one of them dieth her Heir within age and in Ward to the King The Church voideth and the King is disturbed in his presentment he shall have a Scire facias upon such composition notwithstanding that he be a stranger to it See F.N.B. 34 H. And by all the Iustices if one recover in Debt upon a simple contract and before execution the Plaintiff is out-lawed in an Action personal the King shall sue execution And see 37 H. 6. 26. Where in Debt upon an Obligation it was surmised to the Court that the Plaintiff was out-lawed And the Kings Attorney prayed delivery of the Obligation c. LXXXV Moile and the Earl of Warwicks Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Quare Impedit A Quare Impedit was brought by Walter Moile against Ambrose Earl of Warwick and the Archbishop of Canterbury And now came the Serjeanes of the Queen and shewed an Office to entitle the Queen to have a Writ to the Bishop containing such matter viz. That one Guilford was seised of the Manor of D. to which the Advowson of the Church was appendant and that Manor was holden in chief by Knights service and that Guilford and his Wife levied a Fine thereof to the use of themselves for their lives the remainder over in tail to their eldest Son and that Guilford is dead but who is his next Heir ignorant And it was shewed by the Council of the other side that the truth of the Case was that the said Guilford was seised of the said Manor in the right of his Wife and so levied the Fine in which Case the said coveyance is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. for it was for the advancement of the Husband not of the Wife which Anderson granted Vide Dyer 19 Eliz. 354. Caverlies Case but that is not in the Office And it was moved at the Bar that the Office is imperfect because no Heir is found But Anderson the Office is sufficient for the King to seise although it be insufficient for the Heir c. And it was agreed by the whole Court Office trove that the Court ought not to receive the Office although one would affirm upon oath that it is the very Office but it ought to be brought in under the Great Seal of England and also the Court shall not receive it without a Writ and yet Nelson Prothonotary said that the Statute of Huy and Cry of Winchester was brought into the Court without a Writ under the great Seal A Record not to be brought into Court without a Writ 63. and that was out of the Tower And in that Case also the Iustices held that if a Record be pleaded in the same Court where it abides the other party against whom it is pleaded may plead Nul tiel Record as if the said Record had bin remaining in another Court which all the Prothonotaries denied that always it had been used to the contrary At another day the Case was moved again The Plaintiff in the Quare Impedit counted that Richard Guilford was seised of the said Manor c. in the right of Bennet his Wife and so seised they both levied a Fine thereof to a stranger Sur Conusans de droit come ceo who rendred it to the Husband and Wife for their lives the remainder to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband and they so being seised the Husband alone levied a Fine to a stranger Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. and by the same Fine the Conusee rendred to the Husband and Wife in tail the remainder to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband the Husband died seised the Wife entred and leased the said Manor to the Plaintiff and then the Church did become void And now the Queens Serjeants came and shewed unto the Court an Office which came in by Mittimus In which Writ the perclose is Mandamus vobis quod inspectis c. pro nobis fieri faciatis quod secundum leges consuetudinem Regni nostri Angliae faciend Statuetis And the Office did purport that the said Richard was seised of the said Manor and held the same of the Queen as of her Castle of Dover by Knights service in chief and levied the Fine ut supra and that the said Richard died sed quis sit propinquior haeres dict Ric. penitus ignorant and upon that Office prayed a Writ to the Bishop for the Queen And two Exceptions were taken to the Office First because it is not found by the said Office that the said Richard died seised 1 Cro. 895. in which Case it may be for any thing that appeareth in the Office that the said Richard after the said Fine had conveyed his estate in the said Lands unto others or that he was disseised c. See 3 H. 6. 5. If it be not found of what estate the Tenant of the King died seised the Office is insufficient But see there by Martin that such an Office is good enough for the King but not for the Heir to sue his Livery upon it And by Anderson Periam and Rhodes that defect in the Office is supplyed by the Count for there it is expressly alledged that the said Richard died seised Secondly because no Heir is found by the said Office. To which it was said by the Lord Anderson that peradventure at the Common Law the same had been a material Exception But we ought to respect the Statutes of 32 and 34 H. 8. of Wills. And therefore as to the Wife the Queen is entitled to Primer seisin because the conveyance was made for her advancement And by Windham the Queen in this Cale shall not have Primer seisin for by the Statute the Queen shall not have Primer seisin but in such Case where if no conveyance had been made the Queen should have had Primer seisin but in this Case for any thing that appears before us if this conveyance had not been made the Queen should not have had Primer seisin forasmuch as no Heir is found and if he died without Heir there is no Primer seisin because there is not any in rerum natura to sue livery Rhodes Periam and Anderson contrary Admitting that Richard died withou Heir the Queen shall have Primer seisin against the Wife of Richard notwithstanding the escheat Walmesley Serjeant If the Tenant of the King by Knights service in chief dieth seised of other Lands holden of a common person by Knights service without Heirs the King shall not have Primer seisin of such Lands holden of a Subject which Windham granted But by Anderson the Lord is put to sue an Ouster le mayne of the Land holden of him And afterward Exception was taken to the Count because the Plaintiff hath not averred the life of the Tenant in tail that is of Bennet the Wife of Richard to whom
second Lessee and declared upon a Lease made for years without speaking of the Indenture And Gawdy Serjeant demanded the opinion of the Court if the Defendant might safely plead no Wast And they conceived that it should be dangerous so to do Then it was demanded if the Defendant plead that the Plaintiff had nothing tempore dimissionis whereof he had counted if the Plaintiff might estop the Defendant by the Indenture although he had not counted upon it and if such Replication be not a departure And it seemed to Periam and Leonard Custos brevium that it was not for it is not contrary to the Declaration but rather doth enforce the Declaration CCXXI Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WAlmesley Serjeant demanded the opinion of the Court upon this matter Land is given to Husband and Wife in special tail during the Coverture they have issue the Husband is attainted of Treason and dieth the Wife continues in as Tenant in tail the issue is restored by Parliament and made inheritable to his Father saving unto the King all advantages which were devolded unto him by the Attainder of his Father the Wife dieth And he conceived that the issue was inheritable for the Attainder which disturbed the inheritance is removed and the blood is restored and nothing can accrue to the King for the Father had not any estate forfeitable but all the estate did survive to the Wife not impeachable by the said Attainder And when the Wife dieth then is the Issue capable to enherit the estate tail Windham and Rhodes prima facie thought the contrary yet they agreed that if the Wife had suffered a common Recovery the sâ—me had bound the King. CCXXII Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Assumpsit that he had delivered to the Defendant diversa bona ad valentiam 10 li. the Defendant in consideration thereof did promise to pay to the Plaintiff the Debt owing pro bonis praedictis and did not shew that the Defendant bought the said goods of the Plaintiff and so it doth not appear that there was any Debt and then a promise to pay it is meerly void which was agreed by the whole Court. CCXXIII. Seaman and Brownings Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. GEorge Seaman brought Debt upon a Bond against W. Browning and others Executors of one Marshal the condition was Debt that where the said Marshal had sold certain Lands to the Plaintiff if the said Plaintiff peaceably and quietly enjoy the said Lands against the said Marshal c. and assigned the breach in this that the said Marshal had entred upon him and cut down five Elms there upon which the parties were at issue And it was found that A. servant of the said Marshal by commandment of his said Master had entred and cut c. in the presence of his said Master and by his commandment for he is a principal Trespassor And it was so holden by the Court. CCXXIV. Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IF the Kings Tenant by Knights service dieth his Heir within age 8 Co. 172. and upon Office found the King seiseth the Body and Land yet the Heir during the possession of the King may sell the Lands by Deed enrolled or make a Lease of such Land and the same shall bind the Heir notwithstanding the possession of the King but if he maketh a Feoffment in Fee it is utterly void for the same is an intrusion upon the possession of the King but where the King by Office found is entituled to the Inheritance as that his Tenant dieth without Heir whereas it is false for which the King seiseth in such case the Tenant of the King before his Ouster le mayne cannot make a Lease for years or sell the Land by Deed enrolled The Case depended in London before the Iudges of the Sheriffs Court. The King by colour of a false Office which doth falsly entitle him to the Inheritance is seised of certain Land he who hath right leased the same for years by Deed indented and then an Ouster le mayne was sued and he enfeoffed a stranger And it was holden that the Lease should not bind the Feoffee although it was by Deed indented for the Feoffee is a stranger to the Indenture and therefore shall not be estopped by it 18 H. 6. 22. A stranger shall not take advantage of an Estoppel and therefore shall not be bound by it As if one take a Lease for years by Indenture of his own Lands the same shall bind him but if he dieth without Heir it shall not bind the Lord in point of Escheat CCXXV. Gibbs Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 861. Owen 27. GIbbs brought an Action upon the Case upon Trover and Conversion of a Gelding and the Case was that one P. had stolen the said Horse and sold the same unto the Defendant in open Market by the name of Lister and the said false name was entred in the Toll-book And it was holden clear by the Court that by that sale the property was not altered CCXXVI Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Owen 45. Hutton 105. 1 Cro. 734. Post 322. TEnant in Socage leased his Lands for four years and died his Heir within the age of eight years the Mother being Guardian in Socage leased the Land by Indenture to the same Lessee for fourteen years It was holden by the Court that in this Case the first lease is surrendred but otherwise upon a Lease made by Guardian by Nurture CCXXVII Kimpton and Dawbenets Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass the Defendant did justifie by a grant of the Land where c. by Copy The Plaintiff by Replication saith that the Land is customary Land ut supra and claimed the same by a former Copy The Defendant by Rejoynder saith that well and true it is that the Lord may grant Copies in possession at his pleasure and also estates by Copy in Reversion with the assent of the Copy-holder in possession but all estates granted by Copy in Reversion without such assent have been void It was argued that this custom is not good for it is not reason that the Lord in disposing of the customary possessions of his Manor should depend upon the will of his Tenant at will and the same is not like to the case of Attornment for there the Attendancy is to be respited which is not to be done here for the Copy-holder in possession shall continue attendant to his Lord notwithstanding such a grant in Reversion And see for the unreasonableness of the custom 19 Eliz. 357. in Dyer Sallfords Case It was moved on the other side that the Custom was good enough and 3 H. 6. 45. was vouched That every Freehold of a Manour upon alienation might surrender his Land c. It was adjourned CCXXVIII Marriot and Pascalls Case in a Writ of
hoc that he was indebted to the Plaintiff antea vel post the said day aliquo modo upon which the Plaintiff did demur It was argued that the Traverse was not good for the consideration in Assumpsit is not traversable because it is but conveyance and amounts to the general Issue as in debt upon the sale of a Horse it is no Plea for the Defendant to say that no such Horse was sold to him Patridge If the conveyance be the ground of the Suit it is traversable an Action upon the Case against an Hostler it is a good Plea that he is not an Hostler 2 H. 4 7. See 26 H. 8. Br. Traverse 341. In an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas the Defendant habuit ex deliberatione of the Plaintiff certain goods the said Defendant in consideration of ten shillings Assumpsit eidem querenti promisit salvo Custodire c. Non habuit ex deliberatione is a good Plea. Godfrey The Defendant doth not answer the point of our Action which is the Assumpsit but only by way of Argument 11 E. 4. 4. In Trespass upon the Statute of 5 R. 2. by the Master of a Colledge and his confreers the Defendant doth justifie by reason of a Lease made by a Predecessor of the Plaintiff and his Confreers by their Deed under their Common Seal the Plaintiff Replicando saith That at the time of the making of the Lease there was no such Colledge and it was holden no Plea for it is no answer but by Argument Gawdy Iustice In all cases where the Defendant may wage his Law there the conveyance is traversable Wray The cause of the Action is the Assumpsit therefore the consideration is not traversable for it is not the point with which the Plaintiff is charged And it is common here that the Declaration in such Action upon the Case Traverse in consideration of divers sums of money without any more certainty is good which should not be good if the consideration were traversable but the consideration is to be given in Evidence and it is also common that in an Action upon the Case in Trover and Conversion the Trover is not traversable for the Conversion is the point of the Action Fenner Iustice The debt here is no cause of the Action but only the Assumpsit In debt upon Arbitrament the Arbitrament is traversable So in debt for Rent upon a Demise the Demise is traversable Antea 189. for the Arbitrament and Demise is the cause and ground of the Action At another day it was moved again and Gawdy mutata opinione said that consideration Executory is traversable As where one in consideration that he may marry my Daughter or of service promiseth to pay the same consideration is traversable contrary of a Consideration executed And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCXLI Estons Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Court of Wards ESton was seised of Lands in Fee holden of the King in chief 1 Cro. 243. and took a Wife seised of other Lands holden in Socage they have Inne and the Husband dieth and afterwards the Wife dieth Owen Serjeant conceived That the Queen should not have the Wardship of the Land of the Wife or the primer seisin of it And if the Husband had survived his Wife being Tenant by the Curtesie the Queen should not have Primer seisin of it after his decease Wray If the Father be seised of Lands holden in Soccage and the Mother of Lands holded in Knights service and the Husband over-lives his Wife being Tenant by the Curtesie the King shall have all Anderson denied that and he conceived That the opinion of Stamford is not Law and yet see 13 H. 4. 278. Where the Father is seised of Lands in chief and the Mother of other and the Father dieth and afterwards the Mother dieth both shall be in ward And it was said That if there be Grandfather Father and Son and the Father dieth seised of Lands holden in Socage and afterwards the Grandfather dieth seised of Lands in Knights service the Lands in Socage shall not be in ward Anderson held strongly That the Queen should have Primer seisin of the Lands of the Mother Wray contrary Quaere CCCXLII Ellis Hartops Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Court of Wards ELlis Hartop was seised of divers Lands whereof part was holden of the King in Knights service and devised two parts thereof to W. Denham and his Heirs to the use of T. his brother and his wife and afterwards to the use of the said T. and his Heirs males T. died in the life of the Devisor and afterwards a Son is born First it was agreed that a Devise might be to the use of another Then when Cesty que use dyeth in the life of the Devisor the Devisee shall take it and when a Son is born it shall go to him But if the use be void then the Devisee shall have it to his own use for every devise doth imply a consideration Coke was of opinion That the Son takes by descent when Cestuy que use to whom Land is devised doth refuse the use the Devisee cannot take it for he shall not have it to his own use for if the use be void the devise is also void And the use is void for Cestuy que use died in the life of the Devisor which see Bret and Rygdens case A man seised of three Acres bargains and sells one of them without shewing which and that before the Statute of 27 H. 8. The Bargainee dyeth before Election no Election descends to the Heir for then he should be a Purchasor And by Wray and Anderson The devise is void and it is all one with Brett and Rigdens case And by Anderson a man deviseth Lands to the use of one which use by possibility is good and by possibility not good If afterwards Cestuy que use cannot take the Devise shall be to the use of the Devisor and his Heirs CCCLXIII Weston and Garmons Case Trin. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assize 1 Cro. 226. ASsize was brought of a Rent of fifty pounds per annum and the Plaintiff made his plaint to be disseised of his Free-hold in H. E. and H. W And shewed that John Vaughan and Amy his Wife who before was the wife of one Weston and Mother of Sir Henry Weston the Plaintiff in the Assize was seised of the said Manors of H.W. and H.E. lying in Barton and Kinton in Fee. And 18 Eliz. a Fine was levied betwixt Robert Vaughan and Miles Whitney Complainants and the said John Vaughan and Amy his Wife and Francis their Son Deforceants of the said two Manors inter alia per nomen of the Manors of H.E. and H.W. and of fifty Messuages three hundred Acres of Lands two hundred Acres of Meadow cum pertinentiis in the said Towns by which Fine the said Deforceants did acknowledge the right of the said Manors and Tenements to be
Plaintiff for certain Beasts which he wrongfully took from the Plaintiff that then c. And he said in facto That the said I. S. had stolen the said Beasts from the Plaintiff Condition against Law. and thereof he was endicted c. and so the condition being against the Law the Obligation was void upon which the Plaintiff did demurr in Law. And it was argued by the whole Court That where the condition of an Obligation shall be said against the Law and therefore the Obligation void the same ought to be intended where the condition is expresly against the Law in express words and in terminis terminantibus Post 103. and not for matter out of the condition as it is in this case And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff C. Hawks against Mollineux Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN a Replevin by Hawks against Mollineux who avowed for Damage-fesant The Plaintiff in Bar of the Avowry pleaded that Sir Gervase Paston Knight was seised of a Messuage and twenty Acres of Land And that always those whose estate Repleviâ— Yelv. 185. Prescription c. have used to have Common in the place where c. for all their Cattel commonable in this manner viz. If the said Land be sowed by assent of the Commoner then no Common until the Corn be mowed and when the Corn is mowed then Common until the Land shall be sowed again by assent of the Commoners And this Prescription was found by Verdict and exception was taken to this prescription because against common right so as a man cannot sow his Land without the leave of another But the exception was disallowed by the Court for the prescription was holden to be good by the whole Court for by the Law of the Land the Owner of the Land cannot plow the Land where another hath Common but here is a benefit to each party as well for the Owner of the Land against the Commoner as for the Commoner against the Tenant of the Land for each of them hath a qualified Interest in the Land. CI. Baldwin and Cocks Case Intr. Pasch 29 Eliz. Rot. 1410. In Communi Banco Replevin Owen 52. Post 225. 1 Inst 225. 2. BAldwin was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Cocks and upon the pleading the Case appeared to be this That Sir Richard Wayneman was seised of the place where c. and leased the same to one Truepeny and one Eliz. Reade for term of 21 years if the said Truepeny and Eliz. or any child or children betwixt them begotten should live so long Eliz. within the term died without issue If now the term for 21 years be determined was the Question And the Lord Anderson conceived that the estate for years is not determined by the death of Elizabeth And it was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant that upon the matter the term is determined And he put the Case of the Lord Bray 3 Eliz. Dyer 190. Where the Lord Bray sold unto four great Lords the marriage of his Son and Heir to the intent to be married at the appointment and nomination of the said Lords the Lord Bray died one of the said Lords before any marriage 5 Co. 9 1 Brown. 31. 46 47. 80. 101. 2 Br. 83. 148. or appointment or nomination died the Son is married by the appointment c. of the surviving Lords That marriage is not within the intent of the Covenant and adjudged that upon that marrriage no use shall accrue And also he cited this Case adjudged in the Kings Bench. The administration is committed to one durante minore aetaâ—e of two Infants one of them becomes of full age the power of the Administration is determined which Walmesley Serjeant granted for it is but an authority but here in the Case at Bar is a matter of interest And by Anderson all the construction of this lease and grant rests upon this point if this word Or either shall be taken as disjunctive as it is in its nature or as a conjunctive and if it be taken as a disjunctive if it make the whole sentence in the disjunctive as if the limitation had been if the Husband or Wife or any Child c. And Fenner put this Case out of 17 E. 3. as he cited it Land is given to I. S. in Fee so long as A. B. hath issue of his body A. B. dieth without issue his Wife priviment enâ—â—ent Now the estate is determined and upon birth of the issue after shall not revive which Rhodes and Anderson denied for in many Cases the Law shall respect the existency of the child in the mothers belly And see 7 Eliz. Plow 289. where a Copulative shall be taken in the disjunctive as a covenant with B. to make a lease for years of such Lands to the said B. and his Assigns Exposition of words in deeds 244. Post 251. 1 Roll. 444. the same shall be construed or his Assigns And it was clearly agreed by the other parties that if the words had been If Truepeny Elizabeth or any child or children c. so long c. upon the death of any of them the interest is determined And by Rhodes Periam and Windham in the principal Case the lease shall endure as long as any of the persons named in the Proviso shall live and so seemed to be the meaning of the parties And Anderson haesitavit in the words of the limitation i. the Habendum to the said Truepeny and Eliz. for 21 years a festo Sancti Johannis Baptist post terminum annorum the expiration of a former term if the said Truepeny and Elizabeth or any child c. And he conceived that the limitation did go to the commencement of the lease only and not to the expiration or determination as if the lease should not begin if they all were not alive at the commencement of the lease And all the other Iustices were clear of the contrary opinion for by them this limitation shall go and shall be referred to the determination of the Lease and not to the commencement of it Anderson If any cause should be for which the lease should endure untill the years be encurred notwithstanding the death of the Husband or Wife it was because the lease was intended a common advancement to both for it should be in vain to name the Wife in the lease if the lease should cease by the death of the Husband And afterwards after many arguments on both sides it was adjudged that by the death of Elizabeth the lease was not determined for the disjunctive before Child makes all the limitation in the disjunctive CII Zouch and Bamfields Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco THe Case between the Lord Zouch and Bamfield was now argued by the Iustices And Rhodes the puisne Iustice argued 1 And. 165. 3 Co. 88. that the Lord Zouch the Demandant should be barred Four Exceptions have been taken to the bar First because it is not shewed in
which process issued out of the Exchequer to take and seize all the goods and two parts as well of all the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments Leases and Farms of such Offender as of all other the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments liable to such seisure or to the penalties aforesaid by the true meaning of this Act leaving the third part c. And Popham Attorney General moved If a Recusant hath more than a third part of his Lands in Copy-hold land if this Copy-hold as to the surplusage shall be liable to the penalty Manwood chief Baron conceived that the Copy-hold is liable in this Case by the Statute although not directly by express words yet within the intent of it and that by reason of these words all other the lands c. liable to such seisure c. Walmes Serjeant Copy-hold is not liable to a Statute Merchant or Staple also if the Queen hath the Copy-hold how shall the Lord have the services which the Queen cannot do Also a Copy-hold is not an Hereditament within this Statute which extends only to Hereditaments at the common Law and not by custom Also in Acts of Parliaments which are enacted for forfeiture of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments by those words they shall not forfeit Copy-holds Clark Baron this Statute was made to restrain Recusants from taking the benefit of their Livings and Copy-holds are their Livings as well as Free-holds and by this Statute the Queen shall not have every estate in the Copy-hold Land but only the taking of the profits but the scope of the Statute was to impair the Livings of Recusants and that by driving of them for want of maintenance to repair to the Church Walmesley If the Statute had given to the Queen to seise two parts of their livings then the Statute had extended to Copy-holds Manwood when a Statute is made to transfer an estate by name of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments the Copy-hold is not within such Statute but if the Lords Signiory his Customs and Services are not to be impeached or taken away by such Statute then it is otherwise for such Statute doth not make another Tenant to the Lord And by him Copy-holder shall pay Subsidies and he shall be assessed according to the value of his Copy-hold as well as of his Freehold and in this Case the Queen is to have the profits of the Lands only but no estate At another day the case was argued for the Recusants by Snag Serjeant and he said that these words Lands Tenements and Hereditaments are to be construed which are such at the Common Law not by Custom If I give to one all my Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in D. my Copy-holds do not pass and Statutes which are made to take away Possessions and Hereditaments out of persons ought to be strictly taken and not by Equity The Statute of 13 Eliz. of Bankrupts enacts that the Commissioners may sell the Lands and Tenements of the Bankrupts if the Statute had not made a further provision the Commissioners could not sell Copy-hold Lands but there are express words in the Statute for that purpose i.e. as well copy as fee Also the Staute of 13 Eliz. cap. 4. of Auditors and Receivers of the Queen doth not extend to Copy-holds And it should be a great prejudice to the Lords of such Copy-holds that the Queen should have the Land. Popham the intention of the Law somtimes causes a liberal construction of a Statute in the letter of it What Statutes extend to Copy-holds somtimes a strict and precise exposition and here it appeareth that the intention of the Statute was that the Queen should have all the goods of the offender and two parts of the Lands c. Leases and Farms and the Recusant but the third part of all his Lands only And therefore the Recusant is not to have any other thing but only that which is allotted to him by the Statute and that is the third part which is all the maintenance which the Law allows him and then if Copy-holds be not within this Statute a Recusant who hath great possessions in Copy-holds and hath no Free-hold should be dispunishable and hath his full maintenance against the meaning of the Statute And he said that many things are within the meaning of a Statute â—y 5. 6. Co. 3. Inst 109 Yel 60. 12 Co. 12. which are not within the words as Bonds Obligations and Specialties made to Recusants shall pass to the Queen by this Statute by force of the word goods according to the meaning of the Statute and all personal things are within the Statute c. profits of the Lands Advowsons and the like and the very scope of the Statute was to take away from Recusants all personal things whatsoever and two parts of real things as Leases Farms Lands Tenements c. with the intent that with the superfluity of their goods and possessions she should not maintain Iesuits and Seminary Priests people more dangerous than the Recusants And by him Lands in ancient demesne are liable to the penalties by the Statute although not by express words So if a Recusant hath Lands extended by him upon a Statute acknowledged unto him that Interest is not properly a Lease or Farm yet it is Land within this Statute liable c. And if I be Tenant by Elegit or Statute c. of Lands in D. not having other Lands in the said Town and I grant all my Lands in D. my Interest ut supra shall pass contrary If I have other Lands there And I grant that if I have Copy-hold Lands in D. and none other and I grant all my Lands in D. Copy-hold Land shall not pass by such assurance because that Copy-hold cannot pass but by surrender If I put out a Copy-holder out of his Lands the same is a Disseisin to the Lord of whom the Copy-hold is holden And if I levy a Fine of such Lands and five years pass not only the Lord is bounden as to his Free-hold and Inheritance but also the Copy-holder for his possession for the intent of the Statute of 4 H. 7. was to take away controversies litibus finem imponere 5 Co. 124. and contention may be as well for Copy-hold as for Land at the common Law. One hath a Lease for years to begin at a day to come he who hath the Free-hold thereof is disseised the Disseisor levieth a Fine five years pass he who hath the Free-hold is bound by it but not he who hath the Interest for years in futuro as it hath been lately adjudged But he said That if that point were to be handled again the Law would be taken to the contrary but it is clear that a Lease in possession shall be bound by such Fine And as unto any prejudice to the Lord it is clear that notwithstanding that the Queen hath the Copy-hold Land yet the Lord shall have the Rent during the possession of the Queen which is the
amount to a Re-entry And afterwards to prove a Re-entry it was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part that the Defendant put in his Cattel in the Field where the Brick-kill was and that the Cattel did estray into the place where the Defendant had supposed that the Plaintiff had entred And by Anderson Iustice the same is not any Re-entry to revive the Rent because they were not put into the same place by the Lessee himself but went there of their own accord And such also was the opinion of Iustice Periam CL. Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail covenanted with his Son to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son in tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father The Father levyed a Fine with proclamation and died It was moved by Fenner if any estate passed to the Son by the Covenant for it is not a discontinuance and so nothing passed but during his life and all the estates which are to begin after his death are void Anderson The estate passeth until c. and he cited the case of one Pitts where it was adjudged that if Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grant the same in Fee and an Ancestor collateral releaseth with warranty and dieth That the same is a good Bar for ever CLI Staffords Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe case was Attachment upon a Prohibition More 599. that the Parson of the Church of B. did libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for Ttithe-milk of eight Kine depasturing within such a Field within his Parish The Defendant said that he and all those c. had used time out of mind c. to pay every year a certain sum of mony to the Parson c. for the Tithes of the same Field which plea the Iudges of the Ecclesiastical Court would not allow and therefore the party had now a Prohibition and an Injunction against the Iudges Doctors Proctors c. And afterwards the same Parson libelled again for the same Tithes against the same Parishioner and in both libels there was no difference but that in the later libel it was for a less number of Kine and now the Parishioner upon this matter prayed an Attachment upon the Prohibition which was granted unto him by the Court for otherwise a Prohibition should be granted to no purpose CLII. Samford and Wards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SAmford brought a Ravishment of Ward against Ward Ravishment of Ward and counted hat one A. Ancestor of the Infant whose Heir he is was seised of certain Lands in Fee and held the same of the Bishop of Winchester in Socage and died his Heir within the age of 14 years and that the custody of the Infant did belong unto him as his prochein Amy by force of which he seised him and was possessed c. The Defendant saith that the Land was holden of him by Knights service absque hoc that it is holden of the Bishop of Winchester as the Plaintiff hath counted And upon the Issue was joyned And it was moved by Serjant Puckering on the Plaintiffs part that the truth of the Case was that all the Land descended is holden in Socage and no part in Knights service but that part of it is holden of another in Socage And prayed the opinion of the Court if that matter shall trench to the Issue as the same is joyned And the Court was of opinion that it did not for if all be holden in Socage it is not material if part of it be holden of another so as it be holden in Socage CLIII Stamp and Hutchins Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was the Obligor makes his Executors and dieth 1 Cro. 120. the Executors become bounden to the Obligee for the payment of the said Debt and the Obligee doth deliver back the Obligation of the Testator to them and afterwards another Creditor of the Testator sues the Executors who pleaded that they have fully administred upon which they are at issue and the said especial matter was found by verdict And by Shuttleworth and Walmesley The Iury have found for the Plaintiff and that the Defendants have not fully administred And yet they agreed the case of 20 H. 7. 2. The Executors paying to the Creditors of the Testator a Debt with their own goods they may retain so much of the goods of the Testator but that case is not like to this for here the Executors have not made any payment or satisfaction of the Debt nor disbursed any mony c. nor other things but only have made an Obligation to pay a sum of mony at a day to come before which day it may happen that the Obligation be cancelled or released but it may more fitly be compared to the case of 27 H. 8. 6. where an Executor had compounded with a Creditor of the Testator for the payment of 20 l. for a debt of 40 l. and had an Acquitance testifying the payment of the 40 l. where it was holden that the other 20 l. is Assets And by Rhodes this making of an Obligation by Executors Administration Assets although the Obligation in which the Testator was bounden be delivered to the Executors and cancelled is not any administration nor payment of the said debt due So if the Executors pledge the goods for the payment of such a debt yet they shall be accounted Assets until payment be made which Periam denied And Periam and all the other Iustices held clearly Retainer by administrations that if in such case the Executors make a sufficient Obligation to the Creditor of the Testator and sufficiently discharge the Testator without fraud or covin that they may retain the goods of the Testator for so much and the goods retained shall not be said Assets And this case is all one with the case of 20 H. 7. for here they have discharged the Testator and the Executors do remain charged with the same to the Creditor and it is so fully administred as if the Executors had expresly paid the debt And it is not like to the case of 27 H. 8. cited before for there although they have discharged the Testator yet they have not charged themselves otherwise it is in the principal case and although they have appointed ulteriorem diem for the payment of the said debt yet the same is not material But the Lord Anderson conceived that if the Creditor doth deliver unto the Executors the Obligation as an Accquittance or discharge and in consideration thereof they promise to pay the debt the same is not any administration as to the said debt And by some of the Serjants If the plea stand good to prove fully administred then Executors in such case may make an Obligation to pay the debt 40 years after and so defraud the other Creditors which is not reasonable If a Feoffment in Fee
Nonage of every Heir but admitting that the Custom were void yet this Action doth not lye for the Defendant hath not entred and taken the profits as Prochein amy in which Case although he was not Prochein amy c. he is chargeable Oâ—â—â—â— Rep. 36 â—3 84. as Prochein amy according to his Claim but here he claimeth by the Custom and Grant of the Lord and not in the right of the Heir and therefore it was adjudged in this time of this Quaere that if one entreth into Lands claiming by Devise where in truth the Land devised is entailed he should not be charged in accompt c. CCCLVIII 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was holden by the whole Court Exposition of the Statute of 32 and 34. Of Wills. That the Statute of 32 34 H. 8. of Wills did not extend to Lands in London but that the devise of the whole is good And if Houses in London parcel of the possessions of Abbies came to the Crown by Dissolution and he grants them over to hold in chief by Knights service these Lands are devisable But it was holden That the said Statutes as Acts executed extended to Lands in London and shall be good but for two parts And if a man hath Lands in tail and in Fee-simple which are of double the value of the Lands in tail and deviseth all his Lands all the Land in Fee-simple shall pass Dyer One seised of three Manors the one in Capite in Fee and two in Socage in tail and deviseth all his Land in Capite it is good against the King for all Capite Land and he shall be tied to have the Lands in Socage but it shall not bind the Heir And a devise of the third part where all is devised is void as well against the Heir as against the King. And he said That if a man be seised of twenty Acres in Socage and ten Acres in Capite and deviseth two parts of his Lands it is reasonable to say That all the Socage Lands shall pass but if the devise was of two parts of all his Lands it is otherwise for this word All implies that the two parts shall be per my per tout as well Capite as Socage i. e. It was argued by Fenner That the Lands in London are now devisable as they were before the Statute for if the Devisee of Lands in London be disturbed he shall have Ex gravi Querela otherwise it is of Lands at the Common Law and if an Assize of Mortdancester be brought of Lands in London it is a good Plea to say That the Lands are devisable But in an Assise of Mortdancestor of Lands at the Common Law it is not any Plea And if a man gives Lands at the Common Law i. e. not devisable by the Common Law he cannot devise the Reversion for the Statute shall not do wrong to the person i.e. to the Donee who there shall lose his Acquittal But of Lands devisable by custom it is otherwise And if Land in a Burrough was devisable for life by the Custom and afterwards came the Statute of 23 H. 8. which made all Lands devisable now that Land is devisable for life by the Custom and the Reversion by the Statute CCCLIX 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Wast of Wast assigned in a Wood Wast the Iury viewed the Wood only without entring into it And it was holden that the same was sufficient for otherwise it should be tedious for the Iury to have had the view of every stub of a Tree which had been felled Yet Meade Iustice said That if Wast be assigned in several corners of the Wood then the Iury is to have the view of every corner but contrary where Wast is assigned in the whole Wood Vieâ— And if Wast be assigned in every Room of a House the view of the House generally is sufficient And Dyer Iustice said That if Wast be assigned in several places and of some of them the Iury had not the view of that they may find no Wast done CCCLX Sir Thomas Lees Case 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was holden per Curiam That whereas Sir Thomae Lee was seised of a Manor Election and aliened the Manor except one Close parcel of the said Manor called Newdick and there were two Closes parcel of the said Manor called Newdick the one containing nine Acres and the other containing three Acres That the Alienee should not chuse which of the said Closes he would have but the Alienor or Feoffor should have the Election which of the said Closes should pass CCCLXI. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail the Remainder in tail c. Tenant in tail in possession Fines levied by Tenant in tail in Remainder 3 Cro. 211. makes a Lease for three lives according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. and afterwards dieth without issue he in the Remainder before any Entry levieth a Fine the same is good for by the death of Tenant in tail without issue the Free-hold is vested in him in the Remainder in tail And of that opinion was the whole Court. CCCLXII Ferrand and Ramseys Case 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae brought of a House in London the Defendant pleaded That long time before the Lessor of the Plaintiff had any thing c. One Ann Ramsey was seised in Fee and died seised and that the same descended to William Ramsey as Son and Heir to the said Ann who was disseised by Israel Owen who leased to the Plaintiff upon whom the said William Ramsey did re-enter The Plaintiff Replicando That the said Ann did not die seised said That before the Ejectment one Robert Owen was seised and died seised and from him descended the said House to Israel Owen as Son and Heir of the said Robert absque hoc that the said Israel did disseise the said Ann upon which they were at issue and at Nisi prius in London it was given in Evidence of the Defendants part That Crofton and Langhton were seised in Fee of the said Messuage and by Deed indented conveyed it to one John Ramsey Robert Dakins and four others and their Heirs upon condition that the said Feoffees their Heirs or Assigns should pay to the said Ann and her Heirs six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence And also should enfeoff the said Ann if to the same they were required by the said Ann in her life or within four days next following such Request in Fee unto the use of the said Ann and her Heirs cum quando ad hoc per eandem Annam requisit fuerint and if the said Ann died before such Request that then the said Feoffees or their Heirs should enfeoff such issues of the said Ann or such other persons which the said Ann should name cum quando ad hoc per eandem Annam requisit fuerint or within four days after such
197 p VVright and the Bishop of Norwiches case 218 p VVhisker and Cleytons Case 219 p VVard and Blunts case 251 p VVeston and Grendons case 255 p VVoodshaw and Fulmerstons case 262 p VVindham and Sir Edward Cleeres case 263 p VVickes and Dennis case 271 p VValgrave and Ogdens case 305 p VVard and Knights case 315 p VViseman and VVaringers case 339 p VVeston and Garnons case 343 p VVillis and Crosbies case 373 p VVilliams and Blowers case 402 p VValpoole and Kings case 407 p VViggot and Clarks case 419 p VVangford and Sectons case 423 p VVilmer and Oldfeilds case 424 p VVolman and Fies case 449 p VVillis and VVhitewoods case 454 p VVade and Presthalls case 466 p VVharton and Morleys case 467 p VValgrave and Agars case 469 p Z. ZOuch and Bamfeilds case 102 p REPORTS AND Cases of Law Argued and Adjudged in the Time of Queen Elizabeth From the twenty fourth to the three and thirtieth year of Her Reign I. Borneford and Packingtons Case Hill. 25. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. IN Trespas It was found by special verdict Custom of Free-Bench That the Defendant was seised of the Manor of B. whereof the place where is parcel demised and demiseable by Copy c. And that B. the Granfather of the Plaintiff was seised of the place where c. according to the custom of the said Manor in Fee-simple and that within the said Manor there is this Custom That if any Copy-holder dieth seised his Wife over-living him shall hold all the Land during her Widowhood as Free-bench and shall be admitted Tenant to the Lord 2 Brownl 21. and that the Heir shall not be admitted to it during the life of his Mother And found also another Custom within the said Manor That if any Copy-holder be convicted of Felony and the same be presented by the Homage that then the Lord might seize c. And it was further found that the Grandfather of the Plaintiff took a Wife and died seised having issue A. Father of the Plaintiff The Wife is admitted to her Free-bench A. is convicted of Felony and that is presented by the Homage and afterwards A. died after which the Wife died c. It was argued by Atkinson that A. is not within the danger of this Custom for during the life of his Mother who by a Claimer is Tenant to the Lord and admitted to it she is Copy-holder and it is not like to the Case lately adjudged of possessio fratris without admittance for there the party was admittable and so he was not here And also it appeareth by the Custom as it is found That the Lord upon such matter shall seize and therefore we ought to make construction that this Custom doth not extend to Cases where the Lord cannot seize but in the Case at Bar the Lord cannot seize by reason of this Free-bench And we ought not by any construction to extend a Custom beyond the words in which it is conceived but it shall be taken strictly and not be supplyed by Equity with a Custom in the place of a Seisure But notwithstanding all this afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff II. Hill. 25 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. A Copy-holder doth surrender to the use of one A. upon trust that he shall hold the said Land until he hath levyed certain monies and that afterwards he shall surrender to the use of B the monies are levyed A. is required to make surrender to the use of B. he refuseth B. exhibits a Bill to the Lord of the Mannor against the said A. who upon hearing of the Cause decrees against A. that he shall surrender he refuseth now the Lord may seize and admit B. to the Copy-hold for he in such Cases is Chancellor in his own Court per totam Curiam III. Wade and Bemboes Case Hill. 25. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. IN a Writ of Error by Wade against Bembo upon a Iudgment given in the Court of the City of Bristol the Case was That Bembo was Plaintiff in the said Court against Wade in an Action of Covenant and declared of a Covenant made by word by the Testator of Wade with Bembo and declared also that within the said City there is a Custom That Conventio ore tenus facta shall bind the Covenantor as strongly as if it were made by writing And it was holden by the Court that that Custom doth not warrant this Action for the Covenant binds by the Custom the Covenantor but doth not extend to his Executors and a Custom shall be taken strictly and therefore the Iudgment was reversed IV. The Lord Paget and Sir Walter Ashtons Case 25 Pasch 25. Eliz. in the Kings Bench THe Lord Paget brought an Action of Trespass against Sir Walter Ashton who justified because he is seised of three Messuages to him and his Heirs and that he and all those whose estate he hath c. have had the Woodwardship of the Forrest of C. within which the place where c. and also have had within the said Forrest Estovers without number And that one Rowland Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield was seised of the Forrest aforesaid in the right of his Church and by Indenture betwixt him and Sir Edw. Ashton his Ancestor whose Heir he is setting forth that divers debates had been betwixt the said parties concerning some profits within the said Forrest It was agreed betwixt them that the said Sir Ed. Ashton should release unto the said Rowland all his right in the said Office and Estovers and that the said Rowland shoud grant de novo unto the said Edw. and his Heirs the said Office and one hundred loads of Estovers per annum out of the said Forrest After which the said Ed. according to the said agreement did release to the said Bishop ut supra after which the said Bishop by Indenture reciting the said former Convenants in compl Indenturae praedict Convent did grant to the said Sir Ed. the said Office and Estovers pro easiamento dicti Edwardi haered suorum by assignment of the Officers of the said Forrest and if the assignment he not made within ten days after request that then the said Ed. and his Heirs should cut dow wood where they pleased and averred the things released were of as great value as the things granted And upon this matter the Plaintiff did demurr in Law and it was adjuded for the Plaintiff for here no Inheritance in the things granted passed to the said Sir Ed. but only an Interest for his own life 1. Inst 148. a. 398. b. ib. Dy. 253. 1 Cro. 644. for the grant was to Sir Ed. only without the word Heirs and the reference to the Indentures by which the Bishop hath covenanted to grant the Inheritance nor the words in the grant imply an estate in Fee s. pro easimento dict Ed. haered suorum and that in default of Assignment it should be lawful for Sir Ed. and his Heirs
shall not supply the defect of the words in the grant V. Gilbert and Sir George Harts Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. GIlbert brought Debt upon Escape against Sir George Hart Sheriff of Kent and declared Escape 1. Cro. 188. 271. That he recovered a certain debt against A. who was taken in Execution c. And the Case was That the said A. was taken in Execution in the time of the old Sheriff and escaped also then and afterwards the Defendant being Sheriff the Plaintiff again sued a Scire facias against the said A. upon the Iudgment aforesaid upon which Execution was awarded by default and thereupon issued a Capias ad satisfaciendum by which A. was taken and escaped And by the opinion of all the Iustices the Defendant in this Case shall be charged for notwithstanding that A. was once in Execution which was determined by escape in the time of the old Sheriff yet when Execution was now awarded against him upon his default in the Scire facias the same shall bind the Sheriff out of whose custody he escaped VI. Moor and Farrands Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. MOore leased Lands to Farrand upon condition that he 1. Cro. 26. Condition where shall not bind Administrators 1. Anders 123. Dy. 6. 1 Cro. 26. 757 3. Len. 67. his Executors or Assigns should not alien without the leave of the lessor Farrand died intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and aliened without leave and by Periam Iustice she is not within the penalty of the Condition for the Administrator is not meerly in by the party but by the Ordinary And by Meade and Periam If a Lease for years upon such a Condition be extended upon a Recognisance the same is not an alienation against the Condition But if feme lessee for years upon such Condition taketh a Husband and dieth the Husband is within the danger of the Condition for he is Assignee If the King grant to a Subject bona catalla felonum and the lessor for years upon such a Condition be out-lawed upon which the Patentee enters Now by Periam the Patentee is not bound by the Condition Meade contrary for the Condition shall go with the Land. VII Maynyes Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Exechequer MAyney seised of Lands in Fee took a Wife Co. 1. Inst 41. â— made a Feoffment to a stranger committeth Treason and thereof is attainted and hath a Charter of Pardon and dieth It was moved by Plowden in the Exchequer if the Wife of Mayney shall have Dower against the Feoffee Dower Manwood Chief Baron by reason of this Attainder Dower cannot accrue to the Wife for her title begins by the Enter-marriage and ought to continue and be consummated by the death of the Husband which cannot be in this Case for the Attainder of the Husband hath interrupted it as in the Case of Elopement Attainder where an Estoppel And this Attainder is an universal Estoppel and doth not run in privity only betwixt the Wife and him to whom the Escheat belongs but every stranger may bar her of her Dower by reason thereof for by the Attainder of her Husband the Wife is disabled to demand Dower as well as to demand his Inheritance and he cited the Resolution of all the Iustices of England in the Case of the Lady Gates 4. Ma. Dyer 140. and the Pardon doth not help the matter for the same extends but to the life of the Offender but doth not take away the Attainder by which she is barred to demand Dower during the said Attainder in force See the Statute of 5. E 6. cap. 11. Vid. Fitz. Dower 82. 13. E 3. 8 E 3. Dower 106 Fitz. Utlag 49. 8 Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Exchequer 4. Len. 117. Leases for three lives of Copy-hold estate are not within Stat. 41. Eliz. IN the Exchequer it was found by special verdict That the Guardians and Chanons Regular of Otlery were seised of the Mannor of O c. and that 22 H 7. at a Court holden there granted the Lands in question to W. and W. his Son for their lives by Copy according to the Custom of the said Mannor and that afterwards 30 H 8. They leased the Lands by Indenture to H. rendering the ancient and accustomed Rent and afterward surrendred their Colledge c. and afterward W. and W. dyed And if that Lease so made during the customary estate for life notwithstanding the Statute of 31 H 8. be good or not was the Question being within a year before the surrender c. It was argued by Egerton Sollicitor that the said Lease is void by the Statute the words of which are whereof or in the which any estate or interest for term of life year or years at the time of the making of any such Lease had his being or continuance and was not then determined finished or expired and therefore we are to see if that right or possession which W. had at the time of the making of the Lease were an interest or an estate for life And as to this word estate it is nothing else than measure of time for an estate in Fee-simple is as much as to say an interest in the Lands for ever and the like of other estates and therefore here W. and W. had at the time of the making of this Lease an estate for life in the thing demised And although such customary Tenants are termed in Law Tenants at will yet they are not simply so nor meerly Tenants at will but only Tenants at will secundum Consuetudinem Manerii Copy-holdeâ—â— Interest which Custom warrants his possession here for his life and therefore it is a more certain estate than an estate at will for the Copyholder may justifie against his Lord so cannot a Tenant at will whose estate is determined at the will and pleasure of his Lessor And although this estate is but by Custom and by no Conveyance the estate is raised it is as material so as it be an estate and this estate being supported by Custom is known in Law an estate and so accounted in Law and the Law hath notably distinguished Copy-hold Tenancies by Custom and Tenancies at will by the Common Law for a Copy-holder shall do Fealty shall have aid of his Lord in an Action of Trespass shall have and maintain an Action of Trespass against his Lord his Wife shall be indowed the Husband shall be Tenant by the Curtesie without new admittance and it was adjudged in the Common Pleas 8. Eliz. That if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of another for years the Lessee dieth his Executors shall have the residue of the Term without any admittance M 14. and 15. Eliz. a Copy-holder made a Lease for years by Indenture warranted by the Custom it was adjudged that the Lessees should maintain Ejectione firm although it was objected that if it were so then if
the Plaintiff doth recover Post 16 2 Len. 119. he should have Habere facias possessionem and then Copyholds should be ordered by the Laws of the Land 10 Eliz. Lord and Copy-holder for life the Lord grants a Rent-charge out of the Mannor whereof the Copy-hold is parcel the Copy-holder surrenders to the use of A. who is admitted accordingly he shall not hold it charged but if the Copy-holder dieth so that his estate is determined and the Lord granteth to a stranger de novo to hold the said Lands by Copy this new Tenant shall hold the Land charged and so was it rated and adjudged in the Common Pleas. It was adjorned IX The Lord Paget and the Bishop of Coventry and Leichfields Case Mich. 25. 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. THE Bishop of Coventry and Leichfield was endicted of Trespass in the County of Srafford Endictment of breaking and entring of the Close of Thomas Lord Paget called the Vineyard Challenge the Bishop traversed the Endictment and at the day of appearance of the Iury the Bishop challenged the Array because that he being a Peer of Parliament no Knight was returned c. Vpon which challenge the Queens Counsel did demur in Law but at last for expedition c. the Court delivered to the Councel of the Bishop a Bill sealed to save him the advantage of the said challenge And the Enquest was taken de bene esse who found that one A. by the Commandment of the Bishop entred into the said Close called the Vineyard being then in the occupation of one B. at will of the said Lord Paget and did the Trespass viz. digged a Turff there and there left it and so departed The matter of challenge was many times argued and it was argued against the said challenge because that the King is party against whom no Lord of Parliament shall have such Prerogative To which it was answered on the other side that so much the rather the challenge lyeth in the Case for where a Peer of the Parliament is to be tryed upon an Endictment of Treason or Felony it shall be per pares if upon appeal of Murder or Felony by ordinary tryal See 33. H. 8. Br. Tryal 42 and Br. Enquest 49. It was said on the Plantiffs side that here the Bishop is quodam modo and the Venire facias issued at his own Sute and therfore the mismaking of the Pannell is his own fault But by Gaudy Iustice the Venire facias in this Case is reputed in Law the Sute of the Queen notwithstanding that the parry endicted for his expedition doth pay the Fees for the Process for that the Clarks of the Court have encroached for their gain for otherwise there should be none paid by the Queen and by the better opinion of the Court the challenge was holden good Another matter was moved because the Endictment is clausum Domini Paget and it appeareth by the Verdict that the said close at the time of the Trespass was in the occupation of B. at the will of the Lord Paget for the Lord Paget cannot have an Action of Trespass against the said Bishop or the said A. upon the matter and by Wray the Lord Paget cannot have Trespass Quare clausum fregit intravit upon this matter but for digging upon the Land demised or cutting of Trees an Action lyeth 19 H. 6. Tit. Trespass 36. But here the Endictment is that one F. entred by the commandment of the Bishop upon which matter no Action lyeth against the Bishop by the Lord Paget and especially in this case where the said A. did not carry away the said Turff from thence But by Wray notwithstanding that the Action of Trespass doth not lye for the Lessor yet it is well enough by way of Endictment Another exception was taken to the Endictment because it is alleadged 2 Len. 183. that A. by Commandment of the Bishop entred and did the Trespass and no place is shewed where the commandment was and for this cause the Bishop was discharged X. Stonley and Bracebridges Case Mich. 25 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae by Stonley against Bracebridge the case was Pâ—o. Com. 417. 418. Thomas Bracebridge Father of the Defendant was seised of the Mannor of Kingsbury to him and to the heirs males of his body and 32 H. 8. Leased a Field called Stalling parcell of the said Mannor to Tho. Coke for years and afterwards 4 E. 6. Leased the said Field the first Lease being in esse to Sir Geo. Griffith for seventy years who assigned the same to A. Bracebridge Brother of the Lessor and to Joyce Wife of the Lessor and afterwards 5 E 6. the said Tho. Bracebridge the Lessor by his Deed Indented gave the said Mannor to the said Sir George by these words dedi concessi barganizavi vendidi Proviso and upon condition That the said Sir George should pay to the said Thomas Bracebridge within fifteen days after ten hundred pounds and if he fail of payment thereof that then after the said fifteen days the said Sir George should be seised of a Tenement parcel of the said Mannor of the yearly value of three pounds now of sate in the occupation of Thomas Smith to the use of the said Thomas Bracebridge for his life and after to the said Sir George until he had levyed five hundred pounds for the payment of the debts and the education of the children of the said Thomas Bracebridge and after to the use of the Defendant in tail And of the residue of the said Mannor to the use of the said Tho. Bracebridge and of the said Joyce his Wife for their lives c. Tho. Bracebridge made livery to the said Sir George in one place parcel of the said Mannor which was in his own occupation in the name of the whole Mannor the fifteen days incur without payment of the said ten hundred pounds the Indenture is enroled Coke attorns Joyce dyes Tho. Bracebridge grants the Lands to a stranger by Fine and before Proclamations Thomas his Son and Heir apparent within age enters in the name of the Feoffees by reason of the forfeiture Proclamations are made Tho. Bracebridge the Father dyeth the Term of Coke expireth A. enters and leaseth to the Plantiff who enters upon whom Tho. Bracebridge the Son enters upon which Entry the Action is brought it was argued by Beamount the elder Although here in the Indenture of bargain and sale there is not an express consideration set down in the common form of a consideration yet because the consideration is implied in the condition it is good enough see the Proviso and condition ut supra that the said Sir George should pay c. As if I bargain and sell to you my Land Proviso that you pay to me for the same at such a day one hundred pounds that consideration set down in the form of a condition is as effectual as if it had been
licence by recovery c. N. Vaux the surviving Feoffee died having issue W. Lord Vaux the purchasor died seised his Son and Heir 14 Eliz. levied a Fine Sur Conusans de droit c. and that Fine was levied to the use of the Conusee c. and that without licence The Lord Vaux within five years after the Fine levied entred for the condition broken and now issued forth a Scire facias against the Conusee for that alienation without licence who made default whereupon issued process to seize the Lands whereupon came Sir Tho. Tresham Fine for Alienation without Licence and shewed the whole matter aforesaid and prayed to be discharged It was said that this Prerogative to have a Fine for alienation without licence had lately beginning upon the original creation of Seignories so as this prerogative is as it were paramount the Seignory and shall go paramount the Condition as well as the Condition is paramount the Alienation but if the disseisor of the Tenant of the King maketh a Feoffment in Fee now upon the entry of the disseisee the person of the Feoffee shall be charged with a Fine but the Land by the re-entry of the disseisee is discharged and such is the opinion of the Lord Frowick in his Reading upon the Statute of Prerogativa Regis and the reason is because the disseisor is not Tenant to the King and so when he aliens it cannot be said an Alienation by the Kings Tenant See 45 E. 3. 6. If the Tenant of the King in chief seaseth for life with licence and afterwards grants the Reversion over without licence Entry for Condition what acts it shall defeat the Tenant for life is not bound to atturn in a Quid juris clamat wherfore it seems that if such Tenant doth attorn the King shall seize presently This Entry for the Condition broken is not to have so violent a retrospect to the first livery to which the Condition was annexed that it shall defeat all things mean between the Creation and the breach of the Condition but it shall defeat all mean things which rise upon the act of the party as Rent Dower c. But charges which accrue by reason of Tenure do remain notwithstanding the Entry for the Condition broken As if such a Tenant of the King maketh a Feoffment in Fee upon condition which is broken the Feoffee dieth seised his Heir of full age the Feoffor re-entereth this re-entry by force of the condition broken hath not so avoided the descent but the King shall have Relief upon the said descent for the Relief is paramount the Livery and the condition So if a Feoffee upon condition disclaim in Avowry Condition shall not avoid an Interest vested by which the Lord brings a Writ of Right Sur Disclaimer and hath Iudgment the Feoffee entreth for the condition broken the said re-entry shall not avoid the interest of the Lord by the Iudgment on the Writ of Disclaimer but he may enter at his pleasure and it was moved by Plowden who argued for Tresham that if the Tenant of the King being Non Compos mentis makes a Feoffment in Fee and dieth his Heir entring upon the Feoffee shall not pay a Fine for the Alienation of his Father but the person of the Father shall be charged with it And at the end of this Term after many Arguments and Motions Iudgment was given for the Queen that she should seize the Land and hold the same for the Fine and that she should not be driven to sue the person of the Feoffee or Conusee And by Manwood chief Baron at the Commom Law in many Manors Tenant in soccage upon every alienation shall pay a Fine nomine relevii a fortiori in the Kings case and therefore he was of opinion That this Prerogative to have a Fine for alienation without licence is by the common Law and not by any Statute XII Caters Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Exchequer Chamber A Bill of Intrusion was in the Exchequer against Cater Intrusion 7 Co. 12. 1 Anders 95. who pleaded the Grant of the Queen the Plaintiff replicando said that before the Queen had any thing c. Sir Francis Englefield was seised of the Manor of which c. and he being beyond the Seas the Queen sent her Letters under the Privy Seal Quod ipse in fide legeantiâ quâ dictae Reginae tenebatur indirecte rediret in Angliam praedict tamen Franciscus spretis mandatis dict Reginae venire recusavit for which a Certificate was by the said Queen into the Chancery Quod dictus Franciscus in portibus transmarinis sine licentia dict Reginae remansit And thereupon a Commission was awarded to seize the Lands of the said Sir Francis which was entred in the Replication in haec verba reciting also the Queens Privy Seal and that the said Sir Francis did stay there spretis mandatis c. for which the Queen seised and granted to the Plaintiff And afterwards the Statutes of 13 and 14. Eliz. were made after which the said grant was made to the Defendant upon which matter there was a Demurrer and Iudgment given for the Plaintiff Error And now Cater brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber and it was first assigned for Error because that the Record is entred Inter Johannem Cater present hic in Curia by I.S. Attornatum suum and that cannot be for it is oppositum in objecto that one can be present in Court and also by Attorney simul semel for the Attorney is to supply the default of the personal presence To which it was said by Wray Anderson and Periam that the matter assigned was no Error for there are many Presidents in the Exchequer of such Entries which were openly shewed in Court. 48 E 3. 10. R 2. 20 H 7. 20 H 8. And by Manwood chief Baron it is not so absurd an Entry as it hath been objected for if one hath an Attorney of Record in the Kings Bench and he himself is in the Marshalsey there is an Action against him he is present as Prisoner and also by Attorney and by them notwithstanding that here appeareth a contrariety for such Entry properly is presentem hic in Curia in propriâ persona sua yet because many proceedings are according it is the more safe course to follow them for if this Iudgment be reversed for this cause many Records should be also reversed which should be very perillous An other Error was assigned because it is not alledged in the Replication of what date the Privy Seal was nor that any notice of the said Privy Seal was given to Sir Francis to which it was said that the Privy Seal need not any date especially in this case for the matters which are under the Privy Seal are not issuable See 2 Eliz. Dyer 177. Privy Seal nor any traverse can be taken to it and this Privy Seal is not
Lands within the said Town every second year left their Lands to lye fresh and untilled and prescribed further that the Tenants of the Lands within the said Town might erect Herdals in in their Lands with the Licence of the Lord of the said Manor and not otherwise and further declared that the said Bedingfield had let to him the said Manor and that the Defendant had erected Herdals upon his Lands without Licence so as the profit of his Foldage is impaired by it And all this matter was found by Verdict And it was objected in stay of Iudgment that the prescription is not good for it is against Law and common right to abridge the Subject of the profits of his Lands But the whole Court was clear of opinion that the prescription is good enough as 15 E 2. Prescription 51. Prescription to have common appendant in other Land afte that the Hay is cut and v E. 1. Prescription 55. A. seised of Lands may Plow it and Sow it and cut and carry away the Corn and afterwards when the Corn is carried B. by prescription may have the said Land as his several and the other who sowed it cannot meddle with that land but to plow and sow it in season c. And the Cattel cannot eat and pasture in the Land when they come to plow or sow it or to carry it away nor have any profit but the Corn and yet the Free-hold of the Land is in such person c. and that was holden a good Prescription and a difference was taken by the Court where one doth prescribe to take away the whole interest of the Owner of the Land and where a particular profit is restrained And here this prescription doth not extend but to restrain the Ter-tenant to erect Herdals which is a reasonable prescription See 1 H 7 24. The Lord of the Town doth prescribe to have free Foldage of the Beasts of his Tenants in D. and see there that libera Falda is not any other but to hav the Beasts of the Tenants to manure the lands of the Lord c. And afterwards Punsany the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover XVI Mich. 25 26 Eliz. at Serjeants Inn. IN the Dutchy Chamber the case was that King E 6. leased for years certain lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster rendring rent with clause of re-entry and that a lease was made to one Bunny It was found by Office that the Rent was arrear and by another Office that the Servant of the said Lessee had tendred the rent in his absence and by the commandment of his Master and that afterwards one I. S. Receiver General of the Dutchy received the said Rent and had accounted for it and upon his account it was allowed And this matter was opened at Serjeants Inn in Fleet-street before Wray Anderson Manwood Clench Rhodes Plowden and Stanhop and it was argued by Shuttleworth that in this case of rent reserved upon a Lease for years made by the King of Dutchy-Land The King not bound to demand Rent the King is not bound to demand it but he may for default of payment of it re-enter without demand and that the Lessee is tied to tender it at his peril as well as if the Queen had been seised of the said land in the right of her Crown and as to that payment the Statute of 1 H 4. is to be considered by which it is enacted that the possessions of the said Dutchy Taliter tali modo per tales officiarios ministros in omnibus remaneant deducantur gubernentur sicut remanere deduci gubernari debuissent si ad culmen Regis Dignitatis assumpti non fuissemus and these words ought to be intended of things which concern the Lands themselves but this Act of demand is a personal thing and concerns the person of the King and toucheth the Majesty and dignity of the King and in all cases of the Dutchy the person of the King shall hold his priviledge notwithstanding that the possession of the Land be carried in the course of a private person And therefore if the Queen will alien Lands parcel of her Dutchy she ought to make Livery for now she meddles with the possession it self but if the Queen will sue for parcel of her Dutchy non omittas shall be in the Writ for she cannot sue but as Queen and the Queen hath such Prerogative that none shall execute her Writs at her own sute but the Officer of the Crown 21 E 4. 60. for Livery if it be not Land within the County Palatine and for the residue See 10 H. 4. 7. 3. Eliz. 216 217. Plowden Lessee for years of Lands of the Dutchy shall have aid of the King before Issue joyned c. And if the King make a Feoffment of Lands of his Dutchy out of the County Palatine to hold of him in Capite the Feoffee shall hold it so and a Feoffment of such Lands upon condition that the Feoffee shall not alien is a good condition and Lapses shall not bind the Queen in case of an Advowson which the Queen hath in the right of the Dutchy and if the Villain of the Queen in the right of the Dutchy purchaseth Lands in Fee and aliens yet the Queen shall seise and that hath been adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber and if the Queen make a Lease of such Land and afterwards makes another Lease of the same Land without recital of the first Lease it hath been adjudged that the second Lease is void It was argued contrary by Beamount the younger that this condition which goeth to the realty to reduce the Land again ought to be ordered and governed by the Queen as it ought to be by a Subject and therefore if the Queen will take advantage of this condition she ought to make a Letter of Attorney under the Dutchy Seal to her own Officer authorizing him thereby to make demand of the said Rent c. And by Shuttleworth here be two Offices the one contrary to the other the best shall be taken for the Queen 14 E 4. 5. in Skreens Case in the end of it And if the Rent of the Kings Farmor be behind now although that after the Receivor of the Dutchy doth receive it yet the same doth not purge the forfeiture as if the Bayliffs of a Manor receive rent of a new Feoffee the same will not change the Avowry of the Lord without notice given to him 41 E 3. 26. And if a Copy-hold escheat the Steward without a special Warrant cannot grant it over de novo XVI Rearsbie and Rearsbies Case Intrat Trinit 25 Eliz. rot 746. Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. REplevin by W. Rearsbie against A. Rearsbie and L. Rearsbie who avow the distress because that one W. Vavasour was seised of the Manor of Deniby whereof the place where c. is parcel in his Demesne as of Fee and so seised gave the said Manor to
extend ad veritatem facti which is set forth in the Avowry but only to reputation and so both stand together well enough Rent charge parcel of a Mannoâ— And that a Rent charge may be parcel of a Manor see 22 E 3. 13. 31. E 3. 23. in the Lord Tiptofts Case where it is ruled that title made to a Rent charge as parcel of a Manor is a good title and the Assize awarded upon it and in our Case the Reputation is enforced by the sute at the Court which was also reserved upon the said Feoffment together with the said Rent so as the intent of the parties to the Feoffment was that this Rent so reserved and accompanyed with the said sute shall be esteemed a Rent service and so parcel of the Manor and as to the continuance of Reputation it sufficeth if at the time of the bargain and sale aforesaid which was 26 H 8. it was by many reputed parcel of the Manor and he cited the Case of the Marquess of Winchester The King gave to his Ancestor the Manor of Dale and all lands then antea reputed parcel of the said Manor and in a Bill of Intrusion against the said Marquess he pleaded the grant with averment that the Land then antea reputed parcel Manerii praedict And because he did not shew certainly at what time the Land was reputed parcel of the Manor Iudgment was given for the Queen for it might be for any thing in his Plea that the said Land was reputed parcel of the said Manor before time of memory which Reputation would not serve but such Reputation ought to be within time of memory and understanding He cited also the Case of the Earl of Leicester King Edward the sixth seised of the Manor of Clibery of which a Wood was parcel granted the said Wood in Fee which afterwards escheated to the King for Treason Queen Mary granted the said Wood to another in Fee who granted it to the now Queen who granted the said Manor omnes boscos modo vel ante hac cognit vel reputat ut pars membr vel parcel Maner praedict to the Earl of Leicester and it was resolved in the Exchequer that by that grant the said Wood did pass to the Earl and Iudgment was given against the Queen Dy. 362 â— for it was part of the Manor in the time of E 6. at which time an t ' hac without the word unquam shall be extended ad quoddamcunque tempus praeteritum And Reputation needs not so ancient a Pedigree for to establish it for general acceptance will produce reputation As the house of the Lord Treasurer now called Tibould was of late a private Manor but now hath a new name by which it is known and that within these twenty years which is not so long a time as we have alleged for our Reputation and would pass in a conveyance by such name so None-such But as to Reputation I conceive that Reputation is not what this or what that man thinketh Reputation quid but that which many men have said or thought who have more reason to know it quaenam est inter illos reputatio There was a Case ruled in the Exchequer 13 Eliz. in a Bill of intrusion the Case was that King Hen. 6. was seised of a Manor to which a Neif was regardant who purchased Lands which the King seised and let by Copy as parcel of the said Manor and so continued until the time of E 6. who granted the same to Allice Hardwick and all Lands Tenements reputed parcel of the said Manor And it was adjudged that the said Land so purchased by the said Neif and demised by Copy did pass by the said grant to Hardwick And afterwards the same Term the Iustices without any solemn Argument shewed their opinions in the principal Case viz. That this Rent did not pass by the bargain and sale made as above by Anthony Wingfield to Bohan father of the Avowant for here in the premisses of the Avowry is not any matter set forth importing Reputation or by which it may appear that the Rent in question was ever reputed parcel of the said Manor but rather to the contrary and the bare averment of Reputation in the conclusion of the Avowry is not sufficient to induce Reputation But if the Avowant had set forth in his Avowry any special matter to induce the Court to conceive a Reputation upon the matter of the Avowry as to shew that the Bayliffs of the said Manor had always received the said Rent as parcel of said Manor and as Bayliffs of the said Manor had accounted for it as parcel of the Manor and that the Lessees of the said Manor had enjoyed the said Rent as parcel of the said Manor the same had been good matter to induce a Reputation to have incorporated the said Rent with the said Manor and so judgment was given against the Avowant and of such opinion as was affirmed by Wray was Anderson chief Iustice of the Common Pleas and Manwood chief Baron of the Exchequer XIX Cham and Dovers Case Pasch 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Ejectione firmae IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was that one Michel was seised of the Manor of D. within which diverse parcels of Land part of the said Manor where customary Tenements demised and demisable by copy c. according to the Custom of the said Manor for one two or three lives within which Manor there was a Custom scil that the Lord of the Manor for the time being might grant Copy-hold estates for life in Reversion The Lord granted such Lands for life by copy in possession took a wife and granted the same Copy-hold to a stranger in Reversion for life and died the Copy-holder in possession died the Land demised by copy is inter alia assigned to the Wife for her Dower who had Iudgment to recover in a Writ of Dower who entred and made a Lease thereof to the Defendant who entred against whom the Lessee of the Copy-holder brought Ejectione firmae Custom ad pasturandum non ad colendum and all this matter was found by Verdict and further found that every Copy-holder of the said Manor might Lease his Copy-hold for a year ad pasturandum sed non ad colendum and that the Lease made to the Plaintiff was for a year ad pasturandum 1. Cro. 469. Wells versus Partridge Post 100. Popham Attorny General of Council with the Defendant took exception to the Declaration because the Plaintiff had declared a Lease at the common Law and the Iury have found a Lease by the custom which cannot stand together And such a Verdict doth not maintain the Declaration as if the Plaintiff had declared upon a Lease for years of Lands and the Iury found a devise for years c. but the exception was disallowed by the Court. As to the matter in Law he argued that the Tenant in Dower should
such Tithes which are of such nature as Tithe-corn and Tith-hay And Manwood chief Baron held clearly that the Lease of these Tithes is good enough notwithstanding the defect by the special Reservation which is limited and appointed by the Statute and so by him a Lease of a House Rent Mill Ferry c. are out of the said Statute And as to the Tithes notwithstanding the words of the Statute are general any Tithes yet he conceived the Statute ought to be intended of Tithes of common Right and not of such customary Tithes as those of London are and therefore if all the Parishoners prescribe in modo Decimandi scil to pay a certain sum of mony for all manner of Tithes upon demise of such a Rectory such special Reservation is not necessary for these are Tithes against common Right and no Tithes are within the purview of the said Statute but those which are annual and therefore a Lease of Tithe-wood is out of the meaning of this Statute for non renovantur in annum and he said that upon a Lease of the Tithes of Chery Trees a rent ought to be reserved according to the Statute and the Farmer may bring his Cheries to the Market and buy Corn. Shute Iustice contrary for the words of the Statute are general And note that this Lease was of the Rectory of Saint Lawrence in the City of London There was another matter moved in this case because the lease whereof the Action is brought was made by the name of Master or Guardian and the Fellows whereas the true name of their Colledge is Master and Fellows Misnosmer And it was argued by Atkinson that the same is not such a Misnosmer which makes the Lease void for sive custos are words of surplusage v. 7 H. 6. 13. And also the case of the Cooks 20 Eliz. Plow 531. The Corporation was by the name of Masters or Governors and Comonalty mysterii coquorum c. And they made a conveyance by the name of Masters or Governors and Comunalty artis sive Mysterii c. the same is no such Misnosmer as shall make void the conveyance for Art and Mistery are both of one sense XXVI Harvey and Harveys Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Consultation CLare Harvey one of the Daughters of Sir James Harvy Alderman of London Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Sebastin Harvy Son and Executor of the said Sir James for a Legacy bequeathed to her by her Father Sebastian did not appear for which he was excommunicated and taken by a Writ of excommunicat capiendo and imprisoned and afterwards he came into this Court and surmised to the Court That the said Sir James in his life had given to the said Sebastian all his Goods and Chattells and was also bound unto the said Sebastian in a Statute-staple of two thousand pounds whereupon he had prohibition and now the Plaintiffs counsel prayed a Consultation quatenus non agitur ad validitatem facti aut Statuti And Egerton Solicitor of Counsel with the Plaintiff cited a Iudgment given in the like Case betwixt Lodge and Luddington where such a special Consultation was granted But Wray put a difference betwixt the said Case and the Case at Bar for here in this Case is a gift by the Testator himself but in the Case cited the gift was by the Executor and also here is a Statute of two thousand pounds in which Case the Obligations which could not pass by the deed shalll be subject to the said Statute XXVII The Duke of Northumberlands Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe late Duke of Northumberland seised of five Messuages in the Parish of St. Sepulchres London in the Tenure of W. Gardiner Bargain and sale 3 Co. 9. by deed intented and enrolled for money bargained and sold to I. L. all his Tenements situate in the Parish of St. Andrews in Holborn in the Tenure of W. Gardiner to have to the said I. L. for life the remainder to K. his Daughter in Fee. Atkinson The bargain and sale is void by reason of the Misnosmer of the Parish notwithstanding the truth of the Tenure for by the grant and bargain and sale of all his Tenements in the Parish of St. Andrews nothing passeth and the truth of the Tenure subsequent shall not help it And by Manwood chief Baron the sale is utterly void for the falsity doth preceed the truth and certainty And it was argued that I. L. entring by colour of the same bargain and sale is a disseisor as the Case is betwixt Croft and Howel 20. Eliz. Com. 537. Yet if he was but Tenant at Will when he made the Lease for years the same was a Disseisin to the said Duke and then the Duke being disseised he is attainted of treason 10. Mariae And now we are to see what things accrue to the Queen by the said Attainder and as to that it was said that at the Common Law a Right of Entry should Escheat but not without office found thereof no more than Lands in possession And by the Statute of 26 H. 8. it is enacted that every person attainted of high treason shall forfeit all his Lands and Tenements which he had of any estate of Inheritance by which Statute a Bishop Abbot or Tenant in tayl in such Case shall forfeit even without Office But in the Statute of 33 H. 8. there is a saving to every other person all such right possession so as in that Case by that Statute the King shall not be in possession without Office but shall have a right but cannot enter before Office or after And he is to have Sci. facias against him who hath the possession and he shall make his defence as well as he can and the words of the said Statute That the King shall be in actual possession shall not be construed to extend to an actual and absolute possession but such a possession only which he had at the Common Law after Office found so as the Statute doth not give to the King a larger possession but an easier without the circumstance of an Office And of that opinion was Manwood chief Baron and Shute second Baron And then it was moved further by Cook because that the Quen by the Attainder hath but a Right and the Queen makes the grant of the Messuages themselves the same grant is void And he granted that the Queen might grant a real Action and a Right of Entry but such a grant ought to be conceived in special words as to say That the Duke of Northumberland was seised of five Messuages and by such a one disseised and after the Duke was attainted and so granted for the Queen may grant such a Right by reason of her Prerogative and therefore the same ought to be granted by special words as in the Case of Mynes in the Commentaries and according to that was the opinion of the Iustices in Cromers Case 8 Eliz. which Case see
prohibition And the Court upon the first Motion conceived a prohibition should pass for if the grant be without deed nothing passed and then hath not Withy cause to claim these Tithes against the said Saunders And notwithstanding that Tithes are quodam modo spiritual things and so demandable in a Court of that nature yet now in divers respects they are become a Lay-fee and lay-things for a Writ of Assise of Mortdauncester and an Assise of novel disseisin lyes of them and a Fine may be levyed of them But it hath been doubted whether Tithes be devisable by Will But at another day the matter was moved and the Court was clear of opinion that a Consultation should be awarded for whether Withy hath right or not right to these Tithes Saunders of common right ought to pay his Tithes and he ought to sever them from the nine parts and whosoever takes them whether he hath right to them or no right Saunders is discharged But Saunders may prescribe in modo decimandi without making mention of any severance and may surmise that the Tithes do belong to I. S. with whom he hath compounded to pay such a sum for all Tithes and afterwards a Consultation was awarded XXX Stacy and Carters Case Trin. 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. STacy brought an Action of Trespass for breaking his Close against Walter Carter And declared of a Trespass in Somers-Land in Tunbridge The Defendant pleaded that heretofore he himself brought an Assise of Novel disseisin against the now Plaintiff and supposed himself to be disseised of his Free-hold in Lee juxta Tunbridge and the Land where the Trespass supposed to be done was put in view to the Recognitors of the said Assise and further averred that the Land where c. and the Land then put in view is one and the same c. upon which there was a Demurrer Exception was taken to the form of the Demurrer because in the perclose and conclusion of the Demurrer these words are omitted Averment Et hoc paratus est verificare But as to that it was said by the Court that the Demurrer was well enough with or without such Averment in the conclusion of it which see oftentimes in the Commentaries c. and in the Book of Entries 146. the greater part of the Demurrers have not any such conclusion Another Exception was taken to the bar because the Defendant pleads that heretofore Walter Carter had brought an Assise against the now Plaintiff c. and that the Land put in view to the Recognitors of the Assise per praefatum Warrhamum Carter c. and the Land where c. is all one c. here is Warrhamum for Walterum and notwithstanding that it was after demurrer and not after verdict it was adjudged amendable and as to the matter of the bar it was said by the Defendants Council that recovery of Lands in one Town by Praecipe quod reddat is not a bar for Lands in another Town but where the recovery is by Assise it is otherwise for there the Plaint is general De lib. ten̄to and the Plaintiff shall recover per visum Juratorum and the view is the warrant of the Iudgment and Execution And therefore if a recovery in an Assise be pleaded in bar Not comprised is not any Plea against it as in the Case of recoveries upon a Praecipe quod reddat but not put in view and so not comprised c. which proves that the Record doth not guid the recovery but the view of the Iurors See 26 E 3. 2. Assise brought of Lands in D. the Tenant saith that he holdeth the said Lands put in view joyntly with A. not named in the Writ c. and sheweth the deed of Ioynt-tenancy which speaks of Tenements in B. and the plea holdeth good because he alledgeth the Ioynt-tenancy and the Lands put in view See 24 E 3. It was said on the Plaintiffs side that recovery in Lee juxta Tunbridge could not extend to Lands in Tunbridge no more than a recovery of Lands in one County can extend to Lands in another County See 23 E 3. 16. Assise of Novel disseisin brought of Lands in N. the Defendant pleads recovery in Assise c. brought before by him against the now Plaintiff of Lands in H. and the same Lands put then and now in view and adjudged no bar See also 16 E 3. 16. in an Assise of Tenements in W. the Tenant pleads a Recovery of the same Lands agaist one A. by Assise brought of Tenements in C. which was found by the Assise and that C. is a Hamlet of W. and the Plaintiff notwithstanding that recovery so pleaded had Iudgment for a recovery of Lands in one Town shall not be a bar in an Assise of Lands in another Town See Br. Tit. Iudgment 66. 10 E 3. And the whole Court was clear of opinion that the plea in bar was not good for in the Assise which is pleaded in bar in the principal Case the Tenant there who is now Plaintiff in this Action of Trespass pleaded Nul tort nul disseisin which is no plea as to the Free-hold in Lee juxta Tunbridge and therefore it cannot be like to the Case which hath been put of 26 E 3. for there the Tenant pleaded that he held the said Lands put in view joyntly for there he agreeth with the Plaintiff in the Lands demanded the which Lands are put in view but if in the Case at bar the Defendant being Plaintiff in the Assise the now Plaintiff being then Tenant had pleaded to the Land put in view in bar and the Plaintiff in the Assise had recovered now in this Action of Trespass the Plantiff in the Assise being Defendant in the Action of Trespass might well plead this Recovery in bar for by his plea in the Assise he hath tyed himself to the view and to the Land put in view but it is not so in the Case at Bar where the Tenant in the Assise pleads nul tort nul disseisin for there he doth not plead expresly to the Land put in view but to the supposal of the Plaintiff sc de libero tenemento in Lee juxta Tunbridge afterwards Wray with the assent of the other Iustices awarded that the Plaintiff should recover his damages See by Wray 44 E 3. 45. in Assise of Tenements in B. the Plaintiff pleads that he himself brought an Assise of the same Tenements and his plaint was of Tenements in E. and the same Tenements put in view and recovered and holden a good Plea because the Tenant hath said that the same Tenements were put in view and that took by Assise upon which the Plaintiff said not put in view and so not comprised XXXI Benicombe and Parkers Case Trin. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass the Iury found this special matter that the Grandfather of the Plaintiff was seised and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life
the remainder to the use of John Father of the Plaintiff in tail the Grandfather died the Father entred Feoffments and by Indenture by words of bargain and sale without any words of Dedi concessi conveyed the Lands to the use of A. in Fee and in the same Indenture was a Letter of Attorney to make Livery which was made accordingly and the said A. by the said Indenture covenanted that if the said John should pay before such a day to the said A. forty shillings that then the said A. and his Heirs would stand seised c. to the use of the said John and his Heirs and if the said John did not pay c. then if the said A. did not pay to the said John within four days after ten pounds that then the said A. and his Heirs from thenceforth shall be seised to the use of the said John and his Heirs c. and the said John covenanted further by the said Indenture to make such further assurance as the Council of the said John should advise Each party failed of payment John levied a Fine to A. without any consideration it was adjudged upon this matter a good Feoffment well executed by the Livery Hob. 151. Dyer 361. a More 194. Post 195 196 197. More 35. b. notwithstanding that the words of the conveyance are only by bargain and sale and that the Covenant to be seised to the new uses upon payment and not payment being in one and the same deed should raise the use upon the contingency according to the limitation of it and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff accordingly XXXII Bedows Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bill sealed against one Bedow he demanded Dyer of the Bill which was Memorandum that I John Bedow have agreed to pay to R. S. the Plaintiff twenty pounds and thereupon there was a Demurrer first that the Deed wanted the words In cujus rei testimonium c. but notwithstanding that the Court held the Deed good and said so it was lately adjudged Another matter was because the words of the contract are in the preter Tense I have agreed but notwithstanding that exception the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover as by Wray these words dedi concessi according to the Grammatical sence imply a gift precedent but yet they are used as words of a present conveyance Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XXXIII Marsh and Smiths Case Pasch 27. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 38. 39. GEorge Marsh brought a Replevin against Smith and Paget who make Conusans as Baylies to Ralph Bard and upon the pleading the Case was That Sir Francis Askew was seised of the Mannor of Castord in his Demesne as of Fee which Mannor did extend unto Daston North-kelsey Grants Mannor 2 Len. 41 42. South-kelsey D. and C. and had demesnes and services parcel of the said Mannor in each of the said Towns and so seised granted totum manerium suum de North-kelsey in North-kelsey to the said Bard and his Heirs and granted further all his Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in North-kelsey and to that grant the Tenants in North-kelsey did attorn And the Land in which the said Distress was taken is in North-kelsey the only question in the case was if by this grant to Ralph Bard a Mannor passed or not And the case was argued by the Iustices And Periam Iustice argued That upon this grant no Mannor passed for before the grant there was no Mannor of North-kelsey or in North-kelsey therefore no Mannor can pass but the Lands and services in North-kelsey shall pass as in gross for they were not known by a Mannor but for parcel of a Mannor And a Mannor is a thing which cannot be so easily created Mannor what it is for it is an Hereditament which doth consist of many real things and incorporated together before time of memory common reputation cannot be intended of an opinion conceived within three or four years but of long time And appendancy cannot be made presently but by a long tract of time As an Advowson in gross cannot be made by an Act appendant and the Queen her self by her Letters Patents cannot make a Mannor at this day à multo fortiori a subject cannot and the Queen cannot by her Letters Patents without an Act of Parliament annex a Mannor to the Dutchy of Lancaster which see 1 Ma. Dyer 95. And where it is usual that the Queen doth grant Lands Reputation tenendum de manerio suo de East Greenwich in communi soccagio if upon the death of such a Grantee without heir the said Land doth revert unto the Queen in point of Escheat the said Land shall not be parcel of the said Mannor for the Land was not parcel of the Mannor in truth but in reputation And he cited a case that the Lord Sturton was seised of the Mannor of Quincamore and was also seised of the Mannor of Charleton which was holden of the said Mannor of Quincamore The Lord Sturton was attainted of Felony and afterwards Queen Mary gave the said Mannor of Quincamore to Sir Walter Mildmay cum omnibus suis juribus parcellis it was adjudged that the Mannor of Charleton did pass for it is now become parcel of the Mannor of Quincamore and I grant that things which go with the Land shall pass well enough As if the Queen grant to three Coparceners of three Mannors 1 Inst 122. a 32 â—â— 6 11. the liberty of Warren in all the said three Mannors they afterwards make partition so as each Coparcener hath a Mannor and the one of them grants her Mannor the Grantee shall have Warren Grants of the King. But if the Queen grant a Leet ut supra and the Coparceners make Partition and each of them hath a Mannor she shall not have also a Leet but the Leet which was grantted doth remain in common and there shall not be there upon such partition several Leets And also I grant that in the case of two Coparceners of a Mannor if to each of them upon partition be allotted demeans and services each of them hath a Mannor for they were compellable to make partition by the common Law being in by descent See 26 H. 8. 4. 9 E. 4. 5. contrary of Ioynt-tenants for they are in by purchase and were not compellable by the common Law to make partition and therefore upon partition betwixt them a Rent cannot be reserved for the equality of the partition And in every Manor a Court is requisite for a Court Baron is incident to a Manor Court Baron but a Court cannot at this day be founded or erected but it ought to be of long time And in our Case no Court hath ever been holden in North-kelsey And if I be seised of the Manor of B. which extends into C. and B. and I grant my Manor of B. in D. now a Manor
Tanfield contrary I confess that the Father ought to have the marriage of his Son and Heir so long as he is sub potestate patris but here the Father hath committed all his interest power and authority in his Son to the Defendant his Master with whom he hath bound his Son Apprentice for seven years during which term the Father hath not any thing to do with his Son or his Marriage Wray The Action Quare filium haeredem c. is not given to the Father because his marriage belongs to him but because of the Education and such was the opinion of Clench Iustice and the marriage doth not belong properly to the Father For if the Son marrieth himself without the leave of the Father there is not any remedy for the Father And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff LXIV Bullers Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. â—â—â—â—evin EDmund Buller brought a Replevin against two who make Conusans as Baylies to A. for rent arrear reserved upon a lease for life To which the Plaintiff in Bar of the Conusans pleaded that two strangers had right of Entry in the place where 2 Len. 196. c. and that the said two Defendants by their Commandment entred c. and took the Cattle of which the Replevin is brought damage feasant absque hoc that they took them as Baylies to the said A. and upon that Traverse the Defendants did demur in Law. 2 Len. 216. Post 327. Shuttleworth Serjeant the Traverse is not good for by that means the intent of the party shall be put in issue which no Iury can try but only in Case of Recaption See 7 H. 4. 101. by Gascoign If the Bayly upon the distress shews the cause and reason of it he cannot afterwards vary from it but the other party may trice him by Traverse but if he distrain generally without shewing cause then he is at large to shew what cause he will and the other party shall answer to it â— Co. 7â— And it was said by the Court that when a Bayly distreins he ought if he be required to shew the cause of his distress but if he be not required then he is not tied to do it Anderson We were all agreed in the Case betwixt Lowin and Hordin that the Traverse as it is here was well taken The Number Roll of that Case is M. 28 29 Eliz. 2494. LXV Hudson and Leighs Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HUdson recovered against Leigh in an Action of Battery for which a Capias pro fine issued against Leigh and also a Capias ad Satisfaciendum returnable the same Term at one and the same Return Process As to the Capias pro fine the Sheriff returned Cepi and as to the Capias ad Satisfaciendum non est inventus And for this contrariety of the Return the Court was of opinion that the Sheriff should be amerced but it was moved by the Council of the Sheriff Return of the Sheriff that the awarding of the Capias pro fine was meerly void for the Fine is pardoned by the Parliament And it is also Enacted That all process awarded upon such Fines shall be void and then the Capias pro fine being void it matters not how or in what manner it be returned for the Court shall not respect such process nor any return of it and then the Court not having resepect to that Return there is not any contrariety for the Capias ad Satisfaciendum only is returned and not the Capias pro fine And at another day it was moved again the Battery was supposed Junij 1586. and Iudgment given the thirteenth of February the same year upon which issued Capias pro fine Escape 5 Co. â—â— and before the Return thereof the Parliament ended which pardoned such Fines and made all process thereupon void And it was said by the Court that if the Sheriff in such Case takes the party by a Capias pro fine now upon that taking he is in Execution for the party and if the Sheriff let him go at large he shall answer for the escape And in that case the Capias pro fine was well awarded and the Court ought to regard it and the Defendant lawfully taken by virtue of it and also in execution for the party in Iudgment of Law and afterward when the Parliament came and Enacted ut supra although the process be made void thereby the same ought to be meant as to the interest of the King in the Fine and the vexation of the Subject by it but not as to the Execution of the party but the Sheriff shall answer for that Execution And it was also holden by the Court that if the Plaintiff sueth an Elegit then upon the Capias pro fine executed the Defendant shall not be adjudged in Execution for the party for he hath made his Election of another manner of Execution scil of the Land and he shall never resort to an Execution of the body 13 H 7. 12. And as our case is there was an Elegit obtained but it was not on Record nor any Record made of it and therefore the election of the Execution remained to the Plaintiff And as to the point aforesaid that such process shall be void as to the King only not as to the party See now 5 Ja. C. 6. part 79. Sir Edward Phittons Case LXVI Potter and Stedals Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trepass by Samuel Potter against Stedal the Case was Trespass Tenant for life of Land leased parcel thereof to hold at Will and being in possession of the residue levyed a Fine of the whole the Lessor entred into the Land which was let at will in point of forfeiture in the name of the whole it was holden the same is a good entry for the whole Ante 56. But if the Disseisor leaseth for years part of the Land whereof the disseisin was committed Entry 1 Inst 252. and the disseisee afterwards entreth into the Land which continueth in the possession of the Disseisor in the name of the whole the same Entry shall not extend to the Land leased for here the Lessee is in by title but in the other Case not for when Tenant for life leaseth it at will and afterwards levies a Fine the same is a determination of the Will. 16 Eliz. Dyer 377. 1. In the same plea it was holden that if there be lessee for life the remainder for life the remainder in fee Lessee for life in possession levyeth a Fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to his own use upon that Fine a Fee-simple accrues LXVII Leigh and Hanmers Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt upon a Recognizance THomas Leigh Esquire brought an Action of Debt upon a Recognizance in the nature of a Statute Staple against John Hanmer Esquire before the Mayor and Aldermen
of the said Manor of Hockley seased the same to Edmund Terrel for years exceptis Reservat grossis arboribus super praemissis crescentibus existentibus Proviso Conditions that if the said Lessee his Executors or Assigns shall do any voluntary Wast in any of the Premisses before demised that then the said demise shall be void and accounted none in Law the said King and Queen after that lease grant the Reversion to the Lord Rich and his Heirs the Lessee cuts down certain great Trees which at the time of the demise were not great but little Trees but after tractu temporis became great and at the time of the cutting down were great upon whom the Lady Rich Wife and Widow of the said Lord Rich being Tenant in Dower the said Manor inter alia being assigned to her in Dower did enter for the condition broken It was moved If the exception did extend to the trees which at the time of the demise were but little trees but afterwards at the time of their cutting down were become great for if the exception do extend to such Trees then upon the matter they were not demised and if so then wast cannot be assigned in the cutting down of them and then by the cutting of them the condition is not broken But if the exception shall be construed to extend to such Trees only which were great Tempore dimissionis then those Trees in which c are demised and by the cutting down of them the condition is broken And the Lord Anderson was of opinion that the exception did extend to Trees which at any time dimissionis praedict became great Where the Tenant in Dower shall take advantage of a condition although at the time of the demise they were but little so as upon the matter such Trees were never demised and so the condition doth not extend to them otherwise it should be if the words had been modo crescentibus existentibus Another matter was moved because if the Lady Rich being Tenant in Dower and so in by the Law not by the party and so not privy nor as Assignee could enter for the condition broken And the Court was clear of opinion that because that the words of the condition are Quando dimissio praedict erit vacua c. and no clause of reentry is reserved so that privity is not requisite the Lady Rich shall take advantage of the condition 11 H. 17. Where the words of a Lease are that upon the not going to Rome that the Lease shall cease it was holden that the Grantee of the Reversion by the common Law should take advantage of such a condition contrary where the condition is conceived in words of re-entry 21 H. 7. 12. It was moved further that here is not any voluntary wast in the Lessee as to the condition Dyer 281. Owen 93. because done by a stranger and not by the Lessee himself and for that the condition is not broken only the Lessee is subject unto an Action of Wast otherwise if the Lessee had expresly commanded the Vendee to cut them down or had given to him express authority The sale was All his Woods growing c. LXXX Gill and Harewoods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. GIll brought an Action upon the Case against Harewood and declared Assumpsit that where the Defendant was endebted to the Plaintiff in such a â—um and shewed how the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff per parvum tempus deferret diem solutionis c. did promise to pay And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that here is not any consideration for no time is limited for the forbearance but generally parvum tempus which cannot be any commodity to the Defendant for the same may be but punctum temporis c. But the exception was not allowed for the Debt in it self is a sufficient consideration LXXXI Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Co. 74. 5 Co. 38. 8 Co. 155. FEnner Serjeant would have drawn a Fine which was by Dedimus Potestatem and the Fine was to two and their heirs but the Court would not receive such Fine for the incertainty of the Inheritance which always in case of Fine ought to be reposed in a person certain and not left to uncertainty of the Survivor and the said Serjeant prayed presently that the said Fine be received at the peril of the Conusees but the same was denied him by the whole Court. LXXXII Mascals Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Covenant 2 Cro. 644. MAscal leased a House to A. for years by Indenture by which A. covenanted with Mascal to repair the House Leased and that it should be lawful for Mascal his Heirs and Assigns to enter into the House to see in what plight for matter of Reparation the said House stood and if upon any such view any default should be found in the not repairing of it and thereof warning be given to A. his Executors c. Then within four months after such warning such default should be amended the House in the default of the Lessee became ruinous Mascal granted the Reversion over in Fee to one Carre who upon view of the House gave warning to A. of the default c. which is not repayred upon which Carre as Assignee of Mascal brought an Action of Covenant against A. It was moved by Fenner Serjeant that the Action did not lye because the House became ruinous before his interest in the Reversion But the opinion of the whole Court was against him for that the Action is not conceived upon the ruinous estate of the House or for the committing of Waste but for the not repayring of it within the time appointed by the Covenant after the warning so as it is not material within what time the House became ruinous but within what time the warning was given and the default of the Reparation did happen LXXXIII Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Dower IN a Writ of Dower brought by a Woman of the third part of certain Lands c. The Tenant pleaded That the Lands of which Dower is demanded are of the nature of Gavel-kind and that the custom of such Land is that Dower ought to be demanded of the moity of it and not of the third part upon which the Demandant did demur And the opinion of Windham and Anderson Iustices was That such a Woman of such Land might at her pleasure demand her Dower either according to the Custom 1 Cro. 825. Poph. 133. or according to the common Law for by Anderson the common Law was before the Custom quod quaere And by Windham if the Demandant here recover her Dower according to the common Law yet if she taketh another Husband she shall lose her Dower as if she had been endowed according to the Custom Coke an Apprentice
the Land was entailed by the second Fine But that Exception was disallowed by the whole Court and a difference put by Anderson Where a man pleads the grant of an Advowson in gross by Tenant in tail in such case the life of the Tenant in tail ought to be averred for by his death the grant ceaseth But where a man pleads the Lease of Tenant in tail of a Manor with an Advowson appendant in such case such averment is not necessary So accordingly Smith Stapletons Case 15 Eliz. 431. And here it was moved if in as much as by the first Fine an estate for life was rendred to the Wife and by the second Fine in which she did not joyn an estate tail was limited unto her and now when the Husband dieth if he shall be remitted to her estate for life Co. 1 Inst 357. 2 Cro. 489. which Windham granted for that was her lawful estate and the second estate tortious But by Rhodes Periam and Anderson the Wife is at liberty to make her election which of the two estates she will have And as to the Writ to the Bishop for the Queen the Court was clear of opinion that it ought not to be granted upon this matter But all the question was if Regina inconsulta the Court would or ought to proceed And it was holden clearly by the whole Court that the tenure alledged modo forma could not be a tenure in chief for it is said that the Land was holden of the King as of the Castle of Dover in Capite LXXXVI Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Intr. Pasc 28 Eliz. Rot. 602. Wast â— Cro. 40. 4â— WAst was brought by F. and his Wife agaist Pepy and counted that the said Pepy was seised and enfeoffed certain persons to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Wife of the Plaintiff and her Heirs The Defendant pleaded that the said Feoffment was unto the use of himself and his Heirs in Fee c. without that that it was to the uses in the Count Vpon which they were at issue And it was found by verdict that the said Feoffment was unto the uses contained in the Count But the Iury further found that the estate of the Defendant by the limitation of the use was priviledged with the impunity for Wast that is to say without impeachment of Wast And it was moved if upon this verdict the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment And Anderson and Rhodes Iustices he shall for the matter in issue is found for the Plaintiff and that is the Feoffment to the uses contained in the Count and this impunity of Wast is a forrein matter not within the charge of the Iury and therefore the traverse of it but matter of surplusage As if I plead the Feoffment of I. S. To which the other pleads that he did not enfeoff and the Iury find a conditional Feoffment the Court shall not respect the finding of the condition for it was not in issue and no advantage shall ever be had of such a liberty if it be not pleaded 30 H. 8. Dyer 41. In Dower the Tenant pleaded Ne unques seisi que Dower the Tenant pleaded that before the coverture of the Demandant one A. was seised of the Lands of which Dower is demanded in tail who made a Feoffment to a stranger and took the Demandant to Wife and took back an estate in Fee and died seised having issue inheritable Now although upon the truth of the matter she is not dowable de jure yet when the parties are at issue upon a point certain Hob. 53. Owen 91. no foreign or strange matter not in question betwixt the parties shall be respected in the point of the Iudgment But if the Defendant had pleaded it in bar he might have foreclosed the Demandant of her Dower Vide 38 H. 6. 27. 47 E. 3. 19. In a Praecipe quod reddat in the default of the Tenant one cause and shewed how the Tenant who made default was but Tenant for life of the Lands in demand the reversion in Fee to himself and prayed to be received The Demandant did counter-plead the receit saying the Defendant had fee upon which issue was joyned And it was found that neither the tenant nor he which prayed to be received had any thing in the Land In that case the Court did not regard the matter which was superfluous in the verdict for they were at issue upon a point certain that is whether the Tenant was seised in Fee for it was confessed of both sides that he had an estate for life and with that matter the Iury was not charged and they are not to enquire of it and so it was found against the Demandant for which cause the Receit was granted 7 H 6. 20. The parties were at issue upon a dying seised which is found by verdict but the Iury further find that the other party made continual claim this continual claim shall not be regarded in the point of Iudgment because it was pleaded in avoidance of the descent Windh Iustice contrary Forasmuch as it appeareth unto us upon the verdict that the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action and therefore he shall not have Iudgment As in Detinue No advantage of impunity for Wast shall be taken where the same is not pleaded though found by verdict Judgment Hob. 53. Owen 91. The Plaintiff counteth of a bailment by his own hand the Defendant pleadeth that he doth not detain c. the Iury find the Detinue but upon a bailment by another hand In this case notwithstanding that the Detinue be found yet the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment But Rhodes Periam and Anderson in the principal case were of opinion Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for in no case the party shall have advantage of such a Liberty of impunity of Wast if he do not plead it And the Iurors are not to meddle with any matter which is not in issue And if it be but matter of surplusage it is to no purpose And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff LXXXVII Bracebridge and Baskerviles Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco AN Action of Debt is brought against three Executors Debt against Executors one of them pleads in Bar a Recovery against himself in the Kings Bench The other two plead plene administr Against the first plea the Plaintiff did aver covin and upon the second plea they are at issue The first issue is found for the Plaintiff and as to the other plea it was found that the Defendants have in their hands thirty pounds of the goods of their Testator not administred Note the debt in demand was one hundred pounds upon which the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover the goods of the Testator and thereupon had execution Now the Plaintiff brought a Scire facias against the said Executors supposing that many other goods of the Testator have come unto their
their amendment makes alteration of the substance of the pleading or of the Verdict as 20 H. 6. 15. In Trespass the Plaintiff declared of a continuando usque diem impetrationis brevis viz. 18. die Martii where the Teste of the Writ was 2 die Januarij the Defendant pleaded to Issue which was found for the Plaintiff and that Misprision of the Teste or date of the Writ could not be amended And no amendment upon this Stat. of 27 Eliz. two things are to be considered First that the Iudges in such amendment medle not with matter nor alter the substance Secondly that they do not amend but according to their judicial knowledge Anderson to the same intent for as it hath been said before the truth of the Case doth not appear unto us according to which we can judge and I conceive that upon any amendment upon this Statute we cannot take out one Roll and put in another and as our case is we cannot amend this defect without taking out the whole Roll and therefore in the Case of Leonard which was late Custos brevium here where in a Replevin he avowed for a Rent-service and upon especial Verdict the Case was that Sir Henry Isley held of the said Leonard by Fealty and the Rent mentioned in the Avowry and was attainted of high Treason and the King seised and granted the Land to the Plaintiff upon whom Leonard avowed for the Rent-service and I and my companions were agreed that the rent notwithstanding the seisure and grant of the King remained distrainable of common right but Leonard could not have return of the Cattel because he had avowed for a Rent-service now it appeareth to us upon the Verdict that he had right to so much rent but not to such a Rent but a Rent-seck distrainable of common right so a Rent in another degree and we also agreed that the Avowry was not amendable for then upon such amendment we ought to take out a whole Roll which was not intended by this Statute And he conceived also that in debt against Executors in the Debet detinet such a Writ shall not be amended by this Statute and he conceived that his exception to the Bar quod ad medietatem 60. Messuag c. parcel medietatis c. is relieved by this Statute for the meaning appeareth And also the exception that it is not expresly shewed that the Fine was engrossed in the same Term in which it was levied And Periam moved another matter Co. 1 Inst 71. b. 72. a. if now the parties demurring in Law as to part of the Land in demand and being at Issue upon the residue if the Court shall adjudge the matter in Law before the Issue be tried or not 32 H. 6. 5 6. In Trespass for taking of his Cattel the Defendant as to parcel pleaded not guilty and as to the remnant pleaded another Plea upon which the parties did demur and there they proceeded to trial before the matter in Law determined and found for the Plaintiff and he had Iudgment thereupon for the damages but the costs were suspended until c. And the Defendant brought his Writ of Error 48 E. 3. 15. In an Action of Wast as to parcel the Defendant pleads no Wast and as to the rest pleaded matter in Law upon which there was a demurer joyned It was holden that the Issue should not be tried until the matter in Law be determined But it was said by Fulthorpe in Trespass if the Defendant to parcel plead the Enquest and to other parcel matter in Law in such case he should proceed to trial presently and damages should be taxed of the whole as well of that upon which there was a demurrer in Law as of that of which the Issue was joyned ad quod non fuit responsum See also 11 H. 4. 228. In Trespass the Defendant pleaded to Issue for part and for the residue did demur in Law Process for the trial issued before the matter in Law determined And Periam conceived that the Court might proceed in such Case the one way or the other As to the matter in Law whether the issue in tail upon this Fine should have the Averment he conceived that he should not have the said Averment for that it should be very perilous to the Inheritances of the subjects And he argued much upon the dignity of Fines out of Bracton and Glanvil whom he called Actores non Authores Legis that Fines at the common Law were of great authority until the Statute of West 2. And afterwards by the Statute of 34 E. 3. of non-claim from whence they became to be of so little value in Law that they were accounted no other than Feoffments upon Record so as thereby no assurance was of Inheritances but a general incertainty until the Statute of 4. H. 7. by which Statute they were restored to their ancient power and virtue After which Statute many shifts were devised to creep out of it So as the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made to take away all questions and ambiguities which were conceived upon the said Statute of 4 H. 7. And therefore we who are Iudges ought to frame our Iudgments for the maintaining of the authority of Fines for so the possessions and inheritances of the Subjects shall be preserved And that is the reason that if a stranger levy a Fine of my Land in my name that I have not any remedy but a Writ of Deceit against him who levyes the Fine so if a Feme-covert levyeth a Fine of her Land as a Feme-sole the same shall bind her after the coverture if the Husband do not enter upon the Conusee during the coverture and interrupt the possession gained by the Fine And 17 E. 3. and our Books are very plentiful to this purpose that the Law doth aerge admit of such allegations against such Fines A Fine was pleaded in Bar of Land in A. B. and C. he against whom it was pleaded was not received to aver against the supposal of the Fine that there was no such Town or Hamlet as A. 46 E. 3. 5. A woman Tenant in tail had Issue a Daughter who was inheritable to the tail the Daughter took a Husband they both living the Mother and during her seisin levied a Fine of the Land entailed to a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. who rendred the Land to the Husband and Wife in specil tail the Husband died having Issue the Wife took another Husband had Issue and died the Husband to entitie himself to the Land as Tenant by the curtesy would in pleading have averred the seisin of the Mother at the time of the Fine levyed and he could not and yet he was a stranger to the Fine but he was privy to the estate and his claim was by her who levyed the Fine 6 E. 3. 46. Fitz. Averment 40. In a Writ of Entry sur dissei sin the Fine of the
Ancestor of the Demandant was pleaded in Bar by the name of W the Demandant in avoidance of it would have said that the name of his Father was R. to have avoided the Fine but to that he was not received And 3 E. 3. 32. scil Averment 42. In a Formedon the Tenant pleaded Ne dona pas The Demandant by Replication said That a Fine was levied of the same Lands between the Father of the Demandant and one T. by which Fine the Father of the Demandant did acknowledge to T. the Lands come ceo c. and the said T. gave by the said Fine to the Father of the Demandant the Land in tail Where it is said by Stone that since the gift is proved by as high a Record a man shall not aver against such matter in avoidance of the said Fine c. and yet the party against whom it was was a stranger to the Fine And see 38 E. 3. 7. The Lord shall not be received against a Fine levied by his Tenant to aver the dying seised of his Tenant in his Homage And as to the Issue in tail he conceived that the Averment doth not lie for him for the Issue in tail is as much privy as the Heir of a Tenant in Fee-simple And see 33 E. 3. scil Estoppel 280. In a Formedon the Tenant voucheth the Demandant Counter-pleaded that the Vouchee nor any of his Ancestors had any thing in the Land in demand after the seisin c. to which the Tenant said that to that the Demandant should not be received for the Father of the Demandant after the gift levied a Fine to the Ancestor of the Vouchee of the said Land in demand sur conusans de droit come ceo c. and the same was holden a good bar to the Counter-plea And it was said by the Iustices That although the Statute of West 2. of Donis conditionalibus doth not avoid the Fine as to the fore-closing of the Issue in tail of his Formedon yet it remaineth in force as to the restraining of the heir in tail to aver a thing against the Fine as well as against the heir in Fee-simple and in all Cases where he against whom a Fine is pleaded claims by him who levieth the Fine he shall not have the same Averment but where he claims by a stranger to the Fine there he shall have it well enough see 33 H. 6. 18. If my Father Tenant in tail or in Fee grant the Land by Fine and afterwards I make Title to the same Land by the same Ancestor and the Fine is pleaded against me I shall not be received to say that those who were parties to the Fine had not any thing at the time of the Fine levied but such a one an estranger whose estate c. but it is a good Plea for me to say that after the Fine such a one was seised in Fee and did enfeoff me vid. 22 E 3. 17. before 33 E. 3. Estoppel 280. And Dyer 16 Eliz. 334. The Father is Tenant for life the Remainder in Fee to his Son and Heir levieth a Fine to a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. with warranty and takes back an estate by the same Fine in that case it was holden that the heir should not be received to aver continuance of the possession and seisin either ante finem tempore finis or post finem in the Tenant for life for it is a Feoffment upon Record and makes a discontinuance of the Remainder and Reversion The only Book in our Law to maintain the Averment is 12 E. 4. 15. by Brian who although he was a reverend Iudge in his time yet he erred in this that if Tenant in tail be disseised and levieth a Fine unto a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. that the Issue in tail may well say that partes ad finem nihil habuerunt but Coke and Lit. were clear of a contrary opinion and see in the same year fol. 12 by Fairfax and Littleton that if Tenant in tail where the Remainder is over to a stranger levieth a Fine sur conusans dodroit come ceo c. he in the Remainder may aver continuance of seisin against that Fine for he is not party nor heir to the party c. And the Stat. of 4 H. 7. goes strongly to extort such Averment out of the mouth of the Issue in tail for the words concerning the same point are saving to every person or persons not party nor privy to the said Fine their exception to avoid the said Fine by that that those which were parties to the said Fine nor any of them had ought in the Land at the time of the said Fine levied And it is clear that the Issue in tail is privy to his Ancestor whose heir to the tail he is which see agreed 19 H. 8. 6. 7. And he vouched the Case of one Stamford late adjudged Land was given to the eldest Son in tail the Remainder to the Father in tail the eldest Son levied a Fine sur conusans de droit come ceo c. and died without Issue in the life of his Father and afterwards the Father died the second Son shall inherit but if the eldest Son had survived the Father and afterwards died without Issue the second Son should have been barred Periam to the same intent It should be very dangerous to the Inheritances of the Subjects to admit of such Averments and by such means Fines which should be of great force and effect should be much weakned and he put many Cases to the same purpose as were put before by Rhodes Iustice and he shewed how that Fines and the power of them were much weakned by the Statute of non-claim whereof followed as the preface of the Statute of 4 H. 7. observeth the Vniversal trouble of the Kings Subjects and therefore by the said Statute of 4 H. 7. Fines for the good and safety of the Subjects were restored to their former Grandure and authority which should be construed by us who are Iudges strongly and liberally for the quiet and establishment of present possessions and for the barring and extinguishing of former rights and so did the Iudges our Predecessors which see in the Argument of the said Case between Stowel and the Lord Zouch So see such liberal construction 19 Eliz. Dyer 351. Where if Land be given to Husband and Wife in special tail and the Husband alone levieth a Fine and dieth having Issue the Issue is barred And it hath lately been adjudged by the advice of all the Iudges of England upon the Statute of 1 Ma. viz. All Fines levied whereupon Proclamations shall not be dayly made by reason of Adjournment of any Term shall be of as good force and strength to all intents and purposes as if such Term had been holden and kept from the beginning to the end thereof and not adjourned and the Proclamations shall be made in the following
Term which reason in construction of the said Statute the Iudges in the case of the Cooks of London 20. Eliz. have observed which see Plowden 538. For although Successors are not mentioned in the said Statute of 4 H. 7. but only Heirs yet the Iudges did construe the said Statute to extend to them that they should be bounden as well as the Heirs for it is in the like mischief and the said Statute was made for the publick good and for the repose of the Inheritances of the Subjects of this Realm and therefore the same ought to be largely extended in the meaning and sense of it and for the benefit of the Possessors of the Lands and to the destroying of former rights which were not claimed It hath been said that this Fine is but a Fine by conclusion and not in verity and therefore not within the Statute But without question Fines by conclusion are within the Statute And that is clear by the Saving scil to all persons other than parties to the said Fines c. And Periam was against the opinion in Stowells Case by Sanders 356. A Disseisor maks a Feoffment in fee upon condition the Feoffee levies a Fine with Proclamation five years pass the condition is broken the Disseissor re-entreth and Periam conceived that in such Case the Disseissee is bounden for by the Fine and five years non-claim the right of every stranger is barred and when the Disseissor entreth for the condition broken the Fine is not annoyed but rather confirmed and former rights shall not be revived Windham to the same intent and vouched the Books before remembred and that the meaning of the Statute of 32 H. 8. made upon the Statute of 4 H. 7. was to bind the Issue in tail as strongly as the heir of Tenant in Fee-simple was bound at the common Law and that Fines by conclusion are as fully within the purview of that Statute as Fines in verity for Fines by conclusion are Assurances And as to the objection against our Fine that it is not rite levatus because that partes ad finem nihil habuerunt c. the same is no reason wherefore this Fine should not be rite levatus for these words rite levatus to the external form of a Fine are to be taken as to a Fine levied coram Edmundo Anderson socijs suis where all the Iustices ought to be named and so it seemed also to Periam and Anderson Our case had little resemblance to the Case where Tenant in tail maks a Lease according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. if he be not seised at the time of the demise it is void for the Stat. speaks seised in tail but so are not penned the Statutes of 4 H. 7. 32 H. 8. as 4 H. 7. a Fine levied shall bind privies strangers c. 32 H. 8. Fines levied of any Lands entailed to the Conusor or any of his Ancestors and it is not a Fine in respect of the possession which passeth by the Fine but in respect of the Concord and Agreement And Tenant in tail by these Statutes hath as great power to bind the right of the entail although he cannot meddle with the possession as the Tenant in Fee-simple at the common Law. Anderson to the same intent All the matter rests upon this point if the Issue in tail be privy or not for if he be privy then clearly he is bounden And as to that the Issue in tail before the Statute of 32 H. 8. hath been always accounted privy See 29 H 8. Dyer 32. Tenant in tail of the gift of the King levieth a Fine the same shall bind his Issue for they are privy And he argued much upon the Cases cited by the other Iustices before and especially upon the said Case of Stowel and the Lord Zouch how that the Issue in tail is there holden privy and that the Statute of Fines ought to be taken and construed to enfore the operation of Fines against former rights and for the establishment of the present possessions and estates And by him divers rights and persons are excepted by the said Statute but this right in gross of possession nor the Issue in tail whose Ancestor being out of possession levieth the Fine is not excepted therefore both of them comprehended in the Statute And in his argument he stood much upon it how dangerous a matter it should be to receive such averments and allegations which go meerly in avoidance of Fines for so every Fine might fall in the mouth of the Lay-Gens which would be very inconvenient And he concluded his Argument with this Case Tenant in tail doth discontinue and disseiseth his discontinnuee and levieth a Fine the discontinuee before the proclamations reentreth the proclamations are made Tenant in tail doth re-enter and dieth seised against this Fine his Issue shall not be remitted See as to the averment 3 H. 627. 33 H. 6. 18. 42 E. 3. 20. 8 H. 4. 8. 12 E. 4. 19. by Fairfax and Needham and fol. 15. by Brian and Choke And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Demandant should be barred CIII Gunerston and Hatchers Case Intr. Pasch 24 Eliz. Rot. 2112. In Communi Banco CHarles Duke of Suffolk was seised of three parts of the Manor of D. and Poole was seised of the fourth part of the said Manor Avowry and afterwards the Duke granted out of the said three parts a Rent-charge of five marks to Gunerston and afterwards the said Duke of the said three parts did enfeoffe Hatcher in Fee after which Poole conveyed his said fourth part of the said Manor to the said Hatcher in Fee and afterwards Hatcher being seised ut supra reciting the said several purchases especially the said fourth part devised to Katherin Hatcher at Will and Gunerston distreined the Cattel of Katherin Hatcher for the arrearages of the said Rent and in a Replevin avowed the distress and by the opinion of the whole Court the Avowry was not maintainable for the fourth part of the said Manor which was in the possession of Poole was not charged with the Rent and although all the Manor be now in the possession of Hatcher yet the Mannor is not so consolidated nor united by this unity of possession but that the owner might well enough single out eandem quartam partem and grant it and the grantee shall hold the same discharged as the said Poole held it and the beasts of the said Katherin shall not be distreined and so Iudgment was given against the Avowant CIV Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Voucher Post 291. IT was moved by Serjeant Walmesley If a common Recovery be to pass at the Bar and the Tenant is ready at the Bar and voucheth to warr A. for whom one is ready at the Bar to appear for the vouchee by his warrant of Attorny It was holden that this appearance is meerly void for in such case the vouchee ought to appear in person
petit quod inquiratur per patriam praedict Brett similiter It was moved that the parties should replead for this matter upon which they are at Issue scil the appearance is not triable by Iury but by the Record And the Court was clear of opinion that the parties should replead for the cause aforesaid And it was moved by the Lord Anderson that if A. be bound to appear in the Kings Bench at such a day and A. at the said days goe to the Court but there no process is returned then the party may go to one of the chief Clerks of the Court and pray him to take a Note of his appearance And by Nelson we have an acient form of entry of such Appearance in such Cases Ad hunc diem venit I. S. propter indemnitatem suam Manucaptorum suorum petit quod comparentia sua in Curia hic recordetur And see for the same 38 H. 6. 17. And afterwards the Lord Anderson inspecto Rotulo ex assensu sociorum awarded a Repleader And so by Nelson it hath been done oftentimes here before and put in ure The same Law is where at the day of appearance no Court is holden or the Iustices do not come c. he who was bound to appear ought to have an Appearance recorded in such manner as it may be and if the other party pleadeth Nul tiel Record it behoveth that the Defendant have the Record ready at his peril for this Court cannot write to the Iustices of the Kings Bench for to certifie a Record hither CXV Baxter and Bales Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt not extinct by administration BAxter brought Debt upon a Bond as Executor of I. against Bale who pleaded that the Plaintiff after the death of the Testator was cited to appear before the Ordinary or his Commissary to prove the Will of the said I. and at the day of his appearance he made default upon which the Ordinary committed Letters of Administration to the Defendant by force of which he did administer so the debt is extinct c. but the whole Court was clear of opinion that the debt was not extinct for now by the probate of the Will the administration is defeated and although the Executor made default at the day which he had by the Citation before the Ordinary yet thereby he is not absolutely debarred but that he may resort to the proving of the Will whensoever he pleaseth But if he had appeared and renounced the Executorship it had been otherwise and the debt is not extinct by the Administration in the mean time CXVI Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Franchise the parties are at Issue upon a matter triable out of the Franchise And it was moved if now the Record should be sent into the Common Pleas and there tryed and after trial sent back into the Franchise Which Periam and Anderson utterly denied and by Periam there is no reason that we should be their Ministers to try Issues joyned before them And it is not like 2 Len. 37. where in a Liberty or Franchise a Forrein Voucher is to warrant Lands in such cases we shall determine the Warranty but that is by a special Statute of Glocester cap. 12. And Nelson Prothonotary said that such an Issue was tryed here of late Quod nota CXVII The Earl of Arundel and the Lord Dacres Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. At Serjeants Inne PHilip Earl of Arundel and the Lord William Howard his Brother marryed the Daughters and Co-heirs of the late Lord Dacres And now came Francis Lord Dacres as heir male of the said Family and claimed the Inheritance c. And after long sute betwixt both parties they submitted themselves to the award of Gilbert Lord Talbot and of Arthur Lord Grey of Wilton and Windham and Periam Iustices And before them at Serjeants Inne the matter was well debated by the Council learned on both sides and as unto Greistock Lands parcel of the Lands in question the Case was That Tenant in tail makes a Feoffment in fee unto the use of himself for his life the Remainder in tail to his eldest Son with divers Remainders over with a Proviso that if any of the Entailees do any act to interrupt the course of any entail limited by the said Conveyance that then the use limited to such person should cease and go to him who is next inheritable And afterwards Tenant in tail dieth his eldest Son to whom the use in tail was first limited entreth and doth an Act against the said Proviso and yet held himself in and made Leases the Lessees enter the Lessor dieth seised his Heir being within age and in ward to the Queen It was holden by Shutleworth Serjeant Yelverton Godfrey Owen and Coke who were of Council with the Heirs general of the Lord Dacres that here is a Remitter for by this Act against the Proviso the use Remitter and so the possession doth accrue to the enfant Son of him to whom the use in tail was limited by the Tenant in tail Then when the Tenant in tail after his said Feoffment holds himself in this is a disseissin for a Tenancy by sufferance cannot be after the cesser of an estate of Inheritance But admit that he be but a Tenant at sufferance Hâ—b 255. Dy. 54. yet when he makes Leases for years the same is clearly a disseisin and then upon the whole matter a Remitter and although the Enfant taketh by the Statute yet the right of the tail descending to him afterwards by the death of his Father doth remit him as if Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life the Remainder in tail to his eldest Son inheritable to the first intail notwithstanding that the eldest Son takes his Remainder by the Statute and so be in â—â— force thereof yet when by the death of his Father the right of the Entail descends to him he is remitted CXVIII Butler and Ayres Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower BUtler and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Thomas Ayre Son and Heir of Bartholmew Ayre first Husband of the said Margaret Wife of the Plaintiff and demanded Dower of Lands in A. and B the Tenant pleaded never seised que Dower and the Iury found that the said Bartholmew was seised during the Coverture de omnibus tenementis infra script preterquam the Tenements in sic ut dicta Margareta dotari potuit Exception was taken to this Verdict because that this preterquam c. doth confound the Verdict To which it was said by the Court that the preterquam is idle and surplusage for it is of another thing than that which is in demand and the seisin of the first Husband of Lands in A. and B. is confessed and the preterquam works nothing Another matter was objected because here the Iury have assessed damages
as in case where the Husband died seised Dy. 370. the which dying seised is not found by the Verdict In which Case it was said by the Court the Demandant might pray Iudgment of the Lands and release damages or the Demandant may aver that the Husband died seised and have a Writ to enquire of the damages quod omnes Pregnotarii concesserunt CXIX Michel and Hydes Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower DOwer by Michel and his Wife against Lawrence Hyde who appeared upon the grand Cape And it was because that the said Hyde in truth was but Lessee for years of the Land of which c. in which case he might plead non-tenure if now he might wage his Law of non-summons so as the Writ be abated for by the wager of Law he hath taken upon him the Tenancy and affirmed himself to be Tenant 33 H. 6. 2. by Prisoit to which it was said by Rhodes and Windham Iustices that here the Tenant being but Lessee for years is not at any mischief for if Iudgment and Execution be had against him he notwithstanding might afterwards enter upon the Demandant Another matter was moved That where the Writ of Dower was de tertia parte Rectoriae de D. and upon that the grand Cape issued Cape in manum nostram tertiam partem Rectoriae and the Sheriff by colour of this Writ took the Tythes severed from the nine parts and carried them away with him And it was agreed by the said Iustices that the same is not such a seisure as is intended by the said Writ but the Sheriff by virtue of such Writ ought generally to seize but leave them there where he found them And the Court was of opinion to commit the Sheriff to Prison for such his misdemeanor CXX Hamington and Ryders Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIchard Haming Executor of Isabel Haming brought Debt upon an Obligation against Ryder Debt Savil Rep. 74. Owen Rep. 6. 1 Co. 52. 1 Andâ— 162. the Case was that Kidwelly was seised leased for years to John Hamington Husband of Isabel and afterwards John Hamington being so possessed by his will devised that the said Isabel should have the use and occupation of the said Land for all the years of the said Term as she should live and remain sole and if she died or married that then his Son should have the residue of the said Term not expired John died Isabel entred Devises to whom the said Lawr. coveyed by Feoffment the said Land in Fee and in the Indenture of the said Conveyance Lawr. covenanted that the said Land from thence should be clearly exouerated de omnibus prioribus barganijs titulis juribus omnibus alijs oneribus quibuscunque Isabel took to Husband the Son entreth If now the Covenant be broken was the question It seemed to Anderson at the first motion that this possibility which was in the Son at the time of the Feoffment was not any of the things mentioned in the Covenant scil former bargain title right or charge But yet it was conceived by him that the word bargain did extend to it for every Lease for years is a contract and although that the Land at the time of the Feoffment was not charged yet it was not discharged of the former contract And by Windham if I be bounden in a Statute-staple and afterwards I bargain and sell my Lands and covenant ut supra here the Land is not charged but if after the condition contained in the defeazance be broken so as the Conusee extends now the Covenant is broken And by him the word charge doth extend to a possibility and this possibility might be extinct by Livery as all agreed but not translated by grant Ante 33. 3 Len. 43. Covenant or extinguished by release as it was lately adjudged in the Case of one Carter At another day it was argued by Walmesley and he much relied upon the words clearly exonerated utterly discharged or altogether exonerated and without doubt it is a charge which may happen and if it may happen then the Land is not clare exonerated And also former bargains do extend to it and the Term is not extinct by the acceptance of the Feoffment aforesaid of Kidwelly and although that at the time of the Feoffment it was but a possibility and no certain interest yet now upon the marriage of Isabel it is become an actual burthen and charge upon the Land and he cited a Case adjudged 8 Eliz. A man seised of Lands grants a Rent-charge to begin at a day to come before which day he bargains and sells the Lands and covenants that the said Lands are discharged of all charges in that case when the day when the Rent ought to begin is incurred the Covenant is clearly broken for the Lands were not clearly exonerated c. At another day the Case was moved at the Bar. And Anderson openly in Court declared that he and all his companions were agreed that the Land at the time of the Feoffment was not discharged of all former Rights Titles and charges and therefore commanded that Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff CXXI Howel and Trivanians Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HOwel brought an Action upon the Case against Trivanian in the Common Pleas and declared Assumpsit that he delivered certain goods to the brother of the Defendant who made the Defendant his Executor and died after which the Plaintiff came to the Defendant and spake with him concerning the said goods upon which communication and speech the Defendant promised the Plaintiff that if the Plaintiff could prove that the said goods were delivered to the Testator 2 Roll. 594. that he would pay the value of them to the Plaintiff And the Declaration was in consideration that the said goods came to the hands of the Testator and also afterwards the goods came to the Defendants hands and upon non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given And afterwards Error was brought in the Kings Bench and Error assigned because that the Plaintiff had not averred in his Declaration that he had proved the delivery of the said goods to the said Testator 1 Cro. 105. for the words of the promise are si probare potuisset And also it was assigned for Error that here is not any consideration upon which this promise could receive any strength for the Defendant hath not any profit or advantage thereby scil by the bailment of the said goods to the Brother of the Defendant And also it is a thing before executed and not depending upon the promise nor the promise upon it As the Case reported by the Lord Dyer 10 Eliz. 272. The Servant is arrested in London and two men to whom the Master is well known bail the said Servant and after the Master promiseth to them for their friend-ship to save them harmless from all costs
and damages and in an Action upon the Case brought upon that promise the Plaintiff was barred for here is not any consideration for they bailed the Servant of their own head without the request of the Master and the matter which is alledgged for consideration is executed before the Assumpsit and the promise was not before the enlargment and the said bailment was not at the instance Claytons Rep. 45. 1 Cro. 756. or request of the Master And the Case of one Hudson was cited adjudged in the Kings Bench The Defendant in consideration that he was Administrator and natural Son of the Intestate and that the goods of his Father have come to his hands promiseth to pay the debt to the Plaintiff And in an Action upon the Case upon that promise the Defendant pleaded he made no such promise and it was found that no goods came to the hands of the Defendant And it was holden that the consideration that he was Administrator and Son to the Testator was not of any force to maintain the Action and afterwards in the principal Case the Iudgment was affirmed And it was moved by Coke that Iudgment should not be given against the Executor of his own goods if he had not goods of the Testator for the charge doth not extend beyond the consideration i. e. That the goods of the Testator came to the hands of the Defendant But Wray Iustice was of opinion that Iudgment shall be of his proper goods as in Case of confession Kemp Secondary if the Action be brought upon Assumpsit of the Testator Iudgment shall be of the goods of the Testator but of the promise of the Executor of his own goods but the Original Iudgment which is now affirmed was general CXXII Savel and Woods Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 71. 3 Len. 203. 265. Post 128. THe Case was That a Parson did Libel in the spiritual Court against a Parishoner for Tythes of such Lands within his Parish the Defendant came into the Kings Bench and surmised and that he and all those whose estate he hath in the Lands out of which the Tythes are demanded have used to pay every year five shillings to the Parish Clark of the same Parish for all the Tythes out of the same place And it was argued by Coke that that could not be for a Parish Clark is not a person corporate nor hath succession But if he had prescribed that they had used to pay it to the Parish Clark to the use of the Parson it had been good Also he ought to shew that the Parson ought of right to find the Parish Clark c. And he cited the Case of Bushie the Parson of Pancras who libelled in the Spiritual Court for Tithes The Defendant to have a prohibition did prescribe that he and all those c. had time out of mind c. used to pay to the Vicar c. and at last a Consultation was awarded because it was triable in the Ecclesiastical Court for both parties as well Vicar as Parson are spiritual persons and the modus decimandi is not in question but cui solvend And at another day it was agreed by the Iustices that of common right the Parson is not tied to find the Parish Clark for then he should be said the Parsons Clark and not the Parish Clark But if the Parson be tied to find such a Clark Challenge and such a sum hath been used to be paid to the Parish Clark in discharge of the Person the same had been a good prescription and so by way of composition and by Clench Tythes are to be paid to spiritual Persons but a Parish-Clark is a Lay-person And afterwards the Court granted a Consultation CXXIII Higham and Reynolds Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant 1 Maii 28 Eliz. cut down six posts of the house of the Plaintiff at D. The Defendant doth justifie because that the Free-hold of the house 10 Aprilis 27 Eliz. was to I. S. and that he by his commandment the same day and year did the Trespass c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law because the Defendant did not traverse without that that he was guilty before or after And the opinion of Wray was that the traverse taken was well enough because the Free-hold shall be intended to continue c. Vide 7. H. 7. 3. But all the other three Iustices were of a contrary opinion to Wray But they all agreed that where the Defendant doth justifie by reason of his Free-hold at the day supposed in the Declaration there the traverse before is good enough And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Defendant CXXIV Knight and Footmans Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass by Knight against Footman the Case upon the pleading was that one Margaret had issue two Sons Richard and Thomas Surrender of Copy-hold Land. and surrendred to the use of Richard for life and afterwards to the use of Thomas in Fee they both Thomas being within age surrender to the use of one Robert â—ap John in Fee who is admitted Richard dieth Co 1 Inst 248. Thomas dieth having issue A. who is also admitted and enters into the Land and if his entry be lawful or that he be put to his plaint in the nature of a Dum fuit infra aetatem was the Question And Wray was clear of opinion that it was And if a man seised of Copy-hold Land in the right of his Wife or Tenant in tail of a Copy-hold doth surrender to the use of another in Fee the same doth not make any discontinuance but that the issue in tail and the Wife may respectively enter 1 Cro. 372. 380. 391. 483. 717. More 596. and so was it holden in the Serjeants Case when Audley who afterwards was made Chancellor of England was made Serjeant and afterwards it was adjudged that the entry of the Enfant was lawful CXXV Sir Wollaston Dixies Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer AN Information was in the Exchequer against Sir Wollaston Dixie upon the Statute of Vsury upon not guilty pleaded Information upon the Statute of 13. Eliz of Usury The Informeâ— gave in evidence an usurious Contract upon a bargain of Wares The opinion of the Court was that the Information being exhibited for the loan of money that the Evidence was not pursuing nor leading to the Issue And yet the Iury against the opinion of the Court upon that evidence found the Defendant guilty And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Evidence did not maintain the Information nor prove the Issue ex parte Querentis and it was said there are three things within the Statute i. three words i. bargain loan and cheivizance and these three are several things and therefore if the Information be conceived upon loan and the Informer giveth in Evidence a corrupt
Kings Bench. PRowse brought an Action upon the Case against Cary for words That the Plaintiff did subborn procure and bring in false Witnesses in such a Court at Westminster c. The Defendant pladed Not guilty And it was found that he did procure and brought in false Witnesses but was acquitted of the suborning It was objected 1 Cr. 296. 554. 607. That the Action doth not lie for it may be that the Defendant did not know that he would depose falsly Thou art a forger of false Writings are not actionable and so it was adjudged for it may be understood of Letters of small importance but that Exception was not allowed for it shall be taken in malam partem and cannot be spoken of any honest man. CXXXII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A. Was bounden in an Obligation to B. upon condition that if A deliver to B. twenty Quarters of Corn the nine and twentieth of February next following datum presentium that then c. and the next February had but eight and twenty days And it was holden that A. is not bounden to deliver the Corn until such a year as is Leap-year for then February hath nine and twenty days and at such nine and twentieth day he is to deliver the Corn and the Obligation was holden good CXXXII Allen and Palmers Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was a Copy-holder did surrender his Lands to the use of a stranger for life Copy-holder surrenders where his heir shall be in by purchase 2 Roll. 416. Co. 1 Inst 226. and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the Copy-holder who afterwards surrendred his Reversion to the use of a stranger in Fee died and the Tenant for life died and the right Heir of Palmer the Copy-holder entred And by Cook nothing remained in the Copy-holder upon the said surrender but the Fee is reserved to his right Heirs for if he had not made any such second surrender his Heir should be in not by descent but by purchase And the common difference is where a surrender is to the use of himself for life and afterwards to another in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of him who surrendreth there his Heirs shall have it by descent contrary where the surrender hath not an estate for life or in tail limited to him for there his Heir shall enter as a purchasor as if such use had been limitted to the right Heirs of a stranger And by him if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of his right Heirs the Land shall remain in the Lord until the death of the Copy-holder for then his Heir is known c. See Dyer 99. The Husband made a Feoffment to the use of his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Husband and Wife begotten they have issue the Wife dieth the issue cannot enter in the life of his Father for then he is not his Heir See Dyer 7 Eliz. 237. The Husband is sole seised in Fee and levieth a Fine of the Land to the use of himself and his Wife and the Heirs of the Husband and they render the Land to the Conusor for the life of the Husband the remainder to B. for life the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband The Husband dieth B. dieth Now the Wife shall have the Land for the life of the Wife for she shall not lose her estate by that render and this remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband is void and the Land and estate in it is in him as a Reversion and not as a Remainder And a man cannot tail a Remainder to his right Heirs whilest he is living unless it begin first in himself See Br. 32 H. 8. Gard. 93. CXXXIV Pearle and Edwards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was that the Defendant had leased Lands to the Plaintiff rendring Rent for certain years Assumpsit Consideration 1 Cro. 94. and after some years of the Term expired the Lessor in consideration that the Lessee had occupied the Land and had paid his Rent promised the Plaintiff to save him harmless against all persons for the occupation of the Land past and also to come And afterwards H. distrained the Cattle of the Plaintiff being upon the Lands upon which he brought his Action Golding Here is not a sufficient consideration for the payment of the Rent is not any consideration for the Lessee hath the ocupation of the Land for it and hath the profits thereof and also the consideration is past Cook The occupation which is the consideration continues therefore it is a good Assumpsit as 4 E. 3. A Gift in Frank-marriage after the espousals and yet the marriage is past but the blood continues so here and here the payment of the Rent is executory every year and if the Lessee be saved for his occupation he will pay his Rent the better Godfrey If a man marrieth my Daughter against my will and afterwards in consideration of that marriage I promise him one hundred pounds the same is no good consideration 2 Len. 111. which Clench Iustice denied And afterwards the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover his damages CXXXV Wakefords Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Extinguishment of Copy-hold by Release THe Earl of Bedford Lord of the Manor of B. sold the Free-hold Interest of a Copy-holder of Inheritance unto another so as it is now no part but divided from the Manor and afterwards the Copy-holder doth release to the purchasor It was holden by the Court that by this Release the Copy-hold Interest is extinguished and utterly gone but if was holden that if a Copy-holder be ousted so as the Lord of the Manor is disseised and the Copy-holder releaseth to the Disseisor nihil operatur CXXXVI Docton and Priests Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass for breaking of his Close 1 Cro. 95. it was found by special verdict that two were Tenants in common of a house and of a close â—djoyning to the house and they being in the house make partition without deed of the house and the close see 3 E. 4. 9. 10. Partition without deed upon the Land is good enough Vide 3 H. 4. 1. And it seems by 3 E 4. Partition made upon the Land amounts to a Livery Vide 2 Eliz. Dyer 179. Partition by word out the County void 19 H. 6. 25. Betwixt Tenants in common not good without deed 2 Roll. 255. 47 E. 3. 22. being upon the Land it is good without deed Two joynt-Ioynt-tenants make partition by word make partition in another County the same is no partition for as to that matter the common Law is not altered by the Statute but as to compel such persons to make partition Wray Iustice conceived that the partition here being without deed was not good although made upon the Lands Vide 18 Eliz. Dyer 35.
made upon condition to pay certain mony at such a day and at the day the Feoffees make an Obligation to the Feoffor for the payment of it the same is no performance of the condition And by Periam If the Executor be taken in Execution for the debt of the Testator he may retain so much of the goods of the Testator amounting to the sum for which he is in Execution and it shall be accounted Assets in his hands Anderson If he to whom the Testator was endebted in 20 l. be endebted to the Executors in so much and the Executor in satisfaction of the debt of the Testator releaseth his debt the property shall be altered presently of the whole goods in the hands of the Executors so where the Debtor makes the Creditor his Executor And Iudgment was given for the Executors CLIV. Bears Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Formedon A Formedon in the Discender was brought by Samuel Bear James Bear and John Bear of Lands in Gavel-kind and the Warranty of their Ancestor was pleaded against them in Bar upon which they were at Issue If Assets by discent And it was found by special verdict that Thomas Father of the Demandants was seised in Fee of the Lands supposed to be descended to the Demandants being of the nature of Gavel-kind and devised the same to the Demandants being his Heirs by the custom and to their Heirs equally to be divided amongst them Devise of Lands in Gavel-kind Owen 65. Dy. 350. 1 Cro. 431. More 594. 558. Sty 434. 3 Cro. 330. 443. 695. 696. And if the Demandants shall be accounted to be in of the Lands by descent or devise was the question for if by devise then they shall not be Assets Anderson Let us consider the devise by it self without the words equally to be divided amongst them And I conceive that they shall be in by the devise for they are now joynt-Ioynt-tenants and the survivor shall have the whole whereas if the Lands shall be holden in Law to have descended they should be Parceners and so as it were Tenants in common And although the words subsequent equally amongst them to be divided makes them Tenants in common yet that doth not amend the matter and so also was the opinion of Windham and Rhodes Iustices CLV Nash and Edwards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae by Nash against Edwards 1 Cro. 100. it was found by special verdict that one Dover Ancestor of the Plaintiff whose Heir he is being seised of certain Lands holden in Socage devised the same by word to his three Sisters And a stranger being present recited to the Devisor the said words of his Will and he did affirm them 3 Len. 79. And afterwards the said stranger put the said words in writing for his own remembrance but did not read them to the Devisor who afterwards died And it was moved If this devise being reduced in writing modo forma be good or not Spurling conceived that not for the Statute intends a Will in writing Devises but not such writing as is here without privity or direction of the Devisor and it is not like to the case of Brown and Sackvil 6 E. 6. Dyer 72. For the Notes were written by the commandment of the Devisor but here it doth not appear that the meaning of the Devisor was that the devise should be put in writing And devises in Law are favoured as the case in the Chancery was that Sir Richard Pexhal devised certain Lands to his Wife and the Scrivener inserted of his own head a condition scil that she should be chast which was disallowed by the Devisor himself for which after his death the condition although it was put in writing was void And by the whole Court the devise is void And by Wray 2 Len. 35. if he appoint A. to write his Will and it is written by B. it is void but if after he had written the Will if he had read it to the Devisor and he had confirmed it it had been a good Will which Gawdy granted And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should recover Stone and Withypolls Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot. 771. In the Kings Bench. STone brought an Action upon the Case against Dorothy Withypol the Executrix of W. Withypol her Husband 1 Cro. 126. Owen 94. 9 Co. 94. declared that where hersaid Husband for certain yards of Velvet of the value of fourteen pounds pro diversis alijs mercimonijs was endebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of ninety two pounds and made the Defendant his Executrix died that after his death he came to the Defendant and demanded of her the said debt who gave to him such answer Forbear me until Michaelmas and then I will pay it you or put you in sufficient security for the true payment thereof And declared further that at Michaelmas aforesaid the Defendant did not pay nor hath found any security and shewed a request to which the Defendant said that the said Testator at the time of the said Contracts for the Velvets and other Wares was within age Assumpsit And upon that Bar the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Egerton Solicitor for the Plaintiff As I conceive these Contracts made by the Plaintiff are not meerly void so that if an Action of Debt or upon the Case had been brought against the Testator himself he could not have pleaded upon the matter Nihil debet or Non Assumpsit or Non est factum but he ought to avoid the matter by special pleading and therefore here it is a good consideration and I conceive that if the Testator at his full age had assumed to pay the debt that that promise would have bound him 9 Eliz. it was the Case of the Lord Grey his Father was endebted to diverse Merchants upon simple Contracts and died seised of diverse Lands which descended to his Son and Heir in Fee the Creditors demanded their debts of the Heir who answered unto them if my Father were endebted unto you I will pay it and upon that promise an Action was adjudged maintainable although the Heir by the Law was not chargeable and also here the Defendant is to have ease and shall avoid trouble of Suits for perhaps if she had not made such promise the Plaintiff would have sued her presently which should be a great trouble unto her and therefore it is a good consideration Cooke contrary No consideration can be good if not that it touch either the charge of the Plaintiff or the benefit of the Defendant and none of them is in our case for the Plaintiff is not at any charge for which the Defendant can have any benefit for it is but the forbearance of the payment of the debt which she was not compellable to pay and as to the suit of the Chancery the same cannot make any good consideration for there is not any matter
in the Case which gives cause of suit in Chancery for they will not order a matter there which is directly against a Rule and Maxim of the common Law. As if a Feme Covert be bound c. and the Obligee bring her into the Chancery and if a man threaten me that if I will not pay to him ten pounds he will sue me in Chancery upon which I promise to pay it him no Action will lye And an Infant is not chargeable upon any contract but for his meat drink and necessary Apparel 19 Z. 4. 2. And in Debt upon such necessary Contract the Plaintiff ought to declare specially so as the whole certainty may appear upon which the Court may judge if the expense were necessary and convenient or not and upon the reasonableness of the price for otherwise if the necessity of the thing and reasonableness of the price doth not appear the Chancellor himself would not give any remedy or recompence to the party Wray Justice conceived that the Action would not lye for the contract was void and the Infant in an Action against him upon it may plead Nihil debet And if an Infant sell goods for money and doth not deliver them but the Vendee takes them he is a Trespassor but if the Infant had been bounden in an Obligation with a surety and afterwards at his full age he in consideration thereof promiseth to keep his surety harmless upon that promise an Action lyeth for the Infant cannot plead non est factum which see Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Case of one Edmunds And afterwards it was adjudged against the Plaintiff CLVII Charnock and Worsleys Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot 833. In the Kings Bench. Owen 21. 1 Cr. 129. CHarnock and his Wife brought a Writ of Error against Worsley the Case was that the Husband and Wife the Wife being within age levyed a Fine and the Wife upon inspection was adjudged within age it was moved if the Fine should be utterly reversed or as to the Wife only should stand against the Husband by Godfrey the Book of 50 E. 3. 6. was vouched where it is said by Candish that where such a Fine is reversed the Plaintiff shall not have execution till after the death of the Husband and by Coke and Atkinson a Fine acknowledged by the Husband and Wife is not like to a Feoffment made by them for in case of Feoffment something passeth from the Husband but in case of a Fine all passeth out of the Wife and the Conusee is in by her only And Atkinson shewed a Precedent in 2 H. 4. where the Fine was reversed for the whole and also another Precedent P. b. H. 8. Rot. 26. A Fine levyed betwixt Richard Elie Plaintiff and N. Ford. and Jane his Wife Deforceants the Wife being within age and Iudgment was given quod finis praedict adnulletur pro nullo penitus habeatur and that the Husband and Wife should be restored and thereupon a Writ issued to the Custos Brevium to bring into Court the Foot of the Fine and it was presently cancelled in Court. Wray this is a strong Precedent and we will not varse from it if other Precedents are not contrary Gawdy who was the same day made Iustice the Fine cannot be reversed as to one and stand as to the other and resembled it to the Case of Littleton 150. where Land is given to Husband and Wife in tail before coverture and the Husband aliens and takes back an estate to him and his Wife for their lives they both are remitted for the Wife cannot be remitted if the Husband be not remitted And a Precedent was cited to the contrary 7 Eliz. where the Case was that the Husband and Wife levyed a Fine the Husband died the Wife being within age the Wife took another Husband and they brought a Writ of Error and the Wife by inspection adjudged within age Fine reversed as to one to stand good against another and the Fine was reversed as to the Wife and her Heirs And it was argued by Golding that here the Writ of Error ought to abate for the Writ is too general whereas it ought to be special Ex querela A.B. nobis humillime supplicantis accepimus c. See the Book of Entries 278. Also the purclose of the Writ is ad damnum impsorum the Husband and the Wife whereas the Wife only hath loss by it and as to the Fine it self he conceived that it should be reversed but as to the Wife as if a man of full age and a man within age levy a Fine in a Writ of Error brought the Fine shall be reversed as to the Infant only and shall stand against the other and he cited the Case of the Lord Mountjoy 14. Eliz. Where a man seised in the right of his Wife acknowledged a Statute and afterwards he and his Wife levyed a Fine and he said that during the life of the Husband the Conusee of the Fine should hold the Land charged with the Statute Also in the Precedent of 2 H. 4. the Iudgment is that propter hunc alios errores the Fine should be reversed and I conceive that another Error was in the said Writ for which the Fine might be reversed in all viz. the Fine was levyed of two parts of the Manor of D. without saying in tres partes dividend And see that where two parts are demanded in a Writ 3 Co. 58 59. Modern Rep. 182. the Writ shall say so Brief 244 Coke contrary and as to the last matter I confess the Law is so in a Writ but not in a Fine for the same is but a Conveyance for it I be seised of a Manor and I grant to you two parts of the said Manor it is clear it shall be intended in three parts to be divided And as to the principal matter I conceive when the Fine is levyed by the Husband and Wife it shall be intended that the Land whereof c. is the Inheritance of the Wife if the contrary be not shewed and therefore if the party will have an especial Reversal he ought to shew the special matter as in Englishes Case A Fine was levyed by Tenant for life and he in the reversion being within age bringeth a Writ of Error now the Fine shall be reversed as to him in the Reversion but not as to the Tenant for life but here it shall be intended the Inheritance of the Wife and that the Husband hath nothing but in the right of his Wife and therefore she shall be restored to the whole for nothing passeth from the Husband but he is named with his Wife only for conformity 11 H. 7. 19. A. takes to Wife an Inheretrir who is attainted of Felony the King shall not have the Land presently by which it appeareth that all is in the Wife and she shall be restored to the whole and the Iudgment shall be according to the Presidents cited
the limitation for the life of the Wife cannot extend to both And as to the Book of 24 H. 8. Br. Forfeiture 87. 3 Cro. 167 168. Tenant for life aliens in Fee to B. Habendum sibi haeredibus suis for Term of the life of the Tenant for life the same is not a forfeiture for the whole is but the limitation of the estate And afterwards it was adjudged that it was a forfeiture Gawdy continuing in his former opinion And VVray said that he had conferred with the other Iudges of their House and they all held clearly that it is a forfeiture CLXXII Toft and Tompkins Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Rot. 528. UPon a special Verdict the case was that the Grand-father Tenant for life the Remainder to the Father in tail Discontinuance 1 Cro. 135. that the Grand-father made a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the Father in Fee And afterwards they both came upon the Land and made a Feoffment to Tompkins the Defendant Coke There is not any discontinuance upon this matter for the Father might well wave the advantage of the forfeiture committed by the Grand-father then when the Father joyns with the Grand-father in a Feoffment the same declares that he came upon the Land without intent to enter for a forfeiture It was one Waynmans Case adjudged in the common Pleas where the Disseissee cometh upon the Land to deliver a Release to the Disseissor that the same is no Entry to revest the Land in the Disseissee Then here it is the Livery of the Tenant for life and the grant of him in the Remainder and he in the Remainder here was never seised by force of the tail and so no discontinuance Godfrey Here is a Remitter by the Entry and afterwards a discontinuance for by the Entry of both the Law shall adjudge the possession in him who hath right c. Gawdy This is a discontinuance for when the Father entreth ut supra he shall be adjudged in by the forfeiture and then he hath gained a possession and so a discontinuance for both cannot have the possession Clench The intent of him in the Remainder when he entred was to joyn with the Grand-father and when his intent appeareth that the estate of the Grand-father and his own also shall passe that doth declare that he would not enter for the forfeiture Shute agreed with Gawdy CLXXIII Broake and Doughties Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 798. Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Case for words Action upon the Case for words 1 Cro. 135. viz. Thou wast forsworn in the Court of Requests and I will make thee stand upon a Stage for it It was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Action will not lye for these words for he doth not say that he was there forsworn as Defendant or witness And Trin. 28 Eliz. betwixt Hern and Hex thou wast forsworn in the Court of Whitchurch And Iudgment given against the Plaintiff for the words are not Actionable and as to the residue of the words I will make thee stand upon the Stage for it they are not Actionable as it was adjudged between Rylie and Trowgood If thou hadst Iustice thou hadst stood on the Pillory and Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Daniel contrary thou wast forsworn before my Lord chief Iustice in an Evidence these words are Actionable for that is perjury upon the matter and between Foster and Thorne T. 23 Eliz. Rot. 882. Thou wast falsly forsworn in the Star-Chamber the Plaintiff had Iudgment for it shall be intended that the Plaintiff was Defendant or a Deponent there And yet the words in the Declaration are not in the Court of Star-Chamber Wray Thou art worthy to stand upon the Pillory are not Actionable for it is but an implication but in the words in the Case at the Bar there is a vehement intendment that his Oath was in the quality of a Defendant or Deponent which Gawdy granted In the Case 28 Eliz. Thou wast forsworn in Whit-Church Court there the words are not actionable for that Court is not known to you as Iudges And it may be it is but a great House or Mansion house called Whit-church Court But here in the principal case it cannot be meant but a Court of Iustice and before the Iudges there juridice and the subsequent words sound so much I will make thee stand upon a Stage for it And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXXIV Gatefould and Penns Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Prescription for tythes 1 Cro. 136. 3 Len. 203 265. Antea 94. GAtefould Parson of North-linne libelled against Penne in the spiritual Court for tythes in Kind of certain pastures The Defendant to have prohibition doth surmise that he is Inhabitant of South-linne and that time out of mind c. every Inhabitant of South-linne having pastures in North-linne hath paid tythes in Kind for them unto the Vicars of South-linne where he is not resident and the Vicar hath also time out of mind payed to the Parson of North-linne for the time being two pence for every acre Lewis This surmise is not sufficient to have a prohibition for upon that matter Modus Decimandi shall never come in question but only the right of tythes if they belong to the Parson of North-linne or to the Vicar of South-linne and he might have pleaded this matter in the spiritual Court because it toucheth the right of tythes as it was certified in the Case of Bashly by the Doctors of the Civil Law. Gawdy This prescription doth stand with reason for such benefit hath the Parson of North-linne if any Inhabitant there hath any Pastures in South-linne And afterwards the whole Court was against the prohibition for Modus Decimandi shall never come in debate upon this matter but who shall have the tythes the Vicar of South-linne or the Parson of North-linne and also the prescription is not reasonable CLXXV Gomersal and Bishops Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 175. Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 136. BIshop libelled in the Spiritual Court for tythe Hay the Plaintiff Gomersal made a surmise that there was an agreement betwixt the said parties and for the yearly sum of seven shillings to be paid by Gomersal unto Bishop Bishop faithfully promised to Gomersal that Gomersal should have the tythes of the said Land during his life And upon an Attachment upon a Prohibition Gomersal declared that for the said annual sum Bishop leased to the Plaintiff the said tythes for his life And upon the Declaration Bishop did demur in Law for the variance between the Surmise and the Declaration for in the Surmise a promise is supposed for which Gomersal might have an Action upon the Case and in the Declaration a Lease But note that the Surmise was not entred in the Roll but was recorded
the Plaintiff and thereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCV Read and Nashes Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an action of Trespass by Read and his Wife against Nash for entring into a house called the Dayry-house upon Not guilty pleaded The Iury found this special matter Sir Richard Gresham Knight was seised in Fee of the Mannours of I. and S. and of diverse other Lands mentioned in his Will and 3 Edw. 6. devised the same to Sir Thomas Gresham his Son for life the Remainder to the first son of the said Sir Thomas Gresham in tail the Remainder to the second son c. the Remainder to the third son c. The Remainder to Sir John Gresham his brother Proviso That if his Son go about or made any Alienations or discontinuance c. whereby the premisses cannot remain descend and come in the form as was appointed by the said Will otherwise than for Ioyntures for any of their Wives for her life only or leases for 21. years whereupon the old and accustomed Rent shall be reserved That then such person shall forfeit his estate Sir John Gresham dyed Sir Thomas Gresham his son built a new House upon the Land and 4 Mariae leased to Bellingford for one and twenty years rendring the antient Rent And afterwards 2 Eliz. he levyed a fine of the said Manours and of all his Lands and 5 Eliz. he made a Iointure to his Wife in this manner sci He covenanted with certain persons to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives and afterwards to the use of his Right Heirs and afterwards 18 Eliz. he leased unto Read and his wife for one and twenty years to begin presently which was a year before the expiration of the said Lease made unto Bellingford which Lease being expired Read entred It was argued by Cook That here upon the words contained in the Proviso Sir Thomas had power and authority not being but Tenant for life to make a Lease for years or Iointure and that upon implication of the Will which ought to be taken construed according to the intent of the parties for his meaning was to give a power as well as an estate otherwise the word otherwise should be void and it is to be observed That the parties interessed in the said conveyance were Knights and it is not very likely That the said Sir Richard Gresham did intend that they should keep the Lands in their own manurance as Husbandmen but set the same to Farm for Rent And it is great Reason although he willeâ— that the order of his Inheritance should be preserved yet to make a Provision for Iointure and it is great reason and cause to his family to enable and make them capable of great Matches which should be a strengthning to his posterity which could not be without great Iointures wherefore I conceive it reasonable to construe it so That here they have power to make Iointures for their Wives It hath been said That no grant can be taken by implication as 12 E. 3. Tit. Avow 77. Land was given to I. and A. his wife and to the heirs of the body of I. begotten and if I. A. dy without heir of their bodies betwixt them begotten that then it remain to the right heirs of I. and it was holden that the second clause did not give an estate tail to the wife by implication being in a grant but otherwise it is in Case of a devise as 13 H. 7. 17. and there is no difference as some conceive when the devise is to the heir and when to a stranger but these cases concern matter of Interest but our case concerns an Authority And admit that Sir Thomas hath power and authority to make this lease Then we are to consider if the Iointure be good for if it be Then being made before the Lease Use cannot rise out of a power it shall take effect before and the woman Iointress is found to be alive But I conceive That this Iointure is void and then the Lease shall stand for an use cannot rise out of a power but may rise out of an estate of the Testator and out of his Will 19 H. 6. A man deviseth That his Executors shall sell his reversion and they sell by Word it is a good Sale for now the Reversion passeth by the Will. But an use cannot be raised out of an use and a man cannot bargain and sell Land to another use than of the Bargainee And it is like unto the case of 10 E. 4 5. The disseisee doth release unto the disseisor rendring Rent the render is void for a rent cannot issue out of a right so an use cannot be out of a Release by the disseisee for such release to such purpose shall not enure as an Entry and Feoffment Also here after that conveyance Sir Thomas hath built and erected a New house and no new Rent is reserved upon it and therefore here it is not the ancient Rent for part of the sum is going out of the new house But as to that It was said by the Iustices do not speak to that for it appears that the Rent is well enough reserved Another matter was moved for that That a year before the Expiration of the Lease made to Billington this Lease was made to Reâ—d for 21 years to begin presently from the date of it although by the same authority he cannot make Leases in Reversion for then he might charge the Inheritance in infinitum But yet such a Lease as here is he might make well enough for this Lease is to begin presently and so no charge to him in the Reversion as in the Case betwixt Fox and Colliers upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. A Bishop makes a Lease for three years before the Expiration of a former Lease to begin presently It was holden a good Lease to bind the Successor for the Inheritance of the Bishop is not charged above one and twenty years in toto But if a Bishop make a Lease for years and afterwards makes a Lease for three lives the same is not good 8 Eliz. Dy. 246. Tenant in tail leaseth to begin at Michaelmas next ensuing for twenty years it is a good Lease by the Statute of 32 H. 8. so is a lease for 10 years and after for eleven years and yet the Statutes are in the Negative but this power in our Case is in the Affirmative and the Inheritance is not charged in the whole with more than one and twenty years CCVI. Kinnersly and Smarts Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 〈◊〉 upon a usurious Contract 1 Cro 155. IN Debt upon a Bond The Plaintiff declared That the Bond was made in London The Defendant pleaded That an usurious Contract was made betwixt the parties at D. in Stafford-shire that the Obligation was made for the same contract The Plaintiff by Replication saith that the Bond was made bona
be a strange construction that the King should be within one part of the Statute and out of the other And 34 H. 6. 3. The Kings Attorney could not have damages which is a great proof and authority that the Iudgment for damages in such case is Error The experience and usage of Law is sufficient to interpret the same to us and from the time of E. 3. until now no damages have been given in such case Thrice this matter hath been in question 1. 3 H. 9. and the Iustices there would not give damages 34 H. 6. there the Councel learned of the King could not have damages for the King. And 7 Eliz. there was no damages And whereas it hath been said that a man shall not have a Writ of Error where Iudgment is given for his benefit that if Iudgment be entred that the Defendant be in Misericordia where it ought to be Capiatur yet the Defendant shall have a Writ of Error And he conceived also that here is but one Iudgment Clench The first President after the making of that Statute was that damages were given for the King in such case but afterwards the practice was always otherwise that the said Statute could not be construed to give in such case damages the reason was because the Iustices took the Law to be otherwise And the King is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of buying of Tythes nor any Subjects who buy any title of him And here in our case the Queen is not verus Patronus but hath this presentment by Prerogative And if title do accrue to the Bishop to present for Lapse yet the Patron is verus Patronus At another day the case was moved and it was said by VVray that he had conferred with Anderson Manwood and Periam who held that the Queen could not have damages in this case but Periam somewhat doubted of it Gawdy In 22 E. 4. 46. In Dower the Demandant recovered her Dower and damages by verdict and afterwards for the damages the Iudgment was reversed and stood for the Lands Clench It shall be reversed for all for there is but one Iudgment And afterwards Iudgment was given and that the Queen should have a Writ to the Bishop and damages Popham The Court ought not to proceed to the examination of the Errors without a Petition to the Queen and that was the case of one Mordant where an Infant levyed a Fine to the Queen and thereupon brought a Writ of Error and afterwards by the Resolution of all the Iudges the proceedings thereupon were stayed See 10 H. 4. 148. a good case CCVIII Chapman and Hursts Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. BEtwixt Chapman and Hurst Tythes the Defendant did libel in the spiritual Court for Tythes against the Plaintiff who came and surmised that whereas he held certain Lands by the Lease of Sir Ralph Sadler for term of years within such a Parish that the now Defendant being Farmor of the Rectory there The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised and agreed to pay to the Defendant ten pounds per annum during the Term for his Tythes he promised that the Plaintiff should hold his said Land without Tythes and without any sute for the same and thereupon prayed a Prohibition And by Gawdy the same is a good discharge of the Tythes for the time and a good Composition to have a Prohibition upon and it is not like unto a Covenant See 8 E. 4. 14. by Danby CCIX. Kirdler and Leversages Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Avowry the case was Avowry 1 Cro. 241. that A. seised of Lands leased the same at Will rendring rent ten pounds per annum and afterwards granted eundem redditum by another deed to a stranger for life and afterwards the lease at will is determined Periam was of opinion that the Rent did continue and although that the words be eundem redditum yet it is not to be intended eundem numero sed eundem specie so as he shall have such a Rent scil ten pounds per annum As where the King grants to such a Town easdem libertates quas Civitas Chester habet it shall be intended such Liberties and not the same Liberties so in the principal case Also he held that a Rent at will cannot be granted for life and therefore it shall not be meant the same Rent But it was afterwards adjudged that the Rent was well granted for the life of the Grantee CCX Heayes and Alleyns Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Cui in vita 1 Cro. 234. Poph. 13. HEayes brought a sur cui in vita against Alleyn And the case was this The Discontinuee of a Messuage had other Lands of good and indefesible title adjoining to it and demolisht and abated the said house and built another which was larger so as part of it extended upon his own Land to which he had good title And afterwards the heir brought a sur cui in vita and demanded the house by the Name of a Messuage whereas part of the house did extend into the Land to which he had no right And by Periam The Writ ought to be of a Messuage with an Exception of so much of the house which was erected upon the soil of the Tenant Demand and the manner of it in a writ as demand of a Messuage except a Chamber And it was argued by Yelverton That the Writ ought to abate for if the Demandant shall have Iudgment according to his Writ then it shall be entred quod petens recuperet Messuagium which should be Erronious for it appeareth by the verdict it self that the demandant hath not title to part of it and therefore he ought to have demanded it specially 5 H. 7. 9. parcel of Land containing 10 Feet 16 E. 3. Br. Mortdanc of a piece of Land containing so much in breadth and so much in length And the moyetie of two parts of a Messuage and 33 E. 3. br Entrie 8. a Disseisor of a Marsh ground made Meadow of it Now in a Writ of Entry it shall be demanded for Meadow Drue Serjeant contrary and he confessed the Cases put before and that every thing shall be demanded by Writ in such sort as it is at the time of the action brought as a Writ of Dower is brought of two Mills whereas during the Coverture they were but 2 Tofts but at the day of the Writ brought Mills and therefore shall be demanded by the name of Mills 14 H. 4. 33. Dower 21. 13 H. 4. 33. 175. 1 H. 5. 11. Walmesly part of a Msseuage may be demanded by the Name of a Messuage and if a House descend to two Coparceners if they make partition that one of them shall have the upper Chamber and the other the lower here if they be disseised they shall have several Assisses and each of them shall make his plaint of a Messuage and by him a Chamber may be
is not of any effect but utterly void So is the grant of the presentment to the Church where the Church is void for it is a thing in action See the Lord Dyer 28 H. 6. 26. 3 Ma. Dyer 129. 11 Eliz. Dyer 283 Walmsley Serjeant put this Case Two Ioint-tenants of a Rent the one may release to the other but if the Rent be behind now the one cannot Release his Interest in the Arrearages to the other And afterwards in the Principal case Iudgment was given that the Release was void CCXXXIII Sammes and Paynes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intr. Trin. 29 Eliz. Rot. 721. IN an Ejectione firmae the case was That the Mother being seised of certain Lands had issue two Daughters Tenant by the curtesie 1 And. 184. Goldsb 81. 82. 8 Co. 34. and by Indenture covenanted with diverse persons to stand seised to the use of Eliz. her eldest Daughter in tail upon condition that the said Eliz. should pay to her other Daughter within a year after the death of the Mother or within a year after the said other Daughter should come to the age of eighteen years 300 l. And if the said E. should fall in the payment of the sum aforesaid or should dye without issue before such payment then to the use of the said second Daughter in tail The Mother dieth E. taketh Husband hath issue afterwards dieth without issue before the day of payment And if the Husband shall be tenant by the curtesie or not was the Question And by the Court cleerly he shall be For as to the condition of payment of the said Sum the same is not determined for she died without issue before the day of payment scil before the second Daughter came of the age of eighteen years as to that there is no condition broken as to the point of dying without issue The same is not a condition but rather a Limitation of the Estate and the same is no more than what the Law saith and the estate tail in Elizabeth is spent and determined by the dying without issue and doth not cease or is cut off by any Limitation and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Tenant by the curtesie And by Anderson If a Feoffment be made to the use of I. S. and his heirs until I. D. hath done such a thing and then unto the use of I. D. and his heirs the thing is done and I. S. dieth his wife shall be endowed CCXXXIV Bowry and Popes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Roll. 676. Plow Queries vers finem BOwry brought an Action upon the Case against Pope and declared that in the time of E. 6. the Dean and Chapter of Westminster leased two houses in Saint Martins in London to Mason for sixty years The which Mason leased one of the said Houses to one A. and covenanted by the Indenture of Lease with the said A. that it should be lawful for the said A. his Executors and assigns to make a window in the shop of the house so to him assigned and afterwards in the time of Queen Mary a window was made accordingly where no window was there before And afterwards A. assigned the said house to the Plaintiff And now Pope having a house adjoining had erected a new building super solum ipsius Pope ex opposito the said new Window Nusance so as the New Window is thereby stopped The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgment that here upon the Declaration appeareth no cause of action for the window in the stopping of which the wrong is assigned appears upon the Plaintiffs own shewing to be of late erected scil in the time of Queen Mary The stopping of which by any act upon my own Land was holden lawful and justifiable by the whole Court. But if it were an antient window time out of memory c. there the light or benefit of it ought not to be impaired by any Act whatsoever and such was the opinion of the whole Court. But if the case had been That the house soil upon which Pope had erected the said building had been under the estate of Mason who covenanted as abovesaid Then Pope could not have justified the nusance which was granted by the whole Court. CCXXXV Lee and Maddoxes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Mich. 29 30 Eliz. Rot. 1737. Covenant WIlliam Lee brought a Writ of Covenant against Richard Maddox Isabel his Wife and declared That one Errington the first husband of the said Isabel was endebted to the Plaintiff in 20 l. and that one Georgy Ashley was also endebted to the said Errington in the like sum of 20 l. And also that the said Errington made and constituted the said Isabel his Executrix and died and afterwards the said Isabel by Indenture dum ipsa sola fuit reciting that whereas her said late husband was endebted to the Plaintiff in the sum aforesaid and whereas the said George Ashley was also endebted unto her said late Husband in the like sum Now for the better satisfaction of the Plaintiff for his said Debt she appointed and constituted the Plaintiff atturnatum suum irrevocabilem ad petendum levandum recuperand recipiend ad usum suum proprium in nomine dict Isabellae de dicto Georgio the said twenty pounds And the said Isabel covenanted quod ipsa ad requis dict quer de tempore in tempus adjuvaret manu teneret quamlibet omnes sectam sectas quam vel quas dictus querens commensaret prosequeretur in nomine dictae Isabellae against the said George to the use of the Plaintiff Non existendo Non-suit voluntarie or making any Discontinuance Release Revocations Anglice Countermand without the assent of the Plaintiff And declared further that the Plaintiff had brought a Suit against the said George for the said Debt and shewed all in certain And that the said Isabel depending the said Suit Countermand had taken to Husband the Defendant without the assent of the Plaintiff And if by this Marriage the said Suit be countermanded was the Question And first it seemed to the Court that the Declaration was insufficient Request because there is not any request surmised in the Declaration for the words of the Covenant are Quod ipsa ad requisitionem c. So as it seemed to the Iustices that the Plaintiff ought to have notified to Isabel that he had commenced such Suit otherwise the Action will not lye And also the Court was of opinion that here is not any Countermand for by the taking of the Husband the Writ is not abated but only abateable and therefore the Plaintiff ought to have shewed 1 Roll. 781. that by the taking of the Husband the Writ by Iudgment was abated otherwise it is not any Countermand and
Godfrey in arrest of Iudgment That it is apparent upon the Declaration That the Trespass was done in the time of their Predecessors of which the Successor cannot have action and actio personalis moritur cum persona See 19 H. 6. 66. But the old Church-wardens shall have the action Cook contrary and that the present Church-wardens shall have the action and that in respect of their office which the Court granted And by Gawdy Church-wardens are a Corporation by the Common Law. See 12 H. 7. 28. by Frowick That the New Church-wardens shall not have an action upon such a Trespass done to their Predecessors contrary by Yaxley See by Newton and Paston That the Executors of the Guardian in whose time the Trespass was done shall have Trespass CCXLIX Hauxwood and Husbands Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared for disturbing of him to use his common c. and shewed that A. was seised of certain Lands to which this Common was appendant Prescription 1 Cro. 153. for the term of his Life the Remainder to B. in tail and that the said A. and B. did demise unto him the said Lands for years c. Pepper The Declaration is not good for it is not shewed how these particular estates did commence See 20 E. 4. 10. By Piggot Lessee for life and he in the Remainder cannot prescribe together and he in the Remainder cannot have common Also he declares That Tenant for life and he in Remainder demised to him whereas in truth it is the demise of Tenant for life and the Confirmation of him in the Remainder also he doth not aver the life of Tenant for life Popham He needs not to shew the commencement of the particular estates for we are a stranger to them the Prescription in them both is well enough for all is but one estate and the Lease of both See 27 H. 8. 13. The Lessee for life and he in the Reversion made a Lease for life and joyned in an action of wast and there needs no averment of the life of the Tenant for life for he in the Reversion hath joyned which Gawdy granted as to all And said the particular estates are but as conveyance unto the action Wray conceived the first Exception to be material c. CCL Sweeper and Randals Case Rot. 770. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close and carrying away his goods by Sweeper against Randal upon Not guilty pleaded i Cro. 156. The Iury found That one John Gilbert was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff at Will who sowed the Land and afterwards the Plaintiff agreed with the said Gilbert to surrender to him the said Land and his interest in the same and the said Gilbert entred and leased to the Defendant who took the Corn. It was moved if these words I agree to surrender my Lands be a present and express surrender Gawdy It is not any surrender for Tenant at will cannot surrender but it is but a relinquishing of the estate if it be any thing Surrender but in truth it is not any thing in present but an act to be done in future Wray I agree A. demiseth the Manor of D. at will it is no Lease no more shall it be here any Surrender or any relinquishing of the estate Clench conceived That the intent of the Party was to leave his estate at the time of the speaking otherwise those words were void for he might leave it at any time without those words Gawdy If such was his intent the Iury ought to find it expressly and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCLI Ward and Blunts Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 146. IN an Action upon the Case of Trover of certain Loads of Corn at Henden in Middlesex and the conversion of them The Defendant pleaded That before the conversion he was seised of certain Lands called Harminglow in the County of Stafford and that the Corn whereof c. was there growing and that he did sever it by force of which he was possessed and the same casually lost and that the same came to the hands of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff casually lost the same and the same came to the hands of the Defendant at Henden aforesaid and he did convert the same to his own use as it was lawful for him to do upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Atkinson The Plea is good for the conversion is the point of the action and the effect of it For if a man take the same and do not convert he is not guilty And here the Defendant doth justifie the conversion wherefore he cannot plead Not guilty The general issue is to be taken where a man hath not any colour but here the Defendant hath colour because the Corn whereof c. was growing upon his Land which might enveigle the Lay people and therefore it is safest to plead the special matter But admit that it doth amount but to the general issue yet there is not any cause of Demurrer but the Plaintiff ought to shew the same to the Court and pray that the general issue be entred and the Court ex officio ought to do it Egerton the Queens Solicitor contrary The Plea in Bar is not good The Plaintiff declares of a Trover of his goods ut de bonis suis propriis and the Defendant pleads That he took his own goods which is not any answer to the Plaintiff See 22 E. 3. 18. In Trespass of taking and carrying away his Trees The Defendant pleads That they were our Trees growing in our own soil and we cut them and carryed them away and the plea was challenged wherefore the Defendant pleaded over without that that he took the Trees of the Plaintiff So 26 Ass 22. and 30 E. 3. 22. Another matter was The Plea in Bar is That before the time of the Conversion the Defendant was seised of the Land and sowed it and that after the Corn was severed but he doth not say that he was seised at the time of the severance and then it might be that he had severed the Corn of the Plaintiff c. and that was holden by the Court to be a material exception wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff But as to the first Exception the same was disallowed For the Court ex Officio in such case ought to cause the general issue to be entred but the Plaintiff ought not to demur upon it CCLIV Cheiny and Langleys Case Hill. 31. Eliz. Rott 638. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe case was That Tenant for life of certain Lands leased the same for years by Indenture with these words I give grant 1 Cro. 157. Leases bargain and sell my interest in such Lands for twenty years To have and to hold
upon a Deed. Hutt 102. Dy. 91. 2 Co. 61. 1 Ma. Dyer 91. and also the wife by her disagreement to it and the occupation of the Land after the death of her Husband hath made it the Lease of the Husband only CCLXXV Rockwood and Rockwoods Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Assumpsit 1 Cro. 163. IN an Action upon the case the case was this The Father of the Plaintiff and Defendant being sick and in danger of death and incending to make his Will In the presence of both his Sons the Plaintiff and Defendant declared his meaning to be To devise to the Plaintiff his younger Son a Rent of 4 l. per annum for the term of his life out of his Lands and the Defendant being the eldest Son the intention of his Father being to charge the Land with the said Rent offered to his Father and Brother That if the Father would forbear to charge the Land with the said Rent he promised he would pay the 4 l. yearly to his Brother during the life of his Brother according to the intention of his said Father Whereupon the Father asked the Plaintiff if he would accept of the offer and promised of his Brother who answered he would whereupon the Father relying upon the promise of his said eldest Son forbore to devise the said Rent c. so as the Land descended to the Eldest Son discharged of the Rent and the opinion of the whole Court in this case was clear that upon the whole matter the action did well lye CCLXXVI Petty and Trivilians Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Livery of seisin HUmphrey Petty brought Second Deliverance against William Trivilian and upon especial verdict the case was That A. was seised of certain Land and Leased the same for years and afterwards made a Deed of Feoffment unto B. and a Letter of Attorney to the Lessee C. and D. conjunctim vel divisim in omnia singula terras et Tenementa intrate et seisinam inde c. secundum formam Chartae c. Lessee for years by himself makes Livery and seisin in one part of the Land and C. in another part and D. by himself in another part It was first agreed by the Iustices that by that Livery by Lessee for years his Interest and Term is not determined for whatsoever he doth he doth it as an Officer or Servant to the Lessor Secondly It was agreed That these several Liveries were good and warranted by the Letter of Attorney especially by reason of these words In omnia singula c. So as all of them and every of them might enter and make Livery in any and every part And so it was adjudged CCLXXVII Rigden and Palmers Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIgden brought a Replevin against Palmer who avowed for damage feasant in his Freehold The Plaintiff said Replevin That long time before that Palmer had any thing he himself was seised until by A. B. and C disseissed against whom he brought an Assise and recovered Avowry and the estate of the Plaintiff was mean between the Assise and the recovery in it The Defendant said That long time before the Plaintiff had any thing One Griffith was seised and did enfeoff him absque hoc that the said A. B. and C. vel eorum aliquis aliquid habuere in the Lands at the time of the Recovery Walmsley Iustice was of opinion That the Bar unto the Avowry was not good for that the Plaintiff hath not alledged That A.B. and C. ter-Ter-Tenants tempore recuperationis and that ought to be shewed in every recovery where it is pleaded And then when the Defendant traverseth that which is not alledged it is not good Windham contrary For the Assise might be brought against others as well as the Tenants as against disseisors But other real actions ought to be brought against the Ter-Tenants only and therefore it needs not to shew that they were Ter-Tenants at the time of the Recovery and also the traverse here is well enough Another Exception was taken because the Avowry is That the place in which conteineth an 100 Acres of Land The Plaintiff in bar of the Avowry saith that the place in which c. conteins 35 Acres c. but that Exception was not allowed for it is but matter of form is helped by the Statute of 27 Eliz. Another Exception was taken as to the hundred of Cattel and doth not shew in certain if they were Ewes Sty 71. 264. or Lambs or how many of each which also was dissallowed for the Sheriff upon Returno habendo may enquire what cattel they were in certain and so by such means the Avowry shall be reduced to certainty CCLXXVIII RUssell and Prats Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber RUsell brought an action upon the case against Prat and declared That certain goods of the Testator casually came to the Defendants hands and upon matter in Law Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff sed quia nescitur quae damna Error c. Ideo a writ of Enquiry of Damages issued and now Prat brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 8. But note That the Iudgment was given before the said Statute but the Writ of Enquiry of Damages was retorned after the said Statute Writ of Enquiry of Damages the said Statute doth not extend but to Iudgments given after the making of it And it was moved That the said Iudgment is not to be examined here but by the clear opinion of Anderson Manwood Windham Walmesley Gent and Clark Iustices of the Common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer the Writ of Error lyeth here by the Statute 1 Cro. 235. for in an action of Trespass as this case is full judgment is not given until the Writ of damages be retorned And if before the Retorn of it any of the parties dieth the Writ shall abate and the first Iudgâ—ent which is given before Award of the Writ is not properly a Iudgment but rather a Rule and order and so in a Writ of accompt where Iudgment is given that the Defendant computet cum querente he shall not have Error upon that matter for it is not a full Iudgment See 21 E. 3. 9. So as to the Iudgment in a Writ of Trespass scil That no Writ of Error lyeth before the second Iudgment after the Return of the Writ of Enquiry of Damages are given And also it was holden by all the said Iustices and Barons That an Executor shall have an action upon the case de bonis testatoris casually come to the hands and possession of another Action de bonis Testatoris and by him converted to his own use in the life of the Testator and that by the Equity of the Statute of 4 E. 3. 7. de bonis asportatis in vita Testatoris
33 Eliz. In the Common Bench. IT was found by special Verdict that Berwich and Tesdel seised of certain Lands conveyed the same to Sir Thomas Cotton for life Fines levied to use Co. 2 Inst 519. 1 Cro. 219. the Remainder to VVil. Cotton primogenito filio suo haeredi masculo sic de primogenito ad primogenitum dict VVilliam the Remainder to the right Heirs of the body of Sir Tho. Cotton and VVil. Cotton lawfully issuing the Remainder to the right Heirs of Sir Tho. Cotton VVil. had Issue a Son born here in Eng. and went beyond Sea to Antwerp and there continuing and his Son being within age in England Sir Thomas Cotton levied a Fine of all the Land sur conusans de droit come ceo c. And afterwards by Indenture convenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of Rober Cotton his Son in Fee William died at Antwerp his said Son being within age in England Sir Tho. Cotton died Robert entred and leased the Lands for years to Sary and the Infant Son and Heir of William leased the Land to one Chewn at Will who entred and ousted Sary who thereupon brought Ejectione firmae It was here holden by the Court that Sir Tho. Cotton was Tenant for life the Estates Remainder to William for term of his life the Remainder to the Heirs of both their bodies issuing So as unto one Moyety Sir Thomas Cotton had an Estate tail dependant upon the said Estates for life and so the Fine levied by him was a Bar to the Issue of William for a Moyety And as to the other Moyety they held that the said Fine was not any Bar but that the party interessed at the same time might avoid the Fine at any time during his Nonage five years after for Wil. his Father was not bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. because at the time of the Fine levied he was beyond the Seas and although he never returned but died there yet by the equity of the Statute his Issue shall have five years after his death to avoid the Fine if he were of full age and if he were within age then during his Nonage and five years after At another day the Case was argued and put in this manner viz. Lands were given to Sir Thomas Cotton for life without Impeachment of Wast the Remainder over to Cheny Cotton his eldest Son primogenito filio haeredi Masculo of the said Cheny sic de primogenito filio in primogenitum filium the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the body of the said Cheny for want of such Issue the Remainder to Wil. Cotton his second Son primogenito filio in primogenitum filium the Remainder over to the said Sir Thomas and the said William and the Heirs Males of their bodies lawfully begotten Cheny Cotton died without Issue William having Issue went beyond the Sea Sir Thomas Cotton 19 Eliz. levied a Fine with Proclamation and afterwards William the Father died in Antwerp his Son being within age Sir Thomas by Indenture limited the use of the Fine to himself for life the Remainder over to Robert Cotton his third Son in Tail Sir Thomas died but it doth not appear at what time William the Son being yet within age entred but non constat quando and 31 Eliz. leased the Lands to the Defendant at Will. Drue Serjeant argued for William Cotton And he conceived that William the Father had an Estate-tail and then the entry of William the Son was congeable for the whole But admitting that it is not an Estate-tail in VVilliam the Father for the whole yet he hath by the second Remainder an Estate-tail in the Moyety and then his Entry good as to one Moyety and then Robert being Tenant in Common of the other Moyety Tails his Lessee without an actual Ouster cannot maintain an Ejectionae firmae against the Lessee of his Companion And he conceived here is a good Estate-tail in VVilliam Cotton by virtue of the Limitation to William primogenito filio haeredi Masculo ipsius Guliel sic de primogenito filio in primogenitum filium c. for according to the Statute of VVest 2. the will of the Donor ought to be observed and here it appeareth that the intent of the Donor was to create an Estate-tail although the words of the Limitation do not amount to so much And the Estates mentioned in the Statute aforesaid are not Rules for Entails but only Examples as it is said by Trew 33 E. 3 F. Tail 5. see Robeiges Case 2 E. 2. 1 Fitz. Tail and 5 H. 5. 6. Land given to A. and B. uxori ejus haeredibus eorum aliis haeredibus dicti A. si dict haeredes de dictis A. B. exeuntes obierint sine haeredibus de se c. and that was holden a good Entail so a gift to one and his Heirs si haeredes de carne sua habuerit si nullos de carne sua habuerit revertatur terra and adjudged a good tail So 39 E. 3. 20. Land given to Husband and Wife uni haeredi de corpore suo ligitime procreat uni haeredi ipsius haeredis tantum And that was holden a good Tail and so he conceived in this Case that although the words of the Limitation are not apt to create an Estate-tail according to the phrase and stile of the said Statute of VVest 2. yet here the intent of the Donor appears to continue the Land in his Name and Blood for VVilliam the Son could not take with his Father by his Limitation for he was not in rerum natura and therefore all shall vest in VVilliam the Father which see 18 E. 3 Fitz. Feoffments Fait 60. Now it is to see if upon the Limitation to Sir Thomas Cotton and VVilliam his Son by which the Remainder is limited to Sir Thomas Cotton and VVilliam and the Heirs Males of their bodies issuing the said Sir Thomas Cotton Wil. have a joynt Estate-tail in respect that the Issue of the body of the Son may be Heir of the Body of the Father and so because they might have one Heir which shall be inheritable to his Land it shall be one entire Estate-tail in them But he conceived that they are several Estates-tail and that they are Tenants in Common of an Estate tail 3 4 Phil. Mar. Dyer 145. Land given to the Father and Son and to the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten the Remainder over in Fee the Father dieth without other Issue than the Son only and afterwards the Son dieth withou Issue a stranger abates Or if the Son hath made a Discontinuance if he in the Remainder shall have but one or two several Formedons was the Question And by Saunders Brook and Brown but one Formedon and Quaere left of it yet admitting that yet notwithstanding that it might be
accordingly Vi. 9 H. 7. 23. And the clear opinion of the Court was that the Count was good notwithstanding that exception As to the matter of the Plea the Court doubted of it for the Plea was that the Bishop demanded of the clerk presented his Letters of Orders and Letters Testimonial of his good behaviour and his Letters Missive and he did not shew them but requested of the Bishop the space of a week to satisfie the Bishop in those points which was allowed unto him but he never returned for which cause the Bishop afterwards refused c. And it was said upon that Plea that the Clark who is presented ought to make proof to the Bishop that he is a Deacon and that he hath Orders otherwise by the Statute of 13 Eliz. the Bishop is not bound to admit such Clark Degg 75. but the Statute doth not compel the Clark to shew his Orders for perhaps he hath lost them but how his Orders should be proved it was much doubted Anderson The Bishop may examine him upon oath if he hath Orders or not But as to the Letters Testimonial of his good behaviour and sufficiency the Bishop ought to examine the same himself and if he give day and defer the Admission because he is not resolved therein he is a Disturber if the Clark come to him in a convenient time And the Bishop cannot refuse a Clark for the want of Letters Testimonial CCCXIII. Linacers Case Pasch 33. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 2 Leon. 96. Co. 5. Rep. 86. IN an Audita Querela brought by Linacer It was said by Anderson chief Iustice That if a man be in execution by his Body and Lands upon a Statute If the Sheriff permit the Conusor to go at Liberty yet the Execution of the Land is not discharged But if he go at large by the consent of the Conusee then the whole Execution is discharged And the Conusor shall have his Land again presently CCCXIV Brownsall and Tylers Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was that Tenant in tail brought a Writ of Entry Sur disseisin and the Writ was general and it was moved if the Writ was good and 21 H. 6. 26. was vouched where it is holden that the Writ ought to be special scil to make mention of the tail But it was holden by the Court that the general Writ is good enough And then the Count ought to be special Vi. Fitz. 191. CCCXV. Ward and Knights Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the case the Plaintiff declared Toll 1 Cro. 227. That whereas Lostock parcel of the Mannor of E. in the County of Suffolk is an ancient Town and ancient Demesn of the Crown of England and that time out of mind c. all the men and Tenants of ancient Demesn ought to be quitted of Toll in all places within the Realm for them their Goods and Chattels c. And whereas the Queen by her Letters Patents the tenth of September the nineteenth of her Reign commanded all Mayors Bayliffs Constables c. to permit and suffer the men and Tenants of ancient Demesn to be quit of Toll Murage and other exactions throughout the whole Realm And whereas the Plaintiff was an Inhabitant and Tenant in Lostock aforesaid and such a day and year carried his Goods to Yarmouth in the said County the Defendant not ignorant thereof had taken and carried away a Cable of the Plaintiffs goods of the value of eight pounds for Toll to dis damage c. The Defendant pleaded by Protestation that Lostock was not ancient Demesn and by Protestation that the Tenants of ancient Demesn ought not to be quit of Toll he said That the Town of Yarmouth is an ancient Borough Prescription and that they had been incorporated by the name of Bayliff and Burgesses c. And that they have had time out of mind c. an Officer called a Water-Baly and that time out of mind c. they and their Predecessors have had and taken Toll of the Tenants and Inhabitants of Lostock for any of their goods brought thither to Merchandize with and if it be not paid they have used time out of mind to distrain for it by their Water-Bayly And said that the Plaintiff such a day brought to the said Town of Yarmouth two thousand weight of Cable Ropes to sell for which there was due for Toll six pence for Murage six pence for Thronage four pence and the Defendant being Water-Bayly demanded of the Plaintiff the said sum which he refused to pay for which he took the said Cable nomine districtionis for the said Thronage c. Golding for the Plaintiff the Defendant hath not set forth in himself any authority to demand the duty For he shews that they have used to distrain by their Water-Bayly but not that they have used to demand it by him and it may be that they have several Officers one to demand it and another to distrain for it And always when a man demands a thing against common Right he is to shew authority express in the whole And as to the matter in Law scil The Prescription to have Toll of the Tenants in ancient Demesn it cannot have a lawful beginning As 21 H. 7. 40. The Lord of a Mannor says that he hath had a Pound within his Mannor time out of mind c. And that he hath used to have of every one who breaks his Pound three pounds the same is a void custom to bind a stranger for it cannot have a lawful beginning and see 5 H. 7. 9. b. One prescribed that if any Cattel be taken in such a place Damage Feasant that he might distrain them and put them in Pound until the Owner had made amends at the will of him who distrained them the same is a void Prescription for it cannot have a lawful beginning and time cannot make such a thing to be good The King may grant Tollage Pontage c. but not to the prejudice of another as 22 E. 3. 58. The King cannot grant to one Thorough-toll to pass by Highways for it is an oppression to the people for every High-way shall be common to every one see 16. E. 3. Grants 53. and here the Tenants of ancient Demesn are quit of Toll by the common Law and not by Prescription which see Fitz. 14. and such Tenants have an Inheritance in such Liberties which the King by his grant cannot take away and then if it cannot have a lawful beginning it cannot be good by Prescription also this Prescription is against the Common-wealth therefore it is a void Prescription and the Common-wealth is much respected in Law and things which in themselves are justifiable by reason are not justifiable if they be injurious to others as 21 E. 4. 8 E. 4. 18. Fishers may prescribe to dry their Nets upon the Lands of others and none can prescribe against such a Prescription so here
all Lands which are ancient Demesn are holden in Socage so as they were all Husbandmen who manured their Lands for the sustentation of the Kings Subjects to which they had such such priviledges to be the better able to follow their Husbandry and therefore to disable such profitable Subjects and to prescribe against these Liberties and Priviledges is to take away the name of ancient Demesn and to make their Lands at the common Law. Hobart contrary To shew the authority to demand is not necessary for our Prescription is not upon demand to distrain For the common Officer hath authority to demand for they ought to demand it who ought to take the thing demanded and those are the Bailiffs and Burgesses and then when their Water-bayly doth it it is as much as if it had been done by the corporation which see 48 E. 3. 17. The Mayor and comminalty of Lincoln brought an action of covenant against the Mayor and comminalty of Derby and declared that the Mayor and comminalty of Derby had covenanted with the Mayor and comminalty of Lin. that they should be quit of Murage Pontage Custom and Toll within the Town of Derby of all Merchandises of those of the Town of Lin. and further declared That I.W. and H.M. two Burgesses of the Town of Derby had taken certain Toll of certain Burgesses of the Town of Lin. c. Exception was taken to this Declaration because they had alleadged the taking of such Toll not by the corporation of Derby but by I. and H. two of the Burgesses of it in which case the Plaintiffs might have an action of Trespass against the Burgesses for the act of any of the corporation is not the breaking of the covenant made by the comminalty but it was not allowed for if the common Officer of the Town doth any thing for their common use as it is intended such thing was done by the Officer it is reason all the Town be answerable for it and the whole comminalty by intendment cannot come at one time to take c. and so in our case for as much as the corporation ought to make the demand and their common Officer doth it to their use the same is the act of the whole corporation As to the matter in Law we have pleaded specially That we took Toll only of those things which are brought by Sea by Merchants and not otherwise and I conceive that Tenants in ancient Demesn are not discharged of Toll for all things but only for such which arise out of their Tenements or are bought for their Tenements or Families there and their sustentations according to the quantity of their Tenements 9 H. 6. 25. 19 H. 6. 66. They shall be quit of Toll of all things sold and bought coming of their Lands or for the manurance of their Lands And 7 H. 4. 111. Tenants of ancient Demesn ought to be quit of Toll for Oxen or Beasts bought and sold for tillage and manurance of their Lands and for their sustenance and maintenance of their Families and for putting them to Pasture to make them fat and more vendable and so to sell them c. And see accordingly F.N.B. 224. D. See Crook 138. 139. 28 Eliz. A Iudgment was given for the said parties for the Plaintiffs but there the Plaintiff declared generally and the Defendant did demur in Law generally wherefore by common intendment the Cattel were bought for the tillage and manurance of their Lands For there it was not shewed as it is here that it was to Merchandize Also we have justified not only for Toll but also for Trouage and that they have not shewed and therefore as to the Trouage our justification is good enough for their priviledge shall not be construed to extend beyond the words of it As the priviledge of the Law is That if I leave my horse at a Smiths Forge to be shod there my horse cannot be distrained but if I or my Servant take the Saddle from the Horses back and lay it in the Smiths Forge the Saddle may be distrained Then here are two customs meeting together and to begin together and the one was not before the other then the particular custom shall stand And I conceive that by the Writ de exoneratione sect Fitz. N. B. 161. b. The Tenants in ancient Demesn have not always such priviledges for the Writ saith quod si ita sit then c. and nisi ipsi eorum antecessores tenentes de eodem manerio venire consueverunt temporibus retroactis and see the same matter in the Register 181. And afterwards Iudgment was given quod querens nihil capiat par billam for the Iustices were of opinion that the Tenants in ancient Demesn should pay Toll for their Merchandizes CCCXVI. Lancaster and Lucas Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. TRespass was brought for entring into the Parsonage-house of Ringhall and divers Lands appertaining to it Leasâ—â— The Defendant being Farmor of the Parsonage pleaded Not guilty and the Iury found that one Tybbin was Parson of the said Church and that one Ash and Dorothy his Wife Wivell and Drausfield were Patrons of the said Church scil Ash and his Wife in the Right of his Wife Wivell as Tenant by the Curtesie the Reversion to his Son and Drausfield also as Tenant by the Curtesie but without Issue by his Wife c. so as the Inheritance of the said Parsonage was in Wivell and Ash and afterwards the Bishop of Chester being Ordinary the Parson and Patron 4 E. 6. joyned in a Lease of the Rectory which Lease was void as to the Wife of Ash to S. who assigned it to the Defendant All the Lessors dyed and further found that Ash and Wivell were Heirs of the Patronage and that the Church being void the Presentment came to the Bishop by reason of Lapse and that the Successor of the Bishop had Collated his Clark. Cook argued And he conceived that the same now Incumbent should avoid the Lease in toto and the case is but this Three Coparceners Patrons of an Advowson or Tenants in Common the Parson three Patrons and the Ordinary joyn in a Lease where the one of them is a Feme-covert and so her Act void If the Successor of the Incumbent being presented by Lapse shall avoid it in all And he conceived that he should for all three have interest in the Parsonage and all three ought to agree but the agreement of the one is worth nothing But it hath been said that that is but matter of assent and that the assent of the one is as strong as the assent of them all Attoâ—nment As if many Ioynt-tenants hold by certain Services and the Lord granteth the Services to a stranger and one of the Ioynt-tenants attorneth to the Grant the same is as sufficient as if they had all attorned Lit. 128. 566. Otherwise it is of a Rent-charge for there all the Ioynt-tenants of the Lands charged
The last words of the Limitation do not distinguish or disjoyn it but respect the estate precedent And by Clench Iustice If the use limited to Ambrose shall depend only upon the Limitation of his death the same should be void for then he should not he in esse to take But the other Iustices were of a contrary opinion and that the use is good 7 H. 4. Gawdy Although that here be three things yet but two times for the words are not or at such of the said days or times as shall first happen for that would alter the case But here these words ought to be intended as if they were spoken before in the Limitation of the estate to the Daughters and cannot divide the former Limitation and he said that if by reason that the Limitation upon the death which is certain it shall vest in Ambrose presently then if after the other Limitation shall fall then his Remainder which vested in him upon the said certain Limitation should be devested and should now accrue to him upon the other Limitation which should be absurd and inconvenient c. It was adjorned CCCXXXI Thomas and Wards Case Trin. 32. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae by Thomas against Ward Ejectione firme 1 Cro. 102. upon a Lease made to him of the Manor of Middleton Cheney by one Chambers the Defendant pleaded that long time before the Lessor of the Plaintiff had any thing the Bishop of Rochester was seised and leased the same to the Defendant the Plaintiff by Replication said that the said Lease was upon condition viz. The Lessee by the Indenture of the said Lease did covenant that he would not put out or disturb any of the Tenants inhabiting within the said Manor out of their Tenancies doing their duties according to the custom of the said Manor and shewed that the Defendant had put out one Ann Green a Tenant dwelling there upon a Tenement parcel of the said Manor late in the possession and occupation of the said Ann and that the Bishop had re-entred for the condition so broken and made a lease to the Lessor of the Plaintiff upon which Replication the Defendant hath demurred in Law Tanfeild argued for the Defendant that the Bishop had no cause to re-enter for there is not any condition in the Case but only a Covenant for it comes in only on the part of the Lessee and they are words of Covenant only whereas every condition ought to be the words of the Lessor and the Bishop hath sufficient remedy by Action of Covenant But if the words had been indifferent and absolute without depending on the Lessor or Lessee then it had been otherwise as 3 E. 6. Dyer 65. Non licebit to the Lessee dare concedere vel vendere statum vel terminum without the Licence of the Lessor under pain of forfeiture the same is a good condition but here it is meerly a Covenant and it cannot be both Haughton Although the words sound in Covenant and be the words of the Lessee yet the Lease being made by Indenture the same is the Deed of both and every word in it is spoken by both parties and although that he may have an Action of Covenant yet he cannot thereby overthrow the Lease as by Entry by condition broken and yet by the words it seems the meaning of the Indenture was that by the breach of this Covenant the estate should be defeated for so are the words sub poena forisfactur And here by way of Action he cannot have the benefit of the whole Covenant and therefore he shall have it by way of condition And see the case betwixt Browning and Beston Plow 132. If it happen the Rent to be behind that then the Lessee Covenants that although the Rent be not demanded that the said Lease should be utterly extinct void and of no effect and 24 Eliz. there was a case betwixt Hill and Lockham where by the Indenture of Lease the Lessee Covenanted to grind all his Corn at the Mill of the Lessor and afterward in the end of the said Indenture the Lessee covenanted to perform all the Covenants sub poeâ—a sorisfactur and by the opinion of the whole Court the same was a condition And see 21 H. 6. 51. where in an Obligation where A was bound to B. the condition is written in this manner Praedict B. vult concedit That if the said A. doth stand to the Arbitrament of such a one that then c. the same is a good condition although they are the words of the Obligee and the Deed of the Obligor and so here is a good condition And such was the opinion of Wray and Gawdy and Fenner did not contradict it Wherefore Tanfeild said Admit here it is a condition yet here is not any breach of it sufficiently set forth for the breach is assigned because he had put out a woman unam tenentem inhabitantem out of certain Lands parcel of the said Manor late in the possession and occupation of the said woman and that might be that she was but Tenant at Will and the Covenant doth refer only to Copy-holders And it may be also that she had disseised one of the Tenants of the Manor in which case the putting out of such a Tenant being in by wrong is no breach of condition Also it is not averred in facto that Ann was Tenant of any part of the Mannor Also the Replication is That the said Defendant had ousted the said Ann where she had done her duty fecit debitum suum before the Ouster and that might be that she had done her duty once but not after and therefore he ought to have said that she had done her duty always before her putting out and this word duly being single is too general for it may be understood of curtesie where the words in the Indenture are Doing their duty according to the custom of the Manor And also it might be that Ann Green was Tenant and Inhabitant but was not put out of the Land which was parcel of the Manor And Wray said that these Exceptions were incurable And therefore Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCCXXXII Harvy and Thomas Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. Rot. 414. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Leases 1 Cro. 216. Husband and Wife seised of Lands in the Right of the Wife the Husband alone makes a Lease by word for years Afterwards the Husband and Wife levy a Fine and after the Wife and Husband both dye It was holden clearly by the whole Court that the Conusee should avoid the Lease CCCXXXIII Sly and Mordants Case Trin. 32. Eliz. Rot. 314 In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 191. 2 Len. 103. 3 Len. 174. Dy. 250. 1 Cro. 198 199. that whereas he was seised of certain Lands the Defendant had stopped a Water-course by which his Land was drowned and found for the Plaintiff It
was moved in arrest of Iudgment that it appeareth upon the Plaintiffs own shewing that the Plaintiff hath the Free-hold and therefore he ought to have an Assize but the same was not allowed and therefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment CCCXXXIV Kensam and Redings Case Trin. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Grants of the King 1 Cro. 244. Hob. 170. That the Queen by her Letters Patents granted the Site of the Manor of Brokeley lying in W. and all the Lands Pastures Woods Vnder-woods and Hereditaments parcel or appertaining to the said Site exceptis omnibus grossis arboribus boscis maremio and further in the said Letters Patents there was a Proviso that the Lessee should have sufficient House-boot and Hedge-boot c. And if notwithstanding the said Exception the Lessee should have the Vnderwoods was the question And it was argued that the Lessee should have subbois i. e. Vnderwoods for that is granted by express words and the exception extends only grossis arboribus for this word grossis in the exception extends to all that which follows Gawdy Iustice If it were in the case of a common person it is clear that upon such matter the Vnderwoods are not excepted 7 E. 6. Dyer 79. A Lease is made of a Mannor except Timber and great Woods the Vnderwoods shall pass Fenner Iustice The Proviso that the Lessee should have House-boot shews the Queens intent that the Vnder-woods should not pass Wray If this word bois in the exception should not extend to Vnder-woods it should be vain and signifie nothing which should be hard in the Case of the Queen CCCXXXV Trin. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared of Trover and of a Bag of mony and the conversion of it Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 97. 201 555 693. The Defendant pleaded that the Bag of mony was delivered to him as a pawn to keep until A. and B. were agreed which of them should have it and pleaded further that A. and B. were not yet agreed who of them should have it for which cause he kept it absque hoc that he converted it to his own use upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law It was moved that the Conversion is never traversable Wray Generally Conversion is not traversable but upon such special matter as is here Or if A. lend money to B. and B. delivereth a thing of the value to A. in pawn now the Conversion is traversable see the same case 4 E. 6. Br. Action upon the Case 113. so here Fenner agreed with Wray CCCXXXVI The Bishop of Lincoln and Cowpers Case Mich. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Prohibition THe Bishop of Lincoln sued a Prohibition against Cowper who had libelled against him in the Spiritual Court for Tithes out of the Manor of D. Tithes 1 Cro. 216. Post 331 332. And the Bishop did suggest that he and all his Predecessors had been seised of the said Manor and that as long as it was in their possessions had been discharged of Tithes and shewed that in the time of E. 6. the said Manor was conveyed to the Duke of Somerset in Fee and afterwards was re-granted to the Bishop and his Successors It was moved That the Prescription was not good because de non decimando And admit that the Prescription be good that same is interrupted by the seisin of the Duke of Somerset and although that the Manor be re-assured to the Bishop of Lincoln yet the Prescription is not revived as Homage Ancestrel if it be once in a Forrain Seisin although it be re-assured yet it is not revived But by Wray Gawdy and Fenner The Prescription is good in the Case of a Spiritual person but not in the case of a common person And they all were clear of opinion that the Prescription is not gon by this Interruption for Tithes are not issuing out of the Lands neither can Vnity of possession extinguish them neither are they extinguished by a release of all right of Land c. See for this Case Co. 11. part of his Reports in the Case of Pridle and Napper CCCXXXVII Dethick King of Arms Case 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Indictment 1 Cro. 224. Yelv. 34. Noy 250. Misnosmer in an Indictment WIlliam Dethick against Garter King of Arms was indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for striking in the Church-yard For that the said Dethick in Pauls Church-yard in London struck I.S. It was moved If Cathedral Churches be within the meaning of the Statute The Court was clear of opinion that they were And afterwards the Defendant pleaded that before the Indictment found he was created and crowned by the Letters Patents of the Queen which he shewed chief and principal King of Arms and it was granted by the said Letters Patents that he should be called Garter and that that name is not in the Indictment and demanded Iudgment The Kings Attorney by Replication said That by the Law of Arms and Heraldry every one who is made King of Arms before he receives his Dignity ought to be led betwixt two Officers of Arms by the Arms before the Earl Marshal of England or his Deputy and before him are to go four Officers of Arms whereof the one is to bear his Patent another a Collar of Esses the third a Coronet of Brass double guilt fourthly a Cup of Wine and his Patent shall be read before the Earl Marshal and afterwards his Coronet shall be set upon his Head and the Collar of Esses about his neck and afterwards the Wine poured upon his Head And that the Defendant had not received these Ceremonies for which cause he is not King of Arms nor to be called upon to which the Defendant did demur in Law. Broughton argued for the Defendant and he took Exception to the Replication because it is pleaded there that secundum legem Heraldorum Garter upon his Creation ought to receive c. of which Law this Court cannot have Conusance and therefore the Replication ought to be scil Secundum legem Angliae If in Appeal the Defendant wage Battel although that belongs unto Arms and Heraldry yet it shall be pleaded according to the Law of the Land and shall not speak of the Law of Arms. So if an Infant be made a Knight and he be to plead in discharge of his Wardship he shall plead according to the Law of the Land and yet the degree of a Knight belongs to the Law of Arms 11 E. 3. Dower against the Earl of Richmond who was also Duke of Britain who pleaded to the Writ That he was Duke of Britain and not so named in the Writ but the Court did not regard it for they cannot have knowledge of it so not here of the Law of Heraldry Also this Court cannot write to the Heralds to certifie it as they may to the Marshal of the King or to the Bishop But we have sufficiently
the Right of the Complainants come ceo c. with warranty of the said Husband and Wife for which the Complainants did render a Rent of fifty pounds per annum with clause of distress in dictis Manerijs to the said John Amy the Heirs of Amy and also rendred the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances to the said John and Amy for their lives the Remainder to the said Francis their Son in tail the Remainder to the said Amy and her Heirs and that John and Amy dyed by force whereof the said Rent descendeth to the said Plaintiff as Son and Heir of the said Amy and that the said Francis entred into the said Mannors as in his Remainder and was seised in tail and was seised of the said Rent by the Hands of the said Francis and afterwards thereof did enfeoff the said Garmons the Defendant c. The Tenant pleaded That the Plaintiff was never seised so as he could be disseised and if c. Nul tor nul disseisin which was found for the Plaintiff who had Iudgment and Execution upon which the Tenant brought a Writ of Error Stephens assigned Error First the Fine is levyed of two Manors inter alia so as no other Lands passed by the Fine besides the Manors and so the Rent is granted out of the said Lands and Manors and no other Lands which passed by the Fine and then upon the Plaintiffs own shewing it appears that all the Tenants of the Lands charged with the Rent in demand are not named in the Assize Second Error This Rent is granted only out of the Estate tail for Amy hath Fee in both as well the Rent as the Land and then when the Estate tail is determined the Rent is also determined and he hath not averred the life of the Tenant in tail or any of his Issue wherefore it shall be intended that he is dead without issue and then the Rent is gone and then he hath not any cause to have Assise Bourchier As to the first conceived and argued that it is not Error for although these words inter alia c. yet it shall not be intended that the Conusor had any other Lands or that the Rent is issuing out of other Lands than those two Manors which are expressed not inter alia As to the second the continuance of the tail needs not to be averred for the Tenant in tail hath enfeoffed the Tenant of the Land by which the estate tail is discontinued And although the Tenant in tail be dead without issue yet the Rent doth remain until Recovery of the Land by Formedon in the Remainder Fenner Iustice was of opinion Vaugh. Reâ— 175. That the Per nomen should go unto the Mannors only and should not extend to the inter alia For if a man in pleading saith that J.S. was seised of twenty acres of Land and thereof inter alia did enfeoff him per nomen of Green-wead the same shall not have reference to the inter alia but only to the twenty acres And the averment of the continuance of the Tail needs not for the Estate-tail is discontinued Gawdy Iustice was of opinion That the per nomen should go as well to the inter alia as to the two Manors and then all the Ter-tenants are not named in the Assise and the same not to be pleaded for it appears of the Plaintiffs own shewing and there needs no averment of the continuance of the Tail for the cause aforesaid Clench Iustice The per nomen doth refer to all which see by the Fine which shews that other Lands passed by the Fine than the said two Manors And as to the second point he said There needed no averment Gawdy As to the first Error the same cannot be saved by any way but to say That the Conusor was not seised of any other Lands than the said two Manors and then the Fine doth not extend unto it and then no Rent is granted out of it Fenner In the Common Pleas in the great case of Fines it was holden that in pleading of a Fine it needs not to say That the Conusor was seised for if the Conusor or Conusee were seised it is sufficient for such pleading is contrary in it self for a Fine sur conusance de droit come ceo c. doth suppose a precedent Gift It was also objected That here is a confusion in this Fine for the Rent is rendred to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Wife and the Land is rendred to the Husband and Wife for their lives the Remainder to Francis in Tail the remainder to the Wife and her Heirs And these matters cannot stand together in a Fine but the one will confound the other But as to that it was said that the Law shall Marshall these two renders so as they both shall stand And it is not like unto a Rent-service for a Rent-service issueth out of the whole Estate And therefore if a Remainder upon an Estate for life Eschears the Seigniory is gone even during the life of the Tenant for life which see 3 H. 6. 1. contrary of a Rent-charge For if the Grantee of a Rent in Fee purchaseth the remainder of the Land out of which it is depending out of an Estate for life he shall have the Rent during the life of the Tenant for life And of that opinion were all the three Iustices for the Conusors took by several Acts and the Estate is charged for it cometh under the Grant. Fenner Iustice There is a difference betwixt a Rent service and a Rent-charge or Common for that shall charge only the Possession but a Rent-charge shall charge the whole Estate And therefore if he who hath a Rent-service releaseth to him in the Remainder upon an Estate-tail or for life the Rent is extinct which Gawdy denied And this Case was put The Disseisee doth release to the Lessee for years of his Disseisor nihil operatur But if the Disseisor and Disseisee joyn in a Release to such Lessee the same is good for first it shall enure as the Release of the Disseisor and then of the Disseisee c. CCCXLIV Tedcastle and Hallywels Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Debt 2 Roll. 594. 1 Cro. 234 235. IN Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded That the Condition was That whereas John Hallywel had put himself to be an Apprentice to the Plaintiff if the Defendant John Hallywel during his Apprenticeship or any other for him by his consent or agreement take or riotously spend any of the Goods of his said Master the Plaintiff If then the Defendant within one month after notice thereof given to him do pay and satisfie the Plaintiff for all such sums of Monies Wares c. so taken or riotously spent by the Defendant or by any other by his procurement or consent the same being sufficiently proved that then c. The Defendant by protestation Quod nec
every issue begotten betwixt William and Joan should have an estate for life successive and a Remainder in tail expectant as right heir of the body of William A Contingent shall hinder the execution of an estate in possession and this estate tail shall not be executed in possession by reason of the mesne Remainder for life limited to the heir of the body of William and Joan and although that these mesne Remainders are but upon a contingent and not in esse yet such regard shall be had to them that they shall hinder the execution of the estates for life and in tail in possession As if an estate be made to A. for life the Remainder to the right heirs of B. in tail the Remainder in Fee to A. although the estate tail be in abeyance and not in esse during the life of B. yet in respect thereof the Free-hold and Fee shall not be conjoyned Southcote Iustice To the same purpose And he put a case lately adjudged betwixt Vaughan and Alcock Vaughan and Alcocks case Land was devised to two men and if any of them dieth his heirs shall inherit these devisees are Tenants in common because in by devise but contrary if it were by way of Grant Lands are devised to A. and B. to be betwixt them divided they are Tenants in common Wray William and Thomas have but for life for they are purchasors by the name heir in the singular number but when he goes further and says for want of such issue to the heirs of the body of William in the plural number now Will. hath an Inheritance And if a devise be made to one for life and then to his heir for life and so from heir to heir in perpetuum for life here are two estates for life and the other Devisees have Fee for estates for life cannot be limited by general words from heir to heir but by special words they may And here Thomas being next heir of the body of William and Joan hath an estate for life and also being heir of the body of the said William hath a Remainder in tail to him limited the mesn remaineth limited to others i. e. to the next heir of the body of Thomas being in abeyance Co 11. Rep. 80. because limited by the name heir his Father being alive shall not hinder the execution of these estates but they shall remain in force according to the rules of the common Law Then Thomas so being seised levyeth a Fine against the Provision of the Will by which Thomas hath forfeited his estate for life and so his next heir shall have the Land during his life And a great reason wherefore the heirs ut supra after the two first limitations shall have tail is because that if every heir should have but for life they should never have any Interest in the Lands by these limitations for by the express words of the devise none shall take but the heir of the first heir for ever i. e. When Thomas aliens by which the use vests in Francis and when afterwards Francis levieth a Fine then the use vests in Percival Hâ—rt being next heir of the said Francis at the time of the Fine levyed notwithstanding that afterwards Francis had a Son which is his next heir and therefore the use in Percival by the birth of the said Son in Francis shall not be devested Estate vested shall not be devested because it was a thing vested in him before by purchase 9 H. 7. 25. A enfeoffs B. upon condition on the part of A. to be performed 1 Cro. 61. and dyeth having issue a Daughter the Daughter performs the condition and afterwards a Son is born the Daughter shall hold the Lands against the Son So 5. E. 4 6. A woman hath issue a Daughter and afterwards consents to a Ravisher the Daughter enters and afterwards a Son is born yet the Daughter shall hold the Lands for ever i. e. And Geofries Iustice said Francis being in by force of the Forfeiture shall not be subject to the limitation of the Will i. e. to any forfeiture if he alien for the estate which Francis hath for his life is but an estate gained by the offence of his Father and the use was limited to him upon the Will of Richard and then the said estate is not subject to the Proviso of the Will and then hath not Francis committed any forfeiture And admit Francis shall forfeit yet Percival shall get nothing thereby but the estate which Francis had at the time of the Fine levied scil the Free-hold only for no estate of Inheritance was in him living his Father As to the regress of the Feoffees Geofries was of opinion That where an use is limited to a person certain and thereupon vested in the person to whom it is limited That the Entry of the Feoffees in such case is not requisite notwithstanding that the first estates be discontinued but where the use as in our case is not limited to a person certain in esse but is in abeyance not vested in any person upon the limitation of it some estate ought to be left in the Feoffees to maintain that use and to render it according to the limitation and in our case these uses not in esse at the time of the making of the Statute of 27 H. 8. could not be executed by the said Statute but now at the appointed time by the limitation shall be raised and revived by the Entry of the Feoffees but here by the Fine and Non-claim the Feoffees are bound and their Entry taken away and so no use can accrue to Percival Hart by such Entry Southcote Iustice was of opinion that the Feoffees cannot enter at all because that by the Statute of 27 H. 8. nothing is left in them at the time of the making of the Statute which saves the right of every person c. other than the Feoffees so as no right is saved to them but all is drawn out of them by the operation of the Statute and the second saving of the Statute saves to the Feoffees all their former Right so as the Right which the Feoffees had by the Feoffment to the use is utterly gone But Percival Hart may well enter for he is not bound to the five years after the Fine levied for he had not right at the time of the Fine levied but his right came by the Fine Wray chief Iustice The Feoffees are not to enter for the Statute of 27 H. 8. hath two branches 1. gives the possession to Cestuy que use in such manner as he hath in the use 2. takes away all the right out of the Feoffees and gives it to Cestuy que use so as nothing at all remains in the Feoffees for if an Act of Parliament will give to me all the Lands whereof my brother Southcote is seised and that I shall be in the Seisin thereof now is the actual possession in me without my
barred but if the Wife enter after the death of her Husband and before the Proclamations pass the issue is not bound by the Fine And if Tenant in Tail granteth totum statum and after levieth a Fine thereof with Proclamations come ceo c. The Issue is barred contrary where the Fine is upon a Release c. CCCXLVI Henningham and Windhams Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ARthur Henningham brought a Writ of Error against Francis Windham upon a common Recovery had against Henry his Brother Error Owen Rep. 68. and the Case was That Land was given in special tail to Thomas Henningham Father of the said Henry and the said Arthur the Remainder in general tail the estate tail in possession was to him and the Heirs Mairs of his body Thomas had issue the said Henry and three Daughters by one woman and the said Arthur and two other Sons by another woman and dyed seised Henry entred and made a Feoffnent a common Recovery is had against the Feoffee in which Henry is vouched who vouched over the common Vouchee according to the usual course of common Recoveries Henry dyed without issue Error and Attaint by him to whom the Land is to descend and Arthur brought a Writ of Error being but of the half blood to Henry And it was resolved by the whole Court That Error and Attaint always descends to such person to whom the Land should descend If such Recovery or false oath had not been As if Lands be given to one and the Heirs Females of his body c. and suffers an erronious Recovery and dyeth the Heir female shall have the Writ of Error So upon Recovery of Lands in Borough English for such Action descends according to the Land quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam But it was objected on the Defendants part That because that the Feoffee being Tenant to the Praecipe is to recover in value a Fee-simple and so Henry is to yield a Fee-simple which should descend to the heir at the Common Law if this Recovery had not been therefore he to whom the same should descend should have the Writ of Error for he hath the loss But the said Exception was not allowed And it was said That Tenant in tail upon such a Recovery shall recover but an estate in tail scil such estate which he had at the time of the warranty made c. And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Action was maintainable So if a man hath Lands of the part of his mother and loseth it by erronious Iudgment and dyeth That the Heir of the part of the Mother shall have the Writ of Error CCCXLVII Foster and Pitfalls Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae the Case was 1 Cro. â— Brook devised Lands to his Wife in general Tail the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee and dyed he took another Husband and had issue a Daughter The Husband and Wife levyed a Fine to a stranger The Daughter as next Heir by 11 H. 7. entred It was agreed by the whole Court That an estate devised to the wife is within the words but not within the meaning of the Statute Secondly It was resolved That no estate is within the meaning of the Statute unless it be for the Ioynture of the Wife Thirdly Resolved That the meaning of the Statute was That the wife so preferred by the Husband should not prejudice the issues or heirs of her Husband and here nothing is left in the Issues or heirs of the Husband so as the Wife could not prejudice them for the Remainder is limited over CCCLXVIII Greenes Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Acceptance of Rent 1 Cro. 3. 3 Co. 64. b. GReene made a Lease for years rendring Rent with clause of Re-entry and the Rent due at the Feast of the Annunciation was behind being demanded at the day which Rent the Lessor afterwards accepted and afterwards entred for the condition broken and his Entry holden lawful Entry Plow Com. in Browning and Bestons Case for the Rent was due before the condition broken but if the Lessor accepts the next Quarters Rent then he hath lost the benefit of Re-entry for thereby he admits the Lessee to be his Tenant And if the Lessor distrain for Rent due at the said Feast of the Annunciation after the forfeiture he cannot afterwards re-enter for the said forfeiture for by his Distress he hath affirmed the possession of the Lessee So if he make an Acquittance for the Rent as a Rent contrary if the Acquittance be but for a sum of mony and not expresly for the Rent all which tota Curia concessit CCCXLIX 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Lessee for life the Remainder for life the Remainder in tail the Remainder in fee The two Tenants for life make a Feoffment in fee. Dyer A woman Tenant for life in Ioynture the Remainder for life the Remainder in fee the Tenants for life joyn in a Feoffment Entry for Forfeiture the Entry of him in the Remainder in fee is lawful by 11 H. 7. And if Tenant for life be impleaded and he in the Remainder for life will not pray to be received he in the last Remainder may and so in our case inasmuch as he in the Remainder for life was party to the wrong he in the Remainder in tail shall enter Which Harper and Munson granted Dyer 339. a. i. e. Manwood Although that this Feoffment be not a Disseisin to him in the Remainder in tail yet it is a wrong in a high degree as by Littleton A Disseisor leaseth for life to A. who aliens in fee the Disseisee releaseth to the Alienee it is a good Release and the Disseisor shall not enter although the Alienation was to his disinheritance Lit. 111. which Dyer granted And if Tenant for life alieneth in fee and the Alienee enfeoffeth his Father and dieth the same descent shall not avail him no more than in case of Disseisin Livery of Seism It hath been objected that this is the Livery of the first Tenant for life and the confirmation of him in the Remainder for life Dyer was of opinion That by this Livery the Remainder for life passeth and this Livery shall be as well the Livery of him in the Remainder as of the Tenant in possession and although where an estate is made lawfully by many it shall be said the Livery of him only who lawfully may make Livery Yet where an estate is wrongfully made it shall be accounted in Law the Livery of all who joyn in it And in this the Remainder for life is extinguished by the Livery in the Feoffee and the Livery of him in the Remainder for life shall be holden a void Livery especially when he joyns with such a person who hath not authority to make Livery As if the Lord and a Stranger Disseise the Tenant and make a Feoffment over the whole Seigniory is
over the Feoffees do not pay the said mony within the said 15 days afterwards Curties attorns to the Feoffees It was moved if the Reversion of the Lands passed to Curties passeth by the Feoffment of the Manor without attornment which see Littleton 133 134. 2. Attornment If by the attornment of Curties after the 15 days the uses can rise to Bracebridge and his wife c. and it was said That the Case 20 H. 6. Avowry 11 12. If a Manor be granted for life the remainder over in Fee Tenant for life dieth if the Tenants attorn to him in the Remainder the same is good and if a Reversion be granted to two and one of them dieth attornment to the survivor is good and if a Reversion be granted to Husband and Wife in special tail the Wife dieth afterwards without issue Attornment to the Husband is good and if a Reversion be given in Frank-marriage and afterwards the Husband and Wife are divorced and afterwards the particular Tenant attorns to the Wife the same is good and by Manwood If a Man seised of a Manor the demesns of which extends into two Counties and hath issue a Son and a Daughter by one woman and a Son by another woman and dieth the eldest Son enters into the Demesns in one County only and takes the profit in one County only and dieth without issue the Daughter shall have and inherit the Demesns or Services whereof her Brother was seised and the Son of the half-blood the rest And by Manwood the attornment of Curties who was the first Lessee shall bind Moore the second Lessee for he ought to attorn against whom lieth the Quid juris clamat And if a Lease for years be made of a Manor and the Reversion of it be granted to another in fee if the Lessee for years attorneth it shall bind the Tenants of the Manor 18 E. 2. A man seised of a Manor in the right of his Wife leased parcel of it for years without his wife the Reversion thereof is not parcel of the Manor contrary if the Lease had been made by Husband and Wife And by Dyer if Tenant in tail of a Manor leaseth parcel for years and afterwards makes a Feoffment of the whole Manor and makes Livery in the Demesns not leased the Reversion of the Land leased doth not pass for by the Feoffment a wrong is done to the Lessor which the Law shall not further enlarge than appeareth by the Deed contrary in case of Tenant in fee of a Manor and that without Deed with Attornment And it was the Case of one Kellet 25 H. 8. Kellet was Cestuy que use before the Statute of 27 H. 8. of divers Lands by several Conveyances the use of some being raised upon Recovery of some upon Fine and of some upon Feoffment and he made a Feoffment of all these Lands by Deed with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery the Attorney entred into part of the Land and made Livery in the name of the whole and it was agreed by all the Iustices that the Lands passed notwithstanding in others possession i.e. other Feoffees And by Dyer If the Tenants of a Manor pay their Rents to the Disseisor they may refuse again to pay them and if a Lease be made for years the Remainder for life if the Lessor will grant over his Reversion the Lessee for years shall Attorn and his attornment shall bind him in the remainder for life and if a Lease be made to one for years the remainder over for life the remainder to the Lessee for years in Fee. Now if the Lessee for years grant all his interest c. there needs no attornment and if Grantee of a Rent in fee leaseth for life and afterwards grants the Reversion to another the Attornment of the Ter-tenant is not requisite but only of the Grantee for life It was also holden Relation That this Attornment by Curties two years after the Livery was sufficient for it shall have relation to the Livery to make it parcel of the Manor but not to punish the Lessee for waste done mean between the Livery and the Attornment but betwixt the Feoffor and the Feoffee it shall pass ab initio It was holden also That although the uses for it limited are determined by the default of payment within the 15 days yet the Feoffees shall take the Reversion by this Attornment to the second uses 2 Len. 222. and if I enfeoff one upon condition to enfeoff J.S. who refuseth now the Feoffee shall be seised to my use but if the condition were to give in tail contrary So here is a Limitation beyond the first use which shall not be defeated for want of Attornment to the first uses and here it was not the meaning of Bracebridge to have the Lands again upon breach of the condition in his former estate but according to the second use and Iudgment was given in the principal case according to the resolutions of the Iudges as aforesaid And it was said by Harper Iustice That if a Feoffment in Fee be made to J. S. upon condition that he shall grant to A. a Rent-charge who refuseth it J.S. shall be seised to his own use Antea 199. CCCLVI. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this Lord and Tenant by service to pay every year such a quantity of Salt but since 10 H. 7. the Tenant hath always paid the money for Salt. The question was If the Lord might resort to the first service Seisin and if the money be Seisin of the Salt. And Manwood took this difference i.e. where the Lord takes a certain sum of money for the Salt the same is not any Seisin for the service is altered as at the first Socage Tenure was a work done by labor i.e. Plowing but now it is changed into certain Rent and the Lord cannot resort to have his Plowing and in Kent divers Tenants in ancient time have paid Barley for their Rent but the same afterward was paid in a certain sum of money so as now the Lord of Canterbury who is Lord of such Tenements cannot now demand his Barly c. but if the sum which hath been used to be paid be incertain one year so much according to the price of Salt then such a payment of money is a sufficient Seisin of the Salt. Quod fuit concessum per Curiam CCCLVII 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Accompt brought by an Heir Copyholder for the profits of his Copyhold Lands taken during his Nonage the Defendant pleaded That by the Custom of the said Manor Accompt by the Heir of a Copyholder the Lord of the Manor might assign one to take the profits of a Copyhold descended to an Infant during his Nonage to the use of the Assignee without rendring an accompt and the same was holden to be a good Custom as a Rent granted to one and his Heirs Custom to cease during the
afterwards that this murder is dispunishable notwithstanding the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. CCCLXIV The Queen and Braybrooks Case Pasch 25 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 3 Co. 1 2 c. THe Queen brought a Writ of Error against Braybrook The Case was this That King Ed. 4. was seised of the Manor of Marston and gave the same to Lionel Lord Norris and A.M. and the Heirs of the body of the Lord the Remainder to H. Norris in Tail L and A. entermarry L. suffered a common Recovery against himself only without naming the said A. Hen. Norris is attainted of high Treason by Act of Parliament and by the same Act all his Lands Tenements Hereditaments Rights Conditions c. the day of the Treason committed or ever after c. Hen. Norris is executed Lionel dieth without issue the Queen falsified the said Recovery for one moiety by Scire facias because Anne who was joint-joint-tenant with Lionel was not named party to the said Recovery and afterwards the Queen granted to the Lord Norris Son of the said Hen. Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura in eodem and now upon the said Recovery the Queen brought a Writ of Error and it was argued by Egerton the Queens Sollicitor that this right to a Writ of Error is such a right as is transferred to the Queen by the Act of Parliament for the words are omnia jura sua quaecunque and here is a right although not a present right yet a right although in futuro so it is a right of some quality as A. Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail to B.A. makes a Feoffment in Fee B. is attainted of high Treason and by such Act all his Lands c. given to the King. A. dieth without issue the Queen shall have a Formedon in the Remainder and although the Queen hath granted to the Lord Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura in eodem yet by such general words a Writ of Error doth not pass which See 32 H. 8. Br. Patents 98. And also this Action rests in privity of record and cannot be displaced from thence but by Act of Parliament see Br. Chose in Action 14. 33 H. 8. for when the King will grant a thing in Action he ought in his Patent to recite all the circumstances of the matter as the Right and how it became a Right and because the Queen here doth not make mention of this Right as of the Entail the Recovery and the Attainder for that cause the Right doth not pass The Case betwixt Cromer and Cranmer 8 Eliz the Disseisee was attainted of Treason the Queen granted to the Heir of the Disseisee all the Right which came unto her by the Attainder of his Ancestor nothing passed Causa qua supra And always where the King grants any thing which he cannot grant but as King that such a grant without special words is to no purpose Coke contrary he agreed the Case put by Egerton for at the time of the Attainder B. had a Right of Remainder but in our Case Hen. Norris had not any Right but a possibility of a Right of Action i.e. a Writ of Error And he said that this Writ of Error is not forfeitable for it is an Action which rests in privity no more than a condition in gross as a Feoffment in Fee is made upon condition of the party of the Feoffor who is attainted ut supra This word Right in the Act of Attainder shall not transfer this Condition to the Queen and of the Act of Attainder to Hen. Norris it is to be conceived That the makers of the Act did not intend that by the word Right every right of any manner or quality whatsoever should pass to carry a Condition to the Queen and therefore we ought to conceive that the makers of the Act did not intend to touch Rights which rested in privity And as to the Grant of the Queen to the Lord Norris of the Mannor of Merston Et omnia jura sua in eodem he conceived that thereby the Right of the Writ of Error did pass for it is not like Cranmers Case but if in the said Case the Land it self had been set down in the Grant it had been good enough as that Cranmer being seised in Fee of the Manor of D. was there of disseised and so being disseised was attainted of high Treason now the Queen grants to his Heirs totum jus suum in his Manor of D c. and so in our Case the Queen hath granted to the Lord Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura sua in eodem c. at another day it was moved by Plowden that this Right of Writ of Error was not transferred to the Queen by the Act but such Right might be saved to a stranger c. the words of the Act are omnia jura sua and this word sua is Pronomen possessionis by which it is to be conceived that no Right should pass but that which was a present Right as a Right in possession but this Right to a Writ of Error was not in Hen. Norris at the time of his Attainder but it was wholly in him against whom the erroneous Iudgment was had and therefore if in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant vouch and loseth and Iudgment is given and before Execution the Tenant is attainted by Act of Parliament by words ut supra and afterwards he is pardoned the Demandant sueth for Execution against the Tenant now notwithstanding this Attainder the Tenant may sue Execution against the Vouchee and afterwards Wray chief Iustice openly declared in Court the opinion of himself and all his companions Iustices and also of all the other Iustices to be That by this Act of Parliament by which all Lands Tenements Hereditaments and all Rights of any manner and quality whatsoever Henry Norris had the day of his Attainder or ever after Lionel then being alive and over-living the said Hen. Norris that this Writ of Error was not transferred to the Queen And that the said Act by the words aforesaid could not convey to the King this possibility of right for at the time of the Attainder the Right of the Writ of Error was in Lyonel and Hen. during the estate tail limited to Lyonell had not to do with the Land nor any matter concerning it And Iudgment was given accordingly And it was holden That he in the Reversion or Remainder upon an Estate tail might have a Writ of Error by the common Law upon a Recovery had against Tenant in tail in Reversion CCCLXV Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the common Pleas. Copy-holder IN Trespass brought by a Copy-holder against the Lord for cutting down and carrying away his Trees c. It was found by special Verdict That the place where c. was Customary lands of the Plaintiffs holden of the Defendant and that the Trees whereof c. were Chery Trees de
magnitudine sufficienti essendi maremium and that the place where they growed was neither Orchard nor Garden It was said by the Court That by the Custom the Copyholder could not cut down such Trees but the Lord might and that the cutting down of such Trees which were not Wast the Copy-holder might justifie without punishment but because by the Verdict it did not appear that the Trees for which the Action was brought were Timber in facto but only de magnitudine effendi maremium the Plaintiff had Iudgment CCCLXVI The Lord Staffords Case Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Extent UPon Recovery in debt against the Lord Stafford certain Lands of the Lord were extended by Elegit The Queen because the Lord Stafford was endebted unto her by Prerogative ousted the Tenant by Elegit Fleetwood Serjeant moved the Court in the behalf of him who recovered and surmised to the Court that the Queen was satisfied and therefore prayed a Re-extent but the Court would not grant it because they were not certain of the matter but advised the party to sue a Scire facia against the said Lord Stafford to know and shew cause why a Re-extent should not issue forth the Queen being satisfied c. CCCLXVII Gibbs and Rowlies Case Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Tithes SYmon Gibbs Parson of Beddington Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Rowlie for Tithe Milk Rowlie upon surmise of a Prescription de modo Decimandi obtained a Prohibition which was against Symon Gibbs Rectorem Ecclesiae parochial de Nether Beddington and the parties were at Issue upon the Prescription Prohibition and it was found for Rowlie Egerton Solicitor moved against the Prohibition because the Libel is against Gibbs Rectorem Ecclesiae paroch de Beddington and the Prohibition was de Nether Beddington and it was not averred that Beddington in the Libel and Nether Beddington is unum idem non diversa It was said by the Court That upon the matter there is not any Prohibition against Rectorem Ecclesiae de Beddington only and therefore said to the Plaintiffs Counsel let the Parson proceed in the Spiritual Court at his peril CCCLXVIII Russell and Handfords Case Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. RUssell brought an Action upon the Case against Handford and declared Quod cum quoddam molendinum ab entiquo fuit erectum upon such a River Nusance de quo one Thomas Russell whose Heir the Plaintiff is was seised in his Demesn as of Fee and dyed thereof seised after whose death the same descended to the Plaintiff by force of which the Plaintiff was seised in his Demesn as of Fee and so seised The Defendant upon the same River had levyed a new Mill per quod cursus aquae praedict coarctatus est and upon Not guilty It was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That it is not layed in the Declaration that his Mill had been a Mill time out of mind c. And then if it be not an ancient Mill time out of mind Words of Prescription c. it was lawful for the Defendant to erect a new Mill And it was said That these words ab antiquo are not fit or significant words to set forth a Prescription but the words A tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit are the usual words for such a purpose See the Book of Entries 10 11. See 11 H. 4. 200. If I have a Mill and another levies another Mill there and the Miller hinders the Water to run to my Mill or doth any such Nusance Roll. 140. an Action lyeth without any Prescription as it seems by the Book in 22 H. 6. 14. The Plaintiff declared That he was Lord of such a Town and that he and all his Predecessors Priors of N. Lords of the same Town have had within the same Town four Mills time out of mind c. And that no other person had any Mill in the said Town but the Plaintiff and his Predecessors the said four Mills and that all the Tenants of the Plaintiff within the same Town and all other Resiants there c. ought and time out of mind c. had used to grind at the said Mills of the Plaintiff and that the Defendant one of the Tenants of the Plaintiff had erected and set up a Horse Mill within the said Town and there the Resiants grinded c. And it was holden That peradventure upon such matter an Action lyeth because the Defendant being one of the Tenants of the Plaintiff is bound by the Custom and Prescription so as he hath offended against the privity of the Custom and Prescription And as to the Case in question It was the opinion of all the Iustices Hob. 189. Ante 168. 1 Cro. 415. That if the Mill whereof the Plaintiff hath declared be not an ancient Mill that this Action doth not lye upon the matter eo quod cursus aquae coarctatur But yet at last it was holden by the Court to be good enough notwithstanding the Exception Another Exception was taken to the Declaration because that here is set forth the seisin of the Father of the Plaintiff and the Descent to the Plaintiff by force of which he was seised in his Demesn c. without shewing that after the death of the Father that he entred into the said Mill Seisin in fact and in Law. c. so as no seisin in fact is alleadged but only a seisin in Law and if the Plaintiff was not seised in fact he cannot punish this personal wrong but the Exception was disallowed for such a seisin in Law is sufficient for the maintenance of this Action And afterwards the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover his Damages See for the Action it self contained in the Declaration 8 Eliz. Dyer 248. CCCLXIX Cleypools Case Mich. 26. Eliz. In the Exchequer Informations upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Tillage INformation in the Exchequer against Cleypool upon the Statute of Tillage 5 Eliz. setting forth That the Defendant hath converted three hundred Acres of arable Lands of Tillage to pasture and the same conversion hath continued from 15 Eliz. unto the two and twentieth of Eliz The Defendant as to the Conversion pleaded Not guilty and as to the Continuance the general Pardon by Parliament 23 Eliz. upon which the Attorney general did demur in Law. It was argued That that pardon did not extend to the continuance of the said Conversion And first the Barons were clear of opinion That if A. be seised of Arable Lands and converts the same to pasture and so converted leaseth it to B. who continues it in pasture as he found it he shall be charged by that Statute And it is not any good Construction where the Exception in the pardon is excepting the converting of any Land from Tillage to Pasture made done committed or permitted that the Conversion excepted
good as a new devise in Reversion upon the precedent Condition and not as a Remainder quod Windham concessit but Periam was very strong of opinion That it is a Limitation Two Ioyntenants of a Term A. and B. A. grants his part to B. nothing passeth by it for as a Grant it cannot be good Owen 102. 1 Cro. 314. 1 Inst 186. for as one Ioyntenant cannot enfeost his Companion no more can he vest any thing in him by grant for he cannot grant to him a thing which he hath before for Ioyntenants are seised and possessed of the whole all which was granted per Curiam and Anderson said That if Lands be granted to A. and B. and the Heirs of A. B. cannot surrender to A. for a Surrender is as it were a grant And as a Release it cannot enure for a Release of a Right in Chattels cannot be without a Deed. CCCLXXXIV Hollingshed and Kings Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt HOllingshed brought Debt against King and declared That King was bounden to him in a Recognizance of two hundred pounds before the Mayor and Aldermen of London in interiori Camera de Guildhall London upon which Recognizance the said Hollingshed heretofore brought a Scire facias before the said Mayor c. in exteriori Camera and there had Iudgment to recover upon which Recovery he hath brought this Action and upon this Declaration the Defendant did demur in Law because that in setting forth of the Recognizance he hath not alledged That the Mayor of London hath Authority by Prescription or Grant to take Recognizances and if he hath not then is the Recognizance taken Coram non Judice and so void And as to the Statute of West 2. cap. 45. It cannot be taken to extend to Recognizances taken in London which see by the words De his quae recordat sunt coram Cancellario Domini Regis ejus Justiciariis qui Recordum habent in Rotulis eorum Irrotulatur c. And also at the time of the making of that Statute 1 Cro. 186 187. London had not any Sheriffs but Bayliffs and the said Statute ordains that Process shall go to Sheriffs c. But the whole Court was clear of a contrary opinion for they said We will know that those of London have a Court of Record and every Court of Record hath an Authority incident to it to take Recognizances for all things which concern the Iurisdiction of the said Court and which arise by reason of matters there depending Another matter was objected for that the Recognizance was taken in interiori Camera but the Court was holden in exteriori Camera and therefore not pursuant But as to that it was said by the Lord Anderson That admit that the Recognizance was not well taken yet because that in the Scire facias upon it the Defendant did not take advantage then thereof he shall be bounden by his said admittance of it as if one sue forth a Scire facias as upon a Recognizance whereas in truth there is not any Recognizance and the party pleads admitting such Record and thereupon Iudgment is given against him it is nor void but voidable Fleetwood Recorder of London alledged many Cases to prove that the Courts of the King are bounden to take notice Priviledges of London That they of London have a Court of Record for if a Quo warranto issueth to Iustices in Eyre it behoves not them of London to claim their Liberties for all Courts of the King are to take notice of them And at last after many motions the opinion of the Court was for the Plaintiff And it was said by Anderson and in manner agreed by the whole Court That if depending this Demurrer here the Iudgment in London upon the Scire facias be reversed yet the Court here must proceed and not take notice of the said Reversal CCCLXXXV Bedingfeild and Bedingfeilds Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower DOwer was brought by Anne Bedingfeild against Thomas Bedingfeild The Tenant out of the Chancery purchased a Writ De circumspecte agatis setting forth this matter That it was found by Office in the County of Norfolk that the Husband oâ— the Demandant was seised of the Manor of N. in the said County and held the same of the Queen by Knights Service in chief and thereof dyed seised the Tenant being his Son and Heir of full age by reason whereof the Queen seised as well the said Manor as other Manors and because the Queen was to restore the Tenements tam integre Primer seisin c. as they came to her hands it was commanded the Iudges to surcease Domina regina inconsulta It was resolved per Curiam That although the Queen be entituled to have Primer seisin of all the Lands whereof the Husband of the Demandant dyed seised yet this Writ did not extend unto any Manors not found in the Office for by the Law the Queen cannot seise more Lands than those which are contained in the Office And therefore as to the Land not found by the Office the Court gave day to the Tenant to plead in chief And it was argued by Serjeant Gawdy for the Tenant That the Demandant ought to sue in the Chancery because that the Queen is entituled to have her Primer Seisin and cited the case of 11 R. 2. and 11 H. 4. 193. And after many motions It was clearly agreed by the Court That the Tenant ought to answer over for the Statute De Bigamis Cap. 3. provides that in such case The Iustices shall proceed notwithstanding such seisin of the King and where the King grants the custody of the Tenant himself 1 H. 7. 18 19. 4 H. 7. 1. A Multo fortiori against the Heir himself where he is of full age notwithstanding the possession of the King for his Primer seisin By the Statute of Bigamis after the Heir was of full age the Wife could not be endowed in the Chancery But now by the Prerogative of the King such wives may be endowed there Si viduae illae voluerint and after many motions The Court awarded That the Tenant should plead in chief at his peril for the Demandant might sue at the common Law if she pleased CCCLXXXVI Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Exchange The Husband was seised of Lands in the right of his Wif the Husband and his Wife both joyned in exchange of the Lands with a stranger for other Lands which exchange was executed the Husband and the Wife seised of the Lands taken in exchange aliened the same by Fine It was holden by Rhodes and Windham Iustices That the Wife after the death of her Husband might enter into her own Lands notwithstanding that Fine And Rhodes resembled it to the case reported by my Lord Dyer 19 Eliz. 358. The Husband after marriage assured to his Wife a Ioynture they both levy a Fine 1 Inst 36.
Surrenders from the said Husband and Wife the Remainder over to the said John Buck in Fee upon condition to pay a certain sum of money c. It was moved That the Surrender is void and without warrant for the warrant was ad capiendum unum fursum redditionem and here are two several Surrenders and so the warrant is not pursued and then the Surrender is void Another matter was because the Remainder to John Buck by the words of the Deputation was absolute and without Condition and now in the Execution of it it is conditional so as this conditional estate is not warranted by the Deputation But the whole Court was clear of a contrary opinion in both the points and that all the proceedings were sufficient and well warranted by the Deputation Another matter was objected because that this Surrender and regrant is entred in the Roll of a Court dated to be holden the second of Maij and the Letter of Deputation bears date the third of June after But as to that The Court was clear of opinion that the mis-entry of the date of the Court should not prejudice the party for this Entry is not matter of Record but is but an Escape and if the parties had been at Issue upon the time of the Surrender made or of the Court holden the same should not be tryed by the Rolls of the Manor but by the Country and the party might give in Evidence the truth of the matter and should not be bound by the Roll and according to this Resolution of the Court Iudgment was given CCCXCVI Mich. 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Fines levied THe Case was Tenant in tail leased for sixty years and afterwards levyed a Fine to Lee and Loveday Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. with a Render to him and his Heirs in Fee And upon a Scire facias against the Conusees supposing the Lands to be ancient Demesn the Defendants made default for which the Fine was avoided and now the Issue in tail entred upon the Lessee for years and he brought an Ejectione firmae Sene facias â— Len. 117. and it was found That the Land was Frank Fee And all the question was If by the Reversal of the Fine by Writ of Disceit without suing forth a Scire facias against the Ter-Tenant should bind him or should be void only against the Conusee and not against the Lessee Atkin. It shall not bind the Lessee for years For a Fine may bind in part and in part not as bind one of the Conusees and not the other 7 H. 4. 111. A Fine levied of Lands part ancient Demesn and part at the common Law the same was by Writ of Disceit reversed in part as to the Land in ancient Demesn and stood in force for the residue 8 H. 4. 136. And there by award of the Court issued forth a Scire facias against the ter-Ter-Tenants and the Iustices would not adnul the Fine without a certificate that the Land was Ancient Demesn notwithstanding that the Defendant had acknowledged it to be so but as to them who were parties to the Fine the Fine is become void as to the said parties and and he who had the Land before might enter i. And he said it should be a great inconvenience if no Scire facias or other Proces should be awarded against the Ter-tenant for he should be dispossessed and disinherited without privity or notice of it where upon a Scire facias he might plead matter of discharge in Bar of the Writ of Disceit as a Release c. which see Fitz. N.B. 98. And so although the Fine be reversed yet he might retain the Land and he resembled this case to the case of 2 H. 4. 16 17. In a Contra formam collationis against an Abbot a Scire facias shall issue forth against the Feoffee and so by the same reason here And for the principal matter he said That the Fine should be avoided against the parties but not against the Lessee Kingsmill The Scire facias brought against the parties only is good enough for they were parties to the Disceit and not the Ter-tenants It was adjorned CCCXCVII Mich. 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Error Appearance by Attorney Dyer 135. b. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment in a Quid juris clamat It was assigned for Error that the Tenant did appear by Attorney whereas he ought not but in person because he is to do an Act in proper person if it be not in case of necessity where the Attorney may be received by the Kings Writ or plead matter in Bar of the Attornment as if he claim Fee c. or other peremptory matter after which Plea pleaded he may make Attorney 48 E. 3. 24. 7 H. 6. 69. 2â— E. 3. 48. 1 H. 7. 27. Another Error was because it is not shewed in the Quid juris clamat what estate the Tenant hath Another matter was If the Grantee of the estate of Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct shall be driven to attorn â— Len â—â— and it was said he should not for the priviledge doth pass with the grant See 43 E. 3. 1. Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct shall not be driven to attorn 46 E. 3. 13. 27. Ergo neither his Grantee Williams contrary As to the appearance of the Tenant by Attorney because the same is admitted by the Court and the Plaintiff the same is not Error which see 1 H. 7. 27. by Brian and Conisby 32 H. 6. 22. And he said That the Grantee should be driven to attorn for no other person can have the estate of the Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct but the party himself therefore not the priviledge and although he himself be dispunishable of Wast yet his Grantee shall not have such priviledge As if Tenant in Dower or by the curtesie grant over their estates the Heir shall have Wast against the Grantors for Wast done by the Grantee but if the heir granteth over his Reversion then Wast shall be brought against the Grantees See Fitz. N.B. 56. And it two Coparceners be and the one taketh a Husband and dieth the Husband being Tenant by the curtesie a Writ of Partition lyeth against him but if he granteth over his estate no Writ of Partition lyeth against the Grantee 27 H. 6. Stathams Aid If the Grantee of Tenant after possibility shall attâ—rn Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct shall not have Aid but his Grantee shall have Aid Clark The Grantee of Tenant in tail shall not be driven to attorn If Tenant in tail grant totum statum suum the Grantee is dispunishaple of wast so if his Grantee grant it over his Grantee is also dispunishable c. It was adjorned CCCXVIII Gravenor and Masseys Case Mich 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. GRavenor brought a Writ of Error upon a common
Southcotes case Southcotes case So a Title of Cessavit in the Feoffees shall be executed by the Statute So if the King grants to the Feoffees in use a Fair Market or Warren these things shall be executed by the Statute Clerentius case as it was holden in the Case of Clarentius As to the Condition they conceived That it is broken for where the Devisor had allowed to the Devisee to discontinue for life to make a Ioynture to his Wife now he hath exceeded his allowance for he might have made a Ioynture to his wife indefeisable by Fine upon a Grant upon a Render for life c. But this Fine with the Proclamations is a Bar to the former entail which was created by the Devise and hath created a new entail and the former tail was barred by the Fine against the intent of the Devisor Also by this Fine he hath created a new Remainder so as his Issue inheritable to his new entail might alien and be unpunished which was against the meaning of the Devisor And as to the Lease for lives to the Defendants the same is not any breach of the Condition for that is warranted by the Statute of 32 H. 8. which enables Tenant in tail to make such a Lease so as it cannot be said Discontinuance which Anderson and Periam granted But the Fine levied after is a breach of the Condition and then the Re-entry upon the Lessees who have their estates under the Condition is lawful As where the wife of the Feoffee upon Condition is endowed and afterwards the Condition is broken now by the Re-entry of the Feoffor the Dower is defeated And Shutleworth put this case A Feoffment is made upon Condition that the Feoffee shall lease the Lands to A. for life and afterwards grant the Reversion to B. in Fee the Feoffor may re-enter for by this Conveyance he in the Reversion is immediate Tenant to the Lord where by the intended assurance the particular Tenant ought to be Puckering Fenner and Walmesley contrary And by Walmesley By this devise the use only passeth and not the Land it self for the Statute of 1 R. 3. extends only to Acts executed in the life of Cestuy que use and not to devises which are not executed till after the death of the Devisor which see 4 Ma. Dyer 143. Trivilians case See also 6 E. 6. Dyer 74. The Lord Bourchiers case but 10 H. 7. Cestuy que use deviseth That his Executors shall sell the Land now by the sale of the Land in possession for the same is in a manner an Act in his life for the Vendee is in by Cestuy que use and here is a Condition and not a Limitation for the nature of a Condition is to draw back the estate to the Feoffor Donor or Lessor but a Limitation carrieth the estate further And he conceived That the Condition is not broken by this Act for the intent of the Devisor is pursued for his meaning was That the wife should have a Ioynture indefeisable against the issue in tail and that the inheritance should be preserved that both should be observed And he said that this Fine being levied by him in the Reversion upon an estate for life is not any discontinuance but yet shall bar the estate Tail. And the Iustices were clear of opinion that the Condition is broken and also that the intent of the Condition is broken for it might be that Charles had issue by a former wife which by this Fine should be disinherited and a new Entail set on foot against the meaning of the Devisor c. and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCX Simmes and Wescots Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 355. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 147. That in consideration that he would marry the Defendants Daughter the Defendant promised to give him 20 l. and also to procure him all the Corn growing upon such Lands and to provide necessaries for the wedding dinner the Defendant did confess the communication betwixt them and that he promised to give the Plaintiff 20 l. so as he would procure a Lease of certain Lands to his Daughter for her life absque hoc that he promised modo forma The Iury found the promise of the 20 l. but not any other thing it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Assumpsit whereof the Plaintiff hath declared although it consist of divers things yet it is entire and if the whole is not found nothing is found and the Case of 21 E. 4. 22. was cited touching variance of Contract as where an Action of Debt is brought upon a Contract of a Horse and the Iury found a Contract for two Horses the Plaintiff shall never have Iudgment On the other side it was said That the Plaintiff shall recouer damages for the whole that is found i. for the 20 l. See 32 H. 8. Br. Issue 90. In an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant did promise to deliver four Woollen-cloaths the Defendant pleaded That he did promise to deliver four Linnen-cloaths absque hoc that he promised c. the Iury found That the Defendant did promise to deliver two Woollen-cloaths and the Plaintiff did recover damages for the two So in Wast the Wast is assigned in succidendo 20 Oaks upon which they are at Issue the Iury find but ten Oaks the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment for so much and shall be amerced for the residue Gawdy Iustice Here are several Assumpstis in Law as Br. 5. Ma. Action sur le Case 108. a man in consideration of a Marriage assumes to pay 20 l. per Annum for four years two years incur the party brings an Action upon the Case for the arrearages of the two years Wray In an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff ought not to vary from his Case as if a promise be grounded upon two considerations Ragula and in an action upon it the Plaintiff declares upon one only he shall never have Iudgment and here the Iury have not found the same promise Clench If promise be made to deliver a Horse and a Cow and the Horse is delivered but not the Cow the party shall have an Action for the Cow but he shall declare upon the whole matter and afterwards Iudgment was given quod querens nihil capiat per billam CCCCXI Stile and Millers Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Tithes 1 Cro. 161 578. 11 Co 13. A Parson Leased all his Glebe Lands for years with all the profits and commodities rendring 13 s. 4 d. pro omnibus exaction ibus demandis and afterwards libelled in the Spiritual Court against his Lessees for the Tithes thereof the Lessee obtained a Prohibition See 32 H. 8. Br. Dis 17. 8 E. 2. Avowry 212. Wray Tithes are not things issuing out of Lands nor any secular duty but spiritual and if the Parson doth release to
his Parishioner all demands in his Lands his Tithes thereby are not extinct and afterwards a Consultation was granted CCCCXII Lee and Curetons Case Trin. 31 Eliz. Rot. 902. In the Kings Bench. Debt 1 Cro. 153. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded Non est factum and it was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given and afterwards the Defendant brought Error and assigned for Error that the Declaration was per scriptum suum obligat Error without saying hic in Guria prolat to which it was answered by Coke that the same was but matter of form for which a Iudgment ought not to be reversed for that the Clark ought to put in without instruction of the party and so it was holden in a case betwixt Barras and King 1 Cro. 768. 778. 3 Cro. 22. M. 29 30 Eliz. Another Error was assigned because the Iudgment is entred de fine nihil quia perdonat where it should be quod capiatur although the Plea were pleaded after the General pardon and for that cause the Iudgment was reversed for if the pardon be not specially pleaded the Court cannot take notice of it as it was holden in Serjeant Harris Case CCCCXIII Lacy and Fishers Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN a Replevin the taking is supposed in S. which Land is holden of the Manor of Esthall the Defendant made Conusans as Bailiff of the Lord of the Manor aforesaid and issue was taken upon the Tenure Trial. and it was tryed by a Iury out of the Visne of Esthall only Tanfield The trial is good for the issue ought not to have been tried by both Visnes S. and Esthall for two things are in issue If it be holden or not 2. If it be holden of the Manor of Esthall for which cause the Visne ought to be from both places and the opinion of the Court was That for the manner of it it was not good as if an issue be joyned upon common for cause of vicinage it shall be tried by both Towns See 39 H. 6. 31. by Littleton and Danby and the case in 21 E. 3. 12. was cited in a per quae servitia the Mannor was in one county and the Lands holden in another county the Tenant pleaded that he did not hold of the Conusor and that he was tried by a Iury of the County where the Land was See 2 H. 4. Gawdy denied the Book cited of 21 E. 3. to be Law and the reason wherefore the Visne shall come from both places is because it is most likely that both the Visnes may better know the truth of the matter than the one only Another Exception was taken Exposition of Stat. 21. H. 8. cap. 19. because the Conusans as it seems is made according to the Statute of 21 H. 8. 19. and yet the party doth not pursue the said Statute through the whole Conusans for by the Statute in Avowry or Conusans the party needs not to name any person certain to be Tenant to the Land c. nor to make Avowty or Conusans upon any person certain and now in this Conusans he hath not made Conusance upon any person certain but yet he hath named a person certain to be Tenant c. and in as much as this Conusans is not made either according to the Common-Law or according to the Statute it cannot be good But that Exception was dissallowed by the Court for if the Statute remedieth two things it remedieth one and the Conusance made in form as above was well enough by the opinion of the whole Court. CCCCXIV Diersly and Nevels Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleaded Not-guilty 2 Roll. 682. and if he might give in evidence That at the time of the Trespass the Freehold was to such an one and he as his servant and by his Commandment entred was the question and it was said by Coke That the same might so be well enough and so it was adjudged in Trivilians Case for if he by whose commandment he entreth hath Right at the same instant that the Defendant entreth the Right is in the other by reason whereof he is not guilty as to the Defendant and Iudgment was given accordingly CCCCXV. Savage and Knights Case Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 546. In the Kings Bench. Error Ante 185. 1 Cro. 106. 2 Cro. 109. 654. Sty 91. Yelv. 164. Sty 115. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in Leicester in Debt Tanfield assigned for Error because in that suit there was not any Plaint for in all inferior Courts the Plaint is as the Original at the Common Law and without that no Process can issue and here upon this Record nothing is entred but only that the Defendant summonitus fuit c. and the first Entrie ought to be A. B. queritur versus C c. Clench Iustice a Plaint ought to be entred before Process issueth forth and this Summons which is entred here is not any Plaint and for that Cause the Iudgment was reversed CCCCXVI Rawlins Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass for breaking his Close by Rawlins with a continuando It was moved by Coke that the Plaintiff needed not to shew a Regress to have Damages for the continuance of the first Entry scil for the mean profits and that appears by common experience at this day Gawdy Iustice whatsoever the experience be I well know that our books are contrary and that without an Entry he shall not have damages for the continuance if not in case where the Term or estate of the Plaintiff in the Land be determined and to such opinion of Gawdy the whole Court did incline but they did not resolve the point because a Regress was proved See 20 H. 6. 15. 38 H. 6. 27. CCCCXVII Harris and Bakers Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Accompt Damages 3 Len. 192. Collet and Andrews Case 2 Len. 118. 3 Len 149. IN an accompt damages were given by the Iury and it was moved that damages ought not to have been given by way of damages but the damages of the Plaintiff shall be considered by way of Arrearages but see the Case H. 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas betwixt Collet and Andrews and see 10 H. 6 18. In Accompt the Plaintiff shall count to his damage but shall not recover damages vide 2. H. 7. 13. 21 H. 6. 26. The Plaintiff shall not recover damages expresly but the Court shall adâ— quoddam incromentum to the Arrearages Coke It hath been adjudged that the Plaintiff shall recover damages ratione implicationis non Retentionis CCCCXVIII Mich. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe words of the Statute 32 H. 8. cap. 37. of Rents are that the Executor of a Grantee of a Rent-charge may distrain for the arrearages of the said Rent incurred in the life of the Testator so long as the Land charged doth continue in
the Seisin or possession of the Tenant in Demesn who ought immediately to have paid the said Rent so behind to the Testator in his life or in the Seisin or possession of any other person or persons claiming the said Lands only by and from the said Tenant by Purchase Gift or Discent in like manner as the Testator might or ought to have done in his life time And now it was moved to the Court. If A. grant a Rent-charge to B. the Rent is behind B. dyeth A. infeoffeth C. of the Lands in Fee who diverse years after infeoffeth D. who divers years after infeoffeth E. It was holden by Walmesey Periam and Windham Iustice against Anderson Lord chief Iustice that E. should be chargeable with the said arrearages to the Executors of A. But they all agreed That the Lord by Escheat Tenant in Dower or by the curtesie should not be charged for they do not claim in by the party only but also by the Law. CCCCXIX Wigot and Clarks Case Hill. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Right by Wigot against Clark for the Mannor of D. in the County of Glocester the four Knights gladiis cincti did appear Writ of Right and took their corporal Oath that they would choose 12 c. ad faciendum magnam Assisam and by direction of the court they withdrew themselves into the Exchequer chamber and there did return in Parchment the names of the Recognitors and also their own names and at the day of the return of the Pannel by them made the 4 Knights and 12 others were sworn to try the issue and it was ordered by the Court That both the parties scil the Demandant and the Tenant or their Attornies attend the said 4 Knights in the Exchequer chamber and to be present at the making of the Pannel so as each of them might have their challenges for after the return of the Pannel no challenge lieth and thereupon the said 4 Knights went from the Bar and within a short time after sitting the Court they returned the Pannel written in Parchment in this form Nomina Recognitorum c. inter A. petentem B. tenentem and so set down their names six other Knights ten Esquires and four Gentlemen and the Iustices did commend them for their good and sufficient Pannel and thereupon a Venire facias was awarded against the said parties CCCCXX Pory and Allens Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot. 611. In the Common Pleas. THe case was That Lessee for 30 years leased for 19 years 1 Cro. 173. Owen 97. Post 322 323. Surrender 1 Cro. 302. and then the first Lessee and one B. by Articles in writing made betwixt them did conclude and agree That the Lessee for 19 years should have a Lease for three years in the said Lands and others and that the same should not be any surrender of his first Term to which Articles the said Lessee for 19 years did after agree and assent unto and it was the opinion of all the Iustices of the Court that the same was not any surrender and they also were of opinion That one Termor could not surrender to another Termor CCCCXXI Glanvil ane Mallarys Case Trin. 31 Eliz. Rot. 321. In the Common Pleas. GLanvil was Plaintiff in Audita Querela Audita Querâ—la 1 Cro. 2â—8 against Mallary upon a Statute Staple for that the conusor was within age at the time of the acknowledging of it it was moved for the Defendant that the Court ought not to hold Plea of this matter because there was no Record of the Statute remaining here and therefore by Law he was not compellable to answer it c. and a President was disallowed 5 H. 8. where such a pleading was allowed and judgment given that the Defendant eat sine die Loves Case Dudley and Skinners Case vide 16 Eliz. Dier 332. But on the other side divers presidents were shewed that divers such Writs had been shewed in the Common Pleas as 30 Eliz. Loves case and the Lord Dudley and Skinners case and thereupon it was adjudged that the Action did well lye in this Court. CCCCXXII Pet and Callys Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt IN Debt upon a Bond for performance of covenants the case was I. S. by Indenture covenanted with I.D. that such a woman viz. R.S. at all times at the request and charges of I.D. should make execute and suffer such reasonable assurances of such Lands to the said I.D. or his heirs as the said I. D. or his heirs should reasonably devise or require I.D. devised a Fine to be levied by the said Woman and required her to come before the Iustices of Assise to acknowledge it and the woman came before the said Iustices to that intent and because the said woman at that time was not compos mentis the said Iustices did refuse to take the Conusans of the said Fine and this was averred in the pleading in an Action brought upon the said Bond for performance of Covenants where the breach was assigned in not acknowledging of the said Fine and upon the special matter the party did demur in Law and the opinion of the whole Court was that the condition was not broken for the words are general to make such reasonable assurances which c. but if the words had been special to acknowledge a Fine there if the Iustice doth refuse to take such acknowledgment the Bond is forfeited for the party hath taken upon him that it should be done Wangford and Sextons Case Mich. 22 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 174. Kel 87. a. THe Plaintiff had recovered against the Defendant in an Action of Debt and had execution The Defendant after the day of the Teste of the Fierifacias and before the Sheriff had medled with the execution of the Writ bona fide for money sold certain goods and chattels and delivered them to the buyers it was holden by the Court that notwithstanding the said Sale that the Sheriff might do execution of those goods in the hands of the buyers Executions for that they are liable to the execution and execution once granted or made shall have relation to the Test of the Writ CCCCXXIV Wilmer and Oldfields Case Trin. 29 Eliz. Rot. 2715. In the Common Pleas. Award IN Debt upon a Bond the Condition was to perform the Award of I. S Antea 140. c. the Arbitrators make Award That the Defendant before such a day shall pay to the Plaintiff 1000 l. or otherwise procure one A. being a stranger to the Bond to be bound to the Obligee for the payment of 12 l. per annum to the Plaintiff for his life the Defendant pleaded the performance of the Award generally the Plaintiff assigned the breach of the Award in this That the said A. had not paid the said 100 l. without speaking of the cause of the award of the 12 l. per annum upon which the
the other side there the Descent is traversable and not the dying seised and that was the Case betwixt Vernon and Gray Vernon and Grays Case In an Avowry Vernon conveyed the Lands from the Lord Powes to him as next Heir to him because the Lord Powes died seised in his Demesn as of Fee without issue and the Plaintiff conveyed from the said Lord Powes by Devise and traversed the Descent to the Avowant for the dying seised was confessed and avoided by the Devise 22 Eliz. Dyer 366. See 21 H. 7. 31. In Trespass the Defendant saith That T. was seised and died seised and that the Lands descended to him as Son and Heir and that he entred the Plaintiff said That T. was seised and took to wife K. and they had issue the Plaintiff and died seised and the Land descended to him and teaversed the descent to the Defendant and see Sir William Merings Case 14 H. 8. 22 23. But if the parties do not claim by one and the same person or the dying seised be not confessed and avoided there the dying seised shall be traversed and not the descent Glanvil Serjeant Be the Bar insufficient or not if the Declaration be not sufficient the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment and here is not any breach of Covenant viz. that the Plaintiff shall enjoy it without any lawful impediment of the Defendant his Heirs or Assigns or any claiming by Marland and then if the Heir of Marland cannot make any lawful claim then there is not any breach of Covenant assigned and he said because it is not shewed that the Land is not holden in Socage the Devise is not good for it may be that the Land is holden in Capite but admit the Devise good that when Andrews bargains and sells unto Marland and the Tenant never attorns then nothing passeth and then the Heir of Marland cannot make any lawful claim or lawful impediment Periam Iustice Here Marland was assignee of Andrews and if he or his heirs make claim although that the assignment be not sufficient in Law yet because he hath colour by this assignment his claim is lawful and so there is a breach of the Covenant and although it is not alledged that the Land devised is holden in Socage yet the Devise is good for two parts of the Land. Anderson Iustice If it be good but for two parts then is the Reversion apportioned and the Rent destroyed and so Marland hath not any Rent by his purchase of the Reversion and so he can't lawfully disturb the Plaintiff The Law doth create his apportionment which grows by the Devise and therefore the Rent shall not be destroyed but if it had been done by the Act of the party it had been otherwise and I would willingly hear if the Heir of Marland be assignee of Andrews for otherwise he is not within the words of the Covenant for Marland hath an estate to him and his heirs for the life of another Now after the death of Marland his heir is a special occupant and vide H. 26 Eliz. Rot. 560. in the Common Pleas such an Heir shall not have his age CCCCXXX Oglethorpe and Hides Case Pasch 33 liz In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon a Bond for the performance of Covenants Debt it was holden by the whole Court That if the Defendant pleaded generally the performance of the Covenants and the Plaintiff doth demur generally upon it without shewing cause of Demurrer Iudgment shall be given according to the truth of the cause for that default in pleading is but matter of form and is aided by the Statute of 27 Eliz. But if any of the Covenants be in the disjunctive so as it is in the Election of the Covenantor to do the one or the other then it ought to be specially pleaded and the performance of it for otherwise the Court cannot know what part hath been performed CCCCXXXI Tracy and Ivies Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Dower by Margaret Tracy against Ivie the Case was Dower That John Finch was seised and enfeoffed Shipton and others of two parts of the Lands to the use of himself and the Defendant his then wife and their heirs for ever with Condition That if his said wife did survive him Co. 4. Vernons Case she should pay such sums of mony not exceeding two hundred pounds to such persons which the Feoffor by his last Will should appoint and afterwards he declared his Will and thereby appointed certain sums of mony to be paid to divers persons amounting in the whole to the sum of one hundred and fifty one pounds and by his said Will devised the residue of his Lands to divers of his Kindred having no issue and died The wife married Tracy and they brought Dower against the Devisees who pleaded the Feoffment aforesaid and averred the same was made for the Ioynture of the Demandant And because that no other matter or circumstance was proved to verifie the Averment the Court incited the Iury to find for the Demandant which they did accordingly CCCCXXXII Bond and Richardsons Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon a Bond Debt 1 Cro. 142. the Condition was to pay a lesser sum such a day and at such a place the Defendant pleaded payment according to the Condition upon which they were at issue And it was found by Verdict That the lesser sum was paid such a day before the day contained in the Condition of the Bond and then received and upon this Verdict Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the day is not material nor the place but the payment is the substance CCCCXXXIII Marshes Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Trover had Conversion GOods came to a Feme covert by Trover and she and her Husband did convert them to their own use It was holden per Curiam That the Action upon the Case shall be brought against the Husband and Wife and not against the Husband only for the Action doth sound in Trespass and it is not like unto Detinue for upon a Detainer by the Wife the Action lieth against the Husband only CCCCXXXIV Corbets Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt 2 Len. 60. AN Action of Debt was brought by Original Writ against an Administrator in another County than where the Administrator was commorant and before notice of the Suit he paid divers Debts of the Intestate due by specialty and so he had not Assets to pay the Debt in demand having Assets at the day of the Teste of the Original And now Plainment Administred 1 Cro. 793. the Defendant appearing pleaded this special matter and concluded so he had nothing remaining in his hands And it was holden per Curiam to be a good Plea. See 2 H. 4. 21 22. CCCCXXXV Gillam and Lovelaces Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Administration KAtharine Gillam Administratrix of John Gillam brought Ejectione
firmae against Leonard Lovelace and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgment That the Declaration was not good because the granting of Letters of Administration is set forth in this manner viz. Administratio commissa fuit Querenti per Willielmum Lewen Vicarium generalem in spiritualibus Epi. Roff. without averring that at the time of the granting of the Letters of Administration the Bishop was in remotis agendis for a Bishop present in England cannot have Vicarium But as to that it was said by the whole Court That the Vicar general in Spiritualibus amounts to a Chancellor for in truth the Chancellor is Vicar general to the Bishop Another Exception was because the Declaration is not Epi. Roff. loci illius Ordinarii but that was not allowed for all the presidents and course of the Court is That by way of Declaration such allegation needs not but by way of Bar it is necessary Another Exception was taken because the Plaintiff hath declared of an Ejectment and also quod bona catalla ibidem invent cepit c. And here in the Verdict the damages as well for the Ejectment as for the Goods and Chattels are entirely taxed It was adjorned CCCCXXXVI Greeves Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin Replevin the Defendant made Conusans as Bayliff to one Greeves and Rockwood c. and said That A. was seised of the Lands and 6 Eliz. enfeoffed certain persons in fee to the use of his last Will by which he willed that his Feoffees should stand seised of the said Lands Devises Poph. 188. until the said Greeves had levied of the profits of the said Lands the sum of one hundred pounds It was objected against this Conusans that here is no devise for A. at the time of the devise had not any Feoffees but the Exception was disallowed by the Court And they cited the case of 15 Eliz. Dyer 323. Lingens case A. made a Feoffment in fee to his use and afterwards devised that his Feoffees should be seised to the use of his Daughter that the same was a good devise of the Land. See 29 H. 8. Br. Devises 48. CCCCXXXVII Kempton and Coopers Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass for breaking of his Close the Defendant pleaded Bar. 3 Len. 194. that before this he had brought an Ejectione firmae against the now Plaintiff and recovered and had Execution c. Iudgment if Action c. And by Periam Windham and Anderson Iustices the same is a good Bar and the conclusion of the Plea is also good Iudgment if Action without relying upon the Estoppel CCCCXXXVIII Leigh and Okeley and Christmass Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. OLiphe Leigh Fermor of the Queen of a Wood called Meerherst Wood in Warplesden in the County of Surrey brought an Action of Trespass against Henry Okeley and Robert Christmass for breaking of the said Wood and therein entring and cutting down of two hundred loads of Wood and carrying away the same c. The Defendants pleaded That before the time in which the Trespass was supposed c. That King H. 8. was seised of the Manor of Warplesden Custom whereof the said Wood was parcel of which Manor a Close called Withybod containing eleven Acres eidem bosco adjacent was parcel and that the said Wood is and time out of mind c. was closed and separated with Hedges and Ditches from the said eleven Acres which said Hedges and Ditches per totum tempus praedict fuerunt adhuc sunt praedict bosco spectant pertinent And that the said eleven Acres are and time out of mind weâ—â— customary Lands parcel of the Manor aforesaid and demised and demisable in Fee-simple And that the said King H. 8. at a Court holden 38 H. 8. by his Steward demised the said eleven Acres by copy to John Goring and his Heirs and that within the said Manor there is this Custom That every Copyholder Tenant of the said eleven Acres c. hath used and accustomed per se vel servientes suos per eorum praecept succidere capere asportare subboscum in praedict bosco in quo c. pro reparatione praedictarum sepium defensionum inter praedict boscum in quo c. and the said eleven Acres c. quandocunque eaedem sepes defensiones in decasu extiterint and shewed further That at the time of the Trespass c. the said Hedges and Fences were in decay and so justified Vpon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. It was argued by Godfrey That the Prescription is not good for it appeareth that this customary Land is contigue adjacens to the said Wood i. where the Trespass was done And of common Right the making of the Hedge doth appertain to the Owner of the Wood And the Prescription is no more but to take Wood in the Lands of another adjoyning to my Land to make the Hedges of the same Land in which the Wood groweth which cannot be a good Prescription for it sounds in charge and not to the profit of him who Prescribes Which see 22 E. 3. Prescription 40. Trespass against an Abbot because where the Plaintiff was Farmor of the King of his Hundred of D. and by reason thereof he might make Attachment and distrain for the Debts of the King within the said Hundred and where for a certain debt of the King he distrained the Beasts of one A. and the Abbot made Rescous to which the Abbot said That he was Lord of the Manor of D. within which Manor there was this custom c. That if any Distress be taken within the said Manor that the same should be put into the Pound of the said Abbot of the same Manor and not driven out of the Manor and there ought the Distress to remain three days so that if the party would agree within the three days that then he should have his Beasts and he said That the Plaintiff would have driven the said Beasts out of the said Manor and that he would not suffer him upon which there was a demurrer because it is not any profit to the Abbot but a charge to keep the Beasts of another Also he said That the King shall not be bound by such a custom as another person shall whereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff So here in the principal case There shall be no damage to the Defendant if the Wood be not fenced for if his Cattel escape into the Wood he may justifie it because it is in default of the Plaintiffs inclosure And if the Beasts of the Plaintiff escape into the Lands of the Defendant he may take them Damage Feasant for the cause aforesaid 21 H. 7. 20. A Custom is pleaded That if any Tenants of the Manor shall take the Cattel of any one Damage Feasant and shall therefore distrain them that
And at another day Wray said Dy. 179. that partition by Tenants in common without deed wheresoever it is made is good but in this case it appears that the parties who made the partition were in the house for they were Tenants in common of the Messuage and a close adjoyning to it and made partition that one should have the house 6 Co. 12. and the other the close so as they were not upon the close when they made the partition and then it was void for the close and if for the close then also for the house And Iudgment was given accordingly CXXXVII Cook and Songats Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the case by Cook against Songat the Plaintiff declared Quod cum quaedam Lis and controversie had been moved betwixt the Plaintiff Lord of the Manor c. and the Defendant claiming certain Lands parcel of the said Manor to hold it by copy and whereas both parties submitted themselves to the Iudgment and Arbitrament of I. S. Counsellor at Law concerning the said Land and the title of the Defendant to it The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that if the said I. S. should adjudge the said Copy to be good and sufficient for the title of the Defendant that then he would suffer the Defendant to enjoy the said Land accordingly without molestation The Defendant reciprocally promised the Plaintiff that if the said I. S. should adjuge the said Copy not sufficient to maintain the title of the Defendant that then he would deliver and surrender the possession of the said Land to the Plaintiff without any sute And shewed further that I. S. had awarded the said Copy utterly insufficient c. yet the Defendant did continue the possession of the Land c. And by Godfrey here is not any consideration But by Gawdy the same is a good and sufficient consideration because it is to avoid variances and sutes And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXXVIII Pawlet and Lawrences Case Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. GEorge Pawlet brought an Action of Trespass against one Lawrence Parson of the Church of D. for the taking of certain Carts loaded with Corn which he claimed as a portion of Tythes in the Right of his Wife and supposed the Trespass to be done the seven and twentieth of August 29 Eliz. upon Not guilty it was given in evidence on the Defendants part that the Plaintiff delivered to him a Licence to be married bearing date the eight and twentieth of August 29 Eliz. and that he married the Plaintiff and his said Wife the same day so as the Trespass was before his title to the Tythes And it was holden by the whole Court that that matter did abate his Bill But it was holden that if the Trespass had been assigned to be committed one day after that it had been good but now it is apparent to the Court that at the time of the Trespass assigned by himself the Plaintiff had not Title and therefore the Action cannot be maintained upon that evidence for which cause the Plaintiff was Non-suit CXXXIX Sir John Braunches Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Forfeiture IN the Case of Sir John Braunch it was said by Cook that if a Copy-holder be dwelling in a Town long distant from the Manor a general warning within the Manor is not sufficient but there ought to be to the person notice of the day when the Court shall be holden c. For his not coming in such case cannot be called a wilful refusal Copy-holder So if a man be so weak and feeble that he cannot travel without danger so if he hath a great Office c. these are good causes of excuse It was also holden that if a Copy-holder makes default at the Court and be there amerced although that the amercement be not estreated or levyed yet it is a dispensation of the forfeiture Gawdy Iustice If the Copy-holder be impotent the Lord may set a Fine upon him and if he will not pay the Fine then it is reason that he shall forfeit his Land. Egerton Sollicitor Warning to the person of the Copy-holder is not necessary for then if the Lord of a Manor hath one Copy-holder of it dwelling in Cornwal and another in York c. the Lord ought to send his Bayliff to give notice of the Court to them which should be very inconvenient and by him continual default at the Court doth amount to a wilful refusal And by the whole Court general warning within the Parish is sufficient 1 Cro. 353. 505. 506. for if the Tenant himself be not Resient upon his Copy-hold but elsewhere his Farmer may send to him notice of the Court And it was further given in evidence that Sir John Braunch had by his Letter of Attorney appointed the Son of his Farmer his Attorney to do the services for him due for his said Copy-hold And it was holden that such a person so appointed might essoin Sir John but not do the services for him for none can do the same but the Tenant himself CXL Wilkes and Persons Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. JOhn Wilkes and Margery his Wife and Thomas Persons brought Trespass Quare clausum fregit herbam suam messuit foenum suum asportavit Trespass ad damnum ipsius Johannis Margeriae Thomae And exception was taken that it was not the Hay of the Wife nor she was not damnified by it but her Husband Wray Iustice the Declaration is good enough 1 Cro. 96. Record for although it be not good for the Hay yet clausum fregit herbam messuit makes it good And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiffs CXLI Atkinson and Rolses Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the case by Atkinson against Rolfe the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant in consideration of the love which he â—ore unto A. his Father did promise that if the Plaintiff would procure a discharge of a Debt of I. S. which his said Father owed to the said I. S. that he would save the Plaintiff harmless against the said I. S. And declared further that he had discharged the Father of the Defendant from the said Debt and is become bounden to the said I. S. in an Obligation for the payment of the said Debt upon which Obligation the said I. S. hath sued the Plaintiff and hath recovered and had execution accordingly and so hath not been saved harmless c. It was objected that the Declaration was not good because the Plaintiff hath not shewed in his Declaration that he had given notice to the Defendant of the said Obligation or of the suit brought against him but that was not allowed but the Declaration was holden to be good notwithstanding the exception Shuttleworth if I be bound to make to you such an assurance as I. S. shall devise I am bound
in such manner and form as I my self did hold the same and no otherwise Tenant for life died within the Term and he in the Reversion entred and the Lessee brought an action of Covenant Godfrey The action doth not ly for here is not any warranty for the Plaintiff is not Lessee but Assignee to whom this Warranty in Law cannot extend but admit that the Warranty doth extend to the Plaintiff yet it is now determined with the estate of the Tenant for life and so the Covenant ended with the estate See 32 H. 6. 32. by Littleton 9. Eliz. Dyer 257. Covenant And if Tenant in tail make a Lease for years ut supra and afterwards dieth without issue the Covenant is gone and after Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCLV. Fish Brown and Sadlers Case Intrat Mich. 29 Eliz. Rot. 606. Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN action upon the Case was brought by Fish and Brown against Sadler Hill. 29 Eliz. rot 606. and they declared Action upon the Case That they were proprietaries of certain goods which were in the possession of one A. against which A. Sadler one of the Defendants had commenced a feigned and covenous suit in the Ecclesiastical Court in the Name of one Collison to the intent to get the said goods into his possession of which the Plaintiffs having notice and to the intent that the said Plaintiffs should suffer the Defendant to recover and obtain the said goods by the said suit the Defendant did promise to the Plaintiffs to render to them a true accompt of the said goods and shewed further That by the said suit the Defend did obtain the said goods by sufferance of the Plaintiff Tanfeild It is a good consideration the Plaintiffs were not parties or Privies at the beginning of the suit it is not like Onlies Case in 19 Eliz. Dyer 355. Where in an action upon the Case Onlie declared Assumpsit and consideration That the Defendant Countess c. being a Widow had divers suits and businesses and that the Plaintiff at her request had bestowed great labour and travail and had expended circa the affairs of the said Countess 1500 l. Whereupon she promised to the Plaintiff to pay all the said expences and such a sum above for that matter which is the ground of the action is maintenance and malum prohibitum but such matter is not here for it is lawful for a man to use means to get his goods Gawdy All covins are abhorred in Law and here the Plaintiffs are privies to the wrong and therefore it cannot be any consideration Wray Although that the suit at the beginning was wrongful and covenous yet when the Plaintiffs who were owners of the said goods do assent to such proceedings now the suit is become just and lawful ab initio Corin. and so no wrong in the consideration but all the wrong is purged by the agreement If any covin be the same is between Sadler and him who is sued to whom the Plaintiffs are not privies Clench If this privity betwixt the Plaintiffs and Sadler had been before the said suit then the consideration is without any fraud Cooper Serjeant conceived here is not any good consideration upon which the Promise of the Defendant may be grounded for the Defendant hath not any benefit by it and he cited the case between Smith and Smith 25 Eliz. Egerton Here the consideration is good enough for the Plaintiffs forbear their own suit which was a hinderance unto them Clench was of opinion that the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment for that suit was begun by Sadler in the Name of Collison without his privity and therefor it was unlawful and the same was for the goods of another man which is unlawful also and then when the unlawful act is begun the illegal agreement afterwards that they shall proceed is unlawful also and therefore there cannot be any consideration and as to the covin it is not material for without that the matter is illegal enough Also the Declaration is not good in this because it is not shewed in what Court the suit did depend so as it might appear unto us that they had power to hold plea of it Gawdy agreed with Clench in the first point and also in the last and by him in the assumpsit the Plaintiff declares that a suit was depending betwixt the Defendant and another and where the Plaintiffs if they were produced might have given strong witness against the Defendant the said Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiffs would not give Testimony against him promised to give to the Plaintiff 20 l. the same consideration will not maintain this action because it is unlawful for any man to suppress testimony in any cause 1 Cro. 337. Wray Here is a consideration good enough For where Sadler should lose costs upon the first suit now upon this promise upon his account he shall be allowed the same the which is a benefit unto him and as to the shewing in what Court the suit doth depend that needs not by way of Declaration but the same shall be shewed by way of Evidence and it is not traversable and it is but inducement to the action And as to the covin that is not here for covin is always to the prejudice of a third person but so it is not here But in truth this suit was unlawful for Sadler so to sue in the Name of another and therefore it cannot be a good consideration And for that cause it was awarded Quod querens nihil capiat per billam CCLIV How and Conneys Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Trespass 1 Cro. 159. IN an action of Trespass by How against Conney the case was That one Smith was seised of two houses and leased one of them to his Brother for life and afterwards by his Will devised viz. I give to my Executors All my Lands and Tenements free and copy to hold to them and they to take the profits of them for ten years and afterwards to sell the said Lands and Tenements and afterwards died his Brother died before the quarter of a year after and it was found That the Executors entred into the house undemised and took the profits but not into the other and that at the end of the said ten years they sold the whole Godfrey The house only which was in possession shall pass by the Will. To hold unto them doth imply matter of possession so as nothing passeth but that whereof they may take the profits the which cannot be of a bare Reversion also by this devise the Executors have not interest in the thing devised but for ten years Plow 66. Shop 437. whereas the Brother of the Testator had an estate for life which by possibility might continue above twenty years and to prove that the meaning of the devisor to be collected upon the words of the Will ought to direct the construction of the