determined and Hanbury and Cookrells case is not adjudged but if it be it is on my side and Mich. 37 38. C. B. rot 1149. It was adjudged upon solemn argument at the Bar and on the Bench contrary to the Iudgement in Pell and Browns case if lands be devised to one and his Heirs and if he dye without issue that the land shall be to another and his Heirs this is no Estate tail for it cannot stand with the rules of Law to devise â—uth an Estate for it is but a possibility and if it should be more it must be a Fee upon a Fee and so a perpetuity and it cannot be known within what bounds it shall end either in case of years or life or other contingencies and the comparison of Lampets case is not like to this case for that was or a Term but this is of a freehold and a contingent devise of a freehold is not good since the Statute of 32 H. 8. and Brook tit devise 2 Dyer 28 H. 8. f. 3â— is not an opinion against this And though there could be such a devise of other lands yet Copyhold lands cannot be so devised as the case is here for there cannot be so much as a possibility of reverter for there is no custom to warrant it Hill 5. Car. King and Leyden in this Court and Dyer 264. and though there might be a reverter yet he cannot devise it by will and if he could yet here the conbeyance is made up by surrender admittance and devise and the party is here in by the surrender and not by the devise and so is a Copyholder in by Act executed and not upon the contingency and the will is but to direct and though all this be otherwise yet the Plaintiff cannot have Iudgement for it appears not that the surrender is presented at any Court at all and here is nothing but a recitall found Ierman Iustice said by the Common Law there ought to be a presentment at the next Court Roll chief Iustice and Nicholas Iustice There is no certain time for the presentment but it is according to the Custom of the Manor so that it be within the life of the Tenant Roll chief Iustice said it is an inconvenience to devise such a contingent Estate Nicholas doubted for he said it would shake many wills if it might not be and so said Hales The Court would advise Hales confessed the verdict was imperfect but prayed it might be amended But Latch answered it is good enough for us the Defendants for we have primer possession The Court answered it would be good to have it amended and not to have a venire de novo Venire for that will be chargeable but if the verdict be imperfect to bring the matter in Law into question we can grant a new venire although it hath been heretofore doubted Therefore be advised so that it may be argued Antea Heal against Green Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 370. THe case between Heal and Green upon a special verdict formerly argued by Latch was again spoken to and argued by Twisden Argument upon a special verdict upon construction of words of a Will and he held that the Feme had power by the Will to make the lease notwithstanding that she hath but an Estate for life and cited 11 Car. B. R. Hill rot 810. Iob and Whites case and 21 Iac. Danyel and Vgnel and he said that the remainder limited to the daughter doth not hurt for it may very well stand with the will and the intent of the Testator appears upon the whole to be to give such a power to his wife to make this lease and cited 8 Car. Perd and Bensams case And there is a clause in the will that shews that the Testator did intend to advance his wife by this devise And the Feme shall be in by the power which shall make the estate of the lease good and it is not necessary to recite the power as it is held in Rogers case Maynard on the other side said he would not dispute the power but here is no such power given to the wife as it appears by the expresse words of the Will which doth only describe that she shall only make Estates but for her life otherwise she might make Estates in Tail or in Fee and if this should be the last part of the Will which doth limit the remainder would be destroyed and generals in a Will shall not revoke an express devise but they ought so to be construed that all the Will may stand together as Bonhams case is 8. rep Roll chief Iustice It is a difficult thing to shew the meaning of the Testator here but the general must not destroy the particular devise to which Nicholas Iustice assented and Roll enclyned that the Feme had power by the Will to make this Estate otherwise the words of the Will must be idle and void and it may be the Baron intended to give his wife such a power that she might destroy the remainders and otherwise there cannot be any construction made of the Will Ask Iustice differed in opinion and said it was unreasonable the remainder should be destroyed which is expresly limited by the Will and a Will doth differ from a conveyance Nicholas Iustice said that the words shall be expounded to shew his bounty to his wife but not to give her power to destroy the remainder Ierman Iustice There are expresse words for the Feme and the daughter and the Feme hath a power but not to destroy the Estate of the daughter Curia advisare vult Antea Booth against Lambert Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 201. VPon a speciall verdict upon these words Argument and judgement upon special verdict the question whether dower well assiâ—gâ—ed or not viz. I do endow you of a third part of all the lands my Cosen I. S. your husband dyed seised of The question was whether the feme were well endowed by these words because he doth not say that he endows her by metes and bounds Chase held she was not well endowed and cited 8 Ed. 2.15 and said that here is incertainty which begets dissention which ought not to be and the thing is not here entire but may be devided And this is an assignment of dower which differs from a demand of dower for a demand may be general as in the cases of Thyn and Thyn in this Court and of Fairefax and Fairefax and so the book of 8 E. 2. entry congeable S 5. which seems to prove the contrary that is not to our case for it differs from it Merifield of Councell on the other side held the feme was well endowed and agreed the cases put by Chase That of Common right a feme ought to be endowed by metes and bounds yet sometimes it is otherwise as 3 Eliz. Dyer 27. a feme endowed in Common And the feme that is to be endowed and the
to the Sheriff for his appearance and therefore it was prayed that the party arrested might be discharged and that the bond given to the Sherif might be delivered up Roll the chief Iustice answered Endict the Bailies that made the Arrest or bring your Action against them if you please Discharge for we will not discharge the party arrested Bois against Cranfield Mich. 1650. Banc. sup rot Q. BOis as Executor to another brought an Action of Debt upon divers Obligations made to his Testator Debt upon divers Obligations by an Execution The Defendant pleaded that he did pay a lesser sum than is expressed in the Obligations to the Testator during his life and that he did accept there of in full satisfaction of the said Obligations To this plea the Plaintif demurred Roll Chief Iustice upon opening the matter said that the question here is whether the payment or the acceptance of the money paid in satisfaction be to be traversed And he held it was indifferent to traverse either of them Traverse but he said it was more proper to joyn issue upon the payment but the Court would advise It was then also said that if one pay money in satisfaction of an Obligation and the party to whom it is paid saith that he will receive it for another cause Satisfaction payment yet if he receive it it shall be judged to be paid in satisfaction of the Obligation for he must receive it upon such terms as the other will pay it Brian against Stone Mich. 1650. Banc. sup STone moves the Court for an Attachment against Brian and others For an Attachment for that he was arrested by a Latitat out of this Court in the County of Wilts and thence carried into the Town of Malborow and there arrested by a Serjeant of that Town by a writ out of that Corporation and the Plaintif procéeds there against him upon that writ and not upon the latitat by which he was first arrested which is a contempt to this Court. Attachment Habeas Corpus cum causa The Court ruled the party should have an Attachment nisi c. and also should have a Habeas Corpus cum causa Mich. 1650. Banc. sup THe Recorder of London moved for the Inhabitants of Bishopsgate against one Withringes For the setting a moderate fine upon one that submitted to a fine who for refusing to serve upon the Ward mote Enquest was indicted for his refusal in London and convicted and fined 20 l. the Defendant being committed for not paying his fine removed himself hither by a Habeas Corpus but now hath submitted himself to a fine it was therefore prayed he may be moderately fined here The Court thereupon fined him 20 l. Beal against VVyman Mich. 1650. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 849. VPon these words of a will Question upon words of a Will viz. I give and bequeath one half of my lands to my wife after her death I give all my lands to the heirs males of any of my Sons or next of Kin Latch made these questions in the Case 1. Whether there were a good estate created by these words of the will 2ly Whether the estate were destroyed by the fine levied of the lands For the 1. he held that the heirs males of any of his Sons are words certain enough to create an estate for it is all one as if he had said to the heirs males of all his sons if they have heirs males or to those who have heirs males and the words or to the next of Kin are also certain enough being joyned with the precedent words and shall be meant to the next of Kin and their heirs males if his sons have no heirs males For in a Win if there be words to express the meaning of the Testator it is sufficient enough though the words be not apt And he cited 21 Rich. 2. Devise 27. and 8 Rep. 46 and said that the case in 30 Ass pl. 47. is the same with this in terminis And here is no contingent remainder but only a contingent devise there is no necessity for a particular estate to support it for it ariseth out of the estate of the Devisor yet if there were néed of a particular estate here to support the remainder here is a particular estate in the wife who by implication of the will doth take all the land during her life as it is 13 H. 7.29 H. 8. Br. Devise 48. Trin. 3 Ed. 6. Bendloes Plow Com. 521. Whelpdales case Pasch 25 Eliz Com. Ban. To the 2 point he spake not holding it not material Hales of Councel on the other side held that the wife had not an estate for life in all the land by implication of the will but only an estate for life in a moyety of the land and so there is no particular estate to support the contingent remainder which he held was in this case that it is not a contingent Devise as Latch urged for the remainder here depends by way of remainder and not as a contingent Devise And he held the Devise it self to be void admitting all the precedent matter alleged to be true 1. Because the devise is uncertain for the intent of the deviser doth not appear for it appears not what heir male shall have the land whether the heir male of his son or the heir male of his next of Kin for the words are disjunctive 41 42 Eliz. Com. Banc. in the Case of Tayler Sawyer land devised to a Mans Issue was adjudged a void devise for the incertainty of it And he held that the intent was that the heir male of his son should inherit before the heir male of the next of Kin otherwise the further off of Kin should have the land before the nearer of Kin. And he said that Hill 2. Car. Rot. 1288. Com. Banc. in Hunt and Fishers case the case at the Bar was adjudged in point Roll chief Iustice said That the intention of the Testator here is coeca sicca Intention and senceless and cannot be known Will. and we ought not to frame a sence upon the words of a Will where we cannot find out the Testators meaning Ierman Iustice held that the devise was not void but that the words are to be interpreted as they may stand with Law and as the words will bear Nicholas Iustice prima facie that the devise is void but yet it is questionable Ask Justice to the same intent Roll chief Iustice said that there is too much way usually given to ambiguous devises But let it be argued again the next Term. Parker against Cook Mich. 1650. Banc. sup Hill 23 Car. rot 660. THe Action was an Action of Trespass quare Clausum fregit Upon a Demurrer the question was whether a Copyhold were forfeited or not The Defendant pleaded a special plea of justification viz. That the Plaintif was a Copyholder to his Manor and that for
the Arbitrators have all of it to agree in and till it is ended the Vmpire hath no power at all otherwise the submission would be repugnant in it self The rest of the Iudges concurred in all and so ruled That the Plaintif all capiat per billam nisi Theoballs against Newton Mich. 1651. Banc. sup ONe was sued upon the Statute of Inmates and the distringas jurata bare date on a Sunday and out of Term and so is erronious The question here was whether it be not helped by the Statutes of Ieofails of 18 Eliz. and 21 Iac. Roll chief Iustice held Ieofails that the Statutes extend not to penal Laws although it be ambiguously penned nor to any processes grounded upon them for the Proviso exempts the Original action and by consequence all processes depending upon it are excepted Venire de novo so that here is no good tryal but there shall be a venire de novo nisi Tayler and Webb Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Case of Tayler and Webb which arose upon a special verdict upon these words of Will Special Verdict upon the words of a Will viz. I make my Cosen Giles Bridges my soll ayere and yexecutor was again moved and argued by Hales and he made three questions 1. Whether any estate passeth by the words of the will 2ly If any what estate passeth 3ly Whether the false Orthography doth hurt the Will For the first he said that by making one his sole heir his land passeth to him The word heir is to be considered either in relation to an Ancestor and so one cannot make one his heir or it may be considered in relation to a thing to be inherited to wit lands or tenements and so one may make another his heir and thus a Custom may make one a mans heir as it is in Borough English and an accident may thus also make one a mans heir as it is in the Case of possessio fratris Coundens case Hob. Rep. Case 947. And here it is all one to make one his heir and to make hint heir of hislands and the reasons are First the word heir here cannot have any other relation than to the Testators lands for he cannot make him his heir otherwise and the words may be more reasonably intended so 2ly The words carry in them the plain intention of the Devisor that the party should have his lands although the words are not very proper â— H. 7. A devise of lands to his son after the death of his wife passed an Estate for life to the wife although no such Estate was expressed in the Will so here although no expresse Estate of land be devised yet the Devisee shall have the lands by the intent of the Devisor 3ly In ordinary speech if one make such an one his Heir it is intended that he gives him his lands 8 Car. in the C. B. in Spurt and Bents case A devise of his inheritance was held a devise of his lands and Trin. 3. Iac. in Terryes case A devise of all his rents in tayl passed his lands because in vulgar acceptance it is the rents of lands and in Pits and Sands case in this Court A devise of all his free lands in Holford did passe a portion of Tithes and in the case of one Iohnson a devise of all his estate passed all his lands And the words cannot bear the fence to make him Executor according to the Civill Law as hath been objected for the Will shall be intended as it is to be an English mans Will and so the word Heir in it shall he interpreted according to out Law and not the Civill Law and even in the Civill law to make one his Heir doth convey unto him all his lands for he is haeres testamentarius although not haeres legitimus And in this Will here are two expressions for the party is made Heir and Executor which two words cannot signifie one thing for that would be an idle expression 4ly There are some clauses in the Will which shew the intent of the Testator was to convey his lands if it were needful to make use of them 1. There are several annuities for the Devisee to pay 2ly He directs him where the conveyances and assurances of his lands were laid up which plainly shew he meant he should have his land 3ly The words Heir and Executor are joyned together to shew that he gives him all his lands and goods else one of the words must be imperfect and ineffectual which shall not be intended For Authority 7 E. 6. Br. devise 38. by devising that one Son shall be Heir to the other it shall be intended of lands so in construction of law it shall be here intended that the Devisor made him Heir of his lands Hob. Reports in Sparkes and Burnells case William and Anthony shall be each others Heir and it is not said of land yet adjudged that it shall be so meant and so is it in our case and if I have lands in see simple and make one my heir it shall be intended that he shall have my lands in see simple although I say not that I make him Heir of my lands For the second question the reasons before expressed do also shew that the lands are passed in Fee as it is in Purnells and Hambletons case for the word Heir shall relate to the same Estate that the party had in the land who makes the other his Heir 8 Iac. Inkersals case For the 3d point whether here shall be any good devise at all by reason of the false English he said it was all one and to as good effect as if the words were all true English and neither the incongruity nor the insufficiency of the words shall hurt the Will as it is pretended For 1. This is not in case of pleading or of writs but in conveyance of lands It is true that in the former it doth hurt because writs and pleadings may be amended if they be naught but it is fatal in conveyances for they cannot be amended as in Trotman and Standards case Trin. 1651. in this Court it was held that impropriety of words shall not hurt it they can admit of a good construction Desinet in piscem mulier formosa superne 2ly This is in a Will which is such an instrument that is much favoured in Law and therefore to be favourably construed 3ly This is an English Will and admits of much variety of dialects and therefore is not to be critically interpreted Neither are there here any insignificant or missignificant words as hath been objected but significant for the sound of the word as it is written is the same as if it had been rightly spelled for Ayer and Heir sound both alike As in 3 H. 4. f. 4 Baxter and Baxster sounded alike 2ly If the word Heir might receive any other sence yet it cannot do so here because there are other words joyned to it to declare and signifie that the
one as if the party had appeared for if he had appeared the Case would have béen otherwise So Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi c. Pasch 1652. Banc. sup MEmorandum One brought by Habeas Corpus from the Fleet remaâ—â—ed One was brought into the Court by the Mareschall of the Fléet by vertue of a habeas Corpus directed to him out of this Court and because it did appear upon Record that the party was charged with divers debts when he was turned over to the Fleet he was not suffered to put in Bail here but was remanded Gossage against Tayler Pasch 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 117. IN an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease for years of a Messuage Special verdict in Trespass and Ejectrueâ—â— and certain lands in Hatfield Broad-Oak in the County of Essex upon a special verdict found the case fell out to be this Rich. Frank seised amongst other lands and Tenements of the Messuage and lands in question upon the mariage of his Son Leventhorp Frank with Susan Cotele levies a fine of the lands to the use of himself during his own life and the life of Leventhorp his Son and after during the life of Susanna Cotele the wife of Leventhorp the remainder to the use of the heirs to be begotten upon the body of Susanna by Leventhorp her Husband The question here was whether the word heirs shall be intended the heirs of Leventhorp and Susanna his wife or whether the estate shall be intended to be limited to the heirs of Susanna only and that Leventhorp shall have barely an estate for life in the lands Serjeant Glyn of Councel with the Plaintif held That Susanna Cotele hath an estate tayl executed in the lands and that the word heirs shall relate only to the heirs of Susanna and not to the heirs of Leventhorp 1. Because that here is an estate limited for life unto Susanna by an express limitation and her heirs shall take immediately after the estate for life ended and they shall not come in as purchasors By express Terms the word heirs is not limited to any person but it is left to the construction of the Law and that doth apply it to Susanna as to a person to whom Richard that setled the lands hath expressed most affection as appears by the Deed Lit. f. 6. Sect. 28. There is an expression of the party to whom the word heirs shall relate but so is not here and therefore the cases differ In 3 Ed. 3. f. 31 32. It is ruled that both parties have an estate tayl because the estate is limited to both but so it is not in our case so those books are not against me In our case it doth not appear that Richard did intend to advance the Husband of Susanna and therefore it is not reason that the word heirs should relate to him but to Susanna his wife only for in case of limitation of estates the intention of the party is to be considered and doth direct the matter and the preceding limiting of the estate to Susanna and not to Leventhorp doth shew that the party did mean to promote the heirs of Susanna Lit. Sect. 27. Dyer 27. A second reason is drawn from the penning of the déed which in the limitation of it doth encline more that the word heirs should be applyed to Susanna than to Leventhorp for the words upon her is as much as to say of her and then it is the same case with Littletons case 3ly The Intention of the Donor appears to be such by the circumstances of the entire limitations which do shew that he did intend that Leventhorp should not have such an estate whereby it should be in his power to deprive his issue and therefore the word heirs are to be applyed to Susanna and not to Leventhorp for if it should be applyed to both then Leventhorp might destroy the estate of the issue contrary to the Donors intent And whereas Dyer 99 is objected against me I answer that case is not against me for there the word heirs is expresly limited to a certain person viz. to the heirs of the body of both of them but so it is not in our case and whereas Hill 13 Iac. Lane and Panels case in this Court is also objected against me I answer that that case is in effect the same case with Dyer and the question in our case came not in dispute And the will of the Donor in deeds is to be ohserved Lit. 22. C. Tayl. 1. rep Shelleys case 103. 〈◊〉 Notwithstanding in gifts in tayl this rule holds not so that a gift in tayl may be limsted contrary to the rule of the Common Law And I know not of any authority in print or writing against me but in 13 Ed. 3. Fitz. tit variance 81 there is an expresse authority for me and 4 H. 4. Fitz. br 448. in my experience I have known many estates limited as this is in the Southern parts held good estates tayl if it should be otherwise many estates would be shaken Roll chief Iustice We have delivered our opinions before against you viz. that it was not the meaning of the donour to apply the word Heirs to the body of Susanna only for this construction would offer violence unto the words as appears by Littleton who interprets that they are to be applyed to the Heirs of both the partyes and your reason is founded upon a wrong ground and expresly against Litletons case and for your second reason it is of no waight for the words are all one as if he had said to the Heirs of the Husband and wife begotten upon the wife 3ly We are not to frame a meaning against plain words which shew the Donors intent to be against you And the Baron cannot Bar the Estate tayl as you suppose Tayl. for the Feme hath an Estate for life and if she survive she may revive the remaining Estate and we must not consider of inconveniences which possibly may happen against the expresse words of the deed and the multitude of conveyances made in this manner are of no force to alter the Law Ierman Iustice as Roll. That the word Heirs shall be applyed to the Heirs of both partyes because voluntas donatoris secundum formam chartae expressa est observanda Nicholas and Ask Iustices of the same opinion Garland against Yarrow Pasc 1652. Banc. sup THis case being in arrest of Iudgement formerly spoken unto in an Action upon the case for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Act on for words you are a knave and keep a Bawdy house was again moved by Christ Turner who held that the words are not actionable 1. Because they are of spiritual cognisance 2ly It is not said that he kept a common Bawdy house 3ly here is no special damage laid 10 Car. These words he is a pimp adjudged not actionable in Lewis and Whittons case 4ly It is not alleged that he
willingly kept a Bawdy house and then he is not punishable Pepes on the other side held the words to be actionable and cited Hill 3 Car. Elsey and Harisons case thou art a whore and a Bawd to thy daughter and keeps a Bawdy house which words were adjudged actionable 24 H. 6.14.38 39. Eliz. In the Lady Barkleys case the keeping of a Bawdy house is an offence punishable at the Common Law and therefore the words spoken are actionable Case Roll chief Iustice To call one whore in London is Actionable And the words here are actionable for the keeping of a Bawdy house is a crime punishable at the Common Law for the party may be endicted for it and it shall be intended to be a common Bawdy house although it be not so expressed Endictment and the Plaintiff is scandalised by the speaking of the words Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices were of the same opinion Iudgementt was given for the Plaintiff nisi Snelgrave and Bosvile Pasc 1652. Banc. sup Mich. 1651. rot 200. BOsvile brought an Action of debt against Snelgrave Debt against an heir upon an obligation as Heir unto his Father upon an Obligation entred into by him unto the Plaintiff the Defendant pleads riens per discent jour del bref the Plaintiff replyes that he had lands by descent and upon this an issue is joyned and the Iury find he had lands by descent and name them particularly and upon this a Iudgement is given for the Plaintiff in the Common pleas that he shall recover his debt of the lands descended upon this Iudg ment a writ of Error was brought here and the Error assigned was that the Iudgement ought to have been given generally against the Defendant and not particularly of the lands descended 2ly the Iury ought not to have found what lands particularly the Heir had by descent but generally that he had lands by descent because the issue is general whether he had lands by descent or not and therefore the Iudgement given upon this ill verdict is not good Roll chief Iustice The Iudgement is unwarrantable for the verdict is against the issue joyned Iudgement Verdict and the Iudgement here ought to have been generall of all the lands and goods and against the person of the Heir for his false plea and not particular to recover of certain lands as it is here for this is not so good a Iudgement for the Plaintiff as the general Iudgement is and this Iudgement may be against the Plaintiffs mind Error for any thing doth appear to the contrary and a like Iudgement was reversed in Alleâ—n and Holdens case in this Court Ierman Nicholas and Ask of the same opinion And thereupon the Iudgement was reversed Floyd against Morgan Pasc 1652. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement in an Action of Trespasse for taking away of certain Houshold stuff Error to reverse a judgment a trespasse for taxing away of of goods and the Error assigned was that the Declaration was incertain for that it wanted latin words to expresse the things for which the Action was brought for the Declaration is for the taking away of quoddam instrumentum ferri Anglice a gridiron et quoddam instrumentum ferri Anglice a morter et quaedam instrumenta ferri Anglice brandirons which are words utterly incertain for the generality of them what they may signifie Roll chief Iustice My Iudgement is that the Iudgement is erroneous for we must not take meanings because we are bound up to proceed by the rules of the Law and Statutes and we are to consider here whether there be Latin words in the Declaration as there ought to be to expresse the things for which the Action is brought and certainly this word quoddam instrumentum ferri is too general to expresse any thing and the Anglice added to it will not help it for if the word precedent in it self be not fit Latin to expresse the thing the Anglice subsequent is litle to be regarded Anglice Declaration and these words being incertain the Declaration must be incertain and so the Defendant cannot know what to answer to it or how to defend himself as he ought to do which may prove very prejudicial to him Ierman Iustice Issue The issue cannot be certain if the Declaration be incertain and by the Common Law and Statute Law our pleadings must be Latin and where there are not elegant Latin words to expresse things we may use those which they call barbarous words if they be known for use makes a language and where there are no Latin words we may coyn words and add an Anglice to them and here the Declaration is as incertain also for the number of the things as for the nature of them for here is quaedam instrumenta ferri which may signifie any number be it more or lesse Nicholas and Ask ad idem And so the Iudgement was reversed nisi Antea Brian against Twite Pasc 1652. Banc. sup AN Action upon the Case was brought for speaking these words of the Plaintiff Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words you are a whore and have plaid the whore with so many men you cannot number them upon not guilty pleaded and a verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable for the saying the party had plaid the whore are words incertain and do not enforce any Act of whoredom to be done by her but Ierman Iustice gave Iudgement for the Plaintiff for he said the words should be construed to a common intendment THe Court was moved for Iudgement upon a verdict given 2 years since Motion for Iudgement denyed and the cause stayed till now by the Committee of indempnity but it was denyed because it was the last day of the Term. Nota. Pasc 1652. Banc. sup IT was shewed for cause why a certiorari should not be granted to remove an indictment of battery Certiorari to remove an endictment against an Attorney of his Court preferred at a Sessions of the peace in the Country that the bill was found there and the party hath entred into a recognisance there to go to a tryal the next Sessions Roll chief Iustice The recognisance may be also removed by the certiorari and what hurt can it be if the endictment be removed and the tryal had at the assises and if it be removed hither we will not quash the endictment but the party shall plead and carry it down and try it at the next assises at his own charge Byron against Stonehowse Pasch 1652. Banc. sup Trin. 1651. rot 1658. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in a writ of dower in the Common Pleas Error to reverse a judgment in dower in the common pleas the Errors assigned were that the Iudges of the Common Pleas had set a side the verdict given by default by the Iudge of
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
the mony is not paid a Iudgement is obtained against White for the mony White makes his will and makes his Heir at law his Executor and dyes leaving lands to descend White as Heir brings a Writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement It was argued by the Councell of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error that the Writ did lye because although the Action in the former Iudgement was but a personal Action yet in this Case the Land of the Heir may be charged by the Iudgement Heir Elegit for an elegit may be thereupon taken out to charge â—is Lands and therefore the Iudgement concerns him as Heir as well as Executor and therefore it is reason he should bring a Writ of Error to reverse the Iudgement because he may be prejudiced by it Executor And a Case in Trin. 29 Eliz. rot 631. Banc. Reg. was cited that the Heir is pridy to the Iudgement and therefore shall have a Writ of Error Error and he is not meerly terr-Tenant 13 E. 4.2 Roll Iustice the terr-Tenant sole shall not have a Writ of Error upon an extent Error And in the Case at the barr the Heir is not privy to the Iudgement and the extent is only upon him as terr-Tenant and he is not made privy to the Iudgement by the extent but after Execution he may have a Writ of Error and he said Bail the Bail cannot bring a Writ of Error upon the Iudgement given against the Principal and the same reason is here and it will be very hard to maintain this Writ of Error Adjourned to the next term Terry and Baxter Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 23 Car. rot 394. TErry brings an Action of Debt upon an Assumpsit against Baxter Demurrer upon an Dclaration in Assumpsit to stand to an award to stand to an Award The Defendant pleads nul arbitrement the Plaintiff sets forth the award and assigns a breach The Defendant demurs and for cause shews that part of the award was to pay 5 l. to the poor of the Parish of D. which was not within the submission and so the award was not good Rolle Iustice answered if the award be void to the 5 l. Award good in part i a good award awarded to be paid to the poor yet it is good to the rest for it is perfect as to the ending of all differences between them which are submitted and therefore shew cause on Monday next why judgement should not be given for the Plaintiff Morefield and VVebb Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 23 Car. rot 50. VVEbb brings an Action upon the Case against Morefield in the palace Court at Westminster Error to reverse a Iudgement in an Action upon the Case and hath a Iudgement Morefield brings a Writ of Error in this Court to reverse the Iudgement and Assigns these Errors 1. It is not shewed in the Declaration that the cause of Action was infra jurisdictionem palatii But Rolle Iustice answered Iurisdiction that it was shewed to be infra jurisdictionem Curiae and that was good enough for the Court is alleged to be held by Letters patents Retorn A 2d Exception was that there was not fifteen dayes for the retorn of the Venire facias as there ought to be But to this Rolle Iustice also answered that the Court is held by Letters patents and therefore it may be retornable within fifteen dayes though by the usual course of the Common law it cannot And therefore ordered the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error to shew better matter otherwise Iudgement should be affirmed against him The King and Holland Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case between the King and Holland was moved again For quashing an inquisition for the King Inquisition and the Councell against the King moved that the inquisition found for the King to entitle him to the use of the Copyhold might be quashed because the King cannot be intitled to such a use because it is a thing in privity only and cited the Statute of 27 H. 8. of uses Vse and Cooks 1. rep 123 and said that the King cannot be intitled ot Copyhold lands of an Alien much lesse to the use of Copyhold lands Copyhold King VVrong Protection Trust if he should 1. The Lord would be wronged which the King ought not to do but to protect his subjects for the protection of the subject is not only matter of honour to the King but also of trust in the Crown 2ly A stranger is wronged by it 3ly The Copyholder of the Manor cannot have remedy for the injury done him Sute for he ought to sue in the Lords Court and not else where and here he cannot do it and the rule in law is de minimis non curat lex and it is much lesse for the honnour of the King to have a Copyhold estate Honour which is a base tenure But it may be objected that if the King shall not have this use he shall be in a worse condition than a subject To this it is answered that he shall be so in cases which touch his royalty and may be a disparagement to him Copyhold which indeed doth not make him in a worse condition though it may seem so but it is more for his honor and a Copyhold is an estate at the will of the Lord and ought to be protected by the Lord and the King cannot be Tenant at will to any Alien Trust and therefore cannot have a Copyhold estate and an Alien is not capable of a trust because it is a thing in Action which an Alien cannot have and therefore he cannot derive it from him Twisden for the King in his Argument considered 1. Whether the King can have a use at the Common law which is for an Alien 2. Whether a trust differs from a use for the first he said that an Alien may purchase lands Alien Praerogative and a use at the Common law but he cannot retain them therefore the King shall have them by his Praerogative and a use is not a thing in privity but is an Antient inheritance at the Common law 2ly There is no confidence annexed to cestui que use or to the Feoffor but may be disposed of 3ly Things privity in Action may be given to the King Privity and a use is an inheritance in the nature of a Chattell 4ly A use is grantable over Privity and therefore may be given to the King and the meaning of the word lost in the Statute is to be intended that it may be lost for the difficulty of finding such subtile conveyances and not that the right was really lost Trust And for a trust it is but a new name given to a use and invented to Defraud the Statute of uses and a trust of a Copyhold is all one with another trust for it is the taking of the profits of the land and not the Estate in
enough 2ly It doth not appear that there are divers Churches in New-Sarum where the Proclamation was made To the third exception the Proclamation is said to he made prout breve postulaâ— and that shall be supposed duly done and implies all requisite circumstances and he cannot make another return and it is impossible to be otherwaies To the fourth it is not necessary to retorn the place of the Summons and it is said that it was made secundum formam Statuti which supplies the rest And to this the Court said that the words secundum formam Statuti extend far And Roll Iustice said that Proclamaiton in one place was good in all Holhead of Councel with the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error proceeded and took these exceptions in the demand of the Dower 1. The demand is generally de rectoria which is not good Demand Rector for the incertainty of it for there may be a Rector of a College of a Province of a Bishoprick as well as of a Parish-Church and therefore it ought to have been de Rectoria Ecclesiae parochialis de c. 12 H. 4. f. â—9 pl. 1. 2ly The demand decimarum is too general and not good and it ought to have been decimarum granorum soeni c. for the demand de omnimodis decimis quibuscunque is too general 11 Rep. Herberts case 1. To these exceptions Hales answered that a demand in a Writ of Dower need not to be so exact as in other original Writs for original Writs are not alterable but ought to answer the forms in the Register To the second he said that rectoria shall be intended the Rectory of a Church and the Statute extends not to this besides the place of the Rectory is described which makes it certain enough To the third it is not necessary to express the Tithes particularly and the demand being of the Rectory it compriseth all the Tithes also the demand is de omnimodis decimis which is a general demand and compriseth all and is not de decimis only for that might be incertain Holhead The demand is de rectoria de omnimodis decimis which is a demand of one thing twice and that is not convenient for by this means the party may recover dammages twice and the Court will be also inveagled by this means and it matters not though we have not pleaded to this for the Court ought to take notice of it Notice because it is in the original Writ Next there is no form in the Count for cum pertinentiis is informal for it refers to the Parish and not to the Mannour 27 E. 3. f. 86. Pl. 3. Haleâ— This is but a variance in form and is not material and also it shall be intended to refer to the Mannour and not to the Parish Holhead The demand is not warranted by the Writ for the Vill and Parish are not named in the Writ but are named in the demand 11 Rep. Arondels case Hales The demand is not de rectoria in Tymsbury but de Tymsbury and is the denomination of the thing demanded Tithes Parissi and not of the Vill where it lyes Holhead It is not said where the Tithes extend and they may extend to divers Vills as a Parish may 19 E. 3. f. 9. Hales Here is one demand and it includes all the Tithes Roll Iustice You have demanded the Rectory in Tymber and not the Rectory of Tymber and by the grant of ones Mannour in Dale no more of it passeth than what doth lye in Dale and here it shall be intended so much of the Tithes as are in Tymber Holhead Here is a demand of Dower of such things whereof Dower lyes not viz. of a quarry of Stones and it appears not that the Quarry was open in the life of her Husband and if it were yet it is improper to demand it by the name of a Quarry Hales the word Quarry is a good word well-known what it means for Quarrera is an old wel-known Latine word for it Dower and she is as well dowable of it as of a Mine of Coles and it shall be intended to be open because she demands it by that name of a Quarry Holhead The demand of the Dower is also of a Hundred of which a Woman is not dowable because it is an entire thing and cannot be divided and the demand should have been de tertia parte proficuorum hundredi To this Roll Iustice answered then by your reason she shall never keep a Court. Hales It is well enough demanded for a demand shall be of the thing it self and not of the profits of it for the profits were not in the Husband but he was seised of the Hundred and the profits are a thing incertain Holhead The execution of the Habere facias fesinam is not well executed for by it two third parts are assigned for Dower and that is more than the demand Hales That is but a repetition of the thing demanded Holhead A thing not demanded at all is assigned for Dower viz. view of Frank pledge Hales That is but an incident to another thing that is demanded viz. the Hundred and by the demand of the Hundred the view of Frank-pledge is demanded and all other incidents to the Hundred Holhead Here is an assignment also of all tenures and she cannot have Homage because she is a Woman Hales She shall have all tenures which she is capable of and so all shall be understood in this place and no other she shall have Holhead The Iudgement is also if 15 Copiholds Tenements which lately were Copiholds Roll Iustice This is good enough and what loss have you by it Holhead The Assignment is also of the 3d. part de Copicia de Structuris and other words there are which are also incertain And there is error in the assignment of dammages for the dammages are assigned ultra valorem terrae which is against the Statute Roll Iustice Dammages Iudgement the Statute is an addition of the value and dammages for the Iudgement is perfect without returning the Writ of the dammages and so hath been adjudged in the Common pleas Holhead Here is an ill suggestion of the Feme for the suggesteth that her Husband dyed seised in fee of all the Lands out of which she demands her Dower and that is not true for he dyed seised of part of them in tayl To this the Court said that is not material if he dyed so seised that she ought to have Dower Holhead Dammages are given ultra valorem which I conceive is not good Roll Iustice It is well enough for dammages are given and the value by the Statute Holhead The retorn of the Elegit is not good Hales That is another Record and appears not now in the Court Roll Iustice The Elegit hath no reference to the former Record Holhead There is one error in fact and that is confessed by your joyning in demurrer Doubleness Roll
because of a mistryal for taking away divers parcels of Ribbin from him The Defendants pleaded by way of Iustification the Custom of London against Hawkers viz. to take away wares from any that sold them up and down the Streets The Plaintiff replyed that there was no such custom and issue was taken upon it thereupon the custom was certifyed by the mouth of the Recorder a tryal upon it in London a verdict for the Defendants The Plaintiff moved in arrest of Iudgement that it was a mis-tryal because it was before them that were interesâ—ed in the cause and therefore desired there might be another tryal Roll Iustice said it is against natural equity for one to be Iudge in his own cause Tryal although the other party admit it to be so and therefore it is a mistryall though it were at the request of the Plaintiff because it is against natural reason 8 E. 3. f. 69. 5 Ed. 3.8 9 H. 7. f. 21. Hil. 38 Eliz. in the Exchequer The prayer of the Plaintiff cannot help the tryal for the consent of both partyes cannot change the Law much lesse the prayer of one of the partyes Hales of Councel with the Defendants argued that it was not a mis-tryall and said this concerns them in point of privilege of the City and not meerly in point of interest before whom the Iudgement was gievn 2ly The consent of the party hath barred him of the advantage which otherwise he might have had But Roll Iustice answered here is point of interest as well as point of privilege for part of the goods taken come to the benefit of the City and therefore they ought not to be their own Iudges for this is against natural reason and so it is a mistryal But it doth not appear here whether the Maior and Aldermen be another Corporation or not and distinct from the Corporation alleged which certified this custom by the mouth of the Recorder and this is the sole doubt in the Case The Court ordered that there should be a new tryal except cause shewn to the contrary Q. whether there shall be a Repleader or a new venire VVhite and his wife against Harwood and his wife Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. WHite and his wife brought an Action upon the Case for standerous words Whether a writ abated by death of one of the defendants Abatement against Harwood and his wife the Defendant dyes the Feme takes another Husband pending the sute It was moved that the writ was abated The Court inclined that because the Defendant had by her mariage changed her name therefore the Writ was abated but took time to advise Slade Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for Iudgement formerly stayed upon a certificate made by Baron Atkins For Iudgement stayed upon a Iudges certificat that the verdict passed against his opinon Bacon Iustice said Iudgements have been arrested in the Common pleas upon such certificates Hales of Councell with the Defendant prayed that this Iudgement might be arrested and that there might be a new tryal for that it hath been done heretofore in like cases But Roll Iustice held it ought not to be stayed Attaint 9 though it have been done in the Common pleas for it was too Arbitrary for them to do it and you may have your attaint against the Iury and there is no other remedy in Law for you but it were good to advise the party to suffer a new tryal for better satisfaction And let the Defendant take four dayes from hence to speak in arrest of Iudgement if the postea be brought in if not then four dayes from the time it shall be brought in Andrews against Baily Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon a tryal at the Bar between Andrews and Baily Denisation by Letters parents do enable to purchase not to inherit lands Denization Inheritance upon an ejectment lease touching Sir Iohn Prowds title to Lands It was said that a man cannot be a subject to two several Princes And that denisation by letters patents do enable the party to purchase Lands but not to inherit the Lands of his Ancestor as Heir at Law But as a purchasor he may enjoy lands of his Ancestor Dunch against Smith and others Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Hil. 23 Car. rot 37. DUnch brought an Action of Debt as an Executor for arrerages of a rent charge due to the Testator Demurrer to a Declaration in Debt against Smith and others the occupyers of the Land The Defendants demur to the Declaration and for cause shew that it doth not set forth what estate the Defendants have in the lands charged with the rent and so it appears not that they are to pay the rent Hales of Councell with the plaintiff answered that it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to set it forth for he is a stranger to the Estate cannot know what Estate it is Roll Iustice said It doth not appear by the Declaration whether the Defendants claim under him that granted the rent or no. But move it again Saturday next Postea Smith against Hale Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. SMith brought an Action of Debt against Hale for rent Demurrer to privilege of Parliament The Defendant pleaded that he is Tenant and Servant to the Lord Moone a Lord of the Parliament and prayes his Writ of Privilege may be allowed The Plaintiff demurs It was argued by Barton of the middle Temple that the plea was ill for the very matter of it for the privilege is against the Common Law and also against the Statute Law and for proof cited 1 E. 1. f. 26. 2 E. 3. f. 3. 2 Ed. 6. C. 8. Roll Iustice answered Privilege you ought not to argue generally against the Privilege of Parliament for you know that every Court hath its privilege as this Court also hath therefore apply your self particularly to this question Admittance whether a Writ of privilege belongs to a Parliament man so far as to protect his Lands and Estate and I conceive he is so priviledged And you have admitted his privilege by your own Demurrer But we will advise Wright Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation to perform Articles Plaintiff after a verdict for him moves for a new tryal The Defendant pleaded Covenants performed The Plaintiff had a verdict and after verdict and before Iudgement he moved for a new tryal because it appeared that there was no issue joyned the Plaintiff moved it for his own expedition for he feared if he should enter Iudgement that the Defendant would bring a Writ of Error The Court answered that there was a perfect issue joyned but the pleading is not good and it was your own fault to joyn issue upon such a pleading when you might have demurred Tryall Yet let the Defendant shew cause why he should not consent to a new tryal and a Repleader Mich. 24 Car. Banc.
really a Copyholder and cited Shellyes case and prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice said This Case differs from surrendring into the hands of Tenants for it is into the hands of the Steward out of Court Surrend Admission which is good and the Lords acceptance of his rent is an admission But Bacon doubted and therefore the rule was for the Case to be argued again the next Term and then by reason of sicknesse I was absent But that Term held not by reason of the Kings death Dunch against Smith Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. DUnch brought an Action of Debt as Executor for arrerages of a rent charge due to the Testator against Dunch Arrest of Iudgement in Debt brought by an Executor an occupyer of the land out of which the rent was issuing and hath a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and for Cause shewed that the Plaintiff doth not shew any title that the Defendant hath in the Land but only sayes generally that he entred into the Lands and so it appears not that he is to pay the rent To this the Councel on the other side answered that the Plaintiff being but an Executor cannot know the title and therefore is not bound to shew it Roll chief Iustice said there can be no Iudgement for the Declaration is too generall But Bacon Iustice held the Declaration good enough Antea Brown against Poyns Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case was this a man made his last Will and made two Executors For a prohibition to repeal an administration Prohibition Appeal the Executors dye in the life of the Testator the Testator dyes having two Sisters the eldest Sister procures Administration the younger Sister moves for a Prohibition to repeal the Administration because she being in equal degree of king ought to have equall share of the Administration But the Court answered that a prohibition lies not for you may appeal if the Administration be not rightly granted Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. A Processe issued out of this Court for a Cart and Horses that were cause of a mans death as a deodand 12. Iac. To stay processe for a deodand and it was moved that there hath been a generall pardon by Parliament since that time by which deodands were pardoned and therefore it was prayed the processe might be stayed General pardon The Court asked whether there be not an exception of deodands or the Almoners interest in the pardon The Councell answered there is not The Court demanded by what words in the pardon are deodands pardoned The Councel answered by the generall words The Court ordered thereupon it should be stayed till the Almoner be heard what he can say Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for a habeas Corpus for one that was taken in Execution by the Sheriff and was afterwards set at liberty For a habeas corpus for one taken upon one Execution Audita querela and after that retaken upon the same Execution The Court answered take it but you are in the wrong way for you ought to bring your audita querela The King against Bray Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of forcible entry made upon a Lessee for years upon the Statute of 21 Iac. To quash an Endictment of forcible entry The exceptions taken to it were 1. It doth not appear by the Endictment that the Lessee had any title to the Land at the time of the force committed for the force is supposed to be done before the lease commenced 2ly The lease is supposed to be a lease for so many years if I. S. shall so long live and it is not averred that I. S. was alive at the time of the forcible entry made Averment Roll chief Iustice cited the Lady Morlyes case that there ought to be a direct allegation of the life Therefore let it be quashed Mich. 24. Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of Assault and Battery of an overseer of the poor villae de A. in executing of his office The exceptions taken to it were To quash an Endictment for assaulting a Collector for the poor 1. That there is no such officer as an overseer of the poor villae but it ought to be parochiae but the Court said it was well enough as it was though it had been more proper the other way 2ly The Endictment is for the Assaulting and beating a Collector for the poor in executing his office whereas there is no such office appointed for any one particular man by the Law for the Statute is that there shall be two Collectors for the poor in every Parish and so the office is joynt and not several But the Court over-ruled this exception also 3ly It wants vi et Armis Vpon this exception the Court bid the Councel move it again Gill against Crosse Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt against two as Administrators upon fully administred pleaded issue was ioyned Speciall verdict in Debt against Executors and a speciall verdict was found to this effect viz. that one of the Administrators had fully administred and that the other Administrator had assets It was urged against the Verdict that the issue that was found is impertinent and impossible Verdict Iudgement and so there can be no judgement given upon it But the Court answered that the verdict is good yet if Iudgement should be given upon it the Iudgement would be ill and Nevills and Greenwoods case Hill 7. Car. in the Exchequer rot 1189. was cited and it was said that Iudgement may be against that Executor who hath assets and nil capiat per billam against the other that hath fully administred But take Iudgement at your peril Preston against Holmes Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. or Mich. 24 Car. rot 2052. VPon a special verdict found the Case in effect was this Arguments upon a special verdict upon a Will one in see having one Son by one venter and another Son by a second venter did by his last Will devise all his Lands to his wise for life and after her death to I. his eldest Son and to his Heirs and the question was whether the Son shall take these Lands by the devise or as Heir at Law and so the devise to be of no effect to make him come to the Lands by purchase Christopher Turner held that the devise is void because it sayes no more than the Law says for if there had been no such devise Iohn his Heirs should have had the Land and he cited Paramour and Yardlves Case in the Comentaries and Hob. rep Counden and Clarks case But it is objected that in this case the Law speaks one thing and the devise another thing and so the devise says not the same thing To this I answer there is no difference concerning the alteration of the Estate
to alter all or any part of the settlement made at any time during his life The verdict finds further that there was an Ordinance of Parliament made in the year of our Lord 1645. that Sir Thomas Morgan should forfeit all his lands and estate which he was then seised or possessed of or had been seised or possessed of from the year 1641. and that by the same Ordinance the lands in question were given to Mr. Pym that by virtue of the said Ordinance he encred was seised pro ut that Mr. Pym died so seised after whose death the Plaintifs lessor as his heir entred made a lease to the Plaintif after that Sir Tho Morgan died Mary the Defendant claiming as tenant in remainder for life after the death of Sir Thomas her father by vertue of the settlement made 13 Carol. entred into the lands in question and the Plaintif as lessée of Pym brings the action Vpon this special verdict the Question was Whether by the Ordinance of Parliament made not till the year 1645. yet looking back to the year 1641. the remainder of the lands in question which was setled 13 Car. being before the making of the Ordinance and also before the time to which the Ordinance looks back be forfeited by the Ordinance or not Forfeiture Latch of Councel with the Defendant argued That it was not forfeited 1. Because that the Ordinance is penal and retrospective or looking back and therefore it is odious in Law and shall not be largely interpreted but as strictly as may be 2ly The preamble of the Ordinance sets forth 2. things as the reasons why the Ordinance was made 1. Mr. Pyms deserts to whom the lands were given 2ly Morgans offences for which he was thus punished and both these grounds for making the Ordinance can extend no further than to the year 1641. and so not to the time of the settlement made 13 Car. by Sir Thomas Morgan for then neither of these causes alleged were in being 2ly The purview of the Ordinance is double 1. punitive 2ly remunerative 1. the punitive part which concerns the punishing of Sir Thomas Morgan 2ly the remunerative part concerning the rewarding of Mr. Pym and the punitiue part made in the year 1645. cannot reach the estate setled upon Mary his daughter so long before viz. 13 Car. for it can reach no further back than to the year 1641. at the most to which time and no further the Ordinance is retrospective and in the Statute of 23 H. 8. general words of an Act are restrained Besides there is a demonstration in the Ordinance that shews the Ordinance doth not extend to the estate of the Defendant as may appear by the provisoes conteined in it for although the children of Morgan are to be punished within the Ordinance by the second proviso of it yet this extends not to so long time as to 13 Car. when the estate was setled but only to the estate as it was in the year 1641. And therefore prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Wadham Windham on the other side argued that the estate of Morgan though it was said to be setled 13 Car. was forseited by the Ordinance Because the estate was not absolutely setled at that time for there was a proviso in the conveyance to revoke the settlement so that at the time of the Ordinance made the estate was in Sir Thomas Morgan absolutely to dispose off as he pleased and by the words of the Ordinance all Morgans estate is passed without any saving and the provisoes of the Ordinance do prove that the Children of Sir Thomas Morgan were excepted out of the savings made to preserve the estates of others Also Boons and Favours bestowed use to be amply expounded and this being a Boon bestowed by the Parliament shall receive as large a construction as is possible Besides Morgan was a Papist therfore it may well be supposed that he intended not this for any real settlement but only by way of subtility for some private reasons for we know that Papists do use to make such settlements as this was to preserve them from penalties of the Law And the words of the Ordinance are accumulative to convey all Morgans estate and there are no restrictive words and if there were they should be void here for the Manor of Callidown being the Lands in question are expresly given by the Ordinance and as to these Lands the rights of all men are bound and therefore if there were a saving it would be void as it is Cook rep Alton Woods Case And an act of Parliament sometimes is as a conveyance sometime as a judgment and both waies a saving in it is void and srivolous 1 Rep. 4. A conditional estate or a right may be saved by Iudgment or fine but not an entire estate or interest Saving and therefore the estate of Mary in the Manor of Callidown cannot be saved by any proviso and he cited Alton Woods Case for authority in the principal Case f. 51. But admitting a general saving had been good to save Maries estate yet as the words of the Ordinance were penned her estate is not saved by it for the words were put in the Ordinance for the advantage of Pym and not to provide for Mary for she claims from Thomas Morgan and so prayed Iudgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice said that the provisoes in the Ordinance are not void to all persons as Windham argued for Strangers are clearly provided for by them But let the Case be argued again Saturday fortnight Postea Hatwood against Payte Mich. 1649 Banc. sup Entred Hill 24 Car. rot 78. THe question insisted upon in this Case was Whether Tithes be extendible upon an Elegit whether upon a recovery in an Action of Debt against a Parson the Tithes be extendible by Elegit Hales of Councel with the Plaintif held that they are because that Tithes may be said to be Tenements and the Parson hath a Free-hold in them although he hold them jure Ecclesiae But Roll chief Iustice said Elegit that a Parsonage cannot be extended but that the Debt may be levyed out of the profits of it by the Sherif as it was wont to be done Extent for now there being no Bishops the profits cannot be sequestred by the Bishop of the Dioces Sequestration as they used to be But Ierman and Nicholas Iustices doubted Clergy Ask Iustice agreed with Roll and said that by the Common-law the Clergy are no more privileged from paying their debts than Lay men are Roll chief Iustice said it hath been heretofore questioned whether a Clergy-man be subject to watch and ward or to contribute to satisfie for a robbery done within the Hundred but now it is no question but they are subject and shall contribute Adjourned till Saturday to be argued again Postea Tyndal and others against Harington Mich. 1649. Banc. sup TYndal brought an Action of Debt
an Obligation of 2000 l. for the payment of 1000 l. The Defendant appears and imparls and after imparlance pleads in Abatement of the writ that he is Earl of Nova Albion in Ireland and ought to be impleaded by that name and not by the name of Edmund Plowden Knight upon this plea the Plaintif demurred 1. Because it came in after imparlance whereas a plea in abatement of a writ ought to be pleaded before imparlance 2ly Plea The plea is sâ—ivolous for he pleads that he was Earl of Nova Albion before he entred into the bond which he cannot now plead Estoppel for he is estopped to plead so by his own déed which testifies the contrary Roll chief Iustice said it is a dilatory plea for he is but a Knight here though he be an Earl in Ireland and his own Obligation stops him from pleading as he doth And therefore let him shew cause why he shall not plead in chief within a week otherwise let Iudgement be entred Vid. antea VVats and Dix Hill 1649 Banc. sup Entred Trin. 24 Car. rot 1529. AN ejectione firmae was brought for certain lands in Lincolne Shire and upon not guilty pleaded Argument upon a special verdict in an ejectione firmae there was a special verdict found to this effect I. S. being seised of the Lands in question in Fée made a Feoffment there of to A. B and C. D. and to their Heirs till they should maite a Lease of the said Lands for divers years to certain uses to begin at the Feast of Philip and Jacob next comming The Feoffees enter and make a lease for years of the Lands to begin from the Feast of Philip and Iacob next The question was whether the Feoffees have made such a Lease as the deed of Feoffment directs and so the uses are raised thereupon or whether it shall be intended another lease and not warranted by the Feoffment and so no uses raised Latch held that the Lease is not warranted by the deed of Feoffment and that there are no uses raised for the words at the Feast and the words from the Feast make several beginnings of the Lease and so here is another Lease made than the deed intended 2ly It is not in effect and intention the lease of the parties because it is not made according to their directions and so there are no uses raised for the authority is not pursued nor the precedent condition observed and so the lease hath another beginning and another ending and so it must be another Lease Fitzh graunts 63. And here is not the same reversion intended to the party viz. his Son Watson because it is upon another Lease and so a different reversion And although the Iury might have found the intent of the party and so the same Lease yet they have not found it 2. rep Crumwells case 5. rep Earl of Rutlands case and if the Iury find evidence only and not matter of fact the Court can give no Iudgement 9. rep Downhams case the meaning of the party ought to be found Oxfords case 10. rep 11. Iac. Banc. Reg. Isack and Clarkes case 3 Ed. 6. Bendloes Reports As to the second point viz. whether the use shall result to the Feoffor or remain in the Feoffees he held that it doth result to the Feoffor and remains not in the Feoffees For first there was no other thing intended to be in the Feoffees than to make the lease good and that is not here done and Dyer 300. cited is not to this purpose The intention of the parties is not prevalent in directing of uses and Dyer 300. may be applyed to our case to determine the use 4. rep 82. Barbers case Mich. 2 3 Eliz. Bendloes Reports the use reverted Dyer 16 Eliz. Humphrestons case An estate ought to be made in convenient time otherwise the use is to revert out of the Feoffees to the Feoffor according to his first estate 3ly For the question whether a good estate passe to Elizabeth and the others he held that there did a good Estate passe either by bargain and sale or otherwayes But it is good by bargain and sale notwithstanding it be upon consideration past which is no consideration and the other consideration expressed to raise the use hurts not and here is a good consideration Mich. 8 Iac. Gosman and Carington C. B. There was no good consideration but a curtesie 13. and 14 Eliz. Horwoods case there was a good consideration although there be no monies paid but land for land 2ly If it doe not pass by way of bargain and sale yet it shall pass by way of Covenant to stand seised to uses and the consideration expressed is good to raise the uses Bedles case 7 Rep. these considerations cannot be silenced by the considerations of bargain sale nor shall the intent to pass it by way of bargain sale hurt it if he take by way of use yet it makes not the joyn tenancy operate as a tenancy in Common so it is the same lease declared upon and not divers and there is no disseisin by the entry of the Lessee at election for though he be not Lessee by the Lease intended yet he is Lessee by the one Lease or the other for the Lease is made either by the Feoffor or by the Feoffee and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintiff Pannell for the Defendant put the case at large and made these questions 1. Whether here be such a Lease as the first Indenture doth direct 2ly If the use do not arise where the estate is 3ly Whether there be a good bargain and sale 4ly Whether there be a good consideration to make a bargain and sale 5ly If there be not a good bargain and sale whether it shall enure by way of Covenant to stand seised to a use and he said if all these points be not for the Plaintif all is against him and he held that the words at and from are all one as to signifie the intent of the parties The words have here an extraordinary signification according to time and place and at or in a place are all one and the word at may be satisfied with time precedent or subsequent quae incontinenter fiunt inesse dicuntur et instans est indivisibile and he denied Berwicks case in the 5th Report to be law And here is no need of a forced construction for the intent of the party appears by the case 8 rep 91. For the second point if the Lease be not good and no use raised then where the estate of the land is And he held that it is in the Feoffees not withstanding for here the use is limited but not in the cases put on the other side And here was a fee simple determinable but it being become impossible it is a fee absolute Trin. 18 Car. Roll and Bois and Dyer 300. is mistaken in putting of the case on the other side And it cannot result for
to his heir in the singular number And he argued that the word heir includes heirs because it is Nomen Collectivum Next Whether the devising the land to Richard for his natural life and after to his heir for ever makes any difference in the Case and he held it did not and said that Archers case that is objected by the other side differs much from this for there the words are restrained for it is Proximo Haeredi and not Haeredi generally as it is in our Case and there the words next heir are not words of limitation but of purchase and to decipher the person but not to limit the estate and in our case if there should not be a limitation Richard should only take for life which is not the intent of the Will as may appear by the passages and clauses of it And Thomas and Kemishes case in 5 Car. in this Court makes an end of our Case Neither doth the adding of the word in perpetuum make a difference in the Case for if the words had béen omitted the same estate had passed to the Tenant Richard and his Estate is not enlarged by them 2ly The words in perpetuum relate to all the Estate and not to any particular Estate and so the surrender made by R. Hunt is good Next of all supposing that it be a limited Estate and a contingent remainder the question will then be whether this contingent remainder be destroyed or no and I conceive it is because the particular Copyhold estate which must support this contingent remainder is destroyed and the Law is the same in that point in Copyhold cases as it is in other cases at the Common Law for Copyholds are directed by the rules of the Common Law 13 Iac. Banc. Reg. It is also held that there is the same rule to support a contingent remainder of a Copyhold as there is of Land at the Common Law Next it is to be considered whether the particular Copyhold estate be extinguished or not And it is cléer that it is for the customary Estate is in the Lord who hath the Fée simple which cannot both stand together and so there is no estate to support the contingent remainder Copyhold and consequently all objections are by this answered 1. That the surrender shall not do wrong 2ly That the surrender destroys not the Custom Turner on the other side argued that only an estate passeth to Richard for life and that the word Heir is not a word of limitation to make the Ancestor take a Fée simple neither shall the word Heir be taken Collective here but singulariter and so according to the common sence number and matter ought it to be construed And Nowns Collective in the singular number do not signifie the same thing that they do in the plurall number as may be proved by other examples and there is no proper name to signifie one particular Heir in Law if the word Heir in the singular number shall not do it Shellyes case 1. Rep. f. 101. â—ooks institut f. 8.1 Rep. Archers case And there are two Iudgements in the Common pleas in the very point as I am informed by the Attorney on our side In a Will the word Heir shall not be taken Coliective out in the natural grammaticall sence and not as a word of art but it is otherwise taken perchance in conveyances which are made by men of Art and learned in the Laws whereas wills are made commonly by lay gents and unskilfull in the Law And the rule is that words shall be interpreted to make all the parts of a déed in which they are to stand together and to bear sence and to be in esse and effectual which cannot be here if the word heir shall be taken Collective but may be if it be taken singulariter Hob. rep Stukely and Butlers case Next if the word heir should be taken Collective then the Estate for life would merge 30 El. C. B. Hill 3 Iac. C. B. Hiller and Lewis his case 3ly Rich. hath only an Estate for life if it were otherwise the Testator would have otherwise expressed it and he hath well expressed an estate for life and no other Estate in him If one grant 4. parts of his mannor it shall passe 4. parts of 5. and not all For the other poynt the contingent remainder is not here destroyed by the destruction of the Copyhold Estate for Copyhold Estates do not depend one upon another as Estates of the Common Law do and here is one in esse to take the Estate Another question he spoke to viz. whether a Lessee at will being ousted by a stranger can reenter and he held he cannot for he hath but a meer right 38 H. 6. f. 27. Fortescue and Yelverton 3. Iac. Banc. Reg. rot 501. Carpenter and Collins But to this Roll chief Iustice Entry and Nicholas Iustice answered that he may enter notwithstanding it hath been heretofore controverted and the reason is because he hath the primer posseâ—sion Roll chief Iustice enclined that the contingent remainder is not destroyed because it doth not here depend upon the particular Estate but it ought to expect till the remainder happen and he conceived that the word heir and heirs were all one here by the intent of the partyes and the frame of the conveyance Ask Iustice said that it is a good Estate of Fee simple conditionall executed in Richard Ierman Iustice The intent in a Will if it be not contrary to Law ought to be taken and there must be words to make the intent appear and these words must stand together and shall not be made void and he conceived the contingent remainder not destroyed Adjourned till the next Term. Postea Port against Midleton Hill 1650. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action of debt upon an obligation Error to reverse a judgment in debt and the Error insisted upon was in the entring of the Iudgement which was quod recuperet Debitum suum and doth not say praedictum Roll chief Iustice answered Delivery Escrow that the debt is confessed by the party and the question is whether the deed was delivered as an escrow or not but it was delivered to the party himself and therefore could not be delivered as an escrow Ierman Iustice said that debitum suum without praedictum is not good for the word praedictum is verbum operativum Ask Iustice as Roll and there is but one debt Implication and the word ideo in the record implyes it to be the same debt Nicholas to the same effect The rule was affirmetur nisi causa die Iunae sequenti Hill 1650. Banc. sup AN administrator had a Iudgement against one to recover a debt due to the Intestate and then the Administrator dyed Intestate For a scire facias to revive a judgement denyed Scire facias and another took out new letters of administration de bonis non
words of a will which were these I give all my free lands wheresoever to my Brother Iohn Sanders and his heirs upon condition that he suffer my wife to enjoy all my Freelands in Holford for life the Testator having only a portion of tithes of inheritance in Holford and no lands The question here was whether this portion of tithes shall be accompted free lands within the intent of the will and so the wife be to have them during her life Twisden held the tithes were not devised by the will to the Feme for if I devise my fee-simple lands to Iohn a Stile and his heirs tithes do not pass by this devise for tithes are a collateral thing arising out of land and not part of the land it self 42 Ed. 3. f. 13. 10 Iac. Moyle and Ewers case 31 Eliz. Perkins and Hyndes case In the will here they pass not for there are no words in the will to devise them nor can the words he so expounded and here are other lands devised to satisfie the words of the will A term for years hath more relation to land than tithes and a term could not have passed by the words of the will Next the second Clause doth not pass the tithes for there is no such thing as is expressed in it but if it should pass to the wise by implication yet it cannot pass to Iohn Sanders the Brother for there are neither expresse words nor any implication to devise this portion of tithes to him but the contrary rather is to be collected from the Will Wadham Windham on the other side answered that the Testator calls the tithes in Holford his free lands It is true generally that by the devise of lands tithes do not pass but in a will by the intent of the Devisor they may pass and the word land includes all real things in common intention and legal construction as Lutrels Case is 1 Mar. Bro. Tit. Elegit An Elegit may be of a rent and tithes have a nearer relation to land than rent have 2ly Here is an apparent intention to devise the tithes for he explains his meaning in his second clause of the Will that he intends tithes by the word lands 44 Eliz. Com. Banc. Gery against Gery the question there was what passed by the word rents whether lands passed The words were as to all my lands in Dale I devise my rents c. and here the matter comes in by a Proviso which enlarges the matter Trin. 3 Iac. Fitz. Williams case One devised all his goods Iewels and Plate excepting his lease in C There it was adjudged that all his other Leases passed 4 Ed. â— Br. grants 51. Another circumstance in the Will enforceth this construction viz. the word wheresoever which word expresseth the intent of the Devisor to be so otherwise that word will be idle and to no purpose Hob. rep Stukely and Butlers case It may also appear out of the body of the Will for it appears thereby that his Daughter was provided for in his will by his personal estateâ— and that the intention was to dispose of his lands to the Heir and his Copyhold lands which he had in Holford were surrendred at the time of the making of the Will and so the devise cannot refer to them and besides this is called free lands which distinguisheth them from Copyhold lands and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice There is a Condition annexed to the Devise Condition that his wife shall enjoy this land though the words in the Will are not very proper to erpress it but we must consider them as used in a Will not in a conveyance Nicholas Iustice said the Devisor himself calls them free-holds and this distinguisheth them from Copyhold lands Adjourned till Saturday following to be argued again Dowse against Masters Pasc 1651. Banc. sup DOwse brought an Action of Debt upon an Indebitatus Assumpsit against Masters for five pound Demurrer to a plea in Debt upon Indebitatus assumpsit in which the Defendant pleaded that he did deliver bils to the Plaintif to the value of 6 l. in which the Plaintif was indebted to him which bills the Plaintif did accept in full satisfaction the Plaintif replyed protestando that he was not indebted to the Defendant that he did not receive bills to the value of 6 l. in satisfaction Vpon this a Demurrer was joyned Roll chief Iustice said Plea the Plea of the Defendant is ill for he doth not say that he delivered the Bills in full satisfaction but that the Plaintif received them in full satisfaction which is not good for the Plaintifs receiving of the Bills must be as they were delivered and not other ways and that is not expressed Therefore let the Plaintif take his judgement nisi c. Ross against Lawrence Pasch 1651. Banc. sup ROss brought an Action of the Case against Lawrence for speaking these Welch words of him viz. Dedingues Will Rols in mudon Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case for Welch words Englished which are in English William Ross hath forsworn himself upon Issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable as they are rendred in English and so the Action lies not Roll chief Iustice If the words sound in Welch that the Plaintif was perjured yet if the Plaintif do English them in English which doth not amount to perjury it is ill Case and an action will not lie for them Therefore let judgement be stayed Peck against Ingram Pasch 1651. Banc. sup PEck brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit and declares Arrest of Judgement in an action upon the case upon an Assumpsit that the Defendant in consideration that she the Plaintif would leave her Fathers house and come to the House of the Defendant in such a place did assume and promise unto her that he would mary her and that thereupon she did leave her Fathers House and did come to the Defendants House et obtulit se in maritagium conjungi and because he had not performed his promise Actio accrevit Vpon issue joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took Exceptions that the Plaintif did not shew in her Declaration when she left her Fathers House and came to the Defendants house nor that she gave him any notice thereof Wild moved for judgement notwithstanding the Exceptions for he said though it be not expresly said that she gave the Defendant notice when she came to his House yet it is said quod obtulit se in maritagium conjungi which implies the Defendant had notice and besides here is no need of notice for the Assumpsit is that if she will come to the Defendants house he will marry her and it is not said that when she comes he will marry her so that he is bound by
is a Iudgement well given Plea and it is too late to assign it for Error But the Court advised Postea Kerman against Iohnson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 153. KErman brought an Action of Trespass and Ejectment against Johnson Special verdict in Trespass and Ejectment and upon a special Verdict found the Case was this A man devised to I. S. his whole estate paying his debts and Legacies and dies possessed of Goods and Chattels to the value of five pounds only and dyed also seised in fee of divers lands and was indebted forty pounds at the time of his death The question was whether the lands passed by the Devise Barry of Councel with the Plaintif argued that the lands did pass because that wills ought to receive a favourable construction And 2ly The intent of the Testator is to be considered who by the words all his estate did mean to comprehend as well his land as his goods and chattels for there is no restraint of the words here 7 Ed. 3.10 The word estate is a word of large extent and extends as well to the real as personal estate if it were in Case of grant much more in the case of a Will And there is another word used here to explain the Testators meaning to be to devise his lands as well as his goods and that is the word All which comprehends all manner of estates without exception Next if the land should not pass his debts and Legacies cannot be paid according to the express intent of the Testator and the intent of the party ought to be satisfied although the words be not proper because it is in a will though it might be other wise in a grant And whereas it is objected that the Iuries finding of the value of the debts and Legacies is to no purpose because the will cannot be helped by the averment of the Iury. I answer that averments if they stand with the will may be received to make the Testators intent to appear But besides this is not an averment only but a true stating of the Case to the intent to find out the Testators meaning 3ly The devisee of the land is not made Executor but Trustee or Devisee this is since the Statute of Devises 32 H. 8. The 2. question is what estate the Devisee hath in the lands I conceive he hath Fee simple because he hath all the Estate which must be the largest and that is Fee-simple Hob. rep pl. 280. The word whole goes both to the quantity and quality of an estate also And here the consideration that he is to pay all his Debts and Legacies is a good consideration to pass the fee-simple of his lands and though there may be a surplusage after the Debts and Legacies paid this hinders nothing for it is his intent that the Devisee shall have that surplusage and so he prayed Iudgement for the Plaintif Twisden for the Defendant argued that either nothing passeth by the Will or if any thing then only an estate for life passeth He agreed that improper words may sometimes pais things yet sometimes proper words will not passe things viz. if the intent of the party appear to be contrary 24 Eliz in the Earl of Northumberlands case A Devise of all his Iewels did not pass his Collar of Esses and his Iewels annexed to his Parliament Robes and the words here are not that he deviseth all his estate in his lands but his whole estate generally and if the words here should pass the lands yet the fee simple passeth not but only an estate for life in the lands which do pass nor do the words paying his Debts and Legacies cause the Fee-simple to pass for here is no likelyhood of any loss to the Executor for the words are not that he shall pay all his Debts and Legacies and if he be an Executor as the contrary appears not he shall not be charged with more than the personal estate will discharge The words do amount to a Condition and it is not found that there are any Debts or Legacies paid and so it is not performed and the heir may well enter into the lands in question for the Condition broken 2ly The Verdict doth not find how the lands are held whether in Socage or by Knights service and so it appears not whether they can be devised or no and they shall not be intended to be Socage lands Dyer f. 207. Hill 32 El. rot 2. and Pell and Browns case 3ly It is not found that the Testator dyed seised of the lands as it ought to have been and he prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Special Verdict Roll. chief Iustice to the second Exception to the Verdict answered that in a Special verdict it is not necessary to find whether lands be held in Sorage or by Knights Service and he said that the words in the Will do goe to the nature and extent of the estate as Barry urged and he doubted how the verdict shall supply the Will if it be defective for that is only to make the intent of the Will certain Adjourned to be argued again Postea Marshal against Ledsham Trin. 1651. Banc. sup MArshal as Administrator brings an Action of Debt for rent Arrest of Judgement in Debt and upon a Verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and takes exception that the Plaintif had not shewn by whom the Letters of Administration were granted unto him as he ought to do but only says that the Administration debito more commissa fuit But it was answered that it is too late to move this Exception after a Verdict for the Iury have now found that the Administration was duly granted and the Letters of Administration were produced in Court and therefore not necessary to shew who granted them Declaration and it was said that in a Declaration it is not necessary to shew by whom Letters of Administration are granted or to say they were granted by him Cui pertinuit or per loci illius Ordinarium But in a Plea in Bar it is otherwise for this is not the cause of the Action Plea and effect of the sute but to shew they have been in the Spiritual Court Judicium nisi pro quaerente was afterwards given Antea Giles against Timberley Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 176. AN Ejectione firmae vi et armis was brought in the Common Pleas Error to reverse a judgement in an Ejectione firmae and a judgement given for the Plaintif upon a nihil dicit and in a writ of Error brought in this Court to reverse the judgement the Error assigned was in the judgement which was entred thus Ideo consideratum est quod recuperet and the word Capiatur was omitted which ought not to be because the Action is a Trespass vi et armis Roll chief Iustice said It is an ill course they use in the Common Pleas to enter
the judgement so in this Action Iudgement for by this course the Plaintif shall gain his possession of the land and the Defendant cannot bring his writ of Error until the writ of Enquiry returned and the Iudgement perfected Error which it may be will never be for when the Plaintif hath gotten possession of the lands he will little regard the damages Therefore let the judgement be reversed Antea Elyott against Blague Trin. 1651. Banc. sup ELyott brought an Action upon the Case against Blague for speaking these words of him viz. Thou art a Bastard getting Rogue Arrest of Iudgement in an Act on for words and hadst a Bastard at Oxford and art a pocky rogue and for ought I know thou hast filled my Bed full of the French pox and no such pocky rogues shall lie with me Vpon not guilty pleaded and a Verdict found for the Plaintif it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable because some of them were adjectively spoken and others uncertain and some of them clearly not actionable But Twisden answered that if the words were taken together as they were spoken they were very scandalous and actionable and cited one Colyers and Lydyers case 1 Can To which the Court agreed and ruled the Plaintif to take his judgement except better cause should be shewn Custodes against Iinkes Trin. 1651 Banc. sup SErjeant Bernard moved to discharge an Order of Sessions made against a Feme Covert to keep a Grand child of hers To discharge an Order of Sessions Order of Sessions because a Feme Covert was not bound by such an Order Roll chief Iustice answered that her Husband is bound to keep his wifes Grandchild by the Statute but in regard that the Husband is not charged by the Order but the wife who is covert is only charged Therefore let the Order be quashed Trotman against Standard Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1768. IN an Action upon the case a special verdict was found Special verdict in an action on the case upon which the case fell out to be this Two being seised of lands in Fée did make a charter of feoffment unto two others and to their heirs and in the deed was a letter of Attorney to enter into the lands in the name of the seoffors and make livery and seisin according to the effect of the deed and livery of seisin was made to one of the Feoffees by the Attorney in the absence of the other Feoffee The question was whether here were a good livery and seisin or not 2ly Whether the letter of Attorney was good or no in regard it had false latin in it for the letter of Attorney was made by two and the words of it are pro me in nomine meo to make livery which are words of the singular number whereas they ought to be of the plurall Hales as to the 2d question held the letter of Attorney good enough because the authority given to the Attorney proceeds from both the Feoffors and therefore the words shall be intended to be the words of both of them as spoken by them severally And he also argued that the letter of Attorney was well executed to both the Feoffees because it was by deed and he cited 15 E. 4 f. 18. and he said if the livery had been made by the Feoffor himself it had been good without question and there is no difference between that and our case because it is made according to the effect of the deed and the Feoffee who is present is Attorney for the Feoffee that is absent to receive livery for him and the effect of the letter of Attorney is executed although the words are not Cooks Lit. f. 5. and Hoxon and Polts case in the Exchequer 34 Eliz. Boltons case Livery made to the husband was held a good Livery to the wife also Latch of Councel on the other side made two questions 1. Whether here was a good authority 2ly Whether it was well executed For the first he argued that here was no authority given to the Attorney to enter into the lands in the name of both the Feoffors for the words are that he should enter in nomine meo which cannot comprehend both of them the words being in the singular number and he agreed that Livery made by the Feoffor himself to one in the name of both had been good but here the livery is by Attorney and an Attorney hath nothing but a bare authority given him which ought to be strictly pursued especially it being to passe away an Estate He also took exceptions to the special verdict and said that the tryal upon which the verdict was found was directed out of the Chancery to discover a fraud and the verdict finds nothing according to the direction and so it ought to be set a side besides the verdict in it self is incertain for it is of 300 Acres of land generally which is incertain and so the Plaintiff can have no Iudgement for the Declaration warrants not the verdict for the Declaration mentions Houses and Cottages besides the 300 Acres of land 2ly The verdict doth not find the date of the Indenture and the Title to the land is to commence a die datus Hales answered 1. It shall be intended the day of the date 2ly It shall take effect after the delivery if there be no day of the date expressed And to that exception to the verdict that there are not so many Acres conteined in it as are expressed in the Declaration he answered that the Iudgement shall go to all which is land in kind only and shall not extend to Houses and Cottages and there appears to be a residuum or surplusage Verdict Roll chief Iustice said that it is incertain by the verdict what lands are meant for there are 400 Acres of land and four messuages and four Cottages and 40 Acres of medow in the Declaration and so there appears to be a residuum besides the land found in the verdict which makes it to be incertain what is found And though it should be a verdict for part and be uncertain for the rest although the Plaintiff will relinquish his damages for the rest this will not help it for there must be two Iudgements and the verdict is ill as to that which is found yet he held that it might be good without relinquishing the damages at all because the verdict is good for so many Acres as are in the Declaration and it shall be intended that the Iury mistook the number of the Acres and intended by the verdict no more than the arrable land Ierman and Nicholas Iustices doubted whether there be a verdict at all because the Iury have not found the things conteyned in the Declaration Roll chief Iustice and Nicholas mutate opinione held the verdict good but said it would have béen otherwise upon a demurrer and it was said that if one declare for 40 l. and the
a Legacie and it may be there are debts owing which are to be paid before Legacies and here doth not appear to be any assets in the Executors hands besides this debt and if the Testator would have released it he ought to have done it by a deed Roll chief Iustice What shall the Executor do in this case I conceive it is a strong case for the Executor and that it is very unreasonable that the Testator should make such a devise and here is no consent of Mary the Executor expressed to this release besides a will cannot release a thing created by deed and so discharge Creditors Nicholas and Ask Iustices concurred But Ierman Iustice doubted For a fault in the writ of Error and imperfection in the record certifyed the Iudgment was not then affirmed Afterward Sir Humphrey Style preferred his bill in Chancery to be releived herein and obteyned an injunction till hearing but upon a hearing at the Rolls could get no relief but was ordered to pay 100 l. or else the injunction to be dissolved Q. Nota. Hamond against Ward Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1650. rot 58. AN Action of debt was brought against the Defendant Error to reverse a judgment in debt upon an insimul computaverunt upon an insimul Computaverunt and a verdict and a Iudgement given against him whereupon he brought his writ of Error and assigns for Error that the Action was brought against him for rent as a Tenant of land and not as a receiver and that therefore an accompt did not lye Roll chief Iustice cited 20 H. 6. that rent alone lyes not in accompt because rent is a certain thing and it is also in the realty but if rent be mixed with other things an accompt will lye Accompt but here it appears the Action is brought against the Defendant as a receiver and if one receive mony due to me upon an obligation I shall have either an Action of accompt Debt or an Action of debt against him so if he receive my rents without my consent Therefore let the Iudgement be affirmed Alleyn against Holden Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Entred Pasc 1650. AN Action of debt was brought against an Heir who pleads riens per discent Error to reverse a judgment in debt against an Heir Iudgment was given against him upon a nihil dicit a writ of enquiry was awarded without the prayer of the party and a special Iudgement thereupon given against the Defendant Vpon a writ of Error brought to reverse this Iudgement it was alleaged for Error that the Iudgement ought to have been a general Iudgement and there ought not to have been a writ of enquiry except the party had prayed it and to this the Court enclined and Roll chief Iustice said that it is otherwise in an Action against an Executor for there assets may be found At another day Roll chief Iustice said Writ of inquiry if the Heir plead riens per discent and if it be a false plea a general Iudgement ought to be against him and there shall be no writ to enquire what lands he hath and it is not necessary as here it is to have a special Iudgement Iudgement that the Plaintiff shall recover of the lands discended for the Iudgement ought to be that the Defendants body and goods be lyable and half his lands and not as it is here a writ to enquire and find what lands he hath by discent Reverset nisi Barcock against Tompson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup THis case was again spoken unto Error brought by the Bail to verse a judgment given against the principal which was this A Iudgement was given in the Comon pleas against the principal without an original upon this Iudgment there issued out a scire facias against the Bail two nichils returned and thereupon Iudgment was given against the Bail a writ of Error was brought by the Bail to reverse this Iudgment And it was now argued by Hales of Councel for the writ of Error that the Iudgment was erroneous because it being given upon a scire facias which is a judicial writ it ought to be grounded upon an original and it not being so here it is Error in fact although it be not Error in Law To this it was answered that two nichils returned upon a scire facias amount to a scire seci and a judgment given thereupon is good and therefore it is too late now to say that the scire facias was not well executed Brook Sc. fac 96. 28. 17 Car. C. B. To this Hales said there was a Iudgement against us in the Common pleas so that we could urge nothing against the scire facias there but here we may Roll chief Iustice answered it is to some purpose to make up the record upon the two nichils otherwise there would be no end of things and the Iudgement is well given by the Iudges and how can you now make Error in it Iudgement and if you be inconvenienced by the Iudgement you are not without remedy Error for you may bring an Audita querela and you might have pleaded to the scire facias nul tief record for it is not matter of fact And therefore shew better matter why the Iudgement shall not be affirmed Audita querela and take liberty to bring an Audita querela Antea Tucker against Cosh Trin. 1651 Banc. sup Entred Trin. 1650. rot 388. TVcker brought a replevin against Cosh Special verdict in a replevin for distreining his Cattel The Defendant makes conusance as Baily to I. S. and upon the Avowry the case fell out to be this A tradesman in consideration of mariage made a conveyance of his lands to the use of himself and of his wife and afterwards becomes a Banckrupt and a commission of Bankrupt is taken out against him and the lands of the Bankrupt are sold by the Commissioners to the avowant that took the distress The question here was whether this conveyance made by the Bankrupt of his lands was within the Statute of fraudulent conveyances or not and the sale made by the Commissioners of this land were good Maynard for the Plaintif argued that it is not within any of the Statutes of Bankrupts The Déed here is without fraud and so it is not within the Statute for a valuable consideration is only expressed in the Statute and not a conveyance upon consideration of mariage as it was in our case 2ly The Feme is but one person with her Husband 3ly By comparing the Statutes together it appears that the wife is not comprised within the Statute of 1 Iacobi which looks back to other Statutes touching Bankrupts for the wife is not named in the Statute of 1 Iacobi but only children and other persons otherwise the words of the Act which do enumerate children and other persons would be frivolous and idle Roll chief Iustice said the Case is of great consequence and
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
and that by the Will the Land and personal Estate passed unto him for he said if by my Will I make one my Heir This is a devise to him of all my Lands in Fee for the Devisee is put in loco haeredis and shall be like an Heir by descent for he is haeres factus although he be not haeres natus Mich. 31 32 Eliz. rot 235 Godfreys Reports Hob. rep f. 34. b. Coundens case Hob. new edition 75. Spark against Burrell the very case in point adjudged 7 E. 6. Br. Done 44. and Devise 48. and in this Case the Devisee had annuities to pay and monies for Legacies which shews the intent of the Testator to be that he shall have his Lands and Goods neither shall the misspelling of the word Heir hurt the Will for the intent of the Testator shall be followed if it may be known as it may well be here Hob. f. 32.15 H. 7. f. 12. Cooks Lit. f. 323. Dyer 325. 2ly Misnaming in a Will shall not hurt the Will Dyer 323.21 Rich. 2. Fitzh devise 27.10 rep 57. 3ly False Latin shall not destroy deeds nor pleadings though it will abate writs a fortiori false English shall not destroy a Will 9 H. 7.16.10 rep Osborns case Hob. 227.10 rep 133. a. 9. H. 6.7 a. and here is only vitium scriptoriâ— and that cannot destroy a Will Hob. f. 162. Walkers case f. 104 104.9 rep 48. a. Dyer 17 Eliz. f. 342. Digbyes case Another reason is the word Heir is here written according to the pronunciation and sound of the word though it agree not in letters and H. that is left out is no letter but an asperte note and the language in England as it differs in time so it differs in place for men speak not nor write English in all parts of England alike and a Will in latin or greek is a good Will within the Statute so that it is not necessary for a Will to be good English and the Testator was bred in France and could neither write nor speak good English and his Will so much the rather is to be favoured And false English hath been allowed in a Bond viz. senteen for seventeen pounds 9. rep 48. a. much more may it be in a Will and so he prayed Iudgement for the Plaintiff Latch for the Defendant argued that the Will was not good he considered 2. points 1. When a man makes one his solle Ayeare and Yexecutor what construction the words shall have 2ly What Estate is conveyed by them And first he said that Hoberts Case cited by Powis was not to the purpose 1. Because it is not the principal case And 2ly It is but an opinion there and an Heir may be without land And for Counden and Clarks case that was cited as it was urged it is for me and not against me and there can be no authority cited that if one make a man his Heir that his lands are thereby conveyed to him in Fee simple But in our case there can be no certain intent of the Testator found out and the making of one his Heir in France where the Testator was bred according to the Civil Law there used is but to make him his Executor and so the Testator might mean it And if one in his Will say I make one of my Daughters my Heir and do not say of his Lands this shall not disinherit the other Daughters and if there should be any Estate conveyed here it cannot be but an Estate for life Brook Done 44.8 Jac. C. B. Inkersalls case 3ly The ill orthogrophy here makes the Will naught for a Will cannot be made good by conjectures Hob. 34. Mich. 23 Car. Robinsons case the Iudgement was reversed for writing the word Aeris insteed of aeris with a dipthongue Trin. 17 Car. C. B. rot 74. and in Skirret and Skinners case libis with a dash over put for libris was adjudged ill and in our case here are divers words miswritten And for the variation of our English dialect which is objected it is to no purpose because this will was lately made the dialect alters not in so short a time and the dialect of the County where the Will was made viz. Glocester Shire agrees not with the Will And Hill 6. Car. this Will came in dispute in the Court of wards and a decree there passed against the Will in this point The Court said the case is doubtful Will. because the Will doth not say I make him heir of my Land but generally my heir and Executor but the false writing hurts not a Will if the Testators mind may be found out Adjourned to be argued again Wood against Topham Mich. 1651 Banc. sup VVOod brought an Action of Trespasse upon the case quare filium baeredem rapuit et maritavit against Topham Arrest of judgement in an Action on the case upon not guilty pleaded and a verdidict found for the Plaintiff the Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and takes these exceptions to the Declaration 1. That the Plaintiff doth not say cujus maritagium ad ipsum pertinet 2ly That he doth not say that the Heir was within age and Maynard of Councel with the Defendant said that the exceptions are not to the writ but to the Declaration and the Action being a Trespasse to recover the Damages the Plaintiff ought to entitle himself to the mariage for the losse whereof he would recover damages for the Heir it may be is not Heir apparent to him and then is no mariage due to him and here is a special Declaration for the losse of the mariage Roll chief Iustice answered Writs Declaration the writs are good both wayes and so may the Declaration be either with those words or without them and he makes not the ground of his Action to be that the mariage belonged to him Common right but of Common right it doth belong to him and the words are used to be alleged only to increase the Damages and the ground of the Declaration is only quare filium suum haeredem rapuit and for this the Plaintiff ought to have his Iudgement Ierman Iustice differed and said the Plaintiff doth not shew he had any damage by the mariage it may be that he had been maryed before or was of full age so no cause of Action Nicholas Iustice as Roll and said that by the Law the mariage belongs to the Father and it may prove a dishonour to the family to have his son taken away and maryed without the Fathers consent Ask Iustice to the â—ams effect and so Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff nisi Antea Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to mitigate fines Motion to mitigate fines for riots that were to be set upon rioters that were found guilty upon an information exhibited against them for the riotous cutting down of wood But Wild on the other side prayed there might be good fines set
Testator meant Heir of his Lands and not the element of Ayre or a year as hath been strangely objected and would prove a ridiculous construction Osborns case 10. rep in Thyns case in this Court a demand of dower de capella although the word were of doubtfull construction in it self yet by the subject matter it was held to be made certain enough so the word Ayeare here shall receive construction according to the subject matter and the coupling of it also with the word Yexecutor which is also falsely written shews the Testators intent For answer to the main objection viz. that in 6 Car. there was a decree made in the Court of wards by advise of the Iudges that this was a void and sencelesse Will I say that that decree is not of so great waight as is a Iudgement given in a Court of judicature at the common Law and this was but an opinion delivered in Court where the Iudges were not Iudges and the decree was made as I am enformed because they believed the Will to be nonsence Heir the contrary whereof doth appear by my argument The Court enclyned strongly that the Testator intended to make the Devisee Heir of his lands and that the words can receive no other construction for other constructions would be very strange Will. and forced and the party that made the Will is to be considered as one that was inops consilii and also that wanted a scribe and his intent seems plain and shall not be taken according to the Civill law and if it should the word Heir will as well extend to the lands as goods Adjourned to be argued again Kymlock against Bamfield Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 24. Car. rot 592. KYmlock brought an Action upon the case upon an indebitatus assumpsit against Bamfield for making of apparel The Defendant pleaded Demurrer in an action on the case upon an indebitatus assumpsit that he became bound in a Bond of 60 l. to the Plaintiff in satisfaction of the Debt and that the Plaintiff accepted of it the Plaintiff replyed that he did not accept of it to this replication the Defendant demurred shews for cause that the Plaintiff had tendred an issue upon the non acceptance of the Bond whereas it should have been that the Defendant non devenit tentus On the other side it was said that it is well enough that it is sufficient to say non accep it and it is not necessary to say he refused the obligation and though the replication be not good yet the plea is also naught and therefore no Iudgement can be for the Defendant The plea is quod devenisset tentus whereas it ought to be devenit tentus And 2ly He shews not in what sum or place nor that he became bound in satisfaction Roll chief Iustice said that by entring into Bond the former contract is gone if you do not refuse it and it is not sufficient to say you did not accept of the Bond for you may yet accept it if you please and the party cannot plead non est factum Contract if you bring an Action upon it until it be absolutely refused and the contract here is turned into a Bond and the law determines the contract Plea and it is not all one with pleading of the acceptance of a horse in satisfaction or or any other thing as a collateral satisfaction and the Plaintiff ought to shew that he refused the Obligation and doth yet refuse it And here is a negative preignans Negative preignan◠for you imply by saying that you accepted not the Obligation in satisfaction that he gave you the obligation and you might have said Non devenit tentus and for the other exceptions they are to no purpose Discontinuance And therefore Iudgement ought to be given against you but by the favour of the Court we can give you leave to discontinue your Action Harding against Freeman Mich. 1651. Banc. sup HArding brought an Action upon the Case against Freeman and declared against him Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case upon the sale of a Horse that the Defendant did sell unto him a Gelding and upon the sale did falsely affirm unto him that the Gelding was his own Gelding and that he bred him of a Colt whereas he bred him not of a Colt neither was it his own Gelding but another mans Gelding and so concludes to his damage Vpon not guilty pleaded and a Verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement 1. That in this sale of the Gelding the Defendant had made no warranty of him and therefore though the sale were not good yet the Action lies not 2ly The Plaintif doth not declare that the Defendant knowing the Gelding to be another mans did affirm him to be his own and so here doth not appear to be any fraud in the sale Twisden answered that the words are sufficient to imply a disceit though they express not that he knowing it to be another mans horse did make that affirmation for the words are that he did it falso et fraudulenter and affirmed the Horse to be his own But the Court stayed the Iudgement for they said that here is no direct affirmation but only an intendment that scienter fecit yet afterwards judgement was given for the Plaintif Davis against the Lord Foliot Mich. 1651. Banc. sup DAvis brought an action of Assault and Battery and wounding against the Lord Foliot and had a verdict against him and a writ of enquiry of damages For a new writ of Enquiry of damages and upon the writ of Enquiry 200 l. damages were found The Plaintif moved the Court for a new writ because by reason of the wilfulness of the Iury the damages were found too small Twisden on the other side urged that it could not be because there was no miscarriage proved in execution of the writ but it appears to be well executed Roll chief Iustice answered though we grant not a new writ yet we can increase the damages upon view of the wound and here appears to have been a foul Battery by the dagger produced in the Court Damages increased by the Court. and by the party himself that is wounded and it is not fit that a wilfull Iury should prejudice the party therefore either consent to a new writ or else bring your witnesses on both sides and we will hear the motion again At another day Wild said the Court cannot increase damages upon a view of the party if he be not maimed and here is no maiming but only a Battery and wounding But the Court answered that they would advise upon that point for it séems there is the same reason for encreasing of damages in both cases At another day Green moved for increase of damages upon the view and urged 9 H. 4. f. 1. 3 H. ◠◠10 H. 4. and Bret and Middletom case in this
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
for another man he had unwillingly committed a Trespass against the Plaintif in taking away 2 or 3 wheele-barroughs of Earth of the Plaintifs soil and therefore it was prayed that the matter might be referred to the Secondary to tax the damages and Costs for the Trespass which he was ready to pay that the proceedings might be stayed But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be but you may confess the Action Reference He le against Green Hill 1651. Banc. sup IN an Ejectione firmae a special Verdict was found upon which the Case fell out to be this A man being Lessee of a Manor for 199 years Special Verdict in an Ejectione firmae deviseth the Term to his wife for life with power to make such estates in as ample manner as he himself might have done during her life and the remainder in Tall to his Daughter and dies the Feme proves the Will and accepts of the Legacy and after makes a Lease for 99 years and dies and the daughter brings an Ejectione firmae against the Lessee of the Feme The question was whether this Lease made by the Feme were a good Lease or not Merifield argued that the Lease was not good after the death of the Feme because she having but an estate for life Lease and the Lease for 99 years being derived out of it when the estate for life ends the estate derived out of it must end also And 2ly If the Feme had any power to dispose of any part of the Term longer than for her life by the same reason she might have disposed of all of it which cannot be intended for the Testator did not mean that she should have power to destroy the Entayl made upon his Daughter And as to the Objection that she hath dissposed of but part of the Term and therefore hath not destroyed the Entayl I answer It matters not what she hath done but what she might have done for by the same reason that she disposed of part she might have disposed of the whole The rest of the Argument I could not hear Henage Finch on the other side argued That the Lease made by the Feme continues after her death because the Feme had a power given her to make such a Lease and by vertue of that power the Lease continues for the power given unto her relates to the Estates to be made by her and not to the continuance of her life And here the intent of the Testator is to be considered which was that his wife should have the power to dispose of all the Term if she would for he trusted her with it because she was his Wife and Mother of his Daughter to whom the Entayl was made and the very subject matter shews his intent to be so and because there is no other power expressed against this in any other part of the Will and the words that give her this power would be idle and trifling if they should receive any other Construction 2 Car. Banc. Reg. Danyel and Ogleys case and Gibs and Whites case 1 Car. nor does the assent of the Feme to the Legacy to have the Term for life destroy her power to make estates 2ly She hath well executed this power for the Iury have found that it is the Lease of the Feme 9 Iac. Suckham and Hawkins case a power given to an Executor may be executed by parts Roll chief Iustice held Lease the Lease was good for a Will ought to be so interpreted that all the parts of it may stand together and if the Feme here have not power to make this Lease the Clause of giving her this Lease is idle and the meaning is so without doubt the Feme hath the sole estate in Law in her and the power given here is but a restoring to her of that which she had before by the Law and her consenting to the Legacy doth not take away her power to make Estates And this limited power and the remainder to his daughter may stand together for it might be that the wife would not make such a lease and then the daughter should have had the land in tayl but if she dispose of it the daughter shall not have it Ierman as Roll. Nicholas Iustice held that the Feme could only dispose of the land during her life and that the Testators intent by the words was that the Feme should not be tyed to occupy the lands her self during her life but might dispose of them Ask as Nicholas that she can dispose of the lands only during her life for the power is only given during her life and this interpetation will make all parts of the Will stand together better than the other interpretation Adjourned Antea Dekins against Latham Hill 1651. Banc. sup Entred Hill 22 Car. rot 946. IN an ejectione firmae a special verdict was found Special verdict in an ejectione firmae upon which the Case fell out to be this One seised of lands covenanted to levy a fine to the use of himself and his wife for life and after he leased the lands for 21 years for 3 l. rent per annum by equal portions and after the death of I.S. to pay a gross sum of 125 l. by way of fine payable by 5 l. a year quarterly with a proviso in the Indenture that for default of payment of the rent or fine or for want of reparations it should be lawfull for the Lessor to re-enter After the Lessor levyes a fine and assigneth over his interest in the reversion The question here was whether the condition of entry be transferred over to the Assignee by the transferring over of the reversion Hales of councell with the Plaintiff held that the lease proceeds from the Husband only and not from the Baron and Feme and the condition is transferred over for the condition runs joyntly as well to the fine reserved as to the rent and is as it were a several condition in Law although it be comprised but in one clause and not several clauses and the condition as to the rent is transferred though not as to the fine In 19 E 4. f. 7. The law makes a several distribution of one praecipe and so may it do here of one condition and Rawlins case in the â— rep cited against this comes not to this case for there the question was of the suspension of a condition but here it is of the transferring over of a condition 2ly If it be but one condition yet it is well transferred by the Statute of 32 H. 8. C. â—4 an extinguishment in part is not extinguishment of all although a suspension of part be a suspension of all and the Grantee of the reversion shall have advantage of the condition because 1. He is within the words of the condition as to the condition 2ly The clause of re-entry is within the words of the Statute and Knights case objected comes not to this case for there
his guardian and therefore let the Iudgement be reversed nisi Fortune against Johnson Hill 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for an attachment against Iohnson upon an affidavit For an attachment for putting one out of possession that he had ejected one out of possession that was put in by a habere facias possessionem and that in a very riotous manner and had imprisoned the party so put out of possession and others Windham on the other side by way of answer said that the party came into the land by virtue of an eign Iudgement and an extent upon it Roll chief Iustice answered here is title against title therefore take your course in law for we will make no rule in it Crosthwayt and the Hundred of Lowdon Hill 1651. Banc. sup CRosthwayt brought an Action upon the Statute of Winchester of robberyes Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Statute of Winchester for robbery against the Hundred of Lowdon for being robbed of 160 l. and had a verdict against the Hundred It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Action upon the Statute did not lye for the party that brought it for it appears that he was not robbed but that the mony was taken out of a portmantle which was carryed by the postboy and that only the Plaintiffs hand was upon one end of the portmantle so that the post-boy was robbed and not the Plaintiff But Roll chief Iustice answered Robbery Possession there is no question but that this was a robbery of the Plaintiff and it is all one as where my Servant is robbed in my presence and there the goods shall be said to be in my possession and so is it here and therefore let Iudgement be entred nisi Tayler and Web. Hill 1651 Banc. sup THis case formerly argued at the Bar and broken on the Bench Special Verdict upon the words of a will and some opinion delivered in it was again moved by Maynard and argued by him And he said that by the Will no land passeth because lands are not mentioned in it neither is there any necessary implication that the Testator intended to devise his lands for the making one his Heir and enjoyning him to pay an annuity doth not convey the lands to him and the Will doth not say that he makes him his Heir of his lands but generally his Heir which by the civill Law may be of goods and for the enjoyning him to pay the annuity this may be out of other lands in consideration of the personal estate given unto him In Danyel and Vblies case a gift made by a Feme coparcener of her purparty of land did not convey the lands in Fée In Marshes case the Father gave his lands to his two Sons to be equally divided it was adjudged there that only an Estate for life passed and here is nothing at all expresly given In Gilbert and Withers case Mich. 20 Iac. It was adjudged that there ought not to be made such a construction of a Will as is not agreable to Law And this is only a logical Will by way of argument and not a grammatical Construction or Interpretation and positive Will Roll chief Iustice answered to make a construction of a Will where the intent of the Testator cannot be known is intentio caeca sicca but here although the words of the Will be not proper yet we may collect the Testators meaning to be by making of the party his Heir that he should have his lands and it is all one as if he had said Heir of his lands and here he not only makes him his Heir but his Executor also Will. and therefore if he shall not have his lands the word Heir is meerly nugatory and to no purpose for by being Executor only he shall have the goods and as it hath been observed he is in this case haeres factus though not natus Ierman Iustice to the same effect and said that the word Heir implyes two things 1. That he shall have the lands 2ly That he shall have them in Fee simple Nicholas and Ask Iustices concurred and so it was ruled that Iudgement should be given for Sir Iohn Bridges the Devisee nisi Lockoe against Palfriman Hill 1651 Banc. sup Hill 1651 rot 1002. VPon a special verdict found in an ejectione firmae Special verdict in an ejectione firmae the case fell out to be this Tenant for life the remainder to Baron and Feme and their Heirs Baron and Feme suffer a recovery The question was whether the Heirs of the Feme were bound by this recovery because the Feme being covert it was conceived she was not Tenant to the praecipe because it appears not she was examined and so nothing was recovered from her It was argued that this recovery did bind the Feme 1. because if a precipe be brought against one who hath nothing in the land the writ only is abatable Fitz. Tit. Droyt 29. Next an Estople with recompence excludes not only parties and privies but also strangers as it is in Shellyes case and 3 Iac. C. B. in Duke and Smiths case 15 E. 4 f. 28 In 43 Ed. 3. f. â—8 was the first mention of examination of a Feme upon a Recovery and she shall be intended to be examined here if it be requisite for it is not found she was not examined and in Br. Abridg. recovery in value 27 23 H. 8. It is held that a Feme Covert is barred by a Common recovery and this hath been the continual practice since that time and whereas it is objected that a colourable recovery doth not bind a Feme Covert it is answered that this is not a colourable recovery but a judicial matter of Record and is brought upon an original and there is an intended recompence to the Feme and to urge that there is no Tenant to the praecipe is an objection which reaches to the common practice of assurances and therefore not to be admitted and in time they might have counterpleaded the voucher but now they cannot avert this matter against the Record 19 E. 3. estople 9. and though the Feme be not examined yet she shall be bound by this recovery though in a fine it is otherwise where there is no recompence in value as here there is and in a fine the Iudge ex officio is bound to examine the Feme but not in a recovery nor is there any practice of it in Law 13 Ed. 3 Iudgement 29. A partition made by writ shall bind a Feme Covert because she hath a recompence so is it upon a partition made upon Record in Chancery And by the Barons surviving the Feme here the recompence both not survive to the Baron but shall go to the Heirs of the Feme Br. recovery in value 27 2 Iac. C. B. here is a reall Estate in the Baron and Feme Hales on the other side made the question to be whether by a recovery
of recital and not material and you have confessed the deceit by your demurrer and therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement nisi Vpon which rule Baâ—ington at another day moved the matter again and urged that here was an assignment of papers mentioned which could not be for that it is a thing in Action which is not assignable nor can the Ordinance of Parliament give authority to assign a thing in Action Roll chief iustice Assignment The ordinance of Parliament doth give authority to assign the papers Latch the paper may be assigned Green The Action is brought for the deceit grounded upon the ordinance and it is not necessary for the Ordinance to name the Aldermens Christian names and these may be true bills though not subscribed which is the deceit here alleged Twisden on the other side said that the acquâ—ittance is in nature of a bill according to the intent of the Ordinance for it is not only an acquittance of discharge but to recover monies upon them and so the Defendant calls them and by the assignment the paper is assigned and the Action is grounded on the deceit and not upon the Statute Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Burcher and Orchard Mich. 1652. Banc. sup BUrcher brought an Action upon the Case for words Arrest of judgement in an Action on the case for words against Orchard and his wife the Iury find that the Baron was guilty but that the Feme was not guilty Wadham Windham moved in arrest of Iudgement because that the Action is joynt and one of them is found not guilty and said it might have been otherwise if the Feme had been found gvilty and the Baron not guilty and cited 9 Ed. 4. f. 51. Yard on the other side said that the verdict hath made this exception good and if the Defendant would have taken any advantage of it he should have demurred to the Declaration Roll chief Iustice denyed the difference taken by Windham and said if any of the Defendants spake the words and be found guilty the Action will well lye and it is all one here as if the Defendants were two strangers the Action being joynt but the doubt is whether it being after a verdict this matter may be offered in arrest of Iudgement At another day Hales moved for Iudgement and said it was all one if any of the Defendants be found guilty as if both of them were found so and although it do appear by the Declaration that the Action could not be brought joyntly against them both because the wrongs are several and now one is found guilty and the other is acquitted 8 Ed. 4. f. 21. 11 H. 4. f. 5. 9 E. 4. f. 1. and damages are assessed against one only And now the verdict hath madei the Declaration good otherwise it had béen if both had been found guilty and entire damages given against both joyntly Latch on the other side said that the speaking of the words cannot be a joynt Act and therefore ought not to be so laid in one Declaration for they are severall Acts and severall offences as the words do proceed from them severally and this case is not like the case of a decies tantum nor the case of a joynt endictment against two for a joynt endictment shall be accompted as severall endictments and here if the Feme had been found culpable perchance it might have béen good because though the wise only speak actionable words yet the Action ought to be brought against the Husband and the Wife Roll chief Iustice The Declaration is not well laid for this cannot be a joynt speaking of the words by the Husband and Wife and therefore they ought not to be joyned in the Action therefore there ought to be several judgements and damages if you recover viz. One against the Husband another against the wife but here is a verdict found which helps it and this case is all one with the Case of 9 Ed. 4. for there the Declaration was not good as it is not here and here is not a verdict against both but only a discharge and he cited Rethorick and Chappels case where an Ejectment terrae haered is did not lie yet there by releasing of damages to the heir judgement was given for the land and here might have been a release of damages as to the wife if both had been found guilty but here in effect is a judgement but against one of the Defendants Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same effect and so judgement was given for the Plaintif Luddington and White Mich. 1652. Banc. sup Mich. 1651. rot 458. LUddington brought an Action of debt upon a bill against White Demurâ—er to a plea in debt up on a Bill the Defendant pleaded that after the money became due he and the Plaintif did by parol submit to an award and that there was an award made that the Defendant should pay 8 l. to the Plaintif at such a house and thereupon the Plaintif should give him a general release and accordly he tendred the money to this plea the Plaintif demurred and for cause shewed that here is a submission by paroll pleaded after the day of payment expressed in the Bill which is not good being by paroll to discharge a debt due by specialty Discharge But Wild answered here were other things submitted besides this and that may make the submission good Roll chief Iustice I see not what authority you have for this Reference nor how it can be and 4 H. 6. if one be awarded before auditors to accompt this cannot be referred and here would be an inconvenience to take away a duty created by bond by paroll therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement Neve and Cross Mich. 1652. Banc. sup NEve brought an Action upon the case against Cross for charging him with felony Arrest of Judgement in an â—ction upon the Câ—seâ— in nature of a Conspiracy and causing a Constable to carry him before a Iustice of Peace and accusing him to the Iustice in these words viz. He did come to my door and set a Pistol to my Brest and demanded money of me and I for safegard of my life did give him what money he desired Vpon not guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintif it was moved by Fletcher of Lincolns Inn that the words were not actionable and therefore that the Plaintif ought not to have judgment and that for these reasons 1. Because there is but a matter of Trespass alleged in the words 2ly They are but argumentative and do not charge the Plaintif directly with felony and it may be the money demanded was due to the Defendant and the Iury have found all that which sounds to charge the party with felony against the Plaintif Twisden on the other side said that the words ought to be taken together and so they are actionable and ought not to be severed And the ground of the Action is for charging
mony and thereupon the Defendant moved to have the moniés out of Court Roll chief Iustice Peremptory The Plaintiff hath lost his mony â—y this verdict therefore let him shew cause why the Defendant should not have them for it is peremptory to the Plaintiff Franklin Mich. 1653. Banc. sup IN an Action of Accompt the Defendant was adjudged to accompt Motion for Merchants to be joyned to Auditors assigned to receive an accompt and Auditors were assigned The Court was moved that they would order to joyn some Merchants to the Attorneys on either side to help them to mannage the Accompt because the Attorneys were not skilfull in such businesses Roll chief Iustice We can make no rule for this but you may by consent advise with Merchants to assist you in drawing up the Accompts Mich. 1653. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice One burned in the hand may be a Witness one that hath been burned in the hand for Felony may notwithstanding be a witness in a Cause for he is in a capacity to purchase Lands and his fault is purged by his punishment Townsend and Barker Mich. 1653. Banc. sup Trin. 1653. rot 743. TOwnsend brought an Action upon the Case against Barker Arrest of judgement in an action for words that had béen a Copartner with him in trade for speaking these words of him You are a cosening Knave and did cosen me of 1200 l. at one time and that was in making an accompt in the year 1648. Vpon a verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because though they he spoken of a Tradesman yet they are not spoken of him in reference to his Trade but in reference to an Accompt and although by way of reduction and consequence they may reflect upon his honesty yet they are not actionable and though his reputation be impaired by speaking them yet he cannot be endicted for cosening in his Trade by reason of them because they are spoken of a singular and particular abuse and not of a general cosening used in his Trade and an Action upon the Case lies not for words which are only scandalous by way of reduction and if the words should hinder the party to get a Partner hereafter to trade with him yet he may use his Trade and so cannot be prejudiced nor are the words that he cheated him but that he cosened him which are not of so violent a construction Wild on the other side said that here is a Partnership which is necessary to the driving of a Trade and without which it cannot be so well driven and the Accompt is incident to all Partnerships and prayed for Iudgement Roll chief Iustice If the Copartnership continued the words were actionable without doubt for then they must be spoken of him in the way of his Trade Case but here the Partnership being ended makes the matter more considerable but yet as it is the words are scandalous and may hinder him from getting a Partner for the time to come and it may be he cannot mannage his Trade without a Partner and although an Accompt be a private thing yet the Plaintiff is disgraced by the speaking of the words and none will deal with a man that will cosen his own Partner and we must countenance Trade and Traffique and mens credits and the Accompt is not so collateral a thing to trade as Hales objects as is the hiring of a shop to trade in or the like German Iustice ad idem and said that Copartnership is necessary to support Trade and the keeping of a true Accompt is the principal thing between Partners Nicholas and Ask Iustices ad idem Judicium nisi pro querente Bird and Christopher Mich. 1653. Banc. sup IN this Case upon giving of an evidence in a Trespass and Ejectment Extinguishment of a Proviso in a Deed. it was said by Roll chief Iustice that if I do enfeoff I. S. with a Proviso contained in the Deed that it shall be lawfull for me to revoke this Feoffment and afterwards I levy a fine to I. S. of the same Land this is an extinguishment of the Proviso of revocation Olive and Tong. Mich. 1653. Banc. sup Trin. 1651. rot 1426. Vpon a special Verdict in an Action of Trespass and Ejectment Special Verdict in a Trespass and Ejectment the Case in effect was this One whose Sirname was Mills seised of gavelkind-Gavelkind-lands in Kent in fee by his last Will and Testament devised these Lands to Elizabeth his Daughter in tayl with a Proviso in the Will that if his Daughter Elizabeth did mary one of his own Sirname that then she should have the Lands in fee-simple Elizabeth maried one whose Sirname was Mill but commonly called and known by the name Mills also The question was whether she had maried one of such a Sirname whereâ—â— according to the Proviso in the Will she had a fee-simple in the Lands â—evised unto her or whether his Sirname should be accompted a distinct name from the Testators so that Elizabeth by the Will could only have an Estate in tayl in the Lands devised unto her It was argued first that the name Mill and Mills shall not be said to be one and the same name no more than if she had maried one of a clear differing Sirname in sound yet commonly called also Mills could she have been said to have maried one of his own Sirname and the Proviso here is not a particular pointing out of the person whom his Daughter should mary but a general limitation directing her to mary one of his own Sirname and this ought to have been punctually followed because the name was used to induce the affection of the Devisor to enlarge the estate given by him If he had devised his Land to his Daughter E. if she shall mary a Protestant or an Earl she must mary one that is really so and not one called or only reputed so And as to the objection that this construction would make contrariety in the Will which is not to be admitted this will not be if the Will be taken compositive as it is penned or together and not abstractive and taken to pieces and if it should not be intended that she should mary one who in truth was of his name there would be a contradiction in the Will and here is an Emphasis in the word Own which must be meant his real name and not of a reputative name Roll chief Iustice If a Iuror be retorned by the name of Mills and is sworn by the name of Mill shall this be a mistryal quasi non and the words found alike as Baxter and Backster At an other day the Case was put again by Hales and argued for the Plaintiff and he made divers points in the Case but I could not well hear him but the only point insisted on was the point formerly spoken to and the sum of his Argument was that we are in
so and it shall be presumed it is rightly named so 2ly It is so found to be by the Iury and to prove that it is a free Chappell it is not presentative and 2ly It appears not to be within the Iurisdiction of the Ordinary 3ly The Act of 1 Ed. 6. is an Act which is general and gives all free Chappels and extends as well to Chappels which are only reputative free Chapbels as well as to them which are so indeed even as it is of a Chauntery College and an impropriation as the Books are and it is a free Chappell nevertheless it be presentative and with the cure of Souls for a free Chappel may now be with the cure of Souls although by the old Canon law it could not as was held in Childs case 1 Iac. The Chappel within the Tower is a free Chappell donative and yet it is presentative and hath cure of Souls so saith Lynwood of the free Chappel of St. Martins It is also the intent of the Statute that it should be so for a College and a Chauntery with cure are within the Statute as may appear by the Exceptions of the Statute of the Free Chappel with cure of Souls in the Isle of Eely called the Chappel of the Sea and the being presentative with cure hinders not but that it may be within the Statute for the presentation might arise at the first by special composition as it is 13 E. 4. f. 4. and Register f. 307. and it was instanced in the free Chappel of Hastings in Sussex and it may be a Chappel donative by prescription and yet presentative Adjornatur ad proximum terminum to be argued again Vid. postea Barker and Martyn Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe case between Barker and Martyn was again moved Arest of judgment in Trepass which was briefly this An action of Trespass was brought by Barker against Martin wherein he declares that the Defendant had broken his House and had taken away quinque instrumenta ferrea Anglice fetters In arrest of Iudgement exception was taken to the Declaration that Instrumenta serrea Anglice fetters was not a good expression in Latin as it ought to be of Fetters because there was a proper Latin word for Fetters namely Compes so that it ought to have been quinque Compedes or quinque paria Compedum and not as it is for the word Instrumentum is uncertain and may be used to signifie any thing else with an Anglice added to it as well as Fetters and as it is the pleading is not all in Latin as the Statute directs to avoid Barbarsm and the word Anglice when it is properly used in a Declaration is to help words of art which cannot be expressed without 〈◊〉 Anglice and is not to be used where there is a proper Latin word to signifie the thing as in this Case there is On the other side it was said that general words might be good in a Declaration and barbarous words sometimes and cited Hobarts Reports 267. and Ward and Smiths Case Trin. 4. Iac. rot 2305. Roll Iustice It is a hard thing to maintain this Declaration Declaration for if it should be admitted good it would bring in all Barbarism in pleadings Pleading and any senseless word might be used with an Anglice joyned with it and he said one was endicted for using quandam artem Anglice of a Draper and it was adjudged naught and in the case between Tailour and Taylour 9 Car. Trespass was brought pro Decem caponibus Anglice Capons avidbus domesticis Anglice powltry and adjudged not good Yet the rule of the Court was to argue it again Saturday next following Eeles and Lambert Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 22 Car. rot 1646. EEles brought an Action of Covenant against Lambert the Executor of Sir Molton Lambert An Action of Covenant against an Executor and declares that Sir Molton Lambert did in his life time by his indenture let certain lands unto him for years and covenanted thereby for himself his Executors Administrators and Assigns that the Lessee should not be put out of possession of the lands let by him during the said Term and that since the death of Sir Molton Lambert his Lessor he was put out of possession by such an one and upon this he brings his Action of Covenant against the Executor The Defendant pleads no Assets upon this an issue was joyned and a special Verdict was found To this effect That Sir Molton Lambert did let the lands mentioned in the Declaration to Eeles prout that there was such a Covenant in the Deed prout and that the Plaintiff was put out of possession of the lands prout They find likewise that Sir Molton Lambert made his Will and made the Defendant his Executor and died that Sir Molton Lambert by his will gave many legacies of goods and that the Defendant before the Plaintiff was put out of possession did pay all the Legacies in kind and that besides those Legacies he had not Assets to discharge the Covenant Vpon this Verdict the matter in Law was this whether the Executor ought to have forborn the payment of the Legacies and to have expected till the end of the Term let to the Plaintiff or till the Covenant had been broken and for doing otherwise should not be charged with the Covenant de bonis propriis or whether the Covenant not being broken in the life of the Testator nor before the Legacies paid he had not paid the Legacies as he ought and should not be freed from being charged with the Covenant de bonis propriis Vpon opening of the Case Rolle Iustice said that a decree in Chancery against an Executor Decree in Chancery shall not be satisfied before an Obligation made by the Testator and become due after his death Saturday following was set to here Councell again Jones and Stanley Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. IOnes brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation to perform Covenants of an Indenture against Stanley Arest of Judgment in an ACtion of Debt and hath a Verdict against him Stanley moves in Arrest of Iudgement and takes these exceptions 1. That the Goods valued in the Declaration are not within the condition of the Obligation 2. The goods are not certainly set forth what they are for the Declaration is of divers parcells of old stuff 3. Some of the things mentioned in the Declaration are not goods and so not to be valued for the Declaration is of partitions withi nt he house and of a shed which are part of the free hold and not goods upon these exceptions the Iudgement was arrested till the other should move it VVhite and Thomas Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 18 Car. rot 1400. WHite binds himself Error to reverse a Iudgment in Debt brought by an Heir his Heirs Executors and Administrators in an Obligation to Thomas for the payment of a certain summ of mony at a certain day
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