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
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
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
of the King for the Plaintiff and day given for the argument of that till the next tearm Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. Tresham against Lambe LEwes Tresham was Plaintiff in waste against John Lambe the Plaintiff supposed the Defendant had made waste in sowing and plowing ancient meadow the which he had let to the Defendant for years in Rushton in the county of Northampton and sowed it with Woade and prayed Estrepement upon the Statute of Glocester chapter 13. And upon examination it appears that the Lands let was pasture and Meadow the Pasture was Ridge and furrow but had been mowed and used for meadow for diverse years and that the Defendant plowed and sowed that with Woade but this which had been ancient meadow he used that as Meadow and did not convert that to Arable Land but the Judges would not grant any Estrepement to the Pasture for that it was Ridge and furrow and it was no ancient meadow although that had been mowed time out of minde c. But to the ancient Meadow they granted a writ of Esterpement but Foster seemed to be of another opinion for that that it was to sow Woade for that that it is against common Right and the fume and smell of that is offensive and infectious but if it had been to sow Corne he agreed as above and for the executing the Writ of Estrepement they all agreed that the Sheriff ought to take if need be the power of the County against those which made the waste hanging the Action and may commit them if they will not obey him for the words of the Statute are that you shall cause to keep which shall be intended in safety But if Lessee for years trench or draine that is no Wast as it was now of late times adjudged where if the Lessee takes any of the reasonable Bootes that the Law allowes that it shall be no Waste nor Estrepement shall be granted see Fitzherberts Natura Brevium 59. m. If a man devise Land to his Executors for years this is assetts but if he devise that his Executors shall sell his Lands or devise his Lands to his Executors to be sold this shall be no assets untill the Lands are sold and the money for which the land shall be sold shall be assetts A Record of Nisi prius in an Action of Debt upon an obligation with condition to pay such a sum of Money at such a Feast next after the date of the obligation and the day of the date of the obligation was omitted in the Record of the Nisi prius so that it doth not appear which shall be the next Feast at which the mony ought to be paid after the date and by all the Justices that was no perfect Issue and for that the Justices of Nisi prius have no power to proceed upon it and for that it shall not be amended otherwise if it had been a good Issue though that another thing had been mistaken see Dyer 9. Eliz. 260. 24. And see before the same Tearm here The King pardoned a man attaint for giving a false verdict yet he shall not be at another time impannelled upon any Jury for though that the punishment were pardoned yet the Guilt remaines Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. James versus Reade THE case was the King was seised of a Mannor where there were diverse Copy-holders for life and was also seised of eight Acres of Land in another Mannor in which the Copy-holders have used time out of minde c. To have common and after the King grants the Mannor to one and the eight Acres to another and a Copy-holder puts in his beasts into the eight Acres of Land and in trespasse brought against him by the Patentee of the eight Acres he prescribes that the Lord of a Mannor and all those whose estate he hath in the Mannor have used time out of minde c. For themselves and their Copy-holders to have Common in the said eight Acres of Land and further pleaded that he was Copy-holder for his life by grant after the said unity of possession in the King and so demanded judgment if action against which the said unity of possession was pleaded upon which the Defendant demurrs and all the Justices seemed that though that prescription was pleaded that the common was extinct but it seems also to them that by speciall pleading he might have beene helped and save his common for this was common Appendant see 4. Coke Tirringhams Case 37. 6. Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Cartwright against Gilbert IN Debt upon an obligation with condition to be and perform an Arbitrement to be made the Arbitrators award that the Defendant should make Submission and should acknowledge himself sorry for all transgressions and words at or before the next Court to be held in the Mannor of P. And for the not performance of that Award the Plaintiff brought this Suit and the Defendant in Barr of this pleads that at the said next Court he went to the Court to make his submission and to acknowledge himself greived according to the Award and was there ready to have performed it but further he saith that the Plaintiff was not there to accept it upon which the Plaintiff demurred and it seemes to Coke and Foster that the Defendant hath done as much as was to be done of his part and for that that the Plaintiff was not there ready to accept the Defendant was discharged for this submission is personall and to the intent to make them freinds and for that both the parties ought to be present But Walmesley and Warburton seemed that it might have been very well made in the absence of the Plaintiff as well as a man may submit himself to an Arbitrement of a man which is absent for this is only to be made to the intent to shew himself sorrowfull for the Trespasses and words which he hath made and spoken and it was not argued but adjourned till the next tearme and the Justices moved the parties to make an end of that for that it was a trifling Suit Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610 In the Common Bench. Sir Edward Ashfeild SIR Edward Ashfeild was bound in an obligation by the name of Sir Edmund and subscribed that with the name of Edward and in Debt brought upon that he pleads it is not his Deed and it seemes to all the Justices that he might well plead that for it appears to them that he is not named Edmund and the originall against him was Command Edward otherwise Edmund and this was not good for a man cannot have two Christian names and if judgment were given against him by the name of Edmund and the Sheriff arrest him by Capias that false imprisonment lies against him But if he have a name given to him when he was christened and another when he was confirmed he shall be called and known by the name given unto him at the time
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
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
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
and for these reasons he prayed a consultation and Yelverton to the contrary and he took a difference and sayd that he agreed that if the Wardens of the Church have once possession of the Church there in Action of Trespas brought for these Goods one Warden cannot release but this tax for which they sue is a thing meerly in Action of which they have not any possession of that before and there he cannot sue alone and for that this release shall barr his Companion And the Court interrupted him and sayd that cleerly consultation shall be granted and Flemming cheife Justice we have not need to dispute this release whether it be good or not and there is a difference where a suit is commenced before us as if Wardens of the Church brought Trespasse here for Goods of the Church taken and one Release then we might dispute if this release were good or not but when the matter is original begun before them in the spirituall Court and there is the proper place to sue for this Tax and not any where else we have nothing to do with this Release and for that by the whole Court a consultation was awarded Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Styles Case UPon a Motion made by Yelverton on the behalfe of one Styles the Case was this Styles had a Judgment in Ejectione firme and was put in possession by the Sheriff by an Habere facias possessionem and after the Defendant enters againe within the two weeks after Execution and the Writ was returned but not Fyled and Yelverton moved the Court for another Writ of execution and by Williams he could not have a new Writ of Execution but is put to his new Action and the Fyling of the Writ is not materiall for it is in the election of the Sheriff if he will Fyle or returne that or not but be sayd if the Execution had not been fully made as he sayd there was a Case where the Sheriff made an Execution of a House and there were some persons which hid themselves in the upper Lofts of the House and after the Sheriff was gone they came downe and outed those that the Sheriff had put in possession before and in this Case a new Writ of Execution was awarded but there a full Execution was not made and so the difference But the cheif Justice sayd That if the Sheriff put a man in possession and after the other which was put out enters in forthwith that in this Case the Court may award an Attachment against him for contempt against the Court. Hillary 7 Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Gittins against Cowper CUstome of one Mannor was That if any Copy-holder within the Mannor committed any Felony and this be presented by the Homage that the Lord may take and seise the Land a Copy-holder committed Felony and this was presented by the Homage and after the Copy-holder was Indicted and by Verdict acquit and the Lord entred and if his entry were lawfull or not was the question The points were two First If the Custome were good Secondly Admitting the Custome to be good if this Verdict and acquittall shall conclude the Lord of his entry And Walter of the Inner Temple argued that the Custome was good and that the Lord was not concluded by this Verdict And to the first point he sayd That it was a good Custome First insomuch it might have a reasonable beginning and for that he cyted the Book of 35 H. 6. where it is sayd that such Customes which might have reasonable beginning should be good and to that he cyted a Case which was adjudged as he sayd in 27 Eliz. and was one Delves Case and the Case was this A Quo warranto issued against Delves to know Quo warranto he held a Leet to which he pleaded that he was seised of such a Messuage and that he and all those whole Estate he hath in the said Messuage have used allwaies to have and hold a Leete there within the Messuage If this prescription that is to have a Leete appendant to a single Messuage was good or not was the question And it was adjudged insomuch that by resonable intendment it might be that this house was the Scite of a Mannor and the Lord granted that with the Leet the Prescription adjudged good and he sayd that many Customes are grounded upon the nature of the place and for that he sayd that this Mannor was adjoyning to great Woods and it might be that the Copy-holders committed Felonies and outrages and after fled into the Woods and there lived and yet injoyed the benefit of their Copy-holds and for that it was reasonable for the Lord to annex such a restraint and condition that is if they committed any Felony this should be a forfeiture of their Copy-hold and this should be a meanes to bridle them to commit such haynous and odious offences And that Customes ought to have a respect to the place he cyted the Case of 12 H. 3. where the Custome of the Isle of Man was That if any man stole a Hen or a Capon or such small matter that should be Felony but if he stole a Horse that should not be Felony for a man may privily convey away a Hen or might consume it but for the smalnesse of the place and being compassed with the water he could not so doe with a Horse So in 39. H. 6. That the married Wife of a Merchant in London may sue and be sued by the Custome and the reason is that London is the cheife City and place of Merchandise within the Realme of England and it is conceived that the Merchants cannot be alwaies resident there but sometimes beyond Sea or other where about their businesse and Affaires and for that it shall be reasonable that his Wife shall sue and shall be sued in his absence and in time of E. 1. Title Prescription the custome of Hallifax that if any Felon be taken with the manner he shal be forthwith beheaded and this was as it seems for the better suppressing the common Felonies there committed and so he concluded for this Reason that this custome might have such reasonable beginning and in respect of the place that should be a good custome His second Reason was that this might begin at this day lawfully Therfore this shall be good and for that he cited the case of 10 H. 7. 11. That if a man make a Feoffment upon condition that the Feoffee shall not commit Felony that this is a good condition but he sayd that he supposed that if the Feoffee commit Felony and the Feoffor enter into the Land and after the Feoffee is attaint of this felony that now the Lord shall enter by Escheate and his reason was that the Statute of Westminster 3. De quia emptores terrarum prohibits any man to make a Feoffment to the prejudice of the Lord to his Wardship or Escheat His third reason was that this
a Writ this is disturbance and Action upon the case lies And so in Quare Impedit And also he sayd that the Earle cannot make a Deputy but by writing as it is resolved 28. H. 8. Br. deputy 17. Where it is sayd that Deputation of an Office which lyes in Grant ought to be made by Deed and not by Word But here the Jury have found that the Earle hath made his Deputy this shall be intended in lawfull manner and cannot be but by writing And also he agreed that the Habendum mentioned in the third Grant shall extend only to this Grant which is his proper Grant that the Office of the Habendum And it appeares by Wrotsleys and Adams case Comment 17. That the Office of Habendum is to make certain the Estate and not the thing granted for this is the Office of the Premisses of the Deed And if the Habendum in the third Grant had had reference to the second Grant this would make the Grant void And in Grants of the King other construction shall be made as it was adjudged in the Court of Wards Michaelmasse 28. and 29 Eliz. between Brunkar Plaintiff and Robotham Defendant where the case was the King Hen. the 8. had two Mannors whereof diverse Lands of one Mannor extended the other Mannor and then the King granted one Mannor and all his Lands in the same Mannor Nec non omnies singulas Terras c. In the same Town and adjudged that the Lands which were parcell of the other Mannor which was not granted passe by this Grant though that they are in the other Mannor in the same Town and he denyed that the words Precipientes volentes shall be taken as a Grant for they are not spoken to the Patentee but to other Officers which are strangers to the Grant But if the thing granted had been a Chattell that a Covenant might enure as a Grant and 10. Eliz. Dyer 270. 22. The King Phillip and Queen Mary granted for them and their Heires and Successors to A. B. That he and his Factors and Assignes might Tavern and keep a Tavern c. Commanding all Mayors and Sheriffs c. and other Officers and Subjects and their Heires and Successors to permit and suffer the said A. B. during his life to hold and use a Tavern and to sell Wine without Impeachment and it seemes that the Grant is void for that that there is not any time limited for how long it shall indure and the mandate in the last clause shall not make any limitation for by the death of the Prince this altogether ceaseth for Omne mandatum morte mandantis expirat And for that all Proclamations made in time of the Raign of Queen Eliz cease and determine by her death And to the person of the Earle he said that it was a Maxime that Honour and Order shall be observed and that was a common saying of the said Queen and for that it was not her intention that this Maxime should be broken and that the said Earle should exercise the said Office in person but she intended the said Earle should overlook the said Mannor and place here a sufficient able man to exercise the said Office because he should answer for the misdemeanour of such a Deputy is the forfeyture of the Office and he saith that the Dignity of an Earle was the most high Dignity in this Realm that any Subject doth possesse till the 11. Ed. 3 The black Prince was the 1 Duke and Aubry de Vere the 1 Marquess in the 11. R. 2. and Beamount the first vicount in the time of H. 6. And none of these Dignyties are above an Earle in degree but only in precedency for Bracton lib. 1. chap. 8. saith Quod Comites dicunter a socitate quia Comitantur Regem And in ancient time none were made Earles but only those which were of the blood Royall and this is the reason that they are called Consanguinij Regis and also they may be called Consules a Consulendo Tales enim Regis sibi associunt ad consulendum regendum populum Dei And at their creation the King gives to them a Robe and Cap which signifies Councell and Corronet which signifies the greatnesse of his Blood and Honour and also sword Vt sit in ntrumque tempus as well ready for War as peace And for that it should be unfit that one of such Honour State and Dignity should be imployed in holding of Court Barons and there sit to enter Plaints and have a peny for every Plaint for his paines and to make Copies and such like base imployments which are Vividae rationes which was not the intent of the Queen that he should exercise the said Office in person and the Law requires conveniences in all Grants as in 12. and 13. H. 8. One licensed a Duke to come and hunt in his park and the Duke came with his Servants and many others of his Retinue and hunted there and it was adjudged that the Grant was sufficient to warrant his hunting in this manner in respect of the conveniency for it is not fit and convenient that the Duke should go alone and 21. Ed. 3. 48. The Bishop of Carlile sued the Executors of his Predecessor the Ornaments of the Chappel of the sayd Bishoprick and then recovered and though that the sayd Chappel was in the private House of the sayd Bishop yet it was thought fitting that such Chappel should be adorned with convenient Ornaments and that these Ornaments should go in succession to the Successors and not to the Executors and if conveniency be so required in all these cases then by the like Reason such inconveniency shall not be admitted that the Earl should be Clark to Suitors as every Steward is And for that he conceived that the Grant is good And that the sayd Earl may exercise this Office by a Deputy as well as if a Common person grant an Office of Fostership to the King he may exercise that by any party or grant it over though therebe no words of deputation in the Grant and this in respect of the quality of his person and in many other cases an Earle or another Noble man shall be priviledged as in 3 H. 6. A Noble man shal not be examined upon his Oath in account And 48 Ed. 3. 30. He shal not be sworn upon Inquests which is to serve God and his Country Register 179. And if a common person be in debt to me a hundred pound I may have a Capias and arrest his person for this Debt but if the King create him Baron or Earl then his person is so privileged that that cannot be attached for this Debt and this is without wrong to me as it appears by the Countesse of Rutlands case 6. Coke And if a Baron be returned of a Jury and if Issue be taken if he be a Baron or not this shal be tryed by Record whether he be a Baron or not 35 H. 6. 46.
Berwick Gaol for stealing of a Mare and other Beasts and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the words were not actionable and so it was adjudged for that he did not directly say the Plaintiff was a Thief but onely implied Hill 15. Iac. rotulo An Exception taken to a Declaration in Trover brought by an Administrator because he declares that whereas he was possessed of divers Goods and Chattels as of his own proper Goods and should have said as was pretended as of the Goods and Chattels of the intestate at the time of his Death but the Exception was over-ruled by the Court. Exception to an Action of the case brought and the Plaintiff declares that whereas the Plaintiff had delivered the Defendant unum statum salis Anglicae a Bushel of Salt pretending that statum had another proper signification but because it was shewed to the Court that statum by one Dictionary was Latine for a Bushel Judgement was given for the Plaintiff In Trover it is usual to prove no more but that you requested the Goods and the Defendant refused to deliver them this is a Conversion When a Justification arises upon a Sale then I need traverse no more but the place alleadged and not go to the whole County but where it is a transitory Trespass as for Battery taking of Goods and the like then the whole County must be traversed CAtford versus Osmond Mich. 16. Jac. rotulo 1063. Action of Trover brought for two Steers the Defendant being an Attourney of the Common-pleas justifies the taking as Under-sheriff by reason of Process from the Exchequer to levy of the Occupiers of the Lands of divers persons in a Schedule in the said Writ named the Debts therein specified and doth not recite the Schedule and he being Under-sheriff took the Steers in the Land of the Plaintiff which was lately one Stones who was Debtor to the King in 59. s. being behinde upon the Land and Exception was taken for that it was not directly alledged that the Land such a Day was the Land of the said S. The Writ commanded to levy the summs in the said Schedule mentioned and if they could not to take their Bodies and it was adjudged a good Warrant to levy of the Occupiers of the Lands that were the said S. 59. s. COles versus Flaxman Hill 14. Jac. rotulo 2175. Action of the case brought for disturbing the Plaintiffs Common The Defendant pretends Title to the Common by reason of Common appurtenant to certain customary Land of part of which he conveys a Title to himself but not of the whole and the Question was whether it were Common appurtenant or appendant and if appurtenant it could not be divided KEymes versus Moxham Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 559. Action of the case brought for a promise made at C. for the Delivery of a Mare which the Plaintiff delivered the Defendant to plow his ground in P. And shews the Defendant did so excessively and immoderately labor and work the said Mare that the Mare died The Defendant confesses the promise and that the Mare at the time of the Delivery was infirm and that he worked her moderately and traverses the excessive labouring of the Mare and after a Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that it was mis-tried because the Venn was of C. which was naught and there was no place alleadged where the excessive labouring was for the Venn ought to come from that place where the laboring was HArbin and his Wife versus Green Trin. 14. Jac. rotulo 2263. Action upon the case brought for not grinding his Corn at the Plaintiffs Mill and shews that the Bishop of Salisbury was seised of four customary Mils called A. in his Demesne as of Fee in right of his Bishoprick and prescribes that all Inhabitants and Residents within the City of Salisbury holding any ancient Mesuages of the said Bishop in right of his Bishoprick were time out of minde used and ought to grinde all their Corn whatsoever spent in their houses or exposed to sale in the said City at the said Mils of the said Bishop and no where else without the licence of the said Bishop and to pay Toll therefore to the said Bishop his Successors Bishops or their Farmors for the time being and in consideration thereof the Bishop his Successors or Farmors for the time being of the said Mils time out of minde have been used and accustomed at their own charges from time to time to keep and maintain a Servant expert in grinding as well by night as day there attending to grinde their Corn as soon as conveniently might be and the Plaintiff shews that such a Day the Defendant was and yet is an Inhabitant in one ancient Mesuage in the said City held of the Bishop and so possessed intending to deprive the Plaintiff of the profit of his Mill did such a day grinde divers sorts of Corn in other Mils without the Bishops leave to his damage of c. The Defendant pleads Non cul The Jury finde the Defendant guilty for a longer time then the Plaintiff had interest in the Mill and gave Damages intire and upon a Motion in arrest of Judgement adjudged naught GResley versus Lother and his Wife Executrix of R. B. and declares that communication was had between the Testator in his life and the Plaintiff concerning a Marriage to be had and solemnized between one T. B. son and heir apparent of the said R. B. and Jane Daughter of the Plaintiff and heir apparent of John F. deceased the said Testator such a Day and Year in consideration that the Plaintiff at the special instance and request of the said R. B. then and there would agree that the said T. B. should marry the said J. promised to pay 20. l. and adjudged a good consideration GOwland versus Mason Hill 17. Jac. rotulo Action of the case for these words I charge him with Felony for taking of money out of the pocket of Henry Sparry and I will prove it and the Court was divided in opinion whether the words would maintain an Action or no. SMith and his Wife versus Stafford Executor of Stafford Hill 15 Jac. rotulo 906. Action of the case brought upon a promise made to the Woman when she was sole in consideration the Woman would marry the Testator he promises that if the Woman should over-live the Testator that then he would leave her worth 100. l. and they averr that she did marry him and after the Husband died and did not leave her worth 100. l. and the Defendant pleads Non assumpsit and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that by the Inter-marriage the Promise was drowned and released Three Judgeâ—…r the Plaintiff and one for the Defendant The like Observations in Actions of Covenant DRury versus Allen al. Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 926. Action of Covenant
Damages c. An Assise brought and the Grant was of the Herbage and Pannage c. and whether this were good or no some held it void for the incertainty of the Grant when it should begin Sir Edward Cook held the Grant good for if the King make a Lease for Life and granteth the Land without reciting the state to one for life this is a good Grant for Life of the Reversion to begin immediately after the Death of the Tenant for Life Trin. 7. Jacobi rotulo 35. An Assise brought for the Office of a Harald at the Funeral of the Earle of Exceter and the great Question was where the view should be made and it was alledged that it should be made in the place where he exercised his Office but the Court doubted of that but they were examined of the view made in the Abbey of Westminster being the place where the Funeral was performed and the Court were of opinion that in Dower where Tithes are demanded no view lies for of things that are invisible no view lies but the Tenant in such case shall be denied it SIr William Saint Andrew brought an Assise de Darrein Presentment against the Arch-bishop of York the Countess of Shrewsbury and F. H. for the Church of O. in the County of Nott. The Archbio p and H. appeared and the Countess did not appear and though the Countess made Default yet the Assise was not taken against her by Default but a re-summons was awarded against the Countess and the same Day given to the Arch-bishop and H. and a Habeas Corpora against the Recognisors And note the Tenants that appeared pleaded in abatement that a Writ of Quare impedit for the said Church was hanging in such a Court between the same parties and the Assise was brought afterwards and with this agrees the Register and it was adjudged a good Plea The Writ was returned in this manner Pleg de prosequend John Doo Richard Roo The within named Arch-bishop and Countess are attached and either of them is attached per Pleg H. S. N. J. And the within named H. hath nothing in the Sheriffs Bailywick by which he may be attached nor hath a Baily within his Liberty nor is therein found and the residue of the Execution c. and Judgement given that the Writ should abate and the like was in the Earle of Bedfords case where two Quare impedits were brought one after another and the last Writ abated J. Lovelace versus Baronissam Despencer R. Harvey Clericum Trin. 12. Jac. rotulo 74. de Darrien Presentment for the Church of M. And the said H. being solemnly exacted came not and the Sheriff made a Return that he was summoned by J. O. and W. C. and therefore the Assise was to be taken against him by Default but the said Baromsh by T. her Attourney faith the Assise ought not to be so taken and confesses the said J. was the person last presented but conveys a Title to her self of the Mannour to which the presentation belongs and that being so seised the Plaintiff in the Assise by usurpation presents the Clerk in the Count whereupon the Defendant brought a Quare impedit and hanging the Writ the Clerk in the Count dies and the Plaintiff presented the Clerk that made Default who by vertue of that presentation is yet Parson of the said Church by which she is seised of the Advowson as in her former Estate and so she saith that the Presentation of the said J. by the said L. made ought not to prejudice her and a Demurrer upon this Plea and that the Assise should remain to be taken c. for want of Recognisors and the Sheriff was commanded to distrain them c. and Judgement given that the Plea was good but quaere of the Declaration whether sufficient because it was not alleadged that he that presented was seised of the Advowson Pasch 8. Jac. rotulo 31. An Assise brought for the Office of Clock-keeper of and it was held that it must be an ancient Office and because they could not prove that it was an ancient Office the Plaintiff was non-suit and the Plaintiff shewed a Grant of the same in E. 6. time but that was held no ancient time Pasch 6. Jacobi It was held by the whole Court that an Assise of Sadler to the Queen would not lie being granted to one by the King but was held void by the whole Court for the King cannot make an Officer to the Queen and by the Patent no place was expressed where he should injoy and exercise his Office and take the Profits and therefore the Jury could not have the view and for that cause an Assise cannot be taken and if the King should grant the Office of Usher to his Son the Prince an Assise would not lie An Assise brought against Demetrius the Plaintiff was non-suit and Demetrius moved to have Cost and it was denied by the whole Court because an Assise is not within the words of the Statute Audita Quaerela BIrd versus Kirton Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 3118. An Audita Quaerela brought and the case was this Bird and Milles were bound to Kirton and Kirton makes a Bond to Milles in the summ of 100. l. that if Milles be not sued upon the first Bond then that shall be void and it was alleadged that Kirton did both sue Milles and Bird and that he had no notice of the second Bond that he might have pleaded it and so pretends that the second Bond should be a Defeasance of the first and Judgement was given for the Defendant BEck brought an Audita Quaerela and surmises the matter following that Boon Administrator of C. brought his Action of Debt upon an Obligation and before Judgement that Administration was revoked and Administration granted to another and notwithstanding the Revocation he procured Judgement and the second Administrator released and the rest brought an Audita Quaerela upon that Release and the Court would not grant a Supersedeas because the Revocation was but matter in fait for that Revocation was not under Seal and the first Administrator might appeal Cases in Law and Notes IF a Writ of Covenant be brought against two and if one acknowledge the Fine before one of the Justices and the other acknowledge by Dedimus or before another Justice that Fine cannot be proceeded upon these two acknowledgements by the opinion of the Court. A Writ of Covenant was brought against three men and their Wives and onely two men and their Wives acknowledged the Fine and the other Husband and Wife never acknowledged and the Fine was sued as a Fine acknowledged by all and it was desired the Fine might be amended and the Man and Wife that did not acknowledge might be put out but the Court would not grant it If I make a Lease for years reserving Rent during the Life of A. and B. if one of them die
the Rent is gone If I make a Lease for Life reserving a Rent to me and my Executor neither the Executor nor the Heir shall have the Rent Justice Walmsley held this difference in making a Lease to two during their Lives if one die the other shall have it otherwise it is if it be made to one during the Life of two and one of them die in this case the Lease is ended and there is difference between a reservation of Rent and Lease for Reservation is according to the will and pleasure of the Lessor and Justice Walmsley said if a Lessee for years granteth a Rent to A. during the Life of B. and C. this Reservation is good although one should die which Sir Edward Cook denied and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff in Hills case If I make a Lease for years reserving a Rent and then I grant demise and to farm let Reversionem domus for years and the Rent to have and to hold the Reversion and the Rent from a time past if the Lessee cannot get an Attornement yet it is a good Lease in Reversion and shall take effect after the end of the first Lease habendum terram habendum reversionem est terra revertens and no difference If the Husband with his own money purchaseth for his Wives Joynture Land to them and the Heirs of their two Bodies the Remainder in Fee to the Wife and they have Issue two Sons and the Husband dieth and the Wife suffereth a Recovery to the use of the youngest Son the eldest Son notwithstanding shall have the Land by the Statute of Joyntures Hill 6. Jac. If I set-out my Corn and after take it away the Parson may sue me in the Spiritual Court or bring an Action of Trespass against me but if the Parson sue in the Spiritual Court a stranger for taking away the Tithes which were set out this is a Praemunire in the Parson Tenant at will shall pay his Rent when he holdeth over his terme but Tenant at sufferance shall not pay any Rent if a man hold over his terme and pay his old Rent he shall be accounted Tenant at will For one joynt Debt for one Contract you cannot plead Nil debet for part and demur for the rest for he pleads Nil debet and the matter in Law is reserved Licet saepius requisit is a sufficient Request upon a Bond because it is a Debt Unto an Action brought against a man upon a Bond pleads Denis age the case was this that when the Obligation was sealed and delivered the Defendant was of full age but at the time when the Bond bore Date he was under age and at the Assises the Judge there ruled that at the time of making the Bond was when the Bond was sealed and not when it bore Date The Court were of opinion that where a Bishop holds Land discharged of Tithes and he makes a Feofment of the Land the Feoffee shall be discharged of Tithes and the like if the King hath ancient forest-Forest-land discharged of Tithes and the King grants this Land the Grantee is discharged of Tithes and it is a general Rule that he which may have Tithes may be discharged of Tithes If I let Land for years reserving Rent if I command one to put his Cattle into the Land I cannot distrain them for my commandement is a wrong and an Action of case will lie against the commandor If I make a Lease and bid the Tenants cut down the Trees yet I may have an Action of waste against my Lessee In Sir Cheydens case the commandment to take Possession was void unless he had commanded him to expell the Tenant and then he might joyn either to distrain or bring an Action of Debt for the Lease was made by him and two more 28 H. 8. If I make a Lease to the Husband and Wife covenant to do no waste or repair Houses and the Husband dieth and the Wife surviveth and holdeth in if the Wife commit waste or not repair the House no Action lieth against the Wife but to such a Lease the Wife is tied to pay the Rent or to perform a condition made by the part of the Lessor but not observe or perform Covenants of the Lessee Pasch 10. Jacobi The Court much doubted whether one that had a Park and was used to pay one Shoulder of Deer for all manner of Tithes and the Park is dis-parked should now pay Tithes in kinde or not For Wooll and Lamb no Action upon the Statute for not setting out of Tithes for they are no predial Tithes and no Action lies upon this Statute for small Tithes An Administration granted durand minori aetate execut is not within the Statute of 21 H. 8. And by the Civil Law the Judge may after Administration by him granted revoke it and grant it to another And if an Administration be granted to a Feme Covert yet she shall sue in their Court as a Feme sole One Briefly married an Administratrix and entred into Bonds for the Intestates Debts and afterwards the Wife leaveth her Husband and refuseth the Administration and it was granted to another and now B. prayeth a Prohibition for that he may be sued for Debts and denied by the Court untill he be sued This Administration was first granted by Doctor B. and after by him revoked and a new granted by him to the Wives Brother and afterwards he revoked that and established the first Administration and the Appeal A Feofment in Fee by Deed indented Rent reserved it is good but without Deed cannot reserve Rent If Land be devised by three upon condition to pay them 100. l. equally to be divided and one of them dieth his Executor or Administrator shall have the Money and so it is if one were bound to pay Money The Commissary granted Administration of the Intestates Goods to the Wife and did make a Divident of his Estate to some of the rest of his Kindred and this was-held not to be warranted by Law and more then the Ordinary could do because the Administratrix is chargeable to pay all Debts and Promises of the Intestate and to bring up his Children which she cannot do if the Goods be taken away Vbi delinquit ibi punietur If a Copy-holder of Inheritance accept a Lease for years of his Copy-hold the Copy-hold is gone by the opinion of the whole Court If a Legacy be granted of Land this shall not be sued for in the Spiritual Court but if one by Will devise Land to be sold for payment of Legacies this shall be sued for in the Spiritual Court by the opinion of the whole Court If two Fulling-mils be under one Roof and a rate-tithe paid for the Mils and after you alter these Mils and make one a Corn-mill your Rate is gone and you must pay Tithes in kinde or if you have but one
adjudged insufficient and a new Writ awarded but many held that in the case of a Cognisor it was well enough but not in the case of a Purchasor If one knowledge a Statute and after a Judgement is had against the Cognisor now against the Cognisor the Statute shall be preferred but not against an Executor If a man plead a Bond knowledged to the King in the Exchequer it must be averred to be a true Debt If a Debt be assigned to the King in this case no priority of Execution If one staul a Debt by 20. s. a year this shall not stay my Execution the Court were of opinion that an Extent would not be good at Barwick for the Writ runs not there If a Judgement be given in a Court of Record it shall be preferred in case of an Executor before a Statute But if a man acknowledge a Statute and afterwards confess a Judgement and if the Land be extended upon the Judgement the Cognisee shall have a Scire facias to avoid the Extent upon the Judgement otherwise in case of Goods for therein first come first served for if I have a Judgement against one and afterwards he acknowledgeth a Statute and by vertue of the Statute the Goods of him being dead were taken in the Executors hands then upon the Judgement a Scire facias was sued and afterwards a Fieri facias of the Testators Goods it was held that the Goods first extended were lawfully extended and shall be good A Judgement was had against Sir Fr. Freeman and an Extent came to the Sheriff and afterwards and before any thing was thereupon done one Fieri facias against the Executor upon a Judgement given before the acknowledging the Statute was delivered to the Sheriff and the Question was whether the Extent or Fieri facias shall be first executed And note if the Land be first extended upon the Statute and afterwards an Elegit upon a Judgement obtained before the acknowledging the Statute come also to the Sheriff the moity of the Land extended shall be delivered to the Plaintiff upon the Judgement HIll 15. Jac. The case of Villainage is within the Statute of Limitation and in the case of M. Corbet it was held that the Prescription of the Seisin of the Plaintiff and his Ancestors as Villain was more then needeth and the Issue thereupon taken was good by the whole Court after Exception taken thereupon and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff In every Elegit the Sheriff must return and set out the moity distinctly unless they be Tenants in common and in that case he must return the special matter An Extent issued out against one Greisley by the name of Greisley Esquire who was at the time of suing out the Writ made Knight and Baronet and it was naught and the Plaintiff prosecuted a new Writ MIch 10. Jacobi A Tenant by Statute Staple or Elegit that hath extended an Abbots Lease or a Lease made out of an Abbots Lease is not bound to shew it because he cometh in by Act of Law but any other that cometh in under the Lease must shew it by the opinion of the whole Court And note that in Hillary 10. Jac. two Inquisitions taken at several Dayes by several Juries upon one Statute Merchant were adjudged naught one was taken of the Land and the other for Land and Goods and Extent of the whole fourth part was naught for it should be of the moity of the fourth part and mark it was of a Lease which was but a Chattell and the Sheriff might have sold it as Goods but seeing he had extended it in this case he should receive benefit but as in a common Extent COmyrrs versus Brandling A Lessee that had a Lease of the value of 100. l. and after the Teste of the Elegit and before the Sheriff had executed the Elegit assignes his terme to one who assignes it over to the Plaintiff in the Scire facias and afterwards and before the last Assignement the Sheriff executes the Elegit and delivers the Lease to the Plaintiff tenend c. for satisfaction of the Debt which came to but 43. l. 6. s. 8. d. it was held by all the Judges that the Sheriff could not deliver the Lease at another value then what the Jury had found it at and the Sale made by the Sheriff is as strong as if it had been made in open Market and that all the Goods and Chattels are bound after the Teste of the Elegit and cannot be sold by the Owner after the Teste of the Writ If a later Extent be avoided by an ancient Extent after the ancient Extent is satisfied the later Extent shall have the Land according to his first Extent without any re-extent by the opinion of Serjeant Hutton if the Husband charge the Lease of the Wife and dieth the Wife shall hold the Land discharged HIll 12. Jac. The Earl of Lincoln against Wood the Earl of Lincoln did arrest Wood upon a Capias upon a Statute Merchant Wood being in Execution obtained in the Chancery an Audita Quaerela and did put in Bail there and had a Supersedeas and was discharged of his Imprisonment and the Audita Quaerela and Bail sent into the Common Pleas to be proceeded on The cause of the Audita Quaerela was grounded upon the performance of the Defeasons of a Statute and after this case was debated for the Bailment of Wood and held by the Court to be good it was allowed of If the Act for Dissolution of Monasteries had not given the Land to the King the Founders ought to have had them And if an Hospital or religious House is impeached upon the Statute of Superstitious uses it must be proved to be regular for they must be religious that are dissolved by E. 6. JOules versus Joules Alderman purchased Land of one against whom a Judgement was given long before the Purchase and the Vendor afterwards became unable to pay the Judgement and long after the Plaintiff in the Judgement purchased a Scire facias against the Defendant and had Judgement against the Defendant by Default and afterwards had an Elegit and by vertue of that the Sheriff extends the Land of Joules the Purchasor who prayes the aid of the Court because the whole Land was not extended but he was forced to bring his Audita Quaerela If I make a Lease for years reserving a Rent during my Life and my Wives Life if I die the Rent is gone because she is a stranger she shall never have the Rent because she hath no Interest in the Land if one of them die nothing can survive to the other and a Limitation must be taken strictly otherwise it is by way of Grant that shall be taken strongly against the Grantor If 2. Tenants in common joyn in a Lease for years to bring an Ejectment and count Quod cum dimisissent c.
he be Lord or Free-holder The best badge of truth is the usage of taking the profit of the Trees 11 H. 4. rot 80. Where the Court ex officio should inquire and that omitted the Court may supply it but where an Attaint lyeth that is not to be supplied as in a Valore Maritagii the value is the point of the Writ and if that be omitted by the Jury never to be supplied by Writ Cheyneys case Valore Maritagii and intrusion were at the Common Law before the Statute and the Statute doth but inlarge the Common Law for by the Statute the Judgement is otherwise then at the Common Law It is vain to plead the Execution of a Writ of Seisin upon a Recovery but to plead that he did enter MIch 10. Jac. If I purchase Land by a name and alleadge it to be in a wrong Parish or Shire it is good notwithstanding the mistake by the Court. A stranger shall be bound by a Law made for the publique good but he must come within the place where it was made The King cannot grant precedency in publique things as to go by Water or by passage on the Land as by Coach if a Bond bear Date Super altum mare then it must-be sued onely in the Admiral Court otherwise it cannot be sued there Every Bishop hath his Cathedral and Councel and the Councel and Bishop there decide matters of Controversie the Prebends have their names from their affording of help to the Bishop and in time of the vacancy of the Bishop the Arch-bishop is Guardian of the Spiritualties and not the Dean and Chapter TRin. 14. Jac. rotulo 1810. Birtbrook versus Battersby Exception raken after Triall The Action was laid in Westmerland and the Jurata written at the end of the Record was Ebor. ss ura Inter c. and recites the Day of Triall in the County of York and the place where the Triall was at York and prayed that it might be amended and it was granted to be amended by the whole Court INt. Bullen Jarvis The Venire facias was made in this Form Videlicet Liberos legales homines de B. and it should have been De vicineto de B. and it was notwithstanding held good and amendable by the Roll for it shall be intended that the Jurors are inhabiting in the Town of B. although the Sheriff returns the Jurors of other places and none of them be named of B. and the Venire facias was returned by A. B. Ar. without naming him Vic. and it was amended by the Court. GRiffin versus Palmer Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 924. Issue taken whether the Lands contained in the Fine were ancient Demesne or not pretending they were parcell of the Mannour of Bowden in the County of Northampton which was pretended to be ancient Demesne and the Doomesday Book was brought into the Court and by that Book it appeared that the Mannour of Bowden was in the County of Leicester and not in the County of Northampton but the Councel affirmed that the Mannour was both in the County of Leicester and Northampton but it valued not for the Doomsday Book was against the Plaintiff The Court was moved to amend a Venire facias which was Album Breve but the Court would not grant it although the Sheriffs name was put to the Pannell but if the Sheriff upon the Venire facias had returned that the Execution of that Writ did appear in a certain Pannell annexed to that Writ and had not put his name to the Writ of Venire facias but to the Pannell in such case the Court would have amended the Venire facias Lessee at will cannot grant one his Estate if one occupy with Tenant at will this is no Disseisin to the Lessor If a Tenant for seven years suffer Trees to grow above the age of 21. years they are Timber and it is waste to cut them Tenant at will shall pay his Rent when he holdeth over his terme but Tenant at sufferance shall not pay any Rent If a man holdeth over his terme and pay his old Rent he shall be accounted Tenant at will If one being sick giveth Notes to make his Will and after by infirmity of sickness he becometh so weak that his memory faileth him and these Notes are made into a Will this is a good Will otherwise it is if he become lunatique after the Notes given MIch 15. Jacobi One Warter was committed to the Fleet by the Lord Treasurer of England and the Prisoner was brought to the Common Pleas by Habeas Corpus which was returned and no cause of the Commitment expressed and for that cause the Prisoner was set at liberty and bailed TRinity Terme 15. Jacobi Hanson one of the Attorneys of the Common Pleas delivers a Note to the Sheriffs Clerk of the names of divers Jurors that were to be returned and of divers others that were not to be returned in a case concerning one Butler and for this Offence he was put out of the Roll of Attorneys In Spilmans case if I have Estovers in Land and cut down Estovers and a stranger taketh away the Estovers I shall have an Action against him that taketh them away although he have there Common of Estovers also If the Husband sow the Ground and die the Executors and not the Heir shall have the Corn but if the Father sow the Land and dieth or the Heir sow the Land and the Wife recover Seisin in Dower she shall have the Corn. The setting open a Shop on the Sabbath day is punishable by Statute Law and so is a House of Bawdry and not to be dealt with by the high Commissioners So long as the Land is occupied by him that hath the Fee-simple which did formerly belong to the Order of the Cistercians it shall pay no Tithes but if he let it for years or life the Tenant shall pay Tithes HIll 11. Jac. rotulo 90. A Recovery was had upon a Writ of Entry in le post for a common Recovery between Hartley and Towers in the County of Bucks the Attorney who prosecuted the Recovery by negligence did not file the Writ of Entry which was prosecuted orderly and all Fees paid when the Recovery was passed And in Easter Terme 14. Jac. it was moved that the Writ of Entry might be filed and it was granted although the Tenant was dead the Writ of Entry was returnable Octabis Purificationis MIch 14. Jacobi My Lord Hubbard Justice Warburton and Winch held that when there were but three Judges of the Common-Pleas they might argue Demurrs and if two of them were of one minde and one of the other the Judgement should be given according to their opinions My Lord Cook said that for the Body of the Church the Ordinary is to place and displace in the Chancell the Freehold is in the Parson and it is parcell of his Gleab Tpespass will
lie by the Heir for pulling down the Coat-Armor c. of his Ancestors set up in the Church A Pew cannot belong to a House Fraud shall never be intended except it be apparent and found and that conveyance which at the time of the making was good shall never by matter ex post facto be adjudged to be fraudulently made for before primo Eliz. at the Common Law A conveyance made for natural affection without valuable consideration is not to be avoided none shall avoid it but such as come in upon valuable considerations Lands devised to one in Tail upon condition that he shall not alien and for Default of such the Remainder to R. in Tail this is a Condition and no Limitation by the whole Court and the Heir at the Common Law may enter for the Alienation Matters of instance which are between party and party as for Tithes and Matrimony are not to be dealt withall by the high Commissioners if they proceed inverso ordine that cannot be holpen in the Common Pleas but by superior Magistrate if they be Judges of the cause If one in Norfolk come within another Dioces and commit Adultery in another Dioces during the time of his residence he may be cited in the Dioces where he committed the Offence although he dwell out of the Dioces by Cook Warburton and Winch. If the King grant Lands to A. and his Heirs Males and doth not say of his Body he is but Tenant at will Tamen quaere A Deputy of an Office for Bribery cannot make his Master be punished corporally but pecuniarily equity shall not barr me of the benefit of Law Note the Probate of Wils and Administrations did not belong to the Ordinary originally but to the Common Law If two Aliens be at Issue the Inquest shall be all English but if between an Alien and Denizen that Inquest shall be de medietate Linguae 21 H. 6. 4. A Judgement given against a dead person is not void but Error 28. Ass 17. A Juror was committed to the Fleet For making his Companions stay a whole Day and a Night having no reason for it and without the Assent of any of the rest of his Fellows and after was bailed but not untill the Court was advised 8 E. 3. 75. In a Writ of Estate Probanda every Juror ought to be of the Age of 42. years If I grant Land to one and his Heirs in the Premises of the Deed Habendum to him and the Heirs of his Body he shall have the Land in Tail and the Fee-simple after the State in Tail when the Estate is certain in the Premises the Habendum shall not controll it If one make two Executors one of seventeen years of Age and the other under Administration during the minority is void because he of seventeen years old may execute the Will of Administration during the minority in such case be granted and the Administrator brings his Action the Executor may well release the Debt Pigot and Gascoins case If a Record go once to Triall and warning given if the first Attorney be alive the Plaintiff is not tied to give warning again but if the Attorney be dead he is If no place of Payment be in a Will which appointeth Money to be paid there must be a Request to pay the Money for he is not bound to seek all England over for him otherwise it is if it were by Bond. In every case where the Plaintiff might have Judgement against the Defendant there if the Plaintiff be non-suit the Defendant shall have his Costs if the Plaintiff be non-suit TRin. 11. Jac. In cases of remitting causes from the inferior Judge the Arch-deacon cannot remit the cause to the Arch-bishop but he must remit it to his Bishop and he to the Arch-bishop It was held by the Court that one might distrain for a Legacy In a special Verdict the Plaintiff must begin to argue first OLive versus Hanmer A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgement by Nil dicit for want of a Warrant of Attorney and the Record certified and a Certior are to the Clerk of the Warrants and Error assigned for want of a Warrant And the Court was moved that a Warrant might be filed and it was granted and a Warrant filed accordingly Pasch 12. Jac. An Action was brought against Baron feme and an Attorney appeared for the Husband alone and the Court held it was the Appearance of Baron feme in Law PAsch 12. Jacobi Sheriff versus Whitsander One Judgement was confessed in Trin. 42. Eliz. rotulo 504. And afterwards in Trinity Terme 43. Eliz. the Defendant brought a Writ of Error bearing Date the 12. of May Anno 43. and upon that Writ the Record was certified 25. May and afterwards Error was assigned in the upper Bench for want of a Warrant of Attorney by the Defendant And Mich. 43. 44. Eliz. the Warrant of Attorney was received and entred upon Record by Order of Court of Common Pleas. And the like was Pasch 2. Jac. rotulo 1956. Int. Bathgrone and Smith and the like Mich. 1. Jac. rotulo 1306. Inter Smith Kent CRane versus Colpit Question was whether the Attornement of an Infant be good or not and by the whole Court it was held good by three Reasons First he gives no Interest Secondly it is to perfect a thing Thirdly he is a Free-holder IT was held in the case of Gage an Attorney who as an Administrator brought an Action of Priviledge that his Priviledge ought not to be allowed And after a Bill was filed against Drury an Attorney as Executor and held that the Bill would not lie but in both cases the Suit should be by Original BEarbrook versus Read The name of Confirmation must stand for Sir Francis Gawdy was christened Thomas and confirmed Francis by that name he must be called SIr Henry Compton was sued for Cloathes of his Wife bought without his command or privity and the whole Court were of opinion that if the Wife should buy Merchandises and thereof make Cloathes and wear those Cloathes although the Husband know nothing of them yet he shall pay for them PAsch 10. Jac. The Court was moved to know whether the Wife of a Bankrupt can be examined by the Commissioners upon the Statute of Bankrupt and they were of opinion she could not be examined For the Wife is not bound in case of high Treason to discover her Husbands Treason although the Son be bound to reveal it therefore by the Common Law she shall not be examined An Infant shall not be examined If an Administration be granted to one during the minority of two Infants and one of them dieth the Administration continueth still Actions of Debt LOvelace versus Cocket Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 1001. Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for the Paiment of Money at a
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
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
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
goes to issue upon it for if they discend to issue upon such a Plea and it be found against the Defendant it is peremptory and he shall loose the Land but upon demurrer it is not peremptory but onely to answer over Which mark VVOrkley versus Granger Mic. 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for two Houses and certain Lands c. And upon a speciall Verdict The case was one Heâ— Wels and his wife nere seised of a parcel of Land to them and the Heirs of their bodies begotten as for the joynture of the wife the remainder to the Heirs of the Husband in Fee the Husband bargains and sels the Land to Stamp and his Heirs in Fee And afterwards the Husband and one Winter leavie a Fine of that Land to another who grants that Land back again to Winter for one month the remainder to the husband and wife and the heire of their bodies to be begotten the remainder to the husband and his heirs The Husband dyes the Wife survives and makes a Lease to the Defendant for ninety nine yeers if she should so long live the woman dyes and the Plaintiffe claims under the bargainee and in this Case two points were debated First what Estate passed to the bargainee and Digges of Lincolnes Inne who argued for the Plaintiffe that the bargainee had a Fee simple determinable which issued out of both the Estates as it was held by Periam in Alton Woods Case And he said that the Proclamations upon the Fine are but a repetition of the Fine as it is held in Bendlones Rep put in the Case of Fines in Cooks 3. Rep. And see Pinslees Case for then for the same cause the Issue in tayl is bound although the Fine be levied by the Husband alone by the Statute of the 4. H. 7. and 32 H. 8. because he cannot claim but as Heir to the Father as well as to the Mother and therefore his Conveyance is bound and see 16. E Dyd 332. Husband and Wife Tenants in speciall tayl The husband is attainted of Treason and executed having Issue the woman dyes the Issue shall never have the Land And if husband and wife Tenants in speciall tayl And the Husband levies a Fine to his own use and devises the Land to his wife for life which remainded over rendring Rent the husband dyes the woman enters pays the Rent and dyes the Issue is barred for two causes first by the Fine which had barred his Conveyance of the intayl secondly by the Remitter waived by the Mother 18 Eli Dyer 531. See 5 H. 7. Assise Thorp and Tirrels Case Secondly the Lease made by the woman was determined by her death and it was said that the woman had not any qualitie of an Estate tayl but onely she might take the profits during her life within the Statute of 11 H. 7. And when she dyes the Estate is denised See Austens Case Doctor Wyat Tenant in tail leased for yeers And dyed without Issue the Lease was determined See first of Eliz title Executors And 31 H. 8. Dyer Where a Bishop made a Lease for yeers and afterwards makes another Lease to one of the Lessees c. And Fleming held that if the woman survived as under Tenant in speciall tayl and made a Lease for 21. yeers it is out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. and so it was adjudged in Wattes and Kings Case LAne versus Alexander Hill 5. Jaco The Plaintiffe declares in Ejectment upon a Lease made to him by Mary Planten for three yeers the Defendant saies c. that the Land is Copihold Land of the Mannor of H. in Norff. whereof the Queen Eliz was seised in Fee and long time before the Lessor had any thing there in Court such a day that J. S. her Steward at the Court c. granted the Land to the Defendant by Copie in Fee according to the custome and so justifies his entry upon the Plaintiffe The Plaintiffe replies and saies that long time before the Copy granted to the Defendant to wit at a Court of the Mannor held such a day the 43. Eliz the Queen by Copy c. granted the Land to the Lessor for life according to the custome by force whereof he entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe The Defendant by way of rejoynder maintained his barr and traverses with that the Queen at the Court of the Mannor by J. S. her Steward such a day c. granted the Land to the Lessor and upon this the Plaintiffe demurred in Law generally And Yelverton moved that the traverse was good in this Case upon the day and Steward and the difference is where the act done may indifferently be supposed to be done on the one day or the other there the day is not traversable as in the Case of a Deed made such a day there the day of the Deed is not traversable for it passes by the livery and not by the Deed. And the livery is the substance and the day but a bundance 10 E. 4. And the Law is the same if the day in trespasse wherein the day is not traversable For although it be done upon another day it is not materiall But when a man makes his title by an especiall kinde of Conveyance as in this case the Plaintiffe makes his title by one Copy there all that is concerned in the Copy is materiall and the party cannot depart from it for he claims not the Land by any other Copy but by that which is pleaded as is in the 18 H. 6. 14. where an Action is brought for taking his Servant and counts that he by Deed retained with him his Servant the Monday in one week in such a case it is a good plea for the Defendant to say that the Servant was retained by him such a day after without that that the Plaintiffe did retain him the Monday And the Law seems to be concerning Letters Patents wherein the day and place are traversable being the speciall conveyance of the party from which he cannot depart And also it seems that although the day in the principall case be traversed yet the Statute of 18 Eliz of Demurrers aids it it being but a generall Demurrer and the day being onely matter of form But the whole Court were of opinion that the day was not traversable in this case For the Queen granting an ancienter Copy to the Plaintiffs Lessor then to the Defendant and the traverse should have been without this that the Queen did grant in manner and form c. to the Plaintiffs Lessor and the Case is the same in the Letters Patents for there the traverse should be without this that the Queen granted in manner and form c. And the day and place shall not come into the traverse But Justice Fennor was of a contrary opinion for the Reason delivered by Yelverton before and he also and the Lord cheif Justice held it to be holpen by the Statute of 18 Eliz for it is but
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
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
in the name of Baptisme onely it would be otherwise and secondly although the party had admitted her to have the same name yet the Sherff in pleading had taken expresse Conusance of the contrary and had made it appear to the Court that it was not according to his authority and therefore he shall be punished but the whole Court was of a contrary opinion for first the Scire facias was according to the Judgement in the Common Pleas and well then might all the subsequent Processe be according in course of Law but if the Husband had come upon the Scire facias and shewed how that she was covert then the Action ought to be against both of them and secondly the parties themselves in all the proceedings throughout have all admitted that she is the same person and that she had the same name and therefore this differs from the 10 E. 4. 15. and therefore they shall be concluded from saying the contrary and although the Sheriff had shewed the marriage that was but a bare allegation and suggestion of the Sheriff and it appears not judicially whether it were so or no and thirdly it would be dangerous for the Sherif to return a Non est inventus for because the parties have admitted her name to be so in all the proceedings the Sheriff shall be estopped also as the 3 H. 7. 10. and then an Action of the Case would ly upon the false Return or if the Woman should be in the company of the Sheriff and the party shew her to the Sheriff she might escape CArrill against Baker Trin. 11 Jacobi The Plaintiff brough an Action wherefore by force and Arms he entred into his Warren and digged his Land and chased his Conies and took them the Defendant pleads to all except to the entring the Warren chasing the Conies and digging the Land not guilty and as to the entring of the Warren chasing of the Conies and digging the Land he pleads an especiall Justification to wit that he had Common there time out of mind and because the Plaintiff stored the Borrows there with Conies and made new holes by reason whereof the Defendants sheep feeding there fell into them to their great damage the Defendant did with a Ferret chase the Conies and stopped up the holes with the earth digged out c. and upon that Plea the Plaintiff demurred and George Crook was of opinion that it was not a good justification and the Question was single whether a Commoner might drive out Conies which surcharged the Land and he conceived he could not for the Freehold and possession of the Land is in the Terr-Tenant onely and the Commoners cannot intermeddle with it for a Commoner hath onely the grasse of the Land and not absolutely neither to do with it what he pleases but onely to take it with the mouths of his Cattel and for this see 12 H. 8. 2. a. and 27 H. 6. 10. and 13 H. 8. 16. the espleas in a Quod permittat is alledged in taking the grasse with the mouths of his Beasts and for that see 22 Assis 48. 10. E. 4. 4. and 46 Ed. 3. 23. if a stranger put in his Cattell the Commoner cannot have an Action of Trespass and 13 H. 8. 15. ruled that if a Commoner dig the Land to make a trench he is a trespassor but he may drive out or distrain for doing damage and 15 H. 7. 12. 13 H. 7. 13. and 12. H. 8. 2. a. because after a manner he hath interest in the grasse which is spoiled and consumed by the Cattell of the stranger but although he may drive out and distrain the Cattell of an estranger yet he cannot meddle with the Lords Cattel or the Terr-Tenants although there be more then reasonable as in Fitzherberts Na. brev 125. D. and 8 E. 3. 30. if the Lord surcharge the Common The Commoner may have an Assise against the Lord and if he be a copy-holder he shall have an Action of the case 9 Rep. 112. but the Lord may distrain H. 9. Ja. Kings Bench a prescription for a Commoner to kill Conies of the Lords is not good and he cited Pasch 43 Eliz. Kings Bench rotulo 234. Belly and Laughorns Case the Lord may use the Sale as he pleases but as his Case is the Commoner although Tenant of the Land cannot kill the Conies with his Ferret For a free Warren in such a precinct is a charge upon the Land in what hands soever it comes but if he hath a Warren adjoyning and the Conies come into the Lands of another out of the Precinct then he may kill the Conies and he cited Boslers and Hardies Case in the Common Pleas and for an express authority he cited Old and Conies case Hill 29 Eliz. and Sir Robert Fitcham he was against it and he agreed he could not kill the Conies but as to the digging he took this difference if a Commoner makes any thing de novo in the Land he is a Trespassor as it is adjudged in the Case of a trench before and the like but if a commoner amends and reforms a thing abused it is no Trespass and therefore if the Land were full of Mole hills he may dig them down 13 H. 8. and 42 Assis if the Lord make a Hedge the commoner may pluck it down 23 E. 3. 6. a. See if the Lord make a Pond in the Land the commoners may dig and let the Water out and therefore holes that were made long in a hurt and Damage to the Land the commoner may put the earth digged out again into its place Secondly the Defendant hath shewed that the Cony holes were made by the Plaintiff himself and he shall never take advantage of his own wrong and Thirdly the Law will allow every man to preserve his inheritance and it cannot be preserved any other way for if he should bring his Assise yet he in that shall recover but Seisin and no Reformation of the Trespass and wrong done and the opinion of the Court seemed to incline for the Plaintiff and Doddridge Justice said that a Lord or his Feoffee may make new conie-Borrows lawfully for they are necessary for the preservation of the conies but one fault found by Justice Haughton in the pleading nothing was done for the Plaintif declared for entring into his Warren the Defendant pleads to all but the Warren digging and chasing not guilty and as to the digging and chasing he justifies for common here but answers nothing as to the Warren neither by confession or traverse and therefore all was discontinued as Herlackendons Case is Co. 4. Rep. and to this the whole court Fleming being absent agreed WAldron against Moore Trin. 11. Ja. The Plaintiff brought an Action of trespass against Moore wherefore his Close called Gerleford at Rentesbury in the County of Devon by force and Arms hath broken and entred c. The Defendant pleads that a long time before the Trespass was supposed to be done one
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
Immunities c. of what nature c. be they Ecclesiasticall or Temporall which appertain and belong c. by or in the right of their Religion but the Priviledges and Immunities they have in the right of their Religion and these the Statute of 32. H. 8. gives to the King and there is no cause that they should surmount or that the Statute should give to them more favour then the former Statute hath given to those religious houses which were dissolved by the Statute of 31. Eliz. For the Hospitallers of S. Johns were favourers and maintainers of the Popes Jurisdictions as well as the others as it appears by the Statute of 32. H. 8. Also the words of 32. H. 8. hath only the words of the King and his Successors and doth not speak of his Assigns which words are expressed in the Statute of 32. H. 8 But it is provided by 32. H. 8. that the King cannot use at his will and pleasure which amounts to so much Also the Statute of 31. H. 8. extends to all Religious houses by expresse words and it shall not be intended that the intent of the makers of the statute was to omit that which were to be of the Order of S. Johns of Jerusalem when the mischeif was in equal degree And it hath been agreed that they are religious persons and that they were under the obedience of the Pope for so they are described in the statute of 17. R. 2. by which the possessions of the Templers was transferred to them so that on the matter they are religious which shall not be intended so largely as every Christian may be said religious but Secular and Regular which vow Obedience Chastity and Poverty and for the proof of this he cyted a president Also it seems to him that the Statute of 30. H. 8. extends to those Lands which come to the King by the statute of 32. H. 8. And it is not like to the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies case 2 Coke 47. upon the statute of 1. Ed. 6. For that Statute gives the Lands to the King for other causes and not for the same causes which are contained in the Statute of 31. H. 8. But the Statute of 32. H. 8. is for the same cause and with the same respect to Religion But if these Lands have come to the King by Exchange or by Attainder then they shall not be intended to be within the Statute of 31. H. 8. But if another Statute be made in 32. H. 8. by which all Religious houses have been given to the King this shall be intended within the Statute of 31. H. 8. And the Judges before whom the cause depended judicially ought not to be ignorant of that and so he prayed that a Prohibition might be Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant at another day in Trinity Tearm 9. Jacobi argued that the question only depended upon the Statute of 32. H. 8. upon which the Prohibition is founded with the Statute of 31. H. 8. by which the Lands of Monasteries are given to the King do not extend to those Lands which are given after by Parliament But he intented that the Constitution which discharges the Templers of the payment of Tithes is spirituall and extends only to spirituall persons which may prescribe in not tything see 38. Ed. 3. 6. 2 of Coke the Bishop of Winchesters Case 44. Also he intended when an appropriation was made to the Templers that this is determined by dissolution of their Order So upon the Statute of H. 5. of Priors Aliens which have Impropriations or which have Rent issuing out of them and after the Impropriation is dissolved the Rent is gone for the Impropriation is dissolved Also he took exception to the pleading for that that it is only a branch of the Statute of 32. H. 8. And then by vertue of the premises he was seised which is not good and so hee concluded that it was a good cause of demurrer upon the Prohibition and prayed consultation Barker Serjeant for the Plaintiff seems the contrary and yet he agreed that he could not take benefit of the Statute of 31. H. 8. for that that these Lands came to the King by another Statute but he relyed upon the words of the 32. H. 8. which was made only for the dissolution of the Hospitall of St. Johns of Jerusalem Tythes are as ancient as any thing that the Church hath and before that any Law was written for Abraham payed Tithes to Melchisedeck but it doth not appeare that he paid the tenth part but Tithes are due by the Judiciall Law of God and the King hath power to appoint what quantity shall be paid But at the beginning there were Sacrifices Oblations and Tithes And it was ordained by Edgar King of this Realm that Tithes should be given to the Mother Church Also Edmund Ethelstone William the Conquerour and the Councell of Magans specially provided that Tithes should be paid but did not appoint when they should be paid But the first Law which appointed the quantity was made in the time of Edw. 1. and this ordained when they ought to pay the Tenth with the feare of God And it was resolved in Fox and Cresbrooks case in the Commentaries after severance they are temporall and Action lyes against him which carries them away as of Mortuary as it is resolved 10. H. 4. 1. 6. And before the Councell of Lateran every one might pay his Tithes to what person he would and then were paid to Monasteries as Oblations But of Tithes which are due to any by prescription hee which payes them hath no such election but ought to pay them to him which claims them by prescription 14. H. 4. 17. If a Parson of a Parish claim Tithes in another Parish as portion of Tithes due by prescription to his Rectory he ought to shew the place specially So if Nunns prescribe to have a portion of Tithes they ought to shew the place for it is a question if they are spirituall or not for their office is only to pray in their house 24. Ed. 3. So the book of Entries if a man claim Tithes to his Pupil he ought to shew in what place the Tithes lye in the 17. Ed. 2. The order of the Templers was dissolved and their possessions annexed to St. Johns of Jerusalem and they did not claim by any Bull of the Pope nor other spirituall Canon but by prescription which is priviledg and private Common law and this appears by the Statute of Westminster 2 Chap. 47. That is that they are conservators of his priviledges Also he saith that the Statute of 2. H. 4. discharges Farmers without speaking of Priviledges And the Statute of 7. H. 4. 6. useth the same words which are contained in the Stat. of 32. H. 8. That is that none shall put in execution any Buls containing any priviledges to be discharged of payment of Tithes And Mephams Canon in time of Ed. 1. saith Let the custome be
observed with the feare of God And another Canon That custome of not Tything or of the manner of Tything if they paid lesse then the tenth part see Panormitan upon that seek of the Case between Vesey and Weeks in the Exchequer upon the Statute of 27. H. 8. for the dissolution of small Monasteries Also the Lord Darcy in quo warranto was discharged of purveyance by Patent granted by the King Edward 6. of such priviledges which such a one had and by the same reason the King shall be discharged of Tythes by the Act of Parliament also he remembred the Book of 10. Eliz. Dyer 277. 60. to be resolved in the point and also 18. Eliz. Dyer the Parson of Pekerks case 399. 16. upon the Statute of 31. H. 8. and so concluded and prayed judgment for the Plaintiffe and that the Prohibition should stand and it was adjourned Trinity 9. Jacobi Priddle against Napper UPon a speciall verdict the cause was The Prior of Mountague was seised of an Advowson and of divers acres of Land and the 20. of H. 8. the King licensed him to appropriate that and 21. H. 8. the Bishop which was Ordinary assented and after that the Church became void that the Prior might hold it appropriate and 27. H. 8. the Incumbent dyed so that the Appropriation took effect and was united to the possession of the Rectory Appropriate and also of the Land out of which Tythes were due to the said Prior in respect of the said Rectory and then the Priory is dissolved and the Impropriation and the Lands also given to the King by the Statute of 31. H. 8. which granted the Impropriation to one and the Lands to another And if the Patentee of the Land shall hold it discharged of the payment of Tythes in respect of that unity was the question And Harris Serjeant for the Defendant in the Prohibition that the unity ought to be perpetuall and lawfull as it was adjudged between Knightley and Spencer 2 Coke 47. a. cyted in the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies case and for that unity by or by lease for years or for two or three years as in the case at the Barre shall not be sufficient to make discharge of the payment of Tithes and so it was adjudged Pasche 40. Eliz. Rot. 454. between Chyld and Knightley that is that the unity of the possession ought to be of time that the memory of man doth not run to the contrary And in the argument of this Case it was said by Popham cheif Justice that if no Tithes were paid after the Statute that then it shall be intended that no Tithes were paid before the Statute and so he concluded and prayed Consulation see 2 Coke 48. a. The Arch-bishop of Canterbury for the reason by which unity of possession is discharged of payment of Tithes that is for that that some houses of Religion were discharged by Buls of the Pope and many were founded before the Councell of Lateran and for that it shall be infinite and in a manner impossible to find by any searches the means by which they are discharged the unity is no discharge in respect of it selfe for the reasons aforesaid and none may know if Tithes were paid or not before the union And if Tithes be not paid in time of memory by a house of Religion and they lease of that for years and receive Tiths then the lease expiâ—es two yeares before the Dissolution of the same house the King shall not be discharged of the payment af Tithes by the Statute of 31. H. 8. by Coke and Walmesley against Warburton and Foster Dorwood against Brikinden UPon the Statute of 5 Ed. 3. a man libelled in the Spiritual Court for Wood cut and a Consultation was granted Yet the Defendant in the Court Christian might have a new Prohibition if it appeared the first Consultation was not duly granted So if a man libell for Tithes for divers years and Prohibition is granted for part of the years and after that a Consultation is awarded yet the Plaintiffe may have a new Prohibition for the residue of the time notwithstanding the Statute of 50 Ed. 3. and that it be upon one selfe same libel Admirall Court NOte that the Admirall cannot imprison for any offence but if the Court hath Jurisdiction of the Originall cause and sentence is there given this sentence may be executed upon the Land 19. H. 6. But no Ordinary may meddle out of his own Diocesse 8. H. 6. 3. 2. H. 4. The Parson of Salt-ashes Case That this Court tooke notice of Jurisdiction of all Ecclesiasticall Courts and Ordinaries for they write unto them for tryall of Bastardy and Matrimony And there are 3. Legates First a born Legate as the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Yorke Remes and Pylazam Second a Latere as all Cardinalls The third a Lagate given as those which have their Authority by commission and Lynwood Provinc saith that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury as Arch-Bishop cannot meddle out of his Diocesse of Canterbury and his Peculiars but as a Legate borne which is in respect of his Office he hath prerogative and if a man inhabit in one Diocesse and ought to pay tithes to another which inhabits in another Diocesse there the Ordinary ought to prefer the suit to the Metrapolitan but seek what Ordinary shall transfer it Trinity 9. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. Jones against Boyer HEnry Jones Parson of Bishopton sued Bowen the Executor of Holland the last Incumbent in the Arches for Dilapidations upon which a Prohibition was prayed upon the statute of 23. H. 8. for that that it was sued out of his Diocesse which was Saint Davids but it appears that the Vicar generall of the same Ordinary hath made generall request to the Metropolitan to determine that without shewing any cause speciall and if the inferiour Ordinary may transmit any cause but only for the causes mentioned in the statute of 23. H. 8. And if the causes ought to be expressed in the Instrument was the question note that the generall words of the statute of 23 H. 8. chap. 9. Rastall Citation 2. are afterwards many particulars or in case that any Bishop or any inferiour Judge having under him Jurisdiction in his own right and title or by commission make request or instance to the Arch-Bishop Bishop or other inferiour Ordinary or Judge to take treat examine or determine the matter before him or his substitute And that to be done in case only where the Law civill or Canon doth affirm execution of such request or instance of Jurisdiction to be lawfull or tollerable and for the better discussing of this question the Judges had appointed to heare two Doctors of the Civill Law which at this day attended the Court the first Doctor Martin said that these generall words have reference to the Executor and not to the maker of the request and this request may be made for all causes but ought to be made to him which hath
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
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
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
Mannor held in cheife and of other Mannors and Lands held of a Common person in socage and had Issue foure Sonns Thomas William Humphrey Richard And by his Deed 12 Eliz. covenants to convey these Mannors and Lands to the use of himself for his life without impeachment of wast and after his desease to the use of such Farmors and Tenants and for such Estates as shall be contained in such Grants as he shall make them and after that to the use of his last will and after that to the use of VVilliam his second sonn in tayle the Remainder to Humphrey his third Son in tayle the Remainder to Richard the fourth Sonn in tayle the Remainder to his own right Heires with power of Revocation and after makes a Feoflment according to the covenant and after that purchases eight other acres held of another common person in socage and after makes revocation of the said Estates of some of the Mannors and Lands which were not held by Knights service and after that makes his Will and devises the Land that he had purchased as before and all the other Land whereof he had made the Revocation to Thomas his eldest son the Heirs Males of his body for 500. years provided that if he alien and dye without Issue that then it shall remaine to William his second sonne in tayle with the like proviso as before and after dyed and the Jury found that the Lands whereof no revocation is made exceeds two parts of all his Lands Thomas the eldest sonne enters the 8. Acres purchased as before and dyes without Issue male having Issue a Daughter of whom this Defendant claimes these eight Acres and the Plaintiff claims them by William the second Son And Dodridge the Kings Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff intending that the sole question is for the 8. acres purchased and if the devise of that be good or not by the Statute of 34. H. 8. And to that the point is only a man which hath Lands held in cheife by Knights service and other Lands held of a common person in Socage conveys by act executed in his life time more then two parts and after purchases other Lands and devises those if the devise be good or not And it seems to him that the devise is good and he saith that it hath been adjudged in the selfe same case and between the same parties And this Judgment hath been affirmed by writ of Error and the devise to Thomas and the Heirs males of his body for 500. years was a good estate tayle and for that he would not dispute it against these two Judgments But to the other question hee intended that the devise was good and that the Devisor was not well able to doe it by the Statute of 34. H. 8. And hee intended that the statute authoriseth two things 1. To execute estates in the life time of the party for advancement of his Wife or Children or payment of his debts and for that see 14. Eliz. Dyer and that may be done also by the common Law before the making of this statute But this statute restrains to two parts and for the third part makes the Conveyance voyd as touching the Lord But the statute enables to dispose by Will a parts where he cannot dispose any part by the Common Law if it be not by special Custome but the use only was deviseable by the common Law this was altered into possession by the statute of 27 H. 8. and then cometh the statute of 32. and 34. H. 8. and enables to devise the Land which he had at the time of the devise or which he purchased afterwards for a third part of this Land should remain which hee had at the time of the devise made and if a third part of the Land did not remain at the time of the devise made sufficient should be taken out of that but if the Devisor purchase other Lands after hee may those wholly dispose And for that it was adjudged Trin. 26. Eliz. between Ive and Stacye That a man cannot convey two parts of his Lands by act executed in his life time and devise the third part or any part so held by Knights service and also he relyed upon the words of the statute that is having Lands held by Knights service that this shall be intended at the time of the devise as it was resolved in Butler Bakers Case That is that the statute implies two things that is property and time of property which ought to be at the time of the devise But here at the time of the devise the Devisor was not having of Lands held by Knights service for of those he was only Tenant for life and the having intended by the statute ought to be reall enjoying and perfect having by taking and not by retaining though that in Carrs Case cited in Butler and Bakers Case rent extinct be sufficient to make Wardship yet this is no sufficient having to make a devise void for any part Also if the Statute extend to all Lands to be after purchased the party shall never be in quiet and for that the Statute doth not intend Lands which shall be purchased afterwards for the Statute is having which is in the Present tence and not which he shall have which is in the Future tence and 4. and 5 P. and M. 158. Dyer 35. A man seised of Socage Lands assures that to his Wife in joynture and 8. years after purchases Lands held in cheife by Knights service and devises two parts of that and agreed that the Queen shall not have any part of the land conveyed for Joynture for this was conveyed before the purchase of the other which agrees with the principall case and though to the Question what had the Devisor It was having of Lands held in Capite insomuch that he had Fee-simple expectant upon all the estates tayl he intended that this is no having within the Statute but that the Statute intend such having of which profit ariseth and out of which the K. or other Lord may be answered by the receipt of the profits which cannot be by him which hath fee-simple expectant upon an estate tayle of which no Rent is reserved and also the estate tayle by intendment shall have continuance till the end of the world and 40. Edw 3. 37. b. in rationabili parte bonorum it was pleaded that the Plaintiff had reversion discended from his Father and so hath received advancement And it seems that was no plea in so much that the reversion depends upon an estate tayle and upon which no Rent was reserved and so no advancement So of a conveyance within this Statute ought such advancement to the youngest sonne which continues as it is agreed in Binghams Case 2 Coke that if a man convey lands to his youngest sonne and he convey that over to a stranger in the life time of his father for good consideration and after the Father dies this
against the surviving Donee of houses and Lands to him demised and agreed that the Writ was good but it was a question if the Count shall be generall or of a halfe only notwithstanding that both the parties were Tenants in Common of the reversion Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Ralph Bagnall against John Tucker after 83. TRINITY 9. or Micaelmasse 8. Jacobi Rot 3648. The Case was Copy-holder for life remainder for life purchaseth the Frehold and levies a Fine with Proclamations made five yeares-passe and then he died if the remainder were bound by the Fine or not was the question and it seemes that it shall not be Barr for he is not turned out of possession in right So if a man hath a Lease for remainder for yeares and the first Lessee for yeares purchase the free-hold and levie a Fine with Proclamations and five yeares passe this shall not barr the remainder for yeares insomuch that this was Interest of a Tearme and remaines an Interest as it was without any alteration and it was not turned to a Right And yet it was agreed that the Statute of buying of pretenced rights extends to Copy-holds See Lessures Case 5. Coke 125. See Pasche 1612. for the Judgement Note if an Attorney of this Court be sued here by Bill of Priviledge he ought not to find Bayle But if he be sued by Originall and comes in by Capias then he ought to find Bayle In covenant upon a Lease made by the Dean of Norwich Predecessor to the Dean that now is and the then Chapter of the Foundation of Ed. 6. King for injoying of Land devised to the Plaintiff for three Lives discharged of all incumbrances and also to accept surrender of the same Lease and to make a new and for breaking of covenant the same Dean and Chapter in such a yeare of the Raine of H. 8 had made a lease for years not determined by which the lands devised were incumbred upon which the Defendant demurred And Hutton Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the Lease was by the Statute of 13 of Eliz. as to the successor of the Dean which made it for that it was a Lease for years in being at the time of the making of that as it is resolved in Elmers Case upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. if a Bishop makes a Lease for years and after makes a Lease for life the Lease for life is void to the Successor and so it is in the case of Dean and Chapter and though that the words of the Statute are generally that such a Lease shall be void to all intents purposes and Constructions yet he intended that it shall not be voyd against the Bishop himselfe as it was resolved in the case of the next Advowson by the Bishop in Singletons Case cyted in Lincolne Colledge Case 3. Coke 59. b. And he intended if the Lease be voyd against the Successors that then the covenants also are void as it is agreed in the 28 H. 8. 28. Dyer 189. 190. and he cited one Mills case to be adjudged in the 29 and 30. Eliz. in the Kings Bench that if a Parson make Lease and avoid by non-Residence the Covenants also are void as well as the Lease and also he intended that the Lease for life was void insomuch that it was to be executed by a Letter of Attorney and the Attorney had not made livery till after two Rent dayes were past and for that the Livery was not good for when a man makes a Lease for life rendring Rent with Letter of Attorney to make livery here is an implyed condition that Livery shall be made before any day of payment be incurred and it is as much as if a man had made a Lease for life without any Letter of Attorney to make Livery before such a day there if the Attorney do not make Livery before the day but after the Livery is void insomuch as it is contrary to the Condition so in the case here for if Livery made be after a Rent day it may be made after twenty and so immediately before the end of the Tearme and if the Rent be void for this cause the Covenants also are void and if a man bargain and sell his Mannor and the Trees growing upon it the Trees do not passe without Inrollment insomuch that it was the intent of the parties that it should so passe and for that they do not passe without the Mannor also he intended that the Count is repugnant insomuch that that containes that the last Lease for life was made in the time of Ed. 6. and after by the Dean and Chapter of the foundation of Ed. 6. and after that containes that the same Dean and Chapter have made a former Lease in the time of H. 8. Which cannot be if the Dean and Chapter were of the Foundation of Ed. 6. and for that the Count ought to have contained the alteration of the foundation as in case of prescription as in Tringhams case 4. Coke 38. Wyat Wilds Case 8 Coke 79. 2. and 3. Phil. and Mary Dyer 124. A good Case and he intended that a declaration ought to have precise certainty as in 8. and 9. Eliz. 254. Dyer for a thing which cannot be presumed shall not be intended as it is agreed in Pigotts Case 5 Coke 29. a. otherwise of Plea in Barr for that is sufficient if it be good to common intent also he intended that there is variance between the Count and the Covenant for the declaration is that the Dean and Chapter covenanted with the Plaintiffs the Covenant is generall that is that the Dean and Chapter covenant and doth not say with who and for that the Count also shall not be good and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Haughton Serjeant for the Plaintiff intended that the Covenants shall not be voyd notwithstanding that the Lease it self be voyd he intended that a lease made by a Parson shal be good against himself but it shall be voyd by his death to the Successor but a Lease made by a Dean and Chapter shall be void to the Dean himself and the Covenant shall be in force notwithstanding that the Lease be void insomuch that the Covenants are collaterall and have not any dependance upon the Lease but to the inherent Covenants which depend upon the Lease and the Estate as for Reparations and such like shall be voyd by the avoidance of the Lease but he intended that Covenant to discharge the Land from incumbrances doth not depend upon the Interest but it is meerly collaterall and for that it shall not be void and with this difference he agreed all the Cases put of the other part as in 45 Ed. 3. 3. Lease was made to the Husband and Wife the Husband dies the wife accepts the Land and shall not be charged with collaterall Covenants notwithstanding that shee agrees to the Estate insomuch that they do not depend
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
was a good Custome insomuch that this was annexed to an Estate created by custome and for that he cited one Skeggs case to be adjudged in 24 yeare of Eliz. and was thus that is The custome of a Mannor was that a marryed wife Copy-holder might surrender to the use of her last will and after might devise to her Husband and it was adjudged insomuch that this was annexed to her Estate which begun by custome this was a good custome and the 3 of Ed. 3. At the common Law such custome is voyd and after he cited a Judgment in the point given in this Court 23. of Eliz. Rot. 5014. or 504 or 5004. that the same custome was adjudged a good Custome after he answered some objections which might be made against this custome that is First for the uncertainty of the time when the presentment shall be by the Homage and to that he sayd that the Lord may make that when he will and the time doth not take away the offence and no prejudice upon that discends to the Heir but is to his advantage Secondly Because no number certaine of the Homage and that every tryall must be by twelve and to that he answered that we are not now in point of Tryall but only for the information of the Lord. Thirdly this is against the nature of a Court-Baron to inquire of Felonies and to that he said there is not any inquiry made here but only to inform the Lord and such a thing is not against the nature of the Court which inlargeth this Fourthly The offence is against the King and a common person shall not have the punishment of that to that he sayd the King shall not have any benefit of it for he shall not have any Escheat of Copy-hold lands for Treason or Felony Fiftly This is against the Kings Prerogative to that he sayd that Custome may be against the Prerogative of the King as if a man claim Waife or stray by prescription these are things given to the King by his Prerogative and yet Prescription for them is good and so he concluded this first point that the custome was good To the second point he conceived that this verdict and acquittall shall not conclude the Lord and for that he sayd that at the Common Law if a Verdict had been given and no Judgment upon it the party was not concluded to bring the same Action 18 Ed. 3. 35. Then comes the Statute of 2 H. 4. And this outs non-suit after verdict and yet if verdict be imperfect or finds a thing not in Issue there non-suit may be after verdict as it is sayd in 22 Ed. 4. 10. And if verdict be given in the point and Judgment upon that doth not conclude the party to have action of more high nature as it is sayd in 3 Ed. 3. and 3 Assise 1. and Hudsons ease in the 4 Coke and as it is in Tryalls of Land so it is in tryalls of life as 2 R. 3. 14. 7 H. 4. 34. Then if the party himself shall not be bound by verdict A fortiori a stranger shall not be also every Estoppell there ought to be a matter of estoppell for the Jury is not sworn to give their verdict according to the truth in Deed but according to the evidence to them given and then if faint evidence or no evidence be given it shall be hard that this shall conclude any of his right also there is no party to be estopped because a stranger as is aforesayd also the acquittall is in such manner that is that he hath not committed the Felony in manner and form as in the Indictment is alledged and this doth not answer the Custome because generall so it seems to him that this shall not be any conclusion to the Lord and so for both points the entry not congeable And Stevens to the contrary and it seems to him breifly that the custome was not good and he denyed the Rule that is that this might have reasonable beginning by agreement of parties shall make a custome good and for this Littleton saith in his chapter of villainage that if the Lord of one Mannor will prescribe to have Fine if any of his Tenants marry their Daughters without his license this is a void custome and yet it may be such agreement between the parties at the first and it seems the custome not reasonable for it is too generall that is if any Tenant and this doth not exclude Infants Secondly if any Felony be committed and this includes petty Larceny and Maime by involuntary means for these are Felonies and for that see 13 H. 7. 19. 6 H. 7. That in Appeal of Mayme a man shall count Felony and yet it shall be hard that a man shall loose his Land for these Felonies Secondly Homage cannot inquire of the fact of Felony but of the conviction of Felony and so it seems to him the custome ill and to the other point it seems that the Lord shall be concluded and to that that hath been objected that the Lord is a stranger to the verdict and for that cause shall not be estopped he said that the Lord is no stranger for in this case every man is party and every man may give Evidence for the King and he cited the case in the time and title of Mortdancester where the case was where a man was as principall for the Death of J. S. and another as accessary in receiving the Principall after the principall was out-Lawed and the Accessary hanged and the Lord seised the Land of the Accessary for Escheat after came the principall and reversed the Out-Lawry and was found not guilty and the Heir of him which was hang'd entred upon the Lord and adjudged insomuch that there cannot be an Accessary unless there be a principall that the entry of the Heir was lawfull in this case so he sayd in this case insomuch that the Copy-holder is acquitted by verdict and found not guilty and seems to him that the entry of the Lord should not be lawfull and by the whole Court the custome was good but they did not deliver any opinion upon the second point for they moved the parties to Composition Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Barwick and Fosters Case A Man made a Lease for two years at Michaelmas rendring two shillings yearly during the Tearm at the Feast of the annunciation of our Lady and Michaelmas or ten dayes after at the Feast of Saint Michaell in the last year the Rent is not paid the question was what remedy the Lessor hath for his Rent of this halfe yeare and the opinion of Flemming cheife Justice and Williams was that he hath no remedy And first they sayd as this case is the Lessee hath election to pay either upon the Feast or upon the tenth day after and that is for the benefit of the Lessee then he hath made his Election not to pay that at the Feast of Saint
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
taken to the title because he saith that he was seised and not saith that he is and yet good by this word Fuit for that shall be intended that he continues seised so he sayd that things which are necessarily to be intended though they be not so particularly expressed yet shall be good by Implication and so he concluded that this is no Error for which the Judgment shall be reversed And to the challenge he conceived that this is not any principall challenge and to that he put this difference that if a man brings an Assise of certain Land and hath an Action of Trespass hanging against the Sheriff for entring into the same Land there shall be a principall challenge to the Array but if it be for entry into other Land not in demand otherwise it is and what is principall challenge and what not he cyted the Bookes of 3 Ed. 4. 12. 6 Ed. 4. 1. 21 Ed. 4. 67. 14 H. 7. 1. 21. Ed. 4. 10. And to the point in question he cyted the Bookes before remembred by Crooke and Williams and no others and for that I omit to recite them and he agreed also that in actions which concern life Honesty Mayme Battery to say that he hath such action hanging against the Sheriff shall be a principall challenge but Trespass for entring into Land not for in Trespass there is no Land to be recovered also no damages but to the value of the Trespass And in Debt a man shall recover more then in Trespasse And yet it is agreed that this is no principall Challenge to say that he hath an Action of Debt hanging against the Sheriff as the Book of 11 H. 4. is which hath been remembred and for this I conceive it no principall challenge And to the seisin of the Paunages if a Horse may take seisin of that it seemes that yea for I conceive that the taking of seisin doth not consist in the eating or not eating of that of which the seisin is to be taken and for that he cited that if a man grant to me the Herbage and Paunage of his Parke and I come into the Parke and take the Grasse and Herbs into my hands or if I gather Akornes this is sufficient seisin for me to have Assise though that I do not eate the Grasse nor the Akornes and for that let us put the case that a man hath Herbage granted to him and he puts in his Beasts and before that they eate the grasse they are driven out none will deny but that that shall be good seisin for so is the Book of the 22. Assise 84. Where a man hath Common granted to him and he takes the Beasts of a stranger and puts them in and them forthwith drive out that shall be a good seisin of the Common to have Assise so that he said that the eating is not to purpose also he said Horses will eate Akornes as well as Cowes And he saith that in the Country where he inhabits being a Wood-land Country they will not suffer the Beasts to go into the Woods at a certaine time of the yeare and this is when Crabs are ripe for then their Beasts will eate Crabs and set their teethes an edge and then not being able to chew Akornes do swallow them whole and then those Ackornes being swallowed whole will grow in the Mawe of the Beast and so kill them And he saith that though that Horses be not so proper Beasts to take seisin of Paunage as Porkes are yet being put in for the same purpose if they are disturbed that shall be Seisin and Disseisin and it seemes to him that when things are granted to one that it shall not be strange to say that seisin of one shall be seisin of both and for that if a man grants all his arrable Land all his Meadow and all his Wood Livery and Seisin in one suffices for all but I conceive that this is in respect of the soyle which passeth and so are all of one self same nature and so he conceives that this is sufficient Seisin and Disseisin found to have Assise And lastly to the Title of the Earle of Rutland he said that this was good and to the Grants of the King he said two things are necessary in all Grants of the King that is a Recitall and a certainty and when a recitall shall be necessary and when not and he said that in all cases when a common person makes a Lease for years or for life and the reversion is conveied to the King if the King will make Estate to another he shall not recite this Lease for this not being of Record the King cannot take notice of it and so he shall not recite But in all cases when the King makes a Lease for life or for years and after will make a Grant to another he ought to recite the first Estate because that is of Record And Justice Yelverton as I heard of those which were next unto him put this case That if the King grants a Lease for yeares rendring Rent and after the King reciting the Lease grants that to another for years or grants the reversion to another and doth not recite the Rent which was reserved upon the first Lease that this second Grant shall be void for the not recitall And the cheife Justice cited one Phillpotts Case to be adjudged in the 2. of Eliz. That where the King made a Lease for one and twenty yeares and after reciting the said Lease grants the reversion to another and before that the second Letters Patents were sealed the first Lessee surrendred And said that the second Grant was adjudged void for the King intended to passe a reversion and now he shall have a Possession and all that which is said to be in case of Land Now let us see how it shall be in case of office and for that if a common person hath â—n office in Fee and grants that for life and after grants the Fee simple to the King and the King will grant that to another there he ought to recite the common persons Grant as well as if it had been his one Grant for there is not properly a reversion of an office as the Book cited by my Brother Williams sayd Secondly if the office be recited in Esse and be not in Esse the Grant is void as Blanyes Case is in the Lord Dyer 3 Eliz. 197. 47. And this sufficeth for recitalls Then for certainty of the Kings Grant it is said in the 2. R. 3. it is said that the Grants of the King ought to be made in certaine and for that where the King there Grants to Sir John Spencer that he shall not be Sheriff this was void for the incertainty of the place But if the Grant had been of such a County or such a County the Grant should be good Also there ought to be certainty of Estates as it is in 18. H. 8. Where the King gives Lands to
one and his Heires Males this is void for uncertainty of the Estate then it is so averred in our case if there be not sufficient recitall and certainty and to the recitall that is good without question for she recites that she hath granted that to Markham for ifâ— and Markham is yet alive and so the recitall good Then for the certainty he said that the rule is that if the certainty be declared by expresse words or if the King may reduce that to a certainty the Grant of the King shall not be defeated and for that he cited the case of Information of Mines Comment But if the King grant to me all Mines in the Land of J. S. There I shall have all Mines Royall for the Law saith the King cannot have other Mynes in the Soil of a Subject but Mines Royall and so there the Law supplies the Grant so that they be Mines Royall though not expressed in the Grant in certaine so he said in the principall case that the Queen hath expresly recited that she hath granted the Herbage and Paunage for life to Markham and that Markham was yet alive and after grants that to the Earle of Rutland and doth not say when that shall begin the Law saith that shall begin after the death of Markham for before that it cannot begin But if the Queen had exprest in the Letters Patents that this shall begin forthwith then this had been void as the Lord Gaudy said in Altonwoods Case 1 Coke fol. 51. And so he concluded the Title of the Earle of Rutland good So he affirmed the Judgement in all But Williams was very peremtory for the conceit of Paunage that it was not good Seisin But after Crooke Justice recanted his opinion of that and insomuch that there were three which concluded for the reversing of the Judgement And yet for every point there were three against two It was doubted if this Judgement should be reversed or not And they said that they would advise with the rest of the Judges and after that it was moved againe by Serjeant Nicholls in the next Trinity Tearme and Yelverton and the cheife Justices would have the Judgement affirmed but Williams Fenner and Crooke to be reversed and note well this President where Judgement was reversed and yet for every point there were three Contra two or foure Contra one see the first Judgement in the Common Bench Michaelmasse 6. Jacobi afterwards Termino Pasche 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Trinity Colledge Case THE Case was this King Henry the eight Incorporated the Schollers of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge by the name of Masters Fellowes and Schollers Collegij Sanctae et Individuae Trinitatis in the Town and University of Cambridge and in the 6. Ed. 6. They made a Lease by the name of Master and Fellowes of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge leaving out the University And if this Lease were good or not was the question And Yelverton argued that this was not a good Lease and that for the misnaming of the Corporation And to that he said to every Corporation two things were incident That is name and place and if any of those fayl and be not certainly recited in a Lease the Lease shall not be good And he conceived that this Corporation is founded upon two places and that one of them That is the University is left out and for that cause the Lease is nothing worth for if a Corporation hath two names one of them cannot be omitted as it is in the first of Mary Dyer 96 97. and 4. Mary 140. and 150. 11. Eliz. Dyer 278. 35. H. 6. 5. and 6. No more then when it consists of two places one of them may be left out And for that if they had been incorporated by the name of Master and Fellowes of Trinity Colledge in Norfolke and Suffolke in a Lease they could not leave out Norfolke or Suffolke but both the places ought to be incerted And by him in the principall case if the Lease had been made by the name of the Master and Fellowes of Trinity Colledge in the Town and leave out the University of Cambridge without question this shall be void so here this being impliedly omitted shall be as strong as if it had been by expresse words excluded so in the making of every Corporation the intent of the Founder is to be considered and for that it seemes the intent of the King in placing that in both places was first to erect a Colledge and that to grace the Town and then he hath placed them in the University and this was for the instruction in good Arts and Learning and so for these benefits they have of both these places nor one nor the other may be left out And if the King had been incorporated by the name of Master and Fellowes of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge and in the Market place of Cambridge There though that the Market place was parcell of the Town of Cambridge yet it seemes to him that this cannot be left out for peradventure the Founder hath a speciall reason to place that there that is to have all things necessary for them more neer unto them Also where any stranger demands any possession of them in Precipe Quod Reddat or such like he ought to ensue them certainly and precisely Then a Fortiore where they depart with their possessions by their own Act there they shall not be unknowing of their one names And Walter of the inner Temple argued to the contrary and he conceived that the Lease is good and first he argued the ground which hath been taken of the other part that is that every corporation ought to be in a certain place and he conceived that there is a certaine place in this place that is the Town of Cambridge And to that that is said that this Corporation is founded upon two places he denied that all together for no more then one materiall Body may be but in one place Simul and Semel no more may it be in a Body Corporate which hath allwaies his resemblance to a Body naturall and for that he denied the case which hath been put of the other part of Norfolk and Suffolk And he cyted the opinion of the Lord Popham in Buttons Case in which the Lord North was Interested that a Corporation cannot be limited to a County as Probos Homines of such a County or Trinity Colledge in such a County but it ought to be restrained to some certaine place or one County or a Town But admit that the Corporation may be founded upon two places yet he faith that a University is not Locall but Personall And to this purpose he cyted two Records one in 48 H. 3. Which was this King H. 3. Intending to keep a Parliament at Oxford and knowing that the place was not sufficient to contain all those which should be there assembled and the Schollers together sent his Writ which was directed to the
Lessee for years or life surrender before the performance of the condition the Fee doth never increase as it is 14. H. 8. 20. and the Lord Chandois Case 6 Coke But the Estate tayl remaines after the condition performed and then hath the Fee dependant upon the Estate tayl and that there is a necessity that there shall be an office as it was in Nicholls Case in the Com because of the right and that after the condition performed then the Fee shall vest Ab Initio and this corporates together partly by the Letters Patents and partly by the performance of the condition and so it is in Butler and Bakers case that it is not a Grant in futuro but one immediate Grant to take effect In futuro see 2. H. 7. for the execution of Chantrey and Grendons Case in the Com. and 2. H. 7. If the King grant Land to J. S. for life the remainder to the right Heires of J. R. which is in life the remainder is good as well as in case of a common person and so he seemed that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff Walmesley Justice agreed that it shall be remainder and not reversion as if Lands begin to the Husband and the Wife and to the Heires of the Body of the Husband the Husband dies this is a remainder in the Heires Males and not a reversion for it cannot grow higher and it was not in the King as one distinct Estate before the Grant and Formedon in remainder lieth for it and though it be misrecited yet it shall be good and ayded by the Statute of Misrecitalls and grant of a thousand is suffered to convey the reversion of a thousand by the common Law and if the recitall were that it was a reversion depending upon the Estate tayl it was good without question and the King may grant five hundred reversions if he will and that the last Damus is ex certa scientia et mêre motu nostris Damus et concedimus that if the Patentee pay twenty shillings Tunc sciatis quod nos de ampliori gracia ea certa scientia et mero motu nostris concedimus c. and that the word Volumus will amount to a Covenant or a Release as 32. H. 6. The King by his Patent by these words Nolent that he shall be impleaded and this amounts to a release and so words which intends expresly words of Covenant may be pleaded as a Grant in case of the King as it is 25 Ed. 4 So is a common person license another to occupy his Land this amounts to a Lease of Land if the time be expressed so if a man grants to another that he shall have and injoy his Land to him and his Heires that by that Fee passeth And if the King grant reversion to begin at Michaelmasse the Grant is void for that it is to begin totally at Michaelmasse and doth not looke back to any precedent thing But if it relate to any precedent Act then that shall be good by relation and shall passe ab Initio see Com. Walsinghams Case 553. b. that in such case the performance of the condition divests the Estate out of the King and there is no difference in this case betwixt the King and a common person and agreed in the case of Littleton Where a man makes a Lease for yeares upon condition to have Fee that the Fee shall not passe till the condition be performed and with this agrees 2. R. 2. But if a man makes a Charter of Feoffment upon condition that if the Feoffee injoy the Land peaceably for fifteen years that the Feoffment shall be void In this case the Fee-simple determineth by the performance of the Condition and in this case the Fee passeth ab Initio by the Livery as in 10. Assise 18. Assise 1. 44. Assise 49 Assise And he agreed that the words Habeat et Teneat the Reversion passes and this is good Fee-simple and this refers to the first Damus et Concedimus and so concluded that he seemed that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff Coke cheife Justice accordingly and he conceived that there are two questions upon the substance of the Grant And to the first objection that hath been made that is that reversion was granted and increase of an Estate cannot be of a reversion and in all these cases which have been put they are of an Estate in possession and so is the case of Littleton also and he agreed that it shall not be good if it be not good ab Initio that though there be not other words then Reversionem predictam That it shall be good And to the second point upon the former He conceived that the Grant is but a Grant and that the condition is but precedent Limitation when the Estate of Fee-simple shall begin and so it is said by Montague in Colthurst and Brinskins Case in the Com. And further he saith that there are four things necessary for increasing an Estate First that it ought to be an Estate upon which the increasing Estate may increase Secondly the particular Estate ought to continue for otherwise it is grant of a reversion in Futuro Thirdly That the Estate which is to increase ought to vest by the performance of the Condition for if there be disturbance that it cannot then vest then it can never vest Foutthly that both the Estates as well the particular Estate as the Estate which is to increase ought to have their beginning by one self same Deed or by diverse Deeds delivered at one self same time And to the first and to prove that he cyted 44 Ed. 3. Attaint 22. Lessee for yeares upon condition to have Fee granes his Estate the Fee doth not increase upon the performance of the condition for then it shall passe as a Reversion and so the particular Tenant surrenders his Estate as it is sayd 14. H. 8. For if the Privity be destroyed the Fee will never increase but there is no such â—ycity but that if the substance of the Estate remains though it doth not remain in such form as it was at the first Reversion the Estate may well increase as if Lands be given to the Husband and wife and to the Heirs of the Husband upon the Body of the Wife to be begotten the Wife dies and the Husband is Tenant after possibility of Issue extinct yet he may well perform the condition for the Estate remaines in substance and with this agrees 20 H. 6. Ayd and so it is if a Lease be made to two for years upon condition to have fee one dies the other may perform the Condition and shall have Fee-simple as it is agreed by 12. Assise 5. the reason is that the privity remaines and the Estate also in substance Thirdly As to that also it seems that it ought to vest upon the performance of the condition which is the time limited for the beginning of the Estate and if it do not vest
then it shall never vest and if it do not vest without Office in this case it shal never vest at all but it is for the Honour of the King that his grant shall have his effect and 49 Ed. 3. 16. Isabell Goodcheaps case she devised her Lands to her Executors to be sold and dyes without Heir the King hath that by Escheat yet the Executors may sell it and for that divest the Estate out of the King and so was the Lord Lâ—vells Case and the reason is for the necessity for the Prerogative of the King shall do no wrong and there need no continuance of the Estate of the part of the Lessor but of the part of the Lessee and for that if the Feoffor make a Feoffment or grant his Estate this shall not make prejudice or alteration of the Estate and for that if the King refuse to receive the Money yet if it be tendered the Fee-simple shall vest in the Patentee and the simple upon that shall shall increase see 31 Ed. 1. Feoffments and Deeds B. 32. Quid Iuris Clamat be And to the fourth it seems also that both the Estates ought to be created and granted by one self same Deed or by divers delivered at one time Quia quae in continenti fiunt pro uno habeantur reputentur as if a man makes a Lease for years upon Condition to have in tayl upon condition to have in Fee this second condition is void for it ought to be all one Crant and cannot be intire upon the privity of the first grant and it is not material though that the first Estate be drowned upon the performance of the condition as if the King makes a Lease for life the Remainder in tayl upon condition that if the Tenant for life pay twenty shillings that he shall have Fee this shall be a good Grant and the Fee well vested by the performance of the condition though that the particular Estate for life shall not be drowned And to the second point that is that the Grant of the King shall not be good for that that it is by the words Reversion aforesaid he agreed that if the King makes a Grant to one intent that shall not enure to another intent But this shall enure to the intent for which it is made Vt res magis vale et quam periat and it is for the dishonor of the King to make an unconscionable Grant And to the Objection which is made that the King is not understanding of Law to that he answered that the King is Caput Legis and for that shall not be intended to be ignorant of it and for that if a grant may have two intendments one to make the Grant good the other to make the Grant voyd it shall be intended and expounded in the better sense that is to make the Grant Good and not to make the Grant voyd for this was Iniquae expositio and also he sayd that the Grant shall be good for the first word Concedo though it had not been subsequent also as if a man grant a Rent charge and if it be behinde that the Grantee may distrain for the first Grant and the Grant is not of a Reversion In futuro but grant that if the condition be performed that then the Fee doth pass In futuro and it seemed to him that it was a good devise to prevent that the Estate tayl should not be discontinued by Fine nor otherwise untill the Condition were performed and so of recovery also for if the King grant an Estate tayl and after grants the Reversion in tayl this second intayl is within the intent of the Statute and when the Issue of the first Tenant in tayl shall not be barred the Estate of the Tenant in tayl in Remainder shall not be barred see the Lord Barkleys case in the Com. fol and 7 Ed. 4. and as to the pleading he sayd that when the Issue is offered which depends upon matter in Law there is no necessity to take travers upon the matter in Law for it doth not belong to lay men to decide the matter in Law and for that he concludes that the Grant in substance is good and in form exquesite and that the Issue in tayl in Reversion shall not be barred for Quod non in principio valet non valebit in accessario and that Judgment ought to be for the Plaintiff which was done accordingly IN Ejectione firme against Gallop after Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff a Writ of Habere facias Possessionem was awarded and executed and returned and fyled and after the same Defendant re-entred and outed the Plaintiff and Attachment was awarded and it seems that if the Writ had not been returned that then a new Writ shall be awarded and the Attachment was awarded upon Affidavit IN Action upon the case against Trotman the words were Thou sayest thou art an Attorney but I think thou art no Attorney but an Attorneys Clark in some Office but if thou be an Attorney I will have thee pickt over the Barr the next Tearme and thy Eares nailed to the Pillory and it seems that these words are not Actionable IN waging of Law of Summons in Dower In petit Cape there ought to be two summons only and if it be Grand Cape then there ought to be two Summoners and two Veiwers and Summons upon the Land is sufficient to give notice of the Demandant of the thing demanded and the day in Court That in Waging Law the Lord Coke sayd that the Defendant himself ought to swear De fidelitate and elevâ—n others which are named in the Statute of Magna Charta chapter Testes fideles ought to swear De credulitate IF Tenant for life be the Remainder in tayl to another the Remainder in Fee to the Tenant for life and the Tenant for life releases to the Tenant in Tayl the Release is good to passe the Remainder in Fee to the Tenant in Tayl for to this purpose the Tenant in tayl hath sufficient possession upon which the Release may enure but it shall not be good to pass the Estate for life and 19 H. 6. and 9 H. 7. If Tenant in Tayl in Remainder Disseise Tenant for life he doth not gain Fee-simple by Fulthorp but if there be Grand-Father Father and Sonn and the Father makes a Feoffment the Grand-Father dies the Father dies the Sonn is barred so if the Sonn had levied a Fine being Tenant in tayl 33 and 39 H. 6. 43. a. 21 Ed. 4. Discontinuance Pasch 7 Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Warbrooke and Griffin BEtween Warbrooke and Griffin a Guest brought a Horse into an Inne in London to be kept the which stayed there so long till he had eaten out his Worth and then the Inn-Keeper caused the said Horse to be prysed and then sold him according to the custome of London and it seems well he might do it and that the Sale was
all their Study is practise and that if they have no practise of themselves then they attend upon others which practise and apply themselves to know the nature of Simples And to third objection that in London ought to be choyce men for the Statute appoints that they shall be examined by the Bishop and Deane and four others at least and for that there is a more strict course for them then in other places to that it is agreed But he said that in the University there is a more strict course then this for here he ought to be publickly approved by many after that he hath been examined and answered in the Schooles to diverse questions and allowed by the Congregation house And 35. H. 6. 55. Doctor is no addition but a degree quia gradatim et progressâ—one Doctrine provenit to that and that Doctor is teacher and that he was first taught by others as Scholers afterwards he is Master and Doctor dicetur a docendo quia docere permittitur and they are called Masters of their faculty and that the Originall of Doctor came of the Sinagogue of Jewes where there were Doctors of Law and it appeares that they had their ceremonies in time of H. 1. And when a man brings with him the Ensigne of Doctrine there is no reason that he should be examined againe for then if they will not allow of him he shall not be allowed though he be a learned and grave man and it was not the intent of the King to make a Monopoly of this practise And to the second point that he propounded it seemes that the Justification is not good which is Quia non comperuit upon Summons he was amerced and ordered that he shall be arrested and being arrested being examined if he would submit himself to the Colledge he answered that he was a Doctor and had practised and would practise within the sayd City as he conceived he might lawfully do and for that shewing of this case he was committed to prison and he conceived two things upon the Charter First That it doth not inhibit a Doctor to practise but punisheth him for ill using exercising and making and may imprison the Emperick and Imposter and so prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and after in Hillary Tearm in the same year this case was argued by all the Justices of the Common Bench and at two severall dayes and the first day it was argued by Foster Daniell and Warburton Justices at whose Arguments I was not present but Foster argued against the Plaintiff and Daniell and Warburton with him and that the Action of false imprisonment was well maintainable And the second day the same case was argued again by Walmesley Justice and Coke cheife Justice and Walmesley argued as followeth that is that the Statute of 3. H. 8. was in the negative that no person within the City of London or seven Miles of that take upon him to exercise or occupy as Physitian or Chirurgion c. And he doth not know in any case where the words of the Statute are negative that they admit any Interpretation against that but one only and that is the Statute of Marlebridge chapter 4. Which provides that no Lord shall distrain in one County and the beasts distrayned drive into another County in which case though that the words are uegative yet if the Lord distrain in one County he may drive the Beasts to his Mannor in another County of which the Lands in which the distresse was taken were held but it is equity and reason in this case that the Statute should admit such exception for it is not of malice but for that that the Beasts may remain within his Fee but in the principall case there is not the like reason nor Equity And also the King H. 8. in his Letters Patents recites as followeth that is Cum Regij officij nostri munus arbitremur ditionis nostri hominum felicitati omni ratione consulere id autem vel imprimis fore si Improborum conatibus tempestive occurremus apprime necessarium duximus improborum quoque hominum qui medicinant magis avaritiae sue causa quam ullius bonae conscientiâ— fiducia profitebantur c. By which it appears that it is the Office of a King to survey his Subjects and he is as a Phisitian to cure their Maladies and to remove Leprosies amongst them and also to remove all fumes and smells which may offend or be prejudiciall to their health as it appears by the severall Writs in these severall cases provided and so if a man be not right in his Wits the King is to have the Protection and Government of him least he being infirme wast or consume his Lands or Goods and it is not sufficient for him that his Subjects live but that they should live happyly and discharges not his Office if his Subjects live a life but if they live and flourish and he hath care as well of their Bodyes as of their Lands and Goods for Health for the Body is as necessary as vertue to the minde and the King H. 8. to express his extraordinary care of his Subjects made the said Act in the third year of his Reigne which was the beginning of his Essence to that purpose and by the Common Law any Phisitian which was allowed by the University might practise and exercise the sayd faculty within any place within England without any dispensation examination or approbation of any but after the making of the sayd Act made in the third year of King H. 8. none may practise exercise or occupy as Phisitian or Surgion within theCity of London and seven miles of that if he be not first examined approved and admitted by the Bishop of London and the Dean of Paules for the time being calling to them foure Doctors of Phisick or Chirurgions c. And that no practiser may occupy or exercise the sayd faculty out of the sayd Precincts if he be not first examined approved and admitted by the Bishop of the Diocess or in his absence by his Vicar generall every of them calling unto him such expert persons in the said faculty as their discretions thinks convenient and the reason of this difference as he conceived was for that that in this City and the sayd Precincts the King and all his Councell and all the Judges and Sages of the Law and divers other men of quality and condition live and continue and also the place is more subject unto Infection and the Heir more pestiferous and for that there is more necessity that greater Care diligence and examination be made of those which practised here in London and the precincts aforesayd then of those which practise in other places of the Realm for in other places the People have better aire and use more exercise and are not so subject to Infection and for that there is no cause that such care should be used for them for they are not in such danger and
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
a Book that ought not be given in evidence the Court above cannot remedie it except it be returned with the Postea A release to Tenant at sufferance void Commoner cannot chase the Lords Cattell if the surcharge be Common The Statute of 13 Eliz. for non-residence a generall law Where Husband and Wife shall be joyned and where severed in Action The Venire facias vicious no damages in Partition If the Jury find a man guilty in Trespass for a foot where it is layd in an Acre good enough and so in all Actions where damages onely are to be recovered Nota. Error assigned because in trespass nothing was entred of the Fine c. where it was a continued trespass and part of it was layd to be after the Pardon Nota. Nota. If the verdict find the tenure in substance though not in manner and form it is good intrespasse Difference between Replevin and Trespass In a writ to enquire of damages the Plaintif is not bound to prove the property of goods but the value only Where of his own wrong without such cause shall be a good issue and where not The Defendant prescribed for a passage over Land and naught it should have been for a way Nota. If the Lord cut the Wood in which the Commoner hath Estovers he shall have an Action of the Case but not an Assise Nota. Nota. Nota. An action will not lie for the counter-part of an Indenture without a speciall grant Nota. A man cannot Justifie the digging of a mans ground in hunting a Badger Nota. Nota. One Venu out of two places in the same County Whether a Copyholder may lop the trees growing upon his Copy-hold and held he might The Copy-holder is in by custome which is above the Lords estate The Copy-holder shall have trespas upon the Case against the Lord for cutting down of trees Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Waste in the Tenuit for digging of Sea coals Custodes Brev. Capital Prothon Sedi ' Prothon Try ' Prothon Cliri ' Warr. Cliri argenti Regi Cliri Error Cic. lib. 1. de Invent. Rhet. Prohibition upon the statute of 23. H. 8. Chap. 9. Prohibition to the High Commissioners High Commission Prohibition Joynt prohibitions and severall Counts Prohibition upon the statute of Symony upon the stat of 31. Eliz. Prohibition upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. for the dissolution of the Hospitall of Saint Johns of Jerusalem For not setting forth Tythes Husband sue only Prohibition to the Cort of Requests Against Forreiner for Ornaments for the Church and for Sextons wages Admiralty Contract for retaining of Tithes Admiralty Prohibition At the Archess discussed in right of Office Prohibition Admiralty for staying ships for Ballast High Commissioners and their power in Ministring Oâ—th and taking obligation High Commission Clandestine marriage Admiralty Coâ—rt if a thing done beyond Sea shall be there tried Agreement by word â—…p back tithes Where a Prohibition shall be granted without Action hanging High Commissioners Alimony Adultery Houghton Shirley Barker Court of Admiralty's Jurisdiction Admiralty Prohibition Modus decimandi Prohibition to a Court Baron Replevin 2. Executors one refuses Waste 2. Executors one refuses Bargaine and sale upon Condâ—… Ravishment of Ward Mich. 〈◊〉 Jacobi Rot. 213. Common of Pasture Trespasse Ejectione firmae Common Recovery Judgement in Debt Accompt See the beginning fol. Debt by Executor Administrators during the minority of the Executor Action upon the Case for words Replevin Attornement of Tenant being under age of 21. yeares Shirley Harris Harris Montague Hutton Surrender after Statute acknowledged Executors sued and also the Heire Court of Equity Debt upon a Bill Harris Shirley Fealty gives Seisin of all annuall Services Atturney brings Action of Debt for Fees Survivor doth not hold amongst Merchants to have all Award void Action upon the Case for words Devise that Executors shall sell Land A Towne incorporated with the consent of the greater part Action on the Case for slander Action upon the Case for suing one in a Court which hath no Jurisdiction Prescription for Common for Beasts without number Priviledge out of higher Court Fine amended Feoffinent to a Son and Heir for a valuable consideration Avowry Teste of a Venire facias amended after verdict Ejectione firme Ejectione firme Dodridge Houghton Replevin Grant without date Obligation Accompt Information Dodridge Hanghton Montague Dodridge Dower Debt against Administrator Commission to the Councell in Wales Caveat to a Bishop If administraon to the next of blood cannot be repealed Action for words Trespasse for breaking a House and taking a Cow Haughton Barker Barr not good Copy-hold intailed Extent upon a Statute Summons in Dower Patent of a Judge of the Common bench Action upon the case for slander Haughton Barker Periured Actionable Trespasse for imprisonment Dodridge Hutton Coram non judice Judgement void Shirley Wynch Foster Arbitrement Lease by the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Hutton Haughton Office granted by a Bishop Assumpsit Wilt of Right Haughton Nicholls Dower of titâ—e of Wooll Attachment Executrix during nonage Nicholls Harris Copy-holder Harris Dodridge Coke Replevin Waste Informer Lybell Debt against Administrator Copy-hold Coke Revocation of Uses Dodridge Nicholls Dodridge Nichols Wynch Warburton Coke Common Recovery Obligation to perferme Covenants Arrest of Judgment Audita querela Wast Estrepement awarded Ejectione firme Refusall Lord of a Mannor inclose the Demesnes adjoyning to the Common Warrantia Charte Dodridge Nicholls Devise of a Lease Dodridge Harris Assent to a Legatee Remainder of a Chattell Sherley Debt by Obligation Request is necessary for his Rent though that he have a bond for performing Covenants Nichols Debt Wynch Warburton Debt against Executors Davis What acts doe make an Executor De son tort what not Barker Warburton Wynch Trespasse Harriot Nicholls Harris Coke 253 Eliz. Dyer 193. a. Wrensfords case accordingly Warberton Wynch Release Cinque Ports Tenant for life with warranty Nicholls Haughton Wynch Warburton Ayd granted Coke Wynch Verdict uncertaine Falkland What is so called Warburton Coke Quod non occupantur conceditur Debt against Administrator for Rent in the Debet and Detinet Chibborne Detinet onely 2. Heire charged in Debet and Detinet 3. Towse Crook and Harris Joynt Covenant shall survive Copy-holder shall hold charge Error Elegit Testatum where no Writ had issued Confirmation to a Copy-holder destroys Common Expresse Covenant qualifies Covenant in Law Prohibition Defendant re-enters after Possession delivered by Habere facias possessionem Custome among Copy-holders Nonsuit after Verdict Reservation of Rent Michaelmasse or ten dayes after Grant of Common extinct Exposition of Usage Ejectione firme Errour Abatement of a Writ by entry Markhams Grant Earle of Rutlands Patent Challenge Earl of Rutlands Patent Challenge Abatement Errour Variance Seisin Abridgment of the Plaint in Assise Yelverton Fenner Challenge prin Flemming What matter shall be assigned for Error after Judgement Variante Challenge Seisin Misnaming of a Corporation Walter Yelverton Fenner Flemming Prohibition Prohibition A married Wife cannot make a Letter of Attorney Replevin Warburton Justice Walmesley Re-entry after possession executed Slander of Attorney Grand Cape Petit Cape Waging Law Release Inn-Keeper in London Action of false Imprisonment Serieant Harris the younger Walter Walmesley Coke Priviledge Assise View Coke Walmesley Challenge Errour in a Fine Barwick Returne of Writs Idemptitas nominis Fine Infant Tayle Maintenance Habeas Corpus Prohibition Trespasse for Slander Party Jury of two Counties Action upon the Case for Slander Errour Covenant for Rent Continuance Assumpsit Consideration Debt against Executors Errour Ve. fa. hab Carpus Formedon in Remainder Challenge Partition Dures Action upon the case for slander Prohibition Will. Devise Priviledge Postea 218. Adjournment of Tearm Infant levies Fine brings Errour Action upon the Case Action upon the Case Debt for Obligation Hutton Dodridge Court Sheriff committed to the Fleet. Grant of a Rent Priviledge of London Harris Hutton Where the Owner of Wood may Inclose Hutton Arbitrement Submissior Revocation Devise and grant â—enures to bargaine and Sale Harris Lease to determine upon Limitation Grant of the King that the Burrough should be incorporated Bayle Suit begun hanging another Writ Casuall intire Services Harris Nicholls Foster Dauiell Warburton Walmesley Coke Trade with Infidels without License Prohibition to the Court of Requests Approvement of Common Walmesley Foster Action upon the Case for Slander Bankrupt actionable Grant of Reversion Error in Proclamation Forfeiture of Office of a Chiroghapher Release Error in a Writ of Dower Copy-hold Certificate of the Bishop Minister Arrested Grant of the King of Alnage Haughton Dodridges Statutes how to be understood c. Account Devise of a Teerme Award Submission Arbitrement Where the death of the Defendant in Execution shall be satisfactory Dodridge Certiorari Outlawry Hutton Foster Debt upon escape against whom Warburton Land extended at too high rate Walmsley Coke Harris Haughton Foster Justice Warburton Walmsley Coke Charta de Foresta Assise Office Trespasse Estovers Boote its signification c. Nicholls Walmesley Coke Fee when forfeited Trespass Grant le Roy.
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