by the whole Court held to be a condition but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff for doublenesse in the plea. BRown versus Dunri Hill 15. Iac. rotulo 1819. The Defendant made cognizance c. as Bailiff M. Walker Widow Administrator c. R. W. for one rent charge of 6 l. granted by one Warner to the said R. and M. his wife for life of the VVife And the said R. by the said writing granted c. That if it should happen the said yearly Rent to be behind and not paid in part or in all by the space of ten dayes next after any Feast c. being lawfully demanded that then c. the said Warner c. ten shillings nomine paene for every default and that then it should be lawfull to the said W. and M. and their Assigns to enter into the premises and distrain as well for the rent as for the nomine paene and shews that the rent was behind in the life of the Husband and that he dyed intestate and that administration was committed to the woman and made cognisance for the rent due at such a Feast in the life of the Husband and being then behind and the issue was that the Grantor was not seised and after a tryall diverse exceptions were taken one was for that a demand was not alledged another was that the cognisance was made as Bailifle to the Administrator when as the woman by the survivorship should have the rent Another was that it is not alledged that the rent was behind by ten dayes next after the Feast and the exceptions upon debate at diverse dayes were over-ruled First the demand is not necessary for the Distress is a sufficient demand as it was adjudged in Iaces case The second was because the cognisance as Administrator are void idle and superfluous and for the ten dayes it was good because that predicto tempore quo c. It was behind and adjudged by the whole Court for the Advowant SLoper versus Alen Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 3002. Replevin upon the taking of 40. Sheep the issue was that the Sheep were not levant and couchant and found by a speciall verdit that twenty Sheep were levant and couchant and that twenty Sheep were not levant and couchant and it was held upon the reading of the Record that the Plaintiff should have his Judgment BVrton versus Cony Hill 16. Iac. rotulo 2044. The Defendant avows for a rent charge granted to him for life by his Father issuing out of all his Lands in such a Town to have and to hold to levy and yearly to take the said annuity or annuall rent of c. during the naturall life of the said P. at two Feasts in the year to wit c. by equall portions the first payment to be made at the first and next Feast of the said Feasts which should next happen after the term of 8. years ended and determined specified and declared in the said will And if it should happen c. And averres in the avowry that there is not any term of years specified and declared in the said Testament before recited And note that in the premises of the Deed it is recited thus in fulfilling the Will or Testament of me the said T. bearing date such a date I have given c. And the Court held that the grant was present if no term was contained in the will and Judgment was given for the Advowant But after Judgment was entred upon Record an exception was taken because it was not averred that the Grantor was dead and it was allowed for a good exception but it came to late judgment being entred HEyden versus Godsulm Judgment for the Defendant who avowed for rent reserved upon a Lease for years and it was moved that the Plaintiff who brought the writ of Errour upon that Judgment ought to find bayle upon the writ of Errour by the Statute of 3. Iacobi and it was held by the greater number of the Judges that the Plaintiffe should not find bayle for Replevins are not within the Statute TVrny versus Darnes Trin. 17. Iac. rotulo 2887. Demurrer in a replevin upon a traverse of Lands when as the parties have not agreed of the quantity of Land The Avowry was that C. was seised of one Messuage two Barns one Mill c. and 100. acres of Land with the appurtenances in W. and held them of c. by fealty rent c. and suit of Court c. And the Plaintiff prayed in aide and he joyned and alledges that he was seised of 70. acres of Land with the appurtenances in his demesne as of Fee and held them of G. by fealty and rent c. and suit of Court and traverses that he held the Tenements of the said G. as if his Mannor of W. in manner and form as c. and a speciall demurrer and one cause was because he denies not the seisin of the said services but only denies and traverses the tenure and therefore they pretended that the plea contained double matter and was a negative pregnant and secondly whether the Seisin or Tenure be traversable and the Plea was held good by Hubberd and Warburton RIchards versus Young Trin. 16 Jacobi rotulo 104. vel 1700. A Replevin brought for taking of Cattel at Aller in a certain place called Land Mead the Defendant avows as Bailiff of Sir John Davies the Kings Serjeant containing four Acres for damage fesant the Plaintiff pleads in Barr that Henry Tearl of Hunt was seised of the Mannor of Aller whereof one Messuage c. was parcell and customary Land and devisable by Copy of Court Roll and that within the said Mannor there was a Custome that every customary Tenant of the said Messuage hath been used to have Common of Pasture in the said place called Land Mead rhe Issue was without that that within the said Mannour with the appurtenances whereof c. is and time out of mind was a custome that every customary Tenant of the laid Messuage c. had Common of pasture in manner and form c. and Serjeant Harris moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was no custome alledged because it did not appear in the pleading that the place where the taking was supposed to be was within the said Mannor and no custome of the Mannor could extend forth of the Mannor but he ought to prescribe in the Mannor and note he ought to have pleaded that the place in which c. was parcell of the Mannor and then the Plea had been good In a Replevin upon an Avowry for Rent the Plaintiff for part pleadeth payment for the other part an Accord the one Issue is found for the Paintiff and the other for the Defendant the Plaintiff shallrecover his costs and damages and the Defend shall have Judgement of Return habend and no costs and damages I think otherwise it is if the Avowries be severall then on both
Carr. The Tenant in Dower before the value inquired of and Damages found brought a Writ of Error and by the opinion of the whole Court a Writ of Error would not lie for the Judgement is not perfect untill the value be inquired upon The Demand in Dower was of the third part of two Messuages in three parts to be divided and the Judgement was to recover Seisin of the third part of the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances to hold to him in severally by Meets and Bounds and adjudged naught because they are Tenants in common and the Judgement ought to be to hold to him together and in common but if it had been in three parts divided it had been good Actions in Ejectment ALlen versus Nash Hill 5. Jacobi rotulo 719. The Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firme and a special Verdict upon a Surrender of Copy-hold Land which was to the use of the second Son for Life after the Death of the Tenant and his Heirs and it was adjudged not to be good in a Surrender for though it be good in a Will yet Implication is not good in a Surrender and in Copy-hold Cases a Surrender to the use c. this no use but an Explanation how the Land shall go if the Lord grant the Land in other manner then I appoint it is void if there be found Joynt-tenants and one Surrender to the use of his Will it was a Breach of the Joinder and the Will good EYer versus Bannaster Trîn 16. Jacobi rotulo 719. The Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firme and declared upon a Lease made by Ed. Kynaston to which the Defendant pleads not guilty and the Plaintiff alleadges a Challenge that the Wife of the Sheriff is Cosin to the Plaintiff and desires a Venire facias to the Coroners and the Defendant denied it and so a Venire was made to the Sheriff and at the Assises the Defendant challenges the Array because the Pannell was arrayed by the Sheriff who married the Daughter of the Wife of the Lessor and note the first Challenge was made after the Issue joyned and at the Assises the Defendant challenged as above and a demurrer to it and Hutton held that a Challenge could not be after a challenge except it were for some cause that did arise after the challenge made and that the party ought to rely upon one cause of challenge though he had many causes observe the Defendant could not challenge the Array untill the Assises but Husband held that a Challenge might be upon a Challenge but this challenge was adjudged naught by all the Judges HIll versus Scale Trin. 16 Jacobi rotulo 5. 18. the Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firmae and declares upon a Demise made to the Plaintiff by J. C. bearing date the first of January anno 15. and sealed and delivered the twelfth of January following to hold from Christmasse then last past for two years the Jury found a speciall Verdict and found the Lease and a Letter of Atturney to execute the Lease in this manner that the Lessor was seised of the Land in Fee and being so seised he made signed and sealed an Indenture of a Demise of the said Tenements and found it in haec verba this Indenture c. and they further found that the Lessor the said fifth day of January did not deliver the said Indenture of Demise to the Plaintiff as his Deed but that the Lessor the said fifth day of January by his writing bearing Date the same Day gave full power and authority to one C. to enter into all the premises and to take possession thereof in the name of the Lessor and after possession so taken to deliver the said Indenture of Demise to the Plaintiff upon any part of the premises in the name of the Lessor and find the Letter of Atturney in haec verba To all c. whereas I the said J. C. by my Indenture of Lease bearing date with these Presents have demised granted and to Farm let c. for and during the Term of two years c. and they further find that the said C. such a day as Atturney to the Lessor by vertue of that writing did enter into the Tenements aforesaid and took possession thereof to the use of the Lessor and immediately after possession so taken the said C. did deliver the said Indenture of Demise upon the Tenements as the Lessors Deed to the Plaintiff to have c. and the doubt was because the Lessor in the Letter of Attorney and said that whereas he had demised and if it were a Demise then the Letter of Attorney was idle but notwithstanding the Court gave Judgement for the Plaintiff WEeks versus Mesey An Ejectione firmae brought against two and one of them was an estranger and was in the house and the principall would not appear and the other appeared and pleaded non informat and the Court was acquainted with the proceedings and the Plaintiff prayed an habere facias possessionem and the Court told the Plaintiff that by that Writ and recovery he could not remove him that had Right when a Lease is made to bring an Ejectment of Land in divers mens hands then they must enter into one of the parcells and leave one in that place and then must he go unto another and leave one there and so of the rest and then after he hath made the last Entry there he sealeth and delivereth the Lease and then those men that were left there must come out of the Land and this is a good executing of the Lease and Pasch the ninth of James the Court held that an Ejectment would not ly of Common pasture or of Sheep-gate BEamont versus Cook Trin. 13 Jacobi An exception taken in Ejectment because the Originall was teste the very same day that the Ejectment was made and adjudged good by the whole Court and one Goodhall brought an originall in Ejectment against Hill and three others and the Plaintiff counts against three of the Defendants and no simulcum against the fourth and this matter was moved in arrest of Judgement And the Judgement was stayed by the whole Court COronder versus Clerk Hill 10 Jacobi rotulo 3315. Action upon an Ejectment brought the Jury found it specially upon a Devise the words of the Will were to my right Heires Males and posterity of my name part and part like the question was who should have the Land and the Court held the Land must go to the Heire at the Common Law and not according to the words of the Will because they cannot consist with the grounds of Law a Will must be construed in all parts the brother cannot have it by the Devise because he is not Heir and the Daughters cannot for they are not Heirs and posterity and therefore neither of them could have it because they are not Heirs and posterity because they that take it must be Heir and posterity
to have distrayned the Cattell of the Lord damage fesant and observe his BRaxall versus Thorold Trin. 8. Jac. In Replevin for the taking of 4 Oxen at Coringham in the County of Lincoln in a place called Dowgate leys Sept. 6. Jac. The Defendant says the place contained four acres in Coringham magna which was his Free-hold and justifies the taking damage fesant The Plaintiff in his bar to the Avowry that the place where c. lies in a place called Harrerart quarter parcell of a great Common Field called E. in Coringham aforesaid and that the Plaintiff the said time and long before was seized of one Messuage and of 14. acres of Land Medow and Pasture with the appurtenances to the said Messuage belonging and that the Plaintiff and all they whose estate the Plaintiff had in the Tenements ought to have common and so prescribed to have common for him his Farmers Tenants c. for all comunable cattell levant couchant upon the Tenements c. And upon issue taken upon the Common it was found for the Plaintif and alledged in arrest of Judgment that it did not appear by the Barre to the Avowry in what place the Messuage and Land to which the Common did appertain did lie to wit whether it did lie in Coringham or in any other place or County and thisof necessity ought to have been shewed in certain because the tenure ought to be both of the place where the House and Land did lye and of the place where the Land did lye in which the Common was claimed and therefore of necessity ought to have been shewed incertain and shall not of necessity be intended to be in Coringham where the Common is For a Common may be appendant or appurtenant to Land in another County And the trvall shall be of both Counties and Judgement was arrested by the whole Court TRuelock versus Riggsby Mich. 8. Jacobi In Replevin for the taking of six Kine in a place called Brisley hill in Radley in the County of Berks the Defendant as Bailiff of one Read makes Conisance that the place where c. contains fifty acres and is parcell of the Mannor of Barton whereof the place where c. is parcell and showes that E. 6. was seised of the Mannor of Barton whereof the place where is parcell and granted it by Letters Patents to R. Leigh and divers other Lands by the name of the Coxleyes c. and amongst other particulars in the Patent the King granted Brisley hill in Barton and deduces the Free-hold of the Mannor of which the place In which c. is parcell to Read and he as Bailiff to him took the Kine damage Fesant the Plaintiff replies and shows that one Hide was seised of a Messuage and divers Acres of Land in Radley and that he and those whose estate he hath for himself his Farmers and Tenants used to have Common in the said place called Brisley hill in Radley when the said Feild called Brisley hill in Radley was fresh and not sowed all that yeare with their Cattell Levant and Couchant and when the Field was sowne with Corne and when the Corne was carried away untill it was referred and so justifie the putting in of six Kine using his Common because the Feild was not sown with Corne at the time to which the Defendant pleads and saies that part of the Feild called Brisley Hill in the Avowry named was at that time sown with Corn c. and the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged for the Plaintiff for two reasons The first was because the Defendant in his Avowry referres the taking of the Cattell to another place then that set forth in the Avowry which is not in question and in which the Plaintiff claims no Common for the Plaintiff may claim Common in Brisley hill in Radley and the place named in the Defendants Avowry to which he referres his Plea is Brisley hill in Barton for Brisley hill in Radley is not named in the Avowry by any speciall name but onely by implication by this name the place in which c. and for that reason the rejoinder doth not answer the matter in the replication The second cause was because the Plaintiff claims Common when Brisley hill in Radley was unsown with Corn and the Defendant to that although his Plea should referre to the same Brisley yet hath he given no full answer for he saith that parcell of the said Feild was sowed with Corn and the Court held that sowing of parcell of the Feild shall not hinder the Plaintif from using his Common in the residue for that may be done by covin to deceive the Plaintiff of his Common for the Plaintif claiming his Common when the Field that is the whole Feild is sown shall be barred of his common by sowing of parcell of it notwithstanding that parcell be sowed the Plaintif shall have his common by the opinion of the whole court GOdfrey versus Bullein Mich. 8 Jacobi Bullein brought a Reple vin against Godfrey for the taking of six Beasts in such a place in Bale in the County of Norfolk the Defendant as Bailif of R. Godfrey makes conisance because before the time and at the time in which c. the said R. Geffrey was seised of a Court Leet in Baile of all the inhabitants and râ—â—dent within the Precinct of the Mannor of Baile to be holden within the Precinct of the Mannor as appertaining to his Mannor and shews how that he had used to have a Fine of ten shillings called a Leet Fine of all the cheif pledges of his Leet and if they failed to pay the Steward had used to amerce them that made default in payment shewed how that at a Court holden within the Mannor such a day it was presented that the Plaintif in the Replevin being an inhabitant in B. and resident within the Precinct of the Mannor made default in payment of the said Fine of ten shillings being then one of the cheif pledges of the Court by reason whereof he was amerced at five pounds which being not paid the Defendant took the Beasts and the Issue was whether Bullein at that court was a chief Pledge or no and the Venire to try his Issue was onely of the Mannor and found for the Plaintif and damages and costs to thirty pounds given against Geffrey upon which he brought a Writ of Error in the late Kings Bench and adjudged Error and the Judgement reversed for the Venire facias should have been both of Bail which was the Village as of the Mannor for although the Court be held within the Mannor yet the Leet it self is within the village of Baile and the Plaintiff was an inhabitant and resident within the village which village is within the Precinct of the Mannor and though Fleming cheif Justice held that nothing was in question but whether the Plaintiff was cheif pledge at the Court held within the Mannor or no and so nothing within the
BAnks against Barker Hill 12. Jac. rotulo 1979. In an Action of Trespass the venire facias was well awarded upon the case of the venu in Westown and of the Mannor of D. and the Writ of Venire was mistaken to wit of the venu of Westown and exception being taken after tryall the Court was moved for the amending of the venire facias by the roll and it was denyed because the Jury did come of another venu then they ought by the Law of the Land to come and therefore could not be amended but afterwards the Court seemed to be of an opinion that the awarding of the venu in the roll was mistaken because it was of the venu of the Villiage and Mannor and it should have been of the Mannor only being to try a custome of the Mannor FOrrest against Headle Hill 13. Jac rot 1123. An Action of Trespass brought and a continuando of the Trespass unto the day of the shewing forth the Plaintifs Originall to wit the 20. day of November which day was after the shewing forth of the Originall and because the Jury gave damages for the whole time which ought not to be it was proved that the Judgment upon the verdict might stay but by the whole Court the videlicet was held idle and Judgment given for the Plaintiff COcks against Barnsley Hill 10. Iac. rotulo 2541. An Action of Trespass brought and a speciall verdict found and the question was whether Land held in ancient Demesne was extendable for debt and an action of Trespass brought for that cause And Justice Nichols held it was extendable for otherwise if it should not be extendable there would be a fayler of Justice for if a Judgment should be had against a man that had no other Land but what was in ancient Demesne and that it could not be extendable there would be a fayler of Justice which the Law doth not allow of but an Assize or a re-disseisin doth not lye of Land in ancient Demesne because of the Seisin that must be given by the Common Law and it would be prejudicial to the Lord which the Law allows not and Wynch and Hubbard were of the same opinion For ancient demesne is a good plea where the Free-hold is to be recovered or brought in question but in an action of Trespass it is no plea. And note that by this execution neither the Free-hold nor Possession is removed but only the Sheriffe enters to make execution upon a Judgment had in the Common bench in debt which is a proper Action to be brought there WRight and his Wife against Mouncton Hill 12. Iac. rotulo 43. An Action of Trespass brought to which the Defend pleaded not guilty And the Husband only made a challenge that he was servant to one of the Sheriffs and prayes a processe to the Coroners and the Defendant denies the challenge and therefore notwithstanding the challenge the Venire issued to the Sheriffs and after a tryall exception was taken because the woman did not joyne in the challenge and it was held that the Husband and Wife should joyn in the challenge although the cause of challenge proceded from the Husband only but after tryall it was helped by the Statute of Ieofailes and judgment given for the Plaintiff BIde against Snelling Hill 16. Iac. rotulo 1819. An Action of Ejectment brought and also a Battery in one and the Writ and after a verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment because the Battery was joyned with the Ejectment The damages were found severally and the Plaintiff had released the damages for the Battery and prayed Judgment for the Ejectment Winch held the Writ naught but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff notwithstanding STeward and his Wife against Sulbury An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes the Close of the Wife while she was sole at D. hath broken and the wood of the said D. to the value of 1005. there lately growing hath cut down and carried away and in his Count shews that he hath cut downe two acres of wood and exception was taken because he declared of so many acres of wood and not of so many loads of wood to wit twenty c. loads and held by the Court to be a good exception BLackeford against Althin Trin. 14. Jac. rotulo 3376. An action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes a certain Horse of the said Plaintiffs took away c. The Defendant conveys to himselfe a certain annuity granted to him by one John Hott The Plaintiff shews that one William Hott Father of the said Iohn Hott the Grantor was seised of Land in Fee which Land was Gavel-kind Land and devised it to his Wife for life the remainder to Iohn Hott the Elder and Iohn Hott the Younger his Sonne and the Heirs of their bodies And afterwards William dyed and the Woman entred and was seised for life and the two sonnes entred and were seised in tayl and being so seised Iohn Hott the younger had issue Iohn Hott c. and traverses without this that Iohn Hott the Father at the time of granting the annuity was seised of the Tenements aforesaid with the appurtenances in his Demesne as of fee as c. And the Defendant as before saith that the said J. H. the Father at the time of the granting the annuity aforesaid was seised and after the tryall it was moved in Arrest of Judgment supposing it was mistried because the issue was that the said J. H. the Father at the time of the grant c. And it doth not appear that the said J. H. was nominated Father neither could it appear that the said J. H. was the Father and so the word Father was idle and the Court were of opinion that it was helped by the Statute of Ieofailes and the word Father was idle and judgment was given for the Plaintiff A. brought an Action of Battery against the Husband and Wife and two others the Wife and one of the others without the Husband pleads not guilty and the Husband and the other pleaded seu assault demesne and tryed and alledged in arrest of Judgment because the Woman pleaded without her Husband and Judgment was stayed and a Repleader alledged and this case was confirmed by a case which was between Yonges and Bartram HArvy against Blacklole Trin. 8. Jacobi rotulo 1749. An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by force and Armes his Mare so strictly to a Gelding did fetter that by that fettring the Mare aforesaid did dye If a stranger take a Horse that cometh and strayeth into a Mannor the Lord may have his action of Trespass If my stray doth stray out of my Mannor and goeth into another Mannor the day before the yeare be ended I cannot enter into the other Mannor to fetch out the stray If I take an Horse as a stray and onother taketh him from me the Action lyeth not by the Owner against the second taker
But in this case before Attornement the Grantee hath nothing and after Attornement the particuler Estate being granted it shall be drownd in the reversion Harris Serjeant the words of the devise are that his Feoffees and all other Persons which after his Death shall be seised shall be seised to the same uses before declared and of one Acre he hath not any Feoffees for of that the Feoffment was voyd and yet it was agreed that the devise was good as Lyngies Case was in 35. H. 8 cited by Anderson in Welden and Elkintons Case Commentaries 523 b. And he argued that though that when a conveyance may enure in severall courses yet it cannot enure for part in one course and part in another course and for that this devise enures as a devise of Land for one Acre and declaration of the use of the Feoffment foâ—…her Acre for it is agreed in Sir Rowland Haywards Case 2. 〈…〉 a. 6. Coke 18. a. Sir Edward Cleeres Case and also in this 〈◊〉 the devisor hath made expresse declaration that the Land shall passe by the Feoffment and that the Will shall be but a declaration of the use of the Feoffment and for that nothing shall passe by the devise with which the Justices seemed to accord and cited a case to be adjudged in the Kings Bench 40. Eliz. where the Father gives and grants Lands to his Son his heires with warranty and makes a Letter of Attorney within the deed to make Livery and adjudged that that shall not enure as a Covenant to raise a use for that that it appeares by the Letter of Attorney that his intent was that that should enure as a Feoffment and not as any other manner of conveyance see 14 Eliz. Dyer 311. 83. Master Cromwells Case and so it was adjudged accordingly Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench Gargrave against Gargrave Katherine Gargrave was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Sir Richard Gargrave Knight and the case was this The Father of Sir Richard Gargrave was seised of divers Tenements called Lyngell Hall in Lyngell Hall and of a Moore called Kingstey Moore in another Town and the Tenants of the said Father of Sir Richard have used to have Common in the said Moore and the said Father so being of that seised demised the said Tenements to the said Katherine Gargrave for her Joynture by these words by the name of Hingell Hall and certaine Land Meadow and Pasture in certainty and with all â—ands Tenements and Hereditaments to that belonging or with that occupied and enjoyed now or late in the Tenure of one Nevill and Nevill was Tenant of the said premises and had Common in Kingsley Moore upon which the question was if the said Katherine by this demise shal have Common in the said Moore or not And Hutton Serjeant argued that the said Katherine shall have Common in the said Moore for he said that the said demise shall be expounded according to the intent of the partie 〈◊〉 as it is agreed in Hill and Granges Case Commentaries 270. b. Where a man makes a Lease for yeares of a house and all the Lands to that belonging and though it is there agreed that Land cannot be appurtenant to a house yet this word appurtenant shall be taken in the effect and sense of usually occupied with the Messuage or lying to the house by which it appeares that the words are transferred from the proper signification to another to satisfie the intent of the parties for it is the office of the Judges to take and expound the words which the common People use to expresse their intent according to their intent and for that shall be taken not according to the very definition insomuch that it doth not stand with the matter but in such manner as the party used them And for that this grant shall amount to a new grant of Common in the said Moor for as it seems common or feeding for Cattell may be granted and passe by the name of Tenements Hereditaments or at least shall be included and comprised within the words Tenements and Hereditaments and so shall be construed as a thing occupied and injoyed with the said Messuages see Hen. Finches Case 39. Coke And it was an expresse endorsment upon the demise that the said Katherine should not have Common in the said Moore but it was agreed by all that this was vaine and idle and nothing worth but he urged that this shall have a favorable construction for that it was for Joynture which shall have as favorable construction as Dower And so he prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff and of the other part Nicholls Serjeant argued that this shall not amount to a new grant for he said that they are not apt words to receive such construction for he said that this is no Tenement or Hereditament no Common but only a Feeding for the Cattell of the Lessee in the wast of the Lessor see 20. Edw. 2. Fitzherbert admeasurement and it cannot passe as a thing used with the said house for that was not in Esse at the time of the grant and there is not any apt word to make a new grant â—nd he cited 〈◊〉 Iudgement in Action of wast between Arden and Darcy where Ardon was seised of the Mannor of Curball and also of Parkhall and makes a conveyance of the Mannor of Curball to divers uses and at this time parcell of the Mannor of Curball was occupied with Parkhall as parcell of that and after made another conveyance of all his Lands in England except the Mannor of Curball And adjudged that the Parke which is used with Parkhall shall not be within the exception Coke saith that it was only feeding and not Hereditament for the Inheritance of both was in the Lessor but if it be granted of feeding it shall be intended the same like feeding that the Tenant hath as if the King grant such Liberties as the City of London hath and that shall be good and so it was adjourned Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Cannige against Doctor Newman IN an Information upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. chapter 13. Of non-residency it was found by speciall Verdict that Doctor Newman was Incumbent invested in the Rectory of Staplehurst in the County of Kent and that hee was also seised of a house in Staplehurst aforesaid scituate within twenty yards of the said Rectory and that the mansion house of the said Rectory was in good repaire and that Doctor Newman held that in his hands and occupation with his one proper goods and did not let it to any other and that he inhabited in the said Messuage and not in the Parsonage the Statute of 21 H. 8 chapter 13. Provides that every Parson promoted to any Parsonage shall be personally resident and abiding in at and upon his said Benefice and in case any such spirituall Parson keep not residence at his Benefice as aforesaid but absent himself willfully by the space
others which were present at the said marriage or Actors in that And upon Evidence it appeared that Doctor Hussey was not present nor Actor in it and for that the Jury found him not guilty but they found all the other Defendants guilty of the said Ravishment for upon the Evidence it appeares that the Wife of Doctor Hussey procured and provided the Minister which married them and in the last Michaelmas Terme this was tried here at the Barr and the Jury assessed Dammages to ten pound and the value of the Ward to eighty pound for so much Moore proved that he could have sold him for and also the Jury found that the Ward doth appeare married being of the Age of 16. yeares at the time of his marriage and exceptions were taken to that for that it was not found of what age the Ward was at the time of the verdict and it was urged by Dodridge that by the Statute of Westminster 2. chapt 39. The precise age ought to be found at the time of the verdict Secondly it was found that the Ward did appeare married and doth not say without License of the Guardian and the Guardian may give his consent where the Ward marries himselfe and then there is no cause of action The third and other exception was taken in the behalfe of the Wife of Doctor Hussey for that shee being a married Wife was found guilty of Ravishment of Ward against the Statute of Westminster the 2. chap. 39. And it was urged that it was not the intent of the Statute that provides that he which did Ravish not having right in the marriage though he should restore the Boy naked and not married or should satisfie for the marriage he shall be punished for the transgression by Imprisonment for two yeares and if he shall not restore him or shall marry the Heire after the marrying yeares and cannot satisfie for the marriage he shall abjure the Realme or shall have perpetuall Imprisonment And it was objected that a married woman was not intended to be within this Statute for it is apparent that a married woman hath not wherewith to make satisfaction and it shall not be intended that she shall have perpetuall Imprisonment or make abjuration for this was to make separation betweene the Husband and his Wife and so it was adjourned And the Judges moved the parties to compound amongst themselves see Michaelmas 8. Jacobi Trinity 9 Jacobi Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Kenricke against Pargiter and Phillipps RObert Pargiter Gentleman and John Phillipps were summoned to answer to Robert Kenricke Gentleman of a Plea why they tooke the Beasts of the said Robert Kenricke and those unjustly detained against Suerties and Pledges c. And thereupon the said Robert Kenricke by Thomas Pilkington his Attorney doth complaine that the said Robert and John the fourth day of August the yeare of the Reigne of our now King seventh at Kings Sutton in a certaine place called Great Greenes took Beasts that is to say one Gelding one Mare and one Colt of the said Robert Kenrickes and do unjustly detaine them against Suerties and Pledges untill c. By which meanes he saith he is the worse and hath losse to the value of twenty pound and therefore bringeth this suit c. And the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John Phillipps by John Barton their Attorney do come and defend the force and Injury when c. And the said Robert Pargiter in his owne right doth well avow and the aforesaid John Phillipps as Bailiff of the said Robert Pargiter doth well acknowledge the taking of the said Beasts in the aforefaid place in which c. and justly c. Because he saith that the said place in which it is supposed the taking of the said Beasts to be made did containe and at the aforesaid time in which it is supposed the taking of the aforesaid Beasts to be made did containe in it foure Acres of Meadow in Kings Sutton aforesaid which the said Robert Pargiter long before the aforesaid time in which c. and also at the same time in which c. was and as yet appeareth seised of one Messuage and one virge of land with the appurtenances in Kings Sutton in his Demesne as of Fee and that the aforesaid Robert Kenrick the aforesaid time when c. and long before was seised of a Messuage and foure Virges of land with the appurtenances in Kings Sutton aforesaid whereof the aforesaid place in which c. Is and at the aforesaid time when c. and also at the time to the contrary doth not appeare in the memory of man was parcell in his Demesne as of Fee And the said Robert Pargiter and John Phillipps further say that the said Robert Pargiter and all those whose Estate the said Robert Pargiter now hath and at the aforesaid time when c. had in the aforesaid Messuage and one Virge of Land with the Appurtenances of the said Robert Pargiter from time the contrary whereof doth not appeare in the memory of man had and have used to have and were accustomed to have Common of Pasture in the aforesaid place c. For six Horses Geldings or Mares two Colts six young Beasts called Steeres or young Beasts called Heifers and two Mares called breeders in and upon the said Messuage and one Virge of Land with the Appurtenances lying and rising in manner and forme following that is to say every year in and from the first day of August called Lammas day untill the feast of the purification of the blessed Mary the Virgin then next following as to the said Messuage and one Virge of Land with the Appurtenances belonging and the said Robert Pargiter and John Phillipps further say that the aforesaid Robert Kenricke of the aforesaid Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the Appurtenances whereof c. In the forme aforesaid appearing seised the said Robert and all those whose Estate the said Robert Kenricke now hath and at the aforesaid time in which c. had in the aforesaid Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the Appurtenances whereof c. time out of mind had and were used and accustomed to have the aforesaid place in which c. To their proper use in severalty every year in and from the feast of the purification of the blessed Virgin Mary untill the first day of August called Lammas day then next comming that by reason and in consideration therof he the aforesaid Robert Kenrick and all those whose Estate the said Robert Kenrick now hath and at the time in which c. had in the aforesaid Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the Appurtnances whereof c. time out of minde have had and were accustomed to have every yeare from the aforesaid first day of August called Lammas day and from thence untill the aforesaid purification then next following Common of pasture in the aforesaid place in which c. Only for three Mares
or Geldings and no more and because the Beasts aforesaid in the narration aforesaid specified over and above the aforesaid other three Mares or Geldings the aforesayd time in which c. were in the aforesayd place in which c the Grasse then growing there eating and the Common of pasture of the sayd Robert Pargiter overcharging and doing damage to the sayd Robert there the sayd Robert Pargiter in his owne right doth wel avow and the aforesayd John Phillips as Bayliff of the aforesayd Pargiter doe well acknowledge the taking of the Beasts aforesayd in the aforesayd place in which c. and justly c. they then doing damage there c. And the aforesayd Robert Kenrick saith That neither the sayd Robert Pargiter for the reason before alleadged the taking of the aforesayd Beasts in the aforesayd place in which c. can justly avow nor the aforesayd John Phillips as Bayliff of the aforesayd Pargiter for the same reason the taking of the Beasts aforesayd in the aforesayd place in which c. justly can acknowledge Because by protestation that he the sayd Robert Kenrick and all those whose estate the sayd Robert Kenrick now hath and at the aforesayd time of the taking c. had in the sayd Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the appurtenances whereof c. time out of minde had not nor used to have or were accustomed every yeare at the first day of August called Lammas day and from thence to the next Feast of the Parification then next following Common of pasture in the aforesayd place in which c. onely for three Horses Mares or Geldings and not more in manner and forme as the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips above have alleadged for Plea the sayd Robert Kenrick sayth That he long before the time of the taking of the Beasts aforesayd and also at the same time of the taking c. was seised of the Mannor of Kings Sutton with the appurtenances in Kings Sutton and Astrop in the County aforesayd whereof the aforesayd Messuage and four Virges of Land with the appurtenances whereof c. are and at the aforesayd time of the taking c. and also time out of mind c. were parcell in his Demesne as of Fee and the aforesayd House and foure Virges of Land with the appurtenances thereof c. and of the taking and likewise time out of mind were parcell of the Demesne Lands of the Mannor of Kings Sutton aforesayd And the sayd Robert Kenrick so of the Mannor aforesayd with the appurtenances in manner aforesayd appearing seised the sayd Robert before the sayd time in which c. put his Beasts aforesayd which then were the proper Beasts of the sayd Robert Kenrick upon the aforesayd House and four Virges of Land with the appurtenances lying and rising in the aforesayd place in which c. to eate the Grafs there growing in the sayd place in which c. called Great Greens parcell c. the Grass in the same then growing feeding and the aforesayd Beasts were in the place aforesayd untill the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips the aforesayd fourth day of August the seventh yeare aforesayd at Kings Sutton aforesayd in the County aforesayd at Great Greene parcell c. took the sayd Beasts of the sayd Robert Kenrick and those unjustly detained against Sureties and Pledges untill c. as he above against those complaines and this he is ready to verifie whereof and from which the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips the taking of the aforesayd Beasts in the aforesayd place c. further acknowledge the sayd Robert Kenrick demands Judgment and his damages by reason of the taking and unjust detaining of those beasts to be adjudged unto him c. And the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John Phillips say that the aforesaid Plea of the said Robert Kenrick above in the Bar avowed pleaded and matter therein contained is very insufficient in Law justly to avoid the said Robert Pargiter and the said John from just acknowledging the taking of the Beasts aforesaid to have and shut up and that he to the said plea in manner and forme aforesaid pleaded hath no need not by the Law of the Land shall be held to answer and this they are ready to averr whereof for default of a sufficient plea of the aforesaid Robert Kenrick in this part the said Robert and John as before demand Judgement and Returne of the Beasts aforesaid together with their Damages c. To them to be adjudged c. And the aforesaid Robert Kenrick in respect he hath sufficient matter in Law justly to avoid the said Robert Pargiter and the aforesaid John from justly acknowledging the taking of the said Beasts to be shut out as above alledged which he is reaoy to verify which truly matter of the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John do not answer according to their verifying they altogether refuse to admit as before and demand Judgment and their Damages occasioned by the taking and unjust detaining of the said Beasts to be adjudged to them c. And because c. Upon the pleadings the Case was thus a Freeholder prescribs to have common in parcell of the Demesnes of the Mannor for six Horses and other Cattel in certain Land from Lammas to Candlemas that the Lord of the Mannor hath used to have the said Parcell of Land in severall to his owne use from Candlemas to Lammas and in consideration of that the said Lord hath used to have Common in the said parcell of Land for Horses only and not more and the Lord unjustly puts in other Beasts then the said three Horses in the said parcel of Land and surcharged the Common and the Free-holder distrayned them doing Damage and the Lord brings a Replevin and it was argued that prescription was not good for that that Free-holder claimes that as Common without number in his severall Soyle the Grantee cannot exclude the owner of the Soile 12 H. 8. Brooke so of him which hath Common Fishing in the severall of another he cannot exclude him which hath the severall 18 H. 6. 16. And it is not like to the Case of the time of Edward the first prescription the 55. Where is Prescription that the Owner of the Soile shall be excluded from his Common for part of the yeare for there the other claimes all the Vesture of the Land and so may well exclude the Lord but not when he claimes it but as Common but it was agreed that by Lawes by the Commoners consent they may order that their great Cattell shall be put in in such Feild only untill such a Feast and after that for sheep and swine and this is good as it appears by 46 Ed. 3. 25. And Coke cheife Justice said that such prescription to have Common and to exclude the Owner of the Soyle is not good and he saith that so it hath been adjudged between Whyte of Shirland 31 Eliz. And in
shall be said conclusion and agreement within the said Provision and for that as it seemes it is so uncertain as going about but admitting that it is good yet it shall be good but to some purpose but not to restraine the Daughter which was Tenant in taile to do lawfull Acts as to suffer a Recovery or to levy a Fine as it is resolved in Mildmayes case 6 Coke 40. By which it appears that she hath as well power to dispose that by Recovery as of Fee simple notwithstanding that the Reversion remaines in the Giver as it appears by 12 Ed. 4. 3. For all lawfull Acts made by Tenant in taile shall binde the Issue as 44 Ed. 3. Octavian Lumbards Case Grant of Rent for Release of right is good and shall binde the Issue for there are foure incidents to an Estate tayle First That he shall not be punished for Waste Secondly That his Wife shall be indowed Thirdly That the Husband of the Wife Tenant in Tayle shall be Tenant by the Courtisie Fourthly That Tenant in Tayle may suffer common recovery So that a Condition which restraines him so that he cannot suffer a common Recovery is void for it is incident to his act and it is a lawful Act and for the benefit of the Issue as it is intended in respect of the intended recompence and he said that a Feoffment to a woman covert or infant shall be conditionall that they shall not make a Feoffment during their disability is good for that the Law hath then made them disable to make a Feoffment so a Lease for life or years upon condition that he shall not alien is good in respect of the confidence that was reposed in them by the Lessor and so concluded that the Condition in this Case which restraines Tenant in Taile generally from alienation First was uncertain in respect of the words conclude and agree Secondly for that it was against Law so void and for that prayed Judgment for the Defendant Hutton Serjeant for the Plaintiff he argued that the verball agreement of the Wife shall bind her notwithstanding the Coverture for that that this is for her benefit for in performance of the said agreement she suffers a recovery to the use of her selfe and her Heires and so Dockes the remainder and he agreed the cases put by the other part which concerne free-hold but he said in cases of Limitation of Estates as if Limitation be if a Ring be tendred by a woman that the Land shall remaine to her and she takes a Husband and after that she and the Husband tender the Ring this shall be sufficient tender and it shall be intended the Act of the wife and 10. H 7. 20. a. A man devises his Lands to a married woman to be sold she may sell them to her Husband And though that it be not any agreement of the Husband only yet here is an act done in a Precipe brought against the Wife and she vouches over for that is not only an agreement but an Act executed upon which the Estate Limited to the eldest Sister shall take effect and the 2. Coke the 27. a. Beckwiths Case If the Husband and the Wife joyne in a Fine of Land of the Wife the Wife only without the Husband may declare the use of that And he intended it was a Limitation and not a condition and so it might be well at this day in case of devise and then the Act shall be that the Estate is Limited to have beginning being made the Estate of the youngest Daughter which made the Act shall be destroyed and determined for if it be a condition then all the Daughters shall take advantage of that and this was not the intent of the Devisor for they are the parties which should be restrained by the devise from Alienation And also he cited Wenlocke and Hamonds Case cited in Bractons Case 3. Coke 20. b. Where a Copy-holder in fee of Lands devisable in Burrough English having three Sons and a Daughter deviseth his Lands to his eldest Son paying to his Daughter and to his other Sons forty shillings within two yeares after his death the Devisor maketh surrender according to the use of his Will and dieth the eldest Son admitted and doth not pay the money within the two yeares and adjudged that though the word paiment makes a condition yet in this case of devise the Law construes that to a Limitation and the reason is there given to be for that that is it shall be a condition then that shall discend upon the eldest Son and then it stands at his pleasure if the Brothers or Sister shall be paid or not and 29. Assis 17. cytes in Nourse and Scholasticas Case Commentaries 412. b. where a man seised of Lands in Fee devisable deviseth them to one for life and that he should be Chapleine and single for his Soule all his life so that after his decease the sayd tenements should remaine to the Commonalty of the same Towne to finde a Chapleine perpetuall for the same Tenements and dyed and adjudged that this shall not be a condition of which the heir shal take advantage but limitation upon which the remainder shall take effect and also he cyted S. E. Clâ—ers Case 6 Coke 18. a. b. 11 H. 7. 17. Pennants Case 3 Coke 65. a. That if a man makes a Lease for years upon a condition to cease that after the condition is broken grantee of reversion may take advantage of that so he said in the case at the Bar when the first Estate is determined and destroyed by the limitation then he to whom the Remainder is limited shall take advantage of that and not the Heire for as he intended an Estate of Inheritance may as well cease by limitation of devise as tearme as in 15 Ed. 4. Lands are given to one so long as he hath heires of his body the remainder over and if he dye without heires of his body the remainder over shall vest without entry and the Free-hold shall vest in him and 2 and 3. Phil. and Mary Dyer 127. and 56. Fisher and Warrens Case If a man devise Lands to one for life the remainder over upon condition that if he do such an act that his estate shal cease and he in remainder may immediately enter there he in remainder shall take advantage though he be a stranger for that that the Estate determines there without re-entry And he saith that the Case of Wellock and Hamond cyted in Barastons Case was a stronger Case then this for there the limitation was upon Fee-simple and here it is upon an Estate tayle and the Law hath favourable respect to devises as in Barastones Case is alteration of words for the better exposition of that for Shall is altered to Should and also see 16 Eliz. Dyer 335. 29. for the marshalling of absurd words in a Will for the expounding of that and 18 Eliz. Cheekes Case he cyted to be adjudged that
to whom the private damage is done may have action And he said that the Register contains many Writs for publique wrong when that is done to private men as fol. 95. A man fixes a pale crosse a navigable River by which a Ship was cast away and the Owner maintained action of Trespasse And fol. 97. A man brought Trespasse against one which cast dung into a River by which his Medow was drowned so if the River be infected with watering Hemp or Flax he which hath fishing there may maintain action of Trespasse and 2 H. 4. 11. Action of Trespasse by one for ploughing of Land where one had a common way and so it is 13. H. 7. 17. One brings an action of Trespasse against another for erecting a Lyme Kill where many others are annoyed by that So by an assault made upon a servant the Master and servant also may have severall actions and so in the other cases many may have actions and yet this is no reason to conclude any one of them that hee shall not have his action for in truth those are rather actions upon the Case then actions of Trespass for the truth of the Case is contained in the Writ Also in this case it doth not appeare that there are any other Commoners which have Common there and for that this Objection is not to the purpose and it appears by Heisman and Crackesoods Case 4 Coke 31. That Copy-holder shall have Common by prescription in the demesnes of the Lord and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Coke cheife Justice said that it was adjudged in this Court Trinity 41 Eliz. Rot. 153. b. between Holland and Lovell where Commoner brings an action upon the Case as this Case is against a stranger which pleads not guilty and it was found by verdict for the Plaintiff and it was after adjudged for the Plaintiff for insomuch that the Plaintiff may take them damage feasant that proves that he hath wrong and this is the reason that he may distraine doing dammage And by the same reason if the Beasts are gone before his comming he may have action upon his Case for otherwise one that hath many Beasts may destroy all the Common in a night and doe great wrong and shaâ—l not be punished and it is not like to a Nusance for that is publique and may be punished in a Leet but the other is private to the Commoners and cannot be punished in another place nor course and he also cyted one Whitehands case to be adjudged where many Copy-holders prescribe to have Loppings and Toppings of Pollards and Husbands growing upon the Waste of the Lord and the Lord cuts them and one Copy-holder only brings his action upon the Case and adjudged that it was very well maintainable notwithstanding that every other Copy-holder may have the same remedy And he said also that so it was adjudged in the Kings Bench Hillary 5 Jacobi Rot. 1427. in George Englands Case And 2 Edw. 2. b. Covenant 49. If a man Covenant with 20. to make the Sea banks with A. B. and every one of them and after he doth not doe it by which the Land of two is drowned and damnified and they two may have an action of Covenant without the others Quere for it seems every one shall have an action by himselfe But Foster and Wynch Justices seemed that the Plaintiffe ought to sue in his Court that the Beasts of the stranger escaped in the Common or were put in by the Owner for it may be they were put in by the Lord which was owner of the Soile or by a stranger in which cases the Owner of the Beasts shall not be punished But Coke and Warburton seemed the contrary and that this ought to be averred and pleaded by the Defendant in excuse of the Trespasse as in action of Trespasse why he broke his Close And so it was adjourned see Gosnolds case 490. see Judgment Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Henry Higgins against George Biddle IN Replevin the Defendant made Conusance as Bayliff to Sir Thomas Leigh and Daine Katherine his Wife intimating that Isabel Bradburn was seised of the place where c. in their demesne as of Fee and so seised the first of June 15 H. 8. gives this to the Lord Anthony Fitzherbert and Maud his Wife and to the Heirs males of their bodies which have Issue Thomas Fitzherbert Knight John Fitzherbert and William Fitzherbert Anthony and Maud dyed and the said place where c. discended to Sir Thomas Fitzherbert as Heire to the Donees to the Intayl and the said Thomas Fitzherbert the 5. of Aprill 6 Edw. 6. of that enfeoffed Humphrey Swinnerton Ralph Cotton and Roger Baily to the use of William Fitzherbert and Elizabeth his Wife for their lives and after to the use of Sir Thomas Fitzherbert and the Heirs of his body the remainder to the use of the right Heirs of the said William Fitzherbert William Fitzherbert dyed Sir Thomas Fitzherbert disseised the said Elizabeth and the said John Fitzherbert had Issue Thomas and dyed Sir Thomas Fitzherbert dyed without Heir of his body and the said place where c. discended to the said Thomas as Cousin Heir of the said Sir Thomas and Son and Heir of the said John Fitzherbert which enters and was seised to him and to the Heirs Males of his body as in his Remitter And the said Thomas Fitzherbert 4 of Novemb. 39. Eliz. by Indenture of Bargain and Sale enrolled in the Chancery within six moneths bargained and sold the said Land to Sir William Leighton his heirs and Sir William Leighton 5 of Novemb. 43. Eliz. by Indenture enrolled within six moneths for 4000. l. bargained and sold the said land where c. to Sir Thomas Leigh and Dame Katherine as aforesaid and so avowed the taking for doing damage And the Plaintiff for Barr to the said Avowry pleads that well and true it is that the said Sir William Leighton was seised of the said place where c. in his Demesne as of Fee as it was alledged by the Defendant But further hee saith that the said Sir William Leighton so being thereof seised 1 Decemb 44 Eliz. enfeoffed the Plaintiff in fee and by force of that the Plaintiff was seised and put in his Beasts into the said place where c. without that that the said Sir William Leighton bargained and sold the said Land in which c. to the said Sir Thomas Leighton and Katherine his Wife as in the Conusance hath been alledged by the Defendant upon which the Defendants joyn Issue and it was agreed by all the Justices that notwithstanding this admission of the Parties is an Estoppell by the pleading yet as well the Plaintiffe as the Defendant were admitted to give another evidence to the Jury against their own pleading that is that Sir William Leighton was not seised and so nothing passed by the bargain and sale and also
this shall passe for him which pleads the demise of the Mannor Then if in Judiciall proceeding the Law makes such favourable construction to make that passe by a Mannor which is no Mannor in truth because it hath been usually known by the name of a Mannor then it seemes to him a Fortiore that no more beneficiall construction shall be made in conveiances which allwaies shall be construed to the intent and meaning of the parties and so it seemes to him that the Common remaines and Crooke Yelverton and the cheife Justice Flemming conceived that in reason he shall have the Common but they did not give any absolute opinion as to that But Williams Justice to the contrary and that the Lessee for yeares cannot have more then he contracted for in his Lease and then the Vsitatum void and the Lessees have taken that by wrong And this Grant having reference to a void and wrongfull usage is not good and it is adjourned Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Stydson against Glasse Stydson brought an Ejectione Firme against Glasse and upon speciall Verdict the case was this that is That one Holbeame was seised of the Land in question in Fee and made a Lease for life to Margret Glasse and after covenanted with John Glasse Husband of the said Wife Lessee that before such a day he would Levie a Fine to A. B. and to the Heires of A. of the same Lands which Fine should be to the use of the said Glasse for sixty yeares to begin after the death of the said Margeret Glasse with Proviso within the same Indentures that if the said Holbeame at a certaine day should pay to the said John Glasse a hundred pounds that then the Lease should cease and then of that the Conusees should stand seised to the use of the said John for his naturall life and after the said Holbeame disseised the said Margeret Glasse the Lessee and made a Feoffment to the use of himselfe and one Alice with whom he intended to marry and to the Heire of their two bodyes begotten the remainder to the right Heires of the Feoffor and after the sayd Feoffor and Alice intermarried and after the said Holbeam tendred a hundred pound to the sayd John Glasse the Lessee for years and after the sayd John Glasse assigned over his Tearme and after the sayd Holbeam by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the said Land to the said John Glasse and his Heir and after Iohn Glasse dyed and the Inheritance discended to the said Margeret Glasse Lessee for life the Conusor dies his Wife enters and lets to the Plaintiff the Defendant enters upon him and the Plaintiff re-enters and brings Trespass against the Defendant which justifies as servant to the Assignees of the Tearm and if upon all the matter c. And it was argued by Nicholls Serjeant for the Plaintiff and he moved three points in the case First if by this feoffment upon such condition as this is had been Extinct at the Common Law or remaines to the Feoffor notwithstanding the feoffment for if he have interest in the Land then it is extinct by the Livery for it is given of the Feoffor and past out of him and yet the Feoffee cannot have and for that it is extinct but if it were but Authority as in 15 H. 7. Authority to sell the land of the Devisor then the Authority remaines and is not extinct by the Feoffment of the land so power of Revocation to a stranger which is but authority is not extinct by a feofment Albaines case Coke 112. a. But if it be right in Interest then it is extinct by the feofment as power of revocation to the Party himself resolved to the point in Albains case so of Title to a Writ of Deceit 38 Ed. 3. So of a title to be Tenant by the Curtesie 9 H 7. 1. But by 42 Edw. 3. by a Feoffment made by a Parson of Land of his Rectory the Tythes of that Land are not extinct but remaines notwithstanding the Feoffment for that it was collaterall to the title of the Land as the Cases of Authority are which were put before then if this power to alter a Lease by payment of a hundred pound be not any right nor Interest but a collaterall power and the authority not extinct by the Feoffment but remaines but admitting that it is in nature of an ordinary Condition and that before the Statute it should be extinct by the Feoffment for that it is the gift of the Feoffor and yet it is not transferable to the Feoffee If now by the Statute of 32 H. 8. which inables Grantees of reversions to take advantage of Conditions if the condition be not transferred to the Feoffees and so over to he to whose use that then by consequence this remaines to the Feoffor which was the he to whose use and then the tender of the money after well may alter the Lease it seems that so for before the Statute if a Lease for yeares had been made upon condition to cease and after the Lessor enters upon the Lessee and makes a Feoffment and the Lessee re-enter and breakes the condition the Feoffee shall take advantage of that condition being by way of ceasing of an Estate so after the Statute the Feoffee of the Lessor shall take advantage of the condition of Re-entry and of every other condition annexed to the reversion as well as of one condition to cease before the Statute and as well that every Grantee shall doe since the Statute for though that he comes in by Feoffment which is wrong to the Lessee yet after the re-entry the Lessee is in nature of a Grantee And he cyted the Case of Clyfford Error 7. Ed. 6. to be that Lessor entred upon his Lessee and made a Feoffment if the Lessee re-enter the Rent and the Condition are revived againe and the Feoffee shall have both see Cliffords Error 7. Ed. 6. Dyer the last case and 1. M. Dyer 96. 43. but there is not any such matter and for that it seemes that he hath another report of this case of Cliffords Error or otherwise he meant some other case and not Cliffords Error so is our case the condition being inherent to the reversion shall passe with the reversion be that by grant or feoffment and when the reversion is revived by the entry of the Lessee the condition shall be revived also and it is the more strong insomuch that the Condition is that upon the payment of the money the Lease for years shall cease and not that the Lessor shall re-enter that such Feoffee shall take advantage of a condition by way of ceasing of that at the Common Law 2. point and for the second point he would not argue against that that he took to be cleer and for that he conceived the Law to be against his Clyent in this point though that after the Disseisin and Feoffment the free-hold could not accrue
part this shall not extend to other persons Commoners and it is like to the case in 9 Eliz. Dyer 257. 13. A man makes a Lease for years and covenants that the Lessee shal injoy the Tearm without eviction of the Lessor or any claiming under him if he be evicted by a stranger this shal be no breaking of the Covenant for a stranger is no party to the Deed nor claims under the Lessor and for this his Entry shal not give Action to the Lessee and so is the Case in 21 H. 7. between the Prior of Castleton and the Dean of Saint Stephens which was adjudged the 18 of H. 7. Pasch Rot. 416. Though that no Judgment be reported where it appears that the King Ed. 3. seised al the Lands of Priors aliens in time of War for that that they carried the Treasure of the King out of the Realme to the Kings Enemies and so it was made by H. 4. also during the time of his Reign and then in the second year of the Reign of King H. 5. by a statute made between the King and the sayd Priors aliens al the Possessions of the sayd Priors were resumed into the hands of the sayd King and adjudged in 21. H. 7. 1. before that this shal not extend to the Prior of Castleton which had Annuities issuing out of the Possessions of the sayd Priors for the said Prior of Castleton was not party to the sayd act of Parliament and for that he shal not be prejudiced by that and so it was adjudged 25. and 26. Eliz. In the Court of VVards in the case of one Boswell where the King made a Lease for years which was voydable and after by another Patent granted the Inheritance and then came the statute of 18. Eliz. to confirm al Patents made by the sayd Queen within her time and adjudged that the sayd Act shal not make the sayd patent voyd to the Patentee which is a stranger to the act of the Parliament but only against the Queen her Heirs and successors for by the statute it is made only against one person only and shal not be good against another though there be no saving of such person in the sayd Act. And also he conceived that the statute of 22 Ed. 4. Doth not extend to any woods in forrest in which another hath Common for it doth not extend only to such woods which a common person hath in the Kings forrest or common person and that it may be inclosed for the space of three years after the cutting of the wood in this before the making of the sayd statute and this was no wood in which an Estranger had Common as it appears by the Preamble of the sayd statute and then after in the sayd statute it is sayd such woods may be inclosed And also he conceived where the statute sayth that they may inclose the same Grounds with such sufficient hedges able to keep out all manner of Beasts and Cattell out of the same Grounds but this refers to the quality of the hedge for before it ought to be a small Ditch and by this statute it ought to be with such hedg which shall be able c. And it shall not be referred to the manner of the Cattell But for the difference between Beasts of Forrest Beasts of Chase and Beasts of Warrain see the Register fol. 96. 43 Ed. 3. 13. 12. H. 8. 12. b. Hollinsheads Cronicle fol. 20. b. 32. And he conceived that Sir Francis Barrington is such a Vendee of Wood that is within the statute though that he be Vendee of Inheritance and hath a greater Estate then Vnica vice but for that that he conceived that it was not within the statute for other reasons before cyted he would not dispute it But he conceived if this had been the question of the Case that this was within the statute and also he conceived that this was a generall statute of which the Judges shall take notice without pleading of this And this reason was for that that the King was party to it and this which concernes the King being the head concernes all the Body and Common Wealth and so it was adjudged in the Chancery in the case of Serjeant Heale that the statute by which the Prince is created Prince of VVales was a general statute and for that see the Lord Barkleyes case in the Commentaries Also he conceived that the said statute of 22 of Ed. 4. was repealed by 35. H. 8. for this was in the Negative that none shal cut any wood but only in such manner as is prescribed by the said statute and for that shal be a repeale of the first and that by the first Branch of the sayd statute it appeares that if such giving of Wood in his own Soyl within any forrest he cut to his own use he cannot inclose and by that Branch Commoner is not excluded but by the second Branch it is provided that he may inclose the fourth part of his Wood and cut that in such manner as is appointed by the said statute and then he shal loose his own Common in the three other parts and so he concluded that Judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff which is the Commoner and Judgment was entred accordingly Pasch 1610. 8. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Cesar against Bull. THomas Cesar Plaintiff in Assise against Emanuel Bull for the Office of Clock-Keeper to the Prince this he claims by grant of the King during his own Life with the fee of two shillings a day for the exercising of it and three pound yearly for Livery and the patent purports only the Grant of the Office and not words of creation of the Office as Constituimus officium c. And the Plaintiff could prove that it was an ancient Office and for that was non-suited in the Assise though that the Tenant had made default before Pasch 1610. 8. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Heyden against Smith and others THE Plaintiff counts in Trespasse against these Defendants and these Defendants justifie as Servants to Sir John Leventhorp who was seised of a free-hold of Land in which the Tree for which the action was brought was cut and so demands Judgment if action the Plaintiff replyes that the place where c. was parcel of a house and twenty Acres of Land which time out of mind c. have been demised and demisable by Copy of Court Roll which was parcel of the Mannor of A. of which the sayd Sir John Leventhorp was seised in his Demesne as of see and by Copy at a Court held such a day and year granted the said Messuage and twenty acres of Land whereof c. To the Plaintiff and his Heirs according to the custome of the said Mannor and prescribes that within the sayd mannor was a Custome that every Copy-holder may cut the boughs of all the Pollingers and Husbands growing upon his Copy-hold for fire to be burnt upon his
of Clanrickard with whom Yelverton was of Councel it was resolved that if the Issue be upon the custome of Tithing and that it be found against the Defendant he shall pay the value expressed by the Plaintiff in his Declaration for because by the collateral matter pleaded in Barr the Declaration is in whole confessed SMith versus Smith Trin. 6 Jacobi one Bisse made K. his Wife and John his Sonne being one year old Executors and K. solely proved the Will and afterwards married the Plaintiff and they two brought an Action of Debt as Executors against the Defendant and the Defendant pleads in abatement of the Bill that John was made Executor with K. and is yet in life and not named the Plaintiffes reply that John was but of the age of one year and that K. proved the Will and had Administration committed to her during the minority and that John is and was at the time of the Writ purchased within the age of seventeen years and upon that Yelverton demurred and adjudged for the Defendant that the Bill should abate for both of them in truth were Executors and ought to be named in the Action and although by the Administration granted during the minority K. had the full power yet the Infant ought to be named he being Executor GOmersall versus Ask Trin. 6. Iacobi The Defendant brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant as Administrator of her Husband upon two former Judgements given in two Actions of Debt against the intestate and shews the recoveries the Defendant pleads that the intestate entred into a recognisance 35 El. in Chancery to Sir Henry Bechel and shows that after the Judgements had by the Plaintiff Sir H. obtained a Judgement against the intestate upon the Recognisance and that she hath not assets to satisfie the Plaintiff of the intestates Goods beyond Goods that are chargeable and liable to the Judgement upon the Recognisance to which Plea the Plaintiff demurres and by Fennor and Williams justifies the Plea in Barr was good for although the Plaintiffes Judgements mentioned in his Actions are before Sir H. Judgement yet because the Plaintiff by his Action doth not demand Execution of the Judgements but onely his Debt recovered for this Action brought it as an originall and in the same Court as if he did demand the Debt upon the first Obligation and therefore because the Plaintiff had not sued out a Scire facias to execute the first Judgements but had prosecuted a new originall the Plea is good and allowable as it had been upon the said Obligation but Yeluerton and Fleming were of a contrary opinion for the Plea had not been good against the intestate himself and the Executor or Administrator represents his person and therefore the Plea is not good but onely in excuse of a Devastavit and they were of opinion that the Action brought by the Plaintiff was in nature of a Scire facias for he demanded the Debt in another course then it was at first for that Debt which was but matter of escript is now become by the Judgement to be Debt upon Record and of so high a nature that the Judgement being in Force he can never have an Action upon the Obligation which is adjuged in Higgins Case Co. 6 Rep. but Cook doubted and the Plaintiff dying the Court did not resolve APleton versus Baily Mich. 6. Jacobi Apleton as Executor of Apleton brought an Action of Debt against Baily for the Arrerages of diverse Rents as well Copy-hold Rents as Free-hold Rents pertaining to a Mannor whereof the Testator was seised and thereof died seised and the Rents were not paid to him in his life time by reason whereof they belonged to the Plaintiff as Executor And the Defendant though he was requested had not paid against the form of the Statute of the 32 H. 8. And the Court that the Action did not ly for the Arrerages of Copy-hold Land for the Statute of the 32 H. 8. doth not extend to them but only to Rents out of Free Land Secondly It lies not for the Rent of free Land because the Plaintiff hath not shewed in his Declaration that the Defendant had attorned to the Testator in his life And although in pleading it is good to alledge a Feoffment of a Mannor without pleading any Livery or of any Attornment of Tenements but when the Rent of any Free-hold Land comes in Debate it behoves both the Owner of the Mannor and and his Executor that demands it to convey the privity between the Tenant and the Lord which ought to be by attornment for Rents and Services rest not without Attornment which mark PEirson versus Ponuteis Mich. 6. Jacobi The Plaintiff as Executor of Peirson brought an Action of Debt against Jo. Ponuties of London Merchant that he should render to him three and thirty pounds twelve shillings in that the Defendant 5. Oct. 1598. at London c. By his Bill obligatory hath acknowledged himself to owe to the Testator 1518. Florens Polish which then amounted to thirty three pounds twelve shillings to be paid to the Testator Ad solucionem festi purificat c. Called Candlemas day next insuing and to that payment had obliged himself by the same Bill And the Plaintiff avers that Predicti soluciones dicti festi purificat c. Next after the making the Bill were according to the use of Merchants the twentieth of February 1598. Yet the Defendant had not paid the 1518. Florence Polish or the thirty three pounds twelve s. to the Testator nor to the Plaintiff The Defendant pleads Non est factum and found against him and moved in arrest of Judgment that the Declaration was not good because first the payment of Candlemas is not known in our Law but that was not allowed for that which is unknown in ordinary intendment is made manifest and helped by the Averment in the declaration because that payment among Merchants is known to be upon the twentieth of February and the Judges ought to take notice of those things that are used amongst Merchants for the maintenance of traffick and the rather because the Defendant doth not deny it but pleads non factum by which he confesses the Declaration to be true in that averment Secondly it was objected that as the Case is the use of Merchants is not materiall because the Testator by any thing that appears was not a Merchant but it was not allowed because the defendant that bound himself to pay was a Merchant and the Testator ought to take the Bill as the defendant would make it and he chose to make the payment according to the use of Merchants and not according to the Ordinary intercourse between party and party which mark this by the whole Court TAlbot versus Godbold Mich. 6. Jac. Godbold 28 Eliz. sealed a Bill to the Plaintiff made in this manner memorandum that I have received of Edw. Talbot who was the Plaintiffes Testator to the
forth divers payments by him made and amongst other payments shews that he had payed to M. Fawn named in the Condition sixty pounds for a Legacy due by the Will of the said Ed. A. the payment of which sixty pounds was disallowed by that Court and by the Order of the Chancery sixty five pounds paid for not allowing the first sixty pounds to Ed. A. the Son which sixty and five pounds the Defendant had not repaid though thereunto requested and so he was damnified to which Replication the Defendant demurrs and the opinion of the whole Court after a great Debate was against the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff in his Replication had alleadged two Causes to inforce his Damage the first was that the Plaintiff in his Answer in the Chancery had alleadged the payment of sixty pounds to M. F. for a Legacy due to her by the Will and that such Allegation was rejected by the Court of Chancery and neither of those matters are certainly alleadged but by way of Implication and not expresly for he ought to have shewn that a Legacy of sixty pounds was given to M. F. by the Will of E. A. for although the Will of E. A. is recited in the Condition in the Date against which Recitall the Defendant may not be admitted to say that he made no such Will yet the Legacy given to M. F. is not recited in the Condition if not in the General against which the Defendant may take a Traverse that Eáw. A. did not bequeath such a Legacy of sixty pounds and upon that a good Issue may be taken And secondly the Plaintiff sayes that the payment of the said sixty pounds was disallowed by the Court of Chancery and doth not appear in the Replication where the Chancery was at that time to wit whether at Westminster or at any other place and it is issuable and triable by a Jury whether any such Order of Chancery were made or not for the Orders there are but in Paper and are not upon Record to be tried by Record but by a Jury and the Plaintiff perceiving the opinion of the Court against him prayed that he might discontinue his Suit which was granted by the whole Court but Quaere of this it being after a Demurrer WEaver versus Clifford Pasch 44. Eliz. rotulo 453. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Escape against Clifford and declares that one A. was bound to the Plaintiff in one Recognisance of a hundred pounds to be paid at a Day at which Day A. made Default of Payment and the Plaintiff sued out two Scire fac and upon the second Scire fac a Nihil was returned and the Plaintiff had Judgement to recover and afterwards he sued out a Levari fac and a Nihil being returned the Plaintiff prosecuted a Capias ad satisfaciend by vertue of which Writ the Defendant being then Sheriff took the said A. and afterwards at D. in the County of S. permitted him to go at large to which the Declaration the Defendant demurred Damport for the Defendant and he shewed the cause of the Demurrer to be because a Capias upon the Recognisance did not lie and he divided the Case into two parts first whether a Capias would lie in the Case and secondly whether the Sheriff would take the Advantage of such a naughty Processe and as to the first it seemed to him that a Capias would not lie because it appeared by Herberts 5. Repub. fol. 12. And Garnons Case 5. Rep. fol. 88. that the Body of the Defendant was not liable to Execution for Debt by the Common Law but onely in Trespasse where a Fine was due to the King or that he was accountant to the King and the Plaintiff could have no other Processe but a Fieri facias within the year and if the year were passed then he might have a new Original in Debt But now by the Statute of Marlbrig cap. 23. And Westm. 2. cap. 11. a Capias is given in Account and by the 25 E. 3. c. 17. Capias is given in Debt and Detinue and by the 19 H. 7. c. 9. the like Processe is given in Case as in Debt and Trespasse and the 23 H. 8. c. 14. a Capias is given in a Writ of Annuity and Covenant but Statute gives a Capias in this Case and therefore it remaines as it was at Common and by that it would not lie which is also apparent by the Recognisance for that is that if the Debt shall be levied of the Goods and Chattels Lands and Tenements c. and doth not meddle with the Body and by an expresse Authority 13 14 Eliz. Dier 306. Puttenhams Case it is held that the Chancery hath no Authority to commit the Defendant to the Fleet upon a Recovery in a Scire facias upon a Recognisance because the Body is not liable And for the second point it seemed to him that the Sheriff should take Advantage of this which should be as void and as null whereof a stranger may take benefit and to prove this he took this Difference when a Processe will not lie and where it is disorderly awarded as if an Exigent be sued out before a Capias or an Execution before Judgement for if that Processe be originally supposed there the Processe is but erroneous in Druries Case 8. Rep. 142. 34 H. 6. 2. b. But if the Action it self will not maintain the Processe as a Capias in Formedon there that Processe is as void and null and he took another Diversity when the Capias is taken by the Award of the Court when Judgement is given that he shall recover for in that Case it shall remain good untill it be reversed because it is the Act of the Court and so is Druries Case to be intended but if the party himself take it it is at his own peril as here it is for the Plaintiff hath onely pleaded that he prosecuted c. which is as void to the party who sued it out and he shall have no benefit of it but the Sheriff shall not be punished for false Imprisonment because he is not to examine the illegality or validity of the Processe for the 11 H. 4. 36. If a Capias issue out without any Original and the party be taken the Sheriff shall not be punished and for these Reasons he prayed Judgement for the Defendant Noy was for the Plaintiff and he agreed that at the Common Law no Action did lie in this Case as it hath been said but he was of opinion that this Case is within 25 E. 3. cap. 17. for the intention and drift of the Statute was to give speedy remedy to recover Debts and the Action is all one in the eye of the Law as if it had been done by Original which in the equity of the Statute And a Capias lies upon a Recognisance against a Surety for the Peace and upon a Scire facias against the Bail in the Upper Bench. As to
31 H. 8. of Monasteries which gives the Houses dissolved to the King but in the same degree and qualitie as the Abbot had them And the Abbot was charged with the power given by himself and so was the King Which mark VVAnto versus Willingsby Pasch 5. Jacobi The Bishop of Exceter in the time of H. 8. by his Deed gives Land c. to Nicho Turner and by Bill his Cousin in consideration of service done by Turner and for other considerations him moving to them and the Heirs of their bodies and dyes They have Issue Jo. and William N. T. dies and Sybill marries Clap. and they alien the Land to Iohn in Fee Sybill and Iohn leavie a Fine to Walther in Fee of the Land And afterwards Sybill infeoffes William her younger Son who infeoffes Willinghby Io enters and leaseth to Walther and Willingby for the tryall of his title seals a Lease to ward who declares of so many Acres in Sutton Cofeild And the Jury upon a not guilty pleaded foundby the Verdict that the Bishop gave the Tenements aforesaid by his Deed the tenor of which Deed follows c. And by the Deed it appeared that the Lands did lye in Little Sutton within the Lordship of Sutton Cofeild And notwithstanding the Plaintiffe shall recover For first it was held not to be any Joynture within the Statute of 11 H. 7. for it is not any such gift as is intended by the Statute for the Bishop was not any Ancestor of the Husband and the Husband took nothing by that but it was a voluntary recompence given by the Bishop in reward of the service passed And the Statute intended a valuable confideration And also the Bishop might well intend it for the Advancement of the woman who appeared to be Cozen to the Bishop And Tanfeild held if the woman were a Doneâ— within the Statute of 11 H. 7 she could be but for a moyetie for the gift was before the marriage and then they took by moyeties And the Baron dying first the woman came not to any part by the husband but by the course of Law as survivour But quaere of this conceit for the other Judges did not allow it And secondly they held that the Fine of Io. the elder Son of Sybill levied to Walther destroyed the entry of Io. and of Walther For although in truth the Fine passed nothing but by conclusion yet Io. the Son and Walther his Conusee shall be estopped to claim any thing by way of forfeiture against that Fine on the womans part then any title accruing after the Fine For they shall not have any new right but Io the Son upon whom the Land was intayled is barred by the Fine Thirdly although upon view of the Deed made by the Bishop the Land which by the Declaration is layed to be in Sutton Cofeild by the Deed appears to be in Little Sutton yet this is helped by the Verdict by which it is found expresly that the Bishop gave the Lands within written and therefore being so precisely found the Deed is not materiall Which mark KNap versus Peir Iewelch Pasc 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for Lands in Wiccombe which were the Deans and Chapters of Chichester And in this case it was agreed by the whole Court that if it be a Corporation by prescription it is sufficient to name them by that name they are called And the Court held that if a man demands Rent upon the Land to avoid a Lease upon a condition the Demand ought to be made in the most open place upon the Land The Dean and Chapter of Chichester made a Lease to one Raunce the Lessee of the Defendant of Lands in Wiccombe rendring Rent payable at the Cathedrall Church of Chichester upon such a condition it was agreed by the whole Court that the Demand ought to be made in the Cathedrall Church of Chichester although it was of the Land Leased And the Demand ought to be made at the setting of the Sun the last instant of that day and when he made his Demand he ought to stand still and not walk up and down for the Law did not allow of walking Demands As Pipham said and he ought to make a formall demand And because those whom the Dean and Chapter did send to make the demand of Rent said bear witnesse we are come hither to demand and receive such Rent it was held by the Court that such a demand was not good And they held the demand ought to be made at that part of the Church where the greatest and most common going in is And in this case it was said by Popham that if a man make a Lease to one for yeers to commence at a day to come and then he lease to another for yeers rendring Rent upon a condition to commence presently And he enter And the first Lease commence and he enter the Rent and Condition reserved upon the second Lease is suspended A man leases for years rendring Rent after he leaseth to another to commence at a day to come and the first Lessee attorns the second shall not have the Rent reserved upon the first Lease by Popham but he doubted of it And Popham and Tanfeild held none contradicting that the Letter of Attorney made by the Dean and Chapter to demand their Rent was not good because the Letter of Attorney was to make a general demand on any part of the Land which the Dean and Chapter had leased And that ought to have been speciall onely for that Land And secondly it was to demand Rent of any person to whom they had made a Lease And the Letter of Attorney ought to be particular and not generall of any person TOmpson versus Collier Mich. 5. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares upon a Lease of Ejectment made by Robinson and Stone of one Messuage and fourty Acres of Land in the Parish of Stone in the Countie of Stafford The Defendant imparled tryall another Terme and then pleads that within the Parish of Stone there were three Villages A. B. and C. And because the Plaintiffe hath not shewed in which of the Villages the Land he demanded Judgement of the Bill c. And the Plaintiffe demurred upon this Plea And adjudged for the Plaintiffe For first after an Imparlance the Defendant cannot plead in abatement of the Bill for he hath admitted of it to be good by his entring into defence and by his Imparlance And secondly the matter of his Plea is not good because the Defendant hath not shewed in which of the Villages the House and fourty Acres of Land did lye And that he ought to have done For where a man pleads in abatement he alwayes ought to give to the Plaintiffe a letter writ with mark And the whole Court held that this Plea was not in barr but that he should answer over And Williams Justice took this difference that when a man demurrs upon a Plea in abatement And when he
matter of form For if the Jury finde a prior grant of the Queen to the Plaintiffs Lessor although it be at another Court it is sufficient and so by consequence the day is not materiall in substance which mark But Williams Justice and the rest held the traverse to be naught for by that the Jury should be bound to finde the Copy such a day by such a Steward which ought not to be and that it was matter of substance not helped by the Statute of 18 Eliz. DArby versus Bois Hill 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for an House in London and upon not guilty pleaded The Jury found a speciall Verdict And the case was Tenant in tail of divers Messuages in London 7 January 44 Eliz bargains and sels the said Houses to J. S. and delivers the Deed from off the Land the 8. of January the same yeer Indentures of Covenants were made to the intent to have a perfect recovery suffered of those houses and the ninth of January after a Writ of right is sued in London for those Messuages returnable at a day to come And the tenth of January the same yeer the Tenant in tail makes livery and seisin to J. S. of one of those Houses in the name of all And the other Messuages were in Lease for yeers and the Lessees did not atturn And the question was if the Messuages passed by the bargain and sale or by the livery And it was adjudged that they passed by the bargain and sale And Yelverton took a difference between severall Conveyances both of them Executory and where one of them is executed presently as in Sir Rowland Heywoods Case where divers Lands were given granted leased bargained and sold to divers for yeers the Lessees were at election whether they would take by the bargain and sale upon the Statute of 27 H 8. or by the demise at the Common Law But otherwise it is if one be executed at first for then the other comes too late as it is in this Case for by the very delivery of the bargains and sale the Land by the custome of London passes without inrollment for London is excepted and this custome was found by the Verdict And therefore it being executed and the Conveyance being made perfect by the delivery of the Deed without any other circumstances the livery of sesin comes too late for it is made to him that had the Inheritance of the Messuage at that time And the possession executed hinders the possession executory for if a bargain and sale be made of Land and before inrollment the bargain takes a deed of the said Land this hinders the inrollment because the taking of the livery did destroy the use which passed by the bargain and sale which was granted by the Court. And another reason was given because it appeared that the intent of the parties was to have the Land passe by the bargain and sale because it was to make a perfect Tenant to the Precipe as appears by the subsequent acts as the Indentures Covenant and the bringing the Writ of Right c. All which will be made frustrate if the livery of seisin shall be effectuall and when an Act is indifferent it shall be taken most neer to the parties intents that may be if a man hath a Mannor to which an advowson is appendant and makes a Deed of the Mannor with the appurtenances And delivers the Deed but doth not make livery of seisin yet now although the Deed in it self was sufficient to passe the Advowson yet because the party did not intend to passe it in Posse but as appurtenant if the Mannor will not passe no more shall the Advowson passe alone as it was agreed 14 Eliz in Andrews Case Which mark And the whole Court gave Judgment accordingly that the Defendant who claimed under the bargain sale should enjoy the Land CHalloner versus Thomas Mich. 6. Jacobi A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgement given in Ejectment in the Courâ— of Carmarthen and Yelverton assigned the Error because the Ejectment was brought de aquae cursu called Lothar in L. and declares upon a Lease made by D. de quidam rivulo aquae cursu And by the opinion of the whole Court the Judgement was reversed for rivulut seâ— aque cursus lye not in demand nor doth a precipe lye of it nor can livery and seisin be made of it for it cannot be given in possession but as it appears by 12 H. 7. 4. the Action ought to be of so many Acres of Land covered with water but an Ejectment will well lye by if a stang for a precipe lies of them and a woman shall be indowed of the third part of them as it is 11. E. 3. But if the Land under the water or River do not pertain to the Plaintiffe but the River onely then upon a disturbance his remedy is onely by Action upon the Case upon any diversion of it and not otherwise Which observe VVIlson versus Woddell Mich. 6. Jacobi The Grand-father of the Plaintiffe in an Ejectment being a Copy holder in fee made a surrender thereof to L Woddell in fee who surrendred it to the use of Margery I. for life who is admitted c. But L Woddell himself never was admitted The Grandfather and Father dye the Son who is Plaintiffe was admitted and enters upon the Land Margery being then in possession and the Defendant then living with her as a servant in those Tenements and this was the speciall verdict And Judgment was given for the Plaintiffe And the Court was of an opinion that the Defendant was found to be a sufficient Trespassor and Ejector though he be but a Servant to the pretended owner of the Land because the Verdict found that the Defendant did there dwell with Margery And in such case he had the true title and had made his entry might well bring his Action against Master or Servant at his election And perhaps the Master might withdraw himself that he could not be arrested And secondly it was adjudged that the surrender of J. S. of a Copy-hold is not of any effect untill J. S. be admitted Tenant And if I. S. before admittance surrender to a stranger who is admitted that that admittance is nothing worth to the estranger For J. S. had nothing himself and so he would passe nothing and the Admittance of his grantee shall not by implication be taken to be the admittance of himself for the admittance ought to be of a Tenant certainly known to the Steward and entred in a Roll by him and it was held that the right and possession remained still in him that made the surrender and that is descended to his Heir who was the Plaintiffe And they took a difference between an Heir to whom the Copy descended for he may surrender before admittance and it shall be good because he is by course of the Law foe the custome that makes him Heir
Exchequer where the Record was would not award the Venire Facias of all the three Villages named in the Record if it did not appear judicially to them that the Close did extend in all the Villages and it doth not appear for parcell if the premises doth not necessarily extend to all the Villages but may well be and so presumed in one Village onely and therefore it is matter of substance And the Judges had not power after their Commission determined to amend the Plea DAvis versus Pardy Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declared of a Lease made by one Cristmas the sixth of May Anno 7. of one Messuage c. In D. by reason whereof the Plaintiffe entered and was possessed untill the Defendant afterwards to wit 18. of the same month Anno sexto supradicto did eject him And not guilty being pleaded a verdict was found against the Plaintiffe And Yelverton moved in Arrest of Judgement to save Costs that the Declaration was insufficient For that Action was grounded upon two things first upon the Lease secondly upon the Ejectment and both those ought to concur one after the other And in this case the Ejectment is supposed to be one year before the Lease made for the Lease is made Anno 7. and the Ejectment supposed to be done Anno 7. 6. And therefore the Declaration naught And Yelverton vouched the case between Powre and Hawkins Anno septimo Termino Pasch Where the Plaintiffe declared upon the Lease of Edw. Ewer 27. April Anno sexto and laid the Ejectment to be 26. April Anno 6. And the Court held then that the Declaration was naught yet in the case in question the Declaration was adjudged good And the word sexto to be void for the day of the Ejectment being the 18. of the same month of May it cannot be intended but to be the same year in which the Lease is supposed to be made by the opinion of the whole Court AYlet versus Chippin Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares upon a Lease made by John Aylet for one year of certain Land in C. in the County of E. by vertue whereof he entred and was possessed untill the Defendant did eject him The Defendant pleads that the Copihold Land is parcell of the Mannor of D. c. of which one Jo Aylet the Lessors Father was seised in Fee according to the Custome and that he made a surrendor thereof to the use of his Will and by his will devised the Land in question to John the lessor and H. Aylet his sons and to their Heirs Males of their Bodies and willed that they should not enter untill their severall ages of 21 years And further willed that W. B. and H. B. his Executors should have the Lands to perform his Will untill his said Sons Jo and H. came to their severall Ages of one and twenty years c. To which Plea the Plaintiffe replies and confesses the Will but shews further how that such a day and year before the Lease Jo his Lessor attained to his full Age of one and twenty years and entred and made a Lease thereof to him c. To which Plea the Defendant demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiffe For although the Estate to Jo and H. precede in words and the devise to the Executors insues in construction yet the estate to Io Executors precedes in possession And is as if he should have demised the Land untill his Sons Io and H. should attain to their severall Ages of one and twenty years And afterwards to them and their Heirs Males c. to be enjoyed in possession at ther severall Ages so that the Executors have onely a limited estate determinable in time when either Son severally should attain to his full age for his part For so it appears the Devisors intent was that either Son might enter when he attained to the age of one and twenty years And although it was objected by Justice Williams that the two Brothers are joyntenants by the Will and if one should enter when he comes to his full Age the other Brother being under age that would destroy the intent of the devise for then they should not take joyntly but the Court as to that said that the entry of him that attained to his full age doth not destroy the juncture but that they are joyntenants notwithstanding For that entry in the intent of the Devisor was only as to thâ— taking of the the profits and the possession and not as to the estate in joyntenancy and this is proved by 30 H. 6. Devise 12. where a devise was to foure in Fee and that one of them should have all during his life and this was adjudged good and it was as to the taking of the profits onely which observe by the whole Court but Williams RIce versus Haruiston Pasch 10. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares of a Lease made by Jo. Bull c. The Defendant pleads that the Land is Copihold Land parcel of the Mannor of c. Whereof the King was seised and is seised and that the King by his Steward such a day granted the Land in question to him in Fee to hold at will according to the custome of the Mannor by vertue whereof he was admitted and entred and was seised untill the lessor entred upon him and outed him and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe and then he entred and did eject him c. The Plaintiffe replies that long before the King had any thing in the Mannor Queen Eliz. was thereof seised in Fee in right of her Crown and before the Ejectment supposed by the Defendant by her Steward at such a Court did grant the Land in question by Copy to him in Fee to hold at Will according to the custome of the Mannor who was admitted and entred and further shewed the descent of the Mannor to the King and how the Lesser entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe who entred and was thereof possessed untill the Defendant did eject him Upon which Plea the Defendant did demurr because he supposed that the Plaintiffe ought to traverse the grant alledged by the copy of the Defendant in his Barr. But the Court held the replication good for the Plaintiffe had confessed and avoided the Defendant by a former Copy granted by Queen Eliz under whom the King that now is claimed and so the Plaintiffe need not traverse the grant to the Defendant but such a traverse would make the Plea vitious for which see Hilliais Case 6. Rep. And 14 H. 8. Dotknis Case 2 E. 6. Dyer And Brooks title confesse and avoid for as no man can have a Lease for years without assignment no more can a man have a Copy without grant made in Court Which observe SHecomb versus Hawkins Pasc 10 Jacobi The case was in an especial verdict in Ejectment that one Mrs. Luttrel Tenant in fee of the Mannor of L. leavied a Fine to the use of her self for life and after death to
that it was collaterall warrantry where in truth it was a lineall warranty and it was held naught because the warranty was in Law a lineall warranty the Case was that Land was givenby Feoffment made to the use of the Feoffer for life remainder in Tail Tenant for life dies Tenant in Tail had Issue a Son and two Daughters and the Father and Son joyn in a Feoffment with warranty and after the Father and Son die without issue and the Daughters bring a Formedon and this is a lineall warranty PIt versus Staple Trin 14 Jac. rotulo 112. Formedon in le discender against three which plead non-Tenure and issue thereupon joyned and found specially that two of them were Lessees for life the remainder to the third person and whether the three were Tenants as is supposed by the writ was the question and the better opinion was that it was found for the Demandant for the Tenants should have pleaded severall Tenancy and then the Demandant might maintain his writ but by this generall non-Tenure if any be Tenant it is sufficient but in some Cases the Precipe may be brought against one who is not Tenant as a morgagor or morgagee COmes Leicester versus Comit. Clanriccard In Formedon upon a Judgement given in part for the Demandant and part for the Tenant the Tenant brought a writ of Error and had a Supersedeas upon it and afterwards the Demandant prosecuted a writ of Seisin and delivered it to the Sheriff and he executed the writ and immediately afterwards the Tenant delivered the Supersedeas to the Sheriff and the Tenant moved the Court and prayed a writ of restitution and it was granted him because the Tenant had done his indeavour and had not delayed the prosecuting the writ of Error COmes Clanriccard Francisca uxor Ejus Demandants versus R. S. milit vicecomit Lyple for three messuages c. which R. late Earl of Essex and Frances late wife of the said Earl by Fine in the Court of the Lady Elizabeth late Queen of England before her then Justices at Westminster levied and gave to William Gerrard Esquire and F. Mills Gentleman and the Heires of the said W. for ever to the use of Elizabeth Sydney Daughter and Heir of P. S. Milir and the Heirs of the Body of the said E. comming and for default of such issue to the use of the said F. then wife of the said Earl and the heirs of the said Fr. and which after the death of the said Eliz. ought to revert to the said Fr. by form of the gift aforesaid and by force of the Statute in such case provided because the said Eliz. died without Heir of her Body The Tenant pleaded in abatement of the writ because the writ ought to revert to the woman alone and it should have been to the Husband and wife and upon a demurrer Judgement was that he should answer over the writ may be either to revert to the Husband and wife or to the wife alone and herein the Tenant vouch two vouches and one is Essoined and an idem dies given to the other and Serjeant Harris demanded of the Court if he should Fourcher by Essoin because the Statute of Westminster the first is that Tenants Parceners or Joint Tenants shall not fourcher in Essoin therefore they two should not fourcher by Essoin but the Court held that before appearance it could not appear to the Court whether they were Tenants or not and therefore before appearance they shall have severall Essoins and Westminster the first is expounded by Gloucester the tenth which is that two Tenants shall not fourcher after appearance and at the day of the adjournment of the last Essoin the Tenant was Essoined and such Essoin was allowed and adjudged by the whole Court and the reason hereof seemed to some to be because the Tenant might be informed of the Vouchee that he vouched was the same person or no for he might be onother person for if he should be an estranger and demand the place and the Demandant could not hold him to the warranty the Demandant should loose his Land and they held that upon severall Processe to wit upon the view and upon the summons to warranty which are divers Processes the Tenant ought to be Essoined and the Court held that this Essoin was at the Common Law if the Tenant and the vouchee at the day given to the Tenant and the vouchee make default Judgement shall be given against the Tenant to wit a petty Cape and nothing against the vouchee SHotwell versus Corderoy In Formedon the Tenant prayes in aid â—nd the prayee in aid and Tenant vouch and the Vouchee was essoined and adjourned and at that Day the Attorney of the Tenant without the Prayer in aid cast an Essoin and an Idem dies given the Prayee in aid and it was quashed for they shall not have severall Essoines but joynt Essoines A Formedon brought of Lands in A. B. C. The Tenant pleads a Fine of all by the name of the Mannour and Tenements in A. B. And it was objected that he said nothing to the Land in C. but the Courtheld that by the name of the Mannor the Land in all the Villages would pass and the Demandant may if he will plead as to the Land in C. that it was not comprised in the Fine Hill 7. Jacobi rotulo 76. vel 69. Formedon in the Discender the Writ was general that J. L. gave to T. L. and the Heirs Males of his Body upon the Body of D. V. Widow lawfully to be begotten which D. the said T. afterwards took to Wife and which after the Death of the said T. c. Son and Heir Male of the Body of the said T. upon the Body of the said D. lawfully begotten to the said J. L. younger Son and Heir of the said J. L. Son of the said T. ought to descend by form of the Gift aforesaid c. and whereof he saith that the said T. was seised c. and 2 Eliz. of the said Tenements did infeoff the Plaintiff in Fee to the use of the said T. L. and his Heirs c. and note in the Count no mention made of the Marriage If a Gift be made in tail to D. and his Heirs Males the Remainder to A. in tail D. discontinues in the Life of A. and D. dies without Issue and the Heir of A. brought his Writ as the immediate Gift to A. his Ancestor who never was seised in his Life and for that cause the Writ was naught but if A. had been seised of the Land then it had not been necessary to have shewed the first Gift to D. by the opinion of the whole Court Actions upon the Statute of Hue and Cry NEedham versus Inhabitant Hundredi de Stoak Trin. 8. Jac. rotulo 534. Action brought upon the Statute of Hue and Cry by the Servant who was robbed in his own name and part of the Goods
John W. was seised of three hundred Acres of Land in R. aforesayd of which the place in question called G. is parcell and that 30 H. 6. the sayd John Whithing reciting that whereas N. de la moore 31 E. 1. the Plaintiffs Ancestor Son and heire of H. de la Moore grants to William de la Moore Corsum aque which runs from W. thorow the middle of the Land of the sayd M. And shews further that by meane discents it discends to the Defendant c and so justifies The Plaintiff replies if W. S. was seised of the place where c. and made a Lease thereof to him for yeares and traverses that the three hundred Acres of Land were parcell and Issue joyned upon that and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Defendant had not made any answer to the Plaintiff and so no Issue joyned for the Plaintiff layes the Trespass in G. in L. the Defendant sayes he was seised of three hundred Acres of which the place c. was parcell but he conveys no title to himselfe but by a course of water thorow the middle of the Land of M. but whose Land that was it doth not appeare and is another thing and therefore an Issue upon that which the Defendant doth not claime is voyd and although Issue be joyned yet it is not helped by the Statute of Jeofailes of 18 Eliz. or 32 H. 8. for it is as no Issue when it is of a thing not in question but if the Issue had been of a matter in question although ill joyned yet it is ayded as Nichols Case is 5 Rep. 43. upon payment pleaded without Deed And Doddridge and Crooke Justices agreed to that but Haughton seemed to incline that it was an Issue and so helped by the Statute FVller against Pettesworth Knight Mich. 11. Iacobi Fuller brought an Action of Trespass against Pettesworth and his Servant for breaking his Close and taking one Cow in D. in the County of B. One of the Defendants plead not guilty the Servant pleads that the Plaintiff holds of Sir Peter P. as of c. in the County aforesayd and for services behinde by the command of his Master he seised the Cow c. The Plaintiff traverses c. and one Venire facias was awarded out of both the Villiages and being found for the Plaintiff it was new moved in Arrest of Judgement by Finch of Grays Inne that two Venire facias ought to have been awarded because the Issue is of things in severall places for if there be severall Issues in one place one Jury shall be onely Impannelled but if in severall places for severall things locall severall Juries shall be but the whole Court held that one Jury onely should be impannelled and one Venu onely should be awarded out of both the places and it is all one as if it had been in one place but it had been otherwise if in severall Counties as 41 Eliz. DAme Petts Case Mich. 11. Iacobi In an Action of Trespass brought by the Lady Petts upon not guilty pleaded the Jury being at Bar the matters following came in question upon the evidence by Haughton and the other Justices If A. be seised of a great Close where c. and a Stranger enter and occupy part of the Close yet notwithstanding A. continues the posaession of the residue whether this shall preserve his possession in the residue and he shall be judged to be in possession of that because it is an intire thing 5 E. 4. 2. and 8 E. 3. 13. Seisin of part of the services is the seisin of the whole and so is Bettisworths Case 2. Rep. The possession of the House is the possession of the Land for the Lessee against his Lessor of that which passes by one demise But if a stranger enter and sever part by metes and bounds nothing is wrought by the possession of the residue Another question was this A Lessee for yeares of ten Acres paying twenty shillings Rent the Lessee is outed of parcell yet he payed all the Rent to him in Reversion the Lessor having notice of the enter whether this protects the Reversion so that nothing is gained by the entry but the interest of the Lessee and shall be no disseisin And Yelverton at the Barr was of opinion that it should be no Disseisin Rithen Sect. 590. saith That so long as the particular Tenant continues his possession so long is the reversion in the Lessor for in such case as to the Lessor the Lessee shall be alwayes deemed in possession by force of the Lease and the reason why the Lessee shall be adjudged in posaession of all as to the Lessor is because the Lessor cannot have notice of the alteration of the posaession for when the Lessee by his owne Act or sufferance doth a thing in alteration of the posaession of which by common intendment the Lessor cannot have or take notice there the Law will not prejudice the Lessor And see for that Farmers Case in the third Rep. 79. If Tenant for life levy a Fine having Land in the same Villiage this shall not bind the Lessor if five yeares pass before he take notice of what Land the Fine is levied And the same Law if Tenant for life make a Feofment to one who hath land within the same Village levies a Fine and in this cafe if the Lessee hath continually payd all his Rent the Lessor cannot intend or suspect but that the Lessee is absolute Tenant of the whole and in Farmers Case it is sayd That if the Lessor levy a Fine the Disseisee is barred without claime for it is impossible but he to whom the wrong is done shall presently know it But if he that hath the particular estate by Grant or trust reposed in him shall secretly practice although he pay the Rent and continue posaession yet it is otherwise But the Reporters opinion was that if in the principall case no Rent had been reserved then the Reversion had been devested by the entry for there had been no act done to mislead or hinder the knowledge thereof and also although rent be reserved and all payd yet if he had express notice thereof the reversion had been devested And secondly if it should be a Disseisin a great mischeif would follow for if a discent should be it would take away the Lessors entry and yet no fault in them because in common presumption the Lessee alwayes continued Tenant but Cook of a contrary opinion for he said it could not be denyed but that the Lessee is out of the posaession and then it follows of necessity that the Lessor must be out of his reversion And as to notice to make his claime he must take notice at his perill 4 M. Dyer 143. b. But note that this is when the Law intends that he may take notice which it will not intend in this Case Haughton was of opinion that it was a
of the said Bishop procured the said Grantees to surrender their severall grants accordingly the Church being then full And also after when the Church became void he procured the said Bishop to present him according to the first contract and then the said Penn made a lease to him of the Tenths and after sued others of his neighbours in the spirituall Court for tithes who pleaded the said Symoniacall contract and here Nicholls Serjeant suggested that the Judges Ecclesiasticall would not allow of this Plea there but the Court would not give credit to this suggestion but said that if the Ecclesiasticall Court make exposition of the Statute of 31 H. 8. Against the intent of it that then they would grant a Prohibition or if they should in verity deny to allow of this Plea and for that advised him that his Clyent might offer this Plea another time to them and if they denyed to grant that they would grant a Prohibition Hurrey against Boyer IN Prohibition awarded in the spirituall Court for stay of a Suit there for tithes of Lands which were the possessions of the Hospital of S. Johns of Jerusalem upon suggestion that the Prior of the said dissolved house of S. Johns had this priviledge from Rome which was by diverse Councells and Canons that is that the Lands of their Predecessors which by their own hands and costs they did till they were tied to pay no tithes and then by the Statute of 31 H. 8. chap. 18. Of dissolutions which was pleaded but agreed that this Hospitall was not dissolved by this Act but by a speciall act made 32. H. 8. chapter 24. By which their Corporation and Order was dissolved and their possessions given to the King with all the Priviledges and Immunities belonging to that and the King granted that to the Plaintiff in the prohibition and if he should hold them discharged of payment of Tithes was the question it was urged by Harris Serjeant that this Immunity was annexed to the corporation of the Prior and his Brethren of the said Hospitall and that that was determined by the dissolution of the said Hospitall and doth not come to the King and he saith that so it hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench against the Booke of 10. Eliz. Dyer 277. 60. 2. Coke the Bishop of Winchesters Case 14. B. And the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Case 47. B. And 18. Eliz. Dyer 349. 16. And he said that it was not given to the King by the Statute of 31 H. 8. of dissolutions for that was given by act of parliament and this was not intended by the Statute of 31. H. 8. As it appears by the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Case Nicholls Serjeant argued to the contrary And he cited a Cannon made by the Councell of Mag. and another made by Innocent the third In the year 1215. And diverse others and also the Statute of 2. Hen. 4. 4. And 7 Hen. 4. 6. And he said that the Pope had Authority amongst spirituall men and might grant to them freedoms of speciall things and he saith that if Land be discharged of payment of Tithes by prescription of not tithing and this Land came to the King yet this priviledge remaines and also he urged that these priviledges are given to the King by the Statute of 31 H. 8. Of dissolutions by which all Hospitalls as well dissolved lost surrendred granted or c. To the King as those hospitalls which should be dissolved lost c. And by this the possessions lands c. are given to the King in the same plite and case as they were in the hands of the hospitallers themselves and he affirmed the Booke of 10. Eliz. Dyer 277. 60. To be good Law and the Archbishops of Canterburies case 2. Coke 47. b. and the Bishop of Winchesters case 44. b. and 18. Eliz. Dyer 349. 16. and also the words of the Statute of 32. H. 8. 24. gives to the King not only the mannors houses c. but also all Liberties Franchises and Priviledges of what natures names or qualities soever they be appertaining or belonging to the said Religion or the Professors thereof by which he intends that this freedome to be discharged of tythes and so concludes that the Prohibition shall stand see the rest after Easter 9. Jacobi Forde versus pomroy UPon a Prohibition the case was this An unmaried woman being proprietor of a Parsonage tooke to a Husband a Parishoner within the Parish set forth and devided his tythes and those immeadiatly tooke backe and the Husband alone sued for the treble value according to the Statute of the 2. Ed. 6. And two points were moved First if that were a setting forth within the Statute and by the Court that it was not and so hath been adjudged in 43. and 45. of Eliz. and 1. Jacobi If the Husband may sue for the treble value without naming his Wife and to that the Court would be advised for though that the Husband may sue alone where a thing is personall for which he sueth as the bookes of 4. Ed. 4. 31. 7. Ed. 4. 6. 15. Ed. 4. 5. and 11. are yet where the Statute saith that the Proprietor shall have suit for the not setting forth c. The Husband is not intended Proprietor as the Statute intends but the Wife and for that the Wife ought to joyne see more Wagginer and Wood Pasche 8. Jacobi in the Kings bench WAgginer sued Wood in the Court of Requests for that that Wood had estopped his way and in the Bill of complaint there was no expresse of the place the County nor to what place the way did lead and for that it was demurred to the Bill there And notwithstanding they ordered the defendant Wood to answer and the Atturney came and moved the Court for a Prohibition and it was granted to him for they could not determine the right of a way Glover and Wendham HEndyn of Grayes Inne moved the Court for a Prohibition and the case was this A man dwelling in a Parish that is Dale hath land in his occupation in the Parish of Sale the Wardens of the Church of the Parish of Sale and other the Parishoners there make a Tax for the reparation of the Church for Church ornaments and for Sextons wages amounting to the sum of 23 l. And the Tax of the Church being deducted commeth but to 3 l. only And now the forreigner which dwells in Dale is sued in the Court Christian by the wardens of the Church of Sale for his part of the Tax and he praies Prohibition and Hendyn saith he well agreed the case of Jefferies 5. Coke that he should be charged if this Tax had been for the reparation of the Church only for this is in nature reall But when that is joyned with other things which are in nature personall as ornaments of the Church or Sextons wages with which as it seems he is not chargable then Prohibition lies for all Flemming
H. 6. 3. This priviledge by the canon which gives that shall be taken strictly And so is the opinion of their own expositors see Panormitan Canon 37. So that there is an apparant difference between that and the lands which came to the King by the statute of 31. H. 8. For by that the King is discharged of paiment of tythes and so are his Patentees It seems to me that the construction of the Cannon may be in another course different from the rules of the common law as it was ajudged in Buntings case that a woman might sue a Divorce without naming her Husband very well and 11. H. 7. 9. The pleading of the sentence or other act done in the spiritual Court differs from the pleading of a temporall act done in temporall Courts and 34 H. 6. 14. a Administration was committed upon condition that if the first Administrator did not come into England that he should have the Administration which is against the Common Law for there one authority countermands another and 42 Ed. 3 13. A Prior which hath such priviledge to be discharged of Tithes makes a Feoffment and his Feoffee payes Tithes to the Prior and this was of Lands which were parcell of the possessions of Saint Johns of Jerusalem and upon that he inferred that this priviledge is personall and if it be so it is determined by dissolution of the order as it is determined in 21 H 7. 4. That all Parsonages impropriate to them by the dissolutions are become prsentable and so of these which were annexed to the Templers for these shall not be transferred to Saint Johns though that the Lands are 3 Ed. 1. 11. By Herle accordingly Fitz. Natura Brevium 33 K. and 35. H. 6. 56. Land given in Frankalmaine to Templers and after transferred to Hospitallers of Saint Johns the priviledge of the Tenure is paid and so shall it be in case of Tithes being a personall priviledg that shall not be transferred to the King and to the Statute of 32. H. 8. The generall words of that do not extend to discharge the Land of Tithes though that the Statute makes mention of Tithes if there be not a speciall provision by the Statute that the Lands shall be discharged and this appears by the words of the Statute of 31 H. 8. where the general words are as generall and beneficiall as the words of this Statute and yet there is aspeciall provision for the discharge of the payment of tithes by which it appears that the generall words donot discharge that and so the generall words of 1 Ed. 6. are as larg and beneficiall as the generall words of the Statute of 31 H. 8. And yet this shall not discharge the Land of payment of Tithes and this compared to the Case of the Marquesse of Winchester of a writ of Errour that that shall not be transferred to the King by Attainder of Land in taile for treason by the Statute of 26 H. 8. or 33 H. 8. And so of rights of action and so it was adjudged in the time of H. 8. that if the founder of an Abby which hath a Corrody be attaint of Treason the King shall not have the Corrody and he agreed that the Hospitall of Saint Johns of Jerusalem is a house of Religion for this is agreed by Act of Parliament and the word Religion mentioned in the Statute more then seventeen times and also it seems to him that the Statute of 31 H. 8 shall not extend to that for this gives and establishes Lands which come by grant surrender c. And that shall not be intended those which come by Act of Parliament no more then the statute of 13 Eliz. extends to Bishops 1. and 2. Phillip and Mary Dyer 109. 38. The statute of Westminster the 2. chap. 41. Which gives Contra formam collationis to a common person founder of an Abby Priory Hospital or other house of religion without speaking expresly of a Bishop and yet it seems that this extends to an alienation made in Fee simple or Fee taile by the Bishop 46 Ed. 3. Forfeiture 18. But it is resolved in the Bishop of Canterburies Case 2 Coke 46 that the statute of 31 H. 8. shall not extend to these lands which come to the K. by the statute of 1 Ed. 6. to make them exempt from paying of Tithes and to the Case in 10. Eliz. that is but an opinion conceived and that the Prior hath this priviledge from Rome and that the Farmer shall pay Tithes and the question was in the Chancery and upon consideration of the statute of 31 H. 8. It seems that the Patentee himself shall be discharged as long as by his own hands he tills it and the statute of 32. H. 8. Upon which the state of the question truly consists was not considered and also it was not there judicially in question And to the case of Spurling against Graves in Prohibition consultation was granted for that that the statute was mistaken and so the award was upon the form of the pleading only and not upon the matter and so he concluded and prays consultation Houghton Serjeant to the contrary and he agreed that it is a personall priviledg and if the Order of St. Johns had been dissolved by death that then the priviledg shall be determined and this appears by the Stat. of 2. H. 4. 4. before cyted and also the case of 10. Eliz. Dyer 277. 60. did doubt of that but he relyed upon the manner words of pleading that is that Hospitallers are not held to pay Tithes it is as a reall composition made betwixt the Lord and another Spirituall person of which the Tenants shall take advantage as it is resolved in the Bishop of Winchesters case Also as if a man grant a Rent charge if the Grantee dye without Heir the grant is determined But if the Grantee grant that over and after dyes without Heir yet the Rent continues 27. H. 8. Or if Tenant in tayl grant Rent in fee and dies the grant is void But if he after suffers a recovery or makes a Feofment the Rent continues good till the Estate taile be recontinued as it is resolved in Capels case So here the order of Templers hath been determined by death the priviledg hath been determined but insomuch that the Land was transferred by Parliament to the King this continues Also the words of the Statute of 32. H. 8. are apt not only to transfer all the Interest which the Pryor had in his Lands but also his Priviledges and Immunities to the King and he agreed it is not material if the words Tythes are mentioned in the Statute or not But the word upon which he relyes and which comprehends this case is the word Priviledg which takes away the Law for where the Law binds them to pay Tithes the priviledg discharges them And the words of the Statute are taken in the most large extent that is all Mannors c. Priviledges
a Fee simple conditionall and not an Estate tayl and he said that the sole question was if the Statute of Westminster 2. conevrted and changed Fee simple conditionall of copy-hold into an Estate tayl for if it be not an Estate tayl within this Statute it shall not be an Estate tayl at all for Littleton saith before the making of the said Statute these Estates were Fee simple conditionall and for that cannot be by prescription also he said that copy-hold Estate was so base an Estate that at the Common Law a copy holder had no remedy but only in the Court of the Lord But as to Littleton who sayth that he may have a Formedon in discender to that he saith that the Heire which hath Fee simple conditionall may have it by the Common Law for this was at the Common Law before the making of that Statute of Westminster 2. As it appears by 4. Ed. 2. Formedon 50. 10. Ed. 2. Formedon 55. And by Bendlowes in the Lord Barkleys case in the Commentaries 239. b. by Benlose where it is said by him that a Formedon in discender was not at the Common Law but in a speciall case where an Assise of Mortdancester would not serve the Issue that is if a man had Issue a Sonn and his Wife died and after that he takes another Wife and Land was given to him and to his second Wife and to the Heires of their two Bodyes begoten and they have another Sonn and the Wife dies and after the Father dies and a stranger abates there he sayth that before the Statute the youngest Soon could not have an Assise of Mortdancester and for that he shall have a Formedon in discender which was no other but a writ founded upon his Case see 10 of Ed. 2. Formedon 55. And for that when Littleton speakes of an Estate tayl of copy-hold that ought to be understood of Fee taile which may be Fee simple conditionall and so Littleton may be reconciled 〈◊〉 will well agree with himself also it seems that Copy-hold is ouâ—â—f the intent and meaning of the Statute of Westminster 2. For at the common Law in ancient times this was base Estate and not more in reputation then villinage and also if such an Estate then might be created of that which shall be perpetuall and no means to barr it for surrender of that doth not make any discontinuance and Recovery was not known till 12. Ed. 4. and he saith that in ancient time the name of Copy-holder was not well known for in ancient time they were called Tenants in Villinage and Tenants by copy is but a new terme see Fitzherberts Natura Brevium 12. b. and the old Tenures fol. 2. and Bracton lib. 2. charter 8. In gifts made to servants calleth them Villaines and Sokemen and in the old Tenures it is said that the Lords may expell them and upon this he inferred that if it be so baseâ— Tenure though it be of Lands and Tenements yet they shall not be intended to be within the intent of the makers of the Statute of Westminster 2. and also by a second reason that is that it was not the intent of the makers of the Statute that this should extend to any Lands but only to those which are free Lands for the parties are called Donees and Feoffees and the will of the Giver should be observed according to the forme in the Charter of his gift manifestly expressed by which it appears that it ought to be of such Land of which a gift may be made and also the Statute provides that if the Donee levy a fine that in right it should be nothing by which also it appears as to him it seemed that it ought to be of such Land of which a fine may be levied And also for a third reason which was the great Inconvenience which would ensue upon it for then the Donees have no meanes to dispose of that nor give that for the advancement of his Wife nor her Issues and also the Lord shall loose his signiory for the Donee shall hold of him in Reversion and not of the Lord and it is resolved in Heydens Case 3 Coke 8. a. That when an act of Parliament alters the service Tenure Interest of the Land or other thing in prejudice of the Lord or of the custome of the Mannor or in prejudice of the Tenant there the generall words of such act shall not extend to Copy-holders see the opinion of Manwaod cheife Baron there and he agreed that admitting it shall be an Estate taile that then Surrender shall not make discontinuance and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiffe his Clyent see Hill and Vpchars Case which was adjudged in the Kings Bench and the principall case was adjourned untill the first Saturday of the next Tearme See Hillari 7. Jacobi in this Book in Replevin the Plaintiff was non-suited between the same parties See also Pasche 9. Jacobi 149. Hillary 1610. 8. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Wallop against the Bishop of Exeter and Murray Clark IN a Quare impedit the case was Doctor Playford being Chaplaine of the King accepted a Benefice of presentation of a common person and after he accepted another of presentation of the King without any dispension both being above the value of eight pound per annum if the first Benefice was void by the Statute of 21 H. 8. chapter 13. or not was the question for if that were void by the acceptance of the second Benefice without dispensation then this remaines a long time voide so that the King was intituled to present by Laps and presented the Plaintiff the Statute of 21 H. 8. provides that he which is Chaplain to an Earle Bishop c. may purchase license or dispensation to receive have and keep two Benefices with cure provided that it shall be lawfull to the Kings Chaplaines to whom it shall please the King to give any benefices or promotions spirituall to what number soever it be to accept and receive the same without incurring the danger penalty and forfeiture in this Statute comprised upon which the question was if by this last Proviso Chaplaine of the King having a Benefice with cure above the value of eight pound per annum of the presentation of a common person might accept another Benefice with cure over the value of eight pound also of the presentation of the King without dispensation the words of the Statute by which the first Church is made void are and be it enacted that if any parson or parsons having one Benefice withcure of Soules being of the yearly value of eight pound or above accept and take any other with cure of Soules and be instituted and inducted in possession of the same that then and immediately after such possession had thereof the first Benefice shall be adjudged in the law to be void See Hollands case 4. Cooke 75. a. This case was not argued but the point only opened by Dodridge Serjeant
condition to re-enfeoff and she with her Husband makes the re-enfeoffment it is good so a Woman being Lessee for Life and with her Husband attorn upon a Grant of Reversion is good and shall binde the Wife after the Death of the Husband 3 Ed. 3. 42. 4 Ed. 3. Attornment 12. 15 Ed. 3. Attornment also this Estate was made to the Wife when she was sole and for that it shall be accounted her folly that she would take such a Husband that would forfeit her Estate but with that agreed the reason of the Booke of 20 H. 6. 28. Where a woman Tenant was bound by the ceasing of her Husband and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and so it was adjourned see another argument of this case in Michaelmas Tearm 9. Jacobi 1611. by Haughton and Nicholls Serjeants Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Pitts against Dowse IN an Ejectione firme upon not guilty pleaded The Case was this A man makes his Will by these words I bequeath all my Lands to my Son Richard except my Chauntery Lands And I devise all my Chauntery Lands to be devided amongst all my Children men and women alike except my Son Richard And if Richard die without Issue the remainder to A. My second Son the remainder to B. My third Son the remainder to C. My fourth Son the remainder to my next of blood and so from Heire to Heire And so likewise I would to be done upon my Chauntery Lands and Tenements in case all my aforesaid Children die without Issue Then I would the one halfe of my Chauntery Lands to remaine to the next of kin and the other half to the Hospitall of M. And the question was what estate the Heire of the eldest Son shall have in the Chauntery Lands and it was argued by Dodridge the Kings Serjeant that the Heire of the eldest Son shall have estate tayl in the Chauntery Lands the Devisor devises no estate to Richard his eldest Son in the Chauntery Lands nor limitts any estate of that in certaine and for that he seemed that the youngest Sons and Daughters shall be Tenants in Common for life and by this manner of Interpretation every part of the Will shall be for first he excludes Richard himselfe so that he shall have nothing in that and then by the Limitation to the younger Children to be equally divided between them makes them Tenants in Common see 28. H. 8. 25. Dyer 155. And he cited Lewin and Coxes Case to be adjudged Michaelmasse 41. and 42. of Eliz. Pasche 42. Eliz. Rot. 207. Where a man devises Lands to his two Sons to be equally divided and adjudged that they are Tenants in Common so devise to two part and part like and equally divided and equally to be divided is all one and for that there is no other words to make an estate of Inheritance it shall be an estate for life and the remainder shall be directed according to the estates limited of the other Land And he seemed that the words in the last sentence all my aforesaid Children shall extend to Richard his eldest Son as well as to the others and so all the Will shall stand in his force which may be Objected that Richard the eldest Son shall be excluded out of the Possession and for that see 6. Eliz. Dyer 333. 29. Chapmans Case and also he cited one case to be adjudged Trinity 37. Eliz. Rot. 632. betweene Bedford and Vernam where a man deviseth all his lands in Alworth and afterwards purchaseth other Lands in the same Town and afterwards one comes to him to take a Lease of this Land newly purchased which the Testator refused to Let. And said that these Lands newly purchased should goe as his other Lands And upon his Death bed adds a Codycell to his Will but saith nothing of his purchased Lands and adjudged that the purchased Lands shall passe and so concluded and praied Judgement Harris Serjeant that it is a new Sentence and Richard is excluded and it shall be a good Estate tayl to the youngest Children and foresayd Children shall be intended them to which the Chauntery Lands are limited see Ratcliffes case 3. of Coke adjudged that they shall be Tenants in Common by the devise to he equally divided and thall not be surviving but every youngest Children shall have his part in tayl though that the first words do not containe words of Inheritance yet the last words in case all my Children die without Issue declares his intent that they should have an estate tayl see the 16. of Eliz. Dyer 339. 20. Claches Case that when he hath disposed of part devised to Richard then disposeth of the residue and the sentence begins with And so likewise and that shall be intended in the same manner as he had disposed of the Lands devised to Richard for he hath devised the remainder otherwise that is to an Hospitall and so concludes and praies Judgement accordingly Coke cheife Justice saith that it was adjudged between Coke and Petwiches 29. Eliz. that if a man devise a house to his eldest Son in tayl and another house to his second Son in tayl and the third house to the third Son in tayl and if any of them die without Issue the remainder to the other two equally this shall be but for life for this enures to the quantity of the Land and not to the quality of the Estate And he said that Richard is excepted without question for it is but a Will and every of the youngest Sons therein shall have the Chauntery Land one after another and Richard shall have no part and the Chauntery shall have nothing till they all are dead and he likened that to Frenchams Case where Lands were given to one and to his Heires Males and if he died without Issue the remainder over the Issues Females shall not take though that it be if they die without Issue for expresse it makes to cease only and so it was adjourned Petoes Case PEto suffers a common Recovery to the use of himselfe for life the remainder to his eldest Son in tayl with diverse remainders over to the intent that such Annuities should be paid as he by his last Will or by grant declares so that they did not exceed the summ of sixty pound and if any of the said Rents be behind then to the use of him to whom the Rent shall be behind till the Rent be satisfied with clause of distresse Rent of twenty pound was granted to his youngest Son for his life the grantee distraines for the Rent and in Replevin avowes the Plaintiffe replâ—es that by the non-paiment the use riseth to the youngest Son by which it was objected that the Rent shall be suspended Quere if without demand or if the distresse shall be demanded or that the use shall not rise till after the distresse and to the distresse well taken and agreed by all that the Plaintiff shall take nothing by
cannot a Copy-holder which hath so base an estate And if this shall be so these mischeifes will insue That is that this base estate should be of better security then any estate at the Common Law for Fine shall not be a Barr of that for it cannot be levied of that also Recovery cannot be suffered of that for there cannot be a Recovery in value neither of Lands at the Common Law neither of Customary Lands for they cannot be transferred but by the hands of the Lord. And to Littleton he agreed and also 4 Ed. 2. which agrees with this where it is said that at Stebenâ—eath a Surrender was of Copy-hold Lands to one and the Heires of his Body but he said that that shall not be an Estate taile for then the Estate hath such operation that this setles a Reversion and Tenure betwixt the Giver and him to whom it is given but this cannot be of Copy-hold Land for this cannot be held of any but only of the Lord and to the others this Estate doth not lye in Tenure and yet he agreed that of some things which did not lye in Tenure Estate Tail may be but Land may be intailed but Copy-hold Estate is so base that an Estate tail cannot be derived out of it so that though that custome may make an Estate to one and the Heires of his Body yet this cannot be an Estate taile but Fee-simple conditionall and also he agreed that they might have Formedon in Discender but it is the same Formedon which was before the Statute as if Tenant in Fee-simple conditionall before the Statute would alien before issue but it was no Estate taile with the priviledges of an Estate taile before the Statute and to the other matter of Surrender that is the admittance of the parties which is an Estate taile that doth not conclude the Court as it appears by the Lord Barkleys Case in the Commentaries where the Estate pleaded severally by the parties is not traversed by any of them and so concludes and prayes Judgment c. And this case was argued again in Trinity Tearme next ensuing by Montague the Kings Serjeant for the Defendant and he said that there are three questions in the case First If Copy-hold land may be intailed Secondly Admitting that it may be intailed if Surrender makes discontinuance Thirdly If it shall be Remitter and to the first he seemed that it might be intailed and that it shall be within the Statute of Westminster 2. And first for the Antiquity of that he said that Littleton placed that amongst his Estates of Free-hold and hath been time out of minde and is a primitive Estate and not derived out of the Estate of the Lord and the Lord is not the Creator of that but the means to convey that after that it is cerated and what is created then shall have all the priviledges and Benefits which are incident to it and shall be nursed by the custome and is time out of minde and the Law alwaies takes notice of it and he cited 24 H. 4. 323. by Hankf Bracton Fitz. Na. Bre. 12 C. and Brownes Case 4. Coke which is not simply an Estate at the will of the Lord but at the VVill of the Lord according to the custome of the Mannor and when it hath gained the reputation of Free-hold then it shall be dircted according to the rules of the Common Law and 2. and 3. P. and Ma. Dier 114. 60. allow Copy-hold Estate to be intailed and he saith That no Statute hath more liberall exposition then the Statute of Westminster 2. 45. Ed. 3. Incumbrance shall not charge the Issue intaile also a Copy-holder shall have a Cui in vita also a Copy-hold is within the Statute of Limitation and so upon the Statute of buying of pretenced rights And it is alway intended when a Statute speakes of Lands and Tenements that Copy-hold Lands shall be within that And he saith That all the Objections which have been made of the contrary part are answered in Heydons Case but he relyed upon that that every reall Inheritance is within the Statute of Westminster 2. 4 Ed. 2. Formedon lyeth of Copy-hold Land 25 Ed. 3. 46. Estate tayle is of a Corrody and office which proves that Copy-hold is a reall Inheritance and for that shall be within the Statute 46 Ed. 3. 21. Gavelkinde Land may be intailed 6 Rich. 2. Avowry 2. 8. Rich. 2. 26. Copy-holder shall be charged with Fees of a Knight at Parliament 22 and 23. Eliz. Dier 373. 13. Lands in ancient Demesne were intayled and he said that the reason is that for that it is Inheritance and time hath applyed them to an Estate and so concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Hutton Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that Copy-hold Lands cannot be intailed for that is but a customary Estate and the Law doth not take any notice of it but onely according to Custome for there were no Estates tayle before the Statute for then all were Fee simple absolute or conditionall that is either implyed or by limitation which cannot be of an Estate tayle which is not within the Statute of Westminster 2. for no Actions are maintainable by that but those which are by the Custome and a Writ of false Judgment See Fitzherberts Natura brevium 12. 13 Ed. 3. F. Prescription 29. that it hath no Incidents which are incident to Estates at the Common Law without Custome as Dower See Revetts Case and so is Tenancy by the Curtesie and there shall be no discent of that to take away Entry and so of other derivatives And he seemed that it is not within the Statute for three reasons apparent within the Statute First That it is hard that Givers shall be barred of their reversions but in case of Copy-holds the Giver hath no remedy to compell the Lord to admit him after the Estate tayle spent but onely Subpena and in this Case the Lord may releive himselfe for the losse of his services for that the Statute provides no remedy for him Secondly That the Statute doth not intend any Lands but those of which there is actuall reversion or remainder and those which passe by Deed so that the will of the Giver expressed in the Charter may be observed and of which there may be a subdivision as Lord Mesne and Tenant for there shall be alwayes a reversion of the Estate tayle and the Donee shall hold of the Donor and not of the Lord. Also it seems that the Statute doth not intend to provide for any but those for whom the VVrit in the Formedon ordained by the Statute lyes and agreed that for Offices and such like Formedon lyeth if the party will admit Estate tayle to be discontinued Also the Statute intends those things of which a Fine may be levyed for the Statute provides that the Fine in his owne right should be nothing but by Copy-holder Fine cannot be levied and for that he shall not be within the
if a Copy-holder be of twenty Acres and the Lord grants Rent out of those twenty Acres in the tenure and occupation of the sayd Copy-holder and name him There if this Copy hold Escheat and be granted againe the Copy-holder shall hold it charged for this is now charged by expresse words Trinity 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Kings Bench. Goodyer and Ince GOodyer was Plaintiff in a Writ of Error against Ince and the Case was this Ince brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation in the Common Bench against Goodyer and had Judgment to recover and by his execution prayed an Elegit to the Sheriff of London and another to the Sheriff of Lancaster and his request was granted and entred upon the Roll after which went out an Elegit to the Sheriff of Lancaster upon a Testatum supposing that an Elegit issued out to the Sheriff of London which returned Nulla bona and Quod Testatum sit c. That the Defendant hath c. in your County c. upon which Elegit upon this Testatum the Sheriff of Lancaster extended a forme of the Defendants in a grosse sum of a hundred pounds and delivered this to the party himselfe which sold that to another and now the Defendants brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error that this Elegit issued upon a Testatum where no Writ of Elegit was directed to the Sheriff of London and so this Writ issued upon a false supposall and upon that two points were moved in the Case First As this Case is if this were Error in the Execution or not Secondly Admit that it were Error if the Plaintiff shall be restored to the tearme againe or if to the value in Money and it was moved by Davenport of Grayes Inne that this was no Error and to that he took this difference That true it is when a man brings an Action of Debt in London and hath Judgment that without request of the Plaintiff he is to have his Elegit to the Sheriffs of London where originally the Action was brought and in such Case he cannot have Elegit to the Sheriff of another County without surmise made upon the returne of the first Elegit and the surmise ought to be true or otherwise it is Error but where upon the request the Elegit is granted to both Counties at the first and so entred upon the Roll It seems to him that insomuch that he may have both together that if the surmise be false that this is but a fault of the Clarke which shall be amended and shall be no Error and to that he cyted the Case of 44 Edw. 3. 10. Where an Elegit issued upon a Recognizance of a hundred Markes and the Writ of Extent was a hundred pounds and the Sheriff extended accordingly of the Land of the Defendant and he came and shewed this to the Court and praied that the Writ should abate and a new Writ to the Sheriff that he might have restitution of his Tearme and Thorp said this is but a misprison of the Clark and the Roll is good and he shall have the Land but till the hundred markes are Levied and after this you shall have restitution of the Land which case proves as he conceives that if the Roll warrant a writ in one manner and the Clark makes it in another manner that this shall not be Error and so in this case the Roll warrants an Elegit originally to the Sheriff of Lancaster and though that this is made upon a Testatum this shall not be Error because warranted by the Roll And to the second point he would not speake for if that were no Error the second point doth not come in question Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. in the Kings Bench. Marsam against Hunter IN Trespasse the case was this Copy-holder of a Mannor within which Mannor the custome was that the Copy-holders should have Common in the wast of the Lord The Lord by Deed confirmes to a Copy-holder to have to him and his Heires with the appurtenances and the point was insomuch that his Copy-hold was now distroied whether he shall have his Common or not And Davyes of Linclones Inne argued the Common is extinct and his reason was that this Common was in respect of his Tenure and the Tenure is distroid Ergo the Common and he cited the case of 5 Ed. 4. fol. ult Where the office of the King of Herraulds was granted to Garter with the Fees and profits Ab Antiquo and also ten pound for the office and there it is resolved if the office be determined the Annuity is determined also and the case in 7. Ed. 4. 22. b. Where an Annuity was granted to John Clark of the Crown and for Tearme of life and after he was discharged of the office and the oppinion of the Justices then was that the annuity was determined and in 19. Ed. 3. Assis 83. 12 Assis 22. A man gives Land to his Daughter and I. S. within the years of marrying in frank-marriage the Husband sues Divorce the marriage being dissolved the Wife from whom the Land first moved shall have the Land againe so in the principall case insomuch that this common was in respect of Tenure the Tenure being distroied the common is gone and this was all his argument and he prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff and another day Brautingham of Grayes Inne seemed that the common remaines for three reasons First of the nature of a prescription and to that there are three manner of prescriptions First personall prescription and in that Inhabitants may prescribe as for a way or matter of ease as it is said in 7. Ed. 4. 15. Ed. 4. and 18. Ed. 4. and 6. Coke Gatwoods case Secondly reall prescription and this is Inherent to the Estate and this is where a man prescribeth that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Thirdly locall prescriptions an that is where a man prescribes to have a thing appendant or appurtenant to his Mannor and this is so fixed to the Land that whether soever the Land goes the prescription is concommitant unto it and it seemes to him that this common is annexed to the Land by prescription and so locall and cannot be seperated but alwaies shall go with the Land into who soever hands that comes but Dixit non Probant And for this he supposed that the custome of Copy-hold is that the Copy-hold shall discend to the youngest Son if the Copy holder purchase the Free-hold and the Fee-simple of the Copy-hold so that this is made Free-hold this shall discend to the youngest Son so if a Copy-holder by custome is discharged of payment of Tythes in kind so the office of the master of the Rolles hath many liberties pertaining to it and this is granted but Durante placito yet if the King grant that in Fee as he may yet he shall have all the Fees and Priviledges annexed to that and so it seemes to him that
this common being annexed to the Land though that the Estate be increased yet the common remaines his second reason was of the manner of conveiance and that was by confirmation and if that conveiance had been by Feoffment peradventure the common had been gone But a confirmation enures allwaies upon an Estate precedent and though that this somtimes inlargeth the Estate yet this doth not alter the Estate as to any priviledges annexed to it his third reason was of the matter of the confirmation and that is that he hath confirmed it with the appurtenances and this seemes to him admitting that the common had been extinct yet these words with the appurtenances amount to a new grant of a common as in the case of Corody in 22 Ed. 4. 17. and 18. If the King grant to one such a Corody as I. S. had he shall have so much bread and beere as I. S. had so here when he grants and confirmes that with the appurtenances this is with all such priviledges as I. S. had so here when he confirmes with the appurtenances this is with all the priviledges that the old Estate had and so this should be a grant of such common as was annexed to that and so it seemed to him for these reasons that the common remaines to which it was said by Davies of the other part that he agreed al the manners of Prescriptions but he denied that it was a locall Prescription that is to Land but only to an Estate and this proves well the words of the Prescription for the Copy-holder ought to prescribe that is that every customary Tenant within the Mannor c. So he hath his common in respect that he is customary Tenant and this is in respect of the Estate which he hath by the Custome and not in respect of the Land and that this shall not enure as a new Grant he cited a case to be adjudged Michaelmasse 43. and 44. Eliz. in the Kings Bench Rot. 367 Where in Trespasse the Defendant justifies the lopping of Trees in the wast of the Lord where the custome was that every Copy-holder might shride the Trees in the wast of the Lord and that he was a Copy-holder there and the Lord granted to him the Inheritance of his Copy-hold with all such Lands Tenements and Commons of Estovers pertaining to the Copy-hold and adjudged that insomuch that the Customary Estate was distroied this custome was not now annexed to the Land but being determined with the Estate cannot be said appertaining to it and for that the Justification ill and it seemed to him to be all one with the principall case and it was adjourned and after in Michaelmasse Tearme 8. Jacobi It was adjudged that the Common was extinct and not revived Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench Proctor against Johnson THE Case hath depended seven yeares in this Court upon a Writ of Error was this Two Joynt Tenants for yeares of a Mill one grants his Estate severally to another and dies the Grantee doth not enter yet The other reciting the Lease to him made and to his companion joyntly and that his companion died so that all belonged to him as Survivor as he intended grants all the Mill to Johnson and all his Estate Right and Interest in that And covenants that the Grantee there shall continue discharged and aquitted of all Charges and Incumbrances or other Act or Acts done by him and after binds himselfe in a Bond to performe all Grants Covenants and Agreements contained in the Indentures according to the intent and meaning of the parties and after the Grantee of his companion entered into the halfe and the question was If the Bond were forfeit or not and it was adjudged in the Common Bench that the Obligation was forfeited And the matter was argued this Tearm in this Court by Yelverton of Grayes Inne that the Bond shall not be forfeited for the Bond was with Condition to performe all Grants c. According to the true intent and meaning of the parties and then let us see what was the intent of the parties and suerly this appeares by the recitall in the Indenture and for that he said that all appeares to him as survivor as he conceived so that he was doubtfull of that and for that his meaning was that if he had all then to grant all and if he had but a moity then to grant but the moity and this proves well the words subsequent where he saith that he granted the Mill and all his Estate Right and Interest in that so that he did not intend to grant more then his Estate and these words subsequent qualifie the generall words precedent and so it seemes to him that the Obligation shall not be forfeited And Sir Robert Hitcham the Queens Attorney to the contrary and that the Bond was forfeited for he hath bound himself to perform all grants and he hath not performed his Grant for he granted all the Mill and then though but a moity passeth yet he shall forfeit his Bond if the moity be evicted and for that if a man which hath nothing in the Mannor of D. makes a Lease by Deed indented to J. S. and binds himself to performe all Grants though that nothing passes yet if he enter and be ejected he shall have Debt upon his Obligation and he cited one Yelvertons Case to be adjudged but did not tell when where a man which hath nothing in the Mannor of Dale covenants with J. S. to stand seised to the use of him and his Heirs at Michaelmas and before Michaelmas he purchases the Mannor of Dale and it was resolved that no use shall be raised at Michaelmas for he had not the Mannor at the time of the Covenant and also it was resolved that no Action of Covenant lies upon the Covenant but he sayd that it is a cleer Case that if he had entred into a Bond to perform all Covenants in the Indenture that the Bond shall be forfeited though that he could not have action of Covenant upon the Covenant and also he sayd that he well agreed the Case of the Lady Russell which was adjudged also but Nescio quando where a man made a Lease for years of the Mannor of Dale except one Acre the Lessee binds himself to perform all agreements and after the Lessee enters into the Acre this shall be no breach of the condition for this exception is no agreement for nothing shall be sayd an agreement in an Indenture but that which passeth in Interest and so he sayd that though that the Lessee cannot have an Action of Covenant in the principall Case insomuch that this is so speciall yet the Bond shall be forfeited upon these Words grants and agreements and the Covenant special doth not qualify the generall express grant and after four Justices that is Flemming the cheife Justice Willams Yelverton and Crooke were of opinion that the Bond is forfeited and this for the generalty of the
Tenement and also prescribed for House-boot Plow-boot and Cart-boote and averred that he had nourished the growing of the Trees upon his sayd Copy-hold and that the sayd Messuage and buildings upon that were ruinous and the Trees growing upon that twenty Acres of Land were not sufficient for the repairing of it and so demanded Judgment if he should be debarred of his Action upon which these Defendants demurred in Law and it was adjudged by Coke Warburton and Foster Daniel being absent that the Action was wel maintainable against Walmesley who objected that if a Copy-holder may cut Trees as it was here pleaded at his pleasure without pleading first that his House was in decay and ruinous and that then he cut trees for the repaire of that that then he hath an Estate at wil according to the Custome and not at the Wil of the Lord and he sayd that he could not cut a tree and imploy that for Reparations twenty years But the cause of this cutting which is the Ruines ought to precede the cutting and he sayd that such Copy-holder hath no property in the Trees by such prescription no more then he which hath Common of Estovers or tenant at wil and if he cut a tree without special custome he shal be punished in trespasse as Littleton saith of Tenant at Wil and also he ought to plead how the House was ruinous and what place and what part of that was in decay and then that this so being in decay that he cut trees for the repaires of that and also that the Prescription to cut off the boughs Pro ligno combustibili is not wel pleaded for by that he may cut all the timber and others also and he who prescribes to hate Estovers ought to prescribe to have reasonable Estovers for Fuell and the averment that all the trees are not sufficient for reparations is surplusage and so hee conceived that the Action for these causes is not maintainable that is that it is not maintainable without speciall custome and that the custome as it is pleaded here is voyd but it was answered and resolved by Coke and the other Justices before cited that the Action was wel maintainable at the Common Law without such Custome and that the pleading of the custome was surplusage for it was agreed that the Copy-holder hath special property and the Lord a general property and it was sayd by Coke and Foster that the Lord may as wel subvert the Houses as cut down the Trees for without them the Copy-holder hath no means to repaire that and for that if the Lord cut the Trees the Copy-holder may take them for repaire of his house for the Copy-holder hath as large an Estate in the trees as in his Copy-hold Land and it was resolved that the Prescription was very wel pleaded insomuch that the Copy-holder pleads that as a custome and also that prescription Pro ligno combustibili is Good and this is an apt word by which he may claim it and that boote in any sense is maintainable and in some sense is Recompence or Reparation and it is House-boote Hedge-boote Fire-boote Plow-Boote c. Is in it self a Saxon word and the Lord Coke sayd that it was adjudged Michaelmas 25. and 26. Eliz. in Doylyes Case Where it was a custome that the Copy-holder might cut Merisme for to repaire that if the Lord carry it away that an Action of Trespass lies for the Tenant and Pasch 36. Eliz. Taylers Case A man was Tenant by copy of Court Role of wood and the soyle was excepted to the Lord and yet the Copy-holder maintained an Action of trespass against his Lord for cutting of wood And Trinity 4. Eliz. Stebbings Case Copy-holder prescribes to have the Loppings of all the trees growing upon the Copy-hold and the Lord cut a tree himselfe and the Copy-holder brought an action upon his case and adjudged that it lyeth wel and 9 H 4. Fitz. Waste 59. by Hull that Tenant by copy of Court Roll cannot make waste nor cut woods to fel but for his Benefit in repairing of his House and 2 Henr. 4. 12. a. It seemes that if a stranger cut a Tree the Lord may have an Action of trespass and the Copy-holder another and every one of these shal recover Damages according to his interest that is the Lord by his general property and the Copy-holder for his special property it appears by Clark and Pennyfathers case 4 Coke 23. b. That the Heir of the Copy-holder may have an Action of Trespass before admission by which it appears that the heir doth not take his Estate of the Lord but of his Father and also agree that if such an Heire dye before Admission the Heir may enter and take the profits and so it was adjudged that the Action of Trespass brought by the Copy-holder against his Lord was well maintainable Pasche 1610. 8. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Earle of Rutlands Case EARLE of Rutland Plaintiff in an Action of trespasse upon the Case against Spencer and Woodward Defendants the case was The last Queen Elizabeth Anno 42. Eliz. by her Letters Patents under the great seale of England granted to the Earle of Rutland the Office of the custody of the Porter-ship of the Castle of Nottingham Habendum to the sayd Earl to be executed by him or his Deputy during his natural Life and further the same Queen by the same Letters Patents granted to the sayd Earl the Office of Stewardship of diverse Mannors Habendum exercendum cum omnibus feodis vadis proficuijs eidem Officio pertinentibus to the sayd Earl from the time that he should be of ful age during his Life and further the sayd Queen granted to the sayd Earle the Office of Keeper-ship of divers Parks and forrests Habendum exercendum Officium predictum cum omnibus singulis suis proficuijs vadis feodis emolumentis quibuscunque eidem Officio pertinentibus aut ratione ejusdem percipiendis per se vel sufficiendem deputatum sunm c. And after in the sayd Patent it is recyted that the sayd Earl was of ful age An 40 Eliz. Vt informamu r mandamus quod omnes singuli Officiarij alij quicunque sint intendentes obedientes dicto Commiti deputatis suis in exerendo officium predictum and if this patent were good or not was the question And Hutton serjeant conceived that the Patent was good and that the sayd Earl may exercise the sayd Office of Stewardship for which this Action was brought by Deputy by force of the sayd Grant The first question which hee moved was if Steward of a Court may execise his Office by Deputy without speciall Grant of that Secondly if there be words within the Patent to enable him to execute that by Deputy Thirdly if upon this disturbance action upon the case Quare vi armis lies And to the first he conceived that the Patentee may exercise the