seisin of the homage and therefore perchance it will be hard to finde my antient president they adjourned and at another day Hutton and Winch being only present judgement was given for the avowant against Whitgift and Hutton said that he had spoke with the other Iustices and they agreed Vpon a motion made by Towse the case was this a man made a lease for one year and so from year to year during the Will of the lessor and lessee rendring rent and the lessee died and the rent was behinde and by Winch being only present if the rent is behinde in the time of the lessee and he dies an action of debt is maintainable against his Executor in the detinâ—t only and so I conceive if that was behinde after his death he may have an action in the debt and the detinet or in the detinet only to which Brownlow agreed Secondly Winch said that when a man made a lease for a year and so from year to year at the pleasure of the parties that this is a lease for 3. years and not for two Thirdly he doubted if the lessee hold over his term so that he is tenant at sufferance what remedy the lessor had for his rent Vpon the reading of a record the case was that a Scire facias issued against the land Tenant to have execution of a judgement given against Ferdinando Earl of Darby in the 15. Eliz. and the Defendant pleaded that a long time before the said Ferdinando any thing had in the land one Edward Earl of Darby was seised of the land and being so seised 3. Mar. infeoffed I. S. to the use of the Lord Strange and his wife in tail the remainder over to the said Ferdinando and made the said Ferdinando heire to the estate taâ—le and pretended that by this meanes the land should not be liable to this judgement because it was intailed to Ferdinando and of such estate he died seised the Plantiff traversed the feofment made by Edw. Earl of Darby and the jury found that the feofment was made by Edward Earl of Darby to the same persons as the Defendant had pleaded but this was to the use of the feoffor for life the remainder over to the Lord Strange and his wife the remainder as before and whether this shall be intended the same Feofment which the Defendant had pleaded was the question because the estate for life was omitted and upon the special verdict that was the question and Attoe said that if the jury had found this feofment made to other feoffees though the estate had agreed this should be found against the Defendant and Winch Iustice said that there was such estate found as had taken away the execution or extent and the estate for life is not material but it was adjourned till another day A man Covenanted to make such assurance as shall be devised by the counsel of the Plantiff so the same assurance be made within the county of Norff. or the Citty of Norwich and the Plantiff assigned the breach and shewed that in this case his Councel devised that a fine should be leavied of the same land which was not done and it was moved by Serjeant Attoe that in this case the breach was not well laid because he had not shewed where his councel devised that the fine should be leavied In the case of a prohibition in case of a libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for the tithes of Cattles the Plantiff alleadged that those Cattle of which Tithes were demanded are for his Dairy and for the plough and Winch being only present said that the parson shall not have Tithes of such Cattle but if he bred up Cattle to sell it is otherwise secondly the Plantiff in the prohibition alleadged that time beyond memory the parishoners had paid a half peny for the Tithe of a Calf and a penny for a Cow and that upon a day limitted they use to bring this to the Church and to pay this to the Vicar and now the Vicar had libelled in the spiritual Court against them to compel them to bring it home to his house and Winch said that this is no occasion of a prohibition for they agree in the modus but vary in the place of payment and this is not matter of substance and for that reason no prohibition will lie Vpon the reading of a record the case was that the father made a feofment to the use of himself for life the remainder to his son and his wife and to the heires of the body of the son and this was for a joynture for his wife and the father died and the son also died and whether this was a good joynture was the question for all this matter was pleaded in barre of dower brought by the wife and it was ruled to be no good joynture for the feme notwithstanding that the father died in the life of his son and Hutton said if a man made a feofment to the use of himself for life the remainder to his Executors for years the remainder to his wife for a joynture this will be no good joynture within the Statute of joyntures though the feme here had the immediate franktenement In an action of debt against an Administrator who pleads outlawry in the Testator and it was moved that this was no plea for he had taken the Administration upon him Winch a man who is outlawed may not make an executor for if he meet with his goods he shall answer for them to the King and for that reason it seems to be a good plea 3. H. 6. 32. and Brownlow chief Prothonotary said that he could shew a president 27. Eliz. where this is adjudged to be no plea and Iustice Winch said to him shew that president if any such be and upon Tuesday after he shewed that and then Winch agreed Auditor Curle for words AUditor Curle brought an action upon the case and in his declaration he set forth the Statute of 32. H. 8. for the erection of the Court of Wards and that the same Statute appointed the Auditor of the same Court and shewed that the Plantiff was an Auditor of the same Court and that the Defendant such a day and at such a place said of him you have taken money for ingrossing of feodaries innuendo accompts and tunc et ibidem you are a Cozner and live by Cozning and I will prove that to be Coznage and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Finch Serjeant of the King that the Plantiff shall not have judgement upon this verdict for the first words are not actionable for the taking of money for the ingrossing of feodaries are insensible and then the inuendo will not help nor aid that also the words in the second place are not actionable because he had not said that he was a Cozning officer and so he had not expresly applied that to his office and
had said that he took money for ingrossing of Feodaries which is desceit without question that had been actionable but there may not be Couzning without desceit And he cited Boxes case where one said of an Attorney that he was a maintainer of suits and a Champerter action lies for it shall be taken to be a scandal to him in his profession for though an Attorney may maintain suites yet he ought not to be a Champerter and he further said that he who will maintain an action for words ought to be scandalized in his publick profession and he cited a case which was in the Kings Bench Brad against Hay and the Plantiff declared that he was Bailiff to such a one and that he had the buying and the selling of his Corn and that the Defendant said of him that he sold by false measures and adjudged that no action lies for it is not a scandal to him in his publick profession and so 36. Eliz. one said of a Merchant that he kept a false debt book and because he may be a Merchant without a debt book it was ruled that an action doth not lie but if he had said of him that he deceived men by buying and selling these words had been actionable and he said that two things are required to every publick profession science and fidelity and when a man who hath a publick profession is scandalized in either of those an action of the case lies and cited Palmers case of Lincolns Inne he being a Lawyer 't was said to him by one that he had as much Law as a Iackan-apes and adjudged to be actionable for it is a scandal to him in his profession and so Sir Miles Fleetwoods case where he who is Plantiff in this action was Defendant in that he being receiver of the Court of Wards one said to him Mr. deceiver hath Couzned the King and hath dealt falsly with him and adjudged that an action upon the case lies and yet he did not shew wherein he had Couzned him or dealt deceitfully with him but yet because it appears to the Court that he might deal deceitfully and Couzen the King therefore actionable and he cited Birchleys case you have dealt corruptly an action lies and yet he did not shew wherein he had dealt corruptly and here he had said he was a Couzner by the receipt of money which is an express scandal to him in his office Winch accordingly to every office of trust is a condition in Law annexed that he deal honestly and justly and he cited Wingates case in the Kings Bench one said to another is Wingate your Attorney and the other said that he was and the other replied take heed and follow him well for else he will make you throw your purse over your bosome and it was adjudged that an action lies for it is a scandal to him in his profession and it shall be taken as much as if he had said he will make you spend all the money in your purse if you look not the better to him and so applied this to the principal case and in this case judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff in the action if no other cause be shewed before such a day An action upon the case was brought for these words the Plantiff did load a ship of my Fathers with Barley and did steal and Couzned 7. quarters thereof in measure and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement that the word Cozned being joyned with the word stole had taken away the force of that and made it but Cozning but Hutton contrary and that it shall be understood that he stole 7. quarters in measure and quantity and Winch seemed to agree and it was adjourned and an other day awarded that an action lies Godfrey Wade Alias Mack-Williams case GOdfrey Wade and others in an ejectione firme and the case upon a special verdict was to this effect Henry Mack-Williams the father was seised of land and being so seised he conveyed that to the use of himself for life the remainder to his wife for life the remainder to the heires of their two bodies engendred the remainder to the heires of the bodie of Mack-Williams the Feoffor and the remainder to his right heirs in fee and he had a son by his wife named Henry and 5. daughters and he died and afterwards the son in the life of his Mother by deed indented leased to White-Head for 31. years rendring rent and afterwards he leavies a fine to the use of himself and his heirs in fee and died and after whose death the Mother suffered a recovery within six moneths in which 4. of their husbands were vouched and the recovery was to the use of the feme for life the remainder to every one of the daughters in fee and the sole doubt was whether the lease made by Henry the son is defeated by this recovery and it was argued by Harvey Serjeant that the lease shall stand good notwithstanding this recovery suffered by the Mother for he said that Henry Mark-Williams being issue in tail and also being heire to the remainder in fee who made this lease by indenture in this case this lease issues as well out of the estate taile as out of the reversion in fee and the fine leavied in the life of his Mother binds and bars the estate taile at the time of the fine and then the lease being drawn out of the reversion in fee which discended to the daughters after the death of their brother this reversion shall be charged with the lease and the recovery had not destroyed that and this case will differ from Capels case for it is agreed if tenant in tail bee the remainder in fee and he in remainder in fee granted a rent charge and after Tenant in tail suffer a recovery by this the rent is destroyed for there he who suffered the recovery was Tenant in tail in possession but in our case when the son had leavied a fine in the life of his Mother by this fine the tail is destroyed and the Mother is become Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct which is only an estate for life in quantity and then though she suffers a recovery yet this doth not destroy the lease made by Tenant in tail when there was also a fine leavied to confirm that Secondly he argued that when the issue in tail in the life of his Mother made a lease for yeares by indenture and then leavied a fine and died and then the Mother being Tenant in tail and joyntress within the Statute of 11. H. 7. as in our case she is and she suffers a recovery and vouches the daughters in reversion and lessee for years enters after the death of the feme by force of 11. H. 7. for lessee for years is a person who may enter within the express words of that Statute which gives entrie to any person
that he agreed if one say of another that he was foresworn in a Court which is not a Court of record that none action will lye because the party is not punishable for that in perjury but in our case the commission issued out of the high Commission Court which Court to the examination of witnesses is in nature of a temporal Court and had been confirmed by act of Parliment and Serjeant Harvey argued to the contrary that the first words are not actionable and then the subsequent words are uncertain and yet if one say of another that he was foresworn at the Common Pleas barre the words are actionable for it shall be intended that this was upon examination in the execution of Iustice Hobert if a man is foresworn in a Court Baron before the Steward this is perjury but in our case the words are altogether uncertain for it doth not appear what authority the Commissioners had nor yet in what manner he was forsworn and Iustice Hutton said if one man say of another he was foresworn before the Bishope of S. this is not actionable but if one say of another that he was forsworn before the Bishop of S. upon examination by him by vertue of a Commission issuing out of the Chancery this is actionable and Hutton agreed to the case of the Court Baron the same Law by him if that be in a Court Leete but in the principal case Iudgement was arrested Wase against Pretty Ent. Hill 16. Jac. Rot. 1716. WAse against Pretty Ent. Hill 16. Iac. Rot. 1716. in an ejectione firme the case was that one joynt Coppiholder did release to his companion and the question was whether this is good without surrender and admittance for it was objected if this shall be good then a Coppihold shall pass without the assent of the Lord but it was resolved by Hobert Warberton and Winch Hutton being absent that the release is good and Warberton said that by Littleton if 3. Ioyntenants are and one of them release to another he to whom the release is made is in by the releasor but if there are but two then he is in by the Lord or from the first conveyance Winch if two Ioyntenants are in capite and one release to the other the King shall not have a fine for this Alienation but Hobert said that the practice is otherwise at this day but he said that when one joynt Tenant releases to another he is in by the first conveyance and in the case in question the release shall be good without surrender and admittance for the first admittance is of them and of every of them and the ability to release was from the first conveyance and admittance it seems if a Tenant in Capite alien upon condition and afterwards he enters for the condition broken he shall not pay a fine for such an alienation Hitcham Serjeant said that if land be given to two upon condition that they shall not alien and one releaseth to the other this is no breach of the condition Hobert if the King grant you his demeasnes you shall not have his Copihold Winch said that it was adjudged in this Court that where one erected a house so high in Finsbury fields by the wind mills that the wind was stopped from them that it was adjudged in this case that the house shall be broken down Goddard against Gilbert GOddard brought an action upon the case against Gilbert for these words thou art a thiefe and hast stolen 20 loads of my furzes and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and it was moved in arrest of judgement by Hitcham that these words are not actionable for though the first words of themselves had been actionable yet when those words are coupled with other words which do extenuate them it is then otherwayes for if a man say thou art a thiefe and hast stollen my apples or my wood it shall be intended that the apples and the wood were growing and he said there is no difference to say in this case you are a thiefe and have stollen 20 loads of my furzes but it was said by Iustice Warberton that the furzes shall be intended to be cut for that is the most natural and proper signification of the words and Hobert chiefe Iustice said that it is true that it is the most proper signification of the words but yet they are furzes when they are growing as well as when they are cut down and Hobert chief Iustice said if a man say of another thou art a thief and hast stollen my corn in this case the words shall be taken in the better sence and judgement in the principal case ought to be arrested and it was the opinion of him and of Winch that there is no difference where a man said thou art a thief and hast c. and thou art a thief for c. ut supra but it was adjourned Winch Iustice said I was of counsel in the Kings Bench in a case where a man had a window in the backside of his house and another man erected a wall within a yard and half of that in his own ground and adjudged in an action upon the case that the wall shall be broken down Warberton certainly this was an antient house but Winch said that made no difference It was ruled that after imparlance in debt upon an obligation the Defendant shall be received to plead that he was alwayes ready to pay notwithstanding it was strongly urged 13. Eliz. Dyer 306. is to the contrary Gilbert Lewings against Nicholas March. GIlbert Lewings brought an action of covenant against Nicholas March and deâ—lared that Charles Cornwallis had granted the next avoydance to the Church of D. to Thomas March and that Nicholas March was his Executor and that Nicholas March assigned this to Gilbert Lewings his executors and assignes to present to the same Church when that shall become void and covenanted that the same person who shall be so presented by him shall have and enjoy that without the let or disturbance of the said Charles Cornwallis or Nicholas March or any of them or any by their procurement and after Gilbert Lewings presents I. S. and after I. W. presented an other claiming the first and next avoydance by the procurement of Charles Cornwallis and ruled that the declaration was not good for it ought to say that Charles Cornwallis granted to I. w. the next avoydance and procured him to disturbe and that by his procurement he was disturbed Athow It seems to me to be but little difference to say he disseised me by the procurement of I. S. and he commanded I. S. to disseise me and he did that accordingly at his command Sir Edward Sackvil against Earnsby VPon a motion made by Sir Randal Crew in the behalf of Sir Edward Sackvil against Earnsby the case was that two brothers were seised of land to the eldest for life the remainder to the youngest in tail and they
of the obligation and so had disabled himself afterwards and the obligor is bound that a fine shall be leavied this is to be understood of a good and a lawfull fine and not a fine in name only and he put the case that I let for years and after Covenant to make a feofment to I. S. this lease for years is a breach of the Condition though at the time of the Covenant made the lease for years was made Iustice Winch thought the contrary for this disability is by the act of a stranger and for that the obligor may not take any certain notice of that and therefore if I am obliged to you that I. S. shall enfeoffe you of his Mannor and at the time I. S. had made a feoffement of two or three acres of the same Mannor yet if he enfeoffe you of that which he was seised at the time of the obligation this is a good performance of the Condition though that 2. or 3. acres were disjoyned from that before and so in this case the obligor being a stranger to the estate of I. S. if I. S. make such an estate as he had at the time of the obligation made this is sufficient upon which he concluded that the Plantiff shall not have judgement but afterward judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff according to the opinion of Hobert and Hutton Hoels case HOels case upon a special verdict was to this effect a man was seised of 2. acres of land in fee and had 2. sones and he devised both the acres to his wife for life the remainder of one acre to his eldest son in fee the remainder of the other acre to his youngest son in fee upon this condition in manner and form following if either of my sonnes die before my depts and legacies are paid or before either of my sonnes enter into their part that then the longest liver shall have both parts to him and to his heires in fee and the devisor died and Hoel the Plantiff being the eldest sonne in the life of his mother released all his interest and his demand in this to his younger brother and the doubt was whether this condition was gone by this release and Attoe argued that it was gone for Littleton saith that every land may be charged one way or other see Anne Mayowes case Release Coo. 1. Albaines case power of revocation released see more of this afterwards Trin. 20. Jac. C. P. Whitgift aganist Sir Francis Barrington IN Replevin the Defendant avowed as Baliff to Sir Francis Barrington and that Whitgift the Plantiff held certaine land of Sir Francis Barrington by escuage et quendam reditum and that the said Sir Francis was seised by the hands of Whitgift his very Tenant and for homage he avowed and upon this the Plaintiff demurred first because he had avowed for homage and had not shewed how nor in what manner the homage is due whether in respect that the tenancy come to him by discent or by purchase and for that this general allegation is naught for by Hendon Serjeant all the presidents in such avowryes made mention of the title to the homage as 4. E. 4. in avowry for homage the tenure is shewed and a discent alleadged or a purchase of the land and in no book or in any president that he ever yet saw did he see such a general allegation in avowry for homage but he agreeth the book of the 44. E. 3. 42. if the avowry is upon tenant by the curtesie this general allegation is good but otherwise of a tenant in fee simple and for that he alledged the second E. 3. avowry in a replevin the Bishop avowed for homage due by the Plantiff and exception was taken because it was not shewed in whose time the death of the ancestor was whether in his own time or the time of his predecessor and ruled to be evill for his avowry being his title he ought to shew that in certaine and so in our case Hobert this case doth not prove our case for in our case prima facie it is certain to all intents and purposes and I cannot see how an avowry may be better made and Finch at the barre vouched a president in the book of entries title horse de son fee secondly where such a avowry as in our case is made and then Hendon moved that the avowrie is not good for he had shewed the tenure by homage and by escuage and rent de quo quidem redditu he was seised c. and this is also repugnant for when he said that he was seised of the rent by the hands of the Plaintiff this is a seisin of the homage as Bevils case is and then by his own shewing because the seisin of the rent is a seisin of the homage he shall not have the homage of the Plantiff Thirdly admitting this point against him and that the seisin of the rent is not seisin of the homage yet the pleading is not good for when he expresly alleadged seisin of the rent in this manner de quo quidem redditu he was seised this excluded the seisin of any other services but only of the rent which is expresly alleadged and therefore in our case he ought to have alleadged generally de quibus serviciis he was seised and to leave this to the construction of the Law and he vouched 13. H. 7. 31. Serjeant Harvy to the same intent for though perchance no good reason may be given wherefore the pleading shall be such and that the seisin of the homage ought to be expressed yet because all the presidents are so the course of pleading shall not be altered and all the presidents shew a seisin of the homage see the book of entries 597. and 598. Serjeant â—owse to the contrary the book of the 19. E. 2. Recovery 224. is that the alleadging of the seisin or escuage as in our case of tent is a sufficient avowry for homage and 29. H. 3. such an allegation of the seisin of rent was made in avowry for fealty and good Hutton if the book of the 19. E. 12. be as Towse had alleadged it is all one with our case Hobert seems the avoury is good notwithstanding this last exception for perchance he was not actually seised of the homage by the hands of the Tenant himself and then by his own shewing his avowry shall abate and he demanded of Brownlow if there were any such president of an avowry who answered no. Hobert if the continual pleading be as my brother Harvy had alleadged we will not alter the course of pleading but in my opinion in reason none may plead in better manner or form and Hutton being only present agreed and then Hobert commanded the presidents to be searched concerning that matter and Finch at the barre being of Councel with the avowant said that till the resolution in Bevils case it was a great question whether the seisin of the rent was the
son and his wife and upon a demurrer the question was whether this Covenant did raise a present use to the Son and to his wife or whether this only rests in Covenant and Harris Serjeant argued that no present use will arise by this Covenant for first all other Covenants in the indenture are in the future for the words are that the lands shall remain and come c. and therefore till the death of the Covenantor the fee simple is in him and no use will arise for it shall be in the election of the Covenantor what estate he will make to his Son for he himself shall interpret his intent and the difference in our books is when the words are in the present tense and when in the future and for this he cited 22. H. 7. by Iustice Rede if a man Covenant that land shall discend remain or revert he said this did not give any present interest because the wors are in the future and it is in the election of the Covenantor how and in what manner the land shall pass and there he put the case that if I give my horse or my Cow to I. S. there the Donee had election to take at his pleasure the one or the other because the words are in the present tense but if the words are that I will give a horse or a Cow there the Donor had election which he shall have because the words are in the future the Lord Borroughs Covenanted 34. H. 8. Dyer 55. with another in frank marriage with his son that immediately after his death his son shall enjoy the use of his land of inheritance according to the course as then they stood and the question was whether the see simple was presently out of the Covenantor and the opinion was that it was not because it was but a Covenant and did not change the fee simple and so is Dyer 96. Sir Thomas Seymor promised and Covenanted by indenture in consideration that the Covenantee had granted land to him that he would leavy a fine to Wimbish and Pennoy of other lands which fine should be to Sir Thomas Seymor for life the remainder to the Covenantee in taile and no fine was levied and the question was whether any use was raised by this Covenant to the Covenantee and the opinion of the book is that not because it is in the future and he cited the 20. H. 7. 10. the Duke of Buckingham in consideration that the Lord Henry his brother was to marry the Lady Wiltshire he Covenanted with Bray and with others that the Mannors of D. and of S. shall be to the Lady and to her heirs of her body begotten by the said Lord and after the Duke granted to the Lord Henry and his wife for their lives and it was argued whether this second grant is good or no for if it is then the first Covenant will not work to raise an use to the feme and the book left that as a quere and if it be then he argued that in the principal case no present use is raised but that this rests meerly in Covenant and so he prayed judgement for the Plantiff Serjeant Hendon to the contrary for he thought this will raise a present use and that this was the intent of the parties that this should raise a present use for the intent was to advance them first during their lives with the rent and after the death of the Covenantor and his wife with the land it self and therefore of necessity this will raise a present use for a bare action of Covenant may not be any advancement at all and the rather here because they who take benefit of this are strangers to the Covenant and not Preston himself for as it appears by 3. H. 7. a stranger shall not take benefit by a Covenant and therefore he said the intentions of the parties was to raise an use for otherwise there shall be no advancement at all And further the words in the indenture are Covenant and grant and if no use is raised then this word grant is idle and every word shall be so expounded that they may take effect and the word Covenant is insufficient of it self to pass an estate in land or to have any estate in signification other then to a meer Covenant and to be obligatory as is put Co. 2. Cromwels case Tirrels case there vouched a lease for years provided and it is Covenanâ—ed and agreed there the Covenant is a condition and also a Covenant and 8. Ass 1. 12. it is agreed that if I Covenant that an other shall have my land for 7. years this a good lease of the land it self and it was adjudged here Tr. 2. Jac. Rot. 1696. accordingly and in our case this word Covenant and grant is also sufficient to raise an use and to give an interest in the land it self and yet he agreed that if there was an other act to be made by the Covenantor or the Covenantee that then no use will arise but it shall rest only in Covenant Dyer 162. there are Covenants between the Lady Vere and Sir Anthony Wingfield her son that the said Lady would convey to her son by a recovery and that after 6. moneths the said Sir Anthony shall make an estate to his Mother for life and there it is doubted whether the use is changed within the 6. moneths and it was holden that it was not Mich. 20. Jac. C.P. for then it is impossible that the Covenants should be performed and in that case it is in the power of the Covenantor to make an act that the Covenants shall not be performed and therefore Covenants will not raise an use but in our case no act of the Covenantor may hinder that this use shall arise and therefore good and for that the difference is Dyer 296. which is entered 11. Eliz. the Roll of which I have seen the father upon the marriage of his son promised to the friends of his wife that after his death his son shall have his land to him and his heirs and the book is ruled that this did not change the use and the reason was this Covenant was by words and not in writing but it was not doubted if this Covenant had been by writing but that the Covenant will raise an use which is all one with our case and so was Callard and Callards case 37. Eliz. stand forth Eustace reserving to my wife and my self I give to thee and thy heires and there it was doubted whether any use will arise to the son and ruled that not because this was by words only but it was also agreed that if these words had been by writing they had been sufficient to raise an use to the son and he cited Dyer 232. before the Statute of the 27. H. 8. A Covenanted and agreed with B. that upon the marriage of his son with the daughter of the other that he would retain his land for life and that
the very Common Law see Ouleys case 19. Eliz. in Dyer but Hutton doubted whether this bond is void by the Common Law because the Statute of the 23. H. 6. inflicts so great specialty upon the Sheriffs for extortion and after judgement was Commanded to be entred for the Defendant in the action if no other matter be shewed to the contrary before such a day In trespas quare vi et armis one such being his servant cepit et adduxit at D. in Essex the Defendant pleaded that he was a vagrant in the same Countie and he not having notice that he was servant to another he retained him and it was moved by Finch if I retain the servant of another man in the same Countie where I and his Mr. inhabit this is not justifiable though in veritie I had not notice of that and this according to the express book of the 19. Ed. 3. 47. Hobert the book may not be law for it is a hard matter to make me take notice of every servant which is retained in the same Countie and yet perchance if this retainer be upon the Statute of labourers at the Sessions this is notorious and I ought to take notice of that at my peril but it is otherwise of a private retainer for though it is within the same Countie yet being a private matter in fact the Law will not compel me to take notice of that at my peril otherwise if this be matter of record 2. H. 4. 64. and Hobert and Winch seemed to agree and then Finch moved that the Plantiff had charged the Defendant with his servant by cepit et adduxit and the Defendant excused himself and never traversed cepit et adduxit see 11. H. 4. Hutton and Hobert the receiving and the entertaining of a servant may not be said to be vi et armis Mr. Spencers case HArvy Serjeant came to the barre and demanded this question of the Court in the behalf of Mr. Spencer a man was seised of land in fee and sowed the land and devised that to I. S. and before severance he died and whether the devisee shall have the Corn or the executor of the devisor was the question and by Hobert Winch and Hutton the devisee shall have that and not the executor of the devisor and Harris said 18. Elizabeth Allens case that it was adjudged that where a man devised land which was sowed for life the remainder in fee and the devisor died and the devisee for life also died before the severance and it was adjudged that the executor of the Tenant for life shall not have that but he in remainder and Winch Iustice said that it had been adjudged that if a man devise land and after sowe that and after he dies that in this case the devisee shall have the Corn and not the executor of the devisor nota bene Dodderidge against Anthony Entred Mich. 19. Jac. Rot. 1791. ENt. Mich. 19. Jac. Rot. 1791. Peter Dodderidge brought an action of accompt against one Anthony and he declared that he deâ—ivered to the Defendant so many pieces of cloath called Bridge-water red to be sold at Bilbo in Spain and the Defendant said that he sold the same cloath at Bilbo in Spain for 40. l. 18. s. English to be paid in May next insuing the sale which was in November before and over he alledged the Custome of Merchants to be that if any Merchant had goods in the same Kingdome to be sold to another Merchant and he sell the goods to be paid at a day to come and this is done before a publick Notary and thereby a Bill signed and acknowledged to him in his name who sold the goods and that if the Merchant who so sold the goods delivered the Merchant who was owner of the goods this Bill so taken in his name this shall be a discharge to him of the goods and he averred that he sold them to a Spanish Merchant and that he took a Bill accordingly and at London offered that Bill to the Plantiff who refused that and upon this plea the Plantiff demurred Attoe argued that the plea is not good because he had not alledged that the partie who takes such a Bill may plead that and the Custome is also alledged with an if if the party sell and if he take the Bill and not with positive averment that he may so sell and may so take the Bill which being delivered to the owner of the goods shall be a discharge to the factor who sold the goods and here this custome is not good by the Common Law for if I deliver goods to another to sell and he sell them to be paid the money at a day to come this is not good for he ought by his sale to make a compleat contract and if I sell my horse for 10. l. I may retain the horse till the money is paid for till then the contract is not compleat and so in this case and here the Plantiff shall have an action of accompt upon this delivery and if he sell them otherwise or do not sell them for ready money he had gone beyond his Commission and this Custome is unreasonable that the Bill shall be taken in his name who sold the goods but perchance if the custome had been alleadged to take the Bill in the name of the owner of the goods this had been good but in our case the owner of the goods may not sue nor have any remedy for his goods except the factor will go into Spain and sue the said Bill and it is unreasonable to leave this to the pleasure of my factor whether I shall have any remedy for my goods sold and it is very unreasonable that I shall be paid with a Bill which may not be sued and here the Plantiff is a stranger to the Custome of Spain and shall not be bound by that Serjeant Harris to the contrary the Custome which is alledged is good among Merchants though it is not good according to our Common Law and so if two Merchants trade joyntly and one of them dies before severance of the goods yet his executor shall have his part and not the Survivor and so by the law of Merchants a man cannot wage his law in debt upon a simple contract by which it is apparant that the laws of Merchants differ from our laws and indeed the laws of Merchants are National laws and that this is the Custome in Spain is confessed by the demurrer and then we may not examine that by the reason of our laws and the laws of Merchants ought to be favoured for trading sake which is the life of every Kingdome and by the law of Merchants a Bill without seal is good and yet by our law it is but an escrowl and so I pray judgement for the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice when the Merchant had delivered goods to the factor to sell he had made the factor negotiator gestorum and for that
reason the factor may sell the goods without ready money and this is good reason for perchance the goods are of that nature that they will not keep without perishing by which clearly it appears that if I deliver goods to another to Merchandise and to sell he may sell them without ready money but if my factor or Bailiff will sell them to one which he knows wâ—ll prove a Bankrupt without ready money this is not good but secondly he held the custome as it is here alledged not to be good for then the partie shall have no remedy for his money except the factor will go into Spain and sue the Bill and the laws of Merchants are special laws for their benefit and not for their prejudice and this custome as it is alledged is too large but if he had alledged that such Bill taken by the factor shall be as good and effectual to the Mr. as if it had been taken in his own name this had been good besides the custome is not good for it is alledged to be that when the factor had delivered the Bill to the owner of the goods this shall be a discharge to him who was the factor and here is no time set within which this may be delivered and so for ought is shewed it may be delivered 10. years after which may be good and to that which had been said that the laws of Merchants are national laws he denied that for every Kingdome had its proper and peculiar laws and though this is the law of Spain and national to them yet this ought to be reasonable or else it shall not binde and judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff Hobert and Winch being only present It was ruled that he who had land in a parish who did not inhabit there shall be chargable to the reparation of the Church but not to the buying of ornaments of the Church for that shall be levied of the goods of the parishioners and not of their lands by Sir Henry Yelverton and said to be so formerly adjudged In trespas the Defendant pleads that one such was possessed of a term for years and bring so possessed by his last will and Testament devised that to the Defendant and died after whose death the Defendant entered and was possessed by vertue of the devisee upon which plea the Plantiff demurred generally and Hutton thought this plea prima facie to be good though the Defendant had not expresly alledged that the devisee died possessed but his plea implies that for he had said that he entered by vertue of the devisee and was possessed and this only matter of form and not matter of substance and no cause of general demurrer which Winch also granted that this was also matter of form and not matter of substance Gage against Johnson for his fees GAge brought an action against Iohnson as his servant and Solicitor to the Defendant in a suit in the Kings Bench taking for every Term 3. s. 4 d. for his fees and for this he brought his action of debt and Serjeant Hitcham moved in arrest of judgement and he urged the case of Samuel Leech an Attourney of this Court in an action upon the case brought by him upon a promise to pay so much for the solliciting of a cause of the Defendant and the opinion was that the action will not lie for it is in nature of maintenance for a Solicitor may not lay out money for his Clyent and if an action upon the case will not lie then much less an action of debt and Hobert said that a Councellor may take fees of his Clyent but he may not lay out or expend money for him and the same law of an Attourney for if he did disburse money for him he doubted much what remedy he should have and he further said a servant may follow business for his Mr. and may take money for his labour for if I retain my servant generally he is not bound to follow my suits at law except at his pleasure for that is an extraordinary service and for that if I will say to my servant that if he will follow my business at Westminster I will give him so much for his pains my servant in this case is not without his remedy but if his service is coupled with Soliciting to take money for his pains his opinion was that no action will lie to which the other justices also agreed and they arose Wright against Black before NOw the case of Wright and of Black was moved again and the case was that Wright had brought an action upon the case against Black and Black for that the Defendants intending to make away his good name and to cause him to lose his goods did maliciously and without cause at Norwich in the County of Norfolk prefer a Bill of indictment at the Sessions of peace containing that the Plantiff stole two bundles of fetches and also did cause and entice one I. S. to give in evidence that the indictment was good and true by reason of which he was bound to Answer that at the next Assiles and there he was accquitted and whether the action was maintainable was the question and Attoe argued that the action is maintainable though it is not shewed that the Bill of indictment was found and he vouched a case which was Hill 10. Iac. B. R. Rot. 921. between Whorewood and Cordery and his wife Defendants which case and judgement was after affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber upon a writ of error and the case was that the Plantiff declared that the Defendants intending to take away his good name did charge him to have ravished Dorothie Coxe and maliciously exhibited a Bill of indictment containing that the Plantiff did felloniously ravish the said Dorothie their daughter and did give this in evidence to the Grand jury who found Ignoramus and yet it was adjudged that an action lies and he cited a case the 19. Iac. in B. R. Deney against Ridgy where was only an indictment preferred concerning the stealing of a horse and no more and yet an action lies Hobert chief Iustice said that if seemed to him that it is actionable for this is as great a scandal to give this in evidence to the Grand jury as to publish this upon an Alebench and as the course of Iustice ought not to be stopped so neither ought the good name of man in things which concern his life be taken away without good cause and I have heard that judgement was given another Term for the Plantiff but quere better of that Hoes case HOes seised of land in fee he devised that to his wife for life the remainder of one parcel of that to Thomas his eldest son the remainder of the other parcel to his youngest son in fee and this devised was with proviso that the feme shall pay his legacies and also his will was that in case his wife died before the payment of his debts and legacies
his son and to Elizabeth Preston and to the heirs of John and so the Defendant claimed by vertue of a lease for 1000. years made by Iohn Buckley and the Plantiff demanded Dyer of the Indenture which was read to this effect that Andrew Buckley by the said Indenture covenanted with Preston that in consideration of a marriage between his son and the daughter of Preston that he will grant a rent charge of 6. l. 13. s. out of his land at Weymouth and at Melcombe Regis payable at 4. usual feasts and he Covenanted for him and his heirs that he would convey the land in Melcombe Regis and Wike Regis to such persons as Preston should appoint provided that the said Andrew Buckley and his wife may injoy that during their lives without impeachment of waste and covenanted that immediately after their deaths the lands shall immediately remain come and be to the said Iohn Buckley and Elizabeth his wife and that the advowson of Bradway shall remain come and be to the said Iohn Buckley and Elizabeth his wife and upon all the matter the question was whether by this last covenant an use will arise of the advowson in Bradway to Iohn Buckley for if an use is raised to him then this lease made by him is good and by consequence the title of the Defendants is good to present to this advowson and if not then the fee alwayes remained in Andrew Buckley the Grandfather and by devise discends did come to Andrew Buckley the Husband of the Plantiff and thâ—n the quare Impedit is maintainable And Hutton began his argument he argued that no use will arise to Iohn Buckley by this Indenture for when a man will raise an use by way of covenant there are 4. necessary things which ought to concur First is a sufficient consideration as of blood or marriage or other Collateral considerations as if I covenant with you that when you infeoffe me of certain land I will stand seised to the use of you and your heirs this is good but if the consideration be for money then this ought to be inrolled or otherwise no use will arise the second point is there ought to be a deed to testifie this agreement for otherwise no use will arise as was resolved 38. Eliz. in Collard and Collards case Thirdly he who covenants ought to be seised of the laâ—d at the time of the covenant as was resolved 37. Eliz. in Yelvertons case a man covenanted to stand seised to the use of his son of such lands as he should afterwards purchase and it was holden void because he was not seised at the time of the covenant and lastly the uses must agree with the rules of the Common law Cook 1. and he cited Chudleys case a man covenanted to stand seised to the use of one for years the remainder to the right heirs of I. S. this remainder is void though this is by way of covenant and use for the free-hold may not be in abeyance and so if I will at this day bargain and sell my lands in fee they shall not pass without the word heirs for it was not the intention of the said Statute to raise uses in such mannor contrary to the rules of the Common law or uses which are uncertain and in our case the intent was that no present use shall arise for out of the same land is granted a rent charge to Iohn Buckley and Eliz. his wife by which it appears plainly that it was not their intent that any present use should arise by the delivery of the indenture and if the use do not arise presently upon the delivery of the Indenture it shall never arise at all also the intent appears for it is that the land shall remain free from incumberances and this sounds only in covenant and for this reason the covenants shall be of the same nature and lastly the covenant is that the land shall remain and be and this is altogether incertaine and for this no use will arise because this failes of words as if I covenant to leave my lanâ— to my son after my death this will not raise an use to my son no more then if I covenant with the friends of my wife that after my death she shall have my goods this will not make my wife to be Executor and he vouched 21 H. 7. 17. 34. H. 8. 59. the Lord Borroughs case Dyer 355. 166. 324. and so be concluded that judgement ought to be given for the Plantiff Iustice Winch argued to the same purpose and he said the first part of the covenant contains that there shall be a marriage before such a day if the parties shall agree and the second part is a covenant that the feme shall have 6. l. 13. s. for her joynture and if this covenant executed an use of the land presently then this destroyes the joynture which was not the intention of the parties Thirdly there is another covenant to convey Coppihold land and if this covenant do raise an use then it will follow that Iohn Buckley shall have the land though the marriage do take effect and besides the covenant doth create an use presently or not at all and then when this use is to be raised by this covenant which contains in that nothing but future and Executory matter this will not create a present use and he cited the books which were vouched at the barre and by Hutton and so he concluded that this covenant will not raise an use presently to Iohn Buckley and that judgement ought to be given for the Plantiff And at another day the case was argued by Hobert chief Iustice for the Plantiff and that no use will arise by this covenant and he said if I will covenant to make assurance of my land to my son or to a stranger this covenant is meerly nugatorie and will not raise an use but on the contrary if I will covenant to stand seised to the use of my son though there is also a covenant to make further assurance yet this will raise a present use for the covenant is declaratory and not obligatory and so is Dyer 235. and there was no word to assure the land or to stand seised to uses but only that the land shall come remain and be in tail or in fee and there was no word to assure the land and this case is agreeable to the case of 21. H. 7. 18. by Rede that no use will arise and the reason is plain because the covenantor had election in which manner he shall have that whether by discent or in any other manner for if I covenant that my land shall descend to my son after my death no use will arise by this covenant and he put the case in Chudleys case that if a man covenant that after his death his son shall have his land in tall it is said that the son shall have an estate executed by the Statute of 27. H. 8. and the
he was seised in fee and that he had power to alien that and this was to encourage the Purchasers and for the form he needs not aver that this was in the hands of Anne Parker for he had confessed that in the bar that he came lawfully to that and besides the Covenant is broken though he never was seised and so I conceive that the Plantiff shall have judgement Winch to the same intent it is true if it had been all but one Covenant then if it had been no question this had not been broken but I think they are several Covenants like to the case of Sir Robert Napper lately adjudged also the first two Covenants are in the affirmative and the other in the Negative and for that they ought to be answered with several pleas and these kinde of assurances are the Common assurances and therefore they ought to be interpreted favourably for the Purchasers and Iohn was not deceived in these Covenants for they brought down upon the deed an estate in fee and it is also agreed if the word Covenant and grant had been divers times added to the several clauses then they had been several Covenants and now it is all one word and made those to be several Covenants and words of relation never will controul that which is certainly put down before and so he concluded in this case the Plantiff shall have judgement to recover Hobert chief Iustice to the contrary every deed ought to be construed according to the intention of the parties and the intents ought to be adjudged of the several parts of the deed as a general issue out of the evidence and intent ought to be picked out of every part and not out of one Word only and here Peter joyned with his father to strengthen the assurance and Iohn had not only his own estate but the estate of Proud and it is plain he never meant to intangle himself with other Conveyances then those which he and Proud had made and I hold this to be no independent Covenant and it is all bound with one clause S. for any Act or Acts made by them c. and it is confessed if these words had been placed in the forefront that then they should relate to all and it is as clear as if they were and the first reson is that the intent appears only to undertake for himself because he should but have part of the land and for that he was to warrant his evidence and to that end he was to deliver to him his title at large in the said indenture and here he had made the Plantiff privie to every several conveyance of that to inform the Purchaser of it and will you also intangle him with a covenant you might have taken notice of his title and it appears to be the very intents of the parties that you should take notice of the title and inform your selves concerning the same Secondly this is a sentence which may be taken both wayes and I say it is agreed that if it had begun with these words notwithstanding any Act or Acts c. that then it shall be all construed by this and I never saw any difference I grant they are several Covenants in point of fact but not in point of obligation for there are not several words of binding nay I say if he had released this last he had released all but it hath been said that one is in the negative and the other is in the affirmative but I do not value that and it hath been said that this is the Common assurance of the Realm and if other construction shall be made then no man shall be sure of his own we had given him leave to say that no reversion nor remainder is in the King by any Act by him made and the King may not have any reversion and he seised in fee also this clause standing indifferent whether this shall be referred to all or not and then the question is how the Court will adjudge of that for my part I take it that this may stand with the intent of all the parties of the deed but take that as you take it that this destroyes all for if he is absolutely seised in fee what matter is where the reversion is and yet if the reversion was in the Crown and not by his Act you confess that may not charge him which is expresly against the first Covenant if this be distinct by it self but take that indifferently and all the parties will stand together Nappers case hath no affinity with this for questionless there were several Covenants for in that indenture it did not appear what estate Sir Thomas Eearsfield had and for that reason nothing might be collected out of that but he had a present estate but in our case all is contained in the bodie of the indenture and Nokes case is a strong case and stronger then the case at the bar is for thereupon construction of all the parties of the deeds the special warrantie controuls the general warranty and the reason is no man will take an express special warranty when the intent is that he shall have a general warranty there was a case lately ajudged between the Earl of Clanrickard and his wife against the Countess of Leicester where the Lady pleaded that she was Tenant in Dower where in veritie she had the revesion in fee expectant upon a Term for life and they conveyed all the estate the Lady had in Dower and then they covenanted that they would convey all their estate to the Lord of Leicester and his heirs during the life of his wife and then Covenanted that they would convey all their estate to the Earl of Leicester and his heirs for ever in the aforesaid land and it was resolved that though such Covenant will raise an use to the partie who ought to have that and so the reversion will pass if there had been no more words now it was but during the life of the Lady for that third part for the Covenant was but to strengthen an estate and not to convey it and so he concluded that the Plantiff should be hard and after it was said by the Court that this case was not of weight to be brought into the Exchequer Chamber and therefore the Court advised that the parties would agree quere for the residue in the Exchequer Chamber concerning that Entred Hill 18. Jac the case of Comendams Richard Woodley against the Bishop of Exeter and Mannering RIchard Woodley brought a quare Impedit against the Bishop of Exeter and Mannering who was Parson of the said Church and he declared that Arthur Basset was seised of an acre of land to which the said Advowson was appendant in his demeasne as of fee and that he the 13. Octobris 13. Eliz. granted the next advowson to one William Manwood who was then incumbent in the said Church who by his will 20. November made one Harcourt his executor
to be good for though that shall be void for the interest yet it shall be good for the residue and then the non payment is a breach of the condition for where an award is made for a thing against the law and for another which doth stand with the law this is good for one and void for the others so here Secondly this award is not for interest but rather for the damage for the forbearance of the money but admit that this were for direct usury yet that is not void my brother Bridgman had cited a case where an assumpsit for usury was void I know well what the judgement was for I was of Councel in the case and much was said in that against usury and Glanvil was cited Lib. 9. cap. 14. which said that an usurer did forfeit his goods but that is to be intended of such who live by the common oppression of the people and there was not any precedent found where a contract for usury was void Noy the 26. Ed. 3. 24. debt is brought for money given for usury and admitted and the Statute of the 13. Eliz. and 37. H. 8. which were made against usury shall be frivolous if such contract shall be meerly void for they made only such contracts to be void as were made for above 10. in the 100. and so I pray judgement for the Plantiff An action upon the case was brought for calling one thief and the other did justifie the words and said that he was possessed of a Heifer which was privately taken from him and that upon search he found that in the possession of the Plantiff with his ears cut off and marked with the Mark of the Plantiff and it was ruled that this was not a good justification for the matter is not sufficient but he ought to have expresly averred that the Heifer was stole from him and accordingly it was adjudged Hill 22. Jac. C. P. Hillary Term in the two and twentieth year of King James in the Common Pleas. THe residue of the case between Cooper and Edgar and now this Term Serjeant Crook argued the case for the Plantiff and after a recital of the case he said that the general question is whether the Lady Cesar had any estate by this fine or whether the old estate for life remains for if she had the one or the other then it shall be against the Plantiff and he said the points which I will insist upon are four First whether these words do make a precedent or a subsequent condition for if the uses do not arise till there be a failing of the payment then it is on my side but if the uses do arise before then indeed it is against me and I hold that no use will arise till there is a default in payment in which I will observe that the words are all in one period and one sentence and till the first of September the use wil remain in Robert Foyne for here the same is voluntarie and it is without any consideration and then what doth the Law say till the condition was performed the use was in him and his heirs the grand doubt is whether si here made a precedent or a subsequent condition and I hold that si is alwayes a note of a precedent condition if it may stand with the law and with the intentions of the parties but if it doth cross either of those then that is a subsequent condition and yet I agree if si is annexed to an estate which passeth by liverie then this is a subsequent condition and the same if it be annexed to a grant which is executed but if it is annexed to a grant which is executory then that is a note of a precedent condition and so is Bracton lib. 2. fol. 190. where there is an example and the placing that first or last is not material and in the case of an use which is executory as this is there till the if is performed nothing will pass Plowden 172. nay the case of 14. H. 8. by Brooks and by Brundwel if I covenant that another shall have my land when he marries my daughter no use will arise till he marrie her and the case of Colthirst proves my difference both the wayes for the lease was made to Henry and his wife for life the remainder to William si ipse inhabitaret c. and if he die in the life of Henry or his wife that then it shall remain to Peter there the first si is a precedent condition for if he do not die in the life of them then Peter shall take nothing by that and to this purpose there is a notable case 13. H. 6. 7. where a man made two his executors and if they did refuse to administer then he made two others within 3. moneths after his death and ruled that in the mean time they are not executors and yet si was placed in the subsequent place there and there was a case H. 33. Eliz. between Iennings and Cawman where a man made his will and devised his lands to his son for 3. years and afterwards appointed that if his wife whom he made Executrix did not suffer him to injoy that for 3. years that the son shall be executor and the question was whether the feme was executor in the mean time and there Anderson said that this was a precedent condition but the other Iustices were against him because it was a thing of continuance and there they agreed the case of Colthirst that the word si ipse inhabitaret are a subsequent condition because it is a thing of continuance which may be infringed and broken every year and there was a case in this Court 29. Eliz. Rot. 854. between Iohnson and Castle where a man devised his term to his youngest son if he lived to the age of 25. years and did pay to his eldest brother so much money and agreed no estate passeth till the age of 25. years and payment of the money and the reason was that a devise executory may depend upon a precedent condition and so here the use is executory and nothing passeth till there is a failing of the payment like to the case of the 15. H. 7. where a grant is made upon condition that if the Grantee perform such a thing he shall have such an Annuitie there nothing doth pass presently and so 21. Ed. 3. 29. where a man was bound in an obligation not to infeoff when he came to the house of Ancestor c. vide the case and here in our case because the condition is that if he do not pay that then she shall have it to her and her heirs therefore it is a precedent condition and if the use had been limited to him if he marrie his daughter such a day in the mean time no use will arise because the limitation is to him upon a thing not executed and this being all in one sentence no use will arise in the
of Tithes and good because they are a spiritual bodie 65 In a Prohibition upon a suit for a Legacie the Executor shewed he had not assets to pay the debts and the spiritual Court would not allow that allegation yet no Prohibition 78 Prohibition to the Marches of wales because a Legatee sued there for 500. l. good before a decree but not after 78 Prohibition see Court of equitie c. 79 Prohibition to the Marches of Wales for requiring an accompt of an Administrator 103 Proces against two Obligors by several precipes and thereupon several Executions whether the writs are well awarded 112 A parco fracto where it lies against the Lord of the Soil and where not except the Cattle come out 80 81 Prohibition to the delegates a pardon not allowed of there 125 Q IN a Quare impedit adjudged that nothing ought to be questioned after induction the spiritual Court there 63 R TEnant in tail sells to I. S. in fee who sells to the heir of Tenant in tail being of full age the father dies if the son be demitted 5 A replevin c. the Defendant saith that all those c. had used to have pasturage in c. when it was not sowed the Prescription is good 7 In a return of Rescous there needeth no addition 10 Replevin for rent issuing out of six acres the avowant must prove that the grantor was seised of 6. acres or more 15 Replevin in the Plantiff claimeth propertie without that the propertie was in the Defendant the Traverse not good yet judgement for the Plantiff because after verdict 26 In Return of an extent by the Sheriff surplusage hurteth not 27 Replevin the Defendant avowed for homage and shewed not how it was due if good 31 Replication although evil where the Plantiff shall have judgement if the Defendants plea be vitious 37 A Riotous quarrel about an arrest between the Sheriffs Bailiffs and the Bailiffs of the Marches of Wales 72 Release an avowrie not good without pleading it by deed 72 A Rent-charge granted and a Covenant if it happen to be behinde then the land to be alwayes open to distress whether this be a distinct covenant or not 74 87 Replevin for rent the Defendants say that the land was parcel of a Chaunterie which came to the King by the Statute wherein the right of others was saved the Plantiff replies that the land is out of the fee of the Defendant no good plea but he might have Traversed the Tenure that at the making of the Statute the land was not holden of him 77 A Record amended where the bargain and sale and deed of uses were by the right name but the writ of entrie was of another name 99 100 Rent granted in fee by Tenant for life and him in remainder in tail levied a fine a good grant 102 Rent-charge whether it be extinct by a fine of the land to the Ter-tenant and a release unto him 109 110 111 121 122 S SCire facias the Defendant pleads a feofment the Plantiff traverses and the jury found a feofment to other uses whether this shall be intended the same feofment which was pleaded 32 Scire facias by an Executor upon a judgement for the Testator the Defendant cannot plead the Testators death between the verdict and judgement but he must bring a writ of error 48 Simonie a grant of a next avoidance for monie the Parson being readie to die is Simonie 63 A Sheriff by force of a Capias utlagatum to inquire what lands c. cannot put the partie out of possession 78 Statute-Merchant if good in regard no day of payment is limited largely and learnedly argued by the Court 82 83 c. Servant taken away See Trespas T TIthes See Prescription Trespass the Defendant saith that I. S. was seised in right of his wife and that she died seised and that he as heir c. the Plantiff replied that she died not seised he ought to have said that she died not sole seised 7 Trespass in Yorkshire Justification in Durham without that that guiltie in Yorkshire good because it is local 7 A Traverse to a presentation where good and where not 13 14 Tenure where it is Traversable and where the seisin 18 Tithes not due of Cattle for the diarie 33. Trespass for Beasts taken in London Justification upon a lease of land in Kent Replied that the Defendant sold them in London no good plea to bring the trial out of Kent 48 Trespass for taking ones servant lieth not upon a private retainer otherwise if it were at the Sessions 51 Tithe giuen by the Pope to the Vicar and the Copie of the Bull only was shewed in evidence not good 70 Tithes cannot be appurtenant to a Grange except the Grange be the Gleab 72 73 Traverse where good and where not 113 U VEnire facias omitting part of the venue if good 34 Variance between the writ and Declaration where good 35 A feofment to the use of A. for life and after to the use of his daughter till B. pay her 100. l. here the daughter hath no remedie for this 100. l. without a promise 71 A Ventre inspiciendo awarded and returned but the Court would not agree that she should be detained from her second husband but attended by divers women till her deliverie 71 Variance between the venire facias and the Sheriffs return no judgement in that case 73 W IN Waste judgement by nihil dicit and upon an inquirie the jury found 8. s. damages what judgement shall be given 5 Wager of Law upon a Bill of Exchange 24 Writs a difference wherein there is an error in the original and where in the judicial writ that is amendable 73 Waste although for a time it is punishable yet after the action may revive 79 86 Writ against husband and wife as an Inheritrix the husband dies if the writ abate 102 Errata PAge 1. line 2. 27. for do read Doa p. 2. l. 4. r. lieu p. 4. l. 2. 22. r. 300. pa. 8. l. 36. r. Hendon and so throughout p. 12. in the Title r. Duncombe against the Vniversitie of Oxford p. 12. l. 14. r. 38. H. 8. cap. 39. p. 14. in the Title r. Sir George Savile against Thornton p. 15. l. 21. r. communication p. 16. l. 12. r. 7. Jac. cap. 5. p. 17. l. 47. r. Maines and l. 17. r. sic and also p. 17. 18. in the Margent r. Trin. p. 21 l. 51. r. 39. Eliz. p. 23. l. 9. r. till p. 26 l. 28 for writ r. Action and for Action r. writ p. 27. l. 12. for he r. they p. 28. l. 34. r. may not p. 29. in the Margent r. Easter p. 29. l. 33. for S. r. N. p. 33. l. ultim r. Moore p. 36. l. 43. r. Titterels p. 45. l. 20. r. demandable p. 50. l. 35. r. Bar p. 51. l. 22. r. a penalty p. 53. l. 16. r. may not p. 54. l. 44. r. Estate p. 57. l. 19. r. in our case p. 58. l 50 r. 16. E. 4. p. 68. l. 5. r. estray p. 71. l. 26. r. 12. Note in p. 72. l. 7. Wolseys case ought to have been printed by it self p. 77. l. 4. r. avoided p. 88. l. 4. r. Finch p. 90. l. 15. r. continuance p. 100. l. 21. for preservation r. perswasion and l. 34. for entire r. entrie p. 109. in the Margent for Trin. r. Mich. p. 112. l. 25. r. thought p. 114. l. 18. for interested r. interest
covenanted with Sir Edward Sackvil to levy a fine to him of that land before the fine acknowledged the eldest brother dyed and the question was whether the youngest shall be compelled to levy the fine and presidents were commanded to be searched concerning that matter Note that it was said that where a commission issued out of the Court of wards to 4 persons or to any 2 of them and one of them refuse to be a Commissioner and the other 3 sit as Commissioners and he who refused was sworn and examined by them as a witness and ruled that this is good for though he refused to be a Commissioner yet he is not excluded to be sworn as a witness In evidence to the Iury the case was that Tenant in taile bargained and sold his land to I. S. and his heires and I. S. sold to the heire of the Tenant in taile being of full age and Tenant in taile died and the heire in taile claimed to hold his estate and the doubt was whether he was remitted or no Hobert was of opinion that after the death of the Tenant in taile that the heire is remitted for if Tenant in taile bargain and sell his land the issue in taile may enter and where his entrie is lawful there if he happâ— the possession he shall be remitted Hutton and Warberton Iustices contrary For at the first by the bargain and sale the son had fee and then the estate of the son may not be changed by the death of the father he being of full age when he took this estate and this was in an Ejectione firme of land which concerns Sir Henry Compton and the Lord Morley and Mounteagle White against Williams VVHite brought an action of accompt against Williams as his Bayliff to his damages 100. l. the Defendant pleaded he never was his Bayliff and it was found against him and the Iudgement was given that he should render an accompt and at the day the Defendant made default Ideo consideratum est per Curiam quod Querens recuperet versus predict Defendent 42. l. 10. s. and upon that the Defendant brought a writ of error and assigned for error that the Court gave Iudgement of the value without inquiring of the value and it was holden by Gaudy and Fenner only present that the Iudgement ought to be given which the Plantiff had counted of Baron Altham contrarie for the Court may in discretion give a lesser summe Hill 43. Eliz. B. R. vide 14. E 3. Accompt 109. 20. E. 3. 17. Sir George Topping against King VVA st was assigned in the cutting of Elmes and other Trees to such a price and Iudgement was given for the Plantiff by nihil dicit and a writ of inquiry of dammages issued upon that and the Iury found to the dammages of 8. s. and upon this Davies the Kings Serjeant moved to have a new writ of inquiry and that the old writ shall not be returned for the dammages are too litle Winch said all is confessed by the nihil dicit Hobert The Iury here have found the value and presidents were commanded to be searched and Hobert said that if an information is for ingrossing of 1000 quarters of corn and Iudgement is given by nihil dicit and a writ of enquiry issues which findes him guilty of 100. yet this is good And not that at another day the case was moved again it was between Sir George Topping and King and it was said if a man recover in waste by nihil dicit and a writ of inquiry issues the Iury in this case may inquire of the dammages but not of the place wasted for this is confessed and so are the presidents according and Hobert said if the Defendant is bound by the nihil dicit as to the place wasted for what cause shall not he be bound as to the dammages and by all the Court if the jury finde dammages only to 8. s. the Plantiff shall not have Iudgement for it ought to be above 40. s. Hob. this is in the discretion of the Court in this case and it was also said in this case that upon the grant of all the trees and after the grantee cut them and new ones grow upon the slumps which in time will be trees that in this case the grantee shall have them also by Hobert Wetherly against Wells in an action for words VVEtherly against Wells in an action upon the case for these words thou hast stollen hay from Mr. Bells racks and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of Iudgement because he had not shewed what quantity was of that and perchance it may be of so little a value that it is not fellony and the rather because it is hay from the Racks but Hobert contrary that Iudgement shall be given against the Defendant for the Plantiff for it hath been adjudged lately in this Court that where a man was charged with petty Larceny to steal under the value of 12. d. that an action of the case will lie for the discredit is not in the value but the taking of that with a fellonious intent and yet it had been adjudged in this Court that where one said of another thou art a thief and hast stolen my trees that in this case an action will not lie but this is by reason of the subsequent words trees for it is said Arbor dum crescit lignum dum crescere nescit And Winch said that it had been adjudged actionable to say thou art a thief and hast stolen my corn and yet perchance not exceed 2. or 3. grains and Warberton said that it had been adjudged in the Kings Bench that where one said thou art a thief and stollest the corn out of my field that no action will lie The Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Devon NOte that in the case of the Earle of Northumberland and the Earle of Devon execution issued out for dammages recovered against the Bayliff of the Earle of Northumberland by the name of I. S. of D. and there was I. S. the father and I. S. the son and the father being dead the son issued his writ of Idemptitate nominis and he prayed to have a supersedeas and Warberton demanded of Brownlow if he had any such president to award a supersedeas in such case who answered no and Warberton and Hutton being only present said that they will advise of that Sir George Sparke Prescription IN a Replevin for the taking of a horse in 5. acres of land in such a place and the Defendant avowed as Bayliff to Sir George Spark and shewed that Sir George Spark and all those whose estate he had in the land had used time beyond the memory of man to have herbage and pasturage in all the 5. acres when that was not sowen and upon this plea the Plantiff demurred Ashley argued for the Plantiff that the prescription is void and this is not
it is that if the Lord had seisin of more then the very services in this case it may not be avoyded in avowry and no fall tenure shall be avoyded c. but when he joyns another falsity and that is in the quantity of land now the false quantity of the rent had made the tenure traversable and the judgement was commanded to be entred accordingly Trin. 19. Jac. Thomas Bull Executor c. against Fankester THomas Bull Executor of William Bull brought an action against Fankester and declared that the Defendant enfeoffed his Testator in certaine land and that he covenanted for him and his heirs that he was seised of a good estate in fee and he alleadged the breach upon which they were at issue and now Attoe moved in arrest of judgement first because the Plantiff sueing as Executor had not shewed the Will for it hath been adjudged here that if a man bring an action as executor and do not shew the Will that the Defendant may demurre upon that because it is matter of substance but Hobert said it is very good because the Defendant had admitted him to be responsible but it is true he might have demurred upon the declaration as we often times adjudged here secondly Attoe said that the covenant being made with the heire the executor shall not have an action of covenant for it is annexed to the land which was granted by Hobert and Winch being only present in the Court. Note that it was said at the barre and agreed by Hobert that if the debtor make the dettee his executor he may now retain in debt against him and safely plead plene administravit if he had no other goods and shall not be driven to his special plea and so it had been agreed often times in this Court Parson and Morlees case PArson and Morlees case it was said that the Lord Chancellour presented to a venefice which belonged to the King which was above the yearly value of 20. l. per annum and this was referred to Hobert chief Iustice and to Tanfield chief Barron to certifie whether this was meerly void it remained good till it was avoyded Harris against Wiseman HArris had procured a prohibition against Wiseman who had libelled in the spiritual Court against the Plantiff for a frat in the Church which did belong to his house and it was said by Hobert and Winch only present that a man or a Lord of a mannor who had any Isle or a seat in the Church c. and he is sued for that in the spiritual Court he shall have a prohibition but not every common parishioner for every common seat and upon the first motion at the barre in this case day was given over to the Defendant to shew cause wherefore that a prohibition shall not be granted and the Defendant not having notice of that after the day the Plantiff had a prohibition and now after the day he shewed a good cause and upon that a supersedeas was granted to stay the prohibition in that case Aylesworth against Harrison AYlesworth against Harrison in debt against an executor the question was whether he may plead plene Administravit and give in evidence a debt in which the Testator was indebted to him or whether he may plead the special matter that plea amounting but to the general issue and it was argued by Harris Serjeant the Defendant may plead the special matter and shall not be bound to the general issue to leave that to the lay people who may suppose such a retainer to be an administration and he vouched the 15. E. 4. 18. if a man illiterate seale a deed which is read to him in another manner c. and he delivers that as an escrow to be delivered over as his deed upon conditions performed and this is delivered over before the conditions performed he may in this case plead the special matter and conclude so not his deed or if he will he may plead the general issue of non est factum and so is 39. H. 6. in dower the Tenant said that before marriage the husband infeoffed him and that after the Tenant let to him at Will and that the husband continued possession during his life absque hoc that he was seised of such an estate of which she might have dower and exception was taken there because that this only amounts to the general issue and yet ruled to be good for the lay people may conceive such a continuance of possession during the life of the lessee to be such an estate of which the wife may have dower if this were put upon the general issue and in our case because he had liberty to plead specially or generally he prayed that the Defendant may be admitted to plead specially and that he may not be bound to the general issue Serjeant Hendon to the contrary if one plead a plea which amounts to the general issue see Layfields case Coo. 10. and though in Woodwards case commentaries there was such a plea pleaded yet this doth not prove the contrary for in the same case no exception was taken by the Plantiff and presidents do prove that the Defendants in this kind have been compelled to plead the general issue Hobert if no special matter may be alleadged to the contrary the Defendant shall be compelled to plead the general issue and this is good discretion in the Court to take away the perplexity of pleading because one plea is as good as the other to which Winch being only present agreed and it was ordered that the Defendant here plead accordingly In debt against the heire upon the obligation of his father and in the declaration the Plantiff omitted these words obligo me et hered es meos c. and after error brought the Plantiff prayed that this might be amended because it was the misprision of the Clark only Hobert and Winch said that this shall not be amended for it is a matter of substance but because the clark who made this misprision was a good clark day was given over c. Widdow Archers case IN debt against the Widdow of Archer being executrix of her husband and the Plantiff declared that neither the Testator in his life nor the executrix after his death had paid that omitting those words licet saepius requisitus c. and evil but this omission was amended Sir Edward Grubham against Sir Edward Cooke SIr Edward Grubham brought an audita querela against Sir Edward Cooke upon a recognizance of 4000. l. and this was acknowledged to the use of his Mother and shewed that the conusor had infeoffed him and another in the land and that the conusee had sued execution only against him and it was found for the Plantiff and it was so moved in arrest of judgement by Ashley Serjeant first because he had not shewed in this audita querela when the Statute was certified nor yet the Teste nor yet the return of the writ of extent
within the Statute and â—hirdly he had not shewed what time he was received that so it might appeare that he was an apprentice but for half a year and such a retainer is not within the Statute fourthly the conclusion of the information is contrary to the form of the Statute yet this doth not aide the imperfection of the information for such information only extends to matter of circumstance and not to matter of substance Finch Serjeant contrary that the retainer of an apprentice who departs out of the service of his Mr. without a testimonial is within the Statute of the 5th of Eliz. for the same branch is general there being no person who departs c. and an apprentice is a person which departs secondly the clause of the Statute is be it enacted that none of the forementioned retained persons c. and an apprentice is a person which is in a special manner named before Mich. 19. Jac. and therefore he is within the express words of the same branch Thirdly the form of the testimonial proves that for it is I. W. servant to such c. and an apprentice is such a servant Hobert chief Iustice said that it was never the intent of the Statute to make an infant who is an apprentice to be within the danger of the same Statute for an infant at the age of 14. years may be bound to be an apprentice and the punishment which is given by the same Statute is that such person shall be whipt as a Rogue which plainly proves the Statute intends only those who are of full age and if other construction shall be made perchance that the sonne of a gentleman may be punished as a Rogue by such departure and he held that if an apprentice depart with his Mrs. goods delivered to him that in this case he is not within the Statute of the 21. H 8. as another servant is and Serjeant Finch said that there is an express exception and if that had not been that an apprentice had been within the danger of the law but Hobert said that he doubted much whether an apprentice had been within that Statute though the Proviso had not been made but this proves that the makers of the Statute thought this to be a hard matter to make an infant who is apprentice to be within the danger of the same law and for that reason the proviso of the Statute was made Winch said to which Hutton agreed that when the Defendant had pleaded nihil debet and this was found for the Plantâ—ff yet he may move in arrest of judgement if the matter be not within the Statute adjurned In a replevin the Defendant said that he hâ—d property in the beasts absque hoc that the property was to the Plantiff and so prayed judgement of the writ and it was found for the Plantiff and now Harvey Serjeant moved in arrest of judgment for in no book is found such a traverse as this that the Plantiff had not property but only that the property was to the Defendant and secondly the conclusion of the plea is not good for he ought to conclude to the writ and not to the action Hobert 6. H. 7. is that an action of detinue affirmes the property at the time of the action but a repleviant the time of the taking and two men may have such property in the same thing that every of them may have a replevin and Hutton said that when the Defendant in the replevin claimed property he ought to conclude to the action and Hendon Serjeant being only at the barre and not of councell in the case said that the book of entries is that he shall traverse the property of the Plantiff as in the principal case Hutton Iustice said that this was never seen by him but they all agreed that this being after verdict judgement shall be given for the Plantiff Trehern against Claybrook Ent. Tr. 18. Jac. Rot. 650. TRehern against Claybrook in a debt upon a lease for yeares the jury gave a special verdict to this effect that Iohn Trehern Grandfather of the Plantiff was seised of land in fee and let this for forty yeers rendring rent for which the action is brought and that he devised the reversion to the Plantiff in catle the remainder to Leonard Trehern in taile with divers remainders over and with provises in the same will that for the raising of a stock for the Plantiff and for him in remainder his will was that one Griffith and Anne his wife being daughter of the devisor should have the profits and rent of the said land to their own use until the time that the Plantiff and the said Leonard Trehern accomplish the age of 21. years provided alwayes and upon this condition that the said Griffith and his wife within 3 moneths of his decease enter into bond to the overseers of his will in such a summe and in such a penalty as shall be thought fit by the said overseers and this bond to be made by their advice and if the said Griffith and Anne his wife do refuse to be bound as is aforesaid then the overseers shall have the rents and the profits c. and the jury found over that he made two executors and 3. who were overseers and that the 3. October 16. Iac. died and that within 3. weeks after the death of the devisor the executor read the will to the overseers but they found that the overseers did not remember that and if upon all the matter Griffith and Anne his wife had not performed the condition was the question and that if not the reversion was in the Plantiff And the point in law upon the verdict was whether Griffith and Anne his wife ought of their perils to tender the bond within 3. moneths or whether the overseers ought to make the first act and to tender the bond and the penalty for them to seal and Towse Serjeant argued that Anne and Griffith her husband ought to tender the bond at their peril for he said that the condition did precede the estate and therefore if they will have the benefit of the devise then he ought to tender the obligation and vouched Corbets case and 18. Eliz. the devise of land upon condition to pay money he ought to pay that at his perill Attoe Serjeant contrary and yet he agreed that if the condition was to precede the estate then the law was as Towse had said but here he said the estate precedes the condition for all the profits are devised to Griffith and to Anne his wife during the minority of the Plantiff by which it is apparent the estate is presently in the devisees and by consequence the estate precedes the condition and then the sole doubt will be whether Griffith and Anne his wife ought to procure the overseers to make the obligation and to limit the condition or whether the overseers ought to make this first they being the parties instrusted by the Will
after his death it shall remain to his son and his wife in fee and the book is that this Covenant will raise an use also if this Covenant and agreement will not amount to raise an use then it is not to any use or purpose at all and by consequence the consideration of the marriage is void also and an action of Covenant will very well lye without any such consideration of marriage and so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Defendant adjourned Mich. 20. Jac. C. P. Johnson against Norway IOhnson brought an action of Trespass against Norway of Trespass made in a piece of ground and the Defendant pleaded that 14. H. 7. Roger Le Strange and Anne his wife were seised of the Mannor of D. and one Giles Sherington Abbot of C. was seised of an acre of land in fee and held this of the said Roger Le-Strange as of the Mannor of D. aforesaid and that the 22. H. 7. the Abbot and all the Monks died by which the said land escheated to Roger c. and the Mannor discended to his son and heire after his death who conveyed the Mannor of which the acre is parcel after the escheat by mean conveyance to Hobert in fee and that Hobert 12. Eliz. infeoffed one Wright of the Mannor of which the said acre is parcel and so justified by a conveyance from Wright to the Defendant the Plantiff replied by protestation that the Abbot was not eligible and for plea he said that the aforesaid Hobert 10. Eliz. infeoffed I. S. of the said acre of land absque hoc that he infeoffed Wright of the sad Mannor of which the said acre is parcel and upon this the Defendant demurred generally And Serjeant Attoe argued for the Plantiff that the Plea of the Defendant is evil and then though the replication of the Plantiff is not good yet the Plantiff shall have judgement and he cited Turners case Hobert it is true Cook 8. if the replication be meerly void then it is as you had said but if the replication be the title of the Plantiff and that be insufficient there the Plantiff shall not have judgement though the plea in barre was evil Attoe agreed that if it appear by the Plantiffs own shewing that he had no cause of action and that he had no title he shall not have judgement but here he had made a good title by the lease of the said acre of land and though our traverse is evil and sounds in doubleness yet the Defendant had demurred generally and so he had lost the advantage of the doubleness or of the negative pregnant for if a maâ— plead double matter this is only matter of form and not of substance and therefore after verdict it is good as hath been adjudged but he proceeded in his argument and he said that the barre of the Defendant is not good for by his own shewing this acre of land is not parcel of the Mannor for by the dissolution of the Monastery by the death of all the Monks the land shall go to the founders and donors and not to escheat to the Lord of which that is holden as appears 2. H. 6. 7. and 5. H. 7. if an annuity or rent be granted to an Abbot in fee and the Abbot and all his Monks do die the annuity or the rent is extinct and shall not escheat see the Deane of Norwiches case Coo. 3. agreed that by the death of the Abbot and his Covent the corporation is dissolved and then the possession shall go to the founders and shall not escheat to the Lord of the Mannor of which the Land was holden and he said that this point is proved cleerly by the Statute of the 27. H. 8. and 31. H. 8. of Monasteries in which Statutes there is an express saving to all persons except to the donors and to their heires and no mention is made of the saving of the right of those of whom the land was holden and that proves cleerly that if the makers of the Statute had thought that the land had escheated to the Lords they would have excepted them in the saving of the act as they had excepted the Donors and Founders for if otherwise the lands and possessions shall escheat to the Lords of which the land was holden they are within the saving of the Statute and then it will follow that after the death of all the Monks as at this day that the Lords shall have the land by escheat which the Sages of the Law never dreamt of who made that Statute that any thing may accrew to the Lord and therefore they provided only for the title of the Donors and Founders which is an argument that they thought that upon the dissolution of the Monesteries that the lands shall go to the Founders and the same he thought concerning a corporation at this day as of Suttons Hospital c. and so he concluded that because in the barre of the Defendant he claimed to hold from the Lord to whom he supposed the land to escheat and did not claim c. by his own shewing the barre is not good and though our replication and traverse is not good yet the Plantiff shall have judgement But admitting that the barre is good yet the replication and traverse is good and then judgement shall be given for the Plantiff and the case is the Defendant pleaded a feofment of the Man 12. Eliz. to Wright after that he had shewed the escheat of an acre the Plantiff replied that the 10th Eliz. the Feofor infeoffed C. of the acre of land absque hoc that he was infeoffed of the Mannor of which the acre is parcel and Attoe argued that the traverse is good and he alleadged 38. H. 6. 49. the same traverse and here when the Defendant had pleaded that the acre escheated and had alleadged a Feofment of the Mannor and had not expresly alleadged a Feofment of the acre the Plantiff may traverse that which is not expresly alleadged because this destroyes the very title of the Defendant and he cited for that 34. H. 6. 15. a writ of priviledge in trespass as a Servant to an auditor of the exchequer the Plantiff replied that he was servant to him in husbandry absque hoc that he was his servant to waite and attend upon him in his office and it was holden a good traverse and yet that was not expresly alleadged by the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice said that the traverse is not good for by the Feofment which was made the 12th Eliz. he had confessed and avoyded the Feofment which was made 10th Eliz. and so there needed no traverse and therefore he said the great doubt of the case will be upon the barre of the Defendant whether by the death of the Abbot and the Monks the land escheat to the Lords of whom that was holden or whether that shall go to the Donors and to the Founders and he thought that the land shall escheat to which
that all such recoveryes shall be void and shall be taken for fained recoveries and this may not be imagined a fained recovery where he in remainder in tail is vouched by him who is Tenant for life Jennings case Coo. 10. and such recovery as is there resolved is out of the Statute of the 14. Eliz. and is good by the Common Law and so in our case but admitting this to be within the Statute of the 11. of H. 7. yet the proviso of the same Statute had made that good for there is an express proviso that a recovery with the assent of the heir inheritable if this appear upon Record this shall not be within the Statute and in our case this is with the assent of the heir inheritable and also this appears to be of record and so the recovery is out of the danger of the Statute of the 11. H. 7. See Doctor and Student a book which was written but a litle time after the making of this Statute and Dyer 89. Vernons case and he said that the intent of the same Statute and of the proviso of the same Statute was to have issues and heirs and not termors who had only a future interest to falsifie recoveries and so he concluded that the recovery is out of the same Statute and that the proviso of the same Statute had made that good by the assent of the heir but admitting this should be against him that this recovery shall be within the Statute yet the lessee in our case shall not falsifie nor take advantage of the forfeiture by force of the same Statute but it hath been objected by Harvy that the wife in this case had only an estate for life or Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct and he answered that the resolution in Beamounts case Coo. 119. is contrary for it is there expresly agreed that she was Tenant in tail after the fine leavied by the issue and so was it also resolved in Pophams case 9. Eliz. but there it was doubted whether she was Tenant in tail within the 32. H. 8. who might make a lease but all agreed that she was Tenant in tail who may suffer a recovery and binde the remainder and then when the feme suffers such a recovery as in our case that recovery shall take away a term for years which was made by the issue in tail Mich. 20. Jac. C. P. in the life of his mother notwithstanding she was a joynteress within the 11. H. 7. also he said that this lease for years being made by Henry Mark-Williams the son who was heir to the estate in tail and also to the reversion in fee being made by deed indented rendring rent this shall be a lease which issued out of the estate in fee simple and not out of the estate tail and this shall be out of the estate tail by estoppel being by deed indented for an estate shall not enure partly by way of interest and this lease to begin after the death of the feme he may not take advantage of the forfeiture for though the words of the Statute are that all such recoveries shall be void yet this shall not be void without entry and he who will have benefit by this ought to be mabled to enter presently so soon as the recovery is suffered for as there ought to be a person in esse who shall take benefit of the same Statute as appears by Coo. 3. Lincoln Colledge case so there ought to be a present estate in esse at the time of the recovery for the words of the Statute are to whom the interest shall appertain but in our case the interest doth not appertain to the lessee who had only a future term and therefore he shall not take the benefit by any forfeiture within the Statute of 11. H. 7. and the rather in our case because there is a rent reserved also all this matter is found by special verdict what estate the son haâ— when he made the lease by indenture Dyer 244. Coo. 155. and Bredons case in Treports case lessee for life and he in reversion by indenture let for years this is no estoppel and it shall be said to be the lease of one and the confirmation of the other and here the lease shall be said to issue out of the reversion in fee and not out of the estate tail and he vouched a case adjudged 10. Jac. when Flemming was chief Iustice of the Kings Bench between Errington and Errington and the case was that a man conveyed land to the use of himself and his wife in tail the remainder to his right heirs and had issue a son and a daughter and he died and the son let for years to begin after the death of his Mother and he died without issue and the daughter leavied a fine and the wife who was Tenant in tail died and the question was whether this lease for years issued out of the estate tail by way of estoppel for then the Conusee shall not avoid this but it was adjudged this lease was drawn out of the reversion in fee and the Conusee of the daughter shall avoid that which is all one with our case but admit that this lease is good by estoppel out of the estate taile yet he shall not take benefit of the forfeiture within 11. H. 7. and this differs from Sir George Browns case for there the Conuser entered by vertue of a remainder and not by the estate tail which passed to him by estoppel and upon that he concluded that if this is an estate meerly by estoppel he shall not have benefit by that Pope and Reynolds before NOw the case between Pope and Reynolds which see before was moved again by Ashley for the Plantiff in the prohibition and the case was that he was owner of a Park and the Park had been time beyond memory replenished with deer till the 10th of Eliz. at which time that was disparked and that the owners had used before the disparking to pay a Buck in Summer and a Doe in winter in full satisfaction of all Tithes due to the Vicar and the Parson had libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes in kinde and also traversed the prescription and it was found for the Plantiff in the prohibition and it had been moved in arrest of judgement that notwithstanding this prescription is found for the Plantiff yet he shall not have judgement for two causes First because gross Tithes belong to the Parson and not to the Vicar for the Vicaridge is derived out of the Parsonage to this he answered that for the most part every Vicaridge is derived out of the Parsonage but it is a meer non sequitur that this doth for the Vicarage and the Parsonage may have several patrons Fitzh 45. also a Vicarage may be time beyond memory as in our case 40. E. 3. 2. 7. and Fitz. juris utrum a Vicar may have a juris utrum and
that then his two sons shall pay them and if it happen that either of them die before his debts and legacies paid or before either of them do enter into his part that thou the other shall have all the land in fee and after the devisor died and in the life of the mother the eldest son released to the youngest all his right title Claim and demand to the land which was devised to him by his father and after the wife died and two points came in question in this case First whether this limitation is good Secondly whether the release is good and it was argued by Richardson Serjeant that this limitation of the Statute by way of devisee is good and he vouched Dyer 330. Clarks case and 4. Eliz. Goldley and Buckleys case a man devised to his son and his heirs provided that if his personal estate did not suffice to pay his debts and legacies that then his lands shall be to another and he vouched Brown and Pells case which was adjudged in Banco Regis the case was that a man had two sons William the eldest and Thomas the youngest and he devised his lands to Thomas his son and his heirs provided that if Thomas died without issue living that then William shall have the land and it was resolved that this was good to William by way of executory devise and in that case doubt was moved whether if Thomas suffer a recovery whether this shall take away the estate of William and it was holden by all the Court except Doderidg that it shall not but all agreed that this devise upon the future contingency is good and so he concluded that if the youngest son die in the life of the Mother and before the legacies are paid the land shall remain to the Plantiff according to the intent of the devisor but the other doubt is when the Plantiff did release all his right and claim to the other whether this release will extinguish this future possibility and he held that it will not and he said that he had seen the case of Lampet Coo. 10. and there the release of a possibility is penned as in our case and if any word discharge this possibility it is this word right but if the resolution of that book had not been against him he would have argued that this right was not sufficient to extinguish this future possibility but that there ought to be a more apt and proper word but he said he would not argue against books but he said that which he would insist upon was the distinguishing of possibilities for there are two manner of possibilities the one is Common and ordinary the other is more remote and forreigne And first there is a possibility which is Common and necessary and this depends upon an ordinary casualty as a lease for life the remainder to the right heirs of I. S. for it is apparant that the right heirs of I. S. may take by this and such a possibility may be released and a possibility which is remote and forreigne is as if a lease be made for life the remainder to another during the life of the lessee for life or a lease for life the remainder to the Corporation of B. those remainders are void but yet by possibility they may be good for in the first case the Tenant for life may enter into religion and in the latter case the King may make Corporations and yet because such possibilities are not usual the remainders are void see Coo. 2. Chamleys case where such a remote possibility may not be released if a man give land to one which is married and to another woman which is married and to the heirs of their two bodies ingendred this is a good estate tail for there is a common possibility that they may intermarry but if the gift be to a man and to two women who are married and to the heirs of their bodies ingendred they shall not have an estate tail executed for it is a remote and forreigne possibility and an imbrodery of estates which the law will not allow nor respect see the Rector of Chedingtons case that such a possibility as in our case may not be released for first here the mother ought to be dead before the Plantiff shall have land Secondly legacies ought to be paid Thirdly Thomas ought to be dead and till all these possibilities hap the Plantiff shall have nothing in the land and for that it is a remote possibility which is not gone by the release for as it is said when a possibility shall be gone by a release there ought to be a good foundation upon which the release may operate secondly the possibility which is released ought to be necessary and Common but in our case it is not necessary that the son shall enjoy it in the life of his mother and also the mother may in a short time pay the legacies and then neither of the sons shall have the land by which circumstances it is apparant that this is not a Common or an ordinary possibility but is a remote and forraigne expectancy which shall not be gone by this release and this differs from Lampets case for there was a possibility of a Chattel which as it may easily be created so it may easily be destroyed but in our case it is a franktenement which as that requires a greater ceremony in the creation and for that it will require a greater matter to destroy and to extinguish that and it is said in Woods case cited in Shelleys case Coo. 1. that if a man covenant with A. that if I. S. infeoffed him of the Mannor of D. that then he will stand seised to the use of him and his heirs of the Mannor of B. and the Covenantee died and the said I. S. infeoffed the Covenantor in such case the heir shall be inward and yet it is only a possibility which descends which possibility of an use may not be discharged or released and yet in that case there was a possibility which is more Common and ordinary then in our case for there was a possibility that I. S. should make the feofment and so say a good foundation upon which the release may operate and he put the case that I. shall let for so many years as I. S. shall name if I. S. name it is good and yet he held if I. S. release before the nomination that this release is meerly void because he had only a possibility and as to Digs case Coo. 1. there a power of Revocation may be released and good reason for the Covenantor who released had the bird in his own hand and for that it was no remote possibility but there it is said that if the power be limited to an estranger there the stranger may not release and he also agreed Albanies case for there the power to release was upon the death of a man only but in our case it is upon death and other
contingencies by which these remote possibilities shall not be released Hoes case Coo. 5. there a release of all actions and demands to the Bailee made this void and in the case of Brown and Pell which was remembred before it was the opinion of all the Court against Judge Doderidge that where the devise was to the son in fee and if he died without issue living that then his eldest brother shall have that if in this case the second son suffer a recovery yet this had not destroyed the possibility which the eldest brother had to have the land and if a common recovery which is matter of record and the common assurance of the realm will not take away this possibility a fortiori a release which is but matter of fact and so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Plantiff Bawtry to the contrary and he said that if this remainder shall be good then the inconvenience which the judges had alwayes endeavoured to take way shall be on foot again as in the case of Chamley and Corbets of springing uses for if it shall be lawful for a man to limit a fee upon a Collateral condition or limitation then there shall be a perpetuitie and for this if any litteral construction shall be made upon such conveyances this will introduce dangerous events to inheritances and for that he held that limitation to the Plantiff to be meerly void for when the land is devised in fee this devisee by this had an absolute estate in fee and it shall be strange to give this to another though this be by way of devise for though the will of every man shall be supplied by the intent of the devisor yet his intent ought to stand with the rules of the law and otherwise his intent shall revert and for that he cited 29. H. 8. a man made two executors provided that one of them shall not administer here the intent did plainly appear and yet because the intent is contrary to the power which the law gives to every executor therefore it is void and it is put for a bare rule in Corbets case that such a conveyance which a man may not make in his life time by act executed he may not make by his Will but a man may not make such a conveyance by act executed in his life time for as it is said in Colthirsts case if a man let for life the remainder for life upon condition that if the first lessee do such a thing that then the land shall remain over to a stranger this remainder is void for when the land is given before this second limitation is meerly void and also the case is put that if a man give lands in fee upon condition the remainder over this remainder is void for the other had an estate in fee before by which it is apparant that when an estate is one time lawfully vested in any certain person there no limitation may give that to a stranger by any act executed in his life at the common law and then it shall not be good by way of devise 28. H. 8. Dyer a term was devised for years the remainder over and it was adjudged by Baldwin and by Shelley that the remainder in that case is void for when the devisor had given his term he may not limit this remainder over though this be by way of devise and this may be good law notwithstanding Lampets case for there the lease was devised and not the land and for that reason may be a difference and he vouched the case which was remembred by Richardson 29. H. 8. 33. and then as to the second point he held that the release was good admitting the first point to be against him for if the eldest son had any right by this release then this word right in the release will destroy and extinguish that and this possibility is not remote and forraigne for the condition or limitation is annexed to the estate and is not a subsequent condition which creates an estate and this depends upon an ordinary casualty which is common to all men and the payment of debts and of legacies is incident and common to every executor and as for Albanies case Coo. 1. the case was that a man had a power to revoke uses upon the death of a stranger without issue and resolved that this power may be released and yet his power depended upon two contingencies death and death without issue and the case is also there put if A. infeoffe B. upon condition that if B. Survive C. and then if A. and his heirs pay to B. 10. l. that then he shall enter in this case there are many contingencies involved in one conveyance and yet it is there said that these contingencies may be released and in Lampets case Coo. 10. there are six reasons wherefore such a contingencie may be released and our case is within all the reasons which are there mentioned for the words in the release as have been remembred by my brother Richardson are all one with our case and the first reason is because this is a Chattel which as it may be easily created so it may be easily destroyed to this he gave answer that this remainder of a Term was an interest to him who released and so in our it is an interest of a remainder to the Plantiff and for that the release is good Secondly it is a maxime in Law that every land may be charged one wayes or another and we are within this reason also for if this estate be in the Plantiff then this may be released Thirdly the foundation of every act ought to be regarded for Grants case there vouched destroyes the possibility with a fine by reason of the original act the fourth reason there remembred is because that if the devisee had been dead his Executor shall have the interest the same reason in our case if the Plantiff had been dead before the remainder or the contingencie hap yet his heir shall have that See Shelleys case the fifth reason is the legacie was in present though this was to take effect in futuro and so in our case the Will is in present though the state is to take effect in futuro and sixthly it shall be against reason to establish such a perpetuity of a Chattel and so in our case it shall be against reason to establish a perpetuity of a franktenement and the release is very well penued for it is of all his title right and claim to the reversion and remainder which the father devised to the Plantiff and so the release is not general but this is a particular and special release of that which was devised to him by his father and Hoes case Coo. 5. is not like to our case for first there the duty was altogether incertain and secondly the condition there did precede the duty but in our case the condition is annexed to the estate and so he concluded and
prayed judgement in the case for the Defendant Finis M. 20. Jac. The Bishop of Glocester against Wood before NOw the case between the Bishop of Glocester and Wood was adjudged Hobert and Winch being only present and first it was resolved by them that when the Bishop let parcel as 20. acres for life and after he lets the Mannor it self to another rendring rent in this case the rent issues out of the intire Mannor for if in debt for the rent the lessor do declare upon a demise of the Mannor omitting the reversion of this parcel the declaration is evill and upon non dimisit pleaded it shall be found against him Secondly this they held that the Herriot reserved shall go with the reversion and if this do not go with the reversion to the lessee of the Mannor yet the Plantiff shall not have the Herriot and then though the Defendant had not good title to the Herriot yet if the property of the Herriot do not appertain to the Plantiff he shall not have a trover and conversion for the Defendant had the first possession and judgement was commanded to be entred for the Defendant if no other cause was shewed before next thursday Hill 20. Jac. C. P. Bulloigne against William Gervase Administrator BUlloigne brought an action of debt upon an obligation of 12. l. against William Gervase Administrator to I. S. and the Defendant pleaded that the intestate died outlawed and that the outlawrie alwayes continued in force and upon this the Plantiff did demur generally and it was argued by Attoe for the Plantiff for the plea is not good for this is a plea only by way of argument that he shall not be charged for this debt because he had not assets and in this case this outlawrie ought to be given in evidence upon nothing in his hands being pleaded and it ought not to be pleaded in barre for by possibility the outlawrie may be reversed and then the Administrator shall be charged if he had any goods and he vouched a case in this Court Trin. 27. Eliz. Rot. 2954. Worley against Bradwel and Dame Manners his wife Administratrix to Sir Thomas Manners and the feme pleaded outlawrie in the intestate and the Plantiff demurred generally and it was adjudged to be no plea and note that the record was brought into the Court and read accordingly Hitcham Serjeant to the contrary the record in Manners case was not well pleaded for the Defendant only shewed that a Capias ad satisfaciendum issued against the Testator and did not shew any recovery or judgement against him and that was the reason of the judgement in that case and the Plantiff here ought to have demurred specially as the case of 27. of Eliz. for otherwise he shall not have advantage of this plea and the plea is only evil for the manner for it is apparant that by the outlawrie of the Testator all his goods are forfeit and this is the reason of the book of 16. E. 4. 4. it is a good plea in an action of debt to plead an outlawrie in the Plantiff and to demand judgement of the action and not judgement of the writ for the debt is forfeit to the King by the outlawrie Hobert Hutton and Winch the president shewed by Attoe is not answered for though the pleading of the outlawrie is without shewing of a recovery and judgement yet the outlawrie is good till it is reversed and Hutton said that in some cases an Executor or Administrator had goods though the Testator died outlawed as if the Testator let for life rendring rent and the rent is behinde and after the Testator is outlawed and dies this shall not be forfeit but his Executors shall have the rent and if a man make a feofment upon condition that the feoffor pay 100. l. to the feoffee and his heirs or Executors and the feoffee is outlawed and the feoffor pay the money to his Executors as he may well the Executors and not the King shall have that also if the Testator is outlawed and he devise his land to his Executors to be sold these moneys shall not be forfeit and they shall agree that the plea was not good notwithstanding the general demurrer for he who will barre another by an argumentative plea his plea ought to be infallible to all intents and purposes and so it is not here for the Executors and the Administrators may be charged by the having of goods though the Testator was outlawed and for that the plea of the Defendant is not good in substance and the general demurrer is good by Hobert and by him if we suffer this plea then the Defendant will keep the goods and not reverse the outlawrie nor yet satisfie the King also if he had not goods the Defendant may plead plene Administravit or nothing in his hands and give this outlawrie in evidence See 8. E. 4. 6. 3. H. 6. 32. 39. H. 6. 37. by the opinion of Prisot and also see the case in E. 4. 5. a case to this purpose and also note well that it was said concerning the case of Manners that a writ of error was brought of that afterwards and that the case remains till this day undetermined Buckley against Simonds Ent. 18. Jac. Rot. 2120. NOw at this day the case of Buckley and Simonds was argued by Iustice Hutton and by Winch and the case was briefly this Anne Buckley Administrator to Andrew Buckley her Husband was Plantiff in a quare Imp. against John Simonds John Prior and Robert Pierce Alias Price for disturbing her to present to the Church of D. and shewed that Andrew Buckley Grandfather of the Husband of the Plantiff was seised of the said advowson in gross and presented one I. S. and he died after whose death the advowson discended to Richard Buckley and that the Church became void and that one Richard Williams usurped upon the said Richard Buckley then being within age and that Richard Buckley also died and by his death the said advowson discended to Andrew Buckley as brother and as heir to Richard and that the Church became void and before the presentment by Andrew and within 6. moneths Andrew died and that the Administration of the goods of Andrew were committed to the Plantiff and that she presented within 6. moneths and the Defendants disturbed her and the Defendants pleaded in barre and confessed the seisin of the Grandfather as is alledged in the declaration and they said that the said Andrew Buckley 14. Eliz. by his Indenture made between the said Andrew Buckley on the one part and John Preston of the other part by which the said Andrew Buckley by the same Indenture covenanted with Preston in consideration of a marriage to be had between John Buckley and Elizabeth Preston daughter of John Preston he covenanted with him and his heirs that immediately after he death of him and of his wife the said advowson inter alia shall be to the said John Buckley
in capite and others in Soccage and he made a devise of all his fee simple lands and left only his lands in tail to descend to the heir which doth not amount to a full third part this is a good devise of all the fee simple lands and this case was also admitted that where the Lord Norrice gave land to Sir Edward Norrice his youngest son and to the heirs of the bodie of the father and then the Lord Norrice died and after Sir Edward died without issue that the son of the eldest Brother who was then dead shall take that as heir in tail and that he in this case had that by a descent from Sir Edward Norrice his Vncle which also doth clearly prove that in this Sir Edward Norrice son of the Lord Norrice was in this case Tenant in tail The residue of Easter Term in the two and twenty year of King James Stephens and Randal IN replevin between Stephens and Randal who made Conusance as Bailiff to the Earl of Bath and he shewed that such land was parcel of such a Chantrey which came to King Edward 6. by the Statute of 1. Edward 6. and also he pleaded the saving of the said Statute by which the right of others was saved and pleaded all incertain and shewed that so much rent was behinde upon which he made Conusance as c. to which the Plantiff replied that the land is out of the fee and signiorie of the Earl of Bath c. and this was ruled to be no plea for he confessed so much in his avoury and this avoury is not for rent service for the signiorie is extinct by act of Parliament but this is for rent reserved by the saving of the act of Parliament and this is a rent seek and yet is destrainable for the priviledge which was before but he may traverse the tenure that at the time of the making of the Statute nor never after this was holden of the said Earl of Bath Priest and King Priest and King in an action of which was entered between them Trin. 21 Iac. Rot. 3595. and this was debated between the Iudges and the Prothonotaries and the case was that two were bound for the appearance of an other and judgement was given against the debtor now if upon the capias he come and offer his bodie and the Plantiff refuse that yet that discharges the sureties but the Prothonotaries said that notwithstanding this refusal he may take a Capias against him within the year because that at the first he might have had a fierie facias or an elegit quere of that but Winch thought that in this case he ought to have a fierie facias but if he had come upon the Capias and had no suerâ—tes and he refuse to take him and this is so entred now quere if he had not discharged him Hendon moved the Court for a prohibition to the spiritual Court and suggested that one had libeld in the spiritual Court for a legacie and the Executor shewed that he had not assets to discharge the debts of the Testator and that Court would not allow this allegation and upon this he prayed to have a prohibition and it was the opinion of the Court that no prohibition shall be granted for the legacie is a thing meerly which is determinable in the spiritual Court and no other Court may have Conusance of that and this is also a thing which doth consist meerly in the discretion of the Court and resolved that in a thing which meerly doth rest in discretion of the Court in this case no prohibition shall be granted Henry Good against Thomas Good IT was agreed in the case by the Court between Henry Good and Thomas Good that if the devisee of 500. l. sue in the Marches of Wales for this legacie that a prohibition is grantable for though the Court of the Common pleas had no power to hold plea of that yet because that the thing is only triable in the Ecclesiastical Court a prohibition may be granted to reduce that to its proper Court and though the instruction of the Court of the Marches be to hold plea of all such things wheresoever there is no remedie at the Common Law yet this is to be understood of matters of equitie and not to take the jurisdiction from the spiritual Court for in verity the King may not do that by his Letters pattents but yet the Court agreed that if the Executor do suffer a decree against him in the Court of the Marches and not come to them at the first to be releived it is now meerly in the descretion of the Court whether they will grant that or no for that is a means to lengthen suits and to make the more delay before he do recover his legacie If a Capias ut legatum issueth to the Sheriff to take the partie and to enquire what lands and Tenements he had and the Sheriff findes by inquisition that he is seised of many lands and continues possession in them and the Sheriff do out me I shall have an action of trespass John Marriots case SErjeant Crawley moved this case in arrest of judgement in the case of Iohn Marriot and he declared upon a contract to table with the Plantiff at Ashton in Northamptonshire ad tunc ibidem superse assumpsit to pay 4. s. by the week for his diet and Crawley moved that this ought to have bin tried in Northamptonshire for these words ad tunc et ibident refer to Northamptonshire which was next before and not to London Hutton said that it ought to refer to London otherwise it was idle and it is to be intended of the time and the place where the promise was made but it was said if the issue had been whether he was tabled or no this shall be tried there Giles Bray against Sir Paul Tracie GIles Bray brought an action of waste against Sir Paul Tracie and in his declaration he conveyed a good tearm to the Defendant and a reversion to himself and upon a general issue a special verdict was found to this effect that Sir Edmund Bray was seised of this land in his demeasne as of fee and he being so seised 16. Eliz. made this lease for divers years to I. S. and he being so seised of the reversion conveyed that to the use of himself for life without impeachment of waste and then to the use of Edward Bray his eldest son and to Dorothie his wife and to the heirs males of the said Edward upon the said Dorothie to be ingendred and then Edward died having issue in tail the Plantiff and then this lease was assigned to Tracie and then Dorothie died and then the waste was committed and then Edmund the Grandfather died and the question was whether in this case an action of waste will lie or no. The argument of Serjeant Harris HArris argued that the waste doth lie for the priviledge or despensation which was annexed to the
the year and afterwards the money not being paid Hickman sued forth a Capias ad satisfaciendum against Sir William Fish directed to the Sheriff of Bedfordshire for 210. l. and now upon a habeas Corpus Sir William Fish was brought to the bar and Serjeant Crawley moved for a supersedeas for him because the writ emanavit improvide c. and by the Court it is a cause to discharge him of the execution for the Capias ought to have issued for 200. l. only and he ought to have sued a scire facias though this was after the year because the Proces was not continued but they said withall it was in their discretion whether they will grant a supersedeas for they may put the Defendant to his writ of error It was ruled that if an action of debt was brought and the venire facias to trie the issue is in placito debiti and so is the habeas Corpus and the Pannel but in the Iury Roll of the nisi prius at the latter end of the jurata there it is placito transgressionis and agreed in this case this is amendable or in this case it is good without amendment Wen against Moore THomas Crew Serjeant did move in arrest of judgement where one Wen brought an Action upon the case against Moore and upon non assumpsit it was found for the Plantiff and he said that the Colloquium was laid to be at Bourn in the Countie of Lincoln and the venire facias was de Vicineto de Born without the letter u. and for that reason that they are several Towns therefore error for if the entire Town is omitted the trial is insufficient but the Court held this to be very good without amendment and shall be intended to be the same Town It was moved in arrest of judgement by Serjeant Finch that where one had brought an Action upon the case against one and shewed that the Defendant in consideration of 12. d. given to him by the Plantiff he assumed and promised that if the Plantiff may prove that he cut quandam arborem upon the land of Sir Francis Vain tunc crescent that he would give to him 10. l. and this being proved by the Plantiff it was now moved in arrest of judgement that quandam arborem is an individual tree and it ought to be aliquam arborem and another cause was alledged because it was not shewed that this was upon the land of Sir Francis Vain then growing but only he had said growing and that may be for perchance he purchased the land afterwards and before the Action brought and so it might be growing though not tunc crescent at the time of the promise but the Court c. Winch Hutton and Harvey seemed that the declaration was good for they said there is no question if quandam had been out this had been good for it is the singular number and he that certain or be that incertain yet by the verdict it is made certain that this is a tree and also those words tunc crescent do refer to the time when the tree was feld and not to the promise Holman against Sir Thomas Pope and Elizabeth his wife SErjeant Hendon moved in a case where an Action was brought by one Holman against Sir Thomas Pope and Elizabeth his wife as daughter and heir to Sir Thomas Watson and pending the writ Pope died and he moved that the writ ought not to abate because it is brought against her as daughter and heir where the land is assets in which the husband had nothing like to the case of an Executrix who brings her action in her own name and the name of her husband and pending the writ the husband dies the writ shall not abate but Justice Harvey said this case of Executors was adjudged against him and Hobert chief Justice was of opinion that the writ shall not abate but day was given over in that case Sir Thomas Holbeach against Sambeach IN the case between Sir Thomas Holbeach and Sambeach in a replevin where a demurrer was joyned the case was this one being Tenant for life and he in remainder in tail joyned in a grant of a rent in fee out of that and then they joyned in the levying of a fine to a stranger and his heirs and in this case it was said that the estate of the grantee of the rent which before was determinable is now made absolute and a judgement was also cited to be in that case lately adjudged to which the Court seemed to agree and they said if this be the point they will give judgement presently Crompton against Philpot. HEndon Serjeant moved in arrest of judgement in a case for Philpot a crier of this Court where one Crompton had recovered 40. l. damages against him in an action upon the case for words spoken against Crompton c. he innuendo the Plantiff stole a ring and had been hanged for that but for me and it was said in the first place that it doth not expresly appear that the words were spoken of the Plantiff himself neither is this introduced by any precedent Colloquium as it ought for otherwise the innuendo will not aide it but in veritie the declaration was that the words were spoken de eodem Richardo innuendo c. and also he said that the words are not actionable because that no value is exprest but it was ruled if that were but petie Larcenie the action lies but the Court gave no absolute opinion in the case for they were willing to compound for the poor man The residue of Michaelmas Term in the two and twentieth year of King James Brown and Ware against Barker BRown and Ware brought an action agaist Barker and they declared that whereas there was a suit depending between the Plantiffs and other Coppiholders of such a mannor in the Chancery against Brook their Lord and that one Woolsey was there Clark and that he for his fees and for the procuring of a decree had disbursed 14. l. and that there being a Communication between the Plantiff and the Defendant concerning the same he being a Coppiholder of the same Mannor that in consideration that they would pay to Woolsey 14. l. he would pay to the Plantiffs 40. s. upon request and the Plantiff shewed that they had paid the 14. l. and that the Defendant had not paid the 40. s. Licet postea saepius requisitus fuisset and upon non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plantiffs and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Crook Serjeant First because he is a stranger to the suit for he had not alledged that the Defendant was a partie and then it is no consideration but this was over-ruled because they paid the 14. l. upon his request the second exception was that this postea saepius requisitus was not sufficient in this case because that he ought to express the certaintie when and the place where the request was made
had two sons and he do Covenant in consideration of natural affection that if the eldest return from Rome by such a day that then he will stand seised to his use and if he do not return then he will stand seised to the use of the youngest son now if in this case the eldest die before the day so that it is become impossible that he should return yet that will not hinder the raising of the use to the youngest son and so in Dyer 331. the limitter may not have any estate against his own limitation of his uses for this is his own fact and so in our case it is his own default to make such a limitation and now for the fourth point whether any notice is requisite to the heirs and first I agree that in many cases a man shall not lose a thing except he had notice but there are two exceptions from this rule upon which I will put some cases and then I will applie them and first the ordinary may present by laps and he needs not to give notice for it s supposed in law that the ordinary will in 6. moneths see whether the cure is served or no nay if the patron was a Purchasor and a stranger present he had lost his inheritance and yet no notice ought to be given and the 12. H. 7. if the Tenant of the Lord do die without heir and a stranger do enter and Abates and dies seised now the Lord had lost the benefit of the escheat and yet perchance he had no notice of that and so was the opinion of Dyer and Welch 4. Eliz. that if two Copartners make partition in this case the Lord ought to take notice at his peril and secondly when one is bound to take notice at his peril as in Westby's case Cook 3. the new Sheriff ought to take notice of the Execution upon the prisoners when he takes them and so is the first of H. 7. 4. a man being bound to perform an arbitrement he ought to take notice of that at his peril but in our case here is a presumption in law that he had notice for he had the land from his ancestor and in the same degree and so the law doth intend that he had notice of the conditions and if he had not it is the default of his Ancestor that he had not left his deeds with him Secondly the heir is privie to the condition this doth descend to him and therefore he ought to take notice of that and put the case that an Action of debt is brought against the heir upon the obligation of his father and he pleads he had nothing by discent and it is found that he had a reversion expectant upon a Term for life of which he had not notice of yet that will not excuse for the law intends that he had notice and that he shall be charged as if it were his own debt and also the deed after the death of his Ancestor doth appertain to him and if the deeds are kept from him he may have an action for them and besides here no man is bound to give him notice for if it should be given it ought to be given to the heir or to the Executors for they may both save the land by the performance of the condition nay if there be 20. Coheirs there ought to be notice given to them all because they are to lose their inheritance by that and it is not like to the case which was adjudged where there are two obligors to make such an assurance as the obligee shall devise there a devise to one is sufficient because this concerns a personal thing but otherwise when this doth concern an inheritance as here but I relie upon the reason of the first forming of the deed if I am not bound to give notice at the time of the making of the deed I shall not be bound to give notice by any matter ex post facto and yet I do agree that in many cases where a thing is certain at the first and doth refer to some future agreement that in such cases there ought to be notice given to the partie as Hill 12. Iac. in this Court Rot. 109. where a promise was made upon a consideration Trin. 22. Jac. C. P. that the other will with draw his suit which he had in the Exchequer that then he will give to him so much when he came into Somersetshire and adjudged that the partie ought to give notice when he came in to Somersetshire but in our case every thing is certain at the time of the making of the deed 38. Assises 7. if a feofment is made upon condition to regrant to the feoffor and his heirs if in this case the feoffor do die he is not bound to regrant to his heirs without a request another reason is who shall give notice to the Lady that Foyn is dead she is bound to take notice of that at her peril and also if the Lady had died who shall give notice to the Executors that they may attend to receive the money for if they do not attend this is a peremptory refusal and for that reason it is equitie that if no notice is to be given of one side then there shall be none given of the other side and so I conceive that there doth not need any notice and now for the last point c. of the estate for life whether if no fee do arise whether she had lost her estate for life and first this is no Forfeiture for here he in reversion is partie but it is said that this is extinct but let us examine if this had been before the Statute of uses no more use will result then was before and for the estate for life that is saved and it was resolved Trin. 5. Iac. that if Tenant for life grant his estate by fine to another and yet he doth express no use that it shall be to the use of the partie because that the Law intends that by this it is disburthened of the danger of waste but in our case the estate of the Conusee is saved by the Statute of the 27. H. 8. for this saves all rights titles possessions c. of those who shall be seised to any use and so was it adjudged in Cheny and Oxenbridge his case that the Term for years was saved but the doubt in that case was not whether a Term was saved which he had to his own use but that which he had to the use of his wife and adjudged that this was saved and 32. Eliz. it was ruled in the Chancery between Tates and Willers that if he in reversion do infeof lessee for years and two others there it was ruled that the Term was saved and so it was adjudged Trin. 17. Iac. Rot. 246. Francis Priors case that where the lessee for years is and he in reversion levies a fine to the lessee to the intent that he suffer a
mean time the second point is whether the heir of Robert Foyne may pay that or is bound to perform that then the law dispenceth with that for it is limited if Robert do not pay and so it is personall to him like to the case in Plowden when a thing is reserved to be made by the person of a man no other man may perform that neither the heir nor yet the Executor as in Dyer 66. 8. H. 4. 19. 21. Ed. 3. 29. where the heir is not named he is not charged and 10. Ed. 4 12. 11. Ed. 3. 16. and so in this case because it is personally limited to Robert Foyn and ergo if he do die there the law will not compel the heir and that is the reason of Littletons case fol. 76. for there though the father Morgaged and the son is not named in the condition yet because he had an interest in the condition he may perform that and so the case fol. 77. the feoffee of the feoffee may perform that though it is annexed to the first feoffee only and this is for the salvation and safety of his estate and in the first case being in A. Morgage the law said that the heir shall not be prejudiced but when it is a voluntarie Act and in point of discretion to the father there the son may not perform that and here the law had prevented the father in the point of election ergo it is discharged and it is like to the case of the Countess of Arundel where a thing is annexed to the person of a man no other may perform it and so here the heir may not perform that for it is discharged by the death of Robert Thirdly admit that he may perform that then the question is whether default of notice may not excuse and here the Lady was a partie to this condition in the indenture and here the ignorance of the fact may excuse and when the law doth put a man upon a necessitie there it will excuse him as 44. Ed. 3. 61. and 50. Ed. 3. 39. and so the Law will not impose a necessitie of notice upon him The residue of the case of Cooper and Edgar by Serjeant Crook BVt Crook said that he being heir is bound to take notice but for answer to that I will cite you one express case Francis case Cook 8. for there the heir was not bound to take notice of the proviso in the feofment without notice given to him of it Winch that case directly complies with our case and so Farmers case Cook 3. lessee for years in possession levies a fine that doth not bar the reversioner because he continued in possession at the same time and he had not notice of that and here if the Ancestor had not died seised there had been some colour that he might have had notice and this differs from Littletons case where the heir may pay the Morgage that in that case he ought to take notice at his peril because he did not die seised Corbets case and see 4. Coo. 8. where land is given to executors to take the profits there resolved that default of notice doth not hurt them but they shall hold against the heir now for that last point whether the estate for life is saved by the Statute of the 27. H. 8. or whether it is gone by the acceptance of the fine and I think it is gone and yet I agree if it had been lessee for years it had been within the saving of the Statute because he is but a conduit pipe to convey that but in our case when it is by limitation of the use then it will not be saved because that it is by her own provision that the use is so limited to her and so the law will not aid that and by the common Law it is an express determination of the estate 1. H. 7. also the cases of Tenant for years being within the saving of the Statute doth in no sort help this case for it may well stand with the estate but out of the freehold the uses do arise and besides the law will not provide for him who had not provided for himself as 5. H. 7. 7. if a man made a gift intaile rendring rent the Law will not raise any other tenure and it is a rule in law that a man shall not take an estate by implication where he had expresly limited an estate to himself and to that purpose there was a good case Hill 13. Eliz. between Richmond and Bowcher where a lease was made rendring rent to the lessor his executors and his assigns and there the lessor died and it was ruled in that case that the Executors nor the assignes shall not have that nor the heir for it was not reserved to him and in 16. Iac. one Farmers case where such a lessee for years took a feofment with an intent to suffer a recovery but he continued in possession two terms after before he suffered the recovery and yet it was adjudged the Term for years was saved but here he being Tenant of the freehold this may not stand with the limitation of the uses and so I pray judgement for the Plantiff The argument of Davenport Serjeant DAvenport to the contrary after a Recital of the case said that he thought this to be a subsequent condition for here are two uses limited and so there is two conditions for the first if if he do not pay this is subsequent and the estate doth proceed but the other is precedent and the estate is subsequent and the sole difference when if makes a precedent and when a subsequent condition is upon the words for in this case words make the case and if the estate is limited first and then the condition seems annexed in words to determine that in that case it is a subsequent but if the Act is first appointed to be made and then the estate is limited by express words there the estate will not begin till the tunc is performed and so is the very difference 14. H. 8. 22. and there the principal case is adjudged to be subsequent and upon that difference is 15. H. 7. and Coo. 7. where the estate is first limited and then the condition is after that and the meaning of the parties was that the Lady shall have the fee if the other will not redeem that and I desired to be tried by no other cases then those which my brother Crook had cited Mary Portingtons case si is a proper word to determine an estate and then the estate ought to be before and for the difference between things executed and things Executory under favour that is no difference but that is as the words are placed and I denie the case of Executors put by my brother Crook and so I say it is a present estate but it is defeasable after by payment but now for the second point whether it was discharged by the death of Robert or whether
the heir may pay that and I think that its impossible to avoid Mr. Littleton and my brothers difference of Morgage is no difference and Littleton saith that the heir may perform that because he hath an interest in the condition and the reason is not because he is charged and so the case of the feoffee may perform that and yet in both cases it is annexed as personally as it may be and Sect. 337. no mention is made of the Morgage but it s in this case if the condition had been that a stranger should pay that then this is meerly personal and so is Hill 28. Eliz. between Waltham and Ashworth if an heir is bound to perform a condition then a stranger may not perform that but any who had an interest as Gardian in Soccage or Chivalry and here by reason of the interest of the heir by the non-payment he had broken the condition for this is an hereditarie condition or limitation by which the heir had an interest now for the third point whether he is bound not having notice and I do conceive that because the notice is ancestrel and he was partie to that and so there was an original notice upon the agreement which is also hereditarie and discends to the heir and that shall force him to take notice of that at his perill but if it had been collateral to the father there I grant that will not binde the son without express notice as in Francis case for there was not any Act by which the father was bound to take notice and I desire no better case then Sir Andrew Corbets case Fourthly the estate for life is not drowned by the common law neither by the Statute for it is grounded upon the Condition and so there is not any Surrender in the case and when an agreement is that such a fine shall be levied now that shall be understood to be meant only of the reversion and he cited Sharingtons case where Tenant for life levied a fine upon conusance of right to him in reversion to the use of others there because it might not appear to be otherwise the estate of the Conusee was saved and Farmers case where a lease was made to Farmer for years rendring rent and after he bargained and sold the reversion for 41. years and then made an indenture between the lessor and the lessee and one of the bargainees that the recovery shall be suffered to the use of them and their heirs and adjudged the reversion for years was saved and so I pray judgement for the Defendant The argument of Serjeant Finch Pasch 1. Carol. ANd the following Term the case was argued by Henage Finch Serjeant of the King for the Plantiff and he said the first point is whether this made a precedent or a subsequent condition in which there had been much Logick used and it had been said that it is a rule in law that when a state is first limited and there are words of condition to devest that in that case there is a subsequent condition which ground I will not denie but I denie that here the estate is first limited for though that seems to be in words yet it is not in the intents of the parties but here first I will note an ordinary difference in our books that proviso and sub conditione are notes of a subsequent condition si of a precedent condition as appears by Mr. Littleton and the reason of this difference is because proviso and sub conditione make a full proposition and so doth not the word si and I compare that with Henry Finches case where aut and alibi never begin a sentence and so si never made an entire proposition but the proposition is that the fine shall be to the use of the Lady if Robert do not pay which is an Hypothetical proposition knit with a copulative conjunction and then the antecedent ought to be si for all doth depend upon that but it hath been objected that this is not an antecedent for it is put in the last place but I say put that where you will si will rule the sentence and will have a construction in the first place S. if Foyn do not pay 10. s. the first of September then that shall be to the use of the Lady and her heirs and there are many cases where si being so transposed will make a precedent condition 1. H. 4. 4. where the Iudges will receive the Attorney of the vouchee if his Master will consent there he is no Attorney till he do assent 3. H. 6. 71. per Martin a man made another his Executor if he will be bound to I. S. in that case before he is bound to I. S. he may not maintain an action as an Executor and so by those authorities 7. Ed. 3. 41. 14. H. 8. Whistlers case and Dyer 159. now for the second point whether by the death of Foyn the condition is discharged and I hold that it hath discharged that and I hold Littletons case where a day is limited and where not will aid me and I conceive that in many cases where Acts are not judicially annexed to the person of a man yet they may be discharged by the death of the parties if they are Colateral Acts and put the case that the use had been so limited that if I. S. do not pay so much money before c. now if I. S. do die before the day it is no question but that the condition is discharged and also if it had been limitted in this manner if Foyn do not pay this to a stranger ther by death also it is discharged and the difference I conceive is when the money is to be paid as a duty and where as a penaltie and this difference I learn of Mr. Plowden in the argument of Sir Thomas Treshams case reported by the Lord Cook and also by the Lord Dyer and by Dyer it is said that such a summe of money to be paid to the feoffes is not my duty and therefore I say this Colateral Act is meerly discharged by the death of Foyn and Littleton seems to implie so much for in all the cases of Morgages he saith that the Executor or heir may pay that but when he comes to such a feofment made to the feoffee to pay money on his part he said that if he alien the land the partie himself or the vendee may pay that but not the heirs nor Executors of the feoffees and there was a case 18th Eliz. in this Court A. levied a fine to B. and his heirs upon condition that if he pay so much to the son of A. when he comes to the age of 18. years then to the use of B. and if not to A. and his heirs and the son died before the day and the opinion was that B. shall have that now for the last point whether the estate for life is gone and I hold that it is and here he agreement of
the parties hinders the operation of the law and that law will not provide for him that provides not for himself and the Lady her self was partie to the limiting of the uses and she covenanted that she will be seised by vertue of the fine and under the condition in the indenture and so it is a plain Surrender of her former estate and so I pray judgement for the Plantiff The argument of Serjeant Hendon to the contrary HEndon contrary there are 3. points First whether this be a precedent or a subsequent condition and I conceive it is subsequent and here the indentures being but to declare the uses of the fine and not to create any use ergo it shall be guided by the intents of the parties appearing in them and so is the Earl of Rutlands case Cook 5. and Dyer 357. and Shelleys case and the meaning of the parties was not to raise any use to Robert but only a possibilitie to reduce that by the performance of the condition and first it is here said that the Conusee shall be seised to the uses hereafter expressed and under the conditions and then the use ought to preceed the condition for no man may stand seised under the condition except the condition is subsequent to the use to arise Secondly when is the use to arise to Robert surely when he payes 10. s. and then in the mean time the use is to the Lady and her heirs for tunc had here relation to when as it is said in Boles case Cook 3. and in Grants case cited in Loves case Cook 10. and 17. Ed. 3. 1. all which cases prove that tâ—en had relation to when and before this when he had nothing and this doth appear to be the agreement of the parties and now for the words themselves I take it that they make a subsequent condition and so it is here limited in intention and for that in matter also and it is said in Colthirsts case in Plowden that if the estate doth first pass reducible upon condition then it is subsequent and here it is limited to the Conusee and his heirs if the Conusor do not pay but here it hath been said is inversio verborum and the consequent is placed before the Antecedent and this hath been proved by Logick I never knew cases in law to be expounded by Logical and Grammatical learning but by the intentions of the parties and here I conceive that the estate is vâ—sted in the Conusee by the fine and so the condition is subsequent but admit it is Executory and I say concerning that there are these differences that if the state of the thing granted is executory and that the condition of the thing granted is Executory and the condition is to remain with the estate so long as the estate doth remain the condition is precedent 28. E. 3. 2 4. 3. 1. H. 6. 32. but if the condition be but one time to be executed and that not contained with the estate then it is subsequent 10. Eliz. Dyer Calthorps case but here our estate is executed for it is expresly limited to the Lady Cesar and her heirs which takes away all implied uses so that no implied use shall result in the mean time and so 75. Assises land given to a man and to his heirs if he have heirs of his body now this if is subsequent and so I conceive that it is not a condition simply but a conditional limitation for it appears by Mr. Littleton because it is no otherwise expressed and another reason is because the condition is annexed to the future time ergo that is subsequent and yet I grant there is a difference betwixt such an estate conditional annexed to an interest and where it is is annexed to an authoritie it may be precedent but for an interest it is subsequent as is the case of Bracton lib. 2. fo 3. and now for the second point whether the heir may and ought to perform that and I do conceive that he is and it is not annexed to the person because it is real and doth arise with the land Secondly yet the law doth expect who ought to have performed that but it is the performance it self which the law doth respect 4. E. 3. 2. such condition real which doth arise with the land and in such a case no notice is in that case requisite and the last point is whether the estate for life is gone and I hold that it is saved by the common law of England for the fine only is as the grant of the reversion by the explanation of the indenture and then there is no surrender in the case but when the condition is performed the estate for life doth remain and so was it resolved in Mr. Mansors case and yet I agree that a litle matter will make a surrender and Mr. Ruds case where lessee for years of an advowson was presented by the Patron that was a surrender but the Statute of the 27th of H. the Eighth at the end saved that though it is to her own use for the words of the saving are to every person and their heirs which hereafter shall be seised to any use all such former rights c. possession c. as they might have had to their own use in any lands whereof they be seised to any other use whatsoever and so upon the whole matter I do conceive that judgement ought to be given for the Defendant The residue of the case of Gibson and Ferrers NOw the case of Gibson and Ferrers which see before was argued again by Serjeant Bridgman and he said as before the award is not good for the interest and yet he now agreed that covenants bonds and contracts for usury are good in law but yet it may not be awarded 17. Ed. 4. 5. if a man do submit to Arbitrators they may not award that he and his wife shall levie a fine but if the partie himself do promise that this is good and shall binde the wife to perform that and besides he said that here is an award made only of one side and nothing is allowed to Ferrers and so not good 9. Ed. 4. 29. 29. H. 6. 22. and I pray that the Plantiff may be barred Hendon to the contrary and he argued if an award be good in any part though it be not in that which is assigned for breach yet it is good upon such plea of nullum fecerit arbitrium and the other shews an award and assignes the breach in this case the breach is not traversable for it is of the form and not of the substance of the action but to that the Court did presently answer that the cause of the action is the breach of the award and this he ought to make apparent to the Court for otherwise he shall not have any action and though the breach is not traversable yet it is of the substance of the action for upon such plea pleaded he not only
ought to maintain the award but to shew the breach for it shall be otherwise if it be found against him and then Hendon answered to the other exception that this is not for direct usury but is rather for the damage which he sustained by the forbearance of the money and yet if it were for interest it is good and then as to that which now had been agreed by my brother Bridgman that contracts and obligations for usury are good I say then by the same reason an award for that is good for whatsoever a man may contract for the same thing may be awarded if the contract will bear that and usury is not malum in se but only malum prohibitum and is good by our law and here in this case though the Arbitrator was deceived in the summe yet after the award made it is altogether certain and an implied recompence is sufficient in this case but the Court said that the casting up of the accompts did not make an award for it is not a good Calculation but the ending of the controversies that doth make the award but yet the opinion of the Court in this case was that the award was good for an Arbitrement shall not be taken absolutely upon the bare words and the Court did command the parties to come before them upon the morrow in the Treasury and as it seems this was for mediation to make an agreement for the opinion seemed to be for the Plantiff The case of Hilliard and Sanders argued by the Court. IUstice Harvey this Term did argue the case of Hilliard and Sanders which see before and after a brief recital of the case he said that his opinion was that the avowant shall not have return because that by the fine of the lands the rent is extract and I am induced to be of this opinion by two things the first is the agreement and tâ—e other is the favourable exposition of the Statute of fines to settle repose and quiet and I will first shew the efficacie of fines at the common law 21. Ed. 4. the Pryor of Binghams case it is laid for a ground and rule in law if a thing be contained in a fine either expresly or implicitly this is very good and so is 44. Ed. 3. 22. 37. H. 6. 5. for a fine is no more then an agreement and therefore it is called in latin Concordia and then see if by any words you may pass this rent by the fine and though the word rent is not there yet if it be so infolded in the lands that is good with that it is very good and for that 3. H. 7. 16. 17. 21. H. 7. proves that by a feofment of the land the rent doth pass and wherefore not by fine then and this shall be within the Statute of 4. H. 7. and 32. H. 8. and a case may be out of the Statute of 32. H. 8. and yet be within the Statute of the 4. H. 7. as the 2. Ed. 3. in Dyer though the feme after the death of the husband she may enter upon the discontinues of the husband yet if she do not within 5 years she shall be barred and now you see that the construction of these Statutes was alwayes to settle repose and quietness for if such a construction should be made according to the opinion of Chornton in Smith and Stapletons case then it will be mischievous and for his opinion it was only in the way of arguing and yet I conceive he had the good opinion of the Reporter and without all question it is a case of as hard a construction as that is of Archers case where the heir who nothing had in the land in the life of his father did levie a fine this is a bar for ever and the reason is because it is of a thing which is intailed and he cited a case in Bendloes Reports where a discontinuee was disseised by Tenant in tail who levied a fine and the discontinuee entred and then proclamations passed that in this case the issue was barred truly I do agree the case of 36. H. 8. that that a fine levied of land did not bar him who had title of Common or a way the reason is because there is no privitie but in our case there is a privitie and by Margaret Podgers case a Coppiholder is within this Statute and in our case the rent passeth especially in regard of the agreement as in the Lord Cromwels case and he cited a case primo Jacobi between Gage and Selby in an ejectione firme where Gage was Tenant in tail and he levied a fine to I. S. in fee and after he levied another fine to the use of himself for life the remainder over and his brother brought a writ of error to reverse the first fine and ruled that he may not for the second fine had barred him of any writ of error and so I conclude the fine had extinguished the rent The argument of Justice Hutton to the contrary HUtton contrary the fine had not barred the rent in which I will consider the nature of fines at the Common Law and they were of mightie and great esteem and force as appears by the great solemnitie which is used in them as is prescribed in the Statute of fines 18. Ed. 1. de modo Levandi fines and he agreed that such a fine by Tenant in fee simple will pass that inclusively for by the release of all his right in the land a Signiorie is gone I agree also that a fine is but an agreement but yet it must work according to the nature of the thing as upon a writ of Measne or of right of advowson a fine may be levied and yet it is not levied of the lands but of the advowson or Signiorie and so if the writ of covenant be one thing and the agreement of another thing then it is not good and first I will prove that at the Common law fines have been rejected when the writ of covenant did not contain the thing of which the fine is to be be levied and if at the Common law a fine was levied of rent there ought to be a writ of covenant of that 18. Ed. 2. fines 123. and there the rule is given that it is against reason to hold covenant of that which never was and the rent there never was before but ought to begin then and yet it is clear a man may create a rent by fine but he shall not have a writ of covenant of that when it was not in esse before and because the concord may not varie from that therefore it was not received 38. Ed. 3. 17. Knevet put the rule that a fine may not be of more then is in the writ of covenant and when a fine is properly levied of that it is by way of release Fitz. fine 100. and so I conceive here the rent doth not pass Secondly here no man may plead that any fine is levied of