all the mean profits from the time of the erroneous Iudgment given until the Iudgment in the Writ of Error so as the Reversal hath a Retrospect to the first Iudgment as if no Iudgment had been given And therefore the Case in 4 H. 7. 10. b. the case is A. seised of Land in Fee was attainted of High Treason and the King granted the Land to B. and afterwards A. committed Trespass upon the Land and afterwards by Parliament A. was restored and the Attainder made voyd as if no Act had been and shall be as available and ample to A. as if no Attainder had been and afterwards B. bringeth Trespass for the Trespass Mesue and it was adjudged in 10 H. 7. fo 22. b. That the Action of Trespass was not maintainable because that the Attainder was disaffirmed and annulled ab initio And in 4 H. 7. 10. it is holden That after a Iudgment reversed in a Writ of Error he who recovered the Land by Erroneous Iudgment shall not have an Action of Trespass for a Trespass Mean which was said was all one with the principal case in 4 H. 7. 10. and divers other Cases were put upon the same ground It was secondly objected That the Wife could not have a Petition because there was not any Office by which her title of Dower was found scil her marriage the seisin of her Husband and death for it was said that although she was marryed yet if her Husband was not seised after the age that she is Dowable she shall not have Dower as if a man seised of Land in Fee taketh to Wife a woman of eight years and afterwards before her age of nine years the Husband alieneth the Lands in Fee and afterwards the woman attaineth to the age of nine years and the Husband dyeth it was said that the woman shall not be endowed And that the title of him who sueth by Petition ought to be found by Office appeareth by the Books in 11 H. 4. 52. 29 Ass 31. 30 Ass 28. 46 E. 3. bre 618. 9 H. 7. 24. c. As to the first Objection it was resolved That the Wife should be endowed and that the Fine with proclamations was not a bar unto her and yet it was resolved that the Act of 4 H. 7. cap. 24. shall bar a woman of her Dower by a Fine levyed by her Husband with proclamations if the woman doth not bring her Writ of Dower within five years after the death of her Husband as it was adjudged Hill 4 H. 8. Rot. 344. in the Common Pleas and 5 Eliz. Dyer 224. For by the Act the right and title of a Feme Covert is saved so that she take her action within 5. years after she become uncovert c. but it was resolved That the wife was not to be ayded by that saving for in respect of the said Attainder of her Husband of Treason she had not any right of Dower at the time of the death of her Husband nor can she after the death of her Husband bring an Action or prosecute an Action to recover her Dower according to the direction and saving of the said Act But it was resolved That the Wife was to be ayded by another former Saving in the same Act viz. And saving to all other persons scil who were not parties to the Fine such action right title claym and interest in or to the said Lands c. as shall first grow remain descend or come to them after the said Fine ingrossed and proclamations made by force of any Gift in Tail or by any other cause or matter had and made before the said Fine levied so that they take their Actions and pursue their right and Title according to the Law within five years next after such Action Right Claim Title or Interest to them accrued descended fallen or come c. And in this case the Action and right of Dower accrued to the wife after the reversall of the Attainder by reason of a Title of Record before the Fine by reason of the seisin in Fee had and the Marriage made before the Fine levied according to the â—â—â—ention and meaning of the said Act. And as to the said poâ—â—t of Relation It was resolved That sometimes by construction of Law a thing shall relate ab initio to some intent and to some intent not For Relatio est fictio Juris to do a thing which was and had essence to be adnulled ab initio betwixt the same parties to advance a Right or Ut res magis valeat quam pereat But the Law will never make such a construction to advance a wrong which the Law abhorreth Or to defeat Collaterall Acts which are lawfull and principally if they do concern Strangers And this appeareth in this Case scil when an erroneous Iudgment is reversed by a Writ of Error For true it is as it hath been said That as unto the mean Profits the same shall have relation by construction of Law untill the time of the first Iudgment given and that is to favour Iustice and to advance the right of him who hath wrong by the erroneous Iudgment But if any stranger hath done a Trespasse upon the Land in the mean time he who recovereth after the Reversall shall have an Action of Trespasse against the Trespassors and if the Defendant pleadeth that there is no such Record the Plaintiff shall shew the speciall matter and shall maintain his Action so as unto the Trespassors who are wrong Doers the Law shall not make any construction by way of relation ab initio to excuse them for then the Law by a fiction and construction should do wrong to him who recovereth by the first Iudgment And for the better apprehending of the Law on this point it is to know That when any man recovers any possession or seisin of Land in any Action by erroneous Iudgment and afterwards the Iudgment is reversed as is said before and upon that the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error shall have a Writ of Restitution and that Writ recites the first recovery and the reversall of it in the Writ of Error is that the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error shall be restored to his possession and seisin Una cum exitibus thereof from the time of the Iudgment c. Tibi praecipimus quod eadem A. ad plenariam seisinam tenementorum praedict cum pertinentiis sine dilatione restitui facias per sacramentum proborum legalium hominum de Com. suo diligenter inquires ad quantum exitus proficua tenementorum illorum cum pertinentiis a tempore falsi Judicii praedict reddit usque ad Oct. Sanct. Mich. anno c. quo die judcium illud per praefat Justiciar nostros revocat fuit se attingunt juxta verum valorem eorundem eadem exitus proficua de terris catallis praedict B. in baliva tua fieri facias denarios inde praefato A. pro exitibus et proficuis
tenementorum per eundem B. dicto medio tempore percept sine dilatione haberi sacias Et qualiter hoc praeceptum nostrum fuerit execut constare facias c. in Octab. c. By which it appeareth That the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error shall have restitution against him who recovereth of all the mean Profits without any regard by them taken for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error cannot have any remedy against any stranger but only against him who is party to the Writ of Error and therefore the words of the said Writ command the Sheriff to enquire of the Issues and Profits generally between the Reversal and the Iudgment with all which he who recovers shall be charged and as the Law chargeth him with all the mean profits so the Law gives to him remedy notwithstanding the Reversal against all Trespassors in the interim for otherwise the Law should make a construction by relation to discharge them who are wrong doers and to charge him who recovers with the whole who peradventure hath good right and who entereth by the Iudgment of the Law which peradventure is reversed for want of form or negligence or ignorance of a Clark And therefore as to that purpose the Iudgment shall not be reversed ab initio by a Fiction of Law but as the truth was the same stands in force until it was reversed and therefore the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error after the Reversal shall have any Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean because he shall recover all the mean profits against him who recovered nor he recovereth after shall be barred of his Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean by reason that his recovery is reversed because he shall answer for all the mean profits to the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error and therewith agreeth Brian Chief Iustice 4 H. 7. 12. a. Note Reader If you would understand the true sence and Iudgment of the Law it is needful for you to know the true Entries of Iudgments and the Entries of all proceedings in Law and the manner and the matter of Writs of Execution of such Iudgments See Butler and Bakers Case in the third part of my Reports good matter concerning Relations So as it was resolved in the Case at Bar Although that to some intent the Reversal hath relation yet to bar the Wife of her Dower by Fiction of Law by the Fine with proclamations and five years past after the death of her Husband when in truth she had not cause of Action nor any right or title so long as the Attainder stood in force should be to do wrong by a Fiction of Law and to bar the Wife who was a meer stranger and who had not any means to have any Relief until the Attainder was reversed And as unto the other point or Objection that the Demandant on the Petition ought to have an Office found for her it was resolved that it needed not in this case because that the title of Dower stood with the Queens title and affirmed it otherwise if the title of the Demandant in the Petition had disaffirmed the Queens title also in this Case the Queen was not entituled by any Office that the Wife should be driven to traverse it c. for then she ought to have had an Office to finde her title But in Case of Dower although that Office had been found for the Queen which doth not disaffirm the title of Dower in such case the Wife shall have her Petition without Office because that Dower is favored in Law she claiming but onely for term of life and affirming the title of the Queen See the Sadlers Case in the fourth part of my Reports And the case which was put on the other side was utterly denyed by the Court for it was resolved That if a man seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Wife of eight years of age and alieneth his Lands and afterwards the Wife attaineth to the age of nine years and afterwards the Husband dyeth that the Wife shall be endowed For although at the time of the alienation the Wife was not dowable yet for as much as the marriage and seisin in Fee was before the alienation and the title of Dower is not consummate until the death of her Husband so as now there was marriage seisin of Fee age of nine years during the Coverture and the death of the Husband for that cause she shall be endowed For it is not requisite that the marriage seisin and age concur together all at one time but it is sufficient if they happen during the Coverture So if a man seised of Lands in Fee take a Wife and afterwards she elopes from her Husband now she is barrable of her Dower if during the Elopement the Husband alieneth and after the Wife is reconciled the Wife shall be endowed So if a man hath issue by his Wife and the issue dyeth and afterwards Land descendeth to the Wife or the Wife purchaseth Lands in Fee and dyeth without any other issue the Husband for the issue which he had before the Discent or purchase shall be Tenant by the curtesie for it is sufficient if he have issue and that the Wife be seised during the Coverture although that it be at several times But if a man taketh an Alien to Wife and afterwards he alieneth his Lands and afterwards she is made a Denizen she shall not be endowed for she was absolutely disabled by the Law and by her birth not capable of Dower but her capacity and ability began onely by her Denization but in the other case there was not any incapacity or disability in the person but onely a temporary Bar until such age or reconcilement which being accomplished the temporary Bar ceaseth As if a man seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Wife and afterwards the Wife is attainted of Felony and afterwards the Husband alieneth and afterwards the Wife is pardoned and afterwards the Husband dyeth the Wife shall be endowed for by her birth she was not uncapable but was lawfully by her marriage and seisin in Fee entituled to have Dower and therefore when the impediment is removed she shall be endowed VIII Trinit 44 Eliz. In the Kings-Bench Sprat and Heals Case JOhn Sprat Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Walter Heal for Tythes Covin substraction of Tythes the Defendant in the Spiritual Court pleaded that he had divided the Tythes from the nine parts and then the Plaintiff made addition to the Libel in the nature of a Replication scil That the Defendant divided the Tythes from the nine parts quod praedict the Plaintiff non fatetur sed prorsus diffitetur yet presently after this pretended division in fraudem legis he took and carryed away the same Tythes and converted them to his own use and the Plaintiff thereupon obtained sentence in the Spiritual Court and to recover the treble value according to the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. And thereupon Heal made a
not of Tythes severed from the nine parts for that shall be in Case of a Praemunire and it appeareth to the Common Law See 16 H. 2. in the Case of Mortuary Vide Decretalia Sexti Lib. 3. tit de Decimis cap. 1. fo 130. Col. 4. Et summa Angelica fo 72. the same And that also appeareth by Linwood amongst the Constitutions Simonis Mephum tit de Decimis cap. Quoniam propter fo 139. 6. verbo Consuetudines Consuetudo ut non solvantur aut minus plene solvantur Decimae non valet and ibidem secundum alios Quod in Decimis realibus non valet Consuetudo ut solvatur minus decima parte sed in personalibus c. And ibidem Litt. M. verbo Integre faciunt expresse contra opinionem quorundum Theologorum qui dicunt sufficere aliquid dari pro Decima And that is the true Reason in both the said Cases scil de modo Decimandi de Limitibus Parochiorum c. that they would not adjudg according to their Canons and therefore a Prohibition lieth and therewith agreeth 8 E. 4. 14. and the other Boóks abovesaid and infinite presidents and the rather after the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. And also the Customs of the Realm are part of the Laws of the Realm and therefore they shall be tryed by the Common Law as is aforesaid See 7 E. 6. Dyer 79. and 18 Eliz. Dyer 349. the Opinion of all the Iustices VI. Mich. 6 Jacob. in the Exchequer Baron and Boys Case IN the Case between Baron and Boys in an Information upon the Sur Stat. 2 E. 6. cap. 14. of Ingrossers Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 14. of Ingrossers after Verdict it was found for the Informer That the Defendant had ingrossed Apples against the said Act The Barons of the Exchequer held clearly That Apples were not within the said Act and gave Iudgment against the Informer upon the matter apparent to them and caused the same to be entered in the Margent of the Record where the Iudgment was given and the Informer brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer chamber and the only Question was Whether Apples were within the said Act the letter of which is That whatsoever person or persons c. shall ingross or get into his or their hands by buying contracting or promise taking other then by Demise Grant or Lease of Land or Tythe any Corn growing in the Fields or any other Corn or grain Butter Cheese Fish or other dead Victual within the Realm of England to the intent to sell the same again shall be accepted c. an unlawful Ingrosser And although that the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 15. made against Sellers of Victual which for their great gain conspire c. numbereth Butchers Brewers Bakers Cooks Costermongers and Fruterers as Victualers yet Apples are not dead Victuals within the Statute of 5 E. 6. For the Buyers and Sellers of Corn and other Victuals have divers Provisoes and Qualifications for them as it appeareth by the said Act but Costermongers and Fruterers have not any Proviso for them also always after the said Act they have bought Apples and other Fruits by Ingross and sold them again and before this time no Information was exhibited for them no more then for Plums or other fruit which serveth more for delicacy then for necessary Food But the Statute of 5 E. 6. is to be intended of things necessary and of common use for the sustenance of man and therefore the words are Corn Grain Butter Cheese or other dead Victual which is as much to say as Victual of like quality that is of like necessary and common use But the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 15. made against Conspiracies to enhaunce the prices was done and made by express words to extend it to things which are more of pleasure then of profit So it was said That of those Fruits a man cannot be a Forestaller within this Act of 5 E. 6. for in the same Branch the words are any Merchandize Victual or any other thing But this was not resolved by the Iustices because that the Information was conceived upon that branch of the Statute concerning Ingrossers VII Hill 27 Eliz. in the Chancery HIllary Term the 27 of Eliz. in the Chancery the Case was thus One Ninian Menvil seised of certain Lands in Fee took a wife Fine Dower Relation and levyed a Fine of the said Lands with proclamations and afterwards was indicted and out-lawed of High Treason and dyed The Conusees convey the Lands to the Queen who is now seised the five years pass after the death of the Husband The Daughters and Heirs of the said Ninian in a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench reverse the said Attainder M. 26 and 27 Eliz. last past and thereupon the Wife sueth to the Queen who was seised of the said Land as aforesaid by Petition containing all the special matter scil the Fine with proclamations and the five years passed after the death of her Husband the Attainder and the reversal of it and her own title scil her marriage and the seisin of her Husband before the Fine And the Petition being endorsed by the Queen Fiat droit aux parties c. the same was sent into the Chancery as the manner is And in this case divers Objections were made against the Demandant 1. That the said Fine with proclamations should bar the Wife of her Dower and the Attainder of her Husband should not help her for as long as the Attainder doth remain in force the same was a bar also of her Dower so as there was a double bar to the Wife viz. the Fine levyed with proclamations and the five years past after the death of her Husband and the Attainder of her Husband of his Treason But admit that the Attainder of the Husband shall avail the Wife in some manner when the same is now reversed in a Writ of Error and now upon the matter is in Iudgment of Law as if no Attainder had been and against that a man might plead That there is no such Record because that the first Record is reversed and utterly disaffirmed and annihilated and now by Relation made no Record ab initio and therewith agreeth the Book of 4 H. 7. 11. for the words of the Iudgment in a Writ of Error are Quod Judicium praedict Errores praedict alios in Recordo c. revocetur admittetur c. quod ipsa ad possessionem suam sive seisinam suam as the case requireth tenementorum suorum praedictorum una cum exitibus proficuis inde a tempore Judicii praedict reddit praecept ad omnia quae occasione Judicii illius omisit restituatur By which it appeareth that the first Iudgment which was originally imperfect and erroneous is for the same Errors now adnulled and revoked ab initio and the party against whom the Iudgment was given restored to his possession and to
of Iustice And this was the end of these three days consultations And note That Dr. Bennet in his discourse inveighed much against the opinion in 8 E. 4. 14. and in my Reports in Wrights Case That the Ecclesiastical Iudg would not allow a Modus Decimandi and said That that was the mystery of iniquity and that they would allow it And the King asked for what cause it was so said in the said Books To which I answered that it appeareth in Linwood who was Dean of the Arches and of profound knowledg in the Canon and Civil Law and who wrote in the Reign of King Henry the sixth a little before the said Case in 8 E. 4. in his title de Decimis cap. Quoniam propter c. fo 139. b. Quod Decimae solvantur c. absque ulla diminutione and in the gloss it is said Quod Consuetudo de non Decimando aut de non bene Decimando non valet And that being written by a great Canonist of England was the cause of the said saying in 8 E. 4. that they would not allow the said plea de Modo Decimandi for always the Modus Decimandi is lesse in value then the Tithes in specie and then the same is against their Canon Quod decimae solvantur absque diminutione quod consuetudo de non plene Decimando non valet And it seemed to the King that that Book was a good Cause for them in the time of King Edward the fourth to say as they had said but I said That I did not relie upon that but upon the grounds aforesaid scil The common Law Statute-Laws and the continuall and infinite judgements and judiciall proceedings and that if any Canon or Constitution be against the same such Canon and Constitution c. is void by the Statute of 25. H. 8. Cap. 19. which see and note For all Canons Constitutions c. against the Prerogative of the King the common Laws Statutes or Customs of the Realm are void Lastly the King said That the high Commission ought not to meddle with any thing but that which is enormious and exorbitant and cannot permit the ordinary Proces of the Ecclesiasticall Law and which the same Law cannot punish And that was the cause of the institution of the same Commission and therefore although every offence ex vi termini is enormious yet in the Statute it is to be intended of such an offence is extra omnem normam as Heresie Schisme Incest and the like great offences For the King said That it was not reason that the high Commission should have conusance of common offences but to leave them to Ordinaries scil because that the party cannot have any appeal in case the high Commisson shall determine of it And the King thought that two high Commissions for either Province one should be sufficient for all England and no more XV. Mich. 39 and 40 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Bedell and Shermans Case MIch 39 and 40 Eliz. which is entred Mich. 40 Eliz. in the com-Pleas Rot. 699 Cantabr the Case was this Robert Bedel Gent. and Sarah his wife Farmors of the Rectory of Litlington in the County of Cambridge brought an Action of Debt against John Sherman in the custody of the Marshall of the Marshalsey and demanded 550 l. And declared that the Master and Fellows of Clare-Hall in Cambridge were seised of the said Rectory in fee in right of the said Colledge and in June 10. 29 Eliz. by Indenture demised to Christopher Phesant the said Rectorie for 21 years rendering 17 l. 15 s. 5 d. and reserving Rent-corn according to the Statute c. which Rent was the ancient Rent who entred into the said Rectory and was possessed and assigned all his interest thereof to one Matthew Batâ— who made his last Will and Testament and made Sarah his wife his Executrix and died Sarah proved the Will and entred and was thereof possessed as Executrix and took to husband the said Robert Bedel by force whereof they in the Right of the said Sarah entred and were possessed thereof and that the Defendant was then Tenant and seised for his life of 300 acres of arable Lands in Litlington aforesaid which ought to pay Tithes to the Rector of Litlington and in anno 38 Eliz. the Defendant grano seminavit 200 acres parcel c. And that the Tithes of the same did amount to 150 l. and that the Defendant did not divide nor set forth the same from the 9 parts but took and carried them away against the form and effect of the Statute of 2 E. 6 c. And the Defendant pleaded Nihil debet and the Iury found that the Defendant did owe 55 l. and to the residue they found Nihil debet c. and in arrest of Iudgement divers matters were moved 1. That grano seminata is too generall and incertain but it ought to be expressed with what kinde of corn the same was sowed 2. It was moved If the Parson ought to have the treble value the forfeiture being by expresse words limited to none by the Act or that the same did belong to the Queen 3. If the same did belong to the Parson if he ought to sue for the same in the Ecclesiasticall Court or in the Kings Temporall Court 4. If the husband and wife should joyn in the Action or the husband alone should have the Action and upon solemn argunent at the Barre and at the Bench the Iudgement was affirmed XVI Trinity Term 7 Jocob in the Court of Wards John Bailies Case IT was found by Writ of Diem clausit extremum That the said John Bailie was seised of a Messuage or Tenement and of and in the fourth part of one acre of land late parcel of the Demesne lands of the Mannor of Newton in the County of Hereford in his Demesne as of fee and found the other points of the Writ and it was holden by the two chief Iustices and the chief Barons 1. That Messuagium vel Tenementum is uncertain for Tenementum is nomen collectivum and may contain land or any thing which is holden 2. It was holden that is was void for the whole because that no Town is mentioned in the Office where the Messuage or Tenement or the fourth part of the acre lieth and from the Visne of the Mannor upon a Traverse none can come because it is not affirmed by by the Office that they are parcel of the Mannor but Nuper parcel of the Mannor which implieth that now they are not and it was holden by them that no Melius inquirendum shall issue forth because that the whole Office is incertain and void XVII Trinity 7 Jacobi Regis in the Court of Wards THe Attorney of the Court of Wards moved the two chief Iustices and chief Baron in this Case That a man seised of lands in fee-simple covenants for the advancement of his son and of his name and blood and posterity that he will stand seised
his Deed indented dated the 22 of December in the first year of King James made between him of the one part and the said John Sammes and George Sammes Son and Heir apparent of the said John of the other part did bargain sell grant enfeoff release and confirm unto the said John Sammes the said Mead called Grany Mead to have and to hold the said Mead unto the said John Sammes and George Sammes and their Heirs and Assigns to the onely use and behoof of the said John Sammes and George Sammes their Heirs and Assigns for ever and by the same Indenture Sir Thomas did covenant with John and George to make further assurance to John and George and their Heirs to the use of them and their Heirs and Livery and Seisin was made and delivered according to the true intent of the said Indentures of the within mentioned premisses to the uses within mentioned John Sammes the Father dyeth George Sammes his Son and Heir being within age the Question was Whether George Sammes should be in Ward to the King or no And in this case three points were resolved 1. For as much as George was not named in the premisses he cannot take by the Habendum and the Livery made according to the intent of the Indenture doth not give any thing to George because the Indenture as to him is voyd but although the Feoffment be good onely to John and his Heirs yet the use limited to the use of John and George and their Heirs is good 2. If the Estate had been conveyed to John and his Heirs by the Release or Confirmation as it well may be to a Tenant by Copy of Court Roll the use limited to them is good for upon a Release which creates an Estate a use may be limited or a Rent reserved without question but upon a Release or Confirmation which enures by way of Mitter le droit an use cannot be limited or a Rent reserved But the third was of greater doubt If in this case the Father and Son were Ioynt-tenants or Tenants in common For it was objected when the Father is onely enfeoffed to the onely use of him and his Son and their Heirs in the Per that in this case they shall be Tenants in common By the Feoffment the Father is in by the common Law in the Per and then the limitation of the use to him and his Son and to their Heirs cannot devest the Estate which was vested in him by the common Law out of him and vest the Estate in him in the Post by force of the Statute according to the limitation of the use and therefore as to one moyety the Father shall be in by force of the Feoffment in the Per and the Son as to the other moyety shall be in by force of the Statute according to the limitation of the use in the Post and by consequence they shall be Tenants in common But it was answered and resolved That they were Ioynt-tenants and that the Son in the Case at Bar should have the said Grange by the Survivor for if at the common Law A. had been enfeoffed to the use of him and B. and their Heirs although that he was onely seised of the Land the use was joyntly to A. and B. For a use shall not be suspended or extinct by a sole seisin or joynt seisin of the Land and therefore if A. and B. be enfeoffed to the use of A. and his Heirs and A. dyeth the entire use shall descend to his Heir as it appeareth in 13 H. 7. 6. in Stoners Case and by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 10. of Vses it appeareth That when several persons are seised to the use of any of them that the Estate shall be executed according to the use And as to that which was said That the Estate of the Land which the Father hath in the Land as to the moyetyof the use which he himself hath shall not be devested out of him To that it was answered and resolved That that shall well be for if a man maketh a Feoffment in Fee to one to tho use of him and the Heirs of his body in this case for the benefit of the issue the Statute according to the limitation of the uses devests the Estate vested in him by the common Law and executes the same in himself by force of the Statute and yet the same is out of the words of the Statute of 27 H. 8. which are Where any person c. stand or be scised c. to the use of any other person and here he is seised to the use of himself and the other clause is Where divers and many persons c. be joyntly seised c. to the use of any of them c. and in this case A. is sole seised But the Statute of 27 H. 8. hath been always beneficially expounded to satisfie the intention of the parties which is the direction of the uses according to the Rule of the Law So if a man seised of Lands in Fee-simple by Deed covenant with another that he and his Heirs will stand seised of the same Land to the use of himself and the Heirs of his body or unto the use of himself for life the remainder over in Fee in that case by the operation of the Statute the Estate which he hath at the common Law is devested and a new Estate vested in himself according to the limitation of the use And it is to be known that an use of Land which is but a pernency of the profits is no new thing but part of that which the owner of the Land had and therefore if Tenant in Borrough-English or a man seised of the part of his Mother maketh a Feoffment to another without consideration the younger Son in the one case and the Heir on the part of the Mother on the other shall have the use as they should have the Land it self if no Feoffment had been made as it is holden in 5 E. 4. 7. See 4 and 5 Phil. and Mar. Dyer 163. So if a man maketh a Feoffment unto the use of another in tayl and afterwards to the use of his right Heirs the Feoffor hath the Reversion of the Land in him for if the Donee dyeth without isse the Law giveth the use which was part of the Land to him and so it was resolved Trinity 31 Eliz. between Fenwick and Milford in the Kings-Bench So in 28 H. 8. Dyer 11. the Lord Rosses Case A man seised of one Acre by Priority and of another Acre by Posteriority and makes a Feoffment in Fee of both to his use and it was adjudged that although both pass at one instant yet the Law shall make a Priority of the uses as if it were of the Land it self which proves that the use is not any new thing for then there should be no Priority in the Case See 13 H. 7. b. by Butler So in the Case at Bar The use limited to