Brough against Devison 143 58 Forfeiture of Copyhold 143 59 Lease for years Knevit against Poole 143 60 Prohibition Rame against Patison 145 61 Partridge against Nayler 145 62 Forfeiture 146 63 Quare impedit Lord Zouches case 146 64 Assumpsit Thornton against Kemp. 146 65 Prohibition Sherington against Fleetwood 147 66 Trust VVildgoose against VVayland 147 67 Reservation of Rent 148 68 Action for a Robbery 148 69 Outlary reversed 148 70 Fine with proclamation 148 71 Feoffment to a use 148 72 Tenure and Wardship 149 73 Devise 149 74 Prohibition Benefield against Finch 149 75 Oyer of a bond 150 76 Ejectione firme Beckford against Parnecole 150 77 Writ of Error Harecourts case 151 78 Trover Easts case 152 79 Writ of Error Wiseman against Baldwin 152 80 Assumpsit Pine against Hide 154 81 Prohibition Jacksons case 154 82 Trover and conversion 155 83 Assumpsit Chessins case 155 84 Assumpsit Dixon against Adams 156 85 Ejectione firme Ross against Ardwick 157 86 Trover Harding against Sherman 158 87 Debt upon a bond Paytons case 158 159 88 Trespass quare clausum fregit 159 89 Debt upon a bond Allen against Abraham 159 90 Account Huntly against Griffith 159 91 Scire Facias Lady Gresham against Man 160 92 Prohibition Ramsies case 161 93 Account 161 94 Indictment Hom's his case 162 95 Fine of Lands 162 96 Ejectione firme Robins against Prince 162 163 97 Scire facias Hoo against Hoo 166 98 Mackerell against Bachelor 168 99 Information Goodale against Butler 169 170 100 Scire facias Foe against Balton 170 101 Contra formam Collationis 111 102 Ejectione firme Cootes against Atkinson 171 103 Action for words Pollard against Armeshaw 172 104 Elegit Palmer against Humphrey 172 105 Covenant 173 174 106 Debt upon a bond Robinson against May 174 107 Audita querela Hobs against Tedcastle 174 175 108 Covenant Matures against Westwood 175 109 Assault and battery Sims his case 176 110 Trespass Goodale against Wyat 176 111 Ejectione firme Sayer against Hardy 179 112 Rent Walter against Walter 180 113 Debt upon an Escape 108 114 Vtlary after Judgement 108 115 Fine levied Sir Henry Jones case 181 116 Evidence Tutball against Smote 181 117 Debt Richard Thornes case 182 118 Debt Humble against Glover 182 119 Evidence Maidstone against Hall 182 120 Speciall Verdict Dickins against Marsh 182 183 121 Covenant Cole against Taunton 184 122 Grant 184 123 Error Brewster against Bewty 187 124 Trespass Pannell against Fen 185 125 Repleuin Second deliverance 185 126 Action for words Stitch against VVisedom 185 127 Accessary to Felony 185 128 Debt Thin against Chomley 186 129 Lease Harbin against Barton 185 103 Action for words Baddocks case 186 131 Debt upon a bond Staples against Hankinson 187 132 Error Boyer against Jenkins 187 133 Grant over 187 134 Ejectione firme Thomas against King 187 135 Trespass Oland against Bardwick 188 136 Error Ascough against Hollingworth 188 137 Trespass Bodeam against Smith 189 138 Name of purchase 189 139 Perjury 189 140 Obligation 190 141 De Term. Pasch Anno Elizab. Reg. xxviij 1. WAst war brought by Constance Foster Wast and another against Lessee for years in effect the case was such A man makes a Lease of certain Lands 44 Ed. 3. 34. b. 46 Ed. 3. 22. 28 Hen. 8. 19. a. excepting all manner of Woods the Lessee cuts down Trees and he in Reversion brings an Action of Wast and by the opinion of the Court the Lessee is not punishable in Wast for they were never let and therefore the Plaintif is driven to his Action of Trespass at the Common Law 2. THe Sherif returneth in a Writ of Right four Esquires to make the pannel Return and doth not say that there be any Knights it was sayd by the Court that he ought to return them which be and that there be no more 3. WAst was brought for digging in Land Wast and taking away Okes the Defendant pleaded in bar That the Queen by her Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England granted unto him that he might dig for Mines of Cole in the Land and prayed that it might be entred verbatim and a Grant under the Seal of the Exchequor was entred whereupon the Plaintif Demurred Now came Walmisley and would have amended it and by the opinion of the Court he cannot amend it after the Demurrer be entred Demurrer but Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif if he shew no other matter 4. A Man seised of Lands in Fee Devise and sale by Executors Deviseth to his Wife for life the Remainder to his Son in tayl and if his Son dye without issue of his body that then the Land shall be sold by his Executors and maketh two Executors and dyeth the Wife dyeth one Executor dyeth the Sonne dyeth without issue the other Executor selleth the Land and Gawdy the Queens Serjeant moved whether the sale be good or no and it seemeth to him that the sale is good and vouched the Case in 30 Hen. 8. Brook Devise 31. And now lately it was adjudged in the Kings-bench where a man did Devise his Lands in tayl and for default of such issue that the Land shall be sold by his Sonnes-in-law and dieth having five Sonnes-in-law the one dyed the others sold the Land and this was adjudged a good sale Anderson It seemeth the sale is not good for if one make a Letter of Attorney to two to make Livery and Seisin Livery if the one dye the other cannot doe it So if one grant the Office of Stewardship to two the one of them cannot hold Court alone Stewardship And if one of them may sell to what intent was the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. cap. 4. that those which take the Administration may sell Windham The Statute will not prove the case but it seemeth the sale to be naught And there is a difference where one giveth an interest to two and when he giveth but an authority Interest for an interest may survive but an authority cannot Authority Rodes to the same intent and cited M. 4 Eliz. fol. 219. a. 177. 210. 371. 5. BAttery Battery by Webster against Pain the Action was layd in London and in truth the Battery was committed at Uxbridge in Midlesex the Defendant pleaded that such a day and year at A. in the County of Huntington 11 H. 4. f. 3. 11 H. 4. f. 61. 22 H. 6. f. 33. 21 H. 6. f. 9. 9 E. 4. f. 46. 43 E. 3. 23. the Plaintif made an assault upon him and the hurt c. absque hoc that he is guilty in London Snag moved that the Traverse should not be good Anderson Will you have him to say absque hoc that he is guilty that he ought not for by the speciall matter he hath confessed the Battery and you will not deny but that if his Plea be true he hath good cause to bar the
Priority which is not corporall neither ought it to be put in view in Assise and 21 Hen. 6. a. Tenant of the Land shall Attorn upon the grant of a rent charge and 33 Ed. 3. Priority shall hold place when the remainder falleth and not when it is granted 17 Ed. 2. and Dyer Tr. 23 Eliz. pl. 1. Then Sir when the foundation out of which the rent is issuing is gone the rent is allso gone and therefore let us see what authority Tenant in tayl hath in the remainder At the Common Law there was no Formdone in descender or remainder and the Statute of W. 2. cap. 1. provides but for two persons viz. he in reversion and the issues but Formdone in remainder is taken by the equity 50 Ed. 3. If Tenant for life be the remainder in tayl to another the remainder in fee to the Tenant for life and he makes wast Wast Bargain de remain Tenant in remainder shall punish him and Fitzh nat br fol. 193. a. Cui in vita by a wife which was Tenant in tayl upon the alienation of her husband And I think that if he in remainder bargain his remainder that it is voyd and he cannot grant to another that he shall dig in the soyl for by 2 Hen. 7. he in reversion cannot doe so 12 Ed. 4. Recovery suffered shall bind the issue 7 Ed. 3. no attaint lieth for him in remainder of a verdict given against Tenant for life Nul attaint pur tenant in rem then in this case he in remainder cannot enter and the Grantee shall not be in a better estate than his Grantor and then if he shall never enter frustra est illa potentia qua nunquam reducitur in actum The reason for the grant is good for when Tenant in tayl dyeth without issue he in remainder shall be in by the first gift in proof whereof is 33 Hen. 6. he in remainder shall be in ward Ward and in 11 Hen. 4. in Formdone in descender Formdone he shall say that the possession was given to his father Prebendary And a Prebendary cannot charge before induction Ioyntenants But if two Jointenants be and the one charge all and the other disclaimeth the charge is good from the beginning And the Recoverer here is not under the charge for allthough he hath that estate which he in remainder should have if Tenant in tayl had not aliened yet is he a meer stranger and in by another title 10 Ed. 3. If two Jointenants be Charge per Ioyntenant and the one charge this is good conditionally that he which chargeth shall survive And if Tenant pur auter vie charge and die occupans shall hold it discharged So in this case for he is not in of this possession Moreover there is a mischief if this charge be good for then the Land may be charged by two severall persons at once which shall not be suffered but yet if cestui que use charge and the Feoffees charge both are good for the one is by the Common Law Charge per cest que use Feoffees 28 Ed. 3. 10. b. and the other by the Statute Law So if Lessee for years charge and he in reversion charge and after Lessee for years surrender but this is in severall respects and I put this case for Law Ch. per lessee per enreversion that if he in the remainder bind himself in a Statute Merchant Stat. Merch. per test en rem ne charge le poss this shall not charge the possession And if in this case he will grant the rent over none ought to Attorn and therefore voyd and Littleton saith that he in remainder shall not falsifie No attornment Falsifying and 26 Hen. 8. the Grantee of lessee for years shall not falsifie for the nature of falsifying is properly to find a fault wherefore it should not be good and what fault can he find in this case surely none Successor lie per confession 4 Hen. 7. 1. a. 20 Hen. 6. Abbot confesseth an Action the Successor is bound And further it is within the Statute of 27 El. for fraudulent deeds and we need not to plead the covin for the Statute is generall Fraudulent faits and vouched Wimbish case in the Comentaries and so the Replevin is maintainable And after at the motion of the Justices the Defendant agreed that the Plaintif should amend his Plea and allege the Covin Et adjornatur untill Michaelmas Term following because there were so many Demurrers hanging to be argued in Trinity Term next But afterwards judgement was given against the Rent charge 12. KIng Hen. 8. gave certain lands to Sir Edward Bainton Trespass Knight and to the heirs males of his body engendred who had issue Andrew and Edward and dyed Andrew afterwards convenanted with the Lord Admirall Thomas Seymer that he would convey an Estate of those Lands to himself for life the remainder to the Lord Seymer in Fee and in like manner the Lord Seymer convenanted to convey an Estate of other Lands to himself for life the remainder to Andrew Bainton in Fee Afterwards Andrew Bainton levyed a Fine and executed the estate according to the covenant on his part Afterwards the Lord Seymer before performance of the covenant on his part was attainted of High Treason and all his Lands forfeited to King Edward the sixth who dyed without issue and the Lands descended to Queen Mary to whom Andrew Bainton sued by Petition and shewed how she had those Lands to the disinherison of him and his heirs and Queen Mary by her Letters Patents ex certa scientia ex merâ— motu c. granted to Bainton all those Lands and Tenements which he had covenanted to convey to the Lord Seymer and all reversions thereof in as ample manner as she had them Et ulterius ex uberiori gratia sua she granted all reversions claims and demands qua ad manus suas devenerunt ratione c. aut in manibus suis existunt aut existere deberent Afterwards Andrew Bainton levyed a Fine of those Lands to one Segar in Fee and dyed without issue then Edward Bainton entred and Segar brought his Action of Trepass Puckering It seemeth that the entry of Edward Bainton is congeable and so the Action not maintainable First let us see what passeth by this Grant of Queen Mary to Andrew Bainton and then whether a Fine levyed by Tenant in tayl the reversion being in the Queen be a bar to the tayl by the Statute of 4 Hen. 7. The first Fine as it is pleaded is not pleaded with proclamations and therefore but a discontinuance and remains but as at the Common Law At the Common Law before the Statute of Dâ—nis conditionalibus a Fine levyed was a bar to all men for all Inheritances were Fee simples then by that Statute it was ordained Quod neque per factum neque feofamentum of the Tenant
charges except Rents and Services which shall be due after c. to the chief Lord And afterward he made and levyed a fine And after the Wife maried and then the Son entred and the Administrator of the Wife brought debt upon the Obligation against the Administrators of him in Reversion and averred that the Land at the time of the Feoffment was charged with the said Lease of 31 yeares Walmisley It seemeth that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif because it was not discharged at the time of the Feoffment For in the Commentaries a man Deviseth his Term to his Wife until his Son come to full age Com. fo 539. after at his full age the Son shall have it so that there it was chargable to the Entry of the Son hereafter And here allthough that it be not presently charged yet when there is a charge arise the Covenant is broken And for that in 8 Eliz. a man bargains and sells Land Rent charge future and Covenants that it shall be discharged of all charges and he had granted a Rent before to begin twenty years after when the Rent begins it shall be said a breach And this is not like the case in 3 Hen. 7. 12. b. Where Tenant in Tayl disseiseth the Tenant of the Land c. And so I think Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif Fenner to the contrary and here the Term was extinct by the grant end sale and then the Feoffment void and therefore no charge and thereupon no charge at the time of the Feoffment and for that he cited 42 Ed. 3. 11 Hen. 7. 20. where Tenant in Dower infeoffs the Heir without deed c. so here in that she took nothing by the Feoffment there was no charge at the time of the Feoffment And this possibility of a remainder doth not make an interest and thereupon he cited 8 Ed. 3. 3. Fitz. resceipt 35 Resceit upon Cond where Tenant for life lets the Land to one upon condition that if he dye in the life of the Lessor that it shall retourn to the Lessor c. upon such a matter he may be received and he cited for that the case of Wheler 14 Hen. â— fol. 17. and a title suspended is no title 3 Hen. 7. 12. 30 Ed. 3. Lease for life upon condition that if the Rent be behind then he shall retain the Land c. and he said that the opinion of Bâ—omley in Fulmerstons case was contrary thereunto but yet he said in 3 Eliz. he hath a report which was adjudged contrary to the opinion of Bromley And allso he cited 50 Ed. 3. that a man shall not have the Rent and the Tenancy of the Land allso And so it seemed to him that the Plaintif shall be barred 18. THE case of Fr. Ashpool was moved again by Fenner Hue and cry and it seemed to him that the Plaintif ought to make Hue and cry for as he said it hath allwaies been the manner of pleading and allso it hath been allwaies parcell of his issue to prove Allso he argued that he should not have remedy by the Statute post occasum solis For Stamford saith expresly that if a man be robbed in the day that he shall have remedy and the day shall be said but from the rising of the Sun to the fall thereof for the words of the Statute are that the Gates of the walled Towns shall be shut ab occasu usque ad ortum solis and then if the Gates be shut and that walled Town be within a Hundred how can they make Hue and cry And the case in 3 Ed. 3. is not like to this case Fresh suit by the Hundreders for there it was enquired and found of the Dozen Anderson The fresh suit mentioned in the Statute ought to be made by the Inhabitants and not by the parties and I am of your opinion that Hue and cry was at the Common Law but what of that But look the Statute and there is no word of Hue and cry And the Statute of 28 Ed. 3. is an exposition of that Statute and there is no mention thereof but Fresh suit is there mentioned which ought to be made by the Inhabitants And by those Statutes it seemeth clearly that the Inhabitants ought to guard the Country in such sort as men may safely travell without robbing And for the night Sir wee ought to construe it as it is most reasonable and about the setting of the Sun is the common time of robbing and therefore if this shall not be intended by the Statute nothing shall be intended and allthough the walled Towns cannot persue Walled Towns may keep the waies yet they may keep the waies so that no robberies shall be committed and this is both day and night as I think And if a man be slain in the robbery so that no Hue and cry can be made I doubt not but the Country shall answer for the robbery A man is robbed slain and bound and so if he be bound And if Hue and Cry ought to be when ought it to be For if a man be bound two dayes together he had as good make no Hue and cry as make Hue and cry afterwards and yet I hope you will agree that this man shall be relieved by the Statute which case was agreed by all the Court. Peryam The day without doubt is after the Sun-set Day after Sun-set Rodes cited the case of waging Battail in an Appeal in Stamford And so by agreement of all the Justices Judgement was entred for the Plaintif but Fenner sayd privately that in his conscience it was against the Law yet notwithstanding all the Judges were clear in opinion and the Serjeants of the other part allso So that it seemed to the Judges that no Hue and Cry is necessary by the party for they all agreed that the Country ought to be kept so that no Robberies be committed And Anderson and Rodes affirmed precisely that it is not necessary and the other agreed in the reason thereof and sayd that it is not mentioned in the Statute but sayd that the waies ought to be kept so that men may travell safely or otherwise it is against the Statute 19. IN a Writ of False Judgement brought against the Mayor Tryall Sherifs Citizens and Commonalty of Norwich it was moved where the Issue shall be tryed and per Curiam it shall not be tryed there but yet the Action may be used there And in the same case it was demanded Summons if the Sherif may summon himself and the Court answered that he could not and Peryam sayd that so it hath been adjudged here many times 20. THe â—ast day of the Term the matter of Lassels was moved again and it seemed to Anderson that the Obligation is voyd in that there is an express form limited by the Statute and this varying from the form in substance is voyd for in his opinion he excludes the
every Wife may be defrauded of her land by joyning in a fine which were a great inconvenience and contrary to this ground in Law that the Husband cannot dispose of the Wifes lands without her consent And although that if the Wife had not shewed her agreement or disagreement then it should have been to the use limitted by the Husband yet here she hath shewed an express disassent and so by their variance both their declarations are void Quare impedit as in a Quare impedit by two if both make severall titles both shall be barred and so judgment shall be given against the Plaintif No Vse limited Peryam to the same intent First it is a plain case that if a Husband and Wife levie a fine and limit no use then the use is to them as the land was before Vse what it is for the use is the profit of the land and the Wife alone cannot limit the use for during the coverture she hath submitted her will to the will of her Husband Silence And if they both levie a fine and he onely by Indenture limits uses Limitation after fine if she do nothing then his limitation is good and the case of Vavisour adjudged here that a limitation after the fine is good And here the Husband hath limited the use to himself for life Who shall limit uses and afterwards they both agree in the limitation now if the residue in which they agree shall be good I will shew my opinion therein likewise because that also may come in question hereafter And I think that this shall not bind the inheritance for it is a ground in Law that limiters of uses shall be such as have power interest and auctority of the land and no further As if Tenant for life and he in reversion joyn in a fine Fine Tenant for life shall limit but for his life but here by the death of the Wife the ability of the Husband is gone for he had no issue by her and therefore his use shall bee gone allso for otherwise it should be a great inconvenience but if they had joyned in the limitation then the inheritance of the Wife had been bound Inheritance shall be bound by agreement and so it is if the Law can intend that she had agreed And to say that the Conisees shall take it from the Husband and Wife and therefore the Wife to be concluded is but small reason for she may confesse the Record well enough as appeareth by the case of Eare and Snow in the Com. and no man can limit uses further than he hath the land and here the limitation for the inheritance after the death of the wife cannot be good and for their variance both are void And so I think judgment shall be given against the Plaintif Rodes to the same intent for the Jury hath found that the Wife did not agree and this speciall finding shall avoid all other common intendments Intendment And the intendment of the party shall overthrow the intendment of the Law and he cited Eare and Snowes case where it was found that the wife had nothing And he cannot limit uses farther than he hath estate in the land and therefore judgment shall be given against the Plaintif Anderson then enter judgment accordingly 14. AN Action upon the statute of Hue and cry was brought against the hundred of Dunmow in Essex Robbery in the night and the Jury found a speciall verdict that the Plaintif was robbed about three a clock in morning before day light and thereupon prayed the advise of the Court And now all the Judges were agreed that for because the Robbery was done in the night and not in the day therefore the Hundred shall not be charged and they commanded to enter iudgment accordingly 15 BEtween Cogan and Cogan the case was Copulative that the Defendant had sold certain land sowen with oad to the Plaintif and that if any restraint shall be by proclamation or otherwise that it should not be lawfull to the Plaintif to sow and make oad then he should have certain mony back again and after proclamation came that no man should sow oad within four miles of any market Town or clothing Town or City or within eight miles of any Mansion House of the Queen and the Plaintif shewed the Land was within foure miles of a Market Town and because he did not averr that it was a Cloathing Town also the Defendant demurred in law And all the Judges held that he had shewed sufficient cause of his Demurrer for the meaning was to restrain by the proclamation aswell all manner of market Townes as those market Townes which were clothing Townes And after Puckering shewed that the restraint was onely from sowing oad and not from making and their Contract was that if any restraint should be from sowing and making in the copulative whereby he thought the Plaintif should be barred quod Curia concessit 16. BEtween Cock and Baldwin the case was Pas 29. Eliz. that a lease was made for 21 yeares to one Trâ—w penny and Elizabeth his wife Rot. 1410. if he and shee Copulative or any child or children between them lawfully begotten should live so long And after they were married the wife died without issue if the lease be thereby determined or no was the question because it is in the conjunctive he and she and now one of them is dead without issue and this case is not like Chapmans case in the Commentaries where one covenants to infeoff B. and his heires for there it is impossible to Emfeoff his heires as long as B. Lease to a for life shall live and therefore there it shall bee taken in the disjuctive and the same Serjeant said that if A. Lease for life of 2 lets land to two for life if one dye the other shall have all by survivour because they took it by way of interest Difference but if I let land to two to have and to hold for the lives of two other if one of them dye the lease is gone quod fuit concessum and here the lease shall be determined by the death of one because so was the intent Rodes the meaning seemeth to be conrrary for by the or which commeth afterward it appeareth that they should have their lives in it Peryam Anderson and Wyndham said that it appeareth by the disjunctive sentence which commeth afterward that the intent was that the lease shall not be determined by the death of one of them and the reason which moved the Lord Anderson to think so was because the state was made before the marriage and so it is as a joynture to the wife and therefore not determined by the death of the one And after they all gave judgment accordingly 17. WAlgrave brought trespass quare vi armis against Somersetbeing Tenant at will Trespass vi armis against Tenant at Will
conjunction 4. WAlmisley moved concerning the Quare impedit brought by the Queen And he thought that she shall recover Avoidance for the avoidance is by Privation and the same party is presented again and and if these shifts may be used the Queen shall never have a Lapse for then the Incumbent shall be deprived and the same Incumbent presented Fenner to the contrary and said that where her title is restrained to a time there she shall have no Prerogative to the prejudice of a third person nor to alter their Estates And for that in 1 Ed. 3. if the King have a Lordship and Rent and he grant the Lordship over and retain the Rent and after the Land escheats the Rent is gone The year day and Waâ—t as in the case of a common person and the Queen shall have the year day and Wast but if Tenant for life dy she shall not have it Dower against Guardian And in Dower against the Guardian if the Heir come to full age the Writ shall abate 5. AN Action upon the case was brought for calling the Plaintif Bankrupt Bankrupt and a Verdict passed for the Paintif And now Shutleworth shewed in arrest of Judgement that the Plaintif had not declared that he was a Merchant or of any Mystery or trade And the Court held the Declaration insufficient for the same cause and made a rule for stay of the Judgement accordingly 6. IN a Replevin brought by Mary Colthirst against Thomas Delves Discent of a third part it was agreed by three Justices Anderson being in the Starchamber that if a man have Lands held in chief to the value of 60 l. that he may Devise Lands to the value of 40. l. if he suffer the rest to the value of 20. l. to descend to his Heir And therefore they overruled it upon evidence to the Jury that where one Barners was seised of the Mannor of Toby in the County of Essex and was allso seised of the Mannor of Hinton in the County of Gloucester Entire Mannor and all those were held by Knights service in chief and deviseth the Mannor of Toby to his Wife for life that his Heir at the Common Law shall have no part thereof if the Mannor of Hinton amounteth to the third part of all his Lands Allso they overruled that if a man after Mariage convey a Joynture to his Wife and dy that after the Wife may refuse the Joynture Refusall of Joynture and demand her Dower at the Common Law Allso that by refusall in the Country she may wave her Joynture and hold her to her Dower and that this is a sufficient Election Allso they held that if a man makes a Joynture to his Wife during the Coverture Devise for Joynture and after by his Testament deviseth other Lands to her in stead of her Joynture that she may refuse the Joynture and hold her to the Devise and that this shall be good by the Statute and yet Gawdy moved to the contrary because the Statute is that she may refuse the Joynture and hold her to the Dower but the three Justices overruled it clearly and said that such was the meaning of the Statute No wayving after agreement but they agreed that if she have once agreed to the Joynture that she cannot waive it afterwards Allso they agreed that if a Wife do once refuse her Joynture in her own house amongst her servants and not to the Heir that yet this is a good Refusall And Peryam said for Law that where a Joynture is conveyed to the Wife during the Coverture Refusall by bringing Dower and after the death of her Husband she say nothing but bringeth a Writ of Dower that this is a good Refusall aud so he hath seen in experience 7. AN Action upon the case was brought by John Cuttes against an antient Attourney of the Court Slander for these words viz. John Cutts was one of those which robbed Humphrey Robbins And they were at issue and it was found for the Plaintif And it was alleged in arrest of Judgement that the words were spoken in Queen Maries time as appeareth by the Declaration And yet the opinion of the Court was that he should have his Judgement allthough peradventure robberies were pardoned by Parliament after that time 8. CArleton brought Entry sur disseisin against Carre Abatement for part who for part pleaded that he had nothing but in Right of his Wife not named c. and so demanded Judgement of the Writ and for the rest he pleaded in bar and they joyned issue for both and the Jury appeared at the bar and found both the issues for the Defendant And now the question was whether the Writ shall abate for all or no because for part it was found that the Defendant had nothing but in right of his Wife or whether it shall abate but for this part onely And Shuttleworth argued that it should abate for part onely and he resembled it to Joyntenancy in which case it shall abate but in part and he cited Dier 291. 7 R. 2. titulo joint 8. E. 1. titulo breif 860. Severall Tenancy And VValmisley said that it was more like to a severall Tenancy in which case all shall abate as in non tenure but Peryam said to him put a case where severall Tenancy shall abate all the Writ Anderson Joyntenancy and seised in right of his Wife is all one to this effect and intent Joyntenancy for in Joyntenancy he confesseth that he is sufficient enough but that another hath right as well as himself allso And so where he confesseth that he is seised in right of his Wife he confesseth that he is Tenant but that another ought to be named with him Peryam True it is that there is no difference concerning this purpose and intent and if the Recovery be had against the Husband sole he shall be bound And at length all the Iustices agreed that the Writ shall abate but in part and that Judgement shall be given for the rest and so for that residue the Judgement was nihil capiat per breve vide 3 Hen. 4. 2. 13 Eliz. fol. 301. 9. AT this day Walmisley prayed Judgement in the Quare impedit for the Queen Lapse Anderson we are all agreed that the Queen shall have Judgement for the reason of the mischief For otherwise when the Queen hath a Lapse divolved unto her one shall be Presented and afterwards deprived so that the Queen shall never have her Lapse And it differeth much from the case of that avoidance which cometh by the Act of God for this is by the Act of the party and the refore Covenous And so let Judgement be entred for the Queen 10. A Writ was ad respondendum I. S. Fidei uxori ejus and the Defendant pleaded in abatement of the Writ because the name of the Wife was Faith in English therefore they pretended that it should
be Fidi Rodes I know a Wife which is called Troth in English and she was called Trothia in Latin and it was good And all the Court adjudged this Writ good here 11. AN Action upon the Statute of Winch. was brought against a hundred in Gloucester Hue and 〈◊〉 and the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that the money was delivered to a Carrier of Bristow to be carried to London who packed it up And as he was on his journey certain Malefactors came to him in an another Hundred and there took his Horse and Pack and led him into a Wood within this Hundred against which the action is brought And if this Hundred be guilty or no they prayed the advise of the Court And all the Justices agreed that this was a robbery in the first Hundred and not in the second for upon the first taking he was robbed but if the Carrier had led the Horse himself Possession then it should be adjudged to be in his own possession and no robbery untill he came into the second Hundred and if a man have money and the Malefactors take him in one Hundred and carry him unto another Hundred and there Rifle him this shall not be a robbery in the first but onely in the second Hundred for he is allwaies in possession per totam Curiam and Judgement was given accordingly So of the purse picked in the Kings Bench and the thief taken with the manner but a key being fastened to the purse still stuck in the pocket and 2 Justices against two that the man was still in possession of his purse and so no robbery 12. WAlmisly shewed Termor how a woman brought Dower against her two daughters and another and in truth the third was but a Termer and the Wife hath no cause of dower but that this was onely to make the Termer to lose his term for they all have made default at the grand cape and now he prayed to be received and shewed cause that the Husband made a lease for yeares and after the Lessee levied a fine to the Lessor and they granted and rendred back again to the Lessee for the same yeares rendring the same rent and the Statute of Gloucester is if the Farmour have c. that is if he may have covenant as in 19 Ed. 3. and here he may have covenant Ejectione firme and prayed to be received and shewed his plea. Shuttleworth You are at no mischief for you shall have an ejectione firme if you be ousted where she hath no cause of Dower Walmisley But we shall be put out of possession which shall be no reason Anderson I hold that a Termer may falsify by the Common law Falsify Shuttleworth But his lease is after our title of dower Lesser may plead destruction of dower Peryam although that it be after yet if he have matter which goeth in destruction of the Dower he shall falsify well enough as if she have title of Dower and five yeares pass after the fine levied And Anderson and Peryam said that the Statute of Gloucester was made that a Termer should not be put out of possession but here the Termer is named ideo quare And after at another day Shuttleworth moved it again Resceit of the partie to the Writ and said that the Termer shall not be received because he is named in the Writ and the Court was of the same opinion then but they said that he might plead speciall non tenure Shuttleworth first he ought to save his default for he commeth in upon the grand cape Rodes by 33 H. 6. 2. he may plead non tenure before default saved by Prisot there Shuttleworth Then I shall have judgement against the two which made default at the grand cape Conusance Curia you had best be advised lest the Writ should abate by non tenure of parcell Cemurier Shuttleworth by my Conusance of non tenure of parcell Difference all shall abate but if I demurr upon his plea then it shall abate but for one parcell 13. LEonard White brought a Formdon in Discender and declared of a gift in tayl made to his father Estoppell who died and the land descended to the elder brother of the Demandant who also died without Issue and so conveyed to himself as heir in tayl c. The Tenant pleaded that the elder brother had Issue a Daughter who levied a fine to him and he relied upon the fine and proclamation Inducement doth 〈◊〉 make a plea double Walmisly this Plea is double the one is the Issue the other the fine Curia forasmuch as he cannot come to the one without shewing the other it shall not be double also here he relieth upon the Estopple vide 18. E. 3. 25. Tit. Gard. per Wylly 14. A Formdon in descend by three brethren for lands in Gavelkind they were at Issue upon Assetz descended to the Demandants Assets in Gavelkind And the Jury found a speciall Verdict that the Father of the Demandant was seised of those lands and by his Testament devised them to his three sonnes now Demandants and to their heires equally to be divided And if this shall be said a descent to them or no was the question because the Law would have done as much and therefore it shall be said Assetz But all the Court held the contrary and that they shall be joynt-Tenants or Tenants in common and then they shall not be in by the descent and so no Assetz and Anderson said that if a man devise to his sonne and heir in tayl he shall not take it by descent Peryam if a man may have any more benefit by the Devise than by the descent then he shall take by the Devise Eadem lex per Curiam if he devise his lands to his two daughters and heires they shall be joynt-Tenants and no coparceners è contra if he have but one son or one daughter only 15. IN the Exchequer Chamber all the Justices of the Common Pleas and the Barons of the Exchequer Venus were assembled according to the Statute of 27. Eliz. to reform errors in the Kings bench And Smaleman of the inner Temple shewed how an Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation against one Cheney as administrator who pleaded plenè administravit and the action was laid in Barkshire at Newbery and the Plaintif averred that the Defendant had Assetz at Westwood in the same County and the venire facias was of Newberry whereas it should have been of Westwood And this he assigned for Error And all the Court agreed una voce that it was Error and so the judgement was reversed but the Assetz being transitory might have been assigned at Newbery 17. ANother Writ of Error was there brought by the Lord Seymour against Sr. John Clifton upon a judgement given against him Amendment and assigned for error that the judgement was quod recuperet versus Edward Seymour
have against him untill the 24 of June then next following which was half a year after and because he had not performed this an action upon an Assumpsit was brought and Judgement given for the Plaintif and all the Justices agreed that this was Error because that this thing arbitrated was out of the submission and so voyd for they have no authority to arbitrate that which is not submitted unto them Submission and the submission is onely of things passed and not to come but because that the Defendant had not heard of this Error before therefore they gave him day Afterwards the case was moved again and Anderson sayd that damages recovered doe not lye in arbitrement Damages recovered Peryam Amongst other things they will lye well enough quod Anderson non negavit But they all sayd that they may well assume upon consideration and an Action will be maintainable for it 5. THomas Mounson Esquire Term extinguished sonne and heir apparent to Sir Iohn Mounson Knight brought an Action of Trespass against VVest who pleaded not guilty and upon Evidence it appeared that Sir Iohn Mounson had an estate for years the Remainder in tayl to the Plaintif with divers Remainders over and the Lessee made a Feoffment to divers and a Letter of Attorney to others with commission to enter into the lands and to seal the Feoffment and deliver it in his name to the use of the sayd Thomas and his heirs and another by commandement or Letter of Attorney of the sayd Thomas entred in his name And the Court held this a good Feoffment notwithstanding that both the Lessee and the Attorney were disseisors Disseisors for it is good between the Feoffor and the Feoffee for they sayd that by the Feoffment to the use of him in the remainder and his heirs if he in remainder enter he is remitted and the estate for years is gone implicatively Freehold joyned to the term Morgage for Peryam sayd that in all cases where the Freehold cometh to the term there the term is extinguished And therefore if a man morgage his reversion to the Lessee for years and after perform the condition yet the Lease for years is utterly extinguished And the Evidence on both parts was very long and the chief matter was whether a Deed were forged by Rob. Mounson lately one of the Justices of the Common-pleas by which Devise lands were conveighed to him by William Mounson his Father whose heir at the Common Law Sir John Mounson is viz. the Sonne of Roberts eldest brother and the Deed was shewed by VVest and it was perished with Mice all the Seal and part of every side but yet by the last Will of the sayd VVilliam Mounson and by divers other proofs it was evident that the Deed was good and but little in effect was shewed to prove the Deed forged Misdemenour yet the Jury went together and tarryed there all night and in the mean time some of them had victualls with them for one had Cheese and another had Pruens another had Pippins and another had an Orange but he which had the Orange swore that he brought it onely for the smell and therefore he was excused and he which had Pruens had given half a Pruen to one of his companions which eat it and he which had Cheese had eat thereof therefore all those which had victuals Fine and imprisonment were fined at 40 s and they which had eaten at 5 l. every of them and all committed to the Fleet but because they were agreed therefore the Verdict was taken and the Verdict was given for the Plaintif viz. that the Deed was forged by Justice Mounson and the Verdict taken de bene esse and all this matter commanded to be entred for the Justices doubted whether it were a good Verdict This matter was moved divers Terms afterwards and at the last adjudged a good Verdict 6. IN an Ejectione firme by Ashby against Laver for Lands in Westminster Countermand it was sayd by all the Justices to the Jury that if a man hath a Lease and disposeth of it by his will and after surrenders it and takes a new Lease and after dyeth that the Devisee shall not have this last Lease because this was a plain countermand of his Will 7. IN Trespass by Johnson against Astley it was said by the Justices to the Jury that if there were a Chauntery in reputation allthough it be none in right as if it be gone by disseisin yet the Queen shall have the Lands 8. AT Serjeants-Inne in Fleet-street Rent suspended the Justices of the Common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer were assembled for divers Errors in the Kings-bench and the case of Rawlins was moved again and Anderson and Peryam retained their former opinions and Peryam sayd that he would differ from all the cases of collaterall conditions Feoffment upon condition which may be put for he sayd that if a man make a Feoffment in fee of 20 Acres of land upon condition that if he pay to the Feoffee xx l. at Easter that then it shall be lawfull for him to re-enter allthough that he be re-enfeoffed of 10 Acres yet he ought to perform the condition because it is collaterall But Cook the famous Utter-barrister sayd Truly it hath been adjudged to the contrary and I was privy to it for when he took as high an estate again as he had before by that the condition is confounded and the case of the Corody in 20 Ed. 4. will prove this case Rodes I see no diversity Peryam It is collaterall there but so it is not here but afterwards those two Judges changed their opinions and so the first Judgement was affirmed 9. BRown recovered against Garbrey in an Assumpsit Consideration and thereupon Garbrey brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error that there was no Consideration for the Declaration was that whereas there was a communication between Brown and a woman for Mariage between them that the Father of Brown had promised to the Wife that if she would marry his Son he would make a Feoffment of his land to the use of himself for life and after to the use of them two in tayl the remainder c. and that Garbrey assured to the Wife in consideratione praemissorum that if the Father did not doe so then he would give the Wife a hundred pound ac licet the Father did not give to them in tayl secund agreament praedict yet Garbrey refused c. And Cook moved that this should be no Consideration for the communication of Mariage was not by him but between strangers to him but if the Father had assumed in consideration of Mariage then that should have been good against the Father but against Garbrey it is â—o otherwise than as if one promise to you to Enteoff you and I say that if he doe not so then I will give you a hundred pound this is
the Land should pass by this words Appurtenances For allthough that in late Books Lands shall not pass by this word Appurtenances yet this is good authority to prove that they shall pass as 7 Hen. 5. 41. T. 21 Ed. 3. 18. Allso Wills shall be taken by meaning and here upon this devise 4. l. Rent is reserved and the antient Rent is but 45. s and if the Land should be racked it is all worth but v. l. a year and because they are held in Capite therefore by the Statute we shall have but two parts And it cannot be intended that it was his meaning to have us pay 4. l. for the Lands in Ebney Valew wich are not worth so much therefore somtime the valew is considerable in a Will and cited 4 Ed. 6. 7 Ed. 6. and so he thought the Plaintif ought to recover And at this time the Court seemed to be of the same opinion for they gave day over to the Defendant at which day if nothing were said Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif 4. GAwdy prayed Judgement in an Action of Trespass by Hambledon against Hambledon Survivor the case was such H. was seised in Fee and had issue Mic. 29. 30 three Sonnes Eliz. râ—t 2325. John VVilliam now Plaintif and Richard now Defendant And by his last Will devised Lands to Iohn and to the Heirs Males of his body ingendred and devised other Lands to William in like sort and other Lands to Richard in like sort And that if any of his Sonnes died without issue Male that then the Survivor shall be each others Heir Afterwards the eldest died without issue Male And if William shall have all his part alone or else he and Richard between them was demurred in Law and day was given over to argue it 5. WAlmisley shewed how an Action was brought by Berdsley against Pilkington Impounding upon the Statute of 2 3 P. Mary for driving a Distress out of the County And shewed the truth of his case that the Distress was taken in the Hundred of Offlay in Staffordshire and the City of Lichfield was sometime within this Hundred And by Letters Patents of 1 Mariae the City was made a County of it self and he which took the Distress impounded them within a pound in the County of the City of Lichfield now whether he hath incurred the penalty of the Statute or no was the question And because the Court had not a Statute Book there to see the Preamble therefore they would give no resolution Anderson The meaning of the Statute was because the Bailif of the Hundred might make deliverance Allso I think it is within the compass of the Statute because the City was a County severed before this Statute made And the Serjeants at the bar said Same Hundred that the party may drive the Distress as far as he will within the same Hundred but he ought not to drive it above three miles without the Hundred 6. IOhn Slywright exhibited an information upon the Statute Champerty for buying of Titles Pasch 30. Eliz. rot 1532. against Page and declared how Joane Wade demised to Page for 60 yeares the Defendant pleaded not guilty And now a Jury of Sussex appeared at the bar And upon Evidence it was moved â—if a man have a lawfull Title to enter into Lands Lawfull title but hath not been in Possession and he entreth and makes a Lease for yeares thereof if this be within compass of the Statute Anderson It is within the Statute for the mischief was that when a man had a Title to Land he would let it to another to have maintenance and imbracery and make contentions and Suites for remedy whereof the Statute was made For if a man have a Title he may recover according to his Title Recovery Peryam The mischief hath been truly recited and therfore it is reason to restrain such bargains But if a man Recover by Formdon or Cessavit and make a Lease this is not within compass of the Statute A pretended Right allthough that he hath not been in Possession by a year and in my opinion the Plaintif need not prove that it is a pretented Right because the Statute expoundeth what is a pretented Right viz. if he hath not been in possession And so I have delivered my opinion before this time Anderson If a man hath not been in Possession and cometh to me and saith that he will make me a Lease and demands if I will take it and I agree thereto whereby he maketh me this Lease Ignorance if I do not know that he hath not been in possession I am not within the Statute And then the Defendant shewed that he was brother of the halfblood to the Wife of the Lessor whereby he might take the Lease well enough For Fleetwood cited 6 Ed. 3. if one brother maintain the other this is not within the Statute of Champerty which case the Court agreed this is for speciall cause vide statut de articulis super cartas Maintenance Champerty Difference Anderson One brother may travell for another and maintain him but if he take a Lease of him he is within the Statute of 32. Hen. 8. for this is a generall mischief and the mischief is as great if the brother take a Lease as if another take it The case quod Periam coucessit clearly but because it was the case of the Defendant the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that the Lands were conveyed by the Husband of Joane Wade to the use of himself and his Wife in Tail-speciall the Remainder to the Husband in generall-generall-Tail the Remainder to the Wife in Fee and after the Husband Enfeoffed diverse men thereof and the Feoffees continued in Possession diverse years After the Husband died and then the Wife by indenture sealed and delivered of the Land made a Lease to Page which knew all this matter Knowledge from the fift day of Jenuary last past for 60 years if the Wife should live so long and that the Wife was Sister to Page the Defendant by the Mother and found the valew of the Land as if it should be sold and they prayed the advise of the Court c. And the morow after the like information being brought against the woman being Lessor the like Evidence was given and the like case found 7. FEnner moved this case to the Court. Recovery An Alien born purchaseth Lands in Tail the Remainder to a stranger in Fee The Alien suffereth a Common Recovery to his own use in Fee And after an Office is found of all this matter if the Remainder shall be to him which had it before or no was the question Anderson I think the Queen shall have a good Fee-simple Tenant sufficient to the praecipe for if there be a good Tenant to the praecipe then is the Remainder gone and you will not deny but that
view of the Record it appeared that no originall was certified and therefore could not be amended 33. EJectione firme inter Bulleyn Bulleyn Devise Cook Attorney Generall The case is that Simon Bulleyn being cestui que use before 27 H. 8. Devised to his Wife certain Land for her life that after her decease Robert Bulleyn his eldest sonne shall have the land ten pound under the price it cost Limitation and if he dyed without issue that Richard Bulleyn his second sonne shall have the land ten pound under the price it cost and if he dye without issue of his body then his two Daughters A. and B. shall have the land paying the value thereof to the Executors of his Wife and allso by the same Will he desired his Feoffees at the request of his Wife to make Estates accordingly The chief question and knot of the case is whether Robert Bulleyn the Devisee hath an estate tayl or not and he sayd it seemed to him he had but an estate tayl and for that we are to see whether the payment ought to precede or is subsequent to the estate and I think it is subsequent to the estate For the words are my sonne Robert shall have my laud ten pound under the price it cost and so by the words he ought to have the land before any payment and I think he shall have the land by course of limitation Limitation and if he doe not pay the money that R. B. shall have the land as Heir by limitation Crickmores case and for that purpose he cited Crickmores case in 3 Elizab. where a man had two Daughters and devised his land to his eldest daughter paying to the youngest ten pound there the eldest had all the land till she failed of payment of the ten pound and then it was adjudged that the youngest should have the moity by way of limitation Vellock Heymonds case And 32 Eliz. it was adjudged in this Court inter Vellock Heymond where a man devised Burrongh English land to the eldest brother paying to the youngest ten pound and after the elder failed of payment and the youngest entered by way of limitation And in this case these words that Robert my son shall have my land ten pound under the price it cost will make a condition as well as if he had sayd paying ten pound and to prove that he cited Sir Edward Cleres case Sir Edward Cleres case that these words upon trust and confidence will not make a Condition by reason that the Devisor had a speciall trust and confidâ—nce in the Devisee but it is otherwise here and in this case the estate of necessitie ought to precede the payment for it is appointed that the payment shall be made to the Executors of the woman and so if the estate doe not precede the payment then during the life of the woman the Devisee shall have no estate for during her life she cannot have Executors and so by consequence can there be no payment Allso the words of the Will are I desire my Feoffees to make an estate at the request of my Wife so that his meaning was plain that there should be an estate made in the life of the Wife for after her death she may not make request but it hath been sayd that the state should be Fee simple for that the words are that he shall have the land ten pound under the price it cost and so these words paying shall carry the Fee simple And as to that I say that it shall not against an expressed estate Expressed estate And for that 2 El. 117. a Frenchman devised lands to his Wife for life the remainder to C. F. and to the heirs Males of his body and if he dye without heirs of his body the remainder over and it was taken clearly that the generall limitation if he dyed without issue of his body shall not alter the speciall tayl for that the intent is apparent and allso he cited Claches case and Atkins case 34 Eliz. 33. Allso in this case Robert Bulleyn the Devisee is made Executor to the woman so that if it were a condition subsequent he may not make payment to himself but shall have the land discharged of the condition by reason of the impossibility as if the woman had dyed intestat there is no person to whom the payment ought to be made and so the Devisee is discharged of the condition Allso in this case the Devisee being eldest sonne may not forsake the Devise and take by descent as in 3 Hen. 6. 46. it is for the benefit of him in remainder but if he might waive he may not waive in pais as 13 Rich. 2. Joyntenancy is adjudged And allso when he enters at the first he is seised by the Devise for he hath no other right for if he might waive he in remainder shall not take Et adjornatur but the Court seemed to lean that the estate should be a Fee simple 34. BUry brought an Action upon his case for words against Chappell Slander viz. He hath been in Fowlers Tub innuendo the Tub of one Fowler a Chirurgeon in which Tub no person had been but those which were layd of the Pox I will not say of the Pox but he lay in the Tub that time that Lagman his Wife was layd of the Pox and tell thy Master his hair falls from his head and he is a pilled Knave and a Rascall Knave and a Villain and no Christian and thinks there is neither heaven nor hell and adjudged that the Action is not maintainable 35. A Man is arraigned of Felony and acquitted Flight for Felony but it is found that he fled for the Felony he shall not lose his goods that he had at that time of his flying but at the time of the acquittall tit Coronae Fiâ—zh 296. Bro. tit relation 31. 3 Ed 3. 36. WIlkinson brought Error upon a Judgment given against him in the Common place Variance between emparlance and judgment roll for date of the Obligation And the case was that in Debt brought against Wilkinson in the Common place upon an Obligation bearing date 1â— die Novembris the Defendant imparled and in the next Term the Plaintif declared a new prout patet upon an Obligation bearing date 12. Februarii and upon nihil dicit had judgment And now in the Writ of Error brought by the Defendant the Plaintif prayes that it may be amended Gawdie Fenner said it could not be amended but the Lord Popham and Clinch said it might be amended 37. SKelt brought an Assumpsit against Wright and declared that the Defendant in consideration of 10l assumed to make two lights into one New triall and upon non assumpsit pleaded they were at issue and the Record of nisi prius was to make two lights and one where it ought to be into one and upon that at the nisi prius the
Plaintif was non suit And it was now moved whether the Plaintif ought to have a new venire facias upon the first issue insomuch as the first venire facias did not issue forth upon the first Record and no non suit Et opiniâ— Curiae that he may go to a new triall but whether he shall have a venire facias de novo or that the old venire facias should serve the Court doubted for that the first Jury was sworn 38. FOrd brought an Action of Debt against Glanvile and his Wife Administratrix bonorum Catellorum qua fuerunt Johannis S. durante minore aetate T. S. Abatements The Defendant pleaded that hanging this action against them the said T. S. during whose nonage the Wife was Administratrix came to full age and if this were a good Plea or no was the question And adjudged a good Plea 39. UPon an information against Sr. Christopher Blunt a Juror was challenged for want of Free-hold Free-hold of a Juror and by examination was found that he had 20 shillings a year Fenner and Gawdy doubted whether this be sufficient Free-hold or not Popham and Clinch held it is sufficient for the Statute binds not the Queen and by the Common law if he had any Free-hold it was sufficient Fenner This is a Statute made for the benefit of the Common-wealth and therefore the Queen shall be bound by it though she be not named in it Gawdy Me thinks every Juror ought to have 40. s Free hold at the least by the Common-Law No bill of enception against the Queen Cook No certainly and if they doe take the Law to be so they may have a bill of exception Tanfield Wee cannot have a bill of exception against the Queen see the Statute of 1 Hen. 5. cap. 3. that that is between party and party and the Statute of 8 Hen. 6. the preamble is between party and party But Popham commanded the Jury to be sworn but Gawdy would have sent to the Justices of the Common Pleas for their opinion but the Juror was sworn by Commandment of Popham against the opinion of Justice Fenner 40. PEr Cook Proxime future If I am bound in an Obligation in Lent upon Condition to pay a lesser sum in quarta septimana quadragesima proximae futurae This money shall be paid in Lent Twelvemonth after And so it is upon the Feast day of St Michael I am bound to pay a lesser Summe upon the Feast day of Saint Michaell prox futur without question said he it shall be paid the Twelvemonth after and not the instant day 41. THE Duke of Norfolk Morgaged certain Lands to Rowland Haward Demand Alderman of London upon Condition that if the said Duke do repay to the said Alderman a certain Sum of money That then the Duke might re-enter and after the Duke was attainted before the day of payment Condition given to the Queen and all his Lands Tenements and Conditions were given to the Queen And the question moved at the Table in the Serjeants Inne was whether Sir Rowland ought now to make a Demand of the money upon the Land or to demand that at the Receipt of the Exchequer or that the Queen ought to make the tender upon the Land And it was agreed by all the Judges and Serjeants at dinner that the Queen ought to make no tender But the Alderman ought to make his Demand at the Exchequer and not upon the Land 42. REdfrein agaiust I. S. an Action of the case was brought for words Slander viz. I was robbed and you were privy thereunto and had part of my money It was pleaded in arrest of Judgement that the words will not maintain an Action For that a man may be privy to a robbery after that it is made and have part of the money by honest meanes and therefore it is no slander but the whole Court held the contrary Infected Smell of robbery as well as you are infected with a robbery and smell of the same will maintain an Action so will these words therefore Judgement was given for the Plaintif 43. MEggs against Griffyth brought an Action for these words Slander viz. A woman told me that she heard say that Meggs Wife poysoned her Husband in a mess of milk and Judgement given for the Plaintif 44. REvell against Hart A Parsons Lease the case was upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. of Leases made by a Parson Serjeant Harris A Lease made by a Parson is not void against the Parson himself no more than a Lease made by a Bishop which is not void against the Bishop himself as was judged in the case of the Bishop of Salisbury Fenner The Law is as you said in a case of a Bishop but the case of a Parson percase will differ Popham If Rent be reserved Rent reserved it is good against the Parson himself otherwise not Clinch and Gawdy It is good against the Parson himself 45. WInch brought a Writ of Error against Warner Space in the roll upon a Judgement in a Writ of Debt in the Common place upon Arrerageâ— upon an account and it was assigned for Error for that the Plaintif in the Common place The emparlance roll is the Warrant in the first Declaration left a space for the day and year And after imparlance he put in a new Declaration which was perfect But for that the two Declarations did not agree and the first Declaration is the Warrant of all and therefore ought to be perfect therefore the Judgement ought to be Reversed for this default 46. IT appeared in Evidence inter Petties and Soam Foractor upon an Assumsit for ware bought by the Factor of Soam per opinionem Cur. If one be Factor for a Merchant to buy one kind of Stuff as Tin or other such like and the said Factor hath not used to buy any other kind of wares but this kind onely for his Master If now the said Factor buy Saies or other Commodities for his Master and assume to pay money for that Now the Master shall be charged in an Assumpsit for the money and for that let the Master take heed what Factor he makes 47. A. B. being seised in Fee Devise made his Will and devised his Land to his Wife for life the remainder to his Son in Tail and if he died without issue the Land to remain to R. W. and his Wife for their lifes and after their deceases to their children The question is whether the children of W. take by descent or as Purchasers Popham Gawdie were of opinion that they had an Estate Tail But Fenner Clinch but for life 48. WIlliam Gerrard was arrested by a Latitat and put in bail by the name of William Gerrat Bail by a false name and the Plaintif declared against him by the name of Gerrart and all the proceedings and issue was accordingly and Judgement was had
pleaded that before the said Feast of St. Mich. the said G. did not tender to him any acquittance Gawdie The Obligation is void for in so much as the Obligee hath not tendred to him any acquittance therefore he hath tolled from him the election whereof he shall not take advantage Fenner è contra for the election is not in the Partie for the making â—o the acquittance resteth in the will of the Obligee and so the Obligor hath no election Popham was of the same opinion 56. IF a Sheriff doe execute his Writ the same day that the Writ is retornable Execution of a writ done the day of the retorn it is a good execution per Yelverton and he cited these cases A Judgement given in a quare impedit 18. Eliz. and the Writ of dammages was executed the same day that it was retornable and this matter pleaded in arrest of judgement and notwithstanding the partie had judgment and if a capias ad satisfaciendum goe forth and the Sheriff take the Partie the same day that the Writ is retornable and send him into the Court who will say that this is not a good execution 57. WOodcock brought an Action of Debt against Heru Assets Executor of I. S. The Defendant pleaded that the Testator in his life time made a Statute Staple to one I. K. in the sum of 1000 l. and above that he hath nothing And if this Plea be good or not is the question Fenner The Plea is good without question Gawdie I have heard divers learned men doubt of that for if the Testator were bound in a Statute to perform Covenants which are not yet broken and it may be they will never be broken and then he shall never be chargeable by this Statute and yet he shall never be compelled to pay any debts which will be a great inconvenience And again I think there will be a greater mischief of the other part for put the case if the Executors doe pay this debt and the Statute is broken after he shall be chargeable by a devastavit of his own proper goods the which will be a greater inconvenience 58. BRough against Dennyson brought an Action for words Slander viz. Thou hast stoln by the high-way side Popham The words are not actionable for it may be taken that he stole upon a man suddenly as the common proverb is that he stole upon me innuendo that he came to me unawares And when a man creepeth up a hedge the common phrase is he stole up the hedge Fenner When the words may have a good construction you shall never construe them to an evill sense And it may be intended he stole a stick under a hedge and these words are not so slanderous that they are actionable 59. A Copy-holder was not upon his Land to pay his rent Forfeiture of a copy-hrld when the Lord was there to demand it And whether this were a forfeiture or not was the question Fenner It is no forfeiture if there were not an express denyall for the non-payment here is but negligence the which is not so hainous an injurie as a willfull denyal for it may be that the Copy-holder being upon the Land hath no money in his purse and therefore it shall be a very hard construction to make it a forfeiture But if he make many such defaults it may be it shall be deemed a forfeiture Popham If this shall not be a forfeiture there will grow great danger to the Lord and the Copy-holders estate was of small account in ancient time and now the strength that they have obtained is but conditionally to wit pay their rent and doing their sevices and if they fail of any of these the Condition is broken and it seemeth cleer if the rent be payable at our Lady day Demand after the day and the Lord doth not come then but after the day to demand the rent there is no forfeiture 60. THe Case was that there was Lessee for life Sir Henry Knevit against Poole interest of Corn. the Remainder for life and the first Lessee for life made a lease for years and this Lessee was put out of possession by a stranger and the stranger sowed the Land and the first Lessee for life dyed and he in remainder for life entred into the Land and leased it to Sir Henry Knevit and who should have the corn was the question Tanfeild argued that Sir H. K. being Lessee of the Tenant for life in remainder shall have the corn for the reason for which a man which hath an uncertain estate shall have the corn is for that he hath manured the land and for that it is reason that he that laboureth should reap the fruit but he said that the stranger that sowed the land shall not have the corn Lease of ground sowed because his estate begun by wrong for if a man make a lease for life of ground sowed and before severance the Lessee dyed now his Executor shall not have the corn Assignment after sowing concess per Popham cont per Gawdy for that they came not of the manurance of their Testator so it is if the Lessee for life sowe the land and assign over his interest and dye now the Assigne shall not have the corn cansa qua supra and for this reason in our case neither the Executors of the first Tenant for life nor the Lessee of the first Tenant for life shall have the corn here for that it comes not by their manurance and the stranger which sowed them he shall not have them Vncertainty necessarie unnecessary difference for albeit he manured the land and howbeit his estate was defeasable upon an uncertainty yet he was a wrong doer and the incertainty of his estate came by his own wrong for which the law will never give any favour to him and for that when he in remainder for life entreth it seemeth that he shall have the corn for he hath right to the possession and the corn are growing upon the soile and by consequence are belonging to the owner of the soile but it hath been said that here there was no trespasse done to him in remainder and for that he shall never have the corn Sir as to that I say if an Abator after the death of the Ancestor enter and sowe the land Abator soweth and after the right heire enter in this case the heire shall have the corn and yet no trespasse was made to him and it hath been adjudged in this Court where a man devised land sowed to one for life and after his decease the remainder to another for life and the first Tenant entred and dyed before severance and he in remainder entred that there he in remainder shall have the corn and by consequence the same Law shall be in our case Godfrey è contra and he argued that the Lessee for yeers Devise of land sowne of the first Lessee for life
beasts shall not discharge him for the payment of Tythes for other beasts and Tythes shall not be payd for beasts fed for the occupation of the house of the owner No tyths for things spent in the house but if a man feed to sell there shall Tyths be payd for those for with the first people live which manure the land of which the Tythes are payd for so is Fitzh Nat. brev 53. Q. to be intended 67. WIldgoose versus Wayland in Cancellar Notice of trust This question arose If A. be seised upon trust and confidence to the use of B. and his Heirs and A. selleth the land to one that hath notice of the trust to whose use shall the Vendee be seised Also it was moved if before the sale one come to the Vendee say to him take heed how ye buy such land for A. hath nothing in that but upon trust to the use of B. and another comes to the Vendee and saith to him It is not as he is informed for A. is seised of this land absolutely by which the Vendee buyeth the land if this first Caveat given to him ut supra be a sufficient notice of the trust or not And the Lord Keeper sayd it is not for flying-reports are many times fables and not truth and if it should be admitted for a sufficient notice then the Inheritance of every man might easily be slandered Notice of Forgery Cook It was holden in Bothes case in the Starchamber that if a man sayd to another take heed how you publish such a Writing for it is forged and notwithstanding the party doth publish it this is a sufficient notice to the publisher that the Deed was forged And upon that the Lord Popham at the same time put this case Notice of Felony If one say to me take heed how you entertain or receive A. B. for he hath committed such a Felony and I giving no credit to the report receive the party where in truth he had committed the Felony now I am accessary to this Felony To which the Lord Keeper answered that he would not draw blood upon such an opinion 68. IF a man make a Lease reserving Rent to the Lessor Reservation of Rent if he say no more the Rent shall goe but to the Lessor but if it be reserved generally and doe not say to whom it shall goe as well to the Heir of the Lessor as to the Lessor himself Per Gawdy 69. IT was sayd by Fell Hue and Cry an Attorney of the Kings-bench that it hath been adjudged in the same Court that an Action upon the Statute of Hue and Cry against Inhabitants of any Hundred will never lye by Bill but ought to be sued by Writ and the reason is for that the Action is brought against Inhabitants which are a multitude and for that may not be in custodia Marescalli as another private person may 70. A Judgement was had in an Action of Debt of 80 l. And the Plaintif had a Fieri facias Capias after a Fieri sacias executed for parcell and the Sherif levyed 20 l. of the goods of the Defendant and retorned that of Record but non constat by the Record whether the Plaintif had received the 20 l. or not and the Plaintif took forth a Cap. ad satisfaciend for the whole Execution being 80 l. and upon that the Defendant was Utlawed and now he brought a Writ of Error to reverse that Utlary which was reversed for that it did appear upon Record that execution was made by Fieri fac of 20 l. of the 80 l. and therefore the Cap. ad satisfaciend should have been but 60 l. 71. IF the Husband sell his land by Fine Claim of Dower with Proclamations and live five years and after dye his Wife being sole of full age of sound memory out of prison and within the four Seas and doe not make any demand or claim of her Dower within five years after the death of her Husband she shall be barred 72. A Feofment was made before the Statute of 27. to the use of a Man and Woman unmarried Moities in Tail and of the Heires of their two bodies begotten and after they intermarried and after marriage the Husband bargained and sold all the land in fee to one of his Feoffees and died without issue and after the Statute of 27 was made the Wife claymed the whole by Survivor as Tenant in tayl after possibility of issue extinct And by the opinion of all the Court without argument she can have but the Moity because the Husband and Wife had Moities as Joyntenants by reason of the Joyntenancy made before marriage And yet by the Court as to the issue in tail if any had beeen he shall have a Formdon of the whole 73. IF Land be holden of a Subject Tenure and Wardship extinct and the Tenant sells the land by Fine with Proclamations to I. S. in tail the Remainder to her Majesty in fee The Tenant in tail dyes his Issue within age The Opinion of the Court was that the Issue shall not be in ward to the Subject if the Queen do not assent to her Remainder for that the tenure and services are gone and extinct by the Fee simple to the Queen which may hold of none And so the issue in tail shall be in ward to none 74. IF a man have goods to the value of 100l and is indebted in 20l. and he deviseth and bequeatheth to his Wife by his Testament the moity of all his goods to be equally divided between her and his Executors Legacy of a moity of all his goods and make his Executors and dieth And the Executors pay the 20l. yet the Wife shall have the moity of the whole estate viz. 50l without any defalcation so that the Executors have Assets besides 75. IN a Prohibition and the Case was this Benefield against Feek Tithe of Saffron the Farmor of a Parsonage sued in he Spirituall Court for Tithes of Saffron against a Vicar The Vicar pleaded that time out of memory of man the Vicar and his predecessors have had the Tithe of all Saffron growing within the parish A Prohibition for the Plaâ—ntif in the Spirituall Court upon his own lihell The Plaintif pleaded that the land where the Saffron was growing this year by the space of 40 yeares next before had been sown with Corn whereof the Parson and his predecessors have had the Tithe And the Spirituall Court would not allow this Plea For which the partie prayed a Prohibition Tanfield The right of the Tithe commeth in question between the Parson and Vicar Howbeit that the Farmor be made partie to the suit and for that the right of Tithes being in question between two Spirituall men Suit between persons spirituall This Court hath no Jurisdiction And this very point was adjudged 30. Eliz. inter Hunt and Bush in this Court that in such
second point he said they were Joyntenants and not Tenants in common Consideration but if the wordes of the Will had been Part and part like that they shall have part and part alike there they are Tenants in common and not Joyntenants Tanfield è contra For if they were Joyntenants for life Reversion descendeth to a Joyntenant and the reversion descend to one of them that will never drown the estate for life for the benefit of the Survivor And if a man give land to two men for their lives the Remainder to the right heires of one of them yet they are Joyntenants and the Survivor shall hold place and albeit the words are equally between them yet this shall be intended equally during their estate and it hath been taken for a difference if I devise my land to two equally divided between them there they are immediately Tenants in common and not Joyntenants but if the words had been equally to be divided between them there they are Joyntenants untill division be made for that that it is referred to a future time Gawdy Justice I think they have but estates for life for consideration of blood is not so effectuall as consideration of money Blood Money Difference for if I bargain and sell my land for money without expressing any estate the Bargainee hath a Fee simple but if in consideration of naturall affection I covenant to stand seised to the use of my son and do not express any estate there my son is but Tenant for life and for the second point I think they are Tenants in common and not Joyntenants for the case is no other but as if he had said I give my land to my children by moities amongst them By moities and then there had been no question but that they had been Tenants in common Popham Clinch For the first point no estate but for life passeth if any estate pass for it is doubtfull if any estate pass or not for the Will is that after his debts paid Only Lands lyable he giveth all his lands goods and moveables c. And therefore Popham thought that such Lands which were liable to Debts should pass A Term. and no other For if the Devisor had had a Term then it seemeth no Land should pass But admit the Land do pass then if I devise Land to two equally divided between them they are Tenants in Common But if I devise Land to two equally to be divided between them by I. S. now untill Division they are Joyntenants So I think where the Devise is equally to be divided between them that they are Joyntenants quousque Division because of the reference future 142. IOhn Cole made a Lease for years to one Taunton Devise is a demise Hil. 36 â—liz rot 376. upon Condition that if the Lessee shall demise the Premises or any part of it other than for a year to any person or persons then the Lessor and his Heirs may re-enter the Lessee after devised it by his Will to his son Popham Gawdy Fenner It is a breach of the Condition and the case of 31 Hen. 8. 45. ruleth the Law in this case for a Devise is taken for a breach of the Condition v. 27 Hen. 8. 10. Quaere if he might not have suffered it to come to his son as Executor 123. A Man seised of a Wood granted to another a Hundred Cords of Wood to be taken by Assignment of the Grantor Grant before property vested and before Assignment the Grantee granted that over and whether this Grant be good or not being before Election was the question And the better opinion was that it is not grantable over for no property was Vested in him before the Assignment and if the Grantor die before Assignment the Grant is void and his Executors if he die shall not have it 124. BRewster brought Error against Bewty upon a Judgement given in the Common place in a Replevin A Jurâ—rs name in the distringing mistaken and it was Assigned for Error for that that Kidman was retorned in the Venire fac and Bidman was retorned in the Distringas habeas corpora Tanfield said it was apparent Error and to prove that he cited Parkers case where in an appeal Palus was retorned in the Venire fac and Faulus was in the Habeas corpora and Paulus was sworn and therefore Error And between Cobb and Paston a Juror was named Hantstrong in the Venire fac and Hartstrong in the Distr and adjudged ill Cook said that it might not be amended And to prove that he cited 9 Edw. 4. 14. 27 Hen. 65. where it is said no Amendment after Judgement for thereby the Attaint of the party shall be tolled and in a case between Crosby and Wilbet George Thompson was retorned in the Venire fac and Gregory Thomson was in the Distr and could not be amended after Judgement Gawdy It is hard to amend the Distr for the Book of 27. Hen. 6. is that it shall not be amended for the Distr is the Awarding of the Court and for that he cited 14 Hen. 6. 39. where a Juror was retorned by the name of Hodd and in the Habeas Corpora was named Lord and when the default was espied they awarded a new Habeas Corpora But in the Book of 22. Hen. 6. 12. the Sherifs retorn was amended but not the Writ And 34 Hen. 6. 20. The Prior of St. Bartholomews case where in the Fenire fac there were 24 retorned and in the Habeas Corpora but 23. and so a Juror omited and holden that it could not be amended But after the opinion of the Justices of England was that it should be amended insomuch that it appears by examination the same party in the Venire was sworn and so no damages to any 125. PAnnell brought Trespass against Fenn Devise to execute And the case was such that a man was Possessed of a Term and made M. his Wife and G. Fenn his Executors and devised all his Term to them and that they shall have the Term untill all his Debts and Legacies were paid and all such charges in suit of Law as they should expend the Remainder to John Fenn in tail the question was whether the Executors take as Devisees or as Executors Gawdy said if they take as Devisees then if the one of them grant all the Term no more but the Moity passeth and then the Grantee and the other Executors shall be Tenants in Common But if they take as Executors then when one Granteth the Term all passeth as 29 Hen. 8. is Clinch Fenner said they shall take as Executors for it is the proper function of an Executor to entermedle with the Will Gawdy If I make two my Executors Proper benefit and devise the profits of my Land to them untill my Debts and Legacies be paid and untill they have levyed 100. l. after that to their own use I
in tayl the issue should be barred After which Statute as I intend the Law was such that when Tenant in tayl levied a Fine of such a thing as he might discontinue and the Fine executed in possession allthough the words of the Statute were Ipso jure sit nullus yet the issue was put to his Formdone but if it were a Fine Executory then by the death of the Tenant in tayl the issue was remitted and the Fine voyd But now by the Statute of 4 Hen. 7. the Law is made otherwise and for that here it is to be granted that he cannot discontinue the estate tayl because the reversion is in the King as it was now lately adjudged in the Exchequer in the case of Gillebrand ergo here the estate doth not pass to the Feoffees by the first Fine when he took an estate again to himself for life the remainder to the Lord Seymer in Fee but a Fee simple determinable then when the Lord Seymer was attainted Queen Mary had such an estate as the Lord Seymer had which was a Fee determinable and she had another Fee absolute in jure Coronae After when he sued by Petition he did not shew to the Queen what estate he had nor what estate the Queen had but that it was to the disinherision of him and his heirs then the Queen grants reversionem inde adeo plene libere integre as she had it or as it came to her by the Act of Parliament And I think when the Queen gives by generall words she doth not give any special Prerogative And for that 8 Hen. 4. fol. 2. A grant to the Bishop of London to have catalla c. and 9 Eliz. 268. in Dyer the case of the Dutchy of Cornwall 8 Hen. 6. the King pardons all Felonies this is no pardon of the Outlawry and especially when the Queen hath two interests it shall be construed beneficially for the Queen as 9 Edw. 4. Grant of an Office where the Grantee was no denison see there Baggots Assise and 38 Hen. 6. the King grants Land to J. S. for the life of himself and J. D. and after grants the reversion upon the life of one of them And further the case in Dyer where Queen Mary grants in Manerium de Bedminster in Com. Somerset 5. 13 El. fol. 306. a. Then Sir the Patent is that the Queen intendens dare congruum remedium in praemissis c. and when he iueth to the Queen by Petition Petition certain all titles ought to be in the Petition 3 Hen. 7. 1 H. 7. a Latin case the case of the corody and this is in nature of a Petition therfore ought to be certain then the Patent is Et ulterius ex uberiori gratia sua concessit omnes reversiones quae ad manus suas devenerunt ratione actus Parliamenti c. aut in manibus suis existunt vel existere deberent c. and they are not to be expounded so largely as to make the reversion to pass for if those words ratione c. were before admanus suas c. or after in manibus suis existunt then it cannot be intended but the reversion shall not pass to Bainton Now when in manibus suis existunt come after these words References ratione c. for references are to be intended according to the meaning of the parties Devise 29 lib. Ass 14 Eliz. Dyer Devise of all Acres except a Lease for 30 years And those words aut existere deberent ought to have some relation ergo it ought to be intended quae in manibus suis existunt ratione attincturae c. and this will not make any grant of the reversion For the meaning of the Queen was because Bainton had no recompense of the other Lands No use to give him these for no use was in him by the covenant of Seymer as it is agreed 1 Maria fol. 96. so nothing passed but that which was in the Queen by reason of the atteynder of Seymer For the other matters I think that A. Baynton is not Tenant in tayl by the grant again but admit him so yet he cannot discontinue neither is he bound by the Statute of 4 Hen. 7. for the Statute doth not extend but to such things which are touched by the Fine things which are not touched doe not pass as Commons Rents Wayes Claim per lessee purâ—ans alit postea si soit en post c. Br. Fines 123. 30 Hen. 8. fol. 32. And it hath been adjudged in Sanders case 21 Eliz. that Lessee for yeares need not to make claim within five years and vouched the opinion of Br. tit Fines 121. accordingly that the issue shall not be barred And as the King is privileged so are his possessions allthough that afterwards they come into a subjects hands Generall restraint And where one hath a special Grant allthough a general Restraint come after if he doe not speak specially of this the Grant shall be good in many cases as 19 Hen. 6. fol. 62. the Parson of Edingtons case Br. Patents 16. and the case of the Abbot of Waltham 21 Ed. 4. fol. 44. Br. tit Exemption 9. in 19 Hen. 8. it was doubted if the issue of a common person should be barred ergo the issue in tayl the reversion being in the King is not barred And the Statute of 32 Hen. 8. is generall as well for those which were of the gift of the King as others and therefore afterwards there was another Statute made which excepted those which were of the gift of the King as it was before the Statute of 32 H. 8. and it was a vain thing to make this Statute of Exception if it were a bar before by the Statute of 4 H. 7. And for authority I have a report delivered me by a Sage antient in the Law that in 16 17 El. in Jacksons case where Lands were given in tayl the remainder to the King in fee the Tenâ—nt in tayl levyed a fine after the Statute of 32 H. 8. by the opinion of the Court Difference per enter rem reversion in le Roy. this was a bar but the Court then sayd that otherwise it should be if the reversion were in the King as our case is wherefore seeing there is neither discontinuance nor bar in the case his entry is congeable and the Action not maintainable Walmisley to the contrary I will agree that it is not any discontinuance yet he may admit him out of possession if he will as in 18 Edw. 3. Where Tenant in tail the Reversion in the King makes a Lease for life and hath two Daughters and died and Lessee for life was impleaded and upon his default the two daughters prayed to be received and so they were and as me seemeth the Petition made by him to the Queen shall not prejudice or hinder the Grant ex mero motuâ— and vouched 3 H. 7. fol.
Livery per baron and would have made Livery but the Wife would not agree to the Livery yet notwithstanding the contradiction of the Wife the Livery was Adjuged good 33 Hen. 6. Husband and Wife are Plantifs in an Assise Nonsuite del feme and the Husband would Prosecute but the Wife would be Nonsuite the act of the Husband shall be accepted and the act of the Wife rejected So if the Husband will make an Attourny and the Wife wil dissavow him Attourny yet he shall be their Attourny And as I think this Limitation by the Husband shall bind the Wife in perpetuity Case per fine indentare Difference Juris clamat For if the Husband make a Lease of the wifes Land for 100 years the Wife may avoid it after his death but if after they both Levy a Fine the Lease shall be good-for ever And 11 Hen. 4. He in Reversion and one which hath nothing Levy a Fine quid juris clamat shall be brought against them both And as I conceive it it shall be counted her folly Reentry per condition that will take such a Husband as will Limit such uses For if a Wife hath an Estate in Land upon condition for not payment of Rent that the Feoffor shall reenter if she take a Husband which doth not pay the Rent whereby the Feoffor or his Heires reenter the Estate of the Wife is utterly defeated And in 4 Ed. 2. A woman Tenant takes a Husband Cessavit who ceaseth by two yeares whereby the Lord bringeth a Cessavit and recovereth the Inheritance of the Wife she shall be bound And this appeareth in Fitzh in Cui invita 21. And it shall be so if the Wife hath but a Freehold Wast as it is in 3 Ed. 3. A woman Lessee takes a Husband who maketh Wast whereby the Land is recovered and 48 Ed. 3. fol 18. Husband and Wife sell the Land of the Wife this is onely the sale of the Husband but if after they Levy a Fine this shall bind the Wife And for express Authority it is the case in Dyer Joynture fol. 290. a pl. 2. And so it is a Common case if a man seised of Lands takes a Wife who hath a Jointure in his Land and he makes a Limitation of uses and after they both Levy a Fine this shall be the Limitation by the Husband because it shall be intended that the Wife consented if it doth not appear to the contrary Whereby the Declaration of the use here by the Husband shall be good to bind the Wife and therefore Judgement ought to be given for the Plantif Feâ—ner to the contrary for here the Inheritance is in the Wife and where the Husband limits further than he hath Authority there the Law shall make a Declaration of the uses for the Husband cannot Limit uses of that which he hath not 21 Ed. 3. A man takes a Wife seised of Lands in Fee Atteynder del feme and before that the Husband was intitled to be Tenant by the Curtesie the Wife was attainted of Treason Homage the Land shall be forfeit and 44 Ed. 3. He shall not make Homage Conusans before he be intitled to be Tenant by the Curtesie 12 R. 2. Conusans shall be made by the Bayley of the Husband in the name of the Husband and Wife Warranoy And in this case the Conisee is in in the per by the Wife and Warranty made to the Husband shall inure to the Wife and 18 Ed. 3. A man seised of a Mannor in right of his Wife Villain to which there is a Villain regardant the Villain Purchaseth Lands the Husband shall be seised of the Perquisite in right of his Wife And yet otherwise it is where a man is Lessee for years of a Mannor to which c. For he shall be seised of the Perquisite in his own Right Divorce 12. lib. Ass If he be Divorced his Estate is gone Lease Rent ch diversity And I agree to the case put by my Brother Shut Where the Husband makes a Lease for years and after he and his Wife levy a Fine there the Lease shall be good but if the Husband grant a Rent charge and after he and his Wife Levy a Fine I do not agree that this is good for in the first case the Conisee found one which had an Interest in the Land but not in the last Then Sir here the Husband hath no power to Limit the use for the Land of his Wife to indure for ever Feoffee al use 28 Hen. 8. The Feoffece to use at the Common Law Limits an use to a stranger this Devesteth the first use but if he limit is to cestui que use then it is an ancient use and not new And so it is if Tenant for life and he in Reversion levy a Fine this shaâ—l be to the use of him in Reversion 2 Loyntenants And so if two Joyntenants be in Fee and they limit severall uses this shall be good according to their limitations for the Moities of either of them and for no more And if Husband and Wife levy a Fine to the use of the Husbands Sonne Fits del baron yet this is to the use of the Wife but if he be the Wifes Sonne allso then this is a good consideration and the use shall be accordingly And these cases I put to this intent that when a man limits an use which is repugnant Vse repugnant or further than he hath Authority the Law shall make a Declaration of the same use for Bracton saith Nemo potest ad alterum plus juris tranferre quam ipse habet And I take the Law if Husband and Wife levy a Fine of the Lands of the Wife and render back to the Wife in Tail Fine levie de terres del feme Oâ—e râ—eder al feme en tail and the Husband dye and the Wife discontinue that this is not a Purchase of the Husband within the Statute of 11 Hen. 7. And so it was here adjuged in 18. of Eliz. in Alexanders case And I agree to that which hath been said that the Wife only cannot limit uses but because the Jury hath found for â—he Defendant if the limitation by the Husband be not good as I think it is not then Judgement shall be given for the Defendant Concessum Adjornatur 14 WIlliam Knight Eject firm as Eessee for yeas to Sir John Fortescne and Rich. Thikston Gentleman brought an Executione firme against W. Breâ—h of one Mesnage with the Appurtenances in Themilstreet in the Parish of St. James Clarkenwell the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury appeared at the Bar and Evidence given on both sides And at the length the Plantif Demurred in Law upon the Evidence given for the Defendant Demurrer al evidence and thereupon the Jury were discharged And now Gawdy the Queens Serjeant
me for the reason wherefore he shall be barred is because the recompence goeth according to the Estate which the Wife had and then it is reason that he shall be barred but in the same case if the Husband survive it is said in the same Book that the Issue shall be at large for that the recompence goeth to the Survivor but let it be as it may be the reason of the case is for the recompence And I think Com. 5. 14. that this case here will be proved by Snowes case in the Commentaries Recovery had against Husband and Wife where the Wife had nothing all the recompence shall be to the Husband 10 Edw. 3. Dower brought against husband and wife Dower and the husband vouch to warranty c. 38 Ed. 3. Praecipe against Tenant in tayl 8 Eliz. in Dyer fol. 252. where the husband was tenant for life the remainder to the wife in tayl the remainder in fee to a stranger and a recovery suffered and about 15 El. was a case in the Exchequer where lands were given to Norrice and his wife and to the heirs of the body of Norrice Remainder the remainder in fee to a stranger and a recovery suffered against Norrice he in remainder was attainted and Norrice and his wife were dead before and by the opinion of Sanders then chief Baron Recompences the moity shall be forfeit by the atteynder And recompences are but as exchanges Exchange executed and Bracton calleth them Excambia and I think if an exchange be executed in the one part and not in the other it is not good and so I think the recovery shall be no bar 8. IN a Writ of Dower brought Joynture Gawdy Serjeant shewed how that the husband of the demandant had given certain lands to her in lieu of her Joynture upon condition that she should make her election with in three moneths after his death and she made her election to have the Joynture and now she had brought her Writ of Dower against the heir by covin Covin and he hath confessed the Action to the intent that Thynne who had a lease for yeares of the first husband should lose his term and prayed ayd of the Court. Fleetwood for the demandant There is not any such Joynture as you speak of for that which was given to the wife was but a lease for yeares and that you know cannot bar her of her Dower Rodes Justice If the case be so then is there no cause to bar her of her Dower for a lease for years cannot be a Joynture Ease for years Quod Peryam concessit clearly and sayd that the Joynture ought to be a freehold at the least or otherwise it is no bar to the Dower whereby Gawdy moved another matter De Term. Mic. An. Reg. Eliz. xxviij xxix 1. AN Action upon the case was brought for calling the Plaintif false perjured Knave Jeofayle the Defendant justified because the Plaintif had sworn in the Exchequer that the Defendant had refused to pay the Subside where in truth he had notso done The Plaintif replyed de injuriâ— sua propria absque tali causa the Action was brought in London and there it was tryed for the Plaintif and great damage found and this matter was alleged in Arrest of Iudgement because the triall was in London whereas the Perjury was supposed to be made in the Exchequer Triall locall The Court said that the matter is tryable in both Counties and it was answered again London cannot joyn that London cannot joyn with any other County Anderson Then is your Issue vitious for when an Issue is tryable by two Counties if they cannot joyn then ought you to make such an Issue as may be tryed by one onely And by all the Court this ought to have been tryed in Middlesex for there the Perjury is supposed to be committed whereupon the Issue is taken Peryam to the Serjeant of the Plaintif See if you be not ayded by the Statute of Jeofayles Walmisley It hath been allwayes taken that if the triall be evill it is not ayded by the Statute of Jeofayles Peryam Then are ye without remedy for you shall have no judgement Et sic fuit opinio Curiae 2. GAwdy came to the Bar Joyntenancy and shewed how a man devised his lands to his two Sons Partition and their heirs and they had made partition by word without writing 18 Eliz. 350. Tota Curâ—a What question is there in it the partition is naught without doubt Rodes It hath been adjudged here that if the partition be of an estate of inheritance it is not good by paroll Joyntenant by devise Gawdy But I think that when a man deviseth his lands to his eldest Son and his youngest Son in my opinion they are Tenants in common because the eldest son shall take it by descent Peryam But I think not so for if a man make a gift in tayl to his eldest son Devise in tayl of an heir the remainder in fee c. Is not he in by the devise Gawdy This is another case Peryam In my case he shall take by the devise for the benefit of the issues and in your case he shall it take by the devise for the benefit of the survivor and therefore I think that they are Joyntenants Anderson There is but small doubt but that they shall be Joyntenants and there is authority for the case And this at length was the opinion of the whole Court 3. IN an Action of Debt for Rent Apportionment it was sayd by Anderson If a man make a lease of years reserving rent and the Lessee for years make a feoffment in fee of parcell of the land the rent shall be apportioned 4. FEnner came to the Bar Alien and sayd to Anderson that in his absence he had moved this case An Alien born purchaseth Lands and before office found the Queen by her Letters Patents maketh him a denison and confirms his estate the question is who shall have the lands Anderson The question is if the Queen shall have the lands of an Alien before office found Fenner True it is my Lord. Anderson I think they are not in the Queen before office and then the confirmation is good Rodes It seemeth that he shall take it onely to the use of the Queen Neis purchase lands and then the confirmation is voyd Fenner In 33 lib. Ass is this case If the Neise of the King purchase lands and takes a husband who hathâ— issue by her and she dye he shall be tenant by the curtesie Anderson and all the Court denied that case of the Neise Fenner I have heard lately in the Exchequer that an English man and an alien purchased lands joyntly Joynt purchase by an alien and the alien dyed it was adjudged that the other should have all by surviving Anderson and all the Court Surely this cannot be Law
which you allege is against you And the Wife of the Defendant being in Court was very importunate whereupon the Court moved an agreement and the Plaintif was content upon condition that the Defendant would enter into bond but the Defendant seemed unwilling by his silence Anderson Wee have made stay to the intent to do the Defendant good and he will not be content when more than reason is offered him wherefore let Judgement be entred for the Plaintif 7. IN a replevin by Gybson against Platlesse Revocation of a VVill. the Defendant made Conusance as Baylif to Anne Wingfield and the Issue was whether the Land descended to Anne Wingfield Norfolk Trin. as Daughter and Heir to I. W. and upon evidence this was the case 28 Eliz. rot 2â—30 The said I. W. was seised of the Lands in question and divers other Lands and by his last VVill devised all his Lands and Tenements to Anthony Wingfield of London Goldsmith in Fee and after and before his death he made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands which he had devised to the same A. W. and when he sealed the Feoffment he demanded will not this hurt my Will and it was answered again that it would not and he said if this will not hurt my Will I will seal it and then he sealed it and a Letter of Attorny to make livery and in some of the Lands the Attorney made livery but not of the Lands now in question and after the Testator died now if the Devisee shall have the Lands or no was the question for if this Feoffment be Revocation of the Will then the Devise is void And it was said by the Counsell of Anne VVingfield that it is a Revocation For if the Testator had said that this shall not be his Will then it had been a plain Revocation quod fuit concessum per Curiam and then the making of the Feoffment is as much to say as that the Will shall not stand but it was answered by the Court that it appeared that the mind of the Testator was that his Will should stand and when he made the Feoffment this was a Revocation in Law and if no Feoffment had been made there had been no Revocation in Law and there is no Revocation in deed for he said if this will not hurt my Will I will seal it and allthough that the Attorney made livery in part Feofâ—ent perfect in part so that the Feoffment was perfect in part yet for the Lands in question whereof no livery was made the Will shall stand Will. for a Will may be effectuall for Part and for Part it may be revoked and the Court told the Jury that this was their opinion and thereupon the Jury found accordingly that the Land did not descend to A. VV. quod nota And Fenner who was of Counsell with the Plaintif before the coming again of the Jury to the Bar said to the Counsell of the Defendant that the Law was clear against them Allso he said to divers Barresters afterward privately that in the case of Serjeant Jeofres it was adjudged that where one had made his Will and after one of his friends came unto him and demanded of the Testator if he had made his Wil and he answered no. And he demanded again will you make your Will and he answered no and yet this was adjudged no Revocation 8. ONe Lea of Essex Privelege was sued in an Action of Battery in the Common pleas Battery and upon non culp pleaded it appeared upon the evidence that the Defendant and others had thrown daggers at the Plaintif and grievously hurt and maimed him in outragious manner and Peryam said to the Jury that they ought to consider that the Plaintif was put in fear of his life and had one of his hands maimed and what damage he had susteyned by his Mayhem and that they ought to give damage as well for the fear and assault as for the Mayhem and when the Jury was gone from the Bar the Defendant caused the Plaintif to be arrested in the Kings Bench for a battery done to him by the Plaintif before and this was shewed to the Court and thereupon they sent for Lea and were grievosly offended with him for they said that when a man is sued here Privelege de Court. he ought safely to come and go by the privilege of this place without vexation elsewhere And Lea pleaded that he was ignorant of the Law but the Court answered that ignorantia juris non excusat and therefore they said that they would punish him and discharge the other Then the Plaintif said that he had put in bayl to the arrest and the Court answered if you had not done so we would have discharged you but now we cannot but they commanded Lea to release his arrest or otherwise he should smart for it Fine and Lea was well content to do so Anderson yet you shall pay a fine here allso for otherwise we shall be perjured wherefore because you are ignorant you shall be fined at vj. s and Lea payed the vj. s incontinently and went for to release his arrest Rodes You have escaped well therefore let this be a warning 9. BEtween Smyth and Lane the case was such Copyhold Mith. 27. 28. Eliz. Rot. 1858. Radford A. was a Copyholder in Fee according to the custom of a Mannor whereof the Queen was Lady And she by her Letters Patents let the Copy hold to B. for years and he granted his Term to the Copyholder if by this the Copyhold be determined or no was the doubt And it was agreed by the Court and all the Serjeants 28 H. 8. 30. b. that if the Lease had been made immediately from the Queen to the Copyholder then it had been a plain determination but some put a diversity because the Patentee was not Lord of the Mannor Peryam I think the Copyhold is not gone for when the Copyholder hath an interest in possession and the other in the Freehold and the Patentee grants his interest to the Copyholder what surrender can this be Anderson I will not have it a surrender but I will have his interest to be determined For when he is a Copyholder this is by Custom and when the Land is left this is by the Common Law and when this is granted to the Copyholder surely he shall not have both For he cannot have a Copyhold in the Land and have the Land also wherefore in my opinion the Copyhold is gone Peryam Peradventure by the grant to the Patentee the Rent shall pass if there be any but it shall be hard to make it a determination of the Copyhold for they are two distinct and two severall interests Anderson By the grant made to the Patentee the Rent shall not pass for he hath no Reversion adjornatur 10. A Quare impedit was brought by Specot and his wife against the Bishop of Exeter
and the one with force and the other not as if I command one to make a Disseisin and he makes a disseisin with force and allso if one enter with force to my use and after I agree he is a Disseisor with force and I am not so and those cases will answer the Books of Assises for in those cases they were present Present but in these not and so I hold that he which is present when force is made is a Disseisor with force Then it was moved if the Statute of 8 Hen. 6. doth extend to fresh forces VVyndam It doth extend to them by express words and Fleetwood cited a case in 44 Edw. 3. 32. that an Attaint lieth of fresh force Then for the other matter of trebling of damages increased the Court made no doubt but that they shall be trebled and they said that so it was lately adjudged here in a case of Staffordshire 19. PUckering shewed how an Attaint was brought upon a false Oath made in a Replevin Challenge where the Defendant made Conusance as Bayley to one Hussey and in the Attaint surmise was made that the Sherif was Cosen to Hussey and thereupon prayed Process to the Coroners and Puckering moved that no Process should issue to the Coroners for Hussey was not party to the Attaint and then this is but matter of favour and he cited 3 Hen. 7. And all the Court accorded with him that it is but matter of favour onely and no surmise to have a Writ to the Coroners but VValmisley would have put a difference between Lessee for years and a Bayley Lessee pur ans for as he pretended in the case of a Bayley it shall be a principall challenge but not in the other case but all the Court was against him and that it is no principall challenge in the one case nor in the other The last day of the Term it was moved again and the Court was of the same mind as before 20. IN a Quare impedit Adverson it was said by Anderson and agreed by all the Court that if a man make a Feoffment in Fee of a Mannor without deed and without saying with the appurtenances yet the Advowson shall pass and cited 15 Hen. 7. where it is adjudged that it is parcell of the Mannor and lieth in Tenure 21. IN an Action of debt Anderson cited a case which was before him at the Assises in Somersetshire Pleading an Action of Battery was brought in London and a Justification made in Somersetshire Absque hoc that he was guilty in London and the Plaintif replyed de injuria sua propriae absque tali causa and Anderson said that a man shall never plead de son tort demeasne where the matter ariseth in a Forein Country 22. AN ejectione firme was brought by Clayton against Lawson Bar. the Defendant pleaded in Bar a Recovery had in the Kings Bench against the Lessor of the Plaintif And Fenner moved that it should be no Bar no more than in Trespass Anderson I think it to be a good Bar. For this Action is as strong to bind the possession as a Writ of right is to bind the right VVyndam I think it is no Bar no more than in Trespass Anderson This is more than an Action of Trespass for in this he shall recover his Term. Rodes This case was moved the last Term and the opinion of the Court then was that it was a good Bar. Fenner True it is if it were between the parties themselves but here the Plaintif is but Lessee to him which was Barred Anderson Allthough that it be so yet he claymeth by the Lease of him which was Barred and during the Lease of the other his Lessor could have no right and what shall he have then Fenner That which is between the parties cannot be an Estoppell to the Plaintif here which is but a stranger Estoppell Anderson I know that he shall not plead it by way of Estoppell but he shall conclude Iudgement si Actio Peryam If in an Assise a Recovery in another Assise be pleaded in Bar Assise he shall not conclude by way of Estoppell but Iudgement si Actio and there he is driven to a higher Action and so here and the Law shall never have end if after a man is Barred in his Action he may bring the same Action again therefore I think it a good Bar and that he is driven to a higher Action VVyndam Lessee for years can have no higher Action Anderson Peryam If one which hath a Lease for years and no more Tenant for years disseisor of tenant in Fee simple enter upon him which hath a good title he is a disseisor of all the Feesimple Wyndam If two claim by Lease from one man and one bringeth an Ejectione Firme and is Barred what Action shall he have then Anderson None for he hath no Right VVyndam That is hard Anderson What Action shall he have which is Barred in Formdone surely none Fenner This is another case Anderson Aliquantulum incensus truly it is a plain case that he shall be Bared whereunto Peryam and Rodes agreed clearly 23. IN a praecipe quod reddat View the Tenant demanded the view and an habere facias visum issued and the Tenant came not to the Sherif to take the view it was said by the whole Court that the Sherif may retâ—urn that none came to take the view and he shall never have the view again Anderson The habere fac visum is the suit of the Tenant and then when he doth not come to take the view this is a default and then good reason to exclude him from the view Gawdy Such a retourn was never seen before and therefore it is to be noted the case was between Hoâ— and Hoo for Lands in Norfolk 24. IOhn VViseman of the Inner Temple Apportionment brought an Action of debt against Thomas VVallenger the case was this A man seised of three acres of Land in Fee makes a lease reserving xxx s of Rent and after devised the Reversion of two acres to a stranger and the third acre descended to the Heir and he brought an Action of debt for xij d. being behind and Puckering moved if they were agreed of their judgement in the case Rent extinct by the grant of part of the Reversion Anderson If a man let two Acres of Land rendring Rent and grant the Reversion of one of them all the Rent is gone as it is in Dyer and at the Common Law before the Statute of W. 3. there was no apportionment and the Statute speaketh of no such apportionment as this is Rodes Surely no Book in all the Law will warrant this apportionment Fenner Yes Sir 5 Ed. 3. If a man have a Rent of xx s and grants parcell thereof and the Tenant Attourns this is good Rodes This is another case But shew us the case which was in the Kings Bench
party from his advantage given him by the Statute But all the other Justices held opinion against him for they sayd that a man ought to appear in proper person upon a Latitat which Anderson denyed and sayd that the Latitats are not but of threescore yeares continuance which the other day Peryam had affirmed and he seemed to mislike with the Latitats And the Serjeant moved for their resolution in the case Anderson All my Brethren are of opinion against me wherefore take your judgement accordingly And so judgement was entred for the Plaintif 21. GAwon brought Debt upon an Obligation against White Traverse with condition that if the Defendant suffer the Plaintif his Tenants and Farmers to enjoy such a Common that then c. And the Defendant pleaded conditions performed and the Plaintif assigned for breach that he did not suffer A. B. his Tenant to enjoy c. Absque hoc that he performed the condition And it was sayd by the Court that this Traverse was not good no more than if one be bound to perform the covenants in an Indenture and the Defendant pleads that he hath performed all generally if the Plaintif assign his breach he shall not say further Absque that the Defendant hath performed the covenants for so much he had sayd before But Walmisley would have put a difference between the cases because in the one there were divers covenants to be performed but not so here Anderson If a man plead a Plea which is sufficient of it self and take a traverse allso you will grant that this Plea is not good quod fuit concessum and this Plea had been sufficient of it self onely quod fuit concessum ergo the traverse was not good without question Et sic opinio totius Curiae 22. GOverstone brought a Replevin against B. Rent charge who avowed the taking for a Rent charge granted to him by the Duke of Suffolk And this was the case The Duke was seised of three parts of a Mannor and granted a Rent charge to the Avowant And one Pole was seised of the fourth part and Hatcher purchased the Dukes three parts and the part of Pole allso and demised a fourth part to the Plaintif but the Serjeants could not agree whether it was Poles fourth part or otherwise the fourth part generally and as it seemed to the Court if it were the fourth part of Pole then the Avowry is not maintainable but otherwise if it were the fourth part generally And after in Michaelmas Term the case was rehearsed again and it was that he demised eandem quartam partem to hold at will And all the Justices agreed that it shall be discharged because it was never charged allthough once he might have distreined in all the Mannor Vnion of possession for that then there was no fourth part for all was alike in the hands of the purchaser but now when the fourth part is in the hands of a stranger it is no reason that it shall be charged Walmisley But the Tenant at will hath nothing but the profits by the way of taking Tenant at wil. and not any land but if Hatcher had made a Feoffment then I agree that it shall be discharged â—eryam And as well shall Tenant at will take the profits in his own right as long as the will doth continue wherefore judgement was given for the Plaintif 23. LEssee for years Wast the reversion in fee to Constance Foster and the Lessee granted over all his term and interest to A. B. Pasch 18 El. reserving and excepting all trees growing in and upon the premisses Rot. 420. the Lessee makes wast and destruction in the trees and C. F. brought Wast against the assignee and if this action will lye or no was the question wherein it was disputed whether this exception and reservation made by the Lessee be good or no for if the reservation be voyd then the action will lye well against the Assignee and thereupon these cases were put to shew both what interest the Lessor and Lessee have in the Trees viz. 33 Hen. 8. 2 Hen. 7. 42 Ed. 3. 21 Hen. 6. 46. 27 Hen. 6. Wast in Slatham 2 Eliz. fol. Danseyes case 7 Hen. 6. 12 Ed. 4. but to prove the reservation voyd Fenner took this ground That thing which a man cannot grant he cannot reserve and the Lessee cannot grant the Trees ergo he cannot reserve them And afterwards judgment was given for the Plaintif for default of pleading on the part of the Defendant but for the matter in Law two Judges were against the other two so that they could not agree De Term. Mic. An. Reg. Eliz. xxix xxx 1. AN action of Debt was brought by Bret against Andrews upon an Obligation indorced with condition to stand to the arbitrement of A. B. Request who did arbitrate that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintif xxâ—l and appointed no certain day of payment and the Defendant in pleading confessed the arbitrement but he sayd further that the Plaintif did never require him to pay it and thereupon the Plaintif demurred in Law and upon reading of the Record the Court held clearly that it was no plea because the Defendant at his peril ought to make payment within convenient time and the Plaintif needeth not to make any request And Anderson commanded to enter judgment accordingly 2. FEnner moved this case Possibility of Interest a man deviseth lands to his Wife for term of her life and if she live untill his sonne come to the age of 24 yeares that then he shall have the lands and if she dye before he come to that age that then I. S. shall have it untill his sonne come to that age and dyed then I. S. dyed before the wife and after she dyed before the sonne came to 24 years if the Executors of I. S. shall have the land untill the sonne come to that age or no was the question And the opinion of all the Court was that they shall not have it because their Testator had never any interest vested in him Fenner But here was a possiblity of an interest Curia But that is not sufficient Rodes cited the case of Bret and Rigden in the Commentaries Grant Anderson If I grant you that if you pay me xxl. at Easter then you shall have an Annuity of xl s to you and your heirs if you dye before Easter now your Heir shall never have it and so in this case 3. THatcher recovered in an Assise of Novel disseisin against Elmer for Lands in Hackney in Middlesex Redisseisin and after Elmer re-disseised him and Thatcher re-entred and Elmer disseised him again And Fleetwood moved the Court if Thatcher may have re-disseisin because that after action accrued to him he had re-entred Anderson What is the Judgement in this Action Judgement Surely it is not that he shall recover any land but double damages and that the
possession of the land 11. BRet Plaintif against Shepheard Apparaâ—ce the Condition of the Obligation was to appear at his Suit in the Kings-bench and upon Condition performed pleaded Triall by the Record the issue was found for the Plaintif And now he spake in arrest of judgement for that the triall ought to have been by the Record and not by the Country And so was the opinion of the Court But Radford Pregnotary said that the triall was good enough for it may be that he appeared there and yet there is no Record made thereof to whom it was answered that then it is no appearance if it be not recorded and Radford replied suppose that there is not any such suit there how then can it be recorded but the rule of the Court was ut supra for then the Obligation seemeth to be single 13. THe case of Calgate against Blyth was now again argued by Fletewood for the Plaintif And first he said that the limitation by the Wife is not good for which he took this ground that alwaies when a man shall gain a fee simple by matter of conclusion of Record that he shall be seised to his own use And here the Husband had a fee by conclusion by the fine and therefore his limitation good only Carill And there upon he put a case reported by Carill who was a grave man Fine levied and very learned in the law That if Husband and Wife levy a fine to B. who rendereth to them again for life the reversion shall remain in the Conisor to his own use Also he put another case put by Baldwin in the time of H. 8. Grant of all Estate that a man seised in right of his Wife grants totum statum suum to another the grantee shall have it no longer than during the life of the Husband if his Wife overlive him but if she have issue by him then he shall have it during the life of the Husband absolutely Fine And if two tenants in common inâ—eoff B. Feâ—ffâ—â—ent in see to their use they are then tenants in common of this use Diffâ—â—â—nâ—â— per Tenants â—n common but if they levy a fine to B. to their use then they are Joyntenants And in Queen Maries time a parson of a Church by licence of his patron and ordinary levied fi Parson levies a Fâ—e a fine of a portion of his Rectory and it was adjudged that it shall be to his own use in his naturall capacity Bishops the same law is if a Bishop levy a fine and he cited 1â— H. 4. 1. the first case and so he prayed judgment for the plaintif Anderson chief justice rehearsed the case and first he said that the Wife without her Husband cannot limit the use without doubt And here the case is no more but whether the husband may limit the use without the privity of his Wife and I think it a strong case that he cannot Notice of a use If Husband and Wife have an use and they grant it over to one who hath notice of the Use this shall be to the use of the Wife again What a use is and he defined an Use to be an intent and trust to convey lands and cited 6. H. 7. and that when the interest of the inheritance is in the Wife Fine if Husband and Wife levy a fine this shall be to to the use of the Wife for the use ariseth out of them which give the land and not by the Conises or Feoffees for they neither grant nor give the use Feoffment by he Husband alone and then it shal be to the use of the Wife again But if the Husband alone make a Feoffment this shall be to his own use and the Wife after his death shall be driven to her action And if the wife had been privy or assenting to the limitation Assent without naming although she had not been named yet it should be a good limitation but the Jury have found that she was not privy And a case was here adjudged Indenture after a fine levied that where a fine was levied and the limitation made after by Indenture that this shall be to the use of the Indenture if there be no other against it but in this case it is found expresly by the Jury that shee never agreed which doth impugn that which otherwise should be intended then now the case is no otherwise but that a fine is levyed and no use is limited but if the fine had been levied Silence is an agreemâ—ni the Husband only limited the use and nothing els had been done against it then it should have been to the use limited by the Husband because it should have been intended that the Wife had consented thereunto and so I think judgment shal be given against the Plaintif Windham I am of the same opinion and it seemeth that their difference and disagreement in the limitation is the cause that both the limitations are void First let us see who hath auctority to limit the use surely the principall owner of the land hath the principall auctority to limit the use and here the Wife is the principall owner What a use is and therefore hath chief power to dispose of the use And Sr. the use is the chief profit and commodity of the land and cannot be severed from the land no more than the shadow from the body and this was the reason of the Statute of 27. H. 8. which draweth the possession to the use and not the use to the possession for the use is the principall for by the common law by bargain sale enrolled the land shall pass without livery Bargain and sale for this was a contract for the use and then the law shall make the land to pass The Law erects the use and whithersoever the use is now carried the land and possession shall follow but when the Law carrieth the use it is to the owner and proprietary of the Land The mothers heir For if a man seised of Lands on the part of his Mother levy a fine thereof the use shall pass according as the land shall because the law carrieth the use And here the Wife cannot limit the use without her Husband and therefore that is void but yet it is good to this intent to shew her disagreement Silence Consent And if the Husband limit the use and she doth not disagree the law intendeth that she consenteth thereunto because she hath joined in the fine Sale in London by Husband and Wife And therefore in London sale of the lands of the Wife by deed enrolled by the Husband only is good if she assent or if she do not disagree And although that she shall not be examined concerning the use yet the Law will not have her defrauded of her land by joyning in the fine without her consent to the use for by that meanes
stand seised to the use of Adams untill he made default of paiment of the said sum and then they should stand seised to the use of the Queen untill she were satisfied and payed and then to the use of Adams and his Heirs And after Adams by deed enrolled sold the Land to a stranger in Fee and after the said stranger failed in paiment of the said yearly sum whereby the Queen seised the Land and so continued untill she was satisfied now the question was who should have the Lands Adams or the Bargainee Anderson Ifyou will take the case according to the words it is short tell me what Estate had Adams by this Limitation Puckering A Fee determinable Anderson How then can the Bargainee have it when the Estate is determined Puckering But the Fee was limited to Adams and his Heirs Possibility cannot be granted nor released Anderson This is but a possibility which cannot be granted over And if I were a Chancellor Adams should not have the Land but upon the words I tell you my mind alii Justie conticuerunt 3. DAniel Bettenham Plaintif against Debora Harlackendon Reversion upon a devise the case was this one Harlack was seised and deviseth it to the Plaintif for years the Remainder to the Defendant being his Wife for life and provided that the Lessee should pay the Wife xx l. a year for Rent at two Feasts and after the Plaintif failed of payment wherby the Wife entred for the Condition broken Anderson Wherefore may not a man make Reservation upon a Devise Peryam A man may reserve to himself or to his 〈◊〉 but this is to a stranger Anderson Every man which takes by a Devise is in in the per by the Devisor quod fuit concessum wherefore then shall not this be as a Reservationto the Devisor and as a grant of the Reversion to the Wife Gandy If it shall be a firm in gross Sum in gross yet I think that she ought to demand it which she hath not done Anderson and Rodes denyed that case clearly and that the contrary hath been adjudged Anderson If I Devise Lands to a man for years rendring Rent to me and mine Heirs Devise of a Reversion after a Term. And after I Devise the Reversion he shall have the Rent as incident to the Reversion Peryam This may be agreed but the cases are not like adjornatur 4. IN debt by Rostock Waging of Law the case was that the Plaintif and another made a Contract with the Defendant and the Plaintif alone brought the Action and Walmisley moved the Court if the Defendant may wage his Law for it is not the same Contract and he cited 20 Hen. 6. account before Auditors where it was but before one Auditor he may wage his Law 35 Hen. 6. is an express case in the point And so was the opinion of the Court Anderson absente 5. A Writ of Entry sur diss Voucher was brought by Sir Thomas Sherly against Grateway who vouched one Brown and he entred into the Warranty saving to himself a Rent issuing out of the same Land and this was allowed by the Court and the Voucher was in a Writ of entry for a Common Recovery to be had 6. EDward Smith brought his Action of the case against Winner Slander for words viz I was robbed of goods to the value of 40. l. they were stollen by Smith and his Houshold ipsum Edwardum ac quosdam Eliz. xuorem ac L. F. servientem ejus muendo and the issue was found for the Plaintif And the Defendant spake in arrest of Judgement because S. alone brought the Action But all the Court said that the Action is well brought for the slander is severall And Peryam that if 〈◊〉 a man say that three have robbed him Vno flatu and name them uno 〈◊〉 every of them may have a severall Action 7. IN an Assise by Thatcher where he was Redisseised Redisseisin the Redisseâ—â— was found in part and thereupon the Court was moved if Redisseisin will lie in as much as it is not but of part and the Writ is if he be Redissesitus de â—odem teneâ—â—nto then Redisseisin lieth but the Court held that Redisseisin lieth of part and that he shall recover damages as they are assessed by the Jury and not by the 〈◊〉 Then it was moved if Redisseisin lieth in Middlesex or 〈…〉 Fleetwood saith that the ancient Expositors have taken it that it doth not lie there because it is not coram lustic itinerant but all the Court held the contrary And Walmisley said that there be Writs in the Register accordingly 8. THe Earl of Kent brought debt upon an Obligation indorced with Condition Time convenient that if the Defendant do permit the Plaintif his Exâ—cutorâ—s and Assignes not onely to thresh the Corn in the Defendants Barn but allso to cary it away from time to time and at all times hereafter convenient with free Egress and Regress or else to pay 8 l. upon request that then c. and in truth the Defendant permited the Corn to be there two years in which time Mice and Rats had devoured much of it and then the Defendant threshed the Residue and the Earl brought his Action and there was a demurrer entred Walmisley the Bond is not forfeit for the Earl hath not taken it out in time convenient for he ought to take it in time convenient and time convenient is that which is not prejudiciall to any person which the Justices privily denyed and here it is a prejudice to the Defendant if the Plaintif will not carry away his Corn and thereupon he cited many cases that things shall be done in time convenient Arbitrement as in 21 Ed. 4. arbitrement ought to be made in time convenient Anderson Your cases are by act in Law but here you have bound your selves and the Condition is at time convenient and if he will come in the night or on the Sabbath day this is no convenient time but allthough that he come in a long time after yet it may be at time convenient and the words are not within time convenient and so was the opinion of the Court. And Windham said that if it had been within time convenient there would have been a difference 9. MIchael Hare and 3 others brought an Action of Trespass quare clausum fregit Trespass and Assigned the place in sixteen Acres of Land called Churchclose Contents of a new assignment and the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury found a speciall Verdict that Churchclose conteyneth fixty Acres whereof those sixteen were parcell and that diverse men were seised of divers other parcells of the said close and that Hare only was seised of the said sixteen Acres in which c. exposuit eas to the three other Plaintifs to be sown and that he should find half the seed and they three should find the other
Muskets and Callivers delivered into the Tower for which money Walton took a Debenter from the Queen in the name of a stranger and afterwards dyed and made Leveson Executor who procured the stranger to release and surrender the former Debenter to the Queen and took a new Debenter for the same hundred pound to himself this was adjudged no Assets nor devastavâ—t in the hands of the Executor Leveson upon a speciall Verdict but otherwise it should have been if the first Debenter had been taken in VValtons own name for then it had been a devastavit by the Executor 9. BAcon Plaintif against Selling in an Ejectione firme Assets de judgement the originall bare teste 13 Aprilis An. 39. and the Plaintif declared upon a Lease made to him 22 Apr. An. 39. Trin. 39 Eliz. rot 1345. so that it appeared to the Court that the Plaintif brought his Action before he had an interest in the Land and by all the Court a Rule was given for stay of Judgement after a Verdict but afterwards the Plaintif came and shewed that after Improlance he filed a new originall 10. HEnry Earl of Lincoln brought a Scandalum magnatum against one Michelborn for these words Scandalum magnatum viz. The Earl of Lincolns men by his commandement did take the Goodt of one Hoskins by a forged Warrant c. And the Earl recovered great damages by Verdict and now it was spoken in arrest of Judgement that the words were not sufficient to maintain the Action because it was not averred that the Earl knew the Warrant to be forged and of the same mind was the Court at this time 11. WIlloughby brought an Action of Debt against Milward Debt and declared that the Defendant bought Timber of him for ten pound solvend modo forma sequenti viz. five pound ad festum Pasch proxime sequentem and saith nothing when the other five pound should be payed and the Plaintif recovered the whole ten pound by Verdict and now it was spoken in arrest of Judgement for the cause aforesaid but yet by all the Court it was good enough for the Law intendeth the other part of the money to be due presently if no certain day of payment bee alleged 12. KItchin brought an Action of Debt against Dixson Debt Executor of Craven Mich. 36 37 El. rot 1028. or 1021. the Defendant pleaded ne unques Executor and the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. That Craven in his life time made a Deed of Gift of all his Goods to Dixson and they found likewise that this Deed was to defraud Creditors against the form of the Statute and that the Defendant by colour of this Deed did take the Goods after the death of Craven and if this Deed vvas good then they found for the Defendant if not then they found the Defendant was Executor of his own wrong and so for the Plaintif and by all the Court Judgement was given for the Plaintif 13. IT was sayd by Drew arguendo That if the Grantee of a Rent charge release parcell of the Rent to the Grantor or his heires Rent charge the residue may be apportioned and the Land shall remain chargeable still for that residue but if he release in one Acre parcell of the Land charged then all the Rent is gone 14. IT was said by Glanvile in the argument of the case between Cromwell and Andrews Provisâ— that a Proviso in a conveiance to be performed on the part of the Lessee implies a re-entry allthough there be no speciall words of re-entry but otherwise it is when it ariseth on the part of the Lessor and Vouched bendlowes case where there was a Covenant going between the Habendum and Proviso But where the Proviso standeth substantively as where I grant a Rent charge Proviso that he shall not charge my person Condition this is no Condition but a Qualification Allso where a Feoffment is made upon Condition to grant me a Rent Charge payable at Easter and Christmas if the grant be not made before the first Feast which shall next happen the Condition is broken and he put a difference where the Condition must be performed by none but himself and where it may as well be performed by his Executors as himself And Drew said then that if there be a Feoffment upon Condition to Re-enfeoff the Feoffer there ought the Feoffor to make a request otherwise if it be to enfeoff another 15. SMith against Bonsall Common in effect the case was such In an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleaded his Freehold Hil. 39. Eliz. rot 1753. and the Plaintif replyed that A. was seised of a Yard-land to which he had Common of Pasture for all maner of Beasts Levant and Couchant upon the same Yard-land and of the Moity thereof did enfeoff the Plaintif the question was whether this Common may be apportioned or else it be extinct alltogether In the argument whereof Drew said that Common sans number cannot be granted over because if it should be granted to a rich man he may surcharge the Common then and leave none for the rest of the Commoners so of estovers uncertain for so the Grantee may burn all the Wood quod Walmisley concessit and he vouched 17 Eliz. in Dyer that a Commoner may purchase parcell of the Land out of which his Common is issuing Purchase after that it be improved by the Lord and not extinguish his Common thereby And he said that if parcell of the Common be inclosed Inclosure a Commoner ought to make but one gap to put in Cattell but Anderson said that he may make as many gapes as he will And it was said by Anderson and Beamont Appendant may be apportioned that Common appendant cannot be for all manner of Cattell but onely for such â—attell as compass the Land and that such Common may be apportioned into twenty parts Append. quid as any Common certain may be Walmisley Owen If my Land to which I claim Common belonging can yield me stover to find a hundred Cattell in Winter then shall I have Common in Summer for a hundred Cattell in the Land out of which I claim Common and so for more or fewer proporitionably which they did expound to be the meaning of pertinen Moity of a Mannor levan and cuban Walmisley If I grant away the moity of my Mannor we shall both keep Courts so if I be disseised of a Moity or that the Moity be in Execution by elegit and we shall both have Common and in apportionment of Common respect ought allwaies to be had to the quality of the Land unto wâ—ich it is alloted Copiholder And a Copyholder may prescribe for Common in the Lords Land within the same Mannor by usitatum fuit but if he claim any other Common he must lay the prescription in the Lord. De Term. Hill An Reg. Eliz. xliii 1. WAlter Ascough prisoner
if this deniall was a Conversion they prayed the discretion of the Court. Fenner I think that the deniall is a Conversion Denial is a Conversion for when I lose my goods and they come to your hands by finding and you deny to deliver them to me I shall have an Action of Trespass against you as 33. Hen. 6. is Keeping is an Administration And the very keeping of goods by an Executor shall be counted as an Administration and by the same reason the deniall here shall be counted a Conversion Gawdy I am of the same opinion for by 2 of Hen. 7. If I deliver to you Cloth to keep and you keep it negligently I shall have detinue or an Action upon the case at my pleasure and by 20 Hen. 7. if a Baker contract for Corn and the party do not deliver it at the day the party may have Debt or an Action of the case Tanfield There was a case in this Court 30 Eliz. for the finding and Conversion of a horse But here was no request made by the Plaintif to deliver the horse For which Judgement was given against the Plaintif Curia This is not like our case for the request and deniall makes all the wrong in this case Adjornatur 80. WIseman brought a Writ of Error against Baldwin Limitation upon a Judgement given in Trespass in the Common place upon a speciall Verdict which was that Baldwin was seised of 24 Acres of Land and made his Will and by the same devised his said Land to Henry his youngest Sonne when he should accomplish the age of 24 years upon Condition that he should pay 20. l. to the Daughter of the Devisor And if he shall happen to dye before his age of 24 years then he willed that Richard his eldest Sonne shall have the same Land upon Condition that he should pay to the said Daughter 20. l. And he willed further by the said Will that if both his Sonnes failed of payment of the said 20. l. to his Daughter that the said Land should remain to his Daughter And after this Devisor died and Henry his younger Son entred after the age of 24 years and did not pay the said 20. l. to the Daughter and Richard the eldest Son did enter upon him and whether his entry were lawfull or not was the question Cook Attorney said it was a meer Limitation and no Condition and by consequence the entry of the eldest Sonne is not lawfull and to prove that he cited a Case which he said was in Justice Dallisont reports 9 Eliz. where a man devised Land to his youngest Son upon Condition of payment of a certain sum of money to his Daughter as our case is The Remainder over to another of his youngest Sonns and the first Devisee entred and did not pay the money and he in Remainder took advantage of that and so in our case by the Devise Richard is to have nothing if Henry the youngest Son did not die before 24 yeares and the intent of the Devisor appears that his Daughter shall have the Land for non payment of the money And therefore if the Heir enter for the Condition broken he destroies the whole intent of the Devisor And therefore the entry of the eldest Son is not lawfull Godfery I think it is a meer Condition for so are the words And then when the word subsequent limit a Remainder to the Daughter for default of payment that is not good and he denyed the case cited out of Justice Dallison for he said he was dead long before An. 9 Eliz. Gawdy I take the case of 29 Hen. 8. 33. to be a Limitation and no Condition for there a man devised to the Prior and Covent of St. Bartholomewes Ita quod reddant decano capitulo sancti Pauli 16. l. per An. And if they failed of paiment that their estate should cease and that the Land should Remain to the said Dean and Chapter and their Successors And it seemeth there that the Dean and Chapter for non payment shall not enter But I think the contrary and I think in this case it is a Limitation and no Condition A remainder and a recovery may be created by one deed Fenner If I make a Lease for life upon Condition with Remainder over may my Heir enter for the Condition broken Godfry Yes Sir Fenner Nay truly for then he shall defeat the Remainder which is well limited by me before the which I may not do and this is the reason if I make a Lease for life upon Condition and after grant the Reversion over that before the estate the Condition was gone for that if I re-enter I shall defeat my own grant Gawdy Per 29. Ass If a man devise to one upon Condition that if he shall be a Chaplin to remain over to a Corporation and the Tenant was made Chaplin by which the Heir entred and an Assise was adjudged maintainable against him for his entry was not lawfull Clinch The intent of the Devisor appears that for default of payment the Daughter shall have the Land and therefore the Sonne shall not enter And Wilcocks case in this Court was that a man seised of a Copyhold in the nature of Burrough English surrendred that to the use of his Will and by his Will devised the Land to his eldest Sonne upon Condition that he should pay to the youngest Sonne x. l. And after for non payment the youngest Sonne entred and his entry was adjudged lawfull Gawdy Wee three are agreed that it is a Limitation and no Condition by which the first Judgement was reversed 81. PYne of Lincolns Inne brought an Assumpsit against Widow Hide as Executrix of her Husband Assumpsit of the testator and declared that the Testator in Consideration that the Plaintif had leased to him certain Copyhold-land he assumed to pay to him 100. l. And the Defendant demurred in Law for that the Action is not maintainable against any Executor upon an Assumption of the Testator Popham For the Contrariety of opinion in this Case between the Judges of the Common-place and us we will make it an Exchequer-Chamber case and so try the Law 82. ONe Jackson prayed a Prohibition Prohibition for a Parsons lease and shewed for his Cause thâ— the Parson sued him in the spirituall Court for tithes And ho wt the Statute of 13 El. cap. 20. c. That if any Parson make a Lease for years of his Parsonage and absent himself by the space of 80 daies that the Lease shall be void And the Parson shall forfeit the profits of his benefice for a year and the Statute of 14 Eliz. cap. 11. c. That all bonds and Covenants for suffering or permiting any Parson to enjoy any Benefice or to take any Benefice or to take the profits and fruits thereof shall be adjudged of such force and Validity as Leases made by the same persons of benefices and not otherwise and after the
date of the sayd Obligation whereof the Action is brought if the said W. A. do save and keep harmless the sayd T. A. of and from the said Obligation that then c. The Defendant pleaded payment secundum formam effectum condition is praedictae and upon this Plea the Plaintif demurred in Law and Judgement given for the Plaintif for the Defendant ought to plead non damnificatus 91. HUntley brought a Writ of Accompt against Griffith Account Baron Feme and the case was that one devised a certain sum of money to a Feme covert And the Husband and Wife made a Letter of Attorney to the Defendant to receive the same money of the Executor who did receive it accordingly to the use of the woman And the Husband and Wife both dye and the Administrator of the Womans Husband brings this Action Tanfeild argued that the Action is not maintainable for when the Legacy was devised to the woman the Husband and Wife ought to joyn in the Action and if the Wife dye the Husband hath no remedy And when the Husband and the Wife make a Letter of Attorney to receive the money this principally is to be sayd the act of the woman and the Husband joyneth with her but for conformity and for that it appears in 19 Eliz. 354. if Baron and Feme levy a Fine of the Wives land and the Wife onely declares the use of the Fine it is good and by 16 Ed. 4. 8. If a man be a Receiver to a woman sole which afterwards takes a Husband and he and his Wife assign Auditors to the Receiver they both shall joyn in an Action of Debt for the Arrerages Altam è contra and sayd that the concourse of all our Books are that when money is delivered to deliver over to another Letter of Attorney by the Husband only Debt due to a Feme sole that other shall have an Action of Accompt allbeit that before that time he had not any property And 6 Ed. â— 1. that proveth Gawdy It seems to me the Action is well brought for the matter whereupon you stand is the Letter of Attorney and I say if the Husband sole had made the Letter of Attorney For by the entermartage the duty became the husbands if he could attain it in the life of the wife which he did by the receipt of his Bayly it had been well enough and when the money is received to the use of the Husband and the Wife now by that the Husband hath interest Popham I am of the same opinion for if Debt be due to a woman sole upon an Obligation and after she take an Husband and the Husband sole makes a Letter of Attorney to J. S. to receive that and J. S. receives the same now the Husband sole shall have an accompt against J. S. Fenner accord so Judgement was given for the Plaintif 92. THe Lady Gresham brought a Scire facias upon a Recognisance against William Man as terr Verdict in a Scire fac upon Recognisance Tenant The Defendant pleaded in abatement of the Writ that one Bedingfield was seised in Fee of three Acres of land not named Judgement si execut c. And the issue was if the aforesaid three Acres of land were the land of the aforesaid Bedingfeild or not and the Jury found that B. and J. S. were Jointenants of the said three Acres and whether this Verdict hath found for the Plaintif or Defendant was the question Whether Joyntenancy shal be sayd a Seisin Gawdy I think it may never be said the Land of Bedngfield onely And to prove that he vouched 28 Hen. 8. Dyer 32. in debt for Rent the Plaintif declared of a demise of 26 Acres rendring the said Rent The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintif demised to him 26 Acres and 4 Acres more without that that he demised the twenty Acres onely And the Jury found that he Leased but 22 Acres and there that was good for the Defendant hath confessed a demise of 26 Acres and then the Verdict should have been that the 4 Acres ultra were not demised and allso he said when two men made a Feoffment the Feoffee shall be in by both the which is a strong proof that the one sole is not seised Fenner According to the matter in question I think it is found for the Plaintif for the pretence of the Defendant is to have a companion against whom the Scire facias shall be as well brought as against himself And in 46. Edw. 3. That in casu proviso if issue be taken upon an Alienation in Fee Forfeiture by alienation and the Jury find an Alienation pro Termino vitae this is a Verdict good enough and the Plaintif shall recover for the Alienation to the Defendants Inheritance is the question And whether it be in Fee or for life it is but form and so in this case Popham by pleading of the truth the Defendant might have been holpen but not as he hath pleaded here as if one plead his Freehold and another say his Freehold absque hoc that it is the Freehold of the Plaintif and upon that they are at issue And the Verdict finds that the Plaintif and Defendant are Tenants in Common Now this Verdict is found for the Plaintif for he that makes the first lie shall be triced and this was the Defendant Fenner In this case one Tenant may not have an Action against an other Iointenants make a statute and it was agreed in this case if there are two Jointenants and the one make a Statute and after joines with his companion in a Feoffment of that Land now the moity of the Land may be extended upon this Statute Godfry When it appears unto the Court that there is another against whom the extent shall be then the Plaintif his Writ shall abate Gawdy No truly for by 44 Edw. 3. if a Writ of Dower be brought against the issue in tail which is remited and the Defendant plead ne unques seisi que Dower and the Verdict find the remitter yet the Plaintif shall have the Judgement for the Tenant if he will have advantage of that ought to plead it 93. THe Parson of Ramesey â—ued in the spirituall Court for Tithes of Asp Prohibition for Asp and a Prohibition was awarded And Fenner said that it was adjudged before that time that Asp should not pay Tithes and also it was agreed if a man cut trees for Housboot No Tithes for housboots c. or other usuall bootes Hedgboot Ploughboot Cartboot and Fireboot Tithes shall not be paid of them 94. NOta per Fenner Justice Account that an Action of accompt shall be maintainable against a servant but not against an Apprentice 95. HOme was indicted for that he had spoken against the book of Common prayer Depravation upon endictment Yelverton The Indictment as it appears is taken before the Lord Anderson and Baron Gent Justices of
a Grantee of a Reversion for years be within the Statute or not Gawdy Well enough For the words of the Statute extend to that quod fuit concessum Then it was moved that this was a meer collaterall Covenant between the persons and not concerning the estate of the land and for that not within the Statute Popham sayd Covenant reall which concerneth the estate If nothing be sayd to the contrary intretur Judicium for the Plaintiff afterwards the case was moved again Gawdie It seems the case is Assigne which in regard of his reversion as of a Covenant may well maintain this action by the Statute of 32. Fenner This Covenant is not any Covenant to be performed during the estate or terme of the Defendant but it is a Covenant to doe a thing in the end of his term and for that is not a Covenant of which the Assignee of the reversion shall have benefit by the Statute for that he hath not any reversion depending upon any estate when the Covenant is alledged to be broken for the Defendant when he breaks that Covenant is but Tenant at sufferance Gawdie contra the Covenant is not to doe a thing after the terme determined but at the instant of the determination of the term and therfore it is a Covenant annexed to the State and runnes with the Land and therefore the Plaintiff shall have advantage over it 110. TRespasse and assault was brought against one Sims by the Husband and the Wife for beating of the woman A Child born living but bruised Cook the case is such as appears by examination A man beats a woman which is great with child and after the child is born living but hath signes and bruises in his body received by the said batterie and after dyed thereof I say that this is murder Fenner Popham absentibus cateris cleerly of the same opinion and the difference is where the child is born dead and where it is born living for if it be dead born it is no murder for non constat whether the child were living at the time of the batterie or not or if the batterie was the cause of the death but when it is born living and the wounds appeare in his body and then he dye the Batteror shal be arraigned of murder for now it may be proved whether these wounds were the cause of the death or not and for that if it be found he shall be condemned 111. GOodale against Wyat in trepasse The speciall verdict found that Sr John Pagginton was seised of the land in question in Fee Mortgage and morgaged it to one Woodliff upon condition that if he or his Heires did pay to the Heires Executors or Administrators of the said W. within one yeer after the death of the said Woodliff 50 l. That then the said deed of Feoffment and the Seisin thereupon given should be void and afterwards Woodliff infeoffed Goodale of the same land and gave notice of the said Feoffment to Sr J. P. and after Woodliff dyed and Sir J. agreed with the heir of W. to wit one Drew Woodliff to take 30 l. for the said 50 l. but when the 30 l. was to be paid Sir J. paid to the said Drew VV. all the fifty pounds and after such payment made Drew VV. gave back to the said Sr. J. 20 l. parcel of the 50 l. Altam 2. points are in the case The first is to whom the payment of the money as this case is ought to be made and I think to the Feoffee because the Heir hath nothing to do in the land and to prove that he cited fundamenta legum 17. Ass 2. 6. R. 2. Plesingtons case and the case of one Ramsey 19. Eliz. was such a man infeoffed three Ramseys case upon condition that if the Feoffor paid to them or their heires 100 l. that then he might re-enter and after one of the Feoffees dyed and the Feoffor tendred the money to his Heir and adjudged a void tender And also Littleton proves that but tif the condition might be performed to the Heirby payment that ought to be precisely performed for he is now as a stranger having nothing in the land and the Covin between the Feoffor and the Heir must not hurt my Olient for by 4. E. 2. câ—i in vita 22. If cui in vita be brought against a Prior and hanging the action he is deposed by Covin this shal not abate the Writ and it was adjudged in this Court where a man was bound by Obligation to deliver a bond and after he got a judgement upon it and then delivered the bond and holden no performance of the condition because the intent was not performed and 20. E. 3. accompt 29. in accompt the Defendant pleaded a Deed whereby the Plaintiff granted that if the Defendant made a Recognisance to him that then the Writ of accompt shall be made void and he shewed how he made a Recognisance But the Plaintiff said that after the making and before deliverie of that to him Composition by Executors the Defendant took it from the Clerk and therefore was adjudged to accompt Precisely named and by 18. E. 4. 20. If a man be bound to license another to carrie a 100. Oakes if he do license him and then disturb him the condition is broken and the common case of Executors will prove this for if an Executor have but 20 l. assets in his hands and is in debt to two men in 20. l. to either of them if he pay but 10 l. to the one and have an acquittance of him for the whole debt of 20 l. yet the other 10. l. that remains in his hands shall be assets to the other for no compacting between strangers shall prejudice my right per quo c. Payment upon a mâ—rgage good to the Executorrs cleelry Gawdy I think cleerly if the payment had been intirely made to the Heir without collusion it had been good for that he is preisely named for none will deny but that if the payment had been made to the Executors it had been good but the Covin between the Heir and the Feoffor peradventure will make no payment Father enfeoff the son and for that 34. E. 1. Warrantie 88. If the father infeoff the Son to the intent that this land shall not be assets to the Sonne to bar him in a Formdone this Covin will not serve to aid him Covin by administration and 2 3 Mar. the Husband dyed intestate and administration was committed to the wife which tooke another husband and the second husband and his wife as Administrators brought an action of Debt hanging which suit the Sonne of the intestate by fraud and covin between him and a Debtor obtained other letters of Administration to him and the woman joyntly and after judgement the sonne by covin to defeat the execution released to the Debtor all demands and executions and after the Husband and