still for in 31 Edw. 3. an advowson descended to three persons and the youngest is in ward to the King and he granted it to Queen Philip his Wife Advoson to 3 parceners and she granted it over to the Earl of Arundell who granted it to the eldest parcener the Church became voyd the King had the presentation for when the King was possessed of the wardship of the youngest he was intitled to present for all and when he granted the ward over this did not devest the title of the two eldest which was vested in him before and 37 Hen. 6. the Grant of the King upon a false suggestion is voyd False suggestion and in Littleton he shall have account against Executors and yet the Law is clear Account that an Action of Account will not lie against Executors so for all those Reasons Judgment shall be given for the Plaintif Several reserâ—ations Fenner to the contrary And first I agree that they are severall reservations and so is the case which hath been remembred in 8 Ed. 3. A Lease was made of eight Acres of land reserving eight shillings of rent viz. for every Acre 12 d. thiâ— is severall and to that which hath been sayd that the condition is a proviso I deny that for a proviso Provisio quid sit as me seemeth either is in the affirmative that a thing shall be done or in the negative that it shall not be done but here it is neither directly affirmative nor negative and therefore they have found it without commission Agreement but I confess that agreement extends to rent 22 Hen. 6. 14 Hen. 8. then the Jury which was of Mtdlesex have found the four usuall Feasts in London viz. St Johns c. and this as it seemeth they cannot doe because it is a thing in another County especially they being but an Inquest of Office Further they have found that 37 s was behind at one Feast and this is impossible for then the entire rent should amount to 7 l. And further the Lessors have purchased the reversion before the return of the Inquisition and Commission and then the Queen cannot be intitled because she hath not the Freehold for it hath been adjudged here that if a man fell his lands and afterwards makes livery thereof and after inrolls the sale this shall not have relation to the date of the deed because it takes effect by the livery which was before the inrolment And 8. Edw. 3. Feoffment puis atteynder A man attainted of Treason makes a feoffment of his land after he is restored yet he shall not have the land yet if he had not made the feoffment he should have been restored to the land with the mean profits Then if the King grants the reversion if he shall have the condition remaining and I think not for the King hath it by express words of the Statute as the Prior had it and if the Prior had granted parcell of the reversion De percell de Reversion the entire condition had been gone and the King shall be in the same case for Cessavit is given by the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 21. eodem modo as in the Statute of Gloucester cap. 4. This doth not ly of an estate tayl no more than a Cessavit by the Statute of Glouc. 8 Ed. 2. And so I think Judgement shall be given for the Defendant De Term. Trinitat Anno xxviij Eliz. Reg. 1. ROdâ—s Justice Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif First I agree that they are severall rents and yet this question doth not goe to the overthrow of the Action in proof whereof both great reason and authority is copious For if the Lessor had entred into parcel this had not suspended the entire rent or if the reversion of parcel thereof were granted this shall carry no more than that which is granted so it was held by the Justices when it was granted to Cordall Parcel entred into And 2 Hâ—n 6. if I reserve an entire rent and the Lessee will pay but parcell c. 17 Ed. 3. fol. 52. by Sharde 11 Ed. 3. lib. Ass If I make a Lease of two Acres reserving for the one Acre x. s to me and to mine heirs and for the other Acre x. s generally And Dyer fol. 308. b. Lib. Ass pl. 23. If three Coparceners be and rent be reserved for equality of partition but one Scire fac shall be brought for it is brought but upon one record 1. Scire fac and Littleton pl. 316. but one action of debt for Tenants in common but severall Avowries so I hold that they be severall rents in this case and yet but one condition And for that let us see if by grant of parcel the entire condition be gone In the case of a common person it is all gone as it was adjudged here in Hill last where a man makes a Lease for years reserving xx l. for rent Sum in gross and rent reserved upon cond and allso a sum in gross of xxvl was to be paid to the same Lessor upon condition if the rent or sum in gross were behind then a re-entry to be made Afterwards the Lessor took an Estate back again of parcell of the term the sum in gross was not payd and it was adjudged that he shall not take advantage by the condition for when he took an estate back again the rent was suspended and then for the sum in gross he shall not re-enter because the condition was entire Cond entire but all though that the case of a common person be so yet the Princses case differs for she shall have her Prerogative and for the Preheminence which the Queen shall have I referre you to the argument of Iustice Weston in the case of the Lord Barkley Coment And that the Queen shall have her Prerogative in a condition I will remember the case of the Abesse of Sion 38 Hen. 6. 21 Hen. 7. the King may make a feoffment in fee upon condition that the Feoffee shall not alien Feoffment in fee upon cond reservation and 2 Hen. 7. 35 H. 6. he may reserve a rent to a stranger and 21 Eliz. the Queen grants her debt to another and he in reasonable time will not prosecute the Queen may take it again gain Grâ—â—t of a debt and may sue And allso Cranmers case where King Hen. 8. gave lands to the use of him for life and after to the use of his Executors for twenty yeares Rent charge after atteynder after he was attainted the Queen shall have this rent as a rent charge and yet she had the reversion before And in reason it seemeth the Queen may apportion her condition for if this condition by the grant to Cordall shall be avoyded four principles shall be overthrown for it is a principle That the King shall not be deceived in his grant 2.
which you allege is against you And the Wife of the Defendant being in Court was very importunate whereupon the Court moved an agreement and the Plaintif was content upon condition that the Defendant would enter into bond but the Defendant seemed unwilling by his silence Anderson Wee have made stay to the intent to do the Defendant good and he will not be content when more than reason is offered him wherefore let Judgement be entred for the Plaintif 7. IN a replevin by Gybson against Platlesse Revocation of a VVill. the Defendant made Conusance as Baylif to Anne Wingfield and the Issue was whether the Land descended to Anne Wingfield Norfolk Trin. as Daughter and Heir to I. W. and upon evidence this was the case 28 Eliz. rot 2â—30 The said I. W. was seised of the Lands in question and divers other Lands and by his last VVill devised all his Lands and Tenements to Anthony Wingfield of London Goldsmith in Fee and after and before his death he made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands which he had devised to the same A. W. and when he sealed the Feoffment he demanded will not this hurt my Will and it was answered again that it would not and he said if this will not hurt my Will I will seal it and then he sealed it and a Letter of Attorny to make livery and in some of the Lands the Attorney made livery but not of the Lands now in question and after the Testator died now if the Devisee shall have the Lands or no was the question for if this Feoffment be Revocation of the Will then the Devise is void And it was said by the Counsell of Anne VVingfield that it is a Revocation For if the Testator had said that this shall not be his Will then it had been a plain Revocation quod fuit concessum per Curiam and then the making of the Feoffment is as much to say as that the Will shall not stand but it was answered by the Court that it appeared that the mind of the Testator was that his Will should stand and when he made the Feoffment this was a Revocation in Law and if no Feoffment had been made there had been no Revocation in Law and there is no Revocation in deed for he said if this will not hurt my Will I will seal it and allthough that the Attorney made livery in part Feofâ—ent perfect in part so that the Feoffment was perfect in part yet for the Lands in question whereof no livery was made the Will shall stand Will. for a Will may be effectuall for Part and for Part it may be revoked and the Court told the Jury that this was their opinion and thereupon the Jury found accordingly that the Land did not descend to A. VV. quod nota And Fenner who was of Counsell with the Plaintif before the coming again of the Jury to the Bar said to the Counsell of the Defendant that the Law was clear against them Allso he said to divers Barresters afterward privately that in the case of Serjeant Jeofres it was adjudged that where one had made his Will and after one of his friends came unto him and demanded of the Testator if he had made his Wil and he answered no. And he demanded again will you make your Will and he answered no and yet this was adjudged no Revocation 8. ONe Lea of Essex Privelege was sued in an Action of Battery in the Common pleas Battery and upon non culp pleaded it appeared upon the evidence that the Defendant and others had thrown daggers at the Plaintif and grievously hurt and maimed him in outragious manner and Peryam said to the Jury that they ought to consider that the Plaintif was put in fear of his life and had one of his hands maimed and what damage he had susteyned by his Mayhem and that they ought to give damage as well for the fear and assault as for the Mayhem and when the Jury was gone from the Bar the Defendant caused the Plaintif to be arrested in the Kings Bench for a battery done to him by the Plaintif before and this was shewed to the Court and thereupon they sent for Lea and were grievosly offended with him for they said that when a man is sued here Privelege de Court. he ought safely to come and go by the privilege of this place without vexation elsewhere And Lea pleaded that he was ignorant of the Law but the Court answered that ignorantia juris non excusat and therefore they said that they would punish him and discharge the other Then the Plaintif said that he had put in bayl to the arrest and the Court answered if you had not done so we would have discharged you but now we cannot but they commanded Lea to release his arrest or otherwise he should smart for it Fine and Lea was well content to do so Anderson yet you shall pay a fine here allso for otherwise we shall be perjured wherefore because you are ignorant you shall be fined at vj. s and Lea payed the vj. s incontinently and went for to release his arrest Rodes You have escaped well therefore let this be a warning 9. BEtween Smyth and Lane the case was such Copyhold Mith. 27. 28. Eliz. Rot. 1858. Radford A. was a Copyholder in Fee according to the custom of a Mannor whereof the Queen was Lady And she by her Letters Patents let the Copy hold to B. for years and he granted his Term to the Copyholder if by this the Copyhold be determined or no was the doubt And it was agreed by the Court and all the Serjeants 28 H. 8. 30. b. that if the Lease had been made immediately from the Queen to the Copyholder then it had been a plain determination but some put a diversity because the Patentee was not Lord of the Mannor Peryam I think the Copyhold is not gone for when the Copyholder hath an interest in possession and the other in the Freehold and the Patentee grants his interest to the Copyholder what surrender can this be Anderson I will not have it a surrender but I will have his interest to be determined For when he is a Copyholder this is by Custom and when the Land is left this is by the Common Law and when this is granted to the Copyholder surely he shall not have both For he cannot have a Copyhold in the Land and have the Land also wherefore in my opinion the Copyhold is gone Peryam Peradventure by the grant to the Patentee the Rent shall pass if there be any but it shall be hard to make it a determination of the Copyhold for they are two distinct and two severall interests Anderson By the grant made to the Patentee the Rent shall not pass for he hath no Reversion adjornatur 10. A Quare impedit was brought by Specot and his wife against the Bishop of Exeter
and the one with force and the other not as if I command one to make a Disseisin and he makes a disseisin with force and allso if one enter with force to my use and after I agree he is a Disseisor with force and I am not so and those cases will answer the Books of Assises for in those cases they were present Present but in these not and so I hold that he which is present when force is made is a Disseisor with force Then it was moved if the Statute of 8 Hen. 6. doth extend to fresh forces VVyndam It doth extend to them by express words and Fleetwood cited a case in 44 Edw. 3. 32. that an Attaint lieth of fresh force Then for the other matter of trebling of damages increased the Court made no doubt but that they shall be trebled and they said that so it was lately adjudged here in a case of Staffordshire 19. PUckering shewed how an Attaint was brought upon a false Oath made in a Replevin Challenge where the Defendant made Conusance as Bayley to one Hussey and in the Attaint surmise was made that the Sherif was Cosen to Hussey and thereupon prayed Process to the Coroners and Puckering moved that no Process should issue to the Coroners for Hussey was not party to the Attaint and then this is but matter of favour and he cited 3 Hen. 7. And all the Court accorded with him that it is but matter of favour onely and no surmise to have a Writ to the Coroners but VValmisley would have put a difference between Lessee for years and a Bayley Lessee pur ans for as he pretended in the case of a Bayley it shall be a principall challenge but not in the other case but all the Court was against him and that it is no principall challenge in the one case nor in the other The last day of the Term it was moved again and the Court was of the same mind as before 20. IN a Quare impedit Adverson it was said by Anderson and agreed by all the Court that if a man make a Feoffment in Fee of a Mannor without deed and without saying with the appurtenances yet the Advowson shall pass and cited 15 Hen. 7. where it is adjudged that it is parcell of the Mannor and lieth in Tenure 21. IN an Action of debt Anderson cited a case which was before him at the Assises in Somersetshire Pleading an Action of Battery was brought in London and a Justification made in Somersetshire Absque hoc that he was guilty in London and the Plaintif replyed de injuria sua propriae absque tali causa and Anderson said that a man shall never plead de son tort demeasne where the matter ariseth in a Forein Country 22. AN ejectione firme was brought by Clayton against Lawson Bar. the Defendant pleaded in Bar a Recovery had in the Kings Bench against the Lessor of the Plaintif And Fenner moved that it should be no Bar no more than in Trespass Anderson I think it to be a good Bar. For this Action is as strong to bind the possession as a Writ of right is to bind the right VVyndam I think it is no Bar no more than in Trespass Anderson This is more than an Action of Trespass for in this he shall recover his Term. Rodes This case was moved the last Term and the opinion of the Court then was that it was a good Bar. Fenner True it is if it were between the parties themselves but here the Plaintif is but Lessee to him which was Barred Anderson Allthough that it be so yet he claymeth by the Lease of him which was Barred and during the Lease of the other his Lessor could have no right and what shall he have then Fenner That which is between the parties cannot be an Estoppell to the Plaintif here which is but a stranger Estoppell Anderson I know that he shall not plead it by way of Estoppell but he shall conclude Iudgement si Actio Peryam If in an Assise a Recovery in another Assise be pleaded in Bar Assise he shall not conclude by way of Estoppell but Iudgement si Actio and there he is driven to a higher Action and so here and the Law shall never have end if after a man is Barred in his Action he may bring the same Action again therefore I think it a good Bar and that he is driven to a higher Action VVyndam Lessee for years can have no higher Action Anderson Peryam If one which hath a Lease for years and no more Tenant for years disseisor of tenant in Fee simple enter upon him which hath a good title he is a disseisor of all the Feesimple Wyndam If two claim by Lease from one man and one bringeth an Ejectione Firme and is Barred what Action shall he have then Anderson None for he hath no Right VVyndam That is hard Anderson What Action shall he have which is Barred in Formdone surely none Fenner This is another case Anderson Aliquantulum incensus truly it is a plain case that he shall be Bared whereunto Peryam and Rodes agreed clearly 23. IN a praecipe quod reddat View the Tenant demanded the view and an habere facias visum issued and the Tenant came not to the Sherif to take the view it was said by the whole Court that the Sherif may retâ—urn that none came to take the view and he shall never have the view again Anderson The habere fac visum is the suit of the Tenant and then when he doth not come to take the view this is a default and then good reason to exclude him from the view Gawdy Such a retourn was never seen before and therefore it is to be noted the case was between Hoâ— and Hoo for Lands in Norfolk 24. IOhn VViseman of the Inner Temple Apportionment brought an Action of debt against Thomas VVallenger the case was this A man seised of three acres of Land in Fee makes a lease reserving xxx s of Rent and after devised the Reversion of two acres to a stranger and the third acre descended to the Heir and he brought an Action of debt for xij d. being behind and Puckering moved if they were agreed of their judgement in the case Rent extinct by the grant of part of the Reversion Anderson If a man let two Acres of Land rendring Rent and grant the Reversion of one of them all the Rent is gone as it is in Dyer and at the Common Law before the Statute of W. 3. there was no apportionment and the Statute speaketh of no such apportionment as this is Rodes Surely no Book in all the Law will warrant this apportionment Fenner Yes Sir 5 Ed. 3. If a man have a Rent of xx s and grants parcell thereof and the Tenant Attourns this is good Rodes This is another case But shew us the case which was in the Kings Bench
stand seised to the use of Adams untill he made default of paiment of the said sum and then they should stand seised to the use of the Queen untill she were satisfied and payed and then to the use of Adams and his Heirs And after Adams by deed enrolled sold the Land to a stranger in Fee and after the said stranger failed in paiment of the said yearly sum whereby the Queen seised the Land and so continued untill she was satisfied now the question was who should have the Lands Adams or the Bargainee Anderson Ifyou will take the case according to the words it is short tell me what Estate had Adams by this Limitation Puckering A Fee determinable Anderson How then can the Bargainee have it when the Estate is determined Puckering But the Fee was limited to Adams and his Heirs Possibility cannot be granted nor released Anderson This is but a possibility which cannot be granted over And if I were a Chancellor Adams should not have the Land but upon the words I tell you my mind alii Justie conticuerunt 3. DAniel Bettenham Plaintif against Debora Harlackendon Reversion upon a devise the case was this one Harlack was seised and deviseth it to the Plaintif for years the Remainder to the Defendant being his Wife for life and provided that the Lessee should pay the Wife xx l. a year for Rent at two Feasts and after the Plaintif failed of payment wherby the Wife entred for the Condition broken Anderson Wherefore may not a man make Reservation upon a Devise Peryam A man may reserve to himself or to his 〈◊〉 but this is to a stranger Anderson Every man which takes by a Devise is in in the per by the Devisor quod fuit concessum wherefore then shall not this be as a Reservationto the Devisor and as a grant of the Reversion to the Wife Gandy If it shall be a firm in gross Sum in gross yet I think that she ought to demand it which she hath not done Anderson and Rodes denyed that case clearly and that the contrary hath been adjudged Anderson If I Devise Lands to a man for years rendring Rent to me and mine Heirs Devise of a Reversion after a Term. And after I Devise the Reversion he shall have the Rent as incident to the Reversion Peryam This may be agreed but the cases are not like adjornatur 4. IN debt by Rostock Waging of Law the case was that the Plaintif and another made a Contract with the Defendant and the Plaintif alone brought the Action and Walmisley moved the Court if the Defendant may wage his Law for it is not the same Contract and he cited 20 Hen. 6. account before Auditors where it was but before one Auditor he may wage his Law 35 Hen. 6. is an express case in the point And so was the opinion of the Court Anderson absente 5. A Writ of Entry sur diss Voucher was brought by Sir Thomas Sherly against Grateway who vouched one Brown and he entred into the Warranty saving to himself a Rent issuing out of the same Land and this was allowed by the Court and the Voucher was in a Writ of entry for a Common Recovery to be had 6. EDward Smith brought his Action of the case against Winner Slander for words viz I was robbed of goods to the value of 40. l. they were stollen by Smith and his Houshold ipsum Edwardum ac quosdam Eliz. xuorem ac L. F. servientem ejus muendo and the issue was found for the Plaintif And the Defendant spake in arrest of Judgement because S. alone brought the Action But all the Court said that the Action is well brought for the slander is severall And Peryam that if 〈◊〉 a man say that three have robbed him Vno flatu and name them uno 〈◊〉 every of them may have a severall Action 7. IN an Assise by Thatcher where he was Redisseised Redisseisin the Redisseâ—â— was found in part and thereupon the Court was moved if Redisseisin will lie in as much as it is not but of part and the Writ is if he be Redissesitus de â—odem teneâ—â—nto then Redisseisin lieth but the Court held that Redisseisin lieth of part and that he shall recover damages as they are assessed by the Jury and not by the 〈◊〉 Then it was moved if Redisseisin lieth in Middlesex or 〈…〉 Fleetwood saith that the ancient Expositors have taken it that it doth not lie there because it is not coram lustic itinerant but all the Court held the contrary And Walmisley said that there be Writs in the Register accordingly 8. THe Earl of Kent brought debt upon an Obligation indorced with Condition Time convenient that if the Defendant do permit the Plaintif his Exâ—cutorâ—s and Assignes not onely to thresh the Corn in the Defendants Barn but allso to cary it away from time to time and at all times hereafter convenient with free Egress and Regress or else to pay 8 l. upon request that then c. and in truth the Defendant permited the Corn to be there two years in which time Mice and Rats had devoured much of it and then the Defendant threshed the Residue and the Earl brought his Action and there was a demurrer entred Walmisley the Bond is not forfeit for the Earl hath not taken it out in time convenient for he ought to take it in time convenient and time convenient is that which is not prejudiciall to any person which the Justices privily denyed and here it is a prejudice to the Defendant if the Plaintif will not carry away his Corn and thereupon he cited many cases that things shall be done in time convenient Arbitrement as in 21 Ed. 4. arbitrement ought to be made in time convenient Anderson Your cases are by act in Law but here you have bound your selves and the Condition is at time convenient and if he will come in the night or on the Sabbath day this is no convenient time but allthough that he come in a long time after yet it may be at time convenient and the words are not within time convenient and so was the opinion of the Court. And Windham said that if it had been within time convenient there would have been a difference 9. MIchael Hare and 3 others brought an Action of Trespass quare clausum fregit Trespass and Assigned the place in sixteen Acres of Land called Churchclose Contents of a new assignment and the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury found a speciall Verdict that Churchclose conteyneth fixty Acres whereof those sixteen were parcell and that diverse men were seised of divers other parcells of the said close and that Hare only was seised of the said sixteen Acres in which c. exposuit eas to the three other Plaintifs to be sown and that he should find half the seed and they three should find the other
de D. and a Lease had been made by name de Minister domus de D. omitting this word Dei every one will agree that this is voyd but if a further addition be made to the Corporation the Lease is true Addition superfluous shall not hurt allbeit that it be varying as if the Lease had been Minister Dei omnipotentis the addition of this word omnipotent shall not hurt sic de similibus And allbeit that it be not agreeing in words yet if it agree in common understanding Common understanding it is good but if in common understanding the grant may not be taken according to the Foundation if it be not wrested to an unexpected understanding there it is not good and if the Foundation had been in English words Minister of God of the poor house of Donington and the Lease by name of Minister of the poor house of God of Donington every one will agree that this is palpable variance and the Lease not good And I doubt of the case of Everwick for there the Prior beatâ—â— Mariae brought an action by name of Prior beatâ—â— Mariae extramures civitatis Ebor and if this case were now to be adjudged that would be variance as the case of Bristoll Prior beatae Maria de Bristoll made a Lease by name of Prior beatae Maria juxta Bristoll and this Lease was adjudged voyd but if the case had been de Everwick juxta mures civitatis Ebor. this had been no materiall variance for it had been but an explanation which will never hurt and for that the Court was so divided in opinion that is to say two against two and the case concerned a poor house They moved the parties to comprimise 8. RUswell brought disceipt against Vaughan Disceipt and declared that the Defendant sciens that he had no title to the Advowson of D. took upon him to be owner of that and sold the profits of the sayd Advowson to the Plaintif pro quadam pecunia summa And it was pleaded in arrest of Judgement for that the Plaintif did not aver ubi revera the Defendant had no title non allocatur 9. THe case was that the Queen made a Lease for years Burrough versus Taylor rendring rent at the receipt of her Exchequer or to the hands of her Baylif upon condition that if the rent be not payd that the estate shall cease Payment of rent the reversion being granted away by the Queen after the Queen granted over the reversion and whether the rent shall be now tendered upon the land or at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the person of the Assignee of the reversion was the question and it was adjudged that the Grantee of the reversion ought to demand the rent upon the Land or otherwise he shall not re-enter for the condition broken that for two causes the one for that that when the reversion was in the Queen Election the Lessee had election to pay it at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the hands of the Queens Baylif and when the Queen had granted over the reversion the election of the Lessee is tolled by which now the rent shall ensue the nature of other rents reserved by common persons The common receipt of the Exchequer and those are payable upon the lands another reason is every rent reserved by the Queen is of common right payable at the receipt of the Exchequer or to the Baylifs of the Queen without words appointing at what place it shall be payd for these are the usuall receipts of the Queen and so the words which appoint that to be payd at the receipt of the Excheq â—r to the hands of the Baylif of the Queen are idle words for that the Law appointeth so much of common right ex praerogativa Regis but when the reversion is transferred into the hands of a common person No prerogative can be granted over there this Prerogative ceaseth for it cannot be granted to a common person and by consequence the rent shall be payd upon the Land 10. THomas VVelcome Error Executor of Anthony VV. Executor of John VVelcome brought a Writ of Debt against S. S. in the Common-place and Judgement was given and entred quod praedictus Johannes VVelcome recuperet where it should have been quod praedictus Thomas VVelcome recuperet No amendment in point of judgement and for that Error was brought and Serjeant Heale moved that the Record might be mended for that it was the mis-entring of the Clerk but adjudged to the contrary for the Judgement is the act of the Court and not of the Clerk 11. EDmund Nevell brought an Action of Trespass against J. Sayle Abuttals and declared Quare clausum fregit in quodam loco vocato Claveringfield abuttan super quoddam molend in tenura J. S. Opinio Curiae If the Plaintif do not prove his Buttals he is gone And for that he could not prove that the Mill was in the tenure of J. S. the Jury being at bar was discharged and howbeit that there be a way between the Close and the Mill yet the Buttall is good 12. RIchard Somerstailes brought an Action upon the case for slanderous words Slanderous words that is to say R. S. is a very bad fellow for he made J. S. drunken in the night and consened him of an hundred Marks and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintif and Judgment was stayed for the words are not sufficient to maintain an Action 13. IF the Heir of the Morgagee is in Ward Mortgage and the Morgager payeth the mony his entry is not lawfull upon the King but shall be put to monstrans de droit per Popham chief Justice 14. HAmond brought Debt upon an Obligation against Hatch Award of paâ—t onely and the Condition was That if the Obligor do well and truly perform and keep the Award of J. S. Arbitrator indifferently chosen between the Plaintif and the Defendant for and concerning the matters contained in 9 severall Articles bearing date the day of these presents So that the same be given up under the hand and seal of c. And the Arbitrator made an award of 7 of the sayd Articles omitting the other two and whether the Obligor ought to perform this Award was the question Man I think he ought to perform the Award for that he is bound by Obligation to perform it and to prove that he cited 5 Edw. 4. 19 Hen. 6. 17 Edw. 4. Gawdy The words of the Condition are so that the same Award be given up in writing before such a day and that shall have reference to all the Articles for the Submission was conditionall as 14 Elizab. And after Judgement was given quod quer nihil capiat per billam 15. How against Broom and others A Man leased a House and a Close rendring rent and the Lessor entered into the house and pulled that down and after
Brough against Devison 143 58 Forfeiture of Copyhold 143 59 Lease for years Knevit against Poole 143 60 Prohibition Rame against Patison 145 61 Partridge against Nayler 145 62 Forfeiture 146 63 Quare impedit Lord Zouches case 146 64 Assumpsit Thornton against Kemp. 146 65 Prohibition Sherington against Fleetwood 147 66 Trust VVildgoose against VVayland 147 67 Reservation of Rent 148 68 Action for a Robbery 148 69 Outlary reversed 148 70 Fine with proclamation 148 71 Feoffment to a use 148 72 Tenure and Wardship 149 73 Devise 149 74 Prohibition Benefield against Finch 149 75 Oyer of a bond 150 76 Ejectione firme Beckford against Parnecole 150 77 Writ of Error Harecourts case 151 78 Trover Easts case 152 79 Writ of Error Wiseman against Baldwin 152 80 Assumpsit Pine against Hide 154 81 Prohibition Jacksons case 154 82 Trover and conversion 155 83 Assumpsit Chessins case 155 84 Assumpsit Dixon against Adams 156 85 Ejectione firme Ross against Ardwick 157 86 Trover Harding against Sherman 158 87 Debt upon a bond Paytons case 158 159 88 Trespass quare clausum fregit 159 89 Debt upon a bond Allen against Abraham 159 90 Account Huntly against Griffith 159 91 Scire Facias Lady Gresham against Man 160 92 Prohibition Ramsies case 161 93 Account 161 94 Indictment Hom's his case 162 95 Fine of Lands 162 96 Ejectione firme Robins against Prince 162 163 97 Scire facias Hoo against Hoo 166 98 Mackerell against Bachelor 168 99 Information Goodale against Butler 169 170 100 Scire facias Foe against Balton 170 101 Contra formam Collationis 111 102 Ejectione firme Cootes against Atkinson 171 103 Action for words Pollard against Armeshaw 172 104 Elegit Palmer against Humphrey 172 105 Covenant 173 174 106 Debt upon a bond Robinson against May 174 107 Audita querela Hobs against Tedcastle 174 175 108 Covenant Matures against Westwood 175 109 Assault and battery Sims his case 176 110 Trespass Goodale against Wyat 176 111 Ejectione firme Sayer against Hardy 179 112 Rent Walter against Walter 180 113 Debt upon an Escape 108 114 Vtlary after Judgement 108 115 Fine levied Sir Henry Jones case 181 116 Evidence Tutball against Smote 181 117 Debt Richard Thornes case 182 118 Debt Humble against Glover 182 119 Evidence Maidstone against Hall 182 120 Speciall Verdict Dickins against Marsh 182 183 121 Covenant Cole against Taunton 184 122 Grant 184 123 Error Brewster against Bewty 187 124 Trespass Pannell against Fen 185 125 Repleuin Second deliverance 185 126 Action for words Stitch against VVisedom 185 127 Accessary to Felony 185 128 Debt Thin against Chomley 186 129 Lease Harbin against Barton 185 103 Action for words Baddocks case 186 131 Debt upon a bond Staples against Hankinson 187 132 Error Boyer against Jenkins 187 133 Grant over 187 134 Ejectione firme Thomas against King 187 135 Trespass Oland against Bardwick 188 136 Error Ascough against Hollingworth 188 137 Trespass Bodeam against Smith 189 138 Name of purchase 189 139 Perjury 189 140 Obligation 190 141 De Term. Pasch Anno Elizab. Reg. xxviij 1. WAst war brought by Constance Foster Wast and another against Lessee for years in effect the case was such A man makes a Lease of certain Lands 44 Ed. 3. 34. b. 46 Ed. 3. 22. 28 Hen. 8. 19. a. excepting all manner of Woods the Lessee cuts down Trees and he in Reversion brings an Action of Wast and by the opinion of the Court the Lessee is not punishable in Wast for they were never let and therefore the Plaintif is driven to his Action of Trespass at the Common Law 2. THe Sherif returneth in a Writ of Right four Esquires to make the pannel Return and doth not say that there be any Knights it was sayd by the Court that he ought to return them which be and that there be no more 3. WAst was brought for digging in Land Wast and taking away Okes the Defendant pleaded in bar That the Queen by her Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England granted unto him that he might dig for Mines of Cole in the Land and prayed that it might be entred verbatim and a Grant under the Seal of the Exchequor was entred whereupon the Plaintif Demurred Now came Walmisley and would have amended it and by the opinion of the Court he cannot amend it after the Demurrer be entred Demurrer but Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif if he shew no other matter 4. A Man seised of Lands in Fee Devise and sale by Executors Deviseth to his Wife for life the Remainder to his Son in tayl and if his Son dye without issue of his body that then the Land shall be sold by his Executors and maketh two Executors and dyeth the Wife dyeth one Executor dyeth the Sonne dyeth without issue the other Executor selleth the Land and Gawdy the Queens Serjeant moved whether the sale be good or no and it seemeth to him that the sale is good and vouched the Case in 30 Hen. 8. Brook Devise 31. And now lately it was adjudged in the Kings-bench where a man did Devise his Lands in tayl and for default of such issue that the Land shall be sold by his Sonnes-in-law and dieth having five Sonnes-in-law the one dyed the others sold the Land and this was adjudged a good sale Anderson It seemeth the sale is not good for if one make a Letter of Attorney to two to make Livery and Seisin Livery if the one dye the other cannot doe it So if one grant the Office of Stewardship to two the one of them cannot hold Court alone Stewardship And if one of them may sell to what intent was the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. cap. 4. that those which take the Administration may sell Windham The Statute will not prove the case but it seemeth the sale to be naught And there is a difference where one giveth an interest to two and when he giveth but an authority Interest for an interest may survive but an authority cannot Authority Rodes to the same intent and cited M. 4 Eliz. fol. 219. a. 177. 210. 371. 5. BAttery Battery by Webster against Pain the Action was layd in London and in truth the Battery was committed at Uxbridge in Midlesex the Defendant pleaded that such a day and year at A. in the County of Huntington 11 H. 4. f. 3. 11 H. 4. f. 61. 22 H. 6. f. 33. 21 H. 6. f. 9. 9 E. 4. f. 46. 43 E. 3. 23. the Plaintif made an assault upon him and the hurt c. absque hoc that he is guilty in London Snag moved that the Traverse should not be good Anderson Will you have him to say absque hoc that he is guilty that he ought not for by the speciall matter he hath confessed the Battery and you will not deny but that if his Plea be true he hath good cause to bar the
Priority which is not corporall neither ought it to be put in view in Assise and 21 Hen. 6. a. Tenant of the Land shall Attorn upon the grant of a rent charge and 33 Ed. 3. Priority shall hold place when the remainder falleth and not when it is granted 17 Ed. 2. and Dyer Tr. 23 Eliz. pl. 1. Then Sir when the foundation out of which the rent is issuing is gone the rent is allso gone and therefore let us see what authority Tenant in tayl hath in the remainder At the Common Law there was no Formdone in descender or remainder and the Statute of W. 2. cap. 1. provides but for two persons viz. he in reversion and the issues but Formdone in remainder is taken by the equity 50 Ed. 3. If Tenant for life be the remainder in tayl to another the remainder in fee to the Tenant for life and he makes wast Wast Bargain de remain Tenant in remainder shall punish him and Fitzh nat br fol. 193. a. Cui in vita by a wife which was Tenant in tayl upon the alienation of her husband And I think that if he in remainder bargain his remainder that it is voyd and he cannot grant to another that he shall dig in the soyl for by 2 Hen. 7. he in reversion cannot doe so 12 Ed. 4. Recovery suffered shall bind the issue 7 Ed. 3. no attaint lieth for him in remainder of a verdict given against Tenant for life Nul attaint pur tenant in rem then in this case he in remainder cannot enter and the Grantee shall not be in a better estate than his Grantor and then if he shall never enter frustra est illa potentia qua nunquam reducitur in actum The reason for the grant is good for when Tenant in tayl dyeth without issue he in remainder shall be in by the first gift in proof whereof is 33 Hen. 6. he in remainder shall be in ward Ward and in 11 Hen. 4. in Formdone in descender Formdone he shall say that the possession was given to his father Prebendary And a Prebendary cannot charge before induction Ioyntenants But if two Jointenants be and the one charge all and the other disclaimeth the charge is good from the beginning And the Recoverer here is not under the charge for allthough he hath that estate which he in remainder should have if Tenant in tayl had not aliened yet is he a meer stranger and in by another title 10 Ed. 3. If two Jointenants be Charge per Ioyntenant and the one charge this is good conditionally that he which chargeth shall survive And if Tenant pur auter vie charge and die occupans shall hold it discharged So in this case for he is not in of this possession Moreover there is a mischief if this charge be good for then the Land may be charged by two severall persons at once which shall not be suffered but yet if cestui que use charge and the Feoffees charge both are good for the one is by the Common Law Charge per cest que use Feoffees 28 Ed. 3. 10. b. and the other by the Statute Law So if Lessee for years charge and he in reversion charge and after Lessee for years surrender but this is in severall respects and I put this case for Law Ch. per lessee per enreversion that if he in the remainder bind himself in a Statute Merchant Stat. Merch. per test en rem ne charge le poss this shall not charge the possession And if in this case he will grant the rent over none ought to Attorn and therefore voyd and Littleton saith that he in remainder shall not falsifie No attornment Falsifying and 26 Hen. 8. the Grantee of lessee for years shall not falsifie for the nature of falsifying is properly to find a fault wherefore it should not be good and what fault can he find in this case surely none Successor lie per confession 4 Hen. 7. 1. a. 20 Hen. 6. Abbot confesseth an Action the Successor is bound And further it is within the Statute of 27 El. for fraudulent deeds and we need not to plead the covin for the Statute is generall Fraudulent faits and vouched Wimbish case in the Comentaries and so the Replevin is maintainable And after at the motion of the Justices the Defendant agreed that the Plaintif should amend his Plea and allege the Covin Et adjornatur untill Michaelmas Term following because there were so many Demurrers hanging to be argued in Trinity Term next But afterwards judgement was given against the Rent charge 12. KIng Hen. 8. gave certain lands to Sir Edward Bainton Trespass Knight and to the heirs males of his body engendred who had issue Andrew and Edward and dyed Andrew afterwards convenanted with the Lord Admirall Thomas Seymer that he would convey an Estate of those Lands to himself for life the remainder to the Lord Seymer in Fee and in like manner the Lord Seymer convenanted to convey an Estate of other Lands to himself for life the remainder to Andrew Bainton in Fee Afterwards Andrew Bainton levyed a Fine and executed the estate according to the covenant on his part Afterwards the Lord Seymer before performance of the covenant on his part was attainted of High Treason and all his Lands forfeited to King Edward the sixth who dyed without issue and the Lands descended to Queen Mary to whom Andrew Bainton sued by Petition and shewed how she had those Lands to the disinherison of him and his heirs and Queen Mary by her Letters Patents ex certa scientia ex merâ— motu c. granted to Bainton all those Lands and Tenements which he had covenanted to convey to the Lord Seymer and all reversions thereof in as ample manner as she had them Et ulterius ex uberiori gratia sua she granted all reversions claims and demands qua ad manus suas devenerunt ratione c. aut in manibus suis existunt aut existere deberent Afterwards Andrew Bainton levyed a Fine of those Lands to one Segar in Fee and dyed without issue then Edward Bainton entred and Segar brought his Action of Trepass Puckering It seemeth that the entry of Edward Bainton is congeable and so the Action not maintainable First let us see what passeth by this Grant of Queen Mary to Andrew Bainton and then whether a Fine levyed by Tenant in tayl the reversion being in the Queen be a bar to the tayl by the Statute of 4 Hen. 7. The first Fine as it is pleaded is not pleaded with proclamations and therefore but a discontinuance and remains but as at the Common Law At the Common Law before the Statute of Dâ—nis conditionalibus a Fine levyed was a bar to all men for all Inheritances were Fee simples then by that Statute it was ordained Quod neque per factum neque feofamentum of the Tenant
in tayl the issue should be barred After which Statute as I intend the Law was such that when Tenant in tayl levied a Fine of such a thing as he might discontinue and the Fine executed in possession allthough the words of the Statute were Ipso jure sit nullus yet the issue was put to his Formdone but if it were a Fine Executory then by the death of the Tenant in tayl the issue was remitted and the Fine voyd But now by the Statute of 4 Hen. 7. the Law is made otherwise and for that here it is to be granted that he cannot discontinue the estate tayl because the reversion is in the King as it was now lately adjudged in the Exchequer in the case of Gillebrand ergo here the estate doth not pass to the Feoffees by the first Fine when he took an estate again to himself for life the remainder to the Lord Seymer in Fee but a Fee simple determinable then when the Lord Seymer was attainted Queen Mary had such an estate as the Lord Seymer had which was a Fee determinable and she had another Fee absolute in jure Coronae After when he sued by Petition he did not shew to the Queen what estate he had nor what estate the Queen had but that it was to the disinherision of him and his heirs then the Queen grants reversionem inde adeo plene libere integre as she had it or as it came to her by the Act of Parliament And I think when the Queen gives by generall words she doth not give any special Prerogative And for that 8 Hen. 4. fol. 2. A grant to the Bishop of London to have catalla c. and 9 Eliz. 268. in Dyer the case of the Dutchy of Cornwall 8 Hen. 6. the King pardons all Felonies this is no pardon of the Outlawry and especially when the Queen hath two interests it shall be construed beneficially for the Queen as 9 Edw. 4. Grant of an Office where the Grantee was no denison see there Baggots Assise and 38 Hen. 6. the King grants Land to J. S. for the life of himself and J. D. and after grants the reversion upon the life of one of them And further the case in Dyer where Queen Mary grants in Manerium de Bedminster in Com. Somerset 5. 13 El. fol. 306. a. Then Sir the Patent is that the Queen intendens dare congruum remedium in praemissis c. and when he iueth to the Queen by Petition Petition certain all titles ought to be in the Petition 3 Hen. 7. 1 H. 7. a Latin case the case of the corody and this is in nature of a Petition therfore ought to be certain then the Patent is Et ulterius ex uberiori gratia sua concessit omnes reversiones quae ad manus suas devenerunt ratione actus Parliamenti c. aut in manibus suis existunt vel existere deberent c. and they are not to be expounded so largely as to make the reversion to pass for if those words ratione c. were before admanus suas c. or after in manibus suis existunt then it cannot be intended but the reversion shall not pass to Bainton Now when in manibus suis existunt come after these words References ratione c. for references are to be intended according to the meaning of the parties Devise 29 lib. Ass 14 Eliz. Dyer Devise of all Acres except a Lease for 30 years And those words aut existere deberent ought to have some relation ergo it ought to be intended quae in manibus suis existunt ratione attincturae c. and this will not make any grant of the reversion For the meaning of the Queen was because Bainton had no recompense of the other Lands No use to give him these for no use was in him by the covenant of Seymer as it is agreed 1 Maria fol. 96. so nothing passed but that which was in the Queen by reason of the atteynder of Seymer For the other matters I think that A. Baynton is not Tenant in tayl by the grant again but admit him so yet he cannot discontinue neither is he bound by the Statute of 4 Hen. 7. for the Statute doth not extend but to such things which are touched by the Fine things which are not touched doe not pass as Commons Rents Wayes Claim per lessee purâ—ans alit postea si soit en post c. Br. Fines 123. 30 Hen. 8. fol. 32. And it hath been adjudged in Sanders case 21 Eliz. that Lessee for yeares need not to make claim within five years and vouched the opinion of Br. tit Fines 121. accordingly that the issue shall not be barred And as the King is privileged so are his possessions allthough that afterwards they come into a subjects hands Generall restraint And where one hath a special Grant allthough a general Restraint come after if he doe not speak specially of this the Grant shall be good in many cases as 19 Hen. 6. fol. 62. the Parson of Edingtons case Br. Patents 16. and the case of the Abbot of Waltham 21 Ed. 4. fol. 44. Br. tit Exemption 9. in 19 Hen. 8. it was doubted if the issue of a common person should be barred ergo the issue in tayl the reversion being in the King is not barred And the Statute of 32 Hen. 8. is generall as well for those which were of the gift of the King as others and therefore afterwards there was another Statute made which excepted those which were of the gift of the King as it was before the Statute of 32 H. 8. and it was a vain thing to make this Statute of Exception if it were a bar before by the Statute of 4 H. 7. And for authority I have a report delivered me by a Sage antient in the Law that in 16 17 El. in Jacksons case where Lands were given in tayl the remainder to the King in fee the Tenâ—nt in tayl levyed a fine after the Statute of 32 H. 8. by the opinion of the Court Difference per enter rem reversion in le Roy. this was a bar but the Court then sayd that otherwise it should be if the reversion were in the King as our case is wherefore seeing there is neither discontinuance nor bar in the case his entry is congeable and the Action not maintainable Walmisley to the contrary I will agree that it is not any discontinuance yet he may admit him out of possession if he will as in 18 Edw. 3. Where Tenant in tail the Reversion in the King makes a Lease for life and hath two Daughters and died and Lessee for life was impleaded and upon his default the two daughters prayed to be received and so they were and as me seemeth the Petition made by him to the Queen shall not prejudice or hinder the Grant ex mero motuâ— and vouched 3 H. 7. fol.
Livery per baron and would have made Livery but the Wife would not agree to the Livery yet notwithstanding the contradiction of the Wife the Livery was Adjuged good 33 Hen. 6. Husband and Wife are Plantifs in an Assise Nonsuite del feme and the Husband would Prosecute but the Wife would be Nonsuite the act of the Husband shall be accepted and the act of the Wife rejected So if the Husband will make an Attourny and the Wife wil dissavow him Attourny yet he shall be their Attourny And as I think this Limitation by the Husband shall bind the Wife in perpetuity Case per fine indentare Difference Juris clamat For if the Husband make a Lease of the wifes Land for 100 years the Wife may avoid it after his death but if after they both Levy a Fine the Lease shall be good-for ever And 11 Hen. 4. He in Reversion and one which hath nothing Levy a Fine quid juris clamat shall be brought against them both And as I conceive it it shall be counted her folly Reentry per condition that will take such a Husband as will Limit such uses For if a Wife hath an Estate in Land upon condition for not payment of Rent that the Feoffor shall reenter if she take a Husband which doth not pay the Rent whereby the Feoffor or his Heires reenter the Estate of the Wife is utterly defeated And in 4 Ed. 2. A woman Tenant takes a Husband Cessavit who ceaseth by two yeares whereby the Lord bringeth a Cessavit and recovereth the Inheritance of the Wife she shall be bound And this appeareth in Fitzh in Cui invita 21. And it shall be so if the Wife hath but a Freehold Wast as it is in 3 Ed. 3. A woman Lessee takes a Husband who maketh Wast whereby the Land is recovered and 48 Ed. 3. fol 18. Husband and Wife sell the Land of the Wife this is onely the sale of the Husband but if after they Levy a Fine this shall bind the Wife And for express Authority it is the case in Dyer Joynture fol. 290. a pl. 2. And so it is a Common case if a man seised of Lands takes a Wife who hath a Jointure in his Land and he makes a Limitation of uses and after they both Levy a Fine this shall be the Limitation by the Husband because it shall be intended that the Wife consented if it doth not appear to the contrary Whereby the Declaration of the use here by the Husband shall be good to bind the Wife and therefore Judgement ought to be given for the Plantif Feâ—ner to the contrary for here the Inheritance is in the Wife and where the Husband limits further than he hath Authority there the Law shall make a Declaration of the uses for the Husband cannot Limit uses of that which he hath not 21 Ed. 3. A man takes a Wife seised of Lands in Fee Atteynder del feme and before that the Husband was intitled to be Tenant by the Curtesie the Wife was attainted of Treason Homage the Land shall be forfeit and 44 Ed. 3. He shall not make Homage Conusans before he be intitled to be Tenant by the Curtesie 12 R. 2. Conusans shall be made by the Bayley of the Husband in the name of the Husband and Wife Warranoy And in this case the Conisee is in in the per by the Wife and Warranty made to the Husband shall inure to the Wife and 18 Ed. 3. A man seised of a Mannor in right of his Wife Villain to which there is a Villain regardant the Villain Purchaseth Lands the Husband shall be seised of the Perquisite in right of his Wife And yet otherwise it is where a man is Lessee for years of a Mannor to which c. For he shall be seised of the Perquisite in his own Right Divorce 12. lib. Ass If he be Divorced his Estate is gone Lease Rent ch diversity And I agree to the case put by my Brother Shut Where the Husband makes a Lease for years and after he and his Wife levy a Fine there the Lease shall be good but if the Husband grant a Rent charge and after he and his Wife Levy a Fine I do not agree that this is good for in the first case the Conisee found one which had an Interest in the Land but not in the last Then Sir here the Husband hath no power to Limit the use for the Land of his Wife to indure for ever Feoffee al use 28 Hen. 8. The Feoffece to use at the Common Law Limits an use to a stranger this Devesteth the first use but if he limit is to cestui que use then it is an ancient use and not new And so it is if Tenant for life and he in Reversion levy a Fine this shaâ—l be to the use of him in Reversion 2 Loyntenants And so if two Joyntenants be in Fee and they limit severall uses this shall be good according to their limitations for the Moities of either of them and for no more And if Husband and Wife levy a Fine to the use of the Husbands Sonne Fits del baron yet this is to the use of the Wife but if he be the Wifes Sonne allso then this is a good consideration and the use shall be accordingly And these cases I put to this intent that when a man limits an use which is repugnant Vse repugnant or further than he hath Authority the Law shall make a Declaration of the same use for Bracton saith Nemo potest ad alterum plus juris tranferre quam ipse habet And I take the Law if Husband and Wife levy a Fine of the Lands of the Wife and render back to the Wife in Tail Fine levie de terres del feme Oâ—e râ—eder al feme en tail and the Husband dye and the Wife discontinue that this is not a Purchase of the Husband within the Statute of 11 Hen. 7. And so it was here adjuged in 18. of Eliz. in Alexanders case And I agree to that which hath been said that the Wife only cannot limit uses but because the Jury hath found for â—he Defendant if the limitation by the Husband be not good as I think it is not then Judgement shall be given for the Defendant Concessum Adjornatur 14 WIlliam Knight Eject firm as Eessee for yeas to Sir John Fortescne and Rich. Thikston Gentleman brought an Executione firme against W. Breâ—h of one Mesnage with the Appurtenances in Themilstreet in the Parish of St. James Clarkenwell the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury appeared at the Bar and Evidence given on both sides And at the length the Plantif Demurred in Law upon the Evidence given for the Defendant Demurrer al evidence and thereupon the Jury were discharged And now Gawdy the Queens Serjeant
came to the Bar and demanded Judgement for the Plantif The case and rehersed the case in this sort The Prior of St Johns of Jerusalem in England by deed Indented A. 29 H. 8. Devised a Mesuage called the high House 13 Cotages one Stable and 14 Gardens for 59 yeares to one Cordaâ—l rendring 5. l. 6. s 11. d. viz. For the 13 Cotages iij. l. And for the high house xiiij s and for the Stable xx s and for c. And if it happen the Rent to be behind by three months then the Prior to reenter after by an act of Parliament An. 31. Hen. 8. the Priory was given to the King and hee Vested in actuall Possession thereof with all Conditions and Covenants c. as the Lessor had Afterwards the King 29. Sept. An. 36. by Letters Patents gave the Stâ—ble to the same Cordall and one H. Audley in Fee and the Reversion of the other Parcells descended to the Queen which now is whereupon 8 die Maii An. 23. Issued a Commission out of the Exchequer to enquire si praedict Cordall assign sui perimplevissent performassent omnes conventiones promissiones fact reservat super praedict Indent dimissionis praemissis fact c. And the Commission was retourn'd in Michaelmas Term after and it was found that the four usuall Terms in London are the Feasts of St. Michael the Birth of our Lord the Annunciation and the Birth of St. John Baptist for the Rent was to be paid ad quatuor terminos Anni infra Civitatem London usuales Vsuales terminos And further by the same Iury being a Iury of Middlesex it was found that 37. s 5. d. ob Part and Parcell of the said Rent were behind not paid by three Months next after Michaelmas last past before the taking of the said Inquisition Cordall made Burnell his Executor and died Burnell granted all the Term to Brech the Defendant Afterwards the Queen 5 Augusts An. 23. which was before the return of the Inquisition and before any Entry or Seisure made by her or by any other to her use granted the high House to Sir John Fortescue and Thekston in Fee and they entred upon Berch and made the Lease to the Plantif for three yeares c. And first it is to be considered if they be severall Rents in this case or no Severall Rents because he saith viz. For the high house 14. s c. For that I take the Law to be very strong Coâ—cessum per Fenner Rodes that they be severall Rents for allthough that he saith first requiring 5. l. 6. s xj d. which is an entire summe yet when he saith afterwards for the high House so much and for the Stable so much c. This maketh a severance and for that I will remember the case in Dyer fo 308 Feoffment per deux so I hold the Law if a Feoffment be made by two rendring xx l. a year viz. x. l. to the one and x. l. to the other these are severall Reservations but because I hold the Law clear in this point I will speak no more to it Another matter is when the Commission issueth to enquire of all Covenants and Promises conteined in the Indenture to be performed by Cordall Conc. per Rodes Lease sur condicion en un proviso if the finding by the Jury be conteined within these words Covenants and Promises c. And I think they be for if a man make a Lease to one for years and if it happen the said Rent to be behind that then it shall be lawfull to the Lessor to reenter as I think this is a Proviso for the Rent so the case in 22 Hen. 6. A Lease was made for years Rent an agreement rendring Rent the Lessee is bound to perform all covenants and agreements if he do not pay the rent the obligation is forfeit Coâ—cess per Fenner for the payment of the rent is an agreement So in this case the proviso doth extend to the payment of the rent And as for the exception which was taken viz. That the Jury find that 37 s of the rent was behind and doe not say expresly for the house which is now in question I hold that a vain exception for when they have found that more was behind than that which was now in question allthough that it be in generality yet it is good for the particularity and for that matter I could remember many cases but I will not doubt of a matter as I think without doubt But for the condition which is the great matter of the case First the condition is vested in the King by the express words of the Statute and Condition as I think grant of parcell shall not extinguish the whole condition In the case of a common person the condition shall be utterly gone and so are our Books otherwise peradventure I would doubt of that allso but because the Book is so in Dyer 14 Eliz. fol. 309. I will speak no more of it but the case of the King differs from a common person Rent charge to the King rent seck for as he is the Head and supreme Governour of the Commonwealth so he is the superior in Prerogatives and Preheminences 13 Ed. 3. 14 Ed. 3. A rent charge granted to the King he shall distrein for it in all the lands of the Grantor and 8 Hen. 5. if a rent seck cometh to the King he shall distrein for it and yet it is called seck because no distress is incident thereto And there the principall case was of a Fieri facias No demand by the King 2 Hen. 7. the King shall not demand his rent But it hath been sayd that because conditions go to the destruction and determination of estates Cond strictly taken that therefore they shall be tâ—ken strictly to which I agree but not in the case of the King as in Bro. Apportionment 23. 168. and so are the presidents in the Exchequer if a man be bound in a Statute Merchant and after the Conisor enfeoffes the King of parcel of the land Conisor enfeoffes le Roy. and enfeoffes a stranger of another parcell and afterwards the Statute is forfeit to the King by atttainder the King shall have execution against the other feoffee And in many other cases the King is privileged especially in things entire For if there be two Coparceners and one be in ward to the King Entire presentation he shall have the entire presentation of all And in this case I think that before the condition shall be destroyed that the Patent made to Cordall shall be voyd for it is not ex certa scientia merâ— motâ— but it is generall and it was not the intent of the King to take away the intire condition And allthough the King grants the reversion yet the condition which was once vested in the King as I think remains in him
charges except Rents and Services which shall be due after c. to the chief Lord And afterward he made and levyed a fine And after the Wife maried and then the Son entred and the Administrator of the Wife brought debt upon the Obligation against the Administrators of him in Reversion and averred that the Land at the time of the Feoffment was charged with the said Lease of 31 yeares Walmisley It seemeth that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif because it was not discharged at the time of the Feoffment For in the Commentaries a man Deviseth his Term to his Wife until his Son come to full age Com. fo 539. after at his full age the Son shall have it so that there it was chargable to the Entry of the Son hereafter And here allthough that it be not presently charged yet when there is a charge arise the Covenant is broken And for that in 8 Eliz. a man bargains and sells Land Rent charge future and Covenants that it shall be discharged of all charges and he had granted a Rent before to begin twenty years after when the Rent begins it shall be said a breach And this is not like the case in 3 Hen. 7. 12. b. Where Tenant in Tayl disseiseth the Tenant of the Land c. And so I think Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif Fenner to the contrary and here the Term was extinct by the grant end sale and then the Feoffment void and therefore no charge and thereupon no charge at the time of the Feoffment and for that he cited 42 Ed. 3. 11 Hen. 7. 20. where Tenant in Dower infeoffs the Heir without deed c. so here in that she took nothing by the Feoffment there was no charge at the time of the Feoffment And this possibility of a remainder doth not make an interest and thereupon he cited 8 Ed. 3. 3. Fitz. resceipt 35 Resceit upon Cond where Tenant for life lets the Land to one upon condition that if he dye in the life of the Lessor that it shall retourn to the Lessor c. upon such a matter he may be received and he cited for that the case of Wheler 14 Hen. â— fol. 17. and a title suspended is no title 3 Hen. 7. 12. 30 Ed. 3. Lease for life upon condition that if the Rent be behind then he shall retain the Land c. and he said that the opinion of Bâ—omley in Fulmerstons case was contrary thereunto but yet he said in 3 Eliz. he hath a report which was adjudged contrary to the opinion of Bromley And allso he cited 50 Ed. 3. that a man shall not have the Rent and the Tenancy of the Land allso And so it seemed to him that the Plaintif shall be barred 18. THE case of Fr. Ashpool was moved again by Fenner Hue and cry and it seemed to him that the Plaintif ought to make Hue and cry for as he said it hath allwaies been the manner of pleading and allso it hath been allwaies parcell of his issue to prove Allso he argued that he should not have remedy by the Statute post occasum solis For Stamford saith expresly that if a man be robbed in the day that he shall have remedy and the day shall be said but from the rising of the Sun to the fall thereof for the words of the Statute are that the Gates of the walled Towns shall be shut ab occasu usque ad ortum solis and then if the Gates be shut and that walled Town be within a Hundred how can they make Hue and cry And the case in 3 Ed. 3. is not like to this case Fresh suit by the Hundreders for there it was enquired and found of the Dozen Anderson The fresh suit mentioned in the Statute ought to be made by the Inhabitants and not by the parties and I am of your opinion that Hue and cry was at the Common Law but what of that But look the Statute and there is no word of Hue and cry And the Statute of 28 Ed. 3. is an exposition of that Statute and there is no mention thereof but Fresh suit is there mentioned which ought to be made by the Inhabitants And by those Statutes it seemeth clearly that the Inhabitants ought to guard the Country in such sort as men may safely travell without robbing And for the night Sir wee ought to construe it as it is most reasonable and about the setting of the Sun is the common time of robbing and therefore if this shall not be intended by the Statute nothing shall be intended and allthough the walled Towns cannot persue Walled Towns may keep the waies yet they may keep the waies so that no robberies shall be committed and this is both day and night as I think And if a man be slain in the robbery so that no Hue and cry can be made I doubt not but the Country shall answer for the robbery A man is robbed slain and bound and so if he be bound And if Hue and Cry ought to be when ought it to be For if a man be bound two dayes together he had as good make no Hue and cry as make Hue and cry afterwards and yet I hope you will agree that this man shall be relieved by the Statute which case was agreed by all the Court. Peryam The day without doubt is after the Sun-set Day after Sun-set Rodes cited the case of waging Battail in an Appeal in Stamford And so by agreement of all the Justices Judgement was entred for the Plaintif but Fenner sayd privately that in his conscience it was against the Law yet notwithstanding all the Judges were clear in opinion and the Serjeants of the other part allso So that it seemed to the Judges that no Hue and Cry is necessary by the party for they all agreed that the Country ought to be kept so that no Robberies be committed And Anderson and Rodes affirmed precisely that it is not necessary and the other agreed in the reason thereof and sayd that it is not mentioned in the Statute but sayd that the waies ought to be kept so that men may travell safely or otherwise it is against the Statute 19. IN a Writ of False Judgement brought against the Mayor Tryall Sherifs Citizens and Commonalty of Norwich it was moved where the Issue shall be tryed and per Curiam it shall not be tryed there but yet the Action may be used there And in the same case it was demanded Summons if the Sherif may summon himself and the Court answered that he could not and Peryam sayd that so it hath been adjudged here many times 20. THe â—ast day of the Term the matter of Lassels was moved again and it seemed to Anderson that the Obligation is voyd in that there is an express form limited by the Statute and this varying from the form in substance is voyd for in his opinion he excludes the
conjunction 4. WAlmisley moved concerning the Quare impedit brought by the Queen And he thought that she shall recover Avoidance for the avoidance is by Privation and the same party is presented again and and if these shifts may be used the Queen shall never have a Lapse for then the Incumbent shall be deprived and the same Incumbent presented Fenner to the contrary and said that where her title is restrained to a time there she shall have no Prerogative to the prejudice of a third person nor to alter their Estates And for that in 1 Ed. 3. if the King have a Lordship and Rent and he grant the Lordship over and retain the Rent and after the Land escheats the Rent is gone The year day and Waâ—t as in the case of a common person and the Queen shall have the year day and Wast but if Tenant for life dy she shall not have it Dower against Guardian And in Dower against the Guardian if the Heir come to full age the Writ shall abate 5. AN Action upon the case was brought for calling the Plaintif Bankrupt Bankrupt and a Verdict passed for the Paintif And now Shutleworth shewed in arrest of Judgement that the Plaintif had not declared that he was a Merchant or of any Mystery or trade And the Court held the Declaration insufficient for the same cause and made a rule for stay of the Judgement accordingly 6. IN a Replevin brought by Mary Colthirst against Thomas Delves Discent of a third part it was agreed by three Justices Anderson being in the Starchamber that if a man have Lands held in chief to the value of 60 l. that he may Devise Lands to the value of 40. l. if he suffer the rest to the value of 20. l. to descend to his Heir And therefore they overruled it upon evidence to the Jury that where one Barners was seised of the Mannor of Toby in the County of Essex and was allso seised of the Mannor of Hinton in the County of Gloucester Entire Mannor and all those were held by Knights service in chief and deviseth the Mannor of Toby to his Wife for life that his Heir at the Common Law shall have no part thereof if the Mannor of Hinton amounteth to the third part of all his Lands Allso they overruled that if a man after Mariage convey a Joynture to his Wife and dy that after the Wife may refuse the Joynture Refusall of Joynture and demand her Dower at the Common Law Allso that by refusall in the Country she may wave her Joynture and hold her to her Dower and that this is a sufficient Election Allso they held that if a man makes a Joynture to his Wife during the Coverture Devise for Joynture and after by his Testament deviseth other Lands to her in stead of her Joynture that she may refuse the Joynture and hold her to the Devise and that this shall be good by the Statute and yet Gawdy moved to the contrary because the Statute is that she may refuse the Joynture and hold her to the Dower but the three Justices overruled it clearly and said that such was the meaning of the Statute No wayving after agreement but they agreed that if she have once agreed to the Joynture that she cannot waive it afterwards Allso they agreed that if a Wife do once refuse her Joynture in her own house amongst her servants and not to the Heir that yet this is a good Refusall And Peryam said for Law that where a Joynture is conveyed to the Wife during the Coverture Refusall by bringing Dower and after the death of her Husband she say nothing but bringeth a Writ of Dower that this is a good Refusall aud so he hath seen in experience 7. AN Action upon the case was brought by John Cuttes against an antient Attourney of the Court Slander for these words viz. John Cutts was one of those which robbed Humphrey Robbins And they were at issue and it was found for the Plaintif And it was alleged in arrest of Judgement that the words were spoken in Queen Maries time as appeareth by the Declaration And yet the opinion of the Court was that he should have his Judgement allthough peradventure robberies were pardoned by Parliament after that time 8. CArleton brought Entry sur disseisin against Carre Abatement for part who for part pleaded that he had nothing but in Right of his Wife not named c. and so demanded Judgement of the Writ and for the rest he pleaded in bar and they joyned issue for both and the Jury appeared at the bar and found both the issues for the Defendant And now the question was whether the Writ shall abate for all or no because for part it was found that the Defendant had nothing but in right of his Wife or whether it shall abate but for this part onely And Shuttleworth argued that it should abate for part onely and he resembled it to Joyntenancy in which case it shall abate but in part and he cited Dier 291. 7 R. 2. titulo joint 8. E. 1. titulo breif 860. Severall Tenancy And VValmisley said that it was more like to a severall Tenancy in which case all shall abate as in non tenure but Peryam said to him put a case where severall Tenancy shall abate all the Writ Anderson Joyntenancy and seised in right of his Wife is all one to this effect and intent Joyntenancy for in Joyntenancy he confesseth that he is sufficient enough but that another hath right as well as himself allso And so where he confesseth that he is seised in right of his Wife he confesseth that he is Tenant but that another ought to be named with him Peryam True it is that there is no difference concerning this purpose and intent and if the Recovery be had against the Husband sole he shall be bound And at length all the Iustices agreed that the Writ shall abate but in part and that Judgement shall be given for the rest and so for that residue the Judgement was nihil capiat per breve vide 3 Hen. 4. 2. 13 Eliz. fol. 301. 9. AT this day Walmisley prayed Judgement in the Quare impedit for the Queen Lapse Anderson we are all agreed that the Queen shall have Judgement for the reason of the mischief For otherwise when the Queen hath a Lapse divolved unto her one shall be Presented and afterwards deprived so that the Queen shall never have her Lapse And it differeth much from the case of that avoidance which cometh by the Act of God for this is by the Act of the party and the refore Covenous And so let Judgement be entred for the Queen 10. A Writ was ad respondendum I. S. Fidei uxori ejus and the Defendant pleaded in abatement of the Writ because the name of the Wife was Faith in English therefore they pretended that it should
Plaintif wherefore if we shall not allow this Plea we shall take the Defendant from his remedy to plead which God forbid And in 2 Ed. 4. fol. 6. b. In Trespass the Defendant shewed speciall matter in London where the Action was brought in Midlesex Tota Curia Nelson Prothonotarie hath shewed a president in 2 Ed. 4. where such a Plea as this was pleaded wherefore the Plea is good 6. NElson Trespass Prothonotary brought a Writ of Trespass against another in effect the case was thus The Abbot of Westminster was seised of Lands Vnity of possession of Common to which he had common in the Lands of a Prior afterwards by the Statute of Dissolutions as well the Lands of the Abbot as of the Prior were given to King Hen. 8. And after that the Dean of Westminster had a grant of the Mannor which the Abbot had and Nelson had the other Mannor which the Prior had into which a Tenant of the Deans put his beasts 11 H. 4. 5. 14 H. 4. 24 E. 3. 25. Br. Extinguishment 14 Ass pl. 20. claiming Common as once it was in the hands of the Prior and Nelson brought his Action of Trespass Walmisley moved that the Tenant should have his Common Peryam Is this a new case It hath been adjudged heretofore that by the union of possession the Common is gone Anderson to Walmisley Have you any reason why the Common shall not be gone Walmisley No my Lord if the Statute will not help us for the Statute is that the King shall have it in the same plight as the Abbot had it and the Abbot had Common ergo c. Windam So is the Statute but the Statute doth not say that it shall continue so in the hands of the King and it is impossible that it shall continue in the hands of the King as it was in the hands of the Abbot therefore the Common is gone Rodes assented 7. MOor brought a Quare impedit Quare impedit after Judgment had a Writ to the Bishop of Norwich and at the alias the Bishop returned that after the awarding of the first Writ and before the receipt of the second the Queen had presented the same Defendant by her Letters Patents who is admitted instituted and inducted so that c. Shuttleworth moved that the Ordinary might be amerced for his evill Return for when he had Judgement to Recover he ought to have the effect of his Judgement for else it shall be in vain to sue a Quare impedit and thereupon he avouched the case in 21 Hen. 7. 8. 21 Eliz. 364. Dyer that the other Clerk shall be removed Anderson the Return is not good for me seemeth in a Quare impedit when one which hath title Paramount presents Title Paramount en qu. imp hanging the Writ then allthough the Plaintif hath Judgement to Recover yet his Clerk shall not be removed but if it be under or after the title of the Plaintif or Defendant then his Clerk shall be removed and here he hath returned that the Queen hath presented the same man which is Defendant and therefore he shall be amerced Windham to the same intent and cited the case of Long 5 Edw. 4. fol. 115. b. Rodes cited the case in Fitzherbert Quare non admisit fol. 47. k. and Bassets case in 9 Eliz. Dyer Alit en pr. quod reddat fol. 260. Anderson In a Praecipe quod reddat if the Sherif return upon the habere facias seisinam that another hath recovered by title Paramount against the Defendant and hath execution he shall be amerced Peryam How doth it appear to us that he which the Queen hath presented is the same Defendant Shuttleworth By the Return Peryam No Sir and therefore it is good to be advised And after Windham doubted for the same cause Et adjornatur 8. TRistram Ayscough Dower and Eulaleia his Wife brought a Writ of Dower of the endowment of her first Husband the Defendant pleaded in bar that an Annuitie was granted to her first Husband and her self in recompense of her Dower which she after his death accepted and the Plaintif replyed quod recusavit praedict annuitatem after the death of her husband Gawdy The Plea is nor good Anderson Your intent is Disagreement in pais for that she disagreed in the Country and not in a Court of Record that the disagreement shall not be good but I think not so for if she say in the Country that she will not have the sayd Annuity this is a good refusall and if she once disagree she can never agree afterwards quod tota Curia concessit but peradventure recusavit is no good pleading 9. FRancis Windham Quid juris clamat one of the Justices of the Common Pleas brought a Quid juris elamat against the Lady Gresham to have Attornment of certain lands comprised within the note of a Fine levied to him by one R. Read The Lady pleaded that certain persons were seised of those Lands and held them of King Hen. 8. by Knights service and enfeoffed W. Read and the Lady then his Wie to have and to hold to them and the heirs of the husband who devised the reversion after the death of the Lady to the sayd R. Read in tayl the remainder c. and that the said R. Read levyed the Fine c. whereupon Windham demurred in Law Gawdy The Plea is not good for divers causes the one is for the pretence of the Tenant for that the Lands were held by Knights service the Devise is voyd for the third part so that therein the Conisor hath nothing but she doth not shew who had the reversion of the third part which she ought to shew and thereupon he vouched 30 Ed. 3. fol. 7. 34 Ed. 3. quid juris clamat 14 E. 3. Fitzh Quid juris cl The Defendant said that he held not of the Conisor he ought to shew who had the inheritance and 30 Hen. 6. fol. 8. in Wast brought by Radford Another cause is for that in the end of her Plea she demandeth Judgement Eisdem si pro eisdem duabus partibus she ought to Attorn and she doth not speak of any two parts before and therefore it is not good and vouched 7 Ed. 6. in the Comentaries Parliament held praedict 28 Ap. 9 Edw. 4. bona praedict J. S. and doth not speak of any J. S. before Then for the matter in Law for that the Conisor was but Tenant in tayl this notwithstanding it seemeth she ought to Attorn and therupon he cited the case in 48 E. 3. fol. 23. in per quae servicia 24 E. 3. Tenant in tayl of a reversion of a Mannor levies a Fine the Tenant for life ought to Attorn And 3 Ed. 3. quid juris c. It is there ruled that Tenant for life shall Attorn upon a Fine levied by Tenant in tayl and therefore she c. And by the opinion of
the Court the exception si pro eisdem duabus partibus made the Plea evill without question and therefore gave judgement for Windham that he should have Attornment but they said nothing to the other points 10. SHuttelworth came to the Bar Verdict and shewed how an Ejection firm was brought of an entry into certain Lands the Defendant pleaded not guilty and thereupon the Jury found that he entred into one moity and not into the other and this he alleged in Arrest of Judgement Anderson It seemeth that Judgement shall not be given for this is an Action personall and is not like to a Praecipe quod reddat Rodes It seemeth the contrary by 21 Edw. 4. fol. 16. b. fol. 22. see there the case intended Anderson The cases are not alike 11. IN the Exchequor Chamber before all the Justices c. the case was such John Capell gave the Mannor of How-Capell and Kings-Capell in the County of Hereford to Hugh Capell in tayl the remainder to Rich. Capell in tayl with divers remainders over the Donor dieth Hugh hath issue William and dieth Richard grants a rent charge of fifty pound to Antony his son William selleth the Land to Hunt by fine and recovery with Voucher and dieth without issue Antony distreineth for Arrearages and the Tenant of Hunt brings a Replevin and A. avows the taking whereupon the Plaintif demurs in Law Fenner It seemeth that the Avowant shall have Return and first I will not speak much to that which hath been agreed here before you that a Remainder may be charged well enough for by the Statute the Remainder is lawfully invested in Richard and I agree well that no Formdone in a Remainder was at the Common Law and so are our Bookes in 8 Ed. 2. and Fitzh in his Nat. brev saith that it is given by the equity of the Statute At the Common Law there was no Formdone in discender now it is given by the Statute of Westminster 2 cap. 1. For in novo casu erit novum remedium apponendum And I have taken it for Law that when a thing is once lawfully vested in a man Lawful vesture it shall never be devested without a lawfull Recovery and here the Recovery doth not touch the Rent and I think that allthough the Remainder was never executed in possession yet the Grantee of the Rent shall confess and avoyd it well enough The Fine is not pleaded here with proclamation and therefore it is but a bare discontinuance in proof whereof is the case in 4 of Ed. 3. Tenant in tayl makes a discontinuance Distress per grantee before entrie of the grantor yet he in Reversion may distrein for his service And if there be Tenant for life the Reversion to a stranger and he in Reversion grant a Rent charge Tenant for life is disseised and dye the Grantee of the Rent shall distrein allthough that he in Reversion will never enter And so if Tenant in tayl the Remainder to the right heirs of I. S. make a Feoffment in Fee upon the death of the Tenant in tayl without issue Droit heir de I. S. the right heir of I. S. shall enter well enough And he put Plesingtons case in 6 R. 2. Fitzh quod juris clamat 20. 8 R. 2. Fitzh Annuity 53. And the case in Littleton Dyer fol. 69. a. pl. 2. 22 Ed. 3. fol. 19. One grant a Rent charge to another upon condition that if he dye his heir within age Rent ch sur cond that the Rent shall cease during the minority yet his Wife shall recover her Dower when the heir cometh to full age Dower Perk. 327 Which cases prove that allthough the estate whereupon the grant is be in suspence when the grant ought to take effect yet the grant shall take effect well enough and if Tenant in tayl and he in remainder had joyned this had been good clearly And 8 Ed. 3. 43 Ed. 3. Tenant in tayl to hold without service the remainder to another to hold by service if Tenant in tayl in this case had suffered a Recovery and dyed without issue I think the Lord in this case shall distrein for the service then I suppose that the fine in the principall case shall not exclude the Grantee from his rent for there is a difference between jus in terra Jus in terra Prox. advoc and jus ad terram for I think that no fine shall defeat jus in terra and 26 H. 8. fol. 3. a. b. if I grant you proximam advocationem and after suffer the Advowson to be recovered the Grantee shall falsifie in a Quare impedit Then whether this recovery shall avoyd the rent or no and I think no for this case differs and now the recovery is had against Tenant in tayl for the remainder here is out of him by the fine and in the Coniâ—ee and the recovery doth not disprove the interest before for 8 Hen. 4. fol. 12. recovery against Tenant in tayl who dieth before execution sued And 44 Ed. 3. recovery of the rent is not a recovery of the homage Rent homage unless it be by title And here there is not any recompense to him in the remainder and therefore there will be a difference in this case and where there is a recompense Annuity for Tithes fol. 7. Hen. 6. if a person grant an Annnity for Tithes Nomine paenae it is good but if there be a nomine paenae it is not good and 7 lib. Ass an Annuity granted untill he be promoted to a benefice Promotion to a benefice it ought to be of as great value as the Annnity and 26 Edw. 3. the Church ought not to be ligitious and 22 Ed. 3. two men seised in Fee-simple exchange for their lives c. and 14 Hen. 4. the King may grant a thing which may charge his people without Rent for a release c. And 44 Ed. 3. rent granted for a release by Tenant in tayl is good and shall bind and charge his issue And so he seemeth that the Avowant shall have return Walmisley to the contrary For first it hath been held that the charge at the beginning is good and so I hold the Law bnt how Charge contingent or in what manner that is the question 38 Ed. 3. If Tenant for life be and he in reversion grant a rent charge it is good but it shall be quando acciderit 33 lib. Ass 5 Ed. 4. fol. 2 b. But this case is out of the Books remembred for there the remainder nunquam accidit and therefore shall never be charged for as I hold when he in remainder chargeth he chargeth his future possession and not his present interest Sci fa. de rem View for if a Sci. fa. should issue to execute this remainder he shall demand the Land and before the remainder falleth he hath but quasi jus Attornment al rent ch
6. the Priors case Note that Puckering then said privily to Shuttelworth is not the book contrary to that which he hath vouched for he vouched the Book contrary to that which Puckering had done before Shuttelworth No Sir but the record is contrary to the Book quod nota and when she granteth ex certa scientia it shall be taken beneficial for the party 1 H. 7. 13. omnia debita released to the Sherif and 29 Ed. 3. the King seised the lands of a Prior alien c. Difference per enter interest prerogative Touts droits poss per fine Fine puis disseisin ou discont alit de recovery and there is a difference between the cases put and this case for when the Queen makes a Grant all matters of interests may pass by the words but matters of prerogative as in the cases put by my brother Puckering cannot pass for they are not within the words but interests are To that which hath been sayd that he was not seised of any estate tayl this is not any argument for if he had three rights by the Fine all are gone and passed to the Conisee for if he be disseised or discontinue and then levy a Fine this is a bar but otherwise it is of a recovery Lessee purâ—ans en reversion poss diversity for that is no bar but of an estate tayl And as to the case of Saunders that lessee for years need not to make claim the case was not so but the case was of a lease inreversion and he had never entred and therefore it was but as a common or a rent but if it be a lease in possession he is bound as in Zouches case Then because the King is in possession it hath been sayd that it is no bar but this seemeth to be no reason for the Statute began with the King and the Preamble seemeth to induce it and the third saving of the Statute is by force of any gift in tayl so this is generall And because he cannot discontinue therefore can he not make a bar Non sequitur For he cannot discontinue and yet a Fine levyed is a good bar and the Statute of 32 Hen. 8. doth not impair this opinion but it was to take away the doubt moved in 29 Hen. 8. Allthough indeed the Law was all wayes clear in the case as it was agreed by all the Judges in Stowels case and the words of the Statute of 34 Hen. 8. that the recoveries shall be no bar doth not extend but to the words going before as in the case in Dyer that a man had not done any act but that c. And the Queen in this case hath not any prejudice for she shall have the rent with the reversion And as for Jacksons case that maketh for me for the question of the case there was that the remainder shall be gone and we ought not to take regard to that which is sayd indirectly in the case but the point of the Judgement is the matter and for authority it is direct in Dyer fol. 26. pl. 1. and therefore it seemeth that the entayl is barred and so the action maintainable Anderson You have well argued but for any thing that I see none of you shall have the Land Grant for the Queen is deceived in her grant and therefore the Patent is voyd and then it shall be seised into the Queens hands And therefore you had best to be advised and we will hear what can be sayd for this point at another day And note that it was sayd by the Justices 3 Costs in forcible entry that if a man recover in a Writ of forcible entry upon the Statute of 8 Hen. 6. by confession or by default he shall recover his treble costs 22 Hen. 6. 57. 13. ONe Colgate brought a Replevin against Blyth who avowed the taking Replevin and thereupon they were at Issue in Kent and the Jury found a speciall Verdict The case in effect was this Husband and Wife are seised of Lands in right of the Wife And she by Indenture in her own name agrees that a Fine shall be levyed and limits the uses by Indenture After the Husband by another Indenture agrees that a Fine shall be levied and limits other uses and afterwards a Fine is levied by them both now whether the uses limited by the Husband shall bind the Land of the Wife in Perpetuity The Jury prayed the advise of the Court c. For if they be good they found for the Plantif if not then they found for the Defendant Shuttleworth Serjeant It seemeth that Judgement shall be given for the Plantif For the use limited by the Husband shall be a good limitation in Perpetuity Rent ch ou Lease per feme covert and first the Wife only cannot limit any use for her Acts are of no Validity And therefore if a Wife grant a Rent charge or make a Lease and the Grantee enter this is a Disseisin 43. Ed. 3. Deeds given by a Feme Covert are void 17. lib. Ass a VVife levies a Fine Executory Fine executory executed per feme covert sur grant render as a sole Woman and after a Scire fac Is brought to Execute this Fine the Husband shall extort the Execution and if it were a Fine Executed then it is a Disseisin to the Husband Vse quod For an use is a Declaration how the Land shall continue in Perpetuity and the Feoffees are nothing but Instruments or Organs to convey the use for the Land yields the use and not the Feoffees then when the Wife which is under the Power of her Husband Limitation per infant quaere limits an use this is void for I hold for Law if an Infant limit uses and after levy a Fine and do not Reverse it during his Nonage yet the limitation shall not bind him and so of a man non compos mentis Non compos mentis And so it was ruled in the Court of Wards where a naturall Ideot made a Declaration of uses and levied a Fine accordingly Ideot naturall that yet it shall be to the use of himself And then in our case the Limitation by the Wife cannot be good but her Will depends upon the Will of her Husband and the expressing of the use by the Husband shall be good Estate disseisin assumsit al feme For if an Estate be made to a Wife if the Husband seaven years after agree it is good and so it is of a Disseisin to a use so ofan Assumpsit to the Wife 27 Hen. 8. in Jordans case 1 Hen. 7. in Doves case and in a Praâ—cipe quod reddat the default of the Wife shall be the default of the Husband Default del feme because she is Compellable to the Will of her Husband by the Intendment of the Law 21. lib. Ass A man seised of Land in Right of his Wife makes a Feoffment in Fee
had warranty to detain Garrâ—nty and they made partition the one could not vouch without the other Vâ—uâ—her and therefore she should pray in ayd and then both to vouch Paramount and so the Statute which giveth pâ—â—tition between Joyntenants saveth their warranty otherwise it were gone And so if two Joyntenants make a lease for years reserving rent upon condition Partition of a 〈◊〉 and after they make partition as they well may having the reversion and the freehold in them I hold the Law clearly that the one nor the other shall enter for the condition broken Then in the case of the King I hold the Law that it shall not be apportioned and yet I agree that the King shall have his Preâ—â—gatives for his present lands and goods Prerogative but he shall never have Prerogative when wrong shall be done to any man Rent charge appâ—rtioned If the King have a Rent chage and after Purchase parcell of the Land charged it shall be apportioned 21 Hen. 7. he may well condition that his Feoffee shall not alien for in those cases there is no prejudice to others but all those cases run upon other grounds And in Bartlets case the King is bound by the Statute of donis conditionalibus for it was a wrong that the Donee at the Common Law should alien the inheritance And this case as me seemeth is not within the concourse of Title Câ—â—â—â—urse of â—itle as my Brother Rodes hath argued neither is the King deceived as hath been said For when the King enters he shall be seised in pristino statu suo Dyer and this is a principall reason in Winters case 16 Eliz. a person makes a Lease reserving Rent upon condition that if it be behind lawfully demanded that then he shall re-enâ—er Deâ—and after the reversion cometh to the King he shall not maâ—â— demand I agree well thereto the reason is because the demand is a thing which goeth to the person of the King Then Sir the Statute is that the King shall have it as the Prior had it which is meant of the estate and not of the person of the King Then Sir it is impossible that the King should have the land as the Prior had it ut in pristino statu suo if he doe not utterly defeat the grant made to Cordall then here the condition is gone The Kings grant against the Law is voyd but not by any grant as it hath been moved but by the operation of the Law And 49 Ed. 3. the King grants that lands shall be devisable it is voyd because it is against the Law and it is against the Law that a condition should be apportioned ergo the King shall not apportion it But admit this question against me then let us see what title the Queen hath by this commission First the commission is to enquire if Cordall his Assigns and Farmers have performed all covenants and provisoes contained in the Indenture Proviso as for that I hold the law clear that they have auâ—hority by those words to enquire of the condicion but for other reasons I think the Commission void For the Commission is to enquire per bonos legales homines de Com. nostre Mâ—dd and it doth not appear here that the Jurors were of Middlesex and therefore the inquisition is not good Further Severall spespecial finding they have found a thing in another County and this they cannot find but I hold that the Jury in one County may find the generall issue in another County Allso I hold that when the party cannot plead that which is the great matter of the Action they may find it in an another County because the party cannot pleade it as in 9 Ed. 2. in debt against Executors c. And for these reasons I hold judgement is to be given for the Defendant 2. RIchard Heydon Misre-cital in Letters Patentt Gentleman demands against Benjamin Ibgrave Gentleman the third part of 40. Acres of Land with the appurtenances in three parts to be divided in Sarrot in the County of Hartford as his right and Inheritance and to hold of our Lady the Queen in Capite and Laies the Esples in the time of Ed. the sixth and that such is his Right he offers himself c. And the aforesaid Benjamin put himself upon the great Assise whether it be his right or no c. And now the Assise made by the four Knights appeared at the Bar Challenge Snagg Serjeant for the Plantif we challenge A. B. for that c. Nelson chief Prothonotary all the Court you cannot challenge because it was made by the four Knights and the Assise is now at the Bar. Snagg well Sir then we will give evidence Anderson for whom are you Snagg for the Plantif Anderson then you shall not give evidence first for the Tenant affirms that he hath more right Evidence and that ought to be first proved Rodes and all the Court So it was here rul'd five years ago in Nowells case and thereupon Puckering gave evidence for the Tenant that it was Parcell of the Mannor of Sarrot which Mannor the Tenant hath and this was granted by the Counsell of the Defendant And in conclusion upon the evidence given the Defendant would have had the Tenant to have Demurred upon his evidence and discharge the Inquest but the Tenant would not in effect this was the doubt K. H. 8. by his Letters Patents gave among other things all the Lands which were in the Tenure of one Whyton and demised to Johnson in the Parish of Watford And it was true that the Lands were in the Tenure of Whyton but not demised to Johnson Misre-citall and allso they were not in the Parish of Watford if this shall be helped by the Statute of Misrecitall and not Recitall is the question and the party did not aver that the intent of the King was to pass this Parcell now in question to the Patentee and the opinion of all the Court was that it is not within the Statute clearly but they said to the Jury that they may find all this matter if they will or otherwise say what they will And thereupon after they were agreed they came again to the Bar and then all the Court told them that yet they might give a speciall Verdict The Jury said we are all agreed that the Tenant hath more right to hold these Lands as he now holdeth then the Demandant as he demands them Anderson then are you discharged and as I think you have done well So they gave their Verdict according to the opinion of the Court for the Statute of Misrecitall and yet Peryam was well content to have them give a speciall Verdict and the Demandant was demanded who appeared and thereupon Judgement finall was given for ever against him 3. ONe Tirrell brought an Action of Debt against a Hundred in Essex Hâ—e and Cry for
for it is a maxim Nullum tempus occurrit Regi Peryam If the Freehold be in the Alien untill office found Trespass if a trespass be committed who shall punish it for he shall have no Action Fenner That is true and so it is of a Monk if he be a disseisor Monk and yet the freehold is in him Shuttelworth And so it is of a person atteinted Atteynted person and yet before office found the freehold is not in the Queen Rodes It is Dyer 11 Eliz. fol. 283. Feoffment to use If a man enfeoffee an Alien and a Denison to his use that the Queen shall have the moity whereby it seemeth that the confirment is voyd Anderson I hold this rule for certain that in every feoffment there is feoffer and feoffee and if there be a feoffee he must of necessity take wher by I think the confirmation is good Rodes Is this case hanging in this Court Fenner No Sir Windham Wherefore then doe you move it in this Court And afterwards the question being demanded of Shuttelworth by divers Barristers he made answer Truly in my opinion it is not in the Queen before office found and therefore I think the confirmation is good Quaere 5. AN Attorney of the Common Pleas brought an action of debt against another Misdemeaner whereupon he was arrested in the Country and when he came to London the Attorney caused him to be arrested in London for the same debt and this was shewed to the Court and the Attorney called to whom Anderson said if a man be sued here for a debt and after be arrested in another Court for the same debt the penaltie is fine and imprisonment and that is both the law and the custom of this Court wherefore then have you done this surely we will send you to the Fleet for your labour Attorney I beseech you my Lord consider my estate Anderson I have well considered it and that is that you shall goe to the Fleet and therfore Warden of the Fleet take him to you Windham We will punish such gross faults in you more severely than in others because you are an Attorney here and your fault is so much the greater by how much you are skilful in the law and customs of this Court wherefore you shall goe to the Fleet. De Term. Mic. Anno xxix Eliz. 1. IN the case of Sellenger Annuity it was said by Anderson and agreed by the Court that if a man grant an Annuity out of Land and hath nothing in the Land that yet this shall be good to charge the Grantor in a Writ of Annuity and in the same case it was allso agreed by the Court that if a man grant an Annuity to a Woman who takes a Husband and after Arrerages do incur and the Wife dye so that the Annuity is determined that the Husband shall have an Action of debt for the Arrerages by the Common Law Shuttleworth This is not remedied by the Statute of Arrerages of Rents and then at the Common Law it is but a thing in Action Peryam An Annuity is more than a thing in Action Windham He may grant it over and so the opinion of the whole Court was that debt was maintenable 2. AT the same day it was said by Anderson Executor and not gainsaid that if an Executor plead ne unque administer come executor yet afterwards he may take the Administration upon him and well enough be Executor 3. IN a Replevin by Bosse against Hawtrey Triall by provise they were at Issne Termino Mic. An. 28. 29. And Bosse had a venire facias in Termino Mic. retournable in Termino Hill and after in Termino Hill took an alias retournable in Termino Pasch and so awarded it in the Roll of Mic. to the intent that the matter should not be tried at the Assises in Kent and thereupon Hawtrey which was Avowant moved the Court and prayed expedition whereupon the Court caused the Roll to be brought in and notwithstanding that it was a Roll of Mic. Term yet because it was awarded the same Term they mended the Roll and awarded the alias retournable the same Term of Hill 4. WYlgus brought an Action of Trespass against Welche quare clausum fregit Travers Welche said Trin. 28. Eliz. rot 537. that I. W. was seised and enfeoffed May and so conveyed a title to himself the Plantif replyed that A. his Auncestor was seised and so the Land descended to him Absque hoc that I. W. was seised and upon this Issue the Court was moved Anderson the seisin is not traversable but where it is materiall and therefore clearly the Traverse is not good but Fenner cited a book in 2 Edw. 6. that the Travers shall be good but he stood not much upon it Snagg 27 Hen. 8. 4. Bro. pleadings 1. is contrary but the opinion of all the Court clearly was that the Travers is not good 5. A Man makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife VVast alterius eorum diutius viventis absque impeticione vasti durantibus vitis ipsorum the Husband dies if the Wife shall hold without impeachment of wast or no was moved by the Serjeants And the opinion of all the Court was that she shall not be impeached of Wast because of the severance but otherwise if it had been Joyntly 6. FUlwood brought an action upon the case against Fulwood Action upon 〈◊〉 case and declared that whereas a motion of mariage was between the Defendant and a Widow in London in consideration that the Plaintif should give his assent that the Father of those Fulwoods should convey to the Defendant all his Lands and Chattells the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintif such a sum of money as their Father should assign Ac licet that the Plaintif had given his consent and that their said Father had assigned him to pay 37. l. yet the Defendant c. and he pleaded non assumpsit and it was found for the Plaintif and now Fenner spoke in arrest of Judgement for four causes First there is no consideration for the declaration is assensum suum daret so that he is at liberty to give his assent or no and so no perfect consideration The second is ac licet the Plaintif c. and doth not say in facto that he gave his assent The third is that he doth not say that he gave his assent when the Father had those Lands and Chattells The fourth is that in consideration the conveyance should be made to the Defendant and it appeareth that it was made to the Defendant and his Wife Shuttleworth To the contrary we have alleged in deed that he gave his assent and that is as much as if he had said in consideration that he gave his assent And allthough that the conveyance be to both yet it is in tayl to them and so the inheritance given to both And therefore that
of the wife For if the Husband have an Advowson in right of his Wife and the Church become voyd and the Husband dye the Executors shall have the presentation and the Serjeant sayd that there be many Books in that point Anderson I know it well but I doubt of the Law in the case Allso I would have you to argue if this be within the Statute of Demurrers in 27 Eliz. For if this be not matter of substance then it shall goe hard with the Plaintif therefore let it be argued again another time 11. ONe Brook was Plaintif in a Replevin Copyhold the Case was such Tho. Speek was seised of a Mannor in which were Copyholds according to the Custom and the place in which the taking was supposed was a Copyhold and the sayd Tho. Speek being so seised took to wife one Anne B. and died seised after whose death the sayd A. in the time of King Edw. 6. demanded the third part of the Mannor for her Dower by the name of Cent. Messuagiorum Cent. Gardinorum tot acr terrae tot acr prati c. and was endowed accordingly of parcel of the Demesns and parcel of the services of the Copyholds and after she granted a Copyhold and if this be good was the question for if she had a Mannor the Grant was good and otherwise not And the opinion of all the Court clearly was against the Grant for when she demanded her Dower she was at liberty to demand the third part of the Mannor or the third part of Cent. Mes Cent. Gard. Cent. acr c. and when she demanded it per nomen Cent. Mes c. Mannor a corporation she could have no Mannor For a Mannor cannot be claimed except by his name of Corporation as Anderson termed it and not otherwise and then Cent. Mes and Cent. acr c. cannot be sayd a Mannor and then the Grant of a Copyhold by her which had no Mannor was utterly voyd and this was the opinion of the Court clearly Quod not a. 12. SHuttelworth shewed how one Knight was Plaintif in a Replevin Visne 〈◊〉 Ass pl. 42. and they were at issue upon a prescription for Common in Newton appendant to land in another place and the venue was of Newton onely and it was found for the Plaintif and he prayed his judgment for the tryall may be in the one place as well as in the other as in annuity where the seisin is alleged in one County Annuity and the Church in another it may be tryed in any of the Counties Anderson But we think otherwise for it ought to be of both places when the matter ariseth in both and if they had been in severall Counties Counties joyn the Counties ought to have joyned Shuttelworth So is 10 Ed. 4. fol. 10. But our case being after a verdict I think we ought to have judgement Anderson and Windham The verdictdoth not amend the matter if it be mis-tried as this case is Rodes agreed that it was a mis-triall Mis-trial and therefore evill and that mis-trialls are not helped by the Statute of Jeofayles Shuttelworth I agree to that if you say that the triall is not good Windham So we say New Venire facias Then Shuttelworth advised his Client to take a new Venire facias 13. WAkefield brought a Replevin against Costard The Lord. who avowed for damage fesaunt Comptons case and the Plaintif prescribed for Common that all the inhabitants of Dale except the Parson and infants and such a house Prescription for Common have used to have Common in the place The Avowant sayd that the house whereunto the Plaintif claimed Common was built within thirty yeares last past and if he may have Common to this new house by prescription or no was demurred in judgement in Michaelmas Term and then Shuttelworth argued for the Plaintif that he should have his Common by prescription but not of common right And Gawdy argued for the Avowant that the Plaintif shall not have Common because the prescription is against all reason that he should have Common time out of mind to that which is but of thirty years continuance And allso he excepteth the Parson and infants and such a house and by the same reason he may except all which is not good Then one of the Judges sayd that if this be good Antient inhabitants hereafter there shall be no Common for the ancient inhabitants Improvement Peryam By such a prescription he shall for ever barre the Lord from improving any Common Common entire which is no reason Anderson All Common is intire for if a man have Common to three Mesuages and he infeoffee one man of one Mesuage and another of the second and another of the third the Common is gone And by this reason allso the new house cannot have Common And now this Term Gawdy demanded of the Court if they were resolved in the poynt Anderson We are all agreed that the prescription is utterâ—y voyd for it is impossible to have Common time out of mind for a house which was built within thirty yeares and then he commanded to enter judgement if nothing were sayd to the contrary by the next day Shuttelworth We have sayd all that we can say my Lord. Anderson Then let judgment be entred against the Plaintif 14. SNagg shewed how the Earl of â—Kent had brought an action of debt against a Londoner for rent behind Grant and shewed how the Countesâ— of Derby was tenant in Dower of this land and took to husband the Earl of Kent and that Henry Earl of Derby had granted it to the Earl of Kent habendum after the death of the Countess for certain yeares and he shewed how the grant was made by the name of a reversion also Lease in reversion Grant in reversion difference and that the Tenant had attorned and alleged the death of the Countess And the Court said that the Attornment is not necessary for it is but a lease in reversion and then no rent passeth thereby Anderson If you had been privy to the case of Talboys in the Kings-bench you would not have moved this doubt Peryam It is allso the very case of Throckmorton in the Commentaries Snagge But here in my case he hath granted it by the name of the reversion allso and then the reversion will carry the rent Curia Then is your grant voyd for a man cannot grant his reversion habend after the death of another and therefore quacunque via data you shall have no rent And thereupon Snagge conticuit cum rubore 15. MOunsay was Plaintif in debt upon an obligation against Hylyard Jeofayle and the Defendant pleaded the Statute of Usury because it was made for the sale of certain Copperas and he took more than was limited by the Statute and that it was made by shift and chevisance and other matter he alleged to prove it within the Statute the
possession of the land 11. BRet Plaintif against Shepheard Apparaâ—ce the Condition of the Obligation was to appear at his Suit in the Kings-bench and upon Condition performed pleaded Triall by the Record the issue was found for the Plaintif And now he spake in arrest of judgement for that the triall ought to have been by the Record and not by the Country And so was the opinion of the Court But Radford Pregnotary said that the triall was good enough for it may be that he appeared there and yet there is no Record made thereof to whom it was answered that then it is no appearance if it be not recorded and Radford replied suppose that there is not any such suit there how then can it be recorded but the rule of the Court was ut supra for then the Obligation seemeth to be single 13. THe case of Calgate against Blyth was now again argued by Fletewood for the Plaintif And first he said that the limitation by the Wife is not good for which he took this ground that alwaies when a man shall gain a fee simple by matter of conclusion of Record that he shall be seised to his own use And here the Husband had a fee by conclusion by the fine and therefore his limitation good only Carill And there upon he put a case reported by Carill who was a grave man Fine levied and very learned in the law That if Husband and Wife levy a fine to B. who rendereth to them again for life the reversion shall remain in the Conisor to his own use Also he put another case put by Baldwin in the time of H. 8. Grant of all Estate that a man seised in right of his Wife grants totum statum suum to another the grantee shall have it no longer than during the life of the Husband if his Wife overlive him but if she have issue by him then he shall have it during the life of the Husband absolutely Fine And if two tenants in common inâ—eoff B. Feâ—ffâ—â—ent in see to their use they are then tenants in common of this use Diffâ—â—â—nâ—â— per Tenants â—n common but if they levy a fine to B. to their use then they are Joyntenants And in Queen Maries time a parson of a Church by licence of his patron and ordinary levied fi Parson levies a Fâ—e a fine of a portion of his Rectory and it was adjudged that it shall be to his own use in his naturall capacity Bishops the same law is if a Bishop levy a fine and he cited 1â— H. 4. 1. the first case and so he prayed judgment for the plaintif Anderson chief justice rehearsed the case and first he said that the Wife without her Husband cannot limit the use without doubt And here the case is no more but whether the husband may limit the use without the privity of his Wife and I think it a strong case that he cannot Notice of a use If Husband and Wife have an use and they grant it over to one who hath notice of the Use this shall be to the use of the Wife again What a use is and he defined an Use to be an intent and trust to convey lands and cited 6. H. 7. and that when the interest of the inheritance is in the Wife Fine if Husband and Wife levy a fine this shall be to to the use of the Wife for the use ariseth out of them which give the land and not by the Conises or Feoffees for they neither grant nor give the use Feoffment by he Husband alone and then it shal be to the use of the Wife again But if the Husband alone make a Feoffment this shall be to his own use and the Wife after his death shall be driven to her action And if the wife had been privy or assenting to the limitation Assent without naming although she had not been named yet it should be a good limitation but the Jury have found that she was not privy And a case was here adjudged Indenture after a fine levied that where a fine was levied and the limitation made after by Indenture that this shall be to the use of the Indenture if there be no other against it but in this case it is found expresly by the Jury that shee never agreed which doth impugn that which otherwise should be intended then now the case is no otherwise but that a fine is levyed and no use is limited but if the fine had been levied Silence is an agreemâ—ni the Husband only limited the use and nothing els had been done against it then it should have been to the use limited by the Husband because it should have been intended that the Wife had consented thereunto and so I think judgment shal be given against the Plaintif Windham I am of the same opinion and it seemeth that their difference and disagreement in the limitation is the cause that both the limitations are void First let us see who hath auctority to limit the use surely the principall owner of the land hath the principall auctority to limit the use and here the Wife is the principall owner What a use is and therefore hath chief power to dispose of the use And Sr. the use is the chief profit and commodity of the land and cannot be severed from the land no more than the shadow from the body and this was the reason of the Statute of 27. H. 8. which draweth the possession to the use and not the use to the possession for the use is the principall for by the common law by bargain sale enrolled the land shall pass without livery Bargain and sale for this was a contract for the use and then the law shall make the land to pass The Law erects the use and whithersoever the use is now carried the land and possession shall follow but when the Law carrieth the use it is to the owner and proprietary of the Land The mothers heir For if a man seised of Lands on the part of his Mother levy a fine thereof the use shall pass according as the land shall because the law carrieth the use And here the Wife cannot limit the use without her Husband and therefore that is void but yet it is good to this intent to shew her disagreement Silence Consent And if the Husband limit the use and she doth not disagree the law intendeth that she consenteth thereunto because she hath joined in the fine Sale in London by Husband and Wife And therefore in London sale of the lands of the Wife by deed enrolled by the Husband only is good if she assent or if she do not disagree And although that she shall not be examined concerning the use yet the Law will not have her defrauded of her land by joyning in the fine without her consent to the use for by that meanes
every Wife may be defrauded of her land by joyning in a fine which were a great inconvenience and contrary to this ground in Law that the Husband cannot dispose of the Wifes lands without her consent And although that if the Wife had not shewed her agreement or disagreement then it should have been to the use limitted by the Husband yet here she hath shewed an express disassent and so by their variance both their declarations are void Quare impedit as in a Quare impedit by two if both make severall titles both shall be barred and so judgment shall be given against the Plaintif No Vse limited Peryam to the same intent First it is a plain case that if a Husband and Wife levie a fine and limit no use then the use is to them as the land was before Vse what it is for the use is the profit of the land and the Wife alone cannot limit the use for during the coverture she hath submitted her will to the will of her Husband Silence And if they both levie a fine and he onely by Indenture limits uses Limitation after fine if she do nothing then his limitation is good and the case of Vavisour adjudged here that a limitation after the fine is good And here the Husband hath limited the use to himself for life Who shall limit uses and afterwards they both agree in the limitation now if the residue in which they agree shall be good I will shew my opinion therein likewise because that also may come in question hereafter And I think that this shall not bind the inheritance for it is a ground in Law that limiters of uses shall be such as have power interest and auctority of the land and no further As if Tenant for life and he in reversion joyn in a fine Fine Tenant for life shall limit but for his life but here by the death of the Wife the ability of the Husband is gone for he had no issue by her and therefore his use shall bee gone allso for otherwise it should be a great inconvenience but if they had joyned in the limitation then the inheritance of the Wife had been bound Inheritance shall be bound by agreement and so it is if the Law can intend that she had agreed And to say that the Conisees shall take it from the Husband and Wife and therefore the Wife to be concluded is but small reason for she may confesse the Record well enough as appeareth by the case of Eare and Snow in the Com. and no man can limit uses further than he hath the land and here the limitation for the inheritance after the death of the wife cannot be good and for their variance both are void And so I think judgment shall be given against the Plaintif Rodes to the same intent for the Jury hath found that the Wife did not agree and this speciall finding shall avoid all other common intendments Intendment And the intendment of the party shall overthrow the intendment of the Law and he cited Eare and Snowes case where it was found that the wife had nothing And he cannot limit uses farther than he hath estate in the land and therefore judgment shall be given against the Plaintif Anderson then enter judgment accordingly 14. AN Action upon the statute of Hue and cry was brought against the hundred of Dunmow in Essex Robbery in the night and the Jury found a speciall verdict that the Plaintif was robbed about three a clock in morning before day light and thereupon prayed the advise of the Court And now all the Judges were agreed that for because the Robbery was done in the night and not in the day therefore the Hundred shall not be charged and they commanded to enter iudgment accordingly 15 BEtween Cogan and Cogan the case was Copulative that the Defendant had sold certain land sowen with oad to the Plaintif and that if any restraint shall be by proclamation or otherwise that it should not be lawfull to the Plaintif to sow and make oad then he should have certain mony back again and after proclamation came that no man should sow oad within four miles of any market Town or clothing Town or City or within eight miles of any Mansion House of the Queen and the Plaintif shewed the Land was within foure miles of a Market Town and because he did not averr that it was a Cloathing Town also the Defendant demurred in law And all the Judges held that he had shewed sufficient cause of his Demurrer for the meaning was to restrain by the proclamation aswell all manner of market Townes as those market Townes which were clothing Townes And after Puckering shewed that the restraint was onely from sowing oad and not from making and their Contract was that if any restraint should be from sowing and making in the copulative whereby he thought the Plaintif should be barred quod Curia concessit 16. BEtween Cock and Baldwin the case was Pas 29. Eliz. that a lease was made for 21 yeares to one Trâ—w penny and Elizabeth his wife Rot. 1410. if he and shee Copulative or any child or children between them lawfully begotten should live so long And after they were married the wife died without issue if the lease be thereby determined or no was the question because it is in the conjunctive he and she and now one of them is dead without issue and this case is not like Chapmans case in the Commentaries where one covenants to infeoff B. and his heires for there it is impossible to Emfeoff his heires as long as B. Lease to a for life shall live and therefore there it shall bee taken in the disjuctive and the same Serjeant said that if A. Lease for life of 2 lets land to two for life if one dye the other shall have all by survivour because they took it by way of interest Difference but if I let land to two to have and to hold for the lives of two other if one of them dye the lease is gone quod fuit concessum and here the lease shall be determined by the death of one because so was the intent Rodes the meaning seemeth to be conrrary for by the or which commeth afterward it appeareth that they should have their lives in it Peryam Anderson and Wyndham said that it appeareth by the disjunctive sentence which commeth afterward that the intent was that the lease shall not be determined by the death of one of them and the reason which moved the Lord Anderson to think so was because the state was made before the marriage and so it is as a joynture to the wife and therefore not determined by the death of the one And after they all gave judgment accordingly 17. WAlgrave brought trespass quare vi armis against Somersetbeing Tenant at will Trespass vi armis against Tenant at Will
half whereby the Land was sown accordingly and that the Bore of Okely came and destroyed the Corn. Sed utrum c. And the doubt rested upon two points 1. because the Verdict saith that it conteineth sixty Acres and so shall be intended not the same place and the Court varied in opinion thereof insomuch that the sixteen Acres are found to be within the close conteining sixty Acres but for the 2 which was that they all four joyned in quare clausum fregit and it appeareth that three have nothing there Verdict shall abate the Writ but that Hare is sole seised And for that the Court held opinion that the Verdict shall abate the Writ for the Defendant cannot break their close where three of them have nothing but Hare onely Rodes A Case hath been adjudged a where Cheâ—ey brought Partition against Bury Partition who pleaded that they did not hold in Common and the Jury found that he and his Wife held in Common and yet the Verdict abated the Writ Windham You will all grant that the other three have no interest in the Land quod Walmisley concessit how then can they have quare 〈◊〉 fregit Fenner Executors shall have quare clausum fregit Executors and yet they have no interest in the Land Rodes There they have an interest for the time Anderson Here is but a bargain and no interest and then the three have no colour to bring Trespass quare elaâ—sum fregit 10. THe Quare impedit brought by the Queen against the Bishop of Lincoln was demurred in Law Avoydance and now the Record was read and day given over to hear the Arguments but 〈◊〉 said that it is all one case with that which hath been adjudged here viz. that the Queen hath title of Lapse and doth not present but the Patron presents and after the Church becomes voyd by the death of the Incumbent that now the Queen shall not present but the Court answered Difference between Death and Privation that there the avoydance came by death but here it cometh by privation and whether this will make a diversity was the question 11. HArper brought Trespass against Spiller and Drew Estate upon not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was found and the case in effect was this F. gave Lands to a woman to have and to hold to her to the heirs of F. of the body of the woman ingendred what estate the woman had was the question and now the Record was read and day given over to argue it 12. SHuttleworth moved the Court Amendment and shewed that one Brokes by had brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Lincoln and others and the Writ was suam spectat donationem and this word 〈◊〉 was omitted and he prayed the Court that it might be amended and he cited 11 Hen. 6. 2. where it was imaginavit and it should have been imaginat fuit and 13 Hen. 7. where the teste was omitted and the Court took time of advisement and at length by the opinion of all the Justice it was amendable and then a Clerk of the Chancery came into the Court of the Common-pleas and amended it 13. IN an Avowry for an Amercement in a Leet By-law a Prescription was made for making of By-lawes and Peryam sayd that every By-law ought to be made for the common benefit of the inhabitants and not for the private commodity of any particular man as J. S. onely or the Lord onely As if a By-law be made that none shall put in his beasts into the common-field before such a day this is good but if a By-law be made that they shall not carry hay upon the lands of the Lord or break the hedges of J. S. this is not good because it doth not respect the common benefit of all And Windhaâ—â— sayd that some Books are that they shall bind no more than such as agree to them 14. HAre brought Debt against Curson for a great sum Capias utlâ—gatum and Process continued untill Capias â—tlog And the Plaintif moved the Court that the Sherif might be commanded to execute the Writ because they doubted thereof and the Writ was delivered to the Sherif in Court and he sayd that he would doe his endeavour but Curson hath long kept his house so that he cannot come at him Peryam You may take the power of the Country with you and break his house and take him out for so it hath been adjudged here which the Court granted 15. PUckering shewed how an Action of Debt was brought against an Administrator Assetâ— who pleaded plens administraâ—it and thereupon the Jury found a speciall Verdict that certain Obligations made by the Testator to the value of a hundred pound were forfeit and the Administrator took in the said Bonds and gave his own Bond for the Debt and retained the money in his own hands besides which c. he had nothing c. and if that hundred pound shall be liable to this Action of the Plaintif they prayed the advice of the Court and by the opinion of Windham and Peryam it shall not be Assets because the property is changed in giving his own Bond for the same Payment with Proper râ—â—ds and it is as if he had payd the Debts with his own goods but if he had compounded for less Surplusage then the surplusage should have been Assets But Rodes was of a contrary opinion in the principall case forasmuch as he had payd no money but onely given his Bond for in and Anderson was absent at this day And after at another day the case was moved again by Shuttelworth and then he shewed that for part thereof the Administrator had given his Bond and for another part his promise Promise and he sayd that this is no payment but a composition and therefore no change of property Anderson For so much as he hath given his promise I think it not good because that by this promise this first debt being due by Bond is not discharged but for so much as he hath given his Bond for I hold it good enough because the first Debt is discharged thereby allthough that the Obligation be made to a stranger Estranger by the appointment of the Debtee and allso before the Debt due for by this the first Debt is gone And Windham and Peryam were of the same opinion that the Debt was discharged and that it should not be Assets in his hands but Rodes doubted thereof and it was adjorned 16. JOhn Cleyton brought an Ejectione firme against Lawsell and Lawsell Defendants Abatement and after a Verdict found for the Plaintif and before Judgement one of the Defendants died and the Writ was adjudged to stand good against the other 17. IN Debt by Saunderson Wager of Law the Defendant pleaded nil debet per legem and in truth the money was due to the Plaintif but the Plaintif was allso
indebted to the Defendant in the like sum and before the Action brought they were agreed that each of them should be acquitted against the other and thereupon the Defendant would have waged his Law Concord and Anderson and Peryam doubted much whether he might do so or no for an accord without satisfaction is no pleaâ— and Debt cannot be discharged by paroll No discharge by word but Rodes sayd that it is good by consent of the parties and so sayd some Serjeants and Fenner cited 11 Rich. 2. tit Bar. 242. where a man hath a Rent by way of Retainer and Rodes cited 22 Hen. 6. 37 Hen. 6. Payment by way of Retainer 18. EDward Sibill brought Debt against George Hill Rent suspended for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years and the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintif had entred into part before any rent due and the issue was expulit amovit adhuc extra tenet whereby it is plain that entry into part suspends all the rent And in Hill Term before in the like case for rent reserved Pleading the Defendant pleaded nil debet per priam and he would have given in evidence an entry before any rent due per Curiam he could not doe so but ought to plead it ut supra for it doth not maintain the Issue no more than in the case of Wast 12 Hen. 8. 1. 19. IN a Quare impedit by Agnes Kemp against the Bishop of Winchester Joynt Advowson Anderson told the Jury upon the Evidence given that if there be four Joyntenants of an Advowson and one of them grants over his interest this is good and the survivor shall not hold place And Windham and Rodes did not gain-say it and Peryam was absent but Fenner spake against it because it is a thing entire but Anderson clearly to the contrary 20. CUnuy brought an Action of Debt upon an Escape against Sir James Harrington Sherif of the County of Huntington Escape who pleaded that the Plaintif dedit concensum eidem Jacobo that the prisoner should goe at large whereby he did so Walmisley He ought to plead it by way of licence and not by consent Curia The Plea is good without question and he may take issue thereupon 21. TAylor brought an Action upon an Assumpsit against Fulham for payment of money Release by word and the Defendant pleaded that after the Assumpsit the Plaintif released to him all Assumpsits and this he pleaded without Deed and the Court sayd that this Plea is not good and they commanded Shuttelworth to demur to it and they would give him expedition and he demurred to the Plea and Anderson was very angry with the Serjeant which set his hand to the Plea 22. IAne Plain was Plaintif against Sams Tenant by curtesie and the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that one Jane Plain the Mother was seised in fee and had issue Elizabeth and Jane now Plaintif and by Indenture upon consideration of naturall affection to her two Daughters covenanted to stand seised to the use of Elizabeth in tayl upon condition following viz. that the sayd Elizabeth the heirs of her body or their Assignes should pay to Jane now Plaintif thirty pound within one year after the death of Jane the Mother or within one year after that Jane now Plaintif should accomplish the age of eighteen years and for default of issue in Elizabeth the remainder to Jane now Plaintif in tayl Elizabeth takes a Husband and hath issue of her body which dyeth without issue and Elizabeth did not pay the thirty pound within the year after the death of Jane the Mother and then Jane now Plaintif came to the age of eighteen years Disability of performance and after Elizabeth dyed within the year after that Jane came to the age of eighteen years without issue and after the year passed and no money was payd whereby the Plaintif entred and if the Husband shall be Tenant by the curtesie was the question and upon the motion the Court was clear in opinion that he shall be Tenant by the curtesie for the condition was gone because Eliz. dyed within the time which she had limited to her for performance therof And Anderson sayd that if an estate be determined by limitation this will not avoyd a Tenancy by the curtesie Limitation condition difference but otherwise it is if the estate be determined by a condition for this shall relate to the defeasance of the estate 23. EJectione firme was brought by Stapley against Lark Use and upon Evidence the case was that Feoffees seised to the use of B. before the Statute of 27 Hen. 8. by consent of B. made a Feoffment to another and his heirs to the use of the sayd Feoffee and his heirs and the Feoffee had notice of the first use now if he shall be seised to his own use or no was the question and all the Justices held that he shall be seised to his own use because the use was so expressed upon the Feoffment And so is the Law if the second Feoffment had been in consideration of money Consideration of mony allthough no use had been limited yet it should have been to the use of the Feoffee and his heirs and not to the first use 24. IT was the opinion of three Justices Disseisin that if a man levy a Fine sur conisans de droit come ceo que il ad de son don c. and after continue possession that yet he is a Disseisor and not Tenant at will or sufferance and that a Praecipe lyeth against him De Term. Pasch Anno xxx Eliz. Reg. 1. IN a Writ of Annuity it was the opinion of the Justices that if one grant a Rent charge to B. which is paid to him Rent charge and after B. grants it over to C. and the Tenant of the Land attourneth that now C. shall not have his election to make this an Annuity but ought to take it as a Rent charge 2. THomas Michell brought debt upon an Obligation against Stockwith and Andrews Seal fall off after issue and the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that after the issue joyned and before the nisi prius the seal of Andrews was fallen off si c. Windham A case hath been adjudged here that where a Bond was delivered to the Custos brevium to be kept and the Mise broke the seal Custos brevium and the Court adjudged that the Plaintif should be at no prejudice thereby And here insomuch that no fault was in the Plaintif the Court awarded that he should recover and Judgement was entred accordingly 3. WIghtman is Plaintif against Chartman Conjunctim And the case was this two were bound in an Obligation quilibet eorum conjunctim and the Action was brought against one alone and the opinion of the Court was that it is not maintainable by reason of this word
it appeareth to us that Executor or Administrator cannot be charged upon a simple contract and the Court ex officio ought to stay the Judgement and the VVrit at the first ought to have been abated and this is reason and so is the Book in 15 Edw. 4. and then by the assent of the other Judges he gave Judgement accordingly 12. RObert Johnson is Plaintif against Jonathan Carlile in an Ejectione firme Fine and upon not guilty pleaded the Jury found a speciall Verdict Hil. 29 El. rot 824. that William Grant was seised in fee of the Lands now in question being held in Socage and devised them to his Wife for term of her life and when John his sonne came to the age of 25 years then he shoâ—ld have those Lands to him and to his heirs of his body ingendred and dyed afterwards the sayd John before that he came to the age of 25 years levyed a Fine thereof in fee and after came to 25 years and had issue a Daughter and dyed and after the Wife dyed then the Daughter entered and made a Lease to the Plaintif the question was no more but whether this Fine levyed by the Father before any thing was in him shall be a bar to the Daughter Rodes The question is if the Daughter may say that her Father had nothing in the Land at the time of the Fine levyed and so by this means Fines shall be of small force Windham and Peryam We have adjudged it lately in Zouches case that the Issue shall not have this averment Parties and privies shall have no averment Shuttelworth for the Plaintif If it were in Pleading I grant it well but here it is found by Verdict Curia This will not help you for by the Fine the Right is extinct Windham When my Lord Anderson cometh you shall have a short rule in the case Shuttelworth Too short I doubt for us After at another day Shuttelworth moved the case again Anderson May he which levyed this Fine avoyd it by this way Shuttelworth No Sir Anderson How then can he which is privy avoyd it Shuttelworth By Plea he cannot Anderson The Verdict will not amend the matter Fenner If I make a Feoffment upon condition Feoffment upon condition and after levy a Fine of the same land to a stranger and after I re-enter for the condition broken the stranger shall not have the land Curia VVe have given Judgement clearly to the contrary in the case of Zouch And your opinion is no authority 13. A Writ of Dower was brought by John Hunt and Ioan his Wife late the Wife of Austin Dower for the third part of Lands in Wolwich the Defendant pleaded that the Lands are Gavelkind Trin. 30. Eliz rot 156. And that the Custom of Gavelkind within the County of Kent is that the Wife shall have the Moity during her Widowhood according to the Custom and not any third part according to the Common Law upon which Plea the Defendant demurred in Law Negative preâ—cription And one question was whether this Prescription in the Negative be good with the Affirmative And the other doubt was if the Wife may wave her Dower by the Custom and take it according to the Common Law And the Justices held the Prescription good enough being in the Negative with the Affirmative Iâ—â—eritance Windham This Custom shall bind the Heir and his Inheritance and by the same reason it shall bind the Wife and her Dower which Peryam granted expresly Rodes was absent and Anderson spake not to that second point But all the Court agreed clearly that as this Custom is alleged she shall be barred of her Dower And so they commanded to enter Judgement accordingly but if the pleading had been in the Affirmative onely without the Negative then the second point had come in question 14. WAlmisley prayed the opinion of the Court in this case Extent The Sherif extendeth Lands upon a Statute Staple and whether the Conusee shall bâ— said to be in Possession thereof before they be delivered to him or no Anderson Allthough that they be extended Refusall yet the Conusee may refuse to receive them Walmisley True Sir Anderson Then hath he nothing in them before he have received them for he may pray that the Lands may be delivered to the Praisors according to the Statute of Acton Burnell Windham Your meaning is to know if the Rent incurres when the Land is in the Sherifs hands if you shall have it Walmisley True Sir that is our very case Anderson Then this is the matter whether you shall have the Rent or the Conusor or the Queen but how can you claim it Windham The Lands are in the Queens hands Peryam The Writ is Cape in manum nostram Rodes This is like to the case of disceit where he shall not have the mean issues So as it seemed to them Disceit the Conusee shall not have it but they did not say expressly who should have it 15. TRespass quare clausum fregit was brougâ—t ' against two the one appeared Simul cum Dyer 239. and the other was outlawed and the Plaintif declared against the one onely who by Verdict was found guilty and now Walmisley spake in arrest of Judgement that he should have declared against them both or against the one simuleum c. But the Court thought that this was helped by the Statute of Jeofailes but at this time they were not resolved 16. A Speciall Verdict was found Disability of the Devisor at the time of his death that a Woman sole was seised of certain Lands held in Socage and by her last Will devised them to I. S. in Fee and after she did take the devisee to Husband and during the Coverture she Countermanded her Will saying that her Husband should not have the Land nor any other advantage by her Will and then died Now whether this be a sufficient Countermand so that the Husband shall not have the Land was the question Shuttleworth For as much as she was Covert-Baron at the time of her death therefore the Will was void for a Feme-Covert cannot make a Will and a Will hath no perfection untill after the death of the Devisor Gawdy In Wills the time of the making is as weâ—l to be respected Taking a Husband is no Countermand of the Wife as the death of the Devisor And then she being sole at the time of the making allthough that afterwards she took a Husband yet this is no Countermand and so is Bret. and Rigdens case in the Commentaries Anderson If a man make his Will and then become non compos mentis Not of sound mind yet the Will is good for it is Common that a man a little before his death hath no good memory Shuttleworth I do not agree the Law to be so and so Rodes seemed to agree but Anderson affirmed as before Windam I doe not doubt but such a
Muskets and Callivers delivered into the Tower for which money Walton took a Debenter from the Queen in the name of a stranger and afterwards dyed and made Leveson Executor who procured the stranger to release and surrender the former Debenter to the Queen and took a new Debenter for the same hundred pound to himself this was adjudged no Assets nor devastavâ—t in the hands of the Executor Leveson upon a speciall Verdict but otherwise it should have been if the first Debenter had been taken in VValtons own name for then it had been a devastavit by the Executor 9. BAcon Plaintif against Selling in an Ejectione firme Assets de judgement the originall bare teste 13 Aprilis An. 39. and the Plaintif declared upon a Lease made to him 22 Apr. An. 39. Trin. 39 Eliz. rot 1345. so that it appeared to the Court that the Plaintif brought his Action before he had an interest in the Land and by all the Court a Rule was given for stay of Judgement after a Verdict but afterwards the Plaintif came and shewed that after Improlance he filed a new originall 10. HEnry Earl of Lincoln brought a Scandalum magnatum against one Michelborn for these words Scandalum magnatum viz. The Earl of Lincolns men by his commandement did take the Goodt of one Hoskins by a forged Warrant c. And the Earl recovered great damages by Verdict and now it was spoken in arrest of Judgement that the words were not sufficient to maintain the Action because it was not averred that the Earl knew the Warrant to be forged and of the same mind was the Court at this time 11. WIlloughby brought an Action of Debt against Milward Debt and declared that the Defendant bought Timber of him for ten pound solvend modo forma sequenti viz. five pound ad festum Pasch proxime sequentem and saith nothing when the other five pound should be payed and the Plaintif recovered the whole ten pound by Verdict and now it was spoken in arrest of Judgement for the cause aforesaid but yet by all the Court it was good enough for the Law intendeth the other part of the money to be due presently if no certain day of payment bee alleged 12. KItchin brought an Action of Debt against Dixson Debt Executor of Craven Mich. 36 37 El. rot 1028. or 1021. the Defendant pleaded ne unques Executor and the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. That Craven in his life time made a Deed of Gift of all his Goods to Dixson and they found likewise that this Deed was to defraud Creditors against the form of the Statute and that the Defendant by colour of this Deed did take the Goods after the death of Craven and if this Deed vvas good then they found for the Defendant if not then they found the Defendant was Executor of his own wrong and so for the Plaintif and by all the Court Judgement was given for the Plaintif 13. IT was sayd by Drew arguendo That if the Grantee of a Rent charge release parcell of the Rent to the Grantor or his heires Rent charge the residue may be apportioned and the Land shall remain chargeable still for that residue but if he release in one Acre parcell of the Land charged then all the Rent is gone 14. IT was said by Glanvile in the argument of the case between Cromwell and Andrews Provisâ— that a Proviso in a conveiance to be performed on the part of the Lessee implies a re-entry allthough there be no speciall words of re-entry but otherwise it is when it ariseth on the part of the Lessor and Vouched bendlowes case where there was a Covenant going between the Habendum and Proviso But where the Proviso standeth substantively as where I grant a Rent charge Proviso that he shall not charge my person Condition this is no Condition but a Qualification Allso where a Feoffment is made upon Condition to grant me a Rent Charge payable at Easter and Christmas if the grant be not made before the first Feast which shall next happen the Condition is broken and he put a difference where the Condition must be performed by none but himself and where it may as well be performed by his Executors as himself And Drew said then that if there be a Feoffment upon Condition to Re-enfeoff the Feoffer there ought the Feoffor to make a request otherwise if it be to enfeoff another 15. SMith against Bonsall Common in effect the case was such In an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleaded his Freehold Hil. 39. Eliz. rot 1753. and the Plaintif replyed that A. was seised of a Yard-land to which he had Common of Pasture for all maner of Beasts Levant and Couchant upon the same Yard-land and of the Moity thereof did enfeoff the Plaintif the question was whether this Common may be apportioned or else it be extinct alltogether In the argument whereof Drew said that Common sans number cannot be granted over because if it should be granted to a rich man he may surcharge the Common then and leave none for the rest of the Commoners so of estovers uncertain for so the Grantee may burn all the Wood quod Walmisley concessit and he vouched 17 Eliz. in Dyer that a Commoner may purchase parcell of the Land out of which his Common is issuing Purchase after that it be improved by the Lord and not extinguish his Common thereby And he said that if parcell of the Common be inclosed Inclosure a Commoner ought to make but one gap to put in Cattell but Anderson said that he may make as many gapes as he will And it was said by Anderson and Beamont Appendant may be apportioned that Common appendant cannot be for all manner of Cattell but onely for such â—attell as compass the Land and that such Common may be apportioned into twenty parts Append. quid as any Common certain may be Walmisley Owen If my Land to which I claim Common belonging can yield me stover to find a hundred Cattell in Winter then shall I have Common in Summer for a hundred Cattell in the Land out of which I claim Common and so for more or fewer proporitionably which they did expound to be the meaning of pertinen Moity of a Mannor levan and cuban Walmisley If I grant away the moity of my Mannor we shall both keep Courts so if I be disseised of a Moity or that the Moity be in Execution by elegit and we shall both have Common and in apportionment of Common respect ought allwaies to be had to the quality of the Land unto wâ—ich it is alloted Copiholder And a Copyholder may prescribe for Common in the Lords Land within the same Mannor by usitatum fuit but if he claim any other Common he must lay the prescription in the Lord. De Term. Hill An Reg. Eliz. xliii 1. WAlter Ascough prisoner
in the Fleet Appearance was brought to the Common place bar by habâ—as corpus to the intent to have him appear to an Originall in debt brought against him And being demanded by Goldesburg Clark whether he were the same party against whom the Originall was brought confessed it but denied to appear to the Action Brâ—â—keâ— Prothonotary said the Court ought to record his appearance confessing himself to be the same person but the whole Court said this was no appearance whereby he was remanded to the Fleet And Tamworth the Plaintif proceeded to the outlary against him 2. PRice brought an Action of Trover against Sir Walter Sands Frandulent deeds Trin. xxxviii Eli. And this was for finding of Corn. And the first point of the case was That a man had a Lease in Reversion and granted it to another by fraud and his Grantee granted that over to Sir Walter Sands bona fide And if this Grant over bona fide being derived out of a Fraudulent Estate shall be void per the Statute of 27 Eliz. or not was the question Harris Serjeant It seemeth the Grant to Sir Walter Sands to be good And not within the Statute of 27 Eliz. For 33 Heâ— 6. 28. If a man make a Feoffment in Fee by Collusion to the intent to defraud the Lord of the Wardship And after this Feoffee by Collusion make a Feoffment over bona fide Now the Lord is without remedy for the Collusion is gone And in this case there is an ignorance in Sir Walter Sands the which is not willfull and for that it is not punishable Notice But if the other had taken the profits so that the purchaser might have notice there it should be otherwise The â— cause was non constat whether the Grant were before the Statute of 27 Eliz. or not For if it were before then the party shall not answer the mean profits Allso a third matter is ten yeares of the Term was granted for money But when he granted the Residue of the Term and no Consideration expressed Consideration expressed then there shall be no consideration intended And if there were no Consideration given he is not holpen by the Statute For that helpeth a Frandulent Conveyance against purchasers for Consideration given or paid Et non constat that any thing was paid by the Plaintif Allso it appeareth that Sir VValter Sands was in possession at the making of the Statute Allso here the party is charged with a speciall fraud And the other saith that it was made bona fide And this is a good course of pleading without any Traverse per 4 Ed. 4. 24. 3. HUgh Hall brought an Action upon his case for words and declared Slander that where he himself was robbed of divers parcels of Cloth per quendam ignotum and made his integrity and indeavour to apprehend the said thief praedictns tamen defendens praemissorum non ignarus dixit de praefato Hugone viz. Hugh Hall hath received three parcells of his Cloth again of the thief And if I receive any hurt henceforth I will charge him with it And by Judgement of the Court the words are not actionable 4. THe Lady VVilloughby Wife to the late Sir Francis VVilloughby Caveat sued in the Chancery as Administratrix of her said Husband against Percivall Willoughby which had maried one of the Daughters of the said Sir Francis And the Defendant pleaded that before any Administration commited to the said Plaintif he himself put in a Caveat in the Spirituall Court hanging which Caveat she hath attained these Letters of Administration Appeal whereby the Defendant hath appealed 〈◊〉 which appeal is not yet determined for which he demanded Judgement if hanging this appeal the said Plaintif shall be received to sue in this Court as Administratrix And it seemed to Egerton then Lord Keeper of the great Seal that the Defendants plea is good to stay the suit untill the appeal be determined But not to be dismissed out of the Court Appeal Erâ—â—â— Difference no more than an excommunication And he said there is difference between an appleal in Spirituall Law and a Writ of Error in our Law For by the purchasing of a Writ of Error the Judgement is not impeached untill the Record be rehearsed But the very bringing of an appeal is a suspension of the first Judgement in the Spirituall Court for the principall matter but not for the costs and for to prove that he cited 2 R. 2. Quare impedit 143. vide 27 H. 6. Gaud. 118. 2 M. 105. Dyer 7 Eliz. 240. 5. IN the Chauncery a speciall Verdict was retorned upon an extent Execution uâ—on an exteâ—t of a Remainder And the case was this that there was Tenant for liâ—e the Remainder in Tail and the Tenant in Remainder in Tail made a Statute Staple and after granted his Remainder And after the Tenant for life died 〈◊〉 Bull 〈◊〉 and the Grantee of the Remainder entered And whether Execution shall be sued of this land upon the said Statute insomuch that the said land was never in Demeasne in the hands of the Coâ—â—so◠〈◊〉 â—ames 〈◊〉 and so not extendable in his hands was the question And Sr. Thomas Egerton Lord Keeper of the great seal said that before that time there had been a difference taken between a Remainder and a Reversion depending upon an estate for life For to a Remainder are no services due nor incident and for that it is termed Seck But a Reversion hath services incident and those may be extended and by consequence the Reversion when it commeth in possession Bâ—t it seemed unto him that all was one for one may charge a Remainder when it happeneth aswell as a Reversion and a Statute is in the nature of a charge Cook the Queenes Attourney said there was no question in the Case for albeit there was some scruple made in 33 H. 8. B. 227. yet the Case is without question for if he in the Remainder make a lease for yeares to commence at a day to come Yet if he grant over his Remainder the Grantee shall hold that charged with his lease And every Statute is a charge Executory By which the said Lord Keeper awarded that there should be a liberate made to the Conusee upon the retorn above 6. OVerton brought an action of Debt against Sydall Debt by a Successor against an Executor after assignment And the case was that Prebendary made a lease for yeares rendring rent and the Lessee died and the Executors of the Lessee assigned over the Term and the Successor of the Prebend brought an action of Debt against the Executors for rent due after that they had assigned the estate over and the opinion of three Justices was that the action would not lye But Popham the chief Justice held the contrary For the Successor is privie to the Contract of the predecessor And so the Executor to the contract of the Testator
shall have the corn for if Lessee for life leaseth for years and this Lessee for yeers sowe the land and the Lessee for life dye now the Lessee for yeers shall have the corn by reason of his right to the land at the time of his sowing and never lawfully devested by any Act done by himself and he denyed the cases put by Mr. Tanfield and so concluded Gawdie The lessee for yeers of the Tenant for life shall have the corn and he denyed some of the cases put by Mr. Tanfield for in the case where Tenant for life sowes the land and after assigns over his esttae now if Tenant for life dye the Assigne shall have the corn as well as the Executors of the Tenant for life if he had not assigned over his estate But I agree the case of the devise for life of land sowed with the remainder for life for there he in remainder shall have them and the laches of the not entry of the Lessee for yeers shall not prejudice him Lessee for years ousted for it appeareth by 19. H. 6. if Lessee for yeers of Tenant for life be ousted and after the Tenant for life dye yet the Lessee for yeers shall have trespasse with a continuando for all the mean profits The which proves that they belong to him so is it in 38. H. 6. Lessee at wil ousted If Lessee at will be ousted and after the Lessor dye now the Lessee shall have a trespasse with a continuando without regress for when he may not enter Regress the law supplyeth it and the mean profits do belong to him And by consequence in this case the corn belongeth to the Lessee for yeers Ground let for life after sowing of the Tenant for life Popham Sir Henry Knevit shall not have the Corn for if a man lease for life ground which is sown and the Lessee dye now the Lessor shall have the Corn and not the Executors of the Lessee for life And he agreed with Mr. Tanfeild in the case of the Assignee of Tenant for life of ground sowed and the Tenant for life dye that he in Reversion shall have the Corn Disseisor sow the land of tenant for life And if a Disseisor sow the land of Tenant for life and the Tenant for life dye now the Executors of the Tenant for life shall have the Corn and not the Disseisor nor he in Reversion and by consequence the Lessee for years of the first Lessee for life in this case Fenner was of the same opinion and after it was adjudged that Knevit should have the land and that Poole should have the Corn because of his possession 61. RAme sued a Prohibition against Patteson Prohibition for Dotards and the question was if Trees which are above the age of twenty years become rotten and are cut down for fuell shall pay Tyths or not and the opinion of the Court was that they shall not for Tythes are payable for an increase and not for a decrease and being once privileged in regard of hie nature this privilege shall not be lost in regard of his decrepitage 62. PArtridge brought an Action of Debt against Naylor upon the Statute of 1 2 P. M. 12. Empounding For taking of a Distress in one County and driving it into another and the case was that three men distreined a flock of Sheep and them impounded in severall places and if every of them shall forfeit a hundred shillings severally or but all together a hundred shillings Common place The Court was divided for the words of the Statute is that every person so offending shall forfeit to the party grieved for every such offence a hundred shillings and treble damages but Walmisley thought that every one should forfeit a hundred shillings and he put a difference between person and party for many persons may make but one party 63. BY Popham chief Justice of England by the Statute of 28 Ed. 3. cap. 10. Fine for Error in inferior Courts Erroneous Judgement in London was a forfeiture of their Liberties but after that by the Statute of 1 Hen 4. cap. 15. this was mitigated and was made finable as in Chester if they give an erroneous Judgement they shall forfeit an hundred pound for these inferior Courts which have peculiar Jurisdictions ought to do justly for if these Courts shall not be restrained with penalties Justice will be neglected and before the Statute of 28 Ed. 3. those of London might not reform Errors in London 64. NOta per Doctor Amias in the Lord Souch his case Caveat if a Church become voyd and a stranger enters a Caveat with the Register of the Bishop that none be instituted to that Church untill he be made privy thereunto and the Bishop before that he have notice of the Caveat institutes an Incumbent the Institution is meerly voyd in the Spiritual Law for the Register ought to notifie the Caveat to the Bishop and his negligence in that shall not prejudice him that entered the Caveat and if the Bishop have notice of the Caveat and gives day to him that puts that in and before that day he institutes an Ineumbent this is meerly voyd for the entering of the Caveat is as a Supersedeas in our Law 65. THornton brought an Action upon an Assumpsit against Kemp Day of payment and declared that the Testator was indebted to him in ten pound and in consideration that the Plaintif would give day to the Defendant being Executor to pay that until Michaelmas he assumed to pay that in facto dicit that he hath given day and yet the Defendant hath not that payd The Defendant pleaded in bar that post praedictam assumptionem factam and before Michaelmas the Plaintif did arrest him for the same Debt and demands Judgement and upon that the Plaintif demurred Gawdy When he hath given to him day of payment usque ad Michaelmas allbeit he arrest him before that time yet if he do not receive the money before Michaelmas the consideration is performed Fenner I deny that for to what purpose is the giving of day of payment untill Michaelmas if in the mean time he may sue him Popham I agree with my brother Gawdy for insomuch that he onely forbears the payment untill Michaelmas and doth not promise to forbear to sue him the payment is forborn if the money be not received 66. SHerington â—ued a Prohibition against Fleetwood Parson de Orrell Prohibition in Com. Linc. for that that the sayd Parson libelled in the Spiritual Court for Tyths of Agistments and the now Plaintif being Defendant in the Spirituall Court pleaded that he had allwayes payd twelve pence by the year for every Milch Cow going in such a Pasture and for this payment he had been discharged of payment of Tythes for all Agistments in that land Payment for one thing shall not discharge another Popham This payment of money for Milch
dyed and if the estate of Tho. was determined by the death of Nich. was the question Johnson There are two points in the case the first if by this word Assignee an Occupant shall have the land and I think he shall not And the second point is when a lease is made to one and his Assignees for his own life and the lives of two others if now his own life confound the other two lives for that that it is greater to the Lessee than the other two lives and he said the Lessee hath no estate but for his own life and when he dyed the state is determined and to prove that he cited the opinion of Knightley in 28 Hen. 8. 10. Where he saith if a lease be made to one pur auter vie without impeachment of Wast the remainder to him for his own life that now he is punishable of Wast for that that when the remainder is limited unto him for his own life Wast against the surviving Joyntenant this drowneth the estate pur auter vie which was in him before And by 3 Edw. 3. If a lease be made to two for their lives without impeachment of Wast and one of them purchase the Fee simple and dye now his heir shall have Wast against the Survivor And I have heard that this was the case of the Lord Aburgaveney for a house in Warwick lane Cook è contra And the case is no more but that a lease is made to one and his Assignes for his own life Remainder for years to the tenant for life and for the lives of two others and I think that all may stand together for a man may have an estate for his own life the remainder for yeares and both may stand together in him simul semel for that that albeit that the Lessee may not have that during his own life yet he may dispose of that and by that means shall have the benefit and so in this case and allso an estate pur auter vie shall be in esse in the Lessee for the benefit of the Occupant and the inconveniencies shall be exceeding many in this case if the estate doth not endure for all their lifes for the Statute of 32 H. 8. inableth Tenant in tayl to make leases for 3 lives or 21 years and usually Tenants in tayl make such leases as these be and for that the generality of the case ought greatly to be regarded and there was a case adjudged in the Common place between Chambers and Gostock Chambers against Gostock where a lease was made to two for their lives and the life of a stranger and one of the Lessees dyed and the Survivor granted the land for his life and the life of the stranger Burdels case and it was no forfeiture and allso it was Burdels case in the Common-place 32 Eliz. where a lease was to him for his own life and the lives of two others and a good lease for all their lives Occupant And for the point of the Occupant there is no question but that the state of him that first enters is better than the state of him that enters under the state of the Lessor Gawdy The cases put by Mr. Johnson are not like to the case in question The greater estate preceding the less both may stand and I will agree them for here the greater estate precedeth the lesser I hold that a lease made to one for his life the remainder to him for anothers life is good for he may it grant over and so I think in this case that so long as any of the lives remain living that the estate remains Fenner I am of the same opinion for I think that the state pur auter vies is in the party to dispose at his pleasure so Judgment was given for the Defendant 87. HArding brought an Action of Trover of goods against Shâ—rman Visne and declared of a Trover at D. in the County of Hunt The Defendant pleaded that he bought the goods of one I. S. at Roiston in the County of Hertford in open Market and demanded Judgement The Plaintif replied that the Defendant bought the same goods of the said I. S. at D. aforesaid in the County of Huntington by fraud and Covin And after bought them again at Roiston as the Defendant supposeth the Defendant rejoines that he bought the same goods bona fide at Roiston Absque hoc that he bought them by fraud apud D. in Com. Hunt Glanvile pleaded in arrest of Judgement that the Visne ought to be of both Counties Gawdy seemeth to agree but for that that Clinch and Fenner held strongly that the Visne was well awarded in one of the Counties therefore Gawdy gave Judgement for the Plaintif for by this speciall Traverse the buying at Roiston shall not come in question 88. PAyton being High-Sherif Keep harmless brought Debt upon an Obligation against his under-Sherif and the Condition was to perform all Covenants in a pair of Indentures conteined and one Covenant was that the under-sherif shall keep all the Prisoners committed to him untill they be delivered by the Law and allso to save Mr. Payton harmless of all escapes made by the said Prisoners And the Defendant pleaded performance of all Covenants Godfry The Plea is not good for one part is in the Affirmative and the other in the Negative By which the Defendant ought to plead that the Plaintif non fuit damnifieatus and so was the opinion of the Court by which day was given to the Deâ—endant to amend his plea. 89. A Man brought an Action of Trespass for entring into an house and breaking of his close in Dale Variance between the declaration and the new assignment or the title of the Plaintif The Defendant said that the said house and close in which the Trespass is supposed to be done conteins twenty Acres and is at the time of the Trespass supposed was his Freehold And the Plaintif replyed quod locus clausa in quo supponitur transgressio est anum messuagium and makes him a Title to it To which the Defendant pleaded non Cul. And it was found for the Plaintif and for that that the Plaintif by his Replication made to him Title but to a messuage and doth not maintain his Declaration which was for the messuage and the close therefore it was awarded quod querens nihil capiat per Billam sed quare if this do not amount to a discontinuance of the close onely and so helped by the Verdict 90. THomas Allen brought a Writ of Debt against William Abraham upon an Obligation bearing date in October Counterbond for an Obligation allready forfeited The Condition was that whereas the sayd Thomas Allen at the request of the above bounden William Abraham standeth bound together with the sayd William unto one J. S. in an Obligation for the true payment of 11. l. the 15. day of May the which May was before the
Treason shall be tried by people of like condition yet if an Esquire be arraigned of Treason he shall be tried by people of meaner condition as appears by 1 Mar. 99. for that it hath been allwaies put in ure and therefore shall be intended that it was the meaning of the Law Fenner Contra For before inductionthe Incumbent hath no interest in the Parsonage and the Parishoners have no notice of him and he may not serve the Cure before Induction and then if our Law do not repute him Parson then the Statute doth not intend to make the first Benefice void before that he is full Parson in another Benefice Allso this word have in the Statute is a word Possessory and ought to be full to all entents Popham I think the dispensation will not help for by the Admission as to the Cure of souls he is a full Parson and allso such a Parson is a sufficient Parson as to the Patron and to devest the interest into the Parson No laps for want of induction Allso he is a full Parson as to a stranger for if 7 years incurr between the Admission and institution before Induction no Laps shall acrew No taking of fruits before induction But as to the matter of the possession and fruits of the Benefice he is not Parson before Induction And if the Law no not make the first Benefice void in such a case then one Parson may retain 20 Benefices together for first he may be admitted into one before Induction into that admitted into another sic in infinitum the which was never the meaning of the makers of the Law and if before the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. a man had taken two Benefices that had not been good without a perinde valere in the spirituall Law Hunting Chaplins and the meaning of the Law was to help one that was a Chaplin to Noble men and not such which are hunting Chaplins which hunt after Benefices Then to the second matter I think the enrollment is good and but an offence in the Clerk which is finable and not in the party for the party may not procure the Clerk to make his entry in an another course than the custom is And therefore no fault in the party At another day in Mich. 39 40 Eliz. this case was moved again and Cook Attorney seemed that the dispensation which comes after Admission and Institution and before Induction comes to late and is not holpen by the Proviso of the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. for the words of the Statute are shall have retein and take a second Benefice And after admission and institution he may not take his Benefice the which he had before for he is Parson to make a plenarty and to many other purposes before Induction Gawdy seemed that the admission and Institution made him full Incumbent as to the Patron and to the Parson himself But as to the possession of the Church he is not full Parson before Induction for 5 Eliz. in an issue upon plenarty it is there taken that the Church is plena consulta per admissionem institutionem before Induction And if any other construction shall be made in this case the Letter of the Law shall not be observed viz. shall have receive and keep for he may not have a thing the which he had before And it seemes to me that neither by the intent nor by the Letter of the Statute it is holpen Fenner è contra For 14 Eliz. fuit adjudged upon an issue Prebend or not Prebend that before Induction he was not Prebend But the reason for which a Quare impedit doth not lie after the Admission and Institution after six months is for that that against every Patron the Presentation is onely excepted Refusall before induction and before Induction the Parson if he will may refuse a Benefice for a Parson which is absent may be presented and admitted to a Benefice A Parson absent may be presented and admitted and if he may not refuse it it is very mischievous to him And the Presentation is the Act of the Patron and the Admission is the Act of the Ordinary But the Induction is the Act of the Parson himself for by that he is known to all his Parishoners and his free consent by that is testified to accept of the Benefice to which he was presented Gawdy If I grant to you prox praesentationem and the Incumbent die and the grantee present onewhich after admission and Institution dies before Induction whether is the grant executed or not quasi diceret quod sit Fenner I have asked the opinion of the Judges of our house and they are of my opinion But I agree with my Brother Gawdy for his last opinion for after admission and Institution Plenarty against himself before induction the Church is full against himself before Induction Gawdy Truly it is full against all Common Persons Clinch The Induction is like to a livery of seision and therefore before the Induction the Parson is as a Feoffee is after a Deed of Feoffment delivered unto him and before livery and seisin he is but Tenant at Will Popham I agree with my Brother Gawdy for if the spirituall Law be well understood it will make an end of this matter and case A sentence declaratory upon a deprivatioâ— ipso facto For by their Law if a man take two Benefices the one is void ipso facto without deprivation Yet there ought to be a sentence declaratory of the deprivation to give notice to our Law and by the admission and institution the Incumbent is a Parson to many purposes So it seemeth upon an execution but not to all profits but as to the exercising of his Function he is Parson and hath Curam animarum and if by the admission and institution before induction He may exercise his Fanction before induction the presentee shall not be perfect Parson great inconvenience will ensue for put that a man grant prox praesentationem to one and he present and his presentee is admitted and instituted and then the presentee obtaines of the Bishop a fequestration of the profits and will never be inducted in this caâ—e the grantor may lose his patronage And if I bargain and sell my land and before enrollment of the deed I purchase a licence of the Queen this licence shall not avail for he ought to have a pardon and so in this case Gawdie I am not of the same opinion of my Lord chief Justice that if a man that hath a benefice take another benefice that that is void before deprivation by the spirituall law For under correction their law is otherwise this case is now reported by Cook and adjudged that the dispensation came to late 66. HOO Executor of Hoo brought a Scire facias against Felix Marshall Scire facias sur recogn and the case was this Hoo the Testator commenced a suit in
as primo Mar. 100 is Then if the Sherif inquire of one term and sell another as our case is the term sold was never found by our Inquisition and for that the sale not good quod Fenner concessit yet the Lord Popham sayd that if it had been found by the Inquistion generally that he is possessed of such land for term of divers years adhuc ventur which they have prised to such a sum this had been good insomuch as they have not any means to come to the knowledge of the certainty of the term But when by Inquiry a Term in particular is found Que estate refers as well to the estate as to the person they may not vary from that and sell another and he sayd that these words Cujus statum Henrici Fry shall be referred as well to the state precedent found as to the person of Fry And so is the common intendment in pleading of a que estate And he said to Mr. Tanfield that if he had taken any note of their first opinions that he should raze that out of his Book again and after the parties agreed in Court that Hauger should give to Fry 200 Marks more for his term and then Fry should make assurance to him of the term for confirmation of the sale 106. NOta per Cook Attorney Generall Difference between Feoffmenâ— to an use and covenant to raise an use If a man Covenant in consideration of naturall love to his son to stand seised of certain Land to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the same son in Fee with a Proviso that it shall be lawfull for himself to make Leases for 21 years or three lives Now he may not make such Leases notwithstanding this Proviso being by way of Covenant to raise the use And so it hath been resolved Contra Peradventure if it were by way of Feoffment to uses After Mr. Walter said that now lately in one Sharingtons case it was adjudged in this Court upon a Writ of Error That if a man Covenant with his Eldest son in consideration of naturall love A proviso with speciall limitaâ—n good to stand seised to the use of himself for life the remainder to his Eldest Son in tail with Proviso that he himself might make Leases to his second son or to any other of his kindred for 21 years or 3 lives and he made Leases to him accordingly this was holden good for they to whom the Leases are made are within the consideration to wit of the blood and for that the use may well rise to maintain those Leases But if the Proviso had been to make Leases to any man howbeit that after he made Leases by force of that to his second son These Leases are void for they are not within the consideration of the Covenant by Intendment of Law at the first for the Law at the beginning adjudged the Proviso meerly void quod nota 107. RObinson brought Debt upon an Obligation against May Counterbond the Condition was that the Defendant should discharge or save harmless the Plaintif of an Obligation for which the Plaintif as surety with the now Defendant was bound to I. S. The Defendant by way of bar pleaded Vsury that the Obligation made to I. S. by him and the Plaintif was upon a corrupt and usurious bargain and pleaded the Statute of Usury and concluded sic non daâ—â—ificatus It was moved at the bar that this was no plea for the Condition is that the Defendant shall discharge or save harmless c. And the Plaintif was impleaded by I. S. for that debt and hath paid the condemnation Tanfield Contra For if this shall not be allowed for a good plea the Statute of usury will be utterly defeated For by a compact between the surety and the Usurer the surety shall pay the usurer and the surety by that counterbond shall have double recompence against the Principall which will be mischievous But the whole Court held the plea not good sed quare 108. HObbs sued an Audita querela in the Kings Bench against Tedcastle Audita querela for a speciall bail and upon a demurer the case was recited by Moor of the Temple to be this Tedcastle sued a bill of debt in this Court against one Hallaway in Custodia Marescali which found bail the said Hobbs and an another which entred bail according to the common course of bail And after Hallaway was condemned in the said Action and then the said Hallaway died without paying the condemnation or rendring his body to Prison for which a scire facias was sued against the bail and upon two nihils retorned Execution was awarded against them Whereupon they sued this Audita querela supposing that the death of Hallaway hath discharged the bail Moor argued for the Plaintif that the bail ought to be discharged upon the matter for Hallaway had Election to discharge the bail by paying the condemnation or rendring of his body to Prison Now by the Act of God it becomes impossible to perform the one to wit to yield his body to prison And therefore the Law will discharge him of the other and by consequence his bail And that he proved by Arundells case 9 Eliz. 262. 6. 7 Eliz. 231. Sir Edw. Walgraves case Popham Quemodo constat here but that there was convenient time after the Judgement to perform the one or the other Kemp Secondary The course is allwaies here after Judgement to award a Capias against the Defendant and if upon that he do not render himself or pay the condemnation then to sue Execution against the bail and not before but here there was never any Capias awarded against Hallaway the Defendant in his life time Popham Gawdy Fenner This seemeth very reasonable not to sue Execution against the bail untill a default be retorned against the Principall and the recognisance of the bail which is that the Principall shall yield himself c. is intended to be upon Process awarded against him But no Process was awarded against him in his life and now it is impossible that he should yield himself to Prison being dead Iudgement and therefore the bail is discharged And so they awarded Judgement for the Plaintif in the Audita querela 109. MAtures brought an Action of Covenant against Westwood And the case was such Covenant for an assignee of a reversion for years Adams Lessee for 20 years made a Lease for 10 years of the same Land to Bowes by indenture whereby Bowes did Covenant at the end of his Term of ten years to avoid and to leave peaceable possession to Adams his Executors or Assignes Adams granted over his Reversion to Matures the now Plaintif The question is if the Plaintif by the Statute of 32 Hen. 8. cap 34. as Assignee may maintain an Action of Covenant for his Covenant broken or not Nota that this case was moved divers times And first it was moved if
a Grantee of a Reversion for years be within the Statute or not Gawdy Well enough For the words of the Statute extend to that quod fuit concessum Then it was moved that this was a meer collaterall Covenant between the persons and not concerning the estate of the land and for that not within the Statute Popham sayd Covenant reall which concerneth the estate If nothing be sayd to the contrary intretur Judicium for the Plaintiff afterwards the case was moved again Gawdie It seems the case is Assigne which in regard of his reversion as of a Covenant may well maintain this action by the Statute of 32. Fenner This Covenant is not any Covenant to be performed during the estate or terme of the Defendant but it is a Covenant to doe a thing in the end of his term and for that is not a Covenant of which the Assignee of the reversion shall have benefit by the Statute for that he hath not any reversion depending upon any estate when the Covenant is alledged to be broken for the Defendant when he breaks that Covenant is but Tenant at sufferance Gawdie contra the Covenant is not to doe a thing after the terme determined but at the instant of the determination of the term and therfore it is a Covenant annexed to the State and runnes with the Land and therefore the Plaintiff shall have advantage over it 110. TRespasse and assault was brought against one Sims by the Husband and the Wife for beating of the woman A Child born living but bruised Cook the case is such as appears by examination A man beats a woman which is great with child and after the child is born living but hath signes and bruises in his body received by the said batterie and after dyed thereof I say that this is murder Fenner Popham absentibus cateris cleerly of the same opinion and the difference is where the child is born dead and where it is born living for if it be dead born it is no murder for non constat whether the child were living at the time of the batterie or not or if the batterie was the cause of the death but when it is born living and the wounds appeare in his body and then he dye the Batteror shal be arraigned of murder for now it may be proved whether these wounds were the cause of the death or not and for that if it be found he shall be condemned 111. GOodale against Wyat in trepasse The speciall verdict found that Sr John Pagginton was seised of the land in question in Fee Mortgage and morgaged it to one Woodliff upon condition that if he or his Heires did pay to the Heires Executors or Administrators of the said W. within one yeer after the death of the said Woodliff 50 l. That then the said deed of Feoffment and the Seisin thereupon given should be void and afterwards Woodliff infeoffed Goodale of the same land and gave notice of the said Feoffment to Sr J. P. and after Woodliff dyed and Sir J. agreed with the heir of W. to wit one Drew Woodliff to take 30 l. for the said 50 l. but when the 30 l. was to be paid Sir J. paid to the said Drew VV. all the fifty pounds and after such payment made Drew VV. gave back to the said Sr. J. 20 l. parcel of the 50 l. Altam 2. points are in the case The first is to whom the payment of the money as this case is ought to be made and I think to the Feoffee because the Heir hath nothing to do in the land and to prove that he cited fundamenta legum 17. Ass 2. 6. R. 2. Plesingtons case and the case of one Ramsey 19. Eliz. was such a man infeoffed three Ramseys case upon condition that if the Feoffor paid to them or their heires 100 l. that then he might re-enter and after one of the Feoffees dyed and the Feoffor tendred the money to his Heir and adjudged a void tender And also Littleton proves that but tif the condition might be performed to the Heirby payment that ought to be precisely performed for he is now as a stranger having nothing in the land and the Covin between the Feoffor and the Heir must not hurt my Olient for by 4. E. 2. câ—i in vita 22. If cui in vita be brought against a Prior and hanging the action he is deposed by Covin this shal not abate the Writ and it was adjudged in this Court where a man was bound by Obligation to deliver a bond and after he got a judgement upon it and then delivered the bond and holden no performance of the condition because the intent was not performed and 20. E. 3. accompt 29. in accompt the Defendant pleaded a Deed whereby the Plaintiff granted that if the Defendant made a Recognisance to him that then the Writ of accompt shall be made void and he shewed how he made a Recognisance But the Plaintiff said that after the making and before deliverie of that to him Composition by Executors the Defendant took it from the Clerk and therefore was adjudged to accompt Precisely named and by 18. E. 4. 20. If a man be bound to license another to carrie a 100. Oakes if he do license him and then disturb him the condition is broken and the common case of Executors will prove this for if an Executor have but 20 l. assets in his hands and is in debt to two men in 20. l. to either of them if he pay but 10 l. to the one and have an acquittance of him for the whole debt of 20 l. yet the other 10. l. that remains in his hands shall be assets to the other for no compacting between strangers shall prejudice my right per quo c. Payment upon a mâ—rgage good to the Executorrs cleelry Gawdy I think cleerly if the payment had been intirely made to the Heir without collusion it had been good for that he is preisely named for none will deny but that if the payment had been made to the Executors it had been good but the Covin between the Heir and the Feoffor peradventure will make no payment Father enfeoff the son and for that 34. E. 1. Warrantie 88. If the father infeoff the Son to the intent that this land shall not be assets to the Sonne to bar him in a Formdone this Covin will not serve to aid him Covin by administration and 2 3 Mar. the Husband dyed intestate and administration was committed to the wife which tooke another husband and the second husband and his wife as Administrators brought an action of Debt hanging which suit the Sonne of the intestate by fraud and covin between him and a Debtor obtained other letters of Administration to him and the woman joyntly and after judgement the sonne by covin to defeat the execution released to the Debtor all demands and executions and after the Husband and
Wife sued execution and the Debtor upon this release brought an audita querela and adjudged against him because of covin but there is a third matter which makes an end of all for it is found that Sir John Pagginton entred upon Goodale and Goodale re-entred and then the Defendant entring is a Trespassor to the Plaintiff because no title is found for him to make his entrie lawfull Finner I thinke no payment ought to be made to the heir in this case no more than it shall be where a man is bound by obligation to pay a lesser sum to the Obligee his Heires or Executors there payment shall be to the Executor and not to the Heir And I think in this case Conusee by Starute grants over his estate that the payment ought to be to the Feoffee for that that he is to have the losse for by 22. E. 3. 15. E. 3. if a man have exeution by Statute and grant his estate over if the Conusor will pay the money and have the land again it shall be paid to the Grantee and not to the Conusee But I am cleer in opinion that for another cause judgement ought to be given against the Defendant for the words of the condition are sub conditione That if Sir John Pagginton pay 50. l. to the Heires Executors or Administrators of W. That the said Deed of Feoffment Liveriâ— cannot be void without a reentire and the seizin upon that given shall be void And I think it is no condition for livery of seisin may not be void without a re-entry as 15. H. 7. is but for the matter of the Covin it seems to me that if the Heir may receive the money that shall not prejudice for if he have right to have the money who hath any wrong if he give part of that to another Clinch The payment of the money to the Heire is good for when a man departeth with his estate it is in his dispose to annexe what condition he will and for that when he appointeth to the Heires Executors or Administrators payment to any of them is good And he said it was a good condition Possession a good title against all which have not a better and no fraud for the duty was due to the Heir but for the last matter that is not to be cured for when one title is found for the Defendant and it is found that the outed one that had elder possession his entry is torcious Popham I think the condition is not good for whensoever you will have an estate of inheritance to cease Estates beginning by liverie and otherwise you ought to have apt words to make it cease for an estate which beginneth by liverie may not cease by words but it is otherwise of an estate that beginneth by contract without any liverie and seisin but in the point of fraud I am of opinion with my brother Gawdy Fraudulent recoveries are void although they be by a good title For fraud in our law is not favoured albeit the partie have right for if he that hath right is of covin with one to disseise him that is in possession to the intent that he will recover against him now this recoverie albeit he hath right will doe no good to him but the last makes all without question and so judgement was given for the Plaintiff 112. SAyer brought an Eejectione firme against Hardy A Lease determinable made good for the insensibility of words and a speciall verdict was found to wit that a Lease was made to a widow for 40. yeers sub hac tamen conditione quod si ipsa tam diu sola fuerit inhabitabit in the same house the woman continued sole all her life and dwelt all her time in the said house and dyed within the term the question was whether the term be determined or not and whether the words make a condition or limitation Morgan It is no condition and cited Colthursts case but if it were a condition here is no breach alleged for the death is the Act of God which no man may resist and the Act of God may not prejudice any man Bromly I think the word makes a Limitation and not a Condition and he tited the Lord Barkly's case Gawdie If a Lease be made to a feme sole if she so long live sole and continue unmarried now if she dye the Lease is determined Differences between conditions and limitations and per Litl If an Abbot make a lease for 40. yeers if he so long be Abbot if he after be deposed or dye the lease is determined So is it of a lease made by the Husband if he so long continue Husband of such a woman but in this case the words are insensible and for that it is neither condition nor Limitation vide 3. E. 6. Dyer 65. 66. Popham Clinch It is neither Condition nor limitation but if this word si had been omitted it would have been a condition Or if the words sub conditioâ—â— quod had been omitted it would have been a limitation And if I make a Lease for 40. yeers if the Lessee dwell upon the thing let during the term there if the Lesse dye the Lease is determined for that the point of limitation goeth to all the term but if it be a lease for 40. yeers if the Lessee dwell upon that during his life there if he dye the Lease continueth So they all concluded that the terme yet continueth per quod judicium intretur pro quer 113. IN the case between Walter and Walter for 20. l. per annum to be paid to a Justice of Wales for the Office of the Clerk of Fines Assumpsit in consideration of an Office sold For a Justice of Wales may by Prescription take notice of Fines of Land lying in certain Shires in Wales and this 20 l. per annum was to be payd by the Servant to the Master for the sayd Office for the Clerks Fee was v. s iiij d. of every Fine The Action for not paying the xx l. Mistrâ—all was brought and tried in comitatu Gloucest And therefore Mr. Attorney said it was mis-tryed for properly it ought to be tryed in one of the three Shires in Wales John Walter I think the Tryall good for 30 Eliz. there was a Case in this Court between Beveridge and Conney Reveridge against Conney And the case was that a Lease was made in the County of Northampton of lands in the County of Cambridge and the Lessee was bound by Obligation to pay his rent in the County of Northhampton The Defendant pleaded payment in the County of Cambridge and this was found in the County of Northampton Gawdy This is a good Case let us see the Record Walter You shall Sir But the Court seemed to incline against Walter Cook said that in this case the Assumption is voyd per le Statute de 5 Ed. 6. cap. 16. For it is not
second point he said they were Joyntenants and not Tenants in common Consideration but if the wordes of the Will had been Part and part like that they shall have part and part alike there they are Tenants in common and not Joyntenants Tanfield è contra For if they were Joyntenants for life Reversion descendeth to a Joyntenant and the reversion descend to one of them that will never drown the estate for life for the benefit of the Survivor And if a man give land to two men for their lives the Remainder to the right heires of one of them yet they are Joyntenants and the Survivor shall hold place and albeit the words are equally between them yet this shall be intended equally during their estate and it hath been taken for a difference if I devise my land to two equally divided between them there they are immediately Tenants in common and not Joyntenants but if the words had been equally to be divided between them there they are Joyntenants untill division be made for that that it is referred to a future time Gawdy Justice I think they have but estates for life for consideration of blood is not so effectuall as consideration of money Blood Money Difference for if I bargain and sell my land for money without expressing any estate the Bargainee hath a Fee simple but if in consideration of naturall affection I covenant to stand seised to the use of my son and do not express any estate there my son is but Tenant for life and for the second point I think they are Tenants in common and not Joyntenants for the case is no other but as if he had said I give my land to my children by moities amongst them By moities and then there had been no question but that they had been Tenants in common Popham Clinch For the first point no estate but for life passeth if any estate pass for it is doubtfull if any estate pass or not for the Will is that after his debts paid Only Lands lyable he giveth all his lands goods and moveables c. And therefore Popham thought that such Lands which were liable to Debts should pass A Term. and no other For if the Devisor had had a Term then it seemeth no Land should pass But admit the Land do pass then if I devise Land to two equally divided between them they are Tenants in Common But if I devise Land to two equally to be divided between them by I. S. now untill Division they are Joyntenants So I think where the Devise is equally to be divided between them that they are Joyntenants quousque Division because of the reference future 142. IOhn Cole made a Lease for years to one Taunton Devise is a demise Hil. 36 â—liz rot 376. upon Condition that if the Lessee shall demise the Premises or any part of it other than for a year to any person or persons then the Lessor and his Heirs may re-enter the Lessee after devised it by his Will to his son Popham Gawdy Fenner It is a breach of the Condition and the case of 31 Hen. 8. 45. ruleth the Law in this case for a Devise is taken for a breach of the Condition v. 27 Hen. 8. 10. Quaere if he might not have suffered it to come to his son as Executor 123. A Man seised of a Wood granted to another a Hundred Cords of Wood to be taken by Assignment of the Grantor Grant before property vested and before Assignment the Grantee granted that over and whether this Grant be good or not being before Election was the question And the better opinion was that it is not grantable over for no property was Vested in him before the Assignment and if the Grantor die before Assignment the Grant is void and his Executors if he die shall not have it 124. BRewster brought Error against Bewty upon a Judgement given in the Common place in a Replevin A Jurâ—rs name in the distringing mistaken and it was Assigned for Error for that that Kidman was retorned in the Venire fac and Bidman was retorned in the Distringas habeas corpora Tanfield said it was apparent Error and to prove that he cited Parkers case where in an appeal Palus was retorned in the Venire fac and Faulus was in the Habeas corpora and Paulus was sworn and therefore Error And between Cobb and Paston a Juror was named Hantstrong in the Venire fac and Hartstrong in the Distr and adjudged ill Cook said that it might not be amended And to prove that he cited 9 Edw. 4. 14. 27 Hen. 65. where it is said no Amendment after Judgement for thereby the Attaint of the party shall be tolled and in a case between Crosby and Wilbet George Thompson was retorned in the Venire fac and Gregory Thomson was in the Distr and could not be amended after Judgement Gawdy It is hard to amend the Distr for the Book of 27. Hen. 6. is that it shall not be amended for the Distr is the Awarding of the Court and for that he cited 14 Hen. 6. 39. where a Juror was retorned by the name of Hodd and in the Habeas Corpora was named Lord and when the default was espied they awarded a new Habeas Corpora But in the Book of 22. Hen. 6. 12. the Sherifs retorn was amended but not the Writ And 34 Hen. 6. 20. The Prior of St. Bartholomews case where in the Fenire fac there were 24 retorned and in the Habeas Corpora but 23. and so a Juror omited and holden that it could not be amended But after the opinion of the Justices of England was that it should be amended insomuch that it appears by examination the same party in the Venire was sworn and so no damages to any 125. PAnnell brought Trespass against Fenn Devise to execute And the case was such that a man was Possessed of a Term and made M. his Wife and G. Fenn his Executors and devised all his Term to them and that they shall have the Term untill all his Debts and Legacies were paid and all such charges in suit of Law as they should expend the Remainder to John Fenn in tail the question was whether the Executors take as Devisees or as Executors Gawdy said if they take as Devisees then if the one of them grant all the Term no more but the Moity passeth and then the Grantee and the other Executors shall be Tenants in Common But if they take as Executors then when one Granteth the Term all passeth as 29 Hen. 8. is Clinch Fenner said they shall take as Executors for it is the proper function of an Executor to entermedle with the Will Gawdy If I make two my Executors Proper benefit and devise the profits of my Land to them untill my Debts and Legacies be paid and untill they have levyed 100. l. after that to their own use I
the Statute 134. NOta per Cook Attorney Generall Distinct grants that the Lord Keep 〈◊〉 that is was of Counsell in a case inter Harlakenden and A. where it was adjudged that if a man make a Lesse for years of Land excepting the Wood and after the Leasor grants the Trees to the Lessee and the Lessee assigned over the Land to another not making any mention of the Trees now the Trees shall not pass to the Assignee as annexed to the Land for the trees and Land are not conjoined for the Lessee had severall interests in them by severall Grants 135. THomas against King Ejectment and the Title of the Land was between Sir Hugh Portman and Morgan And the Ejectment was supposed to be of 100. Acres of Land in Dale Sale and the Jury found the Defendant guilty of 10 Acres but did not shew in what Town they lay whereupon Haris Serjeant moved in arrest of Judgement for that it doth not appear where the Sherif may put the Plaintif in Possession Et non allocatur for the party at his perill ought to shew unto the Plaintiff the right land for which Judgement was given for the Plaintif 136. O Land against Bardwick and the case was this that a woman being possessed of Coppihold land for her Widowes estate sowed the land Forfeiture of a particular tenant and after took the Plaintif to Husband and the Defendant being Lord of the Mannor entred and took the Corn and the Husband brought an action of Trespass Clinch I think the Woman shall not have the corn Lease by Tenant for life but if the Wife had Leased the Land and the Lessee had sown it and after the Wife had maried and the Lord had entred yet the Lessee shall have the Corn. But in the case at bar the Woman her self is the cause of the Determination of her estate for she committeth the Act and therefore shall not have the Corn no more Forfeiture than if Lessee for life sow the Land and after commit forfeiture and the Lessor enter in this case the Lessor shall have the Corn. Fenner At the first the State of the Woman was certain viz. for her life but yet determinable by Limitation if she mary And if a man which hath an Estate determinable by Limitation sow the ground and before severance the Limitation endeth the state yet the party shall have the Corn which he hath sown And in the case at the bar there is no Forfeiture committed which gives course of Entry nor no dishinheritance or wrong made to the Lord as in the case where Tenant for life after his sowing commits forfeiture and if a man enter for breach of a Condition Entry for condition broken he shall have the Corn and not he that sowed the same for that his entry over-reacheth the state of the other but in this case the entry of the Lord doth not overâ—ach the Title of the Woman for he shall take that from the time that the Limitation endeth the Estate and not by any relation before For the Act of the Woman is Lawfull and therefore no reason he shall lose the Corn Popham Chief Justice It is cleare Forfeiture if Tenant for life sow and after commit a Forfeiture And the Lessor enter he shall have the Corne 〈◊〉 the like is it if the Lessee after the sowing surrender his Term the Lessor Surrender or he to whom the Surrender was made shall have the corn but if Tenant for life make a lease for yeares Lease by Tenant for life and after commit a Forfeiture and the Lessor enter now the Lessee shall have the Corn and in the case at bar if the woman had Leased for yeares and the Lessee had sowed the land and after she had taken Husband now the Lessee and not the Lord shall have the corn for the act of the Woman shall not prejudice a third person but when she her self is the party Knowledge and hath knowledge at the time of the sowing what acts will determineâ—er estate then is it reason if she by her own act will determine her estate that she shall lose the Corn For if Lessee for life sow the land Lessee praies in aid and after pray in aid of a Stranger now if the Lessor enter he shall have the Corn And so if Tenant at Will sow the Land Tenant at will determines his own Will and after determine his own Will the Lessor shall have the Corn but otherwise it is if the state be determined by the act of law or of a third person so that no folly was in him that sowed Fenner If the Husband and Wife were Lessees during the coverture Determination by the act of the Law of a third persoâ— and after the Husband sowes the land and then the Husband and Wife are divorced yet the Husband shall have the Corn for that the Husband at the time of the sowing had no knowledge of the Act which determined his interest Divorce So in this case the Woman at the time of the sowing did not know of the future Act which determined her interest and therefore no rason she should lose the Corn for the Corn is a Chattell in her Grant for if she had either granted them or been outlawed after the sowing and then had taken a Husband Now the Queen in the case of the outlary or the Grantee in the other case and not the Lessor Outlary shall have the Corn. Popham I will agree the case of the divorce to be good Law For that is not meerly the Act of the party but allso of the Court but in the case at bar the taking of the Husband is the Voluntary Act of the Woman per que And after Judgement was given against the Husband which was the Plaintif 137. A Scough brought a Writ of Error against Hollingworth upon a Judgement given in the Common place in a Writ of Debt brought upon a Statute Merchant Statute Merchant And the case was that Ascough came before the Maior of Lincoln and put his seal to the same Statute and the Kings seal was also put thereunto but one part did not remain with the Maior according to the Statute of Acton Burnell And it was adiudged a good Obligation against the Partie albeit it is no Statute Godfrey I think the Judgement ought to be affirmed and he cited 20. E. 3. accompt 79. And it is clear that a thing may be void to one intent and good to another by 10. Eliz. but Popham and Fenner were of opinion that it was hard to make it an Obligation for in every contract the intent of the parties is to be respected Intent in every contract And here the intent of the parties war to make it a Statute for the Kings seal is put to it and a Statute needs no deliverie butan Obligation ought to be delivered otherwise it is not good