formally expressed in the usual Terms As to the second payment Where a man bargains and sells his Lands by Deed indented to be enroled and before enrolment he makes Livery to the Bargainee and afterwards the Indentur is enroled the Court discharged Beamount from the arguing of that Point Liveâ—y where it prevents operation of an Enrolment for by Wray the Livery doth prevent the operation of the Enrolment and Sir George shall be accounted in by the Livery and not by the bargain and sale for Livery is of more worth and more worthy ceremony to pass estates and therefore shall be preferred and then the Livery being made in such part of the Mannor which was in the possession of the Feoffor in the name of the whole Mannor no more of the Mannor passeth but that which was then in the possession of the Feoffor And the Reversion of such part of the Mannor which was in Lease shall not pass without Attornment but when the Enrolment cometh now the whole passeth and then the Reversion being setled by the Enrolment the Attornment coming afterwards hath no relation See 48 E. 3. 15 16. The Iury here have found the default of payment whereby the conditional use which passed by the bargain and sale upon the condition broken shall be reduced to the Bargainor without any Entry 1. Cro. 382. and then the uses limited after are void for an use limited upon an use cannot rise quod fuit concessum per totam curiam Then Bracebridge the Father having the Inheritance of the said Mannor in his own right and the interest de futuro for years in the right of his Wife joyntly with the said A. when he sells the said Mannor by Deed indented and enroled now thereby the interest for years which he hath in the Right of his Wife doth not pass for a bargain and sale is not so strong a conveyance as a Livery As if I have a Rent-charge in the right of my Wife out of the Manor of D. which Manor afterwards I purchase and afterwards by Deed indented and enroled I bargain and sell the said Manor c. the Rent shall not pass Then the said Thomas Bracebridge the Father having the said Right of an entail to him and to the Heirs Males of his body and being Tenant for life by his own conveyance the Remainder in tail to his Son and Heir apparent the now Defendant when he levyeth a Fine and the Son enters for forfeiture before Proclamations pass and his Father dyeth in that case the Defendant is not remitted unto the first entail although after Proclamations pass in the life of the Father and so he shall not avoid the Leases for notwithstanding that the Issue in tail by that Entry hath defeated the possession which passed by the Fine yet as to the right of the old entail the Fine doth retain its force and so he entred quodam modo in assurance of the Fine As if Tenant in tail doth discontinue and disseiseth the Discontinuee and levieth a Fine with Proclamations and the Discontinuee enters within the five years now although the Fine as to the Discontinuee be avoided so as the possession which passed by the Fine is defeated yet the right of the entail doth continue bound Egerton Solicitor contrary and he conceived that all the Mannor doth pass by the Livery to Sir George and nothing of it by the Enrolment and that the meaning of the parties was that all should pass by the Livery for if the assurance should enure by the bargain and sale then the second uses limited upon default of payment should never rise for an use upon an use cannot rise and then the said uses limited for the payment of the debts of the Feoffor c. should be defeated and also where at the begining of the assurance the condition was entire the warranty entire c. and if such construction should be allowed here shall be a divided condition a divided warranty And also the meaning of the parties that the whole Mannor should pass by such construction should be dismembred and part pass by the Livery and part by the bargain and sale and we ought to make such constructions of Deeds that things may pass by them according to the meanings of the parties as if I be seised of a Mannor to which and Advowson is appendant and I make a Deed of Feoffment of the same Mannor cum pertinencijs and deliver the Deed to the party but no Livery of seisin is had the Advowson shall not pass for then it should be in gross whereas the meaning of the parties was that it should pass as appendant and that in such case cannot be for there is no Livery therefore it shall not pass at all and so it hath been adjudged So if I bargain and sell my Mannor of D. and all the Trees in the same and I deliver the Deed but it is not enrolled the Trees shall not pass for the intent of the parties was that the Trees should pass as parcel of the Free-hold and not as Chattels And as to the remitter I conceive that the Heir entring as Heir by the Law is remitted but where the Entry is given by a special Statute there the Entry shall not enure further than the words of the Statute As Land is given to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the Husband levieth a Fine and dieth the wife entreth this Entry shall not avail to the issue in tail for the Entry is given to the Wife by a special Law And he cited Sir Richard Haddons Case the Husband aliened the Lands of his Wife they are divorced the Husband dieth the Wife shall not enter by 32. H. 8. but is put to her Writ of Cui in vita ante divor And afterwards the same Term the Iustices having considered of the Case delivered their opinions upon the matters by Wray chief Iustice viz. That the one moyety of the Lease was extinct by the Livery viz. the moyety of Ioyce the Wife of the Lessor and as to the other moyety it is in being for here is no remitter for if any remitter had been in the Case it should be after the use raised which is not as yet raised for the Land ought to remain in Sir George until the said five hundred pounds be levyed and that is not found by the Verdict and therefore for the said moyety the Plaintiff had Iudgment XI Treshams Case Mich 25 26 Eliz. in the Exchequer SIR John Tresham seised of the Manor of D. holden of the King in Capite by Knights service 4 H. 7. enfeoffed Edmund Earl of Wilts and N. Vaux Knight who gave the said Manor to the said Sir John in tail upon condition that he should not alien c. quo minus c. John Tresham dyed seised by whose decease the Manor descended to Tho. Tresham who entred 2 Len. 55 56. and 18 H. 8. aliened with
their amendment makes alteration of the substance of the pleading or of the Verdict as 20 H. 6. 15. In Trespass the Plaintiff declared of a continuando usque diem impetrationis brevis viz. 18. die Martii where the Teste of the Writ was 2 die Januarij the Defendant pleaded to Issue which was found for the Plaintiff and that Misprision of the Teste or date of the Writ could not be amended And no amendment upon this Stat. of 27 Eliz. two things are to be considered First that the Iudges in such amendment medle not with matter nor alter the substance Secondly that they do not amend but according to their judicial knowledge Anderson to the same intent for as it hath been said before the truth of the Case doth not appear unto us according to which we can judge and I conceive that upon any amendment upon this Statute we cannot take out one Roll and put in another and as our case is we cannot amend this defect without taking out the whole Roll and therefore in the Case of Leonard which was late Custos brevium here where in a Replevin he avowed for a Rent-service and upon especial Verdict the Case was that Sir Henry Isley held of the said Leonard by Fealty and the Rent mentioned in the Avowry and was attainted of high Treason and the King seised and granted the Land to the Plaintiff upon whom Leonard avowed for the Rent-service and I and my companions were agreed that the rent notwithstanding the seisure and grant of the King remained distrainable of common right but Leonard could not have return of the Cattel because he had avowed for a Rent-service now it appeareth to us upon the Verdict that he had right to so much rent but not to such a Rent but a Rent-seck distrainable of common right so a Rent in another degree and we also agreed that the Avowry was not amendable for then upon such amendment we ought to take out a whole Roll which was not intended by this Statute And he conceived also that in debt against Executors in the Debet detinet such a Writ shall not be amended by this Statute and he conceived that his exception to the Bar quod ad medietatem 60. Messuag c. parcel medietatis c. is relieved by this Statute for the meaning appeareth And also the exception that it is not expresly shewed that the Fine was engrossed in the same Term in which it was levied And Periam moved another matter Co. 1 Inst 71. b. 72. a. if now the parties demurring in Law as to part of the Land in demand and being at Issue upon the residue if the Court shall adjudge the matter in Law before the Issue be tried or not 32 H. 6. 5 6. In Trespass for taking of his Cattel the Defendant as to parcel pleaded not guilty and as to the remnant pleaded another Plea upon which the parties did demur and there they proceeded to trial before the matter in Law determined and found for the Plaintiff and he had Iudgment thereupon for the damages but the costs were suspended until c. And the Defendant brought his Writ of Error 48 E. 3. 15. In an Action of Wast as to parcel the Defendant pleads no Wast and as to the rest pleaded matter in Law upon which there was a demurer joyned It was holden that the Issue should not be tried until the matter in Law be determined But it was said by Fulthorpe in Trespass if the Defendant to parcel plead the Enquest and to other parcel matter in Law in such case he should proceed to trial presently and damages should be taxed of the whole as well of that upon which there was a demurrer in Law as of that of which the Issue was joyned ad quod non fuit responsum See also 11 H. 4. 228. In Trespass the Defendant pleaded to Issue for part and for the residue did demur in Law Process for the trial issued before the matter in Law determined And Periam conceived that the Court might proceed in such Case the one way or the other As to the matter in Law whether the issue in tail upon this Fine should have the Averment he conceived that he should not have the said Averment for that it should be very perilous to the Inheritances of the subjects And he argued much upon the dignity of Fines out of Bracton and Glanvil whom he called Actores non Authores Legis that Fines at the common Law were of great authority until the Statute of West 2. And afterwards by the Statute of 34 E. 3. of non-claim from whence they became to be of so little value in Law that they were accounted no other than Feoffments upon Record so as thereby no assurance was of Inheritances but a general incertainty until the Statute of 4. H. 7. by which Statute they were restored to their ancient power and virtue After which Statute many shifts were devised to creep out of it So as the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made to take away all questions and ambiguities which were conceived upon the said Statute of 4 H. 7. And therefore we who are Iudges ought to frame our Iudgments for the maintaining of the authority of Fines for so the possessions and inheritances of the Subjects shall be preserved And that is the reason that if a stranger levy a Fine of my Land in my name that I have not any remedy but a Writ of Deceit against him who levyes the Fine so if a Feme-covert levyeth a Fine of her Land as a Feme-sole the same shall bind her after the coverture if the Husband do not enter upon the Conusee during the coverture and interrupt the possession gained by the Fine And 17 E. 3. and our Books are very plentiful to this purpose that the Law doth aerge admit of such allegations against such Fines A Fine was pleaded in Bar of Land in A. B. and C. he against whom it was pleaded was not received to aver against the supposal of the Fine that there was no such Town or Hamlet as A. 46 E. 3. 5. A woman Tenant in tail had Issue a Daughter who was inheritable to the tail the Daughter took a Husband they both living the Mother and during her seisin levied a Fine of the Land entailed to a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. who rendred the Land to the Husband and Wife in specil tail the Husband died having Issue the Wife took another Husband had Issue and died the Husband to entitie himself to the Land as Tenant by the curtesy would in pleading have averred the seisin of the Mother at the time of the Fine levyed and he could not and yet he was a stranger to the Fine but he was privy to the estate and his claim was by her who levyed the Fine 6 E. 3. 46. Fitz. Averment 40. In a Writ of Entry sur dissei sin the Fine of the
Ancestor of the Demandant was pleaded in Bar by the name of W the Demandant in avoidance of it would have said that the name of his Father was R. to have avoided the Fine but to that he was not received And 3 E. 3. 32. scil Averment 42. In a Formedon the Tenant pleaded Ne dona pas The Demandant by Replication said That a Fine was levied of the same Lands between the Father of the Demandant and one T. by which Fine the Father of the Demandant did acknowledge to T. the Lands come ceo c. and the said T. gave by the said Fine to the Father of the Demandant the Land in tail Where it is said by Stone that since the gift is proved by as high a Record a man shall not aver against such matter in avoidance of the said Fine c. and yet the party against whom it was was a stranger to the Fine And see 38 E. 3. 7. The Lord shall not be received against a Fine levied by his Tenant to aver the dying seised of his Tenant in his Homage And as to the Issue in tail he conceived that the Averment doth not lie for him for the Issue in tail is as much privy as the Heir of a Tenant in Fee-simple And see 33 E. 3. scil Estoppel 280. In a Formedon the Tenant voucheth the Demandant Counter-pleaded that the Vouchee nor any of his Ancestors had any thing in the Land in demand after the seisin c. to which the Tenant said that to that the Demandant should not be received for the Father of the Demandant after the gift levied a Fine to the Ancestor of the Vouchee of the said Land in demand sur conusans de droit come ceo c. and the same was holden a good bar to the Counter-plea And it was said by the Iustices That although the Statute of West 2. of Donis conditionalibus doth not avoid the Fine as to the fore-closing of the Issue in tail of his Formedon yet it remaineth in force as to the restraining of the heir in tail to aver a thing against the Fine as well as against the heir in Fee-simple and in all Cases where he against whom a Fine is pleaded claims by him who levieth the Fine he shall not have the same Averment but where he claims by a stranger to the Fine there he shall have it well enough see 33 H. 6. 18. If my Father Tenant in tail or in Fee grant the Land by Fine and afterwards I make Title to the same Land by the same Ancestor and the Fine is pleaded against me I shall not be received to say that those who were parties to the Fine had not any thing at the time of the Fine levied but such a one an estranger whose estate c. but it is a good Plea for me to say that after the Fine such a one was seised in Fee and did enfeoff me vid. 22 E 3. 17. before 33 E. 3. Estoppel 280. And Dyer 16 Eliz. 334. The Father is Tenant for life the Remainder in Fee to his Son and Heir levieth a Fine to a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. with warranty and takes back an estate by the same Fine in that case it was holden that the heir should not be received to aver continuance of the possession and seisin either ante finem tempore finis or post finem in the Tenant for life for it is a Feoffment upon Record and makes a discontinuance of the Remainder and Reversion The only Book in our Law to maintain the Averment is 12 E. 4. 15. by Brian who although he was a reverend Iudge in his time yet he erred in this that if Tenant in tail be disseised and levieth a Fine unto a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. that the Issue in tail may well say that partes ad finem nihil habuerunt but Coke and Lit. were clear of a contrary opinion and see in the same year fol. 12 by Fairfax and Littleton that if Tenant in tail where the Remainder is over to a stranger levieth a Fine sur conusans dodroit come ceo c. he in the Remainder may aver continuance of seisin against that Fine for he is not party nor heir to the party c. And the Stat. of 4 H. 7. goes strongly to extort such Averment out of the mouth of the Issue in tail for the words concerning the same point are saving to every person or persons not party nor privy to the said Fine their exception to avoid the said Fine by that that those which were parties to the said Fine nor any of them had ought in the Land at the time of the said Fine levied And it is clear that the Issue in tail is privy to his Ancestor whose heir to the tail he is which see agreed 19 H. 8. 6. 7. And he vouched the Case of one Stamford late adjudged Land was given to the eldest Son in tail the Remainder to the Father in tail the eldest Son levied a Fine sur conusans de droit come ceo c. and died without Issue in the life of his Father and afterwards the Father died the second Son shall inherit but if the eldest Son had survived the Father and afterwards died without Issue the second Son should have been barred Periam to the same intent It should be very dangerous to the Inheritances of the Subjects to admit of such Averments and by such means Fines which should be of great force and effect should be much weakned and he put many Cases to the same purpose as were put before by Rhodes Iustice and he shewed how that Fines and the power of them were much weakned by the Statute of non-claim whereof followed as the preface of the Statute of 4 H. 7. observeth the Vniversal trouble of the Kings Subjects and therefore by the said Statute of 4 H. 7. Fines for the good and safety of the Subjects were restored to their former Grandure and authority which should be construed by us who are Iudges strongly and liberally for the quiet and establishment of present possessions and for the barring and extinguishing of former rights and so did the Iudges our Predecessors which see in the Argument of the said Case between Stowel and the Lord Zouch So see such liberal construction 19 Eliz. Dyer 351. Where if Land be given to Husband and Wife in special tail and the Husband alone levieth a Fine and dieth having Issue the Issue is barred And it hath lately been adjudged by the advice of all the Iudges of England upon the Statute of 1 Ma. viz. All Fines levied whereupon Proclamations shall not be dayly made by reason of Adjournment of any Term shall be of as good force and strength to all intents and purposes as if such Term had been holden and kept from the beginning to the end thereof and not adjourned and the Proclamations shall be made in the following
Kings Bench. PRowse brought an Action upon the Case against Cary for words That the Plaintiff did subborn procure and bring in false Witnesses in such a Court at Westminster c. The Defendant pladed Not guilty And it was found that he did procure and brought in false Witnesses but was acquitted of the suborning It was objected 1 Cr. 296. 554. 607. That the Action doth not lie for it may be that the Defendant did not know that he would depose falsly Thou art a forger of false Writings are not actionable and so it was adjudged for it may be understood of Letters of small importance but that Exception was not allowed for it shall be taken in malam partem and cannot be spoken of any honest man. CXXXII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A. Was bounden in an Obligation to B. upon condition that if A deliver to B. twenty Quarters of Corn the nine and twentieth of February next following datum presentium that then c. and the next February had but eight and twenty days And it was holden that A. is not bounden to deliver the Corn until such a year as is Leap-year for then February hath nine and twenty days and at such nine and twentieth day he is to deliver the Corn and the Obligation was holden good CXXXII Allen and Palmers Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was a Copy-holder did surrender his Lands to the use of a stranger for life Copy-holder surrenders where his heir shall be in by purchase 2 Roll. 416. Co. 1 Inst 226. and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the Copy-holder who afterwards surrendred his Reversion to the use of a stranger in Fee died and the Tenant for life died and the right Heir of Palmer the Copy-holder entred And by Cook nothing remained in the Copy-holder upon the said surrender but the Fee is reserved to his right Heirs for if he had not made any such second surrender his Heir should be in not by descent but by purchase And the common difference is where a surrender is to the use of himself for life and afterwards to another in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of him who surrendreth there his Heirs shall have it by descent contrary where the surrender hath not an estate for life or in tail limited to him for there his Heir shall enter as a purchasor as if such use had been limitted to the right Heirs of a stranger And by him if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of his right Heirs the Land shall remain in the Lord until the death of the Copy-holder for then his Heir is known c. See Dyer 99. The Husband made a Feoffment to the use of his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Husband and Wife begotten they have issue the Wife dieth the issue cannot enter in the life of his Father for then he is not his Heir See Dyer 7 Eliz. 237. The Husband is sole seised in Fee and levieth a Fine of the Land to the use of himself and his Wife and the Heirs of the Husband and they render the Land to the Conusor for the life of the Husband the remainder to B. for life the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband The Husband dieth B. dieth Now the Wife shall have the Land for the life of the Wife for she shall not lose her estate by that render and this remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband is void and the Land and estate in it is in him as a Reversion and not as a Remainder And a man cannot tail a Remainder to his right Heirs whilest he is living unless it begin first in himself See Br. 32 H. 8. Gard. 93. CXXXIV Pearle and Edwards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was that the Defendant had leased Lands to the Plaintiff rendring Rent for certain years Assumpsit Consideration 1 Cro. 94. and after some years of the Term expired the Lessor in consideration that the Lessee had occupied the Land and had paid his Rent promised the Plaintiff to save him harmless against all persons for the occupation of the Land past and also to come And afterwards H. distrained the Cattle of the Plaintiff being upon the Lands upon which he brought his Action Golding Here is not a sufficient consideration for the payment of the Rent is not any consideration for the Lessee hath the ocupation of the Land for it and hath the profits thereof and also the consideration is past Cook The occupation which is the consideration continues therefore it is a good Assumpsit as 4 E. 3. A Gift in Frank-marriage after the espousals and yet the marriage is past but the blood continues so here and here the payment of the Rent is executory every year and if the Lessee be saved for his occupation he will pay his Rent the better Godfrey If a man marrieth my Daughter against my will and afterwards in consideration of that marriage I promise him one hundred pounds the same is no good consideration 2 Len. 111. which Clench Iustice denied And afterwards the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover his damages CXXXV Wakefords Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Extinguishment of Copy-hold by Release THe Earl of Bedford Lord of the Manor of B. sold the Free-hold Interest of a Copy-holder of Inheritance unto another so as it is now no part but divided from the Manor and afterwards the Copy-holder doth release to the purchasor It was holden by the Court that by this Release the Copy-hold Interest is extinguished and utterly gone but if was holden that if a Copy-holder be ousted so as the Lord of the Manor is disseised and the Copy-holder releaseth to the Disseisor nihil operatur CXXXVI Docton and Priests Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass for breaking of his Close 1 Cro. 95. it was found by special verdict that two were Tenants in common of a house and of a close â—djoyning to the house and they being in the house make partition without deed of the house and the close see 3 E. 4. 9. 10. Partition without deed upon the Land is good enough Vide 3 H. 4. 1. And it seems by 3 E 4. Partition made upon the Land amounts to a Livery Vide 2 Eliz. Dyer 179. Partition by word out the County void 19 H. 6. 25. Betwixt Tenants in common not good without deed 2 Roll. 255. 47 E. 3. 22. being upon the Land it is good without deed Two Ioynt-tenants make partition by word make partition in another County the same is no partition for as to that matter the common Law is not altered by the Statute but as to compel such persons to make partition Wray Iustice conceived that the partition here being without deed was not good although made upon the Lands Vide 18 Eliz. Dyer 35.
otherwise it should be idle And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Queen CLXIII Piers and Leversuchs Case In Ejectione firmae Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IT was found by special verdict that one Robert Leversuch Grand-father of the Defendant was Tenant in tail of certain Lands whereof c. and made a Lease for years to one Pur. who assigned it over to P. father of the Plaintiff Robert Leversuch died W. his Son and Heir entred upon P. who re-entred W. demised without other words the Land to the said P. for life the remainder to Joan his Wife for life the remainder to the Son of P. for life with warranty and made a Letter of Attorney therein to enter and deliver seisin accordingly P. died before that the Livery was executed and afterwards the Attorney made livery to Joan. W. died Ed. his Son and Heir entred upon the Wife she re-entred and leased to the Plaintiff who upon an ouster brought the Action Heale When P. entred upon W. Leversuch the issue in tail he was a disseisor and by his death the Land descending to his Heir the entry of W. Leversuch the issue in tail was taken away 3 Cro. 222. Cook contrary P. by his entry was not a disseisor but at the Election of W. for when P. accepted such a deed from W. it appeareth that his intent was not to enter as a disseisor and it is not found that the said P. had any Son and Heir at the time of his death and if not then no descent and there is not any disseisin found that P. expulit Leversuch out of the Land. And Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And Cook cited a Case which was adjudged in the Common Pleas and it was the Case of Shipwith Grand-father Tenant in tail Father and Son The Grand-father died the Father entred and paid the Rent to the Lessor and died in possession and adjudged that it was not any descent for the paying of the Rent doth explain by what title he entred and so he shall not be a Disseisor but at the Election of another CLXIV Severn and Clerks Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. â—ts THe Case was that A. by his Deed Poll recited That whereas he was possessed of certain Lands for years of a certain Term By good and lawful conveyance he assigned the same to I. S. with divers Covenants Articles and Agreements in the said deed contained which are or ought to be performed on his part It was moved if this recital whereas he was be an Article or Agreement within the meaning of the condition of the said Obligation which was given to perform c. Gawdy conceived that it is an agreement For in such case I agree that I am possessed of it for every thing contained in the deed is an Agreement and not only that which I am bound to perform As if I recite by my deed that I am possessed of such an interest in certain Land and assign it over by the same deed and thereby covenant to perform all Agreements in the deed if I be not possessed of such Interest the covenant is broken And it was moved if that recital be within these words of the condition which are or ought to be performed on my part And some were of opinion that it is not within those words for that extends only in futurum but this recital is of a thing past or at the least present Recital 2 Cro. 281. Yyl. 206. Clench Recital of it self is nothing but being joyned and considered with the rest of the deed it is material as here for against this recital he cannot say that he hath not any thing in the Term. And at the length it was clearly resolved that if the party had not that Interest by a good and lawful conveyance the Obligation was forfeited CLXV Page and Jourdens Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trepass betwixt Page and Jourden the case was A Woman Tenant in tail took a Husband who made a Feoffment in Fee and died The Wife without any Entry made a Lease for years It was moved that the making of this Lease is an Entry in Law. As if A. make a Lease for years of the Land of B. who enters by force of that Lease A general entry amounts to a disseisin now the Lessor without any Entry is a Disseisor And it was resolved that by that Leasâ— the Free-hold is not reduced without an Entry CLXVI Havithlome and Harvies Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 9. 1 Cro. 130. 3 Cro. Goodwin vers West HAvithlome brought an Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 9. against Harvy and his Wife for the penalty of ten pounds given by the said Statute against him who was served with process ad testificandum c. and doth not appear not having any impediment c. and shewed that process was served upon the Defendants Wife and sufficient charges having regard to her degree and the distance of the place c. tendred to her and yet she did not appear And it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Declaration is not good because the Plaintiff in setting forth that he was damaged for the not appearance of the Wife according to the process hath not shewed how damnified Also it was moved that a Feme Covert is not within the said Statute for no mention is made of a Feme Covert and therefore upon the Statute of West 2. cap. 25. If a Feme Covert fail of her Record she shall not be holden disseisseress nor imprisoned Also here the Declaration is that the Plaintiff tendered the charges to the Wife where he ought to have tendered the same to the Husband To these three Exceptions it was answered 1. That although the party be not at all damnified yet the penalty is forfeited 2. Feme Coverts are within the said Statute otherwise it should be a great mischeif for it might be that she might be the only witness And Feme Coverts if they had not been expresly excepted had been within the Statute of 4 H. 7. of Fines 3. The wife ought to appear therefore the tender ought to be to her And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXVII Dellaby and Hassels Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case 1 Cro. 132. the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant in consideration that he had retained the Plaintiff to go from London to Paris to Merchandize diverse goods to the profit of the Defendant promised to give to him so much as should content him and also to give him all and every sum of money which he should expend there in his Affairs and further declared that he was contented to have twenty-pounds for his labour which the Defendant refused to pay And exception was taken to the Declaration because there is
second Lessee and declared upon a Lease made for years without speaking of the Indenture And Gawdy Serjeant demanded the opinion of the Court if the Defendant might safely plead no Wast And they conceived that it should be dangerous so to do Then it was demanded if the Defendant plead that the Plaintiff had nothing tempore dimissionis whereof he had counted if the Plaintiff might estop the Defendant by the Indenture although he had not counted upon it and if such Replication be not a departure And it seemed to Periam and Leonard Custos brevium that it was not for it is not contrary to the Declaration but rather doth enforce the Declaration CCXXI Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WAlmesley Serjeant demanded the opinion of the Court upon this matter Land is given to Husband and Wife in special tail during the Coverture they have issue the Husband is attainted of Treason and dieth the Wife continues in as Tenant in tail the issue is restored by Parliament and made inheritable to his Father saving unto the King all advantages which were devolded unto him by the Attainder of his Father the Wife dieth And he conceived that the issue was inheritable for the Attainder which disturbed the inheritance is removed and the blood is restored and nothing can accrue to the King for the Father had not any estate forfeitable but all the estate did survive to the Wife not impeachable by the said Attainder And when the Wife dieth then is the Issue capable to enherit the estate tail Windham and Rhodes prima facie thought the contrary yet they agreed that if the Wife had suffered a common Recovery the sâ—me had bound the King. CCXXII Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Assumpsit that he had delivered to the Defendant diversa bona ad valentiam 10 li. the Defendant in consideration thereof did promise to pay to the Plaintiff the Debt owing pro bonis praedictis and did not shew that the Defendant bought the said goods of the Plaintiff and so it doth not appear that there was any Debt and then a promise to pay it is meerly void which was agreed by the whole Court. CCXXIII. Seaman and Brownings Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. GEorge Seaman brought Debt upon a Bond against W. Browning and others Executors of one Marshal the condition was Debt that where the said Marshal had sold certain Lands to the Plaintiff if the said Plaintiff peaceably and quietly enjoy the said Lands against the said Marshal c. and assigned the breach in this that the said Marshal had entred upon him and cut down five Elms there upon which the parties were at issue And it was found that A. servant of the said Marshal by commandment of his said Master had entred and cut c. in the presence of his said Master and by his commandment for he is a principal Trespassor And it was so holden by the Court. CCXXIV. Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IF the Kings Tenant by Knights service dieth his Heir within age 8 Co. 172. and upon Office found the King seiseth the Body and Land yet the Heir during the possession of the King may sell the Lands by Deed enrolled or make a Lease of such Land and the same shall bind the Heir notwithstanding the possession of the King but if he maketh a Feoffment in Fee it is utterly void for the same is an intrusion upon the possession of the King but where the King by Office found is entituled to the Inheritance as that his Tenant dieth without Heir whereas it is false for which the King seiseth in such case the Tenant of the King before his Ouster le mayne cannot make a Lease for years or sell the Land by Deed enrolled The Case depended in London before the Iudges of the Sheriffs Court. The King by colour of a false Office which doth falsly entitle him to the Inheritance is seised of certain Land he who hath right leased the same for years by Deed indented and then an Ouster le mayne was sued and he enfeoffed a stranger And it was holden that the Lease should not bind the Feoffee although it was by Deed indented for the Feoffee is a stranger to the Indenture and therefore shall not be estopped by it 18 H. 6. 22. A stranger shall not take advantage of an Estoppel and therefore shall not be bound by it As if one take a Lease for years by Indenture of his own Lands the same shall bind him but if he dieth without Heir it shall not bind the Lord in point of Escheat CCXXV. Gibbs Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 861. Owen 27. GIbbs brought an Action upon the Case upon Trover and Conversion of a Gelding and the Case was that one P. had stolen the said Horse and sold the same unto the Defendant in open Market by the name of Lister and the said false name was entred in the Toll-book And it was holden clear by the Court that by that sale the property was not altered CCXXVI Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Owen 45. Hutton 105. 1 Cro. 734. Post 322. TEnant in Socage leased his Lands for four years and died his Heir within the age of eight years the Mother being Guardian in Socage leased the Land by Indenture to the same Lessee for fourteen years It was holden by the Court that in this Case the first lease is surrendred but otherwise upon a Lease made by Guardian by Nurture CCXXVII Kimpton and Dawbenets Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass the Defendant did justifie by a grant of the Land where c. by Copy The Plaintiff by Replication saith that the Land is customary Land ut supra and claimed the same by a former Copy The Defendant by Rejoynder saith that well and true it is that the Lord may grant Copies in possession at his pleasure and also estates by Copy in Reversion with the assent of the Copy-holder in possession but all estates granted by Copy in Reversion without such assent have been void It was argued that this custom is not good for it is not reason that the Lord in disposing of the customary possessions of his Manor should depend upon the will of his Tenant at will and the same is not like to the case of Attornment for there the Attendancy is to be respited which is not to be done here for the Copy-holder in possession shall continue attendant to his Lord notwithstanding such a grant in Reversion And see for the unreasonableness of the custom 19 Eliz. 357. in Dyer Sallfords Case It was moved on the other side that the Custom was good enough and 3 H. 6. 45. was vouched That every Freehold of a Manour upon alienation might surrender his Land c. It was adjourned CCXXVIII Marriot and Pascalls Case in a Writ of
Executor of an Administrator 1 Cro. 121. Yel 20. 9 Co. 87. Administratrix of Joan Webb and declared of a Contract without specialty The Defendant pleaded That she had fully administred and it was found against her And now it was moved for the Defendant That upon the matter an action of Debt doth not lye against the Executor or Administratrix which was granted by the Court. But the doubt was If now forasmuch as the Defendant by pleading the plea above hath admitted the action she shall now take advantage of the Law in that point For the reason why this action doth not lye against an Executor or Administrator is because the Testator himself might have waged his Law if he had been impleaded upon it and by intendment of Law the Executor or Administrator cannot have notice of such a Debt or of the discharge of it But now by answering to the Declaration as above the Defendant hath taken notice of the Debt and in manner confessed it And by Rhodes and Anderson Iudgment shall be given against the the Plaintiff because it is apparent to the Court that the action doth not lye And by Anderson If Iudgment be entred against the Administratrix in such an action upon Nihil dicit the Court ex officio shall give judgment against the Plaintiff Periam and Windham doubted at the first that the Defendant by her plea had admitted the whole matter upon the specially administred pleaded and had taken notice of the Debt 41 E. 3. 13. 46 E. 3. 10 11. 13 E. 4. 25. 13 H. 8. Fitz. Execut. 21. And afterwards Anderson ex assensu of the other Iudges caused to be entred Querens capiat nihil per breve CCXXX Hambleden and Hambledens Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Mich. 29. 30 Eliz Devises 1 Cro. 163. 1 And. 381. THe case was William Hambleden the Father of the Plaintiff and the. Defendant was seised of the Lands c. And by his Will devised to his Eldest Son Black Acre to his second Son White Acre and to his third Green Acre in tail And by his said Will further willed That in Case any of my said Sons do dye without issue that then the Survivor be each others heir The Eldest son dieth without issue c It was moved by Gawdy Serjeant That the second Son shall have Black Acre in tail and he cited the Case 30 E. 3. 28. propinquioribus haeredibus de sanguine puerorum for the construction of such devises Walmesley argued That both the surviving Brothers should have the said Black Acre for the words of the devise are quilibet supervivens which amounts to uterque and the Court was in great doubt of this point And they conceived That the estate limited in Remainder to the Survivor c. is a fee-simple by reason of the words Each others heir And also they conceived That both the Survivors should not have the Land for the same is contrary to the express words of the devise The Survivor shall be each others heir in the singular number see 7 E. 6. Br. Devise 38. A man seised of Land hath issue three Sons and deviseth part of his Lands to his second Son in tail Heb. 75. and the residue to his third son in tail and willeth That none of them shall sell the Land but that each shall be heir to the other The second son dieth without issue the same Land shall not revert to the eldest Son but shall remain to the third son 1 Len. 261. notwithstanding the words each shall be heir to the other CCXXXI Slywright and Pages Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Maintenance More 266. 1 And. 201. Golds 101 102. AN Information was in the Common Pleas by John Slywright against Page upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Maintenance and declared that the Defendant took a Lease of one Joan Wade of certain Lands whereas the said Joan was not seised nor possessed thereof according to the Statute and upon Not guilty the Iury found this special matter That Edmund Wade was seised and made a Feoffment in fee thereof unto the use of himself and of the said Joan who he then intended to marry and the heirs of the said Edmund The marriage took effect Edmund enfeoffed a Stranger who entred Edmund died Joan not having had possession of the said Land after the death of Ed. her husband nor bing now in possession by Indenture demised the said Land to the Defendant for years without any Entry or delivery of the Indenture upon the Land The said Defendant knowing the said Joan never had been in possession of the said Land and also the Defendant being Brother of the half blood to the said Joan. The first Question was If the Lease being made by one out of possession and not sealed or delivered upon the Land and so not good in Law as to pass any interest be within the Statute aforesaid And the whole Court was clear of opinion that it was for by colour of this pretended Lease such might be undertaken advanced to the trouble disquiet of the possession for amongst the vulgar people it is a Lease it is a Lease by Reputation Another matter was moved because that the entry of the wife is now made lawful by 32 H. 8. and then she might well dispose of the Land. But as to that It was said by the whole Court That the meaning of the Statute was to repress the practises of many That when they thought they had title or right unto any Land they for the furtherance of their pretended Right conveyed their interest in some part thereof to great persons and with their countenance did oppress the possessors And although here the Lease was made by the said Joan to her Brother of the half blood yet by the clear opinion of the Court the Lease is within the danger of the Statute and yet in some Case the Son may maintain his Father the Kinsman his Kinsman And note in this case it was holden by the Iustices That of necessity it ought to be found by verdict That the Defendant knowing that the Lessor never had been in possession And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXXXII Brokesby against Wickham and the Bishop of Lincoln Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit the Plaintiff counted Quare Impedit 3 Len. 256. 1 Cro. 173. Owen 85 86. Popham 189. That Robert Brokesby was seise of the Advowson and granted the next Avoidance to the Plaintiff and Humphrey Brokesby and that afterwards the Church became void and after during the avoidance Humphrey released to the Plaintiff and so it belongs to him to present And upon this count the Defendant did demar in Law. For it appeareth upon the Plaintiffs own shewing that Humphrey ought to have joined with the Plaintiff in the action for the Release being made after the Church became void
Entry holden lawful But Error was brought upon it And also Calthrops case was cited to the same purpose 16 Eliz. Dyer 336. This estate limited to Ambrose doth refer to the estate limited to Muriel and Ann and not to the time for ever the first estate is to be respected as 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. He in the Remainder in Fee upon an estate for life deviseth it to his Wife yielding and paying during her natural life yearly 20 shillings and dieth living Tenant for life the Rent shall not begin until the Remainder falleth So as the general words refer to the beginning of the estate although the words imply that the Rent shall be paid presently And see also such construction 9 Eliz. 261. A Lease was made for thirty years and four years after the Lessor makes another Lease by these words Nos dictis 30 annis finitis dedisse concessisse c. Habend tenend a die confectionis praesentium termino praedict finito usque terminum c. And although prima facie the beginning of this Term seems incertain yet the Iustices did respect the former estate and so the Lessee hath the Interest of the Term from the making of the Deed but no estate until the first Term expire Then Ambrose before his age of 21 years levying a Fine the Fine shall not bind the Feoffee for it enures only by way of conclusion and so binds parties and privies but not a stranger And the party needs not to plead against this Fine quod partes to the Fine Nihil habuerunt for that appeareth upon their own shewing Wiat contrary The state of Ambr. accrues and rises when any of the said times come first full age return death for the words are And after the return of Ambrose from beyond the Seas and the age of 21 years or death c. This word or before death disjoyns all and makes the sentence in the Disjunctive and he cited a case lately judged in the Common Pleas A Lease was made to Trewpeny and his Wife for one hundred years if he and his Wife or any Child or Children betwixt them begotten should so long live the Wife died without Issue the Husband held the Land c. for the Disjunctive before Child made the sentence Disjunctive Gawdy Iustice That had been Law if no such word had been in the Case And Wiat said That although the return be incertain yet it is certain enough that he shall come to the age of 21 years or dye And also this is by way of use which needs not to depend upon any estate and if the Remainder shall vest presently upon his return then it would be doubtful what Remainder it is if it be a Remainder depending upon the estate for the life of Ann and Muriel or for years i.e. until Ambrose shall come of the age of 21 years But be it incertain yet the Fine is good for here is a Remainder in Ambrose and both are but particular estates and there is not any doubt but that one may convey by Fine or bar by Fine such contingent uses for which see the Statute of 32 H. 8. All Fines to be levied of any Lands intailed in any wise to him that levieth the Fine or to any his Ancestors in possession reversion c. which word use goes to contingent uses for at the time of the making of that Statute there was no other use Fenner Iustice remembred the Case adjudged M. 30 31 Eliz. betwixt Johnson and Bellamy 2 Len. 36. which ruled this Case Gawdy Iustice Here is a certainty upon which the Remainder doth depend i. e. the death of Ambrose but the Case had been the more doubtful if no certainty at all had been in the Case Atkinson contrary Here the Lord Vaux is Tenant for life the Remainder to George in tail now when the Lord Vaux levies a Fine this is a forfeiture and then the Entry of George is lawful It hath been objected on the other side that this Remainder was future and contingent and not vested therefore nothing passed to George by Ambrose The words are quousque Ambrose shall return This word quousque is a word of Limitation and not of Condition and then the Remainder may well rise when the Limitation hapneth It hath been said that this Remainder is contingent and then the Remainder which is to vest upon a contingency cannot be granted or forfeited before that the contingent hapneth And he cited the Case of 14 Eliz. 314. Dyer A Fine is levied to A. to the use of B. for life the Remainder to E. in Tail the Remainder to B. in fee. Proviso That if B. shall have Issue of his Body that then after such Issue and 500 l. paid to c. within six months after the birth of such issue the use of the said Lands after the death of the said B. and the said six months expired shall be to the said B. and the heirs of his body And it was holden that before the said contingent hapneth B. had not any estate tail for there it was incertain if the said contingent would happen but in our case the contingents or some of them will happen or run out by effluxion of time and that makes the Remainder certain in Ambrose And he also argued that the Limitations are several by reason of the Disjunctive and the last part of the sentence and that the said sentence is in the Disjunctive appeareth by the subsequent words which of the said days or times shall first happen And then the return of Ambrose for that first hapned vests the Remainder in him and therefore the Plaintiff ought to be barred Buckley contrary The estate of the Daughters doth depend upon a Copulative i.e. the return of Ambrose and his full age and both is but one Limitation it is clear that the first Limitation is upon a contingent and the remainder cannot vest until both are performed And as to that which hath been said that there is a certain Limitation i. e. the return of Ambrose 18 Eliz. the Case was Lands were given to Husband and Wife the Remainder to such of them as should survive the other for years the Husband makes a Lease for years and dieth it was holden that although the Limitation was upon a certain estate yet because it is not known in which of the parties the estate secondly limited shall begin the Lease is void So here it is not certainly appointed when the estate limited to Ambrose shall begin upon the return full age or death of Ambrose and he said that here are but two times of Limitation first return and full age second death return and full age determines the estate of the Daughters and also the death if it shall first happen and if these three times shall be construed in the Disjunctive 2 Len. 2â— the same would overthrow the estate of the Daughters which is an estate for years determinable upon the death of themselves or Ambrose
the Right of the Complainants come ceo c. with warranty of the said Husband and Wife for which the Complainants did render a Rent of fifty pounds per annum with clause of distress in dictis Manerijs to the said John Amy the Heirs of Amy and also rendred the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances to the said John and Amy for their lives the Remainder to the said Francis their Son in tail the Remainder to the said Amy and her Heirs and that John and Amy dyed by force whereof the said Rent descendeth to the said Plaintiff as Son and Heir of the said Amy and that the said Francis entred into the said Mannors as in his Remainder and was seised in tail and was seised of the said Rent by the Hands of the said Francis and afterwards thereof did enfeoff the said Garmons the Defendant c. The Tenant pleaded That the Plaintiff was never seised so as he could be disseised and if c. Nul tor nul disseisin which was found for the Plaintiff who had Iudgment and Execution upon which the Tenant brought a Writ of Error Stephens assigned Error First the Fine is levyed of two Manors inter alia so as no other Lands passed by the Fine besides the Manors and so the Rent is granted out of the said Lands and Manors and no other Lands which passed by the Fine and then upon the Plaintiffs own shewing it appears that all the Tenants of the Lands charged with the Rent in demand are not named in the Assize Second Error This Rent is granted only out of the Estate tail for Amy hath Fee in both as well the Rent as the Land and then when the Estate tail is determined the Rent is also determined and he hath not averred the life of the Tenant in tail or any of his Issue wherefore it shall be intended that he is dead without issue and then the Rent is gone and then he hath not any cause to have Assise Bourchier As to the first conceived and argued that it is not Error for although these words inter alia c. yet it shall not be intended that the Conusor had any other Lands or that the Rent is issuing out of other Lands than those two Manors which are expressed not inter alia As to the second the continuance of the tail needs not to be averred for the Tenant in tail hath enfeoffed the Tenant of the Land by which the estate tail is discontinued And although the Tenant in tail be dead without issue yet the Rent doth remain until Recovery of the Land by Formedon in the Remainder Fenner Iustice was of opinion Vaugh. Reâ— 175. That the Per nomen should go unto the Mannors only and should not extend to the inter alia For if a man in pleading saith that J.S. was seised of twenty acres of Land and thereof inter alia did enfeoff him per nomen of Green-wead the same shall not have reference to the inter alia but only to the twenty acres And the averment of the continuance of the Tail needs not for the Estate-tail is discontinued Gawdy Iustice was of opinion That the per nomen should go as well to the inter alia as to the two Manors and then all the Ter-tenants are not named in the Assise and the same not to be pleaded for it appears of the Plaintiffs own shewing and there needs no averment of the continuance of the Tail for the cause aforesaid Clench Iustice The per nomen doth refer to all which see by the Fine which shews that other Lands passed by the Fine than the said two Manors And as to the second point he said There needed no averment Gawdy As to the first Error the same cannot be saved by any way but to say That the Conusor was not seised of any other Lands than the said two Manors and then the Fine doth not extend unto it and then no Rent is granted out of it Fenner In the Common Pleas in the great case of Fines it was holden that in pleading of a Fine it needs not to say That the Conusor was seised for if the Conusor or Conusee were seised it is sufficient for such pleading is contrary in it self for a Fine sur conusance de droit come ceo c. doth suppose a precedent Gift It was also objected That here is a confusion in this Fine for the Rent is rendred to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Wife and the Land is rendred to the Husband and Wife for their lives the Remainder to Francis in Tail the remainder to the Wife and her Heirs And these matters cannot stand together in a Fine but the one will confound the other But as to that it was said that the Law shall Marshall these two renders so as they both shall stand And it is not like unto a Rent-service for a Rent-service issueth out of the whole Estate And therefore if a Remainder upon an Estate for life Eschears the Seigniory is gone even during the life of the Tenant for life which see 3 H. 6. 1. contrary of a Rent-charge For if the Grantee of a Rent in Fee purchaseth the remainder of the Land out of which it is depending out of an Estate for life he shall have the Rent during the life of the Tenant for life And of that opinion were all the three Iustices for the Conusors took by several Acts and the Estate is charged for it cometh under the Grant. Fenner Iustice There is a difference betwixt a Rent service and a Rent-charge or Common for that shall charge only the Possession but a Rent-charge shall charge the whole Estate And therefore if he who hath a Rent-service releaseth to him in the Remainder upon an Estate-tail or for life the Rent is extinct which Gawdy denied And this Case was put The Disseisee doth release to the Lessee for years of his Disseisor nihil operatur But if the Disseisor and Disseisee joyn in a Release to such Lessee the same is good for first it shall enure as the Release of the Disseisor and then of the Disseisee c. CCCXLIV Tedcastle and Hallywels Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Debt 2 Roll. 594. 1 Cro. 234 235. IN Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded That the Condition was That whereas John Hallywel had put himself to be an Apprentice to the Plaintiff if the Defendant John Hallywel during his Apprenticeship or any other for him by his consent or agreement take or riotously spend any of the Goods of his said Master the Plaintiff If then the Defendant within one month after notice thereof given to him do pay and satisfie the Plaintiff for all such sums of Monies Wares c. so taken or riotously spent by the Defendant or by any other by his procurement or consent the same being sufficiently proved that then c. The Defendant by protestation Quod nec
b. Sur Conusans de droit come ceo que il ad of the gift of the Husband that the same is not any Bar to the Wife of her Dower for the Election is not given to the VVife to claim her Ioynture or her Dower until after the Death of her Husband And so in the principal case Iudgment was given for the VVife CCCLXXXVII Le es Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NIcholas Lee by his will devised his Lands to William his second Son Devise 1 Cro. 26. 3 Len. 106. And if he depart this VVorld not having issue Then I will that my Sons in Law shall sell my Lands the Devisor at the time of his devise having sir Sons in Law dyed William had Issue John and dyed John dyed without Issue one of the Sons in Law of the Devisor dyed the five surviving Sons in Law sold the Lands First it was clearly resolved by the whole Court That although the words of the Will are ut supra If William my Son depart this world not having Issue c. And that William had Issue who dyed without Issue here although it cannot be litterally said That William did depart this World not having issue yet the intent of the Devisor is not to be restrained to the letter that such construction shall be made That whensoever William dyeth in Law or upon the matter without Issue that the Land shall be subject to sale according to the authority committed by the Devisor to his Sons in Law And now upon the matter William is dead without Issue As in a Formedon in Reverter or Remainder although that the Donee in tail hath issue yet if after the estate tail be spent the Writ shall suppose that the Donee dyed without Issue a fortiori in the Case of a Will or Devise such construction shall be made As to the other point concerning the sale of the Lands Wray asked If the Sons in Law were named in the Will and the Clerks answered No See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 31. and 39 Ass 17. Executors 117. such a sale good in case of Executors See also 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. and Dyer 4 5. Phil. and Mary Lands devised in tail and if the Devisee shall dye without Issue that then the Land shall be sold pro optimo valore by his Executors una cum assensu A. if A. dyeth before sale the power of the Executors is determined And afterwards it was clearly resolved by the whole Court That the sale for the manner was good and Iudgment was given accordingly CCCLXXXVIII Sir Gilbert Gerrard and Sherringtons Case Pasch 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SIr Gilbert Gerrard Master of the Rolls Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Sherrington and A. his Servant for Tithes parcel of a Rectory whereof the said Sir Gilbert was Fermor to the Queen It was moved by Egerton Solicitor General That against the Kings Fermor a Prohibition doth not lye But the opinion of the whole Court was That a Prohibition doth lye and so it hath been adjudged before And afterwards Exception was taken to the surmise because the said Sir Gilbert had Libelled against the said Sherrington and his Servant severally Owen Rep. 13. Yelv. Rep. 128. and now in the Kings Bench they both had made a joynt surmise whereas they ought to have severed in their surmises according to the several Libels And it was so adjudged by the Court and therefore they were driven to make several surmises And afterwards Exception was taken because the said Sherrington and his Servant had delivered their surmises and suggestions by Attorney where they ought to be in proper person See the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. The party shall bring and deliver to the hands of some of the Iustices of the same Court c. the true Copy of the Libel c. subscribed or marked with the hand of the Party c. and under the Copy shall be written the surmise or suggestion And although it was affirmed by the Clerks of the Court that the common use and practice for twenty years had been not to exhibit such surmises or suggestions by Attorney Yet it was resolved by the whole Court that it ought to be by Attorney CCCLXXXIX Short and Shorts Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit to pay mony to the Plaintiff upon Request It was agreed Request That the Plaintiff by way of Declaration ought to alledge an actual Request and at what place and at what day the Request was made And it is not sufficient to say as in an Action of Debt Licet saepius requisitus c. and so it was adjudged CCCXC Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe was Endicted in the County of Linc upon the Statutes of Wâ—st Indictment upon the Statute of news 1. Cap. 33. and 2 R. 2. Cap. 5. of News and the words were That Campian was not executed for treason but for Religion and that he was as honest a man as Cranmer the Bill was endorsed Billa vera but whether ista verba prolata fuerunt malitlose seditiose or e contr ignoramus The same Indictment being removed into the Kings Bench the party for the causes aforesaid was discharged CCCXCI Cole and Friendships Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae the Case was That Fricarrooâ— was seised Leases 4 Len. 64. and by Indenture betwixt himself of the one part and one Friendship his Wife and the Children betwixt them begotten at the Assignment of the Husband of the other part leased the said Land to the said Husband his Wife and their Children at the Assignment of the Husband for years they having at the time of the said Lease but one Child â— a Son Assignment afterwards they had many Children the wife dyed the Husband by his will assigned his second Son born after the making of the Lease to have the residue of the said Term and by the opinion of the Court nothing can come to the said Son by that Lease or by that assignment for if the Interest doth not vest at the beginning it shall never vest And afterwards is was moved In as much as nothing could vest in any of the Children born after the Lease made if these words At the Assignment of the Husband should be void and then the case should be no more but that Land is devised to the Father and Mother and their Children At another day viz. Trin. 26 Eliz. the case was moved again and as to the first Point the Court was of opinion as before That the Child assigned after the Lease made should not take And then it was moved That because Friendship and his Wife at the time of the making of the said Lease had one Son that he should take with his Father and Mother and that the words at the Assignment of Friendship should be void is matter of surplusage and the
Recovery against Massey Error And in the said Recovery four Husbands and their VVives were vouched and now the Plaintiff brought this Writ of Error as heir to one of the Husbands and Exception was taken to his Writ because the Plaintiff doth not make himself heir to the Survivor of the four Husbands Egerton The Writ is good enough for there is a difference betwixt a Covenant personal and a Covenant real for if two be bound to warranty and the one dyeth the Survivor and the heir of the other shall be vouched and he said each of the four and their heirs are charged and then the heir of each of them being chargeable the heir of any of them may have a Writ of Error And afterwards the Writ of Error was adjudged good Ante 86. And Error was assigned because the Vouchees appeared the same day that they were vouched by Attorney which they ought not to do by Law but they might appear gratis the first day without Proces in their proper persons and so at the sequatur sub suo periculo See 13 E. 3. Attorn 74. and 8 E. 2. ib. 101. Another Error was assigned Because the Entry of the warrant of Attorney for one of the Vouchees is po lo. suo I.D. against the Tenant where it should be against the Demandant for presently when the Vouchee entreth into the warranty he is Tenant in Law to the Demandant Coke As to the first Error Although he cannot appear by Attorney yet when the Court hath admitted his appearance by Attorney the same is well enough and is not Error As to the other Error I confess it to be Error but we hope that the Court will have great consideration of this case as to that Error for there are one hundred Recoveries erronious in this point if it may be called an Error And then we hope to avoid such a general mischief that the Court will consider and dispense with the rigor of the Law As their Predecessors did 39 H. 6. 30. In the Writ of Mesne But I conceive That the Writ of Error is not well brought for the Voucher in the said Recovery is of four Husbands and their Wives and when Voucher shall be intended to be in the right of their Wives which see 20 H. 7. 1. b. 46 E. 3. 28. 29 E. 3. 49. And so by common intendment the Voucher shall be construed in respect of the Wife So also the Plaintiff here ought to entitle himself to this Writ of Error as heir to the Wife And for this cause The Plaintiff relinquished his VVrit of Error And afterwards he brought a new VVrit and entituled himself as heir to the wife CCCXCIX The Queen and the Dean of Christchurch Case Mich. 26 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Praemunire 3 Len. 139. THe Queens Attorney General brought and prosecuted a Praemunire for the Queen and Parret against Doctor Matthew Dean of Christ-church in Oxford and others because they did procure the said Parret to be sued in the City of Oxford before the Commissary there in an Action of Trespass by Libel according to the Ecclesiastical Law in which suit Parret pleaded Son Franktenement and so to the Iurisdiction of the Court and yet they did proceed and Parret was condemned and imprisoned And after that suit depended The Queens Attorney withdrew the suit for the Queen And it was moved If notwithstanding that the party grieved might proceed See 7 E. 4. 2. b. The King shall have Praemuire and the party grieved his Action See Br. Praemunire 13. And by Brook none can have Praemunire but the King Coke There is a President in the Book of Entries 427. In a Praemunire the words are ad respondendum tam Domino Regi quam R.F. and that upon the Statute of 16 R. 2. and ib. 428 429. Ad respondendum tam Domino Regi de contemptu quam dict A. B. de damnis But it was holden by the whole Court That if the Kings Attorney will not further prosecute the party grieved cannot maintain this suit for the principal matter in the Praemunire is The conviction and the putting of the party out of the protection of the King and the damages are but accessary and then the principal being released the damages are gone And also it was holden by the Court That the Presidents in the Book of Entries are not to be regarded and there is not any Iudgment upon any of the pleadings there but are good directions for pleadings and not otherwise CCCC Mich. 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Fines levied 1 Cro. 35. THe Case was A. gave Lands in tail to B. upon condition That if the Donee or any of his heirs alien or discontinue c. the Land or any part of it that then the Donor do re-enter The Donee hath issue two Daughters and dieth One of the two Daughters levieth a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo Forfeiture to her Sister Heale Serjeant the Donor may enter for although the Sisters to many intents are but one Heir yet in truth they are several Heirs and each of them shall sue Livery 17 E. 3. If one of the Sisters be discharged by the Lord the Lord shall lose the Wardship of her and yet the Heir is not discharged And if every Sister be heir to diverse respects then the Fine by the one Sister is a cause of Forfeiture Harris contrary For conditions which go in defeating of estates shall be taken shortly Conditions and here both the Sisters are one Heir and therefore the discontinuance by the one is not the Act of the other Clench Iustice The words are Or any of his heirs therefore it is a forfeiture quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam And Iudgment was given accordingly CCCCI Mich. 26 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Assumpsit Hutt Rep. 34. Hob. 284. A Woman seised of a Rent-charge for life took Husband the Rent was arrear the wife died the Tenant of the Land charged promised to pay the Rent in consideration that the Rent was behind c and some were of opinion Because that this Rent is due and payable by a Deed that this Action of the Case upon Assumpsit will not lye no more than if the Obligor will promise to the Obligee to pay the mony due by the Obligation 3 Cro. 5. an Action doth not lye upon the Promise but upon the Obligation But it was holden by the whole Court That the Action did well lye for here the Husband had remedy by the Statute of 32 H. 8. And then the consideration is sufficient and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCII. Williams and Blowers Case Hill. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. REignold Williams and John Powell brought a Writ of Error against the Bishop of Hereford and Blower Error upon a Recovery had in a Writ of Disceit by the said Bishop and Blower against the said
Williams and Powell for that the said Williams had before brought a Quare Impedit against the said Blower and the Bishop Dyer 353. b. 354. and had recovered against them by default whereupon Williams had a Writ to the Metropolitan to admit his Clerk and in the Writ of Disceit Iudgment was given for the Plaintiffs For it was found That the Summons was the Friday to appear the Tuesday after and so an insufficient Summons and in that Writ of Disceit the Defendants Williams and Powell pleaded That Blower the Incumbent was deprived of his Benefice in the Court of Audience which sentence was affirmed upon Appeal before the Delegates and notwithstanding that Plea Iudgment was given against Williams and Powell Defendants in the said Writ of Disceit And upon that Iudgment this Writ of Error is brought Beaumont assigned four Errors First 1 Cro. 65. because the Bishop and Blower joyned in the Writ of Disceit for their Rights are several 12 E. 4. 6. Two cannot joyn in an Action of Trespass upon a Battery done at one time to them So if one distrain at one and the same time the several Goods of divers persons they according to their several properties shall have several Replevins 12 H. 7. 7. By Wood. So if Lands be given to two and to the Heirs of one and they lose by default in a Praecipe brought against them they shall have several Writs the one Quod ei deforceat Joynder in Action the other a Writ of Right 46 E. 3. 21. A Fine levied to one for life the Remainder to two Husbands and their Wives in tail they have Issue and die Tenant for life dieth the Issues of the Husbands and Wives shall have several Scire facias's to execute the Fine by reason of their several Rights Lands in ancient Demesn holden severally of several Lords are conveyed by Fine the Lords cannot joyn in a Writ of Disceit but they ought to have several Writs so here the Plaintiffs in this Writ of Disceit and the Bishop claims nothing but as ordinary and he loseth nothing in the Quare Impedit and therefore by the Writ of Disceit he shall be restored to nothing The second Error was Because the Bar of the Defendants in the Writ of Disceit was good i. the deprivation c. and the Court adjudged it not good for the Clerk being deprived he could not enjoy the Benefice if the Iudgment in the Qu. Impedit had been reversed Regulâ— Post 330. and where a man cannot have the effect of his suit it is in vain to bring any Action Lessee for the life of another loseth by erronious Iudgment Cestuy que use dieth his Writ of Error is gone for if the Iudgment be reversed he cannot be restored to the Land for the estate is determined 31 E. 3. Incumbent 6. The King brought a Quare Impedit against the Incumbent and the Bishop the Bishop claimed nothing but as Ordinary The Incumbent traversed the title of the King against which it was replyed for the King That the Incumbent had resigned pendant the Writ so as now he could not plead any thing against the title of the King for he had not possession and so could not counterplead the possession of the King. And here in our Case by this deprivation the Incumbent is disabled to maintain this Action of Disceit 15 Ass 8. If the Guardian of a Chappel be impleaded in a Praecipe for the Lands of his Chappel and pendant the Writ he resign the Successor shall have a Writ of Error and not he who resigns for he is not to be restored to the Lands having resigned his Chappel So in our Case A deprivation is as strong as a Resignation The third Error because in the Writ of Disceit it is not set forth that Blower was Incumbent for the Writ of Disceit ought to contain all the special matter of the Case as an Action upon the Case 4 E. 3. Disceit 45. The fourth Error That upon suggestion made after Verdict that Blower was Incumbent and in of the presentment of the Lord Stafford Deprivation and that he was removed and Griffin in by the Recovery in the Quare Impedit by default a Writ to the Bishop was awarded without any Scire facias against Griffin for he is possessor and so the Statute of 25 E. 3. calls him and gives him authority to plead against the King 6 Co. 52. and every Release or Confirmation made to him is good 18 E. 3. Confirmation made by the King after Recovery against the Incumbent is good And 9 H. 7. If a Recovery be had in a Contra formam collationis the possessor shall not be ousted without a Scire facias so in Audita Querela upon a Statute Staple Scire facias Scire facias shall go against the Assignee of the Conusee 15 E. 3. Respon 1. See also 16 E. 3. Disceit 35. 21 Ass 13. A Fine levied of Lands in Ancient Demesn shall not be reversed without a Scire facias against the Ter-tenant Walmesley contrary The case at the Bar differs from the case put of the other side for they are cases put upon original Writs but our case is upon a judicial Writ and here nothing is demanded but the Defendant is only to answer to the disceit and falshood And in this Case the Issue is contained in the Writ which is not in any original Writ and the Iudges shall examine the issue without any plea or appearance of the Tenant and here the Defendant is not to plead any thing to excuse himself of the wrong And here the Iudgment is not to recover any thing in demand but only to restore the party to his former estate and possession and if he hath nothing he shall be restored to nothing And he put many cases where persons who have several Rights may joyn in one Action as a Recovery in an Assize against several Tenants they may joyn in one Writ of Error 18 Ass Recovery in Assize against Disseisor and Tenant they shall both joyn in Error why not also in Disceit 19 E. 3. Recovery against two Coparceners the Survivor and the heir of the other shall joyn in Error As to the second Error Williams and the Sheriff ought not to joyn in the Plea and also the Plea it self is not good for the Writ of Disceit is That Williams answer to the Disceit and the Sheriff shall certifie the proceedings and therefore he shall not plead and also the Plea it self is not good for although the interest of the Incumbent be determined in the Church yet his Action is not gone as if in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant alieneth pendant the Writ and afterwards the Demandant recovereth yet the Tenant although his Interest be gone by the Feoffment yet he shall have a Writ of Error and so here and as to the Scire facias there needs none here against the new Incumbent for he comes in pendant the Writ
the Land was entailed by the second Fine But that Exception was disallowed by the whole Court and a difference put by Anderson Where a man pleads the grant of an Advowson in gross by Tenant in tail in such case the life of the Tenant in tail ought to be averred for by his death the grant ceaseth But where a man pleads the Lease of Tenant in tail of a Manor with an Advowson appendant in such case such averment is not necessary So accordingly Smith Stapletons Case 15 Eliz. 431. And here it was moved if in as much as by the first Fine an estate for life was rendred to the Wife and by the second Fine in which she did not joyn an estate tail was limited unto her and now when the Husband dieth if he shall be remitted to her estate for life Co. 1 Inst 357. 2 Cro. 489. which Windham granted for that was her lawful estate and the second estate tortious But by Rhodes Periam and Anderson the Wife is at liberty to make her election which of the two estates she will have And as to the Writ to the Bishop for the Queen the Court was clear of opinion that it ought not to be granted upon this matter But all the question was if Regina inconsulta the Court would or ought to proceed And it was holden clearly by the whole Court that the tenure alledged modo forma could not be a tenure in chief for it is said that the Land was holden of the King as of the Castle of Dover in Capite LXXXVI Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Intr. Pasc 28 Eliz. Rot. 602. Wast â— Cro. 40. 4â— WAst was brought by F. and his Wife agaist Pepy and counted that the said Pepy was seised and enfeoffed certain persons to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Wife of the Plaintiff and her Heirs The Defendant pleaded that the said Feoffment was unto the use of himself and his Heirs in Fee c. without that that it was to the uses in the Count Vpon which they were at issue And it was found by verdict that the said Feoffment was unto the uses contained in the Count But the Iury further found that the estate of the Defendant by the limitation of the use was priviledged with the impunity for Wast that is to say without impeachment of Wast And it was moved if upon this verdict the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment And Anderson and Rhodes Iustices he shall for the matter in issue is found for the Plaintiff and that is the Feoffment to the uses contained in the Count and this impunity of Wast is a forrein matter not within the charge of the Iury and therefore the traverse of it but matter of surplusage As if I plead the Feoffment of I. S. To which the other pleads that he did not enfeoff and the Iury find a conditional Feoffment the Court shall not respect the finding of the condition for it was not in issue and no advantage shall ever be had of such a liberty if it be not pleaded 30 H. 8. Dyer 41. In Dower the Tenant pleaded Ne unques seisi que Dower the Tenant pleaded that before the coverture of the Demandant one A. was seised of the Lands of which Dower is demanded in tail who made a Feoffment to a stranger and took the Demandant to Wife and took back an estate in Fee and died seised having issue inheritable Now although upon the truth of the matter she is not dowable de jure yet when the parties are at issue upon a point certain Hob. 53. Owen 91. no foreign or strange matter not in question betwixt the parties shall be respected in the point of the Iudgment But if the Defendant had pleaded it in bar he might have foreclosed the Demandant of her Dower Vide 38 H. 6. 27. 47 E. 3. 19. In a Praecipe quod reddat in the default of the Tenant one cause and shewed how the Tenant who made default was but Tenant for life of the Lands in demand the reversion in Fee to himself and prayed to be received The Demandant did counter-plead the receit saying the Defendant had fee upon which issue was joyned And it was found that neither the tenant nor he which prayed to be received had any thing in the Land In that case the Court did not regard the matter which was superfluous in the verdict for they were at issue upon a point certain that is whether the Tenant was seised in Fee for it was confessed of both sides that he had an estate for life and with that matter the Iury was not charged and they are not to enquire of it and so it was found against the Demandant for which cause the Receit was granted 7 H 6. 20. The parties were at issue upon a dying seised which is found by verdict but the Iury further find that the other party made continual claim this continual claim shall not be regarded in the point of Iudgment because it was pleaded in avoidance of the descent Windh Iustice contrary Forasmuch as it appeareth unto us upon the verdict that the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action and therefore he shall not have Iudgment As in Detinue No advantage of impunity for Wast shall be taken where the same is not pleaded though found by verdict Judgment Hob. 53. Owen 91. The Plaintiff counteth of a bailment by his own hand the Defendant pleadeth that he doth not detain c. the Iury find the Detinue but upon a bailment by another hand In this case notwithstanding that the Detinue be found yet the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment But Rhodes Periam and Anderson in the principal case were of opinion Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for in no case the party shall have advantage of such a Liberty of impunity of Wast if he do not plead it And the Iurors are not to meddle with any matter which is not in issue And if it be but matter of surplusage it is to no purpose And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff LXXXVII Bracebridge and Baskerviles Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco AN Action of Debt is brought against three Executors Debt against Executors one of them pleads in Bar a Recovery against himself in the Kings Bench The other two plead plene administr Against the first plea the Plaintiff did aver covin and upon the second plea they are at issue The first issue is found for the Plaintiff and as to the other plea it was found that the Defendants have in their hands thirty pounds of the goods of their Testator not administred Note the debt in demand was one hundred pounds upon which the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover the goods of the Testator and thereupon had execution Now the Plaintiff brought a Scire facias against the said Executors supposing that many other goods of the Testator have come unto their
petit quod inquiratur per patriam praedict Brett similiter It was moved that the parties should replead for this matter upon which they are at Issue scil the appearance is not triable by Iury but by the Record And the Court was clear of opinion that the parties should replead for the cause aforesaid And it was moved by the Lord Anderson that if A. be bound to appear in the Kings Bench at such a day and A. at the said days goe to the Court but there no process is returned then the party may go to one of the chief Clerks of the Court and pray him to take a Note of his appearance And by Nelson we have an acient form of entry of such Appearance in such Cases Ad hunc diem venit I. S. propter indemnitatem suam Manucaptorum suorum petit quod comparentia sua in Curia hic recordetur And see for the same 38 H. 6. 17. And afterwards the Lord Anderson inspecto Rotulo ex assensu sociorum awarded a Repleader And so by Nelson it hath been done oftentimes here before and put in ure The same Law is where at the day of appearance no Court is holden or the Iustices do not come c. he who was bound to appear ought to have an Appearance recorded in such manner as it may be and if the other party pleadeth Nul tiel Record it behoveth that the Defendant have the Record ready at his peril for this Court cannot write to the Iustices of the Kings Bench for to certifie a Record hither CXV Baxter and Bales Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt not extinct by administration BAxter brought Debt upon a Bond as Executor of I. against Bale who pleaded that the Plaintiff after the death of the Testator was cited to appear before the Ordinary or his Commissary to prove the Will of the said I. and at the day of his appearance he made default upon which the Ordinary committed Letters of Administration to the Defendant by force of which he did administer so the debt is extinct c. but the whole Court was clear of opinion that the debt was not extinct for now by the probate of the Will the administration is defeated and although the Executor made default at the day which he had by the Citation before the Ordinary yet thereby he is not absolutely debarred but that he may resort to the proving of the Will whensoever he pleaseth But if he had appeared and renounced the Executorship it had been otherwise and the debt is not extinct by the Administration in the mean time CXVI Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Franchise the parties are at Issue upon a matter triable out of the Franchise And it was moved if now the Record should be sent into the Common Pleas and there tryed and after trial sent back into the Franchise Which Periam and Anderson utterly denied and by Periam there is no reason that we should be their Ministers to try Issues joyned before them And it is not like 2 Len. 37. where in a Liberty or Franchise a Forrein Voucher is to warrant Lands in such cases we shall determine the Warranty but that is by a special Statute of Glocester cap. 12. And Nelson Prothonotary said that such an Issue was tryed here of late Quod nota CXVII The Earl of Arundel and the Lord Dacres Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. At Serjeants Inne PHilip Earl of Arundel and the Lord William Howard his Brother marryed the Daughters and Co-heirs of the late Lord Dacres And now came Francis Lord Dacres as heir male of the said Family and claimed the Inheritance c. And after long sute betwixt both parties they submitted themselves to the award of Gilbert Lord Talbot and of Arthur Lord Grey of Wilton and Windham and Periam Iustices And before them at Serjeants Inne the matter was well debated by the Council learned on both sides and as unto Greistock Lands parcel of the Lands in question the Case was That Tenant in tail makes a Feoffment in fee unto the use of himself for his life the Remainder in tail to his eldest Son with divers Remainders over with a Proviso that if any of the Entailees do any act to interrupt the course of any entail limited by the said Conveyance that then the use limited to such person should cease and go to him who is next inheritable And afterwards Tenant in tail dieth his eldest Son to whom the use in tail was first limited entreth and doth an Act against the said Proviso and yet held himself in and made Leases the Lessees enter the Lessor dieth seised his Heir being within age and in ward to the Queen It was holden by Shutleworth Serjeant Yelverton Godfrey Owen and Coke who were of Council with the Heirs general of the Lord Dacres that here is a Remitter for by this Act against the Proviso the use Remitter and so the possession doth accrue to the enfant Son of him to whom the use in tail was limited by the Tenant in tail Then when the Tenant in tail after his said Feoffment holds himself in this is a disseissin for a Tenancy by sufferance cannot be after the cesser of an estate of Inheritance But admit that he be but a Tenant at sufferance Hâ—b 255. Dy. 54. yet when he makes Leases for years the same is clearly a disseisin and then upon the whole matter a Remitter and although the Enfant taketh by the Statute yet the right of the tail descending to him afterwards by the death of his Father doth remit him as if Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life the Remainder in tail to his eldest Son inheritable to the first intail notwithstanding that the eldest Son takes his Remainder by the Statute and so be in â—â— force thereof yet when by the death of his Father the right of the Entail descends to him he is remitted CXVIII Butler and Ayres Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower BUtler and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Thomas Ayre Son and Heir of Bartholmew Ayre first Husband of the said Margaret Wife of the Plaintiff and demanded Dower of Lands in A. and B the Tenant pleaded never seised que Dower and the Iury found that the said Bartholmew was seised during the Coverture de omnibus tenementis infra script preterquam the Tenements in sic ut dicta Margareta dotari potuit Exception was taken to this Verdict because that this preterquam c. doth confound the Verdict To which it was said by the Court that the preterquam is idle and surplusage for it is of another thing than that which is in demand and the seisin of the first Husband of Lands in A. and B. is confessed and the preterquam works nothing Another matter was objected because here the Iury have assessed damages
and damages and in an Action upon the Case brought upon that promise the Plaintiff was barred for here is not any consideration for they bailed the Servant of their own head without the request of the Master and the matter which is alledgged for consideration is executed before the Assumpsit and the promise was not before the enlargment and the said bailment was not at the instance Claytons Rep. 45. 1 Cro. 756. or request of the Master And the Case of one Hudson was cited adjudged in the Kings Bench The Defendant in consideration that he was Administrator and natural Son of the Intestate and that the goods of his Father have come to his hands promiseth to pay the debt to the Plaintiff And in an Action upon the Case upon that promise the Defendant pleaded he made no such promise and it was found that no goods came to the hands of the Defendant And it was holden that the consideration that he was Administrator and Son to the Testator was not of any force to maintain the Action and afterwards in the principal Case the Iudgment was affirmed And it was moved by Coke that Iudgment should not be given against the Executor of his own goods if he had not goods of the Testator for the charge doth not extend beyond the consideration i. e. That the goods of the Testator came to the hands of the Defendant But Wray Iustice was of opinion that Iudgment shall be of his proper goods as in Case of confession Kemp Secondary if the Action be brought upon Assumpsit of the Testator Iudgment shall be of the goods of the Testator but of the promise of the Executor of his own goods but the Original Iudgment which is now affirmed was general CXXII Savel and Woods Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 71. 3 Len. 203. 265. Post 128. THe Case was That a Parson did Libel in the spiritual Court against a Parishoner for Tythes of such Lands within his Parish the Defendant came into the Kings Bench and surmised and that he and all those whose estate he hath in the Lands out of which the Tythes are demanded have used to pay every year five shillings to the Parish Clark of the same Parish for all the Tythes out of the same place And it was argued by Coke that that could not be for a Parish Clark is not a person corporate nor hath succession But if he had prescribed that they had used to pay it to the Parish Clark to the use of the Parson it had been good Also he ought to shew that the Parson ought of right to find the Parish Clark c. And he cited the Case of Bushie the Parson of Pancras who libelled in the Spiritual Court for Tithes The Defendant to have a prohibition did prescribe that he and all those c. had time out of mind c. used to pay to the Vicar c. and at last a Consultation was awarded because it was triable in the Ecclesiastical Court for both parties as well Vicar as Parson are spiritual persons and the modus decimandi is not in question but cui solvend And at another day it was agreed by the Iustices that of common right the Parson is not tied to find the Parish Clark for then he should be said the Parsons Clark and not the Parish Clark But if the Parson be tied to find such a Clark Challenge and such a sum hath been used to be paid to the Parish Clark in discharge of the Person the same had been a good prescription and so by way of composition and by Clench Tythes are to be paid to spiritual Persons but a Parish-Clark is a Lay-person And afterwards the Court granted a Consultation CXXIII Higham and Reynolds Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant 1 Maii 28 Eliz. cut down six posts of the house of the Plaintiff at D. The Defendant doth justifie because that the Free-hold of the house 10 Aprilis 27 Eliz. was to I. S. and that he by his commandment the same day and year did the Trespass c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law because the Defendant did not traverse without that that he was guilty before or after And the opinion of Wray was that the traverse taken was well enough because the Free-hold shall be intended to continue c. Vide 7. H. 7. 3. But all the other three Iustices were of a contrary opinion to Wray But they all agreed that where the Defendant doth justifie by reason of his Free-hold at the day supposed in the Declaration there the traverse before is good enough And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Defendant CXXIV Knight and Footmans Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass by Knight against Footman the Case upon the pleading was that one Margaret had issue two Sons Richard and Thomas Surrender of Copy-hold Land. and surrendred to the use of Richard for life and afterwards to the use of Thomas in Fee they both Thomas being within age surrender to the use of one Robert â—ap John in Fee who is admitted Richard dieth Co 1 Inst 248. Thomas dieth having issue A. who is also admitted and enters into the Land and if his entry be lawful or that he be put to his plaint in the nature of a Dum fuit infra aetatem was the Question And Wray was clear of opinion that it was And if a man seised of Copy-hold Land in the right of his Wife or Tenant in tail of a Copy-hold doth surrender to the use of another in Fee the same doth not make any discontinuance but that the issue in tail and the Wife may respectively enter 1 Cro. 372. 380. 391. 483. 717. More 596. and so was it holden in the Serjeants Case when Audley who afterwards was made Chancellor of England was made Serjeant and afterwards it was adjudged that the entry of the Enfant was lawful CXXV Sir Wollaston Dixies Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer AN Information was in the Exchequer against Sir Wollaston Dixie upon the Statute of Vsury upon not guilty pleaded Information upon the Statute of 13. Eliz of Usury The Informeâ— gave in evidence an usurious Contract upon a bargain of Wares The opinion of the Court was that the Information being exhibited for the loan of money that the Evidence was not pursuing nor leading to the Issue And yet the Iury against the opinion of the Court upon that evidence found the Defendant guilty And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Evidence did not maintain the Information nor prove the Issue ex parte Querentis and it was said there are three things within the Statute i. three words i. bargain loan and cheivizance and these three are several things and therefore if the Information be conceived upon loan and the Informer giveth in Evidence a corrupt
in the Case which gives cause of suit in Chancery for they will not order a matter there which is directly against a Rule and Maxim of the common Law. As if a Feme Covert be bound c. and the Obligee bring her into the Chancery and if a man threaten me that if I will not pay to him ten pounds he will sue me in Chancery upon which I promise to pay it him no Action will lye And an Infant is not chargeable upon any contract but for his meat drink and necessary Apparel 19 Z. 4. 2. And in Debt upon such necessary Contract the Plaintiff ought to declare specially so as the whole certainty may appear upon which the Court may judge if the expense were necessary and convenient or not and upon the reasonableness of the price for otherwise if the necessity of the thing and reasonableness of the price doth not appear the Chancellor himself would not give any remedy or recompence to the party Wray Justice conceived that the Action would not lye for the contract was void and the Infant in an Action against him upon it may plead Nihil debet And if an Infant sell goods for money and doth not deliver them but the Vendee takes them he is a Trespassor but if the Infant had been bounden in an Obligation with a surety and afterwards at his full age he in consideration thereof promiseth to keep his surety harmless upon that promise an Action lyeth for the Infant cannot plead non est factum which see Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Case of one Edmunds And afterwards it was adjudged against the Plaintiff CLVII Charnock and Worsleys Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot 833. In the Kings Bench. Owen 21. 1 Cr. 129. CHarnock and his Wife brought a Writ of Error against Worsley the Case was that the Husband and Wife the Wife being within age levyed a Fine and the Wife upon inspection was adjudged within age it was moved if the Fine should be utterly reversed or as to the Wife only should stand against the Husband by Godfrey the Book of 50 E. 3. 6. was vouched where it is said by Candish that where such a Fine is reversed the Plaintiff shall not have execution till after the death of the Husband and by Coke and Atkinson a Fine acknowledged by the Husband and Wife is not like to a Feoffment made by them for in case of Feoffment something passeth from the Husband but in case of a Fine all passeth out of the Wife and the Conusee is in by her only And Atkinson shewed a Precedent in 2 H. 4. where the Fine was reversed for the whole and also another Precedent P. b. H. 8. Rot. 26. A Fine levyed betwixt Richard Elie Plaintiff and N. Ford. and Jane his Wife Deforceants the Wife being within age and Iudgment was given quod finis praedict adnulletur pro nullo penitus habeatur and that the Husband and Wife should be restored and thereupon a Writ issued to the Custos Brevium to bring into Court the Foot of the Fine and it was presently cancelled in Court. Wray this is a strong Precedent and we will not varse from it if other Precedents are not contrary Gawdy who was the same day made Iustice the Fine cannot be reversed as to one and stand as to the other and resembled it to the Case of Littleton 150. where Land is given to Husband and Wife in tail before coverture and the Husband aliens and takes back an estate to him and his Wife for their lives they both are remitted for the Wife cannot be remitted if the Husband be not remitted And a Precedent was cited to the contrary 7 Eliz. where the Case was that the Husband and Wife levyed a Fine the Husband died the Wife being within age the Wife took another Husband and they brought a Writ of Error and the Wife by inspection adjudged within age Fine reversed as to one to stand good against another and the Fine was reversed as to the Wife and her Heirs And it was argued by Golding that here the Writ of Error ought to abate for the Writ is too general whereas it ought to be special Ex querela A.B. nobis humillime supplicantis accepimus c. See the Book of Entries 278. Also the purclose of the Writ is ad damnum impsorum the Husband and the Wife whereas the Wife only hath loss by it and as to the Fine it self he conceived that it should be reversed but as to the Wife as if a man of full age and a man within age levy a Fine in a Writ of Error brought the Fine shall be reversed as to the Infant only and shall stand against the other and he cited the Case of the Lord Mountjoy 14. Eliz. Where a man seised in the right of his Wife acknowledged a Statute and afterwards he and his Wife levyed a Fine and he said that during the life of the Husband the Conusee of the Fine should hold the Land charged with the Statute Also in the Precedent of 2 H. 4. the Iudgment is that propter hunc alios errores the Fine should be reversed and I conceive that another Error was in the said Writ for which the Fine might be reversed in all viz. the Fine was levyed of two parts of the Manor of D. without saying in tres partes dividend And see that where two parts are demanded in a Writ 3 Co. 58 59. Modern Rep. 182. the Writ shall say so Brief 244 Coke contrary and as to the last matter I confess the Law is so in a Writ but not in a Fine for the same is but a Conveyance for it I be seised of a Manor and I grant to you two parts of the said Manor it is clear it shall be intended in three parts to be divided And as to the principal matter I conceive when the Fine is levyed by the Husband and Wife it shall be intended that the Land whereof c. is the Inheritance of the Wife if the contrary be not shewed and therefore if the party will have an especial Reversal he ought to shew the special matter as in Englishes Case A Fine was levyed by Tenant for life and he in the reversion being within age bringeth a Writ of Error now the Fine shall be reversed as to him in the Reversion but not as to the Tenant for life but here it shall be intended the Inheritance of the Wife and that the Husband hath nothing but in the right of his Wife and therefore she shall be restored to the whole for nothing passeth from the Husband but he is named with his Wife only for conformity 11 H. 7. 19. A. takes to Wife an Inheretrir who is attainted of Felony the King shall not have the Land presently by which it appeareth that all is in the Wife and she shall be restored to the whole and the Iudgment shall be according to the Presidents cited
parties as if the condition were to go to Rome And as to the Request he conceived that it ought to be shewed specially and certainly for it is for the benefit of the Covenantee for without request the Action doth not lie which Clench granted And it was holden by the whole Court that the bar shall not help the insufficient Declaration No more if the Defendant plead Non Assumpsit yet the defect in the Declaration of a Request not duly shewed remaineth Gawdy The bringing of the Action is a Request Clench A Writ of Debt is a Praecipe for which there licet saepius requisitus is sufficient but a Writ of Covenant is not so CLXXI. Piers and Hoes Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass it was found by special verdict Trespass 1 Cro. 131. 1 Roll. 854. that A. seised of Land in the right of his Wife being her Ioynture by a former Husband he and his Wife made a Feoffment to a stranger and his Heirs Habend to the use of the stranger and his Heirs during the life of the Wife only Shutleworth The same is a forfeiture for if the same Feoffment had been without any use expressed Forfeiture then it should be to the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs and by consequence a forfeiture and as the case is here it is also a forfeiture for during the life of the Wife the use is expresly to the use of the Feoffee and his Heirs and the remainder of the Fee-simple is to the use of the Feoffor scil the Husband and his Heirs Popham I conceive that here is a forfeiture Owen 64. 2 Cr. 200 201. 3 Cr. 167. Hob. 373. for here are several limitations limitation of the estate unto one and of the use unto another And the words for the life of the Wife do not refer to the estate but to the use with proximum antecedens And he resembled the same to the case of Leonard Sturton in which he was of Councel A man granted Lands Habend unto the Grantee to the use of the Grantee and the Heirs of his body the same is no estate tail in the Grantee but only an estate for life for the Limitation of the use cannot extend the estate Cook contrary The case is that A. Wife of one Piers being Tenant for life of the Ioynture of the said Piers took to Husband Hoe they both by Deed grant totum suum Messuagium to one Clarke Habendum to him and his Heirs for the life of the Wife only I conceive that here is not any forfeiture for it is but one intire sentence And if there be a double construction of a deed that which is most reasonable shall be taken so as wrong be not done Construction of Deeds and therefore these words for the life of the Wife shall refer unto both scil the estate and the use and their intent was not to commit a forfeiture as appeareth by the words of the Deed for they grant solum messuagium and that was not but for the life of the wife ad solum usum of the Feoffee and his Heirs during the life of the Wife and violence should be offered to this word solum if the Feoffee or his Heirs should have ultra the life of the Wife and the word tantum cannot otherwise be expounded but that the estate for life only shall pass from them And he cited the Case of 34 E. 3. Avowry 258. A. gives Lands unto B. in tail and for default of such issue to the use of C. in tail rendring Rent the same render shall go to both the estates So a Lease for life to A. the remainder to B. to the use of C. the same use goeth out of both the estates and not only out of the Remainder so here upon the same reason Regula these words for the life of the wife shall refer to the first estate as well as to the use And in such Cases the rule of Bracton ought to be observed viz. Benignae faciendae sunt interpretationes verborum ut res magis valeat quam pereat As the Case in 6 H. 7. 7. in a Cessavit the Plaintiff counted that the Tenant held by Homage Fealty Sute at Court and certain Rent and in the doing of the services aforesaid the Defendant had cessed and in not doing of Homage and Fealty a man cannot cesse by two years But it was holden that the said Cessavit should be referred to such services only in which one might cease and that is Sute of Court and Rent And if pleadings shall have such favourable construction a multo fortiori shall a Deed 4 E. 3. Wast 11. A man leased for life and by the same deed granted power unto the Lessee to take and make his profit of the said Lands in the best manner should seem good to him without contradiction of the Lessor or his Heirs yet by those words it is not lawful for him to do wast for there it is said that in construction of Deeds we ought to judge according to that intent which is according to Law and Reason and not to that which is against reason See 17 E. 3. 7. accordingly so in the principal Case the words in the Deed of Feoffment shall be so expounded that the estate be saved and not destroyed Popham contrary The Cases put by Coke are not like to the Case in question For where the Rent is out of both estates the same is but reason for the Rent is in respect of the Land and because he departs with both estates it is reason the Rent issue out of both and the like reason is of the Case of an use for if a man makes a Lease for life to A. the Remainder over to B. the same shall be to their use respectively and if he do express the use the same shall be accordingly and shall bind both estates but there Clark hath two estates one by the common Law and the other by the Statute 3 Cro. 167. But the words subsequent for the life of the wife only cannot refer to both estates A. gives Lands to one his Heirs for forty years the same is but a plain Term for years But if a Feoffment in Fee be made to one his Heirs to the use of another for forty years there the Fee passeth to the Feoffee and the Term to Cestuy que use Gawdy conceived that it is not any forfeiture for these words during the life of the wife only were put in the Deed to express the intent of the parties and therefore the same shall not be void and he conceived that they were put in to exclude the forfeiture and therefore they shall serve for that purpose And afterwards it was resolved by all the Iustices except Gawdy that it was a forfeiture for by the Feoffment the Fee-simple passeth and that to the use of the Feoffor the estate and the use are several things and
plead it specially but as our case is here is no Act to be done but a permittance as abovesaid and it is in the Negative not a disturbance in which case permisit is a good plea and then it shall come on the other side on the Plaintiffs part to shew in what Lands the Defendant non permisit Which difference see agreed 17 E. 4. 26. by the whole Court. And such was the opinion of the whole Court in the principal case 1 Co. 127. Another Exception was taken to it that the Defendant had covenanted that his brother Edward should pay to the Plaintiff the said Rent To which the Defendant pleaded that his said brother had payed to the Platntiff before the said Feast of Michaelmas in full satisfaction of the said Rent three shillings and that was holden a good plea and upon the matter the Covenant well performed for there is not any Rent in this Case for here is not any Lease and therefore not any Rent For if A. covenant with B. that C. shall have his Land for so many years rendring such a Rent 1 Roll. 847. 1 Cro. 173. Owen 97. here is not any Lease and therefore neither Rent But if A. had covenanted with C. himself it had been otherwise because it is betwixt the same parties And if the Lessee covenant to pay his Rent to the Lessor and he payeth it before the day the same is not any performance of the Covenant causa patet contrary of a sum in gross Another Covenant was that the said Humphry solveret ex parte dicti Edwardi 20 l. to which the Defendant pleaded that he had paid ex parte dicti Humfridi 20 l. and that defect was holden incureable and therefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CLXXXVII Geslin and Warburtons Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 128. IN an Ejectione firmae by Joan Geslin against Hen. Warburton and Sebastian Crispe of Lands in Dickilborough in the County of Norf. Mich. 30. 31 Eliz. rot 333. upon the general Issue the Iury found a special verdict that before the Trespass supposed one Martin Frenze was seised of the Lands of which the Action was brought in tail to him and his Heirs males of his body so seised suffered a common Recovery to his own use Devises and afterwards devised the same in this manner I give my said Land to Margaret my Wife until such time as Prudence my Daughter shall accomplish the age of nineteen years the Reversion to the said Prudence my Daughter and to the Heirs of her body Lawfully begotten upon condition that she the said Prudence shall pay unto my said Wife yearly during her life in recompence of her Dower of and in all my Lands 12 pounds and if default of payment be made then I will that my said Wife shall enter and have all my Lands during her life c. the Remainder ut supra the Remainder to John Frenze in tail c. Martin Frenze died Margaret entred the said Prudence being within the age of fourteen years Margaret took to Husband one of the Defendants John Frenze being Heir male to the former tail brought a Writ of Error upon the said Recovery and assigned Error because the Writ of Entry upon which the Recovery was had was Praecipe quod reddat unum Messuag and twenty acras prati in Dickelborough Linford Hamblets without naming any Town And thereupon the Iudgment was reversed And it was further found that in the said Writ of Error and the process upon it Hutt 106. 2 Cro. 574. 3 Cro. 196. no Writ of Scire facias issued to warn dictam Prudentiam ten existentem liberi ten praemissorum ad ostendendam quid haberet vel dicere sciret quare Judicium praedict non reversaretur The Iury further found that the said Margaret depending the said Writ of Error was possessed virtute Testamenti ultimae voluntatis dict Martini reversione inde expectant dictae Prudentiae pro ut lex postulat And they further found Error that six pound of the said tewlve pounds were unpaid to the said Margaret at the Feast c. and they found that the said John Frenze praetextu Judicii sic reversat entred into the premisses as Heir male ut supra And so seised a Fine was levyed betwixt John Frenze Plaintiff and one Edward Tindal Owen 157. Dyer 321. 1 Cro. 471. 739. and the said Prudence his Wife Deforceants and that was to the use of the said John Frenze And that afterwards Humphry Warburton and the said Margaret his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against the said John Frenze Edw. Tindal and Prudence his Wife of the said Lands The said Edward and Prudence made default and the Demandants counted against the said Frenze and demanded against him the moity of the third part of the said Lands To which the said Frenze pleaded that the default of the said Edward and Prudence idem John Frenze nomine non debet quia he said that he the said John was sole seised of the Lands aforesaid at the time of the Writ brought c. and pleaded in Bar and it was found against the said John and Iudgment given for the Demandants of the third part of the whole Land and seisin accordingly And that afterwards 17 Eliz. the said Frenze levyed the Fine to the said Tindal to the use of the said Tindal and his Heirs And they found that after the said Feast the said Henry Warburton and Margaret his Wife came to the Messuage aforesaid half an hour before Sun-set of the said day and there did demand the Debt of the said twelve pounds Dower to the said Margaret by the said Martin Frenze devised to be paid unto them and there remained till after Sun-set of the said day demanding the Rent aforesaid and that neither the said Tindal nor any other was there ready to pay the same And first it was moved if the said yearly sum of twelve pounds appointed to be paid to the said Margaret were a Rent or but a sum in gross And the opinion of the Court was that it was a Rent and so it might be fitly collected out of the whole Will where it is said that Prudence his Daughter should have the Land and that she should pay yearly to Margaret twelve pounds in recompence of her Dower c. But if it be not a Rent but a sum in gross it is not much material to the end of the case For put case it be a Rent the same not being pleaded in Bar the Dower is well recovered and then when default of payment is made if the Wife of the Devisor shall have the whole was the Question And the Court was clear of opinion that by the suit and Iudgment in the Writ of Dower the Wife of the Devisor had lost all the benefit which was to come to her by the devise For the said Rent was devised to her in recompence of
is not of any effect but utterly void So is the grant of the presentment to the Church where the Church is void for it is a thing in action See the Lord Dyer 28 H. 6. 26. 3 Ma. Dyer 129. 11 Eliz. Dyer 283 Walmsley Serjeant put this Case Two Ioint-tenants of a Rent the one may release to the other but if the Rent be behind now the one cannot Release his Interest in the Arrearages to the other And afterwards in the Principal case Iudgment was given that the Release was void CCXXXIII Sammes and Paynes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intr. Trin. 29 Eliz. Rot. 721. IN an Ejectione firmae the case was That the Mother being seised of certain Lands had issue two Daughters Tenant by the curtesie 1 And. 184. Goldsb 81. 82. 8 Co. 34. and by Indenture covenanted with diverse persons to stand seised to the use of Eliz. her eldest Daughter in tail upon condition that the said Eliz. should pay to her other Daughter within a year after the death of the Mother or within a year after the said other Daughter should come to the age of eighteen years 300 l. And if the said E. should fall in the payment of the sum aforesaid or should dye without issue before such payment then to the use of the said second Daughter in tail The Mother dieth E. taketh Husband hath issue afterwards dieth without issue before the day of payment And if the Husband shall be tenant by the curtesie or not was the Question And by the Court cleerly he shall be For as to the condition of payment of the said Sum the same is not determined for she died without issue before the day of payment scil before the second Daughter came of the age of eighteen years as to that there is no condition broken as to the point of dying without issue The same is not a condition but rather a Limitation of the Estate and the same is no more than what the Law saith and the estate tail in Elizabeth is spent and determined by the dying without issue and doth not cease or is cut off by any Limitation and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Tenant by the curtesie And by Anderson If a Feoffment be made to the use of I. S. and his heirs until I. D. hath done such a thing and then unto the use of I. D. and his heirs the thing is done and I. S. dieth his wife shall be endowed CCXXXIV Bowry and Popes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Roll. 676. Plow Queries vers finem BOwry brought an Action upon the Case against Pope and declared that in the time of E. 6. the Dean and Chapter of Westminster leased two houses in Saint Martins in London to Mason for sixty years The which Mason leased one of the said Houses to one A. and covenanted by the Indenture of Lease with the said A. that it should be lawful for the said A. his Executors and assigns to make a window in the shop of the house so to him assigned and afterwards in the time of Queen Mary a window was made accordingly where no window was there before And afterwards A. assigned the said house to the Plaintiff And now Pope having a house adjoining had erected a new building super solum ipsius Pope ex opposito the said new Window Nusance so as the New Window is thereby stopped The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgment that here upon the Declaration appeareth no cause of action for the window in the stopping of which the wrong is assigned appears upon the Plaintiffs own shewing to be of late erected scil in the time of Queen Mary The stopping of which by any act upon my own Land was holden lawful and justifiable by the whole Court. But if it were an antient window time out of memory c. there the light or benefit of it ought not to be impaired by any Act whatsoever and such was the opinion of the whole Court. But if the case had been That the house soil upon which Pope had erected the said building had been under the estate of Mason who covenanted as abovesaid Then Pope could not have justified the nusance which was granted by the whole Court. CCXXXV Lee and Maddoxes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Mich. 29 30 Eliz. Rot. 1737. Covenant WIlliam Lee brought a Writ of Covenant against Richard Maddox Isabel his Wife and declared That one Errington the first husband of the said Isabel was endebted to the Plaintiff in 20 l. and that one Georgy Ashley was also endebted to the said Errington in the like sum of 20 l. And also that the said Errington made and constituted the said Isabel his Executrix and died and afterwards the said Isabel by Indenture dum ipsa sola fuit reciting that whereas her said late husband was endebted to the Plaintiff in the sum aforesaid and whereas the said George Ashley was also endebted unto her said late Husband in the like sum Now for the better satisfaction of the Plaintiff for his said Debt she appointed and constituted the Plaintiff atturnatum suum irrevocabilem ad petendum levandum recuperand recipiend ad usum suum proprium in nomine dict Isabellae de dicto Georgio the said twenty pounds And the said Isabel covenanted quod ipsa ad requis dict quer de tempore in tempus adjuvaret manu teneret quamlibet omnes sectam sectas quam vel quas dictus querens commensaret prosequeretur in nomine dictae Isabellae against the said George to the use of the Plaintiff Non existendo Non-suit voluntarie or making any Discontinuance Release Revocations Anglice Countermand without the assent of the Plaintiff And declared further that the Plaintiff had brought a Suit against the said George for the said Debt and shewed all in certain And that the said Isabel depending the said Suit Countermand had taken to Husband the Defendant without the assent of the Plaintiff And if by this Marriage the said Suit be countermanded was the Question And first it seemed to the Court that the Declaration was insufficient Request because there is not any request surmised in the Declaration for the words of the Covenant are Quod ipsa ad requisitionem c. So as it seemed to the Iustices that the Plaintiff ought to have notified to Isabel that he had commenced such Suit otherwise the Action will not lye And also the Court was of opinion that here is not any Countermand for by the taking of the Husband the Writ is not abated but only abateable and therefore the Plaintiff ought to have shewed 1 Roll. 781. that by the taking of the Husband the Writ by Iudgment was abated otherwise it is not any Countermand and
Godfrey in arrest of Iudgment That it is apparent upon the Declaration That the Trespass was done in the time of their Predecessors of which the Successor cannot have action and actio personalis moritur cum persona See 19 H. 6. 66. But the old Church-wardens shall have the action Cook contrary and that the present Church-wardens shall have the action and that in respect of their office which the Court granted And by Gawdy Church-wardens are a Corporation by the Common Law. See 12 H. 7. 28. by Frowick That the New Church-wardens shall not have an action upon such a Trespass done to their Predecessors contrary by Yaxley See by Newton and Paston That the Executors of the Guardian in whose time the Trespass was done shall have Trespass CCXLIX Hauxwood and Husbands Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared for disturbing of him to use his common c. and shewed that A. was seised of certain Lands to which this Common was appendant Prescription 1 Cro. 153. for the term of his Life the Remainder to B. in tail and that the said A. and B. did demise unto him the said Lands for years c. Pepper The Declaration is not good for it is not shewed how these particular estates did commence See 20 E. 4. 10. By Piggot Lessee for life and he in the Remainder cannot prescribe together and he in the Remainder cannot have common Also he declares That Tenant for life and he in Remainder demised to him whereas in truth it is the demise of Tenant for life and the Confirmation of him in the Remainder also he doth not aver the life of Tenant for life Popham He needs not to shew the commencement of the particular estates for we are a stranger to them the Prescription in them both is well enough for all is but one estate and the Lease of both See 27 H. 8. 13. The Lessee for life and he in the Reversion made a Lease for life and joyned in an action of wast and there needs no averment of the life of the Tenant for life for he in the Reversion hath joyned which Gawdy granted as to all And said the particular estates are but as conveyance unto the action Wray conceived the first Exception to be material c. CCL Sweeper and Randals Case Rot. 770. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close and carrying away his goods by Sweeper against Randal upon Not guilty pleaded i Cro. 156. The Iury found That one John Gilbert was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff at Will who sowed the Land and afterwards the Plaintiff agreed with the said Gilbert to surrender to him the said Land and his interest in the same and the said Gilbert entred and leased to the Defendant who took the Corn. It was moved if these words I agree to surrender my Lands be a present and express surrender Gawdy It is not any surrender for Tenant at will cannot surrender but it is but a relinquishing of the estate if it be any thing Surrender but in truth it is not any thing in present but an act to be done in future Wray I agree A. demiseth the Manor of D. at will it is no Lease no more shall it be here any Surrender or any relinquishing of the estate Clench conceived That the intent of the Party was to leave his estate at the time of the speaking otherwise those words were void for he might leave it at any time without those words Gawdy If such was his intent the Iury ought to find it expressly and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCLI Ward and Blunts Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 146. IN an Action upon the Case of Trover of certain Loads of Corn at Henden in Middlesex and the conversion of them The Defendant pleaded That before the conversion he was seised of certain Lands called Harminglow in the County of Stafford and that the Corn whereof c. was there growing and that he did sever it by force of which he was possessed and the same casually lost and that the same came to the hands of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff casually lost the same and the same came to the hands of the Defendant at Henden aforesaid and he did convert the same to his own use as it was lawful for him to do upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Atkinson The Plea is good for the conversion is the point of the action and the effect of it For if a man take the same and do not convert he is not guilty And here the Defendant doth justifie the conversion wherefore he cannot plead Not guilty The general issue is to be taken where a man hath not any colour but here the Defendant hath colour because the Corn whereof c. was growing upon his Land which might enveigle the Lay people and therefore it is safest to plead the special matter But admit that it doth amount but to the general issue yet there is not any cause of Demurrer but the Plaintiff ought to shew the same to the Court and pray that the general issue be entred and the Court ex officio ought to do it Egerton the Queens Solicitor contrary The Plea in Bar is not good The Plaintiff declares of a Trover of his goods ut de bonis suis propriis and the Defendant pleads That he took his own goods which is not any answer to the Plaintiff See 22 E. 3. 18. In Trespass of taking and carrying away his Trees The Defendant pleads That they were our Trees growing in our own soil and we cut them and carryed them away and the plea was challenged wherefore the Defendant pleaded over without that that he took the Trees of the Plaintiff So 26 Ass 22. and 30 E. 3. 22. Another matter was The Plea in Bar is That before the time of the Conversion the Defendant was seised of the Land and sowed it and that after the Corn was severed but he doth not say that he was seised at the time of the severance and then it might be that he had severed the Corn of the Plaintiff c. and that was holden by the Court to be a material exception wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff But as to the first Exception the same was disallowed For the Court ex Officio in such case ought to cause the general issue to be entred but the Plaintiff ought not to demur upon it CCLIV Cheiny and Langleys Case Hill. 31. Eliz. Rott 638. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe case was That Tenant for life of certain Lands leased the same for years by Indenture with these words I give grant 1 Cro. 157. Leases bargain and sell my interest in such Lands for twenty years To have and to hold
should beget on the said woman should come unto the age of 21. years and then to the use of the woman during her widow-hood They are married the Husband dieth without issue the Wife shall hold the land But by him if this use had bin raised by way of Covenant it should be otherwise Coke Admit that all the uses be good yet his meaning was That the debts and legacies being paid W. Paget should have his land for it is provided by the Indenture That when the debts legacies are paid the estate for 24. years shall cease Manwood The payment of the debts cannot end that which never was and as to the two first estates they were never out of him therefore they came unto the Q. by his attainder Coke After debts and legacies paid all other estates but the estate of W. Paget cease therefore William Paget shall have the Land. And the rule of Shelly 35 H. 8. 56 is worthy to be received scil That learning is honest wished to be used that every man learned in the Law do construe Deeds according to the meanings of the makers Manwood A Feoffment to the use of Salisbury Plain for the life of I. S. the Remainder over the same use shall come into possession presently for there is not any person capable of the particular estate but where the first use is limited to a Bastard the remainder over there the Remainder shall not come into possession presently for the Bastard is a person capable but not by such form of conveyance in consideration of natural affection Popham In the case of Bastard there was an estate for life executed to the Father in possession then a Remainder to a Bastard the Remainder to the Sons lawfully begotten but here in our Case no estate is created to precede the estate of William Paget upon which the Remainder can depend At another day It was argued by Coke It is to be agreed on both sides That the estate for four and twenty years is meerly void and also the first use limited to Trentham and others and it is not reason that the use limited to William Paget should expect until the four and twenty years be expired by effluxion of time and to that purpose he cited Cranmers Case where an estate in use was limited to Cranmer for life the Remainder to his Executors for one and twenty years the Remainder over in tail to his Son and Heir c. Cranmer is attainted of Treason and Heresy so as he could not make a Will or Executors there it is holden That the term is void because no Executors and that the Remainder in use should vest presently and should not expect until the said number of years expire by effluxion of time And difference hath been put betwixt the case of Cranmer and the Case at Bar because in Cranmers Case there was a possibility at the beginning that the Term for years might be good for the term became void by matter ex post facto sci By the attainder of him which disabled him to make Executors but in the Case at Bar the term for twenty four years was expresly void ab initio But that difference is without reason for what reason is there That the Remainder should be father off the possession when the estate for years is originally void than when it becomes void by matter ex post facto Suppose that the Lord Paget had by Indenture covenanted as above for the two first uses being in truth void in Law and afterwards by another Indenture reciting That whereas he had covenanted That in consideration That A. with the profits of his Lands should pay his debts c. to stand seised of the said Lands for his own life Now he covenants to stand seised to the use of William Paget and his Heirs should not he presently be seised to the use of William Paget and his Heirs although the words be That then and from thenceforth For I hold it a clear case that his estate begins presently being limited to begin upon a void estate althouh the limitation be by words de futuro And to this purpose he cited the case 3 E. 6. Br. Lease 62. A man leaseth for years Habendum post dimissionem inde fact to J.S. finitam where no such demise is made the same Lease shall begin presently If an Indenture be made to a Monk and another Habend to the Monk for one and twenty years and after the end of that to the other for one and twenty years the other shall have it presently And he put a Case 7 E. 3. in the new Impression 19. and in the old Impression 317. Where one Maud brought a Formedon in the Remainder and counted that one Hamond was seised and gave the said Tenements to one Robert c. in tail and that for want of such issue that the Tenements should return to the said Hamond for life the Remainder to the Demandant in Fee and counted further That Robert is dead without issue and that Hamond is also dead c. It was holden although that the Remainder reserved to the Donor be void yet the Remainder over in Fee is good c. And in that case although that the Remainder in Fee was future sci After the death of Hamond the estate reserved to Hamond meerly void that originally not by matter ex post facto yet the Remainder in Fee was good and should begin presently upon the death of Robert without issue and should not expect the death of Hamond Mr. Attorney hath given a Rule That the intent of the parties is the Direction of uses as also of Wills and therefore I will put one Case of Wills 37 H. 6. 17. If a man devise Lands to a Monk for four and twenty years and after the same ended to another in Fee here the Monk being a dead person cannot take the estate limited to him therefore it is void but the Fee limited to the other is good and shall take effect presently If it be so in a Will why not so also in uses For the intents of the parties do direct the constructions of both And our case here is a stronger case than the case cited 37 H. 6. 36. for there where Land is devised to a Monk for life there may be colour of an Occupant during the life of the Monk who might take it although the Monk himself cannot take it and so the Remainder doth not take effect presently as to the possession but shall stay till after the death of the Monk But here is not any colour of an Occupancy for the estate here is a Lease for years which cannot admit an Occupant And see also 37 H. 6. 36. If a man devise that his Feoffees shall make an estate to I. S. for life the Remainder over to C. in Fee and I. S. will not take his estate C. shall have a Sub-poena against the Feoffees to make an estate to him
leaving out I. S. and see Amy Townsends Case in the Commentaries where the Husband seised in the Right of his Wife makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his wife for their lives the Remainder over to another the husband dyeth the wife refuseth the estate limited to her by the Husband she brings Sur cui in vita not against the heir but against him in the Remainder to whom the Land doth accrue by the refusal of the wife not against the heir of the Feoffor and I grant That where an estate in use or otherwise is to begin upon a condition precedent which is impossible or against the Law the estate shall never rise or begin And here the Case of the Lord Borroughs 35 H. 8. Dy. 55. was cited Where the Father covenanted in consideration of marriage of his Son that immediately after his death his eldest Son shall have the possession or use of all his Lands according to the same course of inheritance as then they stood and that all persons now seised or to be seised should be seised to the said use and intent and it was holden That upon that matter no use is changed But if the Words had bin Immediately after his death they should remain then although the words of the Limitation be In futuro the use of the Fee shall rest in the Son presently and the words In futuro ought not to be interpreted but in benefit of him to whom the use and estate is limited 9 Eliz. Dyer 261. A. Leaseth for thirty years and four years after the beginning of the said term he makes another Lease for years by these words Noverint c. dictis 30 annis finitis completis demisisse omnia praemissa to the said c. Habendum tenendum a die confectionis praesentium termino praedict finito usque ad finem 30 annorum And by the opinion of all the Iustices This new Lease shall commence in possession at the end of the former term and not before and if it should not be expounded the second Lease should be in effect an estate but for ten years which was not the intent of the parties and every grant shall be expounded most strongly for the grantee and to his advantage to which purpose he said he had vouched this Case Also by him there is not any difference where the use is limited by way of covenant or upon a Feoffment And if a man enfeoffeth B. upon condition that he shall enfeoff C. now if he offer to enfeoff C. and he refuseth the Feoffor may re-enter But if the condition were to give to C. in tail then upon such refusal of C. the Feoffor shall not re-enter See 2 E. 4. 2. 19 H. 6. 34. E. si Equitas sit adhibenda in construction of conditions a multo fortiori in case of Vses A Feoffment in Fee upon condition that the Feoffee shall grant a Rent charge to J. S. who doth it but J. S. refuseth the Feoffor shall not re-enter for that was not the intent of the condition If in the principal case Post 266. the limitation of the use had been after the expiration of twenty four years then no use should rise before the twenty four years expire but where not the time but the estate is material there if the estate be void the use shall go to him in the Remainder presently and shall not stay the time 1 Co. 154. c. Egerton Solicitor first it is to see if the use limited to William Paget be good secondly if William Paget doth not come before his time to shew his Right If this use limited to William Paget be a Remainder or an estate to begin upon a contingent or a present estate the estates formerly limited being void and he conceived that it is not a Remainder for there is not any estate upon which it may depend And the words are after the estate for twenty four years ended or expired that then and from thenceforth to the use of William Paget c. so that no use is limited to him before the particular estate is ended therefore no Remainder for a Remainder ought to begin when the particular estate begins Without doubt that was not the intent that William Paget should have the Land during the life of his Father and yet the use limited during the life of his Father was void and if the Remainder should take effect during the said twenty four years against Eusall and his companions wherefore should it not also take effect against Trentham and the others to whose use it was limited during the life of the Lord Paget And here the use limited to William Paget is to begin upon a collateral contingent upon which if it cannot rise it shall not rise at all and I conceive that the use limited to William Paget shall never rise or begin for it is limited to begin when the term of twenty four years is ended and that is never for that which cannot begin cannot end and this Term is meerly void Ergo it cannot begin Ergo it cannot end then this thenceforth cannot be and so this contingent can never fall H. 6. 7. E. 6. A Lease was made for years upon condition that if the Lessee do not pay such a sum of money that he should lose his Indenture the meaning and sense of these words is not that he should lose the Indenture in parchment but that he should lose his Term The Iudgment in an Eectjone firmae is Quod querens recuperet terminum suum that is to be understood not the time but his Interest in the Land for the Term And Coke secretly said that in that case there is not any contingent for the estates precedent never began And as to the Case cited before by Coke Br. Leases 62. If the last Lease be made by Indenture reciting the former Lease certainly the second Lessee shall not be concluded to claim the Land demised presently but shall tarry until the years of the first Term be expired by effluction of time And as to Mawnds Case cited before there is an estate upon which a Remainder may depend scil the estate tail alledged to Robert c. If such as now is limited to William Paget had been limited at the Common Law to a younger Son the eldest Brother should have the Land in the Interim discharged of any use and now after the Statute no use limited to William Paget before the contingent where therefore is it in the mean time In the Lord Paget who being attainted it accrues to the Queen and out of the possession of the Queen this use shall never rise although that the contingent be performed for now the use is locked up A use doth consist in privity of the estate and confidence of the person if these be severed the use is gone And here if the possession be in the Queen she cannot be seised to another use Note by Godfrey that
Mich. 31. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae by Richard Sutton against Robert Holloway and Thomas Dickons Sâ—vil 99. Owen 96. Co. 1 Inst 227. a 3 Cro. 77. upon not guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That the said Thomas Dickins had not any thing in the Lands in question at the time of the making of the Lease upon which the Action is brought scil Who leased by Indenture to the Plaintiff for certain years who entred and afterwards the said Thomas Dickins contra Indenturam suam praedictam intravit upon the Plaintiff and If the same should be a good Lease by Estoppel was the question the Iury having found the truth of the matter scil That the Lessor had not any thing at the time of the demise Walmesley objected That the Iury ought not to find the Indenture because it was not pleaded for the Plaintiff doth not declare upon any Indenture Hob. 227. but the Exception was not allowed but in old time the Law was such 22 E. 3. but at this day the Law is otherwise See Scholastica's Case 14. Eliz. Plowd 411. But where a Release or other writing ought to be pleaded there it ought to be shewed to the Court. VValmesley In rei veritate the Lease is void for a man cannot let Land in which he hath not any thing but in respect of the parties themselves the Lessors and Lessee both are concluded to say That is no Lease for none of them can say to the contrary But here the Iury which is a third person Estoppel is not estopped to say the truth but they may find the special matter and the truth of the Case and the Estoppel hath not place there but the truth of the matter appearing to the Iudges the Iudges ought to adjudge upon the same scil If a man may make an effectual lease of Lands in which he hath not any thing At another day it was moved by Shuâ—l Although that the Iury be not estopped yet the parties themselves are estopped for the Law makes the Estoppel betwixt the parties and the Law will not permit a man to say any thing against his own Deed being indented nor any matter contained in it Periam and Anderson clearly for the Plaintiff That it is a Lease by Estoppel and by Periam It hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench That the Iury in such case are compellable upon pain of Attaint to find the Estoppel VValmesley Here the Estoppel is out of Doors for the truth of the matter disclosed by the Verdict not by the parties only maketh the Estoppel he much replied upon the case of Littleton 149. a. A woman seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Husband who alieneth to another in Fee the Alienee leaseth to the Husband and Wife for their lives now the Wife is remitted and seised in Fee as before here if the Alienee i. e. the Lessor brings an Action of Wast against the Husband and Wife the Husband cannot bar the Plaintiff by the truth of the matter scil the Remitter of his Wife for he is estopped to say against his own Feoffment and his retaking of the particular estate to himself and his Wife But if in an Action of Wast the Husband make default at the Grand Distress and the Wife prayeth to the received she may well shew the whole matter So here the Iury VVindham The Plaintiff ought to have demurred upon the Evidence Periam What if the Defendant will not joyne with the Plaintiff in the Demurrer VVindham there the Court ought to over-rule them if the parties had demurred upon the Evidence we should have adjudged upon that Evidence that a man cannot lease lands in which he hath not any thing And here the Estoppel could not be pleaded for the Defendant hath pleaded the general Issue but if he had pleaded Non demisit then the Estoppel should have holden place CCLXXXVII Mills and Snowballs Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Iury did surmise at the Bar that he was a Tenant in Ancient demesne and had his Charter in his hand Priviledge of Exemption from Juries 1 Cro. 142. and prayed to be exempted from the Iury and discharged but the Court did not regard it but caused him to be sworn And Windham said that he might have his remedy against the Sheriff and Nelson Prothonotay said if he had made default and lost Issues he might shew his Charter in the Exchequer upon the Amercement estreated and there he should be discharged In that Case it was holden by the Court That if a Feoffment be made of a House and the Deed be delivered in the House without other circumstance the same doth not amount to a Livery of seisin but if he do any act by which the intent of the Feoffor appeareth that the Feoffee should have Livery and Seisin Livery of seisin as if the parties go of purpose to the place intended to pass to the intent that the Deed may be delivered in that kind the same doth amount to a Livery by Anderson and the whole Court. CCLXXXVIII Bradstocks Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco RObert Bradstock seised in Fee of certain Lands made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself in tail Estates and for want of such Issue to the use of John Bradstock his Brother in tail and for want of such Issue to the use of Henry Bradstock another Brother in tail Conditions Provided always That if the said John or Henry do go about to avoid any estate or demise by Copy made or to be made of the Premisses or any part thereof that then his estate should cease Robert died without Issue John entred and levyed a Fine Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. of the Land And the opinion of the whole Court was That this Fine was not any offence against the said Proviso for these words made or to be made do not extend to estates made or limited by the said Feoffment but only to estates before made and to be made afterwards CCLXXXIX Long and Hemmings Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN a Quare Impedit by Long against Hemming and the Bishop of Gloucester or the Church of Frombillet upon the pleading the Issue was Quare Impedit 1 Cro. 209. If Tho. Long Father of the Plaintiff did enfeoff the Plaintiff of the Manor of From. to which the Advowson of the said church was appendant before he granted the Advowson to one Strengtham who granted it to the Def. or not And the Iury gave a special Verdict scil That the Abbot of S. was seised of a capital Messuage in Frombillet of one hundred Acres of Land there And that there was a Tenancy holden of the said capital Messuage by such Services and that the said capital Messuage had been known time out of mind by the name of the Manor of Frombillet and that the Advowson was
Entry so where an use is often executed by the Statute Cestuy que use without any Entry hath an actual possession i. As to the uses contingent nothing remains in the Feoffees for the setling of them when they happen but the whole estate is setled in Cestuy que use yet subject to such use and he shall render the same upon contingency And if any estate should remain in the Feoffees it could be but an estate for life for the Fee simple is executed in Cestuy que use with an estate in possession and then the Feoffees should be seised to another use than was given them by the Livery Also if a Feoffment be made unto the use of the Feoffor and his heirs until J.S. hath paid unto the Feoffor 100 l. from thenceforth the Feoffor and his heirs shall be seised to the use of the said J.S. and his heirs if upon such Feoffment any thing should remain in the Feoffees before the payment by I.S. the same should be a Fee-simple and then there should be two Fee-simples of one and the same Lands one in the Feoffor and the other in the Feoffees which should be absurd and therefore the best way to avoid such inconveniences is to continue the Statute that it draws the whole estate of the Land and also the confidence out of the Feoffees and reposeth it upon the Lands the which by the operation of the Statute shall render the use to every person in his time according to the limitation of the parties And also if any Interest doth remain in the Feoffees Then if they convey to any person upon consideration who hath not notice of the use then the said use shall never rise which is utterly against the meaning of the said Statute and the meaning of the parties and therefore to construe the Statute to leave nothing in the Feoffees will prevent all such mischief And if a Feoffment in fee be made to the use of the Feoffor for life and afterwards to the use of his wife which shall be for life and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor The Feoffor enfeoffeth a stranger taketh a wife now cannot the Feoffees enter during the life of the Feoffor and after his death they cannot enter because they could not enter when the use to the wife was to begin upon the intermarriage and then if the Entry of the Feoffees in such case should be requisite the use limited to the wife by the Act of the Feoffor should be destroyed against his own limitation which is strong against the meaning of the Act aforesaid for by the said act the Land is credited with the said use which shall never fail in the performance of it And such contingent estates in Remainder may be limited in possession a Fortiori in use which see 4. E. 6. Coithirsts case 23. And Plesingtons case 6 R. 2. And it is true at the common Law the Entry of the Feoffees was requisite because the wrong was done unto them by reason of the possession which they then had but now by the Statute all is drawn out of them and then there is no reason that they medle with the Lands wherein they have now nothing to do and the scope of the Statute is utterly to disable the Feoffees to do any thing in prejudice of the uses limited so as the Feoffees are not to any purpose but as a Pipe to convey the Lands to others So as they cannot by their Release or confirmation c. bind the uses which are to grow and arise by the limitation knit unto the Feoffment made unto them which see Br. 30. 30 H. 8. Feoffments to uses 50 A. covenants with B. That when A. shall be enfeoffed by B. of three Acres of Lands in D. that then the said A. and his Heirs shall be seised of Land of the said A. in S. to the use of B. and his Heirs and afterwards A. enfeoffeth a stranger of his Lands in S. And afterwards B. enfeoffeth A. of his Lands in D. now the Feoffee of A. shall be seised to the use of B. notwithstanding that the said Feoffee had not notice of the use for Land is bound with the use in whose hands soever it come And see the like case ibid. 1. Ma. 59. Vpon the reason of which cases many assurances have been made for it is the common manner of Mortgage i. e. If the Mortgag or pay such a sum c. that then the Mortgagee and his Heirs shall be seised after such payment to the use of the Mortgagor and his Heirs In that case although that the Mortgagee alien yet upon the payment the use shall rise well enough out of the possession of the Alienee and the Lands shall be in the Mortgagor without any Entry For the Mortgages could not enter against his own alienation to revive the use which is to rise upon the payment and therefore without any assistance of such Entry it shall arise As at the Common Law Land is given to A. in tail the Remainder to the right heirs of B. A. levies a Fine makes a Feoffment suffers a Recovery c. although the same shall bind the Issues yet if B. dyeth and afterwards A. dyeth without issue now notwithstanding this Fine c. The right Heir of B. may enter And always a use shall spring out of the Land at his due opportunity and it is a collateral charge which binds the Lands by the first Liberty and cannot be discharged vi 49. Ass 8. 49 E. 3. 16. Isabell Goodcheapes case A man deviseth that his Executors shall sell his Lands and afterwards dyeth without heir so as the Land escheats to the King yet the authority given to the Executors shall bind the Lands in whose hands soever it comes c. And so a title of Entry continues notwithstanding twenty alienations But an use is a less thing than a Title of Entry especially an use in contingency and an use as long as it is in contingency cannot be forfeited As if the Mortgagor be attainted and pardoned mean betwixt the Mortgage and the day of Redemption c. Then when Thomas levies a Fine Francis may well enter And Thomas before the Fine had an estate tail executed to his Free-hold and therefore by the Fine he gave an estate of Inheritance to the Conusee and then no right of entail remained in Francis but he took an estate for life only and that as a Purchasor by the limitation of the Will and then when Francis levied a Fine his estate was gone which was but for life and then the right of the entail and all the other estates which are especially limited are also gone and so Percival Hart to whom no estate was specially limited hath not any cause to enter c. And it was further said by Wray Husband and Wife Tenants in special tail the Husband levies a Fine with Proclamations and dieth the Wife enters the issue in tail is
If now because the Tithes are not expresly named in the Habendum the Grantee shall have them for life only was the Question It was moved by Popham Attorney General That the Grantee had the Tithes but for life and to that purpose he cited a Case adjudged 6 Eliz. in the Common Pleas A man grants black Acre and white Acre Habendum black Acre for life nothing of white Acre shall pass but at will and in the argument of that case Anthony Browne put this case Queen Mary granted to Rochester such several Offices and shewed them specially Habendum two of them and shewed which in certain for forty years It was adjudged that the two Offices which were not mentioned in the Habendum were to Rochester but for life and determined by his death And so he said in this Case The Tithes not mentioned in the Habendum shall be to the Grantee for life and then he dying his Executors taking the Tithes are Intrudors But as to that It was said by Manwood chief Baron That the cases are not alike for the Grants in the cases cited are several intire and distinct things which do not depend the one upon the other but are in gross by themselves But in our Cases The Tithes are parcel of the Rectory and therefore for the nearness betwixt them i. the Rectory and the Tithes the Tithes upon the matter pass together with the site of the Rectory for the term of twenty years and Iudgment was afterwards given accordingly CCCLXXXI The Lord Darcy and Sharpes Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas Mich. 27 28 Rot. 2432. Debt THomas Lord Darcy Executor of John Lord Darcy brought Debt upon a Bond against Sharpe who pleaded that the Condition of the Bond was That if the said Sharpe did perform all the Covenants c. contained within a pair of Indentures c. By which Indentures the said John Lord Darcy had sold to the said Sharpe certain Trees growing c. And by the same Indentures Sharpe had covenanted to cut down the said Trees before the seventh of August 1684. and shewed further That after the sealing and delivery of the said Indenture the said Lord Darcy now Plaintiff Razure of Deeds 11 Co. 27. caused and procured I. S. to raze the Indenture quod penes praedict Querentem remanebat and of 1684. to make it 1685. and so the said Indenture become void And the opinion of the whole Court was clear against the Defendant for the razure is in a place not material and also the razure trencheth to the advantage of the Defendant himself who pleads it and if the Indenture had become void by the razure the Obligation had been single and without Defeasance CCCLXXXII Rollston and Chambers Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Costs where Damages are given 2 Len. 52. ROllston brought an Action of Trespass upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible Entry against Chambers and upon Issue joyned it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages assessed by the Iury and costs of suit also and costs also de incremento were adjudged And all were trebled in the Iudgment with this purclose quae quidem damna in toto se attingunt ad c. and all by the name of Damages It was objected against this Iudgment that where damages are trebled no costs shall be given as in Wast c. But it was clearly agreed by the whole Court That not only the costs assessed by the Iury but also those which were adjudged de incremento should be trebled and so were all the Presidents as was affirmed by all the Prothonotaries and so are many Books 19 H. 6. 32. 14 H. 6. 13. 22 H. 6. 57. 12 E. 4. 1. And Book of Entries 334. and Iudgment was given accordingly And in this case it was agreed by all the Iustices That the party so convicted of the force at the suit of the party should be fined notwithstanding that he was fined before upon Indictment for the same force CCCLXXXIII Jennor and Hardies Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Trin. 27 Eliz. Rot. 1606. THe Case was Lands were devised to one Edith for life upon condition that she should not marry and if she died or married Devises that then the Land should remain to A. in tail and if A. died without Issue of his body in the life of Edith that then the Land should remain to the said Edith to dispose thereof at her pleasure And if the said A. did survive the said Edith that then the Lands should be divided betwixt the Sisters of the Devisor A. died without Issue living Edith Shutleworth Serjeant Edith hath but for life and yet he granted That if Lands be devised to one to dispose at his will and pleasure without more saying That the Devisee hath a Fee-simple but otherwise it is when those words are qualified and restrained by special Limitation As 15 H. 7. 12. A man deviseth that A. Goldsb 135. Shepherds Touch-stone 439. shall have his Lands in perpetuum during his life he hath but an estate for life for the words During his life do abridge the Interest given before And 22 Eliz. one deviseth Lands to another for life to dispose at his will and pleasure he hath but an estate for life And these words If A. dieth without Issue in the life of Edith That then the Lands should remain to Edith to dispose at her pleasure shall not be construed to give to Edith a Fee-simple but to discharge the particular estate of the danger penalty and loss which after might come by her marriage so as now it is in her liberty And also he said That by the Limitation of the latter Remainder i. That the Lands should be divided betwixt the Daughters of his Sister the meaning of the Devisor was not that Edith should have a Fee-simple for the Remainder is not limited to her Heirs c. if A. dieth in the life of the said Edith for the Devisor goeth further That if A. overlives Edith and afterwards dieth without Issue that the said Land should be divided c. Walmesley contrary And he relyed much upon the words of the Limitation of the Remainder to Edith Quod integra remaneat dictae Edithae and that she might dispose thereof at her pleasure Ante 156. for the said division is limited to be upon a Contingent i. if A. survive Edith but if Edith survive A. then his intent is not that the Lands should be divided c. but that they shall wholly remain to Edith which was granted by the whole Court and the Iustices did rely much upon the same reason and they were very clear of opinion That by those words Edith had a Fee-simple And Iudgment was given accordingly Anderson conceived That it was a Condition but although that it be a Condition so as it may be doubted if a Remainder might be limited upon a Condition yet this devise is as
Surrenders from the said Husband and Wife the Remainder over to the said John Buck in Fee upon condition to pay a certain sum of money c. It was moved That the Surrender is void and without warrant for the warrant was ad capiendum unum fursum redditionem and here are two several Surrenders and so the warrant is not pursued and then the Surrender is void Another matter was because the Remainder to John Buck by the words of the Deputation was absolute and without Condition and now in the Execution of it it is conditional so as this conditional estate is not warranted by the Deputation But the whole Court was clear of a contrary opinion in both the points and that all the proceedings were sufficient and well warranted by the Deputation Another matter was objected because that this Surrender and regrant is entred in the Roll of a Court dated to be holden the second of Maij and the Letter of Deputation bears date the third of June after But as to that The Court was clear of opinion that the mis-entry of the date of the Court should not prejudice the party for this Entry is not matter of Record but is but an Escape and if the parties had been at Issue upon the time of the Surrender made or of the Court holden the same should not be tryed by the Rolls of the Manor but by the Country and the party might give in Evidence the truth of the matter and should not be bound by the Roll and according to this Resolution of the Court Iudgment was given CCCXCVI Mich. 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Fines levied THe Case was Tenant in tail leased for sixty years and afterwards levyed a Fine to Lee and Loveday Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. with a Render to him and his Heirs in Fee And upon a Scire facias against the Conusees supposing the Lands to be ancient Demesn the Defendants made default for which the Fine was avoided and now the Issue in tail entred upon the Lessee for years and he brought an Ejectione firmae Sene facias â— Len. 117. and it was found That the Land was Frank Fee And all the question was If by the Reversal of the Fine by Writ of Disceit without suing forth a Scire facias against the Ter-Tenant should bind him or should be void only against the Conusee and not against the Lessee Atkin. It shall not bind the Lessee for years For a Fine may bind in part and in part not as bind one of the Conusees and not the other 7 H. 4. 111. A Fine levied of Lands part ancient Demesn and part at the common Law the same was by Writ of Disceit reversed in part as to the Land in ancient Demesn and stood in force for the residue 8 H. 4. 136. And there by award of the Court issued forth a Scire facias against the Ter-Tenants and the Iustices would not adnul the Fine without a certificate that the Land was Ancient Demesn notwithstanding that the Defendant had acknowledged it to be so but as to them who were parties to the Fine the Fine is become void as to the said parties and and he who had the Land before might enter i. And he said it should be a great inconvenience if no Scire facias or other Proces should be awarded against the Ter-tenant for he should be dispossessed and disinherited without privity or notice of it where upon a Scire facias he might plead matter of discharge in Bar of the Writ of Disceit as a Release c. which see Fitz. N.B. 98. And so although the Fine be reversed yet he might retain the Land and he resembled this case to the case of 2 H. 4. 16 17. In a Contra formam collationis against an Abbot a Scire facias shall issue forth against the Feoffee and so by the same reason here And for the principal matter he said That the Fine should be avoided against the parties but not against the Lessee Kingsmill The Scire facias brought against the parties only is good enough for they were parties to the Disceit and not the Ter-tenants It was adjorned CCCXCVII Mich. 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Error Appearance by Attorney Dyer 135. b. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment in a Quid juris clamat It was assigned for Error that the Tenant did appear by Attorney whereas he ought not but in person because he is to do an Act in proper person if it be not in case of necessity where the Attorney may be received by the Kings Writ or plead matter in Bar of the Attornment as if he claim Fee c. or other peremptory matter after which Plea pleaded he may make Attorney 48 E. 3. 24. 7 H. 6. 69. 2â— E. 3. 48. 1 H. 7. 27. Another Error was because it is not shewed in the Quid juris clamat what estate the Tenant hath Another matter was If the Grantee of the estate of Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct shall be driven to attorn â— Len â—â— and it was said he should not for the priviledge doth pass with the grant See 43 E. 3. 1. Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct shall not be driven to attorn 46 E. 3. 13. 27. Ergo neither his Grantee Williams contrary As to the appearance of the Tenant by Attorney because the same is admitted by the Court and the Plaintiff the same is not Error which see 1 H. 7. 27. by Brian and Conisby 32 H. 6. 22. And he said That the Grantee should be driven to attorn for no other person can have the estate of the Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct but the party himself therefore not the priviledge and although he himself be dispunishable of Wast yet his Grantee shall not have such priviledge As if Tenant in Dower or by the curtesie grant over their estates the Heir shall have Wast against the Grantors for Wast done by the Grantee but if the heir granteth over his Reversion then Wast shall be brought against the Grantees See Fitz. N.B. 56. And it two Coparceners be and the one taketh a Husband and dieth the Husband being Tenant by the curtesie a Writ of Partition lyeth against him but if he granteth over his estate no Writ of Partition lyeth against the Grantee 27 H. 6. Stathams Aid If the Grantee of Tenant after possibility shall attâ—rn Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct shall not have Aid but his Grantee shall have Aid Clark The Grantee of Tenant in tail shall not be driven to attorn If Tenant in tail grant totum statum suum the Grantee is dispunishaple of wast so if his Grantee grant it over his Grantee is also dispunishable c. It was adjorned CCCXVIII Gravenor and Masseys Case Mich 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. GRavenor brought a Writ of Error upon a common
such Tithes which are of such nature as Tithe-corn and Tith-hay And Manwood chief Baron held clearly that the Lease of these Tithes is good enough notwithstanding the defect by the special Reservation which is limited and appointed by the Statute and so by him a Lease of a House Rent Mill Ferry c. are out of the said Statute And as to the Tithes notwithstanding the words of the Statute are general any Tithes yet he conceived the Statute ought to be intended of Tithes of common Right and not of such customary Tithes as those of London are and therefore if all the Parishoners prescribe in modo Decimandi scil to pay a certain sum of mony for all manner of Tithes upon demise of such a Rectory such special Reservation is not necessary for these are Tithes against common Right and no Tithes are within the purview of the said Statute but those which are annual and therefore a Lease of Tithe-wood is out of the meaning of this Statute for non renovantur in annum and he said that upon a Lease of the Tithes of Chery Trees a rent ought to be reserved according to the Statute and the Farmer may bring his Cheries to the Market and buy Corn. Shute Iustice contrary for the words of the Statute are general And note that this Lease was of the Rectory of Saint Lawrence in the City of London There was another matter moved in this case because the lease whereof the Action is brought was made by the name of Master or Guardian and the Fellows whereas the true name of their Colledge is Master and Fellows Misnosmer And it was argued by Atkinson that the same is not such a Misnosmer which makes the Lease void for sive custos are words of surplusage v. 7 H. 6. 13. And also the case of the Cooks 20 Eliz. Plow 531. The Corporation was by the name of Masters or Governors and Comonalty mysterii coquorum c. And they made a conveyance by the name of Masters or Governors and Comunalty artis sive Mysterii c. the same is no such Misnosmer as shall make void the conveyance for Art and Mistery are both of one sense XXVI Harvey and Harveys Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Consultation CLare Harvey one of the Daughters of Sir James Harvy Alderman of London Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Sebastin Harvy Son and Executor of the said Sir James for a Legacy bequeathed to her by her Father Sebastian did not appear for which he was excommunicated and taken by a Writ of excommunicat capiendo and imprisoned and afterwards he came into this Court and surmised to the Court That the said Sir James in his life had given to the said Sebastian all his Goods and Chattells and was also bound unto the said Sebastian in a Statute-staple of two thousand pounds whereupon he had prohibition and now the Plaintiffs counsel prayed a Consultation quatenus non agitur ad validitatem facti aut Statuti And Egerton Solicitor of Counsel with the Plaintiff cited a Iudgment given in the like Case betwixt Lodge and Luddington where such a special Consultation was granted But Wray put a difference betwixt the said Case and the Case at Bar for here in this Case is a gift by the Testator himself but in the Case cited the gift was by the Executor and also here is a Statute of two thousand pounds in which Case the Obligations which could not pass by the deed shalll be subject to the said Statute XXVII The Duke of Northumberlands Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe late Duke of Northumberland seised of five Messuages in the Parish of St. Sepulchres London in the Tenure of W. Gardiner Bargain and sale 3 Co. 9. by deed intented and enrolled for money bargained and sold to I. L. all his Tenements situate in the Parish of St. Andrews in Holborn in the Tenure of W. Gardiner to have to the said I. L. for life the remainder to K. his Daughter in Fee. Atkinson The bargain and sale is void by reason of the Misnosmer of the Parish notwithstanding the truth of the Tenure for by the grant and bargain and sale of all his Tenements in the Parish of St. Andrews nothing passeth and the truth of the Tenure subsequent shall not help it And by Manwood chief Baron the sale is utterly void for the falsity doth preceed the truth and certainty And it was argued that I. L. entring by colour of the same bargain and sale is a disseisor as the Case is betwixt Croft and Howel 20. Eliz. Com. 537. Yet if he was but Tenant at Will when he made the Lease for years the same was a Disseisin to the said Duke and then the Duke being disseised he is attainted of treason 10. Mariae And now we are to see what things accrue to the Queen by the said Attainder and as to that it was said that at the Common Law a Right of Entry should Escheat but not without office found thereof no more than Lands in possession And by the Statute of 26 H. 8. it is enacted that every person attainted of high treason shall forfeit all his Lands and Tenements which he had of any estate of Inheritance by which Statute a Bishop Abbot or Tenant in tayl in such Case shall forfeit even without Office But in the Statute of 33 H. 8. there is a saving to every other person all such right possession so as in that Case by that Statute the King shall not be in possession without Office but shall have a right but cannot enter before Office or after And he is to have Sci. facias against him who hath the possession and he shall make his defence as well as he can and the words of the said Statute That the King shall be in actual possession shall not be construed to extend to an actual and absolute possession but such a possession only which he had at the Common Law after Office found so as the Statute doth not give to the King a larger possession but an easier without the circumstance of an Office And of that opinion was Manwood chief Baron and Shute second Baron And then it was moved further by Cook because that the Quen by the Attainder hath but a Right and the Queen makes the grant of the Messuages themselves the same grant is void And he granted that the Queen might grant a real Action and a Right of Entry but such a grant ought to be conceived in special words as to say That the Duke of Northumberland was seised of five Messuages and by such a one disseised and after the Duke was attainted and so granted for the Queen may grant such a Right by reason of her Prerogative and therefore the same ought to be granted by special words as in the Case of Mynes in the Commentaries and according to that was the opinion of the Iustices in Cromers Case 8 Eliz. which Case see
things 1. Leases the number of the years 21 non ultra 2. antiquus redditus vel eo amplior yet in reason and good understanding we ought to think that the intent of the Act was that the said Manor should now come to the said Lady Frances surcharged with Leases in Reversion or to begin at a day to come for if by this Act the said Earl might make a Lease to begin three months after by the same reason he might make a Lease to begin twenty years after and also to begin after his death It hath been objected that the Lord Treasurer had a Commission to make Leases of the Queens Lands and that by virtue thereof he made Leases in Reversion I know the contrary to that for every such Lease is allowed by a Bill assigned and not by the ordinary Commission aforesaid the words of our Act are Dimissiones facere pro termino 21. annorum that shall be meant to begin presently As if I lease to you my Lands for one and twenty years it shall be intended to begin presently and he cited the Case betwixt Fox and Collier upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. cencerning Leases made by Bishops That four years of a former Lease being in being the Bishop leased for one and twenty years the same was a good lease notwithstanding the former lease for the lease began presently betwixt the parties And it hath been adjudged that a lease for years by a Bishop to begin at a day to come is utterly void And he cited the Case of the late Marquess of Northampton who by such an Act of Parliament as ours was enabled to make leases of the Lands of his Wife for one and twenty years and of the said Lands an ancient lease was made before the said Act which was in esse and before the expiration thereof he made a lease by virtue of the said Act to commence after the expiration of the former lease and that lease was allowed to be a good lease warranted by the said Statute because that the first lease which was in esse was not made by force of the said Act but if the said former lease had been made by virtue of the said Statute the second lease had been utterly void XLV Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Copy-hold Surrender by Attorney not good A Copy-holder of the Manor of the Earl of Arrundel did surrender his customary Lands to the use of his last Will and thereby devised the Lands to his youngest Son and his Heirs and died the youngest Son being in prison makes a Letter of Attorney to one to be admitted to the Land in the Lords Court in his room and also after admittance to surrender the same to the use of B. and his Heirs to whom he had sold it for the payment of his debts And Wray was of opinion that it was a good surrender by Attorney but Gawdy and Clench contrary 3 Cro. 218. 9 Co. 75. and by Gawdy If he who ought to surrender cannot come in Court to surrender in person the Lord of the Manor may appoint a special Steward to go to the prison and take the surrender c. and by Clench Lessee for years cannot surrender by Attorney but he may make a deed purporting a surrender and a letter of Attorney to another to deliver it XLVI Troublefield and Troublefields Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Dy. 337. b. Co. 1 Inst 15. 2. b. 52. 245. b. 252. 6. Post 51. Entry THe Case was that a Copy-holder did surrender to the use of his Will and thereby devised the Land to his Wife for life the remainder over to his son in tail and died the Wife entred and died a stranger did intrude upon the Lands and thereof made three several Feoffments to three several persons he in the Remainder entred upon one of the said three Feoffees in the name of all the Lands so devised and made a lease of the whole Land And by Clench and Wray it was a good Entry for the whole and by consequence a good lease of the whole Gawdy contrary Note all the Lands were in one County See 16 Eliz. Dyer 337. 9 H. 7. 25. XLVII Parmort and Griffina's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation by Parmort against Griffina a Merchant-stranger the Defendant pleaded Debt that the Obligation was made upon condition for the performance of certain Covenants contained within certain Indentures and shewed what c. and alledged further that in the said Indenture there is a proviso that if aliqua lis vel controversia oriatur imposterum by reason of any clause article or other agreement in the said Indenture contained that then before any sute thereupon attempted the parties shall choose four indifferent persons for the ending thereof which being done the Indenture and Obligation shall be void And in fact saith that Lis controversia upon which the Action is brought groweth upon the said Indenture upon which there was a demurrer in Law. And because the Defendant hath not shewed specially upon what controversie or strife and upon what article certain The Court was clear of opinion that the Bat was not good And also the Court was of opinion Proviso taken strictly that the said Proviso did not extend to subject and submit the breach of every Covenant or Article within the said Indenture to the Arbitrament of the said four persons but only where strife and controversie doth arise upon the construction of any Covenant c. within the said Indenture so as the Defendant ought to have shewed such matter which fell within the Arbitrament by the meaning of the said Indenture and Iudgment was given against the Defendant XLVIII Partridge and Partridges Case Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Dower by Partridge against Partridge the Case was Dower that Land was given to the Father for life the reversion to his Son and Heir for life the remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the Father The Father and Son joyn in a Feoffment to the Vncle in Fee scil to the Brother of the Father The Vncle takes a Wife the Father dieth the Son being his Heir in tail the Vncle dieth without issue so as the Land descendeth to the Son as Heir to his Vncle against whom the Wife of the Vncle brought Dower It was moved if the Son being Herein can to his Father and Heir also to his Vncle for the Fee descended be now remitted for then no Dower accrueth to the Wife of the Vncle for the estate of which she demands Dower is gone but if the livery in which the Son joyned with his Father be the livery of the Son Remittâ— the same lies in his way in the impediment and preventing of the Remitter so as during his life he shall be adjudged seised of the Lands in Feesimple by descent from his Vncle Then Dower lyeth for the same
did not lie in the said Court. 18 Eliz. Dyer 250. F. B. 22. That upon Erronious Iudgment given in the Kings Bench in Ireland Error shall be brought in the Kings Bench in England 15 E. 3. Error 72. Fenner who was of Council with the Archbishop demanded of the Court how and in what manner the Record shall be remanded to the Iustices of Assize so as the Archbishop might have execution To which the Court said that the surest way is to have a Certiorare out of the Chancery into the Common Pleas directed to the Iudges there and then out of the Chancery by Mittimus to the Iustices of Assize But Fenner made a difficulty of it to take such course for the remanding of it for doubt they would not allow it to be a Record where it is not a Record for upon the matter the Record is not removed but remains with the Iustices of Assize Then Anderson said Sue Excution out of the said Record but because the Record came before us by Writ of Error it shall be also removed and remanded by Writ and so it was LXX Kempe and Carters Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THomas Kempe brought Trespass Copyhold for breaking of his Close against Carter and upon pleading they were at issue if the Lord of the Manor aforesaid granted the said Lands per copiam rotulorum curiae manerii praedict secundum consuetudinem manerii praedict and it was given in Evidence that within the said Manor were divers customary Lands and that the Lord now of late at his Court of the said Manor granted the Land c. per copiam rotulorum curiae where it was never granted by copy before It was now holden by the whole Court that the Iury are bound to find Dominus non concessit for notwithstanding that de facto Dominus concessit per copiam rotulorum curiae yet non concessit secundum consuetudinem manerii praedict for the said Land was not customary nor was it demisable for the custom had not taken hold of it In the same Case it was also shewed that within the said Manor some customary Lands are demiseable for life only Evidence of customs and some in Fee and it was said by the Lord Anderson that he who will give in Evidence these several customs ought to shew the several limits in which the several customs are severally running as that the Manor extends into two Towns and that the Lands in one of the said Towns are grantable for lives only and the Lands in the other in Fee and he ought not to shew the several customs promiscuè valere through the whole Manor And he remembred a Case of his own experience scil The Manor of Wadhurst in the County of Sussex consisted of two sorts of Copy-hold scil Sook-land and Bond-land and by several customs disseverable in several manners As if a man be first admitted to Sook-land and afterwards to Bond-land and dieth seised of both his Heir shall inherit both but if he be first admitted to Bond-land and afterward to Sook-land and of them dieth seised his youngest Son shall inherit and if of both simul semel his eldest Son shall inherit But if he dieth seised of Bond-land only it shall descend to the youngest and if customary Land hath been of ancient time grantable in Fee and now of late time for the space of forty years hath granted the same for life only yet the Lord may if he please resort to his ancient custom and grant it in Fee. It was also moved in this case If customary Land within a Manor hath been grantable in Fee if now the same Escheat to the Lord and he grant the same to another for life the same was holden a good grant and warrantable by the custom and should bind the Lord for the custom which enables him to grant in Fee shall enable him to grant for life and after the death of the Tenant for life the Lord may grant the same again in Fee for the grant for life was not any interruption of the custom c. which was granted by the whole Court. LXXI Walker and Nevils Case Pasch 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower WAlker and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Jervice Nevil and judgment was given upon Nihil dicit and because the first Husband of the Wife died seised a Writ of Enquiry of Damages was awarded by which it was found that the Land which she ought to have in Dower the third part was of the value of eight pound per annum and that eight years elapserunt a die mortis viri sui proximè ante inquisitionem assident damna to eight pounds and it appeared upon the Record that after Iudgment in the Writ of Dower aforesaid the Demandants had execution upon habere facias seisinam Damages so as it appeareth upon the whole Record put together that damages are assessed for eight years where the Demandants have been seised for part of the said eight years upon which the Tenant brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error because damages are assessed untill the time of the Inquisition where they ought to be but to to the time of the Iudgment but the Exception was not allowed Another Error was assigned because that where it is found that the Land was of the value of eight pounds per annum they have assessed damages for eight years to eighty pounds beyond the Revenue for according to the rate and value found by verdict it did amount but to sixty four pounds but that Error was not also allowed for it may be that by the long detaining of the Dower the Demandants have sustained more damages than the bare Revenue c. Another Error was assigned because Damages are assessed for the whole eight years after the death of the Husband where it appeareth that for part of the said years the Demandants were seised of the Lands by force of the Iudgment and execution in the Writ of Dower and upon that matter the writ of Error was allowed LXXII Archpool against the Inhabitants of Everingham Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Statute of Winchester of Huy and Cry by Archoopl against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Everingham the Iury found that the Plaintiff was robbed 2 Januarii post occasum solis sed per lucem diurnam and that after the Robbery committed the Plaintiff went to the Town of Andover and advertised the Baylies of the said Town of the said Robbery and further found that the said Town of Andover is not within the said Hundred of Everingham and that there is another Town nearer to the place where c. the Robbery was done than the said Town of Andover within the said Hundred but the said Town of Andover was the nearest place where c. by the Kings high-way It was moved that upon this matter the Plaintiff should not have judgment
for that he hath not made his Fresh sute according to the Law for he ought to have begun his Fresh sute within the Hundred where the Robbery was done and it was also objected that the Robbery was done post occasum solis in which Case the Hundreders are not to pursue the Malefactors And Walmsley Serjeant cited a Case out of Bracton Si appellatus se defenderit contra appellantem tota dle usque ad horam in qua Stellae incipiunt apparere recedat quietus de appello and it is not reason to drive the Hundreders to Follow felons at such a time 1 Cro. 270. when for want of light they cannot see them And all the Iustices were clear of opinion that if the Robbery was done in the night time the Inhabitants are not bound to make the pursute And by Rhodes if in a Praecipe quod reddat of Lands the Sheriff summons the Demandant upon the Land in the time of night such a summons is meerly void LXXIII Wiseman and Wisemas Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Trin 28. Rot. 1458. IN an Action of Debt by Wiseman against Wiseman the Case was Debt 1 And. 160. Owen 140. that one Wiseman was seised of the Lands and by his Will devised 1. I will and bequeath unto my Wife B. acre for the Term of her life the remainder to my Son Thomas in tail Item I will and bequeath unto my Son Thomas Devises all my Lands in D. and also my Lands in S. and also my Lands in V. Also I give and bequeath unto the said Thomas my Son all that mâ— Island or Land enclosed with water which I purchased of the Earl of Essex To have and to hold all the said last before devised premisses unto the said Thomas my Son and the Heirs of his Body The only matter was If the Habendum shall extend to the Island only in which Case Thomas shall have but for life in the Lands in D. S. and V. or unto the Island and also to the Lands in D. S. and V 2 Roll. 60. Roph. 126. in which Case he shall have fee-Fee-tail in the whole And it was argued by Fenner that the Habendum should extend to the Island only as he said the opinion of the Iustices of this Court was in 4 Eliz. in another Case I devise my Manor to D. my eldest Son and also my Land in S. in tail in that Case the entail limited for the Land in S. shall not extend to the 1 Roll. 844. said Manor and of such opinion was Weston Welsh and Dyer Brown contra that the Son hath tail in both But if the words of the devise had been I devise my Manor of D. and my Lands in S. to my Son in tail here the Son had an estate tail in both So it hath been adjudged that if I devise Lands to A. B. and C. successively as they be named the same is good by way of Remainder Walmesley contrary and he relied much upon this that the words of the Habendum are in the plural number 2 Bulst 180. 181. All the last before devised premisses whereas the thing lately devised by the Will was an Island in the singular number which cannot satisfie the Habendum Extent of an Habendum which is in the plural number and therefore to verifie the plural number in the Habendum the Habendum by fit construction shall extend to all the Lands in D. S. and V. and so upon his motion made at another day it was resolved by all the Iustices that the Habendum should extend to all the said Lands and the Habendum should not streighten the Devise to the Island only LXXIV Fullwood and Fullwoods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Bail renders himself in Court. IN an Action upon the Case the Defendant put in bail to the Court to answer to the Action and now Iudgment being given against him he came into Court and rendred himself and prayed that in discharge of his sureties that the Court would record the rendring of himself which was granted And the Court demanded of the Plaintiff if he would pray execution for the body against the Defendant who said he would not whereupon the Court awarded that the sureties should be discharged and the Rule was entred that the Defendant offered himself in discharge of his sureties and Attornatus Querentis allocatus per curiam c. dixit se nolle c. Ideo consideratum fuit per curiam quod tam praedict defend quam praedict Manucaptores de recognitione praedict denariis in eadem contentis exonerentur LXXV Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was He in the Reversion upon a Lease for years makes a Charter of Feoffment to divers persons to the use of himself for life Feoffments and after to the use of his eldest Son in tail and the words of the Charter were Dedi Concessi Barganizavi Feoffavi and he sealed and delivered the deed but no livery of seisin was made and afterwards he came to his Lessee for years and said to him that he had made a Feoffment and shewed also the uses but did not shew to whom the Feoffment was made to whom the Lessee said you have done very well I am glad of it Attornment And if that were a good Attornment was the Question It was said that that was the Case of one Arden And Gent and Manwood were of opinion that the same was no Attornment because it was not made to the Feoffee scil to the Grantee of the Reversion and so it was ruled in this Case for Attornment ought to be to the Grantee himself and not to Cestuy que use 1 Cro. 251. Tythes and where the spiritual court shall have jurisdiction of them LXXVI The Parson of Facknams Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Parson of great Facknam brought an Action of Trespass against the Parson of Hannington and the Case was If the Parson of one Parish claim by prescription a portion of Tythes out of the Parish of another if the Spiritual Court shall have the Iurisdiction for the tryal of it And the opinion of the whole Court was clear that it should because that the matter is betwixt two spiritual persons and concerning the right of Tithes As 35 H. 6. 39. I. Vicar of B. brought Trespass for taking away of forty loads of Beans c. The Defendant pleaded that he is Parson of the said Church of B. and the Plaintiff is Vicar c. and before the Trespass c. the Beans were growing in the same Town and severed from the nine parts and he took them as belonging to his said Church and demanded Iudgment of the Court c. The Plaintiff said that he and all his Predecessors Vicars c. time out of mind c. have used to have the Tithes of such a Close c. belonging to his Vicaridge and
one of them dieth her Heir within age and in Ward to the King The Church voideth and the King is disturbed in his presentment he shall have a Scire facias upon such composition notwithstanding that he be a stranger to it See F.N.B. 34 H. And by all the Iustices if one recover in Debt upon a simple contract and before execution the Plaintiff is out-lawed in an Action personal the King shall sue execution And see 37 H. 6. 26. Where in Debt upon an Obligation it was surmised to the Court that the Plaintiff was out-lawed And the Kings Attorney prayed delivery of the Obligation c. LXXXV Moile and the Earl of Warwicks Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Quare Impedit A Quare Impedit was brought by Walter Moile against Ambrose Earl of Warwick and the Archbishop of Canterbury And now came the Serjeanes of the Queen and shewed an Office to entitle the Queen to have a Writ to the Bishop containing such matter viz. That one Guilford was seised of the Manor of D. to which the Advowson of the Church was appendant and that Manor was holden in chief by Knights service and that Guilford and his Wife levied a Fine thereof to the use of themselves for their lives the remainder over in tail to their eldest Son and that Guilford is dead but who is his next Heir ignorant And it was shewed by the Council of the other side that the truth of the Case was that the said Guilford was seised of the said Manor in the right of his Wife and so levied the Fine in which Case the said coveyance is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. for it was for the advancement of the Husband not of the Wife which Anderson granted Vide Dyer 19 Eliz. 354. Caverlies Case but that is not in the Office And it was moved at the Bar that the Office is imperfect because no Heir is found But Anderson the Office is sufficient for the King to seise although it be insufficient for the Heir c. And it was agreed by the whole Court Office trove that the Court ought not to receive the Office although one would affirm upon oath that it is the very Office but it ought to be brought in under the Great Seal of England and also the Court shall not receive it without a Writ and yet Nelson Prothonotary said that the Statute of Huy and Cry of Winchester was brought into the Court without a Writ under the great Seal A Record not to be brought into Court without a Writ 63. and that was out of the Tower And in that Case also the Iustices held that if a Record be pleaded in the same Court where it abides the other party against whom it is pleaded may plead Nul tiel Record as if the said Record had bin remaining in another Court which all the Prothonotaries denied that always it had been used to the contrary At another day the Case was moved again The Plaintiff in the Quare Impedit counted that Richard Guilford was seised of the said Manor c. in the right of Bennet his Wife and so seised they both levied a Fine thereof to a stranger Sur Conusans de droit come ceo who rendred it to the Husband and Wife for their lives the remainder to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband and they so being seised the Husband alone levied a Fine to a stranger Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. and by the same Fine the Conusee rendred to the Husband and Wife in tail the remainder to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband the Husband died seised the Wife entred and leased the said Manor to the Plaintiff and then the Church did become void And now the Queens Serjeants came and shewed unto the Court an Office which came in by Mittimus In which Writ the perclose is Mandamus vobis quod inspectis c. pro nobis fieri faciatis quod secundum leges consuetudinem Regni nostri Angliae faciend Statuetis And the Office did purport that the said Richard was seised of the said Manor and held the same of the Queen as of her Castle of Dover by Knights service in chief and levied the Fine ut supra and that the said Richard died sed quis sit propinquior haeres dict Ric. penitus ignorant and upon that Office prayed a Writ to the Bishop for the Queen And two Exceptions were taken to the Office First because it is not found by the said Office that the said Richard died seised 1 Cro. 895. in which Case it may be for any thing that appeareth in the Office that the said Richard after the said Fine had conveyed his estate in the said Lands unto others or that he was disseised c. See 3 H. 6. 5. If it be not found of what estate the Tenant of the King died seised the Office is insufficient But see there by Martin that such an Office is good enough for the King but not for the Heir to sue his Livery upon it And by Anderson Periam and Rhodes that defect in the Office is supplyed by the Count for there it is expressly alledged that the said Richard died seised Secondly because no Heir is found by the said Office. To which it was said by the Lord Anderson that peradventure at the Common Law the same had been a material Exception But we ought to respect the Statutes of 32 and 34 H. 8. of Wills. And therefore as to the Wife the Queen is entitled to Primer seisin because the conveyance was made for her advancement And by Windham the Queen in this Cale shall not have Primer seisin for by the Statute the Queen shall not have Primer seisin but in such Case where if no conveyance had been made the Queen should have had Primer seisin but in this Case for any thing that appears before us if this conveyance had not been made the Queen should not have had Primer seisin forasmuch as no Heir is found and if he died without Heir there is no Primer seisin because there is not any in rerum natura to sue livery Rhodes Periam and Anderson contrary Admitting that Richard died withou Heir the Queen shall have Primer seisin against the Wife of Richard notwithstanding the escheat Walmesley Serjeant If the Tenant of the King by Knights service in chief dieth seised of other Lands holden of a common person by Knights service without Heirs the King shall not have Primer seisin of such Lands holden of a Subject which Windham granted But by Anderson the Lord is put to sue an Ouster le mayne of the Land holden of him And afterward Exception was taken to the Count because the Plaintiff hath not averred the life of the Tenant in tail that is of Bennet the Wife of Richard to whom
Plaintiff for certain Beasts which he wrongfully took from the Plaintiff that then c. And he said in facto That the said I. S. had stolen the said Beasts from the Plaintiff Condition against Law. and thereof he was endicted c. and so the condition being against the Law the Obligation was void upon which the Plaintiff did demurr in Law. And it was argued by the whole Court That where the condition of an Obligation shall be said against the Law and therefore the Obligation void the same ought to be intended where the condition is expresly against the Law in express words and in terminis terminantibus Post 103. and not for matter out of the condition as it is in this case And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff C. Hawks against Mollineux Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN a Replevin by Hawks against Mollineux who avowed for Damage-fesant The Plaintiff in Bar of the Avowry pleaded that Sir Gervase Paston Knight was seised of a Messuage and twenty Acres of Land And that always those whose estate Repleviâ— Yelv. 185. Prescription c. have used to have Common in the place where c. for all their Cattel commonable in this manner viz. If the said Land be sowed by assent of the Commoner then no Common until the Corn be mowed and when the Corn is mowed then Common until the Land shall be sowed again by assent of the Commoners And this Prescription was found by Verdict and exception was taken to this prescription because against common right so as a man cannot sow his Land without the leave of another But the exception was disallowed by the Court for the prescription was holden to be good by the whole Court for by the Law of the Land the Owner of the Land cannot plow the Land where another hath Common but here is a benefit to each party as well for the Owner of the Land against the Commoner as for the Commoner against the Tenant of the Land for each of them hath a qualified Interest in the Land. CI. Baldwin and Cocks Case Intr. Pasch 29 Eliz. Rot. 1410. In Communi Banco Replevin Owen 52. Post 225. 1 Inst 225. 2. BAldwin was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Cocks and upon the pleading the Case appeared to be this That Sir Richard Wayneman was seised of the place where c. and leased the same to one Truepeny and one Eliz. Reade for term of 21 years if the said Truepeny and Eliz. or any child or children betwixt them begotten should live so long Eliz. within the term died without issue If now the term for 21 years be determined was the Question And the Lord Anderson conceived that the estate for years is not determined by the death of Elizabeth And it was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant that upon the matter the term is determined And he put the Case of the Lord Bray 3 Eliz. Dyer 190. Where the Lord Bray sold unto four great Lords the marriage of his Son and Heir to the intent to be married at the appointment and nomination of the said Lords the Lord Bray died one of the said Lords before any marriage 5 Co. 9 1 Brown. 31. 46 47. 80. 101. 2 Br. 83. 148. or appointment or nomination died the Son is married by the appointment c. of the surviving Lords That marriage is not within the intent of the Covenant and adjudged that upon that marrriage no use shall accrue And also he cited this Case adjudged in the Kings Bench. The administration is committed to one durante minore aetaâ—e of two Infants one of them becomes of full age the power of the Administration is determined which Walmesley Serjeant granted for it is but an authority but here in the Case at Bar is a matter of interest And by Anderson all the construction of this lease and grant rests upon this point if this word Or either shall be taken as disjunctive as it is in its nature or as a conjunctive and if it be taken as a disjunctive if it make the whole sentence in the disjunctive as if the limitation had been if the Husband or Wife or any Child c. And Fenner put this Case out of 17 E. 3. as he cited it Land is given to I. S. in Fee so long as A. B. hath issue of his body A. B. dieth without issue his Wife priviment enâ—â—ent Now the estate is determined and upon birth of the issue after shall not revive which Rhodes and Anderson denied for in many Cases the Law shall respect the existency of the child in the mothers belly And see 7 Eliz. Plow 289. where a Copulative shall be taken in the disjunctive as a covenant with B. to make a lease for years of such Lands to the said B. and his Assigns Exposition of words in deeds 244. Post 251. 1 Roll. 444. the same shall be construed or his Assigns And it was clearly agreed by the other parties that if the words had been If Truepeny Elizabeth or any child or children c. so long c. upon the death of any of them the interest is determined And by Rhodes Periam and Windham in the principal Case the lease shall endure as long as any of the persons named in the Proviso shall live and so seemed to be the meaning of the parties And Anderson haesitavit in the words of the limitation i. the Habendum to the said Truepeny and Eliz. for 21 years a festo Sancti Johannis Baptist post terminum annorum the expiration of a former term if the said Truepeny and Elizabeth or any child c. And he conceived that the limitation did go to the commencement of the lease only and not to the expiration or determination as if the lease should not begin if they all were not alive at the commencement of the lease And all the other Iustices were clear of the contrary opinion for by them this limitation shall go and shall be referred to the determination of the Lease and not to the commencement of it Anderson If any cause should be for which the lease should endure untill the years be encurred notwithstanding the death of the Husband or Wife it was because the lease was intended a common advancement to both for it should be in vain to name the Wife in the lease if the lease should cease by the death of the Husband And afterwards after many arguments on both sides it was adjudged that by the death of Elizabeth the lease was not determined for the disjunctive before Child makes all the limitation in the disjunctive CII Zouch and Bamfields Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco THe Case between the Lord Zouch and Bamfield was now argued by the Iustices And Rhodes the puisne Iustice argued 1 And. 165. 3 Co. 88. that the Lord Zouch the Demandant should be barred Four Exceptions have been taken to the bar First because it is not shewed in
Term which reason in construction of the said Statute the Iudges in the case of the Cooks of London 20. Eliz. have observed which see Plowden 538. For although Successors are not mentioned in the said Statute of 4 H. 7. but only Heirs yet the Iudges did construe the said Statute to extend to them that they should be bounden as well as the Heirs for it is in the like mischief and the said Statute was made for the publick good and for the repose of the Inheritances of the Subjects of this Realm and therefore the same ought to be largely extended in the meaning and sense of it and for the benefit of the Possessors of the Lands and to the destroying of former rights which were not claimed It hath been said that this Fine is but a Fine by conclusion and not in verity and therefore not within the Statute But without question Fines by conclusion are within the Statute And that is clear by the Saving scil to all persons other than parties to the said Fines c. And Periam was against the opinion in Stowells Case by Sanders 356. A Disseisor maks a Feoffment in fee upon condition the Feoffee levies a Fine with Proclamation five years pass the condition is broken the Disseissor re-entreth and Periam conceived that in such Case the Disseissee is bounden for by the Fine and five years non-claim the right of every stranger is barred and when the Disseissor entreth for the condition broken the Fine is not annoyed but rather confirmed and former rights shall not be revived Windham to the same intent and vouched the Books before remembred and that the meaning of the Statute of 32 H. 8. made upon the Statute of 4 H. 7. was to bind the Issue in tail as strongly as the heir of Tenant in Fee-simple was bound at the common Law and that Fines by conclusion are as fully within the purview of that Statute as Fines in verity for Fines by conclusion are Assurances And as to the objection against our Fine that it is not rite levatus because that partes ad finem nihil habuerunt c. the same is no reason wherefore this Fine should not be rite levatus for these words rite levatus to the external form of a Fine are to be taken as to a Fine levied coram Edmundo Anderson socijs suis where all the Iustices ought to be named and so it seemed also to Periam and Anderson Our case had little resemblance to the Case where Tenant in tail maks a Lease according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. if he be not seised at the time of the demise it is void for the Stat. speaks seised in tail but so are not penned the Statutes of 4 H. 7. 32 H. 8. as 4 H. 7. a Fine levied shall bind privies strangers c. 32 H. 8. Fines levied of any Lands entailed to the Conusor or any of his Ancestors and it is not a Fine in respect of the possession which passeth by the Fine but in respect of the Concord and Agreement And Tenant in tail by these Statutes hath as great power to bind the right of the entail although he cannot meddle with the possession as the Tenant in Fee-simple at the common Law. Anderson to the same intent All the matter rests upon this point if the Issue in tail be privy or not for if he be privy then clearly he is bounden And as to that the Issue in tail before the Statute of 32 H. 8. hath been always accounted privy See 29 H 8. Dyer 32. Tenant in tail of the gift of the King levieth a Fine the same shall bind his Issue for they are privy And he argued much upon the Cases cited by the other Iustices before and especially upon the said Case of Stowel and the Lord Zouch how that the Issue in tail is there holden privy and that the Statute of Fines ought to be taken and construed to enfore the operation of Fines against former rights and for the establishment of the present possessions and estates And by him divers rights and persons are excepted by the said Statute but this right in gross of possession nor the Issue in tail whose Ancestor being out of possession levieth the Fine is not excepted therefore both of them comprehended in the Statute And in his argument he stood much upon it how dangerous a matter it should be to receive such averments and allegations which go meerly in avoidance of Fines for so every Fine might fall in the mouth of the Lay-Gens which would be very inconvenient And he concluded his Argument with this Case Tenant in tail doth discontinue and disseiseth his discontinnuee and levieth a Fine the discontinuee before the proclamations reentreth the proclamations are made Tenant in tail doth re-enter and dieth seised against this Fine his Issue shall not be remitted See as to the averment 3 H. 627. 33 H. 6. 18. 42 E. 3. 20. 8 H. 4. 8. 12 E. 4. 19. by Fairfax and Needham and fol. 15. by Brian and Choke And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Demandant should be barred CIII Gunerston and Hatchers Case Intr. Pasch 24 Eliz. Rot. 2112. In Communi Banco CHarles Duke of Suffolk was seised of three parts of the Manor of D. and Poole was seised of the fourth part of the said Manor Avowry and afterwards the Duke granted out of the said three parts a Rent-charge of five marks to Gunerston and afterwards the said Duke of the said three parts did enfeoffe Hatcher in Fee after which Poole conveyed his said fourth part of the said Manor to the said Hatcher in Fee and afterwards Hatcher being seised ut supra reciting the said several purchases especially the said fourth part devised to Katherin Hatcher at Will and Gunerston distreined the Cattel of Katherin Hatcher for the arrearages of the said Rent and in a Replevin avowed the distress and by the opinion of the whole Court the Avowry was not maintainable for the fourth part of the said Manor which was in the possession of Poole was not charged with the Rent and although all the Manor be now in the possession of Hatcher yet the Mannor is not so consolidated nor united by this unity of possession but that the owner might well enough single out eandem quartam partem and grant it and the grantee shall hold the same discharged as the said Poole held it and the beasts of the said Katherin shall not be distreined and so Iudgment was given against the Avowant CIV Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Voucher Post 291. IT was moved by Serjeant Walmesley If a common Recovery be to pass at the Bar and the Tenant is ready at the Bar and voucheth to warr A. for whom one is ready at the Bar to appear for the vouchee by his warrant of Attorny It was holden that this appearance is meerly void for in such case the vouchee ought to appear in person
as in case where the Husband died seised Dy. 370. the which dying seised is not found by the Verdict In which Case it was said by the Court the Demandant might pray Iudgment of the Lands and release damages or the Demandant may aver that the Husband died seised and have a Writ to enquire of the damages quod omnes Pregnotarii concesserunt CXIX Michel and Hydes Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower DOwer by Michel and his Wife against Lawrence Hyde who appeared upon the grand Cape And it was because that the said Hyde in truth was but Lessee for years of the Land of which c. in which case he might plead non-tenure if now he might wage his Law of non-summons so as the Writ be abated for by the wager of Law he hath taken upon him the Tenancy and affirmed himself to be Tenant 33 H. 6. 2. by Prisoit to which it was said by Rhodes and Windham Iustices that here the Tenant being but Lessee for years is not at any mischief for if Iudgment and Execution be had against him he notwithstanding might afterwards enter upon the Demandant Another matter was moved That where the Writ of Dower was de tertia parte Rectoriae de D. and upon that the grand Cape issued Cape in manum nostram tertiam partem Rectoriae and the Sheriff by colour of this Writ took the Tythes severed from the nine parts and carried them away with him And it was agreed by the said Iustices that the same is not such a seisure as is intended by the said Writ but the Sheriff by virtue of such Writ ought generally to seize but leave them there where he found them And the Court was of opinion to commit the Sheriff to Prison for such his misdemeanor CXX Hamington and Ryders Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIchard Haming Executor of Isabel Haming brought Debt upon an Obligation against Ryder Debt Savil Rep. 74. Owen Rep. 6. 1 Co. 52. 1 Andâ— 162. the Case was that Kidwelly was seised leased for years to John Hamington Husband of Isabel and afterwards John Hamington being so possessed by his will devised that the said Isabel should have the use and occupation of the said Land for all the years of the said Term as she should live and remain sole and if she died or married that then his Son should have the residue of the said Term not expired John died Isabel entred Devises to whom the said Lawr. coveyed by Feoffment the said Land in Fee and in the Indenture of the said Conveyance Lawr. covenanted that the said Land from thence should be clearly exouerated de omnibus prioribus barganijs titulis juribus omnibus alijs oneribus quibuscunque Isabel took to Husband the Son entreth If now the Covenant be broken was the question It seemed to Anderson at the first motion that this possibility which was in the Son at the time of the Feoffment was not any of the things mentioned in the Covenant scil former bargain title right or charge But yet it was conceived by him that the word bargain did extend to it for every Lease for years is a contract and although that the Land at the time of the Feoffment was not charged yet it was not discharged of the former contract And by Windham if I be bounden in a Statute-staple and afterwards I bargain and sell my Lands and covenant ut supra here the Land is not charged but if after the condition contained in the defeazance be broken so as the Conusee extends now the Covenant is broken And by him the word charge doth extend to a possibility and this possibility might be extinct by Livery as all agreed but not translated by grant Ante 33. 3 Len. 43. Covenant or extinguished by release as it was lately adjudged in the Case of one Carter At another day it was argued by Walmesley and he much relied upon the words clearly exonerated utterly discharged or altogether exonerated and without doubt it is a charge which may happen and if it may happen then the Land is not clare exonerated And also former bargains do extend to it and the Term is not extinct by the acceptance of the Feoffment aforesaid of Kidwelly and although that at the time of the Feoffment it was but a possibility and no certain interest yet now upon the marriage of Isabel it is become an actual burthen and charge upon the Land and he cited a Case adjudged 8 Eliz. A man seised of Lands grants a Rent-charge to begin at a day to come before which day he bargains and sells the Lands and covenants that the said Lands are discharged of all charges in that case when the day when the Rent ought to begin is incurred the Covenant is clearly broken for the Lands were not clearly exonerated c. At another day the Case was moved at the Bar. And Anderson openly in Court declared that he and all his companions were agreed that the Land at the time of the Feoffment was not discharged of all former Rights Titles and charges and therefore commanded that Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff CXXI Howel and Trivanians Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HOwel brought an Action upon the Case against Trivanian in the Common Pleas and declared Assumpsit that he delivered certain goods to the brother of the Defendant who made the Defendant his Executor and died after which the Plaintiff came to the Defendant and spake with him concerning the said goods upon which communication and speech the Defendant promised the Plaintiff that if the Plaintiff could prove that the said goods were delivered to the Testator 2 Roll. 594. that he would pay the value of them to the Plaintiff And the Declaration was in consideration that the said goods came to the hands of the Testator and also afterwards the goods came to the Defendants hands and upon non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given And afterwards Error was brought in the Kings Bench and Error assigned because that the Plaintiff had not averred in his Declaration that he had proved the delivery of the said goods to the said Testator 1 Cro. 105. for the words of the promise are si probare potuisset And also it was assigned for Error that here is not any consideration upon which this promise could receive any strength for the Defendant hath not any profit or advantage thereby scil by the bailment of the said goods to the Brother of the Defendant And also it is a thing before executed and not depending upon the promise nor the promise upon it As the Case reported by the Lord Dyer 10 Eliz. 272. The Servant is arrested in London and two men to whom the Master is well known bail the said Servant and after the Master promiseth to them for their friend-ship to save them harmless from all costs
before And as to the President cited 7 Eliz. the same is not to the purpose for the second Husband was a stranger to the Fine for it would be absurd to reverse the Fine as against him Egerton Solicitor General Presidents are not so holy quod violari non debeant as to be rules to other Iudges in perpetuum and I conceive that the Fine shall be reversed as to the Wife only for the Fine is but a Conveyance and the Husband may lawfully convey the Land of his Wife for his life and if the Husband alone had levyed the Fine the same had bounden the Wife during his life If a woman Lessee for life taketh to Husband him in the Reversion and they joyn in a Fine the Fine shall stand as to the Inheritance of the Husband but shall be reversed as to the Interest of the Wife Coke it shall be intended here all the Interest and estate in the Land to be in the Wife as 20 H. 7. 1. Where the Husband and Wife are vouched it shall be intended by reason of the Warranty of the Wife only and so the Counter-plea shall be of the seisin of the Wife and her Ancestors Wray when the Husband and Wife joyn in the Fine it shall be presumed the Inheritance of the Wife and if it be otherwise it ought to be specially shewed and as to that which hath been said that if the Husband alone had levyed a Fine it should have bounden the Wife during the life of the Husband the same is true but such Fine is but a discontinuance but the right continueth in the Wife but when the Husband and Wife joyn in the Fine all passeth out of her and if the Fine in such case for the Inheritance shall be reversed in all to whom belongs the Free-hold to whom shall he be attendant Gawdy 12 H. 7. 1. In a Praecipe quod reddat against three they vouch severally the Voucher was not received and yet they might have several Causes of Voucher but the Law presumes they are Ioynt-tenants and have a joynt cause of Voucher if the contrary be not shewed And afterwards Iudgment was given quod finis predict reversetur and Wray said he had conferred with many of the other Iustices who were of the same opinion Gawdy the Fine shall be reversed in all for this is an Error in Law of the Court F. B. 21. D. For by this Fine the Husband giveth nothing divided from the estate of the Wife but all passeth from the Wife and therefore all shall be reversed and if the Fine should be reversed as to the Wife only then the Fine levyed now by the Husband alone is a discontinuance by which the Wife by the common Law shall be put to her Cui in vita and that is not reason Also we cannot by this Reversal make the Conusee to have a particular estate during the life of the Wife And therefore the Fine is to be reversed for the whole and as void for the whole to the Conusee CLVIII Cage and Paxlins Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 125. 3 Len. 16. DAniel Cage brought an Action of Trespass against Thomas Paxlin for Trespass done in a Close of Wood called the Frith-Close and in the Park and for taking of certain Loads of Wood the Defendant pleaded that the Earl of Oxford was seised of the Mannor of W. of which the place where c. is parcel and leased the same to J. S. for years excepting all Woods great Trees Timber-trees and Vnderwoods c. And covenanted with the Lessee and his Assigns that he might take Hedg-boot and Fire-boot super dicta premissa and shewed further that the said I. S. assigned his Interest unto the Defendant and that he came to the said Close called the Frifth-Close Lease of Lands excepting the wood and cut the Wood there for Fire-boot as it was lawful for him to do c. And note that after the Lease aforesaid the said Earl had assured the Inheritance thereof to Cage the Plaintiff And it was argued by Godfrey that the Lessee cannot take Fire-boot in the said Close for the wood c. is excepted and was never demised and by the exception of the wood the soil thereof is excepted See 46 E. 3. 22. A. leased for life certain Lands reserving the great wood by that the soil also is reserved vi 33 H. 8. Br. Reservation 39 28 H. 8. 13. 3 Len. 16. And by the words of the Covenant the intent of the Lessor appeareth that the Lessee shall have his Fire-boot out of the residue of the Lands demised for praemissa here is equivalent with praedimissa And he cited the Case moved by Mountaine cheif Iustice 4 E. 6. in Plowden in the Case betwixt Dive and Manningham 66. A. leaseth unto B. a Manor for years excepting a Close parcel of it rendring a Rent and the Lessee is bounden to perform all Grants Covenants and Agreements contenta expressa aut recitata in the Indenture if the Lessee disturb the Lessor upon his occupation of the Close excepted he hath forfeited his Obligation c. But our Case is not like to that Post 122. And if I let the Manor of D. for years except Green-meadow and afterwards I covenant that the Lessee shall enjoy the Premisses the same doth not extend to Green-meadow Snagg Serjeant to the contrary and by him praemissa are not restrained to praedimissa but to all the Premisses put in the former part of the Indenture of Demise therefore the Lesse shall have Fire-boot in the one and the other 2 Roll. 455. 2 Cro. 524. Post 122. and he put a difference betwixt all Woods excepted and all woods growing excepted for in the one case the soil passeth in the other not And as to the Case cited before in Plowden 66. that is true for exception is an Agreement And he said that by that exception the soil it self is excepted and these woods which are named by name of woods contrary where a Close containeth part in woods and part in Pasture And by the exception of Timber-trees and Vnder woods all the other woods are excepted but not the soil As if a man grant all his Lands in D. Land Meadow Pasture and woods thereby passeth by exception of this Close of wood the soil also is excepted and he conceived that although all the woods be excepted yet by the Covenant an Interest passeth to the Lessee Select Case 155 Hob. 173. Dy. 19 198 314. 21 H. 7 31. More 23. 1 Roll. 939. so as he may take Fire-boot without being put to his Action of Covenant As 21 H. 7. 30. A. leaseth unto B. for life and Covenants in the Indenture of lease that he shall be dispunished of Wast although the same be penned by way of Covenant yet it is a good matter of Bar being all by one Deed And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff as to that
the limitation for the life of the Wife cannot extend to both And as to the Book of 24 H. 8. Br. Forfeiture 87. 3 Cro. 167 168. Tenant for life aliens in Fee to B. Habendum sibi haeredibus suis for Term of the life of the Tenant for life the same is not a forfeiture for the whole is but the limitation of the estate And afterwards it was adjudged that it was a forfeiture Gawdy continuing in his former opinion And VVray said that he had conferred with the other Iudges of their House and they all held clearly that it is a forfeiture CLXXII Toft and Tompkins Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Rot. 528. UPon a special Verdict the case was that the Grand-father Tenant for life the Remainder to the Father in tail Discontinuance 1 Cro. 135. that the Grand-father made a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the Father in Fee And afterwards they both came upon the Land and made a Feoffment to Tompkins the Defendant Coke There is not any discontinuance upon this matter for the Father might well wave the advantage of the forfeiture committed by the Grand-father then when the Father joyns with the Grand-father in a Feoffment the same declares that he came upon the Land without intent to enter for a forfeiture It was one Waynmans Case adjudged in the common Pleas where the Disseissee cometh upon the Land to deliver a Release to the Disseissor that the same is no Entry to revest the Land in the Disseissee Then here it is the Livery of the Tenant for life and the grant of him in the Remainder and he in the Remainder here was never seised by force of the tail and so no discontinuance Godfrey Here is a Remitter by the Entry and afterwards a discontinuance for by the Entry of both the Law shall adjudge the possession in him who hath right c. Gawdy This is a discontinuance for when the Father entreth ut supra he shall be adjudged in by the forfeiture and then he hath gained a possession and so a discontinuance for both cannot have the possession Clench The intent of him in the Remainder when he entred was to joyn with the Grand-father and when his intent appeareth that the estate of the Grand-father and his own also shall passe that doth declare that he would not enter for the forfeiture Shute agreed with Gawdy CLXXIII Broake and Doughties Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 798. Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Case for words Action upon the Case for words 1 Cro. 135. viz. Thou wast forsworn in the Court of Requests and I will make thee stand upon a Stage for it It was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Action will not lye for these words for he doth not say that he was there forsworn as Defendant or witness And Trin. 28 Eliz. betwixt Hern and Hex thou wast forsworn in the Court of Whitchurch And Iudgment given against the Plaintiff for the words are not Actionable and as to the residue of the words I will make thee stand upon the Stage for it they are not Actionable as it was adjudged between Rylie and Trowgood If thou hadst Iustice thou hadst stood on the Pillory and Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Daniel contrary thou wast forsworn before my Lord chief Iustice in an Evidence these words are Actionable for that is perjury upon the matter and between Foster and Thorne T. 23 Eliz. Rot. 882. Thou wast falsly forsworn in the Star-Chamber the Plaintiff had Iudgment for it shall be intended that the Plaintiff was Defendant or a Deponent there And yet the words in the Declaration are not in the Court of Star-Chamber Wray Thou art worthy to stand upon the Pillory are not Actionable for it is but an implication but in the words in the Case at the Bar there is a vehement intendment that his Oath was in the quality of a Defendant or Deponent which Gawdy granted In the Case 28 Eliz. Thou wast forsworn in Whit-Church Court there the words are not actionable for that Court is not known to you as Iudges And it may be it is but a great House or Mansion house called Whit-church Court But here in the principal case it cannot be meant but a Court of Iustice and before the Iudges there juridice and the subsequent words sound so much I will make thee stand upon a Stage for it And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXXIV Gatefould and Penns Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Prescription for tythes 1 Cro. 136. 3 Len. 203 265. Antea 94. GAtefould Parson of North-linne libelled against Penne in the spiritual Court for tythes in Kind of certain pastures The Defendant to have prohibition doth surmise that he is Inhabitant of South-linne and that time out of mind c. every Inhabitant of South-linne having pastures in North-linne hath paid tythes in Kind for them unto the Vicars of South-linne where he is not resident and the Vicar hath also time out of mind payed to the Parson of North-linne for the time being two pence for every acre Lewis This surmise is not sufficient to have a prohibition for upon that matter Modus Decimandi shall never come in question but only the right of tythes if they belong to the Parson of North-linne or to the Vicar of South-linne and he might have pleaded this matter in the spiritual Court because it toucheth the right of tythes as it was certified in the Case of Bashly by the Doctors of the Civil Law. Gawdy This prescription doth stand with reason for such benefit hath the Parson of North-linne if any Inhabitant there hath any Pastures in South-linne And afterwards the whole Court was against the prohibition for Modus Decimandi shall never come in debate upon this matter but who shall have the tythes the Vicar of South-linne or the Parson of North-linne and also the prescription is not reasonable CLXXV Gomersal and Bishops Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 175. Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 136. BIshop libelled in the Spiritual Court for tythe Hay the Plaintiff Gomersal made a surmise that there was an agreement betwixt the said parties and for the yearly sum of seven shillings to be paid by Gomersal unto Bishop Bishop faithfully promised to Gomersal that Gomersal should have the tythes of the said Land during his life And upon an Attachment upon a Prohibition Gomersal declared that for the said annual sum Bishop leased to the Plaintiff the said tythes for his life And upon the Declaration Bishop did demur in Law for the variance between the Surmise and the Declaration for in the Surmise a promise is supposed for which Gomersal might have an Action upon the Case and in the Declaration a Lease But note that the Surmise was not entred in the Roll but was recorded
the Plaintiff and thereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCV Read and Nashes Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an action of Trespass by Read and his Wife against Nash for entring into a house called the Dayry-house upon Not guilty pleaded The Iury found this special matter Sir Richard Gresham Knight was seised in Fee of the Mannours of I. and S. and of diverse other Lands mentioned in his Will and 3 Edw. 6. devised the same to Sir Thomas Gresham his Son for life the Remainder to the first son of the said Sir Thomas Gresham in tail the Remainder to the second son c. the Remainder to the third son c. The Remainder to Sir John Gresham his brother Proviso That if his Son go about or made any Alienations or discontinuance c. whereby the premisses cannot remain descend and come in the form as was appointed by the said Will otherwise than for Ioyntures for any of their Wives for her life only or leases for 21. years whereupon the old and accustomed Rent shall be reserved That then such person shall forfeit his estate Sir John Gresham dyed Sir Thomas Gresham his son built a new House upon the Land and 4 Mariae leased to Bellingford for one and twenty years rendring the antient Rent And afterwards 2 Eliz. he levyed a fine of the said Manours and of all his Lands and 5 Eliz. he made a Iointure to his Wife in this manner sci He covenanted with certain persons to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives and afterwards to the use of his Right Heirs and afterwards 18 Eliz. he leased unto Read and his wife for one and twenty years to begin presently which was a year before the expiration of the said Lease made unto Bellingford which Lease being expired Read entred It was argued by Cook That here upon the words contained in the Proviso Sir Thomas had power and authority not being but Tenant for life to make a Lease for years or Iointure and that upon implication of the Will which ought to be taken construed according to the intent of the parties for his meaning was to give a power as well as an estate otherwise the word otherwise should be void and it is to be observed That the parties interessed in the said conveyance were Knights and it is not very likely That the said Sir Richard Gresham did intend that they should keep the Lands in their own manurance as Husbandmen but set the same to Farm for Rent And it is great Reason although he willeâ— that the order of his Inheritance should be preserved yet to make a Provision for Iointure and it is great reason and cause to his family to enable and make them capable of great Matches which should be a strengthning to his posterity which could not be without great Iointures wherefore I conceive it reasonable to construe it so That here they have power to make Iointures for their Wives It hath been said That no grant can be taken by implication as 12 E. 3. Tit. Avow 77. Land was given to I. and A. his wife and to the heirs of the body of I. begotten and if I. A. dy without heir of their bodies betwixt them begotten that then it remain to the right heirs of I. and it was holden that the second clause did not give an estate tail to the wife by implication being in a grant but otherwise it is in Case of a devise as 13 H. 7. 17. and there is no difference as some conceive when the devise is to the heir and when to a stranger but these cases concern matter of Interest but our case concerns an Authority And admit that Sir Thomas hath power and authority to make this lease Then we are to consider if the Iointure be good for if it be Then being made before the Lease Use cannot rise out of a power it shall take effect before and the woman Iointress is found to be alive But I conceive That this Iointure is void and then the Lease shall stand for an use cannot rise out of a power but may rise out of an estate of the Testator and out of his Will 19 H. 6. A man deviseth That his Executors shall sell his reversion and they sell by Word it is a good Sale for now the Reversion passeth by the Will. But an use cannot be raised out of an use and a man cannot bargain and sell Land to another use than of the Bargainee And it is like unto the case of 10 E. 4 5. The disseisee doth release unto the disseisor rendring Rent the render is void for a rent cannot issue out of a right so an use cannot be out of a Release by the disseisee for such release to such purpose shall not enure as an Entry and Feoffment Also here after that conveyance Sir Thomas hath built and erected a New house and no new Rent is reserved upon it and therefore here it is not the ancient Rent for part of the sum is going out of the new house But as to that It was said by the Iustices do not speak to that for it appears that the Rent is well enough reserved Another matter was moved for that That a year before the Expiration of the Lease made to Billington this Lease was made to Reâ—d for 21 years to begin presently from the date of it although by the same authority he cannot make Leases in Reversion for then he might charge the Inheritance in infinitum But yet such a Lease as here is he might make well enough for this Lease is to begin presently and so no charge to him in the Reversion as in the Case betwixt Fox and Colliers upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. A Bishop makes a Lease for three years before the Expiration of a former Lease to begin presently It was holden a good Lease to bind the Successor for the Inheritance of the Bishop is not charged above one and twenty years in toto But if a Bishop make a Lease for years and afterwards makes a Lease for three lives the same is not good 8 Eliz. Dy. 246. Tenant in tail leaseth to begin at Michaelmas next ensuing for twenty years it is a good Lease by the Statute of 32 H. 8. so is a lease for 10 years and after for eleven years and yet the Statutes are in the Negative but this power in our Case is in the Affirmative and the Inheritance is not charged in the whole with more than one and twenty years CCVI. Kinnersly and Smarts Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 〈◊〉 upon a usurious Contract 1 Cro 155. IN Debt upon a Bond The Plaintiff declared That the Bond was made in London The Defendant pleaded That an usurious Contract was made betwixt the parties at D. in Stafford-shire that the Obligation was made for the same contract The Plaintiff by Replication saith that the Bond was made bona
as a Will but as an Executory Devise Wray It is not a conditional Estate in Fee but an Estate tail Coke They who would prove the Custom to entail Copyhold Land within a Manor it is not sufficient to shew Copies of Grants to persons and the Heirs of their bodies Copyhold Estate but they ought to shew that surrenders made by such persons have been enjoyed by reason of such matter VVray That is not so for Customary Lands may be granted in tail and yet no surrenders have been made within time of memory CCXLV Matthew and Hassals Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae betwixt Matthew and Hassal the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover and the Defendant brought a Writ of Error Error 1 Cro. 144. and assigned Error in this that the Iudgment was entred Quod querens recuperet possessionem c. where it should be Terminum vent in ten praedict See 9 Eliz. Dyer 258. Coke contrary That the Iudgment is good enough for the Writ of Execution upon it is Habere facias possessionem and in a real Action the Writ is Quod perens recuperet sesinam and not terram And afterwards Iudgment was affirmed CCXLVI Tempest and Mallets Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass by Tempest against Mallet Iudgment was given and Eror brought and assigned for Error 1 Cro. 153 145. that whereas the Action was brought against four one of them died Mesne betwixt the Award of the Nisi prius and the Inquest taken And it was said on the part of the Defendant in the Writ of Error which was entred upon the Record that the Plaintiff shewed unto the Court the death of one of the Defendants and prayed Iudgment against the others See 4 H. 7. 2 Eliz. 175. And there is a difference where in an Action of Trespass there is but one Defendant and where many Another Error was assigned the Defendant Obtulit se per Higgins Attornat suum without shewing his Christian Name as John or VVilliam for Higgins only without the Christian Name is not any Name for it is but an addition to shew which John or VVilliam Coke The same is helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 30. Where it is enacted that after Verdict Iudgment shall be given notwithstanding the lack of Warrant of Attorney of the party against whom the Issue shall be tried or any default or negligence of any the parties their Counsellors or Attorneys and of necessity this default here in the Christian Name ought to be the fault of one of them See also 18 Eliz. Cap. 14. for want of any Warrant of Attorney c. Glanvil The Statute provides for default of Warrant of Attorney c. Then Coke To what end was the Statute of 18 Eliz. made for the Statute of 32 H. 8. provides for defects of Warrants of Attorney Glanvil The first Statutes for Warrants of Attorneys of such persons against whom the Issue was tryed but the later Stat. is general Another Error was assigned Quod defendens Capiatur where the Offence so the Fine is pardoned by Parliament and therefore the entry of the Iudgment ought to be Et de fine nihil quia perdonatur Coke The Iudgment is well enough for in every general Pardon some persons are excepted it doth not appear if the Defendant here were one of them and then the Fine is not pardoned 1 Cro. 768. 778. 3 Cro. 22. for the Court cannot take notice of that as it was holden in Serjeant Harris Case but if the Defendant be charged with the Fine then he ought to plead the pardon and to shew that he was not any of the persons excepted And afterwards at another day the Defendant did alledge that there was a Warrant of Attorney in the Common Pleas. And also it appeareth upon Record that the Defendant did appear upon the Supersedeas by Attorney who had his full Name and therefore prayed a Certiorari de novo to certifie the same matter vide 9 E. 4. 32. VVray A Case here greatly debated betwixt the Lord Norris and Braybrook In nullo est erratum and upon Advice such a Writ of Certiorari was granted after the Plaintiff had pleaded In nullo est erratum for this Plea in nullo est erratum goes but to that which is contained within the body of the Record and not unto collateral matter scil Warrant of Attorneys And afterwards the Writ of Error was allowed and upon the day of return thereof it appeared upon the Record of Supersedeas that the Defendant did appear by such a one his Attorney But it was said by the Court that there ought to be two appearances the one upon the Supersedeas and the other when the Plaintiff declares See as to the name of the Attorney Tirrells Case 1 Mar. Dyer 93. CCXLVII. Palmer and Knowllis Case Hill. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 160. PAlmer recovered Debt against Knowllis and sued Execution by Elegit upon which the Sheriff returned that he had made Execution of the lands of the Defendant by the Oath of twelve men but he could not deliver it to the party Execution for it is extended to another upon a Statute upon which the Plaintiff sued a Capias ad satisfaciendum And now came the Defendant by his Counsel and moved that after Elegit returned the Plaintiff could not resort to the Execution by Capias and therefore prayed a Supersedeas Caplas after Elegit because the Capias erronice emanavit But the whole Court was clear to the contrary for upon Nihil returned upon Elegit the Plaintiff shall have a Capias 17 E. 4. 5. See 21 H. 7. 19. A man shall have a Capias after a Fieri facias or Elegit 34 H. 6. 20. and here the special return doth amount to as much as if the Sheriff had returned Nihil Also the Statute of West 2. which giveth the Elegit is not in the Negative and therefore it shall not take away the Execution which was at the Common Law. And here is no Execution returned for after the former extent ended he ought to have a new Elegit which Wray granted And afterwards the said Knowllis was taken by force of the Capias ad satisfaciend and came into Court in the Custody of the Sheriff and the Case was opened and in the whole appeared to be worthy of favour but by the Law he could not be helped and although he instantly prayed a Supersedeas yet the same was denied unto him CCXLVIII The Church-wardens of Fetherstones Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action of Trespass was brought by the Church-wardens of Fetherstone in the County of Norfolk and declared Church-wardens 1 Cro. 145. 179. That the Defendant took out of the said Church a Bell and declared that the Trespass was done 20 Eliz. And it was found for the Plaintiffs And now it was moved by
CCLXXVIII Arrundel and the Bishop of Gloucesters and Chaffins Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Quare Impedit SIir John Arrundel brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Gloucester and Chaffin and counted upon a disturbance to present 1 Novembris Chaffin as incumbent pleaded That 1 Maii next after the said 1 Novemb. he himself was presented to the Church by the Queen the presentment to the said Church being devolved unto her by Lapse Vpon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And the plea was holden insufficient for the Plaintiff counted upon a Disturbance to him 1 Novem. and the Defendant entitleth himself to an incumbency 1 May after in which case the disturbance set forth in the Count is not answered by traverse nor confessed nor avoided And of that opinion was the whole Court For the disturbance of which the Plaintiff hath declared is confessed And afterwards It was moved by the Queens Serjeants That the Queen might have a Writ to the Bishop Writ to the Bishop for the title of the Queen appeareth to be by Lapse which is confessed But the whole Court were clear of opinion against it For although it appeareth that he was lawfully presented to the said Church and so once lawfull Incumbent yet it appeareth also That the title of the Queen is once executed and so gon and nothing remains in the Queen and now when the Defendant hath lost his incumbency by ill pleading as he may as well as by Resignation or Deprivation yet the same shall not turn to the advantage of the Queen for where the Queen presents for laps and her Clark is instituted and inducted the Queen hath no more to do but the Incumbent must shift as well as he can for the holding of it for by what manner so ever he loseth his incumbency the Queen shall not present again otherwise it had been if the Queen be Patron and afterwards the Plaintiff had a Writ to the Bishop CCLXXIX The Lord Pagets Case in a Monstrans de Droit The Case was Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber More 193 194 1 Co. 154. 1 And. 259. THomas Lord Paget Father of William Paget was seised of the Mannor of Burston and divers other Mannors in three several Counties in his demesne as of fee and so seised by Indenture between the said Lord of the one part and Trentham and others on the other part and in consideration that the said Trentham and others with the profits of the said Mannors should pay his debts and such sums of money which were contained in such a Schedule and which he should appoint by his last Will covenanted to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of the said Trentham of one Eusal c. for the term of four and twenty years and after the Expiration or end of the said Term of twenty four years unto the use of the said William Paget his Son in tail with diverse Remainders over And afterwards the said Lord Paget was attainted of high Treason It was here holden and agreed by all the Iustices and by the Council of both sides That the uses limited to Trentham and others are void for here is not any consideration sufficient to raise an use for the mony which is appointed for the payment of his debts is to be raised of the profits of the Lands of the said Lord Declaration of uses which is not any consideration on the part of Trentham and others But if the consideration had been That they with the Profits of their own Lands should pay the debts c. It had been a good Consideration It was agreed also That the term for twenty four years to Eusal is void for want of sufficient consideration And then it was moved If this Lease being void The use limited to the said William Paget Son of the said Lord Paget should being presently upon the death of the Lord Paget or should expect until the twenty four years were encurred after the death of the Lord Paget or not at all And it was argued That an use to be raised upon an impossibility should never rise as if I covenant to stand seised to the use of B. and his Heirs after the end of the term for years which I.S. hath in the Mannor of D. whereas in truth I. S. hath not any term in it the said use shall never rise so here Use cannot rise out of a possibility No use to the Son can rise for the lease for twenty four years shall never end for it never can begin for want of sufficient consideration as is aforesaid and if the said use in tail should at all rise it should not rise before the expiration of the said twenty four years As if I covenant to stand seised of certain Lands to your use when my Son and Heir shall come to the age of one and twenty years now if my Son dieth before such age The use shall not begin before the time in which my Son if he shall live should attain unto his said age Egerton the Queens Solicitor Vses may be limited to begin at times certain before which they shall not begin and so in our case the use in tail in limited to begin when the term of twenty four years is ended and therefore until the Term be ended no use shall rise and the use is limited to rise upon the end of the time or term of four twenty years and not upon the end of the estate and so William Paget hath begun his Monstrans de Droit before his time The Lord Paget had but an estate for life and if so Then the Remainders are not continggent uses but vest presently as if a man covenant That after his death his Son and Heir shall have his Lands now the Father hath but an estate for life and the inheritance is vested in the Son. Cook I covenant That after twenty four years ended I and my Heirs will stand seised to the use of my Son c. there the use in Fee doth vest in my Son presently So I covenant That after my death I and every one who shall be seised c. shall be seised of the said Land to the use of my Brother the said use shall rise to my Brother presently I devise That after the death of such a Monk I.S. shall have the Land nothing passeth to I.S. till the death of the Monk but if Land be devised to a Monk for life and afterwrds to another in Fee the Devisee in Fee shall have the Land presently Manwood A devise or use limited to one for life the Remainder in tail the first devisee doth disagree Cook the Remainder doth vest presently Manwood I devise lands unto one until my Son comes of full age Cook The remainder doth vest presently Manw. A use limited to one to begin at Mich. next the remainder over if in the mean time the Lessee obtain the
the opinion in Baintons Case 8 Eliz. Dyer 37. is not Law and so hath the Law been taken of late Popham contrary If before the Statute of 27 H. 8. the Father covenant in consideration of Advancement of his Son to stand seised to the use of I. S. for life and after the death of I. S. to the use of my Son in Fee here the estate of I. S. in the use is void and yet the estate in the use limited to my Son shall not take effect before the death of I. S. for the estate of my Son is not limited to take effect till after the death of I. S and therefore the possession of the Father is not charged with the use during the life of I.S. But if by way of Feoffment I.S. had refused the Son should have it presently and the Father should not have it for he by his Livery hath put all out of him and it was not the intent of the Feoffment that the Feoffee should have the Land to his own use Popham allowed the difference mentioned before out of 2 E. 4 19 H. 6. betwixt a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff a stranger and to give in tail to a stranger and that is grounded upon the intent of the parties And Owen Serjeant put the Case cited before 1. 3 Eliz. Dyer 330. A Feoffment is made by the Husband to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of one Ann whom he intended to marry for during and until the Son which he should beget on the body of the said woman had accomplished the age of thirty one years and after such time that such Son should come unto such age unto the use of the said woman quamdiu she should live sole they entermarry the Husband dyeth without Issue the wife entreth immediately and continues sole and her Entry was adjudged lawful and the estate in Remainder good although she never had any Son and thereupon a Writ of Error was brought and the first Iudgment was affirmed note by Tanfield and others at the Bar that that was the most apt case to the purpose in the Law and the reason of such Iudgment was because they took it that Deeds ought to be expounded according to the meaning of the parties and estates in possession I grant there ought to be a particular estate upon which a Remainder may depend but the same is not necessary where the Conveyance is by way of use And if I covenant that A. shall have my Lands to him his Heirs to pay my Debts and Legacies the same is by way of bargain and sale and nothing passeth without Enrolment And here the Attainder doth not prevent the use as it hath been objected by Master Solicitor for the use doth rise before the Attainder for William Paget had a Remainder in tail in the life of his Father upon the first limitation c. Periam Iustice I lease my Lands to you to begin after the expiration of a Lease which I have made thereof to I.S. and in truth he hath not any Lease the same Lease shall never begin Manwood chief Baron I lease my Lands to you or grant a Rent to you to begin after the death of Prisoit Serjeant at Law when shall that begin Coke Presently Manwood cujus contrarium est Lex CCLXXX The Queen against the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Fane and Hudson Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rot. 1832. THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Chichester and Hudson Quare Impedit 4 Len. 107. Hob. 303. 175. Owen 155. and counted that John Ashburnham was seised of the advowson of Burwash was outlawed in an action of Debt during which Out-lawry in force the Church voided for which it belongs to the Queen to present The Arch-Bishop and Bishops plead that they claim nothing but as Metropolitan and Ordinary Fane pleaded that King E. 4. Ex gratia sua speciali c. and in consideration of faithful service c. did grant to the Lord Hastings the Castle and Barony of Hastings and Hundred c. Et quod ipse haberet omnia bona catalla tenentium residentium non residentium aliorum residentium quorumcunque hominum de in Castro Baronia c. or within the same pro munero debit c. tam ad sectam Regis c. quam c. Ut legatorem quid ipse faceret per se vel per his sufficient Deputies c. And from him derived to the now Earl of Huntington as Heir and the said Earl so seised and the said Ashburnham seised of the advowson as appendant to the Manor of Ashburnham holden of the said Barony the Church aforesaid during the Out-lawry aforesaid became void For which the said Fane ad dictam Ecclesiam usurpando presentavit the said Hudson who was admitted and instituted c. with this That idem T.C. verificare vult that the said Church of Burwash is and at the time of the grant was within the Precinct Liberty and Franchise aforesaid and that the said Manor of Ashburnham at the time of the grant aforesaid was holden of the said Barony and the Incumbent pleaded the same Plea if by that grant of King Edward the fourth to the Lord Hastings scil omnia bona catalla c. The presentment to the Church should pass or not was the question Shutleworth Serjeant argued for the Queen he confessed that the King might grant such presentment but it ought to be by special and sufficient words so as it may appear by them that the intent of the King was to grant such a thing for the general words omnia bona catalla will not pass such special Chattel in the Kings grant And he conceived that by the subsequent words no Goods or Chattels shall pass by such Grants but such which may be seised which the avoidance of a Church cannot be quod ipse liceret per se vel ministros suos ponere se in seisinam 8 H. 4. 114. 15. the King granted to the Bishop of London that he should have Catalla felonum fugitivor de omnibus hominibus tenentibus de in terris feodis praedict and of all resiants within the Lands and Fees aforesaid Ita quod si praedict homines tenentes residentes de in terris feodis praedict seu aliqui eorum seu aliquis alius infra cadem terra feodis pro aliqua transgressione c. vid. librum c. and by Tirwit By that Grant the goods of those who are put to Pennance shall not pass so of the goods of one Felo de se vid. 42 E. 3. 5. One being impanelled on the Grand Enquest before the Iustices of Oyer and Terminer pleaded the charter of the King of exemption from Enquests and because in the said charter was not this clause More 126. licet tanget nos
and made partition of the Demeans only but the Services of the Free-holders and Copy-holders did remain in Common One of the Daughters took Husband the Husband and the Wife make a Lease of the moyety of the Manor to the Plaintiff for years by word rendring Rent the Lessee entred into the Demeans allotted to the Wife of the Lessor Partition The Husband died and the Wife brought an Action of Wast Anderson By the partition the Demeans are now become in gross and severed from the Manor And if partition be made of a Manor so as the Demeans be allotted to one Sister and the Services to the other now the Mannor is dissolved yet if the other Sister dieth without issue and her part descendeth to the other now it is become a Manor again which Windham and Periam granted 6 Co. 64. See 12. H. 4. 271. And Anderson was of opinion that the moyety of the Demeans did not pass by the words of the moyety of the Manor as if one seised of a Manor maketh a Feoffment in Fee of part of the Demeans and afterwards re-purchaseth them and then makes a Feoffment of the whole Manor the Demeans repurchased will not pass thereby for they were once severed from the Manor and not re-united by the purchase Periam Although that in truth it is not a Manor nor any part of a Manor yet if it hath beeen reputed the moyety of the Manor it shall pass by such name which Anderson grant ed but it is not like to our Case Periam This is an ancient partition as appeareth by the Verdict ten years past and also it hath been reputed the moyety of the Manor therefore it shall pass Windham concessit Periam The intent of the Grantor is the best Interpreter of these words without relying strictly upon the words Anderson If we shall take the intents of men for Law we shall fall into many confusions in our proceedings but the Law is to judge of the meanings of men by their words Ever in the constructions of Wills the intent of the Testators have not had further favour than the words have given leave As to the other point It was argued by Walmsley that the Lease made by the Husband and Wife without Deed was void See 1 Ma. Dyer 91. And if the Wife after the death of her Husband accepts the Rent upon such a Lease reserved it shall not bind her for the consent of the Wife ought to be at the beginning of it which cannot be without Deed. Anderson conceived that the Lease is not meerly void See 15 Eliz. Smith Stapletons Case Plowd 431. Periam The matter is clear for although the Plaintiff declares generally of a Lease made by the Husband Wife yet the Iury hath found that it was by Indenture and that is pursuant enough And if the Husband and Wife make a Feoffment of the Wives Land it is the Feoffment of doth of them which Walmesley granted It was adjorned CCLXXXIV Smalwood amd others against the Bishop of Lichfeild and others Quare Impedit Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HUmphrey Smalwood Richard Say and Thomas Say Executors of VVilliam Say Quare Impedit 1 Cro. 241. brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfeild and M. Incumbent quod permittat praesentare ad Archidiaconatum de Derby which was void Et ad praesentationem Testatoris in vita sua nunc in retardationem executionis Testamenti did belong to the Executors Exception was taken because these words In retardationem executionis Testament could not be applied to a disturbance in the life of the Testator Windham There is not any Writ in the Register of Quare Impedit upon a disturbance made to the Testator Anderson What then therefore no remedy because no Writ according to his special matter 25 E. 3. 25. Goods are taken out of the possession of the Testator upon which the Executors brought Trespass In retardationem executionis Testamenti Writ abated for it ought to be where the Executors themselves were possessed Periam The Advowson it self is valuable not the presentment therefore it cannot be said in retardationem Periam Before the Statute of 4 E. 3. 73. In Case were damages were only to be recovered the Action moritur cum persona but where the thing it self was to be recovered there the Action accrued to the Executors Anderson 7 H. 4. 73. Ejectione firmae of an Ejectment made unto the Testator was maintained by the Executors be equity of the Statute of 4 E. 3 cap. 6. And by the opinion of the whole Court the Executors might have a Quare Impedit upon a disturbance made to the Presentment It was objected also that a Quare Impedit doth not lye of an Archdeaconry-ship for it is not local nor any Indenture made of it but is only a matter of function but it was not allowed for â—iii Archdeacon hath Locum in Coro And by the Statute a Quare Impedit lyeth of a Chappel and by the equity of it of a Prebend c. See the Statute of West 2. Quare Impedit of a Chappel Prebend c. It was moved if the Executors had presented after the death of the Testator whether the Archdeacon ought to receive the Clark of the Testator or of the Executors and the opinion of the Court was That the Bishop should have election therein And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Writ should abate for the disturbance to the Testator cannot be supposed new matter In retardationem executionis Testamenti But yet it was agreed that the Executors might have their special Writ upon their Case for the said disturbance Trin. 31 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN an Action brought against one as Executor who pleaded that he refused upon which the parties were at Issue The Bishop did certifie 1 Cro. 81. 3â—â— 2 Len. 180. quod non recusavit whereas in truth he had refused before the Commissary Tenner Serjeant moved to have the advice of the Court upon that matter and argued that the Court ought to write to the Commissary Which was denyed by the whole Court for he is not the Officer unto the Court to that purpose but the Bishop himself is the Officer And the party cannot aver against the Certificate of the Bishop no more than against the Retorn of the Sheriff The Court was also of opinion that the only remedy for the Defendant was by Action upon the Case against the Bishop for his false Certificate But it was moved That the Issue joyned upon the refusal ought to be tryed by Iury and not by the Certificate of the Bishop and so was the opinion of Windham and Walmesley Periam Where the Issue is whether the Executor did refuse before such a day or after there the tryal shall be by Iury contrary where the Issue is upon refusal generally because the refusal is before him as a Iudge as also is Resignation CCLXXXVII Sutton and Holloway and Dickons Case
33 Eliz. In the Common Bench. IT was found by special Verdict that Berwich and Tesdel seised of certain Lands conveyed the same to Sir Thomas Cotton for life Fines levied to use Co. 2 Inst 519. 1 Cro. 219. the Remainder to VVil. Cotton primogenito filio suo haeredi masculo sic de primogenito ad primogenitum dict VVilliam the Remainder to the right Heirs of the body of Sir Tho. Cotton and VVil. Cotton lawfully issuing the Remainder to the right Heirs of Sir Tho. Cotton VVil. had Issue a Son born here in Eng. and went beyond Sea to Antwerp and there continuing and his Son being within age in England Sir Thomas Cotton levied a Fine of all the Land sur conusans de droit come ceo c. And afterwards by Indenture convenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of Rober Cotton his Son in Fee William died at Antwerp his said Son being within age in England Sir Tho. Cotton died Robert entred and leased the Lands for years to Sary and the Infant Son and Heir of William leased the Land to one Chewn at Will who entred and ousted Sary who thereupon brought Ejectione firmae It was here holden by the Court that Sir Tho. Cotton was Tenant for life the Estates Remainder to William for term of his life the Remainder to the Heirs of both their bodies issuing So as unto one Moyety Sir Thomas Cotton had an Estate tail dependant upon the said Estates for life and so the Fine levied by him was a Bar to the Issue of William for a Moyety And as to the other Moyety they held that the said Fine was not any Bar but that the party interessed at the same time might avoid the Fine at any time during his Nonage five years after for Wil. his Father was not bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. because at the time of the Fine levied he was beyond the Seas and although he never returned but died there yet by the equity of the Statute his Issue shall have five years after his death to avoid the Fine if he were of full age and if he were within age then during his Nonage and five years after At another day the Case was argued and put in this manner viz. Lands were given to Sir Thomas Cotton for life without Impeachment of Wast the Remainder over to Cheny Cotton his eldest Son primogenito filio haeredi Masculo of the said Cheny sic de primogenito filio in primogenitum filium the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the body of the said Cheny for want of such Issue the Remainder to Wil. Cotton his second Son primogenito filio in primogenitum filium the Remainder over to the said Sir Thomas and the said William and the Heirs Males of their bodies lawfully begotten Cheny Cotton died without Issue William having Issue went beyond the Sea Sir Thomas Cotton 19 Eliz. levied a Fine with Proclamation and afterwards William the Father died in Antwerp his Son being within age Sir Thomas by Indenture limited the use of the Fine to himself for life the Remainder over to Robert Cotton his third Son in Tail Sir Thomas died but it doth not appear at what time William the Son being yet within age entred but non constat quando and 31 Eliz. leased the Lands to the Defendant at Will. Drue Serjeant argued for William Cotton And he conceived that William the Father had an estate-Estate-tail and then the entry of William the Son was congeable for the whole But admitting that it is not an Estate-tail in VVilliam the Father for the whole yet he hath by the second Remainder an Estate-tail in the Moyety and then his Entry good as to one Moyety and then Robert being Tenant in Common of the other Moyety Tails his Lessee without an actual Ouster cannot maintain an Ejectionae firmae against the Lessee of his Companion And he conceived here is a good Estate-tail in VVilliam Cotton by virtue of the Limitation to William primogenito filio haeredi Masculo ipsius Guliel sic de primogenito filio in primogenitum filium c. for according to the Statute of VVest 2. the will of the Donor ought to be observed and here it appeareth that the intent of the Donor was to create an Estate-tail although the words of the Limitation do not amount to so much And the Estates mentioned in the Statute aforesaid are not Rules for Entails but only Examples as it is said by Trew 33 E. 3 F. Tail 5. see Robeiges Case 2 E. 2. 1 Fitz. Tail and 5 H. 5. 6. Land given to A. and B. uxori ejus haeredibus eorum aliis haeredibus dicti A. si dict haeredes de dictis A. B. exeuntes obierint sine haeredibus de se c. and that was holden a good Entail so a gift to one and his Heirs si haeredes de carne sua habuerit si nullos de carne sua habuerit revertatur terra and adjudged a good tail So 39 E. 3. 20. Land given to Husband and Wife uni haeredi de corpore suo ligitime procreat uni haeredi ipsius haeredis tantum And that was holden a good Tail and so he conceived in this Case that although the words of the Limitation are not apt to create an Estate-tail according to the phrase and stile of the said Statute of VVest 2. yet here the intent of the Donor appears to continue the Land in his Name and Blood for VVilliam the Son could not take with his Father by his Limitation for he was not in rerum natura and therefore all shall vest in VVilliam the Father which see 18 E. 3 Fitz. Feoffments Fait 60. Now it is to see if upon the Limitation to Sir Thomas Cotton and VVilliam his Son by which the Remainder is limited to Sir Thomas Cotton and VVilliam and the Heirs Males of their bodies issuing the said Sir Thomas Cotton Wil. have a joynt Estate-tail in respect that the Issue of the body of the Son may be Heir of the Body of the Father and so because they might have one Heir which shall be inheritable to his Land it shall be one entire estate-Estate-tail in them But he conceived that they are several Estates-tail and that they are Tenants in Common of an Estate tail 3 4 Phil. Mar. Dyer 145. Land given to the Father and Son and to the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten the Remainder over in Fee the Father dieth without other Issue than the Son only and afterwards the Son dieth withou Issue a stranger abates Or if the Son hath made a Discontinuance if he in the Remainder shall have but one or two several Formedons was the Question And by Saunders Brook and Brown but one Formedon and Quaere left of it yet admitting that yet notwithstanding that it might be
that they had several Estates-tail 17 E. 3. 51. 78. Land given to a man and his Sister and to the Heirs of their two Bodies issuing they have several Estates tail and yet one Formedon And see 7 H. 4. 85. Land given to a man and his Mother or to her Daughter in Tail here are several Entails And here in the principal Case Sir Thomas Cotton hath one Moyety in Tail expectant upon his Estate for life and therefore as to the Moyety of Sir Thomas Cotton he is bound by the Fine And the other Moyety is left in the Son who may enter for a Forfeiture upon the alienation made by his Father as well in the life of the Father as afterwards Now after this Fine levied the entry of VVilliam the Son by virtue of his Remainder is lawful after the death of Sir Thomas although that VVilliam the Father was beyond the Sea at the time of the Fine levied and there afterwards died VVilliam the Son being within age The words of the Statute of 4 H. 7. are Other than Women Covert or out of this Realm c. so that they or their Heirs make their Entry c. within five years after they return into this Land c. So that by the bare letter of the Act VVill. the Son hath not remedy nor relief by this Act against the Fine because that William the Father died beyond the Sea without any return into England yet by the Equity of the Statute he shall have five years to make his Claim although his Father never return for if such literal construction should be allowed it should be a great mischief and it should be a hard Exposition for this Statute ought to be taken by Equity as it appeareth by diverse Cases 19 H. 8. 6. My Vncle doth disseise my Father and afterwards levies a Fine with Proclamations my Father dieth and after within five years my Vncle dies that Fine is no Bar to me yet the Exception doth not help me for I am Heir to him that levied the Fine and so privy to it but my Title to the Land is not as Heir to my Vncle but to my Father So if an Infant after such a Fine levied dieth before his full age his Heir may enter within five years after and yet that Case is out of the Letter of the Statute And by Brown and Sanders If the Disseisee dieth his Wife enseint with a Son the Disseisor levieth a Fine the Son is born although this Son is not excepted expressly by the words because not in rerum natura at the time of the Fine levied c. yet such an Infant is within the equity and meaning of the said Statute See the Case betwixt Stowel and Zouch Plow Com. 366. And by him It was holden 6. Eliz. that an Infant brought a Formdon within age and adjudged maintainable although the words of the Statute be That they shall take their Actions or lawful Entries within five years after they come of full age And he also argued that here when Sir Thomas being Tenant for life levyed a Fine which is a Forfeiture he in the Remainder is to have five years after the Fine levyed in respect of the present forfeiture and also five years after the death of the Tenant for life And that was the case of one Some adjudged accordingly in the Common Pleas It hath been objected on the other side That the Defendant entring by color of the Lease at Will made to him by William who was an Infant that he was a Disseisor as well to the Infant as to the Lessor of the Plaintiff who had the Moyety as Tenant in common with the Infant and then when the Lessor of the Plaintiff entred upon the Defendant and leased to the Plaintiff and the Defendant enentred and ejected the Plaintiff he is a Disseisor to which he answered That the Defendant when he entred by the Lease at Will he was no Disseisor for such a Lease of an Infant is not void but only voidable c. and then a sufficient Lease against the Plaintiff although not against the Infant Beaumont Serjeant to the contrary By this manner of gift William the Son took nothing but the estate setled only in William the Father but not an estate tail by the words haeredi masculo c. And voluntas Donatoris without sufficient words cannot create an estate tail but where the intent of the Donor is not according to the Law the Law shall not be construed according to his intent But this intent shall be taken according to the Law. And he held that Sir Thomas and VVilliam had several estates in tail and several Moyeties and not one entire estate and here upon all the matter Sir Thomas is Tenant for life of the whole the Remainder of one moyety to him in tail the Remainder of the other moyety unto VVilliam in tail and rebus sic stantibus Sir Thomas levying a Fine of the whole now as to one moyety which the Conusor had in tail the Fine is clearly good and so as to that Robert the Lessor of the Plaintiff had a good Title as to the said moyety and as to the other moyety he conceived also that VVilliam is bound for this Statute shall not be construed by Equity but shall bind all who are expresly excepted and that is not VVilliam the Son for his Father never returned and then his Heir is not releived by the Statuteâ— Also VVilliam had a Right of Entry at the time of the Fine levyed scil for the Forfeiture and because he hath surceased the time for the said Right of Entry he shall not have now five years after the death of Tenant for life for he is the same person and the second saving which provides forfuture Rights extends to other persons than those who are intended in the first saving and he who may take advantage of the first saving cannot be releived by the second saving for no new title doth accrue to him in the Reversion or Remainder by the death of Tenant for life for that title accrued to him by the forfeiture so as the title which he hath by the death of the Tenant for life is not the title which first accrued unto him Also by this Forfeiture the estate for life is determined as if Tenant for life had been dead for if Tenant for life maketh a Feoffment in Fee the Lessor may have a Writ of Entry ad terminum qui praeterijt Fitz. 201. which proves that by the Forfeiture the estate is determined and then no new title doth accrue to him in the Remainder by the death of the Tenant for life but that only which he had before the alienation so that his non-claim after the five years shall bind him Then when VVilliam the Infant having a Right to a moyety and Robert the Lessor of the Plaintiff a Right to the other moyety and the Infant leaseth unto the Defendant at Will who entreth now is he a
Disseisor as well to Robert as to the Infant Then if the Defendant be Disseisor and hath no title by the Infant Robert who hath Right in a moyety may well enter into the whole for he hath the possession per my per tout by his Entry and then when the Defendant doth eject him he hath good cause of Action And after at another day the Case was moved and it was agreed That for one moyety the Infant is bound for Sir Thomas had an estate tail in a moyety for he was Issue of the body of the Comisor But for the other moyety the Fine levyed by Tenant for life William the Father being then Tenant beyond the Sea It was holden by Anderson Windham and Walmesly that the Infant was not barred notwithstanding the objection abovesaid That William the Father never returned into England and notwithstanding the words of the Statute of 4 H. 7. And by Walmesley If an infant make his claim within age it is sufficient to avoid the Fine and yet the said Statute seems to appoint to him time within five years after his full age so that according to the very words a claim made before or after should be vain yet in Equity although he be not compelsable to make his claim until the time allowed by the Statute yet if he make it before it is good enough And by Anderson Although that VVilliam the Father did not return yet if he makes not his claim within five years after the death of his Father being of full age and without any impediment c. he shall be barred If in such case a man hath many impediments he is not compellable to make his claim when one of the impediments is removed but when they are all removed So if the Ancestor hath one of the said impediments and dieth before it be removed and his Heir is within age or hath other impediment he is not bound to make is claim till five years after his impediment is removed And Somes case cited before was holden and agreed to be good Law for the Forfeiture may not be known unto him And as to the objection against the Lease at Will because it was made by an Infant and no Rent reserved upon it nor the Lease made upon the Land and therefore the Lessee should be a Disseisor To that it was answered Be the Defendant a Disseisor or not it is not material here for if the Plaintiff had not title according to his Declaration he cannot recover 1 Cro. 220. 1 Cro. 438. whether the Defendant hath title or not for it is not like unto Trespass where the very possession without other title is good contrary in Actions against all who gave not title but in Ejectione firmae if the title of the Plaintiff be not good and sufficient be the title of the Defendant good or not he shall not recover And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Defendant Hill. 33. Eliz. CCXCVIII Cheny and Smiths Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN an Ejectione firmae by Cheny and his Wife against Smith The Plaintiffs declared upon a Lease made by the Master of the House or Colledge of S. Thomas of Acons in London to I.S. who assigned it over to Knevit who by his Will devised the same to his Wife whom he made also his Executrix and dyed and afterwards she took to Husband one VVaters and died VVaters took Letters of Administration of the Goods and Chattells of his Wife and afterwards leased to the Plaintiffs And upon not guilty they were at Issue And it was given in Evidence That the Lease given in Evidence was not the Lease whereof the Plaintiffs have declared for the oriâ—inal Lease shewed in Court is Master of the House or Hospital where the Lease specified in the Declaration is Master of the House or Colledge 38 E. 3. 28. And some of the Iustices conceived that there is not any material Variance but if the parties would it might be found by special Verdict For by them Colledge and Hospital are all one And afterwards the Court moved the Plaintiffs to prove if the wife were in as Executrix or as Legatee for by Anderson and Periam until election be made he shall not be said to have it as Legatee especially if it be not alledged in fact that all the debts of the Testator are paid And Anderson doubted although that it be alledged that the debts be paid If the Executor shall be said to have the said Lease as a Legacy before she hath made Election vid. Weldens Case and Paramours Case in Plowd And afterwards it was given in Evidence That the wife after the death of the Husband had repaired the Banks of the Land and produced Witnesses to prove it as if the same should amount to claim it as a Legacy and the Court said that that matter should de referred to the Iury 1 Roll. 620. And it was further shewed in Evidence that the said Wife Executrix and her said Husband Waters formerly made a Lease by Deed reciting thereby that where the Husband was possessed in the right of his said Wife as Executrix of her first Husband c. And by the opinion of the whole Court the same was an express claim as Executrix and then when the Wife died if the Husband would have advantage of it he ought to take Letters of Administration of the Goods of her first Husband and not of the Wife but if she had claimed the Land and the Term in it as Legatee and had not been in possession Administration taken of the Rights and Debts of the Wife had been good as to that intent that his Wife was not actually possessed of it but only had a Right unto it and of such things in Action the Husband might be Executor or Administrator to his Wife but here they have failed of their title The Administration being taken of the goods of the Wife where it should be of the Goods of the Testator the first Husband And for this cause the Plaintiffs were non-suit and the Iury discharged And it was agreed by all the Iustices that if the Wife before Election had taken Husband that the Husband might have made the Election in the Case aforesaid CCXCIX The Lord Cobham and Browns Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Common Bench. THe Case between the Lord Cobham and Brown was that the Abbot of Grace was seised of the Mannor of Gravesend in the County of Kent which Mannor doth extend to the Parishes of Gravesend and Milton and that the said Abbot and all his Predecessors c. time out of mind c. have had a Water-Court within the said Mannor which Court had been holden at Gravesend Bridge in the end of it and that all the Inhabitants within the said Parishes which have Boats either entirely or joyntly with others and have used to transport or carry passengers from Gravesend to London e contra and have used to fasten
and rides upon him or hereby he becomes Lame or otherwise by excessive travel misuseth him so as my Horse is the worse thereby He may be ready to deliver me my Horse and yet this action will ly for such an abusing of the Horse is a Conversion to his own use Periam Iustice Post 224. The latter Plea clearly is insufficient for it amounteth but to Not guilty but for the first Plea he doubted of it for first the property is not traversable nor the knowing but upon the general Issue pleaded such matter may be given in Evidence And he conceived That where a man buyes goods of one who comes to them by Trover that he may sell them and shall not be answerable for them And although it may be said that the said matter may be given in evidence yet it is not good to put the same to the people but to refer the matter to the Iudgment of the Court. Walm Iustice The latter Plea is clearly insufficient but for the first he doubted of it for he conceived that the sale of the goods is not a Conversion Anderson The first Plea is ut supra and nothing in that is material or traversable for all the Plea may be true and yet the Defendant is guilty for it may be that the Defendant himself sold them to the Plaintiff or to another who sold them to the Plaintiff and that afterwards the Defendant found them and here the Conversion is confessed and not so voided by sufficient justification and by him the sale to persons unknown is no good Plea for his sale is his own Act and it cannot be but he must have notice of the buyers and therefore he ought in his Plea to shew their names Periam Contrary to that matter as to the naming of the buyers for it should be an infinite thing for a Draper to take notice of every on who buyeth and Ell of Cloath of him And afterwards the same Term Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff upon the insufficiency of the Plea. CCCV Walgrave against Ogden Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 219. AN action upon the case was brought upon a Trover and conversion of twenty barrels of Butter and declared that by negligent keeping of them they were become of little value upon which there was a Demurrer in Law And by the opinion of the whole Court upon this matter no action lieth For a man who comes to Goods by Trover is not bound to keep them so safely as he who comes to them by Baylment Walmesley If a man find my Garments and suffereth them to be eaten with Moths by the negligent keeping of them No Action lieth Ante 223. but if he weareth my Garments it is otherwise for the wearing is a Conversion CCCVI Alexander and the Lady Greshams Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco Debt for arrerages of annuity ALice Alexander Administratrir to her last Husband brought an Action of Debt for the arrerages of an Annuity against the Lady Gresham Executix of Sir Thomas Gresham her late Husband incurred in the life-time of her late Husband Sir Thomas Gresham The Defendant pleaded that she had fully administred The Plaintiff replyed Assets scil That the Defendant had divers Goods in her hands not administred which were the goods of the said Sir Thomas at the time of his death upon which they were at Issue And it was found by special Verdict that Sir Thomas Gresham being seised of divers Manors and other Lands in Fee devised them by his last Will to his Wife the Defendant Devises to use at her own pleasure And by his said Will requested his Wife to pay his Debts and Legacies and further it was found that at the Parliament holden 22 Eliz. a private Act was made 2 Cro. 139. Ante. 87. by which it was enacted that the said Lady should take upon her the charge of all her Husbands Debts and for the discharge thereof she shall sell so much Land as will yield so much mony as will serve for the payment of the said Debts and if she shall fail therein that then certain Commissioners shall be appointed for the sale of so much Land c. and for all such Debts as the said Lady should not acknowledge to be good true Debts that then the Creditors to whom they were due should repair to the said Commissioners and they should determine both of the certainty of the sum of the due Debts and of the Damages for the forbearing thereof and that afterwards the said Creditors should have their remedy against the said Lady for such sums of mony so agreed upon by the said Commissioners and found the Statute at large and that the said Lady Gresham had sold certain Lands parcel of the Possessions of the said Sir Thomas by which sale she had received the sum of twenty thousand pounds which yet is unadministred for the greatest part of it And if upon the whole matter the said sum of twenty thousand pounds be Assets then they find for the Plaintiff but if not then for the Defendant And it was moved by Hammon Serjeant that here is Assets upon this matter and that by the Common Law for it appeareth upon the Will that the Lands were devised to the Lady to the intent that she should pay his Debts And although the words of the Charge are that the Testator requests the Lady to pay his Debts the same in a Will doth amount to a Condition and so the meaning of the Devisor appeareth to be that the money which is levied by such sale shall be Assets c. 2 H. 4. 21 22. Assets A man makes a Feoffment in Fee to divers persons upon condition that they sell the Land and the money thereof coming distribute for his Soul The Feoffor dieth the Feoffees who were also Executors of the Feoffor sell the Lands the mony thereof coming is adjudged Assets And see 3 H. 6. 3. And although it be not Assets by the Common Law Roll. part 1. 920. yet it is Assets by the special Statute which ordains that he shall be charged with the Debts and that the Lands shall be sold And it was found by the Verdict that such Lands were sold and such money levied upon the sale which are administred And although the said twenty thousand pounds were never the Goods of the Testator yet as the Case is 3 H. 6. 3. If Executors recover Damages in trespass of Goods taken away in the life of the Testator such Damages so recovered are Assets So if Executors redeem a Pledge with their own proper Goods the same is Assets in their hands by Kingsmill Vâ—vasour and Fisher 20 H. 7 42. And where the Executors took of one who was indebted to their Testator in a simple Contract the same is Assets 31 E. 3. And see many Cases of such special Assets 7 Eliz. in Plowdens Comment in Chapman and
accordingly Vi. 9 H. 7. 23. And the clear opinion of the Court was that the Count was good notwithstanding that exception As to the matter of the Plea the Court doubted of it for the Plea was that the Bishop demanded of the clerk presented his Letters of Orders and Letters Testimonial of his good behaviour and his Letters Missive and he did not shew them but requested of the Bishop the space of a week to satisfie the Bishop in those points which was allowed unto him but he never returned for which cause the Bishop afterwards refused c. And it was said upon that Plea that the Clark who is presented ought to make proof to the Bishop that he is a Deacon and that he hath Orders otherwise by the Statute of 13 Eliz. the Bishop is not bound to admit such Clark Degg 75. but the Statute doth not compel the Clark to shew his Orders for perhaps he hath lost them but how his Orders should be proved it was much doubted Anderson The Bishop may examine him upon oath if he hath Orders or not But as to the Letters Testimonial of his good behaviour and sufficiency the Bishop ought to examine the same himself and if he give day and defer the Admission because he is not resolved therein he is a Disturber if the Clark come to him in a convenient time And the Bishop cannot refuse a Clark for the want of Letters Testimonial CCCXIII. Linacers Case Pasch 33. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 2 Leon. 96. Co. 5. Rep. 86. IN an Audita Querela brought by Linacer It was said by Anderson chief Iustice That if a man be in execution by his Body and Lands upon a Statute If the Sheriff permit the Conusor to go at Liberty yet the Execution of the Land is not discharged But if he go at large by the consent of the Conusee then the whole Execution is discharged And the Conusor shall have his Land again presently CCCXIV Brownsall and Tylers Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was that Tenant in tail brought a Writ of Entry Sur disseisin and the Writ was general and it was moved if the Writ was good and 21 H. 6. 26. was vouched where it is holden that the Writ ought to be special scil to make mention of the tail But it was holden by the Court that the general Writ is good enough And then the Count ought to be special Vi. Fitz. 191. CCCXV. Ward and Knights Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the case the Plaintiff declared Toll 1 Cro. 227. That whereas Lostock parcel of the Mannor of E. in the County of Suffolk is an ancient Town and ancient Demesn of the Crown of England and that time out of mind c. all the men and Tenants of ancient Demesn ought to be quitted of Toll in all places within the Realm for them their Goods and Chattels c. And whereas the Queen by her Letters Patents the tenth of September the nineteenth of her Reign commanded all Mayors Bayliffs Constables c. to permit and suffer the men and Tenants of ancient Demesn to be quit of Toll Murage and other exactions throughout the whole Realm And whereas the Plaintiff was an Inhabitant and Tenant in Lostock aforesaid and such a day and year carried his Goods to Yarmouth in the said County the Defendant not ignorant thereof had taken and carried away a Cable of the Plaintiffs goods of the value of eight pounds for Toll to dis damage c. The Defendant pleaded by Protestation that Lostock was not ancient Demesn and by Protestation that the Tenants of ancient Demesn ought not to be quit of Toll he said That the Town of Yarmouth is an ancient Borough Prescription and that they had been incorporated by the name of Bayliff and Burgesses c. And that they have had time out of mind c. an Officer called a Water-Baly and that time out of mind c. they and their Predecessors have had and taken Toll of the Tenants and Inhabitants of Lostock for any of their goods brought thither to Merchandize with and if it be not paid they have used time out of mind to distrain for it by their Water-Bayly And said that the Plaintiff such a day brought to the said Town of Yarmouth two thousand weight of Cable Ropes to sell for which there was due for Toll six pence for Murage six pence for Thronage four pence and the Defendant being Water-Bayly demanded of the Plaintiff the said sum which he refused to pay for which he took the said Cable nomine districtionis for the said Thronage c. Golding for the Plaintiff the Defendant hath not set forth in himself any authority to demand the duty For he shews that they have used to distrain by their Water-Bayly but not that they have used to demand it by him and it may be that they have several Officers one to demand it and another to distrain for it And always when a man demands a thing against common Right he is to shew authority express in the whole And as to the matter in Law scil The Prescription to have Toll of the Tenants in ancient Demesn it cannot have a lawful beginning As 21 H. 7. 40. The Lord of a Mannor says that he hath had a Pound within his Mannor time out of mind c. And that he hath used to have of every one who breaks his Pound three pounds the same is a void custom to bind a stranger for it cannot have a lawful beginning and see 5 H. 7. 9. b. One prescribed that if any Cattel be taken in such a place Damage Feasant that he might distrain them and put them in Pound until the Owner had made amends at the will of him who distrained them the same is a void Prescription for it cannot have a lawful beginning and time cannot make such a thing to be good The King may grant Tollage Pontage c. but not to the prejudice of another as 22 E. 3. 58. The King cannot grant to one Thorough-toll to pass by Highways for it is an oppression to the people for every High-way shall be common to every one see 16. E. 3. Grants 53. and here the Tenants of ancient Demesn are quit of Toll by the common Law and not by Prescription which see Fitz. 14. and such Tenants have an Inheritance in such Liberties which the King by his grant cannot take away and then if it cannot have a lawful beginning it cannot be good by Prescription also this Prescription is against the Common-wealth therefore it is a void Prescription and the Common-wealth is much respected in Law and things which in themselves are justifiable by reason are not justifiable if they be injurious to others as 21 E. 4. 8 E. 4. 18. Fishers may prescribe to dry their Nets upon the Lands of others and none can prescribe against such a Prescription so here
The last words of the Limitation do not distinguish or disjoyn it but respect the estate precedent And by Clench Iustice If the use limited to Ambrose shall depend only upon the Limitation of his death the same should be void for then he should not he in esse to take But the other Iustices were of a contrary opinion and that the use is good 7 H. 4. Gawdy Although that here be three things yet but two times for the words are not or at such of the said days or times as shall first happen for that would alter the case But here these words ought to be intended as if they were spoken before in the Limitation of the estate to the Daughters and cannot divide the former Limitation and he said that if by reason that the Limitation upon the death which is certain it shall vest in Ambrose presently then if after the other Limitation shall fall then his Remainder which vested in him upon the said certain Limitation should be devested and should now accrue to him upon the other Limitation which should be absurd and inconvenient c. It was adjorned CCCXXXI Thomas and Wards Case Trin. 32. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae by Thomas against Ward Ejectione firme 1 Cro. 102. upon a Lease made to him of the Manor of Middleton Cheney by one Chambers the Defendant pleaded that long time before the Lessor of the Plaintiff had any thing the Bishop of Rochester was seised and leased the same to the Defendant the Plaintiff by Replication said that the said Lease was upon condition viz. The Lessee by the Indenture of the said Lease did covenant that he would not put out or disturb any of the Tenants inhabiting within the said Manor out of their Tenancies doing their duties according to the custom of the said Manor and shewed that the Defendant had put out one Ann Green a Tenant dwelling there upon a Tenement parcel of the said Manor late in the possession and occupation of the said Ann and that the Bishop had re-entred for the condition so broken and made a lease to the Lessor of the Plaintiff upon which Replication the Defendant hath demurred in Law Tanfeild argued for the Defendant that the Bishop had no cause to re-enter for there is not any condition in the Case but only a Covenant for it comes in only on the part of the Lessee and they are words of Covenant only whereas every condition ought to be the words of the Lessor and the Bishop hath sufficient remedy by Action of Covenant But if the words had been indifferent and absolute without depending on the Lessor or Lessee then it had been otherwise as 3 E. 6. Dyer 65. Non licebit to the Lessee dare concedere vel vendere statum vel terminum without the Licence of the Lessor under pain of forfeiture the same is a good condition but here it is meerly a Covenant and it cannot be both Haughton Although the words sound in Covenant and be the words of the Lessee yet the Lease being made by Indenture the same is the Deed of both and every word in it is spoken by both parties and although that he may have an Action of Covenant yet he cannot thereby overthrow the Lease as by Entry by condition broken and yet by the words it seems the meaning of the Indenture was that by the breach of this Covenant the estate should be defeated for so are the words sub poena forisfactur And here by way of Action he cannot have the benefit of the whole Covenant and therefore he shall have it by way of condition And see the case betwixt Browning and Beston Plow 132. If it happen the Rent to be behind that then the Lessee Covenants that although the Rent be not demanded that the said Lease should be utterly extinct void and of no effect and 24 Eliz. there was a case betwixt Hill and Lockham where by the Indenture of Lease the Lessee Covenanted to grind all his Corn at the Mill of the Lessor and afterward in the end of the said Indenture the Lessee covenanted to perform all the Covenants sub poeâ—a sorisfactur and by the opinion of the whole Court the same was a condition And see 21 H. 6. 51. where in an Obligation where A was bound to B. the condition is written in this manner Praedict B. vult concedit That if the said A. doth stand to the Arbitrament of such a one that then c. the same is a good condition although they are the words of the Obligee and the Deed of the Obligor and so here is a good condition And such was the opinion of Wray and Gawdy and Fenner did not contradict it Wherefore Tanfeild said Admit here it is a condition yet here is not any breach of it sufficiently set forth for the breach is assigned because he had put out a woman unam tenentem inhabitantem out of certain Lands parcel of the said Manor late in the possession and occupation of the said woman and that might be that she was but Tenant at Will and the Covenant doth refer only to Copy-holders And it may be also that she had disseised one of the Tenants of the Manor in which case the putting out of such a Tenant being in by wrong is no breach of condition Also it is not averred in facto that Ann was Tenant of any part of the Mannor Also the Replication is That the said Defendant had ousted the said Ann where she had done her duty fecit debitum suum before the Ouster and that might be that she had done her duty once but not after and therefore he ought to have said that she had done her duty always before her putting out and this word duly being single is too general for it may be understood of curtesie where the words in the Indenture are Doing their duty according to the custom of the Manor And also it might be that Ann Green was Tenant and Inhabitant but was not put out of the Land which was parcel of the Manor And Wray said that these Exceptions were incurable And therefore Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCCXXXII Harvy and Thomas Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. Rot. 414. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Leases 1 Cro. 216. Husband and Wife seised of Lands in the Right of the Wife the Husband alone makes a Lease by word for years Afterwards the Husband and Wife levy a Fine and after the Wife and Husband both dye It was holden clearly by the whole Court that the Conusee should avoid the Lease CCCXXXIII Sly and Mordants Case Trin. 32. Eliz. Rot. 314 In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 191. 2 Len. 103. 3 Len. 174. Dy. 250. 1 Cro. 198 199. that whereas he was seised of certain Lands the Defendant had stopped a Water-course by which his Land was drowned and found for the Plaintiff It
hoc that he was indebted to the Plaintiff antea vel post the said day aliquo modo upon which the Plaintiff did demur It was argued that the Traverse was not good for the consideration in Assumpsit is not traversable because it is but conveyance and amounts to the general Issue as in debt upon the sale of a Horse it is no Plea for the Defendant to say that no such Horse was sold to him Patridge If the conveyance be the ground of the Suit it is traversable an Action upon the Case against an Hostler it is a good Plea that he is not an Hostler 2 H. 4 7. See 26 H. 8. Br. Traverse 341. In an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas the Defendant habuit ex deliberatione of the Plaintiff certain goods the said Defendant in consideration of ten shillings Assumpsit eidem querenti promisit salvo Custodire c. Non habuit ex deliberatione is a good Plea. Godfrey The Defendant doth not answer the point of our Action which is the Assumpsit but only by way of Argument 11 E. 4. 4. In Trespass upon the Statute of 5 R. 2. by the Master of a Colledge and his confreers the Defendant doth justifie by reason of a Lease made by a Predecessor of the Plaintiff and his Confreers by their Deed under their Common Seal the Plaintiff Replicando saith That at the time of the making of the Lease there was no such Colledge and it was holden no Plea for it is no answer but by Argument Gawdy Iustice In all cases where the Defendant may wage his Law there the conveyance is traversable Wray The cause of the Action is the Assumpsit therefore the consideration is not traversable for it is not the point with which the Plaintiff is charged And it is common here that the Declaration in such Action upon the Case Traverse in consideration of divers sums of money without any more certainty is good which should not be good if the consideration were traversable but the consideration is to be given in Evidence and it is also common that in an Action upon the Case in Trover and Conversion the Trover is not traversable for the Conversion is the point of the Action Fenner Iustice The debt here is no cause of the Action but only the Assumpsit In debt upon Arbitrament the Arbitrament is traversable So in debt for Rent upon a Demise the Demise is traversable Antea 189. for the Arbitrament and Demise is the cause and ground of the Action At another day it was moved again and Gawdy mutata opinione said that consideration Executory is traversable As where one in consideration that he may marry my Daughter or of service promiseth to pay the same consideration is traversable contrary of a Consideration executed And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCXLI Estons Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Court of Wards ESton was seised of Lands in Fee holden of the King in chief 1 Cro. 243. and took a Wife seised of other Lands holden in Socage they have Inne and the Husband dieth and afterwards the Wife dieth Owen Serjeant conceived That the Queen should not have the Wardship of the Land of the Wife or the primer seisin of it And if the Husband had survived his Wife being Tenant by the Curtesie the Queen should not have Primer seisin of it after his decease Wray If the Father be seised of Lands holden in Soccage and the Mother of Lands holded in Knights service and the Husband over-lives his Wife being Tenant by the Curtesie the King shall have all Anderson denied that and he conceived That the opinion of Stamford is not Law and yet see 13 H. 4. 278. Where the Father is seised of Lands in chief and the Mother of other and the Father dieth and afterwards the Mother dieth both shall be in ward And it was said That if there be Grandfather Father and Son and the Father dieth seised of Lands holden in Socage and afterwards the Grandfather dieth seised of Lands in Knights service the Lands in Socage shall not be in ward Anderson held strongly That the Queen should have Primer seisin of the Lands of the Mother Wray contrary Quaere CCCXLII Ellis Hartops Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Court of Wards ELlis Hartop was seised of divers Lands whereof part was holden of the King in Knights service and devised two parts thereof to W. Denham and his Heirs to the use of T. his brother and his wife and afterwards to the use of the said T. and his Heirs males T. died in the life of the Devisor and afterwards a Son is born First it was agreed that a Devise might be to the use of another Then when Cesty que use dyeth in the life of the Devisor the Devisee shall take it and when a Son is born it shall go to him But if the use be void then the Devisee shall have it to his own use for every devise doth imply a consideration Coke was of opinion That the Son takes by descent when Cestuy que use to whom Land is devised doth refuse the use the Devisee cannot take it for he shall not have it to his own use for if the use be void the devise is also void And the use is void for Cestuy que use died in the life of the Devisor which see Bret and Rygdens case A man seised of three Acres bargains and sells one of them without shewing which and that before the Statute of 27 H. 8. The Bargainee dyeth before Election no Election descends to the Heir for then he should be a Purchasor And by Wray and Anderson The devise is void and it is all one with Brett and Rigdens case And by Anderson a man deviseth Lands to the use of one which use by possibility is good and by possibility not good If afterwards Cestuy que use cannot take the Devise shall be to the use of the Devisor and his Heirs CCCLXIII Weston and Garmons Case Trin. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assize 1 Cro. 226. ASsize was brought of a Rent of fifty pounds per annum and the Plaintiff made his plaint to be disseised of his Free-hold in H. E. and H. W And shewed that John Vaughan and Amy his Wife who before was the wife of one Weston and Mother of Sir Henry Weston the Plaintiff in the Assize was seised of the said Manors of H.W. and H.E. lying in Barton and Kinton in Fee. And 18 Eliz. a Fine was levied betwixt Robert Vaughan and Miles Whitney Complainants and the said John Vaughan and Amy his Wife and Francis their Son Deforceants of the said two Manors inter alia per nomen of the Manors of H.E. and H.W. and of fifty Messuages three hundred Acres of Lands two hundred Acres of Meadow cum pertinentiis in the said Towns by which Fine the said Deforceants did acknowledge the right of the said Manors and Tenements to be
every issue begotten betwixt William and Joan should have an estate for life successive and a Remainder in tail expectant as right heir of the body of William A Contingent shall hinder the execution of an estate in possession and this estate tail shall not be executed in possession by reason of the mesne Remainder for life limited to the heir of the body of William and Joan and although that these mesne Remainders are but upon a contingent and not in esse yet such regard shall be had to them that they shall hinder the execution of the estates for life and in tail in possession As if an estate be made to A. for life the Remainder to the right heirs of B. in tail the Remainder in Fee to A. although the estate tail be in abeyance and not in esse during the life of B. yet in respect thereof the Free-hold and Fee shall not be conjoyned Southcote Iustice To the same purpose And he put a case lately adjudged betwixt Vaughan and Alcock Vaughan and Alcocks case Land was devised to two men and if any of them dieth his heirs shall inherit these devisees are Tenants in common because in by devise but contrary if it were by way of Grant Lands are devised to A. and B. to be betwixt them divided they are Tenants in common Wray William and Thomas have but for life for they are purchasors by the name heir in the singular number but when he goes further and says for want of such issue to the heirs of the body of William in the plural number now Will. hath an Inheritance And if a devise be made to one for life and then to his heir for life and so from heir to heir in perpetuum for life here are two estates for life and the other Devisees have Fee for estates for life cannot be limited by general words from heir to heir but by special words they may And here Thomas being next heir of the body of William and Joan hath an estate for life and also being heir of the body of the said William hath a Remainder in tail to him limited the mesn remaineth limited to others i. e. to the next heir of the body of Thomas being in abeyance Co 11. Rep. 80. because limited by the name heir his Father being alive shall not hinder the execution of these estates but they shall remain in force according to the rules of the common Law Then Thomas so being seised levyeth a Fine against the Provision of the Will by which Thomas hath forfeited his estate for life and so his next heir shall have the Land during his life And a great reason wherefore the heirs ut supra after the two first limitations shall have tail is because that if every heir should have but for life they should never have any Interest in the Lands by these limitations for by the express words of the devise none shall take but the heir of the first heir for ever i. e. When Thomas aliens by which the use vests in Francis and when afterwards Francis levieth a Fine then the use vests in Percival Hâ—rt being next heir of the said Francis at the time of the Fine levyed notwithstanding that afterwards Francis had a Son which is his next heir and therefore the use in Percival by the birth of the said Son in Francis shall not be devested Estate vested shall not be devested because it was a thing vested in him before by purchase 9 H. 7. 25. A enfeoffs B. upon condition on the part of A. to be performed 1 Cro. 61. and dyeth having issue a Daughter the Daughter performs the condition and afterwards a Son is born the Daughter shall hold the Lands against the Son So 5. E. 4 6. A woman hath issue a Daughter and afterwards consents to a Ravisher the Daughter enters and afterwards a Son is born yet the Daughter shall hold the Lands for ever i. e. And Geofries Iustice said Francis being in by force of the Forfeiture shall not be subject to the limitation of the Will i. e. to any forfeiture if he alien for the estate which Francis hath for his life is but an estate gained by the offence of his Father and the use was limited to him upon the Will of Richard and then the said estate is not subject to the Proviso of the Will and then hath not Francis committed any forfeiture And admit Francis shall forfeit yet Percival shall get nothing thereby but the estate which Francis had at the time of the Fine levied scil the Free-hold only for no estate of Inheritance was in him living his Father As to the regress of the Feoffees Geofries was of opinion That where an use is limited to a person certain and thereupon vested in the person to whom it is limited That the Entry of the Feoffees in such case is not requisite notwithstanding that the first estates be discontinued but where the use as in our case is not limited to a person certain in esse but is in abeyance not vested in any person upon the limitation of it some estate ought to be left in the Feoffees to maintain that use and to render it according to the limitation and in our case these uses not in esse at the time of the making of the Statute of 27 H. 8. could not be executed by the said Statute but now at the appointed time by the limitation shall be raised and revived by the Entry of the Feoffees but here by the Fine and Non-claim the Feoffees are bound and their Entry taken away and so no use can accrue to Percival Hart by such Entry Southcote Iustice was of opinion that the Feoffees cannot enter at all because that by the Statute of 27 H. 8. nothing is left in them at the time of the making of the Statute which saves the right of every person c. other than the Feoffees so as no right is saved to them but all is drawn out of them by the operation of the Statute and the second saving of the Statute saves to the Feoffees all their former Right so as the Right which the Feoffees had by the Feoffment to the use is utterly gone But Percival Hart may well enter for he is not bound to the five years after the Fine levied for he had not right at the time of the Fine levied but his right came by the Fine Wray chief Iustice The Feoffees are not to enter for the Statute of 27 H. 8. hath two branches 1. gives the possession to Cestuy que use in such manner as he hath in the use 2. takes away all the right out of the Feoffees and gives it to Cestuy que use so as nothing at all remains in the Feoffees for if an Act of Parliament will give to me all the Lands whereof my brother Southcote is seised and that I shall be in the Seisin thereof now is the actual possession in me without my
barred but if the Wife enter after the death of her Husband and before the Proclamations pass the issue is not bound by the Fine And if Tenant in Tail granteth totum statum and after levieth a Fine thereof with Proclamations come ceo c. The Issue is barred contrary where the Fine is upon a Release c. CCCXLVI Henningham and Windhams Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ARthur Henningham brought a Writ of Error against Francis Windham upon a common Recovery had against Henry his Brother Error Owen Rep. 68. and the Case was That Land was given in special tail to Thomas Henningham Father of the said Henry and the said Arthur the Remainder in general tail the estate tail in possession was to him and the Heirs Mairs of his body Thomas had issue the said Henry and three Daughters by one woman and the said Arthur and two other Sons by another woman and dyed seised Henry entred and made a Feoffnent a common Recovery is had against the Feoffee in which Henry is vouched who vouched over the common Vouchee according to the usual course of common Recoveries Henry dyed without issue Error and Attaint by him to whom the Land is to descend and Arthur brought a Writ of Error being but of the half blood to Henry And it was resolved by the whole Court That Error and Attaint always descends to such person to whom the Land should descend If such Recovery or false oath had not been As if Lands be given to one and the Heirs Females of his body c. and suffers an erronious Recovery and dyeth the Heir female shall have the Writ of Error So upon Recovery of Lands in Borough English for such Action descends according to the Land quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam But it was objected on the Defendants part That because that the Feoffee being Tenant to the Praecipe is to recover in value a Fee-simple and so Henry is to yield a Fee-simple which should descend to the heir at the Common Law if this Recovery had not been therefore he to whom the same should descend should have the Writ of Error for he hath the loss But the said Exception was not allowed And it was said That Tenant in tail upon such a Recovery shall recover but an estate in tail scil such estate which he had at the time of the warranty made c. And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Action was maintainable So if a man hath Lands of the part of his mother and loseth it by erronious Iudgment and dyeth That the Heir of the part of the Mother shall have the Writ of Error CCCXLVII Foster and Pitfalls Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae the Case was 1 Cro. â— Brook devised Lands to his Wife in general Tail the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee and dyed he took another Husband and had issue a Daughter The Husband and Wife levyed a Fine to a stranger The Daughter as next Heir by 11 H. 7. entred It was agreed by the whole Court That an estate devised to the wife is within the words but not within the meaning of the Statute Secondly It was resolved That no estate is within the meaning of the Statute unless it be for the Ioynture of the Wife Thirdly Resolved That the meaning of the Statute was That the wife so preferred by the Husband should not prejudice the issues or heirs of her Husband and here nothing is left in the Issues or heirs of the Husband so as the Wife could not prejudice them for the Remainder is limited over CCCLXVIII Greenes Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Acceptance of Rent 1 Cro. 3. 3 Co. 64. b. GReene made a Lease for years rendring Rent with clause of Re-entry and the Rent due at the Feast of the Annunciation was behind being demanded at the day which Rent the Lessor afterwards accepted and afterwards entred for the condition broken and his Entry holden lawful Entry Plow Com. in Browning and Bestons Case for the Rent was due before the condition broken but if the Lessor accepts the next Quarters Rent then he hath lost the benefit of Re-entry for thereby he admits the Lessee to be his Tenant And if the Lessor distrain for Rent due at the said Feast of the Annunciation after the forfeiture he cannot afterwards re-enter for the said forfeiture for by his Distress he hath affirmed the possession of the Lessee So if he make an Acquittance for the Rent as a Rent contrary if the Acquittance be but for a sum of mony and not expresly for the Rent all which tota Curia concessit CCCXLIX 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Lessee for life the Remainder for life the Remainder in tail the Remainder in fee The two Tenants for life make a Feoffment in fee. Dyer A woman Tenant for life in Ioynture the Remainder for life the Remainder in fee the Tenants for life joyn in a Feoffment Entry for Forfeiture the Entry of him in the Remainder in fee is lawful by 11 H. 7. And if Tenant for life be impleaded and he in the Remainder for life will not pray to be received he in the last Remainder may and so in our case inasmuch as he in the Remainder for life was party to the wrong he in the Remainder in tail shall enter Which Harper and Munson granted Dyer 339. a. i. e. Manwood Although that this Feoffment be not a Disseisin to him in the Remainder in tail yet it is a wrong in a high degree as by Littleton A Disseisor leaseth for life to A. who aliens in fee the Disseisee releaseth to the Alienee it is a good Release and the Disseisor shall not enter although the Alienation was to his disinheritance Lit. 111. which Dyer granted And if Tenant for life alieneth in fee and the Alienee enfeoffeth his Father and dieth the same descent shall not avail him no more than in case of Disseisin Livery of Seism It hath been objected that this is the Livery of the first Tenant for life and the confirmation of him in the Remainder for life Dyer was of opinion That by this Livery the Remainder for life passeth and this Livery shall be as well the Livery of him in the Remainder as of the Tenant in possession and although where an estate is made lawfully by many it shall be said the Livery of him only who lawfully may make Livery Yet where an estate is wrongfully made it shall be accounted in Law the Livery of all who joyn in it And in this the Remainder for life is extinguished by the Livery in the Feoffee and the Livery of him in the Remainder for life shall be holden a void Livery especially when he joyns with such a person who hath not authority to make Livery As if the Lord and a Stranger Disseise the Tenant and make a Feoffment over the whole Seigniory is
over the Feoffees do not pay the said mony within the said 15 days afterwards Curties attorns to the Feoffees It was moved if the Reversion of the Lands passed to Curties passeth by the Feoffment of the Manor without attornment which see Littleton 133 134. 2. Attornment If by the attornment of Curties after the 15 days the uses can rise to Bracebridge and his wife c. and it was said That the Case 20 H. 6. Avowry 11 12. If a Manor be granted for life the remainder over in Fee Tenant for life dieth if the Tenants attorn to him in the Remainder the same is good and if a Reversion be granted to two and one of them dieth attornment to the survivor is good and if a Reversion be granted to Husband and Wife in special tail the Wife dieth afterwards without issue Attornment to the Husband is good and if a Reversion be given in Frank-marriage and afterwards the Husband and Wife are divorced and afterwards the particular Tenant attorns to the Wife the same is good and by Manwood If a Man seised of a Manor the demesns of which extends into two Counties and hath issue a Son and a Daughter by one woman and a Son by another woman and dieth the eldest Son enters into the Demesns in one County only and takes the profit in one County only and dieth without issue the Daughter shall have and inherit the Demesns or Services whereof her Brother was seised and the Son of the half-blood the rest And by Manwood the attornment of Curties who was the first Lessee shall bind Moore the second Lessee for he ought to attorn against whom lieth the Quid juris clamat And if a Lease for years be made of a Manor and the Reversion of it be granted to another in fee if the Lessee for years attorneth it shall bind the Tenants of the Manor 18 E. 2. A man seised of a Manor in the right of his Wife leased parcel of it for years without his wife the Reversion thereof is not parcel of the Manor contrary if the Lease had been made by Husband and Wife And by Dyer if Tenant in tail of a Manor leaseth parcel for years and afterwards makes a Feoffment of the whole Manor and makes Livery in the Demesns not leased the Reversion of the Land leased doth not pass for by the Feoffment a wrong is done to the Lessor which the Law shall not further enlarge than appeareth by the Deed contrary in case of Tenant in fee of a Manor and that without Deed with Attornment And it was the Case of one Kellet 25 H. 8. Kellet was Cestuy que use before the Statute of 27 H. 8. of divers Lands by several Conveyances the use of some being raised upon Recovery of some upon Fine and of some upon Feoffment and he made a Feoffment of all these Lands by Deed with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery the Attorney entred into part of the Land and made Livery in the name of the whole and it was agreed by all the Iustices that the Lands passed notwithstanding in others possession i.e. other Feoffees And by Dyer If the Tenants of a Manor pay their Rents to the Disseisor they may refuse again to pay them and if a Lease be made for years the Remainder for life if the Lessor will grant over his Reversion the Lessee for years shall Attorn and his attornment shall bind him in the remainder for life and if a Lease be made to one for years the remainder over for life the remainder to the Lessee for years in Fee. Now if the Lessee for years grant all his interest c. there needs no attornment and if Grantee of a Rent in fee leaseth for life and afterwards grants the Reversion to another the Attornment of the Ter-tenant is not requisite but only of the Grantee for life It was also holden Relation That this Attornment by Curties two years after the Livery was sufficient for it shall have relation to the Livery to make it parcel of the Manor but not to punish the Lessee for waste done mean between the Livery and the Attornment but betwixt the Feoffor and the Feoffee it shall pass ab initio It was holden also That although the uses for it limited are determined by the default of payment within the 15 days yet the Feoffees shall take the Reversion by this Attornment to the second uses 2 Len. 222. and if I enfeoff one upon condition to enfeoff J.S. who refuseth now the Feoffee shall be seised to my use but if the condition were to give in tail contrary So here is a Limitation beyond the first use which shall not be defeated for want of Attornment to the first uses and here it was not the meaning of Bracebridge to have the Lands again upon breach of the condition in his former estate but according to the second use and Iudgment was given in the principal case according to the resolutions of the Iudges as aforesaid And it was said by Harper Iustice That if a Feoffment in Fee be made to J. S. upon condition that he shall grant to A. a Rent-charge who refuseth it J.S. shall be seised to his own use Antea 199. CCCLVI. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this Lord and Tenant by service to pay every year such a quantity of Salt but since 10 H. 7. the Tenant hath always paid the money for Salt. The question was If the Lord might resort to the first service Seisin and if the money be Seisin of the Salt. And Manwood took this difference i.e. where the Lord takes a certain sum of money for the Salt the same is not any Seisin for the service is altered as at the first Socage Tenure was a work done by labor i.e. Plowing but now it is changed into certain Rent and the Lord cannot resort to have his Plowing and in Kent divers Tenants in ancient time have paid Barley for their Rent but the same afterward was paid in a certain sum of money so as now the Lord of Canterbury who is Lord of such Tenements cannot now demand his Barly c. but if the sum which hath been used to be paid be incertain one year so much according to the price of Salt then such a payment of money is a sufficient Seisin of the Salt. Quod fuit concessum per Curiam CCCLVII 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Accompt brought by an Heir Copyholder for the profits of his Copyhold Lands taken during his Nonage the Defendant pleaded That by the Custom of the said Manor Accompt by the Heir of a Copyholder the Lord of the Manor might assign one to take the profits of a Copyhold descended to an Infant during his Nonage to the use of the Assignee without rendring an accompt and the same was holden to be a good Custom as a Rent granted to one and his Heirs Custom to cease during the
Nonage of every Heir but admitting that the Custom were void yet this Action doth not lye for the Defendant hath not entred and taken the profits as Prochein amy in which Case although he was not Prochein amy c. he is chargeable Oâ—â—â—â— Rep. 36 â—3 84. as Prochein amy according to his Claim but here he claimeth by the Custom and Grant of the Lord and not in the right of the Heir and therefore it was adjudged in this time of this Quaere that if one entreth into Lands claiming by Devise where in truth the Land devised is entailed he should not be charged in accompt c. CCCLVIII 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was holden by the whole Court Exposition of the Statute of 32 and 34. Of Wills. That the Statute of 32 34 H. 8. of Wills did not extend to Lands in London but that the devise of the whole is good And if Houses in London parcel of the possessions of Abbies came to the Crown by Dissolution and he grants them over to hold in chief by Knights service these Lands are devisable But it was holden That the said Statutes as Acts executed extended to Lands in London and shall be good but for two parts And if a man hath Lands in tail and in Fee-simple which are of double the value of the Lands in tail and deviseth all his Lands all the Land in Fee-simple shall pass Dyer One seised of three Manors the one in Capite in Fee and two in Socage in tail and deviseth all his Land in Capite it is good against the King for all Capite Land and he shall be tied to have the Lands in Socage but it shall not bind the Heir And a devise of the third part where all is devised is void as well against the Heir as against the King. And he said That if a man be seised of twenty Acres in Socage and ten Acres in Capite and deviseth two parts of his Lands it is reasonable to say That all the Socage Lands shall pass but if the devise was of two parts of all his Lands it is otherwise for this word All implies that the two parts shall be per my per tout as well Capite as Socage i. e. It was argued by Fenner That the Lands in London are now devisable as they were before the Statute for if the Devisee of Lands in London be disturbed he shall have Ex gravi Querela otherwise it is of Lands at the Common Law and if an Assize of Mortdancester be brought of Lands in London it is a good Plea to say That the Lands are devisable But in an Assise of Mortdancestor of Lands at the Common Law it is not any Plea And if a man gives Lands at the Common Law i. e. not devisable by the Common Law he cannot devise the Reversion for the Statute shall not do wrong to the person i.e. to the Donee who there shall lose his Acquittal But of Lands devisable by custom it is otherwise And if Land in a Burrough was devisable for life by the Custom and afterwards came the Statute of 23 H. 8. which made all Lands devisable now that Land is devisable for life by the Custom and the Reversion by the Statute CCCLIX 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Wast of Wast assigned in a Wood Wast the Iury viewed the Wood only without entring into it And it was holden that the same was sufficient for otherwise it should be tedious for the Iury to have had the view of every stub of a Tree which had been felled Yet Meade Iustice said That if Wast be assigned in several corners of the Wood then the Iury is to have the view of every corner but contrary where Wast is assigned in the whole Wood Vieâ— And if Wast be assigned in every Room of a House the view of the House generally is sufficient And Dyer Iustice said That if Wast be assigned in several places and of some of them the Iury had not the view of that they may find no Wast done CCCLX Sir Thomas Lees Case 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was holden per Curiam That whereas Sir Thomae Lee was seised of a Manor Election and aliened the Manor except one Close parcel of the said Manor called Newdick and there were two Closes parcel of the said Manor called Newdick the one containing nine Acres and the other containing three Acres That the Alienee should not chuse which of the said Closes he would have but the Alienor or Feoffor should have the Election which of the said Closes should pass CCCLXI. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail the Remainder in tail c. Tenant in tail in possession Fines levied by Tenant in tail in Remainder 3 Cro. 211. makes a Lease for three lives according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. and afterwards dieth without issue he in the Remainder before any Entry levieth a Fine the same is good for by the death of Tenant in tail without issue the Free-hold is vested in him in the Remainder in tail And of that opinion was the whole Court. CCCLXII Ferrand and Ramseys Case 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae brought of a House in London the Defendant pleaded That long time before the Lessor of the Plaintiff had any thing c. One Ann Ramsey was seised in Fee and died seised and that the same descended to William Ramsey as Son and Heir to the said Ann who was disseised by Israel Owen who leased to the Plaintiff upon whom the said William Ramsey did re-enter The Plaintiff Replicando That the said Ann did not die seised said That before the Ejectment one Robert Owen was seised and died seised and from him descended the said House to Israel Owen as Son and Heir of the said Robert absque hoc that the said Israel did disseise the said Ann upon which they were at issue and at Nisi prius in London it was given in Evidence of the Defendants part That Crofton and Langhton were seised in Fee of the said Messuage and by Deed indented conveyed it to one John Ramsey Robert Dakins and four others and their Heirs upon condition that the said Feoffees their Heirs or Assigns should pay to the said Ann and her Heirs six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence And also should enfeoff the said Ann if to the same they were required by the said Ann in her life or within four days next following such Request in Fee unto the use of the said Ann and her Heirs cum quando ad hoc per eandem Annam requisit fuerint and if the said Ann died before such Request that then the said Feoffees or their Heirs should enfeoff such issues of the said Ann or such other persons which the said Ann should name cum quando ad hoc per eandem Annam requisit fuerint or within four days after such
Request the said Feoffees or their Heirs should be seised of the said House to the use of the said Ann and her Heirs Afterwards the seventh of April 16 Eliz. Ann demanded of William Ramsey Son and Heir of John Ramsey six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence being due to the said Ann ut supra the which sum the said William Ramsey did refuse to pay by force of which and by the Statute of 27 H. 8. the said Ann Ramsey was thereof seised and died seised and from her descended the said House to William Ramsey The Plaintiff confessed the Feoffment to Crofton and Langhton to John Ramsey and others and shewed further That the said Ann required the surviving Feoffees to enfeoff one Robert Owen of the said House who three days after made the Feoffment accordingly Robert Owen enfeoffed John Owen who died thereof seised and from him the said House descended to Israel Owen Crafton died Langhton having issue two Daughters died All the Feoffees but one died Ann the time aforesaid demanded the said six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence of the said William Ramsey in another House in London due at the Feast of St. Michael last before who denied to pay it the second Daughter of Langhton entred and thereof enfeoffed the said Israel Owen Rents 3 Cro. 210 211. who leased the same to the Plaintiff and upon that Evidence the Defendant did demur in Law And first it was resolved by the whole Court That the said sum to be paid to the said Ann was not a Rent but a sum in gross because reserved to a stranger c. which see Lit. 79. Reversion And by Munson Iustice If the words of the reservation had been twenty Nobles Rent yet it had been but a sum in gross but otherwise it had been by devise Also there is not any condition for the payment of it but only a Limitation for the word subsequent which limits the future use takes away all the force of the words of the Condition as 27 H. 8. 24. Land given in tail upon condition that the Donee and his Heirs shall carry the Standard of the Donor when he goes to battel and if he fail thereof then the same to remain to a stranger the limiting of the Remainder hath taken away the condition and hath controlled it and now the Condition is become a Limitation But where the words subsequent are against Law as if upon failer that then it shall be lawful for a stranger to enter Feoffments upon condition c. these words because they are against Law for a Rent cannot be reserved to a Stranger c. do not destroy the Condition by Mead contrary by Munson for the Condition is utterly gone And by Mead Feoffment in Fee upon condition That if the Feoffor shall do such a thing that he shall re-enter and retain the Land to the use of a stranger the use is void 1 Cro 401 402 and the Feoffor shall hold the Land to his own use A Feoffment in Fee upon condition That the Feoffee shall marry my Daughter and if he refuse to marry her that then he shall be seised to the use of I.S. the same is not a Condition but a Limitation and in all cases afterwards of a Condition where an Interest is limited to a stranger there it is not a Condition but a Limitation And Mead said That the said annual sum is not demandable but the party ought to pay it at his peril Lit. 80. But by Munson it ought to be demanded for so this word Refuse doth imply Regula And when at the Request of Ann the Feoffment is made by Munson Mead and Windham the Rent is gone but Dyer contrary unless the Feoffment be made to Ann her self And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 19 Eliz. Rot. 748. There was a Case betwixt Shaw and Norton Shaw and Nortons Case One Green devised his Lands to A. and devised also the said A. should pay a Rent to B. and that B. might distrain for it and if A. fail of the payment of it that the Heirs of the Devisor might enter the same is a good Distress and a good Condition And by Munson Demand ought to be made of the Rent for the words are Refuse which cannot be without Demand or Request And it was certified That such a Clerk refused to pay his Tenths and because it was expresly set down in the Certificate that he was requested c. for that cause he was discharged And it was also holden That if Request be necessary that in this case Request is to be made That it ought to be made to the surviving Feoffee or his heir and not to the heirs of any of the Feoffees who are dead CCCLXIII Lacyes Case Hill. 25. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Indictments Co. 13. Rep. 53. LAcy was indicted of the death of a man upon Scarborough Sands in the County of York between the high water-mark and the low water-mark and the same Indictment was removed into the Kings Bench and being arraigned upon it he shewed that the said Indictment was sued by vertue of a Commission which issued the first day of May directed to the Iustices of Assize and other Iustices of Peace in the said County Commission repealed to enquire of all Murders Felonies c. and pleaded further That the second day of May aforesaid issued another Commission directed to the Lord Admiral and others upon the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 15. by force of which the said Lacy was indicted of the same murder whereof he was now arraigned and the said last Commission was ad inquirendum tam super altum mare quam super littus maris ubicunque locorum infra jurisdictionem nostram maritimam And that the said Indictment taken before the Admiral was taken before this upon which he was arraigned and upon the whole matter prayed to be dismissed And the opinion of all the Iustices was that the first Commission was repealed by the second and so the Indictment upon which he was arraigned taken coram non Judice 10 E. 4. 7. If a Commission for the Peace issueth into one County and afterwards another Commission issueth to a Town within the same County and parcel of it the first Commission is repealed which Gawdy granted if notice be given c. but Wray denied it but the whole Court by this last Commission to the Lord Admiral the first Commission as to the Iurisdiction in locis maritimis is determined and repealed for these two Commissions are in respect of two several Authorities the first Commission meerly by the Common Law the other by the Statute aforesaid and thereupon the party was discharged against the Queen as to that Indictment Note that in the Argument of this Case it was said by Coke and agreed by Wray That if a man be struck upon the high sea 2 Co. 93. whereof he dieth in another County
afterwards that this murder is dispunishable notwithstanding the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. CCCLXIV The Queen and Braybrooks Case Pasch 25 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 3 Co. 1 2 c. THe Queen brought a Writ of Error against Braybrook The Case was this That King Ed. 4. was seised of the Manor of Marston and gave the same to Lionel Lord Norris and A.M. and the Heirs of the body of the Lord the Remainder to H. Norris in Tail L and A. entermarry L. suffered a common Recovery against himself only without naming the said A. Hen. Norris is attainted of high Treason by Act of Parliament and by the same Act all his Lands Tenements Hereditaments Rights Conditions c. the day of the Treason committed or ever after c. Hen. Norris is executed Lionel dieth without issue the Queen falsified the said Recovery for one moiety by Scire facias because Anne who was joint-tenant with Lionel was not named party to the said Recovery and afterwards the Queen granted to the Lord Norris Son of the said Hen. Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura in eodem and now upon the said Recovery the Queen brought a Writ of Error and it was argued by Egerton the Queens Sollicitor that this right to a Writ of Error is such a right as is transferred to the Queen by the Act of Parliament for the words are omnia jura sua quaecunque and here is a right although not a present right yet a right although in futuro so it is a right of some quality as A. Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail to B.A. makes a Feoffment in Fee B. is attainted of high Treason and by such Act all his Lands c. given to the King. A. dieth without issue the Queen shall have a Formedon in the Remainder and although the Queen hath granted to the Lord Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura in eodem yet by such general words a Writ of Error doth not pass which See 32 H. 8. Br. Patents 98. And also this Action rests in privity of record and cannot be displaced from thence but by Act of Parliament see Br. Chose in Action 14. 33 H. 8. for when the King will grant a thing in Action he ought in his Patent to recite all the circumstances of the matter as the Right and how it became a Right and because the Queen here doth not make mention of this Right as of the Entail the Recovery and the Attainder for that cause the Right doth not pass The Case betwixt Cromer and Cranmer 8 Eliz the Disseisee was attainted of Treason the Queen granted to the Heir of the Disseisee all the Right which came unto her by the Attainder of his Ancestor nothing passed Causa qua supra And always where the King grants any thing which he cannot grant but as King that such a grant without special words is to no purpose Coke contrary he agreed the Case put by Egerton for at the time of the Attainder B. had a Right of Remainder but in our Case Hen. Norris had not any Right but a possibility of a Right of Action i.e. a Writ of Error And he said that this Writ of Error is not forfeitable for it is an Action which rests in privity no more than a condition in gross as a Feoffment in Fee is made upon condition of the party of the Feoffor who is attainted ut supra This word Right in the Act of Attainder shall not transfer this Condition to the Queen and of the Act of Attainder to Hen. Norris it is to be conceived That the makers of the Act did not intend that by the word Right every right of any manner or quality whatsoever should pass to carry a Condition to the Queen and therefore we ought to conceive that the makers of the Act did not intend to touch Rights which rested in privity And as to the Grant of the Queen to the Lord Norris of the Mannor of Merston Et omnia jura sua in eodem he conceived that thereby the Right of the Writ of Error did pass for it is not like Cranmers Case but if in the said Case the Land it self had been set down in the Grant it had been good enough as that Cranmer being seised in Fee of the Manor of D. was there of disseised and so being disseised was attainted of high Treason now the Queen grants to his Heirs totum jus suum in his Manor of D c. and so in our Case the Queen hath granted to the Lord Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura sua in eodem c. at another day it was moved by Plowden that this Right of Writ of Error was not transferred to the Queen by the Act but such Right might be saved to a stranger c. the words of the Act are omnia jura sua and this word sua is Pronomen possessionis by which it is to be conceived that no Right should pass but that which was a present Right as a Right in possession but this Right to a Writ of Error was not in Hen. Norris at the time of his Attainder but it was wholly in him against whom the erroneous Iudgment was had and therefore if in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant vouch and loseth and Iudgment is given and before Execution the Tenant is attainted by Act of Parliament by words ut supra and afterwards he is pardoned the Demandant sueth for Execution against the Tenant now notwithstanding this Attainder the Tenant may sue Execution against the Vouchee and afterwards Wray chief Iustice openly declared in Court the opinion of himself and all his companions Iustices and also of all the other Iustices to be That by this Act of Parliament by which all Lands Tenements Hereditaments and all Rights of any manner and quality whatsoever Henry Norris had the day of his Attainder or ever after Lionel then being alive and over-living the said Hen. Norris that this Writ of Error was not transferred to the Queen And that the said Act by the words aforesaid could not convey to the King this possibility of right for at the time of the Attainder the Right of the Writ of Error was in Lyonel and Hen. during the estate tail limited to Lyonell had not to do with the Land nor any matter concerning it And Iudgment was given accordingly And it was holden That he in the Reversion or Remainder upon an Estate tail might have a Writ of Error by the common Law upon a Recovery had against Tenant in tail in Reversion CCCLXV Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the common Pleas. Copy-holder IN Trespass brought by a Copy-holder against the Lord for cutting down and carrying away his Trees c. It was found by special Verdict That the place where c. was Customary lands of the Plaintiffs holden of the Defendant and that the Trees whereof c. were Chery Trees de
good as a new devise in Reversion upon the precedent Condition and not as a Remainder quod Windham concessit but Periam was very strong of opinion That it is a Limitation Two Ioyntenants of a Term A. and B. A. grants his part to B. nothing passeth by it for as a Grant it cannot be good Owen 102. 1 Cro. 314. 1 Inst 186. for as one Ioyntenant cannot enfeost his Companion no more can he vest any thing in him by grant for he cannot grant to him a thing which he hath before for Ioyntenants are seised and possessed of the whole all which was granted per Curiam and Anderson said That if Lands be granted to A. and B. and the Heirs of A. B. cannot surrender to A. for a Surrender is as it were a grant And as a Release it cannot enure for a Release of a Right in Chattels cannot be without a Deed. CCCLXXXIV Hollingshed and Kings Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt HOllingshed brought Debt against King and declared That King was bounden to him in a Recognizance of two hundred pounds before the Mayor and Aldermen of London in interiori Camera de Guildhall London upon which Recognizance the said Hollingshed heretofore brought a Scire facias before the said Mayor c. in exteriori Camera and there had Iudgment to recover upon which Recovery he hath brought this Action and upon this Declaration the Defendant did demur in Law because that in setting forth of the Recognizance he hath not alledged That the Mayor of London hath Authority by Prescription or Grant to take Recognizances and if he hath not then is the Recognizance taken Coram non Judice and so void And as to the Statute of West 2. cap. 45. It cannot be taken to extend to Recognizances taken in London which see by the words De his quae recordat sunt coram Cancellario Domini Regis ejus Justiciariis qui Recordum habent in Rotulis eorum Irrotulatur c. And also at the time of the making of that Statute 1 Cro. 186 187. London had not any Sheriffs but Bayliffs and the said Statute ordains that Process shall go to Sheriffs c. But the whole Court was clear of a contrary opinion for they said We will know that those of London have a Court of Record and every Court of Record hath an Authority incident to it to take Recognizances for all things which concern the Iurisdiction of the said Court and which arise by reason of matters there depending Another matter was objected for that the Recognizance was taken in interiori Camera but the Court was holden in exteriori Camera and therefore not pursuant But as to that it was said by the Lord Anderson That admit that the Recognizance was not well taken yet because that in the Scire facias upon it the Defendant did not take advantage then thereof he shall be bounden by his said admittance of it as if one sue forth a Scire facias as upon a Recognizance whereas in truth there is not any Recognizance and the party pleads admitting such Record and thereupon Iudgment is given against him it is nor void but voidable Fleetwood Recorder of London alledged many Cases to prove that the Courts of the King are bounden to take notice Priviledges of London That they of London have a Court of Record for if a Quo warranto issueth to Iustices in Eyre it behoves not them of London to claim their Liberties for all Courts of the King are to take notice of them And at last after many motions the opinion of the Court was for the Plaintiff And it was said by Anderson and in manner agreed by the whole Court That if depending this Demurrer here the Iudgment in London upon the Scire facias be reversed yet the Court here must proceed and not take notice of the said Reversal CCCLXXXV Bedingfeild and Bedingfeilds Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower DOwer was brought by Anne Bedingfeild against Thomas Bedingfeild The Tenant out of the Chancery purchased a Writ De circumspecte agatis setting forth this matter That it was found by Office in the County of Norfolk that the Husband oâ— the Demandant was seised of the Manor of N. in the said County and held the same of the Queen by Knights Service in chief and thereof dyed seised the Tenant being his Son and Heir of full age by reason whereof the Queen seised as well the said Manor as other Manors and because the Queen was to restore the Tenements tam integre Primer seisin c. as they came to her hands it was commanded the Iudges to surcease Domina regina inconsulta It was resolved per Curiam That although the Queen be entituled to have Primer seisin of all the Lands whereof the Husband of the Demandant dyed seised yet this Writ did not extend unto any Manors not found in the Office for by the Law the Queen cannot seise more Lands than those which are contained in the Office And therefore as to the Land not found by the Office the Court gave day to the Tenant to plead in chief And it was argued by Serjeant Gawdy for the Tenant That the Demandant ought to sue in the Chancery because that the Queen is entituled to have her Primer Seisin and cited the case of 11 R. 2. and 11 H. 4. 193. And after many motions It was clearly agreed by the Court That the Tenant ought to answer over for the Statute De Bigamis Cap. 3. provides that in such case The Iustices shall proceed notwithstanding such seisin of the King and where the King grants the custody of the Tenant himself 1 H. 7. 18 19. 4 H. 7. 1. A Multo fortiori against the Heir himself where he is of full age notwithstanding the possession of the King for his Primer seisin By the Statute of Bigamis after the Heir was of full age the Wife could not be endowed in the Chancery But now by the Prerogative of the King such wives may be endowed there Si viduae illae voluerint and after many motions The Court awarded That the Tenant should plead in chief at his peril for the Demandant might sue at the common Law if she pleased CCCLXXXVI Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Exchange The Husband was seised of Lands in the right of his Wif the Husband and his Wife both joyned in exchange of the Lands with a stranger for other Lands which exchange was executed the Husband and the Wife seised of the Lands taken in exchange aliened the same by Fine It was holden by Rhodes and Windham Iustices That the Wife after the death of her Husband might enter into her own Lands notwithstanding that Fine And Rhodes resembled it to the case reported by my Lord Dyer 19 Eliz. 358. The Husband after marriage assured to his Wife a Ioynture they both levy a Fine 1 Inst 36.
good will of I.S. which he cannot obtain the same remainder is not good And if one covenant to stand seised to the use of Salisbury plain for the life of I. S. and after the remainder to A it is a plain case That he in the remainder shall take presently 37 H. 6. 36. Cestuy que use willed That his Feoffees should make an estate to A. for life the remainder to C. in fee A. would not take the estate C. shall have a Subpoena against the Feoffees after the death of A. See there the case And if Land deviseable be devised to one for life the Remainder over to another in Fee and the Devisee for life doth refuse Quaere if the Devisee in Remainder shall enter presently See Fitz. Subpoena And also he put the Case where Land is devised to a Monk for life the Remainder over to another in Fee he in the Remainder shall enter presently see the same Case in Perkins 108. for the Monk never took any thing by the devise notwithstanding that there is not any particular estate upon which a Remainder can depend yet the intent of the Devisor shall be observed in as much as it may and the particular estate limited to the Monk is meerly void of which every stranger shall take advantage c. And it was resembled to a Case in Baintons Case where an use in Remainder limited upon good consideration shall be good in Law although the particular use be not grounded upon good consideration so faileth And he urged a Case alleadged by Popham in the Case of the Earl of Bedford that if in Cranmers Case the estate for years limited to the Executors 2 Leâ— 5. 6. had been limited to Administrators it had been meerly void and the use in tail limited in tail should begin presently that was by reason of the interval betwixt the death of Cranmer the taking of the Letters of Administration in which mean time there is not any person capable and therefore the Remainder shall vest presently which is a fit case to prove the Case at Bar And he remembred that in the Argument of Cranmers Case Lovelace Serjeant would have an Occupancy in the Case of such a Term limited to Administrators quod omnes Justiciarii negaverunt and in the said Case of Cranmer it was holden that the Lease for years being void the estate in the Remainder did begin presently without expecting the effluxion of the years c. And truly a Term imports in it self an Interest but if the limitation had been after the Term of twenty four years c. the same implyeth but a bare time And to that purpose he cited the Case 35 H. 8. Br. Exposition 44. A. Leaseth to B. for ten years it is covenanted betwixt them that if B. pay unto A. within the said ten years one hundred pounds that then he shall be seised to the use of B. in Fee B. surrenders his Term to A. and within the said ten years pays the one hundred pounds to A. here B. shall have Fee for the years are certain contrary if the Covenant had been If he pay within the Term. Popham Attorney General Contrary The use shall not go beyond the Contract here the Term doth not vest in that it was Limited for want of sufficient consideration of the Lord Paget the intent was not that his son should have possession of the land before the term of 24. years expired Use what it is A use is a thing in Conscience according to confidence to be guided by the intent of the parties upon such Case at the Common Law W. Paget should not have a Subpoena before the years expired and this word Term doth not alter the Case and there is a great difference betwixt an use raised by Feoffment and an use raised by Covenant For in the first case the Feffor doth dipossess himself utterly if it takes not effect to one purpose it shall take effect to another purpose But in the Case of a Covenant it is otherwise for the use riseth according to the contract not otherwise here the Contract is That W. Paget shall have the Land not immediatly after the death of his Father but after the 24 years expire Owen Serjeant It hath been agreed of both sides That every use shall go according to the intent of the parties and here it appeareth That it was the intent of the Lord Paget to put all the use out of himself and I see not any difference betwixt an use raised by Covenant and a use raised by Feoffment For a use limited utrovis modo to Pauls Steeple for the life of A. and after to the use of B. in Fee the first use is void but the second good and here the meaning of the Lord Paget plainly appears for there is a Proviso in the Indenture That after the said debts and legacies paid the use limited for 24 years shall cease and it is exprestly averred that they are paid 11. H. 4. A. leaseth for life the remainder in tail to himself the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee the mean Remainder limited by A. to himself is void and the remainder over shall be immediate to the estate for life Egerton The words of the Indenture and the intent of the parties are the rules of uses The first use is void For the intent of the Lord Paget was void because contrary to the Law and Eusal to whom the use for years was limited could not take presently for his estate is limited to begin after the death of the Lord Paget and there is a great difference betwixt uses raised by Covenant and by Feoffment For when a use is raised by Feoffment there all is out of the Feoffor the land is gone the use is gone the trust is gone nothing remaineth but a bare authority to raise uses out of the possession of the Feoffees being new uses there although some of them be void yet the other shall stand but where a use is raised by way of Covenant there the covenantor continues in possession there the uses limited if they be according to Law shall raise draw the possession out of him but if not the possession shall remain in him until a lawful use shall arise which before its time shall not rise for any defect in the precedent use And here is no Term therefore no end for that which hath not a begining hath no ending And if there be no estate then no Term if there be so then it is to be taken for the time of 24. years which is not as yet expired and then was there in the Lord Pawlet an estate descendable for 24 years which by the Attainder doth accrue unto the Queen And he cited the Case of 13 Eliz. Dyer 300. Feoffment to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of a woman which he entendeth to marry until the issue which he