and doth not shew That it is a Court of Record and that they have used to take Recognisances and Exception was taken unto the Declaration and a Demurrer upon it and divers Cases put That although that the Judgement be void that yet the Execution shall be awarded by Scire facias and the party shall not plead the same in a Writ of Error But Periam Justice took this difference Where Execution is sued upon such a Judgement and where Debt is brought upon it for in Debt it behoves the Party that he have a good Warrant and ground for his Action otherwise he shall not recover but upon a voidable Judgement he shall recover before it be reversed Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intratur Trinit 28. Eliz. Rot. 507. 110 COSTARD and WINGFIELD'S Case IN a Replevin the Defendant did avow for Damage Feasans by the commandment of his Master the Lord Cromwell The Plaintiffe by way of Replication did justifie the putting in of his Cattell into the Land in which c. by reason that the Towne of N. is an ancient Town and that there hath been a usage time out of mind That every Inhabitant of the same Towne had had common for all his cattel Levant and Couchant in the same Town and so justified the putting in of his cattell The Defendant said That the house in which the Plaintiffe did inhabite in the same Towne and by reason of Residency in which house he claimed common was a new house built within 30 years and within that time there had not been any house there and upon that Plea the Plaintiffe did demurr in Law Shuttleworth Serdeant for the Plaintiffe That he shall have common for cause of Resiance in that new house and the Resiancy is the cause and not the Land nor
taile and waives the Lands taken in Exchange and before any other entry the heir of B. enters upon the Land which was given in Exchange and the opinion of the whole Court was That it was no breach of the Condition because that was not the Land of the Devifor at the time of the devise therefore it was out of the Condition Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 116. PLYMPTON'S Case AN Action of Debt was brought by one Plympton and his wife Executors of one Dorrington upon a Bond with Condition to perform Covenants of an Indenture of Lease whereof one Covenant was That he should pay forty shillings yearly at the Feast of the Annunciation or within fourteen days after And the breach assigned was for not payment at such a Feast in such a year The Defendant said That hee paid it at the Feast upon which they were at issue And upon evidence given to the Jury it appeared That the same was not paid at the Feast but in eight dayes after it was paid And the opinion of the Court was That by his pleading that hee had paid it at such a day certain and tendring that for a speciall issue That hee had made the day part of the issue and then the Defendant ought to have proved the payment upon the very day But if the Defendant had pleaded That hee paid it within the fourteen dayes viz. the eighth day c. that had not made the day parcell of the issue but then hee might have given evidence that he paid it at another day within the fourteene dayes Then for the Defendant it was moved That the Plaintiffe had not well assigned the breach in saying that he had not paid it at the Feast without saying Nor within the fourteen dayes But the Court said That the Jury was sworn at the Barre and bid the Councell proceed and give in their evidence for the time to take exception was past Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 117. IT was the opinion of Anderson Chiefe Justice and so entred by the Court That if a Copie-holder doth surrender to him who hath a Lease for years of the Mannor to the use of the same Lessee That the Copie-hold estate is extinct For the estate in the Copie-hold is not of right but an estate at will although that custome and prescription had fortified it And Wray said That it had been resolved by good opinion That if a Copie-holder accept a Lease for years of the Mannor that the Copie-hold estate is extinct for ever Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 118. Anderson Chiefe Justice and Periam Justice being absent in a Commission upon the Queen of Scots Shuttleworth moved this case to the Court. If the Queen give Lands in taile to hold in Capite And afterwards granteth the Reversion how the Donee shall hold Windham Justice and Fenner Serjant The tenure in this case is not incident to the Reversion and the Donee shall hold of the Queen as in grosse and so two Tenures in Capite for one and the same Land And thereupon Windham Justice cited 30. H. 8. Dyer 45 46. That the Queen by no way can sever the tenure in chiefe from the Crown And therefore if the Queen do release to her Tenant in Capite to hold by a penny and not in Capite it is a void Release for the same is meerly incident to the Person and Crown of the Queen But Rodes Justice held the contrary viz. That the Tenure in Capite doth not remain But it was said by Windham That if the Queen had reserved a Rent upon the gift in tail the Grantee of the Reversion should have it Also he said That the Queen might have made the Tenure in such manner viz. to hold of the Mannor or of the Honor of D. Shuttleworth If Lands holden of the Mannor of D. come to the King may he give them to be holden of the Mannor of S that should be hard Windham I did not say That Lands holden of one Mannor may be given to be holden of another Mannor perhaps that may not bee but Lands which is parcell of any Mannor may be given Vt supra Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 119 SErjeant Fenner moved Case If Lands be given to the Husband and Wife and to the heirs of their two bodies and the Husband dieth leaving Issue by his Wife and the Wife makes a Lease of the lands according to the Statute of 32. H. 8. If the Lease be good by the Statute Windham and Rodes Justices conceived that it is a good Lease Fenner The Statute saith that such Lease shall be good against the Lessor and his Heirs and the Issue doth not claim as Heir to the Wife onely but it ought to be Heir to them both and he cited the case That the Statute of R. 3. makes Feoffments good against no heirs but those which claim onely as Heirs to the same Feoffors c. So here Rodes Justice There the word only is a word efficacy And Windham agreed cleerly That the Lease should binde the issue by the said Statute of 32. H. 8. Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 120 WAlmesley Serjeant moved this Case If a man deviseth Lands in taile with divers Remainders over upon condition that if any of them alien or c. that then he who is next heir to him to whom the land ought to come after his decease if the said alienation had not been made might enter and enjoy the land as if he had been dead But Ady of the Temple said That the words of the Devise are viz. That if any of them alien or c. that then his estate to cease and hee in the next Remainder to enter and retain the land untill the aliener were dead Rodes Justice The Devise is good and an estate may cease in such manner so as it shall not be determined for ever but that his Heir after him shall have it And he put the case of Scholastica Plow Com. 408. where Weston fo 4. 14. was in some doubt that if the Tenant in talle had had Issue if the Issue should be excluded from the land or whether hee should have the land by the intent of the Devisor And therefore if it were necessary to shew that the Tenant in taile had not Tssue But Dyer said that the words of the Will were that such person and his Heirs who alien or c. should be excluded presently so as the estate by expresse words is to be determined for ever But it is otherwise in this Case Windham doubted of the Devise Fenner cited the Case 22. E. 3. 19. Where a Rent was granted and that it should ceâ—se during the Nonage of the Heir of the Grantee and it was good Windham When a thing is newly created he who creates it may limit it in such manner as he pleaseth Fenner 30. E. 3. 7. Det. 10. A Feoffment was made rendring Rent upon
yet in the interim during the life of Brenne and his wife it is one entire Manor For if Blackborow had levied a Fine thereof before entry his Interest in the Land had not passed And if a Fine be levied of the Manor and the Conusee render back part to one for life and another part to another for life the remainder of the whole to a third until the Two enter it is one entire Manor in the hands of the Conusee If I devise that my Executors shall sell such Lands which are parcell of a Manor and dye untill they sell it remains parcell of the Manor So if the heir selleth the Manor that Land shall passe for it is but executory and remains parcell untill it be executed Wherefore in the principall Case here the Copy-hold is good The reason of the Case 33. H. 8. Dyer 48. is because before the grant the advowson was not appendant to that acre onely but to the whole Manor and to that acre as parcell of it Also he said that the Copy-hold shall be good against the Lessee being granted before execution of his term when as the Manor was entire For he who hath a Manor but for one year may grant Copies and the grant shall be good to bind him in the Reversion And if one recovereth an acre parcell of a Manor before execution it is parcell of the Manor and by grant of the Manor shall passe Periam Justice But yet now being executed by the death of the Lessor and his wife it is no part of the Manor if they be severall Leases Walmesley But the Defendant is in by Custome by one who is Dominus pro tempore Anderson Chief Justice The Case of 48. E. 3. is like our Case And I conceive clearly here is no severance but if there had been any severance it had been otherwise but I doubt of the other point Periam Justice In 13. H. 4. the difference is taken betwixt a grant of a Manor una cum advocatione and a grant of a Manor et ulterius a grant of the Advowson In 14. Eliz. Dyer 311. in the Case of the Lord Cromwell and Andrews it is moved If a man bargain and sell give and grant a Manor and Advowson to one and afterwards levieth a Fine or inrolleth the Deed Dyer held that the Advowson shall passe by the Bargain and Sale as in gross before that the Deed be enrolled But I conceive that it cannot pass if the Deed be not enrolled and then it shall pass as appendant by reason of the intent of the parties and so in this Case And for the last matter I conceive very strongly that when the Lease which is executory takes effect that it shall avoid the Copy-hold for although at once viz. during the expectancy of the said Lease to begin at a day to come the Copy-hold be not extinct yet now he may say That all times as in respect to him the Copy-hold Custome was broken I hold That a Tenant in Dower shall not avoid a Copy-hold made during the Coverture and so it hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench. But I conceive there is a difference betwixt that Case and the Case in question for in that Case the title of the wife to have Dower is not consummate till the death of the Husband Anderson Chief Justice I can shew you an Authority That if I grant unto you such Land and the Manor of D. there the Land shall pass as parcell of the Manor Periam True there for it doth enforce the first grant But here the intent of the parties doth appear and the same is to be respected Anderson But their intent ought to be according to the Law as in 19. H. 8. it is holden it shall be in a Devise Anderson upon the Argument of this Case said That if a Warranty be to a whole Manor and also to an Advowson the party cannot have Two Warrantia Chartae Periam If he had further said in the Deed That his intent was that it should be severall the same had altered the Case Anderson No truely because his intent did not stand with the rule of Law As if a man devise that his Lands shall be sold and doth not say by whom it is void and yet the intent is expressed If the Lease had been by severall Deeds Periam said The Copy-hold had beene severed Windham denied that If both the Deeds bee delivered at one time It was adjourned Hill 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 148 AN Information was upon the Statute of 5. 6. E. 6. for buying of seed Corn having sufficient of his own and not bringing so much unto the Market of his own corn and a generall issue was found upon it And it was delivered for Law to the Jury by the Justices That a Contract in Market for corn not in the Market or which was not there that day is not within the Branch of the Statute But if corn or graine be in the Market although that the Contract be made in a house out of the Market and delivered to the Vendee out of the Market yet it is within the Statute And in the Argument of that Case Anderson said That the Market shall be said The place in the Town where it hath used to be kept and not every place of the Town And a Sale in Market overt in London ought to be in a Shop which is open to the street and not in Chambers or inward rooms otherwise the property is not altered And so it is of all Statutes in open Markets And the Recorder of London said That such was their Custome in London Hill 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 149 It was holden by Anderson chiefe Justice That if one deviseth Lands to the heirs of I. S. and the Clerk writes it to I. S. and his heirs that the same may be holpen by averrment because the intent of the Devisor is written and more And it shall be naught for that which is against his intent and against his will and good for the residue But if a Devise be to I. S. and his heirs and it is written but to the heirs of I. S. there an averrment shall not make it good to I. S. because it is not in writing which the Statute requires anâ— so an averrment to take away surplusage is good but not to encrease that which is defective in the Will of the Testator Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 150 A Feoffment was made unto A. unto the use of him and his wife dis-punishable of Wast during their lives one died and the Survivor committed Wast It was the opinion of the whole Court that an Action of Wast would not lie by him in the Reversion for it is a Priviledge which is annexed to the Estate which shall continue as long as the Estate doth continue Mich. 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 151 A. grants annualem redditum out of Lands in which he hath nothing The opinion of
it is not known whether he be guilty or not and in Cuddingtons Case it was a general Pardon and that was the cause that the Action did lie for that it is not known whether he committed the Felony or not But they conceived that if it had been a particular Pardon that then in that case the Action would not have been maintainable For the procuring of a special Pardon doth presuppose and it is a strong presumption that the party is guilty of the offence Note it did not appear in the Case of Fines the principal Case whether the Pardon by which Dr. Spicer was pardoned were a general Pardon or whether it were a particular and special Pardon Pasch 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 415. DAVER's Case IN Davers Case who was arraigned for the death of William Dutton Ley Chief Justice delivered it for Law That if two men voluntarily fight together and the one killeth the other if it be upon a sudden quarrel that the same is but Man-slaughter And if two men fight together and the one flieth as far as he can and he which flieth killeth him who doth pursue him the same is Se defendendo Also if one man assaulteth another upon the High-way and he who is assaulted killeth the other he shall forfeit neither life nor lands nor goods if he that killed the other fled so far as he could Quod nota Pasch 21 Jacobi â—n the Court of Wards 416. Sir EDWARD COKE's Case THis Case being of great consequence and concernment The Master of the Court of Wards was assisted by four of the Judges in the hearing and debating of it and after many Arguments at the Barr the said four Judges argued the same in Court viz. Dodderidge one of the Justices of the Kings Bench Tanfield Lord chief Baron of the Exchequer Hobart Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas and Ley Lord Chief Justice of his Majesties Court of Kings Bench The Case in effect was this Queen Elizabeth by her Letters Patents did grant to Sir Christopher Hatton the Office of Remembrancer and Collector of the first Fruits for his life Habendum to him after the death or surrender of one Godfrey who held the said Office then in possession Sir Christopher Hatton being thus estated in the said Office in Reversion and being seised in Fee-simple of diverse Mannors Lands and Tenements did Covenant to stand seised of his said lands c. unto the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of J. Hatton his son in tail and so to his other sons intail with the Remainder to the right heirs of J. Hatton in Fee with Proviso of Revocation at his pleasure during his life Godfrey the Officer in possession died and Sir Christopher Hatton became Officer and was possessed of the Office and afterwards he became indebted to the Queen by reason of his said Office And the Question in this great Case was Whether the Mannors and Lands which were so conveyed and setled by Sir Christopher Hatton might be extended for the said Debt due to the Queen by reason of the Proviso and Revocation in the said Conveyance of Assurance of the said Mannors and Lands the debt due to the Queen was assign'd over and the Lands extended and the Extent came to Sir Edward Coke and the heir of John Hatton sued in the Court of Wards to make void the Extent And it was agreed by the said four Justices and so it was afterwards decreed by Cranfield Master of the Court of Wards and the whole Court That the said Mannors and Lands were liable to the said Extent And Dodderidge Justice who argued first said that the Kings Majestie had sundry prerogatives for the Recovery of Debts and other Duties owing unto him First he had this prerogative ab origine legis That he might have the Lands the Goods and the Body of the Person his Debtor in Execution for his Debt But at the Common Law a common person a common person could not have taken the body of his debtor in execution for his debt but the same priviledg was given unto him by the Statute of 25. E. 3. cap. 17. At the Common Law he said that a common person Debtee might have had a Levari facias for the Recovery of his Debt by which Writ the Sheriffe was commanded Quod de terris Catallis ipsius the Debtor c. Levari faciat c. but in such Case the Debtee did not meddle with the Land but the Sheriffe did collect the Debt and pay the same over to the Debtor But by the Statute of West 2. cap 20. The Debtee might have an Elegit and so have the moyetie of the Lands of his Debtor in Execution for his Debt as it appeareth in C. 3. part 12. in Sir William Harberts Case Secondly He said That the King had another prerogative and that was to have his Debt paid before the Debt of any Subject as it appeareth 41. E. 3. Execution 38. and Pasc 3. Elizabeth Dyer 197. in the Lord Dacres and Lassels Case and in M. 3. E. 6. Dyer 67 Stringfellows Case For there the Sheriffe was amerced because the King ought to have his Debt first paid and ought to be preferred before a Subject vid. 328 Dyer There the words of the Writ of Priviledg shew that the King is to be preferred before other Creditors By the Statute of 33. H. 8. cap. 39. The Execution of the Subject shall be first served if his Judgment be before any Processe be awarded for the Kings debt In the Statute of 25. E. 3. Cap. 19. I find that by the Common Law the King might grant a Protection to his Debtor that no other might sue him before that the King was satisfied his debt See the Writ of Protection Register â— 81. B. the words of which are Et quia nolumus solutionem debitorum nostrorum caeteris omnibus prout ratione Perogativae nostrae totis temporibus retroactis usitatae c. But that grew such a Grievance to the Subject that the Statute of 25. E. 3. Cap. 19. was made And now by that Statute a common person may lawfully sue to Judgment but he cannot proceed to Execution and so the Kings Prerogative is saved unless the Plaintiffe who sueth will give security to pay first the Kings Debt For otherwise if the Paty doth take forth Execution upon his Judgment and doth levy the money the same money may be seized upon to satisfie the Kings Debt as appeareth in 45. E. 3. title Decies tantum 13. The third Prerogative which the King hath is That the King shall have the Debt of the Debtor to the Kings Debtor paid unto him v. 21 H. 7. 12. The Abbot of Ramseys Case The Prior of Ramsey was indebted to the King and another Prior was indebted to the Prior of Ramsey and then it was pleaded in Barr that he had paid the same Debt to the King and the Plea holden for a good Plea
certain Farme Lands called Estons and that a Fine was levied of Lands in Eslington Eston and Chilford whereas Eston lay in another Parish appell D. Calthrope argued That the Land in Eston did passe by the Fine although the Parish was not named for that the Writ of Covenant is a personall Action and will lie of Lands in a Hamlet or lieu conus 8. E. 4 6. Vide 4. E. 3. 15. 17. Ass 30. 18. E. 3. 36. 47. E. 3. 6. 19. E. 3. Brev. 767. 2. He said That it was good for that the Plea went only to the Writ in abatement but when a Concord is upon it which admits it good it shall not be avoided afterwards 3. He said That a Fine being a common assurance and made by assent of the parties will passe the Lands well enough 7 E. 4. 25. 38. E. 3. 19. And he vouched Pasch 17. Jacobi in the Kings Bench Rot. 140. Monk and Butlers Case Where it was adjudged that a Fine being but an arbitrary assurance would passe Lands in a Lieu conus and so he said it would do in a common recovery And Richardson said That if a Scire facias be brought to execute such a recovery Nul tiel ville ou Hamlet is no plea and the Fine or recovery stands good Vide 44. E. 3. 21. 21 E. 3. 14 Stone And the opinion of the Court was That the Lands did well passe by the Fine Mich. 8. Caroli in the Kings Bench 509 CAWDRY aud TETLEY's Case CAwdry being a Doctor of Physick the Defendant Praemissorum non ignorans to discredit the plaintiff with his Patients as appeared by the Evidence spake these words to the plaintiffe viz. Thou art a drunken Fool and an Asse Thou wert never a Scholer nor ever able to speak like a Scholer The opinions of Jones and Crook Justices were that the words were actionable because they did discredit him in his Profession and hee hath particular losse when by reason of those words others do not come to him And Palmers Case was vouched Where one said of a Lawyer Thou hast no more Law then a Jackanapes that an Action did lie for the words Contrary if he had said No more Wit And William Waldrons Case was also vouched where one said I am a true Subject thy Master is none that the words were actionable Mich. 4. Caroli in the Kings Bench. 510 The King and BAXTER SIMMON's Case THE Case was this Tenant in tail the Remainder in taile the Remainder in Fee to Tenant in tail in possession Tenant in tail in Remainder by Deed enrolled reciting that he had an estate tail in Remainder Granted his Remainder and all his estate and right unto the King and his Heirs Proviso that if he pay ten shillings at the Receipt of the Exchequer that then the Grant shall be void Tenant in tail in possession suffers a common Recovery and afterwards deviseth the Lands to I. S. and dieth without Issue 18. Jacobi Afterwards 21. Jac. he in the Remainder in tail dieth without issue but no seisure is made nor Offence found that the lands were in the Kings hands Noy who argued for the King The first Point is When Tenant in taile recites his estate and grants all his estate and right to the King and his Heirs what estate the King hath And if by the death of Tenant in tail without issue the estate of the King be so absolutly determined that the Kings possession needs not to be removed by Amoveas manum And he argued That when the Lands are once in the King that they cannot be out of him again but by matter of Record 8. E. 3. 12. Com. 558. And a bare entry upon the King doth not put the King out of possession of that which was once in him And so was it adjudged 34. Eliz. in the Lord Paget's Case as Walter chief Baron said And Noy took this difference 8. H. 5. Traverse 47. and 8. E. 2. Traverse 48. If a particular estate doth determine before that the King seise there the King cannot afterwards seise the Lands But if the King hath once the Lands in his hands or possession there they cannot be devested out of him but by matter of Record So F. Nat. Br. 254. If a man be seised of Lands in the right of his Wife and be outlawed for Felonie for which the Lands come into the Kings hands and afterwards hee who is outlawed dieth there a Writ of Diem clausit extremum shall issue forth which proveth That by the death of the Husband the Lands are not immediately out of the King and setled in the Wife againe 22. E. 4. Fitz. Petition 9. Tenant in taile is attainted of Treason and the Lands seised into the Kings hands and afterwards Tenant in taile dieth without Issue he in the Remainder is put to his Petition which proveth that the Lands are not presently after the death of Tenant in taile without issue out of the King But he agreed the Cases If Tenant in taile acknowledgeth a Statute or granteth a Rent charge and dieth that the Rent is gone and determined by his death as it is agreed in 14. Assisarum The second point argued by Noy was That although that there was not any seizure or Offence found which entituled the King Yet the Deed enrolled in the Chancery which is returned in this Court did make sufficient title for the King as 8. E. 3. p. 3. is The Judges of Courts ought to Judge upon the Records of the same Courts In 8. H. 7. 11. a Bayliff shewed That a Lease was made to T. his Master for life the Remainder to the King in Fee and prayed in Ayd of the King And the Plaintiff in Chancery prayed a Procedendo And it was ruled That a Procedendo should not be granted without examination of the Kings title Thirdly he said That in this case he who will have the Lands out of the possession of the King ought to shew forth his title and in the principall case it doth not appear that the Defendant had any title Vide 10. H. 7. 13. Athowe Serjeant argued for the Defendant he said That in this case the King had an estate but for the life of Tenant in tail And therefore he said That If Tenant in tail grant totum statum suum that an estate but for his own life passeth as Litt. is 145. and 13. H. 7. 10. acc So If Tenant for life the remainder in taile bee and he in the Remainder releaseth to Tenant for life in possession nothing passeth but for the life of Tenant in tail 19. H. 6. 60. If Tenant in tail be attainted of Treason or Felonie and Offence is found and the King seiseth the lands he hath an estate but for the life of Tenant in tail And he cited 35. Eliz. C. 2 part 52. Blithmans case Where Tenant in tail Covenanted to stand seized to the use of himself for his own life and after his death to the use
of the Justices was That the Fee was executed for a moitie Manwood If the Land be to one for life the Remainder for yeers the Remainder to the first Tenant for life in Fee there the Fee is executed so as if he lose by default he shall have a Writ of Right and not Quod ei deforceat for the term shall be no impediment that the Fee shall not be executed As a man may make a lease to begin after his death it is good and the Lessor hath Fee in possession and his wife shall be endowed after the Lease And I conceive in the principall case That the term shall not be extinct for that it is not a term but interesse termini which cannot be granted nor surrendred Mounson If he had had the term in his own right then by the purchase of the Fee the Term should be extinct But here he hath it in the right of another as Administrator Dyer If an Executor hath a term and purchaseth the Fee the term is determined So if a woman hath a term and takes an husband who purchaseth the Fee the term is extinct Manwood The Law may be so in such case because the Husband hath done an act which destroyes the term viz. the purchase But if the woman had entermarried with him in the Reversion there the term should not be extinguished for the Husband hath not done any act to destroy the term But the marriage is the act of Law Dyer That difference hath some colour But I conceive in the first case That they are Tenants in common of the Fee Manwood The Case is a good point in law But I conceive the opinion of Manwood was That if a Lease for yeares were to begin after the death surrender forfeiture or determination of the first lease for yeares that it shall not begin in that part for then perhaps the term in that part shall be ended before the other should begin Pasc 20. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 3. A Man seised of Copyhold land descendable to the youngest Son by Custome and of other Lands descendable to the eldest Son by the common Law leaseth both for yeers The Lessee covenanteth That if the Lessor his wife and his heirs will have back the land That then upon a yeers warning given by the Lessor his wife or his heirs that the Lease shall be void The Lessor dieth the Reversion of the customary Land descends to the younger son and the other to the eldest who granteth it to the younger and he gives a yeers warning according to the Covenant Fenner The interest of the term is not determined because a speciall heir as the youngest son is is not comprehended under the word Heir but the heir at common Law is the person who is to give the warning to avoid the estate by the meaning of the Covenant But Manwood and Mounson Justices were cleer of opinion That the interest of the term for a moity is avoyded for the Condition although it be an entire thing by the Descent which is the act of Law is divided and apportioned and the warning of any of them shall defeat the estate for a moity because to him the moity of the Condition doth belong But for the other moity he shall not take advantage by the warning because that the warning is by the words of the Condition appointed to be done by the Lessor his wife or his heirs And in that clause of the Deed the Assignee is not contained And they agreed That if a Feoffment of lands in Borough-English be made upon condition That the heir at common Law shall take advantage of it And Manwood said that hee would put another question Whether the younger son should enter upon him or not But all Actions in right of the Land the younger son should have as a Writ of Error to reverse a Judgment Attaint and the like quod nota Pasc 22. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 4 IT was holden by Meade and Windham Justices of the Common Pleas That a Parsonage may be a Mannor As if before the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum the Parson with the Patron and Ordinary grant parcel of the Glebe to divers persons to hold of the Parson by divers Services the same makes the Parsonage a Manor Also they held That a Rent-Charge by prescription might be parcel of a Manor and shall passe without the words cum pertinentiis As if two Coparceners be of a Manor and other Lands and they make partition by which the eldest sister hath the Manor and the other hath the other Lands and she who hath the Lands grants a Rent-charge to her sister who hath the Manor for equality of partition Anderson and Fenner Srjeants were against it Hill 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5. THis Case was moved by Serjeant Periam That if a Parson hath Common appendant to his Parsonage out of the lands of an Abby and afterwards the Abbot hath the Parsonage appropriated to him and his Successors Whether the Common be extinct Dyer That it is Because he hath as high an estate in the Common as he hath in the Land As in the case of 2 H. 4. 19. where it is holden That if a Prior hath an Annuity out of a Parsonage and afterwards purchaseth the Advowson and then obtains an Appropriation thereof that the Annuity is extinct But Windham and Meade Justices conceived That the Abbot hath not as perdurable estate in the one as in the other for the Parsonage may be disappropriated and then the Parson shall have the Common again As if a man hath a Seignorie in fee and afterwards Lands descend to him on the part of the Mother in that case the Seignory is not extinguished but suspended For if the Lord to whom the Land descends dies without issue the Seignorie shall go to the heir on the part of the Father and the Tenancy to the heir on the part of the Mother And yet the Father had as high an estate in the Tenancy as in the Seignory And in 21 E. 3. 2. Where an Assize of Nusance was brought for straightning of a way which the plaintif ought to have to his Mill The defendant did alledg unity of possession of the Land and of the Mill in W. and demanded Judgment if c. The plaintif said that after that W. had two daughters and died seised and the Mill was allotted to one of them in partition and the Land to the other and the way was reserved to her who had the Mill And the Assize was awarded And so by the partition the way was revived and appendant as it was before and yet W. the Father had as high an estate in the Land as he had in the Way Hill 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 6. A Man makes a Feoffment in Fee of a Manor to the use of himself and his Wife and his heirs In which Manor there are Underwoods usually to be cut every one and twenty yeers and
husband and therefore the prescription is not good that Potest ponere retes upon the land of another upon the Custome of the Sea for prescription must be in a thing done also by him the devise is not good according to the Custome for that is that she may devise and surrender and that ought to be all at one time and that in the presence of the Reeve and six other persons as well as the Surrenderer and the words of a Custome shall be so far performed as they may be Meade contrary And that these Witnesses shall be referred to the surrender onely for a devise may be without Witnesses And he said that sometimes the latter clause shall not refer to all the precedent matter but unto the latter onely as 7. H. 7. is Where a Praecipe was brought of lands in A. B. and C. in Insula de Ely the Clause in Insula de Ely is referred onely to C. And it was said That if in the principal Case the Will were good that then the husbands are Tenants in common and then the Action of Trespass is not maintainable Pasch 25. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 23. THis Case was moved by Serjant Gawdy Thomas Heigham had an hundred Acres of lands called Jacks usually occupied with a house and he leased the house and forty Acres parcel of the said hundred Acres to I. S. for life and reserved the other to himself and made his Will by which he doth devise the house and all his lands called Jacks now in the occupation of I. S. to his wife for life and that after her decease the remainder of that and all his other lands pertaining to Jacks to R. who was his second son Whether the wife shall have that of which her husband died seised for her life or whether the eldest son should have it and what estate he shall have in it Meade The wife shall not have it for because that he hath expressed his Will that the wife shall have part it shall not be taken by implication that she shall have the whole or the other part for then he would have devised the same to her And therefore it hath been adjudged in this Court betwixt Glover and Tracy That if Lands be devised to one and his heirs males and if he die without heirs of his body that then the land shall remain over that he had no greater estate then to him and his special heirs viz. heirs Males and the reason was because the Will took effect by the first words Anderson Chief Justice It was holden in the time of Brown That if lands were devised to one after the death of his wife that the wife should have for life but if a man seised of two Acres deviseth one unto his wife and that I. S. shall have the other after the death of the wife she takes nothing in that Acre for the Cause aforesaid For the second matter If the Reversion shall pass after the death of the wife to the second son we are to consider what shall be said land usually occupied with the other and that is the land leased with it But this land is not now leased with it and therefore it cannot pass Windham The second son shall have the Reversion for although it doth not pass by these words Usualy Occupied as Anderson held yet because the devise cannot take other effect and it appeareth that his intent was to pass the land the yonger son shall have it Anderson Jacks is the intire name of the house and lands And that word when it hath reference unto an intire thing called Jacks and is known by the name of Jacks shall pass to the second son for words are as we shall construe them And therefore If a man hath land called Mannor of Dale and he deviseth his Mannor of Dale to one the land shall pass although it be not a Mannor And if I be known by the name of Edward Williamson where my name is Edward Anderson and lands are given unto me by the name of Edward Williamson the same is a good name of purchase And the opinion of the Court was that the Reversion of the land should pass to the second son Pasc 25. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 24. The Lord MOUNTJOY and the Earle of HUNTINGTON'S Case NOte by Anderson Chief Justice and Periam Justice If a man seised of any entrie Franchises as to have goods of Felons within such a Hundred or Mannor or goods of Outlaws Waifes Strares c. which are causual There are not Inheritances deviseable by the Statute of 32. H. 8. for they are not of any yearly value and peradventure no profit shall be to the Lord for three or four years or perhaps for a longer time And such a thing which is deviseable ought to be of annual value as appeareth by the words of the Statute And also they agreed that the said Franchises could not be divided and therefore if they descend to two coparceners no partition can be made of them And the words of the Statute of 32. H. 8. are That it shall be lawful c. to divise two parts c. and then a thing which canot be divided is not diviseable And they said That if a man had three Manors and in each of the three such Liberties and every Manor is of equal value that yet he cannot devise one Mannor and the Liberties which he hath to it Causá quâ supra but by them an Advowson is deviseable because it may be of annual value But the Lord Chancellor smiling said That the Case of the three Manors may be doubted And there also it was agreed by the said two Justices upon Conference had with the other Justices That where the Lord Mountjoy by deed Indented and Inrolled did bargaine and sell the Manor of â—amford to Brown in Fee and in the Indenture this Clause is contained Provided alwayes And the said Brown Covenants and Grants to and with the Lord Mountjoy his Heirs and Assigns that the Lord Mountjoy his Heirs and Assigns may digg for Ore within the land in Camford which was a great Waste and also to digg Turffe there to make Allome and Coperess without any contradiction of the said Brown his Heirs and Assigns They agreed That the Lord Mountjoy could not devide the said Interest viz. to grant to one to digg within a parcel of the said Waste And they also agreed That notwithstanding that Grant That Brown his Heirs and Assigns owners of the Soile might digg there also like to the Case of Common Sans number The Case went further That the Lord Mountjoy had devised this Interest to one Laicott for one and twenty years and that Laicott assigned the same over to two other men And whether this Assignment were good or not was the Question forasmuch that if the Assignement might be good to them it might be to twenty and that might be a surcharge to the Tenant of the soile And as to that
who is out of the Faith of the King shall forfeit his Land for the same à forâ—iori he who is out of the faith of God and that he swore to be Law Whereupon Burgh said Respondes ouster And so saith Fitzherbert Tryal 54. by that Plea and Judgement Miscreancy and Deprivation at Rome shall bee tryed here And there the Venire facias was awarded to the Sheriffe where the Church was and not to the Bishop of Durham and so the Miscreancy and Deprivation shall bee tryed where the Church is The third Point was Whether an Administrator might count of his own Possession although he was never possessed and the whole Court were of Opinion that he might if the Intestate at the time of his death was possessed The Administrator may declare of Goods taken out of his owne Possession although he was never possessed for of transitory things the Law casts upon him a sufficient possession to maintain an Action Possessory as the Lord before seisin may have a Ravishment of Ward c. But otherwise it is if one take the Goods of the Intestate out of his Possession before he dieth for then but only a bare right comes to the Administrator And that is to bee meant when the Goods are taken Transgressivè and not Destrictivè The fourth Point was Whether the Jury might find matter done out of the Realme and if that should abate the Writ or not And they held also cleerly That upon a generall Issue the Jury may find a Forrain matter as a thing done out of the Realme but it shall not abate the Writ if it be not matter of substance and pleaded before But here the finding of the Letters of Administration is more then they had in Issue and also is but matter of Evidence for the substance in this Case was the Possession and not the Administration for he might have an Action of his Possession without shewing the Letters of Administration And afterwards Judgement was given for Carter the Plaintiffe Mich. 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 42. FUTTER aud BOOROMES Case THE Case was that the Queen by her Letters Patents anno 12. of Reign ex certa scientia mero motu c. did grant to B. totam illam portionem decimarum Garbarum in L. in Com. Norf. unà cum omnibus aliis decimis suis cujuscunque generis speciâ—i fuâ—rint in L. nuper in possessione Johannis Corbet or his Assigns nuper Abath dâ— Wenly pertinent c. And in facto the Parsonage of L. was parcell of the Abby of Wenly and out thereof was a portion appertaining to another Church And this Rectorie came unto the Queen by the Statute of dissolution of Abbyes The question was whether the Rectorie do pass by the Grant totam illam portionem there being also words in the Patent viz. Non obstante any misnosmer misrecital or other such things which are recited in the Statute for confirmation of Patents Hamon the Grant is good for this word portion shall not be said a thing severed from the Church and Rectorie And all the Tythes are parcel of the Rectorie for as 44. E. 3. 5. is before the Councel of Lateran a man might give his Tythes to what Church he pleased And when any thing is given to the Church it is a portion belonging to the Church as the Glebe is which is but a clod of Earth which is parcel of the Rectorie and a portion of it And a case in this Court in the time of this Queen was argued and there in a Rectorie there were many Priests and each of them knew his portion so as they were called portionary Priests which was in respect they had each of them interest in the Church and not because their portions were severed each from the other And 22. E. 4. 24. by Pigot it is said If a Parson hath any Tythes in another Parish as appertaining to his Church it is called a portion so as portion is not meant that which is severed by it self as in gross But by portion is meant all the Tythes appertaining to the Rectorie or the Rectorie it self For as 22. Ass 9. is If the King have Tythes of those Lands which lie out of any Parish if he grant totam portionem decimarum c. I conceive that the Tythes shall pass thereby And yet it is a thing severed from other Tythes but it doth contain all the qualitie of Tythes in that place And also if the King grant his Rectorie of D. to J. S. saving to him the Tythes and afterwards grants totam portionem Decimarum c. I conceive cleerly under correction that the Tythes shall pass And in the principal case If the Tythes shall not pass by this word portion yet the Non obstante in the Letters Patents de male nominando c. shall make it to be a good grant and that so the Tythes shall pass thereby We are also to consider if by any words subsequent in the Patent the grant be not good viz. by these words cum omnibus aliis Decimis c. in tenura occupatione Johannis Corbet c. Whereas in truth John Corbet was never Occupier of them And as to that I conceive That the words before cumâ—omnibus c. passe the Tithes And that the words after shall not abridge or controle the largeness of the precedent words and to that purpose is the Case 39. E. 3. 9. of the Grant of the King to the Earle of Salisbury c. In the end of which Grant were these words Quas nuper concessimus patri c. although that the thing granted was never granted to the Father yet the Grant was good and not restreined by those words coming after 2. E. 4. A Release was pleaded of a right which the party had in Lands of the part of his Father c. there although he had the Land from the part of his Mother yet the Release was good In the Case of the Bishop of Bath and Wells which was lately argued in the Exchequer Chamber There it was agreed That if the King grant a Faire in such a place or elsewhere in the County of Somerset if he mistake the County in putting one County for another yet the Grant is good and all that coming after the alibi shall be void He further argued That all the matter appearing by speciall Verdict is not well found for the Jury find That no Tithes were in the Occupation of John Corbet at the time of the Grant and no mention is in it that they were not in his Occupation nor in the Occupation of his Assignes for they might be in the Occupation of his Assigns although that they were not in his own Occupation For in a Verdict if it strongly imply any thing not expressed as in the Case of Trivilian where the Jury found a devise of Land without saying That the Land was holden in Socage it is a good finding of the Jury for no devise
could be if it were not of Land holden in Socage and therefore that tenure is implyed Contrary When a man is to plead a Devise but where the Verdict doth not strongly imply a thing it shall not be good as in Scolasticas Case Plo. Com. 411. Exception was taken that the Jury did not find That the Devisor had not any Heir Male alive praeter the said John and Francis for if he had the wife of the Plaintiffe had no cause of Action And it was there holden by Harper That it was not a good Verdict for the incertainty so in our Case Cook contrary 1. The Grant is not good and the Rectory is no part of it nor can they passe by the word Portion 1. By the Etimology of the word for Portion is a thing in grosse by it selfe and cannot passe by that thing which is intended Nomen Collectivum as a Rectory is So of a Manor if a man grant totam illam portionem Manerii hee being seised of a Manor nothing passeth for portio is no more then partio as the Latinists say and then if a man grant all that part of his Manor or part of his Tithes in D. and he be seised of the whole Manor of D. or of the Rectory of D. nothing passeth Also the words after expound the Queens mind for the words precedent are coupled with a Cum after scil Cum omnibus aliis c. So as the first part shews the grant of Tithes and the later part shews what Tithes viz. those which were in the Occupation of John Corbet so as but part is granted and in the Kings Grant a part shall not be taken for the whole and so in no case if not by the Figure Synecdoche which cannot be in cases of Grants at the common Law Also the words are totam illam portionem c. and not totam meam portionem c. and the word illa or that ought to have a word What which is a word shewing in whose possession the portion was Also the Kings Letters Patents ought for the most part be taken according to the meaning of the King for the case was in the Exchequer That where the King granted all his Tenements in D. that nothing passed by that Grant but the Houses Otherwise it is in the case of a common person So 22. Ass where the King grants goods of Felons quorumcunque damnatorum it shall not extend to Treason nor to murder of the Kings Messenger So 8. H. 4. 2. If the Grant be of all the goods of those who pro aliqua transgressione sive delicto c. forisfacere deberent it shall not extend to those who are felo de se Also the Non obstante doth not help the matter For I take this difference When nothing passeth by the words precedent Ex vi termini there nothing is helped by the Non obstante But if any thing passe by the precedent words Ex vi termini there a Non obstante may make the thing good which otherwise should be void As if the King grant to J. S. the Manor of D. Non obstante that he is seised for the term of life thereof it is a void Grant But if the Grant were of the Manor of D. notwithstanding that I. S. hath it for life here the Non obstante makes the Grant good which otherwise should be the ignorance of the King to make a Grant of that of which he is excluded by the Non obstante because thereby he takes knowledg of the particular estate and so he is not deceived As to the matter moved against the Verdict I conceive that it makes against the other side for it was on his part to prove the Occupation and if there be no Occupation at the time of the Lease the Grant is void and he was to prove it being in the affirmative And then in re dubia majus inficiatio quà m affirmatio intelligenda and a May be may be intended in every case And if such construction should be in speciall Verdicts I dare affirm that by such May bees all speciall Verdicts shall be quashed But the Law is to give a favourable construction of them according to the meaning of the Jurours Snagg contrary and by him these words cum omnibus aliis c. are void in the Kings case and vouched the case of 29. E. 3. 9. before vouched Where the King had granted to the Earl of Salisbury the custody of the Lands of the Prior of Mountague being seised into the Kings hands as a Prior Alien and afterwards the Earl died his Heir within age whereby the said Lands and others and Advowsons came to the Kings hand by reason of minority and afterwards the King granted to the Son all the Lands and Advowsons which were Patris sui ac omnes terras ac omnes advocationes of the said Prior which the King had before given to the father of the said son And it was there holden That although that the Advowsons passed not to the Father yet by that grant they did passe and that these woads which he granted to his father were meerly void Clâ—nche Justice Nothing passeth by this word Portion for it is a thing in gross and a thing in gross cannot contain another thing and a word which signifies a thing in grosse cannot passe another thing As if a man grant all his Services in D. it is to be intended Services in grosse and if he have not any Services but those which are parcell of a Manor nothing shall passe by those words But I conceive That those Tithes which are parcell of the Rectory shall passe by these words Cum aliis c. For although that the words are in the tenure of John Corbet yet if they were not in his tenure the Non obstante will help it for it is Non obstante any misnaming of the Tenants or of the quantity or quality of the Tithes so as these words imply as much as if the Grant had been in the tenure of John Corbet or of any other in L. or elsewhere Gaudy Justice If the words Totam illam portionem were left out of the Book the other words Cum omnibus aliis shall passe nothing and those words Totam illam portionem are as nothing to passe a thing not in grosse and by consequence nothing shall passe by the other words And afterwards Judgement was given That nothing passed by the Letters Patents Hill 28 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 43. CROPP's Case CRopp made a Lease for years reserving rent at Mich. upon Condition That if the rent be behind at Mich. and a Month after that he might enter The Lessee after Mich. and before the Month ended sent his servant to the house of Cropp to pay the money to Cropp the servant coming to Cropps house found him not for he was not at the House the Servant delivered the Rent to one Margery Briggs who was his Daughter in Law to deliver the
Assize brought against him the same shall be recowped in damages because that which was done was for his Commodity also it is incident to one who hath a way for to mend it All Prescriptions at the first did begin by Grants And if one grant to me his trees the Law saith That I may come upon the Land to fell them and carry them away off from the Land and I shall not be a Trespassor And by 9. E. 4. and Perkins If one grant to me liberty to lay a Conduit Pipe in his Land I may afterwards mend it toties quoties it shall want mending 32. E. 3. If one grant to me a way if he will interrupt me in it I may resist him and if he dig Trenches in the way to my hinderance in my way I may fill them up again The books of 12 13. H. 8. are not adjudged If Lessee for years be of a Meadow he may dig to avoid the water and may justifie so doing in Waste brought against him But it was said That in that Case the Lessee hath an interest in the soil so hath not he who claims the way in this Case Clenche Justice held That he could not dig the Soile Then the Defendant demanded What remedy he should have Suit Justice If he went that way before in his shooes let him now pluck on his boots Gawdy The pleading is not good for he saith That he could not use his way so well as before which is not good but he ought to plead that he could not use the way at all Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 58 IN an Ejectione firme The party ought to set forth the number of the Acres for although he give a name to the Close as Green Close or the like it is not sufficient because an habere facias seisinam shall be awarded But in Trespasse the same may be Quare clausum suum fregit c. without naming the number of the Acres And so it was said it was adjudged in a Shropshire Case Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 67. IN an Action upon the Case because that the Defendant had made a Gate in one Towne for which he could not go to his Close in another Town Cook took Exception that the Writ was Vi armis and it was agreed per curiam that for that cause it was not good Also the Visne was of one Towne only whereas it should have been of both for he said That in Hankford and Russels Case The Nusance was laid in one Town per quod his Mill in another Town could not grinde and upon Not guilty pleaded the Visne came from one Town only and it was adjudged that it was not good Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King Bench. 68 JOHN JOYCE'S Case AN Action upon the Case was brought against John Joyce Inn-keeper of the Bell at Maidstone in Kent for not scowring of a Ditch which ran betwixt the house of the said John Joyce and of another man and Judgement was given for the Plaintiffe against the Defendant Joyce and a Writ of Error was brought to reverse the Judgement and divers Errors were assigned The first Error which was assigned was That the Plaintiffe doth prescribe That all the Inhabitants of the Bell c. had used to scowre the Gutter c. And it was said That that was no good forme of prescription as in 12. H. 4. 7. Br. Presâ—ription 16. Where the Plaintiffe said That the Defendant omnes alii tenuram illam priushabentes mundare debuere consuevere talem fossatam and therefore the Writ was abated for it ought to have been quod ipsi praedecessores sui de tempere cujus contrarium c. Or that such a one and his Ancestors or Predecessors whose Estate the Defendant hath c. Also if a Copy-holder prescribe That he and all his Tenants tenementi praedict ' have used to have estovers in such a Wood c. it is not good but he ought to prescribe in the Manor The second Error was That the Prescription was uncertain for it is That all Tenants c. which extendeth to Tenants in Fee in Taile for Life or years and the Prescription is the foundation and ground of the Action and therefore it ought to be certain As if one make Title for entry for Mortmaine he ought to shew that he hath entred within the year and day 7. E. 6. Br. Prescription 69. It is holden That Tenant for years or at will cannot prescribe for common for the prescription ought to be alledged in the Tenant of the Free hold or to alledge a Corporation or the like In reason Tenant for years cannot prescribe for his Estate hath a certain beginning and a certain end therefore it is not of long continuance The third Error was That the Plaintiffe hath not alledged That the Defendant was Tenant at the time of the Action brought as in the Case of Clerkenwell and Black-Friâ—rs where the Plaintiffe brought his Action upon the Case for that the Defendant had turned the course of the water of a Conduit Pipe and the Declaration was Quod cum querens seisâ—â—us existat and doth not say existitit and so the Plaintiffe was not supposed Owner of the Scite and Messuage of Black-Friers but only at the time of the Action brought and not at the time of the diversion of the Water But Judgement was given and Error brought upon it The fourth Error was Because it was for scowring a Gutter betwixt the houses c. and doth not say That the house was contigue adjacens to his house 22. H. 6. Where Cattell escape into the Plaintiffs Close and thereupon Trespasse brought the Defendant said That it was for want of Fence of the Plaintiffs Close and it was holden no Plea if he do not say that the Plaintiffes Close was adjacens Clench Justice The Prescription ought to be That such a one and all those whose Estate he hath c. have used for them and their Farmors to repair the Gutter Cowper When the Prescription runs with the Land then he may prescribe in the Land as all those who have holden such Lands have used to scowre such a ditch and the same is good Gawdy Justice If he had said All those who had occupied such a house had used to scowre it had been good Godfrey If a man will alledge a Prescription or Custome he ought to set forth That it was put in use within time of memory In the Prescription of Gavelkind the party ought to shew that the Land is partable and so hath been parted Also he prescribed That omnâ—â— illi qui tenuerunt and doth not alledge a Seisin but by way of Argument Suit Justice held the pleading not good because the words were not contigue adjacens And for these causes the first Judgment was reversed Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 69 GOMERSALL and GOMERSALLS Case IN an Action of Account the Plaintiffe charged
here is not mis-joyned for if the Counties could joyne the issue were good but because that the Counties cannot joyne it cannot be well tried But the issue it selfe is well enough Windham and Rodes were of the same opinion that it was not helped by the Statute but Periam doubted it Anderson said That if an issue triable in one Countie be tried in another and judgement given upon it it is errour And afterwards Lutrich the Atturney said That it was awarded that they should re-plead Nota quia mirum for 1. The Statute of 32. H. 8. Cap. 30. speaks of mis-joyning of processe and mis-joyning of issues and admit that this case is not within any of those clauses each of them being considered by it selfe yet I conceive it is contained within the substance and effect of them being considered together Also I conceive That it is within the meaning of both Statutes viz. 32. H. 8. Cap. 30. and 18. Eliz. Cap. 14. for I conceive the meaning of both the Statutes was to oust delayes circuits of actions and molestations and that the partie might have his judgement notwithstanding any defect if it were so that notwithstanding that defect sufficient title and cause did appeare to the Court. And here the Plaintiffe hath sufficient cause to recover If any of the points of the issue be found for him For if it bee found that the matter and substance of the oath be found true which might be tried well enough by those in London the Plaintiffe hath cause to recover Wherefore I conceive that the verdict in London is good enough and effectuall And note That Rodes said that hee was of Councell in suh a case in the Kings Bench betwixt Nevell and Dent. Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 128 IN an Action of Trespasse the Defendant pleaded that at another time before the Trespasse he did recover against the same Plaintiffe in an Ejectione firme and demanded judgement And the opinion of the whole Court was That it is a good plea primâ faciâ— and that the possession is bound by it for otherwise the recovery should be in vaine and uneffectuall And Anderson chiefe justice said That if two claime one and the same Land by severall Leases and the one recovereth in an Ejectione firme against the other that if afterwards the other bring an Ejectione firme of the same Land the first recovery shall be a barre against him Rodes said That hee can shew authority that a recovery in an Ad terminum quem praeteriit shall bind the possession Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 129 IN Trespasse the Defendant did justifie as Bailiffe unto another The Plaintiffe replied that he took his cattell of his own wrong without that that he was his Bailiffe Anderson chiefe Justice If one have cause to distreine my goods and a stranger of his own wrong without any warrant or authority given him by the other take my goods not as Bailiff or servant to the other And I bring an Action of trespasse against him can he excuse himself by saying that he did it as my Bailiffe or Servant Can he so father his mis-demeanours upon another He cannot for once he was a trespasser and his intent was manifest But if one distrein as Bailiffe although in truth he is not Bailiffe if after he in whose right he doth it doth assent to it he shall not be punished as a trespassour for that assent shall have relation unto the time of the distresse taken and so is the book of 7. H. 4. And all that was agreed by Periam Shuttleworth What if hee distraine generally not shewing his intent nor the cause wherefore he distrained c. ad hoc non fuit responsum Rodes came to Anderson and said unto him If I having cause to distrain come to the Land and distraine and another ask the cause why I do so if I assigne a cause not true or insufficient yet when an Action is brought against me I may avow or justifie and assigne any other cause Anderson That is another case but in the principall case clearly the taking is not good to which Rodes agreed Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 130 HOODIE and WINSCOMB'S Case IN an Attaint brought by Hoodie against Winscombe c. One of the Grand Jury was challenged because he was a Captain and one of the Petie Jury was his Lieutenant And it was holden by the whole Court that that was no principall challenge Windham It hath been holden no principall challenge notwithstanding that one of the Jurours was Master of the Game and one of the Petit Jury was Keeper of his Park And in that case it was holden by all the Justices That if a man make a Lease rendring rent upon condition that if the rent be behind and no sufficient distresse upon the Land that then the Lessor may re-enter If the Rent be behind and there be a piece of lead or other thing hidden in the Land and no other thing there to be distrained the Lessor may re-enter for the distresse ought to be open and to be come by for if it should be otherwise said a sufficient distresse one might inclose money or other things within a wall and thereby the Lessor should be excluded of his re-entry Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 131 IN a Quare Impedit the Plaintiffe counted That the Defendant being Parson of the Church in question was presented to another Benefice and inducted 15 Aprilis and that the other Church became void c. The Defendant said That he was qualified at such a day which was after 15 Aprilis without that that he was inducted 15 Aprilis And the Court was of opinion Anderson being absent that it was no good Traverse for he ought to have said generally without that that he was inducted before the day in which he is alledged to be qualified As if one declare in Trespasse done 1 Aprilis and the Defendant plead a Release 1. Feb. he ought to traverse without that that the Trespasse was done before the Release by Periam Justice Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 132 HALES and HOME'S Case IN an Avowry for Damage feasance one pleaded a Lease made unto him by I. S. the other said that before the Lease â— S. did enfeoff him the other replied and maintained the said Lease absque hoc quod J. S. seiâ—itus feoffavit Gawdy The Traverse is not formall for the word seisitus is idle and ought to be left out for he cannot enfeoff if that he were not seised and it hath never been seen that the seisin in such Case hath been traversed but generally in Pleading the Traverse hath been absque hoc that Feoffavit without speaking of seisin which is superfluous And so was the opinion of the whole Court Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 133 THE Queen granted Lands unto the Earle of Leicester by her Letters Patents the Patentee made a Lease of
common law yet it is otherwise at this day For when the Statute sayes That the Lessor shall recover damages for the Wast that proves sufficiently that the property of the trees is in him as the Statute of Merton Cap. 4. enacts That if the Lessor do approve part of the Wast leaving sufficient for the Commoners and they notwithstanding that bring an Assize they shall be barred in that Case and the Lord may have an Action of Trespass against them if they break the Hedges by force of that Statute as it hath been adjudged for the intent of the Statute was to settle the Inheritance of the Land approved without interruption of the Commoners And so in this case But Note that by the Statute of Marlebridge the Lessor shall recover damages for the houses c. which are wasted c. and yet a man cannot inferre thereupon that therefore the Lessee hath no Interest or property in them and such interest hath he in the trees notwithstanding the words of the Statute which is contrary to this meaning as it seems And therefore Quaere If there be any difference betwixt them and what shall be meant by this word Property But the damages are given by the Statute in respect of the property which the Lessor is to have in reversion after the Lease determined Anderson Chiefe Justice The Lessor hath no greater property in the trees then the Commoner hath in the soile Walmesley 2. H. 7. 14. and 10. H. 7. 2. The Lessor may give leave to the Lessee to cut the trees and the same shall be a good plea in an Action of Wast and the reason of both the books is because the property of them is in the Lessor and to this purpose the difference is taken in 2. H. 7. betwixt Gravell and trees 42. H. 3. If a Prior licence the Lessee to cut trees the same shall discharge him in Wast brought by the Successour But if the Lessee cutteth down the trees and then the Prior doth release unto him the same shall not barre the Successour and so is 21. H. 6. Also he cited Culpepers case 2 Eliz. and 44. E. 3. Statham and 40. Ass 22. to prove that the Lessor shall have the Wind-falls If a stranger cutteth down trees and the Lessee bringeth an Action of Trespasse he shall recover but according to his losse viz. for lopping and topping As to that which was said That if the Lessee cut down trees that the Lessor cannot take them away that is true for that there is a contract of the Law that if the Lessee doth cut them down that he shall have the trees and the Lessor shall have treble damages for them Also he said That the trees are no part of the thing demised but are as servants and shall be for reparations As if one hath a Piscarie in the land of another man the land adjoyning is as it were a servant viz. to drie the Nets So if one have conduit-pipes lying in the land of ather he may dig the land for to mend the pipes and yet he hath no Interest nor Free-hold To that which was said That by the excepting of the trees the land upon which they stood is excepted It is true as a servant to the trees for their nourishment but not otherwise for if the Lessor selleth the trees he afterwards shall not meddle with the land but it shall be wholly in the Lessee quia sublata causa tollitur effâ—ctus And if the Lessee tieth a horse upon the land where the trees stood the Lessor may distraine the same for his rent and avow as upon land within his distress and Fee and holden of him And he said that the lessor may grant the trees but so cannot the lessee and therefore he said That the property is in the lessor and not in the lessee Also if the lessor granteth them they passe without Atturnment But contrary if the lessor had but a Reversion in them Also if the lessor cutteth them down his Rent shall not be apportioned and therefore they are no part of the thing demised For 16. H. 7. and temps E. 1. Fitz. Waste in two or three places it is holden That if the Waste be done Sparsim in a Close or Grove the lessor shall recover the whole Then admit that the trees excepted are cut down sparsim if the Exception shall be good how shall the thing wasted be recovered and against whom quod nota Anderson Chief Justice did conceive that the Exception was void and that the Action was well brought and he said It was a Knavish and Foolish demise and if it should be good many mischiefs would follow which he would not remember Windham Justice was of the same opinion and he said The lessor might have excepted them and so take from the lessee his fire wood and Plough bote c. But the lessee could not grant his estate excepting the trees because he had but a speciall interest in them viz. for his fire-bote c. which shall go with the land Periam Justice agreed That as to such a speciall property none can have it but such a one who hath the land and therefore the exception of the Wood by the lessee was void But as to the other things perhaps if they were Apple trees or other Fruit-Trees the exception had been good Also although the trees are not let directly yet they are after a sort by a mean as annexed to the land and if the Action be brought against him who made the exception he cannot plead that they were let unto him and therefore he doubted of the exception Rodes Justice also said That he doubted of the Exception And he said That the Book of 44 E. 3. is That the lessee should have the Wind-falls and he did not much regard the Opinion of Statham But Anderson Chief Justice was of opinion that the lessor should have the Wind-falls Note the Case was not adjudged at this time Hill 29. Eliz. in the King's Bench 137 EXceptions were taken by Fuller to an Indictment upon the Statute of 1. Eliz. cap. 2. for the omitting of the Crossing of a Child in Baptising of him The Case was That a Minister out of his Cure at another Church viz. at Chelmesford in Essex did Baptize a Child without the Sign of the Crosse for which he was indicted The first Exception was That the Statute speaks of Ministers which do not use the administring of the Sacrament in such Cathedrall Churches or Parish Churches as he should use to administer the same that this was not the Parish Church in which he should use the same Suit Justice was of opinion That it was good notwithstanding that for otherwise the Statute might be greatly defrauded The words of the Statute are farther Or shall wilfully or obstinately standing in the same use any other Rule Ceremony Order Forme c. 2. He took another Exception upon those words For the omitting of the Crossing only is put and
it is not shewed that he used any other rite or Ceremony c. for there ought to be some Positive thing 3. He doth not shew the Place or Parish where he persisted in it and that is materiall and issuable The fourth Exception was Because it was Inquisitio câ—pta coram Johanne Peter Waltero Mildmay and so named four of them by vertue of a Commission directed to them and to others and doth not shew what others nec quod illi fuerunt praesentes and then if the Commission were to them all jointly and two only were present then it was coram non judice and so void 5. The Statute saies That if any Parson or Vicar but doth not say being Minister Dei. The sixth was That it was at another Church c. Wray Chief Justice If this Evasion should be allowed the Statute were not to the purpose The seventh was That it doth not shew where the persisting was for that is a speciall thing and materiall and issuable Wray Chief Justice conceived That that only was a materiall Exception and that the other Exceptions were but frivolous and were not good Hill 29. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 138 WARREN's Case ONE Warren demanded by a Writ of Debt in the Common Pleas Forty Pound and upon his Declaration did confess himselfe satisfied of Twenty Pound and thereupon Error was brought in the King's Bench And the Judgement reversed because by his Declaration he had abated his Writ and he ought to have Judgement according to his Writ and not according to his Declaration The Error assigned was in the Outlawry and it was holden by all the Justices That if the principall Record be reversed for Error that the Outlawry which is grounded upon it shall be reversed also Hill 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 139 ROOTE 's Case THE Case was in a Prohibition touching Tithes and the libell in the Spirituall Court was for Corn and Hay and other things and the Tenant of the land did prescribe to pay in one part of the land the third part of the tenth and in another part the moity of the tenth of Corn for all manner of Tithes And the Court did incline that the same was a good prescription And a Prohibition was granted to the Ecclesiasticall Court Hill 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 140 A Man was possessed for the terme of six years of a Tavern in London and leased the same unto another for three years and it was convenanted betwixt them that during the three years quolibet mense monthly the lessee should give an Account to the lessor of the Wine which he sold and should pay unto him for every Tun sold so much money And afterwards the lessor granted the three years which were remaining of the six years to another and he did request the lessee to account and he would not whereupon he brought an Action of Covenant and the Defendant pleaded That he had accounted to the Assignee of the three years and upon that there was a Demurrer joyned And the better opinion of the Court was that it was no Plea because it was not a Covenant which did go with the land or the Reversion but was a collaterall thing and did not pass by the assignment of the three years Hill 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 141 IT was adjudged That the bringing of a Writ of Error to reverse a Fine by an Infant during his nonage is not sufficient but the Fine by Judgement in the Writ of Error must be reversed during his Nonage Hill 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 142 WIDALL and Sr. JOHN ASHTON's Case A Writ of Error was brought by Widall against Sr. John Ashston because in the other action being an action of Wast The Plaintiff there did declare that he was seised and so seised demisit pro termino annorum c. and did not shew of what estate he was seised And yet he did suppose that it was ad exhaeredationem ejus c. And the same by Beamount was taken for an exception as 7. H. 6. A man pleaded a Feoffment to two haeredibus and doth not say suis it is uncertain And in the principal Case it shall be supposed that he hath but an estate for life for it shall not be intended that he hath an estate of Inheritance without expressing of words to carry an Inheritance As 7. Ass If I grant a Rent to I. S. and do not name what estate he shall have in it he shall have but an estate for life But he said that the Presidents are that if the word seised had been left out it had been good enough For by the Book of Entries a man may say demisit without saying that he was seised demisit But if a man will plead a thing which is not necessary to be pleaded and mistake it it shall make his Plea naught as in Patridges Case Where a suite was upon the Statute of Maintenance It is sufficent to say contra formam Statuti But if he will plead specially the day and place of the Statute and mis-plead it it makes all naught Suit Justice I conceive that that is a fault incurable But upon the other side it was argued that in 21. H. 7. It is holden that he might plead quod demisit without that that he was seised and demisit as there in an Action of Debt And therefore it is but surplusage in the principal Case Vide 15. E. 4. A good Case where surplusage shall not hurt because it is not traversable And he urged that by the Statute of 18. El. the Declaration doth not abate for matter of form And he said that Counts and Declarations shall be taken by Intendment and it shall be intended that if bringeth Wast that he hath such an estate that he may maintain such Action In Adams Case in the Commentaries One shewed that such an Abbot was seised and that the Land came unto the King by Dissolution and that the King being seised did grant the same and did not shew of what estate the King was seised and yet it was holden good See a good Case to this purpose 18. E. 3. Formedon 58. And he said that the Defendant had pleaded Nul wast fait and therefore he had by his Plea affirmed the Declaration to be good Beamount He ought to have said reversione inde sibi haeredibus c. Clenche Justice I conceive that the Statute of 18. El. helps that Suit Justice No truly It was adjourned Hill 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 143 AN Action of Covenant was brought by a Man against another who had been his Apprentize The Defendant pleaded that he was within age The plaintiff did maintain his Action by the Custome of London Where one by Covenant may binde himself within age And Exception was taken to it That that was a Departure Daniel It is no Departure for by 18. R. 2. an Infant brought an Action against Gardian in Socage and the
Gardian pleaded that the plaintiff was within age And the plaintiff did maintain his Declaration that by the Custome of such a place An Insant of 18. yeares might bring an Action of Account against his Gardian in Socage and it was there holden to be no Departure I conceive that an Infant cannot have an Account against his Gardian before his full age But I conceive that they held that it was by Statute That an Infant should not have an Account against Gardian in Socage until he was of the age of 21. yeares Wray Chief Justice was of opinion that it was no Departure For he said it should be frivolous to shew the whole in his Declaration viz. That he was an Infant And that by Custome he might make a Covenant which should beinde him But quaere of his opinion for that many doubt of it Vide the Case 118. R. 2. Hill 29 Eliz. in the King's Bench 144 CONEY's Case AN Action of Trespass was brought against John Coney for digging of the plaintiffs Close and killing of 18. Coneys there The Defendant Pleaded as to all the Trespas but killing of two Coneys Not Guilty And as to them he said that the place where c. the Trespass is supposed is a Heath in which he hath common of pasture and that he found them eating of the Grass and that he killed them and carried them away as it was Lawfull for him to do c. Cook The Point is Whether a commoner having common of pasture may kill the Coneys which are upon the ground and he said hemight not And first he said it is to be considered what interest he who hath the Freehold may have in such things as are ferae Naturae Secondly What authority a commoner hath in the ground in which he hath common To the first he said that although such Beasts are ferae Naturae yet they are reduced to such propertie when they are in my ground by reason of my possession which I then have in them that I may have an action of Trespass against him who takes them as 42. E. 3. 24. If one have Deer in his Park another taketh them away he may have an action of Trespas forthe taking 12. H. 8. If a Forrester follow a Buck which is chased out of the Park or Forrest although that he who hunteth him killeth him in his own ground yet the Forrester or Keeper may enter into his ground retake the Deer for the propertie and possession which he hath in it by the pursuit 7. H. 6. 38. It is holden that if a wilde Beast go out of the Park then the owner of the ground hath lost the propertie in it Brook thereupon collects that he had a propertie in it whilest it was in his Park 18. E. 4. 14. It is doubted whether a man can have propertie in things which are ferae Naturae But 10. H. 7. 6. It is holden that an Account lieth for things ferae Naturae Vide 14. H. 8. 1. The Bishop of Londons Case and 22. H. 6. 59. as long as they are in his ground they are in his possession and he shall have an Action of Trespass for the taking of them and the Writ shall be damas suas by Newton And in the Register 102. It is Quare ducent's cuniculos suos precij c. cepit But it is said that he hath common there What then Yet he cannot meddle with the Wood Sand Grass but by taking of the same with the mouthes of his Cattel If he who hath the Freehold bring an action against the Commoner for entring into his Land If he plead Not guilty he cannot give in Evidence that he hath Common there 22 Ass A Commoner cannot put in Cattel to Agist So is 12. H. 8. And of late it was holden in this Court That where the Commoners did prescribe that the Lord had used to put but so many of his Cattel upon the Lands That it was a void prescription Godfrey Contrary That it is Lawfull for the Commoner to kill them And he agreed the Cases which were put by Cook And he said that the owner of the ground had not the very propertie but a kind of propertie in them 3. H. 6. and F. N. B. If the Writ of Trespass be Quare cuniculos suos c. The Writ shall abate And yet he hath a propertie in them or rather a possession of them I grant that against a stranger he might have this Action of Trespas but not against the Commoner for he hath a wrong done unto him by their being upon the Land and therefore he may kill them although he may not meddle with the Land because he hath not an Interest in it and yet he may meddle with the profit of it as 15. H. 7. A Commoner may distrain damage feasant 43. E. 3. Coneys dig the Ground and eate the Grass of the Commoner c. I grant that it is not lawfull for the Tenant for life for to kill the Coneys of him who hath a free Warren in the ground For if a man bring an Action of Trespas Quare Warranem suum intravit cuniculos suos cepit c. It is no Plea that it is his Free-hold L. 5. E. 4. In Trespass Quare clausum fregit cuniculos cepit The Defendant said that the plaintiff made a lease at will unto such a man of the Land and he as his Servant did kill the Coneys and it was holden no Plea and yet it is there said that by the grant of the Land the Coneys doth not pass but the reason as I conceive is because it tends to his damage and therefore that he may kill them And so in this Case 2. H. 7. and 4. E. 4. If I have Common of pasture in Land and the Tenant plougheth the Land I shall have my Action upon the Case in the Nature of a quod permittat 9. E. 4. If one hath Land adjoyning to my Land and levy a Nusans I may enter upon his Land and abate the Nusans So if a man take my goods and carrie them into his own Land I may enter thereupon and retake my goods So if a Tenant of the Freehold plough the Land and sow the same with Corn the Commoner may put in his Cattel and there whit eate the Corn growing upon the Land and may justifie the same because the wrong first begins by the Tenant So if a man do falsly imprison me and put me in his house I may break his house to get forth 21. H. 6. in Trespass All the Inhabitants of such a Town do prescribe to have Common in such a field every year after harvest And one froward fellow amongst the rest will not gather in his Corn within convenient time If the Townsmen put in their Cattel and they eate the Corn he hath no remedie for it And he asked what remedie the Commoner should have for the eating of the Grass which his Cattel is to have if he
Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 146 LONDON doth prescribe to have a Custom That after Verdict given in any of the Sheriffs Courts or such like Court there that the Maior may remove any such Suit before himself and as Chancellor secundùm bonam sanam conscientiam moderate it and it was moved whether it were a reasonable custom or not because that after tryal by ordinary course at Law he should thereby stay judgment Gaudy Justice It ought to be before judgment otherwise it cannot be for the Statute of 4. H. 4. is that judgment given in any Court shall not be reversed but by Error or Attaint Vide Rastal Tit. Judgment Mich. 28. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. Rot. 2619. 147 GREENE and HARRIS Case IN an Ejectione firme upon a special Verdict it was found that one John Brenne was seised of a Manor where there were Copyholders for life and by Indenture leased a copyhold called Harris Tenure parcel of the Land in question to Peter and John Blackborow for eight years to begin after the death of Brenne his Wife and by the same Indenture leased all the Manor to them as before The Copyholder did surrender and Brenne granted a copy to hold according to the custom of the Manor Brenne and his Wife died So as the lease of Blackborow was to begin Peter entred and granted all his Interest unto a stranger and died John entred into the whole as Survivor and made a lease thereof to the Plaintiff and the Copyholder entred and he brought the action Shuttleworth for the plaintiff The question is whether the plaintiff shall have Harris Tenure as in gross or as parcel of the Manor and he conceived that because it is named by it self that it shall pass as in gross for so their intent appeareth to be In 33. H. 8. Dyer 48. A Feoffment was made of a Manor to which a Villein was Regardant by these words viz. Dedi unam acram c. And further Dedi concessi Villanum meum and there it was holden that the Villein should pass as in gross and that they were several gifts although there was but one Deed. The same Law shall be of an Advowson appendant 14. and 15. El. Dyers Husband and Wife were joint-tenants in Fee of a Manor out of which the Queen had a Rent of twenty pound per annum and she by her Letters patents in Consideration of Money paid by the Husband did give grant release and remise unto the Husband and his heirs the said twenty pound Rent habendum percipiendum to him and his heirs The Husband did devise the Rent unto another and his heirs and dyed There it is debated whether the Wife should pay the Rent or not and it was holden that she should pay it for the deed having words of grant and release it shall be referred to the Election of the Husband and for his best avail how he will take it and there is no necessity that the Rent be extinguished in his possession for it is a maxime in Law that every grant shall be taken beneficially for the grantee so is it if it contain words of two intents he may take that which makes best for him 21. and 22. H. 6. A deed comprehending Dedi concessi was pleaded as a Feoffment In 5. E. 3. A Rent issuing out of Lands in Fee was granted to Tenant by the courtesie to have and to hold to him and his heirs It shall not be taken as extinct but the Rent shall go to his heires although he himself could not have it Then in our Case because it is more beneficial for the Termor he shall have it in gross And so he shall avoid the Estate of the Copyholder afterwards and here is an Election made by Peter so to have it by the grant of his Interest over Our Case is not like unto the Case of 48. E. 3. 14. Where a Cessavit was brought supposing that the House was holden of the Plaintiff by five Shillings and the Defendant pleaded that the Ancestor of the Plaintiff by his deed which he shewed forth gave the house to him and a shop which are holden by one intire service and demanded judgment c. And there it was holden that that deed did not prove but that the shop might be parcel of the house and not a shop in gross by it self And there Finchdon saith That if a man grant the Manor of F. to which an Advowson is appendant and the Advowson of the Church of F. so as it is named in gross yet it shall pass as appendant I yeild to that for there it is not more beneficial for him the one way or the other as it is in our Case It may be perhaps objected That the Plaintiff here shall not recover at all for the cause alleadged in Plo. Comm. 424. in Bracebridges Case because that the action is brought for a certain number of Acres as one hundred Acres and it is found that the Plaintiff hath right but to a moyty of them But it hath been ruled against that viz. that he shall recover Walmesley Sergeant contrary Notwithstanding that this Copy-hold be twice named yet it shall pass as parcel of the Manor and not as a thing in gross and there is but one Rent one Tenure and one reversion of both 45. E. 3. A Fine was levyed of a Manor unto which an Advowson was appendant wherein a third part was rendred back to one for life with divers Remainders over And so of the other two parts with the advowson of every third part as abovesaid and there it is debated who shall have the first avoidance And it is holden notwithstanding the Division as aforesaid and the naming of one before the other that they are all Tenants in common of it So as if they cannot agree to present that Lapse shall incurre to the Bishop and there no Prerogative is given to him who is first named nor any prejudice to the last named for being by one Deed it shall passe uno flatu 14. H. 8. 10. A Lease was made for a year Et sic de anno in annum c. And there it was debated whether it were a severall Lease for every year and it was ruled That an Action might be brought supposing that he held for one and twenty years if in truth by force of the same Demise the Lessee occupy the Land so long And if I by my Deed grant unto A. and B. the services of I. D. and by the same Deed the services of I. S. are also granted unto them they are Joyn-tenants of the Services or Seignories So if I lease a Manor reciting every parcell of the Land of the Manor for the whole consists in severall parcels In 33. H. 8. before remembred It is said That the Advowson shall be appendant if the whole Manor be granted c. But if it be admitted that there be severall Leases and that it passeth as a thing in grosse
Chief Justice did conceive it might be a good custome and so also was the opinion of Rodes Justice and he vouched 11 H. 7. where the Lord had Three Pound for Pound-breach Fenner It is extortion if the amercement be not for a thing which is a common Nusans and cited 11 H. 4. to prove it Periam Justice said That hee said well Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rot. 1962. 159 GILE'S and NEWTON'S Case THE Case was That the Queen seised of the Manor of Gascoigne and of the Graunge called Gascoigne Graunge in D. did grant all her Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in D. and it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Manor did not pass And so Anderson Chief Justice said it is if it were in the Case of a common person but an Advowson shall passe by the Feoffment of the Manor without Deed without the words cum pertinentiis for that is parcell of the Manor which the whole Court granted Pasch 23. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 160 J. S. was arrested by force of a Latitat out of the King's Bench at the Suit of J. D. and the Sheriffe took an Obligation of him with two Sureties upon condition that he appear such a day in the King's Bench and also that ad tunc ibidem he answer the said J. D. in a Plea of Trespass It was moved by Rodes Serjeant That the Obligation was void by the Statute of 23. H. 6. by which Statute no Obligation shall be said to be good if not for appearance only and this Obligation is for appearance and also that he shall answer to J. D. which is another thing then is contained in the Statute and therefore it is void But all the Justices were of opinion That the Obligation was good notwithstanding that because that the words of the Writ directed to the Sheriffe are Quod capias such a man It a quod habeas corpus ejus hîc such a day ad respondendum tali in a Plea of Trespasse and so nothing is contained in the Bond which is not comprised within the Writ directed unto him but if any other collaterall thing be put into the Obligation then the Bond shall be void for the whole 31. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 161 BUCKHURST'S Case LEssee for ten years granted a rent charge unto his Lessor for the years Afterwards the Lessor granted the Remainder in Fee to the Lessee It was the opinion of the whole Court that the rent was gone and extinct because the Lessor who had the rent is a party to the Destruction of the Lease which is the ground of the Rent 29. Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 162 ALLEN and PATSHALL'S Case A Copy-holder doth surrender unto the use of a Stranger for ever and the Lord admits the Surrendree to have and to hold to him and his Heirs It was adjudged in this Case That if it were upon a devise that such a one should have the Copyhold in Fee and afterwards a surrender is made unto the Lord to grant the Copy-hold according to the Will and he grants it in Fee to him and his Heirs that the Grant is good But quaere in the first Case for it was there but a bare Surrender only Mich. 27 28. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 163 STRANGDEN and BARNELL'S Case AN Action of Trover and Conversion was brought of Goods in Ipswich the Defendant pleaded That the Goods came to his hand in Dunwich in the same County and that the Plaintiffe gave unto him the goods which came to his hands in Dunwich absque hoc that he is guilty of any Trover and Conversion of Goods in Ipswich And by the opinion of the Court the same is a good manner of Pleading by reason of the speciall Justification Vide 27. H. 6. But when the Justification is generall the County is not traversable at this day Vide 19. H. 6. 6 7. Mich. 27. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 164 BARTON and EDMOND'S Case AN Infant and another were bounden in a Bond for the Debt of the Infant The Infant at his full age did assume to save the other man harmelesse against the said Bond afterwards the Infant died It was resolved by the whole Court that upon this Assumpsit an Action upon the Case would lie against the Executors of the Infant But if a Feme Covert and another at her request had been bounden in such a Bond and after the death of her Husband she had assumed to have saved the other harmelesse against such Bond such Assumpsit should not have bound the Wife Trinit 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 165 ZOUCH and BAMPORT'S Case THis Case was moved When the Defendant pleads in Bar to the Action and the Plaintiffe replies and the Defendant doth demur specially upon the Replication and the Bar is insufficient Whether the Justices shall give Judgment upon the Replication or shall resort unto the insufficient Bar the Replication being also insufficient And the opinion of the Court was That when the Action is of such a nature that the Writ and the Count doth comprehend the Title as in a Formedon and the like then because there is a sufficient title for the demandant by the Writ and the Count so as the Judges may safely proceed to Judgement for the Plaintiffe there they shall resort to the Barr. Contrary in Cases where the Title doth commence only by the Replication as in Assize Trespass and the like 40. Eliz. in the Exchequer 166 NOte it was said by Sir Francis Bacon the King's Solicitor That it was adjudged 40. Eliz. in the Exchequer That where the King had made a Lease for life who was ousted by a Stranger that the same should be said a Disseisin of the particular estate against the common ground which is That a man cannot be disseised of lesse estate then of a Fee-Simple 40. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 167 IT was holden and adjudged by Popham Chief Justice of the Kings Bench That where a Lease was made unto the Husband and Wife for their lives the remainder to the Heirs of the Survivor that the same was a good remainder notwithstanding the uncertainty and that in that Case the Husband after the death of the Wife should have Judgement to recover the Land 33. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 168 PROCTER'S Case IT was adjudged in this Case That the Lachess of the Clark in not entring of the Kings Silver shall not prejudice the King or the Crowne 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 169 HARDING'S Case IT was holden by the whole Court of Kings Bench as it was reported by Sir Robert Hitcham Knight That if a man make a Lease of Copy-hold land and of Free-hold land rendring Rent and the Copy-hold descends to one and the Free-hold to another that the rent shall be apportioned Trinit 25. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. Rot. 1702. 170 LEONARD and STEPHEN'S Case IN Trespass the issue joyned was Whether it were a Feoffment or not and
to the extinguishment of the Bond by the release of all Actions But the Court conceived That the Arbibitrament did consist of two matters which were distinct and might be severed For although that the Arbitrament be void as to one matter yet it shall stand good and shall be a good Arbitrament for the other matter And Foster Justice said That in that case the Award to make the Release might be severed viz. That it should be good for all Actions except the Bond. Cook contrary And said That it is so entire that it cannot be divided But the Court conceived That the Arbitrament was good as to the Bond to be made by the Defendant although it were void as to the Arbitrator At another day Dodderidge said That the Plaintiffe had not alledged any Breach of the Arbitrament for he hath put it That the Defendant and the Arbitrator had not entred into the Bond and although they two joyntly had not entred into the Bond yet it might be that the Defendant alone had entred into the Bond and it needed not that the Arbitrator enter the Bond for as to him the Arbitrament was void And that Exception was allowed as a good Exception by the whole Court. For they said That the Plaintiffe ought for to shew and alledge a breach according to the Book of L. 5. E. 4. 108. And they said That although it be after verdict yet it is not remedied by the Statute Pasch 8. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 231 FOLIAMBES Case IN a Writ of Dower brought by the Lady Foliambe It was agreed by the whole Court That if the Husband maketh a Lease for years rendring rent and dieth the wife shall recover her Dower and shall have present Execution of the Land and thereby she shall have the third part of the Reversion and of the Rent and execution shall not cease And all the Justices said That the Sheriffe should serve execution of the Land as if there were not any Lease for years for it may be that the Lease for years is void And although it be shewed in pleading that there is a Lease for years the wife cannot answer to it and it may be there is not any Lease and therefore the Execution shall be generall And he who claimes the Lease for years may re-enter into the Land notwithstanding the Recovery and the Execution of the Dower And if he be ousted he shall have his Action Nichols Serjeant who was of Councell against the Demandant said That he would agree that the Case in Perkins 67. was not Law But the Justices said That there is a difference betwixt the Case of Perkins and this Case for in the Case in Perkins the Husband had but an estate in Remainder so as no rent or attendancy was due so as the wife during that Term could not have any benefit Also in this case it was agreed by the Court That after judgement for part the Demandant might be Non-suit for the residue and yet have execution of that part for which he had judgment Pasch 8. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 232 RAPLEY and CHAPLEIN's Case IT was ruled by the whole Court That if a Custome be alledged That the eldest daughter shall solely inherit that the eldest sister shall not inherit by force of that Custome So if the Custome be That the eldest daughter and the eldest sister shall inherit the eldest Aunt shall not inherit by that Custome And so if the Custome be that the youngest son shall inherit the youngest brother shall not inherit by the Custome And Foster Justice said That so it was adjudged in one Denton's Case Pasch 8. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 233 SEAMAN's Case BArker Serjeant prayed the opinion of the Court in this Case Lessee for an hundred years made a Lease for forty years to Thomas Seaman if he should live so long and afterwards he leased the same to John his son Habendum after the Term of Thomas for 23. years to be accounted from the date of these presents The Question is If the Lease to John shall be said to begin presently or after the Term of Thomas And the Justices were cleer of opinion That the Lease to John shall not be accounted from the time of the date but from the end of the Term of Thomas because that when by the first words of the Limitation it is a good Lease to begin after the Term of Thomas it shall not be made void by any subsequent words And Cook Chiefe Justice said That this is no new reason for there is the same reason given in 2. E. 2. Grants And he put the Case in Dyer 9. Eliz. 261. and said That if the Limitation be not certain when the Term shall begin it shall be taken most beneficiall for the Lessee Pasch 8. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 234 WARD and POOL's Case AN Action upon the Case was brought for speaking these words Thou mayest well be richer then I am for thou hast coined thirty Shillings in a day thou art a Coiner of money c. I will justifie it It was moved in arrest of Judgment That the words were not Actionable because he might have a good Authority to coine Money for men who work in the Mint are said to coine Money and are called Coiners of Money And so it was adjudged Quod Querens nihil capiat per Billam Pasch 8. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 235 CHALK and PETER's Case CHalk brought a Replevin against Peter the Defendant did avow the taking as Bailiff of Sir Francis Barrington in sixteen Acres of wood in Hatfield Chase and shewed that an Arbitrament was made by the Lord Burghley late Lord Treasurer betwixt the Lord Rich and the Ancestors of Sir Francis by which it was awarded That the said Ancestors of the said Sir Francis Barrington and his Heirs should have the herbage of a certain number of Acres within the said Chase and also that he should have to him and his Heirs the Trees and Bushes of the said number of Acres within the said Chase and that he might fell and cut sixteen Acres every year of the said Acres and that he should enclose them according to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm and that Assurance was made by the Lord Rich accordingly and that the same was confirmed by a speciall Act of Parliament with a saving of the right and interest of all strangers and said That Sir Francis Barrington did inclose and cut down sixteen Acres and did enclose the same and there took the Defendants cattel Damage feasants upon which the Defendant did demurr in Law The Question in the case was If by the Statute of 22. E. 4. cap. 7. or the Statute of 35. H. 8. câ—p 17. which give Authority to make inclosures of Woods the Commoner shall be excluded Harris Serjeant I conceive That the Commoner shall be excluded by the Statute of 22. E. 4. cap. 7. which gives Authority to inclose and exclude all Beasts and
man and his heirs such Seat and he and his heirs have used to repair the said Seat If another will libell against him in the Spirituall Court for the same Seat he shall have a Prohibition And he said That he had seen a Judgement in 6. E. 6. That if Executors lay a Grave Stone upon the Testator in the Church or set up his Coat-armour in the Church If the Parson or Vicar doth remove them or carry them away that they or the heir may have their Action upon the Case against the Parson or Vicar Note in the principall no Prohibition for the reasons before Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 287 The Archbishop of York Sedgwick's Case THe Archbishop of York and Doctor Ingram brought and exhibited a Bill in the Exchequer at York upon an Obligation of seven hundred pound and declared in their Bill in the nature of an Action of Debt brought at the common Law which matter being shewed unto the Court of Common Pleas by Sedgwick the Defendant there A Prohibition was awarded to the Archbishop and to the said Court at York And Cook chief Justice gave the reasons wherefore the Court granted the Prohibition 1. He said because the matter was meerly determinable at the common Law and therefore ought to be proceeded in according to the course of the common Law 2. Although the King hath granted to the Lord President and the Councel of York to hold pleas of all personall Actions yet he said they cannot alter the form of the proceedings For as 6. H. 7. 5. is The King by his Grant cannot make that inquirable in a Leet which was not inquirable there by the Law nor a Leet to be of other nature then it was at the common Law And in 11. H. 4. it is holden That the Pope nor any other person can change the common Law without a Parliament And Cook vouched a Record in 8. H. 4. That the King granted to both the Universities that they should hold plea of all Causes arising within the Universities according to the course of the Civil Law and all the Judges of England were then of opinion That that grant was not good because the King could not by his Grant alter the Law of the Land with which case agrees 37. H. 6. 26. 2. E. 4. 16. and 7. H. 7. But at this day by a speciall Act of Parliament made 13. Eliz. not printed The Universities have now power to proceed and judge according to the Civil Law 3. He said That the Oath of Judges is viz. You shall do and procure the profit of the King and his Crown in all things wherein you may reasonably effect and do the same And he said That upon every Judgement upon debt of forty pound the King was to have ten shillings paid to the Hamper and if the debt were more then more But he said by this manner of proceeding by English Bill the King should lose his Fine 4. He said That if it was against the Statute of Magna Charta viz. Nec super eum ibimus nec super eum mittemus nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae And the Law of the Land is That matters of fact shall be tried by verdict of twelve men but by their proceedings by English Bill the partie should be examined upon his oath And it is a Rule in Law That Nemo tenetur seipsum prodere And also he said That upon their Judgement there no Writ of Error lyeth so as the Subject should by such means be deprived of his Birth-right 5. It was said by all the Justices with which the Justices of the King's Bench did agree That such proceedings were illegall And the Lord Chancellor of England would have cast such a Bill out of the Court of Chancery And they advised the Court of York so to do and a Prohibition was awarded accordingly Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 288 Doctor HUTCHINSON's Case DOctor Hutchinson libelled in the Spirituall Court against one of his Parishioners for Tithes The Defendant there shewed that the Doctor came to the Parsonage by Symony and Corruption And upon suggestion thereof made in the Common Pleas prayed a Prohibition Doctor Hutchinson alledged that he had his pardon and pleaded the same in the Spirituall Court And notwithstanding that the Court granted a Prohibition because the Pardon doth not make the Church to be plena but maketh the offence onely dispunishable But in such case If the King doth present his presentee shall have the Tithes Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 289 NOte by Cook Chief Justice that these words viz. Thou wouldest have taken my purse from me on the high way are not actionable But Thou hast taken my money and I will carry thee before a Justice lay felony to thy charge are actionable Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 290 HATCH and CAPEL's Case IN an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit brought against the Defendant The Plaintiffe declared How that one Hallingworth who was the Defendants Husband was indebted unto the Plaintiffe eight pound ten shillings for beer and that he died and that after his death the Plaintiff demanded the said mony of the Defendant his wife and she in consideration that he would serve her withbeer promised that she would pay unto the said Plaintiff eight pound ten shillings and for the rest of the beer at such a day certain And the Plaintiffe did averr That he did sell and deliver to her Beer and gave her day for the payment of the other money as also for the Beer delivered unto her and that at the day she did not pay the Money Cook and all the other Justices agreed That the Action would well lie and that it was a good Assumpsit and a good consideration for they said That the forbearance of the money is a good consideration of it selfe and they said That in every Assumpsit he who makes the promise ought to have benefit thereby and the other is to sustain some losse And judgement was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 291 NORTON and LYSTERS Case IN the Case of a Prohibition the Case was this Queen Elizabeth was seised of the Manor of Nammington which did extend into four Parishes viz. Stangrave and three other And the Plaintiff shewed That he was seised of three Closes in Stangrave and prescribed That the said Queen and all those whose Estate he hath in the said Closes had a Modus decimandi for the said three Closes and for all the Demeanes of the said Manor in Stangrave And whether the Venire facias should be de parochia de Stangrave or of the Manor was the question And it was resolved by the whole Court That the Visne should be of the Parish of Stangrave and not of the Manor And the Difference was taken when one claimes any thing which goes unto the whole Manor and when only to
And per Curiam a Prohibition shal be awarded And Cook chief Justice said That there were three Causes in the Bill for which a Prohibition should be granted which he reduced to three Questions 1. If a Copy-holder payeth his rent and the Lord maketh a Feoffment of the Manor Whether the Copy-holder shall be compelled to attorn 2. If a man be seised of Freehold Land and Covenants to stand seised to an use Whether in such case an Attornment be needfull 3. If a Feoffment be made of a Manor by Deed Whether the Feoffee shall compell the Tenants to attorn in a Court of Equity And for all these Questions It was said That the Tenants shall not be compelled to attorn for upon a Bargain and Sale and a Covenant to stand seised there needs no attronement And Cook in this case said That in 21. E. 4. the Justices said That all Causes may be so contrived that there needed to be no Suit in Courts of Equity and it appears by our books That a Prohibition lies to a Court of Equity when the matter hath been once determined by Law And 13. E. 3. Tit. Prohibition and the Book called the Diversity of Courts which was written in the time of King Henry the eighth was vouched to that purpose And the Case was That a man did recover in a Quare Impediâ— by default and the Patron sued in a Court of Equity viz. in the Chancery and a Prohibition was awarded to the Court of Chancery Mich. 11 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 298 Sir JOHN GAGE and SMITH's Case AN Action of Waste was brought and the Plaintiffe did declare that contrary to the Statute the Lessee had committed Waste and Destruction in uncovering of a Barn by which the timber thereof was become rotten and decayed and in the destroying of the stocks of Elmes Ashes Whitethorn and Blackthorn to his damage of three hundred pound And for title shewed That his Father was seised of the Land where c. in Fee and leased the same to the Defendant for one and twenty years and died and that the Land descended to him as his son and heir and shewed that the Waste was done in his time and that the Lease is now expired The Defendant pleaded the generall issue and it was found for the Plaintiffe and damages were assessed by the Jury to fifty pound And in this case it was agreed by the whole Court 1. That if six of the Jury are examined upon a Voyer dire if they have seen the place wasted that it is sufficient and the rest of the Jury need not be examined upon a Voyer dire but onely to the principall 2. It was agreed if the Jury be sworn that they know the place it is sufficient although they be not sworn that they saw it and although that the place wasted be shewed to the Jury by the Plaintiff's servants yet if it be by the commandment of the Sheriffe it is as sufficient as if the same had been shewed unto them by the Sheriff himselfe 4. It was resolved That the eradicating of Whitethorn is waste but not of the Blackthorn according to the Books in 46. E. 3. and 9. H. 6. but if the blackthorn grow in a hedg and the whole hedg be destroyed the same is Waste by Cook chief Justice It was holden also so that it is not Wast to cut Quick-set hedges but it shall be accounted rather good husbandry because they will grow the better 5. It was agreed That if a man hath under-woods of Hasell Willowes Thornes if he useth to cut them and sell them every ten years If the Lessee fell them the same is no wast but if he dig them up by the roots or suffereth the Germinds to be bitten with cattel after they are felled so as they will not grow again the same is a destruction of the Inheritance and an Action of wast will lie for it But if he mow the Stocks with a wood-sythe as he did in the principall Case the same is a malicious Wast and continuall mowing and biting is destruction 6. It was said That in an Action of Wast a man shall not have costs of Suit because the Law doth give the party treble damages And when the generall issue Nul Wast is pleaded and the Plaintiff counted to his damages 100l. the Court doubted whether they could mitigate the damage But 7. It was agreed That in the principal Case although the issue were found for the Plaintiff that he could not have judgment because he declared of Wast done in 8. several closes to his damage of 300l. generally and did not sever the damages And the Jury found That in some of the said Closes there was no Wast committed Wherefore the Court said he could not have judgement through his own default But afterwards at another day Hobart then chief Justice and Warburton Justice said That the verdict was sufficient and good enough and so was also the declaration and that the Plaintiffe might have judgment thereupon But yet the same was adjourned by the Court untill the next Term. Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 299 CLARK's Case NOte It was said by Cook chief Justice and agreed by the whole Court and 41. and 43. E. 3. c That if a man deliver money unto I. S. to my use That I may have an Action of Debt or account against him for the same at my election And it was agreed also That an Action of Trover lieth for money although it be not in bags but not an Action of Detinue Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 300 IRELAND and BARKER's Case IN an Action of Wast brought the Writ was That the Abbot and Covent had made a Lease for years c. And it was holden by the Court that it was good although it had been better if the Writ had been That the Abbot with the assent of the Covent made the Lease for that is the usuall form but in substance the Writ is good because the Covent being dead Sons in Law by no intendment can be said to make a Lease But the Dean and Chapter ought of necessity to joyne in making of a Lease because they are all persons able and if the Dean make a Lease without the Chapter the same is not good per curiam if it be of the Chapter Lands And in Adams and Wâ—oâ—â—stey's Case Harris Serjeant observed That the Lease is said to be made by the Abbot and Covent and it is not pleaded to be made by the Abbot with the assent of the Covent Mich. 11 Iacobi In the Common Pleas. 301 The Dean and Canons of Winsor and WEBB's Case IN this Case it was holden by the Court That if a man give Lands unto Dean and Canons and to their Successors and they be dissolved or unto any other Corporations that the Donor shall have back the Lands again for the same is a condition in Law annexed to the Gift and in such Case no Writ of
Escheat lieth yet the Land is in him in the nature of an Escheat And the principall Case was That a prescription was shewed of a discharge of Tithes in an Abbot Prior and Covent and that the Corporation was afterwards dissolved because all the Monks died and the Abbot also And it was holden by the Court That he who is now Owner of it and holdeth the Lands shall pay Tithes for a Lay man cannot prescribe in Non decimando and the Prescription continues no longer then the Lands continued in the Abbot and Covents hands And in this Case it was said by Cook That there are only three manner of Escheats 1. Abjurat Regnum 2. Quia suspensus per collum 3. Quia utlagatus But because they sued for the treble value in the Spiritual Court a Prohibition was awarded but the Parson may sue for the double value in the Spirituall Court and no Prohibition will lie for that is given by the expresse words of the Statute of 2. E. 6. and so it was adjudged in Manwoods Case in the Exchequer And the word Forfeiture in the Statute doth not give the treble value to the King but to the Parson himself Also it was holden by Cook and Warburton Justices That if a Rent be granted to one and his Successors and the Corporation be dissolved that the Rent shall revert to the Donor and there is no difference as to the matter betwixt things which lie in Prender and things which lie in render Nichols Justice contrary That the Rent extinguishes in the Land it selâ— And in the principall Case because they sued in the Spirituall Coâ—â— for the treble value a Prohibition was granted 〈…〉 Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 302 PORTER's Case IN a Writ of Dower brought the Defendant was essoygned and had the view and afterwards pleads tout temps prist to render Dower and they were at issue which was found for the Plaintiff and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff It was holden by the whole Court That before Execution be awarded the Plaintiff in Dower may aver That her husband was seised to have Damages and therewith agrees the books 14. H. 8. 25. 22. H. 6. 44. b. Mich. 11. Jacobi In the Common Pleas. 303 Sir DANIEL NORTON and SYMM's Case AN Action of Debt was brought upon a Bond which was conditioned to performe Covenants in an Indenture and it was shewed there were divers Covenants in the Deed some of which were Covenants against the Law and some not and for breach the Plaintiff alledged That it was covenanted by the Indenture that Chamberlain for whom the Defendant was a Surety being under Sheriff to the Plaintiffe should save the Plaintiffe harmelesse and should discharge all manner of escapes and should also save him harmeless from all Fines and Amercements to which he should be liable by reason of any escape And shewed â—ow that one was arrested in execution by the said Chamberlain evasit And another Covenant was That hee should not serve any Execution above Twenty Pounds without Warrant from the Plaintiffe and also that he should not return any Juries without his Privity Hutton Serjeant argued for the Defendant and said That this Indenture of Covenants was against the Law for it is as much as if he had said That he should not he under Sheriff And by the Statute of 27. El. under Sheriffs are â—â—orn to return Juries and process of Courts and therefore these Covenants are both against the common Law and Statute Law also the Covenants are in delay of Justice for Non constat when the Sheriffe will give him warrant to return Juries or to execute the Kings Writs Also the Covenant is too generall viz. That he shall save him harmelesse from all Escapes and of any other matters whatsoever and there the Bond taken to performe such Covenants is void Vide 7. H. 7. and 8. â— 4. 13. where a Bond taken to save â—â—man harmelesse against all men is voâ—id but contrary if it be to save â—â—rmelesse against one particular person so here to save harmeless from all matters whatsoever is void but if it had been only from Escapes then it had been good Vide 2. H. 4. 9. If a man be bound to save another harmlesse against all the world the Bond is void Vide 4. H. 4. 2. Will. Rices case And he compared these Covenants against the Law to Perpetuities which kill themselves Then he argued That although some of the Covenants were lawfull yet the Bond was void in all and that he said is the better opinion of the book in 14. H. 8. 25. And if A. be bounden to enfeoff J. S. of the Manor of D. and to disease J. N. of another Manor the Bond is void for the whole 3. He said That there was not a sufficient breach laid by the plaintiffe for it is only layed That such a one in Execution evasit and it is not said That the under Sheriff did suffer him to escape 4. It is not layed That the plaintiff did request the under Sheriffe to pay the Money upon the escape but he went and paid the Money voluntarily of himself and request and notice are needfull 46. E. 3. 27. 22. E. 4. 14. 40. E. 3. 20 Non damnificatus is a good plea generally and the other side ought to come and shew specially how he is damnified 5. It is not layed That he gave him warning to arrest the party in Execution for Fifty pounds and therefore as to that he was not under Sheriff because as Sheriff without warning by his former Covenants hee was not to serve any Executions but such as were under Twenty pounds and therefore he ought to have layed it That he gave him a Warrant to arrest the party upon this Execution otherwise there is no breach Harris Serjeant contrary and he said The Covenants are sufficient in part and ought to be performed and so the Bond good And as Kâ—ble said in 13. H. 7. 23. so he said That there are three conditions which are not allowable but the Case at Bar is not within the compasse of any of them and the words here Discharge and save harmelesse shall be meant from all escapes suffered by the under Sheriff himself and the words from all Amercements whatsoever shall be intended by reason of his Office And he said That when an Indenture of Covenants is good in part and void in part those Covenants which are good shall stand and ought to be performed and the book of 14. H. 8 by four Justices is that all legal and lawful Covenants ought to be performed and he vouched Lee and Golshills Case 39. Eliz. which Vide c. 5. part 82. to that purpose and he said that this Case is not like the case in 9. Eliz. Dyer of Raiâ—ure Also he said that the Defendant hath pleaded That he hath performed all the Covenants and if these Covenants be void and no Covenants then the Defendants plea is not good Also
the case which implyed their opinions to be for the Universitie And 21. H. 7. was vouched That the Patronage was only matter of favour and was not a thing valuable And in this case Cook chief Justice said That Apertus haereticus melius est quam fictus Catholicus Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 310 BOND and GREEN's Case AN Action of Debt was brought against an Administrator the Defendant shewed how that there were divers Judgments had against him in 〈◊〉 Aâ—d â—â—so that there was another Debt due by the Testator which was assigned over unto the Kings Majesty and so pleaded That he had fully Administred Barker Serjeant took Exception to the pleading because it was not therein shewed that the King did assent to the Assignment and also because it was not shewed that the Assignment was enrolled The Court said nothing to the Exceptions But whereas he Defendant as Administrator did alledge a Retayner in his own hands for a debt due to himselfe The opinion of the whole Court was that the same was good and that an Administrator might retayne to satisfie a debt due to himselfe But it was agreed by the Court That an Excecutor of his own wrong should not Retayne to satisfie his own debt See to this purpose C. 5. part Coulters Case Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 311 STROWBRIDG and ARCHERS Case IN An Action of debt upon a Bond the Defendant was Outlawed And the Writ of Exigent was viz. Ita quod habeas corpus ejus hîc c. whereas it ought to be coram Justiciariis nostris apud Westminster And for that defect the utlagary was reversed and it was said that it was as much as if no Exigent had been awarded at all And upon the Reversall of the utlagary a Supersedeas was awarded and the party restored to his goods which were taken in Execution upon the Capias utlagatum It was also resolved in this Case That if the Sheriffe upon a Writ of Execution served doth deliver the mony or goods which are taken in Execution to the Plaintiffs Atturney it is as well as if he had delivered the same to the Plaintiff himself for the Receipt by his Atturney is in Law his own Receipt But if the Sheriff taketh goods in Execution if he keep them and do not deliver them to the paâ—â— at whose suit they are taken in Execution the party may have a new Execution as it was in the principal Case because the other was not an Execution with Satisfaction Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 312 CHAVVNER and BOVVES Case BOwes sold three Licences to sell Wine unto Chawner who Covenanted to give him ten pounds for them and Bowes Covenanted that the other should enjoy the Licences It was moved in this Case whether the one might have an Action of Covenant against the other in such Case And the opinion of Warburton and Nichols Justices was That if a Man Covenant to pay ten pound at a day certain That an action of Debt lyeth for the money and not an action of Covenant Barker Serjeant said he might have the one or the other But in the principall Case the said Justices delivered no opinion 313 Note That this Day Cooke Chief Justice of the Common Pleas was removed to the Kings Bench and made Lord Chief Justice of England And Sir Henry Hobart who was the Kings Aturney generall was the day following made Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. Sir Francis Bakon Knight who before was the Kings Solicitor was made Atturney Generall And Mr Henry Yelverton of Grays-Inn was made the Kings Solicitor and this was in October Term. Mich. 11 Jacobi 1613. Mich. 11. Jacobi In the Common Pleas. 314 THis Case was put by Mountague the Kings Serjeant unto the Lord Chief Justice Hobart when he took his place of Lord Chief Justice in the Common Pleas viz. Tenant in tail the Remainder in taile the Remainder in Fee Tenant in tail is attainted of Treason Offence is found The King by his Letters Patents granteth the lands to A who bargaineth and selleth the land by Deed unto B. B. suffers a common Recovery in which the Tenant in tail is vouched and afterwards thâ— Deed is enrolled And the question was Whether it was a good Bar of the Remainder And the Lord Chief Justice Hobart was of opinion That it was no barre of the Remainder because before enrollment nothing passed but only by way of conclusion And the Bargainee was no Lawfull Tenant to the Precipe Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 315 WHEELER's Case IT was moved for a Prohibition upon the Statute of 5. E. 6. for working upon Holy days and the Case was That a man was presented in the spirituall Court for working viz. carriage of Hay upon the feast day of Saint John the Baptist when the Minister preached and read divine service and it was holden by the whole Court of Common Pleas That the same was out of the Statute by the words of the Act it self because it was for necessity And the Book of 19 H. 6. was vouched That the Church hath authority to appoint Holy days and therefore if such days be broken in not keeping of them Holy that the Church may punish the breakers therof But yet the Court said That this day viz. the Feast day of Sr John the Baptist was a Holy day by Act of Parliament and therefore it doth belong unto the Judges of the Law whether the same be broken by doing of such work upon that day or not And a Prohibition was awarded Mich. 11 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 316 REARSBY and CUFFER's Case IT was moved for a Prohibition to the Court of Requests because that a man sued there by English Bill for money which he had layd out for an Enfant within age for his Meat drink necessary apparel and set forth by his Bill that the Enfant being within age did promise him to pay the same And a Prohibition was awarded because as it was said he might have an action of Debt at the common Law upon the contract for the same because they were things for his necessary livelihood and maintenance And it was agreed by the Court That if an Infant be bounden in an Obligation for things necessary within age the same is not good but voidable Quaere for a difference is commonly taken When the Assumpsit is made within age and when he comes to full age For if he make a promise when he cometh of full age or enters into an Obligation for necessaries which he had when he was within age the Law is now taken to be that the same shall binde him But see 44. Eliz. Randals Case adjudged That an Obligation with a penaltie for money borrowed within age is absolutely void Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 317 SMITH's Case SMith one of the Officers of the Court of Admiralty was committed by the Court of Common Pleas to the prison of
the time of King Henry the 8. said That if the King should arrest him of High-Treason that he would stab him with his dagger and it was adjudged a present Treason So was it also adjudged in the Lord Stanley's Case in the time of King Henry the 7. who seeing a Young-man said That if he knew him to be one of the Sons of E. 4. that he would aid him against the King In the like manner a woman in the time of Hen. 8. said That if Henry the 8. would not take again his wife Queen Katherine that he should not live a year but should die like a dog So if discontented persons with Inclosures say That they will petition unto the King about them and if he will not redress the same that then they will assemble together in such a place and rebell In these Cases it is a present Treason and he said That in point of Allegiance none must serve the King with Ifs and Ands. Further Cook Chief Justice said That Faux the Gunpowder Traitor being brought before King James the King said to him Wherefore would you have killed me Faux answered him viz. Because you are excommunicated by the Pope How said the King He answered Every Maunday-Thursday the Pope doth excommunicate all Herâ—tiques who are not of the Faith of the Church of Rome and you are within the same Excommunication And afterwards Owen was found guilty and Judgment of Treason was given against him Mich. 13 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 364. SIMPSON'S Case RIchard Simpson a Copy-holder in Fee jacens in extremis made a Surrender of his Copyhold habendum to an Enfant in ventrefamier and his heirs and if such Enfant die before his full age or marriage then to John Simpson his brother and his heirs The Enfant is born and dieth within two moneths Upon which John was admitted and a Woman as Heir-general to the Devisor and to the Enfant is also admitted and entreth into the Land against whom John Simpson brought an Action of Trespasse and it was adjudged against the Plaintiffe And two points were resolved in this Case 1. That a Surrender cannot begin at a day to come no more then a Livery as it was adjudged 23 Eliz in this Court in Clarks Case 2. That the Remaindor to John Simpson cannot be good because it was to commence upon a Condition precedent which was never performed And therefore the Surrender into the hands of the Lord was void for the Lord doth not take but as an Instrument to convey the same to another And it was therefore said That if a Copy-holder in Fee doth surrender unto the use of himself and his heirs because that the Limitation of the use is void to him who had it before the Surrender to the Lord is void Trin. 13 Jacobi in the Chancery 365. The Lord GERARD'S Case IT was holden in the Chancery in the Lord Gerards Case against his Copyholds of Aâ—dley in the County of Stafford That where by antient Rolls of Court it appeareth that the Fines of the Copyholds had been uncertain from the time of King Hen. the 3 to the 19 of H. the 6. and from thence to this day had been certain Except twenty or thirty That these few antient Rolls did destroy the Custome for certainty of Fine But if from 19 H. 6. all are certain except a few and so incertain Rolls before the few shall be intended to have escaped and should not destroy the Custome for certain Fines Hill 13 Jacobi in the Common-Pleas 366. BAGNAL and HARVEY'S Case IN a Writ of Partition it was found for the Plaintiffe And a Writ was awarded to the Sheriffe that he should make the partition And the Sheriffe did thereupon allot part of the Lands in severalty and for other part of the Lands the Jurors would not assist him to make the partition All which appeared upon the Retorn of the Sheriffe And an Attachment was prayed against the Jurors who refused to make the Partition and a new Writ was prayed unto the Sheriffe And the Court doubted what to do in the Case whether to grant an Attachment or not and whether a new Writ to the Sheriffe might be awarded And took time to advise upon it and to see Presidents in the Case Hill 13 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 367. BLANFORD'S Case A Man seised of Lands in Fee devised them unto his Wife for life and afterwards to his two Sons if they had not issue males for their lives and if they had issue males then to their issue males and if they had not issue males then if any of them had issue male to the said issue male The wife died the sons entred into the lands and then the eldest son had issue male who afterwards entred and the younger son entred upon the issue and did trespasse and the issue brought an Action of Trespasse And it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Action was maintainable because by the birth of the issue male the lands were devised out of the two sons and vested in the issue male of the eldest Crook Justice was against the three other Justices Hill 13 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 368. BROOK and GREGORY'S Case IN a Replevin the Defendant did avow the taking of the Cattle damage feasants And upon issue joyned it was found for the Plaintiffe in the Court at Winsor being a Three-weeks Court And the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That the Entry of the Plaint in the said Court was the 7. day of May and the Plaintiffe afterwards did Declare there of a taking of the Cattel the 25. day of May. And whether the same was Error being in a Three-weeks Court was the Question and 21 E. 4. 66. was alleadged by Harris that it was no Error But the Court held the same to be Error because no Plaint can be entred but at a Court and this Entry of the Plaint was mesne betwixt the Court dayes and so the Declaration is not warranted no â—ustome being alleadged to maintain such an Entry 2. It was holden by the Court in this Case That 〈…〉 est erratum is pleaded the Defendant cannot alleadge Dimâ—â—â—tion because there is a perfect issue before 3. It was holden That a 〈◊〉 cannot alleadge Diminution of any thing which appeareth in the Râ—â—â—d to be 〈◊〉 And because the Defendant â—id alleadge Diminution 〈◊〉 Case of the Record and by the Record it was certified that the 〈◊〉 was entred the 25 day of May the same was not good after issue joyned and after Judgment is given upon the â—â—â— Record upon the first Dâ—â—â—aration and Pleading in the said Court of Winsor And therefore the Judgment was reversed by the opinion of all the Justices Hill 13 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 369. BISSE and TYLER'S Case IN an Action of Trover and Conversion of goods the Defendant said That J. S. was possessed of the said goods and sold them unto him in open market
â—uaere whether it be a good Plea because it doth amount to the general issue of Not guilty Curia avisare vult And v. Tompsons Case 4 Jac. in the Kings Bench It was adjudged that it was no good Plea Hill 6 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 370. PAGINTON and HUET'S Case IN an Ejectione Firme the Case was this That the Custome of a Manor in Worcestershire was That if any Copyholder do commit Felony and the same be presented by twelve Homagers That the Tenant should forfeit his â—opyhold And it was presented in the Court of the Mannor by the Homage That Hâ—â—t the Defendant had committed Felony But afterwards at the Asâ—ises he was acquitted And afterwards the Lord seised the Copyhold And it was adjudged by the Court that it was no good Custom because in Judgment of Law before Attaindor it is not Felony The second point was Whether the special Verdict agreeing with the Presentment of the Homage That the party had committed Felony did entitle the Lord to the Copyhold notwithstanding his Acquital Quaere For it was not resolved Mich. 7 Iacobi in the Common Pleas. 371. THe Custom of a Mannor was That the Heirs which claimed Copy-hold by Discent ought to come at the first second or third Court upon Proclamations made and take up their Estates or else that they should forfeit them And a Tenant of the Mannor having Issue inheritable beyond the Seas dyed The Proclamations passed and the Issue did not return in twenty years But at his coming over he required the Lord to admit him to the Copyhold and proffered to pay the Lord his Fine And the Lord who had seised the Copyhold for a Forfeiture refused to admit him And it was adjudged by the whole Court That it was no Forfeiture because that the Heir was beyond the Seas at the time of the Proclamations and also because the Lord was at no prejudice because he received the profits of the Lands in the mean time Mich. 14 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 372. A Copyholder in Fee did surrender his Copyhold unto the use of another and his heirs which surrender was into the hands of two Tenants according to the custome of the Mannor to be presented at the next Court. And no Court was holden for the Mannor by the space of thirty years within which time the Surrenderor Surrenderee and the two Tenants all dyed The heir of the Surrenderor entred and made a Lease for years of the Copyhold according to the Custome of the Mannor And it was adjudged per Curiaâ—â— That the Lease was good Mich. 14 Iacobi in the Common-Pleas 373. FROSWEL and WEICHES Case IT was adjudged That where a Copyholder doth surrender into the hands of Copy-Tenants That before Presentment the Heir of the Surrenderor may take the profits of the Lands against the Surrenderee For no person can have a Copyhold but by admittance of the Lord. As if a man maketh Livery within the view although it cannot be countermanded yet the Feoffee takes nothing before his entry But it was agreed That if the Lord doth take knowledge of the Surrender and doth accept of the customary Rent as Rent due from the Tenant being admitted that the same shall amount unto an Admittance but otherwise if he accept of it as a duty generally Mich. 5 Iacobi in the Exchequer 374. IT was adjudged in the Exchequer That where the King was Lord of a Mannor and a Copyholder within the said Mannor made a Lease for three lives and made Livery and afterwards the Survivor of the three continued in possession forty years And in that case because that no Livery did appear to be made upon the Endorsment of the Deed although in truth there was Livery made that the same was no forfeiture of which the King should take any advantage And in that case it was cited to be adjudged in Londons case That if a Copy-Tenant doth bargain and sell his Copy-Tenement by Deed indented and enrolled that the same is no forfeiture of the Copyhold of which the Lord can take any advantage And so was it holden in this Case Pasch 14 Iacobi in the Kings Bench 375. FRANKLIN'S Case LAnds were given unto one and to the heirs of his body Habendum unto the Donee unto the use of him his heirs and assignes for ever In this â—ase two points were resolved 1. That the Limitation in the Habendum did not increase or alter the Estate contained in the premisses of the Deed. 2. That Tenant in Tail might stand seised to an use expressed but such use cannot be averred Hill 13 Iacobi in the Chancery 376 WINSCOMB and DUNCHES Case VVInscomb having issue two sons conveyed a Mannor unto his eldest son and to the daughter of Dunch for life for the joynture of the wife the Remainder to the 〈…〉 The son having no issue his Father-in-law Dunch procured him by Deed indented to bargain and sell to him the Manner The Bargâ—ynor being sick who died before enrolment of the Deed within the 〈…〉 Deed â—ot being acknowledged And 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 coming to be enrolled the Clark who enrolled the same did proâ—â—â—e Waâ—â—â—nt from the Master of the Rolls who under-â—â—â— upon the Deâ—◠〈◊〉 the Deed be enrolled upon Affidavit made of the delivery of the Deed by one of the Witnesses to the same And afterwards the Deed was eâ—â—â—â—d within the six moneths And the opinion of the Court wasâ— That 〈◊〉 Conveyance was a good Conveyance in Law And therefore the younger brother exhibited his Bill in Chanchery pretending the Conveyance to be made by practice without any Consideration Mich. 15 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 377 LUDLOW and STACIâ—S Case A Man bargained and sold Land by Deed indented bearing date 11 Junii 1 Jacobi Afterwards 12 Junii The same year Common was granted â—nto the Bargainee for all manner of Cattell commonable upon the Land 15 Junii theâ— Deed of Bargain and Sale was enrolled And it was adjudged a good grant of the Common And the Enrolment shall have Relation as to that although for collaterall things it shall not have relation Hill 15 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 378. NOte that it was held by Dodderidge Justice and Mountagu Chief Justice against the opinion of Haughton Justice That if Lessee for years covenanteth to repair and sustein the houses in as good plight as they were at the time of the Lease made and afterwards the Lessee assigneth over his Term and the Lessor his Reversion That the Assignee of the Reversion shall maintain an Action of Covenant for the breach of the Covenants against the first Lessee Hill 15 Jacobi in the Common-Pleas 379. SMITH and STAFFORD'S Case A Man promised a Woman That if she would marry with him that if he dyed and she did survive him that he would leave unto her 100â— They entermarried and then the husband dyed not performing his promise The wife sued the Executor of her husband upon the said promise And whether the
a Capias lay upon a force although it did not lie in case of Debt Agreement c. The King is Parens Legum because the Laws flowed from him he is Maritus Legum For the Law is as it were under Covert Baron he is Tutor Legum For he is to direct the Laws and they desire aid of him And he said that all the Land of the Kings Debtor are liable to his Debt The word Debitor is nomen equivocum and he is a Debtor who is any ways chargeable for Debt Damages Dutie Rent behind c. The Law amplifies evry thing which is for the Kings benefit or made for the King If the King releaseth all his Debts he releases only debts by Recognizance Judgment Obligation Specialtie or Contract Every thing for the benefit of the King shall be taken largely as every thing against the King shall be taken strictly and the reason why they shall be taken for his benefit is because the King cannot so nearly look to his particular because he 〈◊〉 intended to consider ardua regni pro bono publico The Prerogative Laws is not the Exchequer Law but is the Law of the Realm for the King as the Common Law is the Law of the Realm for the Subject The Kings Bench is a Court for the Pleas of the Crown The Common Pleas is for Pleas betwixt Subject and Subject and the Exchequer is the proper Court for the Kings Revenues 13. E. 4. 6. If the King hath a Rent-charge he by his Prerogative may distrein in any the Lands of the Tenant besides in the Lands charged with the Rent 44. E. 3. 15. although that the partie purchaseth the Lands after the Grant made to the King but then it is not for a Rent but as for a dutie to the King And the King in such case may take the Body Lands and Goods in Execution See the Lord Norths Case Dyer 161. where a man became Debtor to the King upon a simple Contract N. When he was Chancellor of the Augmentation received a Warrant from the Privy Councel testifying the pleasure of King E. 6. That whereas he had sold to R. c. That the said Chancellor should take Order and see the delivery of c. and should take Bond and Sureties for the King for the payment of the money By force of which Warrant he sent one T. his Clark to take a Bond of W. for the payment of the money and he took Bond for the King accordingly and brought the same to the Chancellor his Master and delivered the same to him to the Kings use and presently after he deliverd the same back to T. to deliver over to the Clark of the Court who had the charge of the keeping of all the Kings Bonds and Specialties And when T. had received the same back he practised with R. and W. to deliver them the Bond to be cancelled and so it was done and cancelled And it was holden in that Case because that the said Bond was once in the power and possession of N. that he was chargeable with the Debt But the Queen required the Debt of R. and W. who were able to satisfie the Queen for the same In Mildmay's Case cited before there it was holden That the Queen might take her Remedy either against the Parties who gave the insufficient Warrant or against Mildmay himself at her Election So a man he said shall be lyable for damages to the King for that is taken to be within the word Debita In Porters Case cited before there was neither Fraud Covin nor Negligence and yet the persons who presented Porter to the King to hold the Office were chargeable for his negligence whom they preferred to be Master of the Mint But in that Case The Bodie and goods of Porter were delivered to his Sureties as in Execution to repay them the monie which the King had levied of them These Cases prove that the word Debitor is taken in a large sence That the King shall have for the Debts due to him the Bodie Goods and Lands in Execution The word Goods doth extend to whatsoever he hath 11. H. 7. 26. The King shall have the Debt which is due to his Debtor upon a simple Contract and therein the Debtor of the Debtor shall not wage his Law For after you say that you sue for the King it is the Kings Debt and the King if he please may have Evecution of it An Ejectione firme was brought in the Exchequer by Garraway against R. T. upon an Ejectment of Lands in Wales and it was maintainable in the Exchequer as well as a Suit shall be maintainable here for an Intrusion upon Lands in Wales upon the King himself and the King shall have Execution of the thing and recover Damages as he shall in a Quo minus in satisfaction of a Debt which is due by his Debtor to the King 8. H. 5. 10. There the Kings Debtor could not have Quo minus in the Exchequer The Case there was That a man Indebted to the King was made Executor and by a Quo minus sued one in the Exchequer who was indebted unto his Testator upon a simple Contract as for his proper debt and the Quo minus would not lie because the King in that Case could not sue forth Execution and every Quo minus is the Kings Suit and is in the name of the King 38. Ass 20. A Prior Alien was arrear in Rent to the King The Prior brought a Quo minus in the Exchequer against a Parson for detaining of Tythes here is a variance of the Law and the Court for the Right of Tythes ought to be determined by the Ecclesiastical Law and it was found by Verdict for the Prior. A Serjeant moved That the Court had not jurisdiction of the Cause To whom it was answered that they had and ought to have Jurisdiction of it For that when a thing may turn to the advantage of the King and hasten his business that Court had Jurisdiction of it and divers times the said Court did hold jurisdiction in the like Case and thereupon issue was joyned there and the Reporter made a mirum of it But it seems the Reporter did not understand the Kings Prerogative For it is true That such Suit for Tythes doth not fall into the Jurisdiction of the Kings Bench or Common Pleas but in the Exchequer it is otherwise And if the Suit be by Quo minus it is the Kings Suit At a common persons Suit the Officer cannot break the house and enter but at the Kings Suit he may And a common person cannot enter into a Liberty but the King may if it be a common Liberty But for the most part when the King granteth any Liberty there is a clause of Exception in the Grant That when it shall turn to the prejudice of the King as it may do in a special Case there the King may enter the Liberty and a house is a Common Liberty and the
thing and shall he be bound by a Conveyance Anno. 16. H. 6. then in the time of Civil War Uses began and of Lands in use the Lord Chief Baron Tanfield in his Argument hath cited diverse cases where the lands in use were subject and lyable to the debt of Cestuy que use in the Kings Case and so was it untill the Statute of 27. H. 8. of Uses was made Babbington an Officer in the Exchequer had lands in the hands of Feoffees upon Trust and a Writ issued out and the lands were extended for the Debt of Babbington in the hands of his Feoffees Sir Robert Dudley having lands in other mens hands upon Trusts the lands were seized into the Kings hands for a contempt and not for debt or damages to the King And in this Case although that the â—nquisition do find the Conveyance but have not found it to be with power of Revocation yet the Land being extended it is well extended untill the contrary doth appear and untill the extent be avoided by matter of Record viz. by Plea as the Lord Chief Baron hath said before Ley Chief Justice of the Kings Bench argued the same day and his Argument in effect did agree with the other Justices in all things and therefore I have forborne to report the same at length And it was adjudged That the Extent was good and the Land well decreed accordingly Pasch 21 Jacobi in the Exchequer Chamber 417. The Lord SHEFFIELD and RATCLIFF'S Case IN a Writ of Error brought to reverse a Judgment given in a Monstrans de Droit in the Court of Pleas The Case was put by Glanvile who argued for Ratcliffe the Defendant to be this 2 E. 2. Malew being seised of the Mannor of Mulgrave in Fee gave the same to A. Bigot in tail which by divers discents came to Sir Ralph Bigot in tail Who 10 Jannarii 6 H. 8. made a Feoffment unto the use of â—is last Will and thereby after his Debts paid declared the use unto his right heirs in Fee and 9. H. 8. dyed The Will was performed Francis Bigot entred being Tenant in tail and 21 H. 8. made a Feoffment unto the use of himself and Katherine his wife and to the use of the heirs of their two bodies Then came the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. by which Tenant in tail for Treason is to forfeit the Land which he hath in tail Then the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Uses is made Then 28 H. 8. Francis Bigot did commit Treason And 29 H. 8. he was attainted and executed for the same Anno 31 H. 8. a private Act of Parliament was made which did confirm the Attaindor of Francis Bigot and that he should forfeit unto the King word for word as the Statute of 26 H. 8. is saving to all strangers except the Offendor and his heirs c. 3 E. 6. The heir of Francis Bigot is restored in blood Katherine entred into the Mannor and dyed seised 8 Eliz. their Issue entred and married with Francis Ratcliffe and had Issue Roger Ratcliffe who is heri in tail unto Ralph Bigot And they continue possession untill 33. Eliz. And then all is found by Office and the Land seised upon for the Queen who granted the same unto the Lord Sheffield Francis Bigot and Dorothy die And Roger Ratcliffe sued a Monstrans de Droit to remove the Kings hands from off the lands and a Scire facias issued forth against the Lord Sheffield as one of the Terre-Tenants who pleaded all this special matter and Judgment was thereupon given in the Court of Pleas for Roger Ratcliffe And then the Lord Sheffield brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer-Chamber to reverse the said Judgment And Finch Serjeant argued for the Lord Sheffield that the Judgment ought to be reversed And now this Term Glanvile argued for Roger Ratcliffe that the Judgment given in the Court of Pleas ought to be affirmed There are two points The first If there were a Right remaining in Francis Bigot and if the same were given unto the King by the Attaindor and the Statute of 31 H. 8. Second If a Monstrans de Droit be a proper Action upon this matter which depends upon a Remitter for if it be a Remitter then is the Action a proper Action The Feoffment by Ralph Bigot 6 H. 8. was a Discontinuance and he had a new use in himself to the use of his Will and then to the use of his Heirs Then 9 H. 8. Ralph Bigot dyed And then Francis Bigot had a right to bring a Formedon in the Discendor to recover his estate tail 21 H 8. then the point ariseth Francis Bigot having a right of Formedon and an use by force of the Statute of 1 R. 3. cap. 1. before the Statute of 27 H. 8. by the Feoffment he had so setled it that he could not commit a forfeiture of the estate tail When a man maketh a Feoffment every Right Action c. is given away in the Livery and Seisin because every one who giveth Livery giveth all Circumstances which belongs to it For a Livery is of that force that it excludes the Feoffor not only of all present Rights but of all future Rights and Tytles v. C. 1. par 111. and there good Cases put to this purpose 9 H. 7. 1. By Livery the Husband who was in hope to be Tenant by Courtesie is as if he were never sised 39 H. 6. 43. The Son disseiseth his Father and makes a Feoffment of the lands the Father dyeth the hope of the heir is given away by the Livery It was objected by Serjeant Finch 1. Where a man hath a right of action to recover land in Fee or an estate for life which may be conveyed to another there a Livery doth give away such a Right and shall there bind him But an estate in tail cannot be transferred to another by any manner of Conveyance and therefore cannot be bound by such a Livery given I answer It is no good Rule That that which doth not passe by Livery doth remain in the person which giveth the Livery 19 H. 6. Tenant in tail is attainted Office is found The estate tail is not in the King is not in the person attainted but is in abeyance So it is no good Rule which hath been put When Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment Non habet jus in re neque ad rem If he have a Right then it is a Right of Entre or Action but he cannot enter nor have any action against his own Feoffment 19 H. 8. 7. Dyer If Discontinuee of Tenant in tail levieth a Fine with proclamations and the five years passe and afterward Tenant in tail dyeth his issue shall have other five years and shall be helped by the Statute for he is the first to whom the right doth accrue after the Fine levied for Tenant in tail himself after his Fine with Proclamations hath not any right But if Tenant in tail be
the possession is bound by the Judgment of Attaindor and the Act of Parliament 5 H. 7. 31. 7 H. 7. 15. 16 H. 7. 8. A discent of land shall not make a title against the King or any other who hath the land by an Act of Parliament But then in our Case If there should be a Remitter yet the same is overreached by the Office 〈◊〉 part 10. before the Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 20. there ought to have been an Office found in the Case of Attaindor of Treason Br. Cases 103. Brook Office Devant c. 17. I do not mean an Office of intitling but an Office declaratory of a conspicuous title C. 5. part 52. There are two manner of Offices One which vesteth the estate and possession of the land c. in the King Another which is an Office of Instruction and that is when the estate of the land is lawfully in the King but the particularity thereof doth not appear upon record And the Office of Instruction shall relate to the time of the Attaindor not to make Queen Elizabeth in our Case in by discent but to avoid all meâ—ne Incombrances And is not this Remitter an Incombrance And for that purpose the Office shall relate For in things of Continuance Nullum tempus occurrit Regi C. 7. part 28. For so the rule of Nullum tempus c. is to be understood of a thing of Continuance and not a thing unica vice v. Fitz. Entre Congeable 53. Trav. 40. where it is said Where the King hath cause to seise for the forfeiture of Tenant for life if the Tenant for life dyeth the Reversion may enter for in that case Tempus occurrit Regi and the King cannot seize after the death of the Tenant for life 35 H. 6. 57. There is no discent against the King and if there be no discent then there is no Remitter The consequence of all this is That the Office doth relate to the Right And that the Monstrans de Droit doth not lie And the want of Office found for all this time was the fault of the Kings Officers and shall not prejudice the King But if the Office should not relate then the Monstrans de Droit would lie because then the King was in but by one single matter of Record We shew in the Office 33 Eliz. That there issued forth a Commission directed to certain of the Privy-Councel to enquire of the Treason and if Francis Bigot upon the Treason were Indicted And in our Case we shew immediately another Commission was directed to the Lord Chancellor and the two Chief Justices c. to arraign Francis Bigot And all that is confessed by Ratcliffe himself viz. modo forma And therefore the Objection which Glanvile made was frivolous viz. That it did not appear that Francis Bigot was attainted by Verdict by Confession or by Outlawry And so he concluded That for these causes the Judgment given in the Court of Common-Pleas ought to be reversed George Crook argued for Ratcliffe and he prayed that the Judgment might be affirmed I will argue only these points following 1. That Francis Bigot had not so much as a right of Action at the time of his Attaindor for he had not any right at all 2. Admit that he had a right of Action If this right of Action be given to the King by the said Statutes of 26 31 H. 8. It was objected That the right being clothed with a possession that the same is given to the King But I will prove the contrary 3. When Francis Bigot being Tenant in tail and being attainted and executed for Treason and then Katherine his wife dyeth being one of the Donees in tail 21 H. 8. and the lands discend to Ratcliff If the Office afterwards found shall relate to take away the Remitter I say it doth not but that his Remitter doth remain to maintain his Monstrans de Droit and he is not put to his Petition The chief point is What right Francis Bigot had at the time of his Attaindor 1. When Ralph Bigot being Tenant in tail 6 H. 8. made a Feoffment in Fee what right remained in Francis his Son The right is in abeyance viz. in nubibus that is in custodia Legis And then Francis Bigot had no right of that entail 21 H. 8. when he made the Feoffment Com. 487. There Jus is divided viz. Jus recuperandi Jus in randi Jus habendi Jus retinendi Jus percipiendi Jus possedendi but here Francis Bigot had not any of these rights Com. 374. if the Discontinuee of Tenant in tail levieth a Fine with proclamations and five years passe and Tenant in tail dyeth the issue in tail shall have other five years because he is the first to the right 19 H. 8. 7. C. 7. part 81. If Donee in tail maketh a Feoffment in Fee in rei veritate the Donee hath not jus in re neque ad rem C. 3. part 29. Litt. 649. There it appeareth that the right to an estate tail may be in abeyance Com. 552. Walsinghams Case There the King gave land in tail to Wyat who made a Feoffment unto Walsingham Afterwards Wyat was attainted of Treason and there the estate tail of Wyat was forfeited but the cause there was because that the reversion was in the Crown and so no discontinuance by his Feoffment because that the reversion was in the Crown In our Case no right of the estate tail was in Francis Bigot after the Feoffment unto his own use but the right is in abeyance It was objected That the Writ of Formedon is Discendit jus and the Monstrans de Droit was so I answer It is so in point of form in the Writ but not in substance C. 7. part 14. Tenant in tail makes a Lease for life and Tenant for life dyeth Now he hath an ancient right and the Donor may avow upon the Tenant in tail notwithstanding his Feoffment but that is by reason of privity and not by reason of any right he hath Jus recuperandi did discend to the issue in tail viz. Francis Bigot 21 H. 8. He who hath a right of Action giveth the same away by his Livery and Feoffment as appeareth by the Cases put in C. 1. part 111. It was objected That Cestuy que use was an Attorney or Servant therefore he doth not passe his own right for he cannot make an Attorney to make Livery and 9 H. 7. 26. was cited to be adjudged so But it is adjudged to the contrary M. 25 H. 8. in the Kings Bench rot 71. betwixt the Bishop of London and Kellet as it appeareth in Dyer 283. and Bendloe's Reports and C. 9. part 75. For there it is expresse that Cestuy que use may make a Letter of Attorney to make Livery which proves that he makes not the Feoffment as a Servant but as Owner of the Land It was objected That Cuesty que use was as an Executor but that I deny 49
E. 3 17 a. Persay Executors cannot make a Feoffment but they ought to make a Sale and the Vendee viz. the Bargainee is in without Livery and Seisin But if they do make a Feoffment by the Livery all their right is given away But if an Attorney giveth Livery in the name of his Master nothing of his own right to the same Land is given away by the Livery and Seisin but if he maketh Livery in his own name then he giveth away his own right and the Statute of 1 R. 3. cap. 1. maketh the Feoffment good which is made by Cestuy que use against him and his heirs C. 1. pt 111. By Livery and Seisin his whole right is given away Com. 352. The Feoffees of Cestuy que use are disseised the Disseisor enfeoffeth Cestuy que use who enfeoffs a stranger And the Question was If by this Feoffment made by Cestuy que use the right of the first Feoffees were determined and extinct Fitzherbert held that the right was gone and in that case the Uses were raised after 1 R. 3. and before 27 H. 8. cap. 10. Although Yelverton held that it was meant of a Feoffment before the Statute of 1 R. 3. Jus recuperandi was in Francis Bigot Then the question is Whether this Right were given away by the Statutes of 26 31 H. 8. The Statute of 26 H. 8. 31 H. 8. are several and distinct Statutes The words of the Statute of 26 H. 8. are That the party offending shall forfeit all his Possession and Vse but there is no word of Right in the Statute and that Statute doth not extend to give any land but that which was in possession or use And the cause was because before that Statute of 26 H. 8. Uses were not given unto the King for Attaindor for Treason they being but a Trust and Confidence C. 11. part 36 b. The Statute sayes By any wayes title or means But observe when this Statute was made It is a penal Statute and therefore shall be taken strictly Stamford 129 b. C. 11. part 36 b. The Statute of 5 6 E. 6. takes away Clergy but if a stranger be in the house by licence of the Owner the party shall have his Clergy because out of the words and being a penal Law it shall be taken strictly The Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 20. forfeits for Treason Right to the Land viz. right of Entry but the Statute of 26 H 8. giveth not any Right Before the Statute of 33 H. 8. a right of Entry was not given to the King for Treason à fortiori a right of Action was not forfeited to the King It is the Statute of 31 H. 8. the private Act which hurteth us which expresly gave Rights But this Right in our Case is not forfeited by this Statute which giveth Rights which a man hath But in our Case Francis Bigot had not the Right but the Right was in abeyance Statutes in points of Forfeiture forfeit no more then a man hath But yet a Statute may give to the King that which a man hath not C. 11. part 13. The statute of Monasteries gave that to the King which was not viz. Monasteries in reputation saving to none but strangers no not to the Donors Hussies Case Tenant in tail doth bargain and sell to the King and a statute gave it to the King saving to strangers but neither the Donor nor his issue were within the saving Old Entries 423. b c d. It was enacted That the Duke of Suffolk should forfeit for Treason all his Lands Rights and Tenements and all such Rights and Titles of Entry which he had But thereby rights of Action were not given to the King but only rights of Entries The statutes of 31 33 H. 8. are alike in words If Tenant in tail the Remainder over forfeit c. the Remainder is saved without words of saving But if the statute giveth the land by name unto the King then the Remainder is not saved but is destroyed If a Right of Action be given unto the King the statutes of Limitation and Fines are destroyed for he is not bound by them C. 485 486. in point of forfeiture Stamf. 187 188. There is a difference betwixt real and personal Rights given to the King C. 3. part 3. A right of Action concerning Inheritances are not forfeited by Attaindor c. But Obligations Statutes c. are forfeited by Attaindor C. 7. part 9. A right of Action is not given to the King by general words of an Act because it lieth in privity And it would be a vexation to the subject if they should be given C. 4. pt 124. Although that a Non compos mentis cannot commit Felony yet he may commit Treason for the King is Caput salus reipublicae If Non compos mentis maketh a Feoffment and then committeth Treason the King shall not have an Action to recover the Land of the Non compos mentis as the party himself may have But if Non compos mentis be disseised and then be attainted of Treason then the King may enter into the Lands because the party himself had a right of Entry which is given to the King It was objected That a right of Action clothed with a possession might be given to the King Tenant in tail discontinues and takes back an estate and is attainted of Treason This right of Action shall not be forfeited to the King for his right of Action was to the estate tail In our Case the right of Action was to Katherine for she was Tenant for life The Attaindor was 29 H 8. and the Act which forfeited the Right was made 31 H. 8. and then the right and possession were divided 30 H. 6. Grants 91. The King may grant the Temporalties of a Bishop before they happen to be void And so he may grant a Ward But the King cannot grant the Lands of J. S. when he shall be attainted of Treason for the Law doth not presume that J. S. will commit Treason The Devise of a Term the Remainder over is good But if the Devise be of a Term to one in tail the Remainder over the Remainder is void because the Law doth presume that an estate in tail may continue for ever C. 8. part 165 166. The Law did not presume that Digby at the time of the Conveyance intended to commit Treason It was objected That whatsoever may be granted may be forfeited I deny that C. 3. part 10. by Lumley's Case If the issue in tail in the life of his Father be attainted of high Treason and dyeth it is no forfeiture of the estate tail But if the issue in tail levieth a Fine in the life of his Father it is a bar to his issues C. 3. part 50. Sir George Brown's Case 10 E. 4. 1. there Executors may give away the goods of the Testator but they cannot forfeit the goods of their Testator Com. 293. Osborns Case Guardian in
be quashed and exonerated and discharged in the possession of the King For it is out of the Rule which is in C. 10 part 48 for the cause of quieting and repose of the Terre-Tenants otherwise it would be a cause of Suits But all Rights Tythes Actions c. might for the same reasons viz. for the quiet of the Terre-Tenants and the avoidance of Suits and Controversies be released to the Terre-Tennants By the same reason here the right of Action of Francis Bigot shall be discharged and exonerated by this forfeiture viz. for the quiet and repose of the Terre-Tenants for the Law delights in the quiet and repose of the Terre-Tenants If Francis Bigot had granted a Rent the ancient right of the tail had been charged C. 7. part 14. Where Tenant in tail makes a lease for life and grants a Rent charge and Tenant for life dieth he shall not avoid his charge although he be in of another Estate because he had a defeisible possession and an ancient right the which c. so as they could not be severed by way of conveyance and charge and no lawfull act Then I admire how he will sever this from himself by his unlawfull act viz. the Feoffment the discontinuance Lit. 169. If a man commit Treason he shall forfeit the Dower of his wife yet he doth not give the dower of his wife but it goes by way of discharge in those Lands 13 H. 7. 17. Tenant by the Curtesie in the life of his wife cannot grant his Estate of Tenant by the Curtesie to another but yet he for Felony or Treason may forfeit it viz. by way of discharge A Keeper of a Park commits Treason there the King shall not have the Office of Keeper for a forfeiture because it is an Office of trust but if he had been Keeper of the Kings Park and had been attainted there he should forfeit his Office by way of discharge and exoneration This Statute of 26 H. 8. hath been adjudged to make Land to revert and not strictly to forfeit Austin's Case cited in Walsingham's Case Tenant in tail the reversion in the King the Tenant makes a Lease for years and dies the issue accepts of the Rent and commits Treason the Lease is avoided for the King is not in by forfeiture by the Statute of 26 H. 8. but by way of Reveter by the Statute of 26 H. 8. It was objected that if Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment and takes back an Estate for life and is attainted of Treason that he shall not forfeit his old right I agree that Case For indeed it is out of the Statute of 26 H. 8. which speaks of Inheritance and in that Case the Tenant hath but a Freehold The Statute of 26 H 8. saith that it shall be forfeited to the King his heirs and Successors And if in our Case the old right should remain then it should be a forfeiture but during the life of the Testator When the Common Law or Statute Law giveth Lands it gives the means to keep them as the Evidences So here the King is to have by force of this Statute of 26 H. 8. the Evidences The forfeiture of right is expresly within the Statute of 26 H. 8. as the forfeiture of Estate as by any right title or means for the old Estate tail is the means of Estates since 6 H. 8. And if you will take away the Foundation the Building will fall For all the Estates are drawn out of the old Estate tail The Statute of 26 H. 8. is not an Act of Attaindor for none in particular is attainted by the Act but the Act of 31 H. 8. doth attaint Francis Bigoâ— in particular It was objected that here in this case there needed not to be any express Saving I answer that there are divers Statutes of Forfeitures yet the Statutes have Savings in them so as it seems a saving in such Acts were not superfluous but necessary The Act of 33 H. 8. for the attainder of Queen Katharine there is a saving in the Act and yet an Act of Forfeiture Dyer 100. there the land vested in him in the Remainder by force of a saving in the Act so the saving is not void but operative C. 3. part Dowlies Case vid. the Earl of Arundels Case there the saving did help the wife so it appears savings are in Acts of Parliaments of Forfeiture and Acts of Attaindor Dyer 288 289. The Bishop of Durham had Jura Regalia within his Diocese and then the Statute of 26 H. 8. came now whether the Forfeiture for Treason should be taken away from the Bishop by reason of that Statute and given to the King was the doubt It was holden that of new Treasons the Bishop should not have the Forfeitures for those were not at the Common Law as the Forfeitures of Tenant in tail but that he should have the Forfeitures of Lands in Fee within his Diocese and that he had by force of the saving in the Statute so that a Saving is necessary and operative Com. Nichols's Case there Harpers opinion that there needs no saving to strangers but yet a saving is necessary for the Partie and the Issue if they have any thing as well as strangers vid. C. 3. part Lincoln Colledg Case It is the Office of a good Interpreter to make all the parts of a Statute to stand together Com. 559. By these general words Lose and Forfeit and by excluding of the heir in the saving the heir is bound So the Judges have made use of a Saving for it is operative 2 Ma. Austin's Case cited in Walsinghams Case Tenant in tail the Reversion in the Crown Tenant in tail made a Lease for years and levied a Fine to the King the King shall not avoid the Lease for the King came in in the Reverter but in such Case if he be attainted of Treason then the King shall avoid the Lease So a Statute of Forfeiture is stronger then a Statute of Conveyance By this Statute of 26 H. 8. Church Land was forfeited for so I find in the Statute of Monasteries which excepts such Church Lands to be forfeited for Treason Dyer Cardinal Poole being attained did forfeit his Deanary and yet he was not seised thereof in jure suo proprio for it was jus Ecclesiae 27 E. 3. 89. A writ of Right of Advowson by a Dean and he counteth that it is Jus Ecclesiae and exception that it is not Jus suae Ecclesiae But the Exception was disallowed for the Jus is not in his natural capacitie but in his politique capacitie and yet by this Statute of 26 H. 8. such Church Land was forfeited for Treason this is a stronger Case then our Case Vide C. 9. part Beaumont's Case Land is given to husband and wife in tail and the husband is attainted of Treason the wife is then Tenant in tail yet the Land is forfeited against the issue although it be but a possibility for the whole estate
is in the wife but the cause thereof is because it was once coupled with a possession C. 7. part Nevils Case There was a question whether an Earldom might be entailed and forfeited for Treason which is a thing which he hath not in possession nor use but is inherent in the blood And there resolved that the same cannot be forfeited as to be transferred to the King but it is forfeited by way of discharge and exoneration 12 Eliz. Dyer the Bishop of Durhams Case There if it had not been for the saving the Regal Jurisdiction of the Bishop had been given to the King by the Statute of 26 H. 8. This Statute of 26 H. 8. was made for the dread of the Traitor For the times past saw how dangerous Traitors were who did not regard their lives so as their lands might discend to their issue It was then desperate for the King Prince and Subject For the time to come it was worse The Law doth not presume that a man would commit so horrid an act as Treason so it was cited by Mr. Crook who cited the case That the King cannot grant the goods and lands of one when he shall be attainted of Treason because the Law doth not presume that he will commit Treason If the Law will not presume it wherefore then were the Statutes made against it If the Land be forfeited by the Statute of 26 H. 8. much stronger is it by the Statute of 31 H. 8. But then admit there were a Remitter in the Case yet by the Office found the same is defeated Without Office the Right is in the King Com. 486. c. 5. part 52 where it is said There are two manner of Offices the one which vests the estate and possession of the Land c. in the King where he had but a Right as in the case of Attaindor the Right is in the King by the Act of Parliament and relates by the Office Com. 488. That an Office doth relate 38 E. 3. 31. The King shall have the mean profits The Office found was found in 33 Eliz. and the same is to put the King in by the force of the Attaindor which was 29 H. 8. and so the same devests the Remitter Tenant in tail levieth a Fine and disseiseth the Conusee and dyeth the issue is remitted then proclamations pass now the Fine doth devest the Remitter C. 1. part 47 Tenant in tail suffereth a common Recovery and dyeth before Execution the issue entreth and then Execution is sued the Estate tail is devested by the Execution and so here in our Case it is by the Office C. 7. part 8. Tenant in tail maketh a Lease and dyeth his wife priviment ensient without issue the Donor entreth the Lease is avoided afterwards a Son is born the Lease is revived Com. 488. Tenant in capite makes a Lease for life rendring rent and for non-payment a re-entry and dyeth the rent is behind the heir entreth for non-payment of the rent and afterwards Office is found of the dying seised and that the land is hoâ—den in capite and that the heir was within age In the case the Entry for the Condition broken was revived and the Estate for life revived 3 E. 4. 25. A Disseisor is attainted of Felony the Land is holden of the Crown the Disseisee entreth into the Land and afterwards Office is found that the Disseisor was seised the Remitter is taken out of the Disseisee which is a stronger case then our Case for there was a right of Entire and in our Case it is but a right of Action which is not so strong against the King And for these Causes he concluded That the Judgment given in the Court of Pleas ought to be reversed And so prayed Judgment for the Lord of Sheffield Plaintiffe in the Writ of Error This great Case came afterwards to be argued by all the Judges of England And upon the Argument of the Case the Court was divided in opinions as many having argued for the Defendant Ratcliffe as for the Plaintiffe But then one new Judge being made viz. Sir Henry Yelverton who was before the Kings Sollicitor his opinion and argument swayed the even ballance before and made the opinion the greater for his side which he argued for which was for the Plaintiffe the Lord Sheffield And thereupon Judgment was afterwards given That the Judgment given in the Court of Pleas should be reversed and was reversed accordingly And the Earl Lord Sheffield now Earl of Mulgrave holdeth the said Castle and Mannor of Mulgrave at this day according to the said Judgment Note I have not set here the Arguments of the Judges because they contained nothing almost but what was before in this Case said by the Councel who argued the Case at the Bar. Pasch 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 418. IT was the opinion of Ley Chief Justice Chamberlain and Dodderidge Justices That a Defendants Answer in an English Court is a good Evidence to be given to a Jury against the defendant himself but it is no good Evidence against other parties If an Action be brought against two and at the Assises the Plaintiffe proceeds only against one of them in that case he against whom the Plaintiffe did surcease his suit may be allowed a Witnesse in the Cause And the Judges said That if the Defendants Answer be read to the Jury it is not binding to the Jury and it may be read to them by assent of the parties And it was further said by the Court That if the party cannot find a Witnesse then he is as it were dead unto him And his Deposition in an English Court in a Cause betwixt the same parties Plaintiffe and Defendant may be allowed to be read to the Jury so as the party make oath that he did his endeavour to find his Witnesse but that he could not see him nor hear of him Pasch 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 419. THe Husband a wife seised of Lands in the right of the wife levied a Fine unto the use of themselves for their lives and afterwards to the use of the heirs of the wife Proviso that it shall and may be lawfull to and for the husband and wife at any time during their lives to make Leases for 21 years or 3 lives The wife being Covert made a Lease for 21 years And it was adjudged a good Lease against the husband although it was made when she was a Feme Covert and although it was made by her alone by reason of the Proviso Pasch 21 Jacobi in the Common-Pleas 420. NOte that Hobart Chief Justice said That it was adjudged Mich. 15 Jacobi in the Common-Pleas That in an Action of Debt brought upon a Contract the Defendant cannot wage his Law for part and confesse the Action for the other part And it was also said That so it was adjudged in Tart's Case upon a Shop-book And vide 24 H. 8. Br. Contract 35. A Contract cannot be divided
Statute of West 2. First they said That Copyholds are not within the letter of the Statute which speaks onely de tenementis per chartam datis c. Secondly they are not within the meaning of it 1. Because they were not untill 7 E. 4. 19. of any accompt in Law because they were but Estates at will 2. The Statute of West 2. provides against those who might makeâ— a dissen heresin by Fine or Feoffment which Copyholders could not do 3. Because if Copyholders might give lands in tail by the Statute then the Reversion should be left in themselves which cannot be 4. The Makers of the Statute did not intend any thing to be within the Statute of Donis whereof a Fine could not be levied For the Statute provides Quod sinis ipso jure sit nullus 5. Great mischiefs would follow if Copyholds should be within the Statute of West 2. because there is no means to dock the estate and no customary conveyance can extend to a Copyhold created at this day 37 Eliz Lane and Hills case adjudged in the Common-Pleas was cited by Justice Harvey where a Surrender was unto the use of one in tail with divers remainders over in tail The first Surrenderee dyed without issue And first it was agreed and adjudged That it was no discontinuance 2. If it were a discontinuance yet a Formedon in the Remainder did not lie because there ought to be a Custom to warrant the Remainder as well as the first Estate tail For when a Copyholder in Fee maketh such a gift no Reversion is left in him but only a possibility And the Lord ought to avow upon the Donee and not upon the Donor And there is a difference when he maketh or giveth an estate of inheritance and when he maketh a Lease for life or years for in the one case he hath a Reversion in the other not 2. A Recovery shall not be without a special custom as it was agreed in the Case of the Mannor of Stepney because the Warrantie cannot be knit to such an Estate without a Custom And for express authority in the principal Case he cited Pits and Hockleâ—'s ase which was Ter Pasc 35 Eliz. rot 334. in the Common-Pleas where it was resolved That Copyholds were not within the Statute of Donis for the weakness and meanness of their estates For if they were within the Statute of West 2. the Lord could not enter for Felony but the Donor and the Services should be done to the Donor and not to the Lord of the Mannor And so and for these mischiefs he conceived That neither the meaning nor the words of the said Statute did extend to Copyholds Hill 34 Eliz. Rot. 292. in the Kings Bench Stanton and Barney's Case A Surrender was made of a Copyhold within the Mannor of Stiversden unto one and the heirs of his body and after issue he surrendred unto another And it was agreed by all the Justices That the issue was barred And Popham did not deny that Case but that it was a Fee conditional at the Common-Law and that post prolem suscitatam he might alien And so it was agreed in Decrew and Higdens case Trin. 36. Eliz. rot 54â— in the Kings Bench and in Erish and Ives case 41 42 Eliz. in the Common-Pleas in an Evidence for the Mannor of Istleworth That no Estate tail might be of Copyhold without a Custom to warrant it Mich. 36 37 Eliz. in the Kings Bench it was adjudged That a Copyholder could not suffer a common Recovery and the reason was because that the Recovery in value is by reason of the Warrantie annexed to the Estate at the Common-Law which could not be annexed to a Customary estate And another reason was given because that he who recovers in value shall be in by the Recovery and the Copy of the Court-Roll only should not be his Evidence as Littleton and other books say it ought to be And Crook said That the Statute of Donis was made in restraint of the Common-Law And it should be very disadvantagious to the Lord if Copyhold should be construed to be within that Statute And therefore he conceived that the said Statute did not extend to Copyholds by any equitable construction And such difference was taken by Popham Chief Justice 42 Eliz. in the Kings Bench rot 299. in Baspool and Long 's Case For he said That a Custom which did conduce to maintain Copyholds did extend to them But a Statute or a Custom which did deprave or destroy them did not As if one surrender to the use of one for life the Remainder in Fee where the Custom is to surrender in Fee the Custom doth not extend thereunto because a Custom which goes in destruction of a Copyhold shall be taken strictly But if a man be Copyholder in Fee he may grant a Fee conditional Harvey Justice put some Cases to prove the small account the Law had of Copyholds at the time of the making of that Statute as 40 E. 3. 28. 32 H. 6. br Copyhold 24. And he said That there is not any book in the Law but only Mancels case in Plow Comment That the Statute of West 2. doth extend to Copyholds Hill 2 Caroli rot 235 in the Kings Bench. 459. LITFIELD and his Wife against MELHERSE A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgment given in an Action upon the Case brought by Husband and Wife in the Common-Pleas for words spoken of the Plaintiffs wife And the Judgment in the Common-Pleas was That the husband and wife should recover And that was assigned for Error in this Court because the Husband only is to have the damages and the Judgment ought to be That the Husband alone should recover But notwithstanding this Error assigned the Judgment was affirmed by the opinion of the whole Court Pasch 2 Caroli rot 362. in the Kings Bench. 460 HOLMES and WINGREEVE's Case A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Judgment given in the Court at Lincoln in an Action of Trespass there brought for taking away a Box with Writings And four Errors were assigned 1. Because the Plaintiffe did not appear by Attorney or in person at the retorn of the Attachment against the Defendant so as there was a discontinuance for the Plaintiffe ought to appear de die in diem 2. Because in his Declaration there he saith That the Defendant took a Box with Writings and doth not make any title to the Box nor shews that the same was lockt nailed or sealed 2 H. 7. 6. a. The certainty of the writings ought to be shewed that a certain issue may be taken thereupon Com. 85. 22 H. 6. 16. 14 H. 6. 4. 21 E. 3. He ought to shew the certainty of the writings 18 H. 1. Charters in a Box sealed C. 9. part Bedingfields case C. 5. part Playters case The Declaration was insufficient because the Plaintiffe therein did not name the certain number of the Fishes 3. He pleaded That he made a
removed but if the VVrit of Error want only form but is sufficient for the matter in substance the VVrit shall not abate but the partie may have a new VVrit of Error coram vobis residet c. Trin. 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 464. MILL's Case ACtion upon the Case for these words Thou hast Coyned Gold and art a Coyner of Gold Adjudged the Action will not lie for it may be he had Authority to Coyn and words shall be taken in mitiori sensu Pasch 3 Car in the Kings Bench. 465. BROOKER's Case THe question was VVhether the Feoffee of the Land might maintain a VVrit of Error to reverse an Attaindor by Vtglary and the Case was this William Isley seised in Fee of the Mannor of Sundridge in Kent had issue Henry Isley who was Indicted of Felony 18 Eliz. and 19. Eliz. the Record of the Indictment was brought into this Court and thereupon 20 Eliz. Henry Isley was outlawed William Isley died seised Henry Isley entred into the Mannor and Land as son and heir and being seised of the same devised the Mannor and Lands to C. in Fee who conveyed the same to Brooker and Brooker brought a Writ of Error to reverse the Outlawry against Henry Isley Holborn argued for the King and said that Brooker was no way privy to the attaindor of Henry Isley but a meer stranger and therefore could not maintain a Writ of Error And first he said and took exception that he had not set himself down Terre-Tenant in possession Secondly he saith in his Writ of Error That the Mannor and Lands descended to Henry Isley as son and heir when as he was attainted The third exception was That he saith that Henry Isley did devise the Lands and that he could not do because he was a person Attainted Fourthly he said that Brooker was not Tenant so much as in posse 4 H. 7. 11. If it were not for the words of Restitution the partie could not have the mean profits after the Judgment reversed 16 Ass 16. Lessee for years pleaded to a Precipe and reversed it the question was whether he should be in statu quo vi Librum for it is obscure If this Attaindor of Henry Isley were reversed yet it cannot make the devise good For there is a difference betwixt Relations by Parliament which nullifie Acts and other Relations Vi. 3 H. 7. Sentlegers Case Petition 18. The violent Relation of Acts of Parliament If a Bargain and Sale be the Inrollment after will make Acts before good but a Relation by Common Law will not make an Act good which was before void C. 3. part Butler and Bakers Case A gift is made to the King by Deed enrolled and before the enrollment the King granteth away the Land the Grant is void yet the enrollment by Relation makes the Lands to pass to the King from the beginning Admit in this Case that Brooker were Terre-Tenant yet he is not a party privy to bring a Writ of Error to reverse the Attaindor of him who was Tenant of the Land and I have proved That although the Attaindor were reversed yet he hath nothing because the Devise was void and is not made good by Relation It is a rule in our Books that no man can bring a VVrit of Error but a partie or privy 9 E. 4. 13. 22 E. 4. 31 32. 9 H. 6. 46. b. Ass 6 C. 3. part in the Marquiss of Winchesters Case The heir of the part of the mother cannot have the VVrit of Error but the heir of the part of the father may So if erronious Judgment be given in the time of profession of the eldest son and afterwards he is dereigned he shall have the Writ of Error In 22 H. 6. 28. The heir in special taile or by Custom cannot have Error But yet M. 18 Eliz. in Sir Arthur Henninghams Case it was adjudged That the special heir in tail might have a Writ of Error The Baile cannot maintain a Writ of Error upon a Judgment given against the Principal because he was not privy unto the Judgment therefore it shall be allowed him by way of plea in a Scire facias I never find that an Executor can have Error to reverse an Attaindor but for the misawarding of the Exigent Marshes Case was cited C. 5. part 111. Fitz 104. Feoffee at the Common Law could not have an Audita Quaerela in regard he was not privy 12 Ass 8. 41. Keâ—laway 193. There the Terre-Tenant brought a Writ of Error in the name of the heir and not in his own name 24 H. 8. Dyer 1. There it is said That he who is a stranger to the Record shall have Error To that I answer That he in the Reversion and the particular Tenant are but one Tenant for the Fee is demanded and drawn out of him But in the principal Case at Barr no Land is demanded but a personal Attaindor is to be reversed Also there it is put That if the Conusee extend before the day there it is said that the Feoffee may have Error 17 Ass 24. 18 E. 3. 25. Fitz. 22. To that I answer That the Feoffee is privy to that which chargeth him for the Land is extended in his hands and if the Feoffee there should not have a Writ of Error the Law should give him no manner of remedy for there the Conusor himself cannot have Error because the Lands are not extended in his hands Also it is there said that the Feoffee brought a Scirefacias against him who had execution of the Land To that I answer That that is by special Act of Parliament Also there it is said That if the Parson of a Church hath an Annuity and recovereth and afterwards the Benefice is appropriated to a Religious house the Soveraign of the house shall have a Scirefacias I answer That in that Case he is no stranger for that he is perpetual Parson and so the Successor of the Parson who recovered 12 H. 8. 8. There a Recovery was against a Parson and there Pollard said that the Patron might have Error I answer That Pollard was deceived there for it is said before that the Parson hath but an Estate for life and then he viz. the Patron is as a Recoverer who shall have a Writ of Error Dyer 1. But the Parson hath the Fee and therefore Pollard was mistaken as it appeareth by Brook Fauxi fier de Recovery 51. 19 H. 6. 57 Newton A false verdict is had against a Parson the Patron cannot have an Attaint There is a difference if one be partie to the Writ although not partie to the Judgment Error 72. A Quare Impedit was brought by the King against the Patron and the Incumbent and Judgment only was had against the Patron and the Incumbent Parson brought a Writ of Error but if he had not been partie to the Writ he could not have maintained Error So in Attaint the partie to the Writ though not to the Judgment shall
and for these causes he prayed Judgment for the Defendant Observe Reader the Argument of Calthrope he doth not speak to the point where part of the thing or Contract is upon the Sea and part upon the Land as it was urged by Andrews who argued on the other side The Case was adjourned Pasch 3 Caroli rot 362. in the Kings Bench. 475. IT was cited to be adjudged That if a man purchase the next Avoidance of a Church with an intent to present his son and afterwards he present him that it is Symony within the Statute Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 476. SUTTON the Chancellor of Gloucester's Case IN the Case of Sutton who was Chancellor of Gloucester and put out of his place for insufficiency in the Ecclesiastical court Trotman moved for a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court and said that the Bishop had power to make his Chancellor and he only hath the Examination of him and the allowance of him as it is in the Case of a Parson who is presented to the Bishop and said that if his sufficiency should be afterwards reexamined it would be very perilous Doddridg Justice If an Office of Skill be granted to one for life who hath no skill to execute the Office the grant is void and he hath no Frank-tenement in it A Prohibition is for two causes First to give to us Jurisdiction of that which doth belong unto us And secondly when a thing is done against the Law and in breach of the Law then we use to grant a Prohibition Jones Justice Brook had a grant of the Office of a Herald at Arms for life and the Earl Marshal did suspend him from the execution of his Office because he was ignorant in his profession and full of Error contrary to the Records and it was the opinion of the Justices that because he was ignorant in such his Office of Skill that he had no Freehold in the Office In the Principall Case the Prohibition was denyed And afterwards Sutton was put out of his Office by Sentence in the Spiritual Court for his insufficiency Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 477. SYMM'S Case TWo men having speech together of John Symms and William Symms one of them said The Symmses make Half-crown peeces and John Symms did carrie a Cloak-bag full of clippings And whether the Action would lie was the Question because it was incertain in the person For he did not say these Symmses but The Symmses Like unto the Case where one Farrer being slain and certain persons being Defendants in the Star-Chumber one having speech of them said These Defendants did murder Farrer and it was adjudged that the Action would not lie for two causes First because the words These was uncertain in the person And secondly it was incertain in the thing For it might be that they had Authority to do it as in Mills Case 13 Jac. in the Kings Bench Thou hast Coyned Gold and art a Coyner of Gold Thirdly a Cloakbag of clippings that is also uncertain for it might be clippings of Wooll or other things or it might be clippings of Silver from the Goldsmith For the Goldsmith that maketh Plate maketh clippings And fourthly It is not shewed any certain time when the words were spoken And for these causes it was adjudged that the Action would not lie Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 478. WHITTIE and WESTON'S Case AN Action of Debt was brought upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. and the Plaintiff declared That at the time of the Action brought he was Parson of Merrel and that Weston the Defendant did occupie such Lands and sowed them with corn Anno 21 Jac. and that he did not fet forth his Tythe-corn c. The Defendant pleaded in barr of the Action That W. W. Prior of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem was of the Order of Hospitalers c. and that he held the said Lands free from the payment of Tythes and that the Priory came by the Statute of 32. H. 8. to the King By vertue of which Statute the King was seised thereof and that the same descended to Queen Elizabeth who granted the Lands unto Weston to hold as amply as the late Prior held and that he was seised of the Lands by vertue of that grant Et propriis manibus suis excolebat Upon this Plea the Plaintiff did demurr in Law Noy argued for the Plantiff There are three points in the Case First If these Lands the possessions of the Hospitalers of St John which they held in their own hands were discharged of Tythes Secondly If there be any thing in the Statute of 32 H. 8. by which the Purchasor of the King should be discharged Thirdly Admitting that it shall be a discharge if the Defendant hath well entitled himself to such discharge or Priviledg First it is not within the Statute of 31 H. 8 cap. 13. for that Statute did not extend to the Order of St John Secondly the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 13. doth not discharge any but what was then dissolved Thirdly The Statute of 32 H. 8 cap. 24. gives the possessions of the Hospitalers of St Johns to the King and not the Statute of 31 H. 8. Note that the Defendant did recite the branch of the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap 13. That as well the King his heirs and successors as all and every such person and persons their heirs and assignes which have or hereafter shall have any Monasterie c. or other Religious or Ecclesiastical houses or places shall hold c according to their Estates and Titles discharged and acquitted of the payment of Tythes as freely and in as large and ample manner as the said Abbots c. had or used Also he recited the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 7 which Enacts that none shall pay Tythes who by Law Statute or Priviledg ought to be discharged The Statute of 31 H. 8. recites that divers Abbies c. and other Religious and Ecclesiastical houses and places have been granted and given up to the King The Statute enaâ—ts that the King shall have in possession for ever all such late Monasteries c. and other Religious houses and places c. And also enacts that the King shal have not only the said Monasteries c. but also all other Monasteries c. and all other Religious and Ecclesiastical houses which hereafter shall happen to be dissolved suppressed renounced relinquished forfeited given up or by any other means come to the King and shall be deemed adjudged vested by Authority of this present Parliament in the very actual possession and seisin of the King for ever in the state and condition they now be Vi. The Statute And shall have all priviledges c. in as ample manner and form as the late Abbots c. had held or occupied c. The Question then is Whether the men of the Hospital of St John at Jerusalem are intended to be within the
by vertue of the Act of 31 H. 8. A Feoffment in Fee is made unto the use of A. in Tail he hath the Use by the Statute of West â— cap. 1. Now when the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 10. came he hath the possession by force of that Act viz. of 27 H. 8. and not by force of the Statute of West 2. If the King be not in by the Statute of 3 H. 8. then he shall not have every of the Priviledges which the Act of 31 H. 8. giveth C. 2. part The Bishop of Canterburies Case The Colledg of Maidstone was Religious but not Ecclesiastical and it was adjudged that the Purchasors of the Lands of the said Colledg were not discharged from the payment of Tythes because the Colledg was not Ecclesiastical but Religious only and Religious and not Ecclesiastical came not to the King by the Statute of 31 H. 8. 18 Jacobi in the Common Pleas Wrights Case The Priory of Hatfield being of small value viz. not having Lands of the value of 200l per annum was dissolved by the Statute of 27 H. 8. and the Lands were not Tythe-free in the hands of the Purchasors because the Priory came not to the King by the Statute of 31 H. 8. and yet they were Tythe-free in the hands of the Prior himself The second point upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. The words are That the King shall have all Rights Interests and Priviledg as it was in the hands of the Abbots Priors c. It is objected To be free from payment of Tythes is a Priviledg I answer That neither Right Interest nor Priviledg do free him from the payment of Tythes First there is no discharge of Tythes by the word Interest in the Statute for that is plain Then the question is if the word Priveledg will discharge the Lands from the payment of Tythes and if that word would have sufficed to have discharged the Tythe what need was there of the special Clause to discharge Tythes The Statute of 27 H. 8. dissolves Chaunteries and there it is said That the King shall have and enjoy c. and there also all Priviledges are given then the Statute of 1 E. 6. came and gave all Chauntries to the King and there the word Priviledg was not in the Act yet by those words the Lands were not discharged from the payment of Tythes The Statute of 31 H. 8. is Conditions and Rights of Entrie yet there was another Act made to give Conditions to the King But admit that the King himself be discharged yet his Patentees are not discharged The Priviledg was personal and personal Priviledges are not transferrable 35 H. 6. 56. A Statute dissolveâ— the Templers and gives the Lands to the Hospitalers to hold by the same service as the Templers did which was Frankalmoign yet the Grantee held by Fealty for that Frankalmoign is a personal priviledg and cannot be transferred by general words The King it's true shall have the priviledg for he is a priviledged person for of his goods he shall not pay Tythes if he do not grant them over and the Grants prove That unless he had granted them he should have paid no Tythes The Statute of 31 H. 8. sayes All Conditions which the Abbots c. have yet untill the Statute of 32 H 8. no Purchasor could take advantage of a Condition Hill 44. Eliz. in the Common Pleas Rot. 1994. Spurlings Case The Purchasors of Lands of the Hospital of St Johns of Jerusalem were not priviledged from the payment of Tythes Pasch 8. Jacobi in the Common Pleas Vrry and Bowyers Case In a Prohibition it was holden by Cook and Nichols That the Purchasor of St Johns of Jerusalem should pay Tythes but Winch and Warburton cont 18 Jacobi in the Common Pleas All the Judges but Warburton held that the Purchasor should pay Tythes 10 Eliz. Dyer There it doth not appear whether they were of the Order of Templers or Cistertians The third point in this Case The Defendant doth make no title to the Discharge for he hath not averred that the Priory were Ecclesiastical persons If a man plead that A. is professed the Court cannot take notice of it that he is a dead person in Law But if he saith that he was of such an Order he ought to set forth of what Rule the Order is Secondly The manner of their discharge was when they did Till and sow their Lands propriis sumptibus manibus If they grub up Roots and make the Lands fit for Tillage but if their Tenants sow the Lands they shall pay Tythes for they had the priviledg in respect they should not be idle unless all these do concur they shall pay Tythes viz. plough sow reap and carrie the Corn. These Priviledges are to be taken stritly because they are to defeat the Church of her endowment and therefore in this Case the Defendant doth not well entitle himself to the Discharge unless he do shew that he did occupie the Land for one whole year before and that he did plow sow and â—eap the corn But he ought for to have shewed that such time he plâ—â—ed the Land such a time he sowed it and such a time he reaped the 〈◊〉 Otherwise the Court will intend that another man did plow and sow the land and that he only reaped it For if Lessee of the Hospital doth plow the Land and sow it and afterwards doth surrender to the Prior of the Hospital who reaps the same he shall pay Tythe of the same for the Priviledge was granted unto them who were Labourers And the Defendant perhaps might have the Lands to halfs that is to say to have half the Corn growing upon the Lands The pleading is not good When you plead two Bars each Bar must stand of it self and the surplusage of the one Bar shall not help the defect of the other Bar. The word Priviledge in the Act of 32 H. 8. doth not extend to Tythes If it doth yet the Purchasor shall not have the Priviledge Dodderidge Justice The Statute of 32 H. 8. was made because that those of S. Johns of Jerusalem said that they could not surrender their Hospital because they had a Supreme Head over them viz. their great Master the Pope Crawley Serjeant argued for Weston the Defendant The pleading was over-ruled to be good the last day the Case was argued We have well entitled our selves to the Discharge For we have pleaded that we had the occupation of the Lands for one whole year and that Weston the Defendant plowed sowed and reaped the Corn upon the lands at his own costs and charges And the Plaintiff hath not shewed that any other plowed sowed or reaped the same Our title is by prescription which is confessed This Society was erected in the time of King Henry the 1. and it continued untill 32 H. 8. 44 Eliz. in Spurlings case there were two reasons of the Judgment 1. There the Statute of 31 H. 8.
lease had not any beginning and therefore was void and so the three limitations End Surrender or Forfeiture cannot happen Dyer 197 198. From the death of the Father the lease which is made to the Son shall begin the Father being dead it is a void lease to the Son C. 6 part 35. Enumeration of particular times if it do not happen within the particular then it shall never begin And so it is of this lease to Walsingham in our Case Note it was said by Sir Henry Yelvertor That it was the opinion of the Judges in this Case That he had but the custody of the Park and not the interest of the Park for by the acceptance of the custody of a Park when he hath a lease of the Park it selfe before it is a surrender of his lease Davenport argued for the Defendant More The question which is made of the lease of 27. Eliz. rests upon the lease made to Genny 33. H. 8. which was determined upon the surrender of the lessee 2. It rests upon the lease made to Pawlet 36. H. 8. which was for fifty years determinable by two Provisoes the one for not payment of a sum in gross 3. It rests upon the lease made to Pawlet 5 6. Ph. M. for 50 years from Mich last past upon the death of Pawlet or committing of Waste The lease of 27. Eliz. is a lease in reversion for 31 years to begin after the surrender forfeiture or expiration of the lease made 4 5 Ph. M. to Pawlet Exception is taken to the lease 36. H 8. because it hath two falsities the first Because it mis-recites the lease of 33 H. 8. reciting the same to be dated 32 H. 8. whereas in truth it was dated 33 H. 8. and that varies the term of years and that lease is not good at the common law nor as they objected is it helped by the Statute of 34. H. 8. of Mis-recitalls Secondly Because it is upon a false suggesstion of the Patentee and therefore it is void It was also obejected That the lease of 5 6 Philip and Mary was void for two causes first Because that that recites the lease of 36. H. 8. to bee for fifty years without the Proviso of determination by the death of Pawlet 2. The King is deceived in his Grant for they objected That it was recited to be surrendred 〈◊〉 intentione to regrant eadem praemissa and there are other things granted which were not surrendred They say That the Lease is said to be of the Parkership and not of the Park for that doth not passe by the generall words cum pertinentiis for by expresse words the Parkership is granted and then not the Park it selfe The Lease of 33. H. 8. was truly surrendred But the King reciting that the Patent bearing date 32. H. 8. was surrendred in consideration of service did grant the office of Parkership c. And insuper the Manor for fifty years c. The question is If this misrecitall be helped by the Common Law if it be not then if the Statute of 34. H. 8. doth help it The Lease which was mis-recited was not in esse and there is a difference when the Lease which is recited is not in esse but determined and when former Leasus are recited as Leases in esse There are three things in which misrecitall is materiall and doth vitiate the Patent 1. Misrecitall of the Tenant to whom the Lease was made or of the Tenant which was last possessed 2. Misrecitall of the thing demised 3. Of the Estate in esse and the Limitation If in such case of misrecitall there be not a Non obstante then the Patent is void at the Common Law C. 4. part 35. The King by the Law ought to be truely informed of estates in esse and also of his Rents and Revenue But by the Common Law if the former Leases be recited to be determined and in truth they are and the new grant is upon another consideration then it is not materiall if they be misrecited for that it is not any part of the consideration Vide 38. H. 6. 37. Darby If the misrecitall be in any thing not materiall which need not to be recited and no part of the consideration of the new Lease then it shall not make void the Patent for that the misrecitall was not of any thing materiall If the misrecitall be of a thing determined and the second Patent depend thereupon then the second Patent is void for if the King recite a Lease made to I. S. which is determined and demise tenementa praedict ' sic ut praefertur and in truth the Lease recited was made to I. D. the second Lease is void 38. H. 8. Br. Patents 10l The King Tenant in taile makes a Lease for life the successour King may make a new Lease without recitall and if he do misrecite the lease which is determined it is not materiall If our Lease should be void at the Common Law yet it is helped by the Statute of 34. H. 8. cap. 21. by expresse words the same extends to all Leases with or without consideration notwithstanding misrecitall or non-recitall yet all misrecitals are not helped by that Statute if the misrecitall be of Leases which are not the guide of the second Patent and need not to be recited such misrecitall is helped by the Statute But if the former Patent begetteth the later then the Statute doth not extend unto it for then the last is void for that the King is deceived and not by reason of the misrecitall Dyer 194. 195. The Case there is direct to prove our Case for there the recitall was of the grant of an Office 33. H. 8. whereas it was dated 32. H. 8. Et quia omnia c. And there was not any surrender for in truth it was not surrendred to the Master of the Rolls who died before it was entred There it is resolved That it is not helped by the Statute of Queen Mary for in that Act there is an expresse clause that it extend not to the grant of an Office as in the Case of Dier it was and then it was left at the Common Law and the Queen was deceived because the surrender was not good The defect of the second Patent was That it was not in the Crown by the surrender but if it had been well surrendred the misrecitall had been helped by the Statute of 34. H. 8. for it was the misrecitall of the year that the Patent bore date ◠2. part Doddingtons Case Dyer 129. upon the Statute of 34. H. 8. The misrecitall of the Town is not helped for it doth not appear unto the Court what Land was intended to be granted But if the thing had been certainly and particularly named so as it might appear to the Court what Land was intended to passe then the mis-recitall of the Town had been helped by the Statute of 34. H. 8. A thing granted generally
with reference to a misrecited Patent is not helped by the Act of 34. H. 8. But when the thing granted is particularized with reference to a thing which is determined in a misrecited Patent then the Statute of 34. H. 8. will help it but in our Case the misrecitall is of a thing which needed not to be recited The second Objection which hath been made is That the King is deceived by reason of the false suggestion And then the Letters Patents made by reason thereof are void I answer That if the false Suggestion tendeth to the detriment of the Crowne and to the apparant prejudice of the King then the Letters Patents may bee avoided But where the Suggestion is of a thing not materiall and doth not tend either to the deceit of the Crowne or to the Kings prejudice neither in his profit nor his Inheritance there it shall not make void the Letters Patents Dyer 352. Where an Abbot Lessee for sixty years of the Queen made a Lease for eighty yeares the sixty years expired the Lessee for eighty years surrendred to the Crown and in consideration of that Surrender to have a new Lease there the second Patent was void for the King was deceived in the reall consideration And Dyer there said That it was but the Suggestion of the party and the Collection of the Queen C. 5. part 93. 94. Where Lessee for yeares of the King did assigne part of his Terme and Land to another and then surrendred the surrender there was the consideration and that was not good If the recital be made of a thing which needeth not to be recited and the Patent is made upon another consideration there the misrecital shall not hurt it C. 1. part 41. where Henry the seventh reciting cum pâ—st c. virtute cujâ—s c. the estate is recited as determined the Reversion shall passe for the King was certified of the estate And in our Case it is determined Where the falsitie of the suggestion is not in deceit nor to the prejudice of the King If the thing misrecited be not materiall it shall not make void the Patent C. 10 part 110. Legates Case Quae quidem c. the false suggestion shall make void the Patent for the King did not intend to abate his Revenue Fitz. Nat. Brev. Grants 58. Falsitie of Tenure of the King shall make void the Kings Licence For the falsitie of suggestion which came from the party did tend to the prejudice of the King in his Tenure C. 10. part 110 Quod quidem manibus c. ratione Escheatae c. It shall make void the grant by this suggestion of the party which doth prejudice the King in his title But where the Suggestion is not to the prejudice of the King in his revenue tenure nor title it shall not make the Letters Patents void C. 10. part 113. MARKHAM's case The King grants the office of Parker quod quidem Officium the Earle of RUTLAN'D late had And the said Earl never had it the Suggestion was of a thing not materiall to the second Patentee nor to the Kings prejudice therefore it was good 10. H. 6. 2. Quod quidem Manerium seisitus fuit in manus nostras the false suggestion there shall not make void the Patent because it was not of a thing materiall If the King grant a Manor quod quidem Manerium nuper fuit in tenura I. S. and in truth it was not in the Tenure of I. S. yet it was adjudged good For Nuper is a Recitall of the thing that was and not of a thing that is For if it had not been in the possession of I. S. whereas in truth he was not seised or possessed thereof there it had not been good It is found in our Case That the Lease is actually surrendred and so the misrecitall is of a thing that was scil nuper and not of a thing that is or in esse The next Exception is to the Letters Patents of Philip and Mary First because thereby the Lease of 36. H. 8. is not fully recited For there was a Proviso That if he did not pay a summe in grosse that it should be void And that it should determine by the Death of Pawlet the Patentee The misrecitall of that Collaterall matter by the Common Law shall not make void the Grant There are three things necessary in Recitalls First The Certainty of the particular estate in esse with the Limitations Secondly The Tenant to whome the particular estate was made or the Tenant which then is in possession Thirdly The thing granted by the same name as it is granted in the first Patent But Covenants Reservations Provisions Conditions and the like need not to be recited The Recitall ought to be of a thing in esse Avowry 112. A Towne was granted by the King And afterwards he granted unto another a Leet in the same Towne the King in this case needed not to recite the grant of the said Towne Secondly The Recitall ought to bee in the same name as it was granted in the first Patent And cannot be helped by averment if it be misrecited Thirdly the Tenant of the Land or the Tenant which was before the grant ought to be recited scil that such a man habuit to whom the first Patent was granted Or that he now hath the Lands or lately had the thing granted in possession Brook Pat. 96. Such things ought to be recited as ought to be pleaded against the King in an Information of Instruction In our Case the misrecitall being of a thing determined and not materiall and not to be the guide of the second Patent doth not make void the Grant to Pawlet It was objected That Queen MARY was deceived for the Grant was de â—isdem praemissis And in the former Patent the Park was excepted but so it was not in the Letters Patents to Pawlet In the first Patent reasonable Herbage was granted but in the second to Pawlet the Grant was of Herbage generally If the King except the Deer as hee doth in this case then hee ought to have sufficient herbage for his Deer The Jury finde That the Letters Patents of 36. H. 8. were absolutely surrendred eâ intentione that the King might make a new Lease in forma sâ—quente which is not de praemissis sed de praementionatis Now the King for two hundred pounds Fine is pleased to grant tam in consideration of the Surrender quà m for the Fine of two hundred pounds And here the King took knowledg that it ought to be in forma sequente and then by reason of the Fine and Surrender hee is pleased to vary from the former Patent and it is to the prejudice of the Patentee The first was reasonable Herbage and here it is Herbage and in the Kings Case it amounts to as much as if hee had said Reasonable Herbage for because the King excepts the Deer it is implyed That the Patentee is but to have
reasonable Herbage Here the Grant is not De omnibus grossis arboribus bonis catellis Felonum and of the Goods of Felons themselves and in the former Patent these were granted and so the Grant is for the Kings benefit and to the prejudice of the Patentee Also this Patent is ad proficuum Domini Regis For here is a Rent reserved and here is a Proviso for the committing of Waste in the premisses which were not in the first Letters Patents and in these Letters Patents there are divers Covenants which were not in the former Patents and so it is in forma sequente And so the Lease of Philip and Mary is good The King seised of a Manor to which he hath a Park doth grant the Stewardship of the Manor and the Custodie of the said Park with reasonable Herbage Afterwards in the same Letters Patents hee grants the said Manor of O. and all the Lands in O. excepting grosse trees in the Park If this Grant be not good for the Manor it is not good for the Park that was the Objection It is good for the Manor and also for the Park It was objected That the King grants the custody of the Park and so not the Park it selfe for how can the King grant the custody of the Park if he grant the Park it selfe it is dangerous that upon an implication in one part of a Patent the expresse words which follow should be made void the subsequent words in this Case are The King grants the Manor and all the Lands to the same belonging now the Park doth belong to it and the King excepts only the Deer C. 10 part 64. The King at this day grants a Manor unto a man as entirely as such a one held the same before it came into his hands c. the Advowson doth passe without words of grant of the Advowson for the Kings meaning is That the Advowson shall passe The meaning of the King is manifest in our Case C. 3. Part 31 32. Carr's Case There the Rent was extinct betwixt the Parties yet for the benefit of the King for his tenure it hath continuance for a thing may be extinct as to one purpose and in esse as to another purpose 38. Ass 16. a Rent extinct yet Mortmain Dyer 58 59. The Exception ought to be of the thing demised In our Case the Park doth passe but the King shall have the liberties in it and so here the Park shall passe and the Exception is of the liberties Com. 370. the Exception ought to be of that which is contained in the former words in the former Patents the Offices were first granted and in the same Letters Patents the Manor was afterwards granted But now King James grants the Manor first and then the Offices Construction of Statutes ought to be secuncundùm intentionem of the makers of them and construction of Patents secundùm intentionem Domini Regis C. 8. part 58. You ought to make such a construction as to uphold the Letters Patents C. 8. part 56. Auditor Kings Case There the Letters Patents were construed secundùm intentionem Domini Regis and adjudged good But to make void the Patent they shall not be construed secundùm intentionem but to make a Patent good they shall be construed secundùm intentionem Domini Regis The Case was adjourned till Michaelmas Terme next Note I have heard Sir Henry Yelverton say That it was the opinion of the Judges in this Case That he had but the custody of the Park and not the interest of the Park for that by the acceptance of the custody of the Park when he had a Lease of the Park before it was a surrender of his Lease Trinit 21. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 492 SHORTRIDGE and HILL's Case SHortridge brought an Action upon the Case against Hill for ravishing of his Ward and the Writ was contra pacem without the words Vi armis Lib. Dent. 366. where three Presidents are of Actions upon the Case without Vi armis An Action upon the case for doing of any thing against a Statute must be contra pacem Ley Chief Justice Recovery in this Action may be pleaded in Barre in a Writ of Ravishment of Ward brought Dodderidge Justice The Action of Trespasse at the common Law is only for the taking away of the Ward and here he hath elected his Action at the common Law and then he shall not have an Action upon the Statute viz. a Ravishment of Ward but here the Action upon the Case is brought for the taking and detaining of the Ward so as he cannot preferr him in marriage and upon this speciall matter the Action upon the Case lieth without the words Vi armis A Writ of Ravishment of Ward ought to be brought in the Common Pleas but yet you may bring a Writ of Ravishment of Ward in this Court if the Defendant be in the custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsey for in such special Case it shall be brought in this Court if there be an extraordinary matter besides the Trespass then an Action upon the Case lieth as when A. contracts with B. to make an estate unto B. of Bl. Acre at Michaelmas if C. enter into Bl. Acre A. may have an Action upon the Case against C. for the speciall damage which may happen to him by reason that he is not able to perform that contract by reason of the entry of C. and he shall declare contra pacem but not Vi armis Trinit 21. Jacobi in the King 's Bench. 493 BAKER and BLAKAMORE's Case IN Trespass the Defendant pleaded That J. S. being seised in Fee gave the Lands unto Baker and the Heirs of his body and conveyed the Lands by descent to four Daughters and Blakamore the Defendant as servant to one of the Daughters did justifie The Plaintiff did reply That the said J. S. was seised in Fee and gave the same to Baker and the Heirs Males of his Body and conveyed the Land by descent to himself as Heir Male absque hoc that J. S. was seised in Fee Henden Serjeant did demur in Law upon the Replication and took Exception to the Traverse for that here he traverseth the Seisin of J. S. whereas he ought to have traversed the gift in tail made by J. S. for the being seised is but an inducement not traverseable and therefore he ought to have traversed the gift in taile for then he had traversed the seisin for he could not give the Lands in tail if that he were not seised thereof in Fee L. 5. E. 4 9. there in Formedon the Tenant would have traversed the Seisin of the Donor but the book is ruled that the Traverse ought to be of the gift in tail and that includes the Seisin Bridgment for the Plaintiffe and said That the Serjeant is of opinion contrary to the Books when he saith positively that you ought to traverse the gift in tail and not the seisin of the Donor
Deed which bears date beyond Sea that the Action will not lie 13 H. 4. 5 6. An Obligation bore date in France and was made according to the Law of France 6 R. 2 cap. 2. Where the Specialtie bears date there the Action shall be brought The first book that speaks of Deeds bearing date out of England 20 H. 6. 28 29. 20 E. 4. 1. 21 E 4. 72. You must suppose then That it was at a place in England and that is but a fiction of Law and you shall never make a man subject to the penalty of a Statute upon a fiction of Law C. 11. part 51. A Disseisor makes a Lease for life or years the Disseisee shall not not have an Action of Trespass vi armis against him because he comes in by title For this fiction of Law That the Frank-tenement hath always been in the Disseisee shall not have Relation to make him who comes in by title to be a Trespassor vi armis 18 H. 6. 23. A Reversion is expectant upon an estate for life and in the mean time betwixt the Grant and the Attornment the Lessee commits Waste yet although the Attornment relate to make the Grant good ab initio yet the Relation being a fiction of Law will not make the Lessee punishable for Waste Then in this our Case the Deed bears date beyond the Sea and then to make Dunkirk to be in England by a fiction in Law shall not be prejudicial to the Defendant Com. 369. The preamble of a Statute is the best Interpreter of the Statute In the Statute of 13 R. 2. the preamble saith Because the Admirals and their Deputies do hold their Sessions c. in prejudice of the King and of the Common-Law and in destruction of the common people c. But this Deed bearing date beyond the Sea is no prejudice to the King nor to his Franchises nor to his people to be sued in the Admiralty 32 H. 8. cap. 14. The suit within the Admiralty ought to concern Charter-partie and Fraighting of a Ship For by that Statute it was enacted That if any Merchant-stranger as Mullibeck was by long delaying and protracting of time As in our Case otherwise then was agreed between the said Merchants in or by the said Charter-partie c. shall have his remedy before the Admiral which Lord Admiral shall take such Order c. In our Case at Bar It was a Charter-partie made beyond Sea 2. It was for the freighting of a Ship 3. For the breach of it was the the suit in the Court of Admiralty But admit that this point be against me then for the second point I do conceive that he who is punishable by the Statutes must be Prosecutor which the Defendant is not for what he hath done he did by vertue of a Letter of Attorney and he did it in the name of another and it is the Act of the other C. 9. part 76. Combes Case If a man have power to do an Act by force of a Letter of Attorney it ought to be done in the name of him who gives the power 3 Ma. Dyer 132. If Surveyors have power to make Leases if they make the Leases in their own names it is not good but they ought to be made in his name who giveth the power 11 Eliz. Dyer 283 The Statute of R. 3. giveth power to Cestuy que use to make Leases and he makes a Letter of Attorney the Attorney must make the Leases in the name of Cestuy que use who hath the power by the Statute C 9. part 75. A Copyholder may surrender by Attorney because it is his own surrender Vi Perkins 196. 199. A Feoffment with a Letter of Attorney to the wife to make Livery is good but then the wife must make the Livery in the name of her husband Secondly in this Case at Barr the beginning and the prosecution of the Suit was altogether for the benefit of Mullibeck and so it appears by the Records of the Court and no notice is there taken of the Attorney but of the Master L. 5. E. 45. A Writ is directed to the Sheriff and the Under-Sheriff makes a false retorn the Sheriff shall be amerced and not the Under-Sheriff for the Law doth not take notice of him 7 Eliz. Dyer 239. The Customer himself and not his Deputie shall be charged And so in our Case Mullibeck being partie to the whole ought to be accounted the partie prosecuting within the words of the Statutes The Statute of 4 H. 7. cap. 27. is so as they pursue their claims within five years such prosecuting or pursuing ought to be by the partie himself C. 9. part 106. If one of his own head make claim it is not good claim for to avoid the Fine c. The Statute of 16â— R. â— cap. 5. of Premunire makes against me for there the Procurours Councellors Sollicitors Abettors and Attorneys are named by the express words of the Statute and there is an express provision against them But in our Case it is not so for if our Statute had intended to extend to Councellors Attornies c. it would have expresly named them There are divers exceptions which I take to the Verdict First There is variance in the place betwixt the Declaration and the special Verdict for the Declaration layeth the Contract to be made at Dunkirk in England and the special Verdict finds it to be made at Dunkirk extra partes transmarinas Secondly The Declaration is to take in Mariners and the special Verdict is to take in Men. Thirdly the Declaration is A Ship to be prepared and the Verdict is to be in readiness Fourthly The Statute of 15 R. 2. and 2 H. 4. gives the Action by way of VVrit and here it is by Bill 42 Ass 11. There one was taken in Execution and escaped and there a Bill was exhibited for the escape and it was holden because the Statute of West 2. gave a Writ of Debt it shall not be extended by equity to a Bill of Debt Com. 38. a. and Com. 36 37. Plats Case There the Judgment is given upon a Bill for an escape but Mr Plowden said that it seemed to divers a hard Case The Statute of â—8 Eliz. cap. 5. of Informers is in the negative viz. That none shall be admitted or received to pursue any person upon any penal Law but by way of Information or original Action and not otherwise Mich. 29 Eliz. in Clarks Case it was resolved that the Statute of 18 Eliz. was a penal Law and the partie must not be sued by Bill but as the Statute hath prescribed 27 H. 6. 5. There upon Premunire facias it was adjudged good by Bill but there the Action was not directed so precisely by the Statute viz. in what manner the partie should proceed There are no presidents that an Action of Debt hath been brought for pursuing in the Court of Admiralty but in such Case a Prohibition granted only