a difference where the party comes in by act of Law and where by the act of the party he who comes in by act of Law shall not be put to his Scire facias for so he should be without remedy and if that should be permitted it should a be subtile way for the conusor to avoid the possession of the conusee and then he himself to take benefit of it and that should be a fine way to defeat the Statute Besides by this way if the Statute should be satisfied by casual profit or if the time should be expired and the Statute satisfied by effluxion of time if in that Case the grantee should be permitted to distrein the beasts of the conusee for a great Rent perhaps before that the Conusee by possibility might remove from the Land it would be a great disturbance to the Conusee Besides if a stranger enter upon the conusee the conusee upon his regress may hold over but not so in this Case where the grantee of the Rent distreins and that should be also a great prejudice to the conusee But it was objected that the grantee of the rent could not have a Scire facias and therefore if he might not distrain he should be without remedy To which he answered that if it should be so it is his own fault for he might have provided for himself by way of covenant But he conceived that he might have a Scire facias for he said that it is a Judicial Writ issuing out of the Rolls which might be framed and made according to the case of any man and it is not enough to say thâ—â— there was never such a Writ granted in the like case but he ought to shew where it was ever denied besides it is not always necessary that he that shall have this Writ should be party to privy to the Record as appâ—areth by these Books 46 Ass. Scire facias 134. 32 E. 3. Scire facias 101. and 38 E. 3. 12. Br. Scire facias 84. Again it is not necessary that the Scirâ— facias should be either ad computandum or ad rehabendum terram as it was objected for as I have said before it may be framed according to the case of any man and vary accordingly wherefore he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and note that at this time Justice Heath seemed to incline for the Plaintiff Thorne against Tyler in a Replevin 231. THe Plaintiff shewed that the Defendant took certain Beasts of the Plaintiff such a time and place and detained them against gages and pledges c. The Defendant as Baily of the Mannor of the Lord Barckley made conusance of the taking of the cattle and said that long time before the taking of them the Lord Barckley was seised in see of a Mannor in Gloucestershire within which there were Copy-hold-Tenants time out of mind demiseable for one two or three lives that there was a custom within the same Mannor that if any copyhold-tenant did suffer his messuage to be ruin'd for want of repairing or committed waste that is presented by the homage that such tenant so offending should be amerced and that the Lord had used time out of mind to distrein the beasts as well of the tenant as of the under-tenant of such customâ—ry tenements levant and couchant upon such customary tenements for such amercement and further said that one Greening was tenant for life of a customary tenement within that Mannor and made a Lease unto the Plaintiff for one year and that 15 Car. the homage did present that Greening had suffered his Barn parcel of the customary Tenements aforesaid to fall for want of repair for which he was amerced to ten shillings and that in Iuly 16 Car. the Defendant as Bayly of the Lord Barckley did distrein the Plaintiffs cattle being under-tenant for the said amercement upon the said customary tenement and so he made conusance and justified the taking of the beasts as Bayly of the Lord Barckley The Plaintiff confessed that Greening was tenant and that he made a Lease to the Plaintiff for a year and further he confessed the want of repairing and presentment and the amercement upon it but he denied that there is any such custome upon which they were at issue and the Jury found for the Defendant that there was such a custom and it was moved in arrest of Judgment that the custom was not good because it was unreasonable for here the Tenant offended and the under-tenant is punished for it which is against all reason that one should offend and another should be punished for it Besides the under-tenant here is a stranger and the custom shall never extend to a stranger and therefore the custom to punish a stranger who is not a Tenant of the Mannor is a void custom Further it was said that the amercement properly falls upon the person and therefore being personal it cannot be charged upon the under-tenant But notwithstanding all these Objections it was resolved by all the Justices upon solemn debate that the custom was good and therefore that the avowant should have Judgment Justice Mallet custom si aliqua defalta fuerit in reparatione to amerce the tenant and to distrein averia sua vel averia subtenentis levant and coucbant upon the customary tenement is a good custom I agree that a custom cannot extend to a stranger who is not within the Mannor and therewith agreeth 3 Eliz. Dyer 194. b. pl. 57. Davis Rep. 33. a. 21 H. 6. and many other Books but the matter 〈◊〉 is whether the Plaintiff be a stranger or not and I conceive that he is no stranger but a good customary tenant and he shall have any benefit or priviledge that a customary tenant shall have although he holdeth but for one year and by the same reason that he shall enjoy the priviledge of a customary tenant he shall undergo the charge for Qui sâ—ntit commoduin sentire debeâ— â—nus and by the general custom of England every Copyholder may make a Lease for one year as is resolved in the 4 Rep. 26. â— and it is good and if so then the Plaintiff here cometh in by custom and is no stranger but a good customary tenant and therefore the custom may well extend to him as there is Dominus pro tempore so there is tenens pro tempore and such is the Plaintiff here and he held that the wife that â—ath her widows estate according to the custom of the Mannor is a good customary tenant A woman Copyholder for life where the custom is that the husband shall be tenant by the curtesie dieth I hold the husband in that case a good customary tenant In Gloucester where this Land is there is a custom that Executors shall have the profits for a year and I conceive them good customary tenants Besides this under-tenant here is distrainable by the Lord for the rents and services reserved by the Lord or otherwise
by this way he might defeat the Lord of his services The custom was That a woman should have her widows estate the Copy-tenant made a Lease for one year and died and adjudged that the woman should have her widows estate as excrescent by Title Paramouns the estate made for one year see Hab. Rep. And as these the estate of the wife was derivative so here and although it be not the intire Copyhold estate yet it is part of it and a continuation of it and is liable to every charge of the Lord 6 Rep. Swaines case wherefore he concluded that the custom is good and that the avowant ought to have Judgment Justice Heath the custom is good both for the matter and form of it where it was objected that for a personal injury done by one the cattle of another cannot be disâ—teined I agree that it is unjust that where alius peccat alius plectitur but our case differs from that rule for this was by custom for Transit terra cum onere he who shall have the land ought to undergo the charge Besides wheresoever a custom may have a good beginning and ex certa rationabili causa it is a good custom Bracton lib. 1. cap. 3. But this might have a reasonable ground at the beginning for here the punishment is a qualification of the Law for where by the Law the Copyhold-tenant is to forfeit his copyhold-tenement for waste either voluntary or permissive now this penalty is abridged and made more easie and therefore is very reasonable 43 E. 3. 5. 44 E. 3. 13. custom that if a tenant be indebted to the Lord that he may distrein his other tenants for it is not good but if it were for Rent it should be good because it may be the tenants at the first granted it to the Lord 22 H. 6. 42. 12 H. 7. 15. 35 H. 6. 35. custom to sell a distress is good and yet it cannot be done but by Act of Parliament And where it was objected that the amercement is personal and therefore cannot extend to the Plaintiff to that he answered that it is not meerly personal but by custom as aforesaid is now made a charge upon the Land and therefore not meerly personal Besides if the custom in this case had been that the Plaintiff for waste should forfeit his Copyhold-tenement it had been reasonable à fortiori in this case that he shall be only amerced wherefore he concluded that the custom is good and therefore that the avowant should have judgment Bramston Chief Justice that the custom is good and that he conceived to be clear First he conceived that the custom is reasonable as to the Copy-tenant for clearly by the Common Law if he suffer or do waste he shall forfeit his Copyhold and therefore this custom is in mitigation of the penalty and therefore is reasonable and that is not denied but the only doubt here is whether the custom to distrein the under-tenant for an amercement layed upon the tenant be a good custom or not and he conceived it is for the custom which gives the distress knits it to the Land and therefore not meerly personal as it was objected And if the custom had not extended to the under-under-tenant he might have distreined him for otherwise the Lord by such devise as there is viz. by the making of a Lease for one year by the Tenant should be defeated of his services 3 Eliz. Dyer 199. resolved custom to seise the cattle of a stranger for a Heriot is not good because that thereby the property is altered But custom that he may distrein the cattle of a stranger for a Heriot is a good custom because the distress is only as a pledge and means to gain the Heriot and in our case the Land is charged with the distress and therefore the cattle of any one which come under the charge may be distreined for it and therefore he held clearly that the custom was good and that the avowant should have Judgment Justice Barckley at this time was impeached by the Parliament of High Treason 232. A man was indicted for murder in the County Palatine of Durham and now brought a Certiorare to remove the Indictment into this Court and it was argued by Keeling at the Bar that Br ' Domini Regis de Certiorare non currit in Com' Palatinum But the Justices there upon the Bench viz. Heath and Bramston seemed strongly to incline that it might go to the County-Palatine and they said that there were many presidents in it and Justice Heath said that although the King grant Iura Regalia yet it shall not exclude the King himself and he said their power is not independent but is corrigible by this Court if they proceed erroneously and he said that in this case the party was removed by Habeas corpus and by the same reason that a Habeas corpus might go thither a Certiorare might for which cause it was awarded that they return the Writ of Certiorare and upon the return they would debate it Hillary 17º Car ' in the Common Pleaâ— â—ayton against Grange in a second deliverance 233. JOhn Layton brought a second deliverance against Anthony Grange and declared of taking of certain Cattle in a place called Nuns-field in Swassam-Bulbeck and detainer or them against gages and pledges c. The defendant made conusance as Baylift to Thomas Marsh and said that long time before the taking alledged one Thomas Marsh the father of the Plaintiff was seised of the Mannor of Michel-Hall in Swassâ—â—-Bulbeck aforesaid of which the Land in which time 〈◊〉 of mind c. was parcel and that one Anthony Cage and Dorothy his wife and Thomas Grange and Thomasine 〈…〉 of the Land in which c as in the right of the saiâ— Dorothy and Thomasine their wives in deâ—esne as of sâ—e and that they held the Land in which c. as of his Mannor of Michel-Hall by soccage viz. fealty and certain Rent payable at certain days and that the said Thomas Marsh was sâ—iâ—ed of the said services by the hands of the said Anthony Cage and Dorothy his wife Thomas Grange and Thomasine his wife as by the hands of his very Tenants and he derived the Tenancie to one Sir Anthony Cage and the Seigniory to Thomas Marsh the son by the death of the said Thomas Marsh the Father and because that fealty was not done by Sir Anthony Cage he as Bayly of the said Thomas Marsh the son did justifie the taking of the said cattle ut insâ—a feoduâ—â— dominium sue c. The Plaintiff by Protestation said that Non 〈◊〉 the Lands aforesaid of the said Thomas Marsh as of his Mannor of Michel-Hall in Swassaâ—â—-Bulbeck aforesaid by soccage viz. fealty and rent as aforesaid and pro placito said that the Defendant took the cattle as aforesaid and detained them against gages and pledges and then traversed Absque hoc that the said Thomas Marsh
choose their Church-wardens and they chose two the Parson chose a third The Official of the Bishop gave Oath to one of them chosen by the Parish but refused to swear the other and would have sworn the party chosen by the Parson but the Parish was against it upon which the Parson Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court And a Mandat was here praid That the Official swear the other who was chosen by the Parish and a Prohibition to stay the Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court. Upon the Mandat the Justices doubted and desired that Presidents and Records might be searched and at length upon many Motions Presidents and Records shewed a Mandat was granted But there being Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court bâ— the other whom the Parson chose a Prohibition was granted without any difficulty But at first the Counsel prayed a Prohibition for not swearing the other which the Court refused to grant because there was no proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Court and a Prohibition cannot be granted where there is no proceeding by way of Suit Vaughan against Vaughan in Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit 51. THe Defendant did promise that he would make such a Conveyance of certain Lands and pleaded That he had made it but did not shew the place where it was made And the Court was clear of Opinion that he need not for it shall be intended upon the Land And so in case of performance of Covenants it is not needful to shew the place where c. Norrice and Norrices Case 52. COpy-holder for life where the custome is That if the Tenant die seised that he shall pay a Heriot The Lord granted the Seigniory for 99 years if the Tenant should so long live And after that he made a Lease for 4000 years Tenant for Life is disseised or more properly ousted and died Here were two Questions 1. Whether there were any Heriot to be paid and admitting there were yet who should have it whether the Grantee for 99 years or he who had the 4000 years And the Court was clear of Opinion in both points without any argument 1. That a Heriot was to be paid not withstanding that the Tenant did not die seised because he had the estate in right and might have entred although he had not the possession And Justice Barckley compared it to the Case in C. 3. Rep. 35. a. in Butler and Bakers Case where a man hath one acre of Land holden in Capite and a hundred acres of Socage Land and afterwards he is disseised of the Capite Land and afterwards makes his will of all his Socage Land in that case he is a person having of Capite Land as the Statute speaks And yet that right of Capite Land shall make the devise void for the third part for notwithstanding the disseisin yet he is Tenant in Law And as to the second point the Court was clear of Opinion also That he in remainder or he that had the Estate for 4000 years for note the Action was brought by him in the Remainder for the Heriot should not have it And their reason was because the Tenant for life was not the Tenant of him who had the future interest of 4000 years but of him who had the interest for 99 years But they were not clear of opinion that the Grantee for 99 years should have the Heriot Justice Barckley was that the Grantee for 99 years should have it But Justice Iones there being then none in Court but they haesitavit And the reason of the doubt was because that eo instante that the Tenant died eodem instante the estate of the Grantee for 99 years determineth Justice Iones put this Case A Seigniory is granted for the life of the Tenant the remainder over in fee the Tenant dieth Who shall have the Ward Justice Barckley said he who is Grantee of the particular estate but Iones seemed to doubt it Vide 44 E. 3. 13. Lewes against Jones in a Writ of Error 53. JUdgment was given for Iones against Lewes in an Action brought in the Common Pleas And Lewes here brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That he was an infant at the time of the Action brought against him And that he appeared by Attorney whereas he ought to appear by Guardian or procheine amy The defendant pleaded in avoidance of this Writ of Error That there was no Warrant of Attorney The Plaintiff allegando shewed the Error before And the Defendant pleaded in nullo erratum est And the Judgment was reversed But the Opinion of the Court was That the better way had been for the Plaintiff to have demurred in Law for there being no warrant of Attorney there was no appearance at all and so are the Books 38 E. 3. and 14 E. 4. 54. In Vtburt and Parhams Case it was agreed That a man may be Non-suit without leave of the Court but he cannot discontinue his Suit without consent of the Court. Davis and Bellamies Case in Attaint 55. THe Defendant brought Attaint and the Verdict was affirmed and Costs prayed upon this Rule that where the Plaintiff shall have costs there the Defendant shall have costs But they were denied by the Court for that ought to be taken in the original Action and not in case of Attaint But upon the restituatur there costs shall be given but that is in the original Action 56. If two joynt-tenants be of a Rectory and one sueth for Tithes by himself only it is nâ— cause of Prohibition So if a Feme Covert sue solely upon a desamation a Prohibition shall not be granted 57. The Sheriff of a County made a Warrant Balâ—ivis suis to arrest the body of such a man and the Bayliffs of the Liberâ—y return a Rescous And Exception was taken to it because that the Warrant was Ballivis suis and the Return was made by those who were not his Bayliffs and it was adjudged for the Liberty might be within his Bayliwick and so are all the Presidents And there was another Exception because the place of the Rescous was not shewed and for that the Book of 10 E. 4. was cited for there the Rescous was adtunc ibidem and did not shew the place To that it was answered by the Court and agreed that adtunc ibidem is altogether incertain if the place be not shewed but in the principal Case the place was shewed at the first and always after that tunc ibidem only without naming of the place and adjudgâ—d good For that tunc ibidem throughout the Declaration hath reference to the place first shewed and it was adjudged good 58. Outlawry was reversed for this Error because that the Exigent was Secund exactus ad Com' meum ibidem c. 59. A Hundred may prescribe in Non decimando and it is good for it is the custome of the County which is the best Law which ever was But a Parish or a particular Town cannot prescribe in Non decimando And
23. 3 E. 3. 330 305. Besides the party is not bound to tarry till the Bailiffs come in and beat him 2 H. 4. 8. 19 H. 6. 31. 34 H. 6. 16. 43 Ass. pl 31. 3. This Authority which is given to the Kings Officer is given by the Law and if he execute it according to the Law the Law will protect him but if he exceed the priviledge given him by the Law then all he doth is illegal and he loseth its protection And he resembled it to the 6 Carpenters case C. 6. part Farther one may pretend he hath such a warrant when he hath it not of purpose to rob or do some other mischief And it was agreed by all the Justices nullo contradicente that it was not Murder but that it was Manslaughter for this reason especially because the Officer was doing an unlawful act not warranted by Law and therefore it was at his peril if he were killed And farther upon this difference there ought to be malice in fact or in Law to make Murder but in this Case there is none of them for it is apparent that there was no malice in fact and there is no malice implied for then it ought to be where a man kills another without any provocation or the Minister of Justice in the due and lawful execution of his Office which is not our Case for here he did an unlawful act at the time he was killed and therefore it was not Murder but Manslaughter There was a Case tried at the Sessions in the Old-Baily which was thus One Lovell had two Maid-servants and one of them without his knowledge had received into the house a Chare-woman who all being in their beds by her negligence let a Thief into the house and afterwards called out Thieves Thieves and afterwards Lovell came out of his Bed with a Sword in his hand and the Chare-woman calling to mind that she was there without his privity or his wifes hid her self behind the Dresser and Lovell's wife espying her there cried out Thieves Thieves for which Lovell came and ran her into the brest with his Sword And the Opinion of the Justices at the Old-Baily and also of all the Justices of the Kings Bench was That it was neither Murder nor Manslaughter Not Murder because there was no forethought malice not Manslaughter because he supposed her to be a Thief and if she had been a Thief then it was clear that it was not Manslaughter 8. It was resolved in the Chancery as the Judges of the Kings Bench said That where the Son is of full age and is ravished that the Father shall not recover Damages because the Son being of full age might marry himself without the consent of the Father and that was the reason given as I conceive and the Case was said to be Sir Francis Lees Case 9. The Book of Canons is that the Parson may Elect one Church-warden and the Parishioners another 10. There can be no Surrender without the Consent of the Reversioner 11. It was Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for these words Thou art a Drunkard or usest to be drunk thrice a week And thereupon Prohibition was Prayed and Granted and it was said and agreed That so it was adjudged betwixt Vinior and Vinior in this Court The Case in Dyer 254. b. where the Presentee was refused because he was a common haunter of Taverns c. was by Justice Barckley denied to be Law and so agreed by Justice Iones the Lord Chief Justice and Justice Crooke being absent But Justice Barckley was utterly against the Prohibition 1. Because the Action in the Ecclesiastical Court is only pro salute animae And 2. Because that Drunkenness is in their Articles and Presentable But Justice Iones granted a Prohibition and said that Linwood said well That if all things which are against the Law of God or words to that effect should be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court the Jurisdiction of the Temporal Court should utterly be destroyed 12. If there be an Indictment of Forcible Entry if it appear that the Plaintiff had seisin at the time of the Writ brought there can be no Writ of Restitution for the Statute â—aith If he Enter with Force or keep him out with Force but yet in that case the King shall have his Fine And there was an Indictment which was a principal Case at Bar which was That the Defendant adtunc adhuc doth keep the possession forcibly whereas the Plaintiff was in possession And thereupon a Writ of Restitution was awarded by reason of the word adhuc 3 E. 4. 19. it was adjudged That where there is Forcible Entry and Reteiner with Force that both are punishable although the Statute of 8 H. 6. 9. be in the disjunctive 13. Descent of a Copy-hold shall not take away Entry There ought to be a custome to enable the Lord of a Mannor to grant a Copy-hold in Reversion 14. In the Council of Marches of Wales they proceed according to Directions and they cannot exceed them and they 〈…〉 with Freehold for it is not within their 〈…〉 And they cannot hold Plea of Debt above fifty poundâ— 15. An Assignment of Rent to a Woman out of Land of which she is Dowable by Word is good but if she be not Dowable of the Land then the Assignment by Word is not good and void because that in the first Case it is according to common Right but in the last not 33 H. 6. 16. In a Writ of Error to Reverse a Judgment in an Action of Debt upon an Arbitrament the Error assigned was this That two did refer themselves to Arbitrament of their two several Arbitrators and there is no word of Submission that the same is Error and there was Error in the Entry of the Judgment the entry of which was in this manner Consideratum est and per Curiam is omitted and left out And for these Errors the Judgment was Reversed Smith's Case 17. ONe said of him Thou art forsworn and hast taken a false Oath at Hereford Assises against such a one naming the party And the Opinion of the Court the Chief Justice and Justice Crooke being absent was against the Action But they conceived that the Action would have lied if the Defendant had said Thou art forsworn and hast taken a false Oath at the Assises against such an one with Averment that he was sworn in the Cause 18. It was said at the Bar That it was adjudged in this Court in Appletons Case That where a man said unto another by way of Interrogatory Where is my Piece thou stolest from me that it was actionable Justice Iones remembred this case where one said J. S. told me that J. N. stole a Horse but I do not believe him This with Averment that I. S. did not say any such thing would bear an Action Justice Barkley said That an Action was brought upon these words You are no Thief and that these words with Averment which
be at one time customary and go according to the custom and at another guildable And the whole Court Crooke only being absent were against him that the custom was good Hicks against Webbe 83. IN Trespass for a way the Defendant did justifie and said that he had a way not only ire equitare averia sua fugare but also carrucis carreragiis carriare The Plaintiff traversed it absque hoc that he had a way not only ire equitare c. in the words aforesaid and thereupon they were at issue and found for the Plaintiff Glynn moved in arrest of Judgment that the Issue was ill joyned because it was not a direct affirmative but by inducement only And the whole Court was against him And Justice Iones said That if I say that not only Mr. Glynn hath been at such a place but also Mr. Iones without doubt it is a good affirmative that both have been there But they all agreed that the pleading was more elegant than formal 84. In the Case betwixt Brooke and Boothe Justice Barckley said that it is a Rule That if there be two things alledged and one of necessity ought to be alledged and he relies on-only upon the other it is no double Plea As if a man plead a Feoffment with Warranty and relieth upon the Warranty it is not double 85. Justice Barckley said That the Court of the Exchequer they may make a Lease for three Lives by the Exchequer-Seal Clarke against Spurden 86. IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas the case was shortly thus A. wife of I.S. intestate promiseth to B. to whom Adnistration was committed that if he shall relinquish the Administration at the request of C. and suffer A. to Administer that A. will discharge B. of two Bonds In Assumpsit brought by B. in the common Pleas he alledged that he did renounce Administration and suffered A. to Administer and that A. had not discharged him of the two Bonds And it was found for the Plaintiff And thereupon Error was brought because B. doth not shew that he did renounce the Administration at the request of C. And Rolls for the Plaintiff in the writ of Error did assign the same for Error Justice Barckley all the other Justices being absent held that it was Error for consideration is a thing meritorious and all ought to be performed as well the request on the part of C. as the permission of the part of B. which ought to be shewed For perhaps B. was compelled to relinquish it in the Ecclesiastical Court as it might be for of right the wife ought to Administer And therefore it ought to have been averred that it was at the request of C. And therefore if it had been that he should renounce at the charge of C. it ought to be averred that it was at the charge of C. And it was adjourned 87. A man Libelled in the Spiritual Court for Tithes for barren cattle and it was moved for a Prohibition upon this suggestion viz. That he had not other cattle than those which he bred for the Plough and Pale and thereupon Barckley being alone there granted a Prohibition And the same Parson also Libelled for Tithes of Conies and for that also he granted a Prohibition for they are not Titheable if not by custome And here Barckley said That if Land be Titheable and the Tenant doth not plough it and manure it yet the Parson may sue for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court North against Musgrave 88. IN Debt upon the Statute of 1 2 Phil. Mar. c. 12. the words of which Statute are That no man shall take for keeping in pound impounding or poundage of any manner of distress above the sum of four pence upon pain of forfeiture of five pounds to be paid to the party grieved And the Plaintiff shewed that his Cattle were distreyned and impounded and that the Defendant took of him ten pence for the poundage And thereupon the Plaintiff brought an Action for the penalty of five pounds and found for the Plaintiff And the Judgment was That he should recover the five pounds and damages ultra praeter the mony taken for the poundage And thereupon a Writ of Error was brought and three things assigned for Error First because the Action was brought for the penalty of five pounds only and not for the six pence which was taken above the allowance of the Statute which ought not to be divided Which was answered by Justice Barckley all the other Justices being absent That notwithstanding it is good for true it is that he cannot bring his Action for fifty shillings part of the penalty because it is entire but here are two several penalties and he may divide and disjoyn them if he will or he may wave the six pence For quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se introducto The second was That he doth not demand that which is ultra praeter the four pence given by the Statute and yet the Judgment is given for that which is not good To which Justice Barckley said That the Judgment was good For no judgment is given for that which is ultra praeter the four pence but only for the four pounds because he doth not demand it And we cannot judge the Judgment to be erroneous by Implication The third Objection was That Costs and Damages are given which ought not to be upon a penal Law For he ought not to have more than the Statute giveth and therefore upon the Statute of Perjury no Costs are given so upon the Statute of Gloucester of Wast the Plaintiff shall recover no more than the treble value But Rolls who was on the contrary said That there are many presidents in the common Pleas that Damages have been given upon this Statute But Barckley and Iones who afterwards came and seemed to agree with Justice Barckley in the whole was against it That no Damages ought to be given and desired that the Presidents might be viewed But here Rolls offered this difference Where the penalty given by the Statute is certain as here upon which he may bring Debt there he shall recover Damages but where the penalty is uncertain as upon the Statute of Gloucester for treble damages the Statute which giveth the treble value and the like there because it is incertain he shall have no more Barckley asked Mr. Hoddesdon If the Informer should recover Damages And he and Keeling Clerk of the Crown answered No but said Damages should be given against him and it was adjourned 89. Skinner Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for thâ— Tithes of Roots of a Coppice rooted up And Porter prayed Prohibition And it was said by Iones and Barckley Justiceâ—â— no other Justice being present That if cause were not shewed before such a day that a Prohibition should be awarded because it is ad exheredationem and utter destruction of 〈◊〉 And the Opinion was that the
doubted thereof and did conceive that no costs should be given in this case and that upon Pilfords case 10 Rep. As to the Presidents he said that they did not bind him for perhaps they passed sub silentio And afterwards it was adjorned Johnson against Dyer 96. IN an Action upon the Case for words the Defendant having speech with the Father of the Plaintiff said to him I will take my Oath that your Son stole my Hens For which words the Plaintiff brought the Action But did not aver that he was his Son or that he had but one Son And it was holden by the whole Court Crooke being absent that the plea was not good Leake and Dawes Case 97. LEake brought a Scire facias in the Chancery against Dawes to avoid a Statute and the Case as it was moved by Serjeant Wilde was such Hopton acknowledged a Statute to Dawes and afterwards conveyed part of the Land liable to the Statute to I. S. who conveyed the same to Leake the plaintiff and afterwards the Conusor conveyed other part of the Land to Dawes the Defendant who was the Conusee by bargain and sale the Conusee extended the Lands of Leake the Purchaser who thereupon brought this Scire facias to avoid the Statute because that the Conusee had purchased parcel of the Land liable to the Statute and so exâ—inguished his Statute And this case came by Mittimus into the Kings Bench. And here it was moved by Serjeant Wilde for Dawes the Defendant in arrest of Judgment And taken by him for Exceâ—â—ion That the bargain and sale is alledged to be made to Dawes but it is not shewed that it was by Deed inrolled but yet it is pleaded That Virtute cujus viz. of Bargain and Sale the Conusee was seised and doth not shew that he entred And here it was said by the Court There are two points First Whether an Inrolment shall be intended without pleading of it Secondly Admitting not what Estate the Bargaineâ— hath as this Case is As to the first Justice Iones took this difference Where a man pleads a bargain and sale to a stranger and where to himself In the first case he need not plead an Inrolment but contrary in 〈…〉 Barckley agreed it and took another difference betwixt a Plea in Bar and a Count In a Count if a man pâ—â—ad a grant of a Reversion without attorâ—ment it is good contrary in Bar so in this Case The second question is admitting that the Deed shall be intended not to be inrolled without pleading What estate Dawes the Conusee hath before Entry the Deed not being inrolled For it was agreed by the whole Court That if he be a disseior or if he hath but an estate at will that the Statute is suspended And first whether he hath an estate at will at the common Law or not without Entry Barckley that he had But Iones and Bramston contrary and it seemed that he had an estate at will by the Statute And put the case of feoffment in Bucklers case 3. Rep. Where the Feoffee entreth before Livery that he hath an estate at will and Barckley agreed therein with him for the possibility of inrolment But Iones conceived that an estate at will could not be executed by the Statute And it was adjorned Curtisse against Aleway 98. THe Case was thus A woman was dowable of certain Land within the Jurisdiction of the Council of the Marches of which I. S. died seised She accepted a Rent by parol of the Heir out of the same Land in satisfaction of her Dower And afterwards there was a Composition betwixt them for defalcation of that Rent Afterwards there was an Action brought before the Council of the Marches for the Arrerages of the Rent where the question was Whether the Rent were in satisfaction of her Doweâ— or not and it was moved by Moreton for a Prohibition And it was granted by the Court because the same did concern Freehold of which they have not Jurisdiction for by the express Proviso of the Statute of 34 H. 8. of holding of plea of Lands Tenements Hereditaments or Rents But because that it appeared by the Bill that the woman was dead so as the realty was turned into the personalty viz. into Debt And therefore it was conceived by Evers Attorney of the Marches That although it was not within the Jurisdiction before yet being now turned into a personal Action that they have Jurisdiction But Iones and Barckley Justices were of a contrary Opinion and Iones said That an Action of Debt for Arrerages would not lie before them because it touched the realty which was denied by none but Evers Attorny Edwards against Omellhallum 99. IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Judgment given in Ireland in an Ejectione firme the Case was this as it was found by special verdict A Mortgager made a Lease for years by Deed indented and afterwards performed the Condition and made a Feoffment in Fee the Lessee entred upon the Feoffee who re-entred and the Lessee brought an Ejectione firme And the only question as it was moved by Glynn was Whether this Lease which did inure by way of Estople should binde the Feoffee or no and by him it did and Rawlyns case in the 4 Rep. 53. expresly and 1 2 Phil. Mar. Dyer agreeth And the whole Court Crooke only absent without any argument were clear That it should binde the Feoffee for all who claim under the Estople shall be bound thereby vid. Edriches case 13 H. 7. 100 Serjeant Iermayn came into the Court and shewed cause why a Prohibition should not be granted in the case of Skinner before who Libelled for Tythes of Coppice rooted up He agreed that for timber-trees above the growth of twenty no Tithes should be paid and so he said was the common Law before the Statute of 45 E. 3. which was but a confirmation of the Common Law And he said That as the body of the tree is priviledged so are the branches and root also which is a proof that where the body is not priviledged there neither shall be the root â—or branches And in our Case he Libels for roots of underwoods and the underwood it self being titheable therefore the roots shall be also tithable And he said that the 〈…〉 are not parcel of the Land But Justice Barckley was against it for they are not crescentia nor renovantia as Tithes ought to be and therefore no Tithes ought to be paid for them and he said that a Prohibition hath many times been granted in the like cases But Dr. Skinner did alledge a custome for the payment of Tithes of them And upon that they were to go to trial And here it was said that Dr. Skinner had used to have some special particular benefit of the Parishioners in lieu of Tithe of Roots And thereupon Barckley said That it is a Rule where the Parishioner doth any thing which he is not compellable by the Law to do
three years it did not give Lapse without notice for it was avoidance in Law not in Fact vid. Stat. 9. Eliz. for Excommunicating a striker in the Churchyard c. This Statute of 31 Eliz. differs from the Statute of 1 Eliz. for not reading of the Articles Those Statutes say that it shall be void ipso facto but not so in our Case And the Cases cited for Authority in the point are betwixt party and party and not in case of a third person as our case is 18 Eliz. Dyer A meer Lay-man is presented it is not ipso facto void without Sentence So it is of one within the age of nine years for he cannot govern others Trinit 4 Iac. in the Common Pleas Cooke and Stranges case The King Presents and before Institution Presents another it is good but in the interim the King ought to repeal his first presentment and that is a revocation vid. Dyer 292. a. where it is a Quere Whether he need not to alledge that a Repeal was brought and shewed c. The King grants and afterwards makes a second Grant of the same thing There are many Examples in Brooke and Fitzherbert that it is not good without a Repeal But this Case viz. of 6 H. 8 9. extends only to â—and and not to an Advowson c. But it was resolved by all the Judges That the Church was void by the Statute of 31 Eliz. to all purposes and to all persons as to the Pâ—râ—shioners as to a stranger who brings Trespass or Ejectione firme as to the King as to him who Presents and that without deprivation or Sentence declaratory in the Ecclesiastical Court And accordingly Judgment was given Hichcocke against Hichcocke 140. THe Case was this The Vicar did contract with a Parishioner to pay so much for encrease of Tithes and died and his Successor fued in the Ecclesiastical court for them And a Prohibition was prayed and granted by all the Justices And here it was said That a real Contract made by the Parson and confirmed by the Ordinary could not be altered in the Spiritual Court And by Serjeant Mallet a real accord though it be between Spiritual Persons and of Spiritual things yet it is only questionable at the Common Law 20 E. 3. Annuity 32. 38 E. 3. 6. 8 19. And by Serjeant Clarke Real composition by a Parson who claims not any encrease of the endowment to the Parsonage shall not binde his Successor The words of the Contract here were inter se convenerunt and that is no real Composition although that the Bishop call it so realis Compositio and his calling of it so doth not alter the nature of it but it remains a Personal agreement and so shall not bind the Successor although it be confirmed by the Bishop A Parson cannot do any thing to the damage of his Successor The Vicar took Oath That they were not for encrease of Tithes the Ordinary being a stranger to the Composition is not made a party by his Confirmation nor is the Composition altered by it Littleton Sect. 335. The Lord confirms the Land to the Tenant the same doth not alter the Tenure nor prejudice the Lord. The power of the Bishop augendi minuendi the Portion of the Vicar is by the Common Law for general Cure of Souls The Parson and Vicar have privity betwixt them 40 E. 3. 28. 31 H. 6. 14 16 Ass Annuity 32. 2 Rep. 44. Plow Com. 496. 21. E. 3. 5. 10 H. 7. 18. Dyer 43 84. 141. A Prohibition was prayed to the Court of Requests and the Case was thus A Feme sole possessed of a Term conveyed the same over in Trust for her and Covenanted with I. S. whom she did intend to marry that he should not meddle with it and for that purpose took a Bond of him They intermarried he may intermeddle with it but he shall not have it and by Equity he cannot assigne it by reason of the Covenant before marriage A Feme sole conveys a Term in Trust and then marrieth the husband assignes it the Trust not the Estate shall pass by Reeve and Foster But by all the Judges a Prohibition shall not be for it is matter only for Equity But if they direct Demisit or non demisit Assignavit or non c. then they exceed their Jurisdiction and a Prohibition heth 142. A woman brought a Writ of Dower and recovered and upon a suggestion made upon the Roll that the husband died seised a Writ of enquiry of Damages issued forth And before the Retorn thereof a Writ of Error was brought and it was by Steward against Steward and two things were moved 1. Whether Error would lie before the Retorn of the Writ of Enquiry or not 2. Whether the Writ of Error be a Supersedeas to the Writ of Enquiry And by Taylor and Rolls Serjeants That Error doth not lie before Judgment upon the Writ of Enquiry And this case they compared to Medcalfes case 11 Rep. 38. But by Serjeant Bacon it is well brought Dower is by the Common Law and damages are given by the Statute of Merton and that is the main Judgment 5. Rep. 58 59. And the very case is put in Medcalfes case 11 Rep and distinguished from other cases And it was argued by another Serjeant That the Error was well brought because that in Dower the Judgment doth determine the Original and therefore at the Common Law Error will well lie And the damages are given by the Statute of Merton but that doth not alter the Judgment or the nature of the Action It differs from the case of Judgment in an Ejectione firme and Accompt for after such Judgments Noâ—suit may be but not so in the case of Dower in which Judgment is quod recuperet c. A Precipe is brought against two one pleads to issue the other an insufficient Plea upon which Judgment is given No Error lieth before Judgment be given for the other for the whole matter is not determined But in several Precipes against two it is otherwise 34. H. 6. 18. Fitz. Scire facias 11 Rep. 39. a. b. In case of Ejectione firme it is a Quere if Error may be brought c. And Bankes Chief Justice said That it had been adjudged both ways but that differs from our case for in that damages are given by the Common Law Judgment is in a Quare impedit Error may be brought before c. which is like to our case for damages in both cases are given by Statute And where it was objected That thereby damages should be lost He answered No. For the Kings Bench may award a Writ of Enquiry of Damages And the 11 Rep. is express Authority 2. The Error is no Supersedeas c. 11 Iac. in Tincke and Brownes case it was ruled and resolved That a Writ of Error brought was not a Supersedeas to the Writ of Enquiry of damages But it was resolved by all the Judges that the Error
the Father was seised of the said services by the hands of the said Anthony Cage and Dorothy his wife and Thomas Grange and Thomasine his wife as by the hands of his very Tenants upon which the defendant did demur in Law and shewed for cause of demurrer that the Plaintiff had traversed a thing not traversable and if it were traversable that it wanted form and this Term this Case was debated by all the Judges and it was resolved by them all that the Traverse as it is taken is not well taken Justice Foster that the Traverse taken by the Plaintiff is not well taken at the Common Law the Lord was bound to avow upon a person certain but now by the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 19. he may avow upon the Land and this avowry clearly is an avowry upon the Statute for it is infra feodum dominium sua c. and so is the old Entries 565. then the Question here is whether the Plaintiff be privy or a stranger â—or iâ— he he a stranger then clearly at the Common Law he may plead no plea but out of his Fee or a Plea which doth amount to so much as appeareth by the Books 2 H. 6. 1. 17 E. 3. 14 15. 34 E. 3. Avowry 257. and many other Books as you may find them cited in the 9 Rep. 20. in the case of Avowry here it doth not appear but that the Plaintiff is a stranger and therefore whether he be inabled by the Statute of 21 H. 8. to take this traverse or not is the Question and I conceive that he is true it is as it was objected that this Statute was made for the advantage of the Lord but I conceive as it shall enable the Lord to avow upon the Land so it shall enable the Tenant to discharge his possession as if the avowry were upon the very tenant and so is the Institutes 268 b. and so is Brown and Goldsmiths case in Hobarts Rep. 129. adjudged in the point and the Plaintiff here who is a stranger is in the same condition as a stranger was at the Common Law where the Avowry was made upon the Land for a Rent-charge in such case he might have pleaded any discharge although he were a meer stranger and had nothing in the Land so may he now after the Stat. of 21 H. 8. Then admitting that the Plaintiff might take this Traverse by the Statute then the Question is whether the Plaintiff hath taken a sufficient Traverse by the Common Law or not for the Statute saith that the Plaintiff in the Replevin or second deliverance shall have the like Pleas as at Common Law and I conceive that this plea is not a good plea at the Common Law And now I will consider whether if the Plaintiff had been a very Tenant he might have pleaded this plea or not and I conceive that if this traverse had been taken by a very tenant it had not been good I agree the 9 Rep. 35 Bucknels case that Ne unque seisie of the services generally is no good plea but Ne unque scisie of part of the services is a good plea and so is 16 E. 4. 12. 22 H. 63. and the reason that the first Plea is not good is because that thereby no remedy is left to the Lord neither by avowry nor by writ of customs and services And therefore the plea here is not good because it is a traverse of the services generally Besides here the traverse is not good because that the Plaintiff hath traversed the seism and hath not admitted the tenure and it is a rule in Law that no man may traverse the seism of services without admitting a tenure and therewith agreeth 7 E. 4. 28. 20 E. 4. 17. 9 Rep. Bucknells case and then if the very tenant could not have taken this traverse much less a stranger here Further here the tenure was alledged to be by rent and fealty and the avowry was for the fealty and the Plaintiff hath traversed the seism as well of the rent which is not in demand as of the fealty and therefore the traverse is not good But it was objected that seism of rent is seism of fealty and therefore of necessity both ought to be traversed I agree that seism of rent is seism of fealty but it is no actual seism of the fealty in point of payment or to maintain an assise for it as is 44. E. 3. 11. 45 E. 3. 23. and the distress here is for actual seism of fealty Every traverse ought to be adidem as 26 H. 8. 1. 9 Rep. 35. but here the traverse is of the Rent which is not in question therefore is not good in matter of form Wherefore he gave Judgment for the avowant Justice Reeve the first thing here coâ—siderable is whether this be a conusance at the Common Law or upon the Statute and I hold clearly that it is within the Statute and for that see new Entries 597 599 27 H. 8. 20. and it is clear that the Lord hath Election either to avow upon the Statute or at the Common Law and that is warranted by Institutes 268. and 312. 9 Rep. 23. b. 36. a. 136. a. and then admitting that it be an avowry upon the Statute The second point is whether the Plaintiff be inabled by the Statute to take this traverse or not for it is clear that at the Common Law the Plaintiff could not have this Plea for a stranger could not plead any thing but hors dâ—â—son fee or a plea which did amount to as much I agree the Books of Br. Avowry 113. 61. 9 Rep. 36. 27 H. 8. 4. â—0 Br. Avowry 107. Instit. 268. which are against me yet I conceive undâ—r favour that notwithstanding any thing that hath been said that the Plaintiff is not enabled by the Statute to take this traverse and I ground my Opinion upon the Reason at Common Law as also upon the Statâ—â—e the first reason at the Common Law I ground upon the Rule in Law res inter alios actâ— alteri nocere non debet it is not reason that he who is a stranger shall take upon himself to plead to the Title of the Tenure with which he hath nothing to do in prejudice of the very Tenant and this reason is given by the Books of 22 H. 6 39 E. 3. 34. My second reason is grounded upon the maxime in Law which is That in pleading every man ought to plead that which is pertinent for him and his Case And that 's the reason that the Incumbent at the Common Law cannot plead to the right of the Patronage wherein he hath nothing but the Patrou shall plead it as appeareth by the 7 Rep. 26. and many other Books there cited and these are my reasons at the Common Law wherefore the Plaintiff being a stranger cannot plead this Plea Secondly I ground my self upon the purvieu of
in Bar of this conusance or not Secondly admitting that he be inabled by the Statute to plead this plea whether the traverse be here welâ— taken or not To the first I hold that he is inabled by the Statute to take this traverse but for the second I hold clearly that the traverse is not well taken here the Plaintiff and Defendant are both strangers so as here is neither the very Lord nor the very Tenant And now I will consider what the Common Law was before the Statute it is clear that by the Common Law a stranger might plead nothing in discharge of the Tenancie nor could plead a release as the Books are 34 E. 3. Avowry 257. and 38 E. 3. Avowry 61. he could not plead rien arrere or levied by distress he could plead no Plea but hors de son fee or a Plea which did amount to so much I confess that the Book of 5 E. 4. 2. b. is that the Tenant in a Replevin could not plead hors de son fee but the Book of 28 H 6. 12. is against it True it is that in some special Case as where there is Covin or Collusion in the avowant there the Tenant shall set forth the special matter as it is in 9 Rep. 20. b. Now there are two Reasons given in our Books wherefore the Plaintiff in a Replevin being a stranger could not plead in Bar of the Avowry The first is that the Seignory being in question it is matter of privity betwixt the Lord and the Tenant The second that the Law doth allow unto every man his proper plea which is proper to his Case and that he ought to plead and no other as appeareth by the Books 12 Ass. p. 2. 13 H. 8. 14. 2. H. 7. 14. 13 H. 7. 18. Lit. 116. 35 H. 6. 13. 45 E. 3. 24. Now seeing that the Plaintiff being a stranger could not plead this Plea at the Common Law the Question now is Whether he be inabled by the Statute to take this Plea or not the words of the Statute are That the Plaintiff and Defendant shall have the like Pleas and Aid-prayer as at the Common Law and therefore it was objected that it doth not give any new Plea true it is that by the express words thereof that it gives not any new Plea but yet I conceive that any stranger is enabled to plead any plea in discharge of the Conusance by the equity of this Statute at the Common Law avowry was to be made upon the person and therefore there was no reason that the Plaintiff being a stranger should plead any thing in Bar of the Avowry of Conusance but now the Statute enables the Lord to avow upon the Land not naming any person certain it is but justice and equity that the Plaintiff should be inabled to plead any thing in discharge of it I compare this Case to the Case in the 3 Rep. fol. 14. Harberts Case where it is resolved that sâ—ossce of a Conusor of a Statute being only charged may draw the other in to be equally charged and if execution be sued against him only that he may discharge himself by Audita querela for so much 8 E. 4. 23. a. there the Defendant avowed for a rent-charge the Plaintiff shewed how that one E. leased the Land to him and prayed in aid of him and resolved that he should not have aid because the avowry is for Rent-charge so as thâ— Plaintiff might plead any plea that he would in dischâ—â—ge of the land now by the same reason where the lands of the Plaintiff were charged with a rent-charge he might at the common Law have pleaded any thing in discharge of his land by the same reason where there is an avowry upon the Land according to the Statute the land being charged the Plaintiff may plead any thing in discharge thereof and this is my first reason My second reason is that this Law hath been construed be equity for the benefit of the Lord and therefore it shall be construed by equity for the benefit of the Tenant also Instit. 286. b. My third reason is Although the Plaintiff be a stranger and claimeth no interest in the Land yet for the saving of his goods he may justifie this plea I may plead an assault upon another who endeavoreth to take away my goods and I may justifie maintenance where it is in defence of my interest as it appeareth in 15 H. 7. 2. and 34 H. 6. 30. Fourthly and lastly upon the authorities in Law after the making of this Statute I conceive that the Plaintiff may well take the Plea 27 H. 8. 4. The plaintiff prayed in aid of a stranger and had it which could not be â—t the Common Law as appeareth by 3 H. 54. and 34 H. 6. 46. and many other Books and for Books in the point 34 H. 8. Petty Brooke 235. Institutes 268. 9 Rep. 36. Hobarts rep 150 151. Brown and Goldsmiths Case wherefore I hold that the Plaintiff may by the equity of the Statute plead this plea. But it was objected by my brother Reeve that by the Statute of 25 E 3. c. 7. It is enacted that the possessor shall plead in Bar and therefore the incumbent before induction cannot plead in Bar as it is resolved in 4 H. Dyer 8. 1. and 31 E. 3. Incumbt 6. and upon the same reason he conceived it should be hard in our Case that the Plaintiff who is but a stranger not taking upon him any estate should be admitted to plead this plea especially the Statute in this Case saying that the Plaintiff shall have the like pleas as at the Common Law To that I answer that by the Statute of 25 E. 3. it is enacted that the possessor shall plead in Bar and therefore clearly there he ought to shew that he is possessor otherwise he cannot plead in Bar and therefore not like to our Case and the Novel Entries 598 599. doth not make against it for there it was not upon the Statute and 26 H. 8. 6. is express that the Plaintiff being a stranger is enabled by the Statute of 21 H. 8. to take this plea Wherefore I conclude this point that the Plaintiff is inabled by the Statute to plead any thing in Bar of the avowry But for the second point I hold clearly that the traverse as it is here taken is not well taken it is only an equitable construction that the Plaintiff shall plead this plea as I have argued before and therefore he ought to pursue the form of the Common Law in the form of his traverse which he hath not here done and therefore the traverse is not good and where the seism is not material there it is not traversable and in this Case the seisim of the fealty is not material for it is out of the Statute of Limitations and therefore not traversable and so is it in the Case of a gift in tail and grant of a Rent-charge it is
do so it is void And for that he cited Clegat and Batchellers Case before that the obligation in such Case is void and he said that the reason which was given by one why the Bond should be void was grounded upon the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 29. which wills That no freeman should be ousted of his Liberties but per legem terrae and he said that the word Liberties did extend to Trades and Reeve said that by the same reason you may restrain a man from using his Trade for a time you may restrain him for ever And he said that he was confident that you shall never find one Report against the Opinion of Hull 2 H. 5. For the other part of the difference he cited Hill 17 Iac. in this Court Rot. 1265. and 19 Iac. in the Kings Bench Braggs case in which Cases he said it was adjudged against the Action upon a Bond but with the Action of the Case upon a promise that it would lie But note that all the Judges viz. Foster Reeve and Crawley Bankes being absent held clearly that if the condition be against the Law that all is void and not the condition only as was objected by Evers and it was adjorned Apsly against Boys in the Common Pleas in a Scire facias to execute a Fine upon a Grant and Render Intrat Trin. 16 Car. Rot. 112. 239. THe Case upon the Pleading was this A fine upon a Grant and Render was levied in the time of E. 4. upon which afterwards a Scire facias was brought and Judgment given and a Writ of seisin awarded but not executed Afterwards a fine Sur coâ—usans de droit come ceo c. with Proclamations was levied and five years passed and now another Scire facias is brought to execute the first fine to which the fine Sur conusance de droit come ceo is pleaded so as the only Question is Whether the fine with Proclamations shall bar the Scire facias or not Serjeant Gotbold for the Plaintiff it shall not bar and his first reason was because not executed 1 Rep. 96 97. and 8 Rep. 100. If a disseisor at the Common Law before the Statute of Non-claim had levied a fine or suffered Judgment in a Writ of Right until Execution sued they were no bars and a fine at Common Law was of the same force as it is now and if in those Cases no bar at Common Law until Execution that proves that this interest by the fine upon grant and render is not such an interest as can bar another fine before execution Besides this Judgment by the Scire facias is a Judgment by Statute and Judgment cannot be voided but by error or attaint Further a Scire facias is not an Action within the Statute of 4 H. 7. and therefore cannot be a bar 41 E. 3. 13. 43 E. 3. 13. Execution upon Scire feci retorned without another plea and it is not like to a Judgment for there the party may enter but not here Besides it shall be no bar because it is executory only and in custodia legis and that which is committed to the custody of the Law the Law doth preserve it as it is said in the 1 Rep. 134. b. and he compared it to the Cases there put and a fine cannot fix upon a thing executory and the estate ought to be turned to a right to be bound by a fine as it is resolved in the 10 Rep. 96. a. 9 Rep. 106. a. Com. 373. And the estate of him by the first fine upon grant and render is not turned to a right by the second fine Lastly the Statute of 4 H. 7. is a general Law and in the affirmative and therefore shall not take away the Statute of West 2. which gives the Scire facias and in proof of that he cited 39 H. 6. 3. 11 Rep. 63. 68. and 33 H. 8. Dyer 15. I agree the Case which hath been adjudged that a fine will bar a Writ of Error but that is to reverse a Judgment which is executed but here the Judgment is not executed and therefore cannot be barred by the fine wherefore he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Note that it was said by the Judges that here is no avoiding of the finâ— but it shall stand in force but yet notwithstanding it may be barred and they all said that he who hath Judgment upon the Scire facias upon the first fine might have entred and they strongly inclined that the Scire facias is barred by the fine and doth not differ from the Case of a Writ of Error but they delivered no opinion Taylers Case 240. THe Case was thus The Issue in Tail brought a Formedon in Descend and the Defendant pleaded in Bar and confessed the Estate Tail but said that before the death of the Tenant in Tail I. S. was seised in fee of the lands in question and levied a fine to him and five years passed and then Tenant in Tail died whether this plea be a bar to the Plaintiff or not was the Question and it rested upon this Whether I. S. upon this general Plea shall be intended to be in by disseisin or by feoffment for if in by disseisin then he is barred if by feoffment not and the opinion of the whole Court was clear without any debate that he shall be intended in by disseisin and so the Plaintiff is Bar as the Books are 3 Rep. 87. a. Plow Com. Stowels Case and Bankes Chief Justice said that it shall not be intended that Tenant in Tail had made a feoffment to bar his issues unless it be shewed and it lies on the other part to shew it and a feoffment is as well an unlawful Act as a dissâ—isin for it is a discontinuance Commins against Massam in a Certiorare to remove the proceedings of the Commissioners of Sewers 241. THe Case upon the proceedings was thus Lessee for years of Lands within a level subject to be drowned by the Sea covenanted to pay all assessments charges and taxes towards or concerning the reparation of the premisses A wall which was in defence of this level and built straight by a sudden and inevitable Tempest was thrown down one within the level subject to be drowned did disburse all the mony for the building of a new wall and by the order of the Commissioners a new wall was built in the form of a Horshooe afterwards the Commissioners taxed every man within the level towards the repaying of the sum disbursed one of which was the lessee for years whom they also trusted for the collecting of all the mony and charge him totally for his land not levying any thing upon him in the reversion and also with all the damages viz. use for the mony Lessâ—e for years died the lease being within a short time of expiration his executor enters and they charge him with the whole and immediately after the years expired the executors brought this
therefore I did not stick upon the Certiorare because what was done was by consent consensus tollit errorem if any be Now for the points as they arise upon the proceedings of the Commissioners and for the first I hold that the covenant doth well extend to this new wall and the making of it in the form of a horshooe is not material so as it be adjoyning to the land as it here was for that may be ordered according to their discretions it is a rule in Law that the covenant of every man ought to be construed very strong against himself and although that in this Case the new wall be not parcel of the premisses as it was at the time of the covenant because that the wall then in esse and to which the covenant did extend was a straight wall yet according to the words of the covenant this tax is towards the reparation of the premisses and if it should not extend to this new wall the covenant should be idle and vain and clearly the meaning of the parties was that it should extend to all new walls For the second point I hold the covenant although it be a collateral thing within their Jurisdiction true it is as it is said in 28 H. 8. that contracts are as private Laws betwixt party and party but you ought to know that their Commission gives them power to charge every man according to his tenure portion and profit and he who is bound by custom or prescription to repair such walls is not within the words of their Commission yet it is resolved in the 10 Rep. 139 140. in Kighleys case that the Commissioners may take notice of it and charge him only for the reparations where there is default in him and the danger not inevitable and by the same reason you may exclude this covenant to be out of their Jurisdiction you may exclude prescription also I agree that where the covenant is meerly collateral as if a man who is a stranger covenants to pay charges for repairing of such a wall that that is not within their Jurisdiction because he is a meer stranger and cannot be within their Commission but in our Case it is otherwise for the covenantor is occupier of the land and it hath been adjudged that if lands or chattels are given for the reparation of a Sea-wall that it is within their Jurisdiction and they may meddle with it that is as collateral as the covenant in question wherefore I hold that the covenant is within their Jurisdiction For the third point I hold that they may well charge the executor for the executor here hath the lease as executor but it was objected That the term is now determined and peradventure the executor hath not assets To that I answer that it is admitted that he hath assets for the Commissioners cannot know whether he hath assets or not and therefore he ought to have alledged the same before the Commissioners and because he hath not done it he hath lost that advantage and it shall be intended that he hath assets by not gain-saying of it Fourthly for the damages I first chiefly doubted of that but now I hold that it is within their Jurisdiction Put case that one in extreme necessity as in this Case disburse all the money for the reparations or the wall or Sea-bank if the Case had gone no further clearly he shall be repaid by the tax and levy after and I conceive by the same reason they have power to allow him damages and use for his mony for if it should not be so it would be very inconvenient for who would after disburse all the money to help that imminent danger and necessity if he should not be allowed use for his money and the Lessee here is only charged with the damages for the money collected which he had in his hands and converted to his own use and therefore it is reasonable that he should be charged with all the damages Besides they having conusans of the principal have conusans of the accessory as in this Case of the damages and he urged Fitz. 113. a. to prove that before the Statute of 23 H. 8. they had a Court and were called Justices but he held as it was agreed before That no Writ of Error lieth after this Statute but yet he said that the party grieved should be at no loss thereby for he said that where the party cannot have a Writ of Error nor Audita querela there he shall be admitted to plead as in 11 H. 7. 10. a. Where a Recognisance of debt passed for the King upon issue tried and afterwards the King pardons it the party after Judgment may plead it because Audita querela doth not lie against the King and where a man is not party to a Judgment there he cannot have a Writ of Error but there he may falsifie so I conceive that he may in this Case because he cannot have a Writ of Error and I conceive as it hath been said before that after the Statute of 23 H. 8. the Commissioners of Sewers have a mixt Jurisdiction of Law and equity For the Certiorare I will advise hereafter how I grant it although I conceive as I have said before that a Certiorare lies after the Statute and is not taken away by the Statute and I conceive in some clearness that it may be granted where any fine is imposed upon any man by Commissioner which they have authority to do by their Commission as appeareth by the Statute to moderate it in Case that it be excessive But as I have said before because that the parties by agreement voluntarily bound themselves by Recognisance to stand to the judgment of this Court upon the proceedings as they are certified that made me at this time not to stand upon the Certiorare wherefore I do confirm the decree 242. Rolls moved this Case A. did suffer B. to leave a trunk in his house Whether B. might take it away without the special leave of A. was the Question Justice Mallet leave is intended but Rolls conceived that he could not take it without leave Hammon against Roll Pasch. 18. Car. in the Common Pleas. 243. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit the Case upon special verdict was this A. and B. were bound joyntly and severally in a Bond to C. who released to A. afterwards there being a communication betwixt B. and C. concerning the said debt B. in consideration that C. would forbear him the payment of the said mony due and payable upon the said Bond till such a day promised to pay it c. C. for default of payment at the said day brought this Action upon the Case B. pleaded the general issue and thereupon the whole matter before was found by the Jury Serjeant Clarke here is not any good consideration whereupon to ground an Assumpsit because by the release to one obligor the other is discharged and then there being no
paid may inforce a Distribution or not quaere 65. pl. 102. 93. pl. 158. Double Plea Where two things are alleadged and the one of necessity onely or by way of inducement and the party relies onely upon the other that is no double Plea 55. pl. 84. 74. pl. 113. Ejectione Firme Ejectone Firme de uno repositorio nought for the incertainty 96 pl. 166. Ejectione Firme de tanto unius messuagii c. qâ—aâ—tum â—â—at super ripam is nought for the incertainty and so where the Tâ—over of the Jury is such it is nought 97. pl 168. Elegiâ— Upon an Elgit there needs no Liberate otherwise upon a Statute Note the Elegit excepts averia Caruâ—â— 117. pl. 194. Equity Certain special Cases where there shall be remedy in Eqâ—ity where not pa 83. pl. 1â—8 88. pl. 141 90. pl. 145. 93. pl. 159. 99. pl 1â—1 102 pl. 175. 105. pl. 182. 106. pl. 183. 129. pl. 207. Errors In Error to reverse a Judgement in Debt upon an Arbitrament Judgement was reversed first because that in the reference to the Arbitrament there was no word of the submission Secondly because that the entry of the Judgement was considâ—ratum est and per Curiam omitted 7. pl. 16. In an Actâ—on for words Judgement was reversed because that it was averred that the words were spoken inter diversos ligeos and doth not say Cives of the place where they have such an acceptation as also for that the Judgement was Consideratum est and per Curiam Omitted 15 pl 37. In Trespass the Defendant justifies by a special Custom by Vertue of which he did it and doth not say quae est eadem transgressio for which Judgment was reversed 16. pl. 38. Judgment was reversed for want of Pledges 17 pl. 40. Outlawry was reversed because it did not appear where the party outlawed was inhabitant as also for that it did not appear that Proclamations were made at the Parish-church where c. 20. pl. 46. Judgement reversed for the appearance of an Infant by Attorney 24. pl. 53. Oâ—tlawry reversed because the Exigent was Secund. exact ' ad Com' Meum â—bm ' c. 25. pl. 58. A. Wife of I. S. intestate promises to B. to whom Administration was committed that if he would relinquish Administration at the request of C. and permit A. to Administer that A. would c. in Assumpsit by B. he shewed that he renounced Administration and permitted A. to Administer but doth not shew that it was at the request of C. by Barkley Just. it is Error 55. pl. 86. Judgement ought not to be judged erroneous by implication 56. pl. 88. 61. pl. 95. A Writ of Error upon Dower well lies before the Retorn of the Writ of Enquiry of damages but whether a Writ of Error lies in an Ejectione firme before Judgment given upon the Writ of Enquiry quaere 88. pl. 142. Want of Warrant of Attorney for the Plaintiff after Judgment upon nihil dicit is Error and not amendable 121. pl. 201. 129. pl. 209. Writ of Error bearing Teste before the Plaint entered is nought otherwise where is bears Teste before Judgment 140. pl. 112. In an Ejectione firme the Writ was 〈◊〉 armis but it wanted in the Count and whether this is error or amendable or not quaere 140. pl. 213. Escape Upon mean Process if the Sheriff retorn a Cessi and Rescous no Action lies against him for the escape otherwise in case of Execution 1. pl. 1. Estoppel Morgager makes a Lease for years by Deed indented after performs the condition and makes a Feoffment in â—ee the Feoffee claiming undeâ— the Estoppel shall be bound by the Lease 64. pl. 99. If a man bind himself to deliver any thing he is estopped to say that he hath it not 74. pl. 113. Estoppel binds only parties 105. pl. 180. Evidence to an Inquest upon Issues joyned Depositions taken in the Ecclesiastical Court cannot be given in evidence at Law though the parties were dead 120. pl. 198. Executions prayer in execution A second Execution cannot be granted before the retorn of the former 47. pl. 73. Where a man is imprisoned for the Kings Fine and upon a Habeas coâ—pus it is retorned that he is in Execution also for the Damages of the party it ought to be intended at the prayer of the party 5a pl. 80. Executor Administrator An Executor or an Administrator may maintain an Action for any Coâ—tâ—â—ct made to the Testator or Inâ—estate or for any thing which riseth ex contractu 9. pl. 23. Administrator of an Executor shall not sue a Scire Faâ— ' upon a Judgement given for the Testator 9. pl. 24. A Sheriff levies moneys upon a Fâ—â—ri Fas ' and dies Debt will lie against his Executors 13. pl 33. Whether the Executor of a Phâ—llizer shall have the profits of the Writs which are to â—e subscribed with his name or his Successor quaere 90. pl. 147. Expositors of Statutes The Judges are the sole Expositors of Acts of Parliament though they concâ—rn Spiritual matters 90 pl. 148. Extinguishment and Suspension Three covenant joyntly with two severally after one of the covenantors marries one of the covenantâ—es whether the covenant be good or not 103. pl. 176. Fine to the King IF a Carrier spoil the High-ways by drawing a greater weight than is warrantable by the Custom of the Realm he is â—inable to the King 145. pl. 210. Fines of Lands Disseisee levies a Fine to a stranger this doth not give the right to the Disseisor 105 pl. 180. Tenant for life the Reversion to an Ideot an Uâ—cle Heir apparant to the Ideâ—â— levies a Fine and dies Tenant for life dâ—eth the Ideâ—t dies whether the Issue of Uncle who levied the Fire â—â—albe barred by this or not quaere 4. pl. 164. 146. pl. 216. Forcible Entry Restitution cannot be awarded to the Plaintiff if it doth appear that he hath seisin yet the King shall have his Fine and if the Indictment be adtunc adhuc the Defendant keeps the possession forcibly where the Plaintiff was in possession Re-restitution shall be awarded 6. pl. 12. Forgery To forge a Will in writing though without a Seal is forgery within the Statute of 5 Q. ca. 14. Freehold What shall be said a grant of a Freehold to commence at a day to come what not 31. pl. 66. Gardeins of a Church WHere the Custom is for the Parishoners to chuse the Churchwardens the Person by colour of the Cannon cannot chuse one and if the Minister of the Bishop refuse to swear one of them chosen by the Parish a Mandat lies to inforce him to it and if the Parson thereupon doth Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court a Prohibition lies 22. pl. 50. 67. pl. 104. The Gardeins of a Church in London are a Corporation and may purchase Lands to the use of the Church and in the Country they are a Corporation capable to purchase Goods to the
the Actions brought by the other Creditors But Justice Bramston contrà That the damages were well assessed because that the Actions brought by the Creditors were added for aggravation only and the cause of the Action was the Arrest and Imprisonment like the case where a man speaks words which are in part actionable and others only put in for aggravation and damages is assessed for the whole it is good There was a third Error assigned That the Venire facias was de Warda omnium Sanctorum de Bristow without shewing in what Parish Childe against Greenhil 77. CHilde brought Trespass against Greenhill for Fishing in seperali piscaria of the Plaintiff and declared that the Defendant pisces ipsius cepit c. And Verdict found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Saint-Iohn in Arrest of Judgement because the Plaintiff declared of taking of pisces suos whereas the Plaintiff they being ferae naturae hath not property in them Register 94 95. and F. N. B. and Book Entries 666. No count that the Defendant cepit pisces ipsiuâ— but ad valentiam c. without ipsius So Fines Case in Dyer 7 H. 6. 36. 10 H. 7. 6. 12 H. 8. 10. by Brudnell 13 E. 4. 24. 7 Rep. case of Swannes And the Book of 22 H. 6. 59. is over-ruled by the case of Swannes 34 H. 6. 24. And the same is matter of substance and therefore not helped after Verdict An Action of Trover and Conversion against husband and wife quia converterunt is not good and it is not helped after Verdict because it is matter of substance Rolls for the Defendant I agree that lepores suos or pisces suos without any more is not good But where he brings an Action of Trespass for taking them in his Soil there it is good because it is within his Soil So in our case for taking pisces suos in his several Piscary and with this difference agree 22 H. 6. 59. 43 E. 3. 24. so Regist. 93 102. 23 H. 6. tit Tresp 59. 14 H. 8. 1. and the Book of 43 E. 3. saith That in Trespass the Writ shall not say Damam suam if he do not say that it was taken in his Park or Warren or saith damam domitam or as the Book is in 22 H. 6. in my Soil or Land and by Newton he shall say there damas suis. And admit that it was not good yet I hold that it is helped after Verdict because it is not matter of Substance for whether they be pisces suos or not the Plaintiff shall recover damages Justice Barckly It is true that in a general sense they cannot be said pisces ipsius but in a particular sense they may and a man may have a special or qualified property in things which are ferae naturae three ways ratione infirmitatis ratione loci ratione privilegii and in our case the Plaintiff â—ath them by reason of Priviledge And it was agreed by the whole Court That Judgment should be affirmed upon the very difference taken by Rolls that where a man brings Trespass for taking pisces suos or lepores suos c. and the like that the Action will not lie But if he bring Trespass for fishing in his several Piscary as in our Case or for breaking of his Close and taking lepores suos c. there it will lie Pitfield against Pearce 78. IN an Ejectione firme the Case was thus Thomas Pearce the Father was seised of Lands in Fee and by Deed in consideration of Marriage did give and grant this Land to Iohn Pearce the now Defendant his second Son and to his Heirs after his death and no Livery was made Thomas Pearce died the Eldest Son entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff who entred and upon Ejectment by the Defendant brought an Ejectione firme Twisden The only question is whether any estate passeth to the Son by the Deed and it was said there did and that by way of Covenant And it was agreed That in this Case if Livery had been made it had been void because that a Freehold cannot begin at a day to come But I may Covenant to stand seised to the use of my Son after my death So a man may surrender a Copyhold to take effect after a day to come Com. 301. So a man may bargain and sell at a day to come 1 Mar. Dyer 96. Chudleighs Case 129. 20 H. 6. 10. A use is but a trust betwixt the parties and 7 Rep. 400. There need not express words of Covenant to stand seised to an use 25 Eliz. Blithman and Blithmans case 8 Rep. 94. Besides these words dedi concessi are general words and therefore may comprehend Covenant and words shall be construed that the Deed may stand if it may be 8 Ass. 34. 7 E. 3. 9. But I agree that if the intent appeareth that it shall pass by transmutation of possession that there it shall be so taken but here his intent doth not appear to be so for if there should be Livery then the son should take nothing for the reason before given which is against his meaning Mich. 21 Iac. Rot. 2220. Buckler and Simons Case Dyer 202. Vinions case The cases cited before are in the future tense but the words are here I give c. 36 Eliz. Callard and Callards Case Stand forth Eustace reserving an estate to my self and my wife I do give thee my Land and the better Opinion was That in that case it did amount to a Livery being upon the Land for his intent is apparent Mich. 41 42 Eliz. Trelfe and Popwells Case adjudged in such case That an use shall be raised For which it was concluded that in this case there is a good estate raised to Iohn Pearce by way of Covenant Rolls I conceive that not estate is raised to Iohn Pearce by this conveyance It was objected That it shall inure by way of Covenant to raise an use I agree that if the meaning of the party may appear that he intended to pass his estate by way of raising of an use otherwise not And here is no such appearance Foxes Case in 8 Rep. is a stronger case and here it doth not appear that he meant to pass it by way of use But by the word give he intended transmutation of possession 8 Rep. Bedells case Mich. 18. Car. Rot. 2220. in the Common Pleas it was adjudged That a gift of a Remainder after the death of the grantor was void wherefore he concluded for the Plaintiff and so Judgment was given by the whole Court And Justice Iones said When a man makes a doubtful Conveyance it shall be intended a Conveyance at the Common Law And it shall not be intended that the Father would make him Tenant for life only punishable of wast Mich. 15º Car ' in the Kings Bench. 79. IT was moved for a Prohibition to the Counsel of the Marches and the Case was such A man seised of Lands in Fee
made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life the remainder in tail to I. S. He in the remainder Levied a Fine And the Counsel of the Marches upon a surmise That the Tenant for life died seised according to their Instructions would settle the possession upon the heir of Tenant for life against the Conusee For their Instructions were made That where a man had the possession by the space of three years that the same should be settled upon him until trial at Law were had But the whole Court was against it because it doth appear that he had but an estate for life and so the possession appertained to him in the remainder And here it was said by Justice Barckley that their Opinion hath been That the possession of Tenant for life should be the possession of him in the Remainder as to this purpose Note that the Principal case here was although the Case before put was also agreed for Law thus Tenant in Tail levied a Fine to the use of himself for Life the remainder in Fee to I. S. and died In that Case the Council in the Marches would settle the possession upon the heir of Tenant in tail against the Purchaser who held in by the Fine which had bar'd the estate tail by which the Issue claimed and the whole Court was against it for which cause a Prohibition was granted 80. Habeas corpora was directed to the Porter of Ludlore to bring the bodies of Iohn Shielde and William Shielde into the Kings Bench the case shortly as appears upon the retorn was this Powell the Father brought a Bill in the nature of an Information against the said Iohn and William Shield before the Council of the Marches in Wales for an unlawful Practice Combination and Procurement of a clandestine Marriage in the night betwixt Mary Shield a Maid-servant and the Son of Powell who was a Gentleman of good credit and worth the Parson also being Drunk as he himself sware and the same also being without Banes or Licence for which offence they were severally Fined to the King and an hundred Marks damages given to the Plaintiff and farther ordered by the Council that they should be imprisoned till they paid their several fines to the King and damages to the Party and found Sureties to be bound in Recognisance for their good behaviour for one year and till they knew the farther Order of the Council and these were the causes which were retorned And upon this retorn Glynn who was of Counsel with the Prisoners moved many things and many of them as was conceived by the Court altogether impertinent But the Objections which were pertinent were these First That the Councel of the Marches as this case is have no Jurisdiction because the clandestine Marriage is a thing meerly Spiritual and therefore not within their instructions The second was That they have exceeded their Instructions in that they have given damages to the party above fifty pounds For by their Instructions they ought not to hold Plea where the Principal or Damages exceed fifty pounds But as to the first he said there may be this Objection That they did not punish them for the clandeâ—â—inâ— Marriagâ— which in truth is a thing meerly Spiritual but for the unlawful Practise and Combination and for the execution of it To which he answered That they have not Juristiction of the Principal and therefore not of the Accessory here note that it was afterwards said by Bramston Chief Justice That the unlawful Practise and Combination was the Principal and the clandestine Marriage but the Accessory which was not contradicted by any Farther it was objected by Glynn That they were Imprisoned for the damages of the Plaintiff and it doth not appear whether it was at the Prayer of the Party as he ought by the Law Bankes the Kings Atturny-General contrary And as to the first Their Instructions give them power to hold Plea of unlawful Practises and Assemblies And this is an unlawful Practise and Assembly and therefore within their Instructions And although that Heresie and clandestine Marriage and such offences per se are not within their Instructions yet being clad with such unlawful circumstances and practises they are punishable by them As to the second he said The Instruction which restraineth them that they do not hold Plea above fifty pounds is only in civil Actions at the several suit of the party But there is another Instruction which gives them power where the cause is criminal to assess damages according to the quality of the Offence and at their discretions As to the third Objection he said That the Retorn being that they were in execution for the damages it ought to be meant at the Prayer of the Party otherwise it could not be For which causes he prayed thâ—â— the Prisoners might be remanded And the whole Court Crooke being absent were clear upon this Retorn That they should be remanded because it appeareth that their Fines to the King were not payed And therefore although that the other matters had been adjudged for them yet they ought to be remanded for that one And as to the Objections which were made the Court agreed with Mr. Attorney except in the point of Damages and for the same reasons given by him But as to the point of the Damages whether they have gone beyond their Instructions and so exceeded their power in giving above fifty pounds damages or not It seemed to the Court they had and as it seemed to them if the Retorn had been That the Kings Fines were paid it would have been hard to maintain that the assessing above fifty pounds damages was not out of their Instructions but because the Kings Fines were not paid they were Remanded without respect had thereunto for the reasons given before 81. It was said by the Court That when Judgment is given in this Court against another and Execution upon it and the Sheriff levieth the mony the Lord Keeper cannot order that the mony shall stay in the Sheriffs hands or order that the Plaintiff shall not call for it for notwithstanding such Order he may call for it And it was farther said by the Court That an Attachment shall not be granted against the High Sheriff for the contempt of his Bayliffs And a Writ of Error is a Supersedeas to an Execution but then there ought to be notice given to the Sheriff otherwise if he notwithstanding serve the Execution he shall not run in contempt for which an Attachment shall be granted 82. Serjeant Callis came into Court and moved this case Chapman against Chapman in Trespass done in Lands within the Dutchy of Cornwal which were Borough-English where the custome was that if there were an estate in Fee in those Lands that they should go to the younger Son according tthe custome but if in Tail the should descend to the Heir at Common Law And it was moved by him that the custom was not good because it cannot