for a Legacy and that upon the Statute of 23 H 8. cap. 9. And Henden said that a Prohibition might not be granted for two causes First The Statute is general That no person c. then there is a proviso That this Statute does not extend to any probate of Wills in the Prerogative Court Then a Legacy cannot be recovered in any other Court. For if a Will be proved there no inferiour Ordinary will meddle with that Will and alwaies they had the execution of all Wills proved there in that Court Secondly It is pretended that the party is cited out of a particular Iurisdiction But that is not a Iurisdiction within this Statute For no Iurisdiction is intended but where there is an Ordinary But in the Tower of London there is no Ordinary But it is but as a Lord of a Mannor who had probate of Wills which is but a lay Iurisdiction c. Thirdly There is no Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction there But Davenport replyed That although for the present time no Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction is executed there because the Lord is dead Yet Spiritual Iurisdiction is executed there Hutton said If there he cause de bonis notabilibus Then the Archbishop had the Prerogative and might cause the proving of the Will But it stood with reason That where an Executor is tyed to perform the Will which may be there sued and the property of sute ought to be there where there is cause of Prerogative Harvey If there be cause of Prerogative and proof of the Will in the Prerogative Court Yet in the inferiour Iurisdiction the party will be compelled to prove the Will also But by Crook and Hutton minus juste An Action of Battery AN Action of Battery is brought against two and one dies before tryall and it was entred upon the Roll But the Venire facias was awarded against both and dammages assest And by Yelverton it cannot be amended For it was not the Act of the Court but of the Iury So that now dammages cannot be severed For although he may have the entire dammages against which he will yet if they be severd you will then oust him of his Election Quod non fuit negatum A Prohibition IN a Motion for a Prohibition where the Ordinary would make distribution It was agréed Richardson being absent That if the Ordinary commits Administration to the Wife of the Intestate that he cannot revoke that But if he grant Administration to one as Prochein de Sank and another more near of Blood comes He may revoke And because the Administration being granted all the power of the Ordinary is determined and then he cannot make distribution And if the Administration be one time justly granted the Grantée had a just Interest which cannot be revoked And although it was urged that those Prohibitions were not granted untill of late time yet they say those things passed Sub silentio Yelverton They cannot grant Admistration before a division was made And by Crook and Harvey An Action upon the Case lyes against the Ordinary if he will not grant Administration where he ought And at an other day it was moved by Finch Recorder That such a Prohibition could not issue in one Davyes Case And Richardson said That because that that Case was a Case of Extremity For Davyes had not any thing or portion allotted him by his Father who was dead And his Mother who was Administratrix turned him out of her House without any maintenance stopped the Prohibition which was granted before And said that it was in the discretion of the Court to grant such a Prohibition or not But Harvey and Crook said secretly betwéen themselves that it was not in the discretion of the Court. Garton against Mellowes AN action of Battery was brought by Garton against Mellowes And the Plaintiff pleaded a Recovery by the same Plaintiff for the same Battery in the Kings Bench against another who joyned in the Battery And the Piaintiff replies Nul tiel Record Vpon which they were at issue and the Record was brought in at the day assigned And these variances were objected for to make it fail of a Record And first The award of the Dist jurat in the Kings Bench is Coram domino Rege and there it was Coram domino nuper rege But not allowed For the King died before the Plea there and then it ought to be so pleaded Secondly That in one Record the Plaintiff is Generosus in the other Armiger Brampston said That that was such a variance which could not be amended Dyer 173. One recovers in debt by the name of I. Cives and Sadler And the Defendant brought Error and removes the Record inter I. Civem Salter c. And it was rul'd that the Record was not well removed upon that Writ Dyer 178. Plo. 8. Vpon Nul tiel Record there was a variance in the day of the Return of the Exigent and in the place where the Outlary was pronounced And adjudged a variance which could not be mended And now here there cannot be an amendment because it is after tryall And by amendment there might be a cause of changeing the Plea For he took that Issue by reason of the variance and after verdict there cannot be an amendment Mich. 2 Jac. Kings Bench Tayler and Fosters Case In an Ejectione firm upon a Lease made 10 Iunii and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And in Error it was assigned for error that the Imparlance roll was 10 Iunii and Issue roll the 12 Iunii and it appeared there was a rasure And it was agréed that if it was after verdict it could not be amended Atthowe This variance is not substantiall And the cases put do not make to this case For Salter and Sadler are two severall Trades And it cannot be intended the same man for he may vary in his action as he pleases But the Court said nothing to that Exception Thirdly In the Record of Nisi prius there was another fault It was agréed that a Material variance cannot be amended Yelverton said That he might have new Execution For he pleaded a recovery and execution in Bar and that they came to take whereof he had failed For that it stood now as another battery For it does not appear by the Declaration of the Plaintiff c. Smith against Sacheverill AN Action of Wast is brought by Smith against Henry Sacheverill and declares Whereas Henry Sacheverill the Grandfather was seised of these Lands he levyed a Fine of them to the use of himself for life with power to make a Lease for three lives and after to Smith his son for his life the remainder to the first begotten son of Smith in tayle The Grandfather makes a Lease for three lives and dyes and Smith and his first begotten son bring this Action of Wast against the Lessee and they assigne their wast in killing red Deer in a Park and upon nul wast pleaded it was
found for the Plaintiff and Finch Recorder moved in arrest of Iudgement first for that they assigne the wast in a Park where the wast is in Land c. Secondly Because that that Action did not lye for them both alike for if the Grandfather and he in the remainder in tayle had joyned in a Lease yet they could not joyne in wast The Books are If Tenant for life and he in the remainder joyn in a Lease they may also joyn with wast 21 H. 8 14. Although 19 H. 7. be put otherwise And 2 H. 5. Sir William Langfords Case Two joynt Tenants to the Heirs of one of them and they make a Lease for life And it was adjudged that they might joyn in wast for the Tenant for life had a reversion for life and had not made any Forfeiture If the Grandfather and he in remainder had joyned in a Lease and afterwards in wast it had been naught for the lease came out of the first root And it was resolved Tr. 2 Jac. Kings Bench Poole and Browses Case That one in remainder cannot have wast where there is an intermediate Estate for life Yelverton and Hutton did not believe the Case of 2 Jac. Crook If there be Tenant for life with such a power c. of Lands held in capite he may make Leases for life without Licence of Alienation and well proves this cause Yelverton and Hutton For the wast being assigned in a Park it is good for a Park is Land Sed adjournatur Hodges against Franklin TRover and Conversion is brought by Hodges against Franklin The Defendant pleads sale of the Goods in Marlborough which is a Market overt and the Bar was well pleaded and an Exception was taken For that that it is not said that Toll was payed It was said by Hutton That there are divers places where no Toll is to be paid upon sale in Market And yet the property is changed and Iudgement accordingly Grimston against an Inn-keeper IN an Action upon the Case it was said at the Bar and not gain-sayed That they ought to say in the Declaration Trasiens hospitavit for if he board or sojourn for a certain space in an Inne and his Goods are stollen the Action upon that is not maintainable And for omission although the Verdict was given for the Plaintiff Iudgement was given Quod nihil capiat per billam upon fault of the Declaration and he paid no Costs Wilkins against Thomas IT was said by the whole Court That a consideration is not traversable upon an Assumpsit but they ought to plead the generall issue and the Consideration ought to be given in Evidence Ireland against Higgins IReland brought an Action upon the Case against Higgins for a Greyhound and counts that he was possessed ut de bonis suis propriis and by Trover came to the Defendant and in consideration thereof promised to re-deliver him It seemed to Yelverton that the Action would not lye and the force of his Argument was that a Grey-hound was de fera natura in which there is no property sed ratione fundi live Deer and Coneys and vouchd 3 H. 6. 56. 18 E. 4. 24. 10 H. 7. 19. for a Hawk for Hares are but for pleasure but Hawks are Merchandable This difference in 12 H. 8. is allowed so long as a Dogge is in the possession of a man an Action of Trespasse lyes detinue or replevin But no Action if he was out of his possession and so had not a property then there is no consideration which is the foundation of an Action Hutton to the contrary and said the whole argument consisted upon false grounds as that a Dogge is ferae naturae Which if it were so he agreed the difference in 12 H. 8. But he intended that a Dogge is not ferae naturae for at first all Beasts were ferae naturae but now by the industry of man they are corrected and their savagenesse abated and they are now domesticae and familiar with a man as Horses and a tame Deer if it be taken an Action lyes Rogers of Norwich recovered Damages pro molosso suo interfecto And 12 H. 8. So of a Hound called a Blood-hound And a Dogge is for profit as well as for pleasure For a Dogge preserves the substance of a man in killing the Vermine as Foxes And now is not an Horse for the pleasure of a man for a man may goe on foot if he will and an Horse is meat for a man no more than a Dogge Therefore an Action may lye for the one as for the other And for a Hawk he ought to shew that it was reclaimed for they are intended ferae naturae One justifies in 24 Eliz 30. for a Battery because he would have taken away his Dogge from him A Repleavin was brought for a Ferret and Nets and a Ferret is more ferae nat than a Dogge Seale brought 25 Eliz. Trespass for taking away his Blood-hound and there it was said to be well laid And then now if he has a property the consideration is good enough to ground an Assumpsit It is adjudged that a feme dowable The heir promises to endow her before such a day and the Action is maintainable upon that by the Court Intraturudic pro quer if no other matter were shewed by such a day Jenkins Case HE brought an Action upon a promise to the Plaintiff That if he marryed her with the assent of her Father she would give him 20. l. Adjudged a good consideration by the Court. 3 Car. rot 414 Sir Edward Peito against Pemberton SIr Edward Peito is Plaintiff against Pemberton in a Replevin and the Defendant was known as Bayliff to H. Peito and said that H. Peito the Grandfather had granted a Rent for life to H. Peito the Son to commence after his death The Plaintiff confesses the grant but sayes that after the death of Peito the Grandfather these Lands out of which the Rent issued descended to Peito the father who made a Lease for a thousand years to the Grantee and dyes The Avowant confesses the Lease but sayes that before the last day of payment he surrendred to the Plaintiff Vpon which there was a Demurer and the question was whether the surrender of the Lease would revive the rent Harvey If he had assigned the Lease to a stranger the rent had been suspended 5 H. 5. One grants a rent charge who had a reversion upon a Lease for life to commence immediately there the question was when the Lease was surrendred whether the rent now became in esse because that the Lease which privileged the Land from distresse is now determined in the hands of the Grantor himself Crook If the Grantor had granted reversion to a stranger and the surrender had been to him It was clear that the suspension had been for the term Hutton If a man seised of a rent in Fee takes a Lease of Lands out of which c. for years and dyes the
said Goe not to such a one c. it is actionable without question Slander of one in his Trade will bear an action And so all being connexed alike it ought to be intended that he killed him in respect of his skill In Cases of Defamation Sir George Hasting's Case Thou didst lye in wait to kill me with a Pistoll were actionable So if one touch another in respect of his skill in that that he professes it will maintain an action c. And Yelverton to the same purpose for there is a difference between a Profession and a particular Calling As if words are spoken of one that is a Iustice of Peace he ought to shew that he was then a Iustice of Peace for he is removable and may be changed every Quarter Sessions But as to a Calling the Calling of every man is his Free hold 43 E. 3. Grant of an Annuity to one pro consilio and he professes Divinity Physick and Law there the grant is pro consilio generally for Physick if that be his usuall Profession And it is intended that a man alwayes dyes in his Calling If he said to I. S. Thou art a murtherer it shall not be intended of Hares for the Iudges are not to search so far for construction Loquendum ut vulgus intelligendum et sapiens If one sayes of a Merchant Put not your Son to him for hee 'l starve him to death These words are actionable for that that it comes within the compasse of the disgrace of his Profession And so of a School-master Put not your Son to him for hee 'l come away as very a dunce as he went Harvey If one sayes of a Iudge He is a corrupt Iudge it cannot be meant of his body to be corrupt but it shall be intended of his Profession Peitoes Case before HEnden for the Defendant the Case is thus A Rent is granted for life out of Lands which descend to the Heir and he makes a Lease of parcell of the Land to the Grantee for years who surrenders the term Whether the Rent shall revive or suspend during the term And it was said by him it shall revive First For that that it is the act of him who is lyable to the Rent to accept the surrender And there is a difference where there is a determination barely by the act of the party there it shall not be revived For the first 21 H. 7. 9. Tenant in Tayl of a Rent is infeoffed of Land and he makes a Feoffment of Land with a warranty to B. with Voucher as of land discharged of that Rent And so it is 19 H. 6. 55. Ascue put this Case Grantee of a rent in Fee and Donee in Tayl of Land infeoffs the Grantee who grants that over and afterwards the issue in Tayl recovers in a Formedon yet the rent shall not be revived But if it had been the joynt act of the parties as so by surrender it should have been revived First It is clear that if a Chattell personall be suspended by Sute it shall be gone for ever As if a Feme marries the Obligor 11 H. 7. 25. unless suspension be in anothers right if it be by the act of the party there it shall be revived As if a Feme Executrix marry with the Obligor and he dyes the suspension is determined and they are revived against the Executors 7 H. 6. 2. In one Gascoines Case Lessee surrenders to the Lessor upon condition the rent be suspended but if the Lessor enter for conditions broken the Rent is revived Which in effect is our case A rent is granted to the Daughter and the land descends to her and her other Sister who make partition The Rent is revived for it is the joynt act of both parties Plow 15. If a man had a Rent and disseises the Tenant of the land and after the Disseisee re-enters Where there is a revivor of the land there is a revivor of the Rent for the disseisin was the cause of the suspension and that now is gone Secondly Because that when the Lessee for years surrenders the term is determined to all purposes and the Lessor is in of his Estate is Fee and there is a diversity of surrender in respect of a stranger for to a stranger it may have Essence after surrender But as to himself it is otherwise extinct And he cannot say that it had any Essence 5 H. 5. 12. But in respect of a stranger it ha's continuance as if an Executor surrenders yet it shall be assets And all acts done upon Lessee for ltfe before surrender shall have a continuance after And so he prayed Iudgement for the Avowant But more after Wakeman against Hawkins IT was said That if an Executor was sued in this Court by Originall he shall not put in Bayl. But if he be arrested in an inferiour Court and removed by Habeas corpus he ought to put in Bayl. Stamford and Coopers Case STamford and Coopers Case was thus I. S. acknowledges a Statute to Cooper the 22 January and afterwards he confesses a Iudgement to Stamford the 23 of January next ensuing the Statute And it is extended And Stamford brought a Scire fac against Cooper to wit now because he ought not to have the land by Elegit And the Question was whether the Iudgement by relation shall defeat the Statute And it was resolved That the Iudgement shall have relation to the Essoin day which is the 20 day of Ianuary for that is the first day of the term legally and the fourth day after is the first day of the Term open Dyer 361. Pla. 10. A Release was pleaded after the last continuance and it bore date the 21 of Ianuary which was after the day of Essoin de Octab. Hil. And for that nought because that it came late for it ought to have been after the last continuance and before the last day c. 33 H 6. 45. Nisi prius was taken after the day of the return and before the fourth day after and adjudged nought because that the day of the return which is the Utas is the first day of the term and the fourth day after but a day of Grace and that is the difference If a man be obliged to pay money the first day of the Term he shall not pay it but upon the fourth day after for that is the first day in all common acceptance But in all legall proceedings the first day is the Essoin day And so it was adjudged 16 Eliz. And in the Kings Bench it was in one Williams Case A Iudgement was given the 20 of Ianuary and a Release of all Errours the 21 Ianuary and adjudged that that bars the Iudgement given the 20 Ianuary although it was not entred the fourth day after A Iustice in the Kings Bench examined an Infant upon inspection the Essoin day and found him to be under age and would not permit him to confess a Iudgement although that he would
not but a liberty given by the Conisee to the Conisor to be at large That does not release the Execution Dolbins Case IN a Replevin the parties were at Issue and the Plaintiff sued a Venire f. c. returnable such a day at which day the Sheriff does not return the Writ Wherefore the Avowant by Ward prayed a Venire fac with a proviso for him And it was granted by the whole Court Fossams Case A Man after the Statute of 27 H. 8. makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for term of his life and after his decease to the use of I. S. and his Heirs The Feoffor does waste And I. S. brought his Action of Waste And now if his Writ shall be general or special was the Demur in Iudgement And Hutton and the other Iustices were clearly of opinion That the Plaintiff ought to have a special Writ And so it was adjudged afterwards Doswell against Iames. IN Debt brought upon an Obligation Iames shews that the Obligation was endorsed with a Condition to perform all the Covenants comprised in an Indenture and he pleads that all the Covenants were fulfilled And does not shew in certainty the Covenants nor how they were performed And Hitcham said that the Plea was not good For there is a Diversity when one pleads in the Affirmative and when in the Negative For if in the Affirmative he shews in the certainty how the Condition or Covenants were performed And there is no diversity in my opinion between the Conditions which were upon the dorsed Obligation and the Covenants in the Indenture And it is to be thought that he who knows more of the Truth should shew it in his Plea And therefore he who pleads the Affirmative shews how the Conditions are performed Because it lyes much in his knowledge Whether he hath performed them or not But where he pleads in the Negative otherwise it is For there he is not to shew the certainty And yet I will agree that if one brings an Action of Debt upon an Obligation indorsed with a Condition The Defendant may plead the Conditions performed generally But otherwise it is of Covenants in an Indenture And in an Obligation with a Condition endorsed if he pleads the Conditions performed and he shews what thing he hath done If it be in the Affirmative he ought to shew the certainty of it also So that for that cause the Plea will not avayl Also it is incertain and doubtfull to the Iury. For if in that Case we are at Issue upon such a general Plea Although it shall be tryed by the Iury Yet it would be strange to enquire of such general things Wherefore c. Gerrard against Boden AN Annuity was brought by Gerrard against the Parson of B. And the Plaintiff counts That the said Parson granted an Annuity of 40 l. pro bono consilio suo imposter impenso for term of life of the said Parson And for 30 l. of arrerages this Action was brought Finch thought the Count not to be good And first it is to be considered If that Annuity might be assigned and granted over or not And as I think it cannot For an Annuity is not but as a sum of mony to be paid to the Grantee by the Grantor And not at all to the realty if the Land be not charged by express words in the same Deed. And to prove it If a man grant an Annuity to me and my Heirs without naming of my Heirs If the Annuity be denied it is gone Because my Person is only charged with the Annuity and not the Land So if a man grants to you the Stewardship of his Mannor of D. and to your Heirs you cannot grant that over And so of a Bayliwick But peradventure it may be said That an Annuity may be granted over in this Case Because in the Habendum It is said to the Assignees of the Grantee But that is nothing to the purpose as I think For I take a difference when a thing comes in the Habendum of a Deed which declares the Premises of the Deed For there it shall be taken effectuall but otherwise not As if Lands be given to a man and his Heirs habendum sibi haered de corpore suo procreat That is a good tayl But if a thing comes in the Habend which is repugnant to the Premises of the Deed and to the matter of the thing which is given by the Deed Then the Habend is void for that parcel As in the Case at Bar it is meerly contrary to the nature of the Annuity to be assigned over to another And there is no remedy given for it but an Action and it is Common learning that a thing in Action cannot be assigned over unless it be by the grant of the King Also by their Declaration they have acknowledged it to be no more than a chose in action Then a Rent seck for which he had not any other remedy but an Action after Seisin For he said that he was seised in his Demesn as of Franktenement of the Rent aforesaid Then it ought to be a Rent-seck For of no other Rent can a man be seised in his Demesn because they lye in prend As of Advowsons common for years and of Estovers And I will not agree that difference put by Littleton in his Book to this purpose For of such things which lye in manual occupation or receipt A man shall not say that he was seised in his Demesn as of a Rent Because it lyes in the prend Pasc 4 Car. Com. Hanc And in the 21 E. 4. The Case is doubtfull And Crawley of the same opinion Hitcham of the contrary And at another day Hutton said that the parties were agreed Hitcham We desire to have your opinion notwithstanding for our learning Hutton said We are agreed that the Annuity may be granted over and it is not so much in the personalty as hath been argued by Finch And in some Books it is said that a Release of personal Actions is not a Plea in a Writ of Annuity Groves against Osborn THe Case was thus A man makes a Lease for life the Remainder for life upon Condition that if the second Lessee for life dye in the life of the first Lessee That the Remainder in fee shall be to another And it was said That that Remainder might commence upon that Condition well enough It was said by Atthowe That where a Remainder depends upon a determination of another Estate So that none shall take any Estate by the Remainder upon Condition then the Remainder is good As if a man give Lands to A. for life upon Condition that if I. S. pay me 40 s. before such a day That the Remainder shall be to him That is a good Remainder But when an Estate is to be defeated by a Remainder depending upon that Then the Remainder is not good As if I lease Lands for life upon Condition That if the Rent be in
one of them dyed before partition yet their heirs should hold severally according to the intent of the Will for otherwise the Surviver should hold place which against the will of the Devisor Northens Case A Man seised of a Mannor having all the Goods of Felons de se within the same Mannor and makes a Lease for years of parcell of the same Mannor to a man and afterwards makes another Lease of the same Lands to commence after the determination surrender or forfeiture of the first Lease The first Lessée was a Felo de se the Lord Lessor of the Mannor enters into the lands Leased as forfeit and the second Lessée ousts him and it séemed to Crook that the Entry was lawfull enough Harvey said That the Lessor to whom the Frank-Tenement belonged entring into the land the Frank-Tenement drowned the lesser Estate and the Lease for years is extinct in the Frank-Tenement And it was said That therefore the first Lease extinguisht But if before that the Lord had aliened the Mannor saving to him the liberty and after had entred for the Forfeiture the second Lessée could not enter for it is not any determination of the first Lease Crook said That if the Lessor infeoffed the first Lessée of the Mannor that is a determination of the first Lease and the second Lessée may enter The Bishop of Winchester against Markham THomas Bishop of Winchester brought an Action upon the Statute of West 1 cap. 4. de scandalis magnatum against Markham for that he preferred a slanderous Bill against him before the President of the Councel surmising that he was a covetous and malicious Bishop And the Opinion of the Court was That the words were sufficient to maintain the Action A man seised of a Mannor held in Chivalry devises two parts of it to two men in severalty and all the Remnant he devises to his heirs in Tayle the remainder over in Fée Hutton said It seems to me that the devise is voyd for the third part to the heir for he might devise the two parts by his Testament and he had done all that he could doe by the Statute and then the devise of the third part is out of the warranty of the Statute for it is not reason that by the limitation of the third part the which he could not doe that the devise of the residue which was one time good shall be defeated which Harvey granted but Crook to the contrary for although the two parts were devised by the premisses of the Testament and the third part in the end of it yet in operation of Law the one part is not before the other but the will is intire and took effect in all its parts at one and the same time by the death of the Devisor By which it seemed for the benefit of him in the remainder that he shall take the third part devised to him for if a man seised of three Acres of land held in Chivalry and devises them severally to three severall persons in Fee the heir shall have the third part of every of the three Acres and not the Acre last devised which Hutton granted So also for the benefit of a third person he ought to be judged in the third part as a Purchaser and not of an Estate by descent and so is the better Opinion in 3 H. 6. But if he had devised the Tenements to his Son in Taile without limitation over of the remainder there he might choose to be in of the Estate limited by the Devise or as heir Hutton I doubt of that for the Book is not agreed 3 H. 6. Wilkinsons Case THe Baron seised of lands makes a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff him and his wife for life the remainder over to a stranger in Fee Atthow demanded if the Feoffee shall be bound to make the Feoffment before request made by the Baron Hutton and Crook thought that a request ought to be made by the husband And because the particular Estate which is the foundation of the remainder limited to the stranger ought to be made to the husband who is party to the condition and it is his will to take the Estate for life or refuse it and the Feme is at his will But if the Baron dyes then it behooves him to make the Feoffment to the wife without request because she is a stranger to the condition by Act in Law And so where she dyes also before the Feoffment the Estate ought to be made to him to whom the remainder is limited without any request Yelverton But if the condition was to re-enfeoffe the Feoffor and a stranger there it behoves the Feoffee to tender the Feoffment to the stranger for he had not notice of the condition and he ought to be party to all the Estate And by the Livery made to him the Feoffor shall take well enough Waterton against Loadman VVaterton makes a Feoffee to the use of Loadman in Fee to the use of another in Tayle the remainder to his right heirs in Fee Cestui que use in Tayle dyes the first Feoffees enter for to recontinue the use Crook said That when Tenant in Tayle in use makes a Feoffment nothing passes but for his own life For it had been agreed where cestui que use pur vie makes a Feoffment in Fee for it was not a Forfeiture of his Estate because nothing passed but for his life then when the Feoffee dyes during the life of cestui que use in Tayle that cannot be any descent of the Fee but as an Estate for life the which determines by the death of cestui que use in Tayle And all the Iustices were of the same Opinion for the descent was when he had not any Title of entry for by the Feoffment he had a Title during the life of cestui que use in Tayle Wherefore during his life they could not enter nor make continuall claim But if the descent had been after the death of cestui que use in Tayl then otherwise it shall be for they had a Title to enter before the descent and by their laches they are told of that Hutton seemed That the Feoffees cannot enter in that case for they cannot have the same Estate that they had before the alienation of cestui que use in Tayl for by the Feoffment the Estate of the Fee simple which was to their right heirs passes clearly and it is lawfully in the Feoffee Wherefore if they enter to re-continue the use in Tayl where they shall he seised of another Estate where they shall be seised of a Fee simple also and so there shall be two Estate of Fee simple of the same land which is inconvenient But the Iustices said That cestui que use in Tayl had no other remedy unless by the Entry of the Feoffees Harris against Marre A Man seised of certain lands in Fee makes a Feoffment in Fee to his use and afterwards makes his will by which he devises That
the evidence of the party or by others by his procurement in the same manner As it was in an appeal upon a fresh sute at the Common-law It was said by all That although the custome was of Burgage lands in soccage Yet if the Lands came by gift or otherwise to tenure in Chief or service of Chivalry That that now changes not the Custome which alwaies goes with the Land and not with the tenure As the Lands in Gavelkind by the Custome are soccage tenure Yet if they are changed to service of Chivalry the Custome is not altered But that all the heirs shall inherit It was agreed by all That if sir persons compass and imagine to levy war against the King And there is an agreement betwéen them that two shall do such an act in such a Country and the other two another act in such a County And so divers acts by divers in several Counties for to assemble the people against the King And after two do the Act according to their purpose and assemble the people and the other do nothing Yet the Act done by two upon the agreement is Treason in all But otherwise it is if there had been only a compassing c. and not any agreement and afterwards one of them does the act unknowing to the others there it is not Treason but in those that doe the fact and not in the others As it happened in the Case betwéen the King and an other Wilkins against Thomas IT was adjudged upon good advise That if an Infant he impleaded by any precipe of his Lands And loses by defending Now he shall have a Writ of Error And because that he was within age at the time of the Iudgement it shall be reversed And the Infant shall be restored to all that he lost As it happened in the Case of John Ware against Anderson and others in the County of York lost while they were infra aetatem Where it appeared that they appeared by their Guardian admitted to them by the Court to the Grand cape and that they were within age But there was an inspection by Nurses and Friends and they were found not to be within age John Symons against Thomas Symons NOte it was said by all the Iustices That if the Disseisee enter upon the Feoffee or Lessee of the Disseisor That he shall not have an Action of the Trespass for the same Trespass against the Feoffee or Lessee Because that they come in by a Title And at Common law before the Statute of Gloc. No dammages for mean occupation against the Feoffee or Lessee Bromleys Case IF a man steal goods and be arraigned upon an Indictment of felony and the goods are valued to 6 s. and the Iury upon their verdict say That he is guilty of the said goods but that the value was but 6 d. That is a good verdict And the Iustices shall vanish him as for patty Larcenny In the same manner it is If a man be arraigned for willfull murther and the Iury find it but Manslaughter That is a good verdict by all the Iustices Pease against Thompson A Man seised of Lands in see makes a feoffment from that day to divers to the use of his Wife for her life and after to the use of the heirs of the body of the Feoffor The Feme dies and the Feoffor makes a Lease for years and dies Now her Issue shall not avoid that Lease because a man cannot have Heirs in his life So that at the time of the death of the Feme there was none to take by the remainder And for that the Feoffor had the fee the Lease is good and shall bind the Heir As if a Lease be made for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. and I. S. dies in the life of the Lessee then the remainder is good otherwise not but it shall revert But otherwise it shall be peradventure in such a Case in a demise Hillary 3 Car. Com. Banc. Skore against Randall SKore brought Debt against Randall and recovered and had execution by Elegit and it was found by the Inquisition that the Defendant was seised of the moyety of a Messuage and Lands for life and other Lands in right of his Wife And the Sheriff returns that virtute brevis et deliberat feci meditatem omnium praemissorum cum pertinentiis c. Nec non duo pomaria nec non unum clausum vocat c. And that he had delivered the moyety of the Lands in right of his Wife and his Chattells and recites them and that Elegit was filed And the Question was whether he might have a new Elegit Because that the Sheriff ought to have delivered to him the moyety of the moyetic of the Lands held in Ioint-tenancy So that the Tenent by Elegit might be Tenant in Common for a fourth part with the Ioynt tenants as it was agreed But also by that Delivery he had but in effect the eighth part For the other Ioynt-tenants may occupy the Land delivered with him in Common Richardson said For part of the Lands and goods in right of his Wife the return is good And being filed he cannot have a new Election For if part shall be evicted you cannot have a new Extent upon the Estate But if it had been in the Genitive Case Duorum pomorariorum c. it had been good But it was granted by the Court That the Plaintiff makes a surmise that the Sheriff male se gessit in the Execution of that Elegit and then he may have a new Elegit at his peril c. Edward Thomas against John Morgan et al. EDward Thomas brought an Ejectione firmae against Morgan Kemmis and others and upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was given to this effect for Morgan and Kemmis for the other some were dead before issue and the other not guilty and they found a Iudgement dated 12 Sept. 23 Eliz. and deliver'd the 15 Iunii next ensuing Which was between the then Bishop of St. Davids of the one part and Richard Thomas of the other part And it was in consideration of a Marriage to be had between him and the Daughter of the Bishop That before the end of Hillary Term next ensuing he would levy a Fine of all those Lands and all the other lands in Mountmouth and that should be to Thomas Morgan and Roger Sise of Lincoln-Inne And that he suffered a recovery with double voucher to the uses in the Indenture But the words are that the Conusees should stand seised to the use And by Atthowe the Recovery is idle for the uses shall be executed and then there shall be no Tenant to the Precipe viz. That of all the Lands mentioned in the Indenture Morgain and Sise shall stand seised to the only uses hereafter c. that is to say They shall be seised of in part of the Lands and Tenements that is so much thereof as shall amount to the clear value of
payment of 72 l. And he alleges that the Defendant did not become bound in the Statute but that he himself delivered possession as soon as he could And upon non-assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And Atthowe moved in Arrest of Iudgement It is not a good consideration or promise He said that there was a Colloquium and an Agreement and in Consideration thereof c. That is not a good Consideration And the second Consideration that he delivered c. tam citius quam potuit It is not good for it is uncertain For it may be a year or two years or a day after And the other promise to pay 8 l. in the hundred deferendo diem And there is not any deferring the day for it is not shewn that it is due before and that he shall be bound in a Statute and that no sum is expressed which is uncertain Richardson There is a good Consideration and a good promise There was an Agreement touching the sale of a Banck and an acre of Land and take all alike and that perfects the Agreement And it is plain that the Agreement was for 72 l. and the delivery of the possession or making of assurance is not any Consideration But the promise is all the Consideration And he might have omitted the averment of the delivery of the possession But there is a cross and mutual promise upon which the Action might lye As many times it had been adjudged in this Court and in the Kings Bench. And for the words tam citius quam potuit the Law appoints the time scilicet so soon as he can go remove his goods things out of the House c. As in Case where one sels goods for mony the Vendee shall have for telling the mony And so here at the most till request be made And although it is not expressed in what sum he shall be bound by the Statute Yet it appears that it is for the payment of 72 l. And then the sum ought to be double in which he is bound As if one arbitrate that he pay 72 l. and enters into an Obligation for the payment of it That shall be in the double sum In which Case he said that he could shew several Iudgements of it Crook If one promise to me divers things some of which are certain It is good But also for the time of the delivery there the Law adjudges of that And the sum of the Statute shall be double as it had been said But for the Case of the Arbitrament it is adjudged contrary as 5 Salmons Case And admit that it be uncertain It is a reciprocal Assumpsit and an Action will lye upon that Hutton If a promise to enter into an Obligation there ought to be a reasonable sum as the Case requires for it And in this Case it being in a Statute which is more penal than an Obligation I conceive the same sum of 72 l. will serve And for the time of the delivery of the possession It ought to be in convenient time or upon request As 2 H. 6. And the Law adjudges of the inconveniences of time And although that he fails in the sum of his promises the end of his promise is good enough and the other is not concluded by that Action But he might allege other considerations in actions brought by him Yelverton There is but one promise against another And the sum in the Statute ought to be the same sum As the Case where an Annuity is granted of 20 l. untill the Grantee be advanced to a benefice That ought to be a benefice of the same value But I doubt whether it should be double Harvey It is there by way of promise And then one promise is the consideration of another and there is no breach for it ought to be upon request And then the Action being brought upon that side the request cannot be alleged and one promise good against another Then be the sum what it will ought the Defendant to be bound single or double The Assumpsit not being performed all agreed that the Action well lies A Verdict against an Infant NOte that it was said If a verdict pass against an Infant and the Defendant dies after verdict and it is shewn Iudgement shall not be given against him For the Court does not give Iudgement against a dead man and that is matter apparent and the other is doubtfull matter Fortescue against Jobson A Man seised of certain Lands hath Issue two Sons and devises one part of his Land to the eldest Son and his Heirs and the residue to the youngest Son and his Heirs And if both dye without Issue that then it shall be sold by his Executors and dyes The eldest Son dies without Issue And the opinion of Hutton That the Executors could not sell any part before that both are dead For the youngest Son hath an Estate tayl in Remainder in the part of his eldest Brother So that the Executors cannot sell it And if they do sell it yet that shall not prejudice the younger Brother So long as he hath Heirs of his Body Richardson said That although that the eldest Son aliens and after dies without Issue That the Exâ—…cutors may make sale For that that no interest was given to them But only an Authority to sell the Lands Dicksons Case A Writ de partitione fac against two the one appears and grants the Partition the other makes default Hutton said a Writ shall issue to the Sheriff to make Partition but cesset executio untill the other comes For Partition cannot be by Writ but between the whole Otherwise it is of Partition by agreement Rothwells Case IF a Man makes a Lease for life and the Lessee for life makes a Lease for years And afterwards purchases the reversion and dies within the Term yet the Lease for years is determined And the Heir in reversion may oust him and avoid But if one will make a Lease for years where he had nothing and afterwards purchases the Land and the Lessor dies If that be by Deed indented The Heir shall be estopped to avoid it By Hutton Crook and Richardson Sir Charles Foxes Case THe Case of Sir Charles Fox was now moved again by Henden It was objected that there ought to be an express demand at the day or otherwise he ought not to distreyn But first it appears that he had a good Title to the Rent then there being a verdict found he ought to have Iudgement upon the Statute But not admit that Yet the Demand is good for the words are legitime petit and no time expressed And although the Demand is after the day yet it is sufficient for all the arrerages for the words are tunc et ibidem but c. And the Difference is between the Demand which intitles to the Action and to the thing it self Maunds Case 7 Rep. 20. 40 Eliz. between Stanley and Read Where it was agreed That the day
up a Chamber but that was the knavery of the Inne-keeper he being then in contention with an Inn-keeper in the Parish and that in divine service he thrust open the door of Wrights seat and said that he and his wife would sit there in disturbance of divine service And for that a prohibition was prayed and granted for the high Commission cannot punish non-residency nor breaking the seat in divine service And the other were things for which he shall be bound to his good behaviour and the complaint ought to be to the Ordinary c. Hall and Blundells Case before DAvenport said This Parson being presented by Simony is disabled to this Church for ever and cannot he presented to this Church again although another avoidance As it was adjudged in the Lord Windsors case But it was said by Richardson if he had said absque hoc that he was in ex praesentatione of Sir George it had béen good Which was granted Henden Two exceptions had béen taken First that the Incumbent does not shew what estate or interest the King had to present him which does not need if the King brought a Quare impedit then it is a good answer to say That he is in of his presenting But if it be brought by a Stranger then he ought to shew the title in his presentment And he alleged the Statute of 25 E. 3. Which inables the Incumbent to plead by writ of the Law 41 Eliz. There was a Quare Impedit brought for the Church of Danel A presentation was pleaded by the King without making a title and it was admitted good And in many cases it is more safe not to make a title Secondly Because that he pleaded a presentation by the King he is disabled As to that he said that before he be convicted of Symony he may be presented But by Crook in Sathers Case That if he be presented before conviction yet it is a void presentment And it was so agréed by the Court and they resolved the plea was naught because he enswers nothing to the Symony for the protestation is not any Answer Wherefore judgement was given for the Plaintiff Denne against Burrough DEnne against Burrough alias Spark in a prohibition it was agréed by Yelverton and Crook the other Iustices being absent If a man makes his will and makes his wife Executrix and devises the residue of his goods after debts and legacies payed to his Executrix His wife dies before probate that now because that the Executor had election to have them and dies before he did so All the Goods belong to the Administrator of the first Testator But otherwise by Henden If there was a Legacy of a particular thing Quaere what difference Newton against Sutton RIchard Newton and Iames Elliot against Sutton in debt upon an Obligation to perform Covenants in an Indenture There was a Covenant that the Defendant ought to do such an act thing or things as the Plaintiff or his Council learned should devise for the better assurance of certain Lands by himself to the Plaintiff and said that a Counsellor advised him to have a Fine And upon the Declaration there was a Demurrer And upon the opening the Case Crook and Yelverton being only present agreed That it ought to have been pleaded that a writ of Covenant was shewn and the tender of the note of the Fine is not sufficient But the breaking of the Covenant ought to be laid after the Dedimus potestatem sued by the Plaintiff And upon their advise the action discontinued without costs Sacheverills Case before ATthowe said that the action lies For a Lease made by Tenant for life is a Lease derived out of all the Estates and not as a Lease made in Remainder But he who made the Lease had a Reversion in possibility of a Reversion and for that he might joyn with him who had the Inheritance in that Action 27 H. 8. Tenant for life and he in Reversion joyn in a Lease for life And Tenant for life the place wasted and he that had the inheritance the treble dammages And in this Case had but a possibility of the Reversion and yet for that possibility they joyn in waste And it is all one whether there is but a possibility of reversion or a reversion If Tenant for life and he in remainder in fee make a Lease for years they joyn in waste and the reversion does not hinder Because that the Lease is derived out of both And the Lessee shall make attendance first to one and then to the other 13 H. 7. 17. And if it be upon such a Lease or Covenant which is not collateral but goes with the Land the Tenant for life shall have the benefit of them during his life and the other after But if one makes a Lease for life rendring a Rent and grants the Reversion to one for life the Remainder to another in fee Where the lease issues out of the whole reversion Yet the division by reversion being by the party himself they shall joyn in an action 22 H. 6. 24 b. Tenant in fee makes a Lease for life and their grants the reversion to A. and B. and the Heirs of B Waste is committed and they joyn in waste And yet this Statute which comes to our Case is made after the Lease And in this case if he who had the Inheritance his Son and the Survivor should joyn in waste For the Law makes the division of the reversion If Baron seised in right of his wife and they joyn in a Lease for years or for life rendring a Rent the wife dies the Husband being intitled to be Tenant by the courtesie it is now his Lease and he shall have the Rent And the Book séems that he and the Heir shall have an Action of Waste For the Law makes that division If Tenant in fée makes a Lease for years and takes a wife and dies and the Feme recovers Dower That Lease is not dispunishable with the devision by the Act of Law and that Lease is derived out of all the Estates and it is all one as if they had all joyned Admitting that the words were that the said Henry had Authority to make Leases for lives And that that makes it as effectual and as good as if all had joyned Then it will be agreed that it is the Lease of all As if I give Authority to make a Lease of my Land It is my Lease and ought to be made in my name and so the Authority is good against all those And if the Covenants had not béen collateral Iacinth shall have benefit of them For although they are not parties to the Lease yet the Law makes them so And as they shall have those benefits which grow by the Reversion so they shall have the waste also It will be objected this Lease by Henry is derived out of the first Fine and the Conusees shall stand seised to that use I agree if it be meerly without
to be done every such assurance as the Council of the Obligee should devise when he should be thereunto required And it was shewn by Ward That the Obligee made such a request scil That the Obligor and his wife should levy a Fine If that Request were sufficient was the Question Hutton I think that the Request is not sufficient Because it is not pursuant according to the Obligation Richardson I think although the request be void for the wife and that she is not bound to make an assurance Yet the Obligor is bound to do it For against him the Request is good enough Thompson against Thompson IT was said by Hutton In debt against Executors if the Plaintiff had Iudgement against the Defendant and sued a levare fac de bonis Testatoris If the Sheriff upon that return a Devastavit the better form is upon that to award a scire fac against the Executor before that a fieri fac shall issue of their own goods For that writ of Execution is warranted by the first Iudgement which was but of the Goods of the deceased But now if there be issued a fieri fac de bonis testat si habuerint et si devastaverint de bonis propriis Then I will agree that upon that shall issue a Capias against the Executors ad satisfacieudum Dixson and his Wife against Blyth IN this Case a Question was demanded by Atthowe If a man seised in right of his wife leases for life the Remainder over in Fee And afterwards he and his wife recover the same Land in a Writ of Entry in the post against the Lessee for life If the Wife by that shall be remitted Hutton seemed that she shall be remitted As well as where a Feoffment is made to Baron and Feme For that Recovery countervails a Feoffment and no laches shall be adjudged in the Wife For the purchase of the Writ shall be adjudged the Act of the Husband only and not the Act of the Wife But it is good to be advised of that for peradventure she shall be estopped by the Record Bromefields Case IT was agreed by all the Iustices That if Tenant in tayl by Indenture upon consideration of mariage covenant with an other that certain persons should be seised to his use for term of his life and after his decease to the use of his Son and Heir apparent That by that Covenant there is not any use changed unless only during the life of Tenant in tayl Nortons Case before FInch Recorder said de comuni jure for Estovers burnt in an house tithes ought not to be paid by the Common law there was not any tithes paid for wood And although the Statute of 25 E. 3. gives a prohibition for timber yet Underwoods were discharged of tithes See Doctor and Student 171. It is express that Estovers are not tithable because they are not renewing every year and it is parcel of the Inheritance for to destroy all the underwoods is waste And there is another case put where tithes of wood had not by the custom been paid neither ought they to be paid in law or conscience But that is not to be intended the conscience of every particular man Dawleys Case was resolved for the Wilde of Sussex and Michaelmas 13 Iac. Banc. Roy. in the case of Porter and Dike for the Wilde of Kent of the same prescription resolved to he good And so is the common experience that a whole County may prescribe so And the reason is for that that by the Common Law it was not due but by the consideration of Winchelsey Linwood 104. It was ordained to be paid For then the prelates imputed a great pestilence that then was for the negligence of paying tithes and appointed tithes of wood And the Commons were desirous to have the Statute of silva c. otherwise explained than the Clergy declares it For they say that they ought not to pay tithes of any wood that is of the growth of 10 years Hutton Wood is tithable in their nature and then there may be a custom to discharge them And the case of Harthpenny cannot be answered for if he sues for the penny a prohibition shall not be granted quod concessum fuit Crook and Yelverton But of things not tithable tithes of them cannot be sued without alleging a custom Crooke It is known that Harthpenny is good by prescription This Case is when there is not land belonging to the house so that the Parson is not answered for his tithes another way But when there are ten servants kept for the maintaining it Then by the Law of the land it appears that tithe ought not to be paid although custom had been alleged it is nothing to the purpose as if a custom is alleged to pay 4 d. for every acre in discharge of tithes and the verdict finds 3 d. no consultation shall be granted And so for wood to fence the ground or dry cattel to manure the ground Although custom be alleged there in discharge of it and found against the party yet no consultation shall be granted Hutton the herbage of barren Cattel is tithable because there is a custom which discharges those which are for the Cart. And he said that the Custom only makes that legem terrae And he cited Doctor Graunts Case He libels for tithe of an house and the party brought a prohibition and alleged modus decimandi c. And it was alleged in arrest of Iudgement as houses were not tithable de communi jure and yet a consultation was granted And there Cook put this case which I do not remember in the printed book that one libelled for tithes of trees and custom alleged and there was found no such custom in discharge yet it was ruled that no custom was granted Browne against Hancocke BRowne brought an action upon the case upon an assumpsit against Hancocke and declares that whereas the 10. of May 16 Iac. there were some controversies between Charls Nichols and the Brother of the Defendant concerning arrerages of rent and it was desired that Nichols would part with his term And 19 l. and a cloak and a gelding were offered to the lessee for his term which he refused Afterwards the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would labour with Charles Nichols to take the offer and make an end between them Assumed that whatsoever the Plaintiff undertook for the Defendant he would perform and also save him harmlesse for any thing that he should doe in that businesse and then he said that he procured Charles Nichols to assign his term and to accept the cloak and gelding which the Defendant did not perform and allso that the Plaintiff covenanted with Charles Nichols to perform the agreement and obliged himself to that in 50 l. And that afterwards Charles Nichols filed a bill of debt for the money whereupon he compelled him to pay it and upon non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and
by the Court that where a Servant of a Bayliff of a Franchise was sworn to serve a Process and by deputation from the Bayliff he ought not to have served a Process but to such a sum And he serves a Process of a greater sum without any warrant and after levies the money and parts with it That the Bayliff shall be chargeable Quod nota Beare against Hodge BEare was Plaintiff against Hodge for taking of his Cattel The Defendent was known as Bayliff to Thomas Wise who was seised of twenty acres c. whereof the Land in question was parcel in Fee And that it was Leased to Harris for 99. years if he and his two sons should so long live and rendring a Rent at the four usual Terms in the year and the best beast at the death of every one of the three in the name of an Herriot or 5. l. at the election of the Lessor And now for Rent arrear at Michaelmas and for an Heriot after the death of Harris he avowed c. The Plaintiff confesses the Lease and reservation and as to the Heriot he demurred But for the Rent he said that he tendered the Rent upon the Land toward the latter time of Michaelmas day and that none was there to receive it And that afterwards he tendered it to the Lessor himself out of the Land and he refused it And that after that time no demand was made but that he after the tender alwaies was and yet is Tenent c. and brings the mony into Court And upon that he demurred Henden said The Avowant may distrein without any new demand and that Case had been adjudged in this Court before For although that the Rent be tendered yet it remains due notwithstanding and then he is able to distrain 15 Iac. in this Court rot 710. Crowley brought a Replevin against Kingsmill who avowed For that the Plaintiff held of him by Fealty and 10 s. rent And for the Rent he distreyned the Plaintiff And that at the day he tendered the rent upon the land none was there to receive it as it is said c. And upon debate it was adjudged that he may distrein without demand 7 rep 29. Maunds case you may see that a Rent-seek shall not be distreined after tender without demand For if by his demand he is intituled to his Action then there ought to be a new Demand 21 E 4. 17. 7 E 4. 40. 20 H. 6.1 cited in Pilkintons Case If you will be excus'd of the Distress there ought to be a tender of the Arrerages at the time of the Distress Richardson Hutton and Harvey all agree That the Distress is good to have the Rent but not to recover Dammages because he does not all he might do And Richardson said That 2 H. 6. 10 H. 6. 20 E. 4. 10 E. 4. and the Case in the Assise and the whole current of Books was to the same purpose Harvey Iustice said that if a tender be upon an Obligation at the day he saves the penalty but if another Demand be afterwards and he refuses to pay he cannot plead unque prist And Iustice Crook cited a Case in the Kings Bench 16 Eliz. betwéen Cropp and Hambleton where a Rent upon a Lease was reserved to be paid at Michaelmas And if by forty daies after c. And in the mean time after the first and before the last the Lessee tenders to the Lessor himself And adjudged that it saves the Forfeiture For it is for his ease that he ought to tender upon the Land And by the same reason also when he hath tendered it to the Person himself and said that it is uncore prist and will demur upon that and not take advantage of his non-tender at the Distress the Dammages are saved But Yelverton was against that For it is agréed that a Distress is locall so then we cannot sever Dammages when the Law hath coupled them and made incident to the Distress Sed adjournatur c. Tithes ONe libells for Tithes of Fish which is due meerly by Custome And the Defendant pleads that time out of mind c. they have paid no Tithes of that And Henden Sergeant moved for a Prohibition And Richardson replyed and said it is méerly a Customary Tithe as Rabbits c. Whereof no Tithes are due by the law of the Land and a Prohibition shall not be granted But all the other Iustices affirmed that there shall be a Prohibition granted because that the Custome ought to be tryed by the Common law and they make a difference betwéen modus decimandi which is also Customary and where there is a Tithe precedent due and that modus converts it into another Duty There no Prohibition shall be granted But it shall be tryed in the spiritual Court whether there be such a modus decimandi or not And that Case in the Custome makes the Duty it self But he alleged the modus to be for two pence and the Parson for thrée pence shall be tryed by the Common law And they said that so was the opinion in the grand Case of lead ore And Hutton said that so it was determined in the Case of one Berry for tithes of Limekills which are as Minerals and are not tithable by the Commmon law But when the Custome is tryed then they in the Ecclasiastical Court may proceed upon it Hartop and Tucke against Dalby HArtop and Tucke brought a Quare impedit against Dalby as Incumbent and the Issue betwéen them was Whether the Church of Essenden was appendent to the Mannor of Essenden or in gross And the Plaintiff to prove the Appendancy gave in evidence that H. 6. seised of the Mannor and Advowson grants to Margaret his Wife the said Mannor habendum una cum advocatione for her Ioynture c. It was said that if the advowson was in gross it could not pass so not named in the Premises But of an advowson appendent otherwise it is As it was agréed in 38 H. 6. 36. Abbess of Syons Case which was granted by the whole Court. Henden to disprove that evidence alleged That the Advowson being made any time in gross It can never be appendent again And he shewed also how H. 3. was seised of that Mannor with the Advowson and that he granted the Mannor to I. S. for life excepta advocatione By which Grant it seem'd to him that it became in gross And said that the Iudgement of the Case in 38 H. 8. 38. was for that cause and that they did not ever find it contradicted And so totis viribus be maintained that to be in gross But all the Iustices were against him And that that is not but a disappendency pro quodam tempore And so was the better opinions in 38 H. 6. as the Case is in Dyer 33 H. 8. 48. 6. of a Villain If the King grants the Demesus of a Mannor for life After the death of the Lessée it is a Mannor again And if
by Attorny the Deed is void But now the grand doubt is whether the livery after the day by Attorny be good I will agree that if the letter of Attorny was made the same day that the deed bore date the livery is void For it shal not be in the power of an Attorny to invalidate or validate the lease made by an other So if a letter of Attorny be contained in a Charter of feoffment or be in another Deed delivered at the same day The delivery upon that Deed shall be nought And the Attorney by his livery cannot make the lease or feoffment good no more than in Bucklers Case an atturnment can make a Grant good 9 Iac. com banc rot 1414. Walter and Dean and Chapters Case of Worcester cited before In a Writ of covenant There a lease was made by E. for three lives bearing date the 10 of Novemb. 42. E. and a letter of Attorney to deliver seisin The Attorney delivered seisin a year after when two rent daies were incurred And it was doubted whether that livery was good because that two rent daies were passed before he had executed his Authority And it was adjudged good And it was not like the Lord Cromwells Case 2 Rep. Where a performance of a Condition for the avoidance of an advowson was void no time being limitted For in Case of authority it may be executed 10 years after So that what the Feoffor himself may do he may give authority to another to do that For if he be bed-rid or other infirmity shall the law so fetter him that what he can do himself he cannot in the same Case do by any other For although you may say that he may make a new lease yet perhaps he is tyed by Covenants or Obligations so by which he shall be worse intangled And the reason of the expectancy of the Frank-tenement also which an Attorney may make good or bad a lease of another is included Because where it is mischievous to none the law does not envy the Ease of the party as Combes Case is A Surrender by an Attorney of a Copihold is good and we can you know appear by Attorney in actions and acknowledge Iudgements But it will be objected that livery by Attorney is not good without a Charter of Feoffment as Kirkby said 16 H. 7. fol. 51. Plo. 6. And if those Books are not law Yet Greenwood and Tilers Case before recited will resolve that doubt That the Deed is not void if the livery be after and if the Entry be presently he is a Tenent at will or a Disseisor as it is in Bucklers Case For it cannot be made good by any thing after Yet the Déeds remain or otherwise his acceptance did not bar him I confess that an Authority to make livery cannot be made by Paroll as 10 H. 8. 11 H. 4. for it may be revoked by Paroll As a Will which cannot be made but by writing yet it may be revoked by Paroll 26 As But an authority to make a Lease is made by Paroll 30 E. 3.31 32. If a Déed purporting an Estate in Fee simple be read to the Feoffor who is an illiterate man to pass only an Estate tail And a Letter of Attorney was to deliver seisin secundum formam Chartae which is well read to him Yet it was resolved that all is void And that he may plead it was not his deed to the letter of Attorny For if the Deed be void the Letter of Attorney which releases to it is void also But I conceive if it be put in a Deed that gives Land a die datus and the Attorney authorised by express words delivers seisin three daies before that livery may be good And then it is more strong when he appoints his Attorney after the day as it is in this Case A Feoffment made from a day past is good and the time before the livery is idle And for another reason in Case of Assurances such nice constructions ought not to be made And because there is no difference whether livery be made in Person or by Attorney Now there is a difference between an Authority and Conveyance H. 20. 40 Eliz. in an Ejectione firm in this Court Marriots Case A Charter of Feoffment was made to the Lessor of the Plaintiffs 10 Septemb. And the Feoffee reciting that that Charter was made the 11 of September authorised him to take livery secundum formam Chartae And it was resolved because the date was mistaken although all other circumstances agreed Because that the authority ought to be taken strictly that that is a void livery But in Dyer 116. A Lease is made the 30 day of August for 21 years and afterwards the Lessor reciting that the Lease was made the 6th of August demises the Land habendum after the first Lease determined And it was resolved to be a good Lease because that the beginning and ending of the Lease agreed And in the Case of Marriot it was resolved Secondly That an Attorny cannot be without Deed. Thirdly Although that the Feoffor in person makes livery yet it is void Because that the Attorney cannot take the livery upon that Deed without that authority But where that one may do that thing himself and he gives the Attorney the same authority It is all one if Feoffment be made to I. S. and I. S. makes an Attorney to take livery whereof livery is made yet is good And it is all one as if livery had been made to I.S. himself 19 H. 6. A Feoffment upon Condition that he enfeoff I. S. void by the Statute of 1 Eliz. or voidable and it seemed it was but voidable by the Successor by entry or by action You may sée that the words are as plain as may be They shall be utterly void to all intents and purposes But quid haeret in litera For her meaning was That it shall be void by the Successor and that construction had alwaies been made 3 Rep. 19. 11 Rep. 73. So the Statute 23 H. 6. of Sheriffs had been expounded 7 E. 4. 4. There cannot be non est factum pleaded And upon the Statute of Vsury That an usurious contract shall be void Yet the Statute ought to be pleaded Acts of Parliament where there are many doubts shall be expounded by the Common law For that that at the Common law a Free-hold cannot he helped but by Entry 11 H. 7. There is a diversity between a Lease for years and a Lease for life Dyer 222. And it is the dignity of a free-hold to reduce it by free-hold Then if it stood with the Common law It is not to be void without Entry For as a solemn Ceremony created the same must defeat it The Statute shall be so expounded And if it was in Case of a lease years of a Bishop it shall not be void without Entry 3 Rep. Pennants Case Dyer 229. 8 H. 5. 11 E. 3. Commen 139. It was never the meaning of the Act
to make it actually void For if the words are pursued strictly then it shall be void immediately against the Bishop himself Then the Successor in lieu of a benefit shall take an advantage of the Statute For he cannot make Leases but of things usually demised 32 Eliz. Sale and Sale against the Bishop of Coventry in a Quare impedit It was adjudged That a Quare impedit well lies by an Executor for disturbance made to the Testator And also that a Lease for years is good notwithstanding the Statute The Statute does not intend the benefit of the Lessee but of the Successor himself And the Successor had his Election to accept the Rent or the Land And if it should be voyd his Election is gone Tallengers and Dentons Case 4. Jac. A Lease is made by the Bishop of Carlisle of the Tithes which is out of the Statute And there it is void against the Successor For that that he hath no remedy for the Rent reserved upon it And that point is so adjudged upon the Statute of the 13 Eliz. Walters Case before resolved that a Lease made by Dean and Chapter not warranted by the Statute is but voydable against the Successor Pas 6 Iac. rot 1041. Wheeler and Danbies Case Robert Bishop of Glocester 30 Eliz. makes a Lease to Iasper habendum a die datus to him for life the remainder to William rendring the ancient Rent The first Lessee dies the Successor having notice of it and that divers Rents were behinde commanded his Bayliff that he should receive the Rents The Bayliff enters them and receives Rent of that Lessee the Bishop having notice of it And these points were resolved First the Iury finding a Lease a die datus might be intended good for that the Entry was made after the day yet the Iury finding a thing impossible does not conclude the Iudges Secondly that a Lease in remainder is not warranted by the Statute 1 Eliz. Thirdly that the Lease was but voydable by the Successor for the Statute was made for the benefit of the Successor but the grand Question was of the manner of acceptance and resolved Fourthly that the acceptance binds the Bishop and the Authority given to the Bayliff and also his receipt For it differs where the Bayliff of his own accord receives Rent Dyer And they also say that that was to perfect an estate setled And it differs from an Attournment which is to perfect an estate setled For there notice is requisite c. Gammons Case again HEndon said that a Scire facias does not lie upon that record because an action of debt well lies For no president can be shewn that a Iudgement given in an inferiour Court may be executed so For first that Court shall not make an Instrument to execute Iudgement given in another Court It is seen that an Attaint lies of false Iudgement given in an inferiour Court Take the Case in 14 H. 4.4 And so if issue be joyned in an inferiour Court without custom It shall not be removed to be tryed so And so it is our Case c. Secondly the Statutes do not give them power viz. 26 H. 8. 34 H. 8. makes the matter clear that it cannot be Error in an Assize before the Iustices of Assize will not lye in this Court. For Iudges Itinerant are superior And those Iudges are appointed by Act of Parliament and so the Iudges also in Wales are by Act of Parliament And having power a Oyer et terminer It is not found that after Iudgement a Certiorari had been received to remove the Record out of an Inferiour Court And the mischief would be if Iudgement should be given for 20. l. it should be executory through all the Realm where they have but a special Iurisdiction And also the tenor of the Record is only removed and execution cannot be out of the tenor of the Record Dyer 369. Plow 52. Richardson The question is whether when the Record is so removed whether it shall be idle If Iudgement be given in an Inferiour Court which holds Plea by prescription or by grant and removed by Writ of Error if the Iudgement be affirmed we may award Execution 16 Iac. There is an express president of a Iudgement in an Inferiour Court and a Scire facias is granted so And also a Scire facias is granted in lieu of an action of debt For by the Common Law he might not have a Scire facias after the year but an action of debt And by the Common Law debt lies in that Case Harvey and Crook Iustices said that Court shall not be an Instrument to execute Iudgement in an inferiour Court which they cannot And also the Land of the Defendant shall be lyable to an execution in any place in England where before only the Land within the place was lyable And also the purchaser could never finde out what executions might be upon the Land Richardson said that the mischief would be great on both sides For otherwise what Iudgement was given The Defendant would remove his goods out of the Iurisdiction of the Court and then the Plaintiff had no remedy but by new original And Crook Iustice If a man brings an action in a Court he ought to examine what the end of that will be For it is a president a man ought to respect things in their end For it is his own folly to commence an action where he cannot have execution For that he may commence his action and have execution in any place in England And although that a forrain Plea in an Inferiour Court may be tryed so yet it is by Act of Parliament viz. 6 E. 1. 12. which proves by the Common Law there was no remedy Tithes of Pidgeons and Acorns A Parson Libels in the Spiritual Court for Tithes of Pidgeons and Acorns And the Defendant prayed a prohibition Because the Pidgeons were spent in his own house and the Acorns dropt from the Tree and his Hogs eat them And it was said by the Court Acorns are Tithable 11 Rep. 49. But then they ought to be gathered and also sold And a prohibition was clearly granted Thomas Wilcocks Case MOre of the Case of the Vniversity of Oxford Thomas Wilcocks Mr. of Arts in St. Mary Hall in Oxford was sued in the Chancellors Court there by Anne wife of Ralph Bradwell and Christian her daughter For calling the wife Bawd and old Bawd and the daughter Whor. and scurvey pockey-faced whore And they procured two Sentences against Wilcocks and upon them he had two prohibitions And Davenport moved for a Procedendo for that that by their Charter which was confirmed by Parliament The Chancellor or his Deputy shall have Conusans of all causes personal where one of the parties is a Scholar And the Charter was shewed in Court which was to this purpose That they shall hold Pleas c. or Secundum morem Universitatis or Secundum legem terre And the custom was to proceed according to
to be void by the same reason Greenwood and Tilers Case He had much insisted upon that yet in the enlargement of the Case this point was resolved That if the Livery was by Attourney it should be void and the reason there was That although that the deed was void yet the Livery made in person ought to be good But the Deed can never by Livery be made good which was void to that purpose And it had been said and objected that it might be done in person and therefore by Attourney I agree that by that Livery an Estate passes but not by the Deed. But the Livery makes it pass out of the Interest that the Lessor had But by that reason that such a Lease shall be good where Livery is by the Lessor himself will not stand with our Case And divers Cases declare this difference 23 E. 3. 31 32. A Deed of Feoffment is made by Mawbry where he had nothing in the Land and after purchases and makes Livery Secundum formam Chart. That estate passes but not by the Deed. But if Livery had been there made by Attourney it had not been good If a Feme Covert or a Monk makes such a Charter of Feoffment and after Coverture or deraignment Makes livery then by Attorny such livery then cannot be good For he cannot exceed his authority which was to make good his first Deed. 22 H. 6 32. A feoffment of a Mannor by Deed of two acres all pass not by deed but by livery but if by Attorny otherwise it is Livery according to deed where there is not any by Attorny is void Kelway 64. A lease made by Baron and Feme may be pleaded without Deed. Coparceners agregate cannot make a Lease without Deed But a Bishop or a single Corporation may and it shall be good against him but not against his Successor Dyer 19. 17 E. 4. 17. Littleton said Where an Estate passes by Deed then the Livery is but a Ceremony And in the Chapter of Conditions he in the remainder shall be bound by Condition in the Deed. Because that he took by that So that by your reasons you would make that acknowledgement and inrollment by the Grantor himself to be a Ceremony and yet nothing pass And the rule in Magdalen College Cases If you will have a thing by Deed to be nought no subsequent Act can make it good And then the lease is made to three and the Grant of Attorny to deliver seisin to 3. and he delivers seisin but to one although that the others take in remainder Yet he ought not to take upon him the cognisance of law but pursue his authority A lease is made for years the remainder in fée and a Warrant of Attorney to deliver seisin to him in the remainder And the Attorny delivers seisin to the Tenent for years It is not good And yet in Law it ought to be made to him 11 H. 7. 13. A feoffment and a letter of Attorny to deliver seisin to two and he does it but to one That is a disseisin and absolutely void by the Statute Dyer 177. Hill 39. Eliz com banc rot 941. Iohnson against Morris and Edmunds IOhnson brought a Trespass against Morris and Edmunds quare clausum fregit et herbam suis depastus est c. The Defendant said that all the time of the Trespass he was seised of the Mannor of Amner And that they and all their Predecessors had a Sheep-walk in the place assigned c. and for all the year but when it was sowed for all the sheep leavant and couchant upon the Mannor c. The Plaintiff replies that the Defendant such a day put 200 sheep within that Land and that those sheep were levant and couchaut upon the Chauntry fold Whereupon the Defendant demurred Crowley Iustice The Declarations are general of sheep without expressing the number and for that the Iustification is good in the generalty and now when the replication is of 200 sheep and does not say alias it is naught Hutton It is not directly put that the Chauntry land is parcel of the Mannor and then we cannot so intend it and yet by the Demurrer it is confessed Richarson It is not sufficient to say that they were levant and couchant upon the Chauntry fold without saying absque hoc that they were parcel of the Mannor And it is incertain whether there were other sheep and we by Imagination cannot intend it c. Harvey and Hutton The Replication is good For that that in the Replication he now declares of what sheep he complain'd before And he does not agree the sheep which the Defendant hath justified but he mistakes his Iustification For he brings his action for another thing As the Trespass is made quare clausum fregit The Defendant justifies for a way and the Plaintiff says that he went out of the way It is a good replication And a new Assignment of the Sheep is contained in the Replication the Declaration being general And although that he did not say directly that the sheep are other Yet put all the parts of the Replication together and it will appear that they are other But Richardson and Crook on the contrary The Replication is not a confession and avoidance nor traverse of the bar if it had been said Ducent alias oves But then the Declaration had been avoided and the Defendant might plead not guilty to them And although it was said levant and couchant upon the Chauntry fold yet it is but an argument and express allegation in bar cannot be answered by arguments For a prescription is for Ewes and the Trespass quare oves c. generally The Defendant alleges his prescription and avows that they were oves matrices And the Plaintiff replies that they were oves verveces That is not good without a traverse absque hoc that they were oves matrices And the Case put before of Iustification by way was agreed For there it was confessed and avoided by Replication And also that Case alleged by Hutton to be adjudged A Battery is alleged to be done the first of May. The Defendant justifies deson assault dem the same day The Plaintiff replies that that Battery was four hours after the other Battery And it was traversed and well which was ordered by the Court that an alias should be added in the Replication c. Fawnes Case FAwne an Attorney in this Court had arrested divers persons by Process without original in Actions of debt And where the King ought to have for every hundred pounds in the Obligation 10 s. for a Fine if the sum exceeded 50 l. And when the original is sued the said Fawne took the mony to himself of the Clyents And the Cursiter complains to the Chancellor and be informs the Court. And it was said by Richardson because he had taken his oath which every Attorny ought to take That he shall do no falsity And also we by our Oath bound to punish such
offences Therefore his sentence was That his Name should be put out of the Roll and thrust over the Bar and committed to the Fleet Which was executed accordingly 20 H. 6. 37. 41. E. 3. 1. Which Cases prove the same Iames and Thoroughgood against Collins IAmes and Thoroughgood brought Trespass against Collins And the Case was this A man makes his Testament and gives to 5 men their heirs and assigns certain Houses in Fleet-street c. All of them to have part and part alike and the one to have as much as the other And whether the Defendants were Iointtenants or tenants in Common was the Question and it was adjudged and resolved that they were Tenants in Common And the same Case in 2. 3 Phil. Mary in Bendlows Reports is adjudged so And also in Lucan and Locks Case in the Kings Bench It was afterwards remembred and agreed to be good Law Ratcliff Case Advise to two and his Heirs in Ioynt-tenency by the whole Court against the opinion of Audley It was said by the Court that an Officer of the Court ought to be answered in any action de die in diem Quod nota c. Beguall against Owen BEguall brought a Writ of Partition against Owen before the Iustices of Assise at the grand Sessions in Anglesey And the Defendant pleaded the general issue The Plaintiff prefers a Bill in English and says that Owen is Tenant in Common with him and that divers of his VVitnesses which can prove his Title are so aged that they cannot come to the Sessions and desires a Commission to examine the Witnesses concerning the Title in perpetuam rei memoriam And Henden moved for a Prohibition For that that Cause would be dangerous for the Subject that such Testimonies taken in his absence should be for tryal of his Title Secondly That that examination before the Tryal is against the Statute of 26 H. 8. And although they have it in Chancery yet it is not so here But it was denied by the Court For there was never seen such a President Of a Prohibition to a grand Sessions And by Yelverton They have it in Chancery and if it be not prescribed in what manner they shall have it it should be as in the Chancery Hutton That Commission is not prejudicial to the Subject although a Prohibition be grantable For such Testimonies are not used but after the Witnesses are dead And a man cannot preserve them alive and perchance his Title rests upon their Testimonies Iane Heeles Case IAne Hee le Administratrix of her Husband brought an action of Debt upon an Obligation made to her Husband the Testator The Defendant pleads a Recovery by the Testator upon the same Obligation and that he was taken in execution and that the Sheriff suffered him voluntarily to escape The Plaintiff replies Null tiel Record of the Recovery Vpon which there is a demurrer Davenport That the Iudgement was but a conveyance to their matter in Bar and it ought not to be traversed But it was said by the whole Court That the Iudgement in it self is a good bar if it be not reversed 6 Rep. 45. Higgins case The execution upon that is not but a consequence upon the Iudgement And without the Iudgement Escape is not material for to make the traverse good And so Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Issues If the King by his Letters Patents grant to the Corporation all Issues within any places The issue that the Corporation it self shall forfeit shall be excepted by intendment of law For otherwise it would be a defrauding of Iustice For then the Corporation would never appear Which note in the Case of Dean and Chapter of Ely Provender against Wood. PRovender brought an action upon the case against Wood For that the Defendant assumed to the Father of the Plaintiff upon a mariage to be solemnised betwéen the Plaintiff and the Daughter of the Defendant to pay him 20 l. And it was agreed by Richardson and Yelverton nullo contradicent That the action well lies for the same And the party to whom the benefit of a promise accrews may bring his action Mrs. Rowes Case MIstris Rowe was arrested by a capias corpus ad satisfaciendum by a Bayliff in Middlesex within the Bars in Holborn which is within the liberty of London And Hitcham the Kings Sergeant prayed a Supersedeas For that that the arrest was false And the Court agreed that a Supersedeas cannot be granted For a Supersedeas it cannot be alleged Executio erronice emanavit but there the Execution is well granted And if it be returned by the Sheriff generally It ought to be intended well served although that the Affidavit be made to the contrary But in this case a Corpus cum causa shall be granted Booth against Franklin BOoth Farmor of a portion of Tithes for 5 years without Deed demises a Farm which he had in the same Parish to Franklin for years and afterwards he libells against him for tithe of that Farm And Franklin said he was not Farmour And Henden prays a Prohibition for that First That the Lease for Tithes is without Deed but he may be discharged of his own Tithes without Deed As was adjudged before in this Court Secondly the Lessee is not to pay tithes for that Farm For although the Parson makes a Lease of the Glebe for years he paid tithes But if a Layman who had the impropriation leases the Glebe the Lessee does not pay tithes But the Court denied the case of the lease of the Parsonage impropriate And said that the case of Perkins and Hinde was adjudged to the contrary in that very point And also if he purchase other lands in the Parish which are discharged of tithes in his hands and he demises them yet the Lessee pays him tithes And the opinion of the Court was If one contract with the Parson for discharge of the Tithes of his lands for years and demises his lands to another yet he shall not have tithes but the discharge runs with the land But if one take a lease of his Tithes by deed and makes a demise of his land he has tithes of the Lessee And the direction was that the Lessee of the Farm ought to shew expresly in the Ecclesiastical Court that the Farmour had not a Lesse by Deed and a Prohibition was granted And it shall be admitted that the words of the libell being Firmator conductor occupator was good Ralph Andrews against Bird. ANdrews brought an action upon the Case against Bird and declares that Bird sued a Trespass in this Court against him and upon not guilty pleaded the issue betwéen the aforesaid Ralph Andrews and Robert Bird was tryed at the Assises c. And that there Andrews shew'd in evidence a Deed of feoffment concerning his Title and the verdict passed for Andrews And afterwards Bird spoke these words scilicet That Andrews procured the Deed to be forged And upon not guilty pleaded it
Executor shall have the Land and yet the heir cannot have the rent Harvey In this Court it was the case of one Asham who had a purpose to enclose a Common and one Tenant was refractory wherefore Asham made him a Lease of the soil in which he had Common and afterwards he surrenders it again And it was agreed that the Common was suspended during the term Crook A Lease for years is by the contract of both parties and the surrender may revive the rent but by the surrender the arrearages shall not be revived And suppose that the surrender was by Indenture and a recitall of the grant that is a grant and then it is expresse that by the surrender their intent was that the rent should be revived 3 H. 6. A surrender determines the interest of all parties but of a stranger But it is determined to themselves to all intents and purposes Crook It was one Cooks Case against Bullick intrat 45 Eliz. rot 845. Com. ban It was there adjudged and this diversity was taken If one devise Lands in Fee and after makes a Lease for years of the same Lands to the Devisee to commence after his death it is a countermand of his will if the Lease was to commence presently it is no countermand and the reason is In the first case both cannot stand in Fee the Devise and the Lease But when the Lease commences immediately he may outlive the Lease And this Case is put upon the intents of the parties But Henden This Case is also adjudged If two Tenants in Common are and one grants a Rent charge the Beasts of the other are not distreinable But if a Tenant in Common takes a Lease for years of another his Cattel are discharged again But Yelverton and Hutton doubted that Case and so it was adjourned to be argued c. Thomsons Case THompson libells for delapidations against the Executors of his predecessor and Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that Thompson is not incumbent for his presentment was by the King ratione minoritatis of one Chichley and the King had not any such Title to present for where the King mistakes his Title his Presentment is voyd and he is no Incumbent 6 Rep. 26. Greens Case And Sir Thomas Gawdys Case where the King presented jure praerogat when he had another Title and the present Action was adjudged voyd and whether he is incumbent or not that shall be tryed But by the Court a Prohibition was denyed because that he was now incumbent And the Iudges would not take notice of the ill Presentment of the King But in case of Symony the Statute makes the Church voyd and then the Iudges may take notice of that and grant a Prohibition if the Parson sues for Tythes But if a quare impedit be brought and appears that the King had not cause of Presentment then a Prohibition may be granted which also was granted by all the other Iustices Richard Youngs Case RIchard Young was Demandant in a Formedon and admitted by Prochein amy and the Warrant was allowed by a Iudge and it was certified and entred in Gulstons Office in the Roll of Remembrance but it was not entred in the Roll as the course in the Common Bench is and after Iudgement is given for the Plaintiff And for that Formeden the Defendant brought a Writ of Errour and removed the Record and assigned it for Errour And before in nullo est erratum pleaded And Davenport moved that it might be mended for he said that there was a difference between that Court and the Kings Bench as it is in the 4 Rep. 43. Rawlins Case for the Entry of the Roll was Richard Young came et obtulit se per atturnat suum where it should have been proximum amicum And the Entry in the Remembrance Roll was That he was admitted per Gardianum Richardson said that all the Books are That an infant ought to sue by Prochein amy and defend by his Guardian and so is a Demandant But the Court agreed That that should be amended according to the Certificate As a speciall Verdict should be amended according to the Notes given to the Clerk And Davenport said that he would venture it although it was by Guardian for he held it all one if it were by Guardian or by Prochein Amy. See afterwards more of this The Vicar of Cheshams Case THe Earl of Devonshire had a Mannor in the Parish of Chesham in Buckinghamshire which extended to Latmos where there is a Chapell of Ease and the Vicar of Chesham Libells for Tithes against one of the Tenants of the Mannor And Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that the Earl prescribed that he and all his Tenants should be acquitted of all the Tythes of Land within Latmos paying 10. s. per. ann to the Chaplin of Latmos And he said that such a Prescription is good as it was adjudged in Bowles Case And a Prohibition was granted Wildshieres Case IT was agreed by the whole Court That for Executing of a Capias utlagatum or for a Warrant to Execute it or for a return of it no Fee is due to the Sheriff c. It was afterwards agreed upon an Habeas corpus sued by Wiltshiere who was imprisoned being under-Sheriff by the Lord Chamberlain for arresting Sir George Hastings Servant to the King upon a Cap. utlagat That he may well doe it upon the Servant of the King for it is the Sute of the King himself and he is sworn to serve it and there is no cause of the Commitment returned but only a recitall of the Commitment unless he was released by the Lord. And the Iudges took exception to that and said that it ought to be unless he can be released by the Law and said if no cause be returned they ought to dismisse the Prisoner And they ordered the Keeper to inform the Lord Chamberleiâ— and that their Opinion was and so was the Opinion of all the Iudges of England That he who procured the Commitment of the under Sheriff ought to pay all the Charges and Expences Quod nota Wentworth against Abraham THe Lord Wentworth brought an Action upon the Case against Abraham upon an Assumpsit and declares that the Defendant 1 die Maii Anno Dom. 1625. in consideration that the Plaintiff would permit the Defendant to re-enter in a Messuage and Croft in which the Defendant had dwelt before promised that he would pay to him 30. s. yearly during the time that he should enjoy it And that he permisit ipsum reentrare and that he should enjoy it a year and an half which ended at Michaelmas 1626. And for that he would not pay 45. s. he c. And upon non Assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Davenport in Arrest of Iudgement for that that the Assize is to pay 30. s. Annuatim then before the Action be determined nothing is due and the Plaintiff cannot divide the
stollen from him and that was sold in a Scriveners Shop Resolved that there was no change of the property For by intendment if a man had Drapery stollen from him he would not seck it there So if a man fells stollen Plate and sells it in the High street under his Cloak It does not change property And if a man sells a thing in a Silkmans Shop in London the Curtain being drawn That does not change the property And now to the principal Case Although he said that he was a Goldsmith and that that was his Shop It is not necessary to be intended that he used the Trade of a Goldsmith in it And that ought to be averred For every Shop is a Market overt for these Causes only which appertain to the same trade Williams against Bickerton VVIlliams brought an action upon the Case against Bickerton for saying He hath forsworn himself and I le teach him the price of an Oath for I will have his Ears cropt And it séemed that it lay For although it was not said at the beginning where it was that he forswore himself Yet by the circumstance it shews that he was in such a place for which it was punishable And M. 29 30 Eliz. Dantsleys Case Thou art a Pillary Knave remember that thou hast deserved the Pillary and the Action maintainable And the Plaintiff paid the Box for his Iudgement Bradyes against Johnson BRadye brought an Eject firm against Johnson and declared upon a Lease of Land habend a die dat Indentur praedict And does not speak of any Indenture before And for that the Declaration adjudged naught And so it was betwéen Bell and March. And this same term between Spark Where it was shewed quod concessit per eandem Indent Where he had not spoke of any Indenture before Lowen against Cocks IN Debt by Lowen against Cocks the Case was thus A man seised of an house in St. Edmonds Parish in Lumbard-street in London devises it to his wife for life the remainder to his Son George and if he dye without Issue then to Iohn and Thomas his Sons equally and to their Heirs The wife dyes George dyes without Issue l. and T. make a Lease for years rendring 5. l. to the one and 5. l. to the other l. devises the reversion to his wife and dyes and for that Rent the Action was brought by the Wife And the Question was if they shall be Ioynt or Tenants in Common For if joynt the devise of the Reversion is void And Secondly If by any Act which makes partition viz. the several Limitations of the rent to them If séemed to Hutton that they are Tenents in Common By reason of that word equally which in it self makes a Division In 33 Eliz. in Boucher against Marsh It was held that where a man devises Lands to three Children equally to be divided they are Tenents in Common And so it was 14 lac in case of Goods And it is clear as it is said If a Man devise 100 l. to two equally the Executors shall pay 50 l. to the one and 50 l. to the other For if that word equally does not make tenancy in Common it shall be all otherwise void And every word of a Will ought to be of some force And in these Cases the word divided was not the force of the matter but only equally And it was the Case of a Shepheard in the Courts of Wards Where a man devises that after the death of his Son all my woods shall remain equally to his Daughters and their Heirs of their bodies And it was there held by Dyer and Manwood that they were Tenents in Common If Parceners agrée to hold by That is sufficient partition And if the one Ioyntenant confirms to the other that does not give any thing but severs the Ioynture Harvey to the contrary First They are Ioint For Ioynture is the greatest equality for every one is seised by himself and the one hath as much of the profits as the other And so equal interest and equal benefit to the Survivor 6 E. 6. in Dyer A difference was taken between a Demise to two when it is said equally divided That they shall be Tenents in Common If equally to be divided they shall be joynt But it was never adjudged 17 Eliz. A man having 3 Sons devises Lands to them equally to be divided The Question was what estate they had For if the younger had not a fee they could not have an Estate equal with the eldest for he had a fee. Resolved that they shall have a fee-simple and also that they shall be Tenents in Common And held that to be divided and divided was all one And it was held also that the word divided makes the Tenancy in Common and not equally 2. As to that reserve of 50 l. to the one and 50 l. to the other clearly being a joynt Lease and a joynt reversion And the Rent as accessary to the reversion and shall not change the nature of it Yelverton They are Tenents in Common A Will shall be construed according to the intent of the Testator And exposition shall be made of the words to supply his intent Tomlins's Case IT was agreed by all That if one sojourn in the House of another and the House is broken in the night and the Stranger robbed in the House without being put in fear of his life In law He that robbed shall have his Clergy notwithstanding the Burglary For it is out of the Statute of 5 6 of E. 6. cap. 9. Dicksons Case AT Sergeants Inne in Chancery lane this Question was debated If a man steal Goods and the very Owner makes fresh sute to take the felon So that he waives the Goods and flies And before the Owner comes the Goods are seised as Goods waived and af-the Owner comes and challenges them Now if he shall have them or they shall be forfeited was the Question And it was held by Harvey and Crook That they are not at all forfeited for that the Owner had done his endeavour and pursued from village And that the Goods shall not be said to be waived but where it cannot be known to whom the property is Hutton Chief Iustice and Yellerton said That Goods waived shall be said those which are stollen and that the Felon being pursued for danger of apprehension waives and flies Now if they are seised before that the Owner comes the property is presently altered out of the Owner in the Lord although that he made fresh sute If that Sute was not within the view of the Felon allwaies But they all agreed if the Felon do as not flye but is apprehended with the Goods That then the Owner shall have his Goods without Question Or if the Owner comes and challenges the Goods before seisure and after the flight of the Felon Harvey said The Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. does not remedy any thing as to the restitution of the Goods stollen But upon
years or but for 7 years And it seemed to Hutton that the Lease was confirmed but for 7 years But Richardson was of the contrary opinion and took a difference where they confirm the Estate and where they confirm the Land for 7 years That Confirmation confirms all his Estate But where they confirm the Land for 7 years That Confirmation shall not enure but according to the Confirmation And that difference was agreed by Crook and all the Sergeants at the Bar. And afterwards Hutton said That that was a good Case to be considered and to be moved again Jacobs's Case A Man was indicted at Newgate For that he feloniously vi armis had robbed a man in a certain Kings foot-way leading to London from Highgate And upon that he was arraigned found guilty And having his judgment he prayed his Clergy for that he was a Clark And the Iustices of Gaol delivery doubted if he should have his Clergy or not Because the Statute if any man be taken upon Felony committed on the High way he shall not have his Clergy But the Indictment was in this case that the Felony was done in alta via reg pedestri So that the words are not alta via regia nec in magna via regia nec in via regia For if that word pedestri had been put out of the Indictment he should not have had his Clergy clearly Some of the Iustices were of opinion that that word added in the Indictment made that he should not have his Clergy The Lord chief Baron of the contrary opinion Perkins against Butterfield HItcham moved to the Iustices If one takes Beasts Dammage feasant and impounds them in an House and leaves the Door open So that the Owner may sée them and give them sustenance And afterwards for default of Sustenance they dye in the Pound Whether he who distreyned them shall be charged or not Hutton when one takes Beasts Dammage feasant in his Land It is at his Election if he will impound them in an open place where the Pound is or in some place in his own Land And if he impound them in the common Pound and the Beasts dye the Owner has no remedy But if they be impounded upon the Soyl where they did the Dammage or in the Houses of him who distreyned them and they dye for want of Food In this he who took them shall be charged For the Common Pound is common to all Persons so that they may come to give them food Otherwise in this case For there the Owner cannot have notice where he hath made his Pound Richardson of the same opinion And I believe that the Owner shall have an action upon his Case against the Owner for the recovery of the value of his Cattell For trespass does not lye For the taking of them and the impounding was lawfull And it is reason that he should recover the value of them by an Action For if the Owner had come to have given them food the Terre-tenant would have an action against him Hitcham The taking of them is made a Trespass ab initio when the Beasts dyed in Pound Wimberly against Taylor et alios VVImberly had entred a Plaint in a Court Baron against two jointly for taking of his Goods And the Plaintiff had removed the Plaint by a Recordare joyntly as the Plaint is And now at this time the Plaintiff counts of taking of Goods severally So that it varies from the Plaint and the Recordare also And Ward moved that the Writ might abate And so it was adjudged by Hutton and the Iustices Wilkinsons Case IT was moved at the Bar If a Man makes a Lease for years to I. S. I. N. and I. D. If the aforesaid I. S. c. should so long live And now one of the Lessées is dead If the whole Lease should be determined or not was the Question And Hutton and Harvey said That it was without doubt that the Lease was determined by the death of one of them But if the words had been generally If the Lessées should so long live and had not named them Then perchance it should have béen more doubtfull The Executors of Tomlins's Case ATthowe demanded this Question of the Iustices A Lease is made for years the Lessée grants over his Estate and reserves to him and his Heirs during the term a certain Rent If the Executors or the Heir of the heir shall have that Rent And it séems to me that it shall enure to the heir well enough As a Grant made by the Grantee of the estate of the same Rent So the Heir shall take by the Grant Harvy May the Heir take Chattel as Heir to his Father And this Rent is but a Chattel And in the Book of Assise there is a Case where Lands are given to I. S. et uni haeredi suo et uni haeredi ipsius haeredis tantum And that was taken to be no Fee-simple Nor no such Estate that the Heir might claim as Heir to his Father But I am in doubt of your Case truly For which I will advise Hitcham Vpon that I have seen a Diversity Where Lands are given to I. S. et haeredi suo et haeredi haeredis I. S. In that Case he shall have a Fée-simple Otherwise it is where Lands are given to I. S. et haeredi suo There no Fee-simple passes Richardson There no Fee-simple passes in any of the Cases And it was said in the Argument That Lessee shall not have Trespass vi et armis against his Lessor Whiddon's Case A Man devises by his Testament to his Daughrer Jane all his Land in D. habendum sibi et haered de corpore suo legitime proc And by the same Testament he devises to his Daughter Anne all his Land in the tenure of I. S. in the County of Hertford Whereas in truth D. was in the County of Hertford and parcel of the Lands were in the tenure of I. S. Whether Jane shall have the Lands in D. in the tenure of I. S. by the first words Or Anne shall have them by the last words Harvey The Testator had given them by his first words to Jane Wherefore he cannot revoke his Gift and give it afterwards to another Daughter But all the Iustices were of the contrary opinion A Case of Executors IF Executors come to the Ordinary for to prove the Will He ought to prove it ex communi jure And that he may do without great examination of the Witnesses But if other Executors come afterwards to prove a later Will Then the Ordinary ought to be circumspect in the probation of that Will and to do it by proofs For that is de mero Jure And it is the better and of more effect by Atthowe Challoner against Ware A Man makes a Lease for years reserving a certain rent payable at the Feast of St. Michael And for default of payment at the said day and by the space of 40 daies after That
it shall be lawfull to the Lessor to reenter without any demand of the Rent The Rent is in arrear by 40 daies after the Feast of Saint Michael and no demand of the Rent made by the Lessor Whereupon the Lessor entred If that Entry were lawfull was the Question And by Hutton it is not For a demand of the Rent is given by the Common law between Lessor and Lessée And notwithstanding the words without any demand it remains as it was before And is not altered by them But if the Rent had béen reserved payable at another place than upon the Land There the Lessor may enter without any demand But where no place is limitted but upon the Land otherwise it is Richardson to the contrary For when he had covenanted that he might enter without any demand The Lessée had dispensed with the Common law by his own Covenant As the Lessor might by his Covenant when he makes a Lease Sans impeachment dl waste He had dispenced with the Common law which gives the Action of Waste Harvey of the same opinion If a Man leases Lands for years with a Clause That if the Rent be in Arrear by forty daies after the day of payment That the term shall cease If the Rent be in arrear by the said forty daies after the day of payment The Lessor may enter without request Conyers's Case ONe Thompson makes a Lease for forty years to Conyers by Indenture and in the same Indenture covenants and grants to the Lessee That he shall take convenient House-boot Fire-boot and Cart-boot in toto bosco suo vocato S. wood within the Parish of S. And those Woods are not parcel of the Land leased but other Lands Atthow I would fain know your opinion if that Grant of Estovers out of an other place than was the Lease be good Also what Estate the Grantée of House-boot and Fire-boot shall have by that For the words are from time to time and hath limited no time in certain And lastly If the Lessée be excluded to have House-boot and Fire-boot in the Land leased or if he shall have in both places Also if the Executors by that Grant to the Lessee shall have House-boot and Fire boot And it was agreed by Hutton and Harvey That that Grant was good and that the Grantee shall have it during the Term. And that that grant does not restrain him But that he shall have house-boot and fire-boot in the land leased also Atthowe If there be no great Timber upon the land leased and the houses are in decay if the Lessor ought to find and allow to the Lessée sufficient Timber for the making the reparations or if the Lessée at his own costs ought to find the Timber for the reparations of the house Hutton said That the great Timber shall be at the costs of the Lessor if no Timber be upon the land leased nor no default be in the Lessee in suffering the great timber to go to decay or to putrifie And it was agréed if the Lessor cut a tree and carry it out of the Land That the Lessee may have an Action of Trespass And if Stranger cut a tree the lessee shall have an action of Trespass and recover treble dammages As the lessor should recover against him in an action of waste Wakemans Case A Man seised of a Mannor parcell demesn and parcell in service devises by his Testament to his wife during her life all the demesn lands also by the same Testament he devises to her all the services of chief Rents for 15 years And moreover by the same Testament he devises the same Mannor to another after the death of his wife And it was agreed by all the Iustices That the devise shall not take effect for no part of the Mannor as to the stranger untill after the death of the wife And that the heir after the 15 years passed during the life of the wife shall have the services and chief Rents Jenkins against Dawson IN a Formedon the Demandant makes his Conveyance in the Writ by the gift of I. S. who gave it to ◠D. er haeredibus de corp suo legitime procreat And shewes in the Writ that he was heir to the Son and heir of I. D. Son and heir of W. D. the Donee And Hitcham demanded Iudgement of the Writ for this Cause And the Court said that the Writ was not good for he ought not to make mention in the Writ of every heir as he does here But he ought to make himself heir to him who dyed last seised of the Estate Tayl as his Father or other Ancestor Also that word procreat ought not to be in the Writ but Exeuntibus But the Court thought that it might be amended And Harvey said If false Latin be in the Writ it shall be amended as if in a Formedon the Writ be Consanguineus where it should have béen Consanguineo Hutton and all the other Iustices said that that might be amended by the Statute Saulkells Case IN an Attaint the grand Iury appeared and the petit Iury and the parties also and one Rudstone Master of the Servant in the Attaint came to the Bar and there spoke in the matter as if he had been of counsell with his Servant Crawley said to him Are you a party to this Suteor for what cause do you speak at the Bar And he answered that he had done this for his Servant And if he had done any thing against the Law he knew not so much before Hutton You may if you did owe any mony to your Servant for his wages give to his Counsel so much as is behind of it and that is not maintenance Or you may go with your Servant to retein Counsel for him So that your Servant pay for his Counsel But that that you have done is apparent maintenance And the Kings Sergeant prayed That he may be awarded to the Fleet and pay a Fine And Hutton upon advise sent him to the Fleet. Wiggons against Darcy DArcy was in Execution upon a Statute Merchant and his Body and Goods were taken And the Conisee agreed that the Conisor should go at large and he went at large Atthowe moved If that were a discharge of the Execution or not And Richardson said it was For his imprisonment is for his Execution And if he release his imprisonment he releases his Execution And so if two men be in Execution for one Debt and the Plaintiff releases to one of them That is a release to both And so if one had two acres in Execution and the Plaintiff release the Execution of one of them It enures to both Harvey on the contrary opinion Yet I will agree That if a man be one time in Execution The Plaintiff shall not another time have an Execution For after a cap. ad satisfac an Elegit does not lye But in the Case where the Conisee does release the imprisonment only and not the Execution for it is
arrear that the Remainder shall be to a Stranger that Remainder is not good Hutton said that in my opinion my Brother Atthow spoke well and so it was affirmed Bateman against Ford. AN action of the Case was brought against Ford who had called the Plaintiff Thief and that he had stollen from him a yard of Velvet and a yard of Damask The Defendant said that he said that the Plaintiff had taken and bribed from him as much mony as he had for a yard of Velvet and Damask and justifies Hitcham said that the Iustification is not good For the words that he justifies do not amount to so much as to affirm a Felony in the Plaintiff where the Plaintiff counts that the Defendant slandered him of a Felony Hutton said What difference is there when you say that I have bribed your Horse and when you say that I have robbed you of your Horse Henden one may take Goods and yet it is not felony Termino Pasc Anno 4. Car. Regis Com. Banc. Norris against Isham IN an Eject firm by Norris against Isham These things happened in Evidence to the Iury. First it was cited by Richardson and Hutton to be Hurtltons Case That an Eject firm cannot be of a Mannor Because that there cannot be an Ejectment of the Services But if they do express further a quantity of acres it is sufficient It was said by Crook Iustice and not denyed That if a Lease is made of 5 acres to try a Title in an â—…eject firm And of the 3 acres he will make a lease But in the other a he will not If the livery be in the 3 acres the other 2 does not pass Part of the Evidence was That the Countess of Salisbury being seised of the Lands in Question makes a Lease of them by words of Demise Bargain and Sale to Iudge Crook for a Month to begin the 29 September habendum a datu and it was deliveted the 3 of September And the same day he bargains and sells the Reversion Davenport Because that no Entry appears by the Lessees by vertue of the Demise he submitted to the Court If there was any such Reversion in the Grantor he bring in possession And this difference was a greed That if one demises Lands for years and Grants the Reversion before Entry of the Lessée The Grant is void As it is in Saffins Case Cook 5. 12. 46. But if a man bargain and sell for years and grants the Reversion before Entry of the Lessee it is good For the Statute transfers the Possession to the use As if a man bargain and sells in fee or for life and the Deed is inrolled The Bargainee is in possession of the Frank-tenement And so it is of a Lease for years which is a Chattell And by Crook In the Court of Wards that very point was resolved Davenport Also there are words of Demise and Bargain and Sale before which the Lessee had his Election to take by which he would As Sir Rowland Heyards Case is But by Hutton and it was not denyed He should be in by the Bargain and Sale before Election For that is more for his advantage Further the Evidence was That George Earl of Salisbury made a Lease of those Lands which were a Mannor And makes a Conveyance from himself for life with divers Remainders and then to the use of the Daughter or Daughters of the said George And the heirs males of thrir bodies the remainder to the heirs of the body of the said George c. and had 3 Daughters to whom the Remainder The first dyed without Issue the 2 d. dyed having Issue male the 3 d. bargains sells all her half part and pur part to Edw. Earl of Salisbury Who now being seised of a third part of the Estate of Inheritance and of the other two parts for his life and the lives of the 3 Daughters suffers a common recovery by the name of the moyety of the Mannor And the doubt was what passed Richardson By that there is not passed but the moyety of the third part Hutton Crook and Yeiverton were on the contrary opinion and said that by that All the third part passed also Yelverton If a man be seised of the mannor of Dale and buys half for life of another in fee and makes a Feoffment of the half of the Mannor The moyety which he had in Fee shall pass And there shall be a forfeiture for no part Which was agreed by the Court. If a man be seised of the third part and grants the moyety perhaps the moyety of the third part only passes But he is seised of all Richardson There are several Estates and moyety goes to that Estate which he had in the Mannor For when I grant more than I can grant that which passes passes Crook I had the third part of a Mannor and grant the moyety of the Mannor all my third part passes But in the Bargain and Sale the words were part et pur part Which as it was passed all And also the Covenant to the Lessor The Recovery was of the half part pur part And by Hutton Crook Yelverton All was intended to be recovered And then the word Moyety carries that tresbien Richardson That Indentures of Covenant much mends the Case Another Question upon the Evidence was Whether when a Bargain and sale is made of Lands And the Bargainee before inrollment makes a Lease for years and afterwards it is enrolled If the Lease now be good Richardson and Yelverton It shall be that although it be after acknowledgement and before inrollment yet it is naught And by Yelverton and Crook it was so adjudged in Bellingham and Hortons Case That if one sells in fee and before inrollment the Bargainee bargains and sells to another And afterwards comes an Inrollment That second Bargain and sale is void And an other Question was Pasc 4. Car. Com. Banc. If one makes a Lease for years by Indenture of Lands which he had not If the Iury be estopped to find that no Lease And by Richardson If the finding that no Lease be subject to an attaint But they should find the special matter And then the Iudges would judge that a good Lease And Sergeant Barkley cited Rawlins's Case Coo. 4. 43. to that purpose Crook and Hutton against him And Crook said That it was adjudged in London in Samms case That that is not an Estoppel to the Iury. Which was affirmed by Hutton And that they may find the special matter And then the Iudges ought to find that it is not a good Lease And Hutton said That there is a difference between a special Verdict and pleading in that case For in speciall pleading and Verdict is confost by all parties That he had not any thing in the Lease And then the Iudges gave Iudgment accordingly The King against Clough IN the case of a Quare impedit by the King against Clough before Richardson shewed how the Quare
If I grant to a man that if he mary my Daughter he shall have my Mannor of Dale for years the mariage ought to be before he shall have any thing in the Mannor But if it had been that he should have had my Mannor for 7 years if he mary my Daughter Then the mariage is conditional subsequent that if he does not mary I shall have my Mannor again 10 E. 3. 44. The Abbot of Bosneys The difference is there put by Brerewood Trin. 4 Car. Com. Banc. 36. H. 6. An Annuity granted untill he was promoted to a benefice That is conditional from the Defeasance But if it was that the Grantée did such an Act that he should have an Annuity And ex vi termini there is a perfect Estate before the if and the former if is well explained by the last That if there be not issue male then the Estate shall cease 10 Rep. 41. A Condition in its nature is not to precede an Estate As if the Lands be given to a woman for years si tam diu vixerit 35 Assise plo 14. The Case in point of a Remainder which comes to our Case and conteyns both the parts of that difference As it is in Colthursts and Binshams Case The Prior and Covent of Bath leases Land for life the Remainder to W. Si ipse inhabitare et residens esse velit infra praedict terram And if it shall happen that the said W. should mary before H. Then the Remainder to P. And the Question is whether it is a Condition precedent or subsequent Resolved that the second is precedent For that that the Si precedes and for that makes the Estate contingent But for the other Si after the Estate limited Si ipse inhabitare vellet They were the very words of Mountague Chief Iustice It cannot be denyed but that it is subsequent and then goes in Defeasance and the other ought to shew the non-performance of it And that Case is more strong than our Case is For that Estate is by way of Livery not by use For in Case of Livery there he ought to have a time to do the thing And our Case then he should have for life determinable upon the Si c. And that construction of Vses shall be clear by the intent which appears that there ought to be a present Estate Where uses are by Indenture if by one construction the Intent is frustrate and if by another upheld That ought to be taken ut res magis valeat c. The Lord Sturtons Case Where a Lease was made of a Mannor to two Hubbards to have to them and to two others for their lives the first two dye And it was ruled that it was good but to the first two for their lives and not for the lives of the four Because they shall take but in point of Estate See more after Termino Trin. 4 Car. Com. Banc. The King against the Bishop of Canterbury THe King brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Canterbury Sir John Hall and Richard Clark for the Church of Marleborough in Northamptonshire And declares that Richard White was seised of the Mannor to which the Advowson belonged And the 6 Iac. by Indenture he covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his wife for their lives and to the Heirs of Richard White And after White presents one Boynton and dies and his wife maries with Sir Iohn Hall The first of Iune 6th Iacob by Deed grants proximam advocationem to two to this intent that he might receive of such a Parson that he presented all mony as should be agréed betwéen Grantor and Grantee And that this was done Boynton lying in extremis And then the 26 Ian. 16 Iacob there was a corrupt agreement between Sir Iohn Hall and one of the Grantees That for 200 l. to be paid by the Clark Blundell That the other Grantee should present him And the first of February Blundell pays Sir Richard the mony and the second day he was presented instituted and inducted accordingly And that upon this it appertained to the King to present The Bishop pleads but as Ordinary Sir Iohn Hall makes a Title and traverses the corrupt agreement The Incumbent pleads by Protestation that there was not any corrupt agreement as it was alleged and not answers whether the mony was paid or not But that he is Parson imparsonee of the presentment of But 16 Iacob after such an agreement scil 17 Feb. he was presented by the Letters Patents of the King to this Church and never answers to the Symony And it was held by the Court to be naught and only pleaded to hinder the Execution before the Iustices of Assise If the Tryal went against the Patron Upon a Prohibition ONe libells against another in the Spiritual Court for the tithe of two pecks of Apples and for feeding the Cattel upon the Ground And the Defendant for the Apples answered That there were two Pecks only growing in his Orchard and that they were stollen and never came to his use and for the Cattel that they were antient Milch-beasts and that they growing old were dry And that for a month they depastured with other Heyfars and that after they put them in a Meadow out of which the Hay was carried And afterwards he fed them with hay in his House Atthowe Because that the Answers were not admitted prayed a Prohibition Hutton If Appples are upon the Trees and taken by a Stranger shall the Parson be hindred of his tithe Yelverton If I suffer one to pull my Apples the Parson shall have tithes But if they be taken by Persons not known the Parson shall not have tithes of them Which was granted For they are not tithable before plucking And for that if he suffer them to hang so long by negligence after the time that they are imbessed By Yelverton he shall pay tithes For the second matter it was agreed by the Court and for the depasturing in the Meadow and for the Hay with which they were fedd afterwards tithe shall not be paid Because that the Parson had tithes of them before But if the Question is for the tithes when he went with the other Heyfars By Crook that is no cause to excuse the tithe Harvey If I have ten Milch-kine which I purpose to reserve for Calves and they are dry The Parson shall not have tithe for their Pasture But if I sell them by which it appears I kept them for fatting There tithes shall be paid Hutton agreed That although that there was so small time yet when they went with the Heyfars he shall pay tithes for them Goddard and Tilers Case GOddard against Tiler in a Prohibition Tiler sued for tithes of Milk and Calves upon which modus decimandi surmised A Prohibition was granted viz. That every Inhabitant should pay 4 d. for every Cow and 2 d. for every Calf which they proved that there was never tithe paid in specie But
upon twenty matters Crook Admitting that all the offence was committed after the pardon yet you may suggest it to be before Henden and Bramston That so it was Pas 50 Eliz. In one Prat and Husseys Ease One that had a benefice took another but was not inducted Yet that was the irregularity upon which he was deprived and a prohibition was prayed upon the general pardon And it was concluded That if the libel contained that the irregularity was before any pardon and it appears also that it continued after yet a prohibition shall be granted Crook the offence is layed 1621 1622 1623 c. in one or every of them Now for a prohibition there are two clauses in our case Although it be that the offence was before and part after pardon yet we ought to grant a prohibition for that which was before is involved 5 Iac. Conveys case He and his wife after the death of Sir Blunt were sued before the high Commissioners for that that his wife committed Adultery with Sir Richard Blunt and he himself was the Pander And a prohibition was granted for two causes The one for that Adultery was not inquirable there the other because it was pardoned And although the word Adultery be in their Commission yet that does not give them Iurisdiction They cannot meddle with Alimony was one Condiths case upon the Canons in 1 Iac. Which gives to the Parson jurisdiction to appoint the Clark of the Church There was a custom there that the Parish should appoint it and several Clarks being appointed they set several Psalmes in the Church to the disturbance of it And a prohibition was granted to the high Commissioners for medling with it Richardson objected divers things with much earnestness but so apparently contrary to Law that I have omitted it Yelverton said she ought not to put in security to obey the sentence For if it be averred that all was before the pardon then there was no cause of sentence and if no sentence then the prohibition ought to be for all Crook The sentence is to pay a fine and to make submission and to be imprisoned until she found security to obey the sentence That is void Richardson said That they had not any means to make the party to pay the fine and if she would pay it presently she might be discharged But by the other Iustices the High Commissioners cannot demand the sine But they may Estreat it into the Exchequer At another day it was said Sir Wil. Chamcer before the high Commissioners was by sentence fined and imprisoned and by the opinion of all the Iudges of England They may proceed by fine and imprisonment and his case was for Adultery Hutton 44 Eliz. It was resolved that they cannot impose a fine but for Heresies Schisms and Errours c. Richardson The words of the Statute are that the high Commissioners may proceed according to the tenour and effect of the Letters Patents of the King Yelverton The sentence is the fine and the penance and there is the end of the sentence and when it is said she shall be imprisoned until c. That is no part of the sentence If it was that she should pay a fine do pennance and should be imprisoned three months Then all should be the Sentence Richardson said that they may procéed against other things than Heresies and Schismes upon that Statute de primo For there are the words Abuses Contempts Offences and Enormities Hutton The words in that Statute shall have exposition according to the meaning of the first intent It was that they had Authority to punish the Bishops and Prelates for Errors and Schisms and the change of Religion For that that they did not regard the power of the Ordinary But they had incroached many other things And if those words include any thing they might punish anything whereof the Gcclesiastical Court had Authority As working upon Saints daies But there was a Case of one that was sentenced there for such a Cause And the Fine estreated And upon Argument in the Exchequer their proceedings adjudged void Richardson The word Enormity contains a thing of lesser nature For quicquid est contra regulam et normam Juris is Enormity And therefore in Trespass quare clausum fregit et alia enormia ei intulit But Yelverton The word ought to be intended of a grand offence For so in common acceptance it imports Harvey The Fine being pardoned all is pardoned Richardson said that they should procéed by excommunication and not by fine and imprisonment No more at this time was said in this Case Humlocks Case A Man makes a Lease for 21 years reserving 20 l. rent per annum payable at two daies and if he fayl of payment that it shall be lawfull to the Lessor to enter At the day of payment the Lessor came and demanded the Rent by these words I demand my half years rent And it was moved by Atthowe If that demand was sufficient for the Lessor Hutton and Yelverton seemed that it was sufficient For the thing that he demanded is enough certain and known Crook on the contrary For although it appears by the circumstances how much of the Rent he demanded Yet the words are not so plain as they ought to be For if a man makes a Lease for years reserving such a Rent as the antient Farmor was wont to pay from time to time to this day When the Lessor comes upon the Land and says to the Lessee Pay me my Rent that is not sufficient or good because it is not certain in Terms And yet it appears by the circumstances And when a man pleads a demand He shall shew the Lease and the Rent reserved and shall say That he demanded redditum praedictum And as I remember it was adjudged very lately That such a Demand shall be certain Hutton I hold a difference between such things which lye in notice of the person to whom the demand is made and where not For in a praecipe quod reddat if there be a recovery by default and the Tenant brings a desceit and by examination of the Summoners it appears That they came to the Land and summoned him in the Land but they do not shew to him at what day he ought to appear So the Lessee knows well enough that the Rent ought to be paid for it is certain by the Lease to which he is party and privy But Crook said in the Case that Hutton put If the Summoners had read the Writ upon the Land and had summoned him to appear at a day comprised in the Writ It had been certain enough And so in this Case if he had read the Indenture upon the Land and after demanded the Rent as afore it had been Without question it appears to me it should be good enough And so in our Case also Leech against Watkins IN Debt upon an Obligation The Condition was that if the Obligor and his Heirs did or suffered
himself from all rights as concerning himself yet the Donor shall by force of this Statute which at the Common law he could not And if the Donor will release all his right in the Land to the Donee after a discontinuance by Feoffment his release though it will extinguish no right to the very Land yet it will extinguish Rents which proves that the Donee by his Feoffment cannot dismiss himself of all his right but that by the Statute of West his alienation is disabled as to that but that the Donor may avow for the Rent But wheresoever Tenant in tayl suffers a Recovery or levies a Fine the Rents together with the entayl ceases And the answer as to that is imperfect to resemble it to the Case of tenant in see simple doth alien and yet the Lord may avow upon him for the Cases have no resemblance for as Littleton well distinguisheth when Tenant in fee hath departed with his whole Estate he is no more Tenant to the Lord to avow upon though the Lord if he Will may avow upon him for the arrerages and if the Lord after future alienation release to him all his rights in the Land the Release is void to release the Rents and Services in all which it differs materially from the other Case and it is an equall proportion of the Law That when the Lord aliens his signory the Tenant is to he acquainted that all Arrearages may be paid that he may have no after-reckonings for after notice and the Arrerages paid the avowrie vanisheth Now for the Heir in tayl claiming from his Ancestor after his Feoffment by descent from him thereby allowing a right to remain in him against his Feoffment The Case is more difficult because during the Feoffor there can be no motion of that right neither by the Feoffor who hath hard himself nor his Issue because his Right is not yet come yet let me put this Case upon the Statute 11 H. 7. upon the opinion of Mountague Chief Iustice If Tenant in tayl Iointress make a Feoffment the person to whom the land doth belong after her death may enter and hold it according to his right Now till such Entry there is a discontinuance but when the Issue enters he is an Heir intayl et quasi eins per discent But now generally when Tenant in tayl hath made a Feoffment and dies the Heir shall bring a Formedon in the Discender and shall count that descendere debet from that Ancestor that made the discontinuance performam doni and therefore the Writ saith discendit jus it is as much devenit jus It is true that regularly a Feoffment bars all former rights and future rights yet respect to be had to Estrangers Albanies Case 2 Rep. Archers Case 1 Rep. 66. 9 H. 7. And therefore in Archers Case Lands were demised to one fore life remainder to his first Heir male Tenant for life made a Feoffment in fee and died his next Heir was barred of his right for ever by the Feoffment A man seised of Land by right of his Wife makes a feoffment in fee and then the Estate is made back to the Wife she is thereby remitted and her Husband shall never be Tenant by the Courtesie and therefore well resolved if Tenant in tayl discontinue and levy fine with Proclamations is no bar to the Estate tayl Now this Case is irregular because it standeth by Act of Parliament which is able to make the same Act good to one purpose or person and void or voidable to another as the Statute of Ecclesiastical persons and binds the party but is void or voidable against the Successors and shall nevertheless when they enter be in by succession And that there is still a right remaining in the Tenant in tayl appears in that he hath still in him a power to bind it more finally and totally by fine and recovery if he pursue them rightly and therefore note Cuppledikes Case If Tenant in tayl with divers remainders over make a Feoffment and Feoffee vouch not the Feoffee Tenant in tayl in possession but the first in Remainder by the Statute the Feoffees are not bound but are remitted and Maunsells Case there is cited where one recovery is a bar to 3 several Intayls with double voucher And this is called jus extinguendi which he could not extinguish and discharge if not in him and in his power and therefore there is no cause to frame Abeyances needless and in vain but the Law allows not nor admits not but in Cases of necessity as in the vacancy of Bishops Parsons and other Ecclesiastical persons or the like Remainders to right Heirs upon Freehold abeyances are not allowed but where the original Estate required them or where the consequences of Estates and Cases do require them As for the first in Case of single Corporations Bishops Deans and Parsons which must dye and a vacancy of freehold or a Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. yet living Or Secondly in Case of congruity as if a man gives a Warranty and die his Heir in ventre sa mere may not be vouched but if there be Heir he may be vouched and a Vouchee may take and plead a Release quasi tenens or may lease a Fine to the Defendant of the Land in Question But for Estates that of their own nature and origination creation are perfect and intire as this Estate entayl is the Law permits not vain affected abeyance or fictions by the voluntary Act of the party as this to no good which should preserve a right to serve the Heir and to defraud the King which was one of the principal reasons for the making the Statute 27 of H. 8. for the transferring of uses into possession Vses being but a kind of abeyance and shift to kéep the profits to the use and defraud the King and Lords of their Escheats and them that had a right to know against whom to bring their Actions Littleton was confounded in himself when he made an abeyance of totum statum suum and yet made an Estate for life which is condemned in Walsinghams Case by the Iudges Again though fictions take place amongst common person the King is not bound by fictions and therefore the King is not bound by his remainders by recompence feigned upon a common recovery warrant collateral binds not the King but warranty with real and actual Assets nor the King is not bound by Estoppels of his own recitall certa scientia as it is in Altenwoods Case And I hold plainly that as the Land in possession is distinctly and literally given to the King so the right is as literally directly and plainly given to the King by discharge of that ancient right whereof formerly it was bound for when the Statute saith that the King should have the Lands saving the right of all persons other than the Offenders and their Heirs and such as claim to their use it is plain that the eye of the Statute was not
only upon the Land in possession but also the rights to the same the one in point of Giving The other in point of renouncing The Land in possession could be but in one that is in the Offenders and so it was given but the rights to the same Lands might be in sundry persons in the Offendor or in his Heirs or in Strangers Now when the Statute saith the King shall have the Land without saving the Rights of the Offendors or his Heirs or any claiming to their use Tenant in tayl discontinues and after disseiseth his Discontinuee and is attainted of Treason he forfeits his Estate gained by the Disseisin and also his right of Entayl for he cannot take benefit of his ancient Right against the King by force of the Statute of 26 H. 8. and 32 of H. 8. and this agrees with the reason and the rule in the Marquess of Winchesters Case for if the Traytor have right to a Strangers land that shall not be given to the King for the quiet of the Stranger being Possessor for the quiet of his possesion but such right shall be given to the King being Possessor for the quiet of his possession and the word Hereditament in the Statute 26 H. 8. are both sufficient and fit to carry such right in such Cases and no man will dispute but they are sufficient to save naked rights to the Lands of strangers therfore it is not for the count of words but because it is alleged it was not meant so it was said in Digbies Case and so hath Antiquity expounded it for the good of the Subject against the King and against the letter of the Law But can any man imagine that the Parliament that gave the Land to the King should leave a right in the Traytor in the same Land to defeaf him again of it since the Statute gives the right and the Land and this gives a forfeiture of all rights belonging to the Person attainted of Treason and their Heirs for the benefit of the Kings forfeiture is of so great importance that if it be not taken as large as I take it it is an avoiding of all the Statute even that 33 H. 8. cap. 20. for though they have the word Rights in both Statutes even that of 33. doth not include the right of Action to the Lands of Estrangers by an Equity against the Letter So for this time the Case was abruptly broken off by reason the King had sent for all the Iudges of every Bench. Springall against Tuttersbury IN Springall and Tuttersburies Case It was agreed by the Court If a verdict be given at a nisi prius and the Plaintiff or Defendant die after the beginning of the Term yet Iudgement shall be entred for that relates to the first day of the term Overalls Case ONe Overall was sued in London and for that that he was of the Common Bench a Writ of Privilege issued which is a Supersedeas and staid the Sute wholly and not removed the Cause And if the Plaintiff had cause of Action he ought to sue here And then by the course of the Court a Clark shall not put in bayl Foxes Case THe Lord Keeper in the Star-chamber cited one and Butchers Case to be adjudged 38 Eliz. An Vnder-Sheriff makes his Deputy for all matters except Executions and restrained him from medling with them And it was adjudged a void Exception So if it be agreed and covenanted between them that the Deputy should not meddle with matters of such a value It is a void Covenant And that was agreed by Richardson to be good Law Hil. 5 Car. Com. Banc. Overalls Case IT was agreed at another day in Overalls case by all the Clarks and Prothonotaries of the Court that the Course always was that if an Atturney or Clark be sued here by bill of Privilege he needs not put in bail But if he be sued by original and taken by a Capias as he may be if the Plaintiff wil Then he ought to put in bail quod nota MEmorandum that on Sunday morning in the next term ensuing which was the 24. day of Ianuary Sir Henry Yelverton puisne Iudge of the Common Bench dyed who before had been Attourney general to King Iames and afterwards incurring the displeasure of the King was displaced and censured in the Star-chamber and then he became afterwards a practicer again at the bar from whence he was advanced by King Charls to be a Iudge He was a man of profound knowledge and eloquence and for his life of great integrity and piety and his death was universally bewailed Termino Hill 5 Car. Com. Banc. Honora Cason against the Executor of her Husband HOnora Cason sues Edward Cason Executor of her Husband and declares by bill original in nature of debt pro rationabili parte bonorum in the Court of Mayor and Aldermen of London and alleges the custom of London to be That when the Citizens and Fréemen of London die their goods and chattels above the debts and necessary funeral expences ought to be divided into three parts and that the wife of the testator ought to have the one part and the Executors the second part to discharge Legacies and dispose at their discretion And the children of the Testator male or female which were not sufficiently provided for in the life of the Father to have notwithstanding the Legacies in the will the third part And the custom is that the Plaintiff in this action ought to bring into the Court an inventory and sue before the Mayor and Aldermen And that she had here brought an Inventory which amounted to 18000 l. so that her third part was 6000 l and demanded it of the Executor who unjustly detained c. And it was removed to the Common bench by writ of Privilege And now Hitcham Serjeant moved for a procedendo And the Court séemed to be of the opinion to grant it Because that the custom is that the sute ought to be before the Mayor and Aldermen and then if they retain the action here the custom would be overthrown But they agreed that a rationabile parte bonorum may be remanded here and that they may proceed upon it in this Court And that there be divers presidents to this purpose And they agreed that a rationabile parte bonorum is the original writ by the Common Law and not grounded upon the Statute of Magna Charta But that it does not lie but where such a custom is which custom they ought to extend to all the Province of York beyond Trent Richardson chief Iustice said that in the principal case The Plaintiff in London might have declared without alleging the custom As it is in 2 H. 4. Because that the custom is well known But otherwise Where custom ought to be shewed and where not where an action is upon the custom in a place where the custom does not extend There it ought to be shewn And afterwards at another
have come to full age the fourth day after The Court agreed that one may be non-suited the Essoyn day and if he confess an Action that day it shall be good And thereupon Iudgement was given that by the relation the Statute should be avoided c. Crookes Case A Feme sole leases at the will of the Lessor and after the Feme takes an husband If by the taking of the Baron the will of the Feme be determined and it was thought not Fenne against Thomas Hil. 3 Car. Com. Banc. A Man inhabiting in the most remote part of England was arrosted eight times by Latitat and no Declaration is put in Banco Reg. And the Counsell prayed Costs for the Defendant The Prothonotary said that he shall not have Costs unless he come in person But Richardson said on the contrary and he shall have Costs for it appears that he had been put to travell and a day given to shew cause why the Costs shall not be given Spark against Spark SPark brought an Ejectione firmae against Spark for lands in Hawkschurch in the County of Dorset The Case was a Copy was leased for a year except one day and that was found in the Verdict to be warranted by the Custome The sole Question is if an Ejectione firmae lyes And by Hutton If Tenant at will makes a Lease for years an Ejectione firma lyes but if it be a Copy-hold for years an Ejectione firmae will not be maintained Deakins's Case IT was said at the Bar and not gain-sayed If a man perjure himself against two the one by himself cannot have an Action upon the Statute but they ought to joyn for he is not the only party grieved Bentons Case A Man Leases for life and afterwards Leases for years to commence after the death of the Lessee for life rendring Rent the Reversion is granted Tenant for life dyes Lessee for years does not attourn And it seemed That the reversion passes without Attournment And he shall have Debt or shall Avow Williams against Thirkill AN â—…ion of Debt was brought by Williams against Thirkill Executor of I. S. who pleads a Receipt against him of 300. l. over and above which non c. The Plaintiff replies that the receipt was by Covin And so they are at issue and it was found for the Plaintiff and judgement was entred de bonis Testatoris And it was said by the by in this Case That Debt by Paroll may be forgiven or discharged by Paroll Ploughman a Constables Case PLoughman a Constable suffers one who was arrested pro quadam felonia antea fact to Escape And because it is not shewed what Felony it was and when it was done for it may be it was done before the Generall Pardon the party was discharged Hobsons Case VPon an Indictment of Forcible Entry Quod ingress est unum Messuag inde existens liberum Tenement I. S. And because he does not say Adtunc existens and without that it cannot refer to the present time scilicet of the Indictment He was discharged Sir Thomas Holt against Sir Thomas Sandbach SIr Thomas Holt brought Trespass against Sir Thomas Sandbach quare vi armis Because whereas the Plaintiff had used time out of mind c. to have a Water-course by the Land of the Defendant So that the water run through the Land of the Defendant to the Land of the Plaintiff The Defendant he said had vi armis made a certain Bank in his own Land so that the water could not have his direct course as it was wont to have Harvey It séems to me that the Action does not lye For a man cannot have an action of Trespass against me vi armis for doing of a thing in my own Soyl. But Trespass vi armis lyes against a Stranger who comes upon the Land and takes away my Cattell And such like things but not in this Case But he may have an Assise of Nusance As in Case where one makes an House joyning to my House So that it darkens my House by the erection of a new House I may have an Assise of Nusance against him who does it But Crook was on the contrary But it séemed to Richardson that he shall have Trespass on his Case but not vi armis And to that which hath been said That if one build a House to the nusance of another upon his own Land That he to whom the nusance is done may have an Assise of Nusance that is true And also if he will he may pull and beat down such an House so built to his Nusance if he can do if upon his own Land But he cannot come upon the Land of the other where the Nusance is done to beat it down per que c. Hutton of the same opinion By which it was awarded that the Writ shall abate And he put to his Action upon the Case Hitcham moved a Case to the Iustices One I. by Indenture covenants with an other that he should pay him annually during his life 20 l. at the Feast of St. Michael or within 20 daies after 10 l. and at the Feast of our Lady or within 20 daies after 10 l. The Grantée before the 20 daies passe and after the Feast of our Lady dies If the Executors of the Grantee shall have the Rent or not And the Iustices Hutton being absent said That it was a good Case And said that the Executors shall not have it Because it is not at all due untill the 20th day be past Fawkners Case A Lease was made to one for 40 years the Lessee makes his Testament and by that devises it the term to I. S. for term of his life if he shall live untill the said term be expired And if he dies before the years expire then the remainder of the years to F. for term of his life and if he die before the term be expired the remainder of the years to the Churchwardens of S. I. If the remainder to the said Church shall be good or not was the Question Because that the Wardens of the Church are not coporate so that they may take by that Grant Hutton and Harvy said that the Remainder was not good to them And said that the first Remainder was not good Peters against Field A Bill obligatory was shewed to the Court in Debt brought upon it And in the end of the Bill were these words In witnesse whereof I have hereunto set my hand and he had writ his name and put to his Seal also And because no mention was made in the Bill of no Seal to be put to the Bill It was moved to the Iustices If the Bill be good or not And it was agreed by the whole Court that the Bill was good enough Tomlinsons Case A Parson makes a Lease for 21 years The Patron and Ordinary confirm his Estate for 7 years the Parson dies The Question is Whether that confirmation made the Lease good for 21