remedy for the damage he suffred in the losse of his Credit and the damage in his Trade for in the former Action he recovered no damages for that for the Iury never took that into their consideration for they had no power to take any damages into their consideration which happened after the Trespass done for which the Action was brought but only for the breaking open of the Shop and the taking away of his Goods and although he might at the first have brought his Action upon the case as he hath now done yet he was not commpellable thereto but had his Election to bring either an Action upon his case or an Action of Trespass as should most make for his advantage Election of Actions for this Election of Action belongs to every subject as his birth right and he is not to be hindred from it Adjournatur Remington and Kingerby Mich. 18 Car. rot 72. REmington grants a rent out of certain Lands to Fawne with a clause of distress Error upon a Judgement in an Annuity in the Common pleaâ— and a nomine poenae in the deed for the non payment thereof according to the time lymited the rent is behind after the time lymited by the nomine poenae Fawne brings a writ of Annuity in the Common Pleas for the Arrerages of the Annuity and for the moneys due upon the nomine poenae and hath Iudgement Remington brings his writ of Error in this Court to reverse this Iudgement and Assignes for Error that the writ of Annuity did not lie for the nomine poenae though it did for the rent for though it was in the Power and Election of Fawne to charge either the land out of which the rent was to issue with the rent behind by distress and so to make it a rent charge or else to bring his writ of Annuity for it against Remington and so to charge his person yet he had no such Power for the nomine poenae because it was in the nature of a rent and was necessarily to issue out of the Land Nomiâ—e yoe 1 ae and not to be charged upon the Person and it was further alleged that a nomine poenae was an uncertain thing and comes not within the Statute of 21 H. 8. touching Avowries as a rent charge doth which is certain Another exception was that it appears notin the Record that Fawne did make a good demand of this nomine poenae upon the Land out of which the rent was issuing as he ought to have done before he could bring an Action for it for though there do appear to be a demand yet if it appear not to be a legal demand it is Null and the party shall take no benefit by it Adjourned Nuls and Cheney 21 Car. B. R. AN Action of the case was brought for these words Arrest of Iudgement in in Action upon the case I do accuse you to be a Witch and require you to be searched and a verdict was given for the Plaintiff the Defendant moves in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because it is not averred that the party accused had done any hurt to Cattell or otherwise or hath had any Communication wit the Devill And so the Court held because the words spoken did not bring the Party of whom they were spoken within the Statute of 10 Jac concerning Witch-Craft Wingfield and Sherwood VVIngfield brings an Action of Covenant against Sherwood his Lessee for yeers Error upon a Iudgement in an Action of Covenant and declares that he had Covenanted by indenture that hee would not cut down more tymber growing upon the lands demised than sufficient for needful and necessary reparations of the houses and buildings let unto him and for breach Assigns that he had cut down tymber to the value of ten pounds and had converted them to his proper use and upon this hath a Verdict and a Iudgement against him Sherwood brings a writ of Error in this Court to reverse this Iudgment and Assigns for Error that there was variance between the Covenant expressed in the lease and the Covenant set forth in the declaration whereupon the breach was assigned and so the Iudgement was not given upon a breach of the Covenant expressed in the lease viz. That he should not cut down more tymber than was necessary for reparations for by this breach the Plaintiff supposeth that the Defendant had Covenanted not to cut down tymber to employ to his own use which is not the Covenant expressed in the lease but another And though the Defendant had cut down tymber and converted it to his own use Covenant this was not a breach of the Covenant expressed in the Indenture except it be averred that he cut down more than was necessary for reparations and converted it to his own use and for this Error the Iudgement was reversed Whitwell and Short Trin. 21. Carl. rot 227. WHitwell brought an Action of Trespass for assaulting beating Arrest of Iudgement in an Action of Trespasse and wounding him against fowr several persons three of them plead not guilty and are found guilty and the fourth pleads not guilty to part and iustifies for the rest viz. The wounding and is found guilty as to the wounding only yet the verdict was fond generally for the Plaintiff and intire damages assessed and Iudgement given and a writ of Error was brought and the Error assigned was that the damages ought not to be entire against all because that the fourth person was only found guilty of part of the trespass to wit the wounding and therefore as to him the damages ought to have been severed in relation only to the wounding and not as it is for so damages should be given twice for the same thing Several damages First against the three and then against the fourth which the Court granted and reversed the Iudgement VVard and Coggin Pasc 22 Car. rot 257. VVArd brings an Action of debt in the Common pleas against Coggin Error upon an action of Debt and declares that the Defendant in consideration that he the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant had sold certain wares to I. S. did assume and promise to him the Plantiff that he would pay such a sum of money for them and for non payment accordingly he brings his Action and hath a Verdict and Iudgement The Defendant brings his writ of Error in this Court to reverse this Iudgement and Assigns for Error That an Action of debt lyes not in this case because the debt which the Defendant promised to pay and for which the Action is brought was raised and became a duty before the promise made for the payment of it and so an Action of debt cannot be grounded for it on the promise And the words in the declaration do sound meerly upon a promise upon which a good consideration for an Action of the case may be grounded Case but not to bring an
the tryal good without it and thereupon day was given to shew cause why the Iudgement should not be aâ—firmed Pasch 23 Car. the Iudgement was affirmed Andrews Case Hill 22 Car. Banc. Reg. A Recognizance was acknowledged at Serjeants Iune in Fleetstreet Where a Scire facias upon a recognisance shall be brought and delivered and enrolled at Westminster The Court held that it was at the election of the Recognisee to bring his Scire facias either in London where the Recognizance was acknowledged or in Midlesex where it was delivered and enrolled But adjourned Afterwards viz. Pasc 23 Car. the Court held that the Scire facias ought to be where the recognizance is taken and not where it is recorded for there it begins to be a Record but this being in the Common Pleas it was good both ways and thereupon the party had his judgement Rooke and Knight 22 Car. Mich. Mich. 22 Car. rot 381. A Iudgement given in the Court at Dym Church Demurrer to a Scire facias upon a judgement removed out of the Cinqne Ports by Certiorari in the Kings Bench. a limb of one of the Cinque Ports was removed by a certiorari into the Kings Bench and thereupon issued a Scire facias for the Defendant to shew cause why the Plaintiff should not have execution upon the judgement to this the Defendant appears and demurs and takes these exceptions 1. That it is not expressed where Dim Church is 2ly In the retorn of the alias certiorari it is said sicut prius and not sicut alias 3ly the Sheriff in the reforn is not namned Knight and Baronet neither doth he name himself by his name of Baptism and Surname But the Court did over-rule all these exceptions and gave judgement for the Plaintif AN action of the Case was brought for these words Action upon the Case for words Thou hast stoll'n my wood and the Court inclined the words were actionable but not if he had said thou hast stoll'n my Trees and it was said that a precipe will lie of a wood for it shall be intended of woody ground adjourned Pracipe Helliar and Grace his VVife Pasch 23 Car. Banc. Reg. AN action upon the Case was brought by Helliar and his wife Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit upon a promise made unto them during the Coverture and it was moved a verdict being given for the Plaintifs in arrest of judgment that the Action ought to have been brought in the name of the Husband only and not by the husband and wife and a case to prove it was cited out of Dyer Dyer 91. and upon this exception the judgement was arrested till the other should shew cause to the contrary And in this case it was said by the Court that if an Obligation be made to baron and feme that it is the better opinion Joynt action that the baron may bring an action upon this obligation in his own name only and not name his wife or else he may at his election bring the action in the name of himself and his wife joyntly Betsworth and Betsworth Pasch 8 Maii 23 Car. Banc. Reg. It was moved for a Prohibition to the Prerogative Court upon a surmise that the party did endeavour to barstardise one that was legitimate But the other party answered that the surmise was not true and urged that the sute in the Praerogative Court was only Prâ—hibition to the Praerogative Court whether Letters of administration were by them well granted or no and not concerning Bastardy as the surmise sets forth and therefore desires the Prohibition may not be granted and for confirmation thereof the case was put which was this Betsworth had a wife called Bridget who died after he takes another wife called also Bridget and dies intestate Bridget the second wife takes Letters of administration of the goods and chatels of her husband deceased the son of Betsworth sues in the Praerogative Court to repeal these Letters of Administration upon pretence that Bridget the first wife of Betsworth was yet living In this case the Court delivered these positions following Jurisdiction 1. That one ought not to sue in the Ecclesiastical Court to Bastard an issue Ordinary but at the Common Law 2. Where the Ordinary hath granted Letters of Administration to one that ought to have them they ought not to be repealed by them 3. Where a sute is in the Ecclesiastical Court for lands and goods Prohibition a Prohibition may be granted as to the lands and they may procéed there notwithstanding as to the goods 4. That in this Case at the Bar neither Bastardy of the issue nor mariage is in question as is surmised but only the validity of the Letters of Administration Incidents and that the other things are but as incident to the matter in question 5. That wife or not wife is triable at the Common Law but whether lawfully maried or not Tryal is tryable in the Spiritual Court 6. Where a thing is tryable in the Spiritual Court and there is also a matter incident to it which is tryable at the Common Law there a Prohibition shall not be granted Prohibition Evidence 7. That a thing concluded in the Ecclesiastical Court touching lands cannot be given in evidence in a tryal at Law for Land 8. If the Common law differ from the Civil Law touching the legality or non legality of a thing if they will proceed according to their Law a Prohibition lies because the Common Law is to be preferred The rule of Court was Prohibition That a Prohibition should be granted and that the other should demur upon it and so it might be debated whether a Prohibition would lie or not and to stay in the Spiritual Court in the mean time Pasch 23 Car. Banc. Reg. ONe brought an Action upon the Case against I. S. for preferring a bill of Endictment against him Arrest of judgement in an action upon the case for stealing of a Mare and that the grand Iury found an ignoramus whereby he was discharged the Plaintiff obtains a Verdict against the Defendant The Defendant takes these exceptions to the declaration in Arrest of Iudgement 1. That it doth not appear thereby that the Party who preferred the bill of Endictment gave any evidence to the grand Iury touching the bill 2ly It appears not that the Plaintiff was bound over to answer the Felony and consequently was not molested â—y it and so he can have no Action But the Court stayed the Iudgement to another day upon the exceptions taken Case and sayed that an Action upon the Case lies for procuring one to be Endicted Endictment although the party himself do it not and that one may exhibit a bill of Endictment to a grand Iury without Oath grand Jury and they may notwithstanding find the bill and although it be exhibited upon Oath they are not bound to
is scriptum and for the time the Defendant ought to have alleged that he bad not convenient time Tender if the truth were so but here doth appear convenient time and it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to tender the Obligation but the Defendant ought to do it at his own perill and to pay the mony in convenient time after the mariage and the other is not bound to demand it Intendment nor to be at the charge to make the Obligation Bacon Iustice to the same effect and said the words ought to be intended of a writing obligatory according to common intendment Time and the meaning of the parties although it be not so expressed and it cannot be meant of a promise by parol for there are no presidents in Law for verbal securities but only for securities in writing and the word in debita juris forma implies so much otherwise here would be only one promise to make good another promise Pasc 9 Iac. rot 361. Banc. Reg. 21 Iac. upon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer-Chamber the former Iudgement was affirmed and the breach here assigned meets with the Assumpsit for it is that he did not become bound per c. and so the breach is well assigned 2ly Here appears in the Declaration to be two Months for the performing the promise which is a convenient time and there doth not appear any hinderance and the Defendant was bound to do it without request and there is no necessity for the Plaintiff to make an election of the time when he will have it done The Court bid the Plaintiff take his Iudgement except better matter were shewed on Monday following Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of forcible entry To quesh an Endictment The Exception was that the forcible entry is said is to be made in messuagium sive tenementum which is incertain But Roll Chief Iustice doubted whether the exception was good or not because it was messuagium sive tenementum and the word Messuage may be good though Tenemen tum be not But it was quashed upon another exception The King against VVood. Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment taken at a Sessions against one Wood for getting the horse of another man into his possession To quash an Endictment by using another mans name and a false token The exceptions taken against it were 1. The Endictment doth not say that it was contra Statutum But to this the Court answered that it was an offence at the Comon Law and the Endictment lay at the Common Law and therefore it need not to be expressed to be contra formam Statuti 2ly It doth not shew what the false token was nor in whose name it was used But Roll chief Iustice took another exception viz. that the Endictment was that the Defendant did the fact nuper and that is so general a word that no answer can be given to it And for that it was quashed Twigg against Roberts Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Hil. 22 Car. rot 956. AN Action of Debt was brought against an Executor in Bristow upon a Custom of concessit solvere by him to pay a Debt due by the Testator upon a simple contract and a verdict and a Iudgement for the Plaintiff Error to reverse a Iudgment in Debt against an Executor The Defendant brought a Writ of Error in this Court to reverse the Iudgment and the Error assigned was that the custom of bringing an Action of Debt upon a concessit solvere is not a good custom Custom Wager of Law because it hindrers the party to wage his Law as by the Law he may do Walker of Councel with the Defendant in the Writ of Error argued that it was a good custom because the party is not thereby hindred of a tryal and there are customs in London which are against the Common Law as for example for the Recorder to give Iudgement upon an exigent The Court desired to see the book and to have presidents brought them And said This Custom had been allowed against the party that made the contract but the doubt is whether it be good against an Executor for a concessit solvere is without any consideration And Roll chief Iustice said that this custom doth break three rules of the Law Barker against Denham Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 1280. BArker brought an ejectione firmae against Denham Special verdict in an Ejectione firmae and upon not guilty pleaded an issue was joyned and the reupon a special verdict was found that by the Custom of the manour whereof the Lands in question were held a Copyholder might surrender his Copyhold out of Court into the hands of two customary Tenants to the use of another and at the next Court the party to whose use the Copyhold was so surrendred used to be admitted and That there was such a surrender made here but that the party to whose use the Copyhold was so surrendred dyed before the next Court and so was not admitted The question was whether he dying before his admittance shall be said to be a Copyholder by the Custom of the manour or no. Descent Hales Argued that he is not a Copyholder within the Custom and then if this Custom hinder not the Lands shall descend according to the rules of the Common Law for so is it of all Copyhold Lands if a speciall custom hinder not and here 1. the words of the Custom are to be considered and 2ly Custom how they are to be expounded and for this he cited 49 E. 3. f. 19.22 E. 3.2 E. 4. f. 24. A Custom shall be construed according to the Common apprehension of the lay gens and a Custom shall be interpreted according to the most effectual operation of the Law 3 H. 7.5 Doct. and Stud. 48.21 H. 7. f. 33.44 Ass f. 10.4 H 8. Dyer 28. A denyal actual by a Copyholder to pay his rent is a forfeiture Forfeiture not an implicative denyal lib. intrat f. 238. And by a surrender of a Copyhold before admittance the surrendree hath no real possession and the heir of a Copyholder before his admittance holds by the Copy of his Ancestor and so he hath title but the surrenderee can have no title before admittance Title and he cited Rawlins and Iones his case and Spurlins case A surrender before admittance is but a a consent of the party to part with the estate but passeth it not and after administration it should have no relation to the surrender Twisden for the Defendant Relation 1. He agreed that a Copyholder before admittance is not perfect in his Estate but yet the admittance shall relate to the surrender and both shall be accounted one entire Act contrary to other learnings 2ly The Son is in by descent and the descent must be ruled by the custom and he is now
between what the Law directs and what the devise directs all the difference is in the manner how his Son Iohn shall come to the Estate 3 4 Phil. Mar. Dyer 134. 37 Eliz. A man seised in fee had issue two Daughters and devised the Lands to them and to their Heirs and it was questioned whether they were Ioynt tenants and I conceive they are and where one omits a thing in a conveyance which the Law supplies this shall not hurt and he cited Iennings and Pollards Case 6 Car. Hales on the other side argued that the Son takes by purchase and not by descent for the devise is not to the Son in present but after the death of the Testators wife and if he had the Lands by descent he should have them presently VVaiver It is true the Son might have waived the taking by purchase and might have taken by descent but here prima facie he shall be intended to be in by purchase and not descent for here doth not appear to be any actual waiver of the purchase and the Son doth here as I conceive take by way of remainder and not by way of reversion And as to the verdict I conceive it is not good for it doth not shew how the lands are held whether in Chivalry or Socage and so it appears not whether the Testator had power to devise all of them or not for if they be held in Chivalry he can devise but two parts of them as the Statute directs 2ly It appears not that the Testator had but one Son by his first wife 3ly It is not shewed that the Lands are parcel of the Mannor 4ly It doth not appear in whose possession the Lands are Roll chief Iustice said Lands that are given by Will shall be intended to be socage tenure Intention if the contrary do not appear And he held that the devise is void and that it is not in the power of Iohn the Son to make the election to take by descent or by purchase at his pleasure but he must of necessity take the Land as the Law directs which is by descent Maxim and it is against a maxim in Law to give a thing to such a person to whom the Law gives it if it had not been so given 3 4 Phil. Ma. Dyer 134. and therefore the Plaintif ought to have Iudgement And as to the verdict he hath primer possession Verdict and therefore if the other make no title the verdict is for him and good enough Bacon Iustice to the same intent viz. that the Heir doth here take by descent and not by purchase for this the Law says and he cannot alter it and cited Foscues Case 4 Car. and a Case in 7 Iac. And so judgement was given for the Plaintif Franck against Burt and others Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintif brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his House For costs for the Desendant upon non-sute of the Plaintif and carrying away his Goods at the Tryal the Plaintif was non-sute The Plaintif moved that there was error in the Declaration and therefore there could have béen no Iudgement and prays that he may be spared costs Roll chief Iustice answered that heretofore it hath been made a question whether the Plaintif being non-sute should pay costs Cests but since the Statute of 4 Iac. it is clear he ought to pay costs for the vexation of the Defendant and so it hath béen ruled here and you are out of Court now by being non-sute and therefore you must pay costs And therefore except better matter be shewed let them be paid Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for a Prohibition to the great Sessions of Carnarvan in Wales to stop a sute in an English Bill of Equity exhibited there For a prohibition to the great Sessions at Carnarvan in Wales whereas by the Bill it appears there is no matter of Equity in the Case but only matter tryable at the Law The Court answered if they proceed there against Equity we cannot hinder them There was wont to be an Agent here from the Commissioners there for us to confer with in such cases as these but it seems there is not any here now Therefore give notice Prohibition and let them shew cause the next Term why a Prohibition should not be granted Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon reading of a retorn made by the Sherifs of the City of Norwitch upon a Habeas corpus directed unto them for one Chambers It was said by the Court How a Habeas corpus to an inferiour Court should be retorned Retorn that it hath been ruled That upon a Habeas Corpus to an inferiour Court to remove Corpus cum causa they ought to retorn all the causes that are depending there concerning the party that hath the Habeas Corpus if any of the causes depending be for above five pound of which they ought not to hold Plea and therefore because all the causes were not retorned here upon the retorn of this Habeas Corpus The Court held the retorn was not good and ordered that it should be amended upon pain of ten pounds by Monday next Raph against Davye Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. RAph brought an Action of the Case against Davy for speaking these words of her to the Plaintifs mother Arrest of judgement in an action for words viz. Your Daughter innuendo the Plaintif is a brazen faced Whore and deserves to be hanged and for speaking these other words to the Plaintif herself viz. you Huswife are a Thief and have stollen my Purse The Plaintif had a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement Averment that the Plaintif doth not aver that her Mother had not any other Daughter besides herself and so it is uncertain whether the words were spoken of her or no. But the Court held it was well enough without such averment because the Declaration is that the Defendant habens colloquium of the Plaintif did speak the words and that makes it certain enough And therefore bid the Plaintif take her Iudgement Jennings against Lee. Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. IEnnings brought an Action of Assault and Battery against Lee. The Defendant pleads a special plea Arrest of Iudgement in an action of assault and battery and justifies The Plaintif replies de injuria sua propria and upon this an Issue is joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement that the replication was not good because it answers not the special matter pleaded nor takes any traverse by an absque tali causa as it ought to do and so there is no issue joyned and consequently there can be no Iudgement Roll chief Iustice said that the replying de injuria sua propria Traverse Issue Ieofails and not traversing absque tali causa is not good for there is not an affirmative and a negative and so
for cause shews 1. That the breach of this promise was in the Testators life time and therefore the Action should have béen brought against him and is not now to be brought against the Executor 2ly The Testator did not promise that his Executors should deliver the goods but that he would deliver them upon request Request and there appears no request to be made to the Testator as there ought to have been 15 Iac. Hob. rep f. 300. Bodwells Case But Roll chief Iustice answered Executor That an Executor may be charged upon a collateral promise if there were a breach of it in the Testators life time and here is a good request and goes to all Therefore let the Plaintif take his judgement except better matter be shewed to the contrary and Osborne Mich. 1649. 1 Reipub. Ang. Banc. super THe Plaintif brought an Action upon the Case upon two several promises the Defendant pleaded non assumpsit Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case Issue and upon this an issue was joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of iudgement and for cause shews that there is no issue joyned as to the second promise alleged for he doth not conclude with petit quod inquitatur per patriam and yet there is a verdict found upon both the promises The Iudgement was arrested till the other should move Mich. 1649. Banc. super VPon a special Verdict the case was this A Case upon a special verdict argued Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in tayl the remainder to the right heirs of him in the remainder for life the remainder man in tayl levies a fine in the life of tenant for life And the question was whether by the levying of this fine the estate tayl were discontinued or no. To prove that the estate tayl was discontinued these Books were cited 1 H 7.22 Lit. Cap. Discents Sect. 34.14 Ed 3. Fitz. Avâ—wry 117.3 Ed 3. Fitz. grants 60.15 Ed. 4 9.2 Rep. Butlers case 5. Cooks Lit. f. 25. Pasch 13 Car. Hungates Case Banc. Reg. Dyer 339. Twisden to the contrary argued that the estate is not altered neither to the right nor by way of Estople 46 Edward 3. f. 23. Estople An Estople supposeth a thing to be done and therefore if the thing be impossible which is alleged by way of estople it can be no estople And one shall not be construed to doe wrong by an Act which may be interpreted so that by it he may doe no wrong Brooks Abridgement Grants 49. Roll chief Iustice The matter here is not how the estates shall pass and how to make them good but the Question is upon the forfeiture Forfeiture for he levies the fine as of an estate in possession and not of a reversion in fée and this is not upon the rule in Bredons case 13 Car. Sir Julius Caesars case an Acceptance of an estate or an Attornment by Tenant for life to a stranger is a forfeiture Jerman Iustice held there was no forfeiture But the Court said the Verdict was ill sound and therefore ordered it should be amended that the whole matter in Law might come in question Amendment Gray against Walye Mich. 1649. Banc. sup VVAlye brought an Action upon the Case against Gray Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the case for speaking these words of him viz. Iack Walye was questioned for stealing of a gray Mare with a snip in her ear and hue and cry went out after him and he durst not shew his face hereabouts The Plaintif had a Verdict and the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable because they were general and uncertain words and it doth not appear the party was damnified by them nor how long ago they were spoken Roll chief Iustice said that the party was defamed by speaking of them and he hath laid it that he lost his Credit thereby Therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement except better matter be shewn But Nicholas Iustice doubted whether they were actionable or no. And Ask Instice nihil dixit Mich. 1649. Banc. sup AN Attorney of this Court that was within age Error against at Attorney in Court for appearing propria persona being within age Error in fact appeared to an Action propria persona and pleaded to issue and had a verdict and a judgment for him and upon this a writ of Error was brought here it being an error in fact because that being within age did not appear per guardianum nor by his Attorney and it was said that it is not helped by the Statute of Ieofails though it be after verdict And thereupon the Court stayed the Execution Mercer against Rule Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved For a Supersedeas attachment for taking out execution after a writ of Error brought and allowed Supersedeas Attachment Execution That a writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement and that it was received and allowed and notwithstanding the Plaintif that had the Iudgement had taken out execution and thereupon it was prayed for a supersedeas to supersede the execution and for an Attachment against the party for his contempt to the Court. And it was urged by the Councel that moved That after a writ of Error is received and allowed the hands of the Court that gave the Iudgement are foreclosed from granting out execution and that the writ of Error is in it self a Supersedeas and cited Dyer 283. and therefore concluded that the execution is not well issued forth Twisden of Councel on the other side said that the writ of Error was not duly pursued because the roll was not marked and therefore the party might well take out execution But Roll chief Iustice answered that the writ was well pursued though the roll were not marked Yet if neither the roll be marked Notice nor notice given to the Attorney on the other side of the bringing the writ of Error if the party procéed to take out execution it is no contempt to the Court otherwise it is a contempt Contempt Supersedeas And it is the duty of the Clerk of the Errors to mark the roll and not the Attorneys and therefore take a Supersedeas quia improvide emanavit to stop execution Pym against Morgan alias Bambery and Baselye Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 1062. IN an Ejectione firmae brought for the Mannor of Caledown Argument upon a special verdict in an Ejectione firmae The Defendant pleads Not guilty and upon this the Iury find a special verdict to this effect That Sir Thomas Morgan was seised in fée amongst other lands of the lands in question and that in 13 Car. he made a settlement of these lands to himself for life the remainder to his daughter Mary for life the remainder to the heirs of the first Tenant for life with a power of revocation
him out of any County to the Courts at VVestminster notwithstanding the Statute Hamond against Kingsmill Pasc 1649. Banc. sup HAmond a Iustice of peace brought an Action upon the Case against Kingsmill Arrest of in an action â—â—r words for speaking these several words of him viz. Mr Hamond did of his own head put into Mores confession that he stole the Lambs And 2ly That he was a debauched man and is not fit to be a Iustice of Peace Vpon not guilty pleaded and a verdict for the Plaintiff The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that none of the words were actionable or at least the last words are not and so Iudgement cannot be given For the first words he said they ought to be taken in mitiori sensu and they may have a good construction viz. that he framed the confession without being helped by any other body And for the second words that he was a debanched man they cannot touch his office at the present Mich. 24 25. Eliz. C. Banc. 1. because they are spoken in the preterperfect tence not in the present tence The Court said that the words was a debauched man are incertain words Therefore take Iudgement for the first words and nil capiat per billam for the second except cause shewed to the contrary Iennings against Lee. Pasc 1649. Banc. sup IEnnings brought an Action of Assault and Battery against Lee For a repleader because an immaterial issue joyned The Defendant pleaded non cul to the Battery and pleaded a special justification as to the Assault It was prayed there might be a repleader granted because the issue joyned is immaterial The Councel on the other side prayed for Iudgement Wild held that there is an Issue joyned for the Record faith so and the Iury have found the Issue and if it be ill it is not helped by the Statute and so there can be no Iudgement All issues are not joyned by an expresse affirmative and an expresse negative for if it be but by implication it is good enough An immaterial Issue is not helped by the Statute but an informall issue is helped and here the issue is immaterial 32 Eliz. Lovelace and Griffin rot 934. Trin. 22 Car. Coles case rot 932 Banc. Reg. 23 Car. More and Clipson and prayes for a repleader Serjeant Parker on the other side said the cases cited were not to the purpose as to the Case at the Bar for here is a good issue joyned to one thing pleaded if not to the rest Roll chief Iustice held that where there is an immaterial issue there ought to be a Repleader and it is not helped by the Statute and there can be no Iudgment for the matter is not putin tryal Repleader and for this cause it would be unreasonable to give Iudgement Ieofail Issue and this is an immaterial issue Trin. 9 Car. entred Mich. 8 Car. rot 366. Tayler and Sparks an affirmative and an implyed negative make a good issue though it be not an express negative Therefore replead Hurd against Lenthall Hill 1649. Banc. sup Entred Mi h. 1649. rot 568. VPon a special verdict in an ejectione firmae Question upon the words of a will whether a joyntenancy or a tenancy in Common The Case upon the words of a Will was this Lands were devised to two daughters equally to be divided and to the Surviver of them and to the Heirs of the Body of the Surviver of them Maynard held that here is a joyntenancy because otherwise the Will cannot take effect in all parts Hales held that there is a tenancy in Common and not a joyntenancy nor any crosse remainders Roll Chief Iustice said That the words equally to be divided in a Will Ioyntenant Tenant in common do make a tenancy in Common by construction but in a grant it would be otherwise but here upon the entire Will it doth not appear that the Lands should be divided but that there should be a Surviver And the Land was intended for a security for a portion and that the devise should stand till the monyes should be paid And in a Will the last words of it do explain the first words but it is not so in a grant Will. Grant All the Iudges agreed in opinion with the chief Iustice and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff nisi causa c. Pasc 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a Certiorari For a certiorari to the Lord Maiors court of London Certiorari to the Lord Maiors Court of the City of London to remove an information exhibited in that Court against a Woodmonger of London grounded upon an Act of Common Councell The Court answered we cannot do any thing in it if it should be removed hither if it be grounded upon an act of Common Councel but if the Act of Common Councell be against Law we may grant a Certiorari Adjourned till Friday next to hear Councell on both sides Lamb against Duff Pasc 16â—â— Banc. sup VPon an Affidavit the Court was enformed that Lamb had arrested Duff after a verdict found for Lamb against him to the intent For false practice that he may have him in Custody when the Iudgement is entred against him and for no other cause as appears by his own confession it was therefore prayed the party may be set at large The Court made answer that this was a strange and an irregular course and ought not to be If one take out a latitat against one and have no cause of Action against him the party may have an Action of the Case for it Case Attach nt Take an attachment if he will not discharge the party or else let him shew cause to morrow why he should not discharge him Hollingworth against VVhetstone Pas 1649. Banc. sup HOllingworth brought an Action of Debt upon a single obligation against Whetstone Demurrer to a plea in debt upon a single obligation Bar. Abatement The Defendant pleaded payment of part of the sum since the Action brought in Bar of the Action To this Plea the Plaintif demurred The Court answered the plea was not good in Bar of the Action but in abatement of the Writ it had been good Therefore let the Defendant shew cause why Iudgement should not be against him upon the demurrer Gibbon against Kent Pasch 1649. Banc. sup Pasch 24 Car. rot 60. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in the Common Pleas Error to reverse a judgement in debt upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6 in an Action of Debt brought upon the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. for the not setting forth of Tithes The Errors assigned were 1. That it doth not appear that the Lands sowed do lye in the Parish that is laid in the Declaration 2ly The Plaintiff hath not intitled himself well to his Action for the Statute of 3â— H. 8. is taken away by the Statute of 13 Eliz. 3ly The Statute is
upon the Case and didst kill thy first wife The Error assigned was that it doth not appear in the Declaration that the Plaintif was maried before But the Court affirmed the judgement and said the Defendant hath confessed it by joyning issue non culp upon the words VVood against Topham Trin. 1650. Banc. sup THis case being an Action upon the Case quare filium suum cepit et abduxit Error to reverse a judgement in an Action on the Case et maritavit was again moved and the exception insisted upon was that the Plaintif doth not say Cujus maritagium ad ipsum pertiner But Roll chief Iustice said that it could not be otherwise intended but that the mariage belongs to him and it doth not appear that his Son was maried before and the value of the mariage is not here material for the mariage of his Son belongs unto him as a parent Mariage in regard of his protection and advice Ierman differed and said that if he were maried before he was then Pater Familias and is out of the protection of his Father Protection But Nicholas and Ask Iustices agreed with Roll and Roll said the matter here is not the loss of the mariage for that is but to increase the damages but the Action lies only quare cepit et abduxit Adjourned to be argued the next Term. Antea et Postea Oreswick against Armery Trin. 1650. Banc. sup Mich. 1649. rot 354. OReswick brought a writ of Error against Armery to reverse a judgement given against him in Bristow Error to reverse a judgement in an Action of Debt Debt Custom in an action of debt upon a Concessit solvere according to the custom of the City but the Iudgement was affirmed for the Court said an action of debt will lie by a custom upon a Concessit solvere but not if it be brought against an Executor Custodes Libertat c. against Valconbridge Trin. 1650. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of Assault and Battery To quash an Endictment of Assault and Battery The Exception was that the Endictment was taken before the Iustices of Assize and Gaol delivery and Oyer and Terminer and so it doth not appear by vertue of what Commission it was taken Roll chief Iustice He ought to shew by virtue of what Commission particularly it was taken and therefore let it be quashed and a fine of 40 s. set upon the Clark of the Assizes for his negligence Fine Bowles against Clark Trin. 1650. Banc. sup IT was she wed for cause upon a rule of Court why a Prohibition should not be granted to the Prerogative Court Why a Prohibition should not be granted to the Prerogative That in the will which the Prerogative Court endeavoured to repeal there were lands given to the Executor The Court answered If the Prerogative have power to prove a will they may also repeal it by appeal but if lands be devised together with goods they have no power to repeal it as to the lands but if they should have no power to repeal it as to the goods it would be mischievous But they have no authority to make the devise good or ill as to the lands Prohibition And the Court was at first agreed to grant a Prohibition as to the lands only But afterwards the Court held that there could be no such division made of the will by Prohibition as to stand good in part and to be repealed for the rest and so would not grant the prohibition Nota. Keniston against Crouch Trin. 1650. Banc. sup THe Court was moved that upon a Judgement given in the Common Pleas For a rule to enter judgement in the Common Pleas denied since the Act that a writ of Error shall be no supersedeas a writ of Error was brought in this Court and the record removed but that depends undetermined and that the party had moved for execution in the Common Pleas but the Clarks refuse to make out execution without the rule of this Court Rule and therefore a rule was prayed to them to make out execution But the Court answered procéed as the Act directs we will make no rule But we conceive there is no writ of Error now depending and therefore you may take out execution of Course Q. Tamen Execution for it was doubted at the Bar. Denton against Harison Trin. 1650. Banc. sup DEnton brought an Action upon the Case against Harison in London For a Procedendo to London for speaking these words Thou art a Whore and my Husbands Whore and he doth maintain thee The Defendant removed the cause into this Court by a Habeas Corpus whereupon the Plaintif moved for a procedendo Roll chief Iustice was of opinion that a procedendo ought to be granted for if it should not the party hath no remedy to proceed and if they do proceed in London and the judgement he thereupon erronious the party grieved may bring a writ of Error in the Hustinges and reverse it Ierman Iustice said here is a wrong done and the remedy is given according to the custom of the City and it is a good custom Custom because it is for the preservation of the Peace of the City and it is the custom of the City to whip a Whoremonger and to Cart a Whore and this may be the ground or reason why an action lies in London for calling of a woman whore there thought it doe not lie in other places Trin. 1650. Banc. sup VPon an Issue joyned and a Tryal thereupon That Iudgement might not be entred a Verdict was found for the Plaintif and the Postea was delivered to the Clark of the judgements to enter the judgement but through the Clarks neglect execution was taken out the Iudgement being not entred upon this the Court was moved that the Iudgement might not be entred Iudgement because it should have béen entred before Execution issued forth and therefore it was suggested that now it was too late and prayed to supersede the Execution Supersedeas because there was no judgement to warrant it But Roll the Chief Iustice answered that this being but a neglect of the Clark judgement might be well enough entred though the Execution were issued forth and because the tryal betwéen the parties is right therefore let it be entred Cane against Pell Trin. 1650. Banc. sup CAne brought an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. for substraction of tithes against Pell and hath a verdict against the Defendant Arrest of Iudgement in an action upon the Statute for tithes The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took an Exception to the Plaintifs Declaration That it did not appear by it in what Parish the lands lie out of which the tithes grew due On the other side it was said 〈◊〉 appeared well enough by implication but if it did not it is not now material there being a
alias Heriots with the appurtenances whereof the said Close called Pipers Down was parcell which tenement and Close were parcell of the said manour and was then and had been time out of mind demised and demiseable in Fee by Copy of Court roll of the said manour did build a new messuage upon the said Tenement and did afterwards by his Letters patents under the great seal grant the office of Keeper and keeping of the said messuage to Iohn Gate for term of his life with all the Lands Tenements c. thereto belonging or adjacent and did also by the same Letters patents give and grant unto the said Iohn Gate amongst other things the Lands belonging to the said new built messuage whereof the said Close called Pipers down was part for Term of his life for the exercising of the said office with an averment in the plea that before that time there was no such office of the keeping of the said house and that the King did not know nor was at the time of the grant enformed that the said Tenement and Lands whereof the said Close was parcell were Copyhold of the said manour After the grant made to Iohn Gate as aforesaid H. the 8. dyed seised of the said manour of the reversion of the said Messuage and Close after the death of Iohn Gate and thereby Ed. the 6. became sofâ—ed of them in like manner and from Ed. the 6. they came to Quéen Mary Then Iohn Gate dyes and after his death Quéen Mary enters upon the said manour and Messuage whereof the said Close was a parcell and afterwards by her Letters Patents under her broad Seal doth grant the Manour and Messuage and Premises unto Susan Tong and her heirs for ever From Susan Tong by mean conveyance the said Manour Messuage and Premises came to Humphry White and his heirs and afterterwards Humphrey White being seized thereof in Fée did by his indenture of lease demise the said Manour Messuage and Premises to Leigh for 60. years to begin from Mich. before the making of the indenture afterward Humphrey White grants away the reversion of the said Manour Messuage Premises to Sir John Branch afterwards Sir Iohn Branch grants this reversion to Vdall Vdall grants it to Bathurst and Bathurst grants it to Thomas Boothby the Ancestor of Thomas Boothby whose Baily doth here make the avowry Afterwards Robert Leigh who had the lease of the said Manour and Premises as aforesaid for 60 years deviseth the residue of this lease then unexpired by his last Will and Testament unto Robert Leigh his Son and dyes Robert Lee the son being possessed of the residue or remainder of this Term for 60. years by virtue of the said Will did at his court held for the said Manour of Chingford grant the said Messuage with the appurtenances and Lands thereunto belonging whereof the said Close was parcell unto Edmund Lee his brother to hold of the same Manour in Fée at the will of the Lord by Copy of Court Roll of that Manour Edmund Lee was thereupon admitted accordingly Afterwards the said lease for 60. years made by Humphrey White unto Robert Leigh the Father expires Afterwards Thomas Boothby who had the reversion of the said Manour and Premises as abovesaid entred as in his reversion upon the said Manour and Premises and dyed seised thereof leaving issue Thomas Boothby his Son Thomas Boothby the Son enters into the said Manour and Premises and claims the said Messuage with the apurtenances with the lands thereunto belonging whereof the Close called Pipers down was parcell and was granted by Robert Leigh unto Edmund Leigh by Copy of Court Roll as aforesaid as parcell of the demaines of the said Manour of Chingford and doth deny it to be Copyhold and to the intent to try the title thereof did by the Avowant his Bailiff distrein the Cattel in the said Close as damage feasant in his soil and Freehold This Case was argued first by Arthur Harris of Lincolnes Inn who argued for the Plaintiff viz. he that brought the replevin and in his argument he made the generall question in the Case to be whether the close called Pipers Down in which the distress was taken were at the time of the distress taken demiseable by Copy of Court Roll or whether the Custom was not destroyed and he held it was demiseable and that the custom was not destroyed and hereupon he made four questions 1. Whether the grant of the new house to Sr. Iohn Gate per nomen officii of keeper thereof were a good grant 2ly Whether the King not being enformed at the time of the grant that the house was Copyhold tenure he was not deceived in his grant 3ly Whether by this grant the Custom was not destroyed 4ly Whether the Kings Patentee hath not the same privilege to grant this house c. again by Copy of Court Roll after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate And as to the 1. of these 4. questions he cited 8 E. 4. by Chock and 21 E. 4.79 and Mich 5 Car. Banc. Reg. Monsons case and Pasc 14 Car. Banc. Reg. Messand and Butterfields Case and 5 E. 4. f. 8. and Dyer 269. Savages Case To the 2d question he held that the King was not here enformed of his right and consequently he was deceived and therefore ought not to be prejudiced by his grant which he should be if he had not liberty to demise this house again by Copy of Court Roll after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate and he said that there are two rights in the King 1. At the Common Law and 2ly a customary right and of this Customary right or his jus concedendi he was not enformed and he cited these books 3 H. 7.10 rep 49.8 H. 625 Br. Ayd 45 4. H. 6.1 2 R. 3. Hunsons Case and he said that the book of 5 H. 7. f. 1. which is objected is not to purpose for the protestation is not well taken 19 H. 6. a protestation is to supply a matter which is not so here 41 E. 3. Fitzh protest 9.22 H. 6.37 Br. protestation 6. Plowd Coment Gresbrooks and Foxes Case and 20 Eliz. Burrell and Holcrofts Case 2ly The King is not enformed here in his grant in matter in Law as he ought to be and therefore his grant shall not turn to his prejudice 1 rep 52.18 H. 8. Lovels Case Pasc 2 Eliz. Sr. Thomas Mores Case 1. rep â—3 16 Jac. Needlers case and whereas it is said that the words ex certa scientia in the patent do declare that the King was enformed I answer that those words do intend no more but that the King was enformed of matters of fact and not of matters in Law and the Kings grant shall only be taken secundum intentionem and whereas it may be objected that by the granting of the Estate for life unto Sr. Iohn Gate the custom is destroyed I answer that this being in the Case of the King it is an extraordinary Case and not
to be measured by ordinary rules of Law And 2ly Antient grants are to be construed as the Law was at that time when they were made 9. rep 27.6 rep 48. 〈◊〉 H. 7. 〈◊〉 14 E. 3. Fitzh Scire facias 23. and the King is not bound by a general custom as Common persons are 35 H. 6.29 by Prisot 22 Ed. 3. The King shall not pay a heriot upon the purchase of heriatable Lands and we shall find that many maximes of Law upon serious scanning of them are not so certain to be relyed on as they are commonly held to be 5. rep Knights Case Pasc 3 Eliz. B. R. Conisby and Risby Dyer 10 Eliz. and the patentee of the King shall have the same privilege that the King should have had if he had not granted the Letters patents 27 Eliz. Stubs and Rigfords case At another day Arthur Harris spake again to the point that the King had no legall intent to destroy the Copyhold Estate by his patent and therefore it should not be destroyed and cited Grotius de jure belli et pacis 343. and that no such intent can appear in the words of the patent and cited 7. rep Inglefields Case and 17 E. 3. f. 19. and Cooks Institutes 373. and 1. rep 46. and Plow 333. and as to the last point he argued that the Patentée of the King shall be in the same condition as to the reviving of the Copyhold Estate as the King should have been if he had not made the grant because that the King hath the Fee and he may grant it as he pleaseth Dyer 16 Eliz. 337.1 rep 31.10 Eliz. Dyer 266.24 Ed. 3. Fitz. Tit. guard 27. and no priority can be pleaded against the King nor against his Patentee Hill 30 Eliz. Stubs and Rightwayes Case an Action of Accompt against Executors doth lye only for the King It is true that prerogatives inseparable and annexed to the person of the King cannot be granted away by the King but prerogatives separable may be granted away 12 H. 4. Fitzh guard 81. The Grantee of the Grantee of the King shall have the prerogative of the King by reason of the thing granted by the King Brook praerog 17. 21 H. 7.2 Br. entre congeable 4â—â— The King may distrein for a rent seck but not his Grantee because it is a prerogative executory and not executed for in such case it is otherwayes and as to the objection to the cause of the demurrer set forth that the Concessit is not answered because it only sayes mentionat esse concessum I hold it well enough but if it should not be yet it is helped for both partyes do agree in the setting forth of the Letters Patents 34 Eliz. B. R. in Harâ— and Smiths case and the grant is confessed in our rejoynder and though the demurrer should not be good yet the Avowant cannot have Iudgement for he hath not entitled himself to the Action as appears by his grant for his grant is void and cannot take effect rep 46.8 rep 201.39 Eliz. in the Chequer Chamber Where 2. Manours are granted by the name of one of them the grant is not good And in our case Thomas Boothby had nothing in the land at the time of making of the deed of Covenant to stand seised to use as it appears by the Avowants own pleading and the postea cannot help it Dyer 111. Clarks Case Hill 15 Iac. entred Trin. 15 Iac. rot 29. Desmons case 20 H. 615. Hales on the other side argued for the Avowant and prayes a return of the Cattel distreyned first he put the Case at large And he said that the Plaintiff hath not well set forth the Kings grant in his bar and so it is all one as if he had not set it forth at all Plowd 563. and he hath disputed that which we have not alleged and the sur rejoynder is but argumentaive and not positive and nothing appears to the Court and he hath quite mistaken his course and way But admitting the case and the points to be as they are made viz. 1. Whether the new Office be well granted because the word Constituimus is omitted 2. Whether the grant for life be good 3. Whether the grant of the Copyhold for life be a suspension of the Copyhold estate or an extinguishment of it which is the great question in the Case For the 1 point I hold that here is a good grant of this new Office and that the word Constituimus is not necessary because that there are special fées also newly granted 2ly This is not an Office in gross consisting and resting upon it self but it is a relative Office or an imployment incident in the interest of the house granted and therefore the word Constituimus is not here necessary Dyer 200. 3ly If it be not a formal Office yet here is a good grant of an employment to which a recompence may be added although an Assize cannot be brought for it 3 Ass Trin. 6 Iac. Abercromies Case And here the protestation that the King was not informed that this was Copyhold land is unnecessarily alleged and therefore it is not of necessity it should be answered and if it be not well set forth it is not material For the 2 question whether the King was deceived in his grant he said that the King needed not to take notice of any former estates and that the Statute expresseth that it is not necessary to recite them 24 H. 8. 2â— To the 3 point the chief question whether the Copyhold estate be suspended or extinguished he held it was extinguished and cited Knights case Alton woods case and said that the rules of the Civil Law ought not to be applyed to the Common Law nor to be cited to perplex the proceedings thereof and were this in the case of a Common person without doubt the Copyhold estate would be destroyed 20 Eliz. by Popham and Fenn and the King here hath the Fee simple and there is no difference between the case of the King and of a Common person in this regard a thing which will not pass by the King without notice will not pass with notice and here is no prejudice to the King in not taking notice whether by the Patent the Custom to grant Copyhold estates be destroyed or not and here is a necessary consequence in Law that the custom is destroyed because the King that had the fee in the Manor hath suspended the Copyhold by his grant All the Arguments used on the other side are to destroy the Kings grant and the cases put do all differ from our case and do stand upon their own bottoms Nor shall the King be intended to be mis-conusant of his particular grant such as this is although he may be in a general grant lib. Ass 21. pl. 19. Pasch 12 Car. C. B. Glover and Edgars case and it would be a great mischief if the Copyhold estate should be revived As to the last point whether the
Patentee shall be in the same condition as the King was he said that it is not material whether he be or no as to the Case in question and rested upon the 3 question If the King hath free warren in land and grants the land and mentions not the warren yet the warren passeth by the grant And here out Avowry stands pro confesso because the Plaintif hath made no title A grant of a Manor per nomen maneriorum is a good grant of the Manor and here is a good grant and if not yet it is helped by the Statute of 3 4 Phil. Mar. C. 1. 1 H. 7. f. 28 and the Postea here refers not to the grant of the Copy and here is no ouster alleged and if there be there is do disseisin but it passeth an estate for will between the parties Roll chief Iustice It would be dangerous to make the Patent void because the King took no notice of the Copyhold estate and this point is not fit to be argued A thing not materially alleged in pleading is not necessarily to be answered and it is not necessary to create such an Office as this is for it is but an employment The great question is whether after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate the Copyhold estate can be revived or not in the case of the King It may be dangerous whether it be one way or the other As to the pleading we will not make it ill if it may be good Argue the great point again for it is a difficult point and of great consequence Ierman Iustice to the same effect and enclined that the King had no intent to destroy the Copyhold and he held that the Office was well granted because it was but an imployment Nicholas Iustice inclined that the Copyhold was destroyed At another day Wadham Windham argued for the Plaintif and first he put the case at large and then said that 1. It appears by the replication that the Avowant hath no title 2. He confesseth that the Plaintif hath a Title Queen Mary seised of the Manor of Chingford Comitis whereof Pipers Down is parcel grants it per nomen duorum illorum maneriorum and it is not averred that she had two Manors First it is considerable whether the Patent be good by the Common Law 2ly Whether if not yet it be made good by the Statute of H. 8. and he held 1. That it is not good at the Common Law because it is incertain and wants sufficient words and here is an apparent falsity for he hath two Manors and he grants but one and if the King have two Manors and grant them per nomen Manerii this is not a good grant As tithes belonging to a Rectory cannot pass by the name of a portion of tithes neither do all the Statutes of Confirmation of Patents confirm less or greater values granted than are comprised in the Letters Patents 41 Eliz. Pasons case in the Exchequer A presentation to a Rectory where it ought to be ad Medietatem Rectoriae is not a good presentation 2. rep Dodingtons Case Dyer â—31 An ill grant is not helped by the Statute because it is not named 2ly A false suggestion is not helped by the Statute of 34 H. 8. 3 Car. Sir Hatton Farmers case and in our case here is a mistake of a thing and not of the name for it is a Manor for Manors and so there is no true meaning and therefore it cannot be helped by the Statute Pasch 1 Iac. rot 216. C. B. Dawson against Pickering The Queen was seised of two Manors viz. of Rushworth and of Dale and granted the Manor of Rushworth habendum the Manor of Rushworth with the Manor of Dale and it was held an ill grant at the Common Law and not helped by the Statute But it is objected that this Manor may be known by the name of two Manors and so in our case although the King was seised of one Manor and granted this Manor habendum per nomen duorum Maneriorum this is good Mich. 22 H. 6. pl. 16. f. 13. To this the answer is that it cannot be pleaded per nomen without an averment that there are two Manors 2 Ed. 4. f 28. the last case There is a difference between a feofment and a release a feofment may be pleaded per nomen without an averment but a release cannot be so pleaded for in a feofment the livery operates to pass the land 22 H. 6. Hill f. 39. pl. 9.13 and Dyer the Serjeants Case where there is certainty there needs no averment but it is not so in our Case 1 H. 7. f. 28. and it is a forein intendment to suppose that one Manor of Chingford Comitis shall be known by the name of the two Manors of Chingford Comitis and we need not plead by a non concessit because the Avowant hath made no title and so he can have no return 1 H. 7. f. 28. 6 H 7. f. 6. and here is no certainty added to make it certain by the words illorum quod nuper perquisivimus de c. To the second point The Avowant hath confessed the Plaintifs title for he hath confessed that K. H. the 8th hath made it a Copyhold and if the Copy be good our title is good As to the question whether when a Copyhold comes to the King and he leaseth it this doth not so destroy the Copyhold that when the lease is out it may not be Copyhold again I hold that if a Common person lease a Copyhold the Copyhold is destroyed but it is not so where the King leaseth it as it is in our case which ought not to be measured by the Common rule of Law for the Law of the Crown over-rules the Common Law and the Law of Custom 22 E. 3. The King is not bound by Custom as a common person is 35 H. 6. The King having Gavelkind lands may destroy the Custom which runs with such lands pro tempore only and the Kings grant shall not enure to a secondary operation as Knights case is and here is no prejudice to any person that the Copyhold estate should be revived here the consequence may be severed and it is not necessary and therefore the lease of the Copyhold not naming it Copyhold is good As to the Objection made that it is no benefit to the King to make it Copy-hold again the answer is That it is a prejudice to take away a mans privilege and liberty if there were no other inconvenience but here is more for there may be prejudice by losing the Common c. And the rule that a Custom is an entire thing and cannot be apportioned shall not bind the King although it do bind common persons and the Statute makes not the grant good as to the reversion The Copyhold is demised and yet shall be demisable hereafter and so it may be pleaded for pleading follows the Law A Custom interrupted in the right is gone for ever
but if it be interrupted but in part it is not so as it is in the case cited where the King hath Gavelkind lands Com. Plowd 114. and so prays judgement for the Plaintif Adjourned Latch at another day argued for the Avowant and said that the Plaintif in his rejoynder hath made no title unto Susan Tong from whom he claims It is objected that by the grant of the Manor of Chingford Comitis per nomen duorum illorum maneriorum c. that Tong cannot be intituled It is answered that the other side hath confessed that Tong hath a title for they derive from her also and the contrary doth not appear to the Court and it being agreed the Court will not make a doubt of it He made 3 Questions 1. Whether the Manor of Chingford Comitis passeth per nomen duorum illorum maneriorum de c. 2ly Whether if the grant be ill it be aided by Statute 3ly Whether it be helped by the Averment For the 1. he held that here is a good grant without any averment or aid of the Statute for if the King grants two Manors one shall pass and e converso it shall not be so in the Case of the King but it is good in the case of a Common person with an Averment The grant of the Manor of Saperton cum Rippen is an ill grant for the incertainty of it but here is no such incertainty here is no non nosmer of the thing for the word nomina requires not a proper name but it is all one as if it had been expressed by words comprehending it and the word Manors doth comprehend it If the King grant his two Acres of Land lying in a Common field although but one Acre is to be found yet the grant is good and it is not like to the grant of a Manor with the Advowson where the King hath but a moyety of the Advowson or a moyety of the Manor for the Moyety is not actual in the whole but one is actually in two and so it is well named here 2ly Whether it be good without an averment that the land was in the Lord Darcy and he held it was If the words were general in the grant all of them ought to be true otherwise nothing will passe by the grant as Dodingtons case is but here is a proper name to express it and therefore the grant is not destroyed although the latter description do not agree to it 10. Rep. Harpers Case 2 H. 4. f. 2. If the King grant all the lands in the Patent annexed bearing date 10 of Iune though the Patent bear date the 10 of Iuly yet is the grant good for veritas nominis tollit errorem demonstrationis and if the grant should not be good at the Common Law yet it is ayded by the Statute of 3. 4 Phil. Mar. and here is a full and a strong averment in the pleading for it is Manerium praedictum and not Manerium generally and here is not only a possibility but also a facility for it to pass and it may be called Manor or Manors and in a feofment a thing may pass per nomen because that the livery passeth it where one pleads per nomen he is to make the Plea agree with the Record or specialty otherwise per nomen shall not be pleaded and Newtons opinion against this is but a single opinion 33 H. 8. Br. Averment 42. The word praedict makes an averment in the name of the Feoffor â—4 H. 4.30.22 H. 6.40 Barton and Escott here is also a full averment of the thing granted this is in grants 7 E. 4.24.33 H. 6. f. 22 26 Ass 2.24 Ass 6. so in Letters Patents Dyer 86. the Serjeants case and if this be authority it is in the very point Dyer 207. praedict per nomina is a good averment Pasch 7. Iac. Rot. 430. B. reg Stonehouse and Reeds case where there was not so much as a per nomina but only decimas praedict and yet adjudged to be a good intitling by the word praedict because it was held a good averment although it was not led on by a per nomina and there admitted to be clear if it had been with a per nomina as the Case here is so Tong is well intitled 2ly The Plaintifs title is well avoided and we have well destroyed his Copy without doubt if a Common person had granted the Copyhold for life the Copy-hold had been thereby extinguished and our case is not a prerogative case for the King is bound by the Custom of the Manor and the Custom is here destroyed and the prerogative cannot create the Custom anew and it is against the Kings Prerogative to have things drawn out of the King without matter of Record and it is prejudice to the King to have the Custom revived for the lands are now made free and shall never return again to the Vassalage The Kings Prerogative exalts him above a Common person but this custom makes him equal to a common person 2ly The Custom here cannot be supported but here is an absolute extinguishment of the Copyhold so that it cannot be regranted The law will confirm things necessary to the grant of the King in some cases where it is prejudicial to the King 16 H. 7. f. 8. Nicholas case Plowd 489. The king seised of a donative makes it presentative if he do but once present unto it so if he turn an Annuity into a rent charge by taking a distress And the nature of this Custom here ought not to be examined with other Customs for it is more strict than in other cases for if it be once destroyed it is always destroyed and cannot be suspended and it is not for the Kings dis-advantage to have the Copyhold destroyed but it is for his advantage and conveniency and so he prays judgement for the Avowant Roll chief Iustice All will come and rest upon the last point for all the other things are admitted The grant is good by the per nomen and it is only nominal and doth not imply that there are two Manors and it may stand well enough with reason that it may be known per nomen But the last point is considerable he enclined to Latch Nicholas Iustice to the same effect and that the praedict is a good averment The last point is considerable but prima facie here the custom is not destroyed Ask Iustice to the same effect and that it appears that the King intended to grant but one Manor Roll We will take time till the next term to speak to the last point which is only doubtfull and to deliver our opinions Ierman Iustice the pleading of the party per nomen helps not the Patent if it be not good in it self The next Term Roll chief Iustice for himself and the rest of the Iudges who he said concurr'd in opinion with him delivered the opinion of the Court to this effect 1. That they were agreed that
the grant of the Office of the Custody of the house is a good lease for life notwithstanding it was Copyhold and it is not necessary to recite in the grant that it is Copyhold 2. That after the estate for life is determined the King may grant the house and land again by Copy of Court Roll because the Kings grants shall be taken favourably and not extended to two intents where there is no necessity for it as there is not here and we are not here to intend a collateral intent and so the Copyhold is not destroyed for the Law takes care to preserve the inheritance of the King for his Successors and it may be a benefit to the King to have it continue Copyhold viz. to have Common c. and his election is also destroyed if he may not have it Copyhold So Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi Pawsey and Lowdall Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1650. rot 275. IN this Case formerly argued Roll chief Iustice Iudgement reversed upon a special Verdict touching a Devise of Copyhold lands and Nicholas and Ask Iustices agreed that the devise of the Copyhold here is a devise to the Heirs of the Father and so a Fee-simple and that the party comes not in as a purchaser and for this cause the judgement was reversed nisi As to the other point whether the surrender of a Copyhold by a Tenant for life be good in this case the Court delivered no opinion Antea Trundall and Trowell Pasch 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 670. IN this Case it was held that Tenant in antient Demesn cannot after imparlance plead antient Demesn for he hath made a full defence Where antient Demesne cannot be pleaded for he says Defendit vim et injuriam quando c. which implyes all the rest Mich. 22 Car. Banc. Reg. Yet it was ruled to be again spoken to Peck against Ingram Pasch 1651. Banc. sup THis Case formerly spoken in was moved again and Latch held Whether a good notice that the words obtulit se in maritagium conjungi was a good notice upon the whole matter and therefore that the Action did well lye Roll chief Iustice answered this is a personal thing and ought to be offered to the party himself otherwise it is no notice and that doth not appear here and if there be no notice implyed then the Action lies not and Holmes and Twists case is that there ought to be notice if the thing be to be done by the party himself otherwise if it be to be done by a stranger so is it here but the question only is if notice be implyed here or not Ierman Iustice said there is no tender of mariage if the other party be not there The rule was for the Plaintif to take his Iudgement Rooke against Smith Pasch 1651. Banc. sup ROoke brought an Action upon the case against Smith for speaking these words of him Thou art a poor fellow Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case for words and art not able to pay 2s in the pound and art not able to pay thy debts Vpon an Issue joyned and a Verdict for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable for 1. the Plaintif is not by them charged with the crime of being a Bankrupt and so there is no particular losse to him 2ly It is not showed that the Plaintiff got his living by buying and selling or that he is indebted and 11. Iac. Brook and Clarks case was cited Twisden on the other side answered that the Plaintiffs credit was impaired by the words and by his credit his livelyhood is in part mainteyned And he cited Viccary and Barns case Adjourned to the next Term. Wild afterwards moved again for Iudgement because the words being spoken of a tradesman he conceived them to be actionable Maynard on the other side held them not actionable because there is no particular damage alleged to grow to the Plaintif by speaking of them and because there is no crime objected against the Plaintiff for poverty is no crime but a man may be poor and honest at the same time and he cited two cases to be adjudged that a particular damage ought to be alleged And said that these Actions are not favoured in Law and therefore if the words be not cleerly Actionable it was not reason to make a forced construction of them to make them so Next the Plaintiff hath not averred that he was able to pay all his debts for all the things bought but only of a debt contracted by the buying of the Oyl mentioned Twisden denyed the cases put by Maynard of the particular damage and held the words actionable Roll chief Iustice said a man may be a Bankrupt and yet be honest for he may become so by accident Averment and not of purpose to deceive his creditors But here is no need for the Plaintiff to shew he had a particular losse by the words for it is enough that he is generally scandalised by them neither is it necessary for him to averr that he was able to pay all his debts as Maynard hath alleged Therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement nisi Antea Owen against Jevon Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 211. OWen brought an Action of the case against Ievon for speaking these words of her Arrest â—f judgement in Action for words viz. This is the whore that my man Cowell begat a bastard on and spent all my mony upon and the quean hath been too long in Town to my ease Vpon an issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintiff Twisden for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgment urged that the words are not actionable because there is no special losse or damage alleaged by the Plaintiff hapning to her by reason of the words said that in one Lighfoot and Pigots case it had béen ruled that an Action lies not for saying a woman had a Bastard and he cited also Winter and Barnards case Trin. 1650. in this Court. Vpon these reasons Iudgment was stayed till the other side should move Iay against Iay. Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1350. THis case formerly put and spoken to Argument in a special verdict touching the consideration of the words of a will was again spoken unto by Latch wherein he made this question viz. whether the limitation to I. and his Heirs were good or not and he held it was not good for he said that such limitation in case of a freehold is void He confessed that in the case of Pell and Brown 17 Iac. rot 44. the contrary was adjudged but that there did appear such apparent inconvenience in it that upon it the Court was afterwards divided and 21 Iac. in the Serjeants case it was made a flat quaere and ever since it hath been disputable whether a contingent devise be good or not and in Iacob and Tellings case it is not
pacty who is to assign the dower may agrée that the dower shall be assigned without bounding it For consensus tollit errorem But dower ad ostium ecclesiae must be more certain Dower Mich. 43 44 Eliz. Bullock and Finches case Hill 4 Iac. C. B. Roll chief Iustice Of Common right a feme ought to be endowed per metas bundas where the Sheriff assigns dower who is an officer of the Law and ought to prevent incumbrance and disputes But it may be assigned generally of the third part in some cases Consent and the partyes may agree against Common right and here both partyes agreed to take dower in this Manor And though here the termer for years of the land who is a third person be prejudiced by this assignment yet this alters not the case because it is only an estate for years and toucheth no freehold Nicholas and Ask Iustices as Roll. Ierman Iustice If dower be of a third part it ought to be by metes and bounds generally but if it be of a moyety it is not so or if the partyes consent it shall be otherwise Roll if the Sheriff assign dower and do it not per metas bundas it is Error Error if it might have been so assigned and where a feme cannot be endowed per metas bund as she may enter without assignment Iudgement was given for the Defendant nisi c. Smith against the Earl of Dorset Trin. 1651. Banc. sup SMith moved the Court against the Earl of Dorset Motion for an attatchment for disobeying a rule of Court Attatchment for an attatchment for disturbing of him in the possession of certain Lands contrary to the rule of this Court for the Plaintiff to have possession The Court answered that for only disturbing his possession there ought not to be an attatchment granted but if he be put out of possession he shall have an attatchment The Councel replyed that the partyes cattel were driven off from the land which they conceived was an ousting of the party from his possession To this the Court answered that this seemed to be a putting out of possession And therefore ordered that the Defendant should shew cause why an attatchment should not be granted Owen against Ievon Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 211. THis case formerly spoken unto in arrest of Iudgement and then stayed Iudgement prayed in an Action for words was again moved and Iudgment prayed for the Plaintiff by Serjeant Glyn who argued that the words were actionable because if they were true the party of whom they are spoken is punishable by the Statute of 7 Iac. with corporal punishment and besides the words were spoken since the last Statute made against Adultery which doth aggravate the words and make them more actionable Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff nisi In this case it was said by the Court that it was adjudged in one Thecker and Duncombes case that a woman may have a child in 38. weeks and that a woman by cold or hard usage may go with child above 40 weeks Antea Nelson against Tompson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 24 Car. rot 343. NElson brought an action of the Case against Tompson Demurrer in an Action upon the Case upon a promise and did declare that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would cease to prosecute a sute in Law against him did assume and promise unto the Plaintif that he would pay unto him 8 l. the charges of sute which he had been at for breach of this promise Actio acrevit sets forth his damage To this Declaration the Defendant demurs in Law takes this Exception viz. That there is no time nor place set forth where or when he did forbear to sue the Defendant as it ought to be because it is a traversable matter But Roll chief Iustice answered It is not necessary to allege a place of a negative thing to be done viz. to say that he did not prosecute the sute in such a place or at such a time for he ought to surcease prosecution in all places and at all times Therefore let judgement be for the Plaintif except better matter be shewn Friday next Lydaâ—e and Lyster Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 387. AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation made to a Bishop and his Commissary for the payment of Debts and Legacies Iudgement in Debt upon a Bond reversed the Action was brought by an Executor and judgement given by Default against the Defendant the Iudgement was reversed by a Writ of Error because the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet whereas it ought to have been brought in the Detinet only because it was brought by an Executor Saunders against Ritch Trin. 1651 Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 758. IN an Action of Trespass and Ejectment upon a special verdict found The Case fell out to be this Special Verdict in Trespass and Ejectment A man by his last Will and Testament devised all his Fée simple land wheresoever to his Brother upon condition that he suffer his wife to enjoy all his free lands in Holford during her life and the jury found that the Testator had only a portion of tithes in Holford The question was whether the portion of tithes did pass to the wife by this devise Merifield held That the Tithes passed not by the devise because the word lands cannot extend to tithes for that would be a very forced construction and cited Trin. 17 Iac. Banc. Reg. Knight and Knights case and Mich. 39 40 Eliz. Entred 38 Eliz. rot 269. Yow and Hardings case Banc. Reg. That Houses are not devisable by the name of lands and he said that the word wheresoever makes no difference as to make the tithes pass and though there be an implication and an intent in the Testator here to dedevise the tithes yet that will not serve because there wants words to express this intent and though this be in a will yet there must be words used to support the intent of the Testator for wills must be ruled by the rules of the Common Law Ashinghurst and Curtice his case Mich. 7 Iac. Hob. rep 34. the last Edition Mich. 42 43 Eliz. Banc. Reg. a devise of Lands extend not to tithes for tithes are not lands but a meer collateral thing to them and have no relation to them Mich. 1. Iac. rot 192. Mills and Hides case Banc. Reg. 11 Rep. Bridle and Napers case f. 13. b. Trin. 42 Eliz. B. Reg. Sherwood and Winston held that tithes cannot be appendant to a Manor 1 Rep. 111. Albanies case and here are no words in the Proviso to pass the tithes It is true that tithes may lie in tenure and that an Action of debt lies for them but that is by the Statute 19 Eliz Dyer f. 354. The word land in a will doth not extend to tithes and heirs ought not to be
heir and an authority cannot divest them out of him this is not like to the surrendring of Copyhold lands into the hands of the Lord for such a surrender cannot be revoked but this authority may be revoked But which is more the Verdict here doth not find that the two Attorneys are customary Tenants of the Manor but only by way of recital which is not good for they ought to have been found to directly nor doth it appear that they were customary Tenants at the time of the admittance of the party neither is there any possession or title found in the Defendant and so the Plaintif having primer possession the Defendant is culpable neither is it found that the Customary Tenant who gave this authority had an estate in fee-simple in the lands and if he had but an estate for life he could not make such a Letter of Attorney neither is the authority given warranted by the Custom and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Wilmot for the Defendant As to the authority he said that it was good and did well enough survive the party that gave it because it is supported with a special direction from the party that gave it 1 H. 7.8 and this is the reason that an Executor may sell lands of the Testator after his death viz. because his authority is so supported 21 E. 4. f. 8. 31 E. 1. Fitz. Grants 45. And here in our case the heir hath neglected his advantage and therefore shall not now be admitted to take it But besides the authority here given is more than a bare authority for it is backed with the circumstances of time persons and of a Custom which is not of a slight esteem in Law and by such a Custom which is very reasonable for it is but to enable the party to dispose of his own lands and far more unreasonable Customs than this are allowed in our Law as that in Kent for an Infant of 15 years of age to have power to sell his lands neither is this Custom contrary to any positive rule of Law for it is here to create the authority to begin after the parties death that created it and so it is not to determine with his death for till then it begins not and the Custom here is but to alien lands which is no strange thing and this Custom extends but within the Manor which is but to a small compass of ground and so the publique is not much concerned in it and the case of 17 Car. in this Court Bambridge and Whaddons case differs from our Case for that was not supported with a custome as this is And it doth appear by the Record that Dalby the Attorney is a customary Tenant and the admission is also found by the Verdict to be secundum consuetudinem Manerii and so that is well enough and then one cannot gain a Copyhold estate by disseisin and so no primer seisin shall be intended as was urged on the other side and it is also found that the Copyholder was seised Roll chief Iustice It will be a hard matter to maintain the Custom Custom if it be not found that the Copy-holder was seised in fee of the Copyhold lands 2ly It is not here found that the land is demisable according to the will of the Lord and so it may be free land and then the custom doth not extend unto it nor is it found that the parties to whom the Letters of Attorney were made were Copyhold Tenants Disseisin And the primer possession will make a disseisin here by the Defendant if the custom be not-well found and so judgement must be for the Plaintif Devise And I cannot see how the Custom can be good it being against the rules of Law Surrender A man cannot devise Copyhold lands and this case is worse but he may surrender to the use of his last Will. If you will not consent to a new tryal we will advise for it is a hard case and my Brothers have not been attended with Books Mich. following Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi It was moved again and the Court would advise Postea Batchelour against Parsons Trin. 1651 Banc. sup Mich. 1652. rot 381. BAtchelour brings a writ of Error to reverse a Iudgement given against him for Parsons in an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas and the Error assigned was Error to reverse a judgement in debt that there are two Declarations in the Record one in the Emparlance Roll the other in the Plea Roll and the Original certified upon the writ of Error doth not warrant the first Declaration for it was filed after it Hales answered that the Record is good enough if the Original dowarrant the last Declaration for this is the common course used in the Common Pleas as the Clarks there do inform me there are many Cases like this in the Common Pleas. Wild of Councel on the other side answered that this is a strange course for they ought first to file the Original because it is the beginning and ground-work of the sute and it not being so done here the Iudgement is given without an Original this is a judgement by default and the imparlance is part of the sute Roll chief Iustice Imparlance Intendment Certiorari The Imparlance Roll is the principal part of the sute and to consound things by intendment that the imparlance may be touching another sute is not good and it matters not what the Custom is in the Common Pleas if it be against Law and both Rolls ought to be certified here Ierman Iustice ad idem Roll chief Iustice All the Record in the Common Pleas which is in the custody of the chief Iustice there ought to be certified by him upon the Retorn of the Writ of Error and here the Imparlance Roll is in his custody and therefore he ought to certifie it and if there be two writs of Error Error and one is good and the other naught we will take the best to affirm the judgement The Original ought not to be fitted to the Declaration but the Declaration to the Original because the Original is the foundation of the sute and therefore the course used in the Common Pleas is a preposterous course Original viz. to declare against the Defendant and after to file an original against him to warrant the Declaration It is here certifyed to be one Record and how can we take the emparlance Roll to be part of the Record it being not certyfied with it and if there be variance between the emparlance Roll and the plea Roll Variance it is Error We will advise but we must not suffer new wayes yet we are loth notwithstanding to reverse Iudgements given in the Common pleas Therefore shew cause next term why the Iudgement should not be reversed Kirman against Iohnson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup IN an ejectione firmae brought by Kirman against Iohnson a special verdict was found
in London and the Bill was found against him But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be granted upon a motion Good behaviour but you must prefer Articles against him here upon Oath and then you may move for it and if there appear cause in the Articles it shall be granted Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a writ to swear one in the Office of a Maior For a Writ to swear one in the Office of a Maior of a Town to which he was elected for the Borough of Trevenny in Cornewall because the old Maior did not swear him in due time as he ought to do but did adjourn the Court before it was done Roll chief Iustice answered that there is no president to swear such an Officer yet ordered that notice should be given to the Town and presidents to be brought into Court if any were to warrant it Whitway against Pinsent Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 61. A Man made a lease of lands for years by deed Demurrer to a plea in Covenants and covenanted that the Lessée his Assigns should enjoy them during the Term the Lessor made the Defendant his Executor dyed The Lessee assigns over his Term a Stranger enters upon the Assignee the Assignee takes 40 l. in satisfaction for his being ejected of the Assignor and afterwards brings an Action of Covenant against the Executor of the Lessor the Defendant The Defendant pleads the acceptance of the 40 l. of the Assignor in satisfaction of the wrong done him in Bar of the Action and to this plea the Plaintiff demurred Bar. The question here was whether the Action of Covenant did lye against the Defendant since that the Plaintiff had received 40 l. of his Assignor in satisfaction Roll chief Iustice said that here is a double Covenant one of the Lessor and the other of the Assignor and therefore the party may have two Actions Action and therefore he is not here barred to bring this second Action though he have barred himself by the acceptance of the 40 l. from bringing an Action against his Assignor and the Defendant hath not pleaded that the 40 l. was given in satisfaction of both the Covenants for then it had been otherwayes Ierman Iustice to the same effect That they are several Covenants by several deeds and both the parties are severelly bound and satisfaction given by one of them is not the satisfaction of the other And he said if Lessee for years assign over his Term the Lessor having notice thereof and he accept the rent from the assignee he cannot demand the rent of the Lessee afterwards yet he may sue other Covenants conteined in the lease against him as for reparations or the like The rule was for the Plaintiff to take his Iudgement nisi Mich. 1651. Banc. sup SErjeant Glyn moved for a certiorari to remove an endictment of forcible entry that was once before removed hither For a certiorari to remove an endictment and after sent down by a procedendo because the Iustices below will not grant restitution Roll chief Iustice answered There is a plea put in and in such case it is not usual to grant a certiorari yet it may be that it may be granted therefore let the other side shew cause on Monday next why it should not be granted Cantrell against Stephens Mich 1651. Banc. sup CAntreli brought an Action upon the case against Stephens for stopping his way in a Meoow called Madbrook in the parish of Redriff in Kent Arrest of judgement for an Action upon the case for stopping a way upon not guilty pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Plaintiff as Lessee to the Haberdashers company of London claimed to have a way for them whereas they having let the land cannot have the way but the Lessée in possession 2ly The prescription is not rightly applyed for it ought to be for them to have a way pro tenentibus et occupatoribus suis which is not so here Twisden answered it shall be intended Tenants and Occupyers to the Haberdashers though it be not said suis Latch said that a prescription per que estate is good in an Action upon the Case because no land is claimed and Green on the same side said the exception taken was helped by the verdict Wild on the other side said that it doth not appear that the Tenant who brings the Action comes in by the Haberdashers who claim the way and so he cannot prescribe to have it Prescription and the prescription ought to be laid pro tenentibus subtenentibus which Roll chief Iustice denyed and said that it is laid that the Haberdashers were seised in Fée postea huc usque and so they have the Fée at the time and may prescribe but it had been better for the party to have shewed that he was their Tenant but it being after a verdict the question is whether it be not helped Vpon reading the Record Roll chief Iustice observed that it appeared not whose Occupyer and Tenant the Plaintiff is but only by way of argument but said the question is whether the verdict do help it and he inclyned it did not Verdict because the Action is brought by the Tenant who hath not entitled himself to the Action for he hath made only a title to the way in the Haberdashers Title but hath derived no Estate from them to himself At another day Roll chief Iustice said we must not take things by intendment and here is a failer in the very gist of the Action for the Plaintiff hath not entitled himself to the Action for he hath no interest for it appears not how he is Ocupyer of the land for he doth not say he is Ocupator suus and as he hath laid the Declaration the Company ought to have brought the Action Ierman Iustice to the same effect and said that upon a demurrer it had been cleerly naught and the verdict here doth not help it for no title appears for the Plaintiff and the verdict cannot give him that he had not before Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same effect Roll If it had been Ocupator suus I doubt it would not make the Declaration good because it shews not by what title So The rule was nil capiat per billam nisi Tayler against Web. Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 240. IN an ejectione firmae upon a lease for 7 years there was a special verdict found Special verdict in an ejectione firmae and the questions in the Case grew upon the words of a Will that were false orthography viz. I do make my Cosen Giles Bridges my Solle Ayeare and my Yexecutor meaning my sole Heir and Executor Powis of Councel with the Plaintiff held that the Will was good to make Giles Briges the Testators Heir and Executor notwithstanding the mis-writing of the words
Court Twisden on the other side confessed the Books were so but here the Battery is not apparent and the wound is internal and not to be viewed by the Court. Roll chief Iustice said 3 things are considerable 1. whether the Court can increase the damages 2ly Whether the wound be apparent and 3ly Whether the damages given be too small The Court upon view of the party and examination of Chirurgions and Witnesses on both sides upon Oath did conclude that they might increase the damages and that the wound was apparent and that the damages were too small and therefore they increased them to 400 l. and said they would not encrease them more because they could not inquire into all the circumstances of the fact as the jury might but they thought fitting to encrease them in some proportion because the offence was great and such outragious Acts are not to be slightly punished VVallis against Bucknal Hill 1651. Banc. sup VPon a special verdict found in an Ejectione firmae the case sell out to be this Special Verdict in an Ejectione firmse A Copyholder of inheritance made a Letter of Attorney to two joyntly and severally to surrender his Copyhold lands in Fee to certain uses after his death according to the Custom of the Manor The question made by Ellis of Councel with the Plaintif was whether the Custom was good or not he argued that it was not a good Custom In Sir Iohn Davis Reports it is said a Custom must be reasonable and a Custom may be reasonable when it is but against a particular Law and not a general Law but the Custom here thus to convey land is against a general Law Particular Customs may be against publique interest pro bono public but if they be not as in our case they are not they are not good Pro bono publico Next an authority given ought to be Countermandable and to determine at the death of the party but this is not so and therefore it is no good authority 19 E. 3. f. 5. 2ly None can give an authority to another to do a thing which he could not do himself but here it is otherwise and therefore it is not a good authority 3ly By the death of the Copyholder the lands are setled in the heir and this authority given shall not devest them and this is not like the surrendring of lands into the hands of the Lord for a surrender cannot be revoked but this authority is revokable Next the Verdict doth not find that the 2 Attorneys are Customary tenants but only by way of recital which is not good nor doth it appear they were customary tenants at the time of the admittance and here is not found any possession or title in the Defendant and so the Plaintif having primer possession the Defendant is guilty neither is it found that the customary Tenant had see-simple in the land And if he had but an estate for life he could not make such a letter of Attorney Also the authority given is not warranted by the Custom set forth Wilmot of Councel with the Defendant said That this authority here is supported with a special direction which may survive the party that gives it 1 H. 7.8 And an authority may survive the party that gives it else how can an Executor sell lands by the authority given unto him 21 E. 4. f. 8. 31. E. 1. Fitzherb 45. and as for the heir he hath neglected his advantage it he had any and cannot now take it But besides the authority here given is more than a bare authority for it is backed with circumstances of time and person and here is also a Custom to support it and this Custom is a reasonable Custom for it is but to enable a man to dispose of his own lands and there are far more unreasonable Customs than this allowed in our law as the Custom of Kent for one of the age of 15 years to be enabled to sell his lands and this Custom is not against any positive rule of Law for the custom is to create the authority to begin after his death and so it is not to determine by his death for till then it begins not and the Custom here is but to alien lands which is no strange thing and it is extended but within a small compass of land and so cannot be very prejudicial to the publique And Bambridge and Whaddons case 17 Car. in this Court cited on the other side doth differ from this case for tâ—ere was no Custom to support it And it doth appear here by the Record that Dalby the Attorney is a customary Tenant and the admission here is found to be secundum consuetudinem Manerii And one cannot gain a Copyhold estate by disseisin and so here can be no primer seisin intended and it is found the Copyholder is seised Roll chief Iustice said It will be hard to maintain the Custom Custom if it be not found that the party was seiâ—â—d in see of the Copyhold lands But 2ly it is not here found that the land is demisable according to the will of the Lord and so it may be free land then the custom doth not reach it Neither is it found that the 2 Attorneys were Copyhold Tenants and the primer possession here will make a disseisin by the Defendant if the Custom be not well found and then it is for the Plaintif and I cannot see how the Custom can be good it being against the rules of Law for a man cannot devise a Copyhold and here the case is worse Devise but he may surrender to the use of his last Will and Testament At another day Wilmot to the Exception taken That it is not found that the two Attorneys were Tenants of the Manor said there is so much found as shall make them be presumed to be Tenants of the Manor for it is found that the party is admitted secundum consuetudinem Manerii which cannot be a good admittance if they were not Tenants Roll chief Iustice answered to be admitted secundum consuetudinem goes â—o the Admittance not to the Letter of Attorney But we will advise At another day Twisden prayed judgement for the Plaintif and insisted upon the Exception that the two Attorneys were not found customary Tenants for one of them is not mentioned at all and the other is found so only by way of recital and so they have not entitled themselves to the Custom and then the Defendant hath no title The Court ruled to shew cause Saturday following why the Plaintif should not have judgement Antea Custodes against Tawny and Norwood Hill 1651. Banc. sup TAwny and Norwood were jointly endicted for blasphemous words severally spoken by them Endictment for speaking blasphemous words upon the late Statute made against blasphemy and were convicted the parties being removed hither by Habeas Corpus It was urged that the Endictment was not good because it was joynt whereas the words being
be undestood eight hangings Roll chief Iustice A pair is properly when one of the things so called cannot be properly used without the other but yet the words may be also understood so many couple and here you cannot intend the words to mean so many suits of hangings and you might have expressed your meaning by so many pieces of hangings and therefore it seems doubtfull Ierman Iustice Here the words do not expresse the number of the things as they do when you say a pair of Oxen or the like Nicholas as Ierman Ask Iustice A pair is incertain for that word may be meant more than two in number as when you say a pair of cards and a pair of hangings in some places is meant a suit of hangings Roll chief Iustice If it be so then it is more incertain the word hangings may be good enough but how can the number be known Curia advisare vult Afterwards the Court moved the Defendant to suffer the Plaintiff to amend his Declaration and to plead anew and to consent to a new tryall Askwiths Case Hill 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an order of Sessions made at Durham against Askwith Motion to quash an order of Sessions for not serving the office of a Constable or finding an other able person to serve the place for him being elected according to the custom of the place where he was elected to serve The Exception taken was that it is not shewed that he was elected at a Court Leet and the Sessions have no power to elect a Constable Roll chief Iustice He is a Constable elected by a by-Law By Law it is not necessary there should be any other election then according to the custom and he must serve in his turn or contribute to the charge for another to serve for him Custom and this is a good custom used in many places and I do find one my self in my turn in one place and make no use of my privilege to avoid it Another exception was taken that the complaint made of the party was that he would neither serve the office nor contribute for another to serve it and the order is only that he refused to contribute and so is not warranted by the custom by which he hath an election to serve or contribute Quashed nisi c. Hill 1652. Banc. sup A Prisoner was brought into Court by a habeas corpus out of the Fleet to the intent to turn him over to the Marshalsea to charge him with an Action here Creditor examined upon oath it his debt were reall whereupon the creditor was examined upon his oath whether the debt was real for which he surmised he would bring his Action and upon making oath thereof the Prisoner was turned over accordingly Nota. Smith against Holyman Hill 1652. Banc. sup IT was moved in arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case upon an Assumpsit Arrest of Iudgement in Assumpsit False English and Exceptions taken 1. That the Defendants Christian name was mistaken And 2ly That the jurata was erroneous for it says in a plea of dept instead of a plea of debt and the Iudgement was arrested for dept written with a P. is no word though it sound like debt written with a B. Custodes and Howell Gwin Hill 1652. Banc. sup HOwell Gwin was brought to the Bar being convicted for forgeing of a deed Iudgement against one convicted of forgery and was demanded what he could say why Iudgement should not be given against him Boynton of Councel with the Prisoner moved the Court that in regard there was an information of perjury depending here against the witnesses upon whose Testimony the Prisoner was convicted of the perjury and that the Prisoner doth endeavour to proceed with all the speed that is possible against them in this information that the Iudgement may be stayed in the mean time against him Roll chief Iustice answered if they be found guilty of the perjury they shall be punished but we will give Iudgement against your Clyent in the mean time which was done accordingly in these words following Iudgement for forgery viz. you are convicted of forgeing a deed by putting a dead mans hand unto it therefore the Court gives this Iudgement against you that you are fined at a hundred pound and shall stand on the pillory two hours before the Hall dore with a paper on your head shewing the nature of your offence Memorandum the party cut off a dead mans hand and put a pen and a seal in it and so signed and sealed and delivered the deed with the dead hand and swore that he saw the deed sealed and delivered Mich. 1652 Banc. sup MRs. Lucy Fotherby was brought into Court to be turned over into the Marshalsea out of the Fleet with an intent to charge her with an Action of debt Against this it was urged that she was a Prisoner in the Fleet A Prisoner turned over committed thither by an order of the Court of Chancery Prisoner But Roll chief Iustice answered this order is nothing to hinder her turning over if the debt be reall and so upon proof that the debt was reall she was turned over Locky and Dumiloe Hill 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 1462. VPon a special verdict in an ejectione firmae the case fell out to be this Special verdict in an ejectione firmae I. S. seised of lands in Fée makes a lease of it to I. D. at Will A. B. puts the Tenant at Will out of possession and after the Tenant at Will enters and takes a lease at Will of him that put him out of possession the question was whether he should hold the land by virtue of his first lease or by virtue of his second agreement To this Roll chief Iustice said if one make a lease at Will to one and he be ousted Will. Determination and then enter again and take a new estate the Will is determined but a stranger cannot determine his Estate without his consent but here he hath determined his first Estate by his new contract with the disseisor of his Lessor And he said if Livery and Seisin be made upon one Acre of land in the name of two Acres it is good for both the Acres for it is not necessary that the party that gives the livery should go to all the land mentioned in the deed of Feoffment Livery and Seisin And he also said that if Tenant at Will cuts down a tree upon the land which he holds at Will by this Act he hath determined his Will Drake and Drake Hill 1652. Banc. sup DRake brought an Action against Drake for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words viz. Thou hast preached lyes in the Pulpit the Plaintiff being a master of Arts and incumbent of a living Wadham VVindham held the words actionable because they were spoken of the Plaintiff in relation to his
professision and cited one Hinkes case where these words spoken of the Plaintif being a Brasier were held actionable viz. Thou hast cozened me of a Pan. And if one say to another Thou hast poisoned a man If the man be dead the words are actionable although he doe not say that he did it wilfully The Court enclined the words are actionable because they are scandalous And the rule was Iudicium nisi c. Hill 1652. Banc. sup VVAdham Windham moved for a Certiorari to remove an Endictment preferred against one in Newgate Motion for a Certiorari to remove an Endictment Roll chief Iustice He lies there for murder and is outlawed thereupon yet take a Certiorari to remove the Record for his fact was the stabbing of a man and stabbing is in its nature but felony Felony Murther and is not murther although the party cannot have his Clergy for it by reason of the Statute made by King Iames against Stabbing else by the Common Law he might have had it Ashworth and Sir Tho. Stanley Hill 1652. Banc. sup VPon a Verdict given for the Plaintif in an Ejectione firmae Arrest of Iudgement in an Ejectione firmae Damages Ejectione firmae It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement That the Ejectment is laid to be of three Messuages or Tenements and a Toft which as to the Messuages or Tenements is incertain Roll chief Iustice You move too soon for it may be the Plaintiff will release the damages as to the Messuages or Tenement and take his judgement only for the toft and the Action lies well enough for that Hill 1652. Banc. sup TWisden moved to discharge Sir Thomas Revell and others of their recognisances for the peace in which they were bound the last Michaelmas Term Motion to discharge recognizances of the peace because the Affidavit upon which they were bound was only to this effect That the Prosecutor goes in fear of his life when he goes into such parcels of land whereas in truth those lands are setled upon Sir Thomas Revell by decree in Chancery and the Prosecutor hath also brought 18 several Actions against the Tenants of the lands and hath declared against none of them and there are four Affidavits against the first Affidavit Green on the other side said that the party is in Court and says he is still in fear of his life Peace and prays he may not be discharged But because upon reading the Affidavits and examining the matter it appeared to the Court that they were bound to the peace upon malice and for vexation they were discharged Hill 1652. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Who ought to repair High-ways of Common right All High ways of common right are to be repaired by the Inhabitants of that Parish in which the way lies But if any particular person will enclose any part of a way or waste adjoyning he thereby takes upon him to repair that which was so enclosed Massey and Aubry Hill 1652. Banc. sup AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation to stand to an Award Arrest of judgement in debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award The Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrators made no Award The Paintif replies that the Vmpire made an award and sets it forth and assigns the breach and upon issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the assignment of the breach was not good for the incertainty of it for the breach is assigned upon but a part of the Award for the breach assigned is that the Defendant should pay the Arrears of rent due after the purchase of certain lands and doth not shew what these Arrears are But Roll chief Iustice said That the words since the purchase thereof seem to make this certain yet stay till the other moves At another day the case was moved again and the same exception insisted upon by Barry of the Inner Temple who formerly moved it Hales held the Exception not good and that the breach was well assigned because though it seem uncertain of it self yet it relates to a thing which makes it certain As an Award for one to deliver to another all the goods in such a Shop which belonged to him hath been held to be good But Barry answered That it is utterly incertain and that there is nothing in the Award which can make it certain and here is a four-fold incertainty in the Award 1. It cannot be known what these arrears are that are awarded to be paid 2ly It appears not by the Award for what lands these arrerages of rent awarded to be paid are due for there are no lands mentiond but only two leases of land 3ly It appears not by whom the arrerages are due 4ly It appears not to whom the arrerages are due Roll chief Iustice All the matter is whether it appears that these arrerages of rent awarded to be paid were in question or no and it seems they were because the lease and the rent thereupon reserved are both in question but it is not certain what these arrears of rent are and so the party that is awarded to pay them cannot tell what sum of mony he is to pay Ierman Iustice said he may know because he was Tenant of the land Barry replyed he cannot know when the purchase was made and the arbitrement is that the party shall pay all the arrears since the purchase Curia advisare vult At another day the case was again moved by Barry and exceptions taken that the breach was assigned upon a thing not submitted unto or awarded to be performed And secondly The award is incertain in many things First It appears not what rent was due to be paid but only by implication which is not good Secondly It appears not for what the rent is due nor 3ly How much rent is due and Salmons case in the 5. rep was cited Also it was objected that the award was not finall and concluding and therefore not good Also the Award is unreasonable and for that cause also it is not good and he cited 21 E. 4. f. 40. and 17 E. 4. f. 51. and prayed for the Defendant that judgement might be stayed Hales on the other side prayed for judgement said That the Arbitrators were not to ascertain particularly the rent to be paid but it is sufficient for them to make the Award touching all the differences betwixt the parties and an averment may ascertain the particular things being they are only matters of fact although one may not be admitted by an averment to supply an Award in a matter wherein it was in the substance of it defective before Roll chief Iustice What certainty is there by the Award that the party shall enjoy all his right in the two leases in difference between the parties for the payment of the rent Both parties know what rent is due reserved by the leases but how can the party know what the
assigned in the Declaration was not well assigned for it recited another promise than upon which the Plaintif had declared for he declares of a promise made to give 300 l. in mariage to the Plaintif with his Sister E. and he assigns the breach in not paying the 300 l. unto the Plaintif so that the breach doth not answer the promise for if the money be paid to the wife which for ought appears may be the promise is not broken though she be maryed But Hale 〈◊〉 other side said that it is all one as it is alleged and that it is equâ—â—â—â— and reciprocal and here is a refusal to pay the money assigned for a breach and this is a good breach Roll chief Iustice I suppose it is all one as if he had expressed the very words of the promise for the Husband is to give the acquittance for the money Acquittance and the moneys are to be paid unto the Husband and the Verdict finds that they are not paid And if moneys be due to a Feme upon a Contract dum sola suit and after and before the payment thereof she marry the moneys are to be paid to the Husband and not the wife Payment and the moneys here are intended to be paid for a mariage portion which doth properly belong to the husband and they were not to be paid unto her before the mariage and it is all one in this Case as if the Plaintif had said that the Defendant had not paid the moneys to the Husband with his Wife in mariage Curia ad idem The Rule thereupon was that the Plaintif should take his judgement nisi Hicks and Joyce Mich. 1653. Banc. sup AN Action of the Case was brought for these words Arrest of judgement in an Action for words She meaning the Defendant is a whore and I will prove it and her plying place is in Cheapside and she gets 40 s. a night by playing the whore It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because they are but words of choler and very general words and may receive divers constructions and at the first moving the judgement was stayed but the matter being moved again at another day Roll chief Iustice said that these words import more than the bare calling of a woman whore by reason of other particular circumstances set forth to aggravate the matter and therefore let the Plaintif take her Iudgement Townesend and Barker Mich. 1653. Banc. sup Trin. 1653. rot 743. AN Action upon the Case was brought by a Churchwarden of a Parish Arrest of judgement in an action for words for these words spoken of him Thou dost make Lowns i. e. taxes or assessments thy self and makest 5 quarters in the year and dost cheat and cozen the Parish It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because they are spoken of a Churchwarden which the Common Law takes not notice of And 2ly In that it doth not appear they were spoken of him in relation to his being a Churchwarden But it was answered That a Churchwarden is an Officer of Trust and taken notice of by the Common Law and so was it adiudged in Stroade and Homes his Case in this Court and the words must be intended to be spoken of him in the relation to his Office for that is implyed by his making of Lowns and his couzening the Parish The rule was for the Plaintif to have his judgement Mich. 1653. Banc. sup AN Endictment of one endicted for refusing to serve in the Office of a Headborough was quashed Endictment quashed Addition because it did not shew that he was chosen to the 〈◊〉 and because the party endicted wanted an addition Mich. 1653. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to discharge one Cullins that was arrested as he was attending the Court to give testimony as a Witness in a Cause To discharge one arrested attending th' Court as a Witness Supersedeas Attachment and for an attachment against the parties that did arrest him German Iustice absente Roll chief Iustice Take a Supersedeas and let the parties shew cause why an Attachment shall not be granted against them that arrested him Hanslop and Johnson Mich. 1953. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to change the venue in an Ejectione firmae laid in London because the Lands in Question did concern the Poor of London To change the Veâ—ue in an Ejectione firmae and therefore it was supposed there could not be an indifferent Tryal in London for by consequence in that it concerns the Poor it concerns the whole City But Roll chief Iustice answered the Action is local Action local Venue and it cannot be removed except you can draw it from thence by your Plea Boyle and Scarborough Mich. 1653. Banc. sup Hill 1652. rot 226. AN Action of Debt was brought by Boyle against Scarborough Error in reverse a judgement in Debt upon a Promise wherein the Plaintiff did declare that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear to sue forth a ne exeat regnum against the Defendants Son who did owe unto the Plaintiff five hundred pound did assume and promise unto the Plaintiff a certain sum of mony expressed in the Declaration upon non assumpsit pleaded and a verdict and a judgement given for the Plaintiff the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and it was assigned for Error That there appears no consideration to ground the promise upon so no ground of Action for he doth not shew that he had done any thing in prosecuting the Writ of ne exeat regnum and Rolyer and Langdales Case 1650. in this Court was cited and Hob. 216. Bedwell and Cottons case and there is no such Writ in the Register as a ne exeat regnum and therefore there could be no forbearance to sue out such a Writ but there is a Writ to give security not to go out of the Realm to the publique prejudice of the King and his people and here is no such matter expressed but only that his Son owed him 500 l. Nat. Brev. 85. was agreed and it was farther objected by Wild who argued against the Iudgement that though the consideration should be good yet the replication is not good and sufficient to tye the second Writ to the first for it is not said that the second Writ is pro una eadem causa and so it is incertain Br. Trespass 85. 9 H. 6 and there may be several promises made in one day and if the replication is good yet the rejoynder is not good 19 H. 8.43 for he only admits that he being a Knight is the same person which was sued by the name of Esquire Hob. 171. Stukelyes Case And here is a judgement by a Nihil dicit and no warrant of Attorny for it is Latin and so it is nul it being since the late Act made for the proceedings in Law to be in English Latch
Iustice answered Denied It appears not to us but that the Parliament was sitting at the time and peradventure it will be made appear at the tryal Therefore plead and go to tryal and then move in Arrest of judgement if you have any thing to move Page and Parr Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1654. rot 1687. PAge brought an Action of Covenant upon a Covenant conteined in an Indenture of a demise for years Covenant upon an Indenture for the not paying the rent reserved by the Indenture according to the Covenant The Defendant pleads in bar that the Plaintif entred into part of the land demised before the rent due for which the Action was brought and so had suspended his rent The Plaintif replyed the Defendant did re-enter and so was possessed as in his former estate Suspension of ren and to this replication the Defendant demurred and for cause he shewed that here was no confession and avoidance or traverse of the plea in bar Roll chief Iustice Have you shewed that he continued in possession until the rent grew due for you ought to shew that he entred and was possessed untill after the rent-day but here you have only said that he was possessed in his former right Nil capiar per Billam Therefore nil capiat per Billam nisi Hill 1654. Banc. sup VPon an Affidavit read in Court Not to plead till costs paid assessed in a former Action that 20 l. costs were taxed upon a non-sute in an Action of Trespass and Ejectment brought to the Bar and that the Plaintif had not payed them nor was to be found and yet had brought another Action for the same land The Court was moved that the Defendant might not be ruled to plead to this second Action until the Plaintif had paid the costs taxed upon the former non sute and that another Plaintif might be named or that security might be given to pay the costs if the Plaintif should be non-sute again Shew cause The rule was to shew cause why it should not be so Hill 1654. Banc. sup DArcy moved that an Endictment of Michaelmas Term last might be amended in the Caption But Roll chief Iustice answered To amend an Endictment of a former Term denied It cannot be if it be of the last Term but had it been an endictment of this Term it might have been amended Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment for entring forcibly upon a Tenant for years against the Statute of 21 Iacobi To quash an Endictment and the Exception was that the Endictment doth not say that he entred manu forti Roll chief Iustice answered The Statute is only that if one enter by force and the words manu forti are not expressed in the Act Therefore move it again if you will Hill 1654. Banc. sup A Habeas Corpus cum causa was granted for Elizabeth Bayne To discharge a prisoner turned over to the Mareschal For a habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to the intent to charge her with an Action and upon the return thereof she was committed to the Mareschal Wild moved that she might be discharged because the return of the Habeas Corpus is erronious But Roll chief Iustice answered It could not be whereupon he moved for another Habeas Corpus for her ad subjiciendum to be directed to the Mareschal which was granted Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment preferred against one for practising Phisick not being skilfull in the profession To quash an Endictment for practising Phisick without licence and not having a License to practice from the College of Phisicians The Exceptions were 1. That no Endictment at the Common Law lies for the offence supposed to be committed for it is not an offence against the Common Law and 2ly an Endictment upon the Statute lies not and so no Endictment lies And upon these Exceptions it was quashed The Protector and Hart. Hill 1654. Banc. sup ONe Hart committed to the Gatehouse appeared in Court upon the return of a Habeas Corpus granted for him To remand a prisoner appearing upon a Habeas Corpus and turned over Denied and upon the prayer of his Councel the return was filed upon which it was moved on his behalf that he might be remanded to the Keeper of the Gatehouse and not turned over to the Mareschal to the intent to save his fees but the Court said it could not be because upon filing of the return there ought to be entred upon it a Committitur to the Mareschal whereby he becomes his prisoner Torret and Frampton Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1653. rot 178. VPon a special Verdict the Case was this Special verdict upon a Devise A man deviseth his lands to his wife for her life the remaindar to A. B. and C. and their heirs respectively for ever The question was whether A. B. and C. were joynt tenants or tenants in common Serjeant Twisden held that they were joynt renants Whether joynt tenancy or a tenancy in common and that this case differs from Radcliffs case and cited Wilds case in the 6 Rep. that a Will must be clear and conspicuous but so it is not here and here is no enforcement by these words respectively and they do relate to the persons and not to the lands bequeathed and a Covenant made by three respectively is a joynt Covenant and not a several Covenant and the word respectively hath relation to the survivorship which may happen betwixt the parties and a devise to one and his heir is a fee-simple Latch For the Defendant held that here is a tenancy in Common and not a joynt tenancy for the Estate ought to be whole out either a tenancy in Common or whole out a joynt tenancy and this of necessity for there cannot be a joynt tenancy for life and several inheritantes in the remainder and Littletons ground proves this to be so And 2ly It is against all construction to be otherwise as the word respectively is here placed and Ratclifs case which is not so strong a case as this case proves it to be so and although the word respectively may sometimes make a distribution of heirship as hath been objected viz. of several heirships yet here the placing of the word respectively shews it cannot be so Distribution of heirship and this using of the word is not operative but idle if here should be a joynt tenancy for the law says as much though the word respectively were left out and the word would be the more idle in explicating a thing so obvious to common understanding and no ways doubtfull and therefore we cannot think but that these extraordinary words do enforce an extraordinary construction and not a common one and an idle application and this comes not within the rule objected for the certainty for this word hath a proper meaning to make a several distribution
secrets of his Clyents cause Not to disclose a Clyents cause and thereupon he was forborn to be examined Pilkinton and Bagshaw Pasch 1655. Banc. sup VPon a tryal to be had at the Bar between Pilkington and Bagshaw Tryal at the Bar. the Plaintif would not put in his writ that the tryal might goe on Whereupon Roll chief Iustice bid the Cryer to call the Attorney of the Plaintif to appear and to bring in the writ upon pain of 20 l. and said Pain of 20 l. Attorney put out of the Roll. Non-sute upon the Record that if he brought it not in he should be put out of the Roll. Serjeant Maynard moved that if he brought not in the writ that the Plaintif might be called non-sute upon the Record which Roll chief Iustice answered might well be because the parties have day in Court by the Record or Roll afterwards the Sollicitor who had the writ brought it in yet Roll chief Iustice said There shall notwithstanding the writ be brought in be 20 l. fine set upon him for his trifling with the Court. The Protector and Sumner Pasch 165â— Banc. sup SErjeant Bernard moved that Sumner that appeared in Court upon his habeas corpus directed to the Kéeper of Northampton Gaol might be bailed To bail a prisoner denied for that having killed two men upon the Highway the Iury had found it Man-slaughter se defendendo Roll chief Iustice answered The Iuries conclusion is contrary to their premises Therefore let the prisoner be sent to Northampton Gaol whence he came yet that may not be for the fact was done in Peterborough Tryal Writ ad reâ—piendum and therefore he cannot be tryed at Northampton therefore let him be sent to Peterborough Gaol with a writ ad recipiendum to the Gaoler there to take charge of him Pilkington versus Bagshaw Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at the Bar in a Trespass and Ejectment betwixt Pilkington and Bagshaw Trespass and Ejectment the question being whether Copyhold lands may be entailed by the custom of the Manor It was said that if Tenant in tail and the issue in tail of Copyhold lands in tail joyn in a surrender in a Court Baron of the Copyhold lands Estopel Copyhold lands in tail Customary entail Fine State enjoyed Seisure of Cepyhold lands that this is not an estopel for it ought to be by fine or deed indented And Roll chief Iustice said that Copyhold lands in tail are not within the Statute of Westm 2. but it is a Customary entail like in its nature to another entail and such an estate must be docked by fine or by some other customary way It was also said by him that if Copies of Court Rolls be shewed to prove a Customary estate the enjoynment of such estates must also be proved otherwise the proof is not good It was also said upon the evidence That a seisure by the Lord made of Copyhold entailed lands within the Manor of Wakefield in Yorkshire is in the nature of a recovery to deck the entail and that the manner of doing it is either for the Copyholder to let his Copyhold for more years than he ought or to refuse to do his service and then the Lord seifes the lands for a forfeiture and grants it to another by the consent of the Copyholder that made the forfeiture It was then also said by Roll chief Iustice Custom that a Custom cannot be urged for a thing that had its beginning since Rich. the 1. if a Record can be shewed to the contrary Common recovery Recompense in value Custom Copyhold destroyed It was also said by him that a common recovery suproseth a recompence in value to all persons who lost the estate by the recovery He said also that he conceived that there could be no such Custom to cut off entails of Copyhold lands by the forfeiture and seisure of the Lord for his seisure upon the forfeiture destroys the Copy-hold estate by the Common Law for it is in the Lords election after the seisure whether he will grant the estate again or no and you do not prove that the Custom binds him to it Nota. Harris and Pasch 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved in the Case of one Harris To amend an old judgement Denied that the entry of a judgement twelve years past might be amended upon the Roll. But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be after so long time past Pasch 1655. Banc. sup VPon a writ of Error brought to reverse a fine levied by an Infant being a Feme Covert Day to inspect an Infant The Court was moved for a day to bring in the party that levied the fine to be inspected by the Court which was granted and at the day she was brought into the Court and viewed and two witnesses deposed that she was within age at the time of the fine levied Entry upon the Roll. which was entred upon the Roll upon which the Issue was tryed Pasch 1655 Banc. sup IT was said by Roll chief Iustice Election That if there be two Kinsmen in equal degree of kindred to the Intestate it is in the election of the Ordinary to which of them he will grant Letters of Administration Pasch 1655. Banc. sup AN Outlawry was reversed Outlawry reversed because the place where the County Court was held is not shewed in the secundo exactus Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IT was moved that there was a judgement given in the Common Pleas To affirm a judgement a writ of Error depending and thereupon the Defendant brought his writ of Error to reverse the judgement in this Court and since pending the writ of Error the partses were agréed and therefore they desired the judgement might be affirmed because that otherwise satisfaction of the judgement cannot be acknowledged upon the Roll because the Court of Common Pleas were forclosed to do any thing further upon the judgement given there by reason of the writ of Error But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be Denied for you shew no cause why we should affirm the judgement and therefore we will make no rule in it but enter satisfaction upon the Roll if you will at your own peril Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IT was said by Roll chief Iustice that an Action upon the case will lie against one that brings vexatious actions against another Action upon the Case for vexation or for entring of Actions of a great value to force his adversary to put in great bail where he hath but small cause of Action Nota. Trevanian and Penhollow Trin. 1655. TRevanian brought an Action upon the case against Penhollow for speaking of these words of him Plea to an Action on the Case Thou hast taken a false Oath at the Assizes and art false forsworn The Defendant pleads that the Plaintif had agréed to accept of 3 Iuggs of Beer from him in satisfaction The Plaintif
to the surrender or otherwise the admittance is not good Thurle and Madison Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at the Bar between Thurle and Madison Enrolment of a Deed. It was said by Glyn chief Iustice that if divers persons do seal a Deed and but one of them acknowledge the Déed and the Déed is thereupon enrolled this is a good enrollment within the Statute and may be given in evidence as a Deed enrolled Evidence at a Tryal It was then also said that if a deed express a consideration of money upon the purchase made by the Deed yet this is no proof upon a tryal Consideration that the monies expressed were paid but it must be proved by witnesses MEorandum Copy proved That upon the same Tryal an Act of Parliament produced in point for the selling of Delinquents estates was sworn to have been examined by the Parliament Roll and that it was a true Copy before it was read in evidence Nota. VVood and Gunston Mich. 1655. VPon a motion for a new tryal between Wood and Gunston Memorandum New tryal for miscarriage of the Iury. upon a supposition of excessive damages given by the Iury in an Action upon the case tryed at the Bar for words viz. Calling the Plaintif Traytor c. 1500 l. being the damages given It was said by Glyn chief Iustice that if the Court do believe that the Iury gave their verdict against their direction given unto them the Court may grant a new Tryal And a new Tryal was gronted in this Case after a full debate had by Councell on both sides Culliar and Iermin Mich. 1655. Banc. sup CUlliar brought an Action upon the Case upon a promise and declared Arrest of judgement upon a promise that the Testator of the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would mary such a Woman did promise that he would leave him half his Estate at his death and thereupon he did mary the party and yet he did not leave him half his estate at his death Vpon a verdict found for the Plaintif it was moved in arrest of judgement that the Declaration was not good for whereas the promise was that the Defendant should leave him half of all his estate which might be intended both of his real and also of his personal Estate and of any estate in reversion as well as of an estate in possession the Plaintif only says that the Testator died worth 3000 l. in possession and that he did not leave him half of that estate and it may be he left him part of his real estate or estate in reversion to the full value of half his whole estate But Glyn chief Iustice disallowed the exception and gave judgement for the Plaintif Iudgement Lance and Blackmore Mich. 1655. Banc. sup Hill 1654. rot 191. LAnce an Executor brought an Action upon the Case against Blackmore Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the Case upon a pro and declared that in consideration that the Testator would suffer the Defendant to enjoy such a Close of land the Defendant did assume and promise to pay 53 s. a year for the rent thereof for so long time as he should enjoy it and for so much rent due for it for so long time in the Testators life time and for so much rent due since his death he brings the Action Vpon non assumpsit pleaded a verdict was found for the Plaintif and entire dammages given It was moved in arrest of Iudgement That an Action of the Case doth not lie it being for the non-payment of rent which follows the nature of the land and doth sound in the realty for which a personal Action lies not 2ly Here doth not appear by the Daclaration Personal act on Consideration to the any consideration to ground the promise upon for the Declaration is that if the Testator in her life time would permit the Defendant to enjoy the Close then c. and it is not averred Averment that the Testator did in her life time suffer the Defendant to enjoy the Close Glyn chief Iustice If a promise be made to the Testator the Executor may have an Action Executor and it is a good consideration as to him for the executor is representative of the Testator And 2ly An Action upon the Case will not lie for rent upon a promise in law but upon a special promise of the party to pay it Promise in Law Special as our Case is it will lie Ingram and Fawset Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN this Case it was said by Glyn chief Iustice Administratâ—r must shew how Administrator That if an Administrator bring an Action against an Administrator it is not necessary for the Plaintif to shew by whom the letters of Administration were granted unto the Defendant but he must shew by whom the letters of Administration were granted to himself to entitle himself to the Action for if it appear not to the Court that he is Administrator he cannot sue by that name Mich. 1635. Banc. sup IT was said by Wild and agreed by Whitwick one of the Masters of the Vpper Bench office How far special bayl is lyable for the principal that if an Attorny do appear for one in the Vpper Bench special bayl is entred for his Clyent to that Action that that Bayl is not bound to stand Bayl to all other Actions that shall be declared in against the party upon the by but the Attorny for him is bound to appear for him in all such Actions and to put in Common bayl Wagstaff and Tempest Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IT was said by Glyn chief Iustice upon evidence given in a Tryal at the Bar Dispensation with a forfeiture of an Estate bayl between VVagstaff and Tempest that if tenant for life do levy a Fine of the Lands he is so seised of whereby he should forfeit his estate yet if he in the remainder will joyn with the Tenant for life in declaring the uses this is a dispensation with the forfeiture and Le Gay Mich. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was enformed For a time to accompt before Auditors that in an Action of Accompt brought there was a verdict that the Defendant should accompt before Auditors and that Auditors were assigned and the parties were now before the Auditors and thereupon it was moved on the Defendants part that this Court would grant him time to accompt for the reasons alleged But Wild answered that it was not proper to move here for the Auditors are now Iudges of the matter Auditors Iudges by the Statute and may give time if they see cause To which Glyn chief Iustice agreed and said the Auditors are Iudges by the Statute and therefore move before them and trouble not us with it Sergeant Bradshaw and Procter Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN the Case of Sergeant Bradshaw and Mr. Procter of Grays Inne Challenge to an array no part of
make a ditch or raise up a bank to hinder my way to my Common I may justifie the throwing of it down and the filling of it up Mich. 1655. BY Glyn chief Iustice Damages in Dower If a Feme bring a writ of dower and recover and the Defendant die the feme shall have her damages against the Terr-Tenants Mich. 1655. A Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet is when a writ of Error is brought to reverse a judgement given in the Common pleas Error quod coram vobis residet what it is or other Court where the Record was formerly removed into the Court of the Vpper Bench and by reason of the death of the party or for some other cause rests undetermined by reason of the abatement of the former writ of Error Le pool and Tryan Mich. 1655. Banc. sup VVIld moved for a prohibition to the Court of Admiralty to stay a tryal there in a Trover and Conversion For a prohibition to the admiralty in which they procéed upon a pretence that the goods in question were taken upon the High Sea and that by the late Act they have exclusive power in all such cases which is not so Glyn chief Justice It was resolved in Cremers and Cokelyes case so adjudged that they have no such power Therefore take a prohibition nisi c. Morden and Hart. Mich. 1655. Banc. sup MOrden brought an Action of debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award against Hart. Vpon nil debet pleaded Arrest of judgement in debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award and a verdict for the Plaintif it was moved in Arrest of judgement and the exception taken was that the Award was made but of one part and so not binding to all the parties submitting The case was this One Stephens and Body on one part also Hart on the other part submitted to stand to the Award The Arbitrators awarded that Body should pay a certain sum of money unto Hart in satisfaction for the differences betwixt Body and Stephens on the one part and Hart on the other part which was objected could not be good for the money paid by one could not be in satisfaction for another and so the Award is not made to conclude all the parties submitting for Stephens was not concerned in it and the Award is with an Ita quod which ought to be a general Award and include all parties and therefore if it be void in part it is void in all But Green on the other side answered though the Award should be naught in part yet it may be good as to Body that paid the money and the moneys ought to be received as they are paid and that is for Body and Stephens and may be well in satisfaction for both of them It was also urged by Howell on the same side that it appears that Body and Stephens are partners and this will make an end of the matter for then the money paid by one of them may satisfie for the other Award in part Glyn chief Iustice Here is a good Award betwéen two of the parties that submitted but there appears nothing to be awarded as to Stephens the third party for it doth not appear that he can take any benefit by the Award of the money to be paid by Body or that it can be any satisfaction for him but only for Body Iudgement for the Defendant Iudgement for the Defendant nisi c. Busfield and Norden Mich. 1655. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought by Busfield against Nordon to reverse a judgement given in the Court Military of Rippon in an action upon an indebitatus assumpsit for wares sold Error to reverse a judgement upon an indebitatus assumpsit by the Bail wherein there being a judgement given against the principal a scire facias issued out against the Ball and a judgement was thereupon and against him the bail thereupon brings a writ of Error to reverse both these judgements and assigns for Error that there was no issue joyned in the first judgement and that being erronious Bail cannot reverse the principal judgement The writ abaed and being the ground upon which the scire facias did issue forth whereupon the second judgement was given the second judgement cannot be good Glyn chief Iustice But the principal judgement ought to be reversed by the principal and not by the bail and therefore the writ of Error is not well brought by the bail therefore let it abate Vidian and Fletcher Mich. 1655. Banc. sup VPon view of an Infant brought into Court of to be inspected Scire facias for an Infant to â—everse a fine levâ—ed ouâ—ing Covertuâ—e who had during coverture joyned with her husband in levying a fine of her lands she was by the Court adjudged within age whereupon a scire facias issued out to the terr-Terr-tenants who came in and pleaded that she was of full age at the time of the fine levied upon which plea issue was joyned and a tryal was had at the Assizes and a Verdict for the Plaintif who now came in Court and prayed for judgement upon the Verdict Glyn chief Iustice The Court is to judge of the Infancy Iury not to try Infancy and not the Iury and therefore you have not proceeded duly but the proceedings do no hurt for we judge she was within age Fine reversed Therefore let the fine be reversed nisi c. Nota. and the hundred of Crondon Mich. 1655. Banc. sup AN Action of Trespass upon the case was brought against the Hundred of Crondon in Hampshire upon the Stat. of Winchester Arrest of Judgement in an Action upon the Statute of Huc and Câ—yes Case Statute by one that was robbed within the hundred upon the tryal a verdict passed for the Plaintif It was moved on the behalf of the Hundred in Arrest of judgement 1. That the Plaintif had mistaken his Action for whereas he hath brought a general Action of Trespass upon the case he ought to have brought an Action upon the Statute 2ly He declares that he took his Oath before I. S. a Iustice of Peace in the County Whereas it should be for the County 3ly He hath not expressed that he took his Oath before a Iustice assigned to keep the Peace 4ly There is no issue joyned 5ly He saith that he took his Oath 20 days but doth not say next before as the Statute directs Windham on the other side answered to the first Exception that it is usual of latter times to declare in an Action upon the Case generally To the second he said it is no exception for a Iustice of Peace is not an Officer affâ—red to a place Serjeant Twisden But it doth not appear that you took your Oath 20 days before your Original sued out Glyn chief Iustice That appears well enough upon the Record Variation But the writ here is in an Action upon the case
pleading p. 37 327 328 481 C. 1. Where words shall be adjudged void 45 C. 1. 102 C. 2. 334 C. 1. 10 Writ VVhere a writ shall be said to be well directed and where not 42 43 237. To whom writs are to be directed to whom not 461. VVhere one may plead in abatement of a writ and where not p. 50 C. 1. p. 84 99 201 202 260 C. 1. 538 404 C. 1. 421 C. 2. VVhere a writ is to be abated and where but abateable 421 C. 2. 441. For what causes a writ shall be abated and for what not 92 138 C. 1. 190 C. 1. 19 C. 1. 203 C. 1. 204 218 C. 1. 221 223 237 260 265 C. 1. 303 C. 1. 407 421 C. 2. Where a writ of Ne exeat regnum lyes and where not 440 c. Where a writ of enquity of dammages lies and where not 127 C. 1. 288 vid. Enquiry Where the antient forms of writs may be altred and where nor 218 C. 1. When an Original writ ought to be filed 292 293. Where one may have a new Original writ and where not 404 C. 2. To the Reader BE pleased to take notice that notwithstanding my more than ordinary care in Correcting the Presse these ensuing Errataes have happened in the Prenting but many of them are but literal and alter not the sense and for the others I hope you will pardon them and correct them by the Errata as you meet with them ERRATA PAge 20. l. 5. for Barker read Barlye p. 76. r. for Bendir r. Denoir p. 204 205. r. 104 105. p. 208. r. Paget for Pagort p. 8. l. 3. r. facias for facis p. 8. l. last but one and last r. reversed for affirmed p. 25. l. 8. r. against for again p. 26. l. 11. r. for to Sub-deputy to the Sub-deputy p. 27. l. 31. r. for at Bar at the Bar. p. 48. l. 15. r. against for again p. 75. l. 25. r. him for hinn p. 106. C. 2. in the margent put out Amercement p. 166. r. Denoyr for Bendir p. 172. l. 24. r. bail for bailed p. 183. l. 27. r. certifie for rectifie p. 96. l. 11. r. Iennings for Gennings p. 213. C. 3. r. Barmestone for Barneston p. 226. l. 43. r. and not to for and to p. 228. C. 4. in the margent r. to have Execution insteed of to have Iudgement p. 243. l. 25. r. but that the for but that p. 249. l. c. 3. in the title r. Pawsye for Bawsye p. 258. r. Iay and Iay for Gay and Gay p. 264. l. 13. r. implyed for imployed p. 265. 1. c. in the title r. Skedlock for Shedlock p. 270. l. 15 16. r. she for he p. 285. r. mutata for mutate p. 294. l. 2. for an r. and. p. 299. l. 15. r. Defendants p. 306. l. 16. r. replication p. 311. l. 19. r. publico p. 325. l. 5. r. Susanna for page 324. r. 336. p. 344 in the margent for inditement r. inducement p. 345. 1. 10. for common by intendment r. by common intendment p. 348. r. Tippin for Pippin p. 349. l. 16. r. acquittance for acquuittance p. 353. l. 19. r. it for l. p. 371 l. 8. for to bar r. to the bar p. 374. for Troos r. Toos p. 388. after Newton and Osborn r. Trin. 1653. 101. 1780. p. 409. for Fenham r. Fenwick p. 398. l. 22. r. action for aation p. 410. l. 45. For Boynton r. Baynton p. 423. l. 39. for cause r. custom p. 432. l. 19. for was sitting r. was not sitting p. 440. l. 2. for of of r. of p. 446. l. 9. for fidavit r. Affidavit p. 447. l. 13. for ttd r. to p. 448. l. 8. for thou r. then p. 462. l. last for gronted r. granted p. 477. for Iackson r. Iohnson p. 474. l. 18. for deeds r. goods p. 180. l. 9. for books r. book and l. 12. 1. that lands for that the lands p. 481 482 483. in the head of the page for Trin. r. Mich.