the Wife they both had their existence at one and the same time and it appear'd they were made to distinct purposes but here no body can tell what was designed or intended by the Testator in this subsequent Will And therefore it hath been held Cro. Car. 51. Eyres Case Godolph 443. Perkins 92. b. that where a Man devised Legacies to his two Brothers and afterwards in his sickness was asked to leave Legacies to his said Brothers he replied he would leave them nothing but devised a small Legacy to his Godson and died This Discourse was set down in a Cocidil which together with the Will was proved in common form This Codicil was not a revocation of the Legacies given to the Brothers because the Testator took no notice of the Will which he had made in the time of his Health and non constat what he intended by these words which were set down in the Codicil If therefore doubtful words shall not make a revocation of a former Will a fortiori a subsequent Will especially when the contents of such Will doe not appear shall not revoke a former It was argued for the Defendant E contra And The only Objection is That a latter Will being made and it not appearing to the Iury what was contained in that Will it can be no revocation because no express words of revocation can be found or any thing which is contradictory to the first Will and without the one or the other a former Will cannot be revoked But this is contrary to all the Authorities in the Books Linwood 175. Swinb 7 part Sect. 14. 2 H. 5.8 pl. 3. Offiice of Ex. 443. which shew that a Testament which is good in the beginning may become void by making of a subsequent Will by words of revocation or by words contradicting each other for in such cases 't is not doubted but the first Will is revoked But the meaning must be that by the very making of a latter Will the first is become void This may be collected from the nature of a Will which a Man hath power to alter in part or in all at any time during his Life but when he makes a new Will it must be presumed that he declared his whole mind in it for if his Intentions are to alter any part the Law hath appointed a proper Instrument for that purpose which is a Codicil but when he maketh aliud Testamentutum 't is a sign that he intended nothing of his former Will should take any effect when he had so easie a method to alter it in part Every subsequent act of the Testator shews that he intends a revocation either by word or deed and there is great reason why it should be so because every revocation of a Will is in the nature of restitution to the Heir It cannot be denied but that a Will may be revoked by words without writing before the making of the Statute against Frauds 1 Rol. Abr. 614. Dyer 310. b. c. As if a Man should say that he would alter his Will when he came to such a place and he should dye before he came thither this is a revocation But it never was yet controverted but a revocation may be by Deed as if a Man devise Lands to another 1 Rol. Abr. 614. and afterwards makes a Feoffment to the use of his Will this was always held a revocation So it is if Lands which are well given by a Will are afterwards by another Will devised to the Poor of the Parish 1 Rol. Abr. 614. pl. 4. tho' this last Will is void because the Devisees have not a capacity to take yet 't is a revocation of the first Will and shall a Will which is lost be of less authority than such which is void 'T is not denied but that there may be a subsequent Will which may not contradict the first so is Coward 's Case where both Wills did appear to be consistent but that is not parallel with this because the Iury hath found that the Testator made aliud Testamentum which word aliud imports a distinct Will from the former 'T is agreed also that a Man may make many Wills and that they may stand together and it must also be agreed that such are but partial Wills because they are but pieces of the whole tho' written in several papers but when 't is found in general that aliud Testamentum was made it must naturally be intended of his whole Estate The Case in the Year Book of Richard III. is an Authority in point where in Trespass the Defendant justified the taking of the Goods by vertue of a Will by which they were devised to him and of which Will he was made Executor The Plaintiff replied that the Testator made another Will and thereby did constitute him Executor and this was held a good Replication without a Traverse that the Defendant was Executor because by the making of the second Will the other was void in Law and therefore the shewing that he was Executor was not to avoid the first Will which the Law doth adjudge to be of no force but to make to himself a Title to the Goods taken out of his possession If a Man should make twenty Codicils without dates they may all stand together but if he make two Wills without dates they are both void the reason is because by the making of the later Will the first is destroyed and it being incertain which is the last rather than the Rules of Revocation should be broken they adjudge both to be void It cannot be reasonably objected that this later Will may devise the same Lands to the same person for why should a Man be thought so vain Besides if it was so the Plaintiff should have claimed under that Will But this cannot be the same Will because 't is contrary to the Verdict which hath not found it to be idem but aliud Testamentum besides 't is in the Case of an Heir who shall not be disinherited by an intendment that the later Will is the same with the first Neither can the Statute of Wills have any influence upon this Matter 32 H. 8. c. 1. 34 H. 8. c. 5. 'T is true at the Common Law no Land could be devised by a Will but now by the Statutes of H. 8. Lands c. in Socage may be devised by Will and if held in Knights Service then only two parts in three Godolph 299. but it must be by the last Will. Now how can any Man say that this shall be a Devise of the Lands by the last Will of the Testator when the Iury find he made aliud Testamentum the Contents whereof are not necessary to be shewed because the Defendant claims as Heir and not as Executor It must not be intended that this Will shall confirm or stand with the other because the Law is otherwise and therefore if the Plaintiff would have supported his Will by
Dorothy Margery survived and is since dead The Question was whether upon this Reservation the Beast of any person being upon the Land may be distreined for an Heriot Mr. Pollexfen argued that it could not because the words in the Reservation ought to be taken very strictly and not to be carryed farther than the plain expression Where words are doubtful they have been always expounded against the Lessor Cro. Eliz. 217. 2 Roll. Abr. 448. Latch 99. as if a Lease be made for years reserving a Rent durante termino to the Lessor his Executors or Assigns the Lessor dies his Heir shall not have the Rent because 't is reserved to the Executors But here is no room for any doubt upon these words for if a Lease for years be made in which there is a Covenant that the Lessee shall pay the Rent without any other words this determines upon the death of the Lessee So where a Lease was made for 99 years if A. B. C. 2 Rol. Abr. 451. Hetley 58. Cro. Car. 314. or any of them should so long live reserving Rent to him and his Executors and also at or upon the death of either his or their best Beast in the name of an Heriot provided that if B. or C. die living A. no Heriot shall be paid after their deaths A. assigns his Term and the Beast of the Assignee was taken for an Heriot but adjudged that it could not for the words his or their shall not be carried farther than to the persons named in the Limitation The Books that affirm that a Man may seize for an Heriot Service cannot be brought as Authorities in this Case because they are all upon Tenures between Lord and Tenant and not upon particular Reservations as this is The old Books say that if a Tenant by Fealty and Heriot-Service Broke tit Heriot 2. made his Executor and died that the Lord might seize the best Beast of his Tenant in the Hands of the Executor and if he could not find any Beast then he might distrain the Executor Plo. Com. 95. and the reason of this seizure was because immediately upon the death of the Tenant a Property was vested in the Lord but it was held always unreasonable to put him to distrain when he might seise And it is now held that for heriot-Heriot-Service the Lord may either distrain or seise but then if he makes a seisure Cro. Car. 260. Jones 300. it must be the very Beast of the Tenant but if he distrain he may take any persons Cattle upon the Land So that admitting this to be Law yet it proves nothing to this matter because such Services being by Tenure shall not be extended to those which are created within time of memory upon particular reservations for by those ancient Tenures the Lords had many Priviledges which cannot be upon Reservations Besides the seisures in those Cases were by the Lords who continued so to be at the very time of the seisure but in our Case the Lease is determined by the death of the last Life so the Priviledge is lost and then it must stand upon the particular words in the Deed. Sed adjornatur into the Exchequer Chamber the Iudges being divided in Opinion Vid. 2 Sand. 165. Shipley versus Chappel Pasch 3 Jac. Rot. 404. THE Plaintiff Shipley as Administrator of Hannah his Wife Condition of two parts in the disjunctive and one part becomes impossible to be done yet the other must be performed according to the subsequent matter brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Chappel an Attorny for 140 l. The Defendant craved Dyer of the Condition which was Viz. Whereas Hannah Goddard who was Wife to the Plaintiff and Thomas Chappel of Greys-Inn in the County of Middlesex are Coparceners according to the Common-Law of one House with the Appurtenances in Sheffeild in the possession of William White and whereas the said Hannah Goddard hath paid unto Thomas Chappel the Father for the use of his Son the Sum of 72 l. in consideration that the said Thomas Chappel the Son when he attains the Age of 21 years which will be about Midsomer next do by good Conveyance in the Law at the costs and charges of the said Hannah Goddard convey his said moiety of the said House with the Appurtenances unto her and her Heirs Now the Condition of this Obligation is such That if the said Thomas Chappel the Son shall at the Age of 21 years convey his said moiety of the said House or otherwise if the said Thomas Chappel the Father his Heirs Executors or Administrators shall pay or cause to be paid the sum of 72 l. with lawful Interest for the same unto the said Hannah Goddard her Executors Administrators or Assigns that then this Obligation to be void Then he pleaded that his Son Thomas Chappel was Coparcener with Hannah Goddard as Co-heires of Elizabeth Goddard that Thomas came of Age and that before that time Hannah died without Issue The Plaintiff replied that true it is that before Thomas Chappel the Son came of Age the said Hannah died without Issue of her Body that Elizabeth Goddard before the making of the said Bond died seised in Fee of the said Messuage but that she first married with one Malm Stacy by whom she had Issue Lydia that Malm her Husband died and Elizabeth married John Goddard by whom he had Issue Hannah their only Daughter and Heir that John Goddard died and that Lydia Stacy married the Defendant Thomas Chappel by whom he had Issue Thomas Chappel his Son that Lydia died in the life-time of Elizabeth that Thomas Chappel hath not paid the 72 l. to Hannah in her life time or to John Shipley after her death The Defendant demurred and the Plaintiff joyned in Demurrer The Question was since the word Heirs in the Condition being a word of Limitation and not of any designation of the person whether the death of Hannah Goddard before Chappel the Son came of Age and who was to make the Conveyance shall excuse the Defendant from the payment of the Mony Those who argued for the Defendant 5 Co. 21. b. chiefly relied upon Laughter's Case which was viz. Laughter and Rainsford were bound that if R. after marriage with G. together with the said G. shall sell a Messuage c. if then R. do or shall in his life-time purchase for the said G. and her Heirs and Assigns Lands of as good value as the Mony by him received by the said Sale or leave her as much Mony at his decease then c. G. died R. did not purchase Lands of an equal value with that he sold and upon Demurrer it was held that where a Condition consisteth of two parts in the disjunctive and both possible at the time of the Bond made and afterwards one is become impossible by the act of God there the Obligor is not bound to perform the other part because the Condition is made for
remain amongst us 't is a Custom contrary to the positive Laws of God and which inverts the very order of Nature it was introduced amongst us in a barbarous Age and by a very wicked and adulterous practice after this manner viz. The Lords of certain Lands which were held of them in Villenage did usually lye with their Tenants Wives the first Night after Marriage this Usage was continued after those very Lands were purchased by Freemen who in time obtained this Custom on purpose that their eldest Sons who might be their Lord's Bastards should be incapable to inherit their Estates I could never yet find any tolerable reason for the support or continuance of this Custom but the Reason of it which was given by a learned Lawyer is because the youngest is least able to defend himself certainly he could never mean Ability of Body because 't is frequently seen that the youngest Son is the Champion of the Family and if he intended Ability in Estate I would fain know what the elder Brother hath to defend himself when by this unnatural Custom the youngest is entitled to the whole I am not setting up for a Reformer of the Law or the Abuses of it 't is not a work for a single person but rather for a Committee of able and skilful Men of that Profession appointed by the Government Neither will I object against the Practice of it as heretofore in the year 1654. it hath been done viz. That great part consists in known and apparent Untruths That a Common Recovery ought not to be suffered in a Christian Nation because 't is Fictio Juris which is an abuse of the Law That when 't is suffered at the Bar by the Tenant and Demandant there is scarce a true word in all the Colloquium amongst the Serjeants and that therefore an Estate Tail may more righteously be discontinued by a Feoffment with Livery than by the Statute de Donis This was the Language of those times They found fault likewise with that wicked Process of Latitat that it was framed upon a supposed Falshood by suggesting of a Bill of Middlesex sued out which is never actually done and that the Defendant could not be taken there because he is sculking about in another County which is seldom or never true and presently afterwards he is in Custodia Marescalli which is as false as the rest and that John Doe and Richard Roe are Pledges de Prosequendo when there are no such Men in Nature these things and many more I could name of the like Nature I esteem as trivial Matters for no Injury is done to any Body by such Formalities But when there is danger of Corruption in that which was originally intended for the great preservative of our Liberties I mean in Trials by ordinary Juries it may be worth a great deal of Pains and Study to propose some effectual means to prevent it which is the chief end of this Preface that you may at some time employ your Thoughts in so useful a piece of Service to your Country I shall only give you a short History of such Trials which is as followeth viz. There are Opinions that such Trials were had in this Nation by a Jury of Twelve Men long before the time of the English Saxons though the Writers in those Ages give no account of this Matter This is collected from that great esteem the Chaldeans had for the number 12. because of so many Signs in the Zodiack those People applying themselves chiefly to the Study of Astrology That from them this Number came to the Aegyptians and so to Greece where Mars himself was tryed for a Murder by a Jury of that Number and acquitted by an equality of Votes which is the first Trial mentioned in History by a Jury of Twelve That the Greeks frequenting this Island to export our Tin became acquainted with the Natives and in process of time cohabited with them who being a more polite People did introduce this way of Trials here and 't is very probable that some of our Customs came from them because some of our Law-Terms as Chirographer Protonotary and many more are derived from their Language After the Conquest of Greece by the Romans new Laws were instituted by them to govern this Nation which was then a Province to the Conquerors and though such Trials were then disused yet they had that Number in several subordinate forms of their Administration Afterwards when that great Empire declined when the Britains were forsaken by them and left to the Depredations of the Pagan Saxons then were other Trials introduced by that barbarous People which was by Battle in doubtful cases and when that could not be joyned then Purgations by Ordeal were allowed Trials very agreeable to the uncultivated Temper of those People Thus it continued till about two hundred years before the Norman Conquest and then Ethelbert an English Saxon King received Christianity and by his Example the Dispositions of the People were qualified into a more civil and peaceable deportment then were those Trials for the most part laid aside and that good King being at Wantage now a Market-Town in Berk-shire did there by the Advice of his Council ordain that Trials should be had by Juries consisting of twelve Men which Law doth still continue But notwithstanding such were then and are still the best and most effectual Methods to discover the Truth yet Ordeals were used here for above one hundred and fifty years after the Conquest and then about the beginning of the Reign of H. 3. were abolished by Act of Parliament But Combates continued here till 6 Car. 1. so difficult are the English to part with any ancient Usage of their Ancestors though in no wise suitable to them who live in a more polite and learned Age. Juries being thus confined to the Number 12. it was afterwards enacted by the Statute of 2. H. 5. That all Jurors returned for Trials of Issues c. should have 40 s. per annum This Law continued for the space of an hundred and ninety years or thereabouts and then the Wisdom of the Nation considering that to be a very mean Estate for the support of a Jury-Man a farther Provision was made by a Statute Anno 27 Eliz. That such Jurors should have 4 l. per Annum And thus the Law stood for above an hundred years in all which time this Kingdom hath been growing in Riches its Trade is now extended to most parts of the World and as that hath been enlarged so the Price of our Lands the Value of our Rents of our natural Commodities and of all our Manufactures have wonderfully encreased so that a Man of 4 l. per Annum is now in so mean a condition of life that he is no longer to be entrusted with the Trial of an ordinary Cause and therefore by the Statute of 4 5 Willielmi Mariae such Jurors are to have 10 l. per Annum Now upon a moderate
Trust as in the Case of Wardship formerly which always went to the Executor of the Grantee and which was of greater consideration in the Law than the feeding or clothing of an Ideot and of that Opinion was the Court that the King had a good Title to dispose of both the Ward and the Ideot one till he was of Age and the other during his Ideocy Iudgment for the Defendant DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 36 Car. II. in Banco Regis 1684. Reeves versus Winnington THE Testator was a Citizen and a Freeman of London A Devise of all his Estate passed a Fee and being seised in Fee of a Mesuage c. and likewise possessed of a considerable personal Estate made his Will in which there was this Clause viz. I hear that John Reeves is enquiring after my Death but I am resolved to give him nothing but what his Father hath given him by Will I give all my Estate to my Wife c. The Question was Whether by these words the Devisee had an Estate for Life or in Fee in the Mesuage It was argued that she had only an Estate for life because the Words All my Estate cannot be construed to pass a Fee for it doth not appear what Estate was intended and Words in a Will which go to disinherit an Heir must be plain and apparent A Devise was in these Words viz. Sid. 191. Bowman versus Milbank I give all to my Mother all to my Mother and it was adjudged that a Fee did not pass which is as strong a Case as this for by the word All it must be intended All that was in his power to give which is as comprehensive as if he had said All my Estate 'T is true Kerman and Johnson Stiles 281. 1 Rol. Abr. 834. Cro. Car. 447. it hath been adjudged that where a Man devised his whole Estate to his Wife paying his Debts and Legacies that the word Estate there passed a Fee because it was for the benefit of the Creditors there being not personal Assets sufficient to pay all the Debts But that is not found in this Case therefore the Word Estate being doubtful and which will admit of a double construction shall not be intended to pass a Fee Mr. E contra Pollexfen contra The first part of this Sentence consists in negative words and those which are subsequent explain the intention of the Testator viz. That John Reeves should take nothing by the Will The Word Estate doth comprehend the whole in which the Owner hath either an Interest or Property like a Release of all Actions which is a good discharge as well of real as personal Actions In common understanding it carries an interest in the Land and then 't is the same as if he had devised all his Fee-simple Estate In the Case of Bowman and Milbank it was adjudged that a Fee-simple did not pass by the Particle All because it was a Relative Word and had no Substantive joined with it and therefore it might have been intended All his Cattle All his Goods or All his personal Estate for which incertainty it was held void yet Iustice Twisden in that Case said that it was adjudged that if a Man promise to give half his Estate to his Daughter in Marriage that the Lands as well as the Goods are included The Testator devised all his Tenant-right Estate held of such a Manor 3 Keb. 245. Mod. Rep. 100. and this being found specially the Question was Whether any more passed than an Estate for Life because he did not mention what Estate he intended but it was held that the Devisee had a Fee-simple because the Words were as comprehensive as if he had devised all his Inheritance and by these Words a Fee-simple would pass Curia It plainly appears that the Testator intended nothing for John Reeves therefore he can take nothing by this Will and that the Devisee hath an Estate in Fee-simple for the Words All my Estate are sufficient to pass the same Rex versus Sir Thomas Armstrong Saturday June 14th THE Defendant was outlawed for High-Treason and being taken at Leyden in Holland was brought into England and being now at the Bar he desired that he might have leave of the Court to reverse the Outlawry and he tried by virtue of the Stature of Ed. 6. which Enacts 5 6 E. 6. cap. 11. That if the Party within one year after the Outlawry or Judgment thereupon shall yield himself to the Chief Justice of England and offer to traverse the Indictment upon which he was outlawed he shall be admitted to such Traverse and being acquitted shall be discharged of the Outlawry He alledged that it was not a year since he was outlawed and therefore desired the benefit of this Law But it was denied because he had not rendered himself according to the Statute but was apprehended and brought before the Chief Iustice Whereupon a Rule was made for his Execution at Tyburn which was done accordingly DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 36 Car. II. in Banco Regis 1684. Hebblethwaite versus Palmes Mich. 36 Car. II. in B. R. Rot. 448. AN Action on the Case was brought in the Common-Pleas Possession is a sufficient cause to maintain an Action against a wrong doer for diverting of a Watercourse The Declaration was That the Defendant Primo Augusti c. injuste malitiose did break down an ancient Damm upon the River Darwent by which he did divert magnam partem aquae ab antiquo solitu cursu erga molendinum ipsius quer c. ad dampnum c. The Defendant pleaded that before the said Breach made he was seised in Fee of an ancient Mill and of six Acres of Land adjoyning upon which the said Damm was erected time out of mind to turn the Water to his said Mill which Damm was always repaired and maintained by the Defendant and the Tenants of the said Land that his Mill was casually burnt and he not intending to Re-build it suffered the Damm to be broken down and converted the Timber to his own use being upon his own Soil prout ei bene licuit c. The Plaintiff replied that by the breaking of the Damm the Water was diverted from his Mill c. The Defendant rejoyned and justified his Plea and Traversed that the Mill of the Plaintiff was an ancient Mill. And upon a Demurrer to this Rejoynder Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Writ of Error now brought to reverse that Iudgment and for the Defendant in the Action it was argued 1. That the Declaration is not good because the Plaintiff had not set forth that his Mill was an ancient Mill. 2. Because he had not entituled himself to the Watercourse 3. That the Plea was good in Bar to this Action because the Defendant had sufficiently justified having a Right to the Land upon which the Damm was erected and always repaired it As to the first Point it
shall not alien or sell the Lands given to her from the Heirs Male of her Body lawfully to be begotten but to remain upon default of such Issue to W. and the Heirs Males of his Body to be begotten according to the true intent and meaning of this my Will Dorothy Hopkins had Issue Richard who had Issue Henry who had Issue a Daughter now the Defendant The Question was Whether the Son of Dorothy did take an Estate Tail by this Will to him and to the Heirs of his Body in general or an Estate in Tail Male This Case was argued in Michaelmas Term 36 Car. II. And in the same Term a year afterwards by Council on both sides Those who argued for the Plaintiff held that the Son had an Estate in Tail Male and this seems plain by the intention of the Testator that if Dorothy had Issue Daughters they should have no benefit for no provision is made for any such by the Will and therefore the Daughter of her Son can have no Estate who is more remote to the Testator This is like the Case of Conveyances Turnam vers Cooper 2 Cro. 476. Poph. 138. id 25 Ass pl. 14. wherein the Habendum explains the generality of the precedent words as if Lands be given to Husband and Wife and to their Heirs habendum to them and the Heirs of their Bodies Remainder to them and the Survivor to hold of the chief Lord with Waranty to them and their Heirs this is an Estate Tail with a Feé expectant So it is here tho' the first words in the Will extend to Heirs which is general yet in the Memorandum 't is particular to Heirs Males and the words Heirs and Issues are of the same signification in a Will The Memorandum is a confirmation of the Will Ex parte Def. and the construction which hath been made of it is not only inconsistent with the Rules of Law but contrary to the intent of the Testator and against the express words of his Will Cases upon Wills are different from those which arise upon Deeds because in Conveyances subsequent words may be explanatory of the former but in Wills the first words of the Testator do usually guide those which follow As if Land be devised for Life Dyer 171 a. 1 And. 8. id Golds 16. Moor 593. Remainder to F. and the Heirs Males of his Body and if it happen that he dye without Heirs not saying Males the Remainder over in Tail this was held not to be a general Tail but an Estate in Tail Male therefore the Daughter of F. could not inherit Now to construe this to be an Estate Tail Male doth not only alter the Estate of the Sons of Dorothy but of the Issue of W. and nothing is mentioned in this Memorandum of the Limitation over to Jones so that the whole Will is altered by it But this Memorandum cannot enlarge the Estate of Dorothy because 't is inconsistent with the intention of the Testator who gave her only an Estate for Life by the Will but if she should have an Estate Tail she might by Fine and Recovery bar it and so alien it contrary to his express words Besides there is no Estate limited to Dorothy by this Memorandum and she having an express Estate for Life devised to her by the Will it shall never be enlarged by such doubtful words which follow As where a Man had 100 Acres of Land 2 Leon. 226. Moor 593. called by a particular Name and usually occupied with a House which House he lett to S. with 40 Acres parcel of that Land and then devised the House and all the Lands called by that particular Name c. to his Wife Adjudged she should only have the House and the 40 Acres and that the Devise shall not be extended by implication to the other sixty Acres So that to make the design of this Will and Memorandum to be consistent the latter words must be construed only to illustrate the meaning of the Testator in the former Paragraph of the Will and must be taken as a farther declaration of his intention Viz. that the Heirs Males mentioned in the Memorandum is only a description of the Persons named in the Will The Law doth usually regard the intention of the Testator and will not imply any contradictions in his Bequests The Court was of Opinion that it was a plain Case Judicium for in the Limitation 't is clear that 't is a general Tail and it doth not follow that the Testator did not design any thing for his Grandaughters because no provision was made for Daughters For where an Estate is entailed upon the Heirs of a Man's Body if he hath a Son and a Daughter and the Son hath Issue a Daughter the Estate will go to her and not to the Aunt Now this Memorandum doth not come to make any alteration in the Limitation because it directs that the Estate shall go according to the true intent and meaning of the Will and is rather like a Proviso than an Habendum in a Deed. And therefore Iudgment was given accordingly for the Defendant DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 1 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1685. Hicks versus Gore ON Tuesday the 17th day of November there was a Trial at the Barr by a Somerset-Shire Iury in Ejectment The Case was thus The Plaintiff claimed the Lands by virtue of the Statute of 4 5 Ph. Mar. cap. 8. by which 't is enacted That it shall not be lawful for any person to take away any Maid or Woman Child unmarried and within the Age of sixteen years from the Parents or Guardian in Soccage and that if any Woman Child or Maiden being above the Age of twelve years and under the Age of sixteen do at any time assent or agree to such person that shall make any Contract of Matrimony contrary to the Form of the Act that then the next of Kin of such Woman Child or Maid to whom the Inheritance should descend return or come after the decease of the same Woman Child or Maid shall from the time of such Assent and Agreement have hold and enjoy all such Lands Tenements and Hereditaments as the said Woman Child or Maid had in Possession Reversion or Remainder at the time of such Assent and Agreement during the Life of such person that shall so contract Matrimony and after the decease of such person so contracting Matrimony that then the said Land c. shall descend revert remain and come to such person or persons as they should have done in case this Act had never been made other than him only that so shall contract Matrimony Benjamin Tibboth being seised in Fee of the Lands in question to the value of 700 l. per annum had Issue a Son and four Daughters the Son had Issue Ruth his only Daughter who was married to the Defendant Gore her Father died in the time of her Grandfather and her Mother
my Lord Coke to be an allowance by the King 's Grant to any person for the sole buying or selling of any thing restraining all others of that Liberty which they had before the making of such a Grant 3 Inst 181. and this he tells us is against the ancient and fundamental Rights of this Kingdom This Patent agreeth exactly with that Definition 9 E. 3. cap. 1. 18 E. 3. c. 3. 25 E. 3. c. 2. Roll. Abr. 180. 2 R. 2. c. 1. 11 R. 2. c. 7. and therefore it must be against Law 't is against an Act of Parliament which gives Liberty to Merchants to buy and to sell in this Realm without disturbance and 't is expresly against the Statute of 21 Jac. cap. 3. which declares all such Letters Patents to be void That which may give some colour to make such Grants good 2 Inst 540. 11 Rep. is a pretence of Order and Government in Trade but my Lord Coke was of Opinion that it was a hinderance to both and in the end it produced Monopolies There is a great difference between the King's Grant and his Prohibition for the one vests an Interest which is not done by the other and all Prohibitions determine by the King's death but Grants still remain in force Adjornatur Langford versus Webber IN Trespass for the taking of a Horse Justification upon a bare possession good against a wrong doer the Defendant justified for that Joseph Ash was possessed of a Close c. and that the Defendant as his Servant took the Horse in that Close Damage fesant And upon a Demurrer to this Plea for that the Defendant did not shew what Title Ash had to this Close The Councel for the Defendant insisted that it being in Trespass 't is sufficent to say that Ash was possessed because in this Case possession is a good Title against all others But it might have been otherwise in Replevin The Title of the Close is not in question Cro. Car. 138. Yelv. 74. Cro. Car. 571. pl. 10. the possession is only an inducement to the Plea and not the substance thereof which is the taking of the Horse and the Law is plain that where the interest of the Land is not in question a Man may justifie upon his own possession against a wrong-doer Mr. Pollexfen on the other side alledged that damage fesant would bring the Title of the Land in question But the Court gave Iudgment for the Defendant Perkins versus Titus A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given in the Common-Pleas Fine upon an Admittance where it must be certain in Replevin for taking of the Plaintiff's Sheep The Defendant avowed the taking damage fesant The Plaintiff replied that the Lands where c. were Copy-hold held of the Manor of Bushy in Com. Hertf. the Custom whereof was that every Tenant of the said Manor qui admissus foret to any Copyhold Estate should pay a years Value of the Land for a Fine as the said Land is worth tempore Admissionis And upon a Demurrer the Question was 1. Whether this be a good Plea or not as 't is pleaded 2. If it be good as pleaded then whether such a Custom may be supported by Law 1. It was for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error now and in Michaelmas Term following argued that it was not a good Custom The substance of whose Arguments were that Fines are either certain or incertain those which are incertain are arbitrary and therefore cannot be due of Common Right nor by Custom for there can be no Custom for an incertain Fine and such is this Fine for the value of the Land cannot be known because as this Custom is pleaded it doth not appear whether it shall be a years value past or to come at the time of the admittance of the Tenant A Custom to assess rationabilem denariorum summam for a Fine upon an admittance that is to say 13 Rep. 1. being two years Rent of a Tenant of the yearly value of 53 s. 4 d. is no good Custom A Lease is made for so many years as a third person shall name this is altogether incertain 13 Edw. 3. Fitz. Abr. 273. but when the Term is named then 't is a good Lease but this can be done but once How can this Fine be assessed It cannot be by Iury for then it stands in need of the Common Law and will be therefore void for a Custom must have nothing to support it but usage 1. Neither can this be a good Custom as 't is pleaded because all Customs are made up of repeated Acts and Vsages and therefore in pleading them it must be laid time out of mind which is not done here for admissus foret hath a respect to future admissions and are not to those which are past 2. Here is no time laid when this Fine shall be paid for 't is said Quilibet tenens qui admissus foret c. solvet tantam denariorum summam quantum terra valebat per Annum tempore admissionis c. which last words must be taken to relate to the value of the Land and not to the time when the Fine shall be paid so that if there be such a Custom which is Lex loci and not fully set forth and expressed the Common Law will not help it by any Construction 2. Point Whether such a Custom can be good by Law And they argued that it cannot Where the Fine is certain the Lord may refuse to admit without a tender of it upon the prayer of the person to be admitted 4 Rep. 27. b. but where 't is incertain the Lord is first to admit the Tenant and then to set the Fine the reasonableness whereof is to be determined by Iudges before whom the Case shall depend or upon Demurrer or by a Iury upon proofs of the yearly value of the Land but for non payment of an unreasonable Fine the Lord cannot enter Cro. Eliz. 779. Cro. Car. 196. The Law admits of no Custom to be good but such as is very certain for incertainty in a Custom as well as in a Grant makes both void and therefore 't is held a void Custom for an Infant to make a Feoffment when he can measure an Ell of Cloth Rol. Abr. 565. 6 Rep. 60. Davies Rep. 37. It may be objected that certum est quod certum reddi potest the meaning of which saying must be quod certum reddi potest by something which is certain for if this Rule should be taken to be an answer to incertainties it would destroy all the Books which say a Custom must be certain The Law is very clear Fitz. Bar. 177. 2 Rol. Abr. 264. that a Custom is void for the incertainty therefore this Custom must be void for the value of Land is the most incertain thing in nature and therefore Perjury will not lye for swearing to the value Serjeant Fuller and Mr.
Finch contra The chief Objection is the incertainty of this Custom now if a Custom as incertain as this hath been held good in this Court 't is a good Authority to support this Custom And as to that it was said that a Custom for a person whom a Copy holder should name to have his Land after his death and that he should pay a Fine for his admitance And if the Lord and Tenant cannot agree about the Fine that then the rest of the Tenants should assess it 1 Rol. Rep. 48. 2 Cro. 368. 4 Leon. 238. Noy 3. 2 Brownl 85. this was adjudged a good Custom by the Court of Common-Pleas and affirmed upon a Writ of Error in this Court It was the Case of Crab and Bevis cited in Warne and Sawyers Case Adjornatur Afterwards the first Iudgment was affirmed and all the Court held the Custom to be a good Custom Hacket versus Herne JVdgment was had in Debt upon a Bond against Father and Son Where the Defendants in the Action must joyn in a Writ of Error and afterwards the Father alone brought a Writ of Error and the Error assingned was that his Son was under Age but because the Son did not join in the Errors the Court ordered the Writ to be abated If a Quare impedit be brought against a Bishop and others and Iudgment be against them all they must likewise all join in a Writ of Error unless it be where the Bishop claims only as Ordinary 'T is true Rol. Abr. 929. pl. 30. this is against the Opinion of my Lord Rolls in his Abridgment who puts the Case that where a Scire Facias was brought against four Executors who pleaded plene administraverunt the Iury find Assets in the Hands of two of them and that the other eant inde sine die two bring a Writ of Error and altho' at the opening of the Case it was held that the Writ should abate for that reason because brought only by two yet he says the Iudgment was afterwards affirmed and the Writ held good But there is a difference where a Writ of Error is brought by the Plaintiffs in the original Action 5 Co. 25. a Ruddock's Case and when by the Defendants for if two Plaintiffs are barred by an erronious Iudgment and afterwards bring a Writ of Error the Release of one shall bar the other because they are both actors in a personal thing to charge another and it shall be presumed a Folly in him to join with another who might release all But where the Defendants bring a Writ of Error 't is otherwise for it being brought to discharge themselves of a Iudgment the Release of one cannot barr the other because they have not a joint Interest but a joint burthen and by Law are compelled to join in Errors Mosse versus Archer COvenant by an Assignee of an Assignee of Lands which were exchanged the Breach assigned was Breach not well assigned that a Stranger habens jus titulum did enter c. There was a Uerdict for the Plaintiff and it was now moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had not shewed a sufficient breach for he sets forth the Entry of a Stranger habens jus titulum but doth not shew what Title and it may be he had a Title under the Plaintiff himself 2 Cro. 315. Hob. 35. after the Exchange made and to prove this the Case of Kirby and Hansaker was cited in point and of that Opinion was all the Court. Nota It was said in this Case that an Exchange ought to be executed by either Party in their Life-time or else it is void Taylor versus Brindley THE Original in Trespass was quare Clausum fregit Variance between the Original and Declaration where 't is no Error and the Plaintiff declared quare Clausum Domum fregit and had Iudgment in the Common-Pleas and a Writ of Error was brought in this Court and the variance between the Original and Declaration was assigned for Error and that one was not warranted by the other But Serjeant Levinz argued that because the Original was certified three Terms since 2 Cro. 674. 1 Rol. Abr. 790. n. 7. Cro. Car. 272. 18 Eliz. cap. and no Continuances between it and the Declaration therefore that could not be the Original to this Action and that the Court might for that reason intend a Verdict without an Original which is helped by the Statute of Jeofails But he argued that where the Original varies from the Declaration and is not warranted by it 't is not aided by this Statute Iudgment was affrmed DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 3 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1687. Wright Chief Justice Holloway Justices Powel Justices Allibon Justices Sawyer Attorny General Powis Sollicitor General Mathews versus Cary Pasch 3 Jac. Rot. 320. TRespass for entring of his House and taking of a Silver Tankard Where the Defendant justifies by way of excuse he must set forth the Warrant and that he took the Goods virtute Warranti The Defendant made conusance as Bayliff of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for that the place where c. was within the Iurisdiction of the Leet of the said Dean who was seised of a Court Leet which was held there such a day c. And that the Iury did present the Plaintiff being a Tallow-Chandler for melting of stinking Tallow to the annoyance of the Neighbours for which he was amerced and that the Amerciament was affered to 5 l. which not being paid the Defendant by a Mandate of the said Dean and Chapter distreined the Tankard c. The Plaintiff replied de injuria sua propria absque hoc that he did melt Tallow to the annoyance of the Neighbours c. And upon a Demurrer to this Replication it was argued this Term by Mr. Pollexfen for the Defendant and Tremaine for the Plaintiff and afterwards in Michaelmas Term 1 Will. Mariae by Mr. Bonithan and Serjeant Thompson for the Defendant It was said for the Defendant that a Presentment in a Court Leet which concerns the person as in this Case and not the Free hold 5 H. 7.3 Fitz. Bar. 271. Bro. Abr. tit Travers sans ceo pl. 183. Presentment in Court pl. 15. was not traversable and that the Amerciament was a Duty vested in the Lord for which he may distrain or bring an Action of Debt Co. Entr. 572. But on the other side it was said that if such a Presentment is not traversable the party hath no remedy 't is contrary to the Opinion of Fitzherbert in Dyer Dyer 13. b. who affimed the Law to be that it was traversable and that if upon such a Presentment a Fine should be imposed erroniously 11 Co. 42. 1 Rol. Rep. 79. it may be avoided by Plea and this agrees with the second Resolution in Godfrey 's Case 2. It was objected to the Plea that it was not good for it sets
ground he had for such an Opinion is not known the Year Books quoted in the Margent will not warrant it for they are in no sort parallel That Case in the 27th of H. 27 H. 6.3 6. is no more than Tenant at Will cannot grant over his Estate because he hath no certain or fixed Interest in it and much to the same purpose is the Book of 22 E. 22 E. 4.5 4. there cited But suppose this to be a void Grant and to amount to a determination of the Tenancy at Will yet if the Trustees had no notice of it that shall not determine their Estates A Devise to an Executor that he shall have the oversight of the Testators Estate till his Daughter should come of Age Yelv. 73. the Executor made a Lease at Will rendring Rent before the year expired the Daughter came of age to whom the Tenant at Will attorned the Executor brought an Action of Debt against him for the Rent arrear it was held that this Attornment to the Daughter was no determination of his Will for it would be of ill consequence to the Lessor if such a Tenant should determine his Will a day or two before the end of the year who had enjoyed all the Profits of the Land 2. Whether he may make a Deputy 'T is true a judicial Officer cannot make a Deputy unless he hath a Clause in his Patent to enable him because his Judgment is relied on in matters relating to his Office which might be the reason of the making of the Grant to him neither can a Ministerial Officer depute one in his stead if the Office be to be performed by him in person but when nothing is required but a Superintendency in the Office he may make a Deputy This appears more evident in the common Case of a Sheriff who is an Officer made by the Kings Letters Patents and 't is not said that he shall execute his Office per se vel sufficientem Deputatum suum Roll. Rep. 274. 1 Leon. 146. 3 Leon. 99. Cro. Eliz. 173. yet he may make a Deputy which is the Vnder-Sheriff against whom Actions may be brought by the Parties grieved And such a Deputy may be made without a Deed for he claims no Interest in the Office but as a Servant Cro. Eliz. 67. 10 Co. 192. a. and therefore where an Action on the Case was brought against the Deputy of a Sheriff for an Escape who pleaded that the Sheriff made him his Deputy to take Bail of Prisoners and that he took Bond c. and shewed no Deed of Deputation yet the Plea was held good upon a Demurrer 3. Whether the Assignment of this Trust without giving notice to this Court be a Forfeiture Tenant in Fee simple may do it for he hath a power so to do by reason of the Dignity of his Estate He who grants this Office without acquainting of this Court therewith must remain an Officer still and is subject to all Duties and Attendance till the Court hath notice of the Grant But there is no occasion of acquainting the Court in this Case for upon the Grant made to the Trustees by Mr. Lenthal he is still the Officer though he hath not the same Estate It was objected that Sir Edward Norris c. hath not said any thing to the Escapes but that doth neither concern Mr. Lenthal or the Trustees 2 Cro. 17. for if he be Tenant at Will they are not answerable for his neglect for 't is a personal Tort in him If Tenant for years makes a Feoffment 't is a Forfeiture of his Estate but if he makes a Lease and Release though 't is of the same operation yet it will not amount to a Forfeiture Now if any Escapes should happen there is a plain remedy for the Parties agrieved for if Tenant at Will remaineth in possession of an Office and suffers voluntary Escapes his Office shall be seised into the Hands of this Court then he in the Reversion must make his Claim and when that is done he is an Officer nolens volens and this was the Duke of Norfolk's Case Now though these Escapes are found by the Inquisition to be voluntary yet they are answered in the Plea for that part of the Inquisition is traversed and that they were vi armis and this being not yet tried the Court cannot give Iudgment thereon If there be many negligent Escapes these shall not amount to a Forfeiture as if a Rebel should break Prison or the Prison should be on Fire those are negligent but the Officer should not be so much as fined But if it should be a Forfeiture the Neglect must be particularly alledged for the Word Neglect is too general Adjornatur 5 E. 4.27 Dyer 66. Anonymus A Man was indicted for using of a Trade not being an Apprentice An Indictment quashed for misreciting of a Statute against the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 4. And now a Motion was made to quash it because the Act gives power to two Iustices of the Peace Quorum unus to hear and determine Offences committed against any branch thereof either by Indictment or Information before them in their Sessions and 't is not said that one of the Iustices before whom this Indictment was taken was of the Quorum This Objection was answered by the Court that the Sessions cannot be kept without one Iustice of the Quorum The Act saith That it shall not be lawful to any person other than such who did then lawfully use any Art Mystery or Manual Occupation to set up any Trade used within this Realm except he had been an Apprentice for seven years c. and 't is not averred that the Trade mentioned in the Indictment was a Trade used before the making of the Act. This seemed to be a material Objection but the Indictment was quashed for misreciting of the Statute Price versus Davies ERror to reverse a Fine taken by Commission and the Error assigned was that the Cognizor died before the return of the Writ of Covenant But this Point was not argued because Iustice Allybon was of Opinion that the Plaintiff in the Errors had not well entituled himself by the Writ for it was brought by him ut Consanguineus Haeres scilicet Filius c. but doth not shew how he was of Kindred To this Objection Sir William Williams the Solicitor General replyed that if a Descent be from twenty Ancestors 't is not necessary to say that he was Son and Heir of such a one who was Son and Heir of such a one and so to the twentieth Ancestor Agreable to this are all the Presidents in Formedons 't is only said that Jus descendit Adjornatur The Countess of Plymouth versus Throgmorton ERror to reverse a Iudgment in the Common Pleas in an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus brought by Mr. Contract where 't is entire shall not be separated in an Action of Debt Throgmorton as Executor
Revocation or not at all which revocation must depend upon the construction and exposition of the sixth Paragraph in the Statute of Frauds c. the words whereof are Viz. That no Devise of Lands c. or any clause thereof shall be Revoked otherwise than by some Codicil in Writing or other Writing declaring the same or by burning cancelling tearing or obliterating the same by the Testator himself or in his presence and by his direction or consent But all devises of Lands c. shall be good until burnt cancell'd torn c. by the Testator c. or unless the same be altered by some other Will or Codicil in Writing or other Writing of the Devisor signed in the presence of three Witnesses declaring the same So that the Question will be whether a Will which revokes a former Will ought to be signed by the Testator in the presence of three Witnesses 'T is clear that a Will by which Lands are devised ought to be so signed and why should not a Will which revokes another Will have the same formality The Statute seems to be plain that it should for it saies that a Will shall not be revoked but by some Will or Codicil in writing or other writing of the Devisor signed by him in the presence of three or four Witnesses declaring the same which last Clause is an entire sentence in the disjunctive and appoints that the Writing which revokes a Will must be signed in the presence of three Witnesses c. Before the making of this Act it was sufficient that the Testator gave directions to make his Will tho' he did never see it when made which mischief is now remedied not in writing the Will but that the Party himself should sign it in the presence of three Witnesses and this not being so signed but only published by the Testator in their presence 't is therefore no good Revocation Iustice Street was of a contrary Opinion that this was a good Revocation That the words in the fifth Paragraph of this Statute which altered the Law were Viz. That all Devises of Lands c. shall be in Writing and signed by the Party so devising or by some other person in his presence and by his express Directions and shall be attested and subscribed in the presence of the Devisor by three or four credible Witnesses In which Paragraph there are two parts 1. The act of the Devisor which is to sign the Will but not a word that he shall subscribe his Name in the presence of three Witnesses 2. The act of the Witnesses viz. that they shall attest and subscribe the Will in the presence of the Devisor or else the Will to be void But the sixth Paragraph is penn'd after another manner as to the Revocation of a Will which must be by some Codicil in writing or other Writing declaring the same signed in the presence of three Witnesses Now here is a Writing declaring that it shall be revoked not expresly but by implication and though that Clause in the disjunctive which says that the revocation must be by some Writing of the Devisor signed in the presence of three Witnesses c. yet in the same Paragraph 't is said that it may be revoked by a Codicil or Will in Writing and therefore an exposition ought to be made upon the whole Paragraph that the intention of the Law may more fully appear Such a construction hath been made upon a whole Sentence Sid. 328. 1 Sand. 58. where part thereof was in the disjunctive as for instance viz. A Man was possessed of a Lease by disseisin who assigned it to another and covenanted that at the time of the assignment it was a good true and indefeasable Lease and that the Plaintiff should enjoy it without interruption of the Disseisor Or any claiming under him in this Case the Diffeisee re-entred and though the Covenant was in the disjunctive to defend the Assignee from the Disseisor or any claiming under him yet he having undertaken for quiet enjoyment and that it was an indefeasable Lease it was adjudged that an exposition ought to be made upon the whole Sentence and so the Plaintiff had Iudgment The Chief Iustice Herbert was of the same Opinion with Iustice Street Rex versus Grimes and Thompson THE Defendants were indicted for being Common Pawn-Brokers Two are indicted for a Confederacy one is acquitted and that is the acquittal of the other and that Grimes had unlawfully obtained Goods of the Countess of c. and that he together with one Thompson per confoederationem astutiam did detain the said Goods until the Countess had paid him 12 Guineas Thompson was acquitted and Grimes was found Guilty which must be of the first part of the Indictment only for it could not be per confoederationem with Thompsom and therefore it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that to obtain Goods unlawfully was only a private injury for which the party ought not to be indicted To which it was answered that a plain Fraud was laid in this Indictment which was sufficient to maintain it and that tho one was acquitted yet the Iury had found the other guilty of the whole But the Court were of Opinion that the acquittal of one is the acquittal of both upon this Indictment and therefore it was quash'd King versus Dilliston Hill 2 3 Jacobi Rot. 494. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment in Ejectment given in the Common-Pleas Infant not bound by a Custom for one Messuage and twenty Acres of Land held of the Manor of Swafling There was a special Verdict found the substance of which was viz. That the Land in question was Copy-hold held of the said Manor of Swafling in the County of Suffolk and that Henry Warner and Elizabeth his Wife in right of the said Elizabeth were seized thereof for Life Remainder to John Ballat in Fee That the Custom of the said Manor was that if any Customary Tenant doth surrender his Estate out of Court that such Surrender shall be presented at the next Court of the said Manor and publick Proclamation shall be made three Court days afterwards for the Party to whose use the Surrender was made to come and be admitted Tenant and if he refuseth then after three Proclamations made in each of the said Courts the Steward of the said Manor issueth forth a Precept to the Bailiff thereof to seise the Copyhold as forfeited They find that Henry Warner and his Wife and John Ballat made this Surrender out of Court to the use of Robert Freeman and his Heirs who died before the next Court and that John Freeman an Infant was his Son and Heir That after the said Surrender three Proclamations were made at three several Courts held for the said Manor but that the said John Freeman did not come to be admitted Tenant thereupon the Steward of the said Manor made a Precept to the Bayliff who seized the Lands in
long a Man may live in one of these ancient Houses Such a Custom might be good in point of Tenure for it might have a reasonable commencement between Lord and Tenant but this cannot be good as laid in this Declaration for several Reasons 1. Because 't is not alledged that the Defendants of right ought to keep a Boat there or that it was necessary for them to be always attending for possibly it might require the use of skilful Men and therefore in all Actions brought for not repairing of Ways 't is alledged that the Defendant reparare debuit 2. Because it brings a Charge without any recompence 8 E. 4.18 Br. Tit. Customs pl. 46. and this must be very unreasonable 'T is true that a Custom for Fishermen to dry their Nets upon another Man's Ground is good which may seem to be a Charge upon the Land without any Reward but the reason is because the catching of Fish is for the publick benefit and every man may have advantage by it A Custom to have solam separalem pasturam hath been formerly doubted whether good or not but 't is now held to be good because the Lord of the Soil might have some other Recompence for it 3. Because 't is unlimited for the Tenants may pass and repass ad libitum according to this Custom but it ought to be laid for their necessary occasions for otherwise the Defendants may be deprived of their Freehold because the Tenants may always keep the Boat in use The 2d Point was not much insisted on which was as to the matter of the Plea only it was said that it was not so well to take away the whole Prescription that the Plea might have been good if it had been quousque the Bridge fall or decayed then the Prescription doth revive again The 3d. Point Then supposing the Declaration to be sufficient yet as this is upon the Record the Plaintiff could not have this Action because he had set forth this to be a publick and common Ferry for all People to pass and that he was hindred but doth not shew any particular damage and therefore can have no cause of Action 'T is like the Case of a common High-way which is out of repair 27 H. 8. 27. a. 1 Inst 56. Moor 108. Cro. Eliz. 664. 5 Co. 104. for which no man can bring an Action unless he hath a particular damage or loss more than the rest of the People passing that way but the Party ought to be indicted and this is to prevent multiplicity of Suits for if one man may have an Action every person traveling that way may have the like Another Exception was taken to the Declaration viz. that all the Custom is laid to be for the Inhabitants of an ancient Vill to pass Toll-Free from Ferry-Lane to Adventurers-Bank and they do not alledge that Bank to be within the Vill. Those who argued for the Plaintiff held this to be a good Custom E contra as set forth by him and as such 't is not confined to the same Rules with a Prescription which must have a lawful commencement but it is otherwise in a Custom for 't is sufficient if it be certain and reasonable The Cases cited on the other side are not to this purpose because they concern only such Customs which relate to some Interest or profit in the Land of another person but this Custom is only in a matter of exemption and easment This was the very difference taken by the Iudges in Gatewood 's Case 6 Co. where it was held to be a good Custom for every Inhabitant of a particular Town to have a Way over such Lands to go to Church or Market because this was matter of easement and no profit Now a Passage over a River is no more than a way and may be tied up to one or more persons according to their comorancy Since therefore no Interest is claimed by the Plaintiff but only an easment this Prescription need not be laid in the Owners but in the Inhabitants of the Vill of Littleport It may be compared to a Case where a Custom was laid for the Inhabitants of a Town to pay a Modus in discharge of Tythes Hob. 118. Yelv. 163. this was held good because it was by way of discharge in the persons Lands without claiming any profit in that of another 'T is also like the common Case of a Market when a Man has pitched his Stall there no person can remove it for he hath a right ratione comorantiae Then as to the first Objection upon the first Point That a Custom to pass and repass ad libitum cannot be good it was answered this passage was in the nature of a High way over which a Man may pass as often as he will and therefore 't is well enough as laid in the Declaration 2. As to the Objection that it ought to be laid in some person and not in the Inhabitants it was said this was an easment to the Plaintiff and no such thing can be to one man but it makes another a Crespasser and 't is no Interest in the Plaintiff to be discharged of a Charge A Custom to grind at the Lords Mill discharged of Toll rules this Case for is it not as much charge for a Lord of a Mannor to keep a Mill as for the Defendant to keep a Boat If the Plaintiff had prescribed then this had come within the the Rules of Gatewood 's Case But he hath alledged a Custom and when such Allegations are made they ought not to be too narrowly searched for No reason can be given why an Infant at 15 years of Age shall be capable to make a Feoffment in one Town and not in another 18 Ed. 4.3 3. Then as to the third point that this being laid to be a Common Ferry the Plaintiff ought to shew some special damage to maintain an Action To which it was answered that the right was on the Plaintiff's side and that was sufficient to maintain the Action 'T is not like the Case of a Common-High-way as mentioned on the other side because this Action is confined to Littleport alone and no Man is intituled to it but such who inhabit that Vill so that every Man cannot bring an Action As to the Exception to the form of the Declaration that Adventurers-Bank is not laid to be in the Vill it was said that the Plaintiff only claimed a right of passage over the River which is laid to be in the Vill of Littleport 2 Cro. 555 557. the Bank is only the terminus ad quem 't is like the Case where the Defendant covenanted to repair a Mill and the Water-courses in a Parish and also the Banks belonging to the Mill in which Case the Plaintiff had Iudgment tho' he did not shew in what Vill the Banks were because it shall be intended to be in the same Vill where the Mill was Afterwards in Trinity Term
first Son of the Body of the said Simon Leach my Brother lawfully to be begotten and to the Heirs Males of the Body of such first Son lawfully to be begotten with like Remainder in Tail Male to the second third fourth c. Sons and for default of such Issue to Sir Simon Leach my Kinsman being Son and Heir of Simon Leach of Cadley in the County of Devon ' Esquire deceased and to the Heirs Males of his Body lawfully to be begotten and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of me the said Nicholas Leach for ever They find that Nicholas Leach died without Issue that Simon Leach his Brother and Heir with Remainder over in Contingency as aforesaid entered and afterwards married Anne the Daughter of Unton Croke and that after the said Marriage viz. 20 August 25 Car. 2. he executed a Deed purporting a * Two months before a Son was born Surrender of the said Lands and Tenements to Sir Simon Leach in manner following viz. To all Christian People c. I Simon Leach of Elsefield in the County of Oxon Esquire send greeting Know ye that I the said Simon Leach for divers good Causes and valuable Considerations me hereunto moving have granted surrendred remised released and for ever quit claimed and confirmed and by these Presents do grant surrender remise release and for ever quit claim and confirm unto Sir Simon Leach of Cadley in the County of Devon Knight of the Bath and his Heirs and Assigns for ever all and every the Mannors c. To have and to hold the same to the said Sir Simon Leach for ever They find that Simon Leach Brother of the Testator was not compos mentis at the time of the sealing and delivery of the said Surrender That on the 10th day of November 25 Car. 2. which was two Months after this Surrender made the said Simon Leach had Issue of his Body Charles Leach who is his Son and Heir that he after the death of his Father entred and made a Lease to Tompson by vertue whereof he was possessed until the Defendant Sir Simon Leach entred upon him c. Two Questions were made upon this Special Verdict 1. Whether this Surrender by a person Non compos mentis was void ab initio and so could pass no Estate to the Surrendree for if so then though the Ideot himself is estopped by his own Act yet that can be no Barr to him in the Remainder because the Act being void the Estate in Law still remains in him 2. If it is not void in its self then whether it is voidable after the death of the Party by Charles Leach he claiming by virtue of a collateral Remainder and not as Heir at Law to the Devisor As to the first Point it was argued that the Cases of Lunaticks and Infants go hand in hand and that the same Reasons govern both that the Law is clear that a Surrender made by an Infant is void therefore a Surrender made by a person Non compos mentis is also void Fleta lib. 1. c. 11. num 10. the reason is because they know not how to govern themselves And as Fleta saith Semper judicabuntur infra aetatem F.N.B. 202. a. Regist 238. b. if he makes any Conveyance of his Land the Law hath provided a remedial Writ even for himself to avoid his own Alienation His Feoffments are void 39 H. 6.42 Bract. fol. 12. no. 5. fol. 100 120. Brit. cap. 34. fol. 88. Perk. 5. pl. 21. and if Warranties are annexed those they are also void if he granteth a Rent-Charge out of his Land that is likewise void and if the Grantee should distrain for this Rent after the death of the Grantor his Heir shall have an Action of Trespas against him and therefore by parity of Reason this Surrender must be void In Fitzherbert Tit. Grantee pl. 80. there is a Case to this purpose viz. An Assize was brought against the Tenant supposing that he had no right of Entry unless under a Disseisor by whom the Brother of the Demandant was disseised The Tenant pleaded that the supposed Disseisor was the Father of the Demandant whose Heir he then was and that his said Father made a Feoffment of the Land to the Tenant with Warranty and demanded Iudgment c. The Demandant replied that his Father at that time was Non compos mentis and the Tenant was compelled to rejoin and take Issue upon the Insanity which shews that if he was Non compos he could not have made such a Feoffment So if he maketh a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards taketh back an Estate for Life Fitz. Remitter pl. 23. the Non compos shall be remitted to his ancient Title which shews likewise that such Feoffment was void for the Remitter supposeth a former Right 'T is incongruous to say that Acts done by persons of no discretion shall be good and valid in the Law such are Infants and Lunaticks and it stands with great reason that what they do should be void especially when it goes to the destruction of their Estates Therefore 't is held that if a person Non compos releaseth his right that shall not barr the King in his Life time but he shall seize the Land and if he die his Heir may bring the Writ Dum non fuit compos mentis and may enter 'T is for this reason that a Release made by an Infant Executor is no barr because it works in destruction of his Interest 5 Co. 27. Russel 's Case 34 Ass pl. 10. the reason is the same where a person Non compos maketh a Feoffment for that likewise destroys his Estate So likewise an Infant can neither surrender a future Interest by his acceptance of a new Lease Cro. Car. 502. nor make an absolute Surrender of a Term of which he is possessed for such a Surrender by Deed is void 'T is agreed that if a Man Non compos maketh a Feoffment by Letter of Attorny 't is meerly void because 't is not delivered to the Feoffee by the hands of the Feoffor but 't is said that if it be delivered by him in person then 't is only voidable at any time by Action or Entry Finch 's Law 102. And of this Opinion was Sir Henry Finch in his Discourse of the Law who in the Margen of his Book quotes several Authorities in the Year Books to justifie this Opinion and amongst the rest he cites Sir Anthony Fitzherberts Natura Brevium 35 Ass pl. 10. who taking notice of the old Authorities seems to reject their Reasons who affirm a person Non compos shall not avoid his own Act when he recovers his memory because he cannot then tell what he did when he was in his former Condition But certainly when he recovers his Iudgment he is then of Ability to consider what was done during his Insanity and to avoid such Acts by shewing how his indisposition came by the
visitation of God by which he was disabled for a time to do any reasonable thing whatsoever and this may be as well done as to plead duress from Men which the Law allows to make compulsary Acts void My Lord Coke in Beverly's Case taking notice of the great reason of the Civil Law in Cases of this nature 4 Co. 123. which maketh all Acts done by Ideots void without their Curator's concurrence and that it was objected as a defect in the Common Law that Tutors were not assigned to such persons he answereth that our Law hath given the custody both of them and their Lands to the King which is directly contrary to his own Opinion in his 2d Institutes 2 Inst 14. where paraphrasing upon the fourth Chapter of Magna Charta which prohibits Wast in the Land of Wards from thence he inferrs that at that time the King had no Prerogative to entitle him to the Lands of Ideots for if he had that Act would have as well provided against Wast in their Lands as in those of Wards He farther adds that the Guardianship of Ideots did belong to the Lords according to the course of the Common Law Be it how it will 't is clear by all the Books that both by the Common and Civil Law their Acts are void and my Lord Coke esteemed it as a very unreasonable thing that they should not be avoided even during the life of the Party himself but it was never yet denied that they may be avoided after his death by his Heir or Executor and by parity of reason the Law will prevent Strangers from being prejudiced by such Acts. There is an Objection that some Acts done by Ideots are unavoidable as Fines levyed by them c. 'T is true such are not to be avoided not because they are good in themselves but the reason is because they are upon Record against which the Law will not suffer any Averment to be made presuming that the Courts and Iudges in Westminster-Hall would not admit an Ideot or Infant to levy a Fine This being therefore a void Surrender by a person Non compos the Estate is still in the Surrenderor and so the contingent Remainder upon his death is well attached in Charles Leach the Lessor of the Plaintiff But supposing 't is not void yet there will be scintilla juris left in Simon Leach to support the Contingency and to prove this the Case of Lloyd and Brookin was relied on which was this viz. Thomas Bradshaw was Tenant for Life 1 Mod. 92. 1 Vent 188. 2 Keb. 881. the Remainder in Tail to his first Son c. the Remainder to Paul for Life the Remainder to his first second and third Sons in Tail Thomas accepted a Fine from Paul who had then a Son born then he made a Feoffment and afterwards Paul had another Son born His eldest Son died without Issue and it was adjudged that the contingent Remainder to his second Son was not destroyed by this Feoffment because it was preserved by the right of Entry which his elder Brother had at the time it was made 2. If this Surrender is only voidable then whether Charles Leach claiming by a collateral Title can avoid it It was argued that he may for it would be absurd that he should have a Right to the Remainder and yet have no Remedy to recover it My Lord Coke in Beverly's Case tells us that there are four sorts of Privities 1. In Bloud as Heir 2. In Representation as Executor 3. In Estate as Donee in Tail the Reversion or Remainder in Fee 4. In Tenure as Lord by Escheat He affirms that the two first may shew the Disability of their Ancestor and Testator and avoid their Grants 'T is true in the third Article he is of Opinion that Privies in Estate shall not avoid the Acts of their Ancestors and he puts the Case of a Donee in Tail making a Feoffment in Fee within age and dying without Issue the Donor shall not enter because no Right did accrew to him by the death of the Donee there being only a Privity of Estate between them But this Opinion is denied to be Law by Iustice Dodderidge in his Argument of the Case between Jackson and Darcy Palm 254. who said that the Donor might enter because otherwise he would be without remedy for he could not maintain a Formedon because the Feoffment made by the Infant was no Discontinuance Besides 't is not possible there should be any Privity in Blood between the Donee in Tail and the Reversioner in Fee so that Article must be intended where they are Strangers in Blood and Privies in Estate which doth not at all concern the Case in question because William Leach is privy in Blood to his Father who made the Surrender and my Lord Coke tells us in the first Article of his distinction that such a Privy may avoid the Acts of his Ancestor It may be objected that this distinction was not then the Iudgment of the Court for it was not material to the Point in Issue which was no more than thus viz. Snow gave Bond to Beverley and exhibited his Bill in the Court of Requests to be relieved against it because at the time of the sealing and delivery thereof he was Non compos mentis But the like distinction was made in Whittingham 's Case many years afterwards 8 Co. 42. which was thus viz. Whittingham being seised of Lands held of the Queen in Soccage devised the same to Prudence his Bastard Child and her Heirs she during her Infancy made a Feoffment thereof to another and died in her Nonage without Issue the Question then was whether that Feoffment should prevent the Queen of the Escheat And adjudged it should not In which Case it was held that Privies in Blood inheritable shall take advantage of the disabilities of their Ancestors as if an Infant who is seised in Fee maketh a Feoffment and afterwards dieth his Heir may enter and avoid it The Law is the same in the Case of one Non compos mentis as in that of an Infant as to the avoiding of the Acts of their Ancestors so that Mr. Leach being privy in Blood according to my Lord Coke's Opinion in those Cases shall avoid the Acts of his Father he being Non compos at the executing of this Surrender If it should be objected that this part of the distinction ought to be taken restrictively and must be tied up to such an Heir at Law who takes an immediate possession by descent from his Ancestor the Answer is that if this Surrender is avoided Mr. Leach will take by immediate descent from his Father for though nothing but a Reversion in Fee descended to him yet he is a compleat Heir But after all this distinction made by my Lord Coke is founded upon no manner of Authority 't is only his extrajudicial Opinion for there is no reason to be given why Privies in Estate should
But if any wrong be done in this Case the Party must Appeal so no Writ of Restitution was granted Rex versus Guardianum de le Fleet. AN Inquisition being found to seize the Office of Warden of the Fleet into the King's Hands Inquisition quashed the Court of Chancery assisted with three Iudges was moved that it might be Quashed The Exceptions taken were viz. 1. 'T is found that the Defendant was Warden of the Fleet but doth not say what Estate he had therein whether for Life or years or in Fee c. 2. The Offences which are the causes of the Forfeiture are laid to be committed at the Fleet by suffering Escapes and by Extortion and 't is not found where the Fleet is scituate so there being no Visne those Offences cannot be traversed 3. 39 H. 6.32 They do not find the Escape to be sine licentia contra voluntatem of the Warden the Debts being unpaid 4. Admitting it to be a Forfeiture the Office cannot go to the King but it shall go to the next who hath the Inheritance The Opinion of the Court was that there are two things which entitle the King to this Office neither of which were found by this Inquisition 1. An Estate in the Party offending 2. A cause of Forfeiture of that Estate Now here was no Estate found in the Warden but only that the Office was forfeited by suffering of Escapes c. If this had been an Office of Inheritance ◠Co. 95. then it ought to be found that such a person was seised in Fee c. and so what Estate soever he had in it ought to be expresly found But as this is found 't is void because it doth not answer the end for which the finding of Offices was provided which is to entitle the King to the Offenders Estate An Indictment is but another sort of Office and here being no Estate found 't is much like an Indictment which finds no Offence therefore it must be quashed It might have been objected that no Man can tell what Estate the Warden had in this place and that not being known no Office could be found for the King But this Objection runs to the finding of all manner of Offices in general whose very nature is to find an Estate and to divest the subject thereof and vest it in the King Besides in this Case one of the Indentures by which the Office was granted to the Warden must be enrolled in the Court of Common-Pleas This cannot be helped by a Melius Inquirendum 3 Cro. 895. 9 Co. 95. Keilw 194. which never will support a defective Inquisition and this is such because it doth not appear that the Defendant had any Seisin or Estate in the Wardenship of the Fleet. Barker Mil ' versus Damer Hill 1 Rot. 635. AN Action of Covenant was brought by Sir William Barker who was Defendant in a former Action against Mr. Damer wherein he declared that William Barker his Father was seised in Fee of the Land in Question being in Ireland and made a Lease thereof to one Page for 31 years under the yearly Rent of 200 l. in which Lease Page did Covenant for himself his Executors Administrators and Assigns to pay the Rent to Mr. Barker his Heirs and Assigns That William Barker the Father by Lease and Release convey'd the Reversion to Sir William Barker the now Plaintiff that the Term was vested in the Defendant and assigns the breach for non-payment of the Rent The Defendant pleaded to the Iurisdiction of this Court that the Lands in the Declaration mentioned lay in Ireland where they have Courts of Record c. and so properly triable there To this Plea the Plaintiff demurr'd and the Defendant joyned in Demurrer The single Question was whether an Assignee of the Reversion can bring an Action of Covenant against the Assignee of a Lessee in any other place than where the Land is Those who argued that he may said that this Action being brought upon an Express Covenant is not local but transitory 2 Inst 231. Noy 142. 2 Cro. 142. ibidem Sid. 157. 2 Roll. Ab. 571. 1 And. 82. for debitum contractus sunt nullius loci and if it is a duty 't is so every where therefore it hath been adjudged that upon a Covenant brought in one County the breach may be assigned in another Tremain Serjeant Contra. E contra He admitted that Debt upon a Lease for years upon the Contract it self and Covenant between the same Parties are transitory Actions and may be brought any where but when once that privity of Contract is gone as by assignment of the Lessee or the death of the Lessor Latch 197. and there remains only a Privity in Law there the Action must be brought in the County where the Land lieth the reason is Hob. 37. because the Party is then chargeable in respect of the possession only Therefore it was held that where an Assignee of a Reversion of Lands in Sommersetshire brought an Action of Debt in London Cro. Car. 184. Jones 83. Dyer 40 b. upon a Lease for years made there reserving a Rent payable at London which was in arrear after the Assignment that the Action was not well brought for it ought to have been laid in Sommersetshire where the Lands were because the privity of Contract was lost by the assignment of the Reversion and therefore the Party to whom that assignment was made ought to maintain the Action upon the privity in Law by reason of the Interest which he had in the Land it self and that must be in the County where it lieth Curia There is a difference between an Action of Debt for Rent brought by an Assignee and an Action of Covenant for the first is an Action at the Common Law which hath fixed the Rent to the Reversion and therefore such an Action must be maintained upon the Privity of Estate which is always local But an Assigneé of a Reversion could not bring an Action of Covenant at the Common Law 1 Sid. 402. 3 Cro. 580. 1 Sand. 240. 32 H. 8. c. 34. for 't is given to him by a particular Statute viz. of 32 H. 8. but the Statute did not transfer any Privity of Contract to the Assignee but the intent of it was to annex to the Reversion such Covenants only which concerned the Land it self as to repair the House or amend the Fences and not to anner or transfer any collateral Covenants as to pay a Sum of Mony for that is fixed by the Common Law to the Reversion 'T is true At the Common Law an Assignee of a Reversion might have maintained an Action of Covenant for any thing agreed to be done upon the Land it self Privity of Contract is not thereby transferred so as to make the Action transitory but it must be brought upon the Privity of Estate for if a Man doth covenant to do any collateral thing not in the