the which the Lord chief Baron Tanfield said insist not upon a labour of that kinde for it is plain enough because the Queen being partie there can be no Estoppel as to any part in that case also as to that part of his argument Mr. Walter agreed on the other side and also he said that if a grant of the Queeen were void at the Common Law for default of want of consideration this Statute aids not Walter for the Defendant and he divided the case into foure points the first whether the Tenant for life by the Kings guift by surrendring his letters Patents hath also surrendred his estate Secondly if the surrender in this case made be defective only for want of matter of circumstance as the inrolment c. whether such defects are saved by the Statute 43. Eliz. Thirdly whether in this case an actual surrender be the consideration meerly which moveth the Queen to grant or what shall be intended the consideration in this case Fourthly admitting that an actual surrender is the sole consideration in this case then whether a Patent shall be adjudg'd void for default of such consideration for a false consideration doth not avoid a Patent but a false surmise doth first when the Kings Tenant for life doth surrender or give up his Patent although without deed yet with such circumstances as the law requireth the surrender is good for although a surrender of letters Patents made by the Kings Tenant in tail will not make estate tail void or determine as it appears by the book case of 35. H. 8. title surrender and Cook 6. the Lord Chandos case yet the bare giving up of the letters Patents by a Tenant for life is a surrender of his estate so here in this case is some proportion between a Tenant for life of the Queen and a Tenant for life of a Common person to amount to a surrender and therefore it appeareth by 43. E. 3. that a Tenant for life may surrender without deed and without livery and from the land but a Tenant in tail may not do so also if a Common person hath a rent or other thing which cannot pass but by deed yet a surrender of such a rent shall be good by a bare deliverie up of the deed if he hath but an estate for life in the Rent and this also although it be but to the disseissor of the land out of which c. the same Law he took it of a particular Tenant for life of years also 32. H. 8. Brook Patents 97. it is made a doubt whether the estate tail of the Kings Donee be determined and gone by surrendring of the letters Patent and he referred that if thought worthy of a doubt whether it should be a good surrender of an estate tail they would hade held it clearly a surrender for an estate for life and it was admitted 3. Eli 2. Dyer fo 193. Mack-Williams case that if in the principal case if a Vacat or cancellation had been the surrender had been good actually without question and Sir Maurice Barkleys case cited on the other part proves the same also for there it is admitted that if the letters Patents had been given up there had been a perfect surrender And 40. H. 3. fol. 5. Belknap held that a surrender may be by word which is to be intended by giving up the Patent and that appears by Rolfs case in Dyer that a voluntary surrender needs no Conftat also where it hath been objected that the special verdict in this case hath not found in what Court the surrender was made he answered that the Law shall intend it to be made in the same Court from whence the letters Patents did issue for a surrender cannot be good being made in another Court and therefore it must needs be intended the same Court and he vouched 11. Ed. 3. fo 1. and 18. Eliz. Plinies Case and Covel and Cabels Case in Banco Regis 38. Eliz. wherein a special verdict it was holden that all things necessary for the perfecting of that the Iury hath found to be done must be necessarily intended concurrent Secondly the want of circumstances in a surrender are perfected and supplied by the Statute of 43. Eliz. for although matters of substance are not aided within this Statute yet matters of circumstances are aided And he said that all the defects in this Case are matters of circumstance and to prove that the defects in this Case are only in circumstance he said that there are three principal defects in conveyances which are meerly matters of circumstance and aided within this Statute the first is meerly want of form in a conveyance and that such a defect is aided he cited Hussies Case to be adjudged accordingly the second is where words are wanting in a conveyance and that such a conveyance is aided by this Statute he cited the opinion of Popham and Gawdy in 44. Eliz. in a cause depending in the Chancery the third matter of circumstance is where there is want of some matter concerning the executing of an estate and that such defect is only matter of circumstance and aided within this Statute he cited Morley and Whartons Case to be adjudged 7. Eliz. in the Common Pleas that the default of not inrolling is aided by this Statute and Mack-Williams and Kemps Case cited in Dyer before proves this to be but matter of circumstance and for that he thought the surrender in the principal Case wanting nothing but inrolment is aided by this Statute also in the argument of the second point he shews what defects in conveyances should be accompted matter of substance and so not aided by this Statute of 43. Eliz. and to this purpose he held that all disabilities of the person in a grant is matter of substance and so not aided within this Statute and he cited Twynes Case 32. Eliz. in the Exchequer to be accordingly Secondly he held that the nature of an assurance is not aided by this Statute and therefore if a man hath power to grant an estate by fine and he doth it by Deed this is not aided by the Statute for this is defective in matter of substance and he cited Wisemans Case and Sir Hugh Cholmleys Case in Cook l. 2. also he said if a man give land to the King and his heirs to have ten years after such grant this is not made good by the Statute Thirdly whereas it may be Collected that because it is found in the special verdict that an actual surrender was the cause which moved the Queen to grant or that it appears to be the cause he held that no consideration plainly appeareth but only by relation to a consideration before mentioned and he said that these words used by the Queen viz. modo habens et gaudens shew that the Queen took notice the state was still injoyed notwithstanding the delivery up of the letters Patents and therefore it cannot be intended by the verdict that the Queen intended
of 99. years is agreed to be given Secondly if there be such an imployment of this land as the Statute requireth admitting the lease was not given Thirdly if the livery upon the Queens Lessee for years be good and I hold that the Fee is not given to the Queen Secondly the land is not imployed c. admitting that it was given Thirdly that the Feofment here is not good and as to the case at Bar the Feoffees may enter I doubt not of that because there is not any thing found but that it was imployed to the uses intended for 99. years Secondly if it were not imployed according to the condition after 1. Ed. 6. yet they cannot enter for themselves were parties to the Art which did prohibit it as 34. H. 8. Dyer 52. the Queen gives licence that Belmelt shall be transported notwithstanding any Statute made or to be made if after it be prohibited the licence is determined because the Patentee himself was a partie to such Statutes Secondly it is said in Addams and Lamberts case that a superstitious devise or other estate upon condition is within the Statute because the Patentee was partie thereunto Thirdly it is said in the said case that a superstitious devise or other estate upon condition is within the Statute because it is penal and compulsorie for the maintenance of a thing prohibited by the Law and also there it is said that there is a proviso towards the end of that Act that it shall not be Lawful by reason of any remainder or condition for any man to claim any lands c. for the not doing or finding of any such Priest as to the other point which was moved at Bar I hold that the use doth not arise upon the words subsequent and if they do not re-enter that then the land shall go to the use of the four Feoffees to the intent aforesaid is not a mis-ordering nor an imployment Secondly these words to the intent do not raise any use but only a confidence and trust reposed in the Feoffees Doctor and Student 94. for the first point therefore he held that there is no superstitious gift of the Fee-simple and if there were it is not imployed c. and therefore it is not given by the Statute of 1. Ed. 6. to the Queen and touching that we are to consider the Statute Indenture and the Schedule and there is not a word that after 99. years the land shall finde a Priest but the money and the land is not given but the money as in the Dean of Pauls case 22. Eliz. Dyer 368. if land be given to finde a Priest with part of the profits thereof those profits are only given to the King by this Statute and not the land but that belongs to the Dean and Chapter also the Schedule is if then it may be lawful and therefore if it were not then lawful the money is not given and it is like to the case where I make a lease for 21. years if I do allow of it before Michaelmas and before Michaelmas do not allow of it this is a void lease and so if I give land to the use of Westminster School if the Dean will enter into a Recognizance c. and if he will not enter into a Recognizance it is no gift like to the case 15 H. 7. a grant of Annuitie if such a thing be done c. secondly as to the imployment the lease is only found to be imployed and the imployment of the lease is no imployment of the Fee which was not given until the Term was expired and if the gift be not superstitious the imployment ought not to be superstitious and yet as it is said in Adams case there ought to be an imployment to intitle the Queen as the case there is if one gives the Mannor of D. and S. to superstitious uses the Queen shall have the lands out of the hands of the Feoffee and if land be given to finde a Priest in the Church of D. for 20 years and after to finde one in S. for 21. years and before the expiration of the first Term the Statute is made it seems the Queen shall have only the first Term because there is no imployment of the second Term within the Statute 5. Ed. 4.20.15 Ed. 3. Execu 63. I agree those cases for land or rent issue from a seisin 30. Ed. 3.12 in a quare impedit 5. Ed. 6. Benlowes a devise to 8. to the uses and intent that the Feoffees with the profits shall finde a Priest whilst the Law of this Realm will suffer it and if the Law will not suffer it then to the use of three of the poorest of the Parishes adjoyning by all the Iudges this is not within the Statute and as to the last point it seems that the Feofment is good and the interest of the Queen is no impediment which if it be not then there is no question as Dyer 20. Eliz. 363. Tenant in tail makes a feofment the servants of the Lessee for years being upon the land and livery is made and after the Lessee for years agrees saving his Term this is a discontinuance 14. Ed. 4.2 3. and 4. Ph. et M. Dyer 139. possession shall not be gained from the Queen but by matter of Record 4. Assises 5.21 Assises 2.8 H. 4.16.1 H. 7. no livery upon the Kings possession it may be devised by the heir or conveyed by bargain and sale or by fine from him and the Kings estate in reversion doth not priviledge the estate in possession as it is 23. Ed. 3.7 a disseisor conveys land to the Queen who grants for life and the disseisee shall have a writ of entrie against the Queens Lessee for life by the opinion of Thorp Cook lib. 4.55 a disseisor makes a lease for life the remainder to the King a recovery of the land against Tenant for life will defeat the Kings remainder 7. Rich. 2. aide of the King 61. Tenant in tail grants the land to the King with warranty and the King makes a lease for life if the issue recover in a Formedon the Kings estate is defeated and I was of Councel in the Court of wards in a case which was Pasch 43. Eliz. betwixt Chackston and Starkey for the Wardship of the heir of Clifford and it was this the Ward at full age tendred his livery and had six moneths to sue it and within the six moneths made a Feofment and after died before livery sued in this case the livery and seisin was void and it is all one as if no tender had been made for the Queens possession was priviledged the second point was that one being in Ward to the King had a reversion in Fee expectant upon an estate for life and before livery sued made a Feofment in Fee this makes a discontinuance of the reversion notwithstanding the Kings interest which he had in reversion for the Wardship which case is like to the case
Sir Robert Dudley appointed and after Sir Robert Dudley by licence from the King Travelled beyond the Seas to Venice and after the Barganees made a lease to Sir Robert Lee to the intent that the Lady Dudley should take the profits of part thereof for ten years if the estate of the Barganees should continue so long unrevoked and after the King having notice of divers abuses made by the said Sir Robert Dudley in the parts beyond the Seas commanded the said Sir Robert Dudley by privy Seal delivered unto him the 10th of April in the 5th year upon pain of forfeiture of all his lands and fortunes to return again immediately c. and after a Commission issued forth to inquire what lands and Tenements c. Sir Robert Dudley had or others for him in use or upon confidence and the Iury found this special matter but found not any fraud expressy and thereupon the King exhibited his Bill here against the Barganees and also against Sir Robert Lee their Lessee who truly discovered all this special matter and that they were not knowing of the Deed until long time after making of it and that no consideration was given by them in this case for the lands so bargained and it was argued by Sir Henry Mountague Recorder of London for the King if these lands should be seised or not he conceived that there are three things considerable in the case First the contempt of Sir Robert Dudley in his not returning upon the sight of the privy Seal and of what quality this offence is Secondly what interest the King had by this offence in the land of Sir Robert Dudley being the offender Thirdly if notwithstanding these offences these lands ought to be seised for the King touching the first point he said that it is requisite to examine if a subject at the Common Law may go beyond the Seas without Licence and in what cases the Law allows a man to go out of the Realm without Licence and as to that he said that it appears by the reason in the 12th of Eliz. Dyer that at the Common Law every man may go out of the Realm but the Statute of the 5. Richard 2. restraineth all but Merchants noble men and Souldiers and as he conceived this was but an affirmance of the Common Law notwithstanding the Book before cited and to prove that he said that the opinion of Dyer in the first Eliz. fo 165. seemeth to agree also it is proved by divers Licences granted before this Statute see F. N. B. fo 85. in the writ de securitate invenienda quod Se non divertat ad partes exteras sine licentia regis according to the 12. Eliz. in Dyer and he further said that there are two reasons to prove that no man may go beyond the Sea without Licence at the Common Law for by 2. E. 3. and the 16. E. 3. and Glanvil in his Chap. of Essoynes by such means the subjects may be deprived of their suits for debt and also the King may be deprived of the attendance of his subject about the business of state and it appears by the Register fo 193. 194. that religious persons purchased licences to go beyond the Seas and it appears by Littleton in the Chap. of confirmation that a dissent takes not away an entry of him who is beyond the Sea except it be by the Kings commandment see the case intended by Littleton in the Chap. of Continual claim there it seems to be a doubt to Littleton then he argued further if the Common Law alloweth not a subject to go beyond the sea without licence but reputes it a great contempt this is a great contempt in him who will not return by the Kings command and the Law hath alwayes punished such contempt as it appears by Dyer fo 28. 177. 19. E. 2. John de Brittons Case also there is a president for seisure of all his lands for such contempt and he vouched the book what the King had done where he cited that the Prior of Oswaldshire forfeited all his lands and possessions for such contempts and so concluded the first point of the quality of the offence and spoke nothing of the licence which Sir Robert Dudley had of the King at the time the which as it seemeth was not expired nor the power which the King had to Countermand it within the time to which the Attorney general in his argument did speak to the Second point it seemeth that the contempt giveth such an interest to the King that he shall retain the land until conformity for he who dwelleth in contempt ought not to have any possessions here and he cited the 22. H. 6. and the 21. H. 7. and divers other books which are cited in Calvins Case Cook lib. 7. also he said that there is a difference where the King is offended as King of England and where as head of the Kingdome as this case is which is a greater offence in qualitie then for any offence for which men should lose their lives as if they should stand mute upon their arraignment c. also there is a great difference between this contempt and by outlawry and therefore in case of outlawry he needs no office but the King is only intitled to the profits of his lands which is but a transitory Chattel in which case an office is not necessary but where an interest coms to the King there ought to be an office and he vouched Pages Case in Cook lib. 5. and Sir William Herberts Case but he did not endeavour to prove what interest came to the King in this case for when an interest comes to the King there ought to be on office as to the second point he said that trust between parties is fraud as to the King and in this case the badges of fraud are found by the office First his purpose to go beyond the Seas Secondly his Barganees are not privy to the Deeds Thirdly no summe was paid by them Fourthly here is a power of Revocation Fifthly covenants to execute all grants as Sir Robert Dudley appointed Sixthly the subsequent Act that is viz. his staying beyond the Seas and his not returning upon the Kings command and although in this case there be no fraud in the parties who are Barganees and so the fraud is only of one partie yet it appeareth by the 19. of H. 8.12 that if an infant hath right to land and a stranger disseise the Tenant to the intent to infeoffe the infant without Covin in the infant yet the infant shall not be remitted and he vouched Delamores case in Plowden to be accordingly also there are divers cases in our books to prove the inveterate hatred which our law beareth to all Acts which are fraudulent and therefore in 44. E. 3. 41. Assise pla 28. it appears that a recovery upon a good title although it be in Dower which is favoured in Law against a Tenant who comes to the
they ought to joyn in every action to which the wife is intitled before marriage but otherwise it is here as he thought and as to that which hath been said that the declaration ought to have been special viz. per quod consortium amisit uxoris suae it seems that shall be necessarily intended without shewing of it in the declaration but in the case put by Altham if a man bring an action of false imprisonment of his servant he need not shew whereby he lost his service c. because peradventure he had no imployment for him this is good Law by him but otherwise it is in the case of a wife but yet he would be advised thereof as of a thing not mentioned before Altham Baron it may be intended that the husband was also imprisoned with his wife and so did not lose her company except it be shewed to the contrary aswel as it may be intended the Master had no imployment for his servant and after at the next Term Tanfield and Altham Barons agreed that the Declaration ought to be special as Altham Baron conceived or otherwise the wife ought to have joyned in the action which had been better for they said that in all cases where the action is brought for such a matter for which the wife by possibility might have an action after the death of her husband there they ought to joyn and for this false imprisonment the wife may have an action after the death of her husband and therefore they ought to joyn here Snig and Bromley Barons seemed prima facie that the action lies well enough when they joyn or when the husband alone bringeth it and they vouched and Doillies Councel said that they have heard it to be adjudged in the Kings Benth 28. Eliz. in one Cholmlies case and 35. Eliz. in the Common Pleas that an action lieth for the husband alone for a battery made to his wife and so they conceived it good if they joyn or sever in the action and therefore it was appointed that the next Term the presidents should be shewed and the case to be argued as to this point Note that Doillie perceiving the Law against him for this last point or matter because his wife did not joyn commenced his action of new in this Court and this was in Trespas for the beating and imprisoning his wife and in this case the husband and wife joyned and declared to the damage of the husband and wife and the like Plea was pleaded in Bar as was in the other action and the record thereof was read in Court Termino Pasch 9. Iac. and then adjourned and after it was adjudged for the Plantiff Wikes by English Bill in the Exchequer Chamber Trin. 7. Jac. IN the Exchequer Chamber by English Bill this case was depending and argued before all the Barons at Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet viz. the King exhibited an Information against Wikes for entering into divers parcels of land and Wikes prétending that he had good equitie prayed his relief by English Bill in the Exchequer Chamber and the case upon the said Bill was this Graunt made a lease for years to one Somerfield and Iohn Wintor in Trust and for the benefit of the wife and Children of the lessor rendring rent and after Wintor one of the Lessees and also Graunt who was the Lessor were attainted of the Gunpowder Treason and Wikes married the wife of the Lessor and entred and upon this information he prayed relief in behalf of his wife and Children by this English Bill and first it was agreed by all the Barons that the King by the course of the Common Law had the moitie of the land and no more by the attainder of Wintor and that Somerfield the other Lessee shall be Tenant in common with the King but what remedy he should have if the King took all the profits they agreed not Secondly they agreed by the admittance of Wikes his Councel that the King as to the moity which came to him shall not be ordered in equity to perform the trust reposed in Wintor for the wife of the Lessor for the King cannot be seised to another mans use no more can his estate be subject to any trust at this day as the Attorney general had said clearly which the Court granted but Brock of Councel with Wikes seemed not to be satisfied but that the King ought to execute such trust by equity but Tanfield chief Baron said that before me at another day you were content to be concluded as to this point that there is no equity against the King Thirdly it was debated if in this case the King should have the other moity which was in Somerfield by equity for clearly if the lease had been made in trust for the benefit of the Lessor himself the King should have it by his attainder and then what difference it being made for the benefit of the wife of the person attainted for her husband might have disposed of it being a trust only of a Chattel as he might have done of a Chattel whereof the wife was possessed and he might have wholly released this trust and by consiquence he might forfeit it by his attainder whereunto Snig and Altham Barons agreed and by Bromley his release shall binde but during his life the Attorney general said that he might release all Brock it should be mischievous that his release of this trust should bar the wife of her trust after her husbands death for admit that a man make a lease to A. to the use of his wife for 100. years if she shall so long live and this for a joynture for his wife can her husband prejudice her of this joynture by release of the trust as if he should say no and then à fortiori in the case here for the trust is for the wife and children and the trust for the children cannot be released by the father and consequently not forfeited by him by the Court there is no such Bill depending before us which demands any thing for the King and the Bill which is here exhibited by Wikes prayes nothing but one moity of the term viz. that which in Law belongs to Somerfield which moity by the Common Law we cannot take from him and therefore we will leave you to sue in the office of Pleas according to the course of the Common Law in the name of Somerfield and therefore they gave no resolution if by equity the husband shall forfeit a trust which he had for years in the right of his wife Sir Thomas Overburyes case was opened to be this viz. Robert Wintor was seised in see of six Bullaries at Wich and he covenanted to levy a fine of all his Bullaries and that for 4. of the said Bullaries this should be to the use of John Wintor in tail and for the other to the use of himself in fee with power of revocation and after the said Wintor levied a fine sur connizance de droit
and therefore he vouched a case between Scockwood and Sear where a man devised part of his land to his wife for life and another part of his land until Michaelmas next ensuing his death and further by the said will he devised to his younger son all his lands not devised to his wife and adjudged that by the said words the younger son shall have only that parcel which was devised to the wife for life and not that which was devised unto her till Michaelmas and yet by Popham it appeareth that his intent was otherwise viz. that all that should go to his younger son so there ought not to be a strained construction made against the heir and so in our case the words being that if he die without issue c. that then it shall go to his wife herein as much as he had issue at the time of his death it cannot be said that he died without issue but that he is dead without issue and this appeareth by the pleading in the Lord Bartleys case in Plowden and he vouched also a case in the Kings Bench 4. Jac. between Miller and Robinson where a man devised to Thomas his son and if he die without issue having no son there it was holden that if the devisee had issue a son yet if he had none at the time of his death the devisee in the remainder shall have it yet he was once a person having a son and so in our case there was a person who did not die without issue and he vouched also the case of Bold and Mollineux in 28. H. 8. Dyer fo 15.3 when a man deviseth to his wife for life paying a yearly rent to his sister and that if the rent be not paid that the sister may distrain it seems to me that this is a conditional estate in the wife notwithstanding the limitation of the distress and he vouched 18. Eliz. in Dyer 348. which as he said proved the case expresly for there in such a case it is adjudged that the devisee of the rent may after demand thereof distrain and yet the heir may enter for the not payment of the rent although it were never demanded so that the subsequent words of distraining do not qualifie the force of the condition although there be there an express condition and in our case but a condition implyed and he said that it seemed reasonable that such a construction for the distress and condition also shall stand as appeareth by divers cases that upon such words the Law will allow a double remedy and therefore he vouched Gravenors case in the Common Pleas Hill 36. Eliz. Rot. 1322. where a lease was made by Magdalen Colledge to husband and wife so that if the husband alien that the lease shall be void and provided that they do not make any under-tenants and to this purpose he vouched the case of the Earl of Pembrook cited in the Lord Cromwels case Cook lib. 2. where the words amounted to a covenant and a coudition and if this word paying should not be construed to be a condition then it were altogether void and idle and such a construction ought not to be made in a will and he conceived that this rent ought to be paid by the wife without any demand upon the pain of the condition and therefore he vouched 22. H. 6. fo 57.14 E. 4 21. E. 4. by Hussey and 18. Eliz. Dyer 348. vouched before and so it was resolved as he said in the Court of Wards in Somings case where a man made a devise paying a rent to a stranger this ought to be paid without demand and he said that the Common case is proved when a feofment is made upon condition that the feoffee shall do an act to a stranger this ought to be done in convenient time without request by the stranger and so here it seemeth although a demand ought to be made by the sister yet the wife ought to give notice to the sister of the Legacy so that she may make a demand and therefore he vouched Warder and Downings case where a man devised that his eldest son upon entry should pay to the younger son such a summe of money here the eldes brother ought to give notice at what time he will enter to the intent that the younger brother may be provided to make a demand Edwards of the Inner Temple contrary First it seemeth that by this limitation the wife ought to retain the land until the issue of the devisor should have come to the age of 18. years for this a time certain and as it is construed upon such words in Borastons case Cook lib. 3. that the Executors there have an interest certain so it should be construed here to refer to a certainty which is until the time by computation that the issue should have attained to 18. years and the rather in this case in respect the devisor had otherwise disposed of the land until the son should have accomplished the said age Secondly it seemeth that the wife hath an estate for life not conditional in so much as the words are not joyned in the case the 18. Eliz. Dyer hath been vouched but that was upon an express condition but here it is by implication and then the clause of distress taketh away the force of the implication which otherwise might be thereupon inferred and therefore in 5. Eliz. Dyer it appeareth that the word Proviso annexed to other words makes it no condition in judgement of Law and so in 14. Eliz. Dyer 311. and he vouched also 18. Eliz. Dyer Greens case that if a man deviseth lands to his friends paying to his wife with a clause of distress this is no condition as it is adjudged Thirdly it seemeth that this summe to be paid to the sister is a rent and therefore ought to be demanded or otherwise in judgement of Law the condition shall not be broken and the 21. E. 4. the case of an obligation to perform covenants c. and a case between Wentworth and Wentworth 37. Eliz. that a demand ought to be made for a rent which is granted in liew of Dower for the wife brought a writ of Dower for the land of her husband the Tenant pleaded that she accepted a rent out of the land in liew of her Dower and the wife replied that the said rent was granted upon condition that if it were not paid at certain dayes that it should be void and that she should have Dower of the land and she said that the rent was not paid at the dayes c. but shewed not in her pleading any demand to be made and therefore it was holden evil pleading for such a rent ought to be demanded or otherwise the condition is not broken and so here Nota that this case was appointed to be argued again but after as I heard the Barons amongst themselves resolved to give judgement for the Defendant upon one point only which was that the estate
avoidance and after confirms the lease here the lease is not good in respect the next avoidance interrupts it for his life but after the death c. the term will be good as it was here lately adjudged and so he thought that in this case the confirmation is not good and also that the Commission not being returned is not good and after one of the Commissioners die before the return it cannot be recurned and by the inrolment here made the lease cannot take his effect with any relation and so be concluded that judgement ought to be given against the King Tanfield chief Baron the Commission for the acceptance of the acknowledgement of the Bishop touching that it is to be known whether this makes it the Deed of the Bishop and that the Commissioners should return c. the confirmation in this case was made in the life of the Bishop Lessor and of the Queen Lessee although that some of my brethren conceive the Record to be otherwise also in this case Dimock entred by vertue of his lease before the inrolment of the lease made to the Queen as the Record purporteth to the points First I conceive that nothing resteth in the Queen without inrolment but if Lessee for years be outlawed the King shall have this lease by the outlawry for the outlawry is intended to be upon Record but of a wardship for land that is not in the Queen by the death of the Queens Tenant without an office because there is no matter of Record if an Alien hath a lease of land this is forfeited yet he shall have personal Chattels and as to the Book of 18. E. 3. cited on the other side where the King brought a quare impedit c. this may be well agreed for the Prior of Durham confessed by Record that he had made a grant and this is a sufficient Record and as to the book of 20. E. 4. where the Patron was outlawed and before the outlawry the Church became void that the King shall present it may be well agreed although that no office be found for this presentation is but a thing personal and transitory and therefore those Books prove nothing in this case Secondly he said that when this lease was acknowledged before Commissioners yet that was not sufficient to make a record to intitle the King and it is here expresly denied in the Bar that this lease was certified into the Chancery in the life of the Queen and therefore he thought that here was no Record to intitle the Queen and to this purpose he cited a case in 19. Eliz. Robins and Greshams case if a Recognizance were acknowledged before a Master of the Chancery and not inrolled this is no Recoâ—d and an Action of debt lieth not thereupon and the 34. Eliz. in Brock and Bainhams case in this Court a Recognizance was taken before a Baron of this Court yet this was no Record without inrolment and therefore the bare acknowledgement in our case is no Record also he denied the opinion of Davers in 37. H. 6. to be Law but only for personal Chattels and the 12. Eliz. Brook and Latimers case was adjudged against the opinion of Davers for land or leases Thirdly he said that the successor of the Bishop comes in paramount the lease made to the Queen and the new Lessee entring before any inrolment hath made the successor of the Bishop as in his remitter and when an antient right comes this prevents the relation which otherwise might be by the inrolment and he said that the first lease here made to the Queen is meerly dead until inrolment and he vouched the 11. E. 4. fo 1. Vactons case the discontinuor enters upon the discontinuee after the discontinuee dieth his heir within age the discontinuor dieth this causeth a remitter and so by him if the disseissee enter upon the heir of the disseissor being an infant and dieth this avoids the descent by reason of the antient right which the disseissee had and by 7. H. 7. and 11. H. 7. Eriches case it appears that an Act of Parliament will not revive a thing that is meerly dead by reason of any inrolment and much more here an inrolment cannot revive this lease which is meerly void by the death of the Lessor and the entrance of the Lessee of the Bishops successor and there is a great difference betwixt the inrolment in this case and the inrolment of a bargain and sale in regard that the sale is dead before the inrolment and yet in the case of bargain and sale it was adjudged in the Common Pleas Pasch 2. Jac. in Sir Thomas Lees case called Bellinghams case that if a man bargain land to A. and before inrolment of the Deed A. bargaines the land to B. which second bargain is inrolled this inrolment makes not the bargain good to B. for the relation of the first is only to perfect and make good the conveyance to A. from all incumbrances after his bargain but not to make the second Deed good which was void before also in 36. Eliz. in Sir Thomas Smiths case if the Bargainee suffer a recovery before the Deed inrolled yet that doth not make the recovers good and he said that in this case until an inrolment of the lease made to the Queen there is no Lessee and a lease cannot be without a Lessor and Lessee and before an inrolment of the lease the Lessor is dead so that there never was a Lessor and Lessee in life together and therefore the inception of this lease was altogether imperfect before the consummation came and so it leemeth by him that the death of the Bishop Lessor intervening before the inrolment is the principal cause that the first lease is not good as to the 4 th point of confirmation it seems to me in regard that the Bishop was seised in right of his Bishoprick and the Dean and Chapter have no interest in the land so that an assent is only sufficient in this case it seems to me that the confirmation as you call it is good enough for it is clear that an assent may be aswell before the lease as after for it passeth no interest no more then an Attornment Cook lib. 5. Foords case proveth this diversity plainly and by the same reason also it seems to me that this assent of parties who have no interest is good enough without inrolment but otherwise it should be if a confirmation were required in the case and as to the pleading I think the Bar is good and as to the exceptions which have been made viz. if the lease supposed to be made to the Queen be answered and he said it was good enough for the purpose of the Defendant is to bring the matter in Law before the Iudges and the matter in Law is if it were any lease or not as the information supposeth and therefore the Defendant ought not to agree with the information for the matter in Law and
in 1. Jacobi and no other conviction ever was and yet de facto he continued a Recusant untill his death and his Land viz. two parts thereof were seised in his life and the King answered of 200. l. thereof which incurred in the moneths contained in the Indictment and now a Writ is issued which supposeth the said Robert to be indebted to the King in 20. l. for every moneth be lived after 28. Eliz. untill 1. Jacobi for his Recusancy which amounted to 4000. l. which Writ also commands to enquire what Lands the said Robert Becket had at the time of his death and thereupon it was found that he had divers Lands c. and upon a Scire facias to the Terretenants to shew cause wherefore two parts of the Lands of the said Robert Becket should not now be seised for the debt of the Recusant aforesaid one Henry Becket as Terretenant or Tenant of the Premisses pleaded that the King is satiefied of all the 20. l. and for all the moneths that the said Robert was convicted to be a Recusant and he vouched the Constat thereof under the hand of the Deputy of the Pipe Office and for the residue he said that by 28. Eliz. cap. 6. it is amongst other things enacted that if any person which hath not repaired or shall not repaire to some Church Chappell or usuall place of Common Prayer but hath forborne or shall forbeat the same contrary to the Tenor of the Statute of 23. Eliz. cap. 1. and hath been heretofore convicted for such offence shall forfeit c. provided that it he hath made submission and been conformable according to the true meaning of the said Statute or shall fortune to dye that then no forfeiture of 20. l. for any moneth or for seisure of the Lands of the same offender from and after such submission and conformity or death and full satisfaction of all the arrerages of 20 l. monethly before such seisure due or payable shall ensue or be continued against such Offendor and traverseth without that that there is any Record besides this Writ to charge the said Robert Becket deceased of or for the summe of 4000. l. towards our said Lord the King c. and so prayeth to be discharged thereof Vpon which Plea the Kings Atturney Generall demurred and Coventry argued that the Plea is good he said that there are three Points to be considered First that if a man be convicted of Recusancy in 28. Eliz. for 10. moneths then passed and de facto continueth a Recusant untill his death in 1. Jac. without other conviction if now the King can claim 20. l. a moneth for more moueths then are contained in the Indictment whereupon he is convicted Secondly admit that the King may have the forfeiture for every moneth whereof no conviction was as well as if a conviction had been then if the King can seise the Lands for the payment thereof after his death no seisure being had for it in his life by the Stat. of the 28. Eliz. or if the power of seisure be altogether gone by the death of the Recusant Thirdly admitting that the King shall have more then is contained within the Indictment if the Debt it self be not gone by the death of the Recusant To the first Point there is no President to be found that any man convicted before 28. Eliz. was charged to the Payment of more then that which was within the Indictment and the words of the Statute of 28. Eliz. contained within this Clause which provides for the payment due since the Conviction do not inforce any construction to the contrary and in this Clause the words being do yet remain unpaid are not proper words but for a thing payable before this Statute for so many moneths whereof he was convicted of Recusancy and the words without any other conviction are to be understood for so much as was unpaid of that contained in the Indictment and the last Clause of this Branch of the Statute hath not the words without any conviction and the other Clause provides that by expresse words for the future time every person who shall be once convicted shall forfeit c without other conviction and it was resolved Hill 4. Jacobi in the Kings Bench between Grinstone and Oliver that the Statute of 28. Eliz. alters and adds three things to the Statute of 23. Eliz. 1. That all the money due for Recusancy shall be paid into the Exchequer 2. This limits a time for payment thereof yearly viz. in the four Terms of the year 3. This giveth a penalty viz. power to seise all the goods and two parts for non-payment but all that is only for that which was payable before the conviction and therefoâ—e the words in the Branch which contains our Case have apt words of construction that he shall pay all due for the paine of seisure for 23. Eliz. gives no seisure but imprisonment if payment be not made within three moneths after judgement and so in our case Conviction ought to precede the duty To the second Point it seemeth that the power of seisure within this Statute is gone by the death of the Recusant for before the Statute of 1. Jacobi the power for seisure was but a penalty that if the party fail in payment of 20. l. a moneth then c. and in all cases upon penall Laws if the party die before the penalty inflicted this shall not be inflicted at all and that this is but a penalty he vouched one Grayes case in 1. and 2. Jacobi to be adjudged accordingly Also the words in this Statute which give the seisure of Land appointeth a levying to be of the 3. part for the maintenance of the Offendor his Wife Children and Family and after his death he hath no Wife so that if it be demanded when the seisin must be the answer is then when a third part may be left for his use which cannot be but in the life of the Recusant Also it appoints that the seisure ought to be by Processe which ought to be in the life of the party by intendment Also the Proviso of the Statute of 28. Eli. saith that if any person shall dye no seisure shall insue or be continued aâ—d out case is within those words for in regard there hath been no seisure in his life therefore after his death no seisure ought to insue and the words which purport another semblance of construction viz. and satisfaction of all arrerages are to be understood only in case where there was a former seisure that is in the life of the party and have reference to the words to be continued and that the intent is so he said that the words are so that the Heir shall pay no more but so much as the Land was seised for To the third it seemeth that in this case the debt it self is gone by the death of the party At the Common Law a penalty shall never be recovered against the
was in a Formedon in remainder and it was moved now by Serjeant Harris if the partie against whom it was given may sue in the Exchequer Chamber by Bill or petition to the King in the nature of a writ of false judgement for the Reversal of that judgement Tanfield seemed that it is proper so to do for by 13. Rich. 2. if a false judgement be given in a base Court the partie grieved ought first to sue to the Lord of the Mannor by petition to reverse this judgement and here the King being Lord of the Mannor it is very proper to sue here in the Exchequer Chamber by petition for in regard that it concerneth the Kings Mannor the suit ought not to be in the Chancery as in case a Common person were Lord and for that very cause it was dismissed out of the Chancery as Serjeant Harris said and Tanfield said that he was of Councel in Pettishals case in the time of the Lord Bromley where it was debated at large if such a judgement ought to be reversed by petition in the Chancery in case where a Common person was Lord and at last it was decreed that it should be as in that case of Patshal and for the same reason here the King being Lord and therefore day was given till the next Term to shew their errours and Serjeant Harris said that the errors are in effect no others then were in the case 9. Eliz. Dyer fo 262. and in Godmanchesters case and it was adjourned Scot and his wife against Hilliar SCot and his wife Plantiffs against Hilliar for these words spoken of the wife viz. she would have cut her husbands throat and did attempt to do it Hutton Serjeant in arrest of judgement said that these words are not actionable for the will or attempt is not punishable by our Lawe and he vouched Cockains case Cook lib. 4. cited in Eaten and Allens case but by the Court an Action lies for the attempt is a cause for which the husband may be divorced if it were true and it is a very great slander and Baron Snig said that in the same Term a judgement was given in the Kings Bench and was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber upon a writ of error for these words He lay in the high way to rob me and therefore let judgement be entred for the Plan̄tiffe but it was adjudged in the principal case that for the words she would have cut her husbands throat no Action would lie Gooches Case A Coppyholder surrenders into the hands of the Customary Tenants to the use of Anne his Wife and after before any Court the said Coppyholder surrenders the Land into the hands of other Customary Tenants to the use of the said Anne for her life the remainder to Percie in Fee upon condition that he in remainder his Heirs should pay 20. s. per annum at Michaelmas for ever the first payment to commence immediacely after the death of the said Anne viz. at the next feast of St. Michael and this to be paid in the Church Porch or D. to the Church Wardens of D. in the presence of four discreet Parishioners or otherwise that a stranger should re-enter and at the next Court both these surrenders were present and the Steward admitted the said A. according to the second surrender and she dyed and now upon pretence that the rent of 20. s. was not paid by the Heirs of him in remainder the Heir of Gooch who made the surrender had entred and thereupon an Action was brought and upon the evidence the Jury to the County of Bedford now at the Bar These matters were moved by Serjeant Nichols That a surrender into the hands of Customary Tenants cannot be Countermanded and therefore the second surrender void and the admittance shall work to such uses as the first surrender was made as in Anne Westwicks Case Cook Lib. 4. And to prove that a surrender into the hands of Customary Tenants is not countermandable he said that it is not countermandable by death nor surrender Cooke lib. 4. in his Coppyhold Cases That a presentment in the Court may be after the death of the surrenderer and the admittance thereupon is good and he compared it to the Case of the delivery of a Deed as an Escroll which may be delivered as his Deed after the death of the Maker as it is in Jennings and Braggs case Cook lib. 3. which was not denyed by the Court Serjeant Dodderidge said that when a surrender is made upon condition that he shall pay a summe of money to a stranger these words make an estate conditionall and give power implyedly to the Heirs of the party who did surrender to re-enter for non-payment and the words which give power to a stranger to re-enter are meerely void neverthelesse the precedent words shall stand and make the estate conditionall Tanfield Littleton saies that such a re-entry is void for a re-entry cannot be limited to a Stranger Nichols Serjeant said that if a surrender be made that he shall pay so much money that this makes the estate conditionall and gives a re-entry to the Heirs of him who did surrender But when it goes further and doth not leave the condition to be carried by the Law in such case all the words should be void because it cannot be according to the intent as in the case of a reservation of rent the Law will carry it to the Reversion but if it be particularly reserved then it will go according to the reservation or otherwise will be void and so here Tanfield Admit that here was a conditionall estate by vertue of the Surrender last made and this condition is also to be performed to a stranger which generally ought to be taken strictly yet as it is here he who will take advantage thereof ought to prove a voluntary neglect in the party in the not performance of the Condition and inasmuch as there is no certain time appointed when the payment of this Annuall rent should be made but generally at Michaelmas next after the death of the said Anne thereby in this case the Chuch-wardens ought to notifie the death of the said Anne before the first day of payment by reasonable space or otherwise the condition is not broken and also it is appointed here to be paid in the presence of four discreet Parishioners by the party who should perform the condition yet by intendment he hath no notice who are discreet or who are not especially he being an Infant as in our case he is and therefore although the condition is to be performed to a stranger which generally ought to be performed strictly according to 12. E. 3. Yet this is to be intended only in such cases where the party had certain notice of all circumstances requisite for payment thereof and therefore he directed the Iury that for want of knowledge of such circumstances they should give a Verdict that the condition was not broken And Dodderidge
Recusant may be seised after his death Thirdly if they shall be charged by the Statute of 1. Iac. as to the first it seems they are not wherein I shall endeavour to prove three things First that such land was not liable to debt by the Common Law Secondly that they are not liable to debts by the general words of the Statute Law Thirdly that they are not liable to debt by any word within the Statute of primo Iac. as to the first he observed that here is no fraud put in the case but that these lands and leases were never in the Recusant so that before that they were conveyed to the Defendants they were not liable to this debt and I alwayes observed that which the common law calleth fraud ought to be of such nature as shall be tortious and prejudicial to a third person and put him in a worse estate and condition then he was before and then he who is so prejudiced in some cases should avoid such conveyances by the common Law 22. Assises 72.43 Ed. 3.2 and 32. the Defendant in debt after judgement aliens his goods and he himself takes the profits yet the Plantiffe shall have them in execution so that if a man binde himself and his heirs in an Obligation and dies and assets descend to his heir who by Covin aliens those assets yet he shall be charged in debt for in these cases the Plantiffe had a lawful debt and such lands and goods before the alienation were liable and that former interest was intended to be defeated by those alienations and therefore they are void but of the other side where no former interest of the partie is wronged there no fraudulent conveyance was void at the Common Law and therefore if Tenant in Knights service had made a fraudulent Feofment to defraud the Lord of his wardship this was not aided by the Common Law until the Statute of Marlebridge for the title of the Lord was not prejudiced or wronged by this Feofment because it was subsequent to the Feofment also after the said Statute the Lord was without remedy for his release for it is agreed in 17. Ed. 3. fo 54. and 31. Ed. 3. Collation 29. and therefore at the Common Law if cestuy que use had bound himself and his heirs in an Obligation and died if the use descended to his heir none will say this use was assets to the heir and so was Rigler and Hunters case 25. Eliz. as to the second point it seems that the general words of a Statute shall be expounded according to the rule and reason of the Common Law and by the Common Law such confidence is not extendible therefore c. Westmin 2. cap. 18. which gives the elegit hath these words medietatem terrae and within those words an use was never extendible by that Statute 30. Ed. 3. because it was not an estate in him and so if a man be indebted for Merchandise or money borrowed and makes a gift of his lands and Chattels to defraud Creditors and takes the profits himself and flieth to the Sanctuary at Westminster or Saint Martins and there abideth by conclusion to avoid the payment of his debts it is thereby enacted that Proclamation shall be made at the Gate of the Sanctuary where such person resideth by the Sheriffe and if such person doth not thereupon appear in person or by Atturney judgement shall be given against him 2 Rich. 2. Stat. 2. cap. 3. 1. Rich. 3. cap. 1. and execution awarded aswel of those lands and goods given by fraud as of any other out of the same Franchise these words are more particular then the Statute of Westminster the second and yet it was doubted if it did extend to executions for debt as it appears by 7. H. 7. and 11. H. 7.27 and therefore in 19. H. 7. cap. 15. an Act of Parliament was made that execution for debts Recognizances and Statutes should be sued of lands in use As to the third it seems that that Statute doth not make lands in use liable to debts the words of the Statute are that the King shall seise two parts of the lands Tenements and Hereditaments leases of Farms of such offendors so that they are as general as the words of the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 18. and here those lands and leases were not the Recusants for he had but a confidence in them the first clause of the Statute doth not extend thereunto for two causes First in regard that it never was in the Recusant and this clause extends only to such conveyances which are made by any man which hath not repaired or shall not repair to some Church for the disjunctive words do not extend throughout that branch but to the last part thereof viz. that which cometh after the word and for otherwise this would extend to conveyances made at any time without limitation which should be against the meaning of the Act. Secondly this Branch provides what shall be done concerning the King touching the levying and paying of such summes of money as any person by the Lawes of the Realm ought to pay of else to forfeit c. and by the Statutes before made nothing was forfeited but for such time as is mentioned in the Indictment which in our case is but 6. moneths but out of this branch a strong argument may be made in respect that the Statute avoids all conveyances made by Recusants in trust by express words but saith nothing to conveyances made by others to the use of Recusants and therefore this Statute doth not extend unto it if Tenant by Knights service infeoffs his heir within age and dies the Lord may enter upon the heir without suing an action but if a Feofmenche made to a stranger there he cannot enter but ought to bring his Action according to the provision of that Statute because it may be to the use of the Feoffee but no such provision is made for the heir the Statute of 3. Jac. cap. 4. provides by express words that the King shall seise two parts of all the lands Tenements and Hereditaments Leases and Faims that at the time of such seisure shall be or afterwards shall come to any of the hands of the said offendors or any other to their use or in trust for him or her or at his or her dispose or disposition or whereby wherewith or in consideration whereof such offendors or their families or any of them shall or may be relieved maintained or kept c. the different penning of these Statutes proves the diversitie of the meaning thereof this Statute is a new Law which gives to the King this penalty which he had not before and in new manner for it appoints that the partie shall be convicted by Proclamation and that being so convicted he shall alwayes pay the said penaltie until his submission without any other conviction 3. Jac. cap. 4. and also limits a manner how this new penaltie shall be levied viz.
above mentioned of a lease for years and also it was there said that if Tenant for life be the remainder to the King for years the remainder to another in Fee and the Tenant for life makes a Feofment in Fee this drawes the Kings remainder out of him and so he held that here is no gift Secondly that here is no imployment and so the Feofment is made good Altham second Baron contra I will consider only two points First if it be a gift for years or for ever and I say that it is a gift for ever for here is no intent in the Donor to determine the superstitious use because he doth not limit any other use to which it should revert but only that the Priest should be maintained for ever and as that which hath been said that it was not imployed he answereth that out of the Book of 22. Assises 52. where 12. d. is reserved for three years and after 100. s. seisin of 12. d. is seisin of the 100. s. because it is issuing out of the freehold as the case is in Littleton in the Chapter of Atturnement Tenant for life the remainder in Fee the Lord shall not avow upon the remainder but shall have it by way of Escheat for all the estates together are holden of the Lord but if land be given to finde a Priest in D. and one is maintained in S. this is a mis-imployment but in our case I conceive that the Feoffees have power to dispose the land as to them seems best and therefore it is uncertain and then given to the King as it was in Dales case land was given to the intent that a Priest should be maintained as I. S. and I. D. thought fit so that he had not less then 8. marks yearly the King shall have all for the Feoffees may give all to the Priest if they please and in Turners case land was devised to a Priest and divers poor men all is given to the King by the superstitious imployment and as to the words if by the Law it may be they are idle for id possumus quod de Jure possumus and therefore 9. Ed. 6. an office was given to one if he were able to exercise it these words are idle for the Law saith that he shall not have it if he be not able to execute it 30. Ed. 3.8 a gift to two and to the longer liver of them that the Survivor shall have it are idle words 10. H. 7. a Condition that c. and here it the condition had been until an Act of Parliament prohibit it they are Idle words for if land be given to I. S. and his heirs upon condition that if he die without heirs c. this is a void condition and Repugnant to Law Lastly I hold the feofment good by way of Admittance and that the livery takes effect notwithstanding the Queens interest 4. H. 6.19 the Kings Tenant for life is disseised he shall have an Assise and yet there is no intrusion upon the King 17. H. 7.6 the Kings Lessee makes a feofment the King enters and so he held that the judgement should he given for the Defendant Snig Baron argued much to the same intent that Bromley had done and that the Schedule is so circumspect that nothing is given after the 99. years and that a spirit of Divination forwarned him of the alteration and he agreed the Feofment to be good with this difference where the King is in possession actually and where the Reversion is in the King and the book of 2 H. 4.9 that none shall enter upon the Kings Farmor is to be understood of the Kings under Tenants and not of his Lessees Tanfield chief Baron said that neither by the intent of the Statute nor of the parties the fee is given to the Queen but it is apparant that during the 99. years the parties intent is in suspence for fear of alteration and that they would see the difference of the times and leave the disposing thereof to his Feoffees and if they had sold the land and with the money maintained a Priest as many stocks of money have used to do without doubt it had been forfeited to the King and not the land and it would be in vain to speak of an Amortization if it be for a stipendary Priest only for this would not be necessary to have a foundation incorporated and to make an Amortization for such a Priest and therefore it seems to him that there is no determination of his will after the 99. years but that all is left to the determination and disposition of the feoffees who then should be and after the intent of the Statute which was penned by Hales Iustice of the Common Pleas. I observe four words given appointed limited and assigned and I do not conceive that our case is within the compass of any of them for as I said before it is in suspence until the end of 99. years and the parties who should have the interest are not known untill the time come nor the estate setled until that time but if it had been conveyed to superstitious uses after it had been given to the Queen notwithstanding the conveyance had not been sufficient if he who did convey had power in respect of the abilitie of his person and the estate in him and therefore Pasch 22. Eliz. the case was this Sir William Say before the Statute of 32. H. 8. of Wills was seised of lands in fee not devisable and before the said Statute he devised it to finde a Priest and notwithstanding that the devise was not good yet it was adjudged that the land was given to the Queen by 1. Ed. 6. but if it were a feme covert or an infant who are disabled in Law or a Tenant in tail who is disabled in respect of his estate there it had not been given to the Queeen but in all cases there ought to be an assignment or otherwise nothing is given and there is a difference where one grants land to the intent with the profits thereof to finde a Priest there all the land is given to the Queen and where he grants a rent for the maintenance of a Priest for there the King shall have but the Rent and he said that the Case cited 5. Ed. 6. Benlos is good Law and as to that which hath been said That because the power of the Feoffees is uncertain it should be given to the Queen true it is where the power is uncertain to bestow the profits but if their power be certain it is otherwise and as to the imployment there is none because there is no gift but the imployment of the particular estate is an imployment of the Remainder and a small thing will make an imployment James case was of the Greyhound in Fleetstreet which was given to finde a Priest and the White Horse for the maintenance of another and the Feoffees of the White-horse maintained the Priest of the
Dyer the Lord Dacres surrendred a patent of an office granted to him before Sir Nicholas Hare Master of the Rolls but the surrender was not recorded nor the patent Cancelled nor a Vacat entred upon the inrolment this is void and shall not be aided now after the death of Sir Nicholas Hare per optimam opinionem in Kemps case Dyer 195. but it will be said that it appears not there that the surrender was made in Chancery and therefore differs from our case but see 19. Eliz. Dyer 355. which is direct in the point where an exchange of land was with E. 6. by deed acknowledged to be inrolled c. but not inrolled it cannot after nor be inrolled nor vest any interest in the Queen either as heir or Purchasor so hereby it appears that before inrolment an estate vests not in the King and he said that he had heard Popham late chief Iustice say that the opinion of the Iudges was that in this case nothing vests in the King until inrolment and for that there was a private Act made in 39. Eliz. to relieve this particular case so the Memorandum makes the record and not the delivery of the patent to be cancelled but the opinion of Davers in 37. H. 6.10 may be objected against me where he saith that if a man make a feofment to the King and deliver the deed in the Exchequer or at the Kings Coffers it is good without inrolment which by the Court is intended for goods and not to a feofment made to the King for this is only the opinion of Davers which I denie to be law and also all this may be admitted for law and yet prove nothing for when the partie surrenders to the King and delivers the deed to be inrolled so that he had done all which in him is to pass the land to the King then it may aptly be said in common speech that the right of the land is in the King because he of right ought to have it after inrolment although he had not the propertie of the land before the Deed be inrolled then if nothing vest in the Queen in the principal case before the patent made in 37. Eliz. the words subsequent in the patent will not help the matter viz. quam quidem sursum redditionem acceptamus per praesentes because the King had taken nothing before and the recital in the patent concludes not the Queen it hath been said that the not making of a Memorandum is the fault of the Clark and this shall not prejudice the partie in so great a mischief but I answer that the same mischief will insue where a man sells land by indenture and delivers it to the Clark to be inrolled and he inrols it not within 6. moneths nothing shall pass by the sale yet this is only the fáult of the Clark but in this case he may have his action upon the case against the Clark if so it be that he had paid all his fees the fame law in the principal case but admitting that yet great mischief will insue if it be so that the estate shall pass to the King before inrolment for then the estate and interest shall be tried by the Countrie and not by the record and then also in what place should a man search to finde the Kings estate and perhaps for want of knowledge thereof every grant of the King will be avoided and this would be a great mischief to the subjects but admitting that this should be a good surrender without a Memorandum or Vacat yet this is not shewed in this case for it appears not here that his intent was to surrender it for although he deliver up his Letters patents yet his estate remaines and then the consideration of the patent in 37. Eliz. being of a surrender of the first patent and also of a surrender of the estate if the estate be not surrendred as well as the patent the consideration is for that false and then the patent is void and to pâ—ove that the estate remains although that the patent be surrendred it appears by Fisher 12. H. 7.12 where Tenant in tail of the gift of the King loses his letters patents his heir is not at a mischief for he may have a Constat and this shall be good in evidence but he cannot plead it and this appears by the Preamble of the Statute of 13. Eliz. cap. 6. Dean and Chapter Lease land this shall be by Deed and in this case although that the lessee redeliver his deed it is no surrender of the estate but he shall not plead it without shewing a Deed of the assent of the Chapter but he shall give it in evidence and good because he had once a Dâ—ed thereof as it appears by 32. E. 3. Monstrance of Deeds and it appears by 32. H. 8. Patents Br. 97. that if the Kings Patentee lose his letters Patents he shall have a Constat and by 32. H. 8. surender Br. 51. and 35. H. 8. tail that if the King give in tail and the Donee surrender his Patent the tail thereby is not extinct so although letters Patents are necessary for pleading of the Kings Grant yet they are not requisite for the essence and continuance of the estate also it is found that the said Patents were restored to be cancelled per mandatum Domini Seymor it is not found what manner of authoritie the Lord S. gave nor found to whom the letters Patents were delivered nor at what time and peradventure they were delivered after the second Patent made and then is the second Patent false because then there was no surrender and this is one of the reasons put it Kemps case 3. Eliz. 195. The second point admitting that there is no actual surrender if notwithstanding that the Patent of 37. Eliz. be good and as to that I say if this Patent be good it is because the Queen had recited the particular estate and therefore is not to her damage or because the second Patent is a surrender in law of the first and the rather because it appears to be the intention of the Queen that the acceptance should be a surrender by these words quam quidem sursum redditionem acceptamus per praesentes and as to the first reason it seems to me that the Queen recites this as a particular estate determined and not as an estate continuing for by these words modo habens et gaudens it appears that the meaning of the Queen was that the Lord Seymor had not an estate continuing in the intent of the Queen at the time of the making of the second Patent but the Lord Chandos case in Coo. 6. fol. 55. seems to impugne me in this opinion where the King made a gift in tail and afterward by Patent reciting the former Grant and also that the Patentee had delivered up the Patent into the Chancerie to be cancelled by vertue whereof he thought himself to be seised in demeasne as of fee
without deed is not aided by a good assurance a surrender without deed is aided within the Statute or else the Statute should serve for little or nothing the Statute of confirmations of letters Patents hath the same words That the Statute of 43. Eliz. hath and upon 18. Eliz. it was resolved in 27. of Eliz. in Husseys case that if Tenant in tail be and the reversion is granted to Queen Eliz. this is good and aided by the Statute so if a man grant lands to the King but the Deed is not inrolled this also is aided by the Statute and where a grant shall be good at the Common Law by a Commonperson there the like grant made by the King is made good by the Statute and there was a case in the Dutchy Chamber Trin. 37. Eliz. between Cavendish and Bateman where the Queen did grant Turbary within the Mannor of Lady Meadows within the Countie of Darby unto Bateman for 21. years Bateman thereof makes a meadow and afterwards the Queen in consideration of the surrender of the first grant doth grant the same unto him for 40. years by the name of a meadow and although he made no surrender yet by the taking of the grant it was resolved that it was a good surrender because there it was but of a particular estate but otherwise if should be of fee for a fee cannot be surrendered by implication Dodderidge Serjeant of the King argued that the Defendant is guiltie of intrusion and he divided the case into two parts only the first whether there be a sufficient consideration at the Common Law to make the second Patent void the second point admitting that there is not a sufficient consideration by the rule of the Common Law whether the defect thereof be aided by the Statute of 43. Eliz. and he argued that the surrender which the Queen intended to be the consideration of the grant was an actual surrender alreadie perfected before the grant which doth plainly appear to be so as he took it by the word sursum redditionem and he said that he could not so have that word in the Preterperfect Tense as it would be supplied by an act of the Present Tente as is pretended viz. that the surrender is to be made by the acceptance of a new grant and he vouched 35. H. 6. also he thought her to intend an actual surrender for an other reason viz. for the words nobis sursum reddidit et restituit cancellandum the which cannot be performed without an actual surrender for otherwise there is no restoring and he vouched 18. Eliz. fo 437. 43. E. 3. fo 19. where it is observed that if a wife do not remain with an Adulterer with her own accord c. another reason the Queen did intend an actual surrender because of the words ea intentione which implie a surrender to have been actually precedent another reason was for that hereby the acceptance of the second Patent there is no surrender wrought of the former estate in the Law until after the acceptance of the second letters Patents and so the Queen deceived in the time and he vouched the case of Totnes in 40. Eliz. in the Kings Bench and Savages case in 9. H. 8. Carrels Rep. fo 195. and here it appeareth there was no surrender upon record precedent unto the second grant also it ought to have been found by a special verdict that the second letters Patents were granted at the suit of Seymor or otherwise the granting of them to him makes no surrender of his former letters Patents and then it follows that they are not surrendred yet And where it hath been objected that the Queen useth these words in the second letters Patents quas quidem litteras patentes praedictus Seymor modo habens et gaudens and therefore it must be intended she takes notice that the first letters Patents were not yet surrendred for then she would not say modo habens et gaudens he answered that this word modo signifieth the time passed or the time presently for to pass and the word habens cannot be taken in a legal sense no otherwise then the word being is taken in Dockwrais case 27. H. 8. fo 19. and so these words modo habens et gaudens signifie no more but that one he had an estate also the Queen is deceived in this word acceptamus for she cannot in the Law be said to accept of that which by the Law is not vested in her also he said that an actual surrender ought to be an actual giving up of so much as the Patentees received of her grant as it appears 14. H. 8.21 E. 3. Brook Prerogative 90.7 E. 6. Dyer Sir Maurice Barklies case 2. Eliz. 159. Sir Ralph Sadlers case that a duplicat is not sufficient if the letters Patents be surrendred and cancelled 3. Eliz. Dyer 195. and he said that the surrender which the Queen intended ought to pass an estate from the partie surrendring which is not so done here and where it hath been objected that the very delivery in the Court made of the letters Patents is a surrender of them by the opinion of Davers in 37. H. 6. fo 10. he said that this book was no Law as it may appear 12. H. 7. fo 12. Carrels Reports although in that book also Vavasour agreeth with Davers and where it hath been objected that here is an actual surrender made yet the intention of the Queen ought to be observed to make it an effectual surrender or otherwise though she hath no loss by the surrender that is made yet is it no effectual surrender as appears by 18. Eliz. Dyer 352. and so also was the case of the Isle of Man also Sir Henry Seymor did not in this case all that he might have done for the perfecting of this surrender for he ought to have seen this his surrender recorded as it appears by the book case of the 11. H. 4. where it appeareth that if I be bound to levie a fine I ought to sue forth a writ of covenant or dedimus potestatem and do all such other acts as it may make it a good and perfect fine in Law Secondly he took it that the Statute of 43. Eliz. did no whit aid this case for that makes no surrender to the Queen to be a good surrender but only an actual surrender which here is wanting and the Statute in no sort extendeth to a surrender in the Law for the surrender which this Statute intendeth to aid ought to be a surrender conveying and assuring c. and this surrender in the law conveyeth nothing but only extinguisheth and for that purpose he put this case if A. take a new lease of the Queen in 27. by indenture and this is of his own land this Statute of 43. Eliz. doth not make such a kind of conveyance in the Law by Estoppel good to vest the land in the Queen by this Estoppel which is a conveyance in the Law unto
and there bought Currants and imported them into England and he recited the Statute of the first of King James cap. 33. which grants 2. s. 6. d. for Poundage and he said that he had paid that and therefore he had refused to pay the 5. s. because it was imposed unjustly and unduly against the Lawes of the land whereupon the Kings Attorney demurred in Law this matter had been divers times argued at the Bar and at the Bench by Snig and Savil Barons and now by Clark and Flemming chief Baton whose arguments I only heard and Clark who argued first this day said that this Case being of so great consequence great respect and consideration is to be had and it seemeth to me strange that any subjects would contend with the King in this high point of Prerogative but such is the Kings grace that he had shewed his intent to be that this matter shall be disputed and adjudged by us according to the antient Law and custome of the Realm and because that the judgement of this matter cannot be well directed by any learning delivered in our Books of Law the best directions herein are presedents of antiquitie and the course of this Court wherein all actions of this nature are to be judged and the Acts of Parliament recited in arguments of this Case prove nothing to this purpose the best case in Law is the Case of Mines in Mr. Plowden Com. where this ground is put that the precedents of every Court ought to be a direction to that Court to judge of matters which are aptly determinable therein as in the Kings Bench for matters of the Crown in the Common Pleas for matters of inheritance and Civil contracts and in the Exchequer for matters of the Kings Prerogative his revenues and government and as it is not a Kingdome without subjects and government so he is not a King without revenues for without them he cannot preserve his dominions in peace he cannot maintain war nor reward his servants according to the state and honor of a King and the revenue of the Crown is the very essential part of the Crown and he who rendeth that from the King pulleth also his Crown from his head for it cannot be separated from the Crown and such great Prerogatives of the Crown without which it cannot be ought not to be disputed and in these cases of Prerogative the judgement shall not be according to the rules of the Common Law but according to the Presidents of this Court wherein these matters are disputable and determinable as for Example an action of accompt lies not by the Common Law against him who had the land of the accomptant by mean conveyance but if one be an accomptant to the King and had land in fee and alien it unto A. who alien it unto B. B. by reason of this land shall be charged with this accompt in 14. E. 3. a Coroner was elected by the Kings writ as he ought to be by the Countie and after be was amerced and because he was not sufficient to answer the Amercement the Countie was charged therewith and that appears of Record here and in 30. E. 3. Rot. 6. as appears also of Record in this Court one William Porter was Magister monetae and had received Bullien of divers Merchants and Coyned it in the Kings Mint and did not restore the Coyne to the Merchants but was insufficient and the King paid the Merchants and inquired of the suerties for the Coyne and it was found that he had none then it was inquired who recommended him unto the King and it was found by whom he was recommended and they who only recommended him as friends were charged with the Debt and if one be outlawed in a personal action and Debt is due to him upon a contract this shall be forfeited to the King and this is ordinary by the Presidents of this Court and yet this seems to be contrary to Law and is against our Books and the Kings Debtor shall have a quo minus against Executors upon a simple contract and therein he cannot release nor be non-suited and I put these cases to prove that the presidents of this Court ought to be pursued and observed although they seem to cross the Common Law and the Books thereof a case was here betwixt the King and Jourden Jourden was receiver and sold his office to one D. and he not being able to pay Jourden for his office at the day limited it was agreed that Jourden should come to the next receipt and when D. received the Kings money that Jourden should take it for his office which was done accordingly after D. was indebted to the King and this matter appearing as above c. Jourden was charged with the money which he had received and as Stamford in his first cap. of Prerogative saith that the King is the most worthy part of a Common-wealth so is he the preserver nourisher and defender of the people and true it is that the weal of the King is the publick weal of the people and he for his pleasure may a forrest the word of any subject and he thereby shall be subject to the Law of the Forrest and be may take the provision of any man by his Purvieour for his own use but at reasonable prizes and without abuse the abuse of which officer hath been restrained by divers Statutes and the King may take wines for his provision and also Timber for his Ships Castles or houses in the wood of any man and this is for publick benefit and the King may allay or inhaunce Coyne at his pleasure for the plentie of the King is the peoples peace and these imposts are not only for the benefit of the people and for the Kings profit but are also imposed many times for the increase of Merchandise and Commerce as the Statute of Aulnageors made in the 2. E. 3. cap. 14. which was made principally to make cloathes more Vendible and so Corporations are granted by the King with immunities and priviledges and to seclude other subjects from them are well limited and good for it is for the increase of the peoples wealth and thereby the Kings revenue is increased and sometimes there is contained in grants a Prohibition to other subjects that they usury not upon the priviledges of such Corporations upon a pain as in the custome of Forraign bought and Forraign sold in London and York and divers customes are permitted to such Corporations as in the Chamberlain of Londons Case Cook 5. and the breach or violation of these customes is a decay of the Corporations and so an impairing of the revenues of the Crown and therefore the King may make them and also give them priviledges and make inhibitions to others not to Vsurp upon them King Edward the third in the sixteenth year of his Raign proclaimed that no man should sell Wool-fels or Leather under such a price so that these staple commodities might not be
the said resolution and he said that the case concerning parcel of the land contained in S. the Deed come in question in Parliament in the 43. Eliz. and it was then commanded that the Deed should be inrolled and also he compared it to a case put in Shelleys Case that the heir shall have land as by discent from his father although that the conveyance be not inrolled in the life of the father also he said that the Queen dieth not as to her body politick to the third point he said that the confirmation need not to be inrolled for it passeth nothing and is but a bare assent and therefore differeth from the case of Patron and Ordinary and of a disseissee for the disseisee hath right to grant end the Patron and Ordinary have interest in R. but Bishops are seised in their own right and therefore their lease wants the approbation only of the Dean and Chapter and he vouched Cook lib. 3. the Dean and Chapter of Norwiches Case and the writ of Sine Assensu Capituli in the Register proveth it for the tit confirmation pl. 30. observes and Littleton in the end of his chap. of discontinuance saith that a parson may charge the Gleab by the assent of the Patron and Ordinary and the opinion of Brook in the case of the 33. of H. 8. tit confirmation pl. 30. agreeth to this opinion and so are some opinions in the 7. H 4. fo 15. 16. and he said that this point was adjudged accordingly in the first of Ma. but he had not the record thereof and therefore he would not insist upon it and he vouched 1. and 2. of Ma. Dyer fo 106. and Cook lib 6. fo 15. Hodges Case that the acceptance of the Patron is good enough to make a confirmation to the fourth point he said that the confirmation was good notwithstanding it be before the inrolment of the lease for the lease shall stay his operation until all the Ceremonies be used for the perfection of the estate and he vouched Littleton fo 122. and 6. E. 6. Dyer fo 69. where a parson made a lease to commence after his death the Patron and Ordinary in the life of the parson confirmed it and this is good and he vouched also Anne Maiowes Case Cook lib. 1. where the father confirmed the sons grant when he had but a possibilitie and yet good and he vouched Dyer 2. 3. Eliz. fo 194. where a grant was incertain and the inception was before the confirmation after makes it good and therefore he said if disseissor and disseissee bargain land although it be but a confirmation of the disseisee which may be well enough without inrolment of the Deed by a bare delivery yet this shall hinder the operation until the inrolment of the Deed which should pass the estate from the disseisor and by Cook lib. 5. Fitz. Case it appeareth that one part of the assurance shall stay his operation until another part hath his perfection and therefore he concluded that here the confirmation in judgement of Law should stay his operation until the lease be inrolled which passed the estate see the argument of Serjeant Nichols to the contrary and also the argument of Thomas Crew in Easter Term and Trin. 7. Jac. Pasch 7. Jac. in the Exchequer Catesbies Case Pasch 7. Jac. in the Exchequer TAnfield chief Baron said that in the year 31. Eliz it was adjudged in Goar and Peers Case if Tenant for life infeoffe A. and his heirs to the use of the feoffee and his heirs during the life of the feoffor that this is a forfeiture because these words during the life of the feoffor shall be but to the use limited and he put the case which Serjeant Nichols put at the Bar of the Lady Catesby which was that a man suffered a recovery to the use of William Catesby and Anne his wife and of the longer liver of them and of the Executors of William for forty years if one Elizabeth Catesby should so long live William Catesby dies and the reversion came to the King by forfeiture and he pretended that Elizabeth Catesby being dead the estate is also determined in regard that these words if Elizabeth shall so long live refer to all the estate but Curia avisari vult It was said by the chief Baron that if a man plead a deed in writing and the other partie do not pray Oyer the same Term he shall not have Oyer in another Term in the Common Pleas but in the Kings Bench Oyer shall be granted in another Term. It was found by office that Elizabeth Bowes was convicted of Recusancy in 35. Eliz. and that a lease for years was made unto her in the year 36. Eliz. in trust and that she had conveyed this lease over according to the trust and a question was demanded if the King shall have this term or not for her Recusancy and it seemed that he shall because she is not capable nor lyable of any trust and therefore the conveyance made by the Recusant was as if it had been without any compulsion by reason of the trust If a Coppiholder of the Kings Mannor pretendeth prescription for a Modus decimandi against the Parson the right of Tithes shall be tried in the Exchequer and a prohibition was granted to the Ecclesiastical Court in this Case Owen Ratliff was lessee for years of the King rendring rent and he assigned his Term to Sir Thomas Chichley in trust for payment of the debts of the said Owen Ratliff and after the Debts were paid Chichley resigned it but in the interim between the assignment and the resignment divers rents incurred to the King and the Barons agreed that these arretages in Law may be levied upon the land of Chichley notwithstanding the trust but because the Court was informed that the Executors of Ratliff had assets and continued farmer of the farm at that time they compelled him to pay it and being present in Court they imprisoned him untill payment made and allowed him his remedy by English Bill against Chichley and that by the agreement Chichley was to have paid the rents to the King The Earl of Cumberlands Case IT was found by diem clausit extremum after the death of G. Eearl of Cumberland that King E. 2. gave to the Lord Clifford inter alia the Mannor of Skipton in Craven to him and to the heirs of his body and found further the discent in a direct line until the time of H. 6. and that the first Donee and all others to whom it descended were seised prout lex postulat without determining any estate in certain in the Donee and they found that H. 6. by sufficient conveyance concessit Revertionem nec non manerium de Skipton in Craven to Thomas Lord Clifford to whom the estate given by E. 2. was descended and his heirs by force whereof the said Thomas was seised prout lex postulat and found the discent to the
Earl of C. now dead and found that by fine and recovery he conveyed an estate in this land to the use of his brother that now is Earl of C. in tail the remainder over to c. and died having a daughter now Countess of Dorset who moved by Dodderidge the Kings Serjeant in the Court of wards that this office was insufficient for by the pretence of the said Countess the first estate given to the Cliffords by E. 2. was a general tail and then the fine levied and the recovery suffered by the last Earl her father is no Bar but that it may discend to this Countess as his heir in tail and therefore Serjeant Dodderidge said to the Lord Treasurer then present in Court that if this should be allowed that Iurors may finde generally a grant made and shew no quallitie of the conveyance nor any place or time but if this were a grant of reversion or of a possession he said that many men by such offices should have their lands given away whereunto they had no means for uncertainties to take a Traverse and as to insufficiency of this office he said that the insufficiency therein consisted first in matter Secondly in form for the insufficiency of the matter is two fold First because that the office findes only that King H. 6. by sufficient conveyance not limited any manner of conveyances nor any qualitie thereof which ought to be shewed and it is material because we may give a different answer thereunto for against letters Patents we may plead one thing and against an other conveyance we may plead another thing and so our answer differeth according to the qualitie of the conveyance Secondly it is insuffient in matter because it is found that H. 6. granted the possession and that he granted the reversion nec non manerium which is repugnant for if the King grant a reversion then no possession passeth and if he pass a possession then no reversion passeth and therefore it is repuguant to say that he granted Reversionem nec non manerium which implieth a possession also he said that his exceptions to the office as to the Mannor of it are two-fold First the office doth finde any time of the grant made by H. 6. and this is material for the grants upon Record take their force from the time of their date as appears by Ludfords Case in Plowdens Commentaries and he said that at this time the case is material to be exprest in respect that H. 6. was for part of his reign deposed and after restored and it might be in the time that he was deposed by Edward the fourth but unto that it was answered by the attorney of the wards that the office found that H. 6. granted c. that it was not in the time when he was deposed the second insufficiency in the Mannor is because it is not found at what place H. 6. made the said grant and that this is material to be found by office he vouched 36. H. 6.32 and he said that it is very requisite that in such offices all circumstances ought to be expressed in as ample certaintie as in a declaration so that the partie prejudiced by the office may know where to search for the conveyance but the Attorney general said that there needs no such express finding of all circumstances by a Iury as it ought to be in pleading for it shall be taken by intendment in divers cases but yet he said that it appears by 1. Eliz. Dyer 174. it is a good plea to say that A. granted a reversion c. to the King without shewing how much more in office which is the Act of the Iurors and therefore Serjeant Harris cited the Book of 14 15. H. 7.22 where an office found an estate tail without mention of the Donor and yet good and the Attorney general said also that it appears by the finding of the Iury in Fulwoods Case Cook lib. 4. that the Iury need not precisely to finde all circumstances for if there be convenient certaintie the residue shall be supplied by intendment as it is there said and the Attorney said that whereas it hath been objected that the issue is evil because it is found that H. 6. granted the reversion and also the Mannor and Castle aforesaid and doth not limit incertaintie that the King granted a reversion or that he granted a Mannor in possession to that he said that it is clear that the King may after recital of a particular estate grant the reversion nec non terras sive manerium and then be the land in lease or be the lease void in Law yet the land shall pass and this is his course alwayes in granting the Kings lands to others and therefore the Iury did well to finde the truth without determining what should pass for admit that there were no estate precedent in being yet by this finding it appears plainly that the Mannor and Castle should pass by the grant in the time of H. 6. to which the Lord Cook agreed for Law and so he said it was his use when he was Attorney general to which also the Lord Treasurer Flemming chief Justice and Tanfield chief Baron agreed and the Attorney general said that his use was if A. had a lease from the King of B. acre which by effluction is to determine in Anno. 1612. and the said A. doubting that this lease was not good in Law prayed to have a new lease that in this case he recited the first lease in the new letters Patents and thereby granted the land for twentie years from c. which shall be in Anno 1612. or from the sooner determination of the former lease and the Iudges allowed it to be good and Dodderidge Serjeant said that after the difference taken between the pleading and the finding of the Iury it seemed to him that there is a great difference between them but after the finding of the Iury upon an office as our case is and a pleading there is no difference for the office is a thing to which an answer may be made but a verdict given upon issue joyned between the parties hath no other proceeding but to judgement immediately and therefore such a verdict shall be divers times supplied by the construction of the Iudges but a verdict upon an office ought to be as certain as an indictment because the partie may Traverse and to prove that upon such uncertain offices there is no remedy by Traverse he vouched the case of 3. H. 4 5. upon an insufficient office after the outlawry of A. and no time is found of the outlawry and he observed out of the said book that the partie outed by the said insufficient office had no remedy by Traverse but was compelled to make a motion to the Court and after this case for difficultie was referred to the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron to consider upon who the said Term at Serjeants Inne appointed it to be
land by Tort and Covin is void which cases and many other you may see in Farmors case Cook lib. 3. and the 12. Eliz. Dyer fo 294. and as it is said in Twines Case Cook lib. 3. all frauds are covered with trust expressed or implyed and here is an express trust and he vouched also Cook lib. 5. Gooches Case and also Englefields case and Pauncefoots case cited in Twines case Cook l. 3. fo 83. also he said that this conveyance being void by reason of the fraud by the Law it is more clear that it shall be decreed to be void here the Deed being in court and course of equity and therefore he said that it hath been decreed in this Court for equity that if a man outlawed taketh bonds in the name of another that they shall be forfeited to the King also it hath been decreed in Venables Case that where a widdow upon good devotion bad devised great summes of money for the relief and sustenance of poor silenced Ministers and Preachers for not subcribing to the Commons c. to be ordered and paid to them by the discretion of the Executors that the money should be disposed for the maintenance of poor conformable Ministers by the discretion of the Executors and not to them who retused to subscribe for when a thing is disposed to maintain contempt and disobedience in any this ought to be ordered and disposed by the Court to a contrary end and use and so in the principal case in so much that the conveyance was made by Sir Robert Dudley for the maintenance of himself in contempt and for the maintenance of his wife and other uses this by the rules of equity shall be decreed to be void and in regard the King is offended by the contempt he ought to have means to punish It and so he prayed that it may be decreed for the King Hutton Serjeant the same day to the contrary and he argued first that this confidence is as an use at the Common Law which was not forfeitable and secondly admit that this conveyance be fraudulent yet it is not now to be avoided and these are the grounds whereupon he would insist in the maintenance of his conveyance against the King but first as to that which hath been said that at the Common Law a man could not go beyond the Sea without the Kings licence he said that he thought the contrary for it appears plainly by the book 12. Eliz. Dyer fo 296. and F. N. B. cited accordingly that any man may go beyond the Sea to travail except there be a proclamation or a writ of ne exeas Regnum to restrain him so that he agreed that every man was prohibitable before his going or after by recalling but without a prohibition or recalling his departure was no offence but he agreed that if a man be prohibited or recalled that for this contempt his lands ought to be seised and that the King hath interest to dispose of them as it is proved by the president of John de Britanies case in the 19. E. 2. and vouched in the 2. Ma. Dyer 128. and this is also proved by other presidents and authorities as 39. Assise pla 1. where it appears that for a contempt of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury for not executing of the Kings writ that the King seised his lands and held them during the life of the Arch-Bishop and also Englefields case in Cook lib. 7. proveth that the King hath power to seise and dispose for such a contempt and therefore he would not argue what interest the King should have by such seisure but for the matters which he intended First he thought clearly that this confidence betwixt the Bargainor and the Bargainee was as an use at the Common Law and that cestuy que use should not forfeit this use at the Common Law is directly proved by 11. H. 4. fo 52. where without an express Statute an use was not forfeited as he said and he vouched accordingly 5. E. 4. fo 7. where it appeareth that cestuy que use shall not forfeit the land at the Common Law and the reason is because that it is subject to the forfeiture of the Donees and it is inconvenient that the same land should be subject to several forfeitures at the same time by several men viz. the Bargainor and the Bargainees and he said although that these uses were begotten by fraud as it appears in our books see Chudleys case Cook lib. 1. yet in so much that without an express Statute they were not forfeitable by the same reason a trust or confidence is not forfeitable although they are begotten by fraud without a special Act of Parliament also in out case there are not any Badges of fraud but only as a trust betwixt the Bargainees and that a bargain and trust may be without fraud although the Bargainor continue possession against his Bargainee which is another argument that there is no fraud in the case and the estates after made to the Tenants now in possession viz. Sir Robert Lee c. for the Bargaines were not made by the appointment of the Bargainor but of their own head also he said that if here be any fraud it is matter of fact whereof the Iurors ought to have inquired and the Iury here have found no fraud and to prove that the fraud ought to be found by the Iury he vouched Wardenfords case 2. 3. of Eliz. Dyer 193. 267. where it is also said that although a fraud he found by the Iury yet if it be found specially not to defraud the King but the Creditors then the conveyance shall be good against the King and so he concluded the first point Secondly admit that it was found that this conveyance was fraudulent yet it is not void against the King for it seemed to him it shall be avoided by fraud only by those who have an antient right or antient duty and if in this case there were any fraud this was long time before any title or right accrewed to the King for that was two years after this conveyance and to prove it he vouched Upton and Bassets case cited in Twins case in Cook lib. 3. there it is said expresly that a conveyance by fraud is void only in respect of an antient title see 22. Assise pla 72. accordingly but the Statute of 27. Eliz. makes such a conveyance void to those who have a present right if there were a valuable consideration as is not in our case and therefore we are out of this Statute and also he said that he agreed the case cited of the other part if a man outlawed purchase goods or takes an obligation in trust the King shall have them for this is by the Statute of the 3. H. 7. cap 4. but this concerus not land and therefore we are at the Common Law and as a Statute was requisite to be made to make an use forfeitable which was not forfeitable at the
Baron answered that he should have them of right see Bartues case in Dyer but the Lord Treasurer said that he saw no reason to satisfie himself thereof Doillie against Joiliffe DOillie Plantiff against Joiliffe in an Action upon the case for false imprisonment of the Plantiffs wife the case was that Leonard Lovies was formerly Plantiff in an action in the Common Pleas against Julian Goddard a feme sole and in this action the Plantiff and Defendant were at issue and a venire facias was awarded and before the return thereof the said Julian took to husband Doillie now Plantiff and after upon a special verdict found in the suit judgement was given in the Common Pleas for the said Julian against th◠said Leonard upon which judgement Leonard brought error in the Kings Bench and a scire facias was awarded against Julian by the name of Julian Goddard as a feme sole and she appeared by Attorney as a feme sole and this as the Defendant said in his answer was by the consent of her husband now Plantiff and after judgement was given to reverse the judgement in the Common Pleas and the entrie of that judgement as it was pleaded by the Defendant here was quod praedict Leonard Lovies recuperet c. versus praedict Julianam c. and costs and damages were taxed c. upon which judgement the said Lovies sued a Capias ad satisfaciendum against Julian Goddard and by vertue of that writ the Defendant here the Sheriff or Devon took the said Julian being the Plantiffs wife and imprisoned her until the Plantiff paid 10. l. which was the cost taxed by the Kings Bench for her deliverance upon which imprisonment the husband only hath brought his action against the Defendant being Sheriff Davenport of Grayes Inne argued for the Defendant and first he thought that between the parties to the error and the first action in the Common Pleas there is an estoppel and admittance that the said Julian continued a feme sole for the process in all the proceedings ought to be as it was in the Original and he vouched 18. Assise pla 16. by which book it appears that if a man bring an assise for lands in the Countie of O. and the Tenants plead a Common recovery of the same land in the Common Pleas this doth conclude the partie to say that the lands did lie else where c. also if an original be depending and before the first Capias or process awarded the Defendant intermarrieth and after a capias issueth against her as a feme sole this is well awarded lib. 5. E. 4.16 and also 5. E. 3. fo 9. and 10. also he said that such a thing as is done between the plea and not after the judgement is not material to alter the proceedings in that course it was begun for the same partie against whom judgement is given shall error have against him for whom the judgement is given except she had married after the judgement for then he agreed that the writ of error shall be brought by the husband and wife in case judgement had been given against the wife while she was sole 35. H. 6. fo 31. and 12. Assise pla 41. and it also appears by 18. E. 4. fo 3. if Trespas he brought against a married wife as against a feme sole and she appears as a feme sole and judgement is given and execution accordingly this is good until it be reversed by error and the Sheriff in such case never ought to examine if it be evil or nor no more then if Trespas be brought against A. my servant by the name of B. and A. is taken in execution the Master shall not take benefit of this misnaming admitting that A. should punish the Sheriff for it also he vouched one Shotbolts case 10. and 11. Eliz. Dyer and 15. Eliz. Dyer 318. in the Earl of Kents case which prove that the Sheriff is to be excused for taking me by a false name and if the Iudges admit this false name yet this judicial writ ought not to be examined by the Sheriff and it was adjourned Shoftbey against Waller and Bromley SHoftbey brought an action upon the case against Waller and Bromley and declared that the Defendants conspired that the said Bromley should commence a suit against the Plantiff and that the Plantiff was then worth 5000. l. and that he was then dwelling in Middlesex and that the Defendants knowing thereof maliciously and falsely agreed that the said Bromley should lay his action in London and prosecute it until the Plantiff were outlawed in the said suit to the intent that his goods should be forfeited to the King and after in performance of the agreement aforesaid the Plantiff suggested that he was dwelling in London and laid his action here which was prosecuted until the Plantiff here was outlawed to his damage c. Tanfield chief Baron thought that if the suggestion was by Bromley to make the process into a wrong County it seemed that the Action should lie against him only but in regard it is shewed in the Declaration that the said suggestion was made by him in performance of the precedent agreement that the action lieth against both which the Court granted Godfrey in this action moved in arrest of judgement and that for two causes the action lieth not upon the matter here it appears by the 4. Eliz. Dyer 214. that a man may say his action wherein an outlawry lies in London and then by the Statute of 6. H. 8. cap. 4. proclamation shall issue into the Countie where he dwelleth therefore the suing of him in another Countie is no such act wherefore an action should be brought no more then if before the Statute of W. 2. cap. 12. a man had brought an appeal Maliciosè yet no remedy before the said Statute as appears in the 13. H. 7. in Kellawaies case because it was lawful to bring an appeal and so notwithstanding the said Statute no action did lie against him who brought an appeal if it abated 9. H. 5. cap. 1. also the Statute of the 18. H. 6. provideth remedy for false appeals or judgement in another Countie maliciosè c. by action of the case whereby it appeareth that in such case the Common Law allowed no action also the Statute of the 18. H. 6. provideth another remedy then that Statute and therefore no action lies against us no more then in the case aforesaid at the Common Law Secondly here is no issue joyned if the Defendants be guiltie of the execution of this practice but only if they be guiltie of the agreement and this is found for the Plantiff but clearly such agreement without execution giveth no cause of action and the word Practizatione comprehends only the going about and not the executing of this conspiracy and therefore the issue should have been general if the Defendants be guiltie or not and therefore he prayed judgement might be stayed and he cited Owen
Woods case in Cook lib. 4. Tanfield chief Baron it is true that the issue should be better if it were general not guiltie of the Trespass aforesaid but yet it is good enough in this case for the special words comprehend as much as the words not guiltie of the practice and agreement aforesaid c. and the word Practizatione comprehends aswel the subsequent Acts of execution as the precedent combination and therefore Tantamounts a general issue and it was good by the Court and as to the action Altham Baron conceived that it lieth although it be for a lawful cause for the Law abhoreth fraud and conspiracy as if two conspire to vex me for my land by suit an action lieth F. N. B. yet it is lawful for every man to sue me without title and he vouched 16. Assise and here it is laid that the Defendants indeavoured to make the Plantiff forfeit his goods which are worth 5000. l. and this is reasonable that it should lie and 9. E. 2. Fitz. discents 52. is our case directly upon the matter and therefore it seemeth to me that it lies Tanfield chief Baron said that 9. E. 2. crosseth this case in part and yet he thought that the action lies to which Snig agreed and it seemed the cases of appeal put by Godfrey did lie well enough without aid of the Statute of W. 2. if there be such a conspiracy Tanfield chief Baron accordingly if it be legally thought without cause yet if without conspiracy the action lieth not for it as it appears in Owen Woods case Cook lib. 4. and in all cases where strangers have nothing to do with the suit brought for the conspiracy and yet combine with the Plantiff in the suit an action upon the case lieth for this vexation and judgement was entred for the Plantiff by the Court. An inquisition for the King was returned here and it was found that Fleet-wood the Kings debtor for his office of receiver for the Court of Wards did purchase a certain Term and interest of and in the rectory of Yeading for divers years then to come and that being so possessed he became indebted to the King and that this term is now in the hands of the Lady Edmonds and by colour of this inquisition the land is extended for the Kings debt Harris Serjeant moved that this inquisition is insufficient to extend the land but good to sell a term and he vouched Palmers case Cook lib. 4. to which the Court inclined but it was adjourned If a Bishop becomes indebted to the King for a subsidie and dieth his successors shall not be charged upon the lands of the Bishoprick but the executors of the predecessor or his heir and if they have nothing the King shall lose it as chief Baron Tanfield said which the Court granted upon the motion of Bridgman for the Bishop of Saint Davids Trallops case A Scire facias issued against Trallop the father and Trallop the son to shew cause wherefore they did not pay to the King 1000. l. for the mean profits of certain lands holden by them from his Majesty for which land judgement was given for him in this Court and the mean rates was found by inquisition which returned that the said mean profits came to 1000. l. upon which inquisition this scire facias issued whereupon the Sheriff returned Trallop the father dead and Trallop the son now appeared and pleaded that he took profits but as a servant to his father and by his commandment and rendred an accompt to his father for the said profits and also the judgement for the said land was given against his father and him for default of sufficient pleading and not for the truth of the fact and he shewed the Statute of the 33 H. 8. cap. 39. which as he pretended aided him for his equitie whereupon the King demurred Hitchcock for Trallop seemed that the Statute did aid him by equity and he moved two things the one that if here be such a debt that the Statutes intends to aid it the other if the Defendant hath shewed sufficient matter of equitie within the intent of the Act and he thought that it is such a debt as the Statute will aid for although that here be au uncertainty of the time of the judgement given for the King that being reduced to a certainty by the inquisition after it shall be within the intent of the Statute for id certum est quod certum reddi potest and the words of the Statute are if any judgement be given for any debt or duty c. and here although that there was no certainty unto how much these mean rates extended at the time of the judgement given yet it is clear that it was a duty at the time of the judgement and then it is within the Statute also he said that the words in the proviso of that Statute explain that the intent of the makers of the Act was so for the words are for any thing for which the partie is chargable and the mean rates are a thing for which he is chargable see Cook lib. 7. fo 20. and the Lord Andersons case there fo 22. as to the point of equitie there seem to be two causes First he shewed that he was but a servant to his father and had given an accompt to him Secondly the judgement was given against him upon a point of mispleading Tanfield chief Baron said that the matter in equitie ought to be sufficiently proved and here is nothing but the allegation of the partie and the demurrer of Mr. Attorney for the King and if this be in Law an admittance of the allegation and so a sufficient proof within the Statute it is to be advised upon and for that point the case is but this a scire facias issueth out of this Court to have Execution of a recognizance which within this Act ought by pretence and allegation of the Defendant to be discharged for matter in equitie and the Defendant pleads his matter of equitie and the King supposing this not to be equity within this Statute demurreth in Law whether that demurrer be a sufficient proofe of the allegation within the Statute or not and it was adjourned Trin. 7. Jac. in the Exchequer Doillie and Joiliffs case again Trin. 7. Jac. in the Exchequer CRessey for the Plantiff said that the Plea in Bar is not good because the Defendant justified by force of a Capias ad satisfaciendum and pleads no return thereof and moved that it is not justifiable without returning of the writ but the Court seemed the plea to be good notwithstanding that but if it were a mean process then it ought to be pleaded to be returned see Cook lib. 5. Hoes case fol. 19. according to this diversitie Tanfield chief Baron thought that the Plantiff shall recover for first the writ of error here is not a writ but a commission and therefore false lattin shall not abate it as it hath been
of the wife of the devisor is not determined until the issue should have come to the age of 18. years and so none of the other points came now in question and judgement was given as above-said Nota that in Mich. 6. Jac. upon a motion made by Mr. Nicholas Row of the Inner Temple it appeared that an inquisition was returned in this Court by force of a commission whereby it was found that one A. was seised of the Mannor of D. and so being seised of the said A. was attainted of Treason in the Kings Bench and of this should be a double matter of Record to intitle the King so that the owner of the land shall be forced to his Petition it was the question and by the Court in regard that the record of the attainder is not in this Court here is not in judgement of Law a double matter of Record but if the attainder he removed into this Court then that and the inquisition would make a double matter of Record and the Attorney general moved that when an office findes the attainder that the party ought to plead no such record Worselin Mannings case AN Information of intrusion was brought against Worselin Manning and others and upon the opening of the evidence at the Bar it appeared that Worsely Manning was an alien born and that he was made a denizen by the King and the Charter of Denization had this Proviso usual in such Charters of Denization that the Denizen should do legal Homage and that he should be obedient and observe the Lawes of this Realm and after by vertue of a Commission under the great Seal an office found that the said Worselin after the Denization purchased the land in question and it was found also by the same office that the said Worselin never did legal Homage and that he was not obedient to all the Lawes of this Realm and there was an offer of demurrer upon the evidence if the Prviso makes the Patent of Denization conditional and so for the not performance thereof the Charter of Denization shall be void and Harris thought clearly that this proviso for the performance and observation of the Lawes doth not make the Patent conditional but the intent only was that if he do not observe them then he shall forfeit the penalties therein appointed to which the Court inclined and after resolved accordingly At another day it was moved in Mr. Rowes case that the possession shall be awarded to the King and in this case Tanfield gave a Rule that Mr. Row ought to plead to the inquisition but no possession should be taken from him for although that the attainder make a double Record yet if the indictment of Treason be taken before Iustices of the peace more then a year after the Treason committed as in this case it was and the partie is outlawed upon this indictment and the inquisition findes this outlawry generally yet this is no double matter of Record for the outlawry is meerly void upon the said indictment because the indictment it self is void and to prove that when an indictment is void that is void as to all purposes be vouched Vauxes case Cook lib. 4. fo 44. and 11. R. 2. and after in this case the Barons awarded proces to plead but not to dispossess the partie Vaux against Austin and others AN Information by Vaux against Austin and others that they did ingross a 1000. quarters of Corn upon not guiltie the Iury found one of the Defendants guiltie for 700. and not guiltie for the residue and found the others not guiltie for all Prideaux moved that judgement may be given to acquit the Defendants in this case and he vouched the 9th of E. 3. fo 1. and 14. E. 4. fo 2. where an Information was brought for forgery and proclaiming false deeds and he was found not guiltie of the proclaiming and 3. Eliz. Dyer 189. in the Lord Brayes case put by the way and therefore he said that if there be an information upon the Statute of Vsury against two and the Iury found the contract to be but with one of them both shall be acquitted and also he vouched Treports case in lib. 6. where a man declared of a lease made by two where in Law it was only the lease of one and the confirmation of the other and therefore evil 8. R. 2. tit brief and if judgement in this case should be given against one being in a joynt information he could not plead it in Bar of another information for the same thing and then he should be twice punished for one fault Hitchcock to the contrary the Defendants plead that they nor any of them are guiltie and issue was joyned thereupon and by him this case is not to be resembled to the cases which have been put of joynt contracts for here the parties commit several wrongs and he said if in a decies Tantum against divers if one be acquitted the other shall be condemned and so in an action of Trespas 37. H. 6. fo 37. touching maintenance and if in Trespas against two one is found guiltie for one part and the other found guilty for the other part and 40. E. 3. fo 35. and 7. H. 6 32. in trespas the Defendant pleads that John S. infeoffed him and R. S. and the Plantiff saith that he did not infeoffe them and the Iury found that be infeoffed the Defendant only in this case judgement ought to be given if either of them be guiltie and therefore there is a difference between that and Wain-wrights case for the information was for the joynt buying of butter and Cheese but here the information is for ingrossing by way of buying and so he prayed that judgement may be given for the King Tanfield chief Baron if upon the Statute of Champertie a man declares upon a joynt demise by two and it is found that one only made the demise it was adjudged good and by him this proves the case in question and the Barons agreed it to be clear that if a contract be alledged to be made with one of them no judgement for usury ought to be given but in the principal case all but Tanfield agreed that several judgements may be given for it is like unto a Trespass and accordingly judgement was given in the principal case against him who was found guiltie Nota by Tanfield chief Baron and all the Court that where the Statute of the 23. Eliz. appointeth that if any will inform against A. Recusant and the Recusant be thereupon convicted that the informer shall have one moitie and the King shall have another yet if a recusant be convicted according to the form of the Statute of 28. Eliz. by indictment an informer can never have any advantage upon an information exhibited after for the Statute of the 28. Eliz. altereth the course of Law which was upon 23. Eliz. and no informer can have any advantage upon a conviction of Recusancy by indictment after the Statute
his successor may present anew and seemed to him no question and to this purpose he vouched 12. Eliz. Dyer fo 292. that he may repeale and it is not of necessity that this instrument which purporteth the repeale should be shewed to the Gardian of the Spiritualties and by the 19. Eliz. fo 360. in Coleshils case if it is said that when the King hath presented a Repeale by him ought not to be admitted after institution see for such matters in the Book also he vouched Dyer 339. Yattons case to prove that the King may repeale his presentation by a new presentation without mention made of the former except that the second presentation be obtained by fraud as there it is and he vouched Dyer 294. Goodmans case and so he concluded Damport to the contrary there are two points The first is the Patron and a stranger corruptly agree to present Kitchin whereupon he is presented if this shall be void against Kitchin 2. admitting that the Queen had title to present and she presents and dyes before admittance if the King may present a stranger without mentioning the other presentation to be repealed As to the first he said that at the common Law so if one be simoniacally presented yet this is not void untill the Presentee be deprived and if before this Statute such a corrupt presentment had been made the incumbent and ordinary being free then no presentment should ensue and he vouched the saying of Linwood an Author of the Civill Law to be accordingly but if money be given by the friends of the Presentee and after the King had notice thereof and assent then it is not punishable but pardonable at the discretion of the King and now by him the Statute provides no punishment for the person when the Patron only consents to the Simonie for he observed that after the said Statute of 31. Eliz. had appointed a punishment for the Patron then in the last part of this branch the words are the persons so corruptly taking c. shall be incapable of the Benefice aforesaid and so it seemeth that the intent of the Statute is not to punish any party but he that is to the Simonie and this is also explained to be so by other Clauses in the Statute for another Clause inflicts punishment upon him who is party to a corrupt resignation and so in all the clause those only who are partakers of the Crime shall be punished and to prove that such comstruction hath been made upon penall Statutes that he only shall be punished who had notice of the crime he vouched Littleton who saith that upon the Statute of Gloucester notice was requisite or otherwise no default also he vouched to this purpose the case of Pickering in 12. Eliz. Dyer fo 292. a Lay Person presents a Bastard to a Benefice who was admitted accordingly c. and in a suite thereupon issue was admitted to be taken if the Patron knew that he was a Bastard so if he had no notice thereof then there is no default in him and he vouched 43. E. 3. to this purpose 22. E. 4. tit consultation and he well agreed Closse and Pomcoyes case now lately adjudged which was that Sir George Cary being seised of aâ— Advowson granted the next avoidance to his second sonne and dyed and after the Sonne corruptly agreed with I. S. to procure the said I. S. to be presented to this Benefice and the second brother knowing thereof it was agreed that for the perfecting of the agreement the second Brother should surrender his Grant and interest to the elder brother which elder brother not knowing of the said corrupt agreement presented the said I. S. who was instituted c. all shall be void for he is presented here by reason of this corrupt agreement between the Patron who then was and the parson and the elder Brother was only used to convey a bad gift by a good hand and all had reference to the corrupt agreement with the assent of the Patron who then was but here in our case was no agreement assented unto by the Parson and this diversity also seems to be good that if A. hath the presentation and B. the nomination to a Benefice and the Presentor upon a corrupt agreement makes a presentation unknown to the Nominator here the Nominator shall not be preâ—udiced within this statute As to the second matter it seemes that by the demise of the Queen this presentation is not countermanded or repealed in Law and therefore he said that he would agree that if the Qeen had made such an Act which was only a bare Authority without interest this will determine by her death as it was ruled for a Letter of Atturney to execute livery of Dutchy Lands for this is a bare Authority and is a means to do a thing to her prejudice and he agreed that by implication or without cause a common person could not vary from his presentation as if a Feme sole present and intermarry this is not controuled by her marriage for it is a thing which is not to her prejudice and he vouched Cook lib. 4. Forse and Hemlins case and one Marke Ogles case proveth that the death of a Common Patron is no revocation of his presentation for if a man present and dye if it be a disturbance his Executors may have a Quare impedit and much more in the case of the King who dyeth but he well agreed that the King might have repealed his presentation and after have resumed it again which proveth that it is not a meere Authority but mixt with an interest for an Authority revoked cannot be revived but without Actuall repealing it is not to be avoided and therefore he vouched Sir Thomas Wrothes case in Plowden fo 457. That if the King grant to one licence to purchase Land in respect that by a means this doth acquire an interest to a party this doth not determine by the demise of the King although the Grant be not for the King and his Successors so here this presentation is a meanes to give an interest to the Party and therefore is not determined by the Demise of the King and he vouched 1. Ma. Dyer fol. 92. and so if it be a Licence dispensative this is not determined by her death and he vouched 3. E. 3. fo 29. cited in Sir Thomas Wrothes case see more after Mich. 7. Jacobi in the Exchequer Sir Daniel Nortons case IN Sir Daniel Nortons case it was agreed that where one Oglander was chargable to the King for 27. l. for an Amercement for which Processe issued out of this Court to Sir Daniel Norton Sheriff of Hampshire to levie it and his under Sherif being Chamberlain came to Oglander upon another occasion and Oglander said unto him Chamberlain you do owe vnto me 30. l. by bond I pray you pay me whereunto Chamberlain said you are to pay me 27. l. for an Amercement which I ought to Levy against you by
Heir except that judgement be given against the Ancestor and for that see 40. E. 3. Executors 74. and 41. Ass pl. 15. and 15. Eliz Dyer 322. And also if a Recusant had been convicted upon the Sat. of 23. Eliz. and dyed before judgement cleerely this forfeiture shall never be charged upon the Heir for the words are that a Recusant shall forfeit 20. l. a moneth and if he doe not pay it then appoints the recovery by Bill Plaint or Information and this ought to be alwaies in the life of the party then the Stat. of 28. Eliz. maketh not a new debt or Forfeiture but gives a penalty for the non-payment of that which was a debt within 23. Eliz. and that the intent of the Stat. of 28. Eli. was but such this is proved by the Title of the Act. viz. for the more speedy and due execution c. 2. It is proved by the first words of the Act for the avoiding of all delaies c. so that it appears that this Act is but as a penalty meerly Also he said that this Stat. of 28. Eliz. dispenceth with the conviction as to the penalty but doth not take away the Conviction also he said that conviction without Iudgement maketh not a Debt Also he who is convicted by proclamation and dieth is discharged Also he said that our Case hath been compared to a Debt upon an Obligation but this is not like for the Stat. stands not indefinite but hath reference to 23. for otherwise a Recusant may be doubly charged that is upon both the Statutes for there is no means to recover the Debt but by this Statute of 23. Eliz. See Sir Edward Walgraves case Dyer 231. Wentworth and others against Stanley WEntworth and his Wife and Rich and his Wife brought an Ejectione firmae against Stanley and shewed in their Declaration how one Edward Stanley was seised in Fee and infeoffed the Earl of Darby others to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the Plantiffs wife for 100. years and died and the Plantiffs entred and the Defendant ejected them c. and this Feofment was made in 40. Eliz. the Defendant saith that long before one Richard Stanley was sesed in Fee and gave it to the said Edward Stanley in tail and that he so seised made a Feefment to the uses as is alledged and died and the Plantiffs entred and the Defendant as issue of the Feoffor re-entred and so by his pretence his is remitted whereupon it was demurred and upon the opening this case the Barons were clear of opinion that the issue in tail is remitted and came paramount the lease and so the lease for years is gone also by the chief Baron and Baron Snig there needs no Traverse to be alledged by the Plantiffe because it was but of a fee gained in an instant by the feofment of a Tenant in tail and a fee-simple gained in an instant needeth not to be Traversed 5. H. 7. and 2. E. 4. wherefore the Court said that judgement ought to be given against the Plantiffs but yet at the desire of the some the Court gave day to the Councel on both parts to argue the case at which day came Heneag Finch for the Plantiffs and he argued to the matter in Law and therein he said that by the feofment of Tenant in tail the use to himself for life the remainder to his daughters for years without limiting the residue of the use that in this case the residue of the use shall be in the feoffes and not in the feoffor for by him there is a difference between a feofment by him who had a fee with limitation of an use as above and a feofment made by him who derives an estate out of a fee for when Tenant for life or Tenant in tail makes a feofment and limits an use for part of the estate as above there the residue of the issue shall be to the feoffee and he vouched Castle and Dods case adjudged in the Common Pleas 8. Iac. that if Tenant for life grant over his estate without limiting of an use it shall be to the use of the grantee more strong here in a tortious act as our case is but if Tenant in tail will levy a fine with limitation of uses as above there the residue of the use shall be to the use of the Conusor Secondly admit that the residue of the use in this case shall he to the feoffor yet he shall not be remitted to the use as it seemeth the words of the Statute of 27. H. 8. are that cestuy que use shall have like estate in the land as he had in the use and therefore it is clear that the first taker of the use shall not be remitted as it is resolved in Amy Townsends case in Plowden and although the words of the Statute mention not heirs or issues yet by the intent of the Statute they are in equal degree but the Books which are against this opinion are two viz. 33. H. 8. Dyer fo 51. but there it is not expresly said that the issue is remitted but 34. H. 8 Br. remitter 49. is expresly against me but the same year in Dyer fo 54. it is there made a quere and in Bevils case it is only said that the first taker of the use cannot be remitted but of my opinion was Baldwin and Shelley in 28. H. 8. Dyer 23 24. and in Sanages case and 29. H. 8. it is resolved that if a man hath land by Act of Parliament there shall be no remitter and so here wherefore c. and he said if Tenant in tail be the remainder in fee and Tenant in tail makes a feofment to the use of himself in tail the remainder to him in remainder in fee in this case he in the remainder in fee shall not be remitted for then the first taker should be remitted to the pleading it seemeth that the bar is not good and first the general demurrer here doth not confess the matter of fact no more then in Gawins case in 29. H. 8. fo 40. by Brown a demurrer upon account in an appeal is no confession of the fact and in 44. Eliz. in Crisp and Byrons case accordingly see Sir Henry Browns case before a good case to this purpose then as to the Bar it seems it is not sufficient for want of a Traverse of a seisin in fee alledged in the feoffor who was Edward Stanley for it is a rule that two affirmatives cannot be allowed in a Declaration and the Bar without Traverse of that which is mentioned in the Declaration is not good except there be cause of some impossibilitie or inconvenience but yet this is to be understood where the affirmatives are express and not by implication as in Moiles case if the Defendant in his Bar confess a fee determinable he needs not Traverse the fee alledged by the Plantiffe but in our case here is an allegation made by the
Bent and another for a Close it was ordered and an Injunction accordingly awarded that the Defendant should suffer the Plaintiffe to injoy the said Close with the appurtenances until c. and contrary to this order the Defendant had put his Cattle into the Close and thereupon an Attachment issued to answer this contempt and he said that he put in his Castle for a title of Common and it was ruled that this was no breach of the Injunction because the Common was not in question in the Bill but only the title of the Close wherefore he was discharged of the contempt and with the appurtenants doth not include the Common to be taken in the said Close Henry Clares case UPon a motion made by Serjeant Barker it appeared that one Henry Clare was indebted to the King and was seised of a third part of certain lands in Norfolk and that Mr. Richardson of Lincolns Inne was seised of other two Acres of the same laud as Tenant in Common and the beasts of Mr. Richardson pastured promiscuously upon all the land and Henry Clare put more Cattle in and upon proces to levy this debt for the King the Sheriffe took the Cattle of Mr. Richardson and sold them and it was now ruled that in regard it was lawful for a Tenant in Common to put in his Cattle upon all the land and that if they depasture all the grass the other hath no remedy and for that cause the Sheriffe could not take those Cattle for the debt of another Tenant in Common but otherwise it would be if the Cattle had been levant and Couchant upon the land of the Kings debtor and in the principal case the Sheriffe was ordered to restore the monie to Richardson for which they were sold and that if they were worth more yet the Sheriffe should not be charged therewith except it could be made appear some fraud in the sale or that sufficient suerties were to pay and discharge the dutie but if my Cattle are levant and Couchant upon the land of the Kings debtor the King may distrain them damage Feasant but he cannot distrain them for the debt by Tanfield chief Baron and Altham clearly to which Baron Bromley consented but Snig said beware of that Smith and Jennings case VPon evidence to a Iury it was said by Tanfield that if a man make Charter of Feofment of lands in two Towns and a Letter of Attorney to make livery and before livery made by the Attorney the Feoffor himself maketh livery of the land in one Town this is a Countermand of the Letter of Atturney and so livery cannot be made by the Attorney in the other Town and quere if the Towns were in several Counties Bacon the Kings Solicitor said that if a man make a Charter of Feofment of two several Acres whereof one is in lease for years and the other in demeasne and the Feoffor makes a Letter of Attorney to make livery and before that be executed the Feoffor himself makes livery now although that one Acre cannot pass by this livery because it is in lease yet this is a Countermand and revocation of the authoritie given by the Letter of Attorney for his intent is manifest so to be to which Tanfield and all the Court agreed Hobert Attorney general said that in this case although that one of the Acres was in lease yet in regard it appeareth not that the Lessee was in actual possession therefore he conceived that it should be construed that the Lessee was not in actual possession at the time of the livery made by the Lessor in the name of all and in respect there was no house upon the Acre in Lease it may be intended that the Lessee should be in actual possession but for that cause he rather conceived that it should be construed that the Lessee was not in possession and so the livery might well operate to pass it Tanfield and all the Court denied that the livery was good to pass it although that the Lessor was in actual possession but where Mr. Atturney alledged further that before the livery made an Infant had a Term for years in this Acre in lease and that the Feoffor at the time of the livery was gardian to the Infant and thereby had a possession therein and therefore the livery made in the other Acre in the name of all should be good to pass all to which the Court agreed and thereupon directed the Iury to finde the livery and seisin to be made of all and in this case the Court inclined that because this Feofment was made but ten dayes before that the Feoffor committed Treason and in asmuch as it was made to the use of the son being an Infant and not upon consideration of marriage that therefore the Feofment should be fraudulent and void as to the King but the Atturney general said that this Feofment was made in performance of a precedent agreement viz. it was agreed that the Feoffor should make such a conveyance to an use c. and that the wife of the Feoffor also being an Inheritrix should make such a conveyance of her land which was done accordingly and upon proofe of this agreement the Court inclined that it was no fraud and in this case it was ruled by the Court if parties have matter of evidence by the Records of this Court they ought to produce the Records themselves for Copies of them are not allowable It was said by Altham and agreed by the Court that if an Information be exhibited for intruding into a Close the 24th day of March and for the asportation of 9. Cart Loads of Wheat betwixt the 24th of March and the first of October the which the Detendant converted c. and upon not guiltie pleaded the Jury found that the Defendant took three Cart Loads of the said Corn upon the 24th day of March and after before the first of October they took also three Cart Loads more and damages were assessed for all that here no judgement shall be given upon this verdict for the Information doth not charge the Defendant with the taking of any part upon the 24th day of c. and then in regard that damages are more judgement can be given for no part of it see Cook lib. 5. Plaisters case but this case being moved at another day Tanfield said that he having inspected the Record he found the verdict insufficient for another cause because the Jury found that as to one Cart Load of Wheat to the value of 20. l. the Defendant was guiltie and doth not mention to what damage viz. to the damage of 100. s. or otherwise and by him ad valentiam is not sufficient without shewing also to what damage and for that cause by him a venire facias de novo ought to be awarded and so it was done by the Court. Edwards case EDwards case was that an erroneous judgement was given in a Coppihold Court where the King was Lord and this
by seisure of two parts of the land c. then when a Statute gives a new thing which was not at the Common Law and limits a course and means whereby it shall be levied that course ought to be pursued and it cannot be done in any other manner the Statute of 8. H. 6. cap. 12. makes the imbesting of a Record Felony and that this shall be inquired by Iury whereof one halfe shall be Clarks of some of the same Courts and that the Iudges of the one Bench or of the other shall hear and determine it and the case was that part of the offence was done in Middlesex and part in London so that the offence could not have such proceeding as the Statute appointed and therefore it was holden that it should not be punished at all Mich. 41. et 42. Eliz. Betwixt Aggard and Standish the Statute of 8. Ed. 4. cap. 2. inflicts a penaltie upon him that makes a retainer by parol and moreover it is thereby ordained that before the King in his Bench before the Iustices of the Common Pleas Iustices of the Peace Dyer and Terminer every man that will may complain against such person or persons doing against the form of this ordinance shall be admitted to give information for the King and it was holden that the informer could not sue for himself and the Queen upon this Statute for an offence done in any Court not mentioned in that Statute the Statute of 35 Eliz. cap. 1. appoints that for the better and spedier levying and Recovering for and by the Queens Majestie of all and singular the pains duties forfeitures and payments which at any time hereafter shall grow due or be payable by vertue of this Act and of the Act made in the 23 d. year of her Majesties Raign concerning Recusants that all and every the said pains duties c. may be recovered to her use by Action of debt Bill plaint or information or otherwise in any of her Courts of her Benth Common Pleas or Exchequer in such sort in all respects as by the ordinary course of the Common Lawes of this Realm any other debt due by any such person in any other case should or may be recovered wherein no essoin c. Note that this Statute extends not to any penaltie upon the Statute of 28. Eliz. cap. 6. also the Common Law doth not give any means to levie a debt upon a trust and as to the general point it seems that no land can be seised after the death of the Recusant 23. Eliz. cap. 1. enacteth that every person of the age of 16. years which shall not repaire to some Church c. but forbear the same contrary to the Tenor of the Statute made in the first year of her raign for uniformity of common prayer and being thereof lawfully convicted shall forfeit to the Queen for every moneth which he or she shall so forbear 20. l. And that statute doth give no forfeiture at all for Lands And also it giveth no penaltie without conviction so that the death of the party before conviction dischargeth all and so without question it was at that day This last Point seems to be remedied in part by the Statute of 28. Eliz. cap. 6. for thereby if the party be once convicted he shall alwaies pay after without other conviction and this Statute gives also a Seisure but before any seisure Three things ought to concur 1. Recusancy 2. Conviction 3. Default of payment And the last of these was the tâ—ue cause of the seisure viz. That is the contempt of not payment Therefore it was adjudged in Sir William Greenes case that this seisure shall not go in satisfaction of such debt but the King shall hold it as a penalty for the contempt untill the debt be paid so that when a Statute imposeth a penaltie for a contempt as the contempt is personall so is the penalty And therefore the death of the party before that it be excuted or turned in rem judicatam dischargeth all and I shall prove it by the different plea in an Action upon a penall Statute and other common Actions and therefore in debt not guilty is no plea but in debt upon a penall Law it is a good Plea for in truth untill it be adjudged it is no debt but a contempt Michaelmas 41 42. Eliz. betwixt Car and Jones and in debt upon the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. not guilty was adjudged a good plea Trin. 42. Eli between Morley Edwards 2. It may be proved by the different forms of judgment for in common actions the judgment is Quod quaerens recuperet c. But in informations the usuall form is Quod defendens foris faciet 41. Ass which implies that it is not perfect untill the Iudgement and before it is only a contempt and if so then by the death of the party it is discharged Thirdly I shall prove it by Authority that the death of the parties before Iudgement dischargeth aswell the contempt as the penaltie of a penall Law 40. Ed 3. Executor 74. debt lies not against the Executors of a Iaylor who suffers Prisoners to escape 15. Eliz. Dyer 322. in the like Case the opinion of the Court was that an Action did not lye against the Executors of the Warden of the Fleet. but there ought to have been a Iudgement against him in his life time for the Offence is but a Trespass by negligence which dies with the Person 18. Eliz. Dyer An Action brought against the Heire and ruled that it doth not lie for it is a Maxime that no Law or Statute chargeth the Heir for the wrong or trespasse of his Father Also it is to be observed in the Principall Case that the Statute limits the seisure to be by Proces out of the Exchequer so no seisure can be without Proces as it may be upon some other Statute But a judiciall course is hereby prescribed whereupon the Partie may plead with the King for his Land and therefore if that course be not pursued in the life of the party it is too late to pursue it after his death Also the words are that he shall seise all the goods and two parts of the Lands of such Offendors But after his death the goods are not his but his Executors and the Lands are not his but his Heirs and a seisure by way of penalty relateth no higher then to the time of the seisure also the words of the subsequent Proviso explame it further for it it be demanded when the King shall seise two parts it is answered at the same time when he leaveth the third part and when must be leave the third part it is auswered in the life of the Recusant That it may be for the maintenance of his Wife Children and Family and after his death he hath neither Wife Children nor Family for in a Writ of Dower the Demandant shall say that she was Wife and not that she is Wife As to the
last matter it seems that the Statute of 1. Jac. cap. 4 hath discharged this Land admitting that it was not discharged before wherein the words are and if any Recusant shall hereafter die his Heir being no Recusant That in every such Case every such Heire shall be freed and discharged of all and singular the penalties charges and incumbrances happening upon him or her in respect or by reason of his or her Ancestors recusancy and as to Walter de Chirtons Case who being an Accomptant to the Ring purchased Lands of A. with the Kings money by Covin and took the profits neverthelesse upon Inquisition it was adjudged that they should be seised into the Kings hands for his debt I agree that to be good Law because A. when he received the said money of Walter de Chirton that being the Kings monie A. immediately thereby became a Debtor and an Accemptent to the King and then into whose hands soever these Lands do after come they are still chargable for that money and therefore c. Sawyer against East AN Ejectione firme was brought by Sawyer against East for certain Mills in East-Smithfield in the County of Middlesex the Case upon a speciall Verdict was this Queen Eliz. 28. of her raign demised two Mills one Messuage and one Curtilage to Potter for 40. years Potter makes Mary his Wife Executrix and dies Mary marries one Burhill who in 33. Eliz. did demise one Messuage and one Curtilage to Wilkenson for 20. years and dies and Mary intermarries one Hitchmore who by deed inrolled in Chancery 20. Marcii 44. Eliz. reciting the originall Lease and that he had the whole Right State and Interest and term of years which Potter had and that he surrendred the estate and term of years aforesaid to the Queen reciting the matter mentioned in the surrender and that the Interest and Term which Potter had is come to Hitchmore and that Hitchmore had surrendred the whole right aswell for 30. l. as for that that Hitchmore did assume at his proper charges to repaire and new build the said Mills being in great decay and to give security for the same did demise the Mills Messuage and Curtilage for 40 years to the said Hitchmore rendring rent with a Covenant to be void for not payment c. and after the King demised the premisses to Ferrers and Philips two contractors who enter and demise to Sawyer who was possessed untill ejected by East who claimed under the lease to Hitchmore and the Iury found that in the Letters Patents to Hitchmore were contained ordinary Covenants to repaire the Mills and to leave them in good repair and the Iury also found that Hitchmore had not given any security for the building and repairing of the Mills and that the Mills were not new built nor repaired and that Hitchmore had pulled down one of the Mills and that the Term of twenty years is yet in being and if upon the whole matter c. Bromley the Puisne Baron saies that it seemed to him that judgement ought to be given for the Plaintiff First the suggestion or surmise in the Patent being false in matter of value and in such a thing which is proper for the information of the Lessee causeth the Lease to be void as in 18. Eliz. Dyer 352. An Abbot makes a Lease for 60. years the Lessee demiseth to I. S. for 80. years the reversion comes to the Queen the 60. years expire the second Lessee surrenders to the Queen his Term and Interest which was nothing in substance to the intention that the Queen should re-grant to him for 20. years this falsitie avoids the Lease and yet it is no such Lease which of necessity ought to be recited and so is 8. H. 7. fo 3. by Vavisor if the King at the suit of I. S. grants the Mannor of D. of the value of 50. marks and this is of the value of 100. marks and this upon the information of the party in this case the grant is void and so is 8. H. 6.28 by Juine if the King be informed by petition that such Land is but of the value of 8. l. a year which in truth is of greater value the patent is void 11. Ed. 4.1 The Patentee suggests that a surrender was made whereas in deed there was no Surrender at all there also the Patent is void and so is 3. H. 7. the Prior of Norwich his case but there it is expressed in the Patent that the party had informed the Queen of a thing which is false and this is not expressed in our case yet it seems to me that there is no diversitie between that case and the case in question for it is plaine that in our case that the surrender and consideration are the information of the party which was the motive to induce the Queen to her grant for the suggestion is grounded upon the surrender the which surrender is fraudulent and deceptive and therefore the Patent is void Altonwoods case Cooke Lib. 1.40 The King grants the Mannor of Riton and Condor where in truth they were two Manners there neither of them passe Fitzh Grants 58. and so here the suggestion is grounded upon the words of the Surrender which are false and deceptive and therefore the Patent is void also it seems that when the Queen grants in consideration that the Grancee did assume to repair and it is found that he had not repaired this not performing of the consideration avoids the Patent and this is proved by Barwicks case Cook lib. 5. if the King will make a Patent for a consideration which is for the Kings benefit be it Executory or executed of Record or not if it be not true or duly performed the Patent is thereby void And here the Covenant or assumption not being performed according to the Queens intention and the consideration of the Grant will also make void the Patent And it may be construed as a Proviso in an Indenture within some Cases doth amount to a Covenant and condition also as it was in the case of Simpson and Titterell and also in the case of the Earl of Pembrook vouched in Cook lib. 2. in the Lord Cromwels case and therefore I conceive that the words super se Assumpsit aedificare is parcell of the consideration aswell as if it had been pro eo quod aedificabit and so avoids the Patent by the not performance thereof Altham Second Baron saies it seems to me that the Iudgement ought to be given for the Planthere are three things considerable in the Case First whether the Lease made to Hitchmore were ever good or not in respect of a false suggestion Secondly whether in that the consideration that he did assume upon himself to repair and the Queen indeed never had any precedent information made of the want thereof do avoid the Patent in the foundation Thirdly admit it be good in the foundation whether the Lease become void afterwards for not repasting And first I
declares the use to be to himself for life and after to T. B. with power of revocation and to limit new uses and if he revoke and not declare then the use shall be to the use of himself for life and after to Henry Becket with power in that indenture also to revoke and limit new uses and that then the fine shall be to such new uses and no other and after 42. Eliz. by a third Indenture he revoked the second Indenture and declared the use of the fine to be to the use of himself for life and after to Hen. Becket in taile the remainder to I. B. c. R. B. dies and T. B. his brother and heire is found a Recusant and the lands seised and thereupon comes H. B. and shews the matter as above and upon that the Kings Atturney demurreth Bromley and Altham Barons that the Declaration of the uses made by the third Indenture was good and he having power by the first to declare new uses may declare them with power of Revocation for it is not meerly a power but conjoyned with an interest and therefore may be executed with a power of Revocation and then when he by the third Indenture revokes the former uses now it is as if new uses had been declared and then he may declare uses at any time after the Fine as it appears by 4. Mar. Dyer 136. and Coke lib. 9. Downhams case and in this case they did rely upon Diggs case Cooke lib. 1. where it is said that upon such a Power he can revoke but once for that part unlesse he had a new power of Revocation of Vses newly to be limited whereby it is implyed that if he had a new power to appoint new uses he may revoke them also Snig Baron to the contrary and said that he had not power to declare 3. severall uses by the first contract which ought to Authorise all the Declarations upon that Fine and then the Revocation by the third Indenture is good and the limitation void and then it shall be to the use of R. B. and his heirs and so by the death of R. B. it doth descend to T. B. the Recusant and also he said that such an Indenture to declare uses upon uses was never made and it would be mischievous to declare infinite uses upon uses Tanfield held that the uses in the second Indenture stand unrevoked and the new uses in the third Indenture are void and then H. B. ought to have the Land again out of the Kings hands The power in the second Indenture is that he may revoke and limit new uses and that the Fine shall be to those new uses and no others and then if there be a Revocation and no punctuall limitation he had not pursued his Authority for he ought to revoke and limit and he cannot doe the one without the other Also he said that after such Revocation and limitation the fine shall be to such new uses and no other then if there be no new uses well limited in the third Indenture the former uses shall stand void Nota it seemeth that if a man make a Feoffement and declare uses and reserve a power to revoke them without saying moe he cannot revoke them and limit new for the use of the Fine being once declared by the Indenture no other use can be averred or declared which is not warranted thereby for he cannot declare the fine to be to new uses when it was once declared before Cook lib. 2.76 That no other use can be averred then that in the conveyauce Cooke lib. 9 10 11. Although that the first uses are determined as if a man declare the use of a Fine to be to one and his Heires upon condition that he shall pay 40. l. c. or untill he do such an Act if the first use be determined the Fine cannot be otherwise declared to be to new uses And therefore it seemes that all the uses which shall rise out of the Fine ought to spring from the first Indenture which testifieth the certain intention of the parties in the leaving thereof and then in the Case above the second Indenture and the limitation of new uses thereby are well warranted by the first Indenture and in respect that this is not a naked power only I conceive that they may be upon condition or upon a power of Revocation to determine them But the power to limit the third uses by a third indenture after revocation of the second uses in the second indenture hath not any Warrant from the first Indenture and without such Warrant there can be no Declaration of such new uses which were not declared or authorised by the first Indenture which Note for it seems to be good Law FINIS AN EXACT TABLE of the Principall Matters contained in this BOOKE A. AN Action of false impriprisonment for taking his wife in execution she appearing as a Feme sole 48 52 An Action upon the Case for conspiring to outlaw a man in a wrong County 49 Amerciament for a By-law 55 An Action upon the Case where against a Servant for breach of trust much good matter 65 66 67 68 Amerciament where well levied by the Sheriff 74 Action by an Executor against a Sheriff in the debet and deâ—â—net where good 80 81 Authority in fact and authority in Law abused a difference 90 Action for these words against I. S. spoken of the Plaintifs wife she would have out her husbands throat and did attempt to doe it 98 C. Custome for Pirates goods if payable 15 Coppy hold surrendred to the use of a younger Sonne he can have no Action before admittance 20 Churchwardens if elected by Vestry-men where good and capable to purchase Lands 21 Conspiracy see Action Collector of a fifteenth leviable upon one Township 65 Commissioners of inquiry and their power 83 84 D. DEbt against the Sheriff for an escape a good Case 20 Distresse for a By-law upon the Kings Tenant he must bring his Action in the Exchequer 55 Devise to the wife until the issue accomplish 18. years endeth not by death of the issue before 56 57 Decree where execution thereof may be stayed 68 69 E. ERror a Writ directed to an inferiour Court ought to be executed without fee paid or tendered 16 Elegit the party who sued it dieth no scire facias for the Heire 16 Equity where releviable in the Exchequer 54 Estreats where they may be discharged for insufficiency in the Indictment or not mentioning the offence 55 Estoppell in the Kings case 65 Exception in a Grant 69 Escape a difference where caused by a rescous and where by the Sherif or Bailif 70 71 Executor see Action 80 81 Erroneous judgement given in the Kings Mannor reversed in the Exchequer by Petition 98 F. A Feoffement to the use of the Husband and Wife for their lives and after to the heirs of the body of the wife begotten by the Husband what estate 17 First fruits ought
Slade and Morleys case a case was put which proves it to be according Snig Baron agreed that Iudgement ought to be given for the Plantiff and by Tanfield if I take your goods and detain them until I have caused you to pay me 10. l. a general Action of Trespass lieth and not an Action upon the case and it is cited 7. H. 4. or 7. E. 4. to be accordingly but yet he agreed that judgement should be entred and so it was appointed to be done but then Chibborn for the Defendant said that here is a mistrial for if this trust be not material because it is not effectually shewed in the Declaration as you have argued then the Venue shall come only from the parish where the Wares were laid upon the land and not from the parish also where the appointment or trust was made by the Plantiff and therefore the trial also being from both parishes is a mistrial and the Court agreed that this is a mistrial upon that reason for now the appointment or Trust is but an inducement and therefore needs not to be shewed within what parish it was made and therefore a new Venire facias was granted and upon that a new trial and damages more then before and judgement was given accordingly Arden against Darcie NOta a good case of Attornament which was decreed in the time of Baron Manwood betwixt Arden and Darcie and it was this one Arden was seised in fee of divers lands in the County of c. and made a lease for years and after made a feofment with words of Grant of those lands to A. and B. to the use of the feoffor and his wife for their lives the remainder to Arden his son in tail and after the feoffor said to the Lessee that he had conveyed his land which the Lessee held in lease to the uses aforesaid and the Lessee said I like it well and after he paid his rent to the feoffor generally and it was decreed in the Exchequer Chamber that this is no Attornament because the Attornament ought to be to the feoffees and it appeareth not that the Lessee had notice of the names of the feoffees and therefore it cannot be said to amount to an Attornament but notwithstanding that Decree Arden the same to whom the remainder was limited had his Action depending in the Kings Bench to trie the point again as he said to me also this Term a point concerning the said Decree was in question upon another Bill exhibited in the Exchequer Chamber by Sir Edward Darcie against Arden and the case was as followeth Sir Edward Darcie exhibited his Bill here in the nature of a scire facias against Arden to shew cause wherefore the said Edward Darcie should not have execution of a Decree made in the time of Baron Manwood and the Defendant shewed that Darcie in his first suit supposed by his Bill that he had a grant of the land then and now in question from Queen Elizabeth rendring rent as it appears by the letters Patents and in facto there was no rent reserved upon the Patent and that the Defendant gave answer to the said Bill and admitted the Iurisdiction of the Court and after a Decree was made against the Defendant and the Defendant now having shewed this special matter demurred upon this Bill in respect that by his pretence the Court had not jurisdiction to hold plea in the first suit and here it was shewed that the first decree was made upon a matter in Law not properly examinable by English Bill and that in facto the Law was therein mistaken and therefore the Defendant prayed that the decree may be re-examined Tanfield chief Baron it is usual in the office of Pleas that if an action be brought as a debtor of our Lord the King this is good although that de facto no suggestion be made thereof if it be not shewed on the other side and therefore a writ of Error for this falsity shall not cause the judgement to be reversed as it was resolved in a case in which I was of Councel and so here as it seemeth Altham Baron here we are in equity wherein we are not tied to so strickt a course as if it were in the office of pleas Brock of the Inner Temple for the Defendant in a Court of equity it is in the discretion of the Court to deny Execution of a decree if good cause be shewed and in 18. E. 4. fo 1. judgement was given against a married wife by the name of a feme sole and reversed although she did not shew in the first suit that she was married and in 8. E. 4. judgement was given in the Kings Bench in a suit and by writ of error was reversed although the Defendant had admitted the Iurisdiction of the Court and the chief Baron and all the Court inclined that Arden may exhibit a Bill to reverse this Decree made against him and may shew what point in Law the Iudges mistook in the Decree or otherwise we should not do as Law and Iustice requireth for it is not expedient to be examined by way of Bar to this Bill in the nature of a scire facias and after Arden according to the Decree of the Court and their direction did exhibit his Bill in the nature of a writ of error Comprising how the first decree was erroneously made and prayed that the said decree might be reversed and in his Bill he shewed the point in Law which was decreed and that upon divers long conveyances appears to be thus and so it was agreed by Councel on both parties that Arden the father was seised of the Mannor of Cudworth in the County of c. and was also seised of the Mannor of Parkhal in the same County and of Blackclose c. which was parcel of the Mannor of Cudworth but lying neer unto Parkhal and alwayes used and occupied with it and reputed parcel thereof but in truth it was parcel of Cudworth and that Arden the father made a Conveyance of the Mannor of Parkhal and of all the lands thereunto belonging and reputed as parcel thereof or occupied with it as part or parcel thereof and of all other his lands in England except the Mannor of Cudworth to the use of Arden his son that now is Plantiffe here and if Blackclose will pass to the son by this conveyance or if by intendment it shall be excepted by the exception made it was the question here and was decreed in the time of Baron Manwood that it is excepted by the exception but all the Barons now thought it to be a strong case that Blackclose is not excepted by the exception of the Mannor of Cudworth and so the first decree was upon a mistake out of the Law and Tanfield chief Baron said that the point is no other but that I infeoffe you of Blackacre parcel of the Mannor of D. exceyt my Mannor of D. this doth not except the King
by express terms quaer if in this case there was any land occupied with Parkhal which was not parcel of Cudworth nor of Parkhal for if so then it seems that Blackclose will be within the exception in regard that the words and lands occupied therewith viz. Parkhal are well satisfied Harris Serjeant said that the case is to be resembled to the point in Carter and Ringsteeds case concrrning the Mannor of Odiam where a man was seised of of a Mannor within which the Mannor of D. did lie and is parcel thereof and he by his will devised the Mannor of D. excepting the Mannor of Odiam where the Mannor passeth by the devise and is not excepted Snig and Altham Barons agreed that this proves the case in equity but by the chief Baron Tanfield because this is a rare case that we should reverse or undo a decree made by our predecessors in the very point decreed by them it is good to be advised and therefore they directed Arden to finde presidents if he could by search made for them in the said case and therefore the Attorney general who was of Councel for Darcie had demurred upon the Bill which was exhibited by Arden and that he being not present day was given until another term to hear Councel on both parts at which day the Attorney said that he conceived it a strange case and without president that a Court should impeach and reverse the decrees given in the same Court and that if it should be suffered the subjects would be vexed and troubled without any end or quiet and this stands with the gravity of every Court to maintain their own judgements and therefore several Statutes were made to reverse judgements upon erroneous proceedings and judges of other Courts constituted to examine them which proveth that before the Statutes aforesaid and without aid of them the Iudges would not reverse their own Iudgements and so here Harris to the contrary it is not without presidents that in a Court of equity one and the same decree in the same Court hath been reversed by decree of the same Court upon some consideration had of the erroneous misprisions of Law and it is no dishonour to a Court of justice so to do for matter in Law but otherwise it were for matter of fact for then that betrayeth an Ignorance in the Iudges which would be a dishonour to the Court but for Law men are not Angles and for that point there may be errour to prove that the Court of equity may do so he vouched the Book of 27. H. 8. fo 15. Martin Dockwraies case which is our very case ruled in the Chancery and so he said that in this Court 3. Jac. a decree made in the time of Baron Manwood was reversed upon the like reason and Tanfield chief Baron said to Serjeant Harris that if it appear by your president that if the same matter in Law which was decreed was reversed in the same point in Law then this proveth for you but if it were for matter of fact otherwise it is and therefore we will see your president Kent and Kelway KEnt and Kelway entred Hil. 6. Jac. Rot. 722. in the Exchequer in the case between Kent and Kelway which was debated Pasc 8. Jac. the Iudges pronounced in the Exchequer Chamber that judgement ought to be affirmed notwithstanding their opinion before to the contrary as it appeareth and therefore I demanded of Mr. Hoopwel Clark of the Errors what was the reason of their opinions and he told me that the case was debated by them this Term at Serjeants Inne and then they resolved to affirm the Iudgement and the reasons as he remembred were as followeth and he also delivered unto me the case as he had collected it out of the Records and delivered it to the Iudges which was that the Plantiff in the Kings Bench declared that one Benjamin Shephard was indebted to him in 300. l. and that he sued out of the Kings Bench an Alias Capias directed to the Sheriffe of N. to the intent to compel the said Benjamin Shephard upon his appearance to put in Bail according to the custome of that Court for the Recovery of his debt which writ was delivered to John Shaw Sheriffe of the said County to be executed the Sheriffe made his warrant to the Bailiffe of the liberty of the Wapentake of Newark and the Plantiffe himself delivered it to James Lawton Deputy of the Lord Burley the Kings chief Bailiâ—e of that liberty to be executed and the Deputy Bailiffe by vertue of the said warrant arrested the said Benjamin Shephard whereupon the Defendant with others made an Assault and rescued the said Benjamin Shephard out of the custody of the said Deputy Bailiffe whereby he lost all his debt and damages were assessed at 172. l. and cost 10. l. and in this case the Iudges agreed that notwithstanding the Defendant had rescued the said Benjamin Shephard out of the hands of c. when the said Benjamin Shephard was arrested upon an Alias Capias out of the Kings Bench which writ is only in nature of a plea of Trespass yet the party who rescued him shall answer in this action damages for the debt because the Plantiffe by this means had lost his debt And yet it is not shewed that the Rescuer knew that the Plantiffe would declare for his debt but if in this case the Sheriffe or Bailiffe had suffered a Negligent escape they should be charged only with the damages in the same plea as the writ supposeth and no for the debt and so a diversity also they agreed that the Declaration is good enough to say that he was rescued out of the hands of the Deputy Bailiffe and the course in the Kings Bench was alwayes so upon the return of a rescue notwithstanding the Book of the 7. Eliz. Dyer fo 241. also it was resolved that the Declaration was good saying that he sued an Alias Capias without mention of any latitat before sued also it was agreed that the arrest was good made by the Deputy Bailiffe by vertue of a warrant delivered to the Sheriffe but quere if they should not examine if the Bailiffe had a power given to make a Deputy by his Patent for this appears not in the case Bently and others against Leigh in Trespas Hill 45. Eliz. Rot. 1231. Trin. 7. Jac. in the Exchequer TPe Iudges affirmed a Iudgement this Term between Leigh Plantiffe in a writ of Error and one Bentley and others Defendants and the matter assigned for Error was because the Trespass was brought in the year 45. Eliz. for a Trespass made in the 42. Eliz. and the judgement upon the verdict was against the Defendant and the Margent of the Roll it was entred quod Defendens capiatur where it ought to be pardonatur as he pretended for the general pardon which was in 43. Eliz. had pardoned the fine to the King for the Trespass and this is a thing whereof the Iudges