ratione calumniae praedict ac praedict jurament tenebat proficua inde provenientia diutius quam aliter si praesens Triatio habita fuisset sine aliqua calumnia tenere potuisset See the Statute of 5 Eliz. against Perjury the words are grieved letted or molested c. LIV. George ap Rice 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench George ap Rice Tenant in Tail after possibility of Issue extinct assigned his Estate to one A. against whom he in the Reversion brought a Quid juris clamat and it was adjudged that he should Attorn for although Tenant in Tail after possibility of Issue extinct himself is not compellable to attorn yet his Assignee shall attorn for the privilege is knit to the person who is in truth Tenant in Tail after possibility of Issue which cannot be the Assignee for by the Assignment the privity and the privilege are destroyed 1 Len. 290.291 And where the Defendant in a Quid juris clamat is adjudged to attorn Distress infinite shall issue forth against him to compell him to attorn and if he when he appears doth refuse to attorn he shall be imprisoned until he doth attorn And this Iudgment That the Assignee of Tenant in Tail after possibility should attorn being given in a Court in Wales was afterwards affirmed in a Writ of Error brought upon it in the King 's Bench. LV. Lucas and Picrost 's Case 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case was 3 Len. 137. That an Assise of Novel disseisin was brought in the County of Northumberland of two Acres of Land and as to one Acre the Defendant pleaded a Plea tryable in a Foreign County upon which the Issue was adjourned into the Common Pleas and from thence into the Foreign County where by Nisi prius it was found for the Plaintiff And now Snag Serjeant prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff and cited the Book of 16 H. 7. 12. where Assise is adjourned in Bank for difficulty of the Verdict they there may give Iudgment But the whole Court is of contrary Opinion for here is another Acre the Title of which is to be tryed before the Iustices of the Assise before the Tryal of which no Iudgment shall be given for the Acre for which the Title is found And the Assise is properly depending before the Iustices of the Assise before whom the Plaintiff may discontinue his Assise And it is not like unto the Case of 6 Ass 4. 8 Ass 15. where in an Assise a Release dated in a Foreign County is pleaded which was denyed for which cause the Assise was adjourned in Bank and there found by Inquest not the Deed of the Plaintiff now the Plaintiff if he will release his damages shall have Iudgment of the Freehold presently But in our Case Postea 199. 14 H. 7. part 118. parcel of the Lands put in view doth remain not tryed which the Plaintiff cannot release as he may the damages And therefore the Court awarded That the Verdict should be sent back to the Iustices of the Assise LVI Povye 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In communi Banco POvy an Attorny of the King's Bench brought an Action of Trespass there against the Warden of the Fleet who came into the Common Pleas and demanded the Advice of the Court because he is an Officer of this Court and therefore ought not to be impleaded elsewhere But it was said by the Court 3 Cro. 180. That because that the Plaintiff hath also his Privilege in the King's Bench as well as the Defendant hath here this equality of Privilege shall render the parties at liberty and he shall have the benefit of the Privilege who first begins Suit and so the Warden of the Fleet was advised to answer LVII Inchley and Robinson 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione Firmae it was found by special Verdict Owen Rep. 88. 3 Len. 165 That King E. 6. was seised of the Manor and hundred of Fremmington and by his Letters Patents granted the same to Barnard in Fee rendering 130 l. per annum and also to hold by Homage and Fealty and afterwards Queen Mary reciting the said Grant by E. 6. and the Reservation upon it granted to Gartrude Marchioness of Exeter the Manor of Fremmington and the said Rents and Services and also the Manor of Camfield and other Lands and tenements to be holden by the twentieth part of a Knight's Fee Gertrude so seised devised to the Lord Montjoy the Manor of Fremmington the Manor of Camfield c. and also bequeathed divers sums of money to be levied of the premisses and they farther found That the said Rent of 230 l. was the full third part of the yearly value of all the Lands and Tenements of the Devisor The Question was If by those words of the Devise Of the Manor of Fremmington the Rent and Services of the Manor did pass i. the Rent and the Homage and the Fealty reserved the Grant of King E. 6. of the Manor and Hundred of Fremmington and if the said Rent and Services are issuing out of the Manor for if the Rent doth not pass then the same is descended to the Heir of the Marchioness and then being found the full and third part of the value the King and the Heir is fully answered and satisfied and then the Inheritance of the residue discharged and settled in the Devisee And if the Rent doth not pass then is the Heir of the Marchioness entitled by the Statute to a third part of the whole Shuttleworth Serjeant If the Marquess had devised by express words the said Rent and Services they could not have passed for as to the Services they are entire things as Homage and Fealty and they cannot pass by Devise in case where Partition is to follow for such things cannot receive any Partition or Division therefore they are not divisible for the Statute doth enable the Proprietor or Owner to devise two parts of his Inheritances in three parts to be divided i. as Catalla Felonum cannot be devised for the reason aforesaid which was granted by the whole Court. And as to the Devise he argued much upon the grounds of Devises and put a ground put by Fineax 15 H. 7. 12. where every Will ought to be construed and taken according as the words do import or as it may be intended or implyed by the words what the meaning of the Testator was out of the words of the Will. See thereof a good Case 19 H. 8. 8. and 9. and he relied much upon the Case of Bret and Rigden Plow 342. So he said in this case because the intent of the Devisor doth not appear upon the words of the Will that this Rent should pass it shall not pass for there is not any mention made of any Rent in all the Will. Fenner contrary and he argued much upon the favorable construction which the Law gives to Wills 14 H. 3. Reversion for Remainder
Scire facias shall issue forth against the Sureties and thereupon a Capias And this question If the Capias in this case lieth or not is to be decided either by Audita Querela in the Chancery or by Error in the King's Bench for the said Courts have authority to affirm the proceedings or to disaffirm them And here the Question was If Woodhouse were imprisoned or no and not if the Capias erronice emanavit or not And he took a difference where Process is awarded out of a Court which hath not authority of the Principal cause there it is coram non judice and the Process is void and if the Sheriff taketh the party by force of such Process it is meerly void and he a Trespassor but contrary if the Court hath authority of the principal cause there if the Process be misconceived it is onely erroneous 10 Co. 76. An unskilfull man in Chancery makes an Appeal of Murther retornable in the Common Pleas and there an unskilfull Clark makes a Capias upon it the same is coram non-judice and not all together void But if in a Writ of Entry in the nature of an Assise the Demandant hath Iudgment to recover Debt and Damages and thereupon issueth a Capias the same is not void for it is but a misawarding of the Process provide emanavit If out of the Common Pleas immediately a Writ issueth to the Sheriff of Chester which is a County Palatine where the King 's Writ doth not run the same is void and false imprisonment lieth upon such a taking A Formedon brought in the King's Bench and upon that a Capias is void coram non judice and the Sheriff is bound to take notice of the Law in such cases that those of the King's Bench have not authority to hold plea in real Actions As to that That Woodhouse was convict of Felony the same shall not avoid the Execution but I grant that the King shall be satisfied before the subject c. And he relied much upon the said Case cited before 13 E. 3. Bar. 253. as to the matter of the Capias 19 H. 9. In Escape the Defendant pleaded a Release of him who recovered to the Prisoner being in Execution and it was holden no Plea. And in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXIII Bridget Clark 's Case Antea 30 31. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer THE Case was Clark was indebted to Archdel by Obligation and afterwards delivered to Andrews certain Hogsheads of Wine to satisfie the said Archdel the said Debt and afterwards the Obligation of Clark is assigned to the Queen for the Debt of Archdel And if the property of the said Hogsheads of Wine were altered by the delivery of them to Andrews before the Assignment was the Question Egerton Solicitor The property is not altered for the Bailor might have an Action of Account against Andrews before that he hath delivered the same over according to the Bailment but if he hath delivered them over the same is a good bar in an Account But if one be accountable to me upon a Bailment and afterwards I do require him to deliver the Goods over to A. the same is not in bar of Account but is good in discharge of account before Auditors for the same is matter after the Bailment not upon the Bailment If Goods be bailed to bail over upon a consideration precedent of his part to whom they ought to be bailed the Bailor cannot countermand it otherwise it is where it is voluntary and without consideration but where it is in consideration of a Debt not countermandable contrary if it be to satisfie the Debt of another Manwood Where the Debtor of the King is sufficient there a Debt due to him ought not to be assigned to the King but onely where the Debt of the King is doubtfull and that was the ancient course but now at this day multi videntur habentur divites qui tamen non sunt and therefore omnis Ratio tentanda est for the Recovery of the King's Debts But as to the Case before us The Wife is Executrix to her Husband who was indebted to Archdel and she delivers the Goods to Andrews to satisfie Archdel and all that is before the Assignment And I am of Opinion That the property of the said Goods is altered for as the case is Andrews was Surety for Clark and hath a Counter-Bond of Clark to save him harmless If I borrow 100 l. and deliver unto the Lender Plate for the security of it the property general of it is in me yet the Bailee hath a special interest in it untill he be paid If Goods be delivered to A. to pay unto B. A. may sell them An Executor hath Goods of the Testators and he with his own Monies payeth the Debts of the Testator he shall retain the Goods and the property is altered And here in our case Andrews may by virtue of this Bailment sell the Goods and with the Monies arising thereof pay the said Archdel And afterwards Iudgment was given accordingly that the property of the Goods by the delivery over by Andrews was altered CXIV Foskew 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer FRancis Foskew seised of the Manor of Foskew in his Demesn as of fee in consideration of a Marriage to be had with Francis his Son with M. Daughter of Sir Edw. Huddleston 9 Feb. 25. Feb. covenanted to levy a Fine of the Manor aforesaid and that the said Fine should be to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives and after their deaths to the use of the said Erancis their Son and M. and the Heirs of their bodies begotten with remainders over The Fine was levied accordingly afterwards 19 Octob. 27 Eliz. Francis the Father acknowledged a Recognizance to the Queen and died his Wife died and now this Manor is extended for the Debt to the Queen by force of the Statute of 33 H. 8. And now Coke came into Court and prayed that the said Manor might be discharged of the Debt to the Queen because it is not chargeable by the said Statute the words of whicih Statute are All Manors Lands Tenements c. which hereafter shall descend remain or revert in Fee-simple tail general or special by from or after the death of any his or their Ancestor or Ancestors as Heir or by Gift of his Ancestor whose Heir he is which said Ancestor or Ancestors was is or shall be indebted to the King or any other person or persons to his use by Judgment Recognizance Obligation c. In every such case the said Manors c. shall be charged c. This Statute was made for the benefit of the King in two points 1. To make Lands entailed liable to the King against the issue tail for the Kings Debts in the cases aforesaid where they were not liable 2. To make Bonds taken by the Officers of the King to the use of the King as
adjudged by the whole Court that the Covenant did not lie by one of them onely but ought to be brought by them both LXI Carter 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Being seised of the Manor of Staple in Odiham 1 Cro. 208. Owen Rep. 84. 8 Co. 119. and of divers other Lands in Odiham suffered a common Recovery of the whole and by Indenture expressed the uses in this manner viz. of all his Lands and Tenements in Odiham to the use of his wife for life the remainder over c. And of the Manor of Staple to the use of his youngest son in tail but by the clear opinion of the whole Court although the Manor of Staple was in Odiham yet the wife shall have nothing therein for the intent of the party was that the son should have the same and his wife the residue and accordingly Iudgment was given LXII Cobb and Prior 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case betwixt Cobb and Prior was this A man seised of Lands in Fee devised the same to his Wife during the minority of his Son upon condition that she should not do Waste during the minority of the said Son and died The Wife married a Husband and died the Husband committed Waste It was holden by all the Iustices That the same was not any breach of the Condition and Iudgment was entred accordingly LXIII Taylor and Brounsal 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. IN an Information upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. by Taylor against Brounsal the Case was That John Brounsal was seised and gave the Lands to T. B. and the Heirs of his body c. the Remainder to R. B. and the Heirs male of his body the Remainder to the right Heirs of J. B. T. B. died having issue a Daughter and R. B. made a Lease for years of the Lands And it was holden by the Court to be no maintenance within the said Statute for he in the Remainder might make a Lease for years Then it was given in Evidence That a common Recovery was had against the Husband and Wife with a single Voucher and so the Remainder limited to R. B. destroyed and that after that Recovery R. B. made the Lease To which it was said by the other side That the said Recovery was never executed and no discontinuance of the Remainder and then the Lease made by R. B. was good and the truth of the Case was That such a Recovery was had and an Habere facias seisinam awarded and retorned but no Execution was in truth had upon it nor the Recoveror never entred And if R. B. who is a stranger to the said Recovery shall be admitted against the Recovery to say That no Execution was thereof was the Question and therefore all the matter was found by special Verdict It was also given in Evidence That the Land was given to T. B. and the Heirs males of his body and then when the Daughter which is not in truth inheritable entereth if that Entry she being privy in bloud to R. hee Vncle shall be a Disseisin or Abatement c. as in the Case of Littleton where the youngest Brother entreth after the death of the Father for in such case the youngest Son doth not get any Freehold but is but a Tenant at sufferance Anderson When the Daughter enters and takes a Husband who leaseth for years and the Lessee entreth the same is a Disseisin Periam doubted it for he said When the younger Son entred the Freehold was in him which Anderson doubted LXIV Maunsel and Vernon 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IQ Debt by Maunsel against Hen. Vernon Esquire who came in by Capias i. compulsary Process and pleaded That he was Hen. Vernon Lord Powis and so a Baron of the Parliament and demanded Iudgment of the Writ Note some said That if the Defendant had come in by Issue joyned or gratis and not by compulsary Process he could not have pleaded this Plea or any other Misnosmer The Plaintiff replyed That the Defendant is an Esquire absque hoc that he is Lord Powis and a Baron of the Parliament and as the Iury was ready at the Bar to try this Issue this matter was objected And Anderson conceived That this Plea to the Writ was not good for the name of Lord is not any degree as Knight Duke Earl nor is it parcel of the name nor parcel of addition and therefore it is no Plea in abatement of a Writ and all the Writs of Parliament directed to Barons to summon them to Parliament shall have their Names Sirnames and Additions as if they be Knights Knights and if Esquires they shall be named Esquires and if a Bond be made by J.S. Lord R. the Writ shall not be so for the King by his Writ doth not name any one Lord but otherwise it is of Duke Earl c. for these are Offices of Dignity and parcel of their Names and not onely Additions Windham and Periam contrary and they conceived that there was no difference in this point betwixt a Lord and an Earl for which cause the Court being in doubt although that the Exception was entered of Record would have saved the same to the party and taken the Iury de bene esse but afterwards because it appeared it was joyned in the prejudice of Sir Edward Herbert who was a stranger thereunto and whose Title was concerned therein and there was none on his part to inform the Iury the Iury was at last dismissed by the Court. LXV Penruddock and Newman 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae by Penruddock against Newman 1 Leon. 279 the Plaintiff declared of a Lease made by the Lord Morley and upon Not-guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That W. Lord Mounteagle seised of the manner of D. whereof c. became bound in a Statute in such a sum of Money to A. who died the Executors of A. sued Execution against the said Lord scil Extendi facias a Liberate issued upon which the said Manor was delivered to the Executors but the said Liberate was not retorned and it was farther found That the Executors being so possessed of the Manor the Lord commanded a Court Baron to be holden there which was done by sufferance and permission of the Executors and in their presence at which time the Executors said to the Lord the Conusor We have nothing to do with this Manor And upon this Verdict several matters were moved 1. If the Execution were well done because the Writ of Liberate was not retorned and as to that divers Books were cited 21 H. 6. 8. 18 E. 3. 25. And there is a difference betwixt a Liberate and a Capias ad satisfaciend and Fieri facias these Writs are Conditional Ita quod habeas corpus c. Ita quod habeas denarios hic in Curia 32 H. 8. ca. 28. 16 H. 7.
in execution it was adjudged in this Case that the Conusee should have the Corn sowed The same Law in case of a Recognizance LXXVI Smalman and Lane 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was a Capias upon an original Process was delivered to the new Sheriff of Warwick against Lane at the suit of Smalman And the Sheriff informed the Court that before that the Process was directed to him That the said Lane was taken in Execution by the old Sheriff upon a judgment given against him in the King's-Bench and that the said old Sheriff had imprisoned the said Lane by force of the Execution in his own house and there he remained and prayed the advice of the Court what retorn he should make upon that matter because the said Lane was never in his possession for all the other prisoners which were in the Gaol and in the ordinary Prisons were delivered to him and the old Sheriff would not bring Lane to the place where the other Prisoners were delivered And it was the opinion of all the Iustices That by the Law the old Sheriff ought to deliver the body of him who is in his custody by view to the new Sheriff and such Prisoners ought to be brought unto him to view and from that time the Law shall adjudge such Prisoners to be in the possession of the new Sheriff and not before for he is not bound to go to them not being in the ordinary Prison of the County Anderson The new Sheriff may retorn That the said Lane is in Execution in custodia sua and so charge himself For although the Office of the old Sheriff be determined yet it is not an escape so long as the party be in custodia and not at large Periam contrary It is an escape in the old Sheriff as soon as his authority is determined the Prisoner not delivered See now C. 3. part 71. Wesby's Case LXXVII Megot and Broughton and Davie 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 1 Cro. 105. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit it was found by Nisi prius for the Plaintiff and afterwards before the day in Bank one of the Defendants died and after Iudgment given the other Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the same Court where the Iudgment was given and assigned an Error in fact scil the death of one of the Defendants pendant the Writ Roll 798. b. 3 Len. 96. Vide 2 E. 3. 21. It was said that the Case is not like the Case of an Action of Trespass for every Trespass done by many is several by each of them but every Assumpsit is joint and not several Another point was moved If the Court could reverse their own Iudgement Quaere LXXVIII Farrington and Fleetwood 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer THE Case upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries was this 3 Len. 164 165. ante 333. Plus The Abbat and Convent of A. c. 29 H. 8. made a Lease of certain Lands for three lives to begin after the death of one F. if they so long live and afterwards 30 H. 8 within a year before the dissolution they make another Lease to Fleetwood If the first Lease in the life of the said F. be such an Estate and Interest as by virtue of the said Statute shall make the second Lease void was the Question for it was not in esse but a future Interest Manwood All the reason that hath been made for the second Lease is because the first Lease is but a possibility for F. by possibility may survive all the said three and so it shall never take effect But notwithstanding be it a possibility or otherwise it is such a thing which may be granted or forfeited and that during the life of F. And note the words of the Statute If any Abbat c. within one year next before the first day of this present Parliament hath made or hereafter shall make any Lease or Grant for years life or lives of any Manors c. whereof and in which any Estate or Interest for life or years at the time of the making of any such Lease or Grant then had his being or continuance and hereafter shall have his being or continuance and then was not determined c. shall be void c. And here is an Interest and that not determined at the time of the making of the Lease to Fleetwood And of such Opinion were all the Barons and divers other Iustices and therefore a Decree was made against the Lease c. LXXIX Beaumont 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte it was holden by all the Barons in the Exchequer Owen Rep. 46. That a Duty which is not naturally a Debt but by circumstances onely as Debt upon a Bond for performance of Covenants or to save harmless may be assigned over to the Queen for a Debt but in such case a present Extent shall not issue but a Scire facias shall issue forth to know if the party hath any thing to plead against such Assignment LXXX Goddard 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was moved in the Case of Goddard concerning the Manor of Staple in Hampshire 11 Leon. 8. If the Tenant of the King of Lands holden in Capite be disseised and the Disseisor aliens the Lands and afterwards the Disseisee doth re-enter Manwood said That the Land shall not be charged with a Fine for alienation without licence because the Title of the Alienee grew under the wrong of the Disseisor but the person of the Disseisor shall be charged with such Fine Tenant of the King in Capite makes a Lease for life the Lessee for life makes a Feoffment in Fee without licence the Lessor re-entreth neither his person nor the Land shall be charged But if my Feoffee upon Condition maketh a Feoffment without license and I re-enter for the Condition broken now my Land shall be charged with the Fine upon Alienation for the Feoffee was in by me by good and lawfull Title because he had power to make a Feoffment over although subject to the Condition So if Tenant in tail or the Husband seised in the Right of his Wife make a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards the Land is recontinued the Fine accruing for Alienation without licence shall bind the Land And if Tenant for life loseth issues and dieth the Lands shall be charged with the same LXXXI The Lord of Northampton and Lord St. John 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Roll. 195. Co. 12. 1 2. Co. 4. 95. Dyer 262. THE Lord of Northampton had by ancient Letters Patents bona catalla felonum fugitivorum within the Isle of Ely and one dwelling within the Island was attainted of Felony to whom another was indebted by Obligation and the money by the Condition of the Bond was to be paid at a Manor of the Lord St. John's who within his Manor
not in the King without Office in the life of the party attainted upon the words of the Act shall forfeit See Stamford Prerogat 54 55. acc He said That this interest which came unto the King by this Attainder is but a Chattel and then it is remitted by the Pardon and so he conceived if it be a Freehold For the words of the general Pardon are large and liberal Pardon and release all manner of Treasons c. and all other things Causes c. and here Forfeitures are pardoned and this word things is a transcendent c. and although it be a general word yet by the direction of the Act of general Pardon it ought to be beneficially expounded and extended as if all things had been specially set down Also the words are Pardon them and their Heirs therefore the Pardon extends to Inheritance for otherwise there is no use of that And he conceived That by the first branch of this Act that the same extends to Inheritances and to acquit the Lands of all incumbrances for every Offence not excepted for there is the word Heirs and the third branch concerns onely Chattels and that is by the word Grant where the first is by words of acquittal See 33 H. 8. br Charter of Pardon 71. Tenant of the King dieth seised the Heir intrudes Office is found by Pardon of Parliament all Intrusions are pardoned in that case the Offence is pardoned but not the issues and profits of the Lands but by a Pardon before all is pardoned But here in our case the Office is not void for the Statute makes all Precepts Commissions c. void being awarded upon such forfeiture See also in the second branch Vexed or inquieted in Body Goods or Lands and see also among the Exceptions That persons standing indicted of wilfull Murther and Forfeiture of Goods Lands Tenements grown by any offence by such person By which he said that if such Exception had not been the Land of such person if he had been attainted upon such Indictment should be forfeited as to the Traverse he said That because the Office is true our Plea is in the nature of Monstrans de Droit although it concludes with a Traverse We vary from the Office in number of the persons and in the day of Feoffment and every circumstance in case of the King is to be traversed and our Plea in substance confesseth and avoideth the Offence Although that here the King be intituled by double matter of Record scil the Attainder and the Office yet one of the said Records scil the Attainder is discharged by another Record scil the Pardon and then but one Record remains scil the Office and therefore our Traverse well lieth And he said that by the common Law there was a Traverse as where it was found by Office that the Lessee of the King had committed Waste or had cessed for two years and that in such case the Lessee and Tenant in an Action brought against them may traverse the Offence therefore there was a Traverse at the common Law where the King was entitled by single matter of Record So upon Office finding Alienation without Licence there was a Traverse by the common Law See Traverse in such case in the Case of William de Herlington 43 Ass 28. See Br. Traverse of Office 54. Petition is by the common Law and Traverse by the Statute Frowick in his Reading See Stamf. Prerogat 60. That Traverse in case of Goods was at the common Law but for Lands by Office by 34 E. 3. 14. for before the remedy was by Petition See Co. 4. part the Sadler's Case 55 56. Traverse was at the common Law concerning Freehold and Inheritance but that was in special Cases scil when by the Office the Land is not in the King's hands nor the King by that is in possession but onely by the Office is entitled to an Action and cannot make a Seisure without Suit for there in a Scire facias brought by the King in the nature of such Action to which he is entitled the party may appear to the Scire facias and traverse the Office by the common Law. It was adjourned CLXX Scott and Scott 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 73. 3 Len. 225. 4 Len. 70. IN a Replevin betwixt Scott and Scott the Case was George Scott 2 H. 8. being Tenant in tail of certain lands suffered a common Recovery to the use of his last Will and 15 H. 8. made his Will by which he did declare That the Recoverors should make a good and favourable Lease to Hugh Scott his younger brother and 25 H. 8. they make a Lease of the same land to the said Hugh for 199 years according to the Will of the said George Scott rendring Rent 11 l. 6 s. 8 d. payable at the Feast of the Annunciation and S. Michael by equall portions and that to the Recoverors their Heirs and Assigns and there was a Covenant that after the death of the Recoverors the said Rent should be paid to Cestuy que use his Heirs and Assigns any thing in the said Indenture notwithstanding Proviso That if the Lesse make his Heir male his Assignee of that term that then he shall pay the said Rent to the Recoverors their Heirs and Assigns and the Lessee shall not pay the Rent to the Heirs of Cestuy que use upon which a Distress is taken and thereupon a Replevin brought Drew argued for the Plaintiff When a Condition is created the Law saith That it shall be taken and construed favourably in the behalf of him who is to perform it As if one be bounden to appropriate such a Church to such a house before such a day at his own costs and the Obligor grants a Pension out of the said Parsonage and afterwards appropriates the said Church it was holden that the Condition was well performed 3 H. 7. 4. A Lease for years upon condition to scowre the Ditches if the Lessee scowreth them once it is well enough And as to this word Proviso It is to see If here it be a word conditional In some Cases this word Pro makes a Condition as 45 E. 3. 8. Grant of a Ward pro bono servitio if the Grantee departeth out of his service the Grant is void So if an Annuity be granted unto a Physician pro consilio impendendo the same is a Condition 41 E. 3. 6. For the Grantor hath not means to compell the Grantee to give his Council but in some Cases this word Pro doth not make a Condition As if before the Statute of West 3. Land was given pro homagio suo there if the Homage be not done the Feoffor could not re-enter but he ought to distrain And I conceive that in our Case Proviso doth not make a Condition 7 H. 6. 44. A Feoffment in Fee with Warranty Proviso that the Feoffee shall not vouch So a Grant of a Rent-charge Proviso that the Grant shall not
being void he presents he may repeal his presentment and he vouched divers presidents of Grants of the King of such lands to hold of him as of his Dutchy and sometimes of others And the King by his Dutchy seal may give lands in Mortmain and the King under his Dutchy-seal hath made divers Corporations within his Dutchy And although this Rent be a new thing never parcel of the Dutchy yet because it is issuing out of the Dutchy lands and reserved thereout shall be of the same nature and accounted parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy If before the Statute of West 3. one seised of lands on the part of his mother made a Feoffment in Fee Tenend by such services and died the Seignory should go to the heir on the part of his mother and should be descendable as the land it self in lieu of which it came And if Tenant in tail now after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Lease for years according to the Statute rendring Rent to him and his heirs it shall be expounded such heirs which are inheritable to the land according to the entail Manwood chief Baron Demanded of Plowden this Question The King makes a Feoffment in Fee of lands of his Dutchy Is the same a matter of Record who answered yes Manwood Truely no for then there needed not any livery Egerton Solicitor argued to the contrary and he argued much upon the Statute of 1 H. 4. and 1 H. 7. of the separation of the Dutchy of Lancaster from the Crown which see in the Comment 215. in the Case of the Dutchy of Lancaster by which Acts the possessions of the Dutchy were devested out of the body Politick of the King and vested in his body natural and are as their corporal holding in the King as they were in the Duke of Lancaster being a Subject who if he had made a Feoffment the Feoffee should not hold of him but of the King Ergo so shall it be in the case where the King himself makes a Feoffment and he cited a Case put in the end of the Dutchy Case 4 Eliz. 223. The Queen made a Feoffment of lands of the Dutchy out of the County Palatine to hold of her in Capite the Feoffee shall hold of her in Capite as of her Crown of England The case went farther the King after this Feoffment granteth the Fee-farm the Question is If the Rent reserved upon this Feoffment shall pass by such grant or not and he said That this Rent is not parcel of the Fee-farm but rather a collateral charge upon the land for in all cases where there is a Tenure expressed in fait or implyed in Law there the rent reserved after shall not be parcel of the Tenure but a Rent in gross by it self As in our case Tenend in feod firm makes a Tenure therefore the Reddend after shall not make the sum reserved parcel of it 33 E. 3. Annuity 52. before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend de Dominis Capital rendring the rent of 20 l. that Rent is a Rent in gross and not parcel of the Tenure King E. 6. granted to Cranmer Archbishop and his heirs Tenend by the fifth part of a Knight's-fee Reddend 6 l. per ann Cranmer in Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of his son in tail the remainder to the use of the right heirs of Cranmer made a Fee who is attainted of Treason by which the remainder to his right heirs Escheats to the King and so the Seignory is extinct but it was adjudged That the Rent was in esse and not extinct by the Escheat of the remainder for it was not parcel of the Seignory So here in our case Another matter was moved If this Rent being a new thing created de novo and not parcels of the possessions of the Dutchy 1 H. 4. nor 1 H. 7. shall be accounted in Law in the right of the Crown or of the Dutchy and if of the Crown then it cannot pass by the Dutchy-seal and the Statute of 1 H. 4. speaks of such Lands and Tenements which were to his Ancestors Dukes of Lancaster but this Rent never was in them c. and the Queen cannot enlarge the possessions of her Dutchy by her own Act and therefore if J. S. being Tenant in Fee-simple be impleaded in a Praecipe quod reddat and saith that he holdeth for life the remainder to the King in Fee in the right of his Dutchy now this remainder is vested in the King in the right of his Crown and not in the right of his Dutchy for it is onely an Estoppel So the Villein of the King in the right of his Dutchy purchaseth lands the King seiseth he shall have the lands in the right of his Crown and not in the right of the Dutchy If the King giveth Common out of his lands parcel of his Dutchy and afterwards makes a Feoffment in Fee of the lands out of which the Common is granted and afterwards the Commoner dieth without heir the King shall have the same in the right of his Crown and not in the right of the Dutchy So although the rent doth follow the nature of the lands out of which it is issuing yet it is not so to all intents and he said That by the Statute of 2 3 Phil. Ma. the King could not enlarge the possessions of the Dutchy and therefore by the said Act authority is given for to annex possession unto the Dutchy by Letters Patents And there is another clause in the said Statute That if any part of the possessions of the Dutchy have been aliened or granted unto any subject and are reverted to the Crown by Escheat attainder forfeiture purchase c. they shall be deemed and accepted parcel of the Dutchy which case proves That if the King makes a Feoffment of such lands the same is a Tenure in chief for if it were a Tenure of the Dutchy then upon Escheat it should be parcel of the Dutchy again without the help of that Statute Now this Rent being a Rent in gross and not parcel of the Seignory Reddendo Domino Regi haeredibus successoribus suis aut Domino aut Dominis feodi when the King grants the Seignory to the Lord Audley it hath been moved that it was in the Election of the Feoffee to pay the Rent to the King or to the Lord Audley but that is not so for although the Law be so betwixt Subjects yet in case of the King it is otherwise for the King shall never be over-reached by an Election and therefore he shall pay the Rent to the King. It was adjourned CLXXXV The Executors of Sir William Cordel and Clifton 's Case Hill. 18 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 59. THE Case was The Earl of Westmerland seised of a Manor whereof the Demeans were usually let for three lives by Copy
Statute is recited which needs not and therefore being misrecited made the Indictment insufficient but here the Statute is well recited and therefore as unto that matter the Indictment is sufficient As to the second exception the Iustices were of opinion That the Indictment in that respect Antea 184. was too general and incertain The third exception was not allowed for the latter words i. e. in Putney do refer to the whole and extend as well unto the house as unto the lands But as to these words Lands to the said house belonging See the Case between Partridge and Croker 7 E. 6. 85. where it is good enough because that the number of the acres is set incertain And it was holden by the Court That a Schoolmaster is a good addition for it is a mystery as a Scrivener and afterward the Indictment for the house onely was holden good CCXXXIII Gray a Bencher of the Temple 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Chancery GRay a Bencher of the Temple's Case was this It was found by Office That one H. was seised in Fee of certain lands called Drayners and Codred alias Codreth in the County of Hertford in his Demesne as of Fee and thereof enfeoffed certain persons unto the use of himself and Anne Capel with whom he afterwards intermarried and of the heirs of their two bodies begotten and of such Estate died seised and farther it was found that the said H. was also seised of other Lands in Barmesden in his Demesne as of Fee and therefore died seised and now came Gray into the Chancery and shewed that the said H. was seised of the said Land called Drayners in his Demesne as of Fee and thereof enfeoffed certain persons unto the use of himself and the said Anne Capel for the term of their lives and afterwards by his Indenture dated the 23. of Decemb. and enrolled bargained and sold the Reversion thereof to the said Gray c. by force whereof c. Absque hoc that he was seised in tail and absque hoc that he thereof died seised in his Demesne as of Fee-tail as it is found by the said Office and for the Land in Barmesden he said that the Lady Judde was seised thereof for the term of her life the Reversion to the said H. in Fee who granted to him the said Reversion in Fee c. absque hoc that he died seised in his Demesne as of Fee c. And upon that the Queen's Attorney joined issue and the Venire facias issued De Cottred Barmesden and the Iury found That H. did not make the Feoffment to the use of himself and Anne his Wife in tail and farther found for Gray in all c. And it was objected here That the same is not a good and lawfull trial For the Land is alledged to be in Codrett and the Venire facias is of Codred c. And although the Venire facias be well awarded as unto Barmesden yet being naught in part it is naught in all which was granted by the whole Court And then a new Venire facias shall issue forth for the whole Another Objection was because he pleads that the Lady Judde was seised of that Land for the term of her life in which Case Gray who is in Reversion ought not to be admitted to this Traverse because that Tenant for life for any thing that is pleaded to the contrary is yet alive and it is clear that none shall be put to his Traverse but the party grieved and here he in the Reversion upon an Estate for life cannot be restored to the possession and by consequence shall not have Traverse See for that 6 H. 7. 15. and 37. Ass 11. c. 2. The seisin in tail ought to be traversed and not the descent or dying seised for if they were seised and disseised and so died the Queen shall have the Ward Coke contrary For Codred and Cottered idem sonant c. And although that it be found by Office that H. was seised of Lands in Codred alias Codreth yet the Defendant supplies the said matter for he saith thus as unto the Land in Codred praedicta which words import that the said Land was known by the one name or the other for this word praedicta is as an Averment which see 33 H. 8. Br. Averm 42. And so here this word praedicta is an Averment that Cottered and Codred are one And if so then the Venire facias is well awarded The Statute of 18 H. 6. gives Traverse to those who find themselves grieved by such Offices or which are put out of their Lands or Tenements and we are within the words of it for upon the whole matter we are out of possession as it was ruled in the Case of one Stukely in the Court of Wards the last Term. If it be found by Office That A. died seised of my Manor and that he held the said Manor of the Queen Now I am out of possession and for that cause the bargain and sale of Dorrel to Sir Francis Walsingham was holden void by the whole Court And 4 H. 6. 12. Traverse is given in lieu of Petition but he in the reversion may have Petition therefore he shall be also admitted to Traverse and this Case may be resembled to the Case of 2 E. 3. 23. where a Praecipe was brought against Tenant for life and he in the Reversion for life prayed to be received It was said by Thorp That is not within the Case of the Statute for he is Tenant onely in the Remainder and it is possible that neither shall have any thing and the Statute speaks onely of Reversion and yet it was awarded That he should be received otherwise great prejudice would follow And here we are at prejudice for now by reason of this Office we cannot have our Action of Waste Also here we need not to Traverse the dying seised in tail but it is sufficient to Traverse the gift in tail for if there be not a gift in tail it is not possible that he should die seised in tail which see 2 E. 4. 15. by Laicon Gawdy Iustice conceived that the trial is not good for the Venire facias is not from the place where the Land is and this word praedicta doth not amount to an Averment and the Case cited before is but the opinion of Brook. Wray said That as to the first exception that it was good enough for both the names idem sonant and as to the Office by that the Queen hath gained possession so as he who traverseth cannot have an Action of Waste and so he is prejudiced by the Office c. CCXXXIV Perchall 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench PErchall was Indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 4. for drawing of his Dagger in the Church against J. S. without saying That he drawed it to the intent to stick the Plaintiff and therefore the Indictment was holden void as to the
B. for life and if A. before such a day shall pay 10 l. to the Feoffor then to the use of the said A. for life the same is a good use to begin upon the said condition and yet if it had been limited in possession it had been otherwise and that an Vse may begin upon a contingency see the case 27 H. 8. 5. A Covenant is made by Indenture betwixt A. and B. that the Son of A. shall marry the Daughter of B. upon which B. pays 100 l. to A. and the said A. doth covenant that if the said marriage doth not take effect that then the Feoffees of the said A. shall suffer the said B. his Executors and Assigns to have the issues and profits of certain Lands until B. his Executors and Assigns shall be contented and satisfied of the sum aforesaid by the said A. his Executors or Assigns there if the marriage doth not take effect upon such contingent the use shall rise to B. And see 30 H. 8. Br. Feoffs to Uses 50. A. covenants with B. that then B shall enfeoff A. of the Manor of D. then B. and his Heirs shall be seised of the Manor of D. to the use of the said A. and his Heirs Now if A. enfeoffeth B. ut supra then c. vide librum And here in our case the second Wife doth not hold joyntly with her Husband for their Estates do not begin together for the Husband is in of his ancient Estate which he had during the first marriage notwithstanding the words of limitation to the said Husband and his second Wife but she shall take by way of Remainder Harper Iustice Vses began about 18 E. 2. after which time there was such a general liking of them that they were anew used but they did not come into common practice before the time of King Henry the sixth when the great contention fell out betwixt the two great Houses of York and Lancaster at which time Vses were in great estimation for the safety of Inheritances Afterwards Vses by practices became mischievous and prejudicial to the publick Iustice of the Realm and to many particular persons for some timentes implacitari conveyed their Lands secretly to uses so as he who had right knew not against whom to bring his action and for that divers Statutes have been made to enable the Subject to implead the pernor of the profits 4 H. 4. 7. 11 H. 6. 4. 1 H. 7. And as to the making of the Statute of 27 H. 8. the truth is that the King was displeased for the loss of Wardships and other injuries done to him for which cause he complained to the Iudges of the defect of the Law in that case who therefore shewed unto the King the causes of those injuries and losses to the King and farther shewed to the King That if the possession might be joyned to the use all would go well and all the injuries wrong and loss which came to the King by reason of such Vses Wills and secret Feoffments would be avoided For which the King commanded his Council to frame a Bill to that purpose and present it to the House of Commons in the 24 year of his Reign but it was then rejected and the King at that time would have been contented that the fourth part of the Land onely should descend and from that time the King stayed farther proceedings in the said cause until 27 H. 8. at which time it took effect And their cure was to pen the Statute so precisely that nothing should be left in the Feoffees but that the whole Estate should be executed by the Statute so as the said Statute did utterly take out all from the Feoffees Whereas it hath been said That a Vse hath been as long as any Marriage hath been and so conceived upon the Writ Causa Matrimonii prolocuti the same is not any reason for in that Case there is not any Confidence or Trust for if the marriage doth not take effect the woman shall have her Writ de Causa Matrimonii prolocuti In Conveyances we are to respect two things the form and the effect of it and in all cases where the form and the effect cannot stand together the form shall be rejected and the effect shall stand A Lease for life is made to a Feme sole she takes Husband the Lessor confirms to both of them the Husband cannot take any Estate presently according to the words of the Confirmation but because the Will of the Lessor is that an estate shall accrue to the Husband he shall have it as the Law will by way of Remainder So Lands are given to an Abbat and a secular man the form of the words purport a joynt Estate but that by Law cannot be and therefore they shall take as the Law will rather than not at all In our case here The limitation of the Vse cannot be pursued precisely according to the words which are viz. If the Husband over-live his said first Wife then to the use of the said Husband and his Wife which shall be which in words is a joynt Estate and therefore the words shall be construed After the death of the first Wife unto the use of the Husband until he marrieth and afterwards to the use of him and his second Wife in which case they shall take joyntly Dyer chief Iustice As to the beginning of Vses See Bacon's Reading upon this Stat. he conceived that the same was immediately after the Statute of Mortmain at which time all their shifts then in practice were found out which see the Statute of Mortmain 7 E. 1. Stat. de Religiosis for which cause they were after driven to find out other shifts not provided for by the Statute which were espyed by the making of the Statute of 15 R. 2. cap. 5. and in that Statute these words Behoof and Use are used which is the first place those words have been used in our Law and yet long time before that Statute Uses had been in practice as appeareth in the Exchequer 34 E. 3. the which in the time of Queen Mary when the said Record was shewed in the Exchequer to the Iustices the effect of which Record was That Walter de Chirton who was Customer of the King became indebted to the King in the sum of 18000 l. and with that the King's money had purchased in the name of his friends to defraud the King many Lands and took the profits of them those Lands so purchased were extended to the use and for the King in payment of his Debt as well as if Walter de Chirton himself had been seised of them and that by the advice of the Chancellor and the chief Iustices Now Vses by tract of time have grown in credit so as Cestuy que use have been sworn in Inquests and by the Law they might justifie the maintaining of their Feoffees when they had been impleaded which they could not have done if they had not more
remain in the Feoffees who are put in Trust with it and therefore have interest in the Lands until all the Trusts be performed and therefore the second Wife was advised by her Council to make her Entry in name of the surviving Feoffee and the interest which the Feoffees have in the interim untill the execution of all the uses is a Fee-simple determinable for the whole interest is not devested or driven out of the Feoffees untill the whole Trust be accomplished i. untill all the uses limited upon the Feoffment are executed and have their full perfection And whereas it hath been alledged on the other side That upon the second Feoffment nothing passed out of the Feoffees for which it shall not be said in Law their Livery but that the Attorney shall be said the sole Disseisor As to that I conceive That whatsoever was lost in the Feoffees passed by that Livery If he in Reversion upon an Estate for life makes a Charter of a Feoffment and a Letter of Attorney to make Livery of seisin without words ad expellendas omnes c. if Livery be made by force thereof the Fee-simple shall pass And he cited a Case which was argued before all the Iustices of England reported by himself 2 and 3 Ma. 131. Divers Leases for years were made of the Demeans of an Abby after which the Reversion was granted to the Countess of Richmond for life after which King Edw. 6. granted the Reversion in Fee to the Earl of Warwick who made a Feoffment of all to certain persons to the use of his eldest Son and his Wife for her Iointure with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery and seisin the Attorney made Livery accordingly and by that Feoffment and Livery it was adjudged that the Fee-simple did pass So in our Case upon this second Feoffment a Disseisin is done to D. the first Wife and yet the right of the Feoffees doth pass thereby and although it shall not be taken in Law their Livery yet it shall be adjudged their confirmation because they have joined in the Deed and that shall bind their right to establish the same in the new Feoffees as if the Disseisee join in a Feoffee by Deed with the heir of the Disseisor And as to that which hath been objected that because at the time of the Feoffment the Feoffees had not any thing c. and therefore nothing shall pass and they have likened to the Case where the Father is disseised and the Son and heir doth release to the Disseisor the same shall not bind the heir after the death of his Father The same is not like our Case for there is a great difference betwixt a Release and a Feoffment for if the Son disseise the Father and maketh a Feoffment in Fee in the life of his Father notwithstanding that he had not any right at the time of the Feoffment yet he is bound XXVI Thurkettell and Tey 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 342. 1 Cro. 110 111. IN Debt by John Thurkettell against Edw. Tey and Mary his Wife Executrix of Robert Thurkettell the Case was That Agnes Thurkettell Mother of Robert the Testator devised certain Lands to Robert and afterwards devised 40 l. to the Plaintiff John upon condition that the said John Cum requisitus esset acquietaret retaxaret praedict Roberto omnes actiones reales personales querelas c. praedict 40 l. per dict voluntat legatis tantummodo exceptis Agnes died Robert made two Bonds to John The first was endorsed to pay 20 l. parcell of the said Legacy within a year after the death of the said Agnes so as the Plaintiff release according to the will of the said Agnes The second Obligation was with the same condition to pay 20 l. residue of the said Legacy within two years after the death of the said Agnes upon condition to release ut supra and all this matter was pleaded in barr And farther That Robert required the said John to make the Release c. which he refused and they were at issue upon the request and it was found for the Plaintiff i. Quod dict Robert. non requisivit c. upon which Verdict Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff upon which the Defendants brought Error because it appeareth upon the Record here quod Billa praedict prosecuta fuit infra duos annos post mortem dict Agnet sic ante diem solutionis For the second Bond see 46 E. 3. 28. by Finchden and Persay and see there by Persay That if my Writ be brought before the day of payment and doth depend in suit till after the day of payment that my Writ is made good for at all times the Defendant was my Debtor And afterwards in the principal Case the Iudgment was affirmed in the Exchequer-Chamber and note that the day of payment did incurr pendent the Writ XXVII Lightfoot and Butler 's Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was said in this Case by the Solicitor General That if one holdeth of the Queen as of her Manor he shall not have the privilege of the Exchequer for that cause But if the King grants Tithes and thereupon reserveth a Rent nomine decimae and a Tenure of him there he shall have the privilege The principal Case was Co. 4. Inst 118 119. that one of the parties claimed the Lands in question as his Freehold but holden of the Queen as of such a Manor and the other claimed it as Copyhold holden of the same Manor And the Freeholder did suggest in the Exchequer That the demands of the Manor are not indifferent Clark Baron If it be so this Court shall have jurisdiction Manwood If the matter pass against you wrongfully wherefore may you not have an Assise And the Case of Beaumorris was cited but I remember not to what purpose i. The Mayor and Commonalty of Beaumorris were Patrons of a Chantry and they and the Chantry Priest made a Lease for years by Indenture in the end of which was this Clause In cujus rei testimonium tam the Priest quam the Mayor and Commonalty have put their common seal and it was moved that there was not any seal for the Priest for he could not have a common seal with the Mayor and Commonalty Clark Twenty men may seal with one seal and they may also seal with one seal upon one piece of Wax onely and that shall serve for them all if they all lay their hands upon the seal together Manwood They may all seal with one seal but upon several pieces of Wax Gent when many are parties to a Deed the words are Sigilla omnia which cannot be aptly said in this Case where all seal upon one piece of Wax XXVIII Barns and Smith 's Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer EManuel Barns Executor of Barns late Bishop of London 3 Len. 171. brought Debt for arrerages of Rent reserved upon a Lease for years of certain Mines demised
15 E. 4. 29. And he agreed the Case That if the Lord doth improve part of the common that he shall not have common in the residue of the Land for the Lands improved because That he cannot prescribe for that which is improved as the Book is in 5 Ass But here in the principal Case he doth not prescribe in any person certain or in or for any new thing but he sets forth that the use of the Town hath always been that the inhabitants should have common there And this common is not common appendent or appertinent but common in gross See Needham 37 H. 6. 34. b. And he said That if the house of a Freeholder which hath used to have such common doth fall down and he erecteth a new house in another place of the Land that he shall have common to that new erected house as he had before And he took a difference betwixt the case of Estovers where a new Chimney is erected and this Case and he stood much upon the manner of the prescription Gawdy Serjeant contrary And he took exception to the prescription For he said that it is said therein That it is Antiqua Villa but he doth not say that it hath been so time out of mind c. and so it ought to be said as the Book is in 15 E. 4. 29. a. And then if it be not an ancient Town time out of mind the parties cannot prescribe as Inhabitants of the said Town to have common time out of mind c. And he said That if such a prescription as is said in this Case be good in Law viz. That every one who erected a new house within the said Town should have common to his said new house the same should be prejudicial to the ancient Town and to the utter overthrow and manifest impairing of the common there and it might so happen that one who had but little Lands in the said Town might erect twenty new houses there and so an infinite number of houses might be newly erected there and there should be common allowed to every Inhabitant within the said new erected houses which should be inconvenient and unreasonable Anderson chief Iustice He who erects a new house cannot prescribe in the common for then a prescription might begin at this day which cannot be and he insisted much upon the general loss which should happen to the ancient Tenants if such a prescription for new erections should be good Periam If it should be Law That he should have common in this Case That all the benefit which the Statute gives to the Lord for improvement should be taken away by such new edifications and erection of new houses which were not reasonable And such was the opinion of the other Iustices and therefore they all agreed that in the principal Case the Plaintiff should not have common to this new erected house but the entry of the Iudgment was respited untill the Court had seen the Record and after they had seen and considered upon the Record Anderson and Periam were of opinion as before But Windham did not encline to the contrary but they all agreed That he who set up again a new Chimney where an old one was before should have Estovers to the said new Chimney and so if he build a new house upon the foundation of an old house That he should have common to his said house new erected So if a house falleth down and the Tenant or Inhabitant sets up a new house in the same place Also if a man hath a Mill and a Water-course to it time out of mind which he hath used time out of mind to cleanse if the Mill falleth and he erecteth a new Mill there he shall have the Watercourse and liberty to cleanse it as it had before and afterwards the same Term Iudgment was given for the Defendant to which Windham Iustice agreed LIX Rous and Artois Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was large but the points in this Case were but two Owen Rep. 27. 4 Co. 24. The first was If Tenant per auter vye after the death of Cestuy que vye holdeth over If he be a Disseisor or not The second point was If Tenant at will or at sufferance be such a Tenant of the Manor as he may grant Copyhold Estates to Copyholders For the first point It was agreed by Godfrey and he held that the principal Case was That if Tenant pur auter vye holdeth over the life of Cestuy que vye that he thereby gaineth the Fee But he granted the Cases That where a man holdeth at the will of another that after the Estate determined if he holdeth over he hath not thereby gained fee for he is Tenant at sufferance and as Littleton saith in his Chapter of Releases 108. Tenant at sufferance is where a man of his own head occupieth the Lands and Tenements at the will of him who hath the Freehold and such an occupier claims nothing but at will But he said That in the principal Case he otherwise claimed than at the will of the Lessor for that it appeareth that he hath granted Copy and he said that this difference doth give answer to the Case which is t. H. 8. br t. per Copy 18. where it is said for Law That none is Tenant at sufferance but he who first enters by authority of Law As if a man makes a Lease for years or for the life of another and he holdeth the Lands after his term expired or after the death of Cestuy que vye If he claim nothing but at the will of him who hath the Freehold he is a Tenant at sufferance But if he holdeth in the Lands against the will of his Lessor then he is a Disseisor and so if he do act after such continuance of possession contrary to the will of his Lessor he is a Disseisor 10 E. 4. If an Infant maketh a Lease at will and the Lessor dieth and the Lessee continueth in possession and claims Fee the Heir shall have Mortdancester 18 E. 4. If Cestuy que vye dieth and the Tenant hold in and was impleaded The Lessor shall not be received and he conceived the reason of the Case to be because that the reversion was not in him but that the Fee was gained and rested in the other 22 E. 4. 39. g. by Hussey If a Termor holdeth over his term there an Estate in Fee is confessed to be in him because he holdeth the possession of the Lands by wrong but there is a Quaere made of it if he be a Disseisor or not but I conceive that he is for Trespass doth not lie against him before the Lessor hath made his entry and therefore if the Lessee doth continue in the possession of the Lands by reason of the first entry that is the reason as I conceive that the Writ of Entre ad terminum qui praeteriit lieth against such a Termor who holds so over his Term and
14. but contrary in a Writ of Habere facias seisinam or in a Liberate for in these Writs there are not such words and therefore although they be not retorned Execution done by virtue of them is good enough See 11 H. 4. 212. If the Sheriff by force of an Elegit doth deliver the moyety of the Land and doth not retorn the Writ if the Plaintiff will plead a new Action of Debt the Defendant may plead in Bar the Execution aforesaid although the Writ be not retorned nor doth remain upon Record and it is not like unto the Case of Partition made by the Sheriff for that must be retorned because that after the Retorn of it a secondary Iudgment is to be given scil Quod Partitio praedict firma stabilis remaneat in perpetuum firma stabilis in perpetuum tenetur says the Book of Entries 114. And Egerton the Solicitor-General cited a Case to be lately adjudged betwixt the Earl of Leicester and the Lady Tanfield Earl of Leicester and Tanfields case That such an Execution was well enough although the Liberate was not retorned The second point was Admitting that it be a good Execution If the Executors being in possession of the Manor and suffering the Conusor to hold a Court there and saying the words aforesaid in the presence of the Lord who is Conusor if the same do amount unto a Surrender or not And it was the Opinion of Wray chief Iustice That it was not a Surrender for that here the words are not addressed to the Conusor who was capable of a Surrender but to other persons And it is not like unto the Case of 40 E. 3. 23 24. Chamberlains Assise where Tenant for life saith to him in the Reversion That his Will is that he enter upon the Land the same is a good Surrender because here is a person certain who may take the Land But in our case it is but a general speech and therefore it shall not be a Surrender LXVI Baskervile and Bishop of Hereford 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit brought by Walter Baskervile against the Bishop of Hereford and others the Plaintiff counted That Sir Nicholas Arnold Knight was seised of the Advowson in gross and granted the same to the said Baskervile and others to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of Richard Arnold his Son in tail Proviso That if the said Nicholas died his Heir being within the age of twenty three years that then the Grantees and their Heirs should be seised to themselves and their Heirs until the said Richard had accomplished the said age Sir Nicholas died Richard being but of the age of fourteen years by force whereof the Grantees were possessed of the said Advowson c. and afterwards the Church became void and so it appertained to them to present Exception was taken to the Count by Serjeant Gawdy because the Plaintiff had not averred the life of Richard upon whose life the interest of the Plaintiff did depend and he compared the same to the Case of the Parson which had been adjudged where the Lessee of a Parson brought an Ejectione Firmae and it was found for him and in Arrest of Iudgment Exception was taken to the Declaration because the life of the Parson was not averred and for that cause the Iudgment was stayed Anderson Vpon the dying of Sir Nicholas Richard being but of the age of fourteen years an absolute Interest for nine years vested in the Grantees not determinable upon the death of Richard or rather they are seised of a Fee determinable upon the coming of Richard to the age of 23 years Rhodes and Windham Iustices contrary and that here is an Interest in the Grantees determinable upon the death of Richard within the term for if Richard dieth without issue within the term the Remainder is limited over to a stranger And as to the Exception to the Count it was argued by Puckering Serjeant That the Count was good enough for although the life of Richard be not expresly added yet such an averment is strongly implied and so supplyed For the Count is Quod dictus Nich. obiit dicto Richardo being of the age of fourteen years non amplius by force of which the Plaintiff was possessed of the said Advowson quo quidem Nich. sic possessionato existente the Church voided and possessed he could not be if not that the said Richard had then been alive and that is as strong as an Averment See 10 E. 4. 18. In Trespass for breaking of his Close the Defendant pleaded That A. was seised and did enfeoff him to which the Plaintiff said That long time before A. had any thing B. was seised and leased to the said A. at will who enfeoffed the Defendant upon whom B. re-entred and leased to the Plaintiff at will by force whereof he was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass and that was allowed to be a good Replication without averring the life of B. who leased to the Plaintiff at will for that is supplied by the words scil virtute cujus the Plaintiff was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass See also 10 H. 7. 12. In an Assise of Common The Defendant made Title that he was seised of a House and a Carve of Land to which he and all those whose Estate he hath c. had common appendant and doth not say That he is now seised of the House but the exception was disallowed for seisin shall be intended to continue untill the contrary be shewed LXVII Morgan and Chandler 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt for Arrerages of Rent by Morgan against Chandler It was found by special Verdict That the Land out of which c. was assured by an Act of Parliament to the Marchioness of Northampton for the term of her life the remainder to the Lady Bourcher her daughter and the heirs males of her body the remainder to King H. 8. in Fee And it was ordained by the same Act Quod omnes concessiones dimissiones Anglice Grants and Leases factae vel in posterum fiendae by the said Marchioness of the Lands aforesaid per script Indentat dict Marchio bonae validae in Lege erunt durante termino c. The Marchioness made a Lease for 21 years to Kenelm Throgmorton rendring 10 l. Rent who assigned the same to the Defendant The Lady Bourcher died without Issue the Marchioness died and if the Lease should now bind the Queen was the Question And it was moved by Clark of Lincoln's-Inn That it should for the King was party to the Act of Parliament and those Estates for life in Tail and in Fee are all as one Estate and derived out of one Estate and the Estate of the King is bound with the Lease and it was moved by Broughton That the Lease should not bind the Queen and so by consequence not her Patentee and he
also of Statutes We cannot deny but that we have Lands of the Conusor and of the Gift of the Conusor our Ancestor whose Heir we are who was indebted to the Queen and yet we are not within this Statute Was or shall be indebted shall not be intended after the Gift made for if he first convey his Land and afterwards becomes indebted the same is not within the Statute and where a mischief is to be remedied by a Statute the remedy in exposition of the Statute is to be applied according as the mischief doth require Shall be is to be intended of future Debts after the Statute and in our case the Father was not Receivor or other Officer to the Queen And if this Statute should be so construed the Father might take 10000 l. for the Marriage of his son and assurance of Lands unto him and then if he will acknowledge a Debt to the Queen he should defeat the whole which should be a very great mischief The words are By Gift after the Debt acknowledged to the Queen And he cited the Case 19 Eliz. Plow 191. betwixt Ludford and Gretton upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. the words of which are That whatsoever Warrant hereafter to the Chancellor of England addressed the day of the delivery of the same it be entred of Record in the Chancery and that the Chancellour make Letters Patents upon the same Warrants bearing date the day of the said delivery in the Chancery and not before and all Letters Patents made to the contrary shall be void And the Case was That a Warrant was directed to the Chancellour for the making of Letters Patents and delivered to him before the making of them but the day of the delivery was not entred of Record c. And it was holden that notwithstanding that the Letters Patents were good for the mischief at the Common Law intended to be reformed by that Act was not the post-dating of the Letters Patents but the ante-dating and therefore that ought to be principally taken into consideration which mischief being understood the words of the said Statute are to be applied to it ipsae etenim Leges cupiunt ut jure regantur i. with an Equity according to the Mischief and not always according to the precise words and in that case it is sufficient if the Letters Patents bear date after and not before the delivery of the Warrant and that was the matter intended to be reformed Also as our Case here is we are not within this Statute for the words are Of the Gift of his Ancestour but here the Son hath not the Lands of the Gift of his Ancestour but rather by the Statute of Vses and so he is in the Post and not in the Per by his Ancestour for here the Fine was levied to divers persons unto the Vses aforesaid and here the Gift was not a mere gratuity to his Son but in consideration that he should marry the Daughter of Sir Edw. Huddleston and also the Father was the King's Debtor after the Gift and not before Popham Attorney-General to the contrary The letter of the Statute is with us for he comes in of the Gift of his Ancestour who was indebted to the Queen and although that the Gift was by way of use yet the precedents in the Common-Pleas and other Courts are That he may declare of the Feoffment of such a one although it was by way of use and he said If A. be bound to enfeoff B. of such Lands if he maketh a Feoffment to the use of B. and his Heirs he hath well enough performed the Condition and if the Case should not be within the Statute then should that branch of the Statute be idle and to no purpose For if the Ancestour be seised and becometh indebted to the Queen and after makes a conveyance ut supra the same is provided for by the first branch of the Statute For the Land is liable to the Recognizance or Obligation made to the King and that they shall be as effectual as a Statute Staple and reason requires that the son who comes in by mere gratuity of his Ancestour should be charged And it was a common practice before the making of that Statute That the King's Officers would convey their Lands to their children and then become the King's Debtors for the remedy of which mischief the Statute was made and the Statute of 27 Eliz. doth not respect the Heir because he is Heir but as a purchasor onely and that upon good consideration Coke If any fraud can be found in our Case then without doubt we should be within the Statute but being upon good consideration it is out of the Statute nor was there any purpose in the father when he made the said Conveyance to become the King's Debtor or Officer to him for if there were then he is within the Statute also the Gift had been a mere gratuity c. And afterwards at another day the Case was moved by Coke and he said That here is not any Gift because it was in consideration of Marriage and then no gift for it is an old Proverb What is freer than gift Egerton The father giveth to his son and heir the same is within the Statute and yet here is consideration scil of blood Coke contrary Where the father giveth to his younger son or to his daughter which is not his heir and of that opinion was Manwood chief Baron And afterwards as Coke reported the son and his Lands were discharged CXV Amner and Luddington 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Error 3 Len. 89. 8 Co. 96. ERror was brought in the King's-Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. The Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased unto Pierpoint for ninety nine years who devised the same by his Will in this manner I bequeath to my Wife the Lease of my House during her life and after her death I will that it go amongst my Children unpreferred Pierpoint died his Wife entred and was possessed virtute legationis praedict and took Husband one Fulshurst against whom one Beswick recovered in an Action of Debt 140 l. upon which Recovery issued forth a Fieri facias and upon that a Venditioni Exponas upon which the Sheriff sold the said term so devised to one Reynolds Fulshurst died his Executor brought Error to reverse the Iudgment given against the Testator at the Suit of Beswick the Wife did re-enter and sold the Land and died Alice an unpreferred Daughter of Pierpoint did enter and upon that matter found by special Verdict in the Common-Pleas the entry of Alice was adjudged lawfull upon which Iudgment Error was brought in the King's-Bench And it was argued upon the words of the Devise because here the House is not devised but the Lease it self scil all his interest in the thing devised And it is not like unto the Case betwixt Welchden and Elkington 20 Eliz. Plow 519.
upon the floor there so as vi ponderis it fell down To which the Defendant hath said That the walls were ruinous in occultis partibus and doth not answer to the surcharging scil Absque hoc that he did surcharge it Clark Baron It is a general Rule That every material thing alledged in the pleading ought to be traversed confessed and avoided which the Defendant hath not done here but he would excuse himself through the default of another and answer nothing to that with which he himself is charged And afterwards Iudgment was given in the Court of Exchequer for the Plaintiff Whereupon afterwards the Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber where the Case was argued again But there the Iudgment given in the Court of Exchequer was affirmed See this Case reported short in Popham's Reports lately published CXVII Linacre and Rhode 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Co. Rep. Blomfield's Case 3 Len. 230. THE Case was That Linacre was bound in a Statute and his body taken in Execution and the Sheriff voluntarily set him at large and afterwards the Conusee sued Execution of the Lands of the Conusor who thereupon brought an Audita Querela It was moved by Yelverton Serjeant That by that voluntary discharge of him by the Sheriff the whole Execution was discharged for the Execution is intire See 15 E. 4. 5. Where the Conusee in a Statute Merchant hath the body and lands of the Conusor in Execution and afterwards the Conusee surrendreth his Estate which he hath by Extent now the Execution of his body is discharged and the Conusor shall have a Scire facias or Audita Querela to discharge his body So if three Conusors be in Execution and the Conusee doth discharge one of them the same is a discharge of them all and in the principal Case the body is the principal and therefore the discharge of the principal part of the Execution is the discharge of the whole Hammon Where the Conusee himself dischargeth the Execution in part it is good for the whole but where discharged by the Sheriff Nihil operatur Anderson If the Conusor dieth in Execution yet the Conusee shall have Execution against his Heir of his land for the having of the body in Execution is not any satisfaction to the party for his body is but a pledge untill the money be paid and there is no reason that the act of the Sheriff should discharge the Execution Windham to the same intent And if the Conusee sueth Execution and hath the body of the Conusor in Execution this day he may the next day sue Execution of the lands and the next day after of the goods and if the Conusee doth discharge the body the whole Execution is discharged and it is true That if A. recovereth against B. in an Action of Debt and B. is taken by a Capias ad satisfaciendum and afterwards the Sheriff permitteth B. voluntarily to escape here B. is discharged although it be not the act of the party for there the Plaintiff had a full Execution which is not here for in Case of Execution upon a Statute-Merchant the Execution by the body is not the full Execution and therefore although the Sheriff hath discharged the body yet the Conusee may have Execution of the goods and lands but not of the body and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff That the Audita Querela did not lie and that Execution might be sued of the goods and lands but not of the body CXVIII Webbe and Mainard 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Ejectione firmae The Case was Walter Goldsmith seised of certain lands made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life and after to the use of John his eldest son in Fee Proviso That after his death his said son shall pay unto his younger son William 30 l. by 3 l. per ann at the Feast of St. Michael untill the entire sum be paid and if he fail of payment then to the use of the said William and his heirs Will. Goldsmith the Feoffor dieth the money is not paid but afterwards the said younger son makes an Acquittance and thereby acknowledgeth the Receipt of the said money according to the Proviso John dieth Now if the younger son may enter And first if the younger son be concluded by that Acquittance to say that the 30 l. was not paid And if he be not concluded Then if because that the words are but words of limitation the younger brother hath Title of Entry and then if this Entry be bound by the descent from John to his Heir or if John by continuance of the possession after the breach of the Proviso be a Dissesor or not were Questions propounded to the Court which the Court took time to consider of yet it was then said That the use was settled in William and the possession executed unto it but not such a possession upon which an Assise or Trespass lieth CXIX Willis and Jermine 's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King's Bench. Rot. 647. IN Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict 1 Cro. 167. Roll Tit. Estate 830. That the Dean and Chapter of Exeter Leased the Land where c. to Jermine rendering Rent to be paid at their Chapter-house at Exeter and for default of payment that such Lease shall be void and cease and that the said Jermine conveyed his interest to the Defendant and afterward the Rent was demanded at the Chapter-house but not paid and afterwards The Dean and Chapter by the name of Dean and Chapter of St. Mary of Exeter where they are incorporate by the name of Dean and Chapter of St. Mary in Exeter make an Indenture of Lease for forty years in their Chapter-house to Willis and thereunto put their seal in the Chapter-house and made a Letter of Attorney to another to enter and to make Livery of the said Deed which was done accordingly it was moved by Harris Serjeant That this Lease made in manner c. is not good for the Corporation is misnamed i. of Exeter for in Exeter but the Court disallowed that Exception for there is not any material variance and so it was said it hath been ruled And he said that for another cause the Lease is not good for when the Dean and Chapter in their Chapter-house make this Indenture of Lease Davis Rep. 42. and set their Chapter-seal to it It was their Deed presently without other delivery and then Jermine being in possession at the time of the putting of the seal to it they were out of possession thereof and so the new Lease void because they were not in possession at the time of the making of it for no delivery is necessary to the Deed of a Corporation but the date of the sealing of it makes it a perfect Deed and then the delivery of the same by the Attorney is of no effect Wiat to the
's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 291. 1 Len. 247. 3 Len. 174. That whereas he was possessed of a parcel of Land called the Parsonage lying adjoyning to a certain River from the 29 of May 29 Eliz. untill the day of the bringing of this Writ the Defendant had the said twentieth day of May stopt the said River with certain Loads of Earth and so it continued untill the fourteenth day of February by which his land was drowned and so he had lost the profit of it by that time And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That upon the Declaration there doth not appear any cause of Action for the Plaintiff hath made Title to the Land drowned from the twentieth of May so as that day is excluded and the Nusance is said to be made the twentieth day and so it appeareth the Nusance was before the possession of the Plaintiff and if it were so then cannot he complain of any wrong done before his time To which it was answered That although the stopping was made before his possession yet the continuance of the same is after and a new wrong for which an Action lieth as 5 H. 7. 4. It was presented That an Abbat had not cleansed his Ditch c. by reason of which the Highway is stopt The Successor shall be put to answer to the said Indictment by reason of the continuance of it And see that continuation of a Nusance is as it were a new Nusance 14 and 15 Eliz. 320. And it may be that the Plaintiff was not damnified untill long time after the twentieth day of May scil after the stopping And the words of the Writ here are satisfied and true And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXX Trusto and Ewer 's Case Pasc 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 1 Cro. 23. IN this Case it was agreed for Law That if a Controversie be betwixt two for the Title of a Lease for years and they submit the matter to Arbitrement and the Arbitrators award that one of them shall have the term the same is a good Gift of the interest of the term See 12 Ass 25. 14 H. 4. 19. 24. But if the Award be that the one shall permit the other to enjoy the term the same is no Gift of the interest therein See as to the Arbitrement 9 E. 4. 44. CXXXI Andrew 's Case Pasc 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 214. IN the Case of Andrews of Grays Inn it was holden by Gawdy and Fenner Iustices That if a Lease for years be made by Deed indented with these words demisi ad firmam tradidi That upon that Writ of Covenant lieth against the Lessor if he himself entreth upon the Lessee but contrary if a stranger enter if it hath not clause of Warranty For by Fenner when Covenant is brought upon that word Demisi the Plaintiff shall recover the term it self but not damages and that cannot the Plaintiff do when a stranger entreth and that was holden for clear Law See 9 Eliz. Dyer 257. A covenant against the Heir in such case CXXXII Bigg and Clark 's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. Rot. 549. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case in the Court of Hertford the Plaintiff declared How that the Defendant hired a Horse of the Plaintiff to carry three Bushels of Coals from Ware to his House in Hertford and that the Defendant in consideration thereof did promise the Plaintiff quod ipse in via praedicta nollet onerare the said Horse aliter than with the said three Bushels of Coals And the Plaintiff said That the Defendant had loaded the said Plaintiff's Horse with a greater weight than with the said Coals and so had hurt his Horse upon which the Plaintiff recovered And Error was brought and the Error assigned was this That it is not specially shewed how the Defendant aliter loaded the said Horse with what thing As 19 H. 6. In Debt against Executors they plead That they have onely expended such a sum of the Goods of the Testator in Funeral expences absque hoc that they have administred aliter vel alio modo the Plaintiff cannot Reply and say that they have administred aliter vel alio modo without shewing how Another Error was assigned because it is not certainly shewed how the Horse was hurt but that Exception was not allowed for it is not the point of the Action but for the first matter the Iudgment was reversed CXXXIII Toley and Windham 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 206. 3 Len. 150. That whereas certain controversies were betwixt the Plaintiff and Defendant for the profits of certain Lands which the Father of the Defendant had taken in his life time and whereas he had brought a Writ of Subpoena out of the Chancery against the Defendant for the said profits taken by the Father of the Defendant in his life intending to put in a Bill against the Defendant in the said Court The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would stay his intended Suit promised That if the Plaintiff can prove that the Father of the Defendant took the profits or had the possession of the said Land under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff that he should pay to him for all the said profits And farther declared That he had proved that his Father had taken the profits under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff Coke took up Exception to the Declaration because it is not shewed How and by what means under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff he took the profits as by Lease for that is traversable Gawdy Iustice The Son hath not any cause of Action or Suit for the profits taken in the time of the Father therefore the staying of Suit arising from such matter is not any consideration But as to the other Exception because it is not shewed how and by what Title he took the profits it is well enough As unto the other Exception it was moved at another day that there was a Case betwixt Stone and Withypool An Infant promiseth to pay a simple Contract Stone and Withypool's Case and thereupon there was a Suit in the Chancery but it was holden that it was not maintainable for the promise was void because there was no consideration And it was agreed by all the Iustices that this Action would not lie for the Plaintiff hath declared That where certain Controversies were betwixt the Father of the Defendant and him scil the Plaintiff himself for the profits of certain Lands which the Father of the Defendant had taken in the time of the Father of the Plaintiff c. and he doth not shew that he himself is Heir or Executor of his Father and therefore the Chancery cannot give him any remedy And on the other
side if the Plaintiff had any remedy the same ought to be against the Executors of the Father of the Defendant and the Plaintiff hath not allowed that the Defendant is Executor to his Father and therefore he hath not any colour of Suit against him nor therefore is there any consideration Fenner The Defendant by the Law is not chargeable nor in conscience upon this matter he shall be charged for by the same reason he should be charged for the simple Contract of his Father and a promise to pay it will not bind him And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CXXXIV Veal and Robert 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Ejectione Firmae the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 199. How that John Veal leased to him 30 Eliz for twenty one years ten Acres of Land called M. The Defendant pleaded That before the Demise and Ejectment one John Roberts was seised of the said ten Acres called M. in Fee and 14 Eliz. demised the same to one John Cox for life and afterwards 25 Elizab. John Roberts dyed and the Reversion descended to the now Defendant Cox demised the Land to John Veal for thirty years who leased unto the Plaintiff as in the Declaration of which he was possessed quousque c. Cox dyed 30 Eliz. after whose death the Defendant entred and ejected prout was lawfull for him to do c. The Defendant by replication saith That before John Roberts had any thing one Wall of P. of Glocester was seised of the said ten Acres inter alia and 29 H. 8. demised to John Veal Father of the Lessor of the Plaintiff the said Land inter alia by the name of two Messuages and two Yard Lands in the County of Glocester nuper in tenura J. S. and of two other Houses in a Yard Land tunc in tenura E. H. nec non de ten acres vocat M. lying inter C. I. tunc in occupatione E. W. for term of years yet during Habendum dict four Messuages and three Yard Lands in tenura I.S. E.H. nec non the said ten acres to the said John Veal à tempore mortis sursum redditionis forisfactur vel determinationis status vel terminor praedict I.H. W. in eisdem for sixty years by force of which he was possessed of the interest of the term aforesaid and afterwards 14 Eliz. the Estate of the said E. W. in the said ten acres ended for which the said John Veal entred and 25 Eliz. dyed intestate and Administration was committed to J. S. Lessor of the Plaintiff by force of which he entred and Leased to the Plaintiff and so he was possessed untill ejected The Defendant did rejoyn and said That long before John Roberts had any thing William Roberts was seised in Fee and enfeoffed the said John Roberts before the Ejectment supposed who demised unto John Cox and so as in the Bar absque hoc That the said Abbat demised to the said John Veal modo forma prout the Plaintiff replicando allegavit the which matter he is ready to aver petit Judicium The Plaintiff said That the Abbat demisit ut supra hoc petit quod inquiratur per patriam and it was found for the Plaintiff And it was objected by Snag That this issue was not well taken for the Estate of John Veal was not to begin before all the Estates being in esse at the time of the making of the Lease by the Abbat of Glocester are expired Coventry contrary and that the Estates do begin severally and singulatim as the Estates precedent shall end and shall not expect untill the other Estates be determined which see Iustice Needham's Case now reported by Coke 5 part 37 Eliz. and see Pollard's Case there cited At another day it was objected by Snag That the new Estate could not begin in any part untill all the former Estates be determined for if this new Lease be made reserving Rent and one part thereof is now come in possession then he should pay for that part all the Rent But the Court was clear of Opinion That the Lease in the ten Acres did begin presently without having regard to the other Estates in demand for the intent of the Lessor was That no mean time should be betwixt the expiration of the Lease for ten years and the beginning of the new As in the Case betwixt Wrotesley and Adams 1 Eliz. Plo. Com. 198. A Lease is made to begin after the expiration of a former Lease for years the first Lessee takes a new Lease of the Lessor which was a Surrender of the former Lease If the Lease scil the second Lease shall now begin was the question or should expect untill the first Lease shall end by expiration for the former Lease is ended but not expired i. by effluction of time And it was holden that the said second Lease should begin presently for the intent of the Lessor was that no mean time should be betwixt the end and beginning of the said Estates And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXXV Pasch 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench NOTE If a Record be removed out of the Common-Pleas into the King's-Bench by Writ of Error and the Plaintiff shall not assign his Errors then a Scire facias shall issue forth quare executionem habere non debet and upon summons or two Nichels retorned the Plaintiff shall have Execution yet the Plaintiff may assign his Errors And to such a Scire facias Exception was taken because the Writ was coram nobis apud Westm where it should be ubicunque fuerimus in Anglia and for that cause a Supersedeas was granted It was also holden That although a Writ of Error doth not lie here upon a Iudgment given in London yet upon a Iudgment given at Newgate which is upon Commission in their Sessions Error lieth here CXXXVI Bows and Vernon 's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DEBT upon an Obligation was brought by Bows against Vernon and Hennington who pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. and shewed that Vernon was in Execution and that the Bond was made for his deliverance against the Statute The Plaintiff replied and said That at the time of the making of the said Bond the said Vernon fuit sui juris and at large absque hoc that he was in Prison tempore confectionis scripti praedict modo forma c. Egerton Solicitor moved that the Traverse was not good for if a man be in Prison in Execution and makes a promise to make a Bond for which he is inlarged and within an hour after he makes the Bond the same is within the Statute and therefore this issue is not well joined but it ought to be absque hoc that it was pro deliberatione c. and of such opinion was Fenner and Gawdy Iustices See Dive and Manningham's Case 4 E. 6. Plo. Com. 68 69. acc CXXXVII Hunt and Sone 's
Williams and Linford 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. WIlliam's brought an Action upon the Case against Linford 3 Len. 177. for standerous words spoken of the Plaintiff's land viz. Williams is worth nothing and do you think that the Manor of D. is his It is but a compact between his brother Thomas and him And farther declared That at the time of speaking of the words he was in speech with one J. S. to give to the said J. S. the said Manor of D. for his Manor of K. and that by reason of the said slanderous words 1 Cro. 346 787. the said J. S. durst not proceed in the said intended exchange It was objected That upon this matter an Action upon the Case doth not lie For the scandalous words were not spoken to him who was to be the Purchasor of the said Manor Smith and Johnson's Case but to a stranger For in the Case betwixt Smith and Johnson Johnson was in speech with another to sell his lands to him and Smith said to him who was to purchase them Will you buy Johnson's land Why it is troubled with more charges and incumbrances than it is worth Wray Iustice There is no difference whether words be spoken to the party or unto a stranger for in both cases the Title of the Plaintiff is slandered so as he cannot make sale of his lands Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXLVIII Barefoot and Luter 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. THE Case was A. B. and C. Ioynt-tenants in Fee C. granted his part unto D. and afterwards A. B. and D. Leased for years rendring Rent and afterwards A. died and they brought an Action of Debt for the Rent reserved and declared generally and upon the Evidence the special matter appeared that two parts of the Rent did belong to B. and but the third part to D. And the opinion of the Court was That the Declaration ought to have been special upon the whole matter For Prima facie it was conceived that each of the Plaintiffs ought to have had the moiety of the Rent and that is a supposal of the Declaration But now upon the Evidence it appeareth to the contrary So as the Defendant nil debet in that form Another matter was The Plaintiff declared of Rent of a whole year ended at the Feast of St. Michael last past whereas the Rent was not due at Michaelmas as the Plaintiff had declared but the thirtieth day after CXLIX Brown and Ordinacre 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. HEnry Brown and Joice his wife Executors of Thomas Brown brought an Action upon the Case against Van Ordinacre Alien and declared That where A. and B. were indebted to the Testator The Defendant in consideration that the Testator respectuaret the said A. and B. pro solutione debiti praedict per spacium unius septimanae tunc proxime sequen to pay the Debt to the said Plaintiffs modo sequent viz. one moyety within one week after and the other moiety at the end of the said week and farther declared That the Testator did forbear by the space of a week and after Imparlance Joice was summoned and severed The Defendant pleaded That he did not promise modo forma prout praâ—dict Brown allegavit and that it was alledged by both Executors And by a Iury De medietate Linguae it was found for the Plaintiff It was objected by Coke That here is not any issue prout Brown querens allegavit where in truth it was alledged by both the Executors before severance and not by Brown onely Also here is not any sufficient consideration alledged for the Plaintiff hath declared That he hath forborn by a week without saying next following as the consideration is laid in the Declaration But that was not allowed for so it shall be intended It was also objected That the Declaration is contrary to it self for it shewed That in consideration that the Testator should forbear for a week he promised to pay him within a week but that exception was not allowed For the week in the Assumpsit shall be construed the week after the week in the consideration Another exception was against the trial for the Defendant being an Alien The Venire facias was to summon twelve persons Quorum quilibet eorum habeat 4. l. in lands of annual Rent and that cannot be for Aliens cannot have lands not being made Denizens By the Common Law before the Statute of 27 E. 3. An alien by the Grant of the King might have an Action depending betwixt him and a Denizen per medietatem Linguae which see 22 E. 3. 14. and afterwards to make the same a general Law the Statute of 27 E. 3. was made but the same doth not extend to cases where the King was party which defect was supplyed by the Statute of 28 E. 3. cap. 13. Afterward came the Stat. of 2 H. 5. by which it is enacted That where the debt or damages amount to 10 marks every Iuror retorned for the trial should be able to expend lands of the value of 40 s. which was mischievous as to aliens and for the remedy of that The Statute of 8 H. 6. cap. ult was made which took away the effect thereof as unto aliens Then came the Statute of 27 Eliz. which enacted That every Iuror c. should expend 4 l. lands but that is where 40 s. was required onely and doth not extend to our Case and therefore the Venire facias in our Case was not well awarded To which it was said by the Clarks That after the Stat. of 27 Eliz. It had always so been to make the Venire facias generally according to the Statute but that is not a thing material and the Sheriff needs not regard that Wherefore it was holden That the Venire facias in the principal Case was well awarded CL. Mingey and Earl 's Case Pasc 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation The Defendant pleaded 1 Cro. 212 267. That the Obligation was with condition That whereas the Defendant had sold to the Plaintiff certain wood growing upon certain lands called S. in the County of Sussex If the Plaintiff might quietly take and enjoy the said woods and if the ground whereupon it groweth be four miles from the Town of Rye that then c. And for plea he said That the Plaintiff had quietly taken and enjoyed the said wood and that the said land by the next high and usual way for carriages is 4000 paces from the Town of Rye reckoning to every pace five foot upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Gawdy Iustice For the computation of a mile in common understanding it is 1000 paces and if it shall be counted by the common way is the doubt but the meaning of the Parties was That the Plaintiff by felling of that wood should not encur the damage of the Statute of 23 Eliz. cap. 4.
Writ of Account against Robston Hil. 29 Eliz. Rot. 1. and now Robston brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That whereas the said Writ of Account was brought against the said Defendant as Receiver of Monies for to render Account quando ad hoc requisitus fuerit the said Writ ought to have been more special But the opinion of the Court was That the Writ in his generalty was holden good And so it was adjudged in the Case of one Gomersal scil quod reddat ei rationabilem computum suum de tempore quo fuit Receptor Denariorum ipsius A. Another Error was assigned That the Iury had assessed damages which ought not to be given in an Action upon Account which see 2 R. 2. Acco 45. and 2 H. 7. 13. But see the Book of Entries fo 22. In a Writ of Account against one as Receivor to Account render damages were given For if my Bailiff 1 Leon. 302. by imploying of my Moneys whereof he was the Receivor might have procured to me profit and gain but he neglects it he shall be chargeable to me in right and shall answer for it And here in our case damages shall be given and afterwards notwithstanding all objections made to the contrary the Iudgment given before was affirmed CLXI Yates 's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the King ' s-Bench 3 Len. 231. A Writ of Error was brought by Yates and others upon a Iudgment given in a Writ of Partition and it was assigned for Error that the Writ of Partition was not sufficient for it is there set forth That the Plaintiffs insimul pro indiviso tenent cum defendente c. and do not shew of what Estate or whose inheritance See F. N. B. 61. 5. and 62. a. insimul pro indiviso tenent de haereditate quae fuit A. matris of the Plaintiff and the Defendant 1 Cro. 759 760. And yet see F. N. B. 62. A. A Writ of Partition betwixt strange persons without naming haereditate in the Writ And see also that a Partition of Lands in London without shewing of what Estate Courtney and Polewheel's Case Finch and Firrel's Case L. Cheney and Bell's Case See Register 76. 6 Eliz. in a Partition by Courtney against Polewheel no Estate shewed in the Writ so betwixt Finch and Firrel and betwixt Fry and Drake 14 Eliz. Devon. 26 Eliz. betwixt the Lord Cheney and Bell and Mich. 4 and 5 Ph. and Ma. Rot. 208. It was holden That it is not necessary in such a Writ to shew the Estate and such also was the opinion of the Court in the principal Case but Tenants in common ought to shew it in the Count And the Iudgment given was affirmed CLXII Phillips and Stone 's Case Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 32 H. 6. upon which this special matter was found That one J. S. had heretofore recovered against him 100 l. in an Action of Debt and upon the Capias ad satisfaciend he was taken and committed to the Plaintiff who was Gaoler c. to the Sheriff and so being in Execution he escaped and afterwards he was re-taken by the Plaintiff and kept in prison and so being in prison made the Bond upon which the Action is brought It was said by the Court That if a Prisoner being in Execution escapes with the permission of the Gaoler the Execution is utterly gone and extinguished and the Plaintiff at whose Suit he was taken in Execution shall never resort to him who escapes but shall hold himself to the Goaler for his remedy but if such a Prisoner escapeth of his own wrong without the privity or consent of the Gaoler the Gaoler may well take him again for his indemnity untill the Plaintiff hath determined his Election whether he will have his remedy against the Gaoler or that he will maintain his Execution 13 H. 7. 1 and 2. But as unto the Statute of 23 H. 6. the Court was of Opinion That posito that the party who escapes cannot be taken again yet being taken the Bond which is taken colore Officii is within the said Statute because the party was retaken colore Executionis and so the Bond was void CLXIII Gering 's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation against one as Executor 1 Len. 87. the Case was That the Testator of A. by his Will appointed certain lands and named which should be sold by his Executor and the monies thereof coming to be distributed betwixt his daughters when they have accomplished the age of one and twenty years The lands are sold and if the monies thereof being in the hand of the Executor untill the full age of the daughters shall be Assets to pay the debts of the Testator was the question and it was the opinion of the whole Court that the said monies should not be Assets for they said that that money is limited to a special use Quaere of this Case For I have heard that it was afterwards resolved in another Case that the monies in the like Case remaining in their hands should be Assets CLXIV Davies and Percie 's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BEtween Margaret Davies and one Perce the Case was 2 Roll 284. Goldb 58. That one Anth. Perce upon speech of a marriage to be had betwixt the said Anthony and the mother of Margaret covenanted by Indenture with certain friends of the mother to pay to all the daughters of the mother 20 l. a piece at their several ages of four and twenty years and to perform the Covenant was bound to the said friends in an Obligation Anthony Perce made his Will and willed that his Executors should pay to each of the daughters 20 l. at their several ages of four and twenty years in discharge of the said Covenant and died Now the said Margaret sued the Executors in the Spiritual Court for the 20 l. bequeathed to her and upon this matter the Executors prayed a Prohibition And by the Lord Anderson a Prohibition will lie for here is no Legacy but the Will refers to the Covenant and is in discharge of the Covenant As if A. be indebted to B. in 20 l. And if A. by his Will willeth that his Executors shall pay to the said B. 20 l. in discharge of the said debt the same is not any Legacy but a Declaration that the intent of A. is that the debt shall be paid Periam Iustice was of the same opinion as the Lord Anderson and Anderson said If a Legacy be bequeathed to me and the Executor covenants to pay me the said Legacy and afterwards J. sueth the Executor in the Spiritual Court he shall have a Prohibition Quod caeteri Justiciarii negaverunt See F. N. B. 44 Br. If the Testator by his Will charge his Executors to pay his debts and his creditors they do
take effect by way of use in the Bargainee and after the Statute to draw the possession to the use But the Court utterly rejected that Exception was dangerous Note Pasch 30 Eliz. it was adjudged for the Plaintiff in the Replevin scil the Conveyance of the Prioress was not well pleaded for it ought to be plead as a Bargain and Sale and not as a grant and Judgment was given accordingly for such was the Conveyance of the greater part of the possessions of Monasteries And by Shuttleworth Serjeant Although such a Corporation cannot take an Estate to the use of another yet they may charge their possessions with an use to another CLXIX Venable 's and Serjeant Harris 's Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. Quaeries Hughs R. 13. 3 Len. 185. 4 Len. 112. THE Case was a Lease was made to A. and B. for their lives the Remainder to Thomas Venables in tail who 3 Eliz. was attainted of Felony 23 Eliz. was a general pardon Thomas Venables 24 Eliz. levied a Fine and suffered a common Recovery to the use of Harris Serjeant An Office is found Harris traverseth the Office and upon that there is a demurrer Leke argued That traverse doth not lie in this Case 4 H. 7. 7. where the King is entitled by double matter of Record the party shall not be admitted to traverse nor to his Monstrans de Droit but is put to his Petition which see 3 E. 4. 23. in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland 3 Len. 75. where the Tenant of the King is attainted of Treason and the same found by Office See also 11 H. 4. in the Case of the Duke of Suffolk and that is not helped by the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 8. For the words are untruly found by Office but here the Office is true By this Attainder Thomas Venables is utterly disabled to do any Act for by Bracton a person attaint shall forfeit Patriam Regnum Haereditatem suam 11 H. 4. one was attainted of Felony and before Office found the King granted over his Lands Also he is not helped by the general pardon for before the general pardon he had a special pardon so as the general pardon non operatur But the Iustices said The forfeiture did remain untill the general pardon Harris contrary And he put the case of Sir James Ormond 4 H. 7. 7. where the King is entitled by matter of Record and the subject confesseth the King's title and avoids it by matter of as high nature as that is for the King Traverse in that case lieth and if the King be entitled by double matter of Record if the party doth avoid one of the said Records by another Record he shall be admitted to his traverse and so here we have the pardon which is a Record and that shall avoid the Record of the King See 3 E. 4. 24. in the Earl of Northumberland's Case and here the pardon hath purged the forfeiture in respect of the offence and he said Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall not lose his lands but the profits onely for he hath his Estate by the Will of the Donor and there is a confidence reposed in him as in Walsingham's Case he cannot grant his Estate over and see Wrothe's Case An annuity granted pro Consilio impendendo cannot be granted over or forfeited for there is confidence And see Empson's Case and Dyer 2. 29 Ass 60. If the issue in tail be outlawed of Felony in the life of his father and getteth his Charter of pardon in the life of his father after the death of his father he may enter but by Thorp If the issue in tail getteth his Charter of pardon after the death of his father then the King shall have the profits of the lands during the life of the issue And the Case of Cardinal Pool was debated in the Parliament Cardinal Pool's Case 27 Eliz. That he being Dean of Exeter was seised of Lands in the right of his Church and was attainted of Treason It was holden That he should forfeit the profits of such Lands But admit that by this Attainder the Land be forfeited yet the party hath the Freehold until Office found See Nicols's Case on the Commentaries and see also the Case of the Dutchy in the first Commentaries And here the Pardon hath dispensed with the Forfeiture Tenant of the King alieneth in Mortmain before Office found the King pardons it this is good The Lord Poynings conveyed all his Lands to Sir Adrian Poynings who was an Alien and afterwards is made a Denizen and the King pardons him and releaseth unto him all his right in the said Lands without any words of Grant and it was adjudged the same shall bind the King. And he said that he had found a good precedent 14 H. 7. where a general pardon before seisure into the King's hands was allowed contrary after seisure without words of Grant. See Br. 29 H. 8. Charter of Pardon 52. If a man be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all Felonies executiones eorundem the same shall not serve for life and Land if no Office be found but it shall serve for the Goods without words of Restitution and Grant for the King is entituled to them by Outlawry without Office but the King is not entituled to the Lands untill Office be found See ibid. 33 H. 8. 71. The Heir intrudes and before Office found the King pardons now the Heir is discharged as well of the issues and profits as of the Intrusion it self and also of Livery But a pardon given after Office is available for the Offence but not for the issues and profits And he cited the Case of Cole in the first Commentaries where a pardon was granted Mesne betwixt the stroke and the death See 35 H. 6. 1. 1 E. 4. 1. 8 Eliz. Dyer 249. Brereton's Case 11 Eliz. Dyer 284 285. Egerton Solicitor to the contrary This Traverse is not good for he that traverseth hath not made Title to himself as he ought upon which the Queen may take Issue for it is at the Election of the Queen to maintain her own Title or traverse the Title of the party At the Common Law no Traverse lay but where the Livery might be sued but that is helped by the Statute of 34 E. 3. cap. 14. but where the King is entituled by double matter of Record as in our case he is no Traverse is allowed until 2 E. 6. cap. 8. And in such case two things are requisite 1. That the Office be untruly found 2. That the party who is to be admitted to his Traverse have just Title or Interest of Estate of Freehold c. But in our case The Office is confessed by the Traverse to be true although that the Conveyance be not truly found Also Harris at the time of the Office found had not just Title but an interest came unto him long time after
the Office found Also the Traverse is not good for he traverseth the matter of the Conveyance which is not traversable for if the King hath Title non refert quomodo or by what Conveyance he hath it As to the matter in Law scil Tenant in tail in Remainder is attainted of Felony if the King during the life of Tenant in tail shall have the freehold and he conceived that he should for it shall not be in abeyance and it cannot be in any other for when he is attainted he is dead as unto the King. The chief Lord cannot have it for Tenant for life is alive and also he in the Remainder in Fee c. the Donor shall not have it for the Tenant in Remainder is not naturally dead but civilly and the Land cannot revert before the Tenant in tail be naturally dead without issue but if there were any other in whom the Freehold might vest and remain then the King should not have the Freehold but onely the profits So if the Tenant be attainted the Lord shall have the Lands presently 3 E. 3. 4 E. 3. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have but the profits for the Freehold vests in the Wife and if the Lord entreth the Wife shall have an Assise And Tenant in tail may forfeit for his life as he may grant for his life See Old N. B. 99. If Tenant in tail for life dower or by the curtesie be attainted of Felony the King shall have the Lands during their lives and after their deceases he in the Reversion shall sue unto the King by Petition and shall have the Lands out of the King's hands and there it is farther said That the Lord by Escheat cannot have it for the party attainted was not his very Tenant nor he in the Reversion for the term yet endures But now it is to see if the Freehold be in the King without Office and he conceived and argued that it was Where the King is entituled to an Action there the King ought to have an Office and a Scire facias upon it as where the King is entituled to a Cessavit Action of Waste c. 14 H. 7. 21. where the Entry in case of a common person is necessary there it is requisite that there be an Office for the King As if a Villain of the King purchaseth Lands or an Alien born c. so for a condition broken Mortmain c. And in some cases an Office is onely necessary to instruct the King how he shall charge the Officer for the profits which may be supplied as well by Survey as by Office as if the King be to take by descent or as the Case is here And true it is that a person attainted of Felony may during his Attainder purchase Lands and yet he cannot hold it against the King and it is clear that by the Common Law in such cases the Land was in the King but not to grant for the Statute of 18 H. 6. was an impediment to it but now that defect is supplied by the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 20. So that now the King may grant without Office See Doughtie's Case 26 Eliz. And in our Case an Office is not necessary to entitle the King but for explaining of his Title and see 9 H. 7. 2. The Lands of a man attainted of High Treason are in the King without Office so where the King's Tenant dieth without Heir or Tenant in tail of the Gift of the King dieth without issue See Br. Office before the Escheator 34. and see 13 H. 4. 270. A man is attainted of Treason the King before Office grants his Lands and Goods Things which lie in Grant as Advowsons Rents Remainder such things upon Attainder are in the King without Office. As to the general pardon of 23 Eliz. he said That that doth not extend to this Case and that this interest of the Queen by this Attainder doth not pass by that pardon out of the Queen so if the Queen had but a Right or Title onely Popham Attorney General By this Attainder the Estate of him in the Remainder in tail accrueth unto the Queen for the life of him in the Remainder for by our Law Felony is punished by the death of the Offendor and the loss of his Goods and Lands for the examples of others therefore nothing is left in the party Tenant for life is attainted of Felony the King pardoneth him his life yet he shall have his Lands during his life and he may dispose of the same for his life And so is it of Tenant in tail for he may forfeit all that which he hath and that is an Estate for his life which is a Freehold If Lands be given to one and his Heirs for the term of the life of another and the Donee be attainted of Felony the King shall have the Land during the life of Cestuy que vie for the Heir cannot have it because the bloud is corrupt and there is not any occupancy in the case for 17 E. 3. the Iustices would not accept of a Fine for the life of another because there might be an Occupant in the case But for a Fine of Land to one and his Heirs for the life of another they would take a Fine for there is no mischief of occupancy Land is given to A. for life the Remainder to B. for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. who is attainted of Felony B. dieth now the King hath the Fee executed And here in our Case If the Tenant for life had been dead no Praecipe had lien against him in the Remainder being in possession but the party who hath right is to sue unto the King by Petition 4 E. 3. If one seised of Lands in the right of his Wife for life be attainted the King shall have exitus proficua but he conceived that Case not to be Law For see F. N. B. 254 D. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife in Fee is outlawed for Felony the King seiseth the Husband dieth now shall issue forth a Diem clausit extremum the words of which Writ in such case are Quia A. cujus Terr Tenement quae ipse tenuit de jure haereditate N. uxoris suae adhuc superstitis occasione ejusdem Utlagar ' in ipsum pro quadam Felonia unde indictatus fuit c. in Man. Domini H. patris nostri extiterunt c. therefore the King had not the issues onely but also the Lands See to the same purpose the Register 292. b. Stamford's Placita Coronae 186 187. affirms That Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall forfeit his Lands during his life And he said that the Estate of Thomas Venables was in the King without Office not to grant for that is restrained by the Statute of 18 H. 6. but it is in him before Office so as he who hath right ought
to sue to the King by Petition if he will have his Land yet he conceived that before the Statute of 18 H. 6. the King might grant the Land before Office as it appeareth by Thirning 13 H. 4. 278. who was before the said Statute So if the King's Tenant makes a Lease for years the Remainder over to another in Fee who dieth without Heir the Remainder is in the King without Office because a common person in such case cannot enter but a claim is sufficient and therefore it shall be in the King without Office. As to the pardon he said That it doth not extend to this Estate for this is a Freehold ergo not within the pardon As if the King's Tenant be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all offences and all things which he may pardon these words shall not go nor extend to Freeholds but onely unto personal matters and such punishments and peins which do concern Chattels But it may be objected That by this pardon Title of Quare Impedit and Re-entries for Conditions broken are excepted and therefore if they had not been excepted they had been remitted by the pardon and therefore this pardon shall extend to Inheritances and Freeholds As to that I say That such Exceptions were not in use in the time of H. 4. and yet Inheritances and Freeholds were not taken to be within such pardons and such Exceptions did begin 5 Eliz And he said he had been of Council in such Cases where it hath been taken that such pardons did not extend to Freeholds As an Abbat was disseised and afterwards during the Disseisin the Abby is dissolved the King makes such pardon the same doth not transfer the Right of the King and in that Pardon are divers Exceptions of Goods and Chattels in many cases and therefore it cannot be intended that the pardon doth extend to Freeholds And see the said Act of pardon The Queen grants all Goods Chattels Debts Fines Issues Profits Amercements Forfeitures Sums of Moneys which word Forfeiture shall be intended of a personal Forfeiture non aliter for it is coupled with things of such nature And as to the Traverse he said It did not lie in this Case for the Office is not untrue but true in substance although void in circumstance And also the King here is entituled by double matter of Record scil the Attainder and the Office and he said that the Statutes of 34 and 36 E. 3. which gave Traverse are to be intended of Offices found virtute Officii and not virtute Brevis for then Efcheators were very troublesome And the Statute of 2 E. 6. doth not give Traverse but where the Office is untruly found as if Tenant of the King be disseised and the Disseisor be attainted the Queen seiseth the Land Now the Disseisee hath not remedy by Traverse upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. but is put to his Monstrans de Droit for the Office is true But if I be Tenant of the King and seised of Land accordingly and it was found that J. S. was seised of my Land and attainted c. whereas in truth he had not any thing in my Land there Traverse lieth for the Office is false and so in our Case for the Traverse it is at the Common Law and it was true that Venables was seised Coke to the contrary and he said That by the Attainder the Queen hath gained but a Chattel and that notwithstanding this Forfeiture if Venables had been in possession a Praecipe should be brought against him And where it hath been said by Mr. Attorney That Writs set down in the Register are the best Expositours of our Law the same is not so for the Register saith That Waste lieth notwithstanding a Mesn Remainder which is not now Law but it hath been clearly ruled to the contrary and see accordingly 50 E. 3. the Register therefore and the Writs are subject to the Iudgment of our Law and the Writ of Diem clausit extremum is not to the contrary for I confess that in such case the Land shall be seised into the hands of the King but the King shall not have but a Chattel therein It hath been argued It may be granted Roll. Tit. Grant. 4 Len. 112. ac Godb. 351. a. therefore it may be forfeited Nego Consequentiam for a man seised in the right of his Wife may grant but not forfeit Gardian in Socage may grant but not forfeit the Husband may grant a term for years which he hath in the right of his Wife but he cannot forfeit it A woman Inheretrix taketh a Husband who afterwards is attainted of Felony the King pardons him they have issue the Husband shall be Tenant by the curtesie which proveth that the King hath not the Freehold by that Attainder Before the Statute of Westm 2. Tenant in tail post prolem suscitatam might forfeit his Lands but now the Statute hath so incorporated the Estate tail to the Tenant in tail that it cannot be devested even a Fine levied by him ipso jure nullus although as to the possession it be a Discontinuance and that is the reason wherefore Tenant in tail shall not be seised to another's use See Stamford 190. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have the profits of the Lands of the Wife during the life of the Husband c. So if Tenant in tail be attainted of Felony and that is but a Chattel in the Lands of the Wife and also in the Lands of the Tenant in tail and if the possessions of a Bishop be seised into the Queen's hands for a Contempt in such case the Queen hath the possession and not the profits onely the same Law of the Lands of Tenant in tail or for life being attainted of Felony so of seisure for Alienation without license or of the possessions of Priors Aliens See Brook Reseiser 10. So where the Seisure is for Ideocy And he said That in the principal Case nothing is in the King until Office and as to the Case of 13 H. 4. 6. he confessed the same for at that time many and amongst them Lawyers and Iustices were attainted by Parliament and so was Sir John Salisbury whose Case it was and their Lands by Act of Parliament given expresly to the King and therefore I grant that their Lands were in the King before Office. Tenant in Fee of a common Lord is attainted of Felony his Lands remain in him during his life until the Entry of the Lord and where the King is Lord untill Office be found but in the Case of a common person after the death of the person attainted they are in the Lord before Entry and in the Case of the King before Office for the mischief of abeyances And see the Lord Lovel's Case 17 and 18 Eliz. 485 486. Plow where it is holden That upon Attainder of Treason by Act of Parliament the Lands were
Covenant wherein the breach was assigned was That if R. W. Brother of the Plaintiff should say Make assurance of such a Manor to the Defendant as the Council learned of the said Defendant should advise Then if the Defendant pays unto the Plaintiff 50 l. the Obligation to be void The Defendant by advice of Council demanded a Release with Warranty c. And by Periam and Windham The same is not any Assurance but a means to recover in value Anderson contrary That it was a Collateral Warranty c. CLXXIII Cropp and Hambleden 's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 48. IN Trespass by Cropp against Erasmus Hambleden upon the special Verdict the Case was That one Martin Hastings was seised of the lands where c. in the right of his wife for the life of the wife and that they both did Lease unto the Defendant for years rendring Rent payable at the Feast of S. Michael and the Feast of the Annunciation c. with clause of re-entry if the Rent be behind by a Month after any of the said Feasts and after the feast of S. Michael 26 Eliz. and before the Month expired the Lessee the now Defendant sent his servant unto the house of the Lessor for to pay to him the Rent then due the servant went unto the house of the Lessor and there asked for him to whom it was answered by one Mary Briggs daughter of the wife of the Lessor who there dwelt in the said house with her mother that the Lessor was not at home for which the said servant delivered the said Rent to the said Mary requiring her to deliver the same over to the Lessor upon his retorn to the house in the name of his servant Mary reserved the said Rent and upon the retorn of the Lessor at his house told him all the matter aforesaid and that the servant of the Lessor the Defendant had required her to tender the said Rent to the Lessor in the name of the Defendant and thereupon offered and tendered to him the said Rent and the Lessor refused it And the Iury found That the third half year before the tender mentioned before the Lessor commanded the said Mary to receive the Rent then due who did accordingly and that the next half year then following the said Mary did receive the said Rent without commandment of the Lessor but after the Lessor agreed unto it and that the immediate half year before this tender in question the Defendant paid the Rent then due to the Lessor himself who received it And it was the opinion of Wray chief Iustice that this tender was good and it is not like unto the case of an Obligation for there the Obligee cannot have an Action of Debt before the last day but here the Lessor might have distrained or have had an Action of Debt before the Month expired and so the Lessor is bound by this tender and by Gawdy Iustice This tender cannot be said a tender by a stranger for here Mary came in privity of the servant of the Lessee and as it is found by Verdict Mary tendered it to the Lessor as being requested by the servant of the Lessee And afterwards upon consideration had betwixt the Iustices themselves the Iustices viz. Clench Gawdy and Wray for Shute was then sick it was clearly resolved against the Plaintiff and that the said tender as it is found in the Verdict is a good and sufficient tender and the Lord Wray delivered the reason as before and farther said That if the said Rent had been reserved payable at the feasts aforesaid or within a Month after each of them there the tender as above had not been good nor should bind the Lessor for in such case the Lessor could not distrain or have an Action of Debt for the said Rent before the Month expired And this is a case of extremity and deserves no favour and here is no mischief to the Lessor for he might have had his Rent in due time if he would and his captious refusal shall not avail him And Iudgment was given accordingly CLXXIV Bostock and Covert 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas BOstock and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Covert son and heir of her former Husband who pleaded That the Husband of the Demandant was seised of Lands amounting to the number of 300 Acres and held the same by Knights-service and died seised after whose death by virtue of the Statute of 34 and 32 H. 8. he entred into 100 Acres of the said Lands as the third part of the said Lands descended and held the same in severalty being the third part of the clear yearly value of the whole discharged of a Dower and that the Wife ought to have all her Dower out of the two parts devised And Anderson said That the Plea was not good for the heir who will take advantage of the Statute in that point ought to enter generally as Tenant in common with the Devisee and then in a Writ of Dower it is a good Plea so if after his entry as Tenant in common Partition be made betwixt him and the Devisee such a Plea is good but here he hath entred severally into a third part distinct from the residue and so hath ousted the Devisee of a third part severally for which cause he cannot have advantage of this Plea To which the rest of the Iustices Non contradixerunt CLXXV Sir John Southwel 's Case Pasch 37 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 147. SIR John Southwel of the County of Lancaster 7 Julii 19 Eliz. made a Conveyance of his Lands to divers Feoffees and their Heirs upon condition that they should find him and his Wife and so many persons in his house c. prefer his Daughters in marriage pay his debts c. And if there fell out at the years end upon accompt made by the Feoffees any surplusage that then at the end of every such year they should answer such surplusage as should then remain in their hands unexpended of the Rents and profits of his said Lands with clause of revocation c. Afterwards the said Conveyance being in force came the Statute of 23 Eliz. concerning Recusants upon which Statute the said Southwel is now endicted and afterwards upon a Commission issuing out of the Exchequer to the Sheriff of Lancaster to enquire of the Lands of the said Southwel although against the said Conveyance it was given in Evidence That after the said Conveyance the said Sir John Southwel had granted Trees from off the said Lands and had received Fines and Incomes for Leases c. yet the Iurors charged to enquire would not find that the said Sir John Southwel had any Lands c. And by special command from the Queen it was referred out of the Exchequer to all the Iudges of England If the Lands of the said Sir John Southwel conveyed as aforesaid were subject to the said
The Queen gave and granted the Reversion in Fee to Sir Thomas Henage c. and after it was found by Office that the Rent was arrear ut supra Sir Thomas Henage entred and leased for years to Sir Moil Finch who being ejected brought a Quo minus in the nature of an Ejectione Firmae c. It was argued by Coke That this Lease upon the matter aforesaid is avoidable by the Patentee and that without Office for the conclusion of the Proviso is not that the Queen shall re-enter but that the Lease shall cease and be void and the Queen is not driven to demand her Rent as in such case a Subject is tied And he compared it to the Case of a common person If a common person leaseth for years upon condition that if the Lessee doth not build upon the Land demised a House within a year after that the Lease shall be void and afterwards grants the Reversion to a stranger the Grantee shall have advantage of this Condition be it broken before or after the Grant for the Lease in such case is void not onely voidable and the reason is because the Condition is collateral which see 11 H. 7. 17. A Lease for years is made upon Condition that if the Lessee doth not go to Rome before such a day that the Lease shall be void the Lessor grants the Reversion over the Lessee attorns and doth not go to Rome within the time appointed the Grantee may re-enter contrary if the conclusion of the Condition had been by way of re-entry for then it should run in privity by the Common Law But where a Lease with such Condition was made for life with this conclusion of the Condition that the Lease shall be void the Grantee shall not take advantage of that by the Common Law for there the Estate is not void untill re-entry for there is a Freehold which ought to be avoided by Entry But in our Case the Condition is upon the matter collateral for no demand is requisite to take advantage of the Condition And he said it is a general Rule where in the Case of a common person an Estate may be devested without Entry there in the Case of the Queen there needs not any Office but here in our Case if it had been a Case of a common person the Estate should be devested without Entry therefore in the Case of the Queen without Office See Stamford for the Major Proposition 55. but it doth not vest to have Trespass before Entry and he vouched the Case of Browning and Beston Plow 136. where such Lease after such Condition broken is merely void and dissolved And he said That it was the Opinion of the Iustices of the Common Pleas now late That by a Release to such Lessee after the condition broken nihil operatur for after the Condition broken he is but Tenant at sufferance and a Lease for years being but a Cattel may begin without ceremony and end without ceremony 2 H. 7. 8. If the King make a Lease for years with clause of Re-entry for not payment of the Rent although the Rent be behind yet the King shall not re-enter before Office found and there ought to be a Seisure for the Lease is not void by the non-payment of the Rent but onely voidable but if the Lease be void for not payment as in our case it is to what purpose shall an Office be for by the mere contract the Lease ceaseth without re-entry or without Office But admit that the Lease shall not cease without Office and before Office the Queen grants the Reversion over yet an Office found after the Grant shall avoid the Lease as well as if it had been found before the Grant. A Lease is made upon condition that if the Lessor build a House upon the Land leased and pay to the Lessee 20 l. that then the Lease shall be void the Lessor builds the House and afterwards grants the Reversion the Grantee pays the 20 l. now the Lease is void although the Condition be partly performed in the time of the Lessor and partly in the time of the Grantee So here although the Grant of the Queen be Mesn between the non-payment of the Rent and the Office for the Queen is not entitled by the Office to the Land but by the Condition broken and the Office is onely to inform the Queen of her Title and when the Office is once found it shall relate unto the time of the Condition broken and shall be of such force as if then it had been found H. 3. H. 7. f. 3. Cro. 221. and here in our case an Office was necessary for to entitle the Queen to the mean profits due betwixt the Rent arrear and the Grant of the Queen with which the Queen by her Grant hath not dispensed and without Office he could not have them for the arrearages of the Rent do not pass to the Patentee no more than if the Queen be seised of an Advowson and the Church become void if the Queen Grant the Advowson unto another the avoidance shall not pass The King seised of a Rent which is arrear grants the said Rent the arrearages shall not pass So here of the mean profits for they are flowers faln from the stalk c. Godfrey contrary and he said That the Lease is in being not impeached by the Condition or the Office and he said That notwithstanding that the words of the Lease are That the Lease shall be void yet before that an Office be found the Lease shall not be avoided In all cases where the Queen is entitled to any thing or to defeat the Estate of another an Office is necessary and that ground is taken in the case of the Lord Berkley Plow Com. 229. by Brown therefore here it ought to be found by Office See also the case of the Bishop of Chichester Fitz. Abridg. Forfeiture 18. 46 E. 3. The Bishop leased for life certain Lands given by the Progenitors of the King as parcel of the Barony of the Bishoprick rendring 30 l Rent and afterwards by assent of the Dean and Chapter released a great part of the said Rent the Lease and the Rent ought to be found by Office. So an Alienation in Mortmain ought to be found by Office because the interest of another is to be defeated So where the King's Tenant ceaseth c. the Villein of the King purchaseth Lands or but a Lease for years So where the King is but to have annum diem vastum Waste committed by the Committee of the King Lessee of the King for years makes a Feoffment in Fee in all these cases the King without Office shall not be entitled The same Law is in case of a Condition broken which see 2 H. 7. 8. Plow 213. Frowick in his Reading puts this case A Subject leaseth for years upon condition which is afterwards broken and afterwards the Lessor becomes King here needs no Office for at the time
be determined or not And he said That Leases which are of Record are to be recited in Patents of the King but not those which are not of Record for Leases on Record may be easily found but contrary of Leases in Fait but in our case all is helped by the Non obstante for the words of the Letters Patents are Non obstante That no office be thereof found misrecital or non-recital of the former Leases c. It hath been objected That because that the Law of the Land is That in Grants of the King all former Estates ought to be recited the Non obstante of the Queen shall not help it To that he said That where the Law makes for the Queen there the Queen for a particular respect may dispense with the Law. If the Queen be deceived by the not recital that makes the Letters Patents naught but if the Queen be not deceived by the not recital the same shall not hurt And it is clear That the Queen may dispense with a Statute Law although perhaps not with the common Law The Queen grants upon suggestion if the suggestion be false the Patent is void because the Queen is deceived in her Grant and if the suggestion rest in Articles and some of the Articles be false the Patent for that is void but if in the Patent such clause be That be the suggestion true or false the Patent shall be good If the King seised of a Manor to which an Advowson is appendant grant the Manor cum pertinentiiâ— the Advowson shall not pass But if the Grant be in tam amplis modo forma c. prout ipse Rex tenuit the Advowson shall pass And he said That the Office here is not necessary to determine the Lease but to enable the Queen to punish the Lessee for the continuance of his possession And if the conclusion of the Condition had been by way of re-entry for non-payment of the Rent and after the Rent is behind and afterwards the Queen accepts the Rent due after the Queen is not bounden by that but upon an Office found she shall avoid the Lease Drew Serjeant contrary and he said That here is a condition but not a limitation for here is the natural word of a Condition scil Proviso Some Cases put by Popham are Conditions and not limitations As a Lease for years Proviso that if the Lessee die within the term that then the Lease shall be void the same is a Condition And in many Cases many words less apt than these in our Case shall make a Condition As a Feoffment dummodo solvat c. And he said That without an Office the Lease is not void See 35 H. 6. 57. The King giveth to Religious use certain Lands ad effectum to find a certain number of Monks to hold in Frankalmoign the King in that case cannot have Cessavit for the Services are not certain but if it be found by Office that they have not their number or do not make their Prayers the King shall cease by Br. Tit. Offic. 4. And he said that this was often done in the time of Hing Henry the eighth Lands given Habend pro erectione Collegii Cardinalis Eborum c. Where the King is to have Lands but as a pledge as for an Alienation without licence Office ought to be found of such Alienation So of a Feoffment made to an Alien otherwise it is in case of necessity because the Freehold cannot be in abeyance Tenant of the King is attainted of Treason before 33 H. 8. the King shall haâ—â—â—â—e Land in point of common Escheat untill Office be found and afterwards by force of the Attainder So if the Tenant of a Subject be attainted of Treason before Office found the Land shall be in the Lord but after Office it shall be in the King 7 H. 4. If the King's Tenant dieth his Heir within age the King may seise the Body and grant it over without Office but not the Lands See for the same 5 E. 6. Br. Office 55. in the Case of Charles Brandon 35 E. 3. Villainage 22. The Villein of the King purchaseth Goods and Chattels the property of them is in the King before Office or seisure but in the case of lands he ought to seise If this had been the case of a common person the Lease should not be avoided without demand therefore neither in the Case of the King without Office For as the Lease it self was made by matter of Record so it ought to be avoided by matter of Record otherwise it shall not be taken void in Law notwithstanding that the words are That the lease shall be void By the Statute of 11 H. 7. Alienations and Discontinuances by Women are made void the same ought not to be holden altogether void as betwixt such Women and the Alienee but onely betwixt the Woman and the Heir the Statute of 1 Eliz. enacts That all Leases made by a Bishop above the term of twenty one years shall be void the same shall not be construed to be void but onely as to the Successor for it shall bind the Lessor himself as it was adjudged 5 Eliz. in the Case of the Bishop of Bath As unto the Office here in our case the same shall not enure to avoid the Lease but onely to enable the Queen to punish the party for the Mean profits after the breaking of the Condition But in our case nothing is due to the Queen for the Mean profits for we have shewed the payment of all the Rents and the Arrearages thereof after the breach of the Condition and before the Grant of the King and therefore this Office being for no use shall be void unless it had been found that the Land was of more yearly value than the Rent c. As in the case of common experience of Chantries the Lands shall not be intended to be of greater value than the Rent to be paid out of it if not that it be found by Office When the Queen hath after received the Rent and granted over the Reversion now the Forfeiture is purged not by way of conclusion but it amounts to as much as if the Queen had said That she would not take benefit of it 4 H. 6. Champernoun's Case The King by taking in Ward of the Heir of the Donee hath waved the Heir of the Donor See Plow in the Lord Barkley's Case 3 Eliz. 237. and F. N. B. 143. And here in our Case when the Queen grants over the Reversion here the whole use of an Office is gone for no Office shall be found for the benefit of a Subject and as to the Queen no benefit shall accrue unto her by such Office for if she by such Office shall be entituled to the possession she should avoid her own Grant of the Reversion for she ought to have as great an Estate by the breach of the Condition as she had at the time of the Condition And in this Case
the Office comes too late for the Queen c. as in the Lord Lovel's Case Plow 18 Eliz. 482. A Lease for years is made unto an Alien upon condition that if the Alien pay such a sum of Money to the Lessor at any time during the Lease that he shall have Fee the Alien is made a Denizen the Money is paid and all that is found by Office The Queen shall not have the Fee for at the time of the vesting of the Fee the Lesse was Denizen and the Office shall not relate to the time when the Fee vests and no farther but to avoid incumbrances and so in such Case the Office comes too late And if the King's Villain purchaseth Lands and the King make him free and afterwards Office is found the same shall not entitle the King but the Villain manumitted shall hold the Land So in our Case the Queen after this Grant shall not take the benefit of this Office or breach of the Condition found by it And afterwards Manwood chief Baron gave order That those who do argue after shall speak but to two points 1. Where the Queen Leases for years rendring Rent payable at the Receipt at West in which Lease there is a Proviso That if the Rent be behind the Lease shall be void If now the Rent not being paid the Lease shall be void without any Office 2. To what effect an Office now shall be being found after the Queen hath granted the Inheritance over At another day Owen Serjeant argued to the contrary and he said the Lease is void without any Office for as a Lease for years may be made by contract so it may be avoided by words of contract otherwise it is of Freehold So that a Lease shall be avoided without entry 6 E. 6. 137 138. Plow Browning and Beston's Case Offices are of two sorts First entituling the Queen as purchase of an Alien purchase of Villain alienation in Mortmain and Offices informing the Queen where she hath interest in the Land before as in our Case here Admit that the Office was necessary to find the breach of the Condition the Patentee shall take the benefit of it for being found by Office that the Queen hath made such a Lease with condition to be void for non-payment of Rent and that at such a day the Rent was behind now being of Record every Subject shall take advantage of it As where a Husband makes a Feoffment in Fee upon condition of the Land of his Wife and dieth If the Heir enter for the Condition broken now may the Wife enter upon him for now the discontinuance is avoided See 11 H. 7. 17. Where the Grantee of the Reversion shall take advantage of a condition ut supra concluding That the Lease shall be void And see 136. Plowd Browning and Beston's Case And although after the default of payment the Rent due afterwards was accepted yet that shall not conclude the Queen for this acceptance is not under the great Seal but onely done by the Office Also the Lease being void for the non-payment cannot be made good by acceptance afterwards Atkinson contrary Although that the Lease be void de facto yet until it appeareth to the Court the Court cannot say it is void or not void therefore Office is necessary to ascertain the Court The Queen is a body Politick and the chief body Politick above others because she is the Maker Authour and Creatour of all other Corporations and that is the reason that the King cannot speak without writing and this is the most solemn writing i. Writing of Record So she cannot take but by Record And in our Case it doth not appear by any writing of Record the Rent was behind and it is agreeable to the Majesty of a King to do nothing without matter of Record which see 4 Eliz. in the case of the Dutchy And he said there is no difference betwixt the Case in 2 H. 7. and our Case In each Case it is a Lease for years Rent reserved in this onely differing that there is a clause of re-entry and here the conclusion of the Condition is that the Lease shall be void but in both Cases none can say that the Rent is behind untill it be found by Office therefore none can say that the Lease is void untill Office found See by Thorp 35 E. 3. Chattels personals of the King's Villains are in the King without office for such things may be lost or worn contrary of Chattels Reals as a Lease for years for Land cannot but continue and such things which may be in the King without writing he may grant without writing as a chain of Gold or a Horse Deodands Felons goods Wreck c. vest without Office because Chattels personals See 20 E. 4. 11. contrary when they are Chattels reals and permanent for there an Office is necessary In the Case of year day and waste an Office ought to be found Ergo à multo fortiori in case of a Lease for years which is a greater interest c. 49 E. 3. 11. There is a general Rule Quo modo quodque ligatur eo modo dissolvitur That which passeth by Livery ought to be reduced by re-entry that which begins by Record ought to be determined by Record and here in our Case the Land cannot depart from the King without Record therefore it shall not revert without Record although that the breach of the condition be but matter of fact yet the proof of that ought to be of Record And here in our Case is a condition and not a limitation And he said that in the Case often cited before of 11 H. 7. 17. it is a limitation and not a condition For if it were a condition the Grantee by the Law could not take advantage of it because not privy and he was clear of opinion that where the words are That the Lease shall cease or shall be void yet in such cases there ought to be an Office for in Leases of the King there needs no re-entry because the King to speak properly cannot re-enter And the words That the Lease shall be void do amount to words of re-entry and he said That in the Case of a common person upon such a condition broken the Land shall not be in the Lessor without re-entry no more shall they be here in the Case of the Queen without an Office Also the Rent reserved upon this Lease was behind and the Lessee continuing the possession the Queen by acceptance of the Rent hath affirmed the party Tenant and afterwards granted the Reversion over before any Office found of that matter Now the Lessee is discharged and shall never be impeached for the said Rent behind and the Grant Ex certa scientia c. after found shall not defeat this Grant by any relation And the Queen by her Grant hath included all the advantage which accrued unto her by the breach of the Condition and as to that which hath
been objected That in the Letters Patents there are these words Notwithstanding the not finding of any Office c. truly the same makes the matter more clear for us for by these words it is apparent that the Queen would not have an Office found if so then the Land passeth as in Reversion and the Queen may dispense with a thing concerning her self as of late it was adjudged in the Case of one Michel The Queen makes a Lease for years rendring Rent Si petatur It was holden in such case that the Rent in such case ought to be demanded by the Queen's Officer and in such case the Queen may well enough dispense with her Prerogative and here the Queen conceived that she should not have an Office nor have her Title found by it Manwood chief Baron The Queen leaseth for years upon condition That if the Lessee doth not marry within two years that the Lease shall be void whether here there ought to be an Office or not Atkinson said That here ought to be an Office. At another day It was argued again by Godfrey This Lease is not void Ipso facto for the not payment of the Rent which is but matter in fact and as this Lease hath his beginning by matter of Record so also his end shall be by matter of Record In cases of a common person there ought to be a demand therefore in case of the King an Office Hob. 331. 3 Co. as in the Case of a common person demand ought to be as well where the Condition is by way of re-entry as that the Lease shall be void therefore in both Cases in the Case of the King there shall be an Office and he said That if the Lease and the Condition be in the Case of a common person that the Lease shall be void without any demand of that Rent then there needs no demand for demand is a part of Contract and here before Office found the Lease is not merely void for a Release unto the Lessee before Office is good and the Queen is not entituled to the profits before office found It was argued by Coke to the contrary The Lease is void without any demand without any Office for it is parcel of the Contract to be so void and he said That this Lease before Office is void in interest and property but not in possession Where a common person shall not have the Land without Action the King shall not have it without Office and Scire facias as Cessavit Wast contra formam donationis c. and where a common person shall not have before Entry the King shall not have before Office for Office is in the place of Entry Wardship Mortmain It is clear in the Case of a common person That if the Condition be that the Lease shall be void without any demand that there demand is not requisite therefore nor in the Case of the King See Browning and Beston's Case Plowd Com. 136. That such a Lease with such a Condition after the Rent behind cannot be made good And it is a general rule That where the certainty of the term appears by Record and the King is to have but a Chattel in it there the King upon matter in fait shall have it without Office as the Temporalties of the Bishop upon his death which is matter in fait See F. N. B. 174. The Widow of the King marries her self without licence of the King the King shall seize the Lands and that without Office and there the marriage is matter in fait The King leaseth for years upon condition that if the Lessee marry that then the Lease shall be void If the Lessee marry her self the Lease is void without any Office and if so then every stranger in the world shall have advantage of it as the Case is 11 H. 7. as was the Case of Ralph Thomas Ralph Thomas's Case The Husband seised of Land in the right of his Wife leaseth for years and afterwards he and his Wife levied a Fine to a stranger the Husband dieth the Conusee shall avoid the Lease because it was merely void by the death of the Husband So of a Rent charge granted by the Husband c. But although this Lease be merely void yet a Bill of Intrusion doth not lie against the Lessee before Office for in such case a common person shall not have Trespass before entry but yet if the Lessee dieth after the Rent behind ut supra the Lease shall not be said Assets to the Executors for the not payment of the Rent is a nullity of the Lease by the intent of the original Contract And also the Lessee is not become Tenant at sufferance after the Condition broken for Tenant at sufferance takes the profits to his own use also none can be Tenant at sufferance to the Queen for then he should have the profits of the Lands by Laches which shall never be imputed to the Queen Now it is to see To what purpose this Office is A common person makes a Lease upon condition that if the Lessee alien part and that be found by Verdict that the Lease shall be void the Lessee alieneth part the Lessor grants the reversion over after the alienation is found by Verdict the Grantee shall have advantage of it if the Case had been That if the Rent be behind and Office found of it that the Lease should be void the Rent is arrear and the King grants the reversion and afterwards Office is found now the Lease shall be void against the Grantee Also this Office shall have relation and comes in as good time as if it were found before the Grant Tenant of the King alieneth in Mortmain the King grants over the Seignory Office is found now by this Office the King is entituled not unto the Land but unto the profits before the Office And although the Queen hath granted the reversion over yet she hath not granted inclusive the mean profits A common person hath a Rent which is arrear he grants the Rent the arrearages do not pass As where the King is seised of an Advowson which becomes void and afterwards grants the advowson to another the avoidance shall not pass thereby Giles's Case and that was Giles's Case See 16 H. 7. 7 8. And in our Case This Office doth not entitle the Grantee for how can an Office entitle a common person If the Lease were but voidable perhaps so long as the Lease should continue unavoided the Queen should not be answered the profits contrary where it is void And a common person shall have advantage of it Egerton Solicitor general to the same intent And he said that this Lease is altogether void in privity property right and term In the Case of a common person after the Rent behind in such case the Lessee should be Tenant at sufferance which cannot be in the King's Case and if Tenant at sufferance then no privity for a Release
by the Lessor to the Lessee cannot enure and that for want of privity Lit. 109. And such Lessee cannot attorn and if the Lessor after that accepts of the Rent the same doth not make the Lease good and all for want of privity therefore here is no privity As to property such a Lease shall not be said Assets in the hands of an Executor nor shall be sold upon an Extent nor forfeited by outlawry And here in this Case the Queen cannot be said to take any thing by the breach of the Condition but hath her reversion discharged of the Lease and he said That the Office is found well enough for time and it shall relate to the time when the title accrued that is when the Rent was behind and the arrearages of the Rent do not pass by the grant of the Land or the reversion The Queen hath a Rent-charge out of Lands which is behind the Lands come to the Queen and she grants the same over yet she shall charge the Lands with the said arrearages but contrary in case of an injury done upon the Land of the Queen As the Tenant of the King aliens without licence and afterwards the Lands so aliened came to the King's hands who grants them over the Grantee nor the Land shall be charged but onely he who was party to the alienation his Lands and his Executors So of an Intrusion Tenant for life of the King makes a Feoffment in Fee the King grants over the reversion and afterwards the tortious Feoffment is found by Office this Office is soon enough for time and the Grantee of the reversion shall have advantage of it and the King the mean profits from the time of the alienation and afterward in Mich. Term 33 Eliz. the Case was argued by the Barons Clark Puisne Baron The Lease is conditional and with a limitation also so conditional and limitation mixt together 3 Ass 10. Land given to one untill he come from foreign parts Lands given to one so long as he shall continue sole is an Estate for life with limitation upon her marriage so during the coverture c. and these limitations are not collateral but begin with the Estates when the Estates are limited but conditions always come when the Estate is settled as it is in our Case yet if the intent and substance of the Contract betwixt the King and the Subject be well considered there shall not be any difference c. Lands devised to one Proviso That if the Devisee shall disturb the Executors of the Devisor his Estate shall be void and the land remain over c. the same is a good remainder for it is a limitation conditional See Scholastica's Case Plowd Com. 14 Eliz. 413. concerning an Estate tail with a limitation And Fitz. James Case there put by Dyer See Browning and Beston's Case before cited and Martin Dockra's Case where a condition is conceived in words of Covenant c. Gent Baron argued to the same intent Manwood chief Baron to the same intent The Rents reserved upon the Leases of the Queen are to be paid to Receivors Baileys or at the Receipt of the Exchequer The Queen shall not make any demand of her rent for she hath an infinite number of Farmors and if demand be necessary she were to send an army of Receivors or Baileys to receive and demand her rents If the Rent of the King be to be paid at the Exchequer if the King 's Fermor be there and tender the rent at due time and none be there to receive it he hath saved his Lease for he hath done his possible endeavor although the words of the Condition in the Lease be behind and unpaid yet not tendred shall be understood as in the common case of Mortgages and Obligations But in all the Record before us there is no words of any tender therefore according to the words of the condition the Lease is meerly void and determined in right in privity and in tenure for so is the pleasure of the Prince expressed in her Letters Patents under the great Seal of England That it shall be then void and of no effect Then i. whensoever the Rent shall happen to be behind and therefore as soon as the Rent was behind the Lease was determined so that if after the non-payment a stranger had entred upon him scil the Lessee upon which he brings Ejectione Firmae the Defendant might have pleaded the special matter against him Iudgment if Action so as the Lease is void in Right It is also void in Privity and Tenure for a Release to such Lessee after the Rent is behind is altogether void for he was not then Lessee and so the privity is gone and no acceptance can make such Lease good And if such a Lessee after his Rent would surrender and in consideration of such Surrender obtain a new Lease from the Queen this new Lease is also void for here upon the matter is no surrender Also such a Lease is void in property for if the Lessee in such case dieth his interest such as it is shall not be accounted Assets in the hands of his Executor upon the breach of this Condition for the Rent although that the Lease be become void yet the possession of the land is not resetled in the Queen without Office and although the Office doth not make the Lease void which was void before for non-payment of the Rent yet before Office found the possession is not vested in the Queen for before Office found we cannot award Process against such a Lessee for his continuing the possession after the Rent behind and untill Office found the Lessee cannot be found an Intruder and Tenant at Will he cannot be for no other Will appears of the Queen but that in the Letters Patents and that is to have the Lease void whensoever the Rent shall be behind and that Estate is gone because the Rent is behind Tenant at sufferance he cannot be in this case In case of a common person when Lessee for years holds over his term he is become Tenant at sufferance and such a Tenant shall not pay Rent for it is the folly of his Lessor to suffer his Lessee at sufferance to continue possession of the Land after his term so as every Tenancy at sufferance is made by the Laches of the Lessor which Laches cannot be imputed to the Queen therefore here this Lessee when the Condition is broken is not a Tenant at sufferance nor shall have the profits of the Lands to his own use but the Law shall account him to be a Bailiff of his own wrong and so be accountable to the Queen but no Intruder till Office be found and that appears in our Books 1 H. 7. 17. The King's Tenant dieth his Heir within age if any entreth into the Land of the Heir he shall not be an Intruder untill Office found but the Heir or a stranger who entreth before Office and takes the profits
shall be brought by Process into the Exchequer to make their Accounts and to answer the issues and profits but if he intermeddle after Office he shall be an Intruder Tenant of the King alieneth without licence by that the King is to have the profits untill he compound with the King and purchaseth his pardon and if the Feoffee taketh the profits after the Alienation he is a Pernor of the profits and shall answer for them but he is not an Intruder untill Office found Tenant of the King is attainted of Felony the King is entitled to the Land from the time of the Felony committed yet if he take the profits untill Attainder he is not an Intruder but he taketh the profits without Title therefore he is Bailiff of his own wrong and so accountable to the King. And it is not a new thing that a Conveyance or an Estate shall be void as to the Right onely and not as unto the Possession The Statute of Doms West 2. finis ipso jure sit nullus i. as to the right of the Entail yet as unto the possession the issue in tail is bound untill he hath recovered it by a Formedon Vpon the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. by acceptance of another Benefice against the said Statute the first Benefice shall be void c. yet the same shall not be construed so as to possession but that the same shall remain with him untill it be taken away from him The Queen leaseth for years Proviso that if the Lessee commit Waste the Lease shall be void when first Waste is done the Lease is determined in Right but not as to the possession before Office finding the Waste So if the Condition be for the building of a House for by the breach of the Condition the Lease as unto the right and interest is determined and after Office found it shall revest the possession also And if a Lease of the King expire by effluction of time and such effluction appeareth here of Record if the Lessee in such case continueth his possession he shall be an Intruder Sir Robert Chester's Case Dyer 4. Eliz. 211. Sir Robert Chester was Receivor of the King by Patent upon condition to render Account yearly at such a day and before such a day to pay the arrearages the condition is broken the Patent was void without Office thereof found but yet it is not altogether void for a Scire facias shall be brought against the Patentee The King leaseth unto A. his Manor of D. and after he leaseth also to the said A. his Manor of S. Proviso that if the Lessee doth not surrender his first Lease of the Manor of D. at such a day that then the latter Lease of the Manor of S. shall be void The Surrender is not made now the Lessee if he continue his possession in the Manor of S. after he is an Intruder Now is to see of what effect the Office is not to make the Lease void but to vest the possession in the King again It hath been objected That as the case is the Office is not to any purpose for the Queen hath granted the inheritance over so as the possession cannot be revested in the Queen by that Office against her own Grant nor can the Queen punish the Lessee as an Intruder for his continuance of the possession after the Office nor can seise the Land by such Office and there is not any such Office for the benefit of a Subject therefore the Office is meerly void Let us compare our Case unto the Case of Cessavit The Tenant of the King ceaseth for two years the King grants the Seignory over in fee the Cesser is found by Office the Grantee of the Seignory gains nothing by it but that is not like unto the Case in question for there when the Office is found the Tenant may tender the arrearages for the King is not absolutely entitled by the Cesser because by tender of the arrearages the Tenant may save his Tenancy But in this case after the Condition is once broken there is not any means for the Tenant to save the Forfeiture also the King by his Grant after the Cesser hath not granted the thing which accrued unto him by the Cesser scil the Tenancy but onely the Seignory but in our case the King hath granted the thing forfeited i the land demised and here is a full forfeiture contrary in the case of Cesser And in our Case the King hath granted onely the land demised and not the profits encurred mean between the breach of the Condition and the Grant of the King but these remain to the Queen and to that purpose the Office is good scil to entitle the Queen to these profits And as to that which hath been objected That the Lessee hath always paid the Rent unto the Queen after the Condition broken and hath an Acquittance of the Receipt of it therefore no profits due to the Queen for she hath the Rent in lieu of the profits and it is not reason that the Lessee shall pay an annual Rent and also shall be accountable for the mean profits and so the Office as unto the mean profits which in truth upon the matter aforesaid are not due unto the Queen is void and then altogether void quia nihil operatur To that he answered That the King shall not be bound off the mean profits in that case by the payment of the said Rent for by intendment the true annual value of the Land is more than the Rent reserved and it is not reason but that the Queen shall be answered of the surplusage or overplus above the Rent and therefore the Office entituling the Queen to part of the profits is good enough Tenant of the King for life or for years makes a Feoffment in Fee although that by this Act he cannot pluck any thing out of the King yet because he hath attempted to do such a wrong it is a forfeiture and the Lease for years utterly extinct by it for it cannot be in the Feoffor against his own act by which he hath departed with all his Interest c. And the Feoffee cannot have it for if he hath any thing it ought to be a Fee-simple or nothing at all and a Fee-simple he cannot have for that remains in the King and so neither have Estate then is all in the King and the King hath Title to have the profits c. But put case that after the Feoffment the King grant over the Land in Fee and after that tortious Feoffment is found by Office he who accupieth the Land after the forfeiture untill Office be found shall be occountable to the King for the issues and profits c. as Pernor of the profits or Baily of his own wrong and he who occupieth the Land after the Office shall be punished as an Intruder There was a Case very late in this Court betwixt Sir Tho. Henage and one Hungate which was thus Sir
Tho. Henage Hungate's Case the Queen leased for years unto Hungate provided that he should not do Waste Waste is done the Queen granted the Reversion to Sir Tho. Henage Office is found the Grantee entred and his entry was adjudged lawfull and that the Queen should have the mean profits from the time of the Waste done untill the time of the Grant. Some say Sir Walter Mildmay's Case that that case was not adjudged but compounded And he vouched Sir Walter Mildmay's Case The Lord Sturton held Lands of the Queen in Knights-service and was attainted of Felony by which the Lands escheated to the Queen who granted those Lands and it was holden that the Queen should have the mean profits betwixt the time of the Felony committed and the Grant. And after in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff scil the Patentee of the Queen against the Lessee who cast in a Writ of Error and by his Council prayed That the Writ of Error be not broken open untill the Iudgment be entred Manwood The Iudgment hath reference and relation unto the first day of this Term and therefore do not doubt of that CLXXIX Sted 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 259. STed of Great Melton in the County of Oxford was assessed to 7 s. for Fifteens and upon refusal to pay it the Collectors distrained the Beasts of Sted and sold them Sted brought Trespass thereupon in the King's-Bench and the Collector exhibited his Bill into this Court against Sted who shewed by his Council That the Statute of 29 Eliz. which enacted this Fifteen provideth That the said Fifteen shall be levyed of the movable Goods and Chattels and other things usual to such Fifteens and Tenths to be contributary and chargeable and shewed farther that the Cattel distrained were tempore districtionis upon the Gleab Land of a Parsonage presentative which he had in Lease which Gleab Land is not chargeable usually to Fifteens granted by the Temporalty nor the Chattels upon it But it was the Opinion of the whole Court Although that the Parson himself payeth Tenths to the King yet the Lay-Farmor shall pay Fifteens and his Cattel are distrainable for it even upon the Gleab Land of the Parsonage and therefore it was adjudged that in the principal Case the Distress and Sale were good and lawfull CLXXX The Dean and Chapter of Winsors Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 258. IN this Case it was moved If one hath a Rectory impropriate and by the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 3. is to pay an annual Rent for the same in the name of a Tenth and by that is discharged of Tenths and first fruits If he shall have the Privilege of the Exchequer for he is to pay the same sum yearly And the Barons were of Opinion that he should not for so every one who is to pay any Tenths or first fruits should draw another who sueth him into the Exchequer and so all Controversies concerning Tithes and Parsonages should be drawn hither which should be a great prejudice to the Spiritual Courts But Egerton Conier's Case Solicitor vouched a Case scil Conier's Case where the King gave a Parsonage to a Priory in Frankalmoign and the Tithes thereof being withdrawn the Prior impleaded him who withdrew his Tithes in the Exchequer and in that Case it was holden that the Prior should have the Privilege for the King is in danger to lose his Patronage or rather his Foundership if the Rectory be evicted Gent Baron The Tenant of the King in chief or he who pays first fruits or he who holds of the Queen in Fee-Farm shall not have in such respect the Privilege here Quaere CLXXXI Cony and Beveridge 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 216. IN Debt upon a Bond the Case was That the Plaintiff leased unto the Defendant certain Lands lying in the County of Cambridge rendring Rent and afterwards the Defendant became bounden to the Plaintiff in a Bond for payment of the said Rent upon which Bond the Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in the County of Northampton to which the Defendant pleaded payment of the Rent without shewing the place of payment and upon payment they were at issue and found for the Plaintiff by Nisi prius in the County of Northampton In Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that the issue was mis-tryed for here the payment of the Rent being pleaded without shewing the place of payment it shall be intended that the Rent was paid upon the Land which is in the County of Cambridge See 44 E. 3. 42. Anderson was of opinion that no Iudgment should be given for the cause aforesaid Rhodes and Windham contrary for it doth not appear that the issue is mis-tried because that no place of payment is pleaded and it might be for any thing is shewed that the Rent was paid in the County of Northampton CLXXXII Berry and Goodman 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae upon a special Verdict the point was Ow. 95 96. One intruded upon the possession of the Queen into Lands in Kisgrave in Suffolk and during this Intrusion the Queen granted these Lands to A. B. by her Letters Patents and the Patentee before any Entry made in the said Land granted the same over Some held that the Grant was good for the Intruder had gained nothing against the Queen and by the Grant of the Queen and the assignment over nothing accrued to him and where a man hath possession of Lands his continuance therein cannot gain to him any interest or increase his Estate without some other act done of later time If the Guardian do continue in possession after the full age of the Heir he is not a Disseisor nor hath any greater Estate in the Lands and upon the Book of 21 E. 3. 2. this Case was collected The Tenant of the King dieth his Heir within age a stranger intrudes the Heir at full age sueth his Livery out of the King's hands the Intruder dieth in possession the same descent shall not take away Entry Coke contrary The Intruder cannot be Tenant at sufferance for at first he enters by wrong and none can be Tenant at sufferance but he who comes in by Title And it is clear That the Intruder by his first Entry doth not gain any Estate in possession upon which he can have an Action of Trespass but after the Grant of the Queen he hath presently Fee by wrong 8 H. 4. 129. A stranger enters upon the King to which he hath right in the right of the Ward yet the Freehold doth remain in the Heir And he said that if A. levyeth a Fine to B. sur Conusans de droit c. now the Conusee hath possession in Law but not in fact and if before the entry of the Conusee W. entreth and dieth seised he hath no remedy for he had not possession
in fact so as he might have an Assise or an Action of Trespass Antea 210 1 Cro. 920. Ow. 96. So the Law is now taken A. deviseth his Lands to B. and dieth and a stranger entreth and dieth seised before any Entry by the Devisee now is the Devisee without remedy And here in our Case the Intruder hath not gained any possession in the Lands by his intrusion no more than if the King gives Lands to one in Fee and before the Patentee enters a stranger enters now cannot the Patentee grant it over if he doth not reduce the Estate by Entry See Dyer 9 and 10 Eliz. 266. P. 20 Eliz. in Curia Ward Garbery's Case acc The Queen seised of the Manor of Beverley a stranger erected a Shop in a vacant plat of the Manor and afterwards took the profits of it without paying any Rent for the same to the Queen and afterwards the Queen granted the Manor to the Earl of Leicester and he never entred into the said Shop nor took any Rent for the same and afterwards the Occupier of the Shop died in possession and his Son and Heir entred and the better opinion was that the same was not a descent against the Patentee because at the first it was not a disseisin against the Queen Another Question was moved as to a path-way then in question And the Iury found that one side of the path-way was the Land of the Parson of the Church and the other side the Church-yard and prayed the opinion of the Court therein to whom the interest of the path-way did belong to which it was said by the Court That that ought to be found by the Verdict For although that both be the Freehold of the Parson yet the soil of the path-way might be conveyed by an express Grant unto another But the Court seemed to incline that the soil of the path-way did belong to him who had the Lands on both sides and that is the Case as well of a high-way as of a path-way And it is also good Evidence to prove such matter Who hath used to cut down the Trees or to cleanse the way CLXXXIII Wiseman 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Court of Wards 6 Co. Weeden Baldwin's Case IN the Court of Wards before the Lord Treasurer Master of the Wards Wray chief Iustice Anderson and Periam Assistants to him the Case was That Wiseman was seised of certain Lands holden by Knight's-service in Capite had issue by a former Wife who died and made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of her who should be his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of himself and of his issue of the body of such Wife to be begotten the remainder over Wiseman took a Wife and had issue and died If now living the Wife the issue shall be in Ward was the question It was argued by Coke That he shall not be in Ward And first it was agreed of both sides and also by the Iustices That it was a remainder and not a reversion and that at the Common Law the descent of a remainder during the Estate for life doth not entitle the King unto Wardship and there we are to see if upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. the last branch of it where two or more persons hold any Lands of the King by Knights-service jointly to them and the heirs of one of them and he that hath the Inheritance thereof dieth his heir being within age in every such Case the King shall have the Ward and marriage of the body of such heir so being within age the life of the Freeholder or Freeholders of such Lands notwithstanding See 33 H. 6. 14. That the father to prevent Wardship may alien and take to him and his son and the heirs of the father which mischief was intended to be remedied by the said Statute But these words shall not in construction thereof extend farther than the words especially because they cross the Common Law and go to charge the Inheritance of others and therefore they shall be taken strictly and not by equity as the Statute of West 2. cap. 40. Cum quis alienat jus uxoris suae concordat est Quod de cetero secta mulieris aut ejus haeredis non differatur propter minorem aetatem haeredis qui warrantizare debuit that Statute is taken strictly for if the Vouchee voucheth over the second Vouchee shall have his age Quod vide 18 E. 4. 16. Also the Stat. of West 1. enacts That where the Disseisor dieth seised the Disseisee shall have his Writ upon the Disseisin against the heir of the Disseisor of what age soever he be So the heirs of the Disseisee yet it is holden 9 E. 3. If the Disseisor leaseth for life and dieth and the Lessee be impleaded and makes default after default upon which the heir of the Disseisor prayeth to be received being within age he shall have his age notwithstanding the said Statute which shall be taken strictly because it controlls the Common Law and chargeth the Inheritance of the Subject So upon the Statute of West 1. cap. 39. That none shall vouch out of the line upon that Statute although the Tenant to the Action against whom the Praecipe is brought is bound by the Statute yet Tenant by receit is at large and he may vouch at the Common Law 2 H. 7. 2. 16 H. 7. 1. for these Statutes go in abridgment of the Common Law and therefore shall be taken strictly Now according to this Statute it is of the same nature as the other before remembred and therefore shall not be extended in construction beyond the Letter As Sir Rowland Hill's Case Grandfather father and son the grandfather seised of Land ut supra makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the son in Fee The grandfather dieth the father dieth the son shall not be in Ward Causa qua supra For this Statute shall not be construed by equity and by it the words thereof Preferment of children shall not extend unto the childrens children but to the children onely of the King's Tenant who makes the Conveyance And the words in this Statute or otherwise shall not be intended to other persons than are remembred in the Statute There was a Case late where the Statute was construed in such a manner Quod vide 18 Eliz. 345. Thornton's Case A Lady seised of Lands in chief made Conveyance of her Lands for the advancement of her bastard-daughter the same Conveyance is not within the Statute See also the Lord Powes's Case 14 Eliz. Dyer 313. So in the Case of Sir Hugh Calverley the Law was taken That where the Husband dieth seised in the right of his Wife and they levy a Fine unto the use of the Husband and Wife for the advancement of the Husband such Conveyance and disposition is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Popham contrary And as to
the Case of making this Statute it was not to overthrow a foundation as it hath been said but it was rather a gratuity of the Subjects to the King for his bounty towards them for whereas by the Statute of Vses Vses were executed in possession so as the Subjects could not dispose of their Lands by their Wills as before the Vses Now by this Statute the King was pleased to give his Royal assent to an Act by which Lands might become devisable in respect of which the Subjects added to this Act the last clause to give him Wardship where it did not lie before by the Common Law and that as a recompence from the Subjects for the King's bounty and therefore it ought to be construed beneficially for the King. And to prevent covin and fraud was not the scope of this Statute For if three purchase Lands unto them and to the heirs of two of them now it is uncertain whose heirs shall inherit for non constat which of them shall survive and therefore no covin is averrable in such case and yet if the survivor of two to whom the Fee is limited dieth his heir within age such heir shall be in Ward So if such Lands be given to two and to the heirs of him of those two who shall first come to the Church of Paul Now it is uncertain which of them shall first come to the Church of Paul yet if he who first cometh to the Church of Paul dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward which Cases prove that covin and fraud were not the cause of making this Statute but onely the thankfulness of the Subjects unto the King for his bounty as abovesaid for if this Act had not been made the Subjects should not have power to dispose of their Lands for the advancement of their children but all should descend So as now the King hath lost the Wardship and Primer seisin of two parts of the Lands of his Tenant and hath also lost the averment of covin which he had by the Common Law where Estates were made by the King's Tenant for advancement of their children In respect of which losses the Subjects gave unto the King Wardship in case where the Lands continue in jointure as to that which hath been said That this Statute shall not be taken by equity I conceive the contrary the words of the Statute are In every such case i. e. In every like case not onely where two or more persons hold jointly to them and the heirs of one of them but also in every the like Case as the Case now in question and in every Case where the life of him who hath the Freehold is the sole impediment quo minus the heir hath not the Land by descent in Demesne And it may be resembled unto the Statute of Marlbridge of Collusion which speaks of Leases for years Quas tradere voluerint ad terminum annorum and yet a Lease for life or Lease for years is within the said Statute for the Statute was made in restraint of an ill liberty that the Tenants had by the Common Law in prejudice of their Lords which see 4 E. 6. 53. Plow 59. And as to the word otherwise that may be construed for payment of his Legacies And as to equity enlarging the Statute speaks where many hold and to the heirs of one yet if two hold to them and the heirs of one of them the same is within the Statute And as to Equity restraining he puts this case Land is given to the Husband and Wife and the heirs of the body of the Wife who have issue the Wife dieth the issue within age he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute but because that other matter That the Estate for life in the Husband is an impediment Quo minus he shall be in Ward It is a maxim of the Common Law That the father shall have the Wardship of the son and heir apparent therefore he shall not be within the meaning although he be within the Letter of the Statute So if Lands be given to my Villain and to another and to the heirs of my Villain who dieth seised his heir within age I seise the Villain and claim the remainder he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute But I conceive in our Case the King shall have two Wards Simul semel the heir general of Wiseman and the issue in tail the heir general by the Common Law by reason that his father was the King's Tenant who disposed of his Lands for the advancement of his children and therefore the Queen shall have the third part in Ward And also the heir special shall be in Ward for that part of the Statute And it is no new thing to have two Wardships for one and the same Lands As 14 H. 8. of the heir of Cestuy quae use and also of the Feoffee and if the Tenant dieth seised having issue a daughter who is his heir the Lord seiseth the daughter and marrieth her and afterwards a son is born he shall have the Wardship also of him So of the heirs of the Disseisor and Disseisee and he said If Lands holden in chief be leased for life the remainder to A. in Fee A. dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward and that by reason of these words in the Statute In every such case it is not the same Case but the like Case for if he who hath the Fee dieth so as the Freehold survives to the other now the Estate becomes as an Estate for life the remainder over It was adjourned CLXXXIV The Lord Howard and the Town of Walden 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Exchequer More Rep. 159. Post 162 163. BEtwixt the Lord Howard and the Town of Walden the Case was That the King made a Feoffment in Fee of Lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster Tenend in feodi forma reddend inde sibi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. The question was How and of whom the Tenure should be It was argued by Plowden That it should be holden of the King as of his Dutchy he said The King is not bounden by the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum but here upon this Feoffment the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy All Grants of the King notwithstanding that they be of Lands yet they savour of the person of the King and his Prerogative being wrapt up in his person shall guide the disposition of the land and he said that this Tenure shall be implyed by reason and in respect of his person And the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum extends to Tenants onely Libere tenentes magnatum aliorum but the King is not Libere tenens alicujus magnat 32 H. 6. 21 22. The King hath an Advowson in the Right of his Dutchy to which
indictment and prayed his Clergy c. and demanded Iudgment If the Plaintiff should have this appeal The Plaintiff Replicando said by protestation Nul tiel record and for plea did demur in Law. Dalton for the Plaintiff took Exception to the plea for the conclusion of it viz. Iudgment if appeal where it ought to be Iudgment if he shall be again put to answer And he took a difference where a matter is pleaded against the Plaintiff to which the Plaintiff is party As where a man pleads a Fine levied by the Plaintiff himself there he shall conclude Iudgment if action but where the Fine is pleaded levied by the Ancestors of the Plaintiff there he shall plead Iudgment if against such Fine c. Vide 9 H. 7. 19. At the common Law before the Statute of 3 H. 7. such conviction at the suit of the King did discharge the party convicted from farther trouble but if the indictment upon which he was arraigned be insufficient then it is not any plea. And here the indictment is insufficient for by the Statute of Articuli super Chartas cap. 3. the Coroner of the County together with the Coroner of the King's Houshold shall do the Office which belongs to it and send the roll to which Office two Coroners are requisite but here in the taking of this inquisition there was but one person although two capacities id est Coroner of the County and also Coroner of the Verge and so the indictment was taken Coram non Judice See the Statute of the Star-Chamber which is That the Chancellor c. calling to them one Bishop and one temporal Lord of the King's Council c. If the Chancellor be a Bishop yet another Bishop ought to be called c. If I devise that my lands shall be sold by two Bishops and J. S. hath two Bishopricks yet his sale is not sufficient Egerton contrary Although here is but one person yet there are two Coroners Quando duo jura concurrunt in una persona aequum est ac si essent in diversis At the common Law before the Statute De Articulis super Chartas The Coroner of the Verge by himself might enquire of Murther but because the Kings Court oftentimes removed into another County by reason whereof no enquiry could be made for the remedying thereof that Statute was made which is in the affirmative and doth not abridge the common Law before and therefore it shall have a reasonable construction See the Statute of West 1. cap. 10 By which it is enacted that sufficient men shall be chosen Coroners of the most loyal and the most sage Knights this Statute shall not be taken Stricto sensu that none shall be chosen Coroners but Knights but the Statute requires that sufficient persons shall be chosen As to the Statute of 3 H. 7. It is to be known That the common Law before acquitted was a good Plea and the cause was for the great regard that the common Law had to the life of a man In which case a great mischief as the Statute recites did ensue that to save the appeal of the party they would not arraign the party within the year and day after the murther within which time the offender did compound with the party interessed and so after the year expired all the matter concerning the prosecution at the King's suit was put in oblivion wherefore it was enacted That such offender shall be within the year arraigned at the suit of the King and if the party be acquitted at the Kings suit within the year and day That the Iustices before whom c. should not set the party at large but to remain in prison or to let him to bail untill the year and the day be past and within the said year and day the wife or next heir to the party slain may take their appeal against the party so acquitted or attainted the said acquittal or attainder notwithstanding and he said that these words person attainted did not extend to person convicted for they are two distinct conditions in Law for attainder procures corruption of bloud but the same is not wrought by conviction and every Treason imports in it self Felony but yet notwithstanding they are distinct Offences See 22 E. 4. Coron 44. where it was ordered by all the Iustices of England That none should be arraigned of the death of a man at the suit of the King within the year and day so as the suit of the party be saved And the Iustices counselled all men of Law so to do and that the same be executed as a Law without alteration upon which rule of the Iustices arose an inconvenience for after that order of the Iustices was known The offender would practise with the party to whom the appeal by the Law belonged to obtain from him a release for some sum of money and then when the year and day passed the heinousness of the murther was out of memory This mischief being espied was the occasion of the making of the Statute of 3 H. 7. But the said Statute doth not meet with our Case but our Case is at the common Law for this Statute extends onely unto persons attainted but a person convicted is not touched by it and therefore being out of the words of the Statute it shall be also out of the meaning of it for being a penal Law it shall be taken by equity as all Statutes which give attaint shall be Stricti juris and shall not be taken by equity It hath been objected that the Statute de Frangentibus prisonam 4 E. 1. hath been taken by equity the same is not so for it is not any penal Law but the same mitigates the rigor of the common Law for before that Statute the breaking of the prison was Felony in every case but now it is not Felony but where the party was committed to prison for Felony c. CXCVI. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedon of a Manor Dyer 291. 3 Len. 92. the Tenant pleaded Ioynt-tenancy by Fine with J. S. The Demandant did aver the Tenant sole Tenant as the Writ doth suppose and upon that issue was taken and found for the Demandant upon which a Writ of Error was brought and Error assigned in this That whereupon Ioynt-tenancy pleaded by Fine the Writ ought to abate without any averment by the Demandant against it the averment hath been received against the Law c. Southcote At the common Law If the Tenant had pleaded Ioynt-tenancy by Deed the Writ should abate without any averment but that was remedied by 34 E. 1. but Ioynt-tenancy by Fine did remain as it was at the common Law for he hath punishment enough in that by that plea if it be false he hath by way of conclusion given the moyety of the Land in demand to him with whom he hath pleaded Ioynt-tenancy and the Law doth not intend that he would so slightly depart with his land
for the abatement of a Writ As in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant acknowledgeth himself to be Villein to a stranger the Writ shall abate without any averment if Frank and of Frank Estate for the Law presumes that the Tenant would not enthral his condition Wray to the same intent But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he that levyed the Fine was his disseisor upon whom he had before entred c. And if Tenant in Fee-simple be impleaded and he saith that he is Tenant for life the remainder over to A. in Fee and prayes in aid of A. the Demandant shall not take averment that the Tenant the day of the Writ purchased was seised in Fee. Note that in this fine Ioynt-tenancy was pleaded but to parcel It was holden by Wray and Southcot that the whole Writ should abate As in a Writ the misnosmer of one shall abate the whole Writ against all the Defendants and so where the Demandant enters into parcel of the land in demand if the thing in demand be one intire thing it shall abate the whole Writ In this Case the Demandant ought to have in his Writ de Forsprise of the land in demand whereof the Ioynt-tenancy by Fine is pleaded per availe and under the gift of which the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Manor and therefore ought to be demanded accordingly with an Exception But if A. give to B. a Manor except ten acres in tail there if after upon any discontinuance the issue in tail have a Formedon in such case there needs no exception for the said ten acres were never after the gift parcel of the Manor which was given in tail for they were severed from the Manor upon the gift but if land in demand was several as twenty acres except two an exception is not good for he might demand eight acres See E. 1. F. N. B. 866. Praecipe unam bovat terrae except a Seleon and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Seleon is a parcel of land uncertain as to quantity in some places an acre in some more in some less Another point was That because the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this averment scil sole Tenant as the Writ doth suppose If the Court notwithstanding the admittance of the Tenant ought without exception of the party Ex officio to abate the Writ and Wray conceived that they should for it is a positive Law as if a woman brings an appeal of murther upon the death of her brother and the Defendant doth admit it without challenge or exception yet the Court shall abate the appeal 10 E. 4. 7. And see the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus and if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the common custome of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named common Hostler and the Defendant doth accept of such Writ without exception to it yet the Court shall abate the Writ Ex officio 11 H. 4. 198. and 38 H. 6. 30. CXCVII 24 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. Antea 150. More Rep. Saffron Walden's Case THE Case was this King Henry the 8. seised of certain lands in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Granted them unto another Tenend in Fee-farm Reddend dicto Dom. Regi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. And if this land should be holden of the King in Capite or holden of the Dutchy was the question Egerton Solicitor general argued much upon the Statute of 1 H. 4. by which the Dutchy and possessions thereof were severed from the Crown See Plowden in the Case of the Dutchy of Lancaster 213. And see ibid. the Statute of 1 H. 4. Entituled Charta Regis Hen. 4. 1. De separatione Ducatus Lancastr à Corona by which it is enacted That the Dutchy of Lancaster taliter tali modo deducatur gubernetur pertractetur c. ac si ad culmen dignitatis Regiae assumpti minime fuissemus So as by that Act the Dutchy is dis-joined from the Crown and in such point as to possession as it was in a common person But the possession of the Dutchy doth not bind the person of the King as 10 H. 4. 7. The King brings an Action for certain Lands to him descended from his Vncle the Duke of Lancaster and the Writ was Non omittas propter aliquam libertatem and exception was taken to the Writ because that such clause ought not to be in the King 's Writ but where the King sueth as King but that Writ he sueth as Duke of Lancaster but the exception was not allowed The King cannot sue otherwise but as King for the person of the King ought not to be measured according to his possession so as it was a severance in order survey government and process and not in respect of the person But after the Statute of 1 H. 4. The said Act of Separation was repealed and farther enacted that the said King should hold the said Dutchy to him and his heirs Kings of England so as thereby the Dutchy is settled in the politick Body of the King afterwards came the Statute of 1 H. 7. by which it is enacted That the King shall hold the said Dutchy and the possessions thereof in such manner and form and so separated from the Crown as King Henry the fourth and King Henry the fifth did hold the same so as the Dutchy was devested out of the Body politick of the King where it was setled 1 H. 4. and vested in the Body natural of the King so as the possession of the Dutchy as to their government c. are in the King as they were in the Duke of Lancaster before he was King and if the Duke of Lancaster had made a Feoffment c. the Feoffee should not hold of him but of the King So if the King himself maketh a Feoffment of Lands of the Dutchy the Feoffee shall hold of the King c. which see in the Dutchy of Lancaster's Case in the end of it And he conceived That notwithstanding the union of the Crown and the Dutchy yet the privity of the Tenure doth remain being preserved by the said Act of 1 H. 4. Another matter was That here the Tenure reserved is Tenend in feodi firma Reddend 10 l. c. And he said that this Rent is not parcel of the Tenure but rather a Rent-charge collateral to the Tenure For in all Cases where there is a Tenure expressed in suit or implied in Law before there Reddendo following shall not make the thing rendred parcel of the Tenure 3 Cro. 210 211. but it shall be a Rent in gross and here Tenend in feodi firma makes the Tenure c. and the Reddendo after shall not make the Rent reserved parcel of the Tenure See the
Case 33 E. 3. Annuity 52. before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend de Dom. Capital Feod c. Reddend 10 s. Rent here because that the Tenure was reserved Capital Dom. feodi illius this Rent reserved is not parcell of the Tenure but a Rent in gross King Edward the sixth gave certain Lands to Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury Tenend by the fifth part of a Knight's Fee Reddend inde 6 l. per ann Cranmer made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest son in tail the remainder to the right heirs of Cranmer who is attainted of Treason by which the remainder in Fee escheated to the King by which the Seignory is gone But it was adjudged that notwithstanding that escheat the Rent did remain for the Rent was not parcel of the Seignory Now this Rent being a thing newly created and not parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy in 1 H. 4. nor ever descended from any Ancestor of the King being Duke of Lancaster shall be accounted to be in the King in the right of his Crown and so cannot pass by the Dutchy-seal See the said Statute of 1 H. 4. and the King cannot enlarge the said Dutchy nor the possessions thereof beyond the possessions which were of the Dutchy at the time of the making of the said Acts As if J. S. seised in Fee is impleaded and he saith that he holds the Lands in demand for life the remainder to the King in the right of his said Dutchy now the said remainder is vested in the King not in the right of the said Dutchy but in the right of his Crown The Villain of the King in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster purchaseth Lands the King seizeth he shall be seised thereof in the right of his Crown and not of the Dutchy The King grants Common out of certain Lands parcel of his said Dutchy and afterwards makes a Feoffment of the said Lands to another the Grantee of the Common dieth without heir so as the Common escheats to him now he shall have the Common in the right of the Crown and not of the Dutchy so although it is said That the Rent shall follow the nature of the Land out of which c. yet the same is but to some intents and not to every intent See the Statute of 2 and 3 Phil. Ma. cap. 20. by which it is enacted That all the Lands which have been granted or severed from the Dutchy to any person or persons and after such grant have come or reverted to the King in possession reversion or remainder or otherwise by attainder escheat forfeiture c. shall for ever be united to the said Dutchy and shall be adjudged and esteemed as part and member of the same which proves that such Lands were not holden of the King as Duke of Lancaster but as King for if they had been holden of the Dutchy upon the escheat they should be parcel of the Dutchy again without help of that Statute See the special Reservation Reddendo Domino Regi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet c. Now when the King grants the Seignory to the Lord Audley it was in the Election of the Ter-tenant to whom he would pay the Rent if it had been in the Case of a common person but it is otherwise in the Case of the King As if A. holdeth of two several Lords by owel Feoffment and dieth his heir within age the Lord which first gets the Ward shall have him but in the Case of the King it is otherwise Plowden The King is not bound by the Statute of West 3. But in this Case in the making of this Feoffment with this Tenend Reddend the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy for all grants of the King savour of the person of the King and then his Prerogative wrapt in the person shall guide the same and see the Statute of West 3. extends to all who make Feoffments Tenend de Feoffatoribus but the King is not Tenant to any one And if the King be seised of an Advowson in the right of his Dutchy and the same becomes void and the King presents to the same he may repeal his presentation and he vouched divers precedents of Patents made to many great Lords to hold of the Dutchy and also to hold of others And the King by his Dutchy-seal may give Lands in Mortmain And he argued That this Rent although newly created yet in so much as it came and accrued in respect of the Land which was parcell of the Dutchy it should be accounted also parcel of the Dutchy as if before the Statute of West 3. A. seised of Lands in Fee of the part of his father makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend by such services c. the same Seignory shall go to the heirs of the part of the father in lieu of which the Seignory is come Tenant in tail after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Lease for years according to the said Act rendring Rent to him and his heirs it shall be intended heirs in tail It was adjourned CXCVIII. Forster and Walker 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione firmae by Foster against Walker the Case was 3 Cro. 106. Shepherd's Touch-stonâ— of Conveâ—…ances 416. That Richard Meager was seised of a house in London and 6 E. 6. he devised the same to his Wife for life the remainder to John his son in tail the remainder to the Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors in London and died the Wife entred and died John died The Master Wardens and Commonalty of the Cordwaynors entred and leased the Plaintiff upon whom the heir general of the Devisor did enter The onely question was inasmuch as the Cordwaynors of London are incorporated by the name of Master and Wardens and Commonalty of Cordwaynors If this devise made to them by the name of Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors of London be good or not It was argued by Daniel that the Devise by the manner was good enough and he insisted much upon the favour which the Law gives to Wills and to Legatees in the Devises and construction of them even in Devises and Grants to Corporations and as to Grants to Corporations he cited the Case of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Decanus Capitulum sanctae individuae Trinit and they make a Lease leaving out these words sanctae individuae and yet held the Lease was good notwithstanding that for the words left out are not words of substance of the name but for the beauty and ornament of it But in the Case of Devise if the name be mistaken in matter of substance yet if upon the Devise the intent of the Devisor sufficiently appeareth it is good enough for the intent of the Devisor shall guide the Devise and
therefore by Devise the Fee-simple shall pass without the word Heirs And he said that the opinion of Wray chief Iustice was in the Case of the Dean of Pauls If I devise that my Executors shall assign my Lands to J. S. the same implicative is a Devise of the Lands themselves to my Executors for otherwise they could not assign So if I will and devise That A. shall pay yearly out of my Manour of D. to J. S. 10 l. the same is a good Devise of the Lands to A. So if in the Case at Bar this house had been devised to the Cordwaynors by the name of the Society of Cordwaynors such Devise had been good enough Cooper contrary and he said That the intent of the Devisor ought to agree with the Law otherwise the Iudges are not to regard it in point of Iudgment and he put the Case of 39 H. 6. 10. 1 Rolls 616. A. deviseth his Lands and afterwards is disseised and before any entry dieth now notwithstanding the intent of the Devisor the Devise is void and he said The defect of a Will in words in making of an Estate shall be supplied by intent but the defect in words in naming of the Devisor or Devisee shall never be supplied See 49 E. 3. 3. 4. the Case of Whitavers And he cited a Case 25 H. 8. A stranger of the Low-countries being made a Denizen in England returned into his Countrey and dwelling there became sick and in making of his Will he was advised by Council that by Devise of all his goods his lands deviseable would pass and therefore by such words he declared his Will with the intention aforesaid scil to pass his Lands and died and afterwards the States of the Low-countries wrote unto King Henry the 8. acquainting him with the intention of the Devisor and also of the opinion of their Laws there upon the said Will and all in favour of the Devisee whereupon the King referred the consideration of the matter to Norwick then Lord chief Iustice who declared his opinion to the King to be That by that Devise the Lands did not pass notwithstanding the intent of the Devisor CXCIX Crabdell 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench CRabdell was bound by Recognizance to his good behaviour upon which the Queen brought a Scire facias and surmised that after the Recognizance acknowledged the said Crabdell was arrested and taken by the Constable for suspicion of Felony and of his own wrong escaped It was objected on the part of Crabdell because it is not alledged by matter in fact that a Felony was committed But the whole Court was of a contrary opinion For it is not material if the Felony were committed or not for if a Subject be arrested by a lawfull Officer it is not lawfull for him to escape but he ought to stand to the Law and to answer unto the matter with which he is charged And so Crabdell was forced to answer CC. Basset and Prowe 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt upon a Bond the Case was That Basset was bound with Prowe as his surety to one Preston in a Bond of 500 l. and that was upon a corrupt and usurious contract against the Statute and Prowe was bound unto the Plaintiff in a Bond as a counter-bond to save the Plaintiff harmless from the said Bond of 500 l. Basset is sued by Preston upon the said Bond and so damnified and thereupon sued Prowe upon the counter-bond 1 Cro. 588 642 643. 3 Len. 63. Goldsb 174. who pleaded against Basset the Statute of Vsury pretending that all assurances depending upon such usurious contract as void by the Statute but by the opinion of Wray chief Iustice the same is no Plea for the Statute is That all Bonds collateral assurances made for the payment of Money lent upon usury shall be utterly void But the Bond here upon which the Action is brought was not for the payment of the Money lent but for the indempnity of the surety CCI. The Vicountess Bindon 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer More 213. 1 Cro. 250 251 252. THE Executors of Thomas late Viscount Bindon brought Detinue in the Exchequer against the Widow of the said Viscount and declared upon the detainer of certain Iewels The Defendant did justifie the detainer of them as her Parophornalia And it was said by Manwood chief Baron That Parophorn ought to be allowed unto a Widow having regard unto her degree and here the Husband of the Defendant being a Viscount 500 Marks is a good allowance for such matter CCII. Offley and Johnson 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench More 136. OFfley and Johnson were bound as sureties with one A. to B. who recovered against Johnson in London and had Execution against him and now Johnson sued Offley to have of him contribution to the said Execution ut uterque eorum oneretur pro rata according to the custome of London Offley removed the cause by privilege into the King's-Bench whereupon came Johnson and prayed a Procedendo and because upon this matter no Action lieth by the course of the Common Law but onely by custome in such cities The cause was remanded Hob. 264. More 135. 3 Len. 148. for otherwise the Plaintiff should be without remedy See the Book of Entries 160. CCIII Litchfield and Cage 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae the parties were at issue 3 Len. 100. and by the order of the Court the Trial was stayed and yet the Plaintiff against the Order did privily obtain a Nisi prius of which Gawdy Iustice being informed of it after the Term awarded a Supersedeas unto the Iustices of Assise before whom c. and yet notwithstanding that the Enquest at the instance of the Plaintiff was taken and found for the Plaintiff and all this matter was shewed to the Court in the King's-Bench and there examined and proved and it was ordered by the Court that the Verdict should not be entred of Record nor any Iudgment upon it And so it was put in ure in a Case between Vernon and Fowler And then the Plaintiffs Council took exception to the Supersedeas because it was not subscribed with the hand of Gawdy but non allocatur for the Seal is sufficient CCIV. Scott 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. WIlliam Scott was indicted upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusants by the name of William Scott of Southwark Gent. and upon that Indictment Iudgment given for the Queen upon which Scott brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That in the Indictment Scott is not named of any Parish but generally of Southwark for within Southward there are divers Parishes and by the said Statute it is ordained that the penalties accruing by the said Statute ought to be divided in three parts whereof one part is to be applied to the
it there And it was said If the Court there should not allow the Plea that they should incur the offence of contempt of this Court and the other party should have a Prohibition CCXXV. Sir Richard Buckley 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench SIR Richard Buckley was indicted upon the Statute of Praemunire of 13 and 15 R. 2. and the effect was That whereas one Griffeth Matthew had murthered one Robert Footman at Beaumarris and whereas one Owen Wood prosecuted the said Griffeth Matthew for the said murther The said Griffeth Matthew Praemissorum non ignarus sed intendens the said murther a Curia Dominae Reginae ad aliud examen c. pro quodam supposito contemptu Curiae Admiralitatis traxit in placitum the said Owen Wood coram Julio Caesar in the Court of Admiralty holden at Islington supposing the said murther to be done upon the high Sea and thereupon caused him to be arrested and being under arrest to enter Bond unto the Lord Admiral that he should not prosecute the said murther against the said Griffeth Matthew nor examine any witnesses concerning the said murther and that the said Sir Richard Buckley was abettor and procurator of the said Griff. Mathew therein To this Indictment many Exceptions were taken by Coke In placitum pro quodam contemptu and doth not shew the contempt in certain for it is too general and so not good See 18 Ass for the stealing of certain Sheep without shewing what Sheep they were is not a good Indictment And here he doth not say concerning the said murther or concerning the premisses 2 Although that the matter of the Indictment be true yet the Stat. of Praemunire doth not extend to it for the Statute inflicts a punishment as well upon the Iudge scil the Admiral as upon the party See 10 H. 4. 164. If one Libelleth in the Court of Admiralty for a thing done upon the Land and it appeareth upon the Libel that the thing was done upon the Land and they notwithstanding that hold Plea of it A Praemunire lieth upon it But if the same doth not appear within the Libel then it is not within the Statute but a Prohibition shall onely issue So in the case of Tithes If the Parson sueth for Tithes severed from the nine parts and that appeareth in the Libel the same suit is within the Statute of Praemunire and that was Cardinal Woolsey's Case 3 It is alledged That Sir Richard Buckley procured him to do it but it is not shewed any place where the procurement was had And that was resolved in the Case of the Lord Paget 1 Len. 5. and the Bishop of Coventrey and Lichfield where the Bishop was indicted That he commanded J. S. to enter into the Close of the Lord Paget and to do a trespass there and because the place of the commandment was not set forth in the Indictment the Bishop was discharged M. 25 and 26 Eliz. Another matter was objected because that the words are That the said Sir Richard Buckley did abet and procure in hac parte without shewing what thing As to this last Objection The Court was of opinion that the words in hac parte did refer to the whole offence contained in the Indictment Wray It is hard That the matter of the Indictment should be within the Statute of Praemunire for by the suit it is supposed That the offence was done upon the sea and the Admiral hath jurisdiction to punish murthers committed upon the sea so in some degree the Admiral hath Conusance to enquire of Murther but if they hold plea of any thing of which in no degree they have Conusance it is otherwise And as to the place where the commandment was made the Court was clear of opinion that it ought to be shewed CCXXVI Hooper 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. JOhn Hooper 1 Cro. 198. alias Bartholomew of D. c. was indicted upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. Of forcible Entry and Exception was taken to the Indictment in default of addition of the place c. For the addition is here after the alias dict and so there is no addition and therefore the party was discharged and it was holden in this Case That Uxor is a good addition and where the husband and wife are indicted and the husband be indicted of such a place although the wife hath no addition of place yet the same is good enough but Ive said That in that case there needs not any place CCXXVII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. A. Was Indicted for not repairing of a Bridge lying in such a high-way which A. is bound to repair by reason of his land adjoyning and the Indictment was That the Bridge was so ruinous Ita quod Ligei Dominae Reginae per eam transire non possunt and concluded ad nocumentum eorund c. and that was challenged because it doth not say Ad nocumentum omnium subditorum for otherwise it may be intended a private way of which a man cannot be indicted but the party grieved shall have his Action upon the Case But the Exception was not allowed but the Indictment is good enough For the words of the Indictment are Sic quod Ligei Dominae Reginae illuc pertransire non possunt i. e. all the Liege people and Subjects of the Queen and then ad nocument eorund amounts to as much as ad commune nocumentum c. and for that cause the Indictment was holden good enough CCXXVIII Ashpernon 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. ONE Ashpernon was Indicted at the Sessions in the County of Sussex for an unlawfull assembly and entry into the Close of one A. called The Parsonage land before two Iustices of Peace there and exception was taken to it because it is not set down in the Indictment that one of the Iustices was of the Quorum but that the exception was disallowed for the Indictment is sufficient if none of them be of the Quorum for they may enquire but not determine Another exception was because the contents of the Close is not set down in the Indictment scil the number of the acres nor if it be arrable pasture or Meadow but that was disallowed also for this is but an Indictment of trespass contrary it is upon an Indictment upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. Postea 186. for there the party grieved is to have restitution but so he is not here Another exception was taken because that in the Indictment no time is set down when the trespass was done but onely of the assembly but that was disallowed also for both shall be taken to be done together all at one time CCXXIX Leveret and Townsend 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 198. 3 Len. 263. IN an Action upon the Case for disturbing him of his common The Plaintiff declared That he was seised in Fee of a Messuage and certain
upon the Statute of 5 R. 2. against J. and E. J. died pendant the Writ and E. pleaded in Bar and the Plaintiff did reply and conclude and so was he seised untill the said E. Simul cum dicto J. named in the Writ entred upon the Plaintiff c. But the opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary for here in the case at Bar Drake by his several issue which he hath joyned with the Plaintiff upon Not guilty is severed from the other five Defendants and then when they plead in Bar The Plaintiff ought to reply to them without meddling with Drake who upon his several Plea and issue joyned upon it is a stranger to them as if the said five had been the onely Defendants But if he had not replyed to Drake as if Drake had made default or had died after the Writ brought as in the case before cited of 28 E. 4. there he ought to have replyed as it is objected So in an Ejectione firmae of twenty acres The Defendant as to ten acres pleads Not guilty upon which they are at issue and the Plaintiff replies and says as to the other ten acres and so was he possessed untill by the Defendant of the said ten acres he was ejected this is good without speaking of the other ten acres upon which the general issue is joyned And the Court was ready to have given Iudgment for the Plaintiff but they looked upon the Record and seeing that one issue in this Action was to be tryed between the Plaintiff and the said Drake And although the Plaintiff offered to release his damages and the issue joyned and to have Iudgment against the five Defendants who had demurred Vid. antea 41. yet the Court was clear of opinion that no Iudgment should be given upon the said Demurrer untill the said issue was tryed for the Action is an Ejectione firmae in which Case the possession of the land is to be recovered and it may be for any thing that appeareth That Drake who hath pleaded the general issue hath Title to the land c. But if this Action had been an Action of Trespass there in such case Ut supra upon release of damages and the issue joyned the Plaintiff should have Iudgment presently CCLI French 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IT was presented before the Coroner That John French was Felo de se and that certain goods of the said John French were in the possession of J. S. and this presentment was certified into the King's Bench upon which Process issued forth against the said J. S. and continued untill he was Outlawed And now came J. S. and cast in his Writ of Error to reverse the said Outlawry and assigned for Error because that in the presentment upon which he was Outlawed there is not any addition given to the said J. S. And at the first it was doubted If upon that presentment Process of Outlawry did lye and Ive one of the chief Clerks of the Crown-Office said to the Court That such Process in such case did lye and that he could shew five hundred precedents to that purpose Another matter was moved upon the Statute of 1 H. 5. 5. of Additions If this Outlawry by the Statute aforesaid ought to be reversed by default of Addition for as much as the said Statute speaks onely of Outlawries upon original Writs in personal Actions Appeals and Indictments But it was agreed by the whole Court That as to this purpose the presentment should be accounted in Law as an Indictment and afterwards the Outlawry against French was reversed CCLII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. A Lease for thirty years was made by Husband and Wife if they so long should live and if they die c. That the land should remain to A. their son during the term aforesaid And it was holden by Wray Iustice That if the Husband and Wife do die within the term that the son should have the land De novo for thirty years But Gawdy was of opinion that he shall have it for so many years which after their death should be expired CCLIII Cooper 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Ejectionefirmae The Case was That the Husband and Wife had right to enter into certain lands in the right of the wife and a Deed of Lease for years is written in the name of the Husband and Wife to one A. for to try the Title and also a Letter of Attorney to B. to enter into the land and to deliver the said Deed of Lease to the said A. in the name of the Husband and Wife 3 Cro. 118. 2 Cro. 617. Yel and as well the Letter of Attorney as the said Deed of Lease are sealed by the said Husband and Wife with their seals and entry and delivery is made accordingly the said A. enters and upon Ejectment brings an Ejectione firmae and the whole matter aforesaid was found by special Verdict and the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover for the special matter found by Verdict i. e. the Deed of Lease and the Letter of Attorney do maintain the Declaration well enough and here is a Lease made by Husband and Wife according to that the Plaintiff hath declared CCLIV Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action of Trespass for breaking of the Plaintiff's Close Owen 114. 1 Cro. 876. 2 Cro. 195. 229. Godb. 123. and killing of eighteen Conies there the Defendant as to all the Trespass but to the killing of the Conies pleaded Not guilty and as to the killing of the said Conies He said that the place Where is a Heath in which he hath common of pasture and that he found the Conies eating the grass there and he killed them and carried them away as it was lawfull for him to do Cowper Although Conies be Ferae naturae yet when they are in in-grounds they are reduced to such a property that if they be killed or carried away I shall have an Action of trespass Vid. 43 E. 3. 24. And if a Deer be hunted by the Plaintiff in a Forest and afterwards in hunting it be driven out of the Forest and the Forrester doth follow the chase and the Plaintiff kill the Deer in his own grounds yet the Forrester may enter into the land of the Plaintiff and re-take the Deer 12 H. 8. 9. And although the Defendant hath common in the soil yet he cannot meddle with the wood there nor with the land nor with the grass otherwise than with the feeding of his cattel for he hath but a faint interest And if he who hath the Freehold in the land bringeth an Action of trespass against such a commoner for entring into his land and the Defendant plead Not guilty he cannot give in evidence that he hath common there And it hath been late adjudged That where commoners prescribe Godb. 123. That the Lord hath used to put in
discharge is onely material As in debt for arrearages of Rent reserved on a Lease for years if the time and place of the making of the Lease be not set forth in the Declaration the Declaration is not good But if the Defendant plead a collateral matter as release of the arrearages or other such matter now all the imperfections of the Declaration are waved c. At another day the matter was argued again There are three manner of considerations upon which an Assumpsit may be grounded 1 A debt precedent 2 Where he to whom such a promise is made is damnified by doing any thing or spends his labour at the instance of the Promiser although no benefit cometh to the Promiser As I agree with a Surgeon to cure a poor man who is a stranger unto me of a sore who doth it accordingly he shall have an Action 3 Or there is a present consideration c. The first Exception was because the Assumpsit being laid to procure such a Lease which another had i. e. one A. it is not shewed in the Declaration in facto That A. had such a Lease and if he had not any such Lease then there cannot be any consideration to procure it For Ex nihilo nihil fit Secondly the Declaration is That A. was possessed of a Lease for years to be ended and determined in An. 1606. without shewing any beginning of it and although that Lease be but matter of Conveyance and inducement yet because it is the ground of the Action it ought to be certainly and sufficiently set forth Thirdly the Lease to be procured is laid to be made by a College in Cambridge and it is not shewed for what term of years i. e. for 21 years or under for if it be above then such Lease is void Fourthly It is not laid in the Declaration that the Lease was by writing and then void for a College cannot make a Lease without writing and it shall be intended it was made without Deed because it is not laid to be by Deed As if a Corporation makes a Lease for life and afterwards granteth the Reversion for years he that will entitle himself to the said Reversion ought to say in pleading That he made the Lease for life by Deed although the Lease for life in such case be but matter of Conveyance Fifthly It is not laid in the Declaration That the Lease to be assured was in esse and had continuance at the time it was to be assured for although it be laid to be in esse at the time of the promise yet being a particular interest it shall not be intended to continue if it be not specially shewed As 10 H. 7. 26. Sixthly Here the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action but Palmer for the Assumpsit upon which the Action is grounded the money is to be payable to Palmer not to the Plaintiff 2 E. 4. 5. My Bailiff lets my Land to Farm rendring Rent he shall not have an Action for the Rent but I my self in whose right he leased 25 Eliz. It was the Case of one Crewe I promised unto J. S. 25 Eliz. Crew 's Case That in consideration that he will make unto me a Lease for years of such Lands I will assign the same to his servant If he will not make the Lease not J. S. but his servant shall have Action upon the promise and although the Defendant hath pleaded collateral matter by which the promise is confessed yet the same doth not amend the matter for if the Declaration be insufficient the Court ex Officio ought to stay Iudgment As 6 H. 7. 10. In trespass the Defendant pleads That there was an Accord betwixt them that in satisfaction of the said Trespass he should pay to the Plaintiff such a sum and make two Windows the which sum he had paid before the day without speaking any thing of the Windows The Plaintiff pleaded No such Accord and it was found for the Plaintiff and although the Plaintiff doth admit the Plea as good yet the Court ex Officio shall stay the Iudgment See the Book of Entries 4. A Carpenter brought an Action upon the Case and declared generally upon the Assumpsit Pro diversis rebus vocat Carpenters wares pro diversis laboribus per querent at the instance of the Defendant in arte lignaria c. and holden good without any particulars It was adjourned CCLVI. Payne 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer-Chamber A Writ of Error was brought by Payne 3 Len. 144. Treasurer of the Records of the King's-Bench in the Exchequer-Chamber upon a Iudgment given in the Court of Exchequer upon an assignment of a Lease for years by the Earl of Oxford to the Queen One Error is assigned That whereas the issue was joined upon intrusion in taking of the profits and so two matters put in issue The Iury have found Payne guilty of intrusion but have said nothing of the taking of the profits and so the verdict doth not fully meet with the issue But the great matter of the Ease was upon this point The Information is That the Assignment to the Queen was 16 Maii the Intrusion 17 Maii the Inrollment of the Deed of Assignment the 18. of May. So it appeareth upon the Record That the intrusion is supposed to be done before the Queen have any interest in the Lands in which the intrusion is supposed for nothing was in the Queen before the Inrollment For the Queen is a Corporation of State of such prerogative and excellency that she cannot give or take interest in any Lands without matter of Record and this Lease is a Chattel Real and interest in Lands See as to the Inrollment 1 H. 7. 30 31. 5 E. 4. 7. 7 E. 4. 16. But I grant that if the Lessee for years be outlawed the Lease shall be in the King without Office for the Outlawry it self is a sufficient Record to entitle the King to it If the Queen makes a Lease for years of Land rendring Rent with clause That if the Rent be behind that the Lease shall cease if the Rent be not paid it was agreed here in Sir Moile Finche's Case Sir Moile Finches Case That the Lessee continuing his possession shall not be accounted an intruder before Office thereof found but he shall be accountant to the Queen for the profits as Bailiff of his own wrong But here we are charged with intrusion It hath been doubted if personal things be in the King without Office 37 H. 6. but now it is clear that it is as 35 E. 3. Br. Praerogat 113. The Villain of the the King purchaseth goods the property thereof is in the King without seisure and so of all personal Chattels because transitory 1 H. 7. 17. 4 H. 7. 1. 39 H. 6. 26. And here it appeareth upon Record that this Deed of Assignment was delivered to Baron Clark the 16 of May at Westminster and to that we say That the
in which was parcel demised and demiseable according to the custome of the said Manor by Copy in Fee whereof Langley was a Copiholder in Fee c. and the said Earl so seised enfeoffed divers persons of the said Manor unto the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Lord Lumley and Elizabeth his wife daughter of the said Earl and the heirs of their two bodies begotten who made a Lease of the said Customary lands by Indenture unto the Plaintiff for 100 years and the question was If by this Lease the lands be so severed from the Manor that the Copihold is extinct Walmesly took exception to the pleading for that Langley pleads That the custome within the Manor is That if any Copiholder seised of Customary lands of the said Manor dieth thereof seised having many sons That the youngest son shall inherit and he sheweth That the Lord of the said Manor granted to his father and his mother the said customary lands by Copy to have to his said father and mother and the heirs of his father c. And that his father died and that his mother survived him and died and he as youngest son according to the custome entred and he said That this custome set forth by the Defendant doth not maintain his entry For the custome intendeth but a general and immediate descent upon a Copy made unto a man and to his heirs but such is not the descent here for the wife surviveth during whose life the heir cannot enter nor is there here such Estate in the father of the Defendant unto whom the custome set forth in the Avowry can extend For the custome is alledged Where a Copyholder hath a Copyhold Estate to him and his heirs And here the Title of the Defendant is That a customary Estate was granted to the father and the mother and the heirs of the father so as this Estate is not within the Letter of the custome And to that purpose he cited the Case of Sir John Savage Sir John Savage's Case ante 109. late adjudged Where one entitled himself to a Copihold in this manner That within the Manor there is such a custome that if one taketh to wife any customary Tenant of the said Manor in Fee and hath issue by her he if he over-live such wife should be Tenant by the Curtesie and the Case in truth was That he married a woman who at the time of the marriage had not any Copihold but afterwards during the coverture a Copihold descended to her In that Case it was holden That no Tenancy by the Curtesie did accrue by that custome which did not extend but where the wife is a Copiholder at the marriage and a custome shall be in construction taken strictly and shall not be extended beyond the words of it And as to the matter in Law he said That by this Lease the custome was gone and then by consequence the customary Tenancy as to that land is determined for the Estate of the Copiholder is Secundum consuetudinem Manerii ad voluntatem Dom. And now by the Lease Langley cannot hold Secundum consuetudinem Manerii for now the services reserved upon the Copy and the advantages of Waste and other forfeitures are extinct so that if notwithstanding the Lease the customary interest should endure then such a Copiholder should hold this land discharged of all services c. in better Estate than any Freeholder at the Common Law and because the services in Law are discharge and cannot be recovered for that cause the customary interest is determined For the Case is 7 E. 4. 19. by Danby That the Copiholder shall have remedy against his Lord if he put him out for he payes a Fine when he enters but here during this Lease no Fine can be paid upon any descent c. and the Fine is the cause for which the Copiholder shall maintain his possession against the Lord But here no descent or surrender can be presented for there is not any Tenant who can do it See 21 E. 4. 80. by Brian As long as the Copiholder payeth unto the Lord the customs and services If the Lord putteth him out he shall have an Action of Trespass 42 E. 3. 25. If the Copiholder will not do his services the Lord shall seize the lands Dyer 100. 1 Cro. 35. And he resembled this Case to the case where the King grants lands probis hominibus de D. the same is a good Grant and that onely in respect of the Rent and for the reason of that it is a good Corporation But if the King releaseth the Rent the Corporation is dissolved and the Grant is become void Fenner Serjeant contrary and he said That by this Lease being the act of the Lord himself the customary interest is not determined c. And the whole Court was of clear opinion with Fenner That the Copihold did remain for otherwise by such practices of the Lords all the Copiholders in England might be defeated and if any prejudice be grown to the Lord by this act it is of his own doing and against his own act he shall not be relieved And by Periam Iustice The Lord by his act i. e. the making of the Lease hath destroyed his Seignory and lost the services as to this land And Windham Iustice said That the Lord himself had destroyed the custome as to the services but not as to the customary interest of the Tenant but the Lord Anderson was of opinion That the Rents and services do remain and if the Copiholder after such Lease committeth Waste that it is a forfeiture to the Lord and that will fall in evidence upon a trial although such Waste cannot be found by an ordinary presentment and the same Law which alloweth the Copiholder his Copihold interest against this Lease will allow unto the Lord his Rents and services and he said That the Lord shall have the Rents and services and not the Lessee Quod mirum against his own Lease See 33 Eliz. between Murrel and Smith now reported by the Lord Coke in his 4 Report fol. 20. CCLVIII. Russel and Broker 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RUssel brought Trespass against Broker 3 Len. 218. for cutting down of four Oakes The Defendant pleaded That the place where c. and that he is seised of a Messuage in D. And that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Habere consuerunt rationabile estoverium suum for fuel ad libitum suum capiendum in boscis subboscis arboribus ibidem crescentibus and that in quolibet tempore anni but in fawning time The Plaintiff by Replication said That the place where is within the Forrest of c. and that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. Habere consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum de boscis c. per liberationem Forrestarii vel ejus Deputati prout boscus pati potest non ad exigentiam
J. S. he was constrained to pay the money J. S. promised for the same consideration to repay the money 286 D DIminution 3 Distress for Rent 8 Debt 10 26 33 49 88 90 122 126 136 150 153 162 163 172 181 189 200 208 248 Debt for Rent 14 28 67 121 Dower 15 85 174 238 Devise 16 92 123 165 171 198 239 243 276 279 280 287 Debt upon Recognizance 24 Descent no plea nor any title against the Queen 37 Debts of the King by the Statute of 33 H. 8. 39 Disseisin 80 Distress 179 Detinue 201 Discharge of a promise a good plea upon an Assumpsit 270 E ERror 2 3 4 77 86 100 115 132 135 160 161 222 231 244 251 255 256 263 Entry of Records 3 Estopell 3 17 Extent 20 75 167 Exceptions to a Writ 47 Extendi facias sued out and the Liberate not returned if good 65 Escape an Action of Debt brought upon it 112 Execution upon a Statute and the Sheriff voluntarily sets him at large 117 Execution 202 Enquest taken at the instance of the Plaintiff 203 Ejectione firme 250 Exposition of Statutes do belong unto the Queen 's temporal Courts 267 F FEoffments to Uses 7 25 118 183 194 218 233 257 282 285 False imprisonment 43 Fine 38 73 139 169 191 206 263 Formedon 84 196 Feoffment in Fee of Lands parcell of the Dutchy of Lancaster how and of whom the Tenure shall be 184 Fines in Courts 219 G GRant de Advocatione Ecclesiae what passeth 106 Grant of Lands of the Dutchy of Lancaster by the King unto another Tenend in Fee-farm if this Land shall be holden of the King in Capite or holden of the Dutchy 197 Gift where void both by Common-Law and the Statute of 13 Eliz. 284 H HEriot 10 Habeas Corpus not well returned day given to amend it 213 I JUdgment against Bail 2 Indictment upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusancy 6 Justicies no Original but a Commission to the Sheriff 41 260 Information upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. cap. 17. concerning the gaging of vessels of wine 52 In consideration that the Plaintiff would stay an intended suit in Chancery promised that if the Plaintiff can prove that the father of the Defendant took the profits of the Lands in question that he would pay to him for all the said profits 133 Information upon the Statute of Usury 144 In consideration of marriage the Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff 100 l. 146 Joint-tenants in Fee grant a Lease for years rendring Rent and one dies how the Rent shall be divided 148 In consideration that the Testator would forbear the payment of a sum of money for a week he promised to pay him within a week if the Action will lie for the Executors 149 Judgment not to be reversed but by Error or Attaint 154 Information upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 4. by the party grieved The Plaintiff was non-suit yet shall not pay costs and damages 156 Indenture delivered at another day and not the day of the date 157 Indictment for inclosing of Common vi armis c. not good 159 Intruder dying in possession the same descent taketh not away an Entry 182 Indictment upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusants 204 Indictment upon the Statute of Praemunire of 13 15 R. 2. 225 Indictment upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible entry 226 232 Indictment for not repairing of a Bridge 227 Indictment for an unlawfull assembly and entry 228 Indictment upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 4. for drawing of his dagger in the Church 234 Indictment upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury 262 Judgment joynt against three will not lie against one of them in particular 277 L LEases 1 40 78 96 102 110 116 119 131 134 169 178 192 207 236 252 253 261 Leet how holden 31 98 266 Love is no consideration upon which to ground an Action 35 Letters Patents Bona Catalla felonum c. 81 Letters Patents of Offices not to be repealed after the death of the Grantor 128 Limitation and Condition with their difference 52 M MAintenance in returning a partial Jury 177 N NUsance for stopping a River with earth by which land was drowned 129 222 Nudum pactum quid 187 O OUtlawry 23 166 Obligation for appearance upon a Latitat where void 103 220 Office found 169 Obligation that the Obligor shall not exercise his Trade within a Town nor within a certain precinct of it void and against Law 259 P PArtition 3 Prescription 13 Property 35 113 Partitione facienda 69 Privilege is not for an Atturney against an Attachment by the custome of London 190 Presentments several make the Church litigious 205 Privilege pleaded for a Lord of Parliament 209 Prohibition prayed to the Court of Admiralty 224 Payment no good Plea without alledging it upon Record 269 Proof how to be made 273 Q QVare Impedit â—â— 83 Quo Warranto 266 R REceit of the wife 11 Rectory Quid 13 Rent charge 21 185 186 Replevin 29 58 82 87 107 158 168 170 211 274 281 Rents and Services 57 Reparations 72 Replicando of his own wrong how construed 108 Remainder in tail who was attainted of Felony 169 Recognizance of good behaviour 199 Recovery in a Writ of Entry 214 Return of a Devastavit upon a Fieri facias a motion to have an Elegit 235 Replication where good by Executors 265 S SEals 27 Special Plea to an English Bill if it may be relinquished 38 Sheriff must deliver all the prisoners in his custody over to his successor 76 Scire facias against the bail in an action of Debt to which was pleaded the death of the Defendant before Judgment given against him 125 T TEnancy several where no good Plea 9 Trover and conversion 22 50 217 278 Tythes 30 32 93 95 98 105 124 180 216 Tail. 51 54 63 170 247 Trespass against the Warden of the Fleet brought in the King's Bench 56 Tenant per auter vye after the death of Cestuy que use holdeth over if he be a Disseisor 59 Tenant at will if he may grant Copihold Estates to Copiholders 59 Trespass upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible entry 70 Trespass for an assault and battery 104 Tender of rent if refused where good and where not 173 Trespass by one Administrator against another for taking away the goods of the intestate 188 Trespass Quare clausum fregit and new assignment pleaded 230 Toll no lands to be discharged of it but lands Socage onely 240 Trespass Quare clausum fregit 241 Trespass for taking of goods and the Defendant justifies as Bailiff to J. S. 246 Trespass for breaking of the Plaintiffs close and for killing his Conies 254 Trespass for cutting down of four Oaks and the Defendant pleads that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Habere consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum for fuel c. 258 W WRit of entry in the Per 9 Will of the Request of Land and the name of the Devisor not in it if good 44 Waste 45 46 62 210 282 Writ of Annuity 68 Wager of Law 143 Writ of Enquirie of damages if too little damages be found no other Writ pro meliore Enquir can be granted 272 Writ of Entry Sur Disseisin 283 FINIS
of the breach of the Condition the Lessor was not King. Forbisher and Bunny's Case The Case betwixt Sir Martin Forbisher and one Bunny was that the Queen made a Lease of Dutchy Land upon Condition which was broken It was holden that here there needs not any Office for the Queen had those Lands severed from the Crown by Parliament and they passed by the Dutchy Seal by Livery and attornment of the Tenants The Queen leaseth for years Proviso that the Lessee shall not alien such alienation against such a Condition ought to be found by Office and therefore at this day where a Forfeiture is given to the King c. by Statute the words are That the King shall be seised without Office And as to the Relation of an Office he said That an Office may have a Relation as to mean profits but not as to vest the interest from the time of the Title accrued And although that in the Grant of the Queen to Sir Thomas Henage there be these words Non obstante the not finding any Office yet in this case an Office is necessary for the Queen cannot dispense with the Law so to alter or change the Law as to make Lands in Borough-English descendable at the common Law So if the King make a Lease for years with clause of re-entry and afterwards grants the Reversion over to a Subject and farther grants that if the Rent be behind that the Lessor may re-enter without demand yet the Grantee ought to demand the Rent And as our case is here there needs not any Office to entitle the Queen to the Mean profits for although that the Rent was not paid at the day yet it was paid after and all Rent due afterwards and Acquittances given for the same which matter we have specially pleaded to the intent aforesaid upon which the other side have demurred and thereby have confessed it c. But this Office doth not give any interest to the Queen in the thing leased for she hath granted them over before by which she hath disabled her self to take advantage of the Condition aforesaid for she hath surceased her time 8 H. 5. Traverse 47. Tenant for life forfeits his Estate and before the King seiseth The Tenant for life dieth he in the Reversion may enter and the King shall not seise for the King hath surceased his time And if the Queen should have advantage of this Condition she should avoid her own Grant which should be a great inconvenience The Queen leaseth for years Proviso that the Lessee shall not do Waste the Queen grants over the Reversion after Waste done Office is found the Queen gains nothing by it It was agreed in the Case betwixt Knight and Beech 28 Eliz. That the Grant of the Queen Mesn between the award of the Commission and the Retorn of it was good for the Title of the Queen appeareth of Record although that the Commission was not retorned before the Grant made And if an Office should relate unto the time of the Condition broken it should be in vain to argue that point for in the said case it was holden a Record when the Iurors had put their Seals to it before that it be enrolled The acceptance of the Rent and the Acquittances thereof are pleaded 1. To prove that there is no cause to find an Office in this case for the Queen is answered the Mean profits 2. To prove that the Queen hath waved and refused to take the benefit of the Condition but not to conclude the Queen and then you cannot force her to take the benefit of the Condition As the King Lord and Tenant the Tenant dieth his Heir within age the King accepteth of the Services of the Heir and afterwards grants over the Seignory after Office is found the King shall not have the Wardship c. At another day it was argued by Popham Attorny General for the Plaintiff and he said That upon not payment of the Rent the Lease is ipso facto void without any Office found thereof and that by reason of these words shall not be void for he said it is not a Condition but rather a limitation As if the King make a Lease to three for eighty years si tam diu vixerint one of them dieth the Lease is determined without Office So a Lease made vy the Queen for years so long as the Lessee shall pay the Rent reserved or so long as the Lessee shall there inhabit In these cases upon a Lease made by a common person the Lessor before Entry might grant over and the Grantee shall have advantage of it for it is a limitation and by the limitation the Lease is determined before the Grant contrary if it had been by words of re-entry A Lease for sixty years Proviso that if the Lessee shall die within the term that the Lease shall cease the Lessor grants the Reversion over the Grantee shall take advantage thereof by the common Law See the Case 11 H. 7. 17. it is a limitation and not a Condition And he said in this case an Office is necessary not to avoid the Lease for that was void before nor to punish the Lessee as a Trespassor or to fine him for the continuance of his wrongfull possession but to make him responsable as an Accountant In the Lease of a common person where the clause is That the Lease shall cease If after the Rent behind the Lessee continueth his possession yet the Lessor shall not punish the Lessee as a Trespassor before his Entry for the Lessee by his continuance is but Tenant at sufferance for his first Entry was lawfull And he agreed the Books 14 H. 8. and 2 H. 7. That such advantages that a common person cannot have without Entry the Queen cannot have without Office But a common person before Entry cannot punish another by way of Trespass therefore neither the Queen without Office shall punish one as an Intruder And as to the Case now lately adjudged betwixt Knight and Beech the same doth not extend to our Case Knight and Beech's case for there an Office was requisite before the Grant of the Queen because the per-close of the Condition was That the Prior should re-enter and it is very clear That Chattels vest in the Queen without Office. And in this Case an Office is necessary for two purposes 1. To make the Grant good 2. To make the Occupier accountable for the Mean profits and to give recompence which the Queen is not enabled unto without Office. And here the Patentee shall have advantage of the cesser of this Lease For 1. He hath the Inheritance lawfully and 2. The Lease is determined If there were no Non obstante in the Letters Patents the said Lease ought to have been recited if it had not been determined and if it be determined as this case is it ought to be recited if there were not a Non obstante for non constat to the Queen if it
land and that he and all those whose Estate c. have common of pasture in 16 acres of land called D. from the time that the corn was reaped untill it be sowed again and also common of pasture in lands called R. omni tempore anni as appendant to the said Messuage and land and that the Defendant had plowed the said lands and so disturbed him of his common and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in stay of Iudgment That here it appeareth that the Plaintiff was seised in Fee and so he ought to have an Assize and not an action upon the Case but the exception was disallowed per Curiam See 2 H. 4. 11. 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. 11 H. 2. Action upon the Case 36. CCXXX Hore and Wridlesworth 's Case Mich. 32. Eliz. In the King 's Bench. HOre brought an Action of trespass against Wridlesworth Quare clausum domum suam fregit The Defendant pleaded and put the Plaintiff to a new assignment i. a House called a Stable a Barn and another house called a Carthouse and Garnier and that was assigned for Error for that Assignment is not warranted by the Declaration Gawdy The same is good enough for Domus in the Declaration contains all things contained in the new Assignment But if the Declaration had been of a Close and the new Assignment of a Barn it had not been good Wray Domus est nomen collectivum and contains many buildings as Barns Stables c. and so was the opinion of the whole Court. CCXXXI Savacre 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. A Writ of Error Ante 4. was brought by Savacre and the Bishop of Gloucester M. 31 and 32 Eliz. upon a Iudgment given in a Quare Impedit for the Queen And Error assigned 1. An Attachment was awarded against the Defendant in the Quare Impedit retornable Quind Pasch at which Savacre appeared and cast an Essoin and notwithstanding that a Distringas was awarded against them both retorned Crast Trin. and the awarding the Distringas was erronious for the Essoin was as an appearance for to save c. and therefore against him no Distringas ought to have been awarded And upon alledging of Diminution the Record of the Essoin was certified for the same did not appear upon the Plea Roll. 2 The Record is Ipsi in Misericord and so both of the Defendants are amerced for the default of appearance Quind Pasch whereas Savacre was then Essoined and so no cause of amerciment of him Coke The original Writ was here sued Mic. 26 Eliz. retornable Quind Hillar and then both the Defendants made default for which an Attachment was awarded retornable 15 Pas and then Savacre appeared and Iudgment was given Quod ipsi sint in Misericord in which point the Error is assigned But I conceive that it is not Error for upon the Attachment the parties ought to put in sureties for their appearance and the said sureties took upon them that the Defendants and each of them should appear and if they or one of them maketh default the sureties should be amerced and so here this Iudgment Ideo ipsi in Misericord shall refer to the sureties not to the parties for the Defendants shall not be amerced untill the end of the suit and but once onely in one action which see Book of Entries 464. where there was but one Defendant and therefore If the amerciment shall refer to the Defendant then it should be Ideo ipse not ipsi c. and that is the reason wherefore neither the Queen nor an Infant shall find pledges for no amerciament shall be upon their default therefore in vain for them to find pledges c. And if the pledges be amerced where they ought not to be amerced by the Law yet the Defendant shall not have Error upon it for he is not the party grieved by that amerciament And upon this reason it is That in a Scire facias against the bail if erronious Iudgment be given against him the Defendant in the Action shall not have a Writ of Error The awarding of the Distress upon the Roll against both where the one of them onely makes default is not error especially as this case is for though that one of them was Essoined untill the day aforesaid yet at the said day they make default and so the Distress is well awarded against him and although that the Writ were ill awarded yet when they appear Cr. Trinit at the day of the retorn of the Distress all mean defaults in the Process are saved and so the misawarding of the Distress by appearance afterwards is supplyed As 39 E. 3. 7. The Law requires that in an action grounded upon the Statute of Praemunire 27 E. 3. the Defendant hath warning by two Months yet if the Defendant having not had such warning appeareth the Process is well enough So 9 E. 4. 18. Where upon any Process the Defendant appeareth although the day of appearance be not lawfull yet the parties shall be put to answer and see many cases there to the same purpose and such was the opinion of the Court in the principal Case And as to the second Error that the Iudgment Ideo ipsi in Miseric shall be referred to the sureties onely and not unto the party and that the Defendant shall be but once amerced in one action the same is true that he shall be but once amerced for one default but if many defaults be the Defendant shall be severally amerced for every default And it should be unreasonable that the sureties should be amerced and that the Defendant who is as principal should go free See the Book of Entries 193. Ipsi plegii sui in Misericordia c. CCXXXII Farnam 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench FArnam Schoolmaster and others were Indicted upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. for entring In domum Rectoriae de Putney ac in cert terras eidem domui part jacen in Putney c. Exception was taken to the Indictment because it recited the two parts of the Statute 1 Expulsion and Disseisin with Force 2 Holding out and there is not any offence in it contained as to one of them scil Holding out and although it was not necessary to recite the Statute yet the party meddles with it and doth not apply it to the special matter the same is naught See for that the Case between Strange and Partridge Plow Com. 2 The entry is supposed In domum certas terras eidem domui pertinen jacen in Putney which is incertain as to the lands and it is naught for the house also for it is not shewed in what Town the house is for this clause ac certas-terras eidem domui pertin jacen in Putney is a distinct clause by it self and refers onely to the lands and doth not extend to the house As to the first exception is was disallowed for it is not like unto Partridge's Case for there the