in capite and others in Soccage and he made a devise of all his fee simple lands and left only his lands in tail to descend to the heir which doth not amount to a full third part this is a good devise of all the fee simple lands and this case was also admitted that where the Lord Norrice gave land to Sir Edward Norrice his youngest son and to the heirs of the bodie of the father and then the Lord Norrice died and after Sir Edward died without issue that the son of the eldest Brother who was then dead shall take that as heir in tail and that he in this case had that by a descent from Sir Edward Norrice his Vncle which also doth clearly prove that in this Sir Edward Norrice son of the Lord Norrice was in this case Tenant in tail The residue of Easter Term in the two and twenty year of King James Stephens and Randal IN replevin between Stephens and Randal who made Conusance as Bailiff to the Earl of Bath and he shewed that such land was parcel of such a Chantrey which came to King Edward 6. by the Statute of 1. Edward 6. and also he pleaded the saving of the said Statute by which the right of others was saved and pleaded all incertain and shewed that so much rent was behinde upon which he made Conusance as c. to which the Plantiff replied that the land is out of the fee and signiorie of the Earl of Bath c. and this was ruled to be no plea for he confessed so much in his avoury and this avoury is not for rent service for the signiorie is extinct by act of Parliament but this is for rent reserved by the saving of the act of Parliament and this is a rent seek and yet is destrainable for the priviledge which was before but he may traverse the tenure that at the time of the making of the Statute nor never after this was holden of the said Earl of Bath Priest and King Priest and King in an action of which was entered between them Trin. 21 Iac. Rot. 3595. and this was debated between the Iudges and the Prothonotaries and the case was that two were bound for the appearance of an other and judgement was given against the debtor now if upon the capias he come and offer his bodie and the Plantiff refuse that yet that discharges the sureties but the Prothonotaries said that notwithstanding this refusal he may take a Capias against him within the year because that at the first he might have had a fierie facias or an elegit quere of that but Winch thought that in this case he ought to have a fierie facias but if he had come upon the Capias and had no suerâ—tes and he refuse to take him and this is so entred now quere if he had not discharged him Hendon moved the Court for a prohibition to the spiritual Court and suggested that one had libeld in the spiritual Court for a legacie and the Executor shewed that he had not assets to discharge the debts of the Testator and that Court would not allow this allegation and upon this he prayed to have a prohibition and it was the opinion of the Court that no prohibition shall be granted for the legacie is a thing meerly which is determinable in the spiritual Court and no other Court may have Conusance of that and this is also a thing which doth consist meerly in the discretion of the Court and resolved that in a thing which meerly doth rest in discretion of the Court in this case no prohibition shall be granted Henry Good against Thomas Good IT was agreed in the case by the Court between Henry Good and Thomas Good that if the devisee of 500. l. sue in the Marches of Wales for this legacie that a prohibition is grantable for though the Court of the Common pleas had no power to hold plea of that yet because that the thing is only triable in the Ecclesiastical Court a prohibition may be granted to reduce that to its proper Court and though the instruction of the Court of the Marches be to hold plea of all such things wheresoever there is no remedie at the Common Law yet this is to be understood of matters of equitie and not to take the jurisdiction from the spiritual Court for in verity the King may not do that by his Letters pattents but yet the Court agreed that if the Executor do suffer a decree against him in the Court of the Marches and not come to them at the first to be releived it is now meerly in the descretion of the Court whether they will grant that or no for that is a means to lengthen suits and to make the more delay before he do recover his legacie If a Capias ut legatum issueth to the Sheriff to take the partie and to enquire what lands and Tenements he had and the Sheriff findes by inquisition that he is seised of many lands and continues possession in them and the Sheriff do out me I shall have an action of trespass John Marriots case SErjeant Crawley moved this case in arrest of judgement in the case of Iohn Marriot and he declared upon a contract to table with the Plantiff at Ashton in Northamptonshire ad tunc ibidem superse assumpsit to pay 4. s. by the week for his diet and Crawley moved that this ought to have bin tried in Northamptonshire for these words ad tunc et ibident refer to Northamptonshire which was next before and not to London Hutton said that it ought to refer to London otherwise it was idle and it is to be intended of the time and the place where the promise was made but it was said if the issue had been whether he was tabled or no this shall be tried there Giles Bray against Sir Paul Tracie GIles Bray brought an action of waste against Sir Paul Tracie and in his declaration he conveyed a good tearm to the Defendant and a reversion to himself and upon a general issue a special verdict was found to this effect that Sir Edmund Bray was seised of this land in his demeasne as of fee and he being so seised 16. Eliz. made this lease for divers years to I. S. and he being so seised of the reversion conveyed that to the use of himself for life without impeachment of waste and then to the use of Edward Bray his eldest son and to Dorothie his wife and to the heirs males of the said Edward upon the said Dorothie to be ingendred and then Edward died having issue in tail the Plantiff and then this lease was assigned to Tracie and then Dorothie died and then the waste was committed and then Edmund the Grandfather died and the question was whether in this case an action of waste will lie or no. The argument of Serjeant Harris HArris argued that the waste doth lie for the priviledge or despensation which was annexed to the
within the Statute and â—hirdly he had not shewed what time he was received that so it might appeare that he was an apprentice but for half a year and such a retainer is not within the Statute fourthly the conclusion of the information is contrary to the form of the Statute yet this doth not aide the imperfection of the information for such information only extends to matter of circumstance and not to matter of substance Finch Serjeant contrary that the retainer of an apprentice who departs out of the service of his Mr. without a testimonial is within the Statute of the 5th of Eliz. for the same branch is general there being no person who departs c. and an apprentice is a person which departs secondly the clause of the Statute is be it enacted that none of the forementioned retained persons c. and an apprentice is a person which is in a special manner named before Mich. 19. Jac. and therefore he is within the express words of the same branch Thirdly the form of the testimonial proves that for it is I. W. servant to such c. and an apprentice is such a servant Hobert chief Iustice said that it was never the intent of the Statute to make an infant who is an apprentice to be within the danger of the same Statute for an infant at the age of 14. years may be bound to be an apprentice and the punishment which is given by the same Statute is that such person shall be whipt as a Rogue which plainly proves the Statute intends only those who are of full age and if other construction shall be made perchance that the sonne of a gentleman may be punished as a Rogue by such departure and he held that if an apprentice depart with his Mrs. goods delivered to him that in this case he is not within the Statute of the 21. H 8. as another servant is and Serjeant Finch said that there is an express exception and if that had not been that an apprentice had been within the danger of the law but Hobert said that he doubted much whether an apprentice had been within that Statute though the Proviso had not been made but this proves that the makers of the Statute thought this to be a hard matter to make an infant who is apprentice to be within the danger of the same law and for that reason the proviso of the Statute was made Winch said to which Hutton agreed that when the Defendant had pleaded nihil debet and this was found for the Plantâ—ff yet he may move in arrest of judgement if the matter be not within the Statute adjurned In a replevin the Defendant said that he hâ—d property in the beasts absque hoc that the property was to the Plantiff and so prayed judgement of the writ and it was found for the Plantiff and now Harvey Serjeant moved in arrest of judgment for in no book is found such a traverse as this that the Plantiff had not property but only that the property was to the Defendant and secondly the conclusion of the plea is not good for he ought to conclude to the writ and not to the action Hobert 6. H. 7. is that an action of detinue affirmes the property at the time of the action but a repleviant the time of the taking and two men may have such property in the same thing that every of them may have a replevin and Hutton said that when the Defendant in the replevin claimed property he ought to conclude to the action and Hendon Serjeant being only at the barre and not of councell in the case said that the book of entries is that he shall traverse the property of the Plantiff as in the principal case Hutton Iustice said that this was never seen by him but they all agreed that this being after verdict judgement shall be given for the Plantiff Trehern against Claybrook Ent. Tr. 18. Jac. Rot. 650. TRehern against Claybrook in a debt upon a lease for yeares the jury gave a special verdict to this effect that Iohn Trehern Grandfather of the Plantiff was seised of land in fee and let this for forty yeers rendring rent for which the action is brought and that he devised the reversion to the Plantiff in catle the remainder to Leonard Trehern in taile with divers remainders over and with provises in the same will that for the raising of a stock for the Plantiff and for him in remainder his will was that one Griffith and Anne his wife being daughter of the devisor should have the profits and rent of the said land to their own use until the time that the Plantiff and the said Leonard Trehern accomplish the age of 21. years provided alwayes and upon this condition that the said Griffith and his wife within 3 moneths of his decease enter into bond to the overseers of his will in such a summe and in such a penalty as shall be thought fit by the said overseers and this bond to be made by their advice and if the said Griffith and Anne his wife do refuse to be bound as is aforesaid then the overseers shall have the rents and the profits c. and the jury found over that he made two executors and 3. who were overseers and that the 3. October 16. Iac. died and that within 3. weeks after the death of the devisor the executor read the will to the overseers but they found that the overseers did not remember that and if upon all the matter Griffith and Anne his wife had not performed the condition was the question and that if not the reversion was in the Plantiff And the point in law upon the verdict was whether Griffith and Anne his wife ought of their perils to tender the bond within 3. moneths or whether the overseers ought to make the first act and to tender the bond and the penalty for them to seal and Towse Serjeant argued that Anne and Griffith her husband ought to tender the bond at their peril for he said that the condition did precede the estate and therefore if they will have the benefit of the devise then he ought to tender the obligation and vouched Corbets case and 18. Eliz. the devise of land upon condition to pay money he ought to pay that at his perill Attoe Serjeant contrary and yet he agreed that if the condition was to precede the estate then the law was as Towse had said but here he said the estate precedes the condition for all the profits are devised to Griffith and to Anne his wife during the minority of the Plantiff by which it is apparent the estate is presently in the devisees and by consequence the estate precedes the condition and then the sole doubt will be whether Griffith and Anne his wife ought to procure the overseers to make the obligation and to limit the condition or whether the overseers ought to make this first they being the parties instrusted by the Will
the lessee of the Mannor or to the Bishop was the question and it was argued by Serjeant Hendon that this appertaines to the Plantiff and not to Wood and as to that the single point is a Bishop is seised of a Mannor in the right of his Bishoprick and lets parcel of that for life whether the reversion of this parcel be alwayes parcel of the Mannor notwithstanding this lease and he argued that it was not and yet he agreed that if another let as aforesaid the reversion continues alwayes parcel of a thing in possession and that in the case of the King himself as appears by Dyer 230. if the King lets parcel of a Mannor for life the reversion of this parcel passeth to the King for the reversion had all times continuance in the same capacity and no alteration is made of this by force of the lease but where the lease for life is a discontinuance there he gaines a new reversion and this shall not be parcel of the Mannor and for that if a man is seised of a Mannor in the right of his wife and he lets parcel for life this is a discontinuance and he had gained the reversion in his own right and for that reason the reversion may not be parcel of the Mannor as appears by 18. Assises and also he held if Tenant in taile lets parcel of a Mannor for life that were the reversion of this parcel is not parcel of the Mannor for the cause aforesaid and so in our case when the Bishop granted parcel which is not grantable by the Statute now he had discontinued the reversion and had gained a new fee simple which may not be parcel of the Mannor so long as this new fee simple had a continuance and this was his first reason And secondly he argued from the intent of the parties because the intent was that the lease to Wood shall be good and if the reversion of the 20. acres pass to Wood this will make all the lease void for no rent may be reserved out of the reversion but out of the land it self 3. Assise Placito ultimo a Bishop let land and a hundred rendring rent the rent issues out of the land and not out of the hundred and so here it issues out of the land and not out of the reversion which made the lease all void and so he concluded the first point that the reversion of the 20. acres did not pass to Wood the lessee of the Mannors Secondly when the Bishop lets 20. acres of ground rendring rent and this is not confirmed by the Dean and Chapter as it ought and after he lets the Mannor and the successor accepts the rent of the Mannor this acceptance shall not make the lease of the 20. acres to be good admitting that the reversion do pass and when the Bishop had made a lease for 3. lives he may not contract for the reversion and when a lease is meerly void in the creation there no acceptance afterwards may make that good but admitting this to be against him yet the lessee shall not have the Herriot for they are not appendant to the reversion but due only by way of Covenant and the words are yielding c. and this being a Collateral thing it shall not go with the reversion and the Herriot here may not be had without it be delivered by the lessee for life Secondly it is paid only in the name of a Herriot and this is not Herriot service Thirdly it is to be paid upon the death of a stranger and not upon the death of the lessee and all this proves this Herriot to be collateral and he cited Rawlins case a lease for years paying for a fine 20. l. this is a summe in gross and shall not pass with the reversion and so he prayed judgement for the Plantiff Attoe contrary and yet he agreed the case of the husband and wife and of the Tenant in tail for here the lessor gaines a new fee simple but in our case when the Bishop lets for life this is not any wrong for the successor may enter and he shall have this lease not in his natural capacity but alwayes in his politique capacity and for that there is an apparent difference between the cases and for that reason he held that the reversion was parcel of the Mannor and so passed to the lessee and as to that which had been said that the intent of the parties was only that the Mannor in possession and not the parcel in reversion should pass to the lessee for that is most beneficial to the lessor to this he answered that by express words this is granted and no construction shall be made contrary to the very express words of the grant and here though the Defendant had not any title at all to the Herriot yet the Plantiff shall not have a trover and conversion for this because that he himself had not right to this and for that reason judgement shall be given for the Defendant and he also argued that the lease of the reversion is not meerly void but voidable and then the acceptance extends to this see 37. H. 6. the lease of a Priâ—r 2. E. 6. Bâ— Abbots case Vpon which authorities he said cleerly by the Common Law this lease of the reversion is not meerly void but voidable and for that the confirmation of the Dean and Chapter after the Statute of the first of Eliz. had not altered that and for that a lease after the Statute shall not be meerly void and see Lincolns Colledge case Coo. 3. and in our case there is a possibility that the lessee of the Mannor may survive the cestui que vies of the 20. acres and that possibility is sufficient to make this good out of the reversion for then the lessor may distrain for his rent but where no possibility of a distress is there no rent may be reserved as in Iewels case the lease was void for there was no possibility that the lessor shall ever distrain but in our case the lease for years is good for the lessor is not without his remedy for he may have an action of debt upon this reservation 1. H. 4. 2. there a measnalty in gross was let rendring rent and good for by possibility the Tenant may die without heires and yet this is a remote possibility 12. E. 3. execution 112. a reversion granted by fine in tail rendring rent is good and Coo. 5. Elmers case that a reversion being let for life rendring rent is a good reservation at the Common Law and he held without question that where a Bishop is seised of a Mannor which consists part of freeholders and part of Copiholders that a lease of the Mannor rendring rent is good and in our case the reservation of the rent is intire and shall bind the successor and as to that which had been said that the Herriot is Collateral and shall not go with the reversion to this he
Harvey and Blacklock in this Court where the Defendant pleaded such plea in all points as here as to the Fettering for the Defendant fettered the horse of the Plantiff because he was so fierce and so wild to one of his own horses and so continued till he delivered him to the Plantiff and because the horse died within the year the Plantiff brought his action and upon this plea pleaded by the Defendant it was demurred in law and judgement was given for him for Cook who was then chief Iustice said that a horse may be of 40. or 100. l. price and it shall be intollerable to allow such Nusance and secondly he had not made proclamation and so trespass lies against and so in our case Harris Serjeant to the contrary for when the Lord of a Mannor takes an estate he had some kinde of property before the year is expired and for that reason he may detain the estray against the owner till amends is made to him 44. E. 3. 14. 29. E. 3. 6. by Knevet 20. H. 7. by Vavasor and Frewick and if he had property against the owner himself he may use that with moderation to make some benefit of that especially in case of necessity as 22. Assise 5. 6. a man may justifie the beating another if he be in a rage and 6. E. 4. 8. one may justifie the felling of a tree in the ground of another in case of necessity and here is no other way to restrain this Savage Colt and so the justification is good but in this case it was resolved by Hobert Winch and Hutton Iones being in the Chancery First when a beast comes within the Mannor of another Lord this is a trespas but after the seisure for an estray it is a possession of the estray in the Lord and the beginning of property as Hutton used the term so that he may have an action of trespass against any stranger which takes that out of his possession and if he estray into the land of another he may him retake Secondly it was resolved that if the Lord make not proclamation in convenient time that this possession became tortious for the law necessarily imposeth it upon the Lord of the Mannor that he make Proclamation because that otherwise the owner may not come to the knowledge of him Thirdly that the estray within the year is as a pledge in the Custody of the law till amends be made to the Lord and for that reason the Lord may not work him no more then he can work a distress Fourthly it was resolved that if the estray goe into the Mannor of another Lord and the last Lord claims that as an estray the first Lord had lost that but not before claim Fifthly Hutton and Winch agree that he might Fetter the Colt being so fierce and wild for he is answerable for the trespas and wrong which he makes in the land of his neighbours and also to the owner if he lose him and therefore it is unreasonable that he may not keep him safe for his indempnity and that is not like to the case 27. Assise which was urged of the other side also they said fettering is the usual way in the Country to restrain wild horses and therefore if it be in an ordinary manner as he Fetters his own there is not any remedy against the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice was against that last point for the Lord may not hold him in arcta custodia as a prisoner because he had rather the keeping of an estray the the property and for that if the estray go into the land of another Lord the first may not take him again if the other claims him as an estray for the possession was rather in regard of his Mannor then in regard of himself and therefore he shall not answer for the wrong which he doth in the lands of others for the possession is in regard of his Mannor and his Fettering is an abuse and he may not neither use nor abuse an estray and he said over that the Defendant had not well pleaded for another reason because he had not shewed that he proclaimed him in the next market Town within convenient time which convenient time ought to be adjudged by the Court and he said the Lord may not keep him else where within the year then within the Mannor Winch Iustice said the Defendant ought to proclaim an estray ut supra if the year be past for by that he gains an absolute propertie but here where no property is devested he needs not to proclaim him within the year and Hobert commanded this case to be moved again see the last case but one in the book Ruled that after imparlance in debt upon an obligation the Defendant shall be admitted to plead alwayes ready though the 13. Eliz. in Dyer was urged to the contrary Hill 21. Jac. C. P. Hillary Term in 21 year Iac. C. P. Trehern against Claybrook TRehern brought an action of debt against Claybrook upon a lease for years and upon nihil debet pleaded and a special verdict the case was to this effect the Grandfather of the Plantiff was seised of lands in Southwark and he made a lease for years of that to the Defendant at London rendring 45. l. rent and after he devised the reversion to the Plantiff in fee and in his will he set forth that his intent was that his Executors shall have the reversion during the Term upon condition that they enter into bond to pay 34. l. per annum at 4. usual Feasts during the Term and he further devised that this bond shall be made by the advise of his overseers and he limitted all this to be done within 6. moneths after his decease and if his Executors refuse his will was that his overseers shall take the profits upon the same condition and appointed that both obligations be made to the Plantiff and the devisor died and the Executors within 3. moneths shewed the will to the overseers but no obligation was offered to be made within the 6. moneths and the Plantiff required the Executors to enter into the obligation and to pay the rent which was not done and he claimed the reversion and brought his action afterwards in London where the lease was made and not in Southwark where the land did lie and this case was twice argued by Councel at the barre and now it was argued by the 3. Iustices Hobert being absent And Iones Iustice moved a point which was not moved at the barre viz. that the Plantiff is devisee of the reversion and so is privie in estate only and for that reason the action ought to be brought in Southwark where the land lies and not in London where the contract was made but the lessor himself had liberty to bring the action where he pleased in regard of the privitie of estate and contract and so was it adjudged in the Kings Bench between Glover and Humble and here though this be
reversion for life of the Grandfather is no dispensation to the estate of the lessee for though the action was suspended during his life yet now it is on foot again and in many cases an estate may be dispunishable of waste and yet by matter ex post facto this shall be punishable viz. where the first privitie of the estate was determined as in case a lease for years be without impeachment of waste and then the lessor releases to the lessee c. the first privity is gone and he is now punishable in an action of waste and here in our case there was no absolute dispensation but only for the time and yet perchance though the estate is subject to waste in the creation yet if the lessor will afterwards by his deed grant that this shall be dispunishable this may priviledge him but here is no such matter in the case at the bar and of this opinion was the Court and Winch said that there was no difference where the Franke tenement is intercedent for if this be not punishable yet the particular estate shall not participate of that priviledge of him in the remainder and Iones Iustice said if the particular estate had been extracted and drawn out of that estate for life in that case that had been dispunishable but it was agreed by Hendon Serjeant that the Plantiff in his declaration had declared of a waste after the estate for life was determined and they found that this was made in the time of him in reversion for life and so differed but the Court was of opinion that this was nothing to the purpose for it is only a variance from the time and not from the matter for it is not material whether this was before his death or after his death because in both cases this is punishable but day was given over to shew other causes Portington and Beamount IT was argued clearly in the case between Portington and Beamount that if the Court of the Councel of York which is a Court of equitie do decree against a maxime in law as against a joynt Tenant who had that by Survivorship that the heir of his companion shall have the Moietie that in this case a prohibition shall be granted except that during the lives of the parties it was agreed that there shall not be any Survivorship and then they hold plea upon that equitie and then good In Dower it was agreed clearly that if the Tenant shew that before the husband any thing had in the land A. was seised of the same land in fee and leâ— that for years rendring rent and granted the reversion to the husband of the Plantiff who died seised of the said reversion and so demanded judgement if the demandant shall have Dower c. this is no plea in bar of Dower but proves she had title of Dower but this saves the lease for years and she shall have judgement only of the reversion and of the rent and also she doth save to the Tenant damages and the demandant shall be indowed of the reversion Summers against Dugs SUmmers brought an action upon the case upon a promise against Dugs and he shewed in his declaration that the Defendant was rector of the Rectorie of D. and that he and all his predecessors had used to have all manner of Tithes and said that he the Plantiff occupied 100. acres of land in the same parish and shewed that the Defendant promised to the Plantiff that in consideration that he would plant his lands with Hops and so make the Tithes to be the better the Defendant promised to the Plantiff to allow him towards every acre which he shall so plant 40. s. towards the charge in planting them and he shewed that he planted an acre at the request of the Defendant and so upon the promise brought the action and now it was moved whether this was a good consideration to ground an action because the Tithes are not bettered by the planting of that with Hops but by the growing of them and the increase of them and he had not averred that the Tithes were of better value then they were before and it was also moved that he may not have an action for the Rood c. but this afterwards was referred to Arbitrement but the Court said if the Plantiff had shewed in his declaration that he might have made more benefit of that by other means then that by the planting of it with Hops the Tithes also being bettered then it had been more cleare Philip Holman against Tuke PHillip Holman was executor of George Holman and he brought an action of debt against George Tuke and declared upon a lease made by himself by the name of Philip Holman executor of the Testament of George Holman deceased of such land and the said land was delivered to him in execution of a Statute by extent which Statute was made to this Testator and this lease was for years if the Plantiff should so long continue seised by force of the Statute and it was rendring 100. l. per annum and for 3. years rent behinde he brought his action in the debet and in the detinet and also in the declaration he averred that he did continue seised so long by vertue of the extent and Serjeant Bing demurred in law because he said the action ought to be brought in the detinet only because he had brought the action as executor but Hendon and the Court c. Iones and Hutton to the contrary because the lease was made by himself and Hutton said in the case there is difference between a personal contract and real and it was said that an executor shall never be forced to bring his action in the detinet only where he need not name himself to be an executor which note well It was agreed in a case by Hobert that where a man brought an action de parco facto and declared upon the breach of a pound and also of the taking out of beasts and the Defendant as to the taking out of the beasts pleaded not guilty and as to the breaking of the pound he said that he was Lord of the Soil upon which the pound stood and thaâ— he brake of the Lock and put a lock of his own and Hobert said in this case that he ought to plead the general issue for in verity this is not any broach of the pound except the beast come out of it and Iones Iustice was of an opinion that if he put out the beasts he may not have this action because the freehold was in him but he ought to have a special action upon the case Entred in Easter Term in the 19th year of King James Rot. 1672. Ellen Goldingham against Sir John Saunds ELlen Goldingham brought an action of Dower against Sir Iohn Saunds to be indowed of the third part of the Mannor of Goldingham and he vouched the son to warranty as son and heir to Christopher Goldingham husband of
he was seised in fee and that he had power to alien that and this was to encourage the Purchasers and for the form he needs not aver that this was in the hands of Anne Parker for he had confessed that in the bar that he came lawfully to that and besides the Covenant is broken though he never was seised and so I conceive that the Plantiff shall have judgement Winch to the same intent it is true if it had been all but one Covenant then if it had been no question this had not been broken but I think they are several Covenants like to the case of Sir Robert Napper lately adjudged also the first two Covenants are in the affirmative and the other in the Negative and for that they ought to be answered with several pleas and these kinde of assurances are the Common assurances and therefore they ought to be interpreted favourably for the Purchasers and Iohn was not deceived in these Covenants for they brought down upon the deed an estate in fee and it is also agreed if the word Covenant and grant had been divers times added to the several clauses then they had been several Covenants and now it is all one word and made those to be several Covenants and words of relation never will controul that which is certainly put down before and so he concluded in this case the Plantiff shall have judgement to recover Hobert chief Iustice to the contrary every deed ought to be construed according to the intention of the parties and the intents ought to be adjudged of the several parts of the deed as a general issue out of the evidence and intent ought to be picked out of every part and not out of one Word only and here Peter joyned with his father to strengthen the assurance and Iohn had not only his own estate but the estate of Proud and it is plain he never meant to intangle himself with other Conveyances then those which he and Proud had made and I hold this to be no independent Covenant and it is all bound with one clause S. for any Act or Acts made by them c. and it is confessed if these words had been placed in the forefront that then they should relate to all and it is as clear as if they were and the first reson is that the intent appears only to undertake for himself because he should but have part of the land and for that he was to warrant his evidence and to that end he was to deliver to him his title at large in the said indenture and here he had made the Plantiff privie to every several conveyance of that to inform the Purchaser of it and will you also intangle him with a covenant you might have taken notice of his title and it appears to be the very intents of the parties that you should take notice of the title and inform your selves concerning the same Secondly this is a sentence which may be taken both wayes and I say it is agreed that if it had begun with these words notwithstanding any Act or Acts c. that then it shall be all construed by this and I never saw any difference I grant they are several Covenants in point of fact but not in point of obligation for there are not several words of binding nay I say if he had released this last he had released all but it hath been said that one is in the negative and the other is in the affirmative but I do not value that and it hath been said that this is the Common assurance of the Realm and if other construction shall be made then no man shall be sure of his own we had given him leave to say that no reversion nor remainder is in the King by any Act by him made and the King may not have any reversion and he seised in fee also this clause standing indifferent whether this shall be referred to all or not and then the question is how the Court will adjudge of that for my part I take it that this may stand with the intent of all the parties of the deed but take that as you take it that this destroyes all for if he is absolutely seised in fee what matter is where the reversion is and yet if the reversion was in the Crown and not by his Act you confess that may not charge him which is expresly against the first Covenant if this be distinct by it self but take that indifferently and all the parties will stand together Nappers case hath no affinity with this for questionless there were several Covenants for in that indenture it did not appear what estate Sir Thomas Eearsfield had and for that reason nothing might be collected out of that but he had a present estate but in our case all is contained in the bodie of the indenture and Nokes case is a strong case and stronger then the case at the bar is for thereupon construction of all the parties of the deeds the special warrantie controuls the general warranty and the reason is no man will take an express special warranty when the intent is that he shall have a general warranty there was a case lately ajudged between the Earl of Clanrickard and his wife against the Countess of Leicester where the Lady pleaded that she was Tenant in Dower where in veritie she had the revesion in fee expectant upon a Term for life and they conveyed all the estate the Lady had in Dower and then they covenanted that they would convey all their estate to the Lord of Leicester and his heirs during the life of his wife and then Covenanted that they would convey all their estate to the Earl of Leicester and his heirs for ever in the aforesaid land and it was resolved that though such Covenant will raise an use to the partie who ought to have that and so the reversion will pass if there had been no more words now it was but during the life of the Lady for that third part for the Covenant was but to strengthen an estate and not to convey it and so he concluded that the Plantiff should be hard and after it was said by the Court that this case was not of weight to be brought into the Exchequer Chamber and therefore the Court advised that the parties would agree quere for the residue in the Exchequer Chamber concerning that Entred Hill 18. Jac the case of Comendams Richard Woodley against the Bishop of Exeter and Mannering RIchard Woodley brought a quare Impedit against the Bishop of Exeter and Mannering who was Parson of the said Church and he declared that Arthur Basset was seised of an acre of land to which the said Advowson was appendant in his demeasne as of fee and that he the 13. Octobris 13. Eliz. granted the next advowson to one William Manwood who was then incumbent in the said Church who by his will 20. November made one Harcourt his executor
the parties hinders the operation of the law and that law will not provide for him that provides not for himself and the Lady her self was partie to the limiting of the uses and she covenanted that she will be seised by vertue of the fine and under the condition in the indenture and so it is a plain Surrender of her former estate and so I pray judgement for the Plantiff The argument of Serjeant Hendon to the contrary HEndon contrary there are 3. points First whether this be a precedent or a subsequent condition and I conceive it is subsequent and here the indentures being but to declare the uses of the fine and not to create any use ergo it shall be guided by the intents of the parties appearing in them and so is the Earl of Rutlands case Cook 5. and Dyer 357. and Shelleys case and the meaning of the parties was not to raise any use to Robert but only a possibilitie to reduce that by the performance of the condition and first it is here said that the Conusee shall be seised to the uses hereafter expressed and under the conditions and then the use ought to preceed the condition for no man may stand seised under the condition except the condition is subsequent to the use to arise Secondly when is the use to arise to Robert surely when he payes 10. s. and then in the mean time the use is to the Lady and her heirs for tunc had here relation to when as it is said in Boles case Cook 3. and in Grants case cited in Loves case Cook 10. and 17. Ed. 3. 1. all which cases prove that tâ—en had relation to when and before this when he had nothing and this doth appear to be the agreement of the parties and now for the words themselves I take it that they make a subsequent condition and so it is here limited in intention and for that in matter also and it is said in Colthirsts case in Plowden that if the estate doth first pass reducible upon condition then it is subsequent and here it is limited to the Conusee and his heirs if the Conusor do not pay but here it hath been said is inversio verborum and the consequent is placed before the Antecedent and this hath been proved by Logick I never knew cases in law to be expounded by Logical and Grammatical learning but by the intentions of the parties and here I conceive that the estate is vâ—sted in the Conusee by the fine and so the condition is subsequent but admit it is Executory and I say concerning that there are these differences that if the state of the thing granted is executory and that the condition of the thing granted is Executory and the condition is to remain with the estate so long as the estate doth remain the condition is precedent 28. E. 3. 2 4. 3. 1. H. 6. 32. but if the condition be but one time to be executed and that not contained with the estate then it is subsequent 10. Eliz. Dyer Calthorps case but here our estate is executed for it is expresly limited to the Lady Cesar and her heirs which takes away all implied uses so that no implied use shall result in the mean time and so 75. Assises land given to a man and to his heirs if he have heirs of his body now this if is subsequent and so I conceive that it is not a condition simply but a conditional limitation for it appears by Mr. Littleton because it is no otherwise expressed and another reason is because the condition is annexed to the future time ergo that is subsequent and yet I grant there is a difference betwixt such an estate conditional annexed to an interest and where it is is annexed to an authoritie it may be precedent but for an interest it is subsequent as is the case of Bracton lib. 2. fo 3. and now for the second point whether the heir may and ought to perform that and I do conceive that he is and it is not annexed to the person because it is real and doth arise with the land Secondly yet the law doth expect who ought to have performed that but it is the performance it self which the law doth respect 4. E. 3. 2. such condition real which doth arise with the land and in such a case no notice is in that case requisite and the last point is whether the estate for life is gone and I hold that it is saved by the common law of England for the fine only is as the grant of the reversion by the explanation of the indenture and then there is no surrender in the case but when the condition is performed the estate for life doth remain and so was it resolved in Mr. Mansors case and yet I agree that a litle matter will make a surrender and Mr. Ruds case where lessee for years of an advowson was presented by the Patron that was a surrender but the Statute of the 27th of H. the Eighth at the end saved that though it is to her own use for the words of the saving are to every person and their heirs which hereafter shall be seised to any use all such former rights c. possession c. as they might have had to their own use in any lands whereof they be seised to any other use whatsoever and so upon the whole matter I do conceive that judgement ought to be given for the Defendant The residue of the case of Gibson and Ferrers NOw the case of Gibson and Ferrers which see before was argued again by Serjeant Bridgman and he said as before the award is not good for the interest and yet he now agreed that covenants bonds and contracts for usury are good in law but yet it may not be awarded 17. Ed. 4. 5. if a man do submit to Arbitrators they may not award that he and his wife shall levie a fine but if the partie himself do promise that this is good and shall binde the wife to perform that and besides he said that here is an award made only of one side and nothing is allowed to Ferrers and so not good 9. Ed. 4. 29. 29. H. 6. 22. and I pray that the Plantiff may be barred Hendon to the contrary and he argued if an award be good in any part though it be not in that which is assigned for breach yet it is good upon such plea of nullum fecerit arbitrium and the other shews an award and assignes the breach in this case the breach is not traversable for it is of the form and not of the substance of the action but to that the Court did presently answer that the cause of the action is the breach of the award and this he ought to make apparent to the Court for otherwise he shall not have any action and though the breach is not traversable yet it is of the substance of the action for upon such plea pleaded he not only
like to the case of a common for a man may prescribe to have common in another mans land for this is but a reception of the profits with the mouthes of his cattle but in our case it is all one as to prescribe to have the land it self and I may not prescribe to have land it self for I may not say that I and my ancestors had used to have such land for such a prescription is void to which Hobert chief Iustice and all the Court agreed as to that point and then to prove that this is all one as to prescribe to have the land it self he said that if a man lets the profits and the herbage of land for years this is a lease of the land it self as was lately adjudged in this Court which was also granted by the Court also he said that this appears by the 27. of H. 8. 12. that a man shall have a praecipe quod reddat of pasturage or herbage but not of common and a formedon lyes of pasturage 4. E. 4. 2. the Regist fo 177. Ejectione firme lyes of pasturage and so he concluded that upon the matter he prescribed to have the land it self but Hobert chief Iustice and all the Court to the contrary that the prescription is good for that may have a good beginning by grant for a man may lawfully grant the pasturage and the feeding of his land when that is not sowed and by consequence if that may be good by grant it may be good by prescription and judgement was commanded to be entered for the Defendant See prescription 51. and 52. In trespass the Defendant pleaded in barre that such a one was seised of land in the right of his wife and that his wife died seised and that he was heire to her entered and gave Colour to the Plantiff the Plantiff replied that the husband and wife were joyntly seised and that the wife died after whose death the husband was seised by Survivor-shipp absque hoc that the wife died seised and Warberton and Hutton being only present the traverse is not good that the wife did not die seised but it ought to be that she did not die sole seised In trespass for the taking of goods in a place in yorkshire and the Defendant justified as servant to the Bishop of Durham and he shewed that the Bishop of Durham had a Faire and that time beyond memory he and his predecessors had used to seise the cattle that were sold if he who bought them refused to pay toll and if the thing taken was not redeemed within such a time he might sell the same And he justified in a place in Durham absque hoc that he was guilty in Yorkshire and by Warberton and Hutton this is a good traverse to the place for it is local If a Capias issued here to have the body of such a one at Westminster such a day and the Sheriff bring the body or return the writ before the day this is good by Iustice Warberton Tutter against Fryer TUtter against Fryer a rent charge was granted for years with a nomine poenae a clause of distress if that was not paid at the day and the rent was behinde the years incurred and it was moved by Athowe that though the years are incurred that he may distrain for the nomine poenae but the Court was of a contrary opinion for that depends upon the rent and the distress is gone as to both of them Duncombe c. against the Bishop of Winchester c. DUncombe and others against the Bishop of Winchester and others Defendants in a Qu Imp. and the case was that Sir Richard Weston was seised of the said Church in fee in grosse and was convicted of recusancy and a Commission issued to certain Commissioners to seise two parts of his lands and goods and they seised this advowson inter alia into the hands of the King and the King granted the advowson to the Plantiff and the Church became void and whether the King or the university of Oxford shall have that was now the question and it was appointed to be argued the next Term. Potter against Turner IN the Kings Bench Pasch 19 Iac. the case between Potter and Turner was as I conceived to this effect A. was indebted to B. in 20. l. and C. was indebted to A. in 30. l. and A. in satisfaction of the debt which he owed to B. assigned the debt of 30. l. which C. owed to him and made a letter of attorney to sue in his name A. and B. acquainted C. with this agreement and C. promised to B. in consideration that he will forbear till such a day that he will pay him the money and upon this promise he brought the action against C. and he pleadded non assumpsit and it was found for the Plantiff And it moved in arrest of Iudgement that the consideration was not sufficient according to Banes case Coke 9. If executors who had not assets promise to pay a debt of the Testator this shall not binde them because they who made the promise were not chargeable but on the other side it was said by Whitwick of our house that this was a good consideration for the assignement of that debt was lawful and no maintenance at all as appears by 15. H. 7. 6. and a recovery by B. against C. is a good plea in barre in an action brought by A. against C. but Dodderidge Houghton and Chamberlin only present to the contrary for B. here had only an authority to sue and this is at all times Countermandable by A. As if I deliver goods to my servant to deliver over to I. S. and I. S. promise my servant that in consideration that he will deliver them to him he will give him so much money this is no consideration except that they are delivered accordingly for this is only an authority to deliver goods which is alwayes countermandable by me And Iudgement was entered for the Defendant vide 4. E. 4. 14. Ewer and Vaughan IT was said by Dodderidge and A. in the argument of the case between Ewer and Vaughan that it had been adjudged by all the Iustices in one Trewmans case that no writ of error lyes of a judgement given in the Stanneryes in Cornwal A Prohibition to the Admiralty MAny poor Marriners sued one Iones the Master of a ship for wages in the Admiral Court and judgement was given against Iones and now he prayed to have a prohibition and he suggested that the contract was made at London in England and so the suit was not maintainable in the Admiral Court but the prohibition was denyed because he had not sued his prohibition in due time viz. before a judgement given in the Admiral Court which in point of discretion they disallowed and also these are poor Marriners and may not be delayed of their wages so long and besides they may all joyn in a Libel in the Admiral Court but
owner had not any remedy and so here he doubted that when the Sheriff made execution whether he shall have any remedy or no and therefore it is good conscience to allow him to take a bond for that before he make execution for otherwise a great inconvenience may insue for perchance after the extent and before the liberate the parties may agree and then the Sheriff shall not have any thing for all his paines which he had taken in the extent which never was the intent of the Statute but it may be objected that in this case the Sheriff may have an action upon the case against the debtee or the conusee if he make such composition I answer yet this is a great hinderance and trouble to the Sheriff to prosecute the suite and it shall be very inconvenient to allow that the Sheriff shall be allowed no other remedy and then for the third point he argued that the Sheriff shall have 12. d. in the pound for the first 100. l. where the bond exceed 100. l. and 6. d. for that which exceeds for otherwise as the case is he shall have nothing at all for the first hundred pounds for the words of the Statute are if the same be above 100. l. then he shall have 6. d. so that 6. d. only shall be taken for that which is above 100. l. and nothing for the first hundred if this construction shall be made and he also remembred the objection made by Hendon and so concluded that judgement ought to be given for the Plantiff Hobert said cleerly the Sheriff may take a single bill for his fees and that is the ordinary course also he read the Statute of the 29. Eliz. that it shall be lawful to the Sheriff c. and said the words of the Statute made a contract in law for which an action of debt lyes for the Sheriff and he â—â—id to Serjeant Bawtry that the second point will be found to be against him and for the third point that the Sheriff shall have but 6. d. for all in the case the summe exceed 100. l. and so they thought judgement ought to be given for the Defendant and Iustice Winch said that the reason wherefore the summe of 12. d. in the pound is given if that not exceed 100. l. is because that it is as much labour to the Sheriff to execute 100. l. as it is for 500. l. Maps and Maps against Sir Isaac Sidley MApps and Mapps brought an action upon the case against Sir Isaac Sidley upon a promise and shewed that one named Holdish was indebted to the Testator of the Plantiffs in 12. d. upon a bond which became due and that the Defendant in consideration that the Plantiffs will forbear to prosecute a suit upon the same obligation he promised to pay that and the Plantiffs shewed that they had forborn him till such a day c. and upon non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Hitcham Serjeant of the King that this declaration is not good for this forbearance ought to be for ever and not a temporary forbearance only for the Defendant by his promise had made the debt his own as if the assumpsit promise had been to forbear to come to my house this ought to be a perpetual forbearance and here the assumpsion of the Defendant amounts to a release in law to the principal and yet he agreed if this had been generally that he had forborn and had not shewed he had forborn ill such a day the declaration had been good Hobert if the promise had been to forbear till such a day there he may sue the dettee if he do not pay it the day and it was adjourned Mich. 19. Jac. Mabies case MAbies case Hobert in Parson Mabies case if I let my rectory excepting my glebe the exception is void for no rectory may be without glebe and the same law of a mannor excepting the demeasnes but he may except parcel of the glebe and good but in pleading the lease of a rectory this shall be taken for the whole rectory and not for parcel Gratwick against Gratwick GRatwick brought a formedon in remainder against Gratwick and the Tenant pleaded that the day of the purchase of the writ and yet he the Plantiff is seised of the moity of the land in demand and it was argued by Serjeant Harvey that this is no good plea for he ought to shew of what estate he was seised and he may be seised by vertue of a Statute and he vouched the 39. E. 3. 7. Hobert if he had said that he was seised in his demeasne as of fee or as of freehold this had been good and a seisin by force of a Statute is no seisin at all and Hutton said if Tenant plead entry in part pending the wriâ— he ought to say that he entered and expulsed the other for otherwise it is not good and I conceive that the Court inclined that in the principal case that the plea for the cause aforesaid being of a general seisin was not a good plea. Sir Edward Grubham against Sir Edward Cooke AT another day the case of Sir Edward Grubham and of Sir Edward Cooke was moved againe and it was objected by Ashley that the declaration in the audita querela is not good because he had not shewed the day of the Testee and of the return of the writ execution in certainty but only by process such a day out of the Chancery which is not good but he ought to plead all the record of the extent in special and he offered to shew a president of that and secondly he had not shewed the execution of the liberate by which the land was delivered and so there is no express allegation of a grievance Richardson the presidents in the old book of entries are according to our declaration and Hutton vouched the 9. H. 6. and 39. H. 6 and in an action of debt upon a judgement he needs not recite all the record but he may begin at the judgement and as to the second point they all agreed that the party may have an audita querela before an ouster and yet here the showing that it was delivered to the conuser by the liberate is a sufficient averment of the ouster for it may not be delivered without an ouster and ruled that the Plantiff shall have judgement if the Defendant do not shew other cause by such a day Vpon a Capias Vtlagatum the sheriff returned that the party which was arrested had a protection from Lord Stafford who was a Lord of the Parliamen and it was moved by Serjeant Hitcham that the return was not good for the protection of a Lord of the Parliament is not good in a Capias Utlagatum which concerned the King and by Winch Iustice only present in Court the return is cleerly naught and day was given over to the Sheriff to amend his
seisin of the homage and therefore perchance it will be hard to finde my antient president they adjourned and at another day Hutton and Winch being only present judgement was given for the avowant against Whitgift and Hutton said that he had spoke with the other Iustices and they agreed Vpon a motion made by Towse the case was this a man made a lease for one year and so from year to year during the Will of the lessor and lessee rendring rent and the lessee died and the rent was behinde and by Winch being only present if the rent is behinde in the time of the lessee and he dies an action of debt is maintainable against his Executor in the detinâ—t only and so I conceive if that was behinde after his death he may have an action in the debt and the detinet or in the detinet only to which Brownlow agreed Secondly Winch said that when a man made a lease for a year and so from year to year at the pleasure of the parties that this is a lease for 3. years and not for two Thirdly he doubted if the lessee hold over his term so that he is tenant at sufferance what remedy the lessor had for his rent Vpon the reading of a record the case was that a Scire facias issued against the land Tenant to have execution of a judgement given against Ferdinando Earl of Darby in the 15. Eliz. and the Defendant pleaded that a long time before the said Ferdinando any thing had in the land one Edward Earl of Darby was seised of the land and being so seised 3. Mar. infeoffed I. S. to the use of the Lord Strange and his wife in tail the remainder over to the said Ferdinando and made the said Ferdinando heire to the estate taâ—le and pretended that by this meanes the land should not be liable to this judgement because it was intailed to Ferdinando and of such estate he died seised the Plantiff traversed the feofment made by Edw. Earl of Darby and the jury found that the feofment was made by Edward Earl of Darby to the same persons as the Defendant had pleaded but this was to the use of the feoffor for life the remainder over to the Lord Strange and his wife the remainder as before and whether this shall be intended the same Feofment which the Defendant had pleaded was the question because the estate for life was omitted and upon the special verdict that was the question and Attoe said that if the jury had found this feofment made to other feoffees though the estate had agreed this should be found against the Defendant and Winch Iustice said that there was such estate found as had taken away the execution or extent and the estate for life is not material but it was adjourned till another day A man Covenanted to make such assurance as shall be devised by the counsel of the Plantiff so the same assurance be made within the county of Norff. or the Citty of Norwich and the Plantiff assigned the breach and shewed that in this case his Councel devised that a fine should be leavied of the same land which was not done and it was moved by Serjeant Attoe that in this case the breach was not well laid because he had not shewed where his councel devised that the fine should be leavied In the case of a prohibition in case of a libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for the tithes of Cattles the Plantiff alleadged that those Cattle of which Tithes were demanded are for his Dairy and for the plough and Winch being only present said that the parson shall not have Tithes of such Cattle but if he bred up Cattle to sell it is otherwise secondly the Plantiff in the prohibition alleadged that time beyond memory the parishoners had paid a half peny for the Tithe of a Calf and a penny for a Cow and that upon a day limitted they use to bring this to the Church and to pay this to the Vicar and now the Vicar had libelled in the spiritual Court against them to compel them to bring it home to his house and Winch said that this is no occasion of a prohibition for they agree in the modus but vary in the place of payment and this is not matter of substance and for that reason no prohibition will lie Vpon the reading of a record the case was that the father made a feofment to the use of himself for life the remainder to his son and his wife and to the heires of the body of the son and this was for a joynture for his wife and the father died and the son also died and whether this was a good joynture was the question for all this matter was pleaded in barre of dower brought by the wife and it was ruled to be no good joynture for the feme notwithstanding that the father died in the life of his son and Hutton said if a man made a feofment to the use of himself for life the remainder to his Executors for years the remainder to his wife for a joynture this will be no good joynture within the Statute of joyntures though the feme here had the immediate franktenement In an action of debt against an Administrator who pleads outlawry in the Testator and it was moved that this was no plea for he had taken the Administration upon him Winch a man who is outlawed may not make an executor for if he meet with his goods he shall answer for them to the King and for that reason it seems to be a good plea 3. H. 6. 32. and Brownlow chief Prothonotary said that he could shew a president 27. Eliz. where this is adjudged to be no plea and Iustice Winch said to him shew that president if any such be and upon Tuesday after he shewed that and then Winch agreed Auditor Curle for words AUditor Curle brought an action upon the case and in his declaration he set forth the Statute of 32. H. 8. for the erection of the Court of Wards and that the same Statute appointed the Auditor of the same Court and shewed that the Plantiff was an Auditor of the same Court and that the Defendant such a day and at such a place said of him you have taken money for ingrossing of feodaries innuendo accompts and tunc et ibidem you are a Cozner and live by Cozning and I will prove that to be Coznage and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Finch Serjeant of the King that the Plantiff shall not have judgement upon this verdict for the first words are not actionable for the taking of money for the ingrossing of feodaries are insensible and then the inuendo will not help nor aid that also the words in the second place are not actionable because he had not said that he was a Cozning officer and so he had not expresly applied that to his office and
son and his wife and upon a demurrer the question was whether this Covenant did raise a present use to the Son and to his wife or whether this only rests in Covenant and Harris Serjeant argued that no present use will arise by this Covenant for first all other Covenants in the indenture are in the future for the words are that the lands shall remain and come c. and therefore till the death of the Covenantor the fee simple is in him and no use will arise for it shall be in the election of the Covenantor what estate he will make to his Son for he himself shall interpret his intent and the difference in our books is when the words are in the present tense and when in the future and for this he cited 22. H. 7. by Iustice Rede if a man Covenant that land shall discend remain or revert he said this did not give any present interest because the wors are in the future and it is in the election of the Covenantor how and in what manner the land shall pass and there he put the case that if I give my horse or my Cow to I. S. there the Donee had election to take at his pleasure the one or the other because the words are in the present tense but if the words are that I will give a horse or a Cow there the Donor had election which he shall have because the words are in the future the Lord Borroughs Covenanted 34. H. 8. Dyer 55. with another in frank marriage with his son that immediately after his death his son shall enjoy the use of his land of inheritance according to the course as then they stood and the question was whether the see simple was presently out of the Covenantor and the opinion was that it was not because it was but a Covenant and did not change the fee simple and so is Dyer 96. Sir Thomas Seymor promised and Covenanted by indenture in consideration that the Covenantee had granted land to him that he would leavy a fine to Wimbish and Pennoy of other lands which fine should be to Sir Thomas Seymor for life the remainder to the Covenantee in taile and no fine was levied and the question was whether any use was raised by this Covenant to the Covenantee and the opinion of the book is that not because it is in the future and he cited the 20. H. 7. 10. the Duke of Buckingham in consideration that the Lord Henry his brother was to marry the Lady Wiltshire he Covenanted with Bray and with others that the Mannors of D. and of S. shall be to the Lady and to her heirs of her body begotten by the said Lord and after the Duke granted to the Lord Henry and his wife for their lives and it was argued whether this second grant is good or no for if it is then the first Covenant will not work to raise an use to the feme and the book left that as a quere and if it be then he argued that in the principal case no present use is raised but that this rests meerly in Covenant and so he prayed judgement for the Plantiff Serjeant Hendon to the contrary for he thought this will raise a present use and that this was the intent of the parties that this should raise a present use for the intent was to advance them first during their lives with the rent and after the death of the Covenantor and his wife with the land it self and therefore of necessity this will raise a present use for a bare action of Covenant may not be any advancement at all and the rather here because they who take benefit of this are strangers to the Covenant and not Preston himself for as it appears by 3. H. 7. a stranger shall not take benefit by a Covenant and therefore he said the intentions of the parties was to raise an use for otherwise there shall be no advancement at all And further the words in the indenture are Covenant and grant and if no use is raised then this word grant is idle and every word shall be so expounded that they may take effect and the word Covenant is insufficient of it self to pass an estate in land or to have any estate in signification other then to a meer Covenant and to be obligatory as is put Co. 2. Cromwels case Tirrels case there vouched a lease for years provided and it is Covenanâ—ed and agreed there the Covenant is a condition and also a Covenant and 8. Ass 1. 12. it is agreed that if I Covenant that an other shall have my land for 7. years this a good lease of the land it self and it was adjudged here Tr. 2. Jac. Rot. 1696. accordingly and in our case this word Covenant and grant is also sufficient to raise an use and to give an interest in the land it self and yet he agreed that if there was an other act to be made by the Covenantor or the Covenantee that then no use will arise but it shall rest only in Covenant Dyer 162. there are Covenants between the Lady Vere and Sir Anthony Wingfield her son that the said Lady would convey to her son by a recovery and that after 6. moneths the said Sir Anthony shall make an estate to his Mother for life and there it is doubted whether the use is changed within the 6. moneths and it was holden that it was not Mich. 20. Jac. C.P. for then it is impossible that the Covenants should be performed and in that case it is in the power of the Covenantor to make an act that the Covenants shall not be performed and therefore Covenants will not raise an use but in our case no act of the Covenantor may hinder that this use shall arise and therefore good and for that the difference is Dyer 296. which is entered 11. Eliz. the Roll of which I have seen the father upon the marriage of his son promised to the friends of his wife that after his death his son shall have his land to him and his heirs and the book is ruled that this did not change the use and the reason was this Covenant was by words and not in writing but it was not doubted if this Covenant had been by writing but that the Covenant will raise an use which is all one with our case and so was Callard and Callards case 37. Eliz. stand forth Eustace reserving to my wife and my self I give to thee and thy heires and there it was doubted whether any use will arise to the son and ruled that not because this was by words only but it was also agreed that if these words had been by writing they had been sufficient to raise an use to the son and he cited Dyer 232. before the Statute of the 27. H. 8. A Covenanted and agreed with B. that upon the marriage of his son with the daughter of the other that he would retain his land for life and that
after his death it shall remain to his son and his wife in fee and the book is that this Covenant will raise an use also if this Covenant and agreement will not amount to raise an use then it is not to any use or purpose at all and by consequence the consideration of the marriage is void also and an action of Covenant will very well lye without any such consideration of marriage and so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Defendant adjourned Mich. 20. Jac. C. P. Johnson against Norway IOhnson brought an action of Trespass against Norway of Trespass made in a piece of ground and the Defendant pleaded that 14. H. 7. Roger Le Strange and Anne his wife were seised of the Mannor of D. and one Giles Sherington Abbot of C. was seised of an acre of land in fee and held this of the said Roger Le-Strange as of the Mannor of D. aforesaid and that the 22. H. 7. the Abbot and all the Monks died by which the said land escheated to Roger c. and the Mannor discended to his son and heire after his death who conveyed the Mannor of which the acre is parcel after the escheat by mean conveyance to Hobert in fee and that Hobert 12. Eliz. infeoffed one Wright of the Mannor of which the said acre is parcel and so justified by a conveyance from Wright to the Defendant the Plantiff replied by protestation that the Abbot was not eligible and for plea he said that the aforesaid Hobert 10. Eliz. infeoffed I. S. of the said acre of land absque hoc that he infeoffed Wright of the sad Mannor of which the said acre is parcel and upon this the Defendant demurred generally And Serjeant Attoe argued for the Plantiff that the Plea of the Defendant is evil and then though the replication of the Plantiff is not good yet the Plantiff shall have judgement and he cited Turners case Hobert it is true Cook 8. if the replication be meerly void then it is as you had said but if the replication be the title of the Plantiff and that be insufficient there the Plantiff shall not have judgement though the plea in barre was evil Attoe agreed that if it appear by the Plantiffs own shewing that he had no cause of action and that he had no title he shall not have judgement but here he had made a good title by the lease of the said acre of land and though our traverse is evil and sounds in doubleness yet the Defendant had demurred generally and so he had lost the advantage of the doubleness or of the negative pregnant for if a maâ— plead double matter this is only matter of form and not of substance and therefore after verdict it is good as hath been adjudged but he proceeded in his argument and he said that the barre of the Defendant is not good for by his own shewing this acre of land is not parcel of the Mannor for by the dissolution of the Monastery by the death of all the Monks the land shall go to the founders and donors and not to escheat to the Lord of which that is holden as appears 2. H. 6. 7. and 5. H. 7. if an annuity or rent be granted to an Abbot in fee and the Abbot and all his Monks do die the annuity or the rent is extinct and shall not escheat see the Deane of Norwiches case Coo. 3. agreed that by the death of the Abbot and his Covent the corporation is dissolved and then the possession shall go to the founders and shall not escheat to the Lord of the Mannor of which the Land was holden and he said that this point is proved cleerly by the Statute of the 27. H. 8. and 31. H. 8. of Monasteries in which Statutes there is an express saving to all persons except to the donors and to their heires and no mention is made of the saving of the right of those of whom the land was holden and that proves cleerly that if the makers of the Statute had thought that the land had escheated to the Lords they would have excepted them in the saving of the act as they had excepted the Donors and Founders for if otherwise the lands and possessions shall escheat to the Lords of which the land was holden they are within the saving of the Statute and then it will follow that after the death of all the Monks as at this day that the Lords shall have the land by escheat which the Sages of the Law never dreamt of who made that Statute that any thing may accrew to the Lord and therefore they provided only for the title of the Donors and Founders which is an argument that they thought that upon the dissolution of the Monesteries that the lands shall go to the Founders and the same he thought concerning a corporation at this day as of Suttons Hospital c. and so he concluded that because in the barre of the Defendant he claimed to hold from the Lord to whom he supposed the land to escheat and did not claim c. by his own shewing the barre is not good and though our replication and traverse is not good yet the Plantiff shall have judgement But admitting that the barre is good yet the replication and traverse is good and then judgement shall be given for the Plantiff and the case is the Defendant pleaded a feofment of the Man 12. Eliz. to Wright after that he had shewed the escheat of an acre the Plantiff replied that the 10th Eliz. the Feofor infeoffed C. of the acre of land absque hoc that he was infeoffed of the Mannor of which the acre is parcel and Attoe argued that the traverse is good and he alleadged 38. H. 6. 49. the same traverse and here when the Defendant had pleaded that the acre escheated and had alleadged a Feofment of the Mannor and had not expresly alleadged a Feofment of the acre the Plantiff may traverse that which is not expresly alleadged because this destroyes the very title of the Defendant and he cited for that 34. H. 6. 15. a writ of priviledge in trespass as a Servant to an auditor of the exchequer the Plantiff replied that he was servant to him in husbandry absque hoc that he was his servant to waite and attend upon him in his office and it was holden a good traverse and yet that was not expresly alleadged by the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice said that the traverse is not good for by the Feofment which was made the 12th Eliz. he had confessed and avoyded the Feofment which was made 10th Eliz. and so there needed no traverse and therefore he said the great doubt of the case will be upon the barre of the Defendant whether by the death of the Abbot and the Monks the land escheat to the Lords of whom that was holden or whether that shall go to the Donors and to the Founders and he thought that the land shall escheat to which
that all such recoveryes shall be void and shall be taken for fained recoveries and this may not be imagined a fained recovery where he in remainder in tail is vouched by him who is Tenant for life Jennings case Coo. 10. and such recovery as is there resolved is out of the Statute of the 14. Eliz. and is good by the Common Law and so in our case but admitting this to be within the Statute of the 11. of H. 7. yet the proviso of the same Statute had made that good for there is an express proviso that a recovery with the assent of the heir inheritable if this appear upon Record this shall not be within the Statute and in our case this is with the assent of the heir inheritable and also this appears to be of record and so the recovery is out of the danger of the Statute of the 11. H. 7. See Doctor and Student a book which was written but a litle time after the making of this Statute and Dyer 89. Vernons case and he said that the intent of the same Statute and of the proviso of the same Statute was to have issues and heirs and not termors who had only a future interest to falsifie recoveries and so he concluded that the recovery is out of the same Statute and that the proviso of the same Statute had made that good by the assent of the heir but admitting this should be against him that this recovery shall be within the Statute yet the lessee in our case shall not falsifie nor take advantage of the forfeiture by force of the same Statute but it hath been objected by Harvy that the wife in this case had only an estate for life or Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct and he answered that the resolution in Beamounts case Coo. 119. is contrary for it is there expresly agreed that she was Tenant in tail after the fine leavied by the issue and so was it also resolved in Pophams case 9. Eliz. but there it was doubted whether she was Tenant in tail within the 32. H. 8. who might make a lease but all agreed that she was Tenant in tail who may suffer a recovery and binde the remainder and then when the feme suffers such a recovery as in our case that recovery shall take away a term for years which was made by the issue in tail Mich. 20. Jac. C. P. in the life of his mother notwithstanding she was a joynteress within the 11. H. 7. also he said that this lease for years being made by Henry Mark-Williams the son who was heir to the estate in tail and also to the reversion in fee being made by deed indented rendring rent this shall be a lease which issued out of the estate in fee simple and not out of the estate tail and this shall be out of the estate tail by estoppel being by deed indented for an estate shall not enure partly by way of interest and this lease to begin after the death of the feme he may not take advantage of the forfeiture for though the words of the Statute are that all such recoveries shall be void yet this shall not be void without entry and he who will have benefit by this ought to be mabled to enter presently so soon as the recovery is suffered for as there ought to be a person in esse who shall take benefit of the same Statute as appears by Coo. 3. Lincoln Colledge case so there ought to be a present estate in esse at the time of the recovery for the words of the Statute are to whom the interest shall appertain but in our case the interest doth not appertain to the lessee who had only a future term and therefore he shall not take the benefit by any forfeiture within the Statute of 11. H. 7. and the rather in our case because there is a rent reserved also all this matter is found by special verdict what estate the son haâ— when he made the lease by indenture Dyer 244. Coo. 155. and Bredons case in Treports case lessee for life and he in reversion by indenture let for years this is no estoppel and it shall be said to be the lease of one and the confirmation of the other and here the lease shall be said to issue out of the reversion in fee and not out of the estate tail and he vouched a case adjudged 10. Jac. when Flemming was chief Iustice of the Kings Bench between Errington and Errington and the case was that a man conveyed land to the use of himself and his wife in tail the remainder to his right heirs and had issue a son and a daughter and he died and the son let for years to begin after the death of his Mother and he died without issue and the daughter leavied a fine and the wife who was Tenant in tail died and the question was whether this lease for years issued out of the estate tail by way of estoppel for then the Conusee shall not avoid this but it was adjudged this lease was drawn out of the reversion in fee and the Conusee of the daughter shall avoid that which is all one with our case but admit that this lease is good by estoppel out of the estate taile yet he shall not take benefit of the forfeiture within 11. H. 7. and this differs from Sir George Browns case for there the Conuser entered by vertue of a remainder and not by the estate tail which passed to him by estoppel and upon that he concluded that if this is an estate meerly by estoppel he shall not have benefit by that Pope and Reynolds before NOw the case between Pope and Reynolds which see before was moved again by Ashley for the Plantiff in the prohibition and the case was that he was owner of a Park and the Park had been time beyond memory replenished with deer till the 10th of Eliz. at which time that was disparked and that the owners had used before the disparking to pay a Buck in Summer and a Doe in winter in full satisfaction of all Tithes due to the Vicar and the Parson had libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes in kinde and also traversed the prescription and it was found for the Plantiff in the prohibition and it had been moved in arrest of judgement that notwithstanding this prescription is found for the Plantiff yet he shall not have judgement for two causes First because gross Tithes belong to the Parson and not to the Vicar for the Vicaridge is derived out of the Parsonage to this he answered that for the most part every Vicaridge is derived out of the Parsonage but it is a meer non sequitur that this doth for the Vicarage and the Parsonage may have several patrons Fitzh 45. also a Vicarage may be time beyond memory as in our case 40. E. 3. 2. 7. and Fitz. juris utrum a Vicar may have a juris utrum and
also he said that in some parts the Vicar shall have Tithe Corn and hay and not the Parson and so he concluded this to be a good prescription by the Common Law and then for the second point he argued that though the Park is disparked yet the modus decimandi continued and he vouched Beddingfields and Fields case P. 38. Eliz. B. R. prescribed to pay 10. s. for a Park this modus had a continuance notwithstanding the disparking and 18. Iac. upon a motion a prohibition was granted in such a case Hendon to the contrary and yet for the first point he agreed that a prescription to pay Tithes to the Vicar was good for here it appeares that the Vicarage is as antient as the Parsonage both being time beyond memory and it was the opinion of all this Court when the case was first opened and so he said he would not insist upon that but agree the Law to be against him but then for the second point he held the modus to be gone by the disparking for the prescription is annexed to the Park and not to the land for the prescription is to pay a Buck and a Doe for all manner of Tiths of that Park and then the prescription is in some sort annexed to that meerly as land but quatenus a Park and for this he held if a man will prescribe to pay 10. s. for the Tithes of such land and it is given in evidence to be a Park this will not maintain the issue for a Park is deceivable one way or other and so are of several natures and so Coo. 4. Lutterels case a tenure to cover the hall of the Lord if the hall is thrown down the tenure is gone and here when the Park is destroyed the modus is also destroyed but it hath been objected here that the prescription is general and therefore though the Park was disparked yet the modus had continued to this he answered that this prescription shall have such construction as a grant shall have and though it is general yet it is sub modo subject to this limitation that this alwayes continue and remain a Park and it was resolved 43. Eliz. that the Commoner may not grant over his Common except he grant over his Tenement for they may not be severed and so indeed is Nevils case in the Commentaries a man prescribed to have estovers to burn in his house if the owner destroy the house the estovers are gone for the prescription is annexed to the house and so in our case the prescription is annexed to the Park and not to the land for 18. H. 6. 21. a Park may not be without the grant of the King and the Common Law saith if a man prescribe to have Tithes in a Vineyard if the Vineyard be converted to another use the Tithes are gone for it is said tantum est prescriptio quantum est possessio and vouched Coneys case 14. Caro. who prescribed to be discharged of paying Tithes for a meadow and afterwards this was converted to arrable and the opinion of the Court was that the prescription is gone and the rather in our case because it is by the act of the party himself that the Park is destroyed yet he agreed the principal case in Lutterels case Coo. 4. for there a new will is only a translation of the old and no destruction of the thing which was before but in our case the Park it self is destroyed by the act of the party himself and therefore the prescription which was annexed to this is gone forever Also this prescription is against Common right and therefore shall be taken strictly as Teringhams case Coo. 4. a man had Common appurtenant in another mans land and he purchased parcel of the same land the Common is gone because this Common is against Common right but otherwise of a Common appendant and he cited Wilds case Coo. 8. according to our case that a prescription to pay a Buck and a Doe for the Tithes of a Park is against Common right for though Tithes are not due Iure divino yet they are due jure humano Communi and therefore the prescription is not founded in Law and it shall not be intended to the Park when that is destroyed and converted to arrable as if a man made a feofment of land with warranty and afterwards the land is improved and made of greater value then that was at the time of the feofment if in this case the feoffee is evicted and lease that and recovery in value upon the warranty he shall recover in this case only the value that this was at the time of the feofment made and not according to the value that the land is of at this day by the improvement 32. E. 3. Entry 81. and in our case it shall be intended that by composition at the first this prescription had beginning and the composition only extended to the Park and not to a new thing and for that reason the prescription is gone in this case and he cited a case in this Court M. 10. Iac. Rot. 1223. in a prohibition between Roux C. D. the Plantiff suggested that such land was parcel of a Park as in our case and that the owner had used to pay the shoulder of every Doe which was killed and 2. s. annually for all Tithes the Defendant pleaded that this was disparked and the first opinion of the Court was that the Defendant ought to plead in certain how that was disparked secondly this was doubted whether the modus as to the 2. s. was gone in regard that the shoulder of the Doe is gone by the disparking out of which he collected that the modus is annexed to the Park and not to the land and so he concluded and prayed a consultation Winch said to him the prescription is found against you and therefore you ought to have demurred Hendon if the prescription is gone the Plantiff shall not have a prohibition and at another day judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff judgement if no other matter is shewed by such a day Hobert and Winch being only present The Bishop of Glocester against Wood. IN a Trover and conversion brought by the Bishop of Glocester against Wood upon a special verdict the case in effect was that the predecessor of the now Bishop was seised of the Mannor of D. and he let 20. acres of that to A. and B. during the lives of 3. of their Children rendring 27. s. renâ— per annum and also paying and delivering to the Bishop and to his successors two of the best beasts upon the death of every one of the Cestuy que vies and over the jury found that after the lease of the 20. acres the same predecessor let all the Mannor rendring the antient rent to Wood the Defendant and after one of the Cestui que vies died and he seised two of the Cattle for a herriot and whether this appertained to Wood
answered that if it is meerly Collateral then it shall not go to the successor of the Bishop but to his executors as if the lessee had covenanted or obliged himself to pay this Herriot to the successor he may not have benefit of this obligation but the executor of the Bishop who was lessor shall have that and so he said that the argument made by Hendon is against him for if it be meerly Collateral then this shall not go to the successor and though the lessee of the Mannor may not have it the Plantiff shall not have a Trover and Conversion as he said before but he held this good by way of reservation for modus conventio vincunt legem and as to that which hath been said that the Herriot is to be paid upon the death of a stranger and not upon the death of the lessee himself to this he answered that this is nothing for the payment shall be out of the beasts of the lessee and not out of the beasts of a stranger and so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Defendant Rives case SAlmon avowed for a rent charge and he shewed that Sir Robert Rives had a rent charge granted to him and he further shewed a discent of that to the son and heir of Sir Robert and shewed that the rent was behinde unpaid to him viz. to his son and heir and he avowed as Bailiff to the son and exception was taken to the avowry because it is not expresly alleadged in whose time the rent was due whether in the time of the father or in the time of the son for if it is behinde in the time of the father the son may not distrain for that but it was resolved that the avowry was very good for in asmuch that he had shewed that the rent was not paid to the son this implied the rent was due to the son and not to the father An Executor brought a Scire Facias upon a judgement given for the Testator in debt by him and the Defendant would have pleaded the death of the Testator between the verdict and the judgement per Curiam he was not suffered for he may not plead this in a Scire Facias but the Defendant is put to his writ of error In Trespass for beasts taken in London and the Defendant justified to taking as a distress upon a lease of land in Kent and the Plantiff replied that the Defendant sold the beasts in London and so not a good plea to bring the Trial out of Kent and to have that tried in London which note Batterseys case AN action upon the case was brought against one Hordecre upon an assumpsit and he declared that the Defendant had arrested one Battersey by vertue of a Commission of Rebellion out of the Cinque ports and that the Plantiff keeping a Common Inne the Defendant brought the said Battersey to his Inne and requested the Plantiff to keep him a day and a night and promised in consideration there upon that he would save him harmless and he shewed that he kept the prisoner accordingly and that the said Battersey brought an action of false imprisonment against him and recovered against him upon which the action accrewed and upon non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement because he had not shewed that the said Battersey was lawfully arrested and imprisoned and then if a man will without cause arrest a man and promise in this case no action will lie for it is no consideration because that the imprisonment is unlawful but Hobert chief Iustice Hutton and Winch contrary for be the imprisonment lawful or not lawful he might not take notice of that as if I request another man to enter into another mans ground and in my name to drive out the beasts and impound them and promise to save him harmless this is a good assumpsit and yet the act is Tortious but by Hutton where the act appears in it self to be unlawful there it is otherwise as if I request you to beat another and promise to save you harmless this assumpsit is not good for the act appears in it self to be unlawful but otherwise it is as in our case when the act stands indifferent but Hobert said it may be there is a difference between a publick officer and a private man for if the Sheriff arrest a man unlawfully and promise as before this is a good assumpsit but perchance otherwise of a private man as here but in the principal case the Defendant had pleaded non assumpsit and this implies a Lawful imprisonment for otherwise the Defendant might have given the unlawful imprisonment in evidence and judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff Claworthy against Mitchel CLaworthy against Mitchel in a replevin the Defendant avowed for a rent and shewed that his father was seised and let for years rendring rent and he died and that the reversion descended to him and for rent behinde he avowed in barre of which avowry the Plantiff said that the father devised the reversion to another and the other maintained his avowry and traversed the devise and it was found that the devise was only of two parties and not of the third part for in very truth the land was holden by Knights service and all this was found by special verdict and for whom the jury had found was the question and it was argued by Hendon that this verdict is found for the avowant and he vouched 32. H. 8. Brook issue 8. in a precipe quod reddat if the issue be whether A. and B. infeoffed the Tenant and it is found that A. infeoffed him but not that A. and B. infeoffed him the issue is found against the Tenant see 14. E. 4. and Dyer 260. in debt upon a lease for years of divers parcels of land and upon non demisit pleaded it is found quod demisit all except one parcel this is found for the Plantiff and â—rin 15. Iac. Rot. 2022. Allen against Soper in a replevin for a horse and avowed for damage fesant and the Defendant claimed Common for his beasts Levant and Couchant upon his land and some in this case were found Levant and Couchant and others not and it was found against the Plantiff and he said in this case when the Defendant had alleadged a devise of all the land and upon this issue is joyned and it is found that part is devised and not all this is found against the Plantiff because the issue is joyned upon a particular and a special point whether all was devised or no and yet he agreed that upon a general issue as in trespass in 20. acres of land and the Defendant is found guilty but only in one yet the Plantiff shall have judgement but not where the issue is joyned upon a particular point as here but admitting that the Plantiff shall have judgement yet the avowant shall have return
for the third part as in debt upon a lease for years and it is found that he had not cause to demand all the rent but that tâ—is ought to be apportioned yet he shall have judgement for the residue and so here Ashley Serjeant to the contrary the jury have found for the Plantiff for the avowant had avowed for all and he alleadged 26. Assise where in an assise the seisin and the diseisin was found and yet because there was no Tenant found of the Frank-tenement the Plantiff shall have judgement and as to that that had been said that the avowant shall have retorn for part he denied that for now it appeared by the special verdict that the avowant and the devisee are Tenants in Common and Tenants in Common ought to joyn in avowry and for that reason the avowant shall not have return for any part but he ought to replead Dyer 177. see the book Hobert said that without question in this case if the jury had given a general verdict this had been against the Plantiff for it was not devised if all was not devised according to the issue and then if it would have been against the Plantiff in this case of a general verdict the special verdict shall be construed to be of the same nature in law and it shall be adjudged by us against the Plantiff for generally where the general issue shall be against any of the parties there the special verdict shall be of the same degree and Winch and Hutton agreed and by Winch who pleads in the affirmative ought to prove all to be true as in the case of Soper which had been remembred by my brother Hendon and by Hutton every issue which is taken upon absque hoc ought to be precisely found and as to the second point he held that the avowant shall have return for part for here the jury haue found the third part of the reversion in him and by that there appears a sufficient certainty to the Court to make an apportionment then if the Court may make an apportionment the avowant shall have return for so much as is due to him but if the apportionment is to be made by the jury and not by the Court there the avowant shall not have return for the third part but if it was in debt for 40. l. and the jury finde 20. l. the Plantiff shall have judgement of that part to be apportioned by the jury and so in Trespass if part be found for the Plantiff he shall have judgement for the demand is by writ but in our case it is an avowry and it is a certain issue and for that reason the avowant shall not have return for the third part adjourned Hutton alledged 28. H. 8. 32. and at another day judgement was commanded to be entered for the avow an t Hobert and Winch being only present Note that if a man make a lease of several parcels of land in a Town and this is for the trial of a title in an ejectione firme he ought to enter into every part of those several and to leave a servant or other to keep the possession till he had entered into every parcel and then to deliver the lease of all and this is good Empson and Bathrust before THe case of Empson against Bathrust was moved again by Harris and he praied judgement for the Plantiff and it had been said that this obligation is void by the Statute of the 23 H. 6. but he held that this Statute did not extend to this obligation for it is only where a sheriff takes a bond of any person which is in his ward and yet he said he never found in any book the Sheriff might exact any fee of any person for he is an officer of the King but 21. H. 7. he may prescribe to have a bare fee but the Statute of 23. H. 6. appoints little fees in some cases Secondly he argued in this case that the Sheriff may take a bond for by 29. of Eliz. this is a due debt to the Sheriff and then if the Sheriff give the partie day till another day it is good reason he shall have a bond for that for his security Thirdly he held that the Sheriff may take this bond of the party after the extent and before the liberate by the Statute of the 29. Eliz. for otherwise perchance when the Sheriff had made the extent perchance the Conusee will not sue out the liberate and so the Sheriff shall be defeated of all his labour and travel taken in the extent and in the last place he said that in case the summe exceeded a 100. l. the Sheriff shall have 6. d. in the pound for that which exceeds and 12. d. for the first hundred pound but it was resolved by Hobert Winch and Hutton that judgement shall be given against the Plantiff and first they agreed this obligation not to be within 23. H. 6. for the partie was not in the ward of the Sheriff and so was resolved in Bewfages case Secondly it was agreed by the said 3. Iustices that the Sheriff may not take his salary appointed by the Statute till a compleat execution viz. till the liberate for the words of the Statute are in the negative and doth not establish the fees but only tolerates them and Hobert said if the Sheriff made an extent and before the liberate a new Sheriff is chosen then in this case the new Sheriff shall have the fees appointed by the Statute and not the antient Sheriff and by Hobert if the Conusee sue an extent and then refuse to sue the liberate to the intent to defraud the Sheriff of his fees the Sheriff shall have his remedy by his action upon the case and by Hutton if the Sheriff return upon the extent that he is ready to deliver that to the Conusee this is sufficient to intitle him to his action upon the case and thirdly it was holden by Hobert and by Winch that the Sheriff shall have but 6. d. in the pound for all if it exceed 100. l. for so was the intent of the Statute but Hutton said that the Common practise is otherwise and Hobert said that he did not value that for he knew well enough that the Sheriff will rather take more then less then their fees and though it had been said that if such a Construction shall be made then the Sheriff shall have as much for executing 100. l. as 200. l. to this he said the Sheriff ought to take this subject to this casually for it is the very words of the Statute and lastly it was resolved by Hobert and Winch that the obligation was void by the Common law and extortion and a taking by the Colour of his office see Dive and Manninghams case and Hobert said that every bond that is taken for any thing which is malum in se is void by the Common law and this extortion is malum in se and so void by
contingencies by which these remote possibilities shall not be released Hoes case Coo. 5. there a release of all actions and demands to the Bailee made this void and in the case of Brown and Pell which was remembred before it was the opinion of all the Court against Judge Doderidge that where the devise was to the son in fee and if he died without issue living that then his eldest brother shall have that if in this case the second son suffer a recovery yet this had not destroyed the possibility which the eldest brother had to have the land and if a common recovery which is matter of record and the common assurance of the realm will not take away this possibility a fortiori a release which is but matter of fact and so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Plantiff Bawtry to the contrary and he said that if this remainder shall be good then the inconvenience which the judges had alwayes endeavoured to take way shall be on foot again as in the case of Chamley and Corbets of springing uses for if it shall be lawful for a man to limit a fee upon a Collateral condition or limitation then there shall be a perpetuitie and for this if any litteral construction shall be made upon such conveyances this will introduce dangerous events to inheritances and for that he held that limitation to the Plantiff to be meerly void for when the land is devised in fee this devisee by this had an absolute estate in fee and it shall be strange to give this to another though this be by way of devise for though the will of every man shall be supplied by the intent of the devisor yet his intent ought to stand with the rules of the law and otherwise his intent shall revert and for that he cited 29. H. 8. a man made two executors provided that one of them shall not administer here the intent did plainly appear and yet because the intent is contrary to the power which the law gives to every executor therefore it is void and it is put for a bare rule in Corbets case that such a conveyance which a man may not make in his life time by act executed he may not make by his Will but a man may not make such a conveyance by act executed in his life time for as it is said in Colthirsts case if a man let for life the remainder for life upon condition that if the first lessee do such a thing that then the land shall remain over to a stranger this remainder is void for when the land is given before this second limitation is meerly void and also the case is put that if a man give lands in fee upon condition the remainder over this remainder is void for the other had an estate in fee before by which it is apparant that when an estate is one time lawfully vested in any certain person there no limitation may give that to a stranger by any act executed in his life at the common law and then it shall not be good by way of devise 28. H. 8. Dyer a term was devised for years the remainder over and it was adjudged by Baldwin and by Shelley that the remainder in that case is void for when the devisor had given his term he may not limit this remainder over though this be by way of devise and this may be good law notwithstanding Lampets case for there the lease was devised and not the land and for that reason may be a difference and he vouched the case which was remembred by Richardson 29. H. 8. 33. and then as to the second point he held that the release was good admitting the first point to be against him for if the eldest son had any right by this release then this word right in the release will destroy and extinguish that and this possibility is not remote and forraigne for the condition or limitation is annexed to the estate and is not a subsequent condition which creates an estate and this depends upon an ordinary casualty which is common to all men and the payment of debts and of legacies is incident and common to every executor and as for Albanies case Coo. 1. the case was that a man had a power to revoke uses upon the death of a stranger without issue and resolved that this power may be released and yet his power depended upon two contingencies death and death without issue and the case is also there put if A. infeoffe B. upon condition that if B. Survive C. and then if A. and his heirs pay to B. 10. l. that then he shall enter in this case there are many contingencies involved in one conveyance and yet it is there said that these contingencies may be released and in Lampets case Coo. 10. there are six reasons wherefore such a contingencie may be released and our case is within all the reasons which are there mentioned for the words in the release as have been remembred by my brother Richardson are all one with our case and the first reason is because this is a Chattel which as it may be easily created so it may be easily destroyed to this he gave answer that this remainder of a Term was an interest to him who released and so in our it is an interest of a remainder to the Plantiff and for that the release is good Secondly it is a maxime in Law that every land may be charged one wayes or another and we are within this reason also for if this estate be in the Plantiff then this may be released Thirdly the foundation of every act ought to be regarded for Grants case there vouched destroyes the possibility with a fine by reason of the original act the fourth reason there remembred is because that if the devisee had been dead his Executor shall have the interest the same reason in our case if the Plantiff had been dead before the remainder or the contingencie hap yet his heir shall have that See Shelleys case the fifth reason is the legacie was in present though this was to take effect in futuro and so in our case the Will is in present though the state is to take effect in futuro and sixthly it shall be against reason to establish such a perpetuity of a Chattel and so in our case it shall be against reason to establish a perpetuity of a franktenement and the release is very well penued for it is of all his title right and claim to the reversion and remainder which the father devised to the Plantiff and so the release is not general but this is a particular and special release of that which was devised to him by his father and Hoes case Coo. 5. is not like to our case for first there the duty was altogether incertain and secondly the condition there did precede the duty but in our case the condition is annexed to the estate and so he concluded and
the demandant who appeared and entred into warranty freely and he pleaded that he had nothing by descent from Christopher Goldingham his father upon which plea the Tenant and the vouchee were at issue and the demandant had judgement against the Tenant to recover but cesset executio until the voucher is determined and after that and before the day of the nisi prius Edward Goldingham died and then at the day the Tenant lost by default so is the Record and now upon the prayer of the demandant to have a writ of seisin these cases were moved First by Serjeant Hendon that the writ of seisin may be stayed because as he said the Tenant may revouch the heir of the heir for it is not possible that the vouchee should lose by default because that he was dead and therefore you may see that he conceived that where it is said in the Record viz. on the back of the postea that the Tenant lost by default he conceived that to be meant of the vouchee and not of the Tenant in the writ of Dower but Hutton was of opinion that admitting that it should be so intended yet he may revouch for there was a judgement given against him with a cesset executio till the voucher is determined and that is now determined by his death and when judgement is once given he had not day in Court but if the vouchee had died after the warranty then he may revouch but here the Court rather intended that the record shall be meant that the Tenant in the writ of Dower made default and then it is not possible that ever he shall revouch but they said it had been more question if the Tenant had appeared at the day of the nisi prius and had pleaded the death of the vouchee after the last continuance and had prayed the advantage of his warranty and at another day Hendon moved that the judgement given against the Tenant was not good for it was absolute with a cesset executio where that ought to be a conditional judgement c. against the Tenant if the vouchee had not assets and if he had then judgement against him according to the Lord Dyer 202. Mich. 3. Ma. Rot. 508. for otherwise the Tenant shall lose the benefit of his warrantie against the voucher and so if the heir do confess the assets yet the judgement shall be conditional for otherwise if he had not assets according to his confession the demandant shall have a new judgement against the Tenant and of this opinion was Iones Iustice But Hutton said that this was very well and that the judgement may be either wayes conditional or absolute and he said that this is no prejudice to the warranty for the Tenant may have a scire facias against the vouchee but in this case day was given over till the next Term and the Prothonotaries were commanded to search the presidents concerning that See more after Mary Over and her second husband against Tucker MAry Over and her second husband brought an action of Dower against one Tucker and demanded Dower of the indowment of one Paul her fiâ—st husband and it was agreed that this trial ought to be by witnesses according to Dyer 155. and it was awarded by the Court that the the Councel of either side should draw up Interrogatories and put their neams to them and then they should be delivered to Master Waller the Prothonotary in whose office the cause is entred and he shall have the examination of the witnesses of both sides and then seal up the Interrogatories again and so remain till they were delivered over to the Court and then qui melius probat melius habet The residue of Easter Term in the two and twentieth year of King James in C. P. AN action of debt was was brought against an Executor who pleaded plene Administravit and the other replied and shewed that before this action brought he brought another action against the Defendant in which he was outlawed and that after the reversal of the outlawrie he took out this writ c. and that he had assets at the first bringing of the first writ and issue was taken upon that and it was found for the Plantiff and it was resolved that the Plantiff shall have judgement for this is in nature of Journeys accompts according as it was in Aldridges case upon the same matter which was long debated by the Court and it was also affirmed to be good law in a writ of error brought of that in the Kings Bench for otherwise if it should not be so the Defendant himself should take an advantage of his own evil plea which the law will not allow by any means to be suffered but then it was said by the Court that in this case the Plantiff in the action ought to bring his second writ immediately after the reversal of the first judgement in the outlawry if he will take any advantage of that Trin. 22. Jac. C. P. Trinity Term in the two and twentieth year of King James in the Common Pleas. HIckford brought an audita querela against Machin and the case in effect was this Richard Davis 43. Eliz. acknowledged a Statute Merchant of 500. l. before the Maior and Clark of Gloucester to Machin and all the circumstances of the Statute de mercatoribus were well observed saving only that no day of payment was mentioned and after the said Machin took a lease for years of part of the land of which the Conusor was seised and after the Conusor died intestate and Hickford took out letters of Administration and Machin sued execution against the said Hickford who brought an audita querela and the single point was whether this Statute be good in regard that no day of payment is appointed and after divers arguments by the Serjeants in other Terms this Term it was argued by all the Court and the effect of their several arguments were in this manner Iones Iustice began and said it seems to me that the Statute is good and that no audita querela will lie and he said here had been 3. objections made against this Statute first that every Act of Parliament which gives directions for the doing of a thing ought to be precisely pursued and shall not have an explanation upon an explanation and he said that notwithstanding this objection he thought the Statute to be good for in every Act of Parliament there is substance and there is form and if the substance be observed though not every circumstance yet that is very good and so is the case concerning conditions which are as strictly to be observed as any thing yet if the substance be observed though not the very letter yet this is very good as the case of Scroop Cook 10. one Covenanted to stand seised to devise uses with a provisee that if he shall be disposed to alter disanul or change the uses c. that then it shall be lawful at all
years notwithstanding his advancement and he resigned during the 3. years and issue there taken upon the resignation and this case proves all the partes of our case first that the King may dispence and that by his dispensation he is compleat person to resign and if he do resigne during the years the King shall not have the prerogative to present again for that was satisfied with the dispensation and also when the King came to his prerogative by subjects means he ought to take that as it falls for otherwise he loses that quite vide Bastervils case Coo. 7. and another reason is if it be not satisfied then the King shall have another which is mischievous and this being a new case such president is not to have more favour then the necessitie of the Law will require and so my opinion is that it is all one as if it had for life and there is a good case 9. Ed. 3. 20. where the King had 2. presentments vide the case but it was upon another reason but the case of 21. H. 7. 8. Frowike where the grantee of the next avoydance had judgement to recover and the incumbent resigned so that it is the second presentment yet the Plantiff shall have the effect of his judgement and he had a writ to the Bishop quere the application for I did not well heare that but in our case if the prerogative of the King was not satisfied yet it ought to appear that when he presented Gee he had no title but that was an usurpation and if the King was not satisfied then the Plantiff shall not have judgement for then Gee was an usurper and upon that declaration the Plantiff shall be barred but now for the last point admit that the King was satisfied of his prerogative by his presentation of Gee whether the Plantiff had lost his course I think he had in the first place the words of the devise are the first the next avoydance which shall hap after the death of Athur Basset now it hath been objected that the King had the first by his prerogative and therefore he shall have the second I think in this case Brook presentation 52. is a strong case where a presentation was granted to one and after to another when the first is void and ruled that the second grantee shall not have the second and so Dyer 35. it ought to be taken according to the words for otherwise he shall not have any for modus et Conventio uniunt Legem and the case of quare Impedit 152. proves something to this purpose for a man had 4. advowsons and granted the next which should hap of them to I. S. and he died and the heir assigned the wife for her Dower one Mannor to which the advowson was appendant which first became void and ruled that the Grantee shall not have that against the feme and then it was moved by Thorpe that he shall have the second but Shard said certainly never which proves that if the turn of the Grantee was taken from him by the indowment of the feme he had lost that for ever the like case is the 15. H. 7. 7. 14. H. 7. 22. moved by Mordant that the Grantee of the third shall have the fourth when the wife is indowed of the third which case is brought to prove a case which without question is not law and that is that the King being Gardian of the Grantee of the next avoydance and he grant that in this case the heir shall have that at his full age which without question is now law for by the same reason his course may be the 20. but there are two rules from this which seem to cross this opinion one rule is that the words of the grantor shall be taken most strong against himself and the other that the Grantor shall not be received to avoid his own grant as it is said in Davenports case Coo. 8. but yet these rules are to be intended where the words are compleat for as the case is the 13. Ed. 3. Grant 65. that where the husband and his wife are joynt Tenants for life and he in reversion grant the lands only which the husband held in this case nothing passeth for the reversion was expectant upon a lease which the husband and wife held nay I will cite one case where a man by his own Act shall avoid his own grant in a quare Impedit Elmes against Taylor where a man was seised of the Mannor to which the advowson was appendant and he granted the third next avoydance and after against his own grant he usurped and it was adjudged that by this usurpation he had gained the advowson to be appendant to his Mannor again and that the Grantee had lost his course and so the case in Dyer 283. where the Church was void and the patron granted the next avoidance tunc vacant to another and this pro hac unica vice tantum and there resolved that the grant was not good and that it should not extend to another and so in our case it shall not extend to a second another reason is if the King had a prerogative he is bound and every derivative estate under him for he shall not be in better case then the grantee for he was bound by the law of the land and for that it is equitie and it is Iustice that the estate of the grantee should be bound and so in this case like to the case in Plowden 207. and Dyer 231. where by Act of Parliament the possessions of an Abbot were bound now if afterwards the Abbot made a lease for years or granted the next avoydance and then after they came to the King he shall avoid the grant for the interest of the Grantor was bound by Act of Parliament and see the case of the universitie of Oxford Coo. 10. where a man before he was a recusant convict he granted the next avoydance and after he became a recusant convict and then the Church became void now the grantee shall not present for his interest was bound by Act of Parliament and so he must take it and here it behoves him to take that as it is bound with the prerogative of the King and so upon all the matter he hath lost his title and he concluded that the Plantiff shall be barred The argument of Justice Winch. WInch Iustice of the same opinion but because his argument was much to the purpose of that with Hutton and the Lord Hobert therefore I will not Report that verbatim and Winch said I will speak to the last point which was moved by my brother Hutton and I hold that where he had the first granted to him now he shall have none at all for it is punctually expressed that he shall have the first and that shall not extend to the next which may be granted but I grant if two coparceners had an advowson and the eldest presented and
of Tithes and good because they are a spiritual bodie 65 In a Prohibition upon a suit for a Legacie the Executor shewed he had not assets to pay the debts and the spiritual Court would not allow that allegation yet no Prohibition 78 Prohibition to the Marches of wales because a Legatee sued there for 500. l. good before a decree but not after 78 Prohibition see Court of equitie c. 79 Prohibition to the Marches of Wales for requiring an accompt of an Administrator 103 Proces against two Obligors by several precipes and thereupon several Executions whether the writs are well awarded 112 A parco fracto where it lies against the Lord of the Soil and where not except the Cattle come out 80 81 Prohibition to the delegates a pardon not allowed of there 125 Q IN a Quare impedit adjudged that nothing ought to be questioned after induction the spiritual Court there 63 R TEnant in tail sells to I. S. in fee who sells to the heir of Tenant in tail being of full age the father dies if the son be demitted 5 A replevin c. the Defendant saith that all those c. had used to have pasturage in c. when it was not sowed the Prescription is good 7 In a return of Rescous there needeth no addition 10 Replevin for rent issuing out of six acres the avowant must prove that the grantor was seised of 6. acres or more 15 Replevin in the Plantiff claimeth propertie without that the propertie was in the Defendant the Traverse not good yet judgement for the Plantiff because after verdict 26 In Return of an extent by the Sheriff surplusage hurteth not 27 Replevin the Defendant avowed for homage and shewed not how it was due if good 31 Replication although evil where the Plantiff shall have judgement if the Defendants plea be vitious 37 A Riotous quarrel about an arrest between the Sheriffs Bailiffs and the Bailiffs of the Marches of Wales 72 Release an avowrie not good without pleading it by deed 72 A Rent-charge granted and a Covenant if it happen to be behinde then the land to be alwayes open to distress whether this be a distinct covenant or not 74 87 Replevin for rent the Defendants say that the land was parcel of a Chaunterie which came to the King by the Statute wherein the right of others was saved the Plantiff replies that the land is out of the fee of the Defendant no good plea but he might have Traversed the Tenure that at the making of the Statute the land was not holden of him 77 A Record amended where the bargain and sale and deed of uses were by the right name but the writ of entrie was of another name 99 100 Rent granted in fee by Tenant for life and him in remainder in tail levied a fine a good grant 102 Rent-charge whether it be extinct by a fine of the land to the Ter-tenant and a release unto him 109 110 111 121 122 S SCire facias the Defendant pleads a feofment the Plantiff traverses and the jury found a feofment to other uses whether this shall be intended the same feofment which was pleaded 32 Scire facias by an Executor upon a judgement for the Testator the Defendant cannot plead the Testators death between the verdict and judgement but he must bring a writ of error 48 Simonie a grant of a next avoidance for monie the Parson being readie to die is Simonie 63 A Sheriff by force of a Capias utlagatum to inquire what lands c. cannot put the partie out of possession 78 Statute-Merchant if good in regard no day of payment is limited largely and learnedly argued by the Court 82 83 c. Servant taken away See Trespas T TIthes See Prescription Trespass the Defendant saith that I. S. was seised in right of his wife and that she died seised and that he as heir c. the Plantiff replied that she died not seised he ought to have said that she died not sole seised 7 Trespass in Yorkshire Justification in Durham without that that guiltie in Yorkshire good because it is local 7 A Traverse to a presentation where good and where not 13 14 Tenure where it is Traversable and where the seisin 18 Tithes not due of Cattle for the diarie 33. Trespass for Beasts taken in London Justification upon a lease of land in Kent Replied that the Defendant sold them in London no good plea to bring the trial out of Kent 48 Trespass for taking ones servant lieth not upon a private retainer otherwise if it were at the Sessions 51 Tithe giuen by the Pope to the Vicar and the Copie of the Bull only was shewed in evidence not good 70 Tithes cannot be appurtenant to a Grange except the Grange be the Gleab 72 73 Traverse where good and where not 113 U VEnire facias omitting part of the venue if good 34 Variance between the writ and Declaration where good 35 A feofment to the use of A. for life and after to the use of his daughter till B. pay her 100. l. here the daughter hath no remedie for this 100. l. without a promise 71 A Ventre inspiciendo awarded and returned but the Court would not agree that she should be detained from her second husband but attended by divers women till her deliverie 71 Variance between the venire facias and the Sheriffs return no judgement in that case 73 W IN Waste judgement by nihil dicit and upon an inquirie the jury found 8. s. damages what judgement shall be given 5 Wager of Law upon a Bill of Exchange 24 Writs a difference wherein there is an error in the original and where in the judicial writ that is amendable 73 Waste although for a time it is punishable yet after the action may revive 79 86 Writ against husband and wife as an Inheritrix the husband dies if the writ abate 102 Errata PAge 1. line 2. 27. for do read Doa p. 2. l. 4. r. lieu p. 4. l. 2. 22. r. 300. pa. 8. l. 36. r. Hendon and so throughout p. 12. in the Title r. Duncombe against the Vniversitie of Oxford p. 12. l. 14. r. 38. H. 8. cap. 39. p. 14. in the Title r. Sir George Savile against Thornton p. 15. l. 21. r. communication p. 16. l. 12. r. 7. Jac. cap. 5. p. 17. l. 47. r. Maines and l. 17. r. sic and also p. 17. 18. in the Margent r. Trin. p. 21 l. 51. r. 39. Eliz. p. 23. l. 9. r. till p. 26 l. 28 for writ r. Action and for Action r. writ p. 27. l. 12. for he r. they p. 28. l. 34. r. may not p. 29. in the Margent r. Easter p. 29. l. 33. for S. r. N. p. 33. l. ultim r. Moore p. 36. l. 43. r. Titterels p. 45. l. 20. r. demandable p. 50. l. 35. r. Bar p. 51. l. 22. r. a penalty p. 53. l. 16. r. may not p. 54. l. 44. r. Estate p. 57. l. 19. r. in our case p. 58. l 50 r. 16. E. 4. p. 68. l. 5. r. estray p. 71. l. 26. r. 12. Note in p. 72. l. 7. Wolseys case ought to have been printed by it self p. 77. l. 4. r. avoided p. 88. l. 4. r. Finch p. 90. l. 15. r. continuance p. 100. l. 21. for preservation r. perswasion and l. 34. for entire r. entrie p. 109. in the Margent for Trin. r. Mich. p. 112. l. 25. r. thought p. 114. l. 18. for interested r. interest