simple shall alwayes be supposed to have continuance if the contrary is not shewed to that he answered that is not so for the book of the 7. H. 7. 8. if in barre of assise the Tenant said that I. S. was seised and gave this is not good because he had not shewed quod fit seisitus existens dedit c. which being in a plea in barre is more strong then in a declaration to prove that a fee shall not be intended to have continuance without an express allegation and so he concluded that the declaration is naught but by Hobert Winch and Hutton it is very good notwithstanding this objection and Winch cited the 13. Eliz. in Ejectione firme where the life of the person was not cleerly alleadged but the declaration only was that the lessor was and yet is seised which was a sufficient averment of the life of the person and so the declaration is good and another exception was taken to the declaration by Hitcham Serjeant because that the Plantiff had declared that the Defendant had made conney borroughs and with the aforesaid conneys had eat up the grass where he had not alleadged any storeing of the coney borroughs before with coneys and then it is impossible they should eat up the grass to the prejudice of the Plantiff but to this it was answered by Serjeant Attoe that though the declaration as to that is naught yet the diging of the coney borroughs is to his prejudice and sufficient to maintaine the action which the Court granted and as to the matter in law Attoe argued for the Plantiff and recited the case to be that E. 3. granted to the Deane and Chapter of Windsor that they shall have free warren in the lands which yet they had not purchased and of which they were not seised at the time whether this is a good grant and shall extend to take effect after the purchase see Buckleys case and be argued that it is not a good grant and he put a difference between a warren and other priviledges which are flowers of the Crown which may be granted infuturo but a warren never was a flower of the Crown and for that reason a grant de bonis et cattallis fellon et fugitivorum may be granted and yet not be in esse at the time of the grant for it is a flower of the Crown and it is said 44. E. 3. 12. that the King may not grant a warren in other mens lands but only in the land of the grantee and upon this he concluded that this grant shall not extend to land after purchased and the rather because it is in the nature of a licence which shall be taken strictly see 21. H. 7. 1. 6. And Hobert chief Iustice said that this word demeans is derived of the French words en son manies and though the Lord of the mannor had the waste in his hands yet he had not the common and as to the confirmation by Ed. 4. they all agreed that this will confirm nothing to him but what was granted by E. 3. himself and then as to the licence pleaded that is of no effect for first the licence is pleaded to be made to one Sir Cha. Haydon and the Defendant did claime under him and this licence was made by the father which will not binde the son who had the land to which the common is appendant after the death of his father for a common may not be extinguished without deed and Hobert and all the Court agreed that the licence of the father will not binde the son and by the Court if nothing is shewed to the contrary within a week judgement shall be given for the Plantiff Davies against Turner DAvies brought a replevin against Turner and he declared of the taking in a place called the Holmes and the Defendant made conusance as bayliff to Sir George Bing for that one Clap held certain land of him by 20. s. rent and suite of Court and for the rent he avowed and alleadged seisin by the hands of Clap the Plantiff said that Chap held 40. acres of land by 9. s. rent fealty and suite of Court absque hoc that he held modo et forma and upon this it was demurred and the single point was this in auowry the Tenant alleadged c. and the question is whether he ought to traverse the tenure or the seisin and it was argued by Henden Serjeant that he ought to traverse the seisin and that the traverse of the tenure is not good and besides here is double matter for the conclusion sounds in barre of the avowry and in abatement of the avowry see a good case 18. H. 6. 6. for the falsness of the quantity of the land and the falsness of the quantity of rent the on goes in barre the other in abatement of the avowry 47. E. 3. 79. 5. H. 6. 4. and affirmed for good law And as to the second point he held the seisin to be traversable and not the tenure and first he said there was a difference between pleading in barre of avowry and in the abatement of the avowry for in barre of the avowry there the seisin is is not traversable by Frowick 21. H. 7. 73. which opinion he held for good law for it is agreed in Bucknels case Co. 9. he may not say that he held of a stranger absque hoc that the avowant was seised but otherwise it is when that goes in abatement of the avowry Secondly he said that the seisin is the principal thing and the principal thing ought to be traversed for if a man had seisin of many services seisin shall never be ayded till the Stat. of magna charta see Bucknels case Cook 9. and here the seisin is the most meterial thing and the most proper see 37. H. 6. Bro. Avowry 76. ne tiendra is no plea for a stranger to the avowry but he ought to answer to the seisin Thirdly the cause for which the seisin is traversable see a notable case per Danby 7. E. 4. 29. for the beginning of the services may be time beyond memory c. and for that reason may not be tried see 20. E. 4. 17. 22. H. 6. 3. 26. H. 6. 25. by Newton he may traverse the tenure Attoe contrary 13. H. 7. 25. to this it was answered that the number Rolle may not be found 5. H. 7. 4. 13. H. 6. 21. 21. H. 7. 22. by Frowick and Kingsmil Harvey to the contrary the case was that the Defendant made conusance as Bayliff to Sir George Bing for this that Chap held a messuage c. by certain rent and by suite of Court and the other said that he held 40. acres by 9. s. and suite of Court absque hoc that he held the messuage and the land modo et forma and he argued that it was a good traverse of the tenure and not double which was granted by Hobert and by Winch being only present and Hobert said true
after his death it shall remain to his son and his wife in fee and the book is that this Covenant will raise an use also if this Covenant and agreement will not amount to raise an use then it is not to any use or purpose at all and by consequence the consideration of the marriage is void also and an action of Covenant will very well lye without any such consideration of marriage and so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Defendant adjourned Mich. 20. Jac. C. P. Johnson against Norway IOhnson brought an action of Trespass against Norway of Trespass made in a piece of ground and the Defendant pleaded that 14. H. 7. Roger Le Strange and Anne his wife were seised of the Mannor of D. and one Giles Sherington Abbot of C. was seised of an acre of land in fee and held this of the said Roger Le-Strange as of the Mannor of D. aforesaid and that the 22. H. 7. the Abbot and all the Monks died by which the said land escheated to Roger c. and the Mannor discended to his son and heire after his death who conveyed the Mannor of which the acre is parcel after the escheat by mean conveyance to Hobert in fee and that Hobert 12. Eliz. infeoffed one Wright of the Mannor of which the said acre is parcel and so justified by a conveyance from Wright to the Defendant the Plantiff replied by protestation that the Abbot was not eligible and for plea he said that the aforesaid Hobert 10. Eliz. infeoffed I. S. of the said acre of land absque hoc that he infeoffed Wright of the sad Mannor of which the said acre is parcel and upon this the Defendant demurred generally And Serjeant Attoe argued for the Plantiff that the Plea of the Defendant is evil and then though the replication of the Plantiff is not good yet the Plantiff shall have judgement and he cited Turners case Hobert it is true Cook 8. if the replication be meerly void then it is as you had said but if the replication be the title of the Plantiff and that be insufficient there the Plantiff shall not have judgement though the plea in barre was evil Attoe agreed that if it appear by the Plantiffs own shewing that he had no cause of action and that he had no title he shall not have judgement but here he had made a good title by the lease of the said acre of land and though our traverse is evil and sounds in doubleness yet the Defendant had demurred generally and so he had lost the advantage of the doubleness or of the negative pregnant for if a maâ— plead double matter this is only matter of form and not of substance and therefore after verdict it is good as hath been adjudged but he proceeded in his argument and he said that the barre of the Defendant is not good for by his own shewing this acre of land is not parcel of the Mannor for by the dissolution of the Monastery by the death of all the Monks the land shall go to the founders and donors and not to escheat to the Lord of which that is holden as appears 2. H. 6. 7. and 5. H. 7. if an annuity or rent be granted to an Abbot in fee and the Abbot and all his Monks do die the annuity or the rent is extinct and shall not escheat see the Deane of Norwiches case Coo. 3. agreed that by the death of the Abbot and his Covent the corporation is dissolved and then the possession shall go to the founders and shall not escheat to the Lord of the Mannor of which the Land was holden and he said that this point is proved cleerly by the Statute of the 27. H. 8. and 31. H. 8. of Monasteries in which Statutes there is an express saving to all persons except to the donors and to their heires and no mention is made of the saving of the right of those of whom the land was holden and that proves cleerly that if the makers of the Statute had thought that the land had escheated to the Lords they would have excepted them in the saving of the act as they had excepted the Donors and Founders for if otherwise the lands and possessions shall escheat to the Lords of which the land was holden they are within the saving of the Statute and then it will follow that after the death of all the Monks as at this day that the Lords shall have the land by escheat which the Sages of the Law never dreamt of who made that Statute that any thing may accrew to the Lord and therefore they provided only for the title of the Donors and Founders which is an argument that they thought that upon the dissolution of the Monesteries that the lands shall go to the Founders and the same he thought concerning a corporation at this day as of Suttons Hospital c. and so he concluded that because in the barre of the Defendant he claimed to hold from the Lord to whom he supposed the land to escheat and did not claim c. by his own shewing the barre is not good and though our replication and traverse is not good yet the Plantiff shall have judgement But admitting that the barre is good yet the replication and traverse is good and then judgement shall be given for the Plantiff and the case is the Defendant pleaded a feofment of the Man 12. Eliz. to Wright after that he had shewed the escheat of an acre the Plantiff replied that the 10th Eliz. the Feofor infeoffed C. of the acre of land absque hoc that he was infeoffed of the Mannor of which the acre is parcel and Attoe argued that the traverse is good and he alleadged 38. H. 6. 49. the same traverse and here when the Defendant had pleaded that the acre escheated and had alleadged a Feofment of the Mannor and had not expresly alleadged a Feofment of the acre the Plantiff may traverse that which is not expresly alleadged because this destroyes the very title of the Defendant and he cited for that 34. H. 6. 15. a writ of priviledge in trespass as a Servant to an auditor of the exchequer the Plantiff replied that he was servant to him in husbandry absque hoc that he was his servant to waite and attend upon him in his office and it was holden a good traverse and yet that was not expresly alleadged by the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice said that the traverse is not good for by the Feofment which was made the 12th Eliz. he had confessed and avoyded the Feofment which was made 10th Eliz. and so there needed no traverse and therefore he said the great doubt of the case will be upon the barre of the Defendant whether by the death of the Abbot and the Monks the land escheat to the Lords of whom that was holden or whether that shall go to the Donors and to the Founders and he thought that the land shall escheat to which
also he said that in some parts the Vicar shall have Tithe Corn and hay and not the Parson and so he concluded this to be a good prescription by the Common Law and then for the second point he argued that though the Park is disparked yet the modus decimandi continued and he vouched Beddingfields and Fields case P. 38. Eliz. B. R. prescribed to pay 10. s. for a Park this modus had a continuance notwithstanding the disparking and 18. Iac. upon a motion a prohibition was granted in such a case Hendon to the contrary and yet for the first point he agreed that a prescription to pay Tithes to the Vicar was good for here it appeares that the Vicarage is as antient as the Parsonage both being time beyond memory and it was the opinion of all this Court when the case was first opened and so he said he would not insist upon that but agree the Law to be against him but then for the second point he held the modus to be gone by the disparking for the prescription is annexed to the Park and not to the land for the prescription is to pay a Buck and a Doe for all manner of Tiths of that Park and then the prescription is in some sort annexed to that meerly as land but quatenus a Park and for this he held if a man will prescribe to pay 10. s. for the Tithes of such land and it is given in evidence to be a Park this will not maintain the issue for a Park is deceivable one way or other and so are of several natures and so Coo. 4. Lutterels case a tenure to cover the hall of the Lord if the hall is thrown down the tenure is gone and here when the Park is destroyed the modus is also destroyed but it hath been objected here that the prescription is general and therefore though the Park was disparked yet the modus had continued to this he answered that this prescription shall have such construction as a grant shall have and though it is general yet it is sub modo subject to this limitation that this alwayes continue and remain a Park and it was resolved 43. Eliz. that the Commoner may not grant over his Common except he grant over his Tenement for they may not be severed and so indeed is Nevils case in the Commentaries a man prescribed to have estovers to burn in his house if the owner destroy the house the estovers are gone for the prescription is annexed to the house and so in our case the prescription is annexed to the Park and not to the land for 18. H. 6. 21. a Park may not be without the grant of the King and the Common Law saith if a man prescribe to have Tithes in a Vineyard if the Vineyard be converted to another use the Tithes are gone for it is said tantum est prescriptio quantum est possessio and vouched Coneys case 14. Caro. who prescribed to be discharged of paying Tithes for a meadow and afterwards this was converted to arrable and the opinion of the Court was that the prescription is gone and the rather in our case because it is by the act of the party himself that the Park is destroyed yet he agreed the principal case in Lutterels case Coo. 4. for there a new will is only a translation of the old and no destruction of the thing which was before but in our case the Park it self is destroyed by the act of the party himself and therefore the prescription which was annexed to this is gone forever Also this prescription is against Common right and therefore shall be taken strictly as Teringhams case Coo. 4. a man had Common appurtenant in another mans land and he purchased parcel of the same land the Common is gone because this Common is against Common right but otherwise of a Common appendant and he cited Wilds case Coo. 8. according to our case that a prescription to pay a Buck and a Doe for the Tithes of a Park is against Common right for though Tithes are not due Iure divino yet they are due jure humano Communi and therefore the prescription is not founded in Law and it shall not be intended to the Park when that is destroyed and converted to arrable as if a man made a feofment of land with warranty and afterwards the land is improved and made of greater value then that was at the time of the feofment if in this case the feoffee is evicted and lease that and recovery in value upon the warranty he shall recover in this case only the value that this was at the time of the feofment made and not according to the value that the land is of at this day by the improvement 32. E. 3. Entry 81. and in our case it shall be intended that by composition at the first this prescription had beginning and the composition only extended to the Park and not to a new thing and for that reason the prescription is gone in this case and he cited a case in this Court M. 10. Iac. Rot. 1223. in a prohibition between Roux C. D. the Plantiff suggested that such land was parcel of a Park as in our case and that the owner had used to pay the shoulder of every Doe which was killed and 2. s. annually for all Tithes the Defendant pleaded that this was disparked and the first opinion of the Court was that the Defendant ought to plead in certain how that was disparked secondly this was doubted whether the modus as to the 2. s. was gone in regard that the shoulder of the Doe is gone by the disparking out of which he collected that the modus is annexed to the Park and not to the land and so he concluded and prayed a consultation Winch said to him the prescription is found against you and therefore you ought to have demurred Hendon if the prescription is gone the Plantiff shall not have a prohibition and at another day judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff judgement if no other matter is shewed by such a day Hobert and Winch being only present The Bishop of Glocester against Wood. IN a Trover and conversion brought by the Bishop of Glocester against Wood upon a special verdict the case in effect was that the predecessor of the now Bishop was seised of the Mannor of D. and he let 20. acres of that to A. and B. during the lives of 3. of their Children rendring 27. s. renâ— per annum and also paying and delivering to the Bishop and to his successors two of the best beasts upon the death of every one of the Cestuy que vies and over the jury found that after the lease of the 20. acres the same predecessor let all the Mannor rendring the antient rent to Wood the Defendant and after one of the Cestui que vies died and he seised two of the Cattle for a herriot and whether this appertained to Wood
of the 4. H. 7. cap. 24. the demandant replied that 15. Iac. she brought a writ of Dower against the now Tenants and against two others and that the writ abated by the death of the two others and that she brought a writ by Iourneys accompts the Tenant replied that the others were not Tenants but one Sir Iohn Web and it was moved that this rejoynder was evil for they confessed that they themselves are Tenants by which the writ is good against them at the least Hobert if she brought a writ of Dower against one who is not Tenant that is not any claim within the Statute but if she brought a Dower against 4. who are Tenants and two die and she bring a writ against the others by Iourneys accompts this is a good claim within the Statute though the second writ was after the time limitted but quere here if the two who died were not Tenants Trin. 21. Iac. C. P. Harvey against the Hundred of Chelsam HArvey brought an action upon the Statute of Winchester of Hue and cry against the Hundred of Chelsam and it is found for the Plantiff and a writ of error was brought and all the record was certified and now the Plantiff prayed two things may be amended the first is the title of the action for upon the roll it is an action upon the case it should be an action upon the Statute but it was said by Hobert that it shall not be amended for the Statue of the 18th of Eliz. did not give amendments upon indictments or upon popular actions or actions upon penal Statutes and cited a judgement in Doctor Husses case Coo. 9. 71. which was reversed in Banco Regis upon default in pleading being upon a penal Statute and so in Mich. Term last Judictari for Indictari and adjudged that it shall not be amended and the second point was upon the venire facias where was one Gregory retorned as appears by the names of the Iury but the Clark of the Assise returned one George and it was entered upon the roll and certified in the record to the Kings Bench and per totam Curiam there needs no amendment for that name of George where it should be Gregory being in the tales de circumstantibus and not in the principal panel and it was also by consent of the parties and as to the first point all the Court agreed with Hobert and for the second point Hobert said that if that variance had been material it should not be amended for we will not make a new certificate for the Court of the Kings Bench may choose to credit the first or the second certificate and so we submit our judgements to the censure and pleasure of another Court which we will not do and in the great case of Fulger 18. Iac. where we made such a new certificate though it was adjudged according to our opinion yet they would not credit our last certificate and therefore we will not make a certificate again which note well Hasset against Hanson HAsset brought an ejectione firme against Hanson and upon a general issue and a special verdict the case was this that one Woodhouse was lessee for years of the King of a Mannor and I. S. was a Copiholder of a Tenement of inheritance and the Coppiholder bargained and sold his Coppihold land in such a Town to the lessee of the Mannor and this was by indenture and the indenture was to this effect that he bargained and sold all his lands and Tenements as well Coppiholds as other land bought of Iohn Culpepper in such a Town and it was found that the lessee of the Mannor entered in the Coppihold and occupied and after that the said I. S. died after whose death W. S. his heir was admitted as heir of I. S. upon the presentment of the homage that I. S. died seised and that the said W. is his heir and that at the same Court W. S. Surrendered to the use of the Plantiff and he was admitted and it was argued by Richardson for the Plantiff and by Attoe for the Defendant And these insuing points were agreed by the Iustices S. by Hobert Winch Hutton and Iones and first it was said by Hobert that though a Coppiholder may not convey his Coppihold to a stranger without Surrender and admittance yet he may grant his estate to the Lord of the Mannor out of the Court by bargain and sale for the custome is not between the Lord and his Tenants but between themselves only Secondly Winch said that the admittance of the Lord viz. the lessee of the Mannor amounts to a grant to him who had a title but it is otherwise if it is to him who was in by wrong as by disseissin Coo 4. 22. which was granted by all the Court. Thirdly Iones Iustice said that the bargain is void for it is of all lands and Tenements bought of Iohn Culpepper and it was not found by verdict nor yet averred by the party that the land was bought of Culpepper which Hobert and Hutton granted and Hutton cited 2. E. 4. 29. but Winch to the contrary as to that point but they all agreed that the Plantiff shall have judgement and accordingly so it was done Mich. 21. Jac. C. P. M. 21. Iac. in C. P. Pleadal against Gosmore PLeadal an Attorney of the Common pleas brought an action of trespas against Gosmore and he declared of the taking of a Mare Colt in May and of the retainer till the first of Iuly and that the Defendant held him in Compedibus Anglice in fetters diversis vicibus temporibus by which she Colt was much the worse and the Defendant pleaded that the Countess of Hartford was Tenant for life of the Mannor of Sherstone within which the taking of the Colt is supposed to be and that the Lords of the Mannor time before memory c. had used to have estrayes and used to seise them by their Bailiffs and to proclaim them according to the Law of the land and that the said Mare Colt came within the Mannor such a day and the Defendant as Bailiff to the said Countess seised that as an astray and made proclamation according to the Law and when the Mare Colt was so fierce and wild that he could not came that nor keep that out of the lands of his neighbours he Fettered her as to him bene licuit and he detained her till the first of Iuly at which day the Plantiff came to him and told him that this was his Mare Colt upon which the Defendant delivered her which is the same Trespas c. and upon that the Plantiff demurred and Attoe argued that the plea was not good for matter of Law for a man may not Fetter an estray Colt as appears in the like case 27. Assises and the reason is because satisfaction shall be given for his damages which he made to the Defendant and he cited a case adjudged in that point 8. Iac. Trin. between
Harvey and Blacklock in this Court where the Defendant pleaded such plea in all points as here as to the Fettering for the Defendant fettered the horse of the Plantiff because he was so fierce and so wild to one of his own horses and so continued till he delivered him to the Plantiff and because the horse died within the year the Plantiff brought his action and upon this plea pleaded by the Defendant it was demurred in law and judgement was given for him for Cook who was then chief Iustice said that a horse may be of 40. or 100. l. price and it shall be intollerable to allow such Nusance and secondly he had not made proclamation and so trespass lies against and so in our case Harris Serjeant to the contrary for when the Lord of a Mannor takes an estate he had some kinde of property before the year is expired and for that reason he may detain the estray against the owner till amends is made to him 44. E. 3. 14. 29. E. 3. 6. by Knevet 20. H. 7. by Vavasor and Frewick and if he had property against the owner himself he may use that with moderation to make some benefit of that especially in case of necessity as 22. Assise 5. 6. a man may justifie the beating another if he be in a rage and 6. E. 4. 8. one may justifie the felling of a tree in the ground of another in case of necessity and here is no other way to restrain this Savage Colt and so the justification is good but in this case it was resolved by Hobert Winch and Hutton Iones being in the Chancery First when a beast comes within the Mannor of another Lord this is a trespas but after the seisure for an estray it is a possession of the estray in the Lord and the beginning of property as Hutton used the term so that he may have an action of trespass against any stranger which takes that out of his possession and if he estray into the land of another he may him retake Secondly it was resolved that if the Lord make not proclamation in convenient time that this possession became tortious for the law necessarily imposeth it upon the Lord of the Mannor that he make Proclamation because that otherwise the owner may not come to the knowledge of him Thirdly that the estray within the year is as a pledge in the Custody of the law till amends be made to the Lord and for that reason the Lord may not work him no more then he can work a distress Fourthly it was resolved that if the estray goe into the Mannor of another Lord and the last Lord claims that as an estray the first Lord had lost that but not before claim Fifthly Hutton and Winch agree that he might Fetter the Colt being so fierce and wild for he is answerable for the trespas and wrong which he makes in the land of his neighbours and also to the owner if he lose him and therefore it is unreasonable that he may not keep him safe for his indempnity and that is not like to the case 27. Assise which was urged of the other side also they said fettering is the usual way in the Country to restrain wild horses and therefore if it be in an ordinary manner as he Fetters his own there is not any remedy against the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice was against that last point for the Lord may not hold him in arcta custodia as a prisoner because he had rather the keeping of an estray the the property and for that if the estray go into the land of another Lord the first may not take him again if the other claims him as an estray for the possession was rather in regard of his Mannor then in regard of himself and therefore he shall not answer for the wrong which he doth in the lands of others for the possession is in regard of his Mannor and his Fettering is an abuse and he may not neither use nor abuse an estray and he said over that the Defendant had not well pleaded for another reason because he had not shewed that he proclaimed him in the next market Town within convenient time which convenient time ought to be adjudged by the Court and he said the Lord may not keep him else where within the year then within the Mannor Winch Iustice said the Defendant ought to proclaim an estray ut supra if the year be past for by that he gains an absolute propertie but here where no property is devested he needs not to proclaim him within the year and Hobert commanded this case to be moved again see the last case but one in the book Ruled that after imparlance in debt upon an obligation the Defendant shall be admitted to plead alwayes ready though the 13. Eliz. in Dyer was urged to the contrary Hill 21. Jac. C. P. Hillary Term in 21 year Iac. C. P. Trehern against Claybrook TRehern brought an action of debt against Claybrook upon a lease for years and upon nihil debet pleaded and a special verdict the case was to this effect the Grandfather of the Plantiff was seised of lands in Southwark and he made a lease for years of that to the Defendant at London rendring 45. l. rent and after he devised the reversion to the Plantiff in fee and in his will he set forth that his intent was that his Executors shall have the reversion during the Term upon condition that they enter into bond to pay 34. l. per annum at 4. usual Feasts during the Term and he further devised that this bond shall be made by the advise of his overseers and he limitted all this to be done within 6. moneths after his decease and if his Executors refuse his will was that his overseers shall take the profits upon the same condition and appointed that both obligations be made to the Plantiff and the devisor died and the Executors within 3. moneths shewed the will to the overseers but no obligation was offered to be made within the 6. moneths and the Plantiff required the Executors to enter into the obligation and to pay the rent which was not done and he claimed the reversion and brought his action afterwards in London where the lease was made and not in Southwark where the land did lie and this case was twice argued by Councel at the barre and now it was argued by the 3. Iustices Hobert being absent And Iones Iustice moved a point which was not moved at the barre viz. that the Plantiff is devisee of the reversion and so is privie in estate only and for that reason the action ought to be brought in Southwark where the land lies and not in London where the contract was made but the lessor himself had liberty to bring the action where he pleased in regard of the privitie of estate and contract and so was it adjudged in the Kings Bench between Glover and Humble and here though this be
Plantiff in Hammond which indenture rehearseth that King Henry the eight was seised of this land in his demeasne as of fee in the right of his Crown from him conveyed that to Ed. 6. who in the 7. year of his Raign by his letters patents bearing date at Westminster he granted that to one Fitz Williams to Hilton in fee as by his letters patents may appear they being so seised by indenture which bore date c bargained and sold that to Henry Hoskins and to Proud also recited that Proud releaseth to the said Hoskins all his right as by the said release may appear and conveyed that to Iohn by discent and so the said Iohn being seised he and his son Peter made this conveyance to the Plantiff upon a good consideration in which they did covenant with the Plantiff in this manner and the said Iohn and Peter for them and there heirs do Covenant and grant to and with the Plantiff c. that they the said Peter and Iohn Hoskins according to the true meanâ—â—ing of the said indenture were seised of a good estate in fee simple and that the said Iohn and Peter or one of them have good Authoritie to sell that according to the intent of the said indenture and that there was no reversion or remainder in the King by any Act or Acts thing or things done by him or them and the Plantiff laid the breach that neither Iohn nor Peter had a lawful power to â—â—ll the Defendant pleaded that Iohn had a good power to sell that according to the intent of the said indenture notwithstanding any Act or Acts made by him or his faâ—her or by any claiming under them and upon that the Plantiff demurred and the case was now argued by the Court and Iones Iustice began and said that his opinion was that the Plantiff shall be barred the case being upon construction of covenants and the sole question is whether they are several covenants or only one covenant and I held that they are all one covenant and those words for any Act or Acts do relate to the two other precedent sentences and so it is all but one covenant though this stand upon several parts for if these words were placed in the fore-front there had been no question but that this had been but one covenant and this made no difference when it is set before and when it is set after and the repeating of that had been toutalogie for if I covenant I will build a house at Dale Sale and a vale of Brick here Brick shall refer to them all because it is tied in one entire sentence and covenant and so if I covenant with you that I will goe with you to Canterbury to Salisbury and Coventrie here the word goes relates to all 3. as in the case of Sir Henry Finch the rent was granted out of the Mannor of Eastwel and not of the Messuage lands and Tenements lying and being in the Parish of Eastwel or else where in the same Countie belonging thereto and resolved that land which is not parcel of the Mannor is not charged with the rent because it is all but one sentence and one grant and cited the case of Althams case and Hickmots case where special words will qualifie general words where they are all in one sentence and so I conceive they are but one covenant Cook 8. 9. especially in the intents of the parties and upon the intents of all the parties of the deed for when a deed is doubtful in construction the meaning must be gathered from all the parties of that but yet that is tied with two cautions that it be not against any thing expressed by the said indenture but only in case where it is doubtful Cook 2. 5. so Cheineys case and Baldewins case a habendum will destroy an implied premisses Cook 4. but not an expressed and so in Nokes case an express particular covenant qualifies the generalty of the implyed covenant like to the case which was 32. Eliz. in the Court of Wards between Carter and Ringstead Cook 8. where Carter was seised of lands in Odiham and of the Mannor of Stoy and there covenanted that he would Levie a fine to his son of all his lands in Odiham in tail and for the Mannor of Stoyes that should be to the use of his wife now these subsequent words drew that out of the tail according to the intent of the parties and so in our case and I also take an exception to the form of the declartion for he conveyes that to Fitz Williams and to Proud and Hoskins by the name of all his lands and Tenements which were in the tenure of Anne Parker and did not aver that these lands for which the Covenant was made were in her hands and for that it is not good and for these reasons I conceive the Plantiff shall be barred The argument of Hutton Justice HUtton to the contrary I hold that they are 3. several Covenants and yet I agree the cases afore cited and the reason is they are all included in one sentence for it is the care of the Purchasor that he had an owner of the land before he purchase for that which is the ground of assurances that he is seised in fee and hereafter that the Covents that this is free from incumberances made by him and that he had good title to alien which strikes at the very root of assurances and my first reason is because here are several parties and they covenant that one of them is seised of a good estate and that they or one of them had power to alien that for it may not stand with the intents of the indentures to buy of him who had no title and might not sell and also the last Covenant is meerly in the negative that they have made no Act or Acts by which the reversion shall be in the King and that is all one as if the word Covenant had been added in every clause of the sentence and Covenants in law may be qualified by express Covenants but if a man made a lease for years upon condition to pay 20. l. in this case an entrie by the law is implyed for default of payment but yet if it added that if it be behinde he may enter and retain till he is satisfied of the 20. l. now in this case this had taken away the implyed Covenant and condition but every express Covenant must be taken most beneficially for the Covenantee and in Nokes case it is said that an express Covenant controuls an implied one but he may use either of them at his pleasure and election and I grant Henry Finches case to be good law for there is not any clause or sentence till after the Alibie but yet in Dyer 207. they are distinct sentences and shall receive several constructions and so here the matter being several they shall receive divers constructions and he Covenanted that
covenanted with Sir Edward Sackvil to levy a fine to him of that land before the fine acknowledged the eldest brother dyed and the question was whether the youngest shall be compelled to levy the fine and presidents were commanded to be searched concerning that matter Note that it was said that where a commission issued out of the Court of wards to 4 persons or to any 2 of them and one of them refuse to be a Commissioner and the other 3 sit as Commissioners and he who refused was sworn and examined by them as a witness and ruled that this is good for though he refused to be a Commissioner yet he is not excluded to be sworn as a witness In evidence to the Iury the case was that Tenant in taile bargained and sold his land to I. S. and his heires and I. S. sold to the heire of the Tenant in taile being of full age and Tenant in taile died and the heire in taile claimed to hold his estate and the doubt was whether he was remitted or no Hobert was of opinion that after the death of the Tenant in taile that the heire is remitted for if Tenant in taile bargain and sell his land the issue in taile may enter and where his entrie is lawful there if he happâ— the possession he shall be remitted Hutton and Warberton Iustices contrary For at the first by the bargain and sale the son had fee and then the estate of the son may not be changed by the death of the father he being of full age when he took this estate and this was in an Ejectione firme of land which concerns Sir Henry Compton and the Lord Morley and Mounteagle White against Williams VVHite brought an action of accompt against Williams as his Bayliff to his damages 100. l. the Defendant pleaded he never was his Bayliff and it was found against him and the Iudgement was given that he should render an accompt and at the day the Defendant made default Ideo consideratum est per Curiam quod Querens recuperet versus predict Defendent 42. l. 10. s. and upon that the Defendant brought a writ of error and assigned for error that the Court gave Iudgement of the value without inquiring of the value and it was holden by Gaudy and Fenner only present that the Iudgement ought to be given which the Plantiff had counted of Baron Altham contrarie for the Court may in discretion give a lesser summe Hill 43. Eliz. B. R. vide 14. E 3. Accompt 109. 20. E. 3. 17. Sir George Topping against King VVA st was assigned in the cutting of Elmes and other Trees to such a price and Iudgement was given for the Plantiff by nihil dicit and a writ of inquiry of dammages issued upon that and the Iury found to the dammages of 8. s. and upon this Davies the Kings Serjeant moved to have a new writ of inquiry and that the old writ shall not be returned for the dammages are too litle Winch said all is confessed by the nihil dicit Hobert The Iury here have found the value and presidents were commanded to be searched and Hobert said that if an information is for ingrossing of 1000 quarters of corn and Iudgement is given by nihil dicit and a writ of enquiry issues which findes him guilty of 100. yet this is good And not that at another day the case was moved again it was between Sir George Topping and King and it was said if a man recover in waste by nihil dicit and a writ of inquiry issues the Iury in this case may inquire of the dammages but not of the place wasted for this is confessed and so are the presidents according and Hobert said if the Defendant is bound by the nihil dicit as to the place wasted for what cause shall not he be bound as to the dammages and by all the Court if the jury finde dammages only to 8. s. the Plantiff shall not have Iudgement for it ought to be above 40. s. Hob. this is in the discretion of the Court in this case and it was also said in this case that upon the grant of all the trees and after the grantee cut them and new ones grow upon the slumps which in time will be trees that in this case the grantee shall have them also by Hobert Wetherly against Wells in an action for words VVEtherly against Wells in an action upon the case for these words thou hast stollen hay from Mr. Bells racks and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of Iudgement because he had not shewed what quantity was of that and perchance it may be of so little a value that it is not fellony and the rather because it is hay from the Racks but Hobert contrary that Iudgement shall be given against the Defendant for the Plantiff for it hath been adjudged lately in this Court that where a man was charged with petty Larceny to steal under the value of 12. d. that an action of the case will lie for the discredit is not in the value but the taking of that with a fellonious intent and yet it had been adjudged in this Court that where one said of another thou art a thief and hast stolen my trees that in this case an action will not lie but this is by reason of the subsequent words trees for it is said Arbor dum crescit lignum dum crescere nescit And Winch said that it had been adjudged actionable to say thou art a thief and hast stolen my corn and yet perchance not exceed 2. or 3. grains and Warberton said that it had been adjudged in the Kings Bench that where one said thou art a thief and stollest the corn out of my field that no action will lie The Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Devon NOte that in the case of the Earle of Northumberland and the Earle of Devon execution issued out for dammages recovered against the Bayliff of the Earle of Northumberland by the name of I. S. of D. and there was I. S. the father and I. S. the son and the father being dead the son issued his writ of Idemptitate nominis and he prayed to have a supersedeas and Warberton demanded of Brownlow if he had any such president to award a supersedeas in such case who answered no and Warberton and Hutton being only present said that they will advise of that Sir George Sparke Prescription IN a Replevin for the taking of a horse in 5. acres of land in such a place and the Defendant avowed as Bayliff to Sir George Spark and shewed that Sir George Spark and all those whose estate he had in the land had used time beyond the memory of man to have herbage and pasturage in all the 5. acres when that was not sowen and upon this plea the Plantiff demurred Ashley argued for the Plantiff that the prescription is void and this is not
a legal signification it shall not be taken but in the better sense for the small pox but Warberton said that if one say of another that he is laid of the pox an action lyes for it is intended the french pox and Winch said that those actions of slander were known to law but of late times and for that 26. H. 8. it was thought that an action would not lye for calling another thief and in the principal case judgement was commanded to be entered quod Querens capiat nihil per brevem suum and note that I saw Hobert shew presidents to Winch in a paper which were delivered to him by the Plantiff and drawn by his Councel and he said to Winch that by those it seemed that in the Kings Bench they made a difference between for and and as had been said before and he marvailed much at that In a Capias Ulagatum before judgement the Sherif returned that I. S. and I. N. rescoused the party c. and Attoe moved that the retorn was not good for there ought to be additions by which they may be sued to the outlawry but Hobert and the Court hold this to be good without addition for no statute nor book will compel the Sheriff to give additions in this case And it was said that if the Sheriff in this case retorn that the party himself simul cum I. S. and I. N. made the rescouse that this is not good but in the principal case it was ruled that the return was good and the rescousers which were present were committed to the fleet Homan and Hull were rescousers Vpon the reading of the record the case was that an executor brought an action against one upon a promise made to the Testator in which the executor was nonsuite and 3. l. costs given against him and the Defendant bruught an action of debt upon that recovery against the executors and upon this it was demurred in law and Serjeant Towse said that there are two causes of the demurrer first whether the Defendant shall be charged as executor and is not named executor and secondly whether upon the nonsuite of an executor the Defendant shall have costs by the statute of the 23. H. 8. Hobert chief Iustice said to him you say well Note that it was said by Hobert chief Iustice that if a man dies intestate and he to whom the Administration appertaines is sued by others which pretend to be Administrators and sentence is given against the right Administrator and costs given against him the costs shall not be of the proper goods of the Administrator but of the goods of the intestate as the costs which are spent in the spiritual Court for the provate of a Testament shall be only of the goods of the Testator Hutton if the Legatee sue in the spiritual Court for a Legacy and recovers the costs which he shall recover shall not be of his own goods but of the goods of the Testator and no prohibition shall be granted for any such sentence given in the spiritual Court Hobert to the contrary for if by such means the goods of the Testator are so wasted that the debts and legacies of the Testator may not be discharged a prohibition shall be granted and in every case where the sentence in the spiritual Court crosseth the common law a prohibition lyes and he said that in the case of one Barrow in this Court it was his opinion and the opinion of the rest of the judges that if Administration be committed by force of 21. H. 8. and the Administrator pay all the debts and Legacies that in this case the ordinary had not power to dispose of the rest of the goods to the children of the intestate but they shall remain to the Administrator and that by the very intention of the Statute of 21. H. 8. but Hendon said that he could shew a president of that and the Court desired that they might see that if any such president were LLewellings case VPon the reading of a Record in the case of LLewelling the condition of the obligation was that the obligor should surrender his Copihold land to the use of the obligee and he pleaded that he had surrendered that and upon that plea the Plantiff demurred and it was adjudged upon the opening of the case by Warberton and Hutton being only present in the Court that judgement shall be given for the Plantiff for the plea in barre is not good because the Defendant had not shewed when the Court of the Lord was holden Duncombe against the Vniversity of Oxford In a Qu. Impedit in which Duncombe and others were Plantiffs who were grantees of the King against the University of Oxford and the case was Hill 18. Jac. that Sir Richard weston was seised of an advowson in grosse inter alia and was convict of recusancy and a Commission issued to seise two parts of his land and goods and they seised this advowson inter alia and the King granted the advowson to the Plantiffs and the Church became void and they presented and were disturbed by the University of Oxford and their Clark upon which they brought a Qu. Impedit upon which a demurrer was joyned and Serjeant Iones argued for the Plantiff and there was two points in the case first whether an advowson in grosse is given to the King by the Statute of the 28. of Eliz. and the Statute is that the King shall seise the lands tenements hereditaments of such a recusant convict and whether by the same statute an advowson in grosse shall be seised and he held that it shall for though perchance the word lands and Tenements will not carry that being an advowson in grosse yet this word hereditament will carry it to the King by force of the Satute for it appears by dyer 350. that if the King grant an advowson by the name of an hereditament that in this case this will pass the advowson and for that Coke 10. Whistlers case the King by the grant an of hereditament grants an advowson by such words to a common person then by the same reason a common person may grant that to the King by the same words but it may be objected that because an advowson in grosse is not valuable therefore it is not given to the King and upon this doubt upon the Statute of Wills â— H. 8. the question was whether an advowson was devisable by the name de bonis et Cattallis fellon Butler and Bakers case that they are not devisable for it is not valuable but the 4th Iac. between Taverner and Gooch which case may be seen in the new book of entries that an advowson was devisable before the Statute 5. H. 7. 37. it shall be assets 9. H. 6. 55. recovery in value lyes of that but admit that this is only a thing of pleasure for the advancement of a friend yet that shall be given by the Statute to the King But the second
it is that if the Lord had seisin of more then the very services in this case it may not be avoyded in avowry and no fall tenure shall be avoyded c. but when he joyns another falsity and that is in the quantity of land now the false quantity of the rent had made the tenure traversable and the judgement was commanded to be entred accordingly Trin. 19. Jac. Thomas Bull Executor c. against Fankester THomas Bull Executor of William Bull brought an action against Fankester and declared that the Defendant enfeoffed his Testator in certaine land and that he covenanted for him and his heirs that he was seised of a good estate in fee and he alleadged the breach upon which they were at issue and now Attoe moved in arrest of judgement first because the Plantiff sueing as Executor had not shewed the Will for it hath been adjudged here that if a man bring an action as executor and do not shew the Will that the Defendant may demurre upon that because it is matter of substance but Hobert said it is very good because the Defendant had admitted him to be responsible but it is true he might have demurred upon the declaration as we often times adjudged here secondly Attoe said that the covenant being made with the heire the executor shall not have an action of covenant for it is annexed to the land which was granted by Hobert and Winch being only present in the Court. Note that it was said at the barre and agreed by Hobert that if the debtor make the dettee his executor he may now retain in debt against him and safely plead plene administravit if he had no other goods and shall not be driven to his special plea and so it had been agreed often times in this Court Parson and Morlees case PArson and Morlees case it was said that the Lord Chancellour presented to a venefice which belonged to the King which was above the yearly value of 20. l. per annum and this was referred to Hobert chief Iustice and to Tanfield chief Barron to certifie whether this was meerly void it remained good till it was avoyded Harris against Wiseman HArris had procured a prohibition against Wiseman who had libelled in the spiritual Court against the Plantiff for a frat in the Church which did belong to his house and it was said by Hobert and Winch only present that a man or a Lord of a mannor who had any Isle or a seat in the Church c. and he is sued for that in the spiritual Court he shall have a prohibition but not every common parishioner for every common seat and upon the first motion at the barre in this case day was given over to the Defendant to shew cause wherefore that a prohibition shall not be granted and the Defendant not having notice of that after the day the Plantiff had a prohibition and now after the day he shewed a good cause and upon that a supersedeas was granted to stay the prohibition in that case Aylesworth against Harrison AYlesworth against Harrison in debt against an executor the question was whether he may plead plene Administravit and give in evidence a debt in which the Testator was indebted to him or whether he may plead the special matter that plea amounting but to the general issue and it was argued by Harris Serjeant the Defendant may plead the special matter and shall not be bound to the general issue to leave that to the lay people who may suppose such a retainer to be an administration and he vouched the 15. E. 4. 18. if a man illiterate seale a deed which is read to him in another manner c. and he delivers that as an escrow to be delivered over as his deed upon conditions performed and this is delivered over before the conditions performed he may in this case plead the special matter and conclude so not his deed or if he will he may plead the general issue of non est factum and so is 39. H. 6. in dower the Tenant said that before marriage the husband infeoffed him and that after the Tenant let to him at Will and that the husband continued possession during his life absque hoc that he was seised of such an estate of which she might have dower and exception was taken there because that this only amounts to the general issue and yet ruled to be good for the lay people may conceive such a continuance of possession during the life of the lessee to be such an estate of which the wife may have dower if this were put upon the general issue and in our case because he had liberty to plead specially or generally he prayed that the Defendant may be admitted to plead specially and that he may not be bound to the general issue Serjeant Hendon to the contrary if one plead a plea which amounts to the general issue see Layfields case Coo. 10. and though in Woodwards case commentaries there was such a plea pleaded yet this doth not prove the contrary for in the same case no exception was taken by the Plantiff and presidents do prove that the Defendants in this kind have been compelled to plead the general issue Hobert if no special matter may be alleadged to the contrary the Defendant shall be compelled to plead the general issue and this is good discretion in the Court to take away the perplexity of pleading because one plea is as good as the other to which Winch being only present agreed and it was ordered that the Defendant here plead accordingly In debt against the heire upon the obligation of his father and in the declaration the Plantiff omitted these words obligo me et hered es meos c. and after error brought the Plantiff prayed that this might be amended because it was the misprision of the Clark only Hobert and Winch said that this shall not be amended for it is a matter of substance but because the clark who made this misprision was a good clark day was given over c. Widdow Archers case IN debt against the Widdow of Archer being executrix of her husband and the Plantiff declared that neither the Testator in his life nor the executrix after his death had paid that omitting those words licet saepius requisitus c. and evil but this omission was amended Sir Edward Grubham against Sir Edward Cooke SIr Edward Grubham brought an audita querela against Sir Edward Cooke upon a recognizance of 4000. l. and this was acknowledged to the use of his Mother and shewed that the conusor had infeoffed him and another in the land and that the conusee had sued execution only against him and it was found for the Plantiff and it was so moved in arrest of judgement by Ashley Serjeant first because he had not shewed in this audita querela when the Statute was certified nor yet the Teste nor yet the return of the writ of extent
doth not lye for for it is not averred that there was any fellony committed also Iustice Hutton held that in this case the declaration is not good because it is not expresly alleadged with an eo quod that the Plantiff stole the Vetches but only an indictment preferred containing such a matter and Iustice Winch said that the framing of an indictment in a Court of record is not any cause of an action for it is a proceeding in an ordinary Course of justice and for that reason ought not to be punished by an action upon the case for that will deterre and scare men from the just prosecutions in the ordinary way of justice Hobert chief Iustice was of a contrary opinion and yet he said that it is true that the ordinary Course of justice ought not by any means to be hopped or hindred and as that may not be obstructed so neither may the good name of a man in any thing which concerns his life be taken away and impeached without good cause for Courts of justice were not erected to be stages to take away the good name or fame of any man and therefore by the common law if two do maliciously conspire to judict a man without cause though the indictment it self be good and legally drawn yet a writ of conspiracy lies against those which caused this indictment to be preferred and it is as great a slander to preferre a Bill of indictment to the grand jury and to give this in evidence to them as it is to declare that in an ale house and as to the declaration he held that to be good without any averment of an indictment indeed and the indictment in writing and the preferring that to the grand jury containes the scandal and I am of opinion that an action upon the case lyes well see more after Easter 20. Jac. C. P. Hill against Waldron Easter 20. Jac. C. P. HIll against Waldron in an action of debt upon an obligation the condition was that I. S. shall levy a fine to the obligee before such a day of such land the Defendant pleaded that the obligee had not sued forth any writ of covenant the replication was that before the obligation made I. S. had made of feofment in fee of the same land to I. S. and that the feoffee continued in possession at the time of the making of the obligation and upon this the Defendant demurred and in this case two points were moved first when I am obliged that I. S. who is a stranger shall levy a fine to the obligee whether in this case the obligee is bound to sue a writ of covenant and it was argued by Serjeant Harvy that not yet he agreed that if the condition was that the obligor shall levy a fine to the obligee in this case the obligee ought to do the first act viz. to sue a writ of covenant as Palmers case Cooke 5. but otherwise when the fine is levied by a third person for there the obligor had took all upon him 4. H. 7. 15. E. 4. if I am bound to marry the daughter of I. S. and she will not marry me yet I have forfited my obligation and so here he ought to leavy a fine at his perill and at his own costs or at the costs of the obligor But admitting that the obligee ought to sue a writ of covenant because it appears by the replication that before the obligation made I. S. had made a feofment over and that the feoffee did continue possession at the time when the fine was to be leavied and therefore the obligee needs not to sue forth any writ of covenant because he who is to leavy the fine had disabled himself to perform that and he urged Sir Anthony Maines case where Cooke 5. the party needs not to tender a Surrender because that he who had the reversion had granted that over before the Surrender was to be made Serjeant Hendon to the contrary for he argued that the obligation is not forfeit except the obligee sue a writ of covenant and there is no difference between this case and when the obligor himself was to leavy a fine for the obligor had not undertaken for the whole fine but only that I. S. shall acknowledge a fine and if the obligor shall be compelled at his perill to sue a writ of covenant then you will construe the condition to extend to an unlawfull act for it shall be maintenance in him to sue forth a writ of covenant he vouched a case P. 4 Iac. Rot. 1548. Burnell against Bowle the condition of the obligation was that I. S. shall acknowledge a judgement in this Court to I. D. and in debt upon this obligation the Defendant pleaded that the Plantiff had not sued forth any orginall writ and it was holden a good plea and for the second point he held that the obligee ought to sue this writ of Covenant though that I. S. had dismissed himself of the land for the words are general that I. S. shall leavy a fine and this he ought to do though no estate pass by the fine for a fine upon release shall be a good performance of the Condition but otherwise if it had been to make a feofment in fee for a man cannot make a feofment except he be seised of the land at the time as 31. E. 3. debt 164. a man was obliged to present the obligee to such a Church and the obligee took a wife by which he had disabled himself to be a person yet the obligor ought to present him for otherwise he shall forfeit his obligation and so in this case Hobert and Hutton as to the first point held the barre to be good and that the obligee ought to sue forth the writ of Covenant for Hobert said he ought to do that for it is no reason to compel the obligor who is a stranger to the estate which passeth by the fine to sue a writ of Covenant and for that reason if I am bound to compel you to come upon such land to take a feofment I am not bound that the other make a livery of seisin but if the case was that I was obliged to you that I. S. shall leavy a fine to I. N. in such case the fine ought to be leavied at my peril though that I. N. will not sue a writ of Covenant Hutton according but Winch doubted of the case and as to the second point Hutton and Hobert agreed that the obligee as this case is needs not to sue a writ of Covenant because that I. S. had made a feofment of the land before and so had disabled himself at the time of the obligation for now it is impossible to leavy a good fine for if he should enter into the land and put out the feoffee this were not good within the condition and Hutton said it ought to be agreed that if I. S. had made a feofment after the time of the making
of the obligation and so had disabled himself afterwards and the obligor is bound that a fine shall be leavied this is to be understood of a good and a lawfull fine and not a fine in name only and he put the case that I let for years and after Covenant to make a feofment to I. S. this lease for years is a breach of the Condition though at the time of the Covenant made the lease for years was made Iustice Winch thought the contrary for this disability is by the act of a stranger and for that the obligor may not take any certain notice of that and therefore if I am obliged to you that I. S. shall enfeoffe you of his Mannor and at the time I. S. had made a feoffement of two or three acres of the same Mannor yet if he enfeoffe you of that which he was seised at the time of the obligation this is a good performance of the Condition though that 2. or 3. acres were disjoyned from that before and so in this case the obligor being a stranger to the estate of I. S. if I. S. make such an estate as he had at the time of the obligation made this is sufficient upon which he concluded that the Plantiff shall not have judgement but afterward judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff according to the opinion of Hobert and Hutton Hoels case HOels case upon a special verdict was to this effect a man was seised of 2. acres of land in fee and had 2. sones and he devised both the acres to his wife for life the remainder of one acre to his eldest son in fee the remainder of the other acre to his youngest son in fee upon this condition in manner and form following if either of my sonnes die before my depts and legacies are paid or before either of my sonnes enter into their part that then the longest liver shall have both parts to him and to his heires in fee and the devisor died and Hoel the Plantiff being the eldest sonne in the life of his mother released all his interest and his demand in this to his younger brother and the doubt was whether this condition was gone by this release and Attoe argued that it was gone for Littleton saith that every land may be charged one way or other see Anne Mayowes case Release Coo. 1. Albaines case power of revocation released see more of this afterwards Trin. 20. Jac. C. P. Whitgift aganist Sir Francis Barrington IN Replevin the Defendant avowed as Baliff to Sir Francis Barrington and that Whitgift the Plantiff held certaine land of Sir Francis Barrington by escuage et quendam reditum and that the said Sir Francis was seised by the hands of Whitgift his very Tenant and for homage he avowed and upon this the Plaintiff demurred first because he had avowed for homage and had not shewed how nor in what manner the homage is due whether in respect that the tenancy come to him by discent or by purchase and for that this general allegation is naught for by Hendon Serjeant all the presidents in such avowryes made mention of the title to the homage as 4. E. 4. in avowry for homage the tenure is shewed and a discent alleadged or a purchase of the land and in no book or in any president that he ever yet saw did he see such a general allegation in avowry for homage but he agreeth the book of the 44. E. 3. 42. if the avowry is upon tenant by the curtesie this general allegation is good but otherwise of a tenant in fee simple and for that he alledged the second E. 3. avowry in a replevin the Bishop avowed for homage due by the Plantiff and exception was taken because it was not shewed in whose time the death of the ancestor was whether in his own time or the time of his predecessor and ruled to be evill for his avowry being his title he ought to shew that in certaine and so in our case Hobert this case doth not prove our case for in our case prima facie it is certain to all intents and purposes and I cannot see how an avowry may be better made and Finch at the barre vouched a president in the book of entries title horse de son fee secondly where such a avowry as in our case is made and then Hendon moved that the avowrie is not good for he had shewed the tenure by homage and by escuage and rent de quo quidem redditu he was seised c. and this is also repugnant for when he said that he was seised of the rent by the hands of the Plaintiff this is a seisin of the homage as Bevils case is and then by his own shewing because the seisin of the rent is a seisin of the homage he shall not have the homage of the Plantiff Thirdly admitting this point against him and that the seisin of the rent is not seisin of the homage yet the pleading is not good for when he expresly alleadged seisin of the rent in this manner de quo quidem redditu he was seised this excluded the seisin of any other services but only of the rent which is expresly alleadged and therefore in our case he ought to have alleadged generally de quibus serviciis he was seised and to leave this to the construction of the Law and he vouched 13. H. 7. 31. Serjeant Harvy to the same intent for though perchance no good reason may be given wherefore the pleading shall be such and that the seisin of the homage ought to be expressed yet because all the presidents are so the course of pleading shall not be altered and all the presidents shew a seisin of the homage see the book of entries 597. and 598. Serjeant â—owse to the contrary the book of the 19. E. 2. Recovery 224. is that the alleadging of the seisin or escuage as in our case of tent is a sufficient avowry for homage and 29. H. 3. such an allegation of the seisin of rent was made in avowry for fealty and good Hutton if the book of the 19. E. 12. be as Towse had alleadged it is all one with our case Hobert seems the avoury is good notwithstanding this last exception for perchance he was not actually seised of the homage by the hands of the Tenant himself and then by his own shewing his avowry shall abate and he demanded of Brownlow if there were any such president of an avowry who answered no. Hobert if the continual pleading be as my brother Harvy had alleadged we will not alter the course of pleading but in my opinion in reason none may plead in better manner or form and Hutton being only present agreed and then Hobert commanded the presidents to be searched concerning that matter and Finch at the barre being of Councel with the avowant said that till the resolution in Bevils case it was a great question whether the seisin of the rent was the
seisin of the homage and therefore perchance it will be hard to finde my antient president they adjourned and at another day Hutton and Winch being only present judgement was given for the avowant against Whitgift and Hutton said that he had spoke with the other Iustices and they agreed Vpon a motion made by Towse the case was this a man made a lease for one year and so from year to year during the Will of the lessor and lessee rendring rent and the lessee died and the rent was behinde and by Winch being only present if the rent is behinde in the time of the lessee and he dies an action of debt is maintainable against his Executor in the detinâ—t only and so I conceive if that was behinde after his death he may have an action in the debt and the detinet or in the detinet only to which Brownlow agreed Secondly Winch said that when a man made a lease for a year and so from year to year at the pleasure of the parties that this is a lease for 3. years and not for two Thirdly he doubted if the lessee hold over his term so that he is tenant at sufferance what remedy the lessor had for his rent Vpon the reading of a record the case was that a Scire facias issued against the land Tenant to have execution of a judgement given against Ferdinando Earl of Darby in the 15. Eliz. and the Defendant pleaded that a long time before the said Ferdinando any thing had in the land one Edward Earl of Darby was seised of the land and being so seised 3. Mar. infeoffed I. S. to the use of the Lord Strange and his wife in tail the remainder over to the said Ferdinando and made the said Ferdinando heire to the estate taâ—le and pretended that by this meanes the land should not be liable to this judgement because it was intailed to Ferdinando and of such estate he died seised the Plantiff traversed the feofment made by Edw. Earl of Darby and the jury found that the feofment was made by Edward Earl of Darby to the same persons as the Defendant had pleaded but this was to the use of the feoffor for life the remainder over to the Lord Strange and his wife the remainder as before and whether this shall be intended the same Feofment which the Defendant had pleaded was the question because the estate for life was omitted and upon the special verdict that was the question and Attoe said that if the jury had found this feofment made to other feoffees though the estate had agreed this should be found against the Defendant and Winch Iustice said that there was such estate found as had taken away the execution or extent and the estate for life is not material but it was adjourned till another day A man Covenanted to make such assurance as shall be devised by the counsel of the Plantiff so the same assurance be made within the county of Norff. or the Citty of Norwich and the Plantiff assigned the breach and shewed that in this case his Councel devised that a fine should be leavied of the same land which was not done and it was moved by Serjeant Attoe that in this case the breach was not well laid because he had not shewed where his councel devised that the fine should be leavied In the case of a prohibition in case of a libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for the tithes of Cattles the Plantiff alleadged that those Cattle of which Tithes were demanded are for his Dairy and for the plough and Winch being only present said that the parson shall not have Tithes of such Cattle but if he bred up Cattle to sell it is otherwise secondly the Plantiff in the prohibition alleadged that time beyond memory the parishoners had paid a half peny for the Tithe of a Calf and a penny for a Cow and that upon a day limitted they use to bring this to the Church and to pay this to the Vicar and now the Vicar had libelled in the spiritual Court against them to compel them to bring it home to his house and Winch said that this is no occasion of a prohibition for they agree in the modus but vary in the place of payment and this is not matter of substance and for that reason no prohibition will lie Vpon the reading of a record the case was that the father made a feofment to the use of himself for life the remainder to his son and his wife and to the heires of the body of the son and this was for a joynture for his wife and the father died and the son also died and whether this was a good joynture was the question for all this matter was pleaded in barre of dower brought by the wife and it was ruled to be no good joynture for the feme notwithstanding that the father died in the life of his son and Hutton said if a man made a feofment to the use of himself for life the remainder to his Executors for years the remainder to his wife for a joynture this will be no good joynture within the Statute of joyntures though the feme here had the immediate franktenement In an action of debt against an Administrator who pleads outlawry in the Testator and it was moved that this was no plea for he had taken the Administration upon him Winch a man who is outlawed may not make an executor for if he meet with his goods he shall answer for them to the King and for that reason it seems to be a good plea 3. H. 6. 32. and Brownlow chief Prothonotary said that he could shew a president 27. Eliz. where this is adjudged to be no plea and Iustice Winch said to him shew that president if any such be and upon Tuesday after he shewed that and then Winch agreed Auditor Curle for words AUditor Curle brought an action upon the case and in his declaration he set forth the Statute of 32. H. 8. for the erection of the Court of Wards and that the same Statute appointed the Auditor of the same Court and shewed that the Plantiff was an Auditor of the same Court and that the Defendant such a day and at such a place said of him you have taken money for ingrossing of feodaries innuendo accompts and tunc et ibidem you are a Cozner and live by Cozning and I will prove that to be Coznage and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Finch Serjeant of the King that the Plantiff shall not have judgement upon this verdict for the first words are not actionable for the taking of money for the ingrossing of feodaries are insensible and then the inuendo will not help nor aid that also the words in the second place are not actionable because he had not said that he was a Cozning officer and so he had not expresly applied that to his office and
the words are found generally but yet admitting that the last words are actionable yet the Plantiff shall not have judgement for the damages are intirely given and for that reason void see more and Bedles case cited in Osborns case Cook 10. Harris Serjeant to the contrary for an Auditor is an officer of trust and he took an oath when he entered into his office and his receiving fees which are not due are also extortion and the words of Cousâ—â—age shall have also relation to the office as in Barkleys case you are a corrupt man an action lyes and Haywel and Stakleys case of a Iustice of the peace and Sir Miles Fleetwoods case he being receiver of the Court of wards one called him Mr. deceiver and ruled action lies and tunc et ibidem shall have relation to the same time in which the said words were spoken and so he prayed judgement for the Plantiff and it was adjourned till another time See after Good against Bawtry GOod brought an Ejectione firme against Bawtry for ejecting him of certain lands in Creeting St. Maries in Creeting St. Olaves and in Creeting omnium sanctorum and a Venire facias issued to try the issue to Summon 12. men de vicineto de Creeting St. Mary Creeting St. Olaves and Creeting omnium omitting Sanctorum and it was now moved in arrest of judgement by Attoe Serjeant that the Venire facias was not good for it ought to be of all the Creetings and the Court blamed the Clark very much for his negligence but it was adjourned till another time A man lett an advowson for 40. years and the lessee covenanted that he would not alien without the assent of the lessor and he shewed all the matter because he had aliened to I. S. without his assent and the Defendant pleaded that he had not aliened without his assent and upon that they were at issue and it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement because he had not laid that the alienation was by deed for an advowson may not pass without deed and Hobert said if a man will declare in an ejectione firme of a lease made by the husband and the wife without deed this is not the lease of the wife without deed or yet if the Defendant will plead not guilty or non dimisit and this is found for the Plantiff the Plantiff shall have judgement for this shall be intended to be by deed which was granted by Winch Iustice being only present that the breach was well laid and he alleadged a president 43. Eliz. a man avowed and had not shewed that this was by deed and the Defendant pleaded non concessit and found for the avowant and he had judgement but Hobert denyed this case but afterwards in the principal case it was adjudged that the breach was well laid and the Plantiff had judgement In a formedon in reverter the Tenant was essoyned and the vouchee also appeared the case was essoyned and he had day over till octabis Michaelis And then the Attorney of the Defendant would have been essoyned and it was argued by Hendon Serjeant that he shall not be essoyned and yet he agreed if the vouchee had not appeared the Tenant might have been essoyned againe 13. E. 3 essoyne the 8. and the same Law of the vouchee be returned tarde but if the vouchee appeare and is essoyned there the Tenant shall not be essoyned againe and so is the express â—ook of the 3. H. 7. 17. 9. E. 3. 39. and the reason is because by the appearance of the vouchee the Tenant is out of the Court c. and it was adjourned till another day and at that day it was resolved by the Court that the Attorney shall be essoâ—ned and this was upon the view of a like judgement in the case of the Earl of Clanrickard and Hobert said that in that case the Roll of the 3. H. 7. was searched for and could not be found and Towse urged 22. H. 6. and 13. E. 3. essoyne 8. Sir Henry L. Warden of the Fleet. RIchardson Serjeant moued for the warden of the Fleet Sir Henry L. and his motion was that whereas one I. S. was in execution in the Custody of the Warden of the Fleet for 300. l. and he made an escape and he at whose suite he was in execution brought an action upon this escape against the Warden of the Fleet and he shewed that the Warden upon fresh suit had taken him again and he prayed that the Plantiff may not proceed in his action for though the Warden of the Fleet may plead this though the action was brought before the retaking of the party yet he prayed for the saving of charges that the action may be stayed and he said that there was such a case in this Court against Harris deputy Warden to Sir Henry L. upon such an escape and he pleaded to the issue and after he retook the prisoner and in this case the Court had also relieved Harris if the issue had not been joyned but Hobert let the Plantiff be brought here present in Court and then we will speak to that point Gell against White Gell against White and others and he declared in action of Trespass but the writ was general but the declaration was quare vi et armis bona et catalla sua ceperunt et asportaverunt viz. tertiam partem unius dishei plumbei Anglice the third part of a dish of lead Ore and it was moved that the Plantiff shall not have judgement for the variance between the writ and the declaration and though it is objected that here is nor any original writ at all for in verity there was not any yet the declaration is contrary to it self for if in a replevin the Plantiffs writ is de bonis et Catallis and his declaration is of a taking of a horse this is not good and so here bona viz. tertiam partem c. for this particular thing may not be said to be goods and Chattels and Harris Serjeant moved that the Attorney might be banished the Court for declaring without a writ according to the express book 20. H. 6. Hobert good reason adjourned till another time Anne Buckley against Simonds Mich. 18. Jac. Rot. 2120. ENtered Mich. 18. Jac. Rot. 2120. Anne Buckley was Plantiff in a Quare Imp. against Simonds and the case in effect was that Andrew Buckley Grandfather of the husband of the Plantiff did Covenant by indenture with Preston that before such a day his Son should marry the daughter of Preston And Covenanted to convey 6. l. 13. s. per Annum of rent issuing out of land to hold to them during the life of the Covenanted and his wife and after this he Covenanted for him his hetres and assignes that after the death of the Covenantor and his wife the land to which the advowson in question is appendant shall remain come and be unto the said
that then his two sons shall pay them and if it happen that either of them die before his debts and legacies paid or before either of them do enter into his part that thou the other shall have all the land in fee and after the devisor died and in the life of the mother the eldest son released to the youngest all his right title Claim and demand to the land which was devised to him by his father and after the wife died and two points came in question in this case First whether this limitation is good Secondly whether the release is good and it was argued by Richardson Serjeant that this limitation of the Statute by way of devisee is good and he vouched Dyer 330. Clarks case and 4. Eliz. Goldley and Buckleys case a man devised to his son and his heirs provided that if his personal estate did not suffice to pay his debts and legacies that then his lands shall be to another and he vouched Brown and Pells case which was adjudged in Banco Regis the case was that a man had two sons William the eldest and Thomas the youngest and he devised his lands to Thomas his son and his heirs provided that if Thomas died without issue living that then William shall have the land and it was resolved that this was good to William by way of executory devise and in that case doubt was moved whether if Thomas suffer a recovery whether this shall take away the estate of William and it was holden by all the Court except Doderidg that it shall not but all agreed that this devise upon the future contingency is good and so he concluded that if the youngest son die in the life of the Mother and before the legacies are paid the land shall remain to the Plantiff according to the intent of the devisor but the other doubt is when the Plantiff did release all his right and claim to the other whether this release will extinguish this future possibility and he held that it will not and he said that he had seen the case of Lampet Coo. 10. and there the release of a possibility is penned as in our case and if any word discharge this possibility it is this word right but if the resolution of that book had not been against him he would have argued that this right was not sufficient to extinguish this future possibility but that there ought to be a more apt and proper word but he said he would not argue against books but he said that which he would insist upon was the distinguishing of possibilities for there are two manner of possibilities the one is Common and ordinary the other is more remote and forreigne And first there is a possibility which is Common and necessary and this depends upon an ordinary casualty as a lease for life the remainder to the right heirs of I. S. for it is apparant that the right heirs of I. S. may take by this and such a possibility may be released and a possibility which is remote and forreigne is as if a lease be made for life the remainder to another during the life of the lessee for life or a lease for life the remainder to the Corporation of B. those remainders are void but yet by possibility they may be good for in the first case the Tenant for life may enter into religion and in the latter case the King may make Corporations and yet because such possibilities are not usual the remainders are void see Coo. 2. Chamleys case where such a remote possibility may not be released if a man give land to one which is married and to another woman which is married and to the heirs of their two bodies ingendred this is a good estate tail for there is a common possibility that they may intermarry but if the gift be to a man and to two women who are married and to the heirs of their bodies ingendred they shall not have an estate tail executed for it is a remote and forreigne possibility and an imbrodery of estates which the law will not allow nor respect see the Rector of Chedingtons case that such a possibility as in our case may not be released for first here the mother ought to be dead before the Plantiff shall have land Secondly legacies ought to be paid Thirdly Thomas ought to be dead and till all these possibilities hap the Plantiff shall have nothing in the land and for that it is a remote possibility which is not gone by the release for as it is said when a possibility shall be gone by a release there ought to be a good foundation upon which the release may operate secondly the possibility which is released ought to be necessary and Common but in our case it is not necessary that the son shall enjoy it in the life of his mother and also the mother may in a short time pay the legacies and then neither of the sons shall have the land by which circumstances it is apparant that this is not a Common or an ordinary possibility but is a remote and forraigne expectancy which shall not be gone by this release and this differs from Lampets case for there was a possibility of a Chattel which as it may easily be created so it may easily be destroyed but in our case it is a franktenement which as that requires a greater ceremony in the creation and for that it will require a greater matter to destroy and to extinguish that and it is said in Woods case cited in Shelleys case Coo. 1. that if a man covenant with A. that if I. S. infeoffed him of the Mannor of D. that then he will stand seised to the use of him and his heirs of the Mannor of B. and the Covenantee died and the said I. S. infeoffed the Covenantor in such case the heir shall be inward and yet it is only a possibility which descends which possibility of an use may not be discharged or released and yet in that case there was a possibility which is more Common and ordinary then in our case for there was a possibility that I. S. should make the feofment and so say a good foundation upon which the release may operate and he put the case that I. shall let for so many years as I. S. shall name if I. S. name it is good and yet he held if I. S. release before the nomination that this release is meerly void because he had only a possibility and as to Digs case Coo. 1. there a power of Revocation may be released and good reason for the Covenantor who released had the bird in his own hand and for that it was no remote possibility but there it is said that if the power be limited to an estranger there the stranger may not release and he also agreed Albanies case for there the power to release was upon the death of a man only but in our case it is upon death and other
contingencies by which these remote possibilities shall not be released Hoes case Coo. 5. there a release of all actions and demands to the Bailee made this void and in the case of Brown and Pell which was remembred before it was the opinion of all the Court against Judge Doderidge that where the devise was to the son in fee and if he died without issue living that then his eldest brother shall have that if in this case the second son suffer a recovery yet this had not destroyed the possibility which the eldest brother had to have the land and if a common recovery which is matter of record and the common assurance of the realm will not take away this possibility a fortiori a release which is but matter of fact and so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Plantiff Bawtry to the contrary and he said that if this remainder shall be good then the inconvenience which the judges had alwayes endeavoured to take way shall be on foot again as in the case of Chamley and Corbets of springing uses for if it shall be lawful for a man to limit a fee upon a Collateral condition or limitation then there shall be a perpetuitie and for this if any litteral construction shall be made upon such conveyances this will introduce dangerous events to inheritances and for that he held that limitation to the Plantiff to be meerly void for when the land is devised in fee this devisee by this had an absolute estate in fee and it shall be strange to give this to another though this be by way of devise for though the will of every man shall be supplied by the intent of the devisor yet his intent ought to stand with the rules of the law and otherwise his intent shall revert and for that he cited 29. H. 8. a man made two executors provided that one of them shall not administer here the intent did plainly appear and yet because the intent is contrary to the power which the law gives to every executor therefore it is void and it is put for a bare rule in Corbets case that such a conveyance which a man may not make in his life time by act executed he may not make by his Will but a man may not make such a conveyance by act executed in his life time for as it is said in Colthirsts case if a man let for life the remainder for life upon condition that if the first lessee do such a thing that then the land shall remain over to a stranger this remainder is void for when the land is given before this second limitation is meerly void and also the case is put that if a man give lands in fee upon condition the remainder over this remainder is void for the other had an estate in fee before by which it is apparant that when an estate is one time lawfully vested in any certain person there no limitation may give that to a stranger by any act executed in his life at the common law and then it shall not be good by way of devise 28. H. 8. Dyer a term was devised for years the remainder over and it was adjudged by Baldwin and by Shelley that the remainder in that case is void for when the devisor had given his term he may not limit this remainder over though this be by way of devise and this may be good law notwithstanding Lampets case for there the lease was devised and not the land and for that reason may be a difference and he vouched the case which was remembred by Richardson 29. H. 8. 33. and then as to the second point he held that the release was good admitting the first point to be against him for if the eldest son had any right by this release then this word right in the release will destroy and extinguish that and this possibility is not remote and forraigne for the condition or limitation is annexed to the estate and is not a subsequent condition which creates an estate and this depends upon an ordinary casualty which is common to all men and the payment of debts and of legacies is incident and common to every executor and as for Albanies case Coo. 1. the case was that a man had a power to revoke uses upon the death of a stranger without issue and resolved that this power may be released and yet his power depended upon two contingencies death and death without issue and the case is also there put if A. infeoffe B. upon condition that if B. Survive C. and then if A. and his heirs pay to B. 10. l. that then he shall enter in this case there are many contingencies involved in one conveyance and yet it is there said that these contingencies may be released and in Lampets case Coo. 10. there are six reasons wherefore such a contingencie may be released and our case is within all the reasons which are there mentioned for the words in the release as have been remembred by my brother Richardson are all one with our case and the first reason is because this is a Chattel which as it may be easily created so it may be easily destroyed to this he gave answer that this remainder of a Term was an interest to him who released and so in our it is an interest of a remainder to the Plantiff and for that the release is good Secondly it is a maxime in Law that every land may be charged one wayes or another and we are within this reason also for if this estate be in the Plantiff then this may be released Thirdly the foundation of every act ought to be regarded for Grants case there vouched destroyes the possibility with a fine by reason of the original act the fourth reason there remembred is because that if the devisee had been dead his Executor shall have the interest the same reason in our case if the Plantiff had been dead before the remainder or the contingencie hap yet his heir shall have that See Shelleys case the fifth reason is the legacie was in present though this was to take effect in futuro and so in our case the Will is in present though the state is to take effect in futuro and sixthly it shall be against reason to establish such a perpetuity of a Chattel and so in our case it shall be against reason to establish a perpetuity of a franktenement and the release is very well penued for it is of all his title right and claim to the reversion and remainder which the father devised to the Plantiff and so the release is not general but this is a particular and special release of that which was devised to him by his father and Hoes case Coo. 5. is not like to our case for first there the duty was altogether incertain and secondly the condition there did precede the duty but in our case the condition is annexed to the estate and so he concluded and
covenantor shall have an estate for life and so the law makes in that case fractions of estates as the case of the Lord Seymor Dyer 96. seems to accord with this and besides those two books he said he could not finde any book which will warrant that and for that reason he held those two books to be no law for if I Covenant that my son shall have my land after my death this will not raise an estate to me by implication for life and an estate to my son and so by such means to change my estate in fee for an estate for life without more words for the word covenant in his proper and native signification is only obligatorie and yet it had been alwayes conceived sufficient to raise an use to him who is not partie to that as if I covenant with a stranger that I will stand seised of my land to the use of my son this will raise an use to my son and yet neither my son nor the covenantee may have an action of covenant but an use will very well arise to my son as if a man bargain and sell his land in consideration of 100. l. paid by I. S. though in this case the consideration ariseth from a stronger yet that will pass the use to the bargainee and in case of covenant it is not this word covenant only which creats the use but it is rather the agreement of the parties which is testified by the covenant for if sufficient agreement appears there will not need this word covenant as if I will agree and declare to stand seised to the use of my son by which it appears that the word covenant is onely declarative of the intentions of the parties and then in the principal case the covenant is not that the son shall have the land but that the land shall come remain and be to him and those words are incertain as 21. H. 7. redert come or discent and for that reason it is all one with the law of the same case and then void to raise any use for the incertainly and then when Andrew Buckley covenants that his son shall have his lands and no words to inforce his intention and for that reason the intention shall be lyable to an action of covenant and not to change his estate which he had in fee for an estate for life by this covenant but if he had expresly covenanted that in consideration of marriage of his son that he would hold his land for life and after this should be to his son this will change the estate which was in fee for an estate for life but in our case the covenant being general and left to the indifferent construction of the law the word covenant shall be taken in his proper and native signification and this is obligatorie and so he concluded that this covenant being at the first to grant a rent and was executory and the last part of that is executory for assurance and the limitation of the estate to the son being intangled between these two Covenants this shall be of the same nature and by consequence the covenant is obligatorie only and will raise no use to the son and so he concluded that judgement shall be given for the Plantiff and it was commanded to be entered accordingly Sparrow against Sowgate IN debt by Sparrow against Sowgate who declared that the Defendant became Bail for one Richard Sowgate in Banco Regis against whom the Plantiff had brought a Bill of debt of 77. l. and now the Defendant bound himself in a Recognizance of 77. l. upon which the action is now brought that in case judgement should be given against the said Richard Sowgate that he shall satisfie the said judgement or render his bodie to prison for in this case no part was impossible for after the judgement the principal may render himself in B. R. to the Marshal for the redemption of his suretie and that is the Common course there as he said but he agreed the case to be otherwise if a scire facias issue out of the Kings Bench against the Bail for there the death of the principal is a good plea for a scire facias doth not lie there till default is assigned in the principal in his not comming upon the capias ad satisfaciendum which may not be when he is dead Note that but yet before any capias it is clear he may have an action of debt Sir Robert Hitcham Serjeant of the King to the contrary and he alledged this to be the constant course in the Kings Bench that the Bail is never chargable till there is default assigned in the principal upon the recorn of the Capias ad satisfaciendum which may not be here for the principal is dead and he agreed the case of the other side that when a man is to do two things though the one is become impossible yet he ought to perform the other but when it is in the election of one to make either the one or the other then it is otherwise see Dyer 262. and so he concluded for the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice said that it is inconvenient that the Plantiff shall be forced to sue his Capias ad satisfaciendum against the partie before he have execution against the Bail for perchance he will sue a fieri facias or an elegit against him and that the Corps of the partie will not satisfie him and Browlow Prothonotary said that it had been adjudged in this Court that such plea is not good Winch the course of the Kings Bench is that default shall be assigned upon the retorn of the principal before the Bail shall be charged and though the Plantiff refuse to take his bodie after he had made his election to take his fieri facias or elegit he shall never more resort to the Bail which was granted by Hobert and Hutton as to that last point and it was holden by all the Court that if the principal render his bodie though the Plantiff refuse to take that yet that is a discharge of the Bail and also it was agreed by Hutton Hobert and by Winch that if the course of the Kings Bench be such that the Bail shall not be forfeit till there is a default assigned in the principal the same course also shall be followed here and per Curiam if the course of the Kings Bench be such that such Capias is necessary to be awarded that then a convenient time shall be allowed for the principal to render his bodie gratis and if the principal do die before such time the Bail is discharged but it was said by Winch if he die before convenient time and the Capias is awarded that such death shall not discharge the Bail note that Iones Iustice said that he thought in this case that it is necessary that the principal render himself gratis for when he is let to Bail the law supposeth him to be alwayes in custodie
and at that day the Court was of opinion that judgement shall be given for the Plantiff for by the rejoynder the Defendant had shewed that he had forfeited the bond though that be another matter then is in the replication and so he shall have judgement super totam materiam according to the judgement in Francis Case Coo. 8. for their the declaration stood good though the Plantiff had not cause of action in the same manner yet because it appeared he had cause of action he shall have judgement Weaver against Best VVEaver against Best in debt for 48. s. in the debet and detinet and for 2. shirts in the detinet only and he declared that the Defendant such a year retained the Plantiff to be his servant in husbandry giving him 48. s. and a shirt by the year and he shewed that he retained him for the next year and he averred that he served him and they were at issue upon nihil debet and the Plantiff had a verdict for him and it was now moved in arrest of judgement by Serjeant Brigman because he had not shewed that his retainer was according to the Statute of the 5th of Eliz. which Statute limitteth the form of there retainer and their wages and other things and he had not shewed the place where service was and also he had joyned two debts in one action one in the debet and detinet the other in the detinet only and Winch Iustice said that the Statute of the 5. Eliz. extends to such as are retained in husbandry and therefore other retainers are left as they were before the Statute at the Common law and this shall be intended to be a retainer according to the Statute if the contrary be not shewed by the other partie for his retainer was for a year and therefore it shall be intended that the wages was appointed by the Iustices and it was also said by the Court that if the justices of the peace in this kinde do neglect to set down the wages yet a servant may bring an Action upon his own contract also it was said that he needs not to shew the place where he served for if he did no service yet if he did not depart it is very good and for the other matter it was clear that he may bring his Action so by several precipes in one writ Thornes case IT was agreed clearly between Thorn and C. that where an obligation is made and the obligor and the obligee conferred about it and the obligor said to the obligee that he had forged this this is actionable for here it refers to a certainty but if he had said to the other thus he was a forger and had forged falsâ— writings no action will lie for the words are to general in that case also it was agreed clearly by the Court the Sheriff may not arrest a man upon a Capias after the time of the return of the writ Grasier against Wheeler Grasier as Executor brought an action of Covenant against Wheeler upon a lease made by the Testator rendring rent and this was made by I. S. and the Defendant covenanted that the lessee should pay the rent and the Plantiff assigned the breach in non-payment of 30. l. to the Testator such a day when it was due and for 10. l. due in his own time and the attorney of the Defendants as to the 10. l. pleaded non sum informatus and as to the other he pleaded that the Defendant paid to the Testator 7. l. in money and a horse in full satisfaction of all the said 30. l and that the Testator accepted that in full satisfaction and the Plantiff said that this was paid to the Testator for another debt absque hoc that he received that in satisfaction of the 30. l. and now Devenport argued that the issue was misjoyned for the issue ought to have been taken upon the payment and not upon the acceptance and he cited Pinnels case Coo. 5. where the payment in full satisfaction ought to be pleaded precisely and he said that he agreed to the case of Nichols Coo. 5. where the issue was joyned upon payment upon a single Bill and found that this was not paid and the Plantiff had judgement but if the issue had been found for the Defendant that had not been aided by the Statute for though it had been paid yet that was no bar Bridgman contrary and he said the difference is where the issue is joyned upon a matter alledged by the adverse partie and they are at issue upon a point which is not material that is aided by the Statute of the 18. Eliz. and where no issue at all is joyned there is not any help Winch Iustice said that this is an issue which will make an end of the matter And at another day this Tearm Serjeant Harvey moved the case again in arrest of judgement because the issue is joyned upon the acceptance which is not material and he cited Fowkes case depending in this Court debt upon an obligation and the Defendant pleaded the acceptance of another obligation in satisfaction which in verity is no bar and issue was taken upon that and it was doubted whether this being insufficient be aided by the Statute or not Bridgman Serjeant said to the contrary and he said as before that because the issue is taken upon the allegation of the Defendant if it is not good yet it is aided by the Statute of 32. H. 8. and Hutton said this is a full issue and as to the traverse said it is a material issue for he pleaded that he accepted them for another thing absque hoc that he accepted them in satisfaction of the 30. l. which is the most proper issue for he said it is clear that he may say that he accepted them for part c. and good and so here The Countess of Barkshire and Sir Peter Vanlore in Dower IT was agreed clearly in Dower between the Countess of Barkshire and Sir Peter Vanlore that if the Tenant plead never seised to have Dower and in verity the husband of the demandant had an estate but that was by disseisin which is avouched by the entrie of the deseissee who had a title paramont this is no title by which she may have Dower though they are at issue upon this plea and also it was agreed that if a man had a good estate by bargain and sale from him who had right to alien that and yet after he accepts a fine upon conusance of right as that c. from the other partie though in this case this be a conclusion to the parties between whom the fine was to denie that the land was of the gift of the Conusor and so that he was seised yet it is not any conclusion to the jurors to finde the verity of the matter in fact and that he had nothing of the gift of the Conusor also it was agreed in that case if a man held lands in
reversion for life of the Grandfather is no dispensation to the estate of the lessee for though the action was suspended during his life yet now it is on foot again and in many cases an estate may be dispunishable of waste and yet by matter ex post facto this shall be punishable viz. where the first privitie of the estate was determined as in case a lease for years be without impeachment of waste and then the lessor releases to the lessee c. the first privity is gone and he is now punishable in an action of waste and here in our case there was no absolute dispensation but only for the time and yet perchance though the estate is subject to waste in the creation yet if the lessor will afterwards by his deed grant that this shall be dispunishable this may priviledge him but here is no such matter in the case at the bar and of this opinion was the Court and Winch said that there was no difference where the Franke tenement is intercedent for if this be not punishable yet the particular estate shall not participate of that priviledge of him in the remainder and Iones Iustice said if the particular estate had been extracted and drawn out of that estate for life in that case that had been dispunishable but it was agreed by Hendon Serjeant that the Plantiff in his declaration had declared of a waste after the estate for life was determined and they found that this was made in the time of him in reversion for life and so differed but the Court was of opinion that this was nothing to the purpose for it is only a variance from the time and not from the matter for it is not material whether this was before his death or after his death because in both cases this is punishable but day was given over to shew other causes Portington and Beamount IT was argued clearly in the case between Portington and Beamount that if the Court of the Councel of York which is a Court of equitie do decree against a maxime in law as against a joynt Tenant who had that by Survivorship that the heir of his companion shall have the Moietie that in this case a prohibition shall be granted except that during the lives of the parties it was agreed that there shall not be any Survivorship and then they hold plea upon that equitie and then good In Dower it was agreed clearly that if the Tenant shew that before the husband any thing had in the land A. was seised of the same land in fee and leâ— that for years rendring rent and granted the reversion to the husband of the Plantiff who died seised of the said reversion and so demanded judgement if the demandant shall have Dower c. this is no plea in bar of Dower but proves she had title of Dower but this saves the lease for years and she shall have judgement only of the reversion and of the rent and also she doth save to the Tenant damages and the demandant shall be indowed of the reversion Summers against Dugs SUmmers brought an action upon the case upon a promise against Dugs and he shewed in his declaration that the Defendant was rector of the Rectorie of D. and that he and all his predecessors had used to have all manner of Tithes and said that he the Plantiff occupied 100. acres of land in the same parish and shewed that the Defendant promised to the Plantiff that in consideration that he would plant his lands with Hops and so make the Tithes to be the better the Defendant promised to the Plantiff to allow him towards every acre which he shall so plant 40. s. towards the charge in planting them and he shewed that he planted an acre at the request of the Defendant and so upon the promise brought the action and now it was moved whether this was a good consideration to ground an action because the Tithes are not bettered by the planting of that with Hops but by the growing of them and the increase of them and he had not averred that the Tithes were of better value then they were before and it was also moved that he may not have an action for the Rood c. but this afterwards was referred to Arbitrement but the Court said if the Plantiff had shewed in his declaration that he might have made more benefit of that by other means then that by the planting of it with Hops the Tithes also being bettered then it had been more cleare Philip Holman against Tuke PHillip Holman was executor of George Holman and he brought an action of debt against George Tuke and declared upon a lease made by himself by the name of Philip Holman executor of the Testament of George Holman deceased of such land and the said land was delivered to him in execution of a Statute by extent which Statute was made to this Testator and this lease was for years if the Plantiff should so long continue seised by force of the Statute and it was rendring 100. l. per annum and for 3. years rent behinde he brought his action in the debet and in the detinet and also in the declaration he averred that he did continue seised so long by vertue of the extent and Serjeant Bing demurred in law because he said the action ought to be brought in the detinet only because he had brought the action as executor but Hendon and the Court c. Iones and Hutton to the contrary because the lease was made by himself and Hutton said in the case there is difference between a personal contract and real and it was said that an executor shall never be forced to bring his action in the detinet only where he need not name himself to be an executor which note well It was agreed in a case by Hobert that where a man brought an action de parco facto and declared upon the breach of a pound and also of the taking out of beasts and the Defendant as to the taking out of the beasts pleaded not guilty and as to the breaking of the pound he said that he was Lord of the Soil upon which the pound stood and thaâ— he brake of the Lock and put a lock of his own and Hobert said in this case that he ought to plead the general issue for in verity this is not any broach of the pound except the beast come out of it and Iones Iustice was of an opinion that if he put out the beasts he may not have this action because the freehold was in him but he ought to have a special action upon the case Entred in Easter Term in the 19th year of King James Rot. 1672. Ellen Goldingham against Sir John Saunds ELlen Goldingham brought an action of Dower against Sir Iohn Saunds to be indowed of the third part of the Mannor of Goldingham and he vouched the son to warranty as son and heir to Christopher Goldingham husband of
then she granted the next avoydance that in this case the grantee shall have the next which may be granted and the reason is because she may not dispose of the estate of another but if in this case the course be evict by title Paramount of the King then the grantee had lost that and he cited the case of Brook presentation 52. and Gilbie and Iuxtons case which was directly adjudged with the case of Brook in which he was in councel as he said and he said that the book of 15. H. 7. is not to be relied upon for Law and he cited quare Impedit 154. and said that the King in this case shall not have the presentation against the devisee for he had a title setled before the title of the King for though the prerogative of the King is more antient yet his title is subsequent and he cited divers cases where the title of the subject was before the title of the Kâ—ng and so the case of the 15. H. 7. was adjudged that he may not out the grantee of the next avoydance and I think there is much difference between a patron of inheritance and he who had only a turn to present for there if the prerogative shall hold place he had lost all the fruite of his title and he said our antient books are that the King shall not have any prerogative except he himself be patron but admit he had then he had dispenced with that for the Commendam may not be for years and the Commendam did not make any alteration but only a dispensation and the case in Dyer shews that he remained parson to resign and shews plainly that the King had lost it true it is there are some few precedents of these Commendams but there are none in our books and for the assumption of the Bishoprick it is all one with England for the 17. Ed. the third the Bishopricks are donatives and Fitz N. B. 169. 14. Ed. 3. 26. Plowden 44. and the books are the Common Law that we have and he shewed some precedents of these Commendams to the Court and shewed the case of the Earl of Kildare where the incumbent had a Church with cure in England and an other in Ireland and void for the Pluralitie and 16. Eliz. Thorn-Borrow Parsonage was void when the incumbent was made Bishop of Ireland and Bancrofts case who was Deau in Ireland and then was made Bishop of London and it waâ— holden his Deanry was void and 4. Iac. Dod was made Bishop of N. and the Chancellor here in the right of the King presented to the living and if a beneficed man do take a Bishoprick by the very taking of that his benefice is void by the consecration clearly by the Lawes of the land for they are two incompatible benefices and may not by any means stand together and so upon the whole matter in regard that by the assumption of the Bishoprick the benefice was void by the very consecration and if the King had any title this was satisfied by his Licence and dispensation to hold that in Commendam and so he held the Plantiff shall be barred The argument of the Lord chief Justice Hobert HObert chief Iustice of the same opinion and after a Brief Recital of the case said that his opinion was that the Plantiff shall be barred upon the most of his case S. admitting that Clardon did live above the 6. years so that the King did present Gee in point of prerogative yet the Plantiff had not title upon the most of his matter much less upon the viciousness of his pleading and first we are to deal with the avoidance of benefices with their compatibles and then with the Commendams of the King and first I hold if a beneficed man take a Bishoprick he hath clearly lost his benefice by his consecration by the lawes of the Land for they are two incompatible benefices and they mâ—y not stand together but in this we must distinguish in this manner first a benefice may be void by subordination as where one is made Bishop of the same Diocess in which his Parsonage is this is the very reason of Dyer 158. and 8. Ed. 3. 9. where a Prebend of the same Church is made a Dean but otherwise if he be made Dean of another Church and so my opinion is if a Bishop be made an Arch-Bishop of the same province where his Bishoprick is nay if there is Parson and Vicar of the same Parish with cure and the Vicar accept the Parsonage the Vicaridge is void for the Vicaridge was derived out of the Parsonage our books say it was a long time before they would give the Vicar any estate and the reason was because here was a Corporation erected without Lawful Authoritie chiefly by the ordinary with the consent of the Patron and this case hath not his fellow in the Law and it is de novo that it is made for ab nitio non suit sic and that also had inabled him to bring an action against the Parson and also it gave to him a freehold but the chief reason was he eased the Parson in his dutie and therefore good reason he should have part in the profit but in our case the reason of the subordination doth fail for he is Bishop of another Diocess S. in Ireland and therefore we ought to search for another reason and without doubt the Law is all one in that also and this is ratione eminentiae by reason of the dignitie of a Bishop and so is Packhursts case in Dyer ruled without any exception and the case of the 44. Ed. 3. where one who had been prebend in England was made Bishop in Ireland and ruled the prebendary to be void and because the office of a Bishop and a Parson do differ in the eminencie therefore a Bishop may not be a Parson and now for the other point whether the King had a prerogative or no I spare to speak because there is no necessitie to draw that into question for the Plantiff had admitted that and the Defendant had not denied it but for the Commendam I do not make question but the King may make one and so may the Arch Bishop but the power of the Arch-Bishop is potestas limitata but the King had a double power one by antitient title before any claim made by the Pope and the other by the Statute but now for the other point I think it is a Commendam for years and first I hold if the case had been that he should hold that in Commendam with his Bishoprick in pristino Statu that had taken away the power of the King to present afterwards and the reason is plain for the prerogative is to present to that which is void by the assumption of the Bishoprick which doth never hap for by the Commendam he had that still as before but here the Commendam is for years and if he do also resign during the
of 3. acres and he accepts a rent of two of them which render of them all this is void for one acre and lastly by a feofment of land by warranty a rent is discharged 21. H. 7. and here I conceive that the replication to the bar of the avowrie is not good for his plea is that the rent in this case is not comprised and that is a point in law whether it is comprised or no for if we do take issue upon that we shall draw the trial here from the Court to the jury in the Countie which is not good and so upon all the matter I pray judgement for the Plantiff in the replication The argument of Davenport Serjeant DAvenport Serjeant to the contrary and he said the case is as hath been recited and the question is whether the rent so granted in tail is by this agreement of the parties and by the fine of the land whether it hath extinguished the rent and I hold this conveyance which only passeth the rent by implication is no bar to the issue in tail within the Statute of fines for where it is said that a fine was levied of the rent by the name of the land and made no mention of the rent this will not carry the rent and yet I agree this fine to be a feofment upon record and to be a bar against the parties who levied that but not against the issue if this had been before the Statute of fines it is no question this had been no bar against the issue for it is the express book 13. Ed. 3. avowrie 12. and 26. H. 7. 4. Tenant in tail of a rent made a feofment in fee of the rent with warrantie and there it is said that the warrantie did not extend to issue quoad the rent but now our case is upon the Statute of 32. H. 8. which saith that a fine shall be a bar of my lands Tenements and hereditaments any way intailed but yet I conceive that this requires that the fine be levied expresly of that and not by way of conveyance and so the case of Smith and Stapleton by Thornton who said that this was granted to him to be law which must needs be meant it was granted by the Court or by the Councel of the other side and the reason of that is because it ought to be levied of that expresly and there it is said if Tenant intail of an advowson do levie a fine of the nomination that shall not bar the issue and yet in effect that is the advowson and because it is not levied of that expresly it is not good and then for the precedent agreement that is indeed that the fine shall be for the extinguishment of the rent and what then will that prove that the fine was levied of the rent and here the writ of Covenant was not brought of the rent and yet I agree that agreements which do lead uses of fines will qualifie them against the very nature of the fine as the case of the Lord Cromwel and Puttenham in Dyer but I do not hold the agreement will extend over the nature of the fine and therefore this being a rent in gross it may pass by the name of land and the averment here is contrary to that which doth appear upon the Record and then not comprised is a good plea but this shall not be tried by the Countrie but by the Record as 12. H. 7. 16. for it is only to inform the Court that the partie had mistaken the Law and shall be tried by the Court and not by a jury in the Countrie as Attoe said and so upon the whole matter of the case I conclude my argument and pray judgement for the Avowant see after Hill 22. Iac. The residue of Michaelmas Term in the two and twentieth year of King James Ralph Holt and Rand against Robert Holt. RAlph Holt and Rand were joyntly and severally bound in an Obligation to Robert Holt and he took out Proces against them by several Praecipes and he had two several judgements and took out two several Executions against them of one Test S. a fieri facias against Rand and a Capias ad satisfaciendum against Holt and the question was whether the writs were well awarded and whether when one is Executed the other is discharged and Serjeant Crew urged 15. H. 7. 15. if after a Capias executed Sir Gilbert Dabenhams case he may not have a scire facias against the same partie and he cited a case to be adjudged in the 13. year of King James between Crawley and one Lidcat where two joynt obligors and the obligee did sue them and had two several judgements against them and he took an elegit against one and a Capias against the other and he who was taken upon the Capias brought his audita querela by which he was discharged of the execution for in so much that he had taken an elegit against one he is concluded to take any Process against the other as well as against him who had the elegit sued against him and so is Cook 1. 31. and yet some books are if the fieri facias is served for part he may have a Capias for the residue and so is the 18. Ed. 4. and â—0 Ed 4. 3. but here the fieri facias was executed for all and for that no Capias ad satisfaciendum shall issue in this case but Waller one of the Prothonotaries câ—â—ed a case in this manner that if a noble man and another be bound in an obligation as before and the obligee had such a judgement as here in this case he may have an elegit against the noble man because that the first Process against him is by summons and distress and he may have a Capias against the other or a fieri facias but Hutton denied this case and said that he shall have the same execution against both for as this ought to be one satisfaction quo ad ec sati factionem so this ought to be one for the manner also and though in this case that the Capias was not well awarded and Harvey Iustice agreed to that Methol against Peck MEthol brought an action upon the case against Peck upon an assumption and he declared that in consideratâ—on that the Plantiff would pay unto one Plaford 52. l. to the use of Peck such a day c. Peck promised to redeliver his bond in which he was bound in the said summe when he should be requâ—sted to that and he said that he paid the 52. l. to the use of Peck and that the said Defendant had not delivered the said obligation licet saepius postea requisitus fuisset and upon the issue of non assumpsit it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement because he had not shewed the day and the place of the request but the Court c. Hobert Hutton and Harvey were of opinion that judgement
this rent for this is forced in by the name of land which is absurd and contrary and here is not any fine levied directly of the rent nor any Silver of the King paid for that but only by the judgement of consequence and now for the Statutes of fines whether it is a fine within these Statutes and I hold that it is not and I am of opinion that if the rent had been behinde before all the dayes of proclamation pass and the issue had accepted that he is remitted and the same law is if Tenant in taile of such a rent and he acknowledge such a fine with proclamations and the proclamations pass now if his issue had accepted the rent before the proclamations passed he is remitted and now for the Statute of 32. H. 8. that is not taken by equitie because it is a Statute of explanation which regularly may not be inlarged and so appears in Butler and Bakers case and now for the agreement it self that is not any thing for this is by a contrary name which may not be good like to the case of the Lord Cromwel for there was an agreement to raise a rent by fine but here is an agreement to pass a rent by another name and will any man say that if a man agree to levie a fine of rent by the name of an advowson that this will pass the rent and I think that the case of Thornton is good law and so is also the case which is put after that of the advowson and yet I agree if Tenant in tail do accept a fine with render to another for years that shall bar him because that doth not work a discontinuance but otherwise where it is for life and so in my opinion the rent remains and the avowant shall have judgement The argument of the Lord chief Justice Hobert HObert to the contrary the short question is whether the rent is extinct by the fine of the land and I hold that it is and it is agreed it is a bar against the parties themselves though not against the issue and that being granted I see no second reason wherefore the issue shall not be barred and first I am of opinion that this plea of not comprised it is not good because this fine doth work by way of release but it was said at the bar that things ought to pass litterally in a fine which I denie and also every informalitie of a fine which is cause to reject that is not a cause to frustrate that when that is levied and the words of the Statute are of any lands Tenements or hereditaments any wise intailed and if there be any word in the conveyance which will carry that it is sufficient and it shall be put upon the construction of the law and as to that that the fine shall be according to the writ of covenant but I say if there be no writ of covenant then there is no departure but it was said that the Silver of the King was not paid which I also denie for it was paid inclusively and the words of the Statute are of any thing any wise intailed and Tenant in taile had as great power to pass that by fine as Tenant in fee simple and for the case of Thornton I know he was a learned man but let it suffice that he was so esteemed but for his opinion I do utterly denie that and I do denie the case put by my brother Hutton of the Piscary for I hold if a man had a Piscary in another mans land and levies a fine of that by the name of land this will pass the Piscary clearly and so the same if a man have an office appertaining to land intailed and a fine is levied of that by the name of the land this shall bar the issue and I denie that Statutes of explanation shall alwayes be taken litterally for it is impossible that an Act of Parlâ—ament should provide for every inconvenience which happens and so the case of Godfrey and Wade adjudged that the fine of the youngest son may not bar the eldest and yet within the words the eldest was heir to him but this word heir shall be expounded as his heir and so we use to expound the Statute of 4. H. 7. which is an original Statute and bindes parties and privies and here the eldest brother is not privie for he claimes before him and so I conclude that the rent is gone and judgement was given accordingly Sir Robert Hitcham against Brooks SIr Robert Hitcham Serjeant of the King brought an action upon the case against Brooks and set forth in his declaration that he was one of his Majesties Serjeants at law and that the Defendant spoke these words of him I doubt not but to prove he innuendo Sir Robert Hitcham hath spoken treason and upon not guiltie pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Hendon first because it is not a direct affirmation that he spake treason but he doubts not but to prove that like to Penticosts case which was adjudged here where one Baker said of him I will prove that Penticost was perjured and no action will lie because he did not directly affirm that he was perjured Secondly because he had not shewed when he spoke those words and perchance it was in his infancie or lunacie or before the general pardons Thirdly here is not any allegation of any conference had of the King before and the speach of Treason is not Treason but when there is an intent to commit that and words shall be taken in the best sence as the case of Stanhop Cook 4. and so in the case between the Earl of Shrewsbury and Sir Thomas Stanhop one laid to Sir Thomas Stanhop that the Earl is a subject nay said Sir Thomas that is his grief and adjudged those words are not actionable and yet the words might be taken as if he had repined to have a Soveraign but the words were taken in the best sence Finch to the contrary this is more then a bare affirmation for he said he doubted not but to prove that asmuch as if he had said I am sure of that and Mich. 16. Iac. Sidnams case where one said I think in my conscience that if Sir Iohn Sidnam might have his will he would kill the King and all his good subjects and adjudged upon a writ of error brought of that the words are actionable and so in Whorewoods case so sure as you beleeve that God rules the world and that the King rules the Kingdome so sure did Whoorwood steal such goods and adjudged to be actionable and yet perchance the partie to whom he spake did not beleeve either of them and so Woods case 18. Iac. I will call him in question for killing of a man I will pawn my shirt but I will hang him and so here and prayed judgement for the Plantiff Ashley Serjeant contray words which may be taken
of Tithes and good because they are a spiritual bodie 65 In a Prohibition upon a suit for a Legacie the Executor shewed he had not assets to pay the debts and the spiritual Court would not allow that allegation yet no Prohibition 78 Prohibition to the Marches of wales because a Legatee sued there for 500. l. good before a decree but not after 78 Prohibition see Court of equitie c. 79 Prohibition to the Marches of Wales for requiring an accompt of an Administrator 103 Proces against two Obligors by several precipes and thereupon several Executions whether the writs are well awarded 112 A parco fracto where it lies against the Lord of the Soil and where not except the Cattle come out 80 81 Prohibition to the delegates a pardon not allowed of there 125 Q IN a Quare impedit adjudged that nothing ought to be questioned after induction the spiritual Court there 63 R TEnant in tail sells to I. S. in fee who sells to the heir of Tenant in tail being of full age the father dies if the son be demitted 5 A replevin c. the Defendant saith that all those c. had used to have pasturage in c. when it was not sowed the Prescription is good 7 In a return of Rescous there needeth no addition 10 Replevin for rent issuing out of six acres the avowant must prove that the grantor was seised of 6. acres or more 15 Replevin in the Plantiff claimeth propertie without that the propertie was in the Defendant the Traverse not good yet judgement for the Plantiff because after verdict 26 In Return of an extent by the Sheriff surplusage hurteth not 27 Replevin the Defendant avowed for homage and shewed not how it was due if good 31 Replication although evil where the Plantiff shall have judgement if the Defendants plea be vitious 37 A Riotous quarrel about an arrest between the Sheriffs Bailiffs and the Bailiffs of the Marches of Wales 72 Release an avowrie not good without pleading it by deed 72 A Rent-charge granted and a Covenant if it happen to be behinde then the land to be alwayes open to distress whether this be a distinct covenant or not 74 87 Replevin for rent the Defendants say that the land was parcel of a Chaunterie which came to the King by the Statute wherein the right of others was saved the Plantiff replies that the land is out of the fee of the Defendant no good plea but he might have Traversed the Tenure that at the making of the Statute the land was not holden of him 77 A Record amended where the bargain and sale and deed of uses were by the right name but the writ of entrie was of another name 99 100 Rent granted in fee by Tenant for life and him in remainder in tail levied a fine a good grant 102 Rent-charge whether it be extinct by a fine of the land to the Ter-tenant and a release unto him 109 110 111 121 122 S SCire facias the Defendant pleads a feofment the Plantiff traverses and the jury found a feofment to other uses whether this shall be intended the same feofment which was pleaded 32 Scire facias by an Executor upon a judgement for the Testator the Defendant cannot plead the Testators death between the verdict and judgement but he must bring a writ of error 48 Simonie a grant of a next avoidance for monie the Parson being readie to die is Simonie 63 A Sheriff by force of a Capias utlagatum to inquire what lands c. cannot put the partie out of possession 78 Statute-Merchant if good in regard no day of payment is limited largely and learnedly argued by the Court 82 83 c. Servant taken away See Trespas T TIthes See Prescription Trespass the Defendant saith that I. S. was seised in right of his wife and that she died seised and that he as heir c. the Plantiff replied that she died not seised he ought to have said that she died not sole seised 7 Trespass in Yorkshire Justification in Durham without that that guiltie in Yorkshire good because it is local 7 A Traverse to a presentation where good and where not 13 14 Tenure where it is Traversable and where the seisin 18 Tithes not due of Cattle for the diarie 33. Trespass for Beasts taken in London Justification upon a lease of land in Kent Replied that the Defendant sold them in London no good plea to bring the trial out of Kent 48 Trespass for taking ones servant lieth not upon a private retainer otherwise if it were at the Sessions 51 Tithe giuen by the Pope to the Vicar and the Copie of the Bull only was shewed in evidence not good 70 Tithes cannot be appurtenant to a Grange except the Grange be the Gleab 72 73 Traverse where good and where not 113 U VEnire facias omitting part of the venue if good 34 Variance between the writ and Declaration where good 35 A feofment to the use of A. for life and after to the use of his daughter till B. pay her 100. l. here the daughter hath no remedie for this 100. l. without a promise 71 A Ventre inspiciendo awarded and returned but the Court would not agree that she should be detained from her second husband but attended by divers women till her deliverie 71 Variance between the venire facias and the Sheriffs return no judgement in that case 73 W IN Waste judgement by nihil dicit and upon an inquirie the jury found 8. s. damages what judgement shall be given 5 Wager of Law upon a Bill of Exchange 24 Writs a difference wherein there is an error in the original and where in the judicial writ that is amendable 73 Waste although for a time it is punishable yet after the action may revive 79 86 Writ against husband and wife as an Inheritrix the husband dies if the writ abate 102 Errata PAge 1. line 2. 27. for do read Doa p. 2. l. 4. r. lieu p. 4. l. 2. 22. r. 300. pa. 8. l. 36. r. Hendon and so throughout p. 12. in the Title r. Duncombe against the Vniversitie of Oxford p. 12. l. 14. r. 38. H. 8. cap. 39. p. 14. in the Title r. Sir George Savile against Thornton p. 15. l. 21. r. communication p. 16. l. 12. r. 7. Jac. cap. 5. p. 17. l. 47. r. Maines and l. 17. r. sic and also p. 17. 18. in the Margent r. Trin. p. 21 l. 51. r. 39. Eliz. p. 23. l. 9. r. till p. 26 l. 28 for writ r. Action and for Action r. writ p. 27. l. 12. for he r. they p. 28. l. 34. r. may not p. 29. in the Margent r. Easter p. 29. l. 33. for S. r. N. p. 33. l. ultim r. Moore p. 36. l. 43. r. Titterels p. 45. l. 20. r. demandable p. 50. l. 35. r. Bar p. 51. l. 22. r. a penalty p. 53. l. 16. r. may not p. 54. l. 44. r. Estate p. 57. l. 19. r. in our case p. 58. l 50 r. 16. E. 4. p. 68. l. 5. r. estray p. 71. l. 26. r. 12. Note in p. 72. l. 7. Wolseys case ought to have been printed by it self p. 77. l. 4. r. avoided p. 88. l. 4. r. Finch p. 90. l. 15. r. continuance p. 100. l. 21. for preservation r. perswasion and l. 34. for entire r. entrie p. 109. in the Margent for Trin. r. Mich. p. 112. l. 25. r. thought p. 114. l. 18. for interested r. interest