Iudgment of Action and not rein luy doit and the Court advised the Defendant to plead accordingly XV. Beamont and Dean 's Case Hillar 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Dower Dyer 361. IN Dower brought by the wife of Beamont Master of the Rolls in the time of E. 6. The Defendant said that he himself before the Writ brought did assign a rent of 10 l. per ann to the Demandant in recompence of her Dower upon which the Demandant did demur in Law and the cause was because the Tenant had not shewed what Estate he had in the Lands at the time of the granting of the Rent as to say that he was seised in Fee and granted the said Rent so as it might appear to the Court upon the plea that the Tenant had a lawfull power to grant such a Rent which was granted by the whole Court and the demur holden good XVI Hinde and Sir John Lyon 's Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN Debt by the Plaintiff against the Defendant as Heir Dyer 124. a. 3 Len. 70. 3 Len. 64. he pleaded That he had nothing by Descent but the third part of the Manor of D. The Plaintiff replied Assets and shewed for Assets that the Defendant had the whole Manor of Dale by descent upon which they were at issue and it was given in evidence to the Iury That the Manor was holden by Knight's-service and that the said Sir John the Ancestor of the Defendant Devises by his Will in writing devised the whole Manor to his Wife until the Defendant his Son and Heir should come to the age of 24 years and that at the age of his said Son of 24 years the Wife should have the third part of the said Manor for term of her life and her Son should have the residue and that if his said Son do die before he come to his age of 24 years without Heir of his body that the Land should remain to J. S. the Remainder over to another The Devisor died the Son came to the age of 24 years and the Question was If the Son hath an Estate-tayl for then for two parts he is not in by Descent And by Dyer and Manwood Iustices here is not any Estate tayl for no tayl was to rise before his said age and therefore the tayl shall never take effect and the Fee-simple doth descend and remain in the Son unless he dieth within the age of 24 years and then the Entail vests with the Remainders over But now having attained his said age he hath a Fee-simple and that by Descent of the whole Manor and a general Iudgment shall be given against him as of his own Debt And an Elegit shall issue forth of the moyety of all his Lands as well those which he hath by descent from the same Ancestor as any else and a Capias lieth against him But Manwood conceived That if general Iudgment be given against the Heir by default in such a case a Capias doth not lie although in case of false Plea it lieth Dyer contrary and the Writ against the Heir is in the Debet Detinet which proves that in Law it is his own Debt and he said that he could shew a precedent where such an Action was maintainable against the Executors of the Heir XVII Hil. 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas A Man made a Lease of Lands by Indenture Roll. 1. part 870. to begin after the expiration of a Lease thereof made to one Duffam and in an Action of Covenant brought by the second Lessee against the Lessor Covenant the Lessor said That there was no such Duffam in rerum natura at the time of the supposed Lease made to Duffam it was argued Estoppell That this Plea doth not lie for the Lessor for he is estopped to say against the Indenture That there is no such Duffam c. And also if no such person was then the first Lease was void and then the second Lease shall begin presently which Manwood and Mounson granted and by Manwood the Defendant shall be estopped by the Recital of the first Lease to say That there was no such Duffam And although the common Ground is That a Recital is not an Estoppel yet where the Recital is material as it is here it is otherwise for here the second Lease is to begin upon the expiration of the recited Lease and therefore in this case it shall be an Estoppel XVIII Mich. 20 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Action upon the Stat. of 5 Eliz. for Perjury 3 Len. 68. IN an Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for a Perjury by three the Plaintiffs declared That the Defendant being examined upon his oath before Commissioners If a Surrender was made at such a Court of a Copyhold to the use of A. and B. two of the Defendants The Defendant swore there was no such surrender made c. Exception was taken to the Declaration because that the certainty of the Copyhold did not appear upon the Declaration for the Statute requires that in such Case the party grieved shall have remedy so as it ought to appear in what thing he is grieved quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam Another Exception was taken because the Action is given in this Case to the party grieved and it appeareth upon the Declaration that the Surrender in the negative deposing of which the Perjury is assigned Abatement of Writ was made to the use of two of the Plaintiffs onely and then the third person is not a party grieved for he claims nothing by the Surrender and therefore forasmuch as the two persons grieved have joined with the party not grieved the Writ shall abate against them all which Wray and Southcote granted XIX 19 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Action upon the Stat. of 13 E. 1. of Winchester 2 Inst 569. IN an Action upon the Statute of Winchester 13 E. 1. against the men of the Hundred of A. Barham Serjeant took Exception to the Declaration because it appeareth upon it that the half year after the Robbery is not yet come for by the said Statute it is ordained that the Countrey have no longer time than half a year after the Robbery done within which time facent-gree of the Robbery or respondent the body of the Misfeasors And here the Action is brought within the half year And for this cause the Declaration was holden to be insufficient by the whole Court. And the Lord Dyer spake much in commendation of that Statute being made for the publick benefit of the whole Commonwealth for the Law intends when a Robbery is done That if the Countrey will not pursue the Malefactors that some of them are Receivers or Abettors of the Felons Manwood Iustice said When I was a Servant to Sir James Hales one of the Iustices of the Common-Pleas one of his Servants was robbed at Gadds Hill within the Hundred of Gravesend in Kent and he sued the men
interest in the Lands than strangers and they Uses have been in such reckoning and account since that an Vse hath obtained the name of an Inheritance and is now reputed amongst the Estates of Lands in our Law and therefore we say in Speeches and in penning of Statutes Estates in possession and Estates in use and a Vse cannot be limited to Parishioners no more than the Land it self so as there is a great affinity betwixt the words Lands and Use It is to be granted That the Statute of 27 H. 8. doth devest all out of the Feoffees yet it doth not devest it before that the use be vested in Cestuy que use for the words of the Statute are That the possession shall be executed in such manner quality and degree as was the Vse therefore the vesting of the Vse ought to precede the execution of the possession to it And he was of opinion That this future Vse in the principal Case limited to the second Wife did remain in the Feoffees at the first but that they had destroyed it by their Feoffment for the second Wife at the time of the Feoffment was not known and therefore it shall now accrue and he was also of opinion That this limitation to the second Wife was void at the beginning for the second Wife was not a person able to take when the Estate and Vse limited to the first Wife was determined and therefore she shall not take at all and if such an Estate had been limited in possession it should not have vested no more than now Mounson Iustice When the Feoffor and the Feoffees joyn in a Fine of that Land within which the use in future is wrapped he conceived That the Vse being in abeyance and consideration of the Law could not be touched by the Fine It is to be confessed That an Vse may be discontinued See 4. H. 7. 18. A Feoffment made to the use of A. for life and after to the use of B. in tail c. A. makes a Feoffment in Fee and dieth the same is a discontinuance of the other Vses and see 27 H. 8. 29. And in our Case the Vse might arise without any Entry of the Feoffees for the Vse is not discontinued but the Feoffees are barred by the Fine And he was also of opinion That this Vse might take effect without any Entry and take effect according to the limitation Manwood This Estate which is limited in use to the second Wife because it cannot vest in her because not known the Feoffees are yet content with it and this Vse is to grow out of their Estates at the seasonable time Then when they joyn in a Feoffment their Estate which was the root of the Conveyance and the Vses which are the branches spring not till she dieth and therefore if the Estate of the Feoffees which is the root of the Vses be destroyed by alienation of the Land before the Vses have their being as in our Case it is because that then the second was not known no use can afterwards rise for by the Feoffment they are destroyed and also every possibility of them But if the Vses had been in esse so as the persons to whom they are limited are known then the Statute shall execute the possession to such uses And as to that which hath been objected by my Brother Mounson That the Law shall keep and preserve the Vse and that notwithstanding any thing done by the Feoffees at its due time it shall rise That cannot be for the Statute of 27 H. 8. doth not speak of such Vses as this in our Case but of such Vses onely of which one may say such a use is limited to such a person and such to such a person c. and such Vses are onely executed by the Statute It may be demanded What Estate the Feoffees have in the Lands until such uses be executed It may be answered A Fee simple determinable as the Lord hath when he entereth upon his Villein Donee in tail And I conceive That this use was not in Custodia Legis quia de minimis non curat Lex and the use was such a thing of which the Law took no knowledge and in case of an Estate in possession such an use in abeyance should be bound As a Lease for life unto A. the Remainder to the right Heirs of B. A. suffers a common Recovery in the life of B. who afterwards dieth and afterwards A. dyeth the Heir of B. is bound for he had not right at the time of the Recovery This Fine levied by the manner shall not destroy the uses limited to the second Wife for as to the Feoffees they have nothing to doe with the Lands to transfer any Estate against the former limitation for the Statute leaves nothing in the Feoffees but vests all in Cesty que use and that which cannot vest in him to whom it is limited shall return to the Feoffor As if I make a Feoffment in Fee to the use of my self for life and after to the use of my second Wife all the Fee is now in me and when I take a second Wife then the Feoffees shall be seised to the use of such Wife in Remainder for her life but in the Case at Bar the Feoffees at the time when this second Wife was in esse had not any thing in the Lands for they had departed with all their Interest before by their Feoffment and Fine Note That by the first Feoffment the use was limited to D. the first Wife of the Feoffor for term of her life the Remainder in tail to A. Brent the Remainder in Fee to one Broughton and all these uses were executed by the Statute but these persons were not parties to the Livery but onely the Feoffees which had not any thing Then when they make their Letter of Attorney to make Livery of seisin not being seised of the Land the Attorney onely is a Disseisor and so nothing passed from the Feoffees if any right had been in them and for another reason nothing passed by this last Conveyance out of the Feoffees for the parties to the latter Conveyance had notice of the use and so it appeareth by the second Indenture the which makes mention of the first uses c. Dyer Here in our Case the Founders of these uses i. the Feoffor and the Feoffees have an intent to overthrow these uses for at the Common Law the Feoffees might doe it of themselves As if the Feoffees had made a Feoffment in fee in consideration of Money to others who had not notice of the uses now the uses are gone and the second Feoffees in such Cases were seised to their own uses I well know That by this Feoffment all is devested out of the Feoffees which might vest in the person to whom the use is limited but here this use which was limited to the second Wife could not upon the limitation of it vest in any person and therefore it shall
entred upon Ross the Plaintiff and enfeoffed Rockwood who enfeoffed Weston Coke for the Plaintiff The Case is no more but where a man hath issue a son and a daughter by several women and Deviseth his Lands to his son and the heirs of the body of the Father lawfully begotten in which case if the Son dieth without issue the Tail is extinct and the Daughter shall never have the Land for she doth not take by way of Reversion or Remainder and she doth not take in possession because the possession was in Jeofry who was the Heir of Henry c. And these Cases were vouched 1 Roberge's Case 2 E. 3. 1. to Tail John Mandevile took to Wife Roberge and Mandevile gave land to Roberge haeredibus ipsius Johannis quos ipse de corpore praedict Robergiae procreaverit there the Book is That the Formedon was Quae M. dedit Robergiae haeredibus dict Johannis quos ipsae de corpore dictae Robergiae procreaverit Et quae post mortem praefat Robergiae R. filii haeredis dict Johannis Mandevile haeredis ipsius Johannis de corpore dicto Robergiae per dict Johannem procreat c. and the same Writ awarded good which Coke denyed to be Law. And he cited the Case of Dyer 4 and 5 P. and Ma. 156. A. gives Lands to one for life the Remainder thereof rectis haeredibus masculis de corpore dict A. legitime procreat remanere inde rectis haeredibus dict A. who hath issue two Sons and dieth A. dieth the eldest Son hath issue a Daughter and dieth without issue male And he conceived first That in this case the limitation of the Remainder in Tail to the right Heirs of the body of the Donor is void for the Donor cannot make his own right Heir a Purchasor without departing with the Fee-simple of his person But admitting the limitation is good he said we are to consider If this entail to the Son once vested and commenced in the possession of the Son when he dieth without issue male The Estate be spent or that the same shall go to the younger Son And he said that it was the opinion of Dyer in that case That the younger Son was inheritable to the said Estate-tail as in the Case of Littleton 82. where the condition is That the Feoffee shall give the Lands to the Son and Heir of the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Father and Mother lawfully begotten and the Husband and Wife before any such Gift die having issue and afterwards the Feoffee gives the Land to the Son and Heir of the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Father and Mother begotten the condition is well performed and if the eldest Son to whom the Gift is made dieth without issue the youngest Son shall inherit And in a Formedon in the Reverter upon such a Gift the Writ shall be Et quae post mortem of the eldest Son ad ipsum reverti debet because the Husband and Wife obierunt sine haerede de corpor suis inter eos exeunt And such was also the Opinion of Saunders But Brook Brown and Catlin were clear contrary And he said that Bendloes Serjeant who reporteth that Case doth affirm That Iudgment was given in that case That the Estate-tail was spent and that the Daughter should have the Lands and not the second Son and so he said That in the Case at the Bar the estate-Estate-tail was spent But he said That he conceived that in the principal case at Bar there is not any Estate-tail at all because the words upon which the Estate-tail is conceived are incertain and too general viz. secundum antiquam Evidentiam for there might be many ancient Evidences for the words may extend to Evidences which cut off the Estate tail as well as to the Entail of Guntwardy He also argued That the Partition was void and then the Lessee had a good interest for certain parts of the Lands for Partition cannot be made of an Vse and he said that he agreed That Partition betwixt Husband and Wives of Lands if it be equal should bind the makers because they are compellable to make Partition of them but contrary of an Vse for that they are not compellable to do Also in the principal Case the Land entailed is allotted to one of the Coparcenors which is not good but during the Coverture and afterwards void and then the Lease is void but in part and so the Conusance is not good Atkinson contrary and he said I conceive that by words of Relation a Fee may pass without the word Heirs See 39 Ass 12. The Father seised of Lands in fee doth enfeoff his younger Son in fee and the Father continues the possession of the Lands claiming to hold them at the will of the Son and the Son coming into the Town where the Lands do lie in the hearing of his Neighbours saith to his Father You have given to me these Lands naming them As fully as you have given them to me I give them back to you again and the same was holden to be a good Gift to the Father 43 E. 3. 22. The King seised of a Manor to which an advowson is appendant by Escheat or Conveyance gives the said Manor as entirely as such a one held the said Manor before the Escheat or Conveyance the Advowson shall pass without special mentioning of it And so here in our Case at Bar This Will hath reference to the ancient Evidence and it shall be as strong as if he had set down the special words of Entail and to ancient Evidence before the Entail it cannot extend for then a fee should pass and then the Devise should be void because to his Heir and the word Antiqua Evidentia shall have reference to the Charter which was made by Guntwardy for that was an ancient Evidence made two hundred years past and he cited the Case of 40 E. 3. 8. the Provost of Beverley's Case and conceived that the Estate was not spent for that the Estate-tail was in Jeofry as the fee was in him Lands are given to the Father for life the Remainder to the Son in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father the Father dieth the Tail and the fee are in the Son but yet after the death of the Son without issue the Lands shall be in the Brother's Son by descent and not as Purchasor And in our Case Jeofry was in in the Tail as right Heir of Henry and if Jeofry dieth without issue his Brother of the half bloud shall have the Lands as in the Case before cited of 40 E. 3. but that shall be in Tail by force of the Devise And he said That in this case here the Partition was made good enough although it were of Lands in use for a man might contract for an Vse without Deed 11 H. 4. Partition 156. Partition of an Advowson without Deed
adjudged by the whole Court that the Covenant did not lie by one of them onely but ought to be brought by them both LXI Carter 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Being seised of the Manor of Staple in Odiham 1 Cro. 208. Owen Rep. 84. 8 Co. 119. and of divers other Lands in Odiham suffered a common Recovery of the whole and by Indenture expressed the uses in this manner viz. of all his Lands and Tenements in Odiham to the use of his wife for life the remainder over c. And of the Manor of Staple to the use of his youngest son in tail but by the clear opinion of the whole Court although the Manor of Staple was in Odiham yet the wife shall have nothing therein for the intent of the party was that the son should have the same and his wife the residue and accordingly Iudgment was given LXII Cobb and Prior 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case betwixt Cobb and Prior was this A man seised of Lands in Fee devised the same to his Wife during the minority of his Son upon condition that she should not do Waste during the minority of the said Son and died The Wife married a Husband and died the Husband committed Waste It was holden by all the Iustices That the same was not any breach of the Condition and Iudgment was entred accordingly LXIII Taylor and Brounsal 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. IN an Information upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. by Taylor against Brounsal the Case was That John Brounsal was seised and gave the Lands to T. B. and the Heirs of his body c. the Remainder to R. B. and the Heirs male of his body the Remainder to the right Heirs of J. B. T. B. died having issue a Daughter and R. B. made a Lease for years of the Lands And it was holden by the Court to be no maintenance within the said Statute for he in the Remainder might make a Lease for years Then it was given in Evidence That a common Recovery was had against the Husband and Wife with a single Voucher and so the Remainder limited to R. B. destroyed and that after that Recovery R. B. made the Lease To which it was said by the other side That the said Recovery was never executed and no discontinuance of the Remainder and then the Lease made by R. B. was good and the truth of the Case was That such a Recovery was had and an Habere facias seisinam awarded and retorned but no Execution was in truth had upon it nor the Recoveror never entred And if R. B. who is a stranger to the said Recovery shall be admitted against the Recovery to say That no Execution was thereof was the Question and therefore all the matter was found by special Verdict It was also given in Evidence That the Land was given to T. B. and the Heirs males of his body and then when the Daughter which is not in truth inheritable entereth if that Entry she being privy in bloud to R. hee Vncle shall be a Disseisin or Abatement c. as in the Case of Littleton where the youngest Brother entreth after the death of the Father for in such case the youngest Son doth not get any Freehold but is but a Tenant at sufferance Anderson When the Daughter enters and takes a Husband who leaseth for years and the Lessee entreth the same is a Disseisin Periam doubted it for he said When the younger Son entred the Freehold was in him which Anderson doubted LXIV Maunsel and Vernon 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IQ Debt by Maunsel against Hen. Vernon Esquire who came in by Capias i. compulsary Process and pleaded That he was Hen. Vernon Lord Powis and so a Baron of the Parliament and demanded Iudgment of the Writ Note some said That if the Defendant had come in by Issue joyned or gratis and not by compulsary Process he could not have pleaded this Plea or any other Misnosmer The Plaintiff replyed That the Defendant is an Esquire absque hoc that he is Lord Powis and a Baron of the Parliament and as the Iury was ready at the Bar to try this Issue this matter was objected And Anderson conceived That this Plea to the Writ was not good for the name of Lord is not any degree as Knight Duke Earl nor is it parcel of the name nor parcel of addition and therefore it is no Plea in abatement of a Writ and all the Writs of Parliament directed to Barons to summon them to Parliament shall have their Names Sirnames and Additions as if they be Knights Knights and if Esquires they shall be named Esquires and if a Bond be made by J.S. Lord R. the Writ shall not be so for the King by his Writ doth not name any one Lord but otherwise it is of Duke Earl c. for these are Offices of Dignity and parcel of their Names and not onely Additions Windham and Periam contrary and they conceived that there was no difference in this point betwixt a Lord and an Earl for which cause the Court being in doubt although that the Exception was entered of Record would have saved the same to the party and taken the Iury de bene esse but afterwards because it appeared it was joyned in the prejudice of Sir Edward Herbert who was a stranger thereunto and whose Title was concerned therein and there was none on his part to inform the Iury the Iury was at last dismissed by the Court. LXV Penruddock and Newman 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae by Penruddock against Newman 1 Leon. 279 the Plaintiff declared of a Lease made by the Lord Morley and upon Not-guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That W. Lord Mounteagle seised of the manner of D. whereof c. became bound in a Statute in such a sum of Money to A. who died the Executors of A. sued Execution against the said Lord scil Extendi facias a Liberate issued upon which the said Manor was delivered to the Executors but the said Liberate was not retorned and it was farther found That the Executors being so possessed of the Manor the Lord commanded a Court Baron to be holden there which was done by sufferance and permission of the Executors and in their presence at which time the Executors said to the Lord the Conusor We have nothing to do with this Manor And upon this Verdict several matters were moved 1. If the Execution were well done because the Writ of Liberate was not retorned and as to that divers Books were cited 21 H. 6. 8. 18 E. 3. 25. And there is a difference betwixt a Liberate and a Capias ad satisfaciend and Fieri facias these Writs are Conditional Ita quod habeas corpus c. Ita quod habeas denarios hic in Curia 32 H. 8. ca. 28. 16 H. 7.
had also bona catalla felonum fugitivorum and at the payment the Lord St. John claimed the money But all the Barons of the Exchequer were clear of Opinion That the Lord St. John could not have the money for the place of payment nihil operatur but the Obligation is the substance which came to the Lord of Northampton within the Isle of Ely. Popham the Queens Attorny claimed the money for the Queen for the Lord of Northampton cannot have it for by the general words of bona catalla felonum things in Action do not pass but by express words they well pass otherwise not And therefore day was given to the Lord of Northampton to shew his Letters Patents LXXXII Ards and Smith 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. Rot. 2737. In the Common Pleas. 3 Co. 8. EDward Ards brought a Replevin against Smith and Reading the Defendants made Conusance as Bailiffs to Robert Chamberlain and shewed That one A. was seised of the Manor of Keney in Fee whereof the place where is parcel and so seised gave the said Manor to Richard Chamberlain and Sibil Fowler and to the Heirs males of the said Richard Richard and Sibil intermarry and have issue Edward Richard dieth Sibil dyeth Edward hath issue Leonard and dieth Leonard hath issue Francis and dieth Francis hath issue Robert in whose Right the Conusance is made and dieth Robert entreth The Plaintiff in bar of the Conusance sheweth That one B. was thereof seised and thereof enfeoffed one Cottesford then Master of Lincoln College and the Fellows thereof after which the said Leonard Son and Heir male of the said Edward 25 H. 8. did release to the said Master and Fellows with warranty the said Robert in whose Right the said Conusance is made being Heir male of the said Robert and demanded Iudgment if against that warranty c. The Defendants confess the Gift before to the said Richard and Sibil and that they had issue the said Edward but farther shewed That after the death of the said Richard Sibil and Edward her Son leased the said Manor for years to one Mascal who entred and was possessed Edward suffered a common Recovery unto the use of the Recoverors who entred and ousted the Lessee and enfeoffed the said B. who enfeoffed the said Master and Fellows the Lessee re-entred Sibil died Leonard Son and Heir apparent of Edward released to the said Master and Fellows with warranty Edward died Leonard died and thereupon a Demurrer was by the parties and the matter was If this Recovery being suffered by him in the Remainder in tail upon an Estate for life the Recoverors entring upon the Lessee for years of the Lessee for life and putting him out and afterwards the Lessee for years re-entring If now any Estate did remain in the College after the Re-entry which might work a Release Snag Serjeant argued That a sufficient Estate did remain in the College upon which a Release might enure i.e. an Estate to begin after the death of Sibil and the expiration of the term for years and although rei veritate Edward was not Tenant of the Freehold at the time of the Recovery yet such an exception doth not lie for the Issue and to that purpose he cited the Opinion of Fairfax 12 E. 4. 14. Shuttleworth Serjeant contrary This Recovery works nothing but by way of Estoppel and Conclusion and therefore the issue in tail may well disclose the matter and avoid such Recovery and the better Opinion in the Case cited before 12 E. 4. is That such a Recovery against such a person is utterly void which see there by â—ittleton Choke and Brian 14 E. 4. 2. and also 28 Ass 17. and Dyer 8 Eliz. 252 253. Land conveyed to the Husband for life the Remainder to the Wife in tail the Remainder to the Right Heirs of the Husband and Wife The Husband and Wife suffer a common Recovery the Husband hath issue and dieth and afterwards the Wife dieth the issue shall avoid the Lease and Recovery See also the Case betwixt Hare and Snow Plow 20 Eliz. 514. where a common Recovery was had against Tenant in tail and his Wife whereas in truth the Wife had nothing in the Land whereof the Recovery was suffered It was holden that the issue in tail or any other person might shew the truth of the matter for he shall not be bound by any Estoppel which his Father hath admitted by joyning in Voucher with his Wife for he is not subject to the Estoppel and therefore it was holden That if the Wife in such case might sue Execution to have in value yet the Son in tail might oust him of it So 8 H. 4. 122. a Praecipe is brought against Tenant in tail who prays in aid of a stranger as Tenant for life who enters into the aid and bars the Demandant and afterwards the Tenant in tail dieth his issue is at large to claim the Estate-tail although the mouth of his Father was estopped as to it So Tenant in tail brought a Quod ei deforceat and counted upon an especial tail whereas in truth it was a general tail and recovereth and dieth the said Recovery shall not conclude the issue See 33 H. 6. 18. And in our Case when the Recoverors enter by force of the recovery the same is a wrong to the Lessee for years and also to the Tenant for life for the one is ejected and the other disseised and therefore the Re-entry of the Lessee doth defeat all the Estate which was in the College under that Recovery and here the Entry of the Lessee for years shall avoid all the Estate which was conveyed to the College by the Recoverors See 44 E. 3. 30 31. Bassingborn's Assise Land is given to A for life the Remainder to B. for life the Remainder to C. in Fee A. aliens in Fee the Ancestors collateral of him who hath the Fee doth release to the Alienee with warranty B. enters here the whole warranty is lost and all the first Estate is recontinued So in our Case by this Entry of the Lessee the whole Estate of the College under the Recovery is defeated so as nothing remains in the College upon which the Release can enure and then there is no warranty in the Case And as the Case is here Edward who suffered the Recovery dieth before the descent of the warranty by the death of Leonard by whom the Release with warranty was made by the death of which Edward the Interest which the College had in the said Manor by the said Recovery and the Estoppel of it was determined and utterly gone and then the warranty descending afterwards cannot attach upon the possession which was at the time of the warranty made which was by the conclusion which by the death of Edward is determined and removed by an Eign Title i. the Entail As if Tenant in tail doth discontinue the Discontinue is disseised Tenant in tail releaseth with warranty to the
Disseisor the Disseisee entereth in the life of Tenant in tail who afterwards dieth the warranty works nothing for the cause aforesaid And also he put this Case Tenant in tail of Land grants a Rent-charge in Fee and an Ancestor collateral releaseth to the Grantee with warranty and dieth the Tenant in tail dieth now the issue is bound but if Tenant in tail dieth before him who maketh the Release now the Rent is determined by the death of Tenant in tail and then the warranty cannot attach upon it At another day the Case was moved and conceived in these words scil Tenant for life the Remainder in tail Tenant for life leaseth for years a Recovery is had against him in the Remainder in tail living Tenant for life the Recoverors enter and oust the Lessee for years the Son and Heir of him in the Remainder in tail releaseth with warranty to him to whom the Recoverors have assured the Lands the Lessee enters he against whom the Recovery was had dieth the Releasor dieth c. It was holden that the Entry of the Lessee before that the warranty had attached upon the possession which passed had avoided the warranty And the Lord Anderson conceived That the Recovery should not prejudice the issue in tail but that the issue shall Fauxifie the same And if Tenant in tail be disseised and so disseised suffereth a common Recovery his issue shall not be barred quod fuit concessum per omnes And afterwards another matter was moved scil That the Release is pleaded to be made to Lincoln College by the name of Custodi sociis Scholaribus Lincolniensis Collegii in Oxonia where the true name of the College as is confessed by the Record in the Plea pleaded is Custos sive Rector Socii Scholares Lincolniensis Collegii in Oxonia c. It was adjourned See this Case reported 3 part Lincoln College Case LXXXIII Hall and the Bishop of Bath 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HAll brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Bath and others The Incumbent pleaded Quod ipse nihil habet nec habere clamat c. nisi de praesentatione Georgii Sidenham militis not named in the Writ and demanded Iudgment of the Writ upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was argued by Drew Serjeant for the Plaintiff That the Writ was well brought without naming the Patron for if a Quare Impedit be brought against the Patron and Incumbent and the Patron dieth 1 Leon. 45. pendant the Writ the Writ shall not abate 9 H. 6. 30. It might be that the Plaintiff did not know nor could tell who presented the said Incumbent but he findeth the Incumbent a Disturber by his Incumbency and if of necessity such Patron ought to be named then if such a Vsurper should die before the Writ brought he which hath cause of Action should be remediless And by Anderson and Periam the Writ is good enough for the reason aforesaid And Anderson put this case If A. wrongfully by Vsurpation doth present and his Clark is received and afterwards A. having gained the Patronage grants it over to B. Against whom shall the Quare Impedit be brought Walmsley Against B. which Anderson doubted LXXXIV Hughe 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Formedon the Writ was That A. Dedit Aliciae filiae suae and to J.S. and to the Heirs of their two bodies begotten and it was shewed in abatement of the Writ That the name of the Wife is put before the name of the Husband To which it was said by the Court that if such a Writ be brought against the Husband and Wife and the name of the Wife be put before the name of the Husband the Writ shall abate and if in the Case at Bar it had appeared That the Donees at the time of the Gift were Husband and Wife upon such a matter disclosed the Writ should abate but that doth not appear plainly to the Court. LXXXV Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas NOTE It was holden by the Court 1 Cro. 567. 3 Cro. 224. Post 189. That if a Writ of Dower be brought against an Infant who loseth by default at the Grand Cape that he may reverse the same by a Writ of Error but where an Infant appeareth by Guardian and afterwards loseth by default there he shall never avoid it for if any default be in the Guardian the Infant shall recover against him in a Writ of Deceit And afterwards the Iudgment in the first case was reversed LXXXVI Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer-Chamber NOTE In the Exchequer-Chamber before the Lord Chancellour The two chief Iustices and the chief Baron a Writ of Error was cast upon a Iudgment given in the Court of Exchequer and it was agreed Quod propter absentiam Dom. Thesaurarii Angliae They ought not nor could receive the said Writ and the Statute of 31 Eliz. doth not help the matter for that extends but to discontinuances which before the Statute many times hapned for the not coming of the Chancellour or Treasurer and not to give Conusance in a Writ of Error in the absence of the Treasurer c. LXXXVII Lacy and Fisher 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Replevin by Lacy against Fisher The Defendant pleaded that the place where c. is called Spicold and holden of the Manor of Easthall by certain Rent and made Conusance as Bailiff of the Lord of the said Manor and issue being joined hereupon It was tried by the Iury of the Visne of Spicold and it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the issue was mis-tried For the Visne ought to have been of Spicold and Easthall also Web and Richmond's Case And a Case was cited to have been adjudged accordingly betwixt Webb and Richmond M. 31 Eliz. in the same Court. LXXXVIII Corbet 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That an Action of Debt was brought by original Writ against an Administrator in another County than where the Administrator was dwelling and before notice of that suit he paid divers other debts of the Intestate due by specialties so as he had not Assets to pay the debt in demand having Assets at the day of the Teste of the original and now the Defendant appearing pleads the same special matter and concluded And so nothing remained in his hands And it was holden per Curiam to be a good Plea See 2 H. 4. 21 22. LXXXIX Sir William Pelham 's Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer 1 Co. 41. THE Case short put was this A. Tenant for life of a Messuage c. the remainder in tail to B. with divers remainders over A. by Deed indented and enrolled bargained and sold the Messuage c. so conveyed to Sir William Pelham in Fee who afterwards suffered a common Recovery thereof in which A. is vouched and so a common Recovery is had and executed and
years is out of the Book for by the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 15. he may falsifie the Recovery but no Receipt lieth in the case of a common Recovery for that he who recovers cannot put out the Termor As to that which my Brother Clark hath said That the bargain and sale in this case is not any forfeiture but when the bargain and sale is enrolled then it is a forfeiture I am not of such Opinion for although that the Enrolment be of Record yet the Deed is not of Record for against a Deed enrolled a man may plead Infancy although none can plead Non est factum Also he held That although by the bargain and sale and the Enrolment of it the Bargainee had not a fee for by such act the Reversion is not removed yet by the Recovery and the Execution of it the Bargainee hath gained a fee out of the Lessor for the Recovery is to the use of the Bargainee against whom it was had It hath been objected that here is onely a Voucher which paradventure was lawfull in this case by reason of a warranty paramount or of a Release or Confirmation with warranty and two Cases have been vouched to that purpose viz. 5 E. 4. 2. Tenant for life being impleaded in a Praecipe voucheth a stranger the Demandant counterpleads the Voucher which is found for him he in the Reversion hath no remedy but a Writ of Right so if the Vouchee had entred into the warranty and lost c. As to that book we ought not to conceive That every Case reported in our books is Law but let us observe of what authority that case is truly it is the conceit of the Reporter himself for he puts the Case and resolves the case but no Iudge or Serjeant is named in the case c. The other case is 5 E. 4. 2. b. Note by Heydon clearly If my Tenant for life voucheth a stranger who entreth into the warranty generally and doth not know how to bar the Demandant the Tenant shall recover in value and the Reversion of that which he hath in value shall be in me in lieu of my former Reversion as a Release to the Tenant for term of life shall enure to him in the Reversion But that is but the Opinion of one Serjeant c. But I answer to these books If the demandant in such recovery hath a good Title so as the Tenant or the Vouchee as Heydon saith do not know how to bar the Demandant there such Voucher of a stranger is no forfeiture nor such Recovery suffered upon it for against his Will volens nolens he suffered it but if the Tenant hath good matter to bar the Demandant and no good cause of Voucher nor any warranty as the matter is in the case of a common Recovery there the Voucher of a stranger or suffering of a Recovery is a forfeiture of his Estate And here in our case if the Demandant hath not any Title the Tenant or Vouchee hath not any warranty but the Tenant might have barred the Demandant if he would And he said That the Voucher onely doth not make the forfeiture but rather the recovery for when Iudgment is given and Execution is had then the Fee is plucked out of the Reversioner vide 6 R. 2. If Tenant for life claimeth a Fee the same is a forfeiture but here Sir William Pelham hath done more for he hath gained Fee by the Iudgment therefore à fortiori it shall be a forfeiture But let us see a little what meddlings or attempts by the particular Tenants are causes of forfeiture and what not 5 Assis 3. A. brought a Writ of Entry against Tenant for life by Collusion to oust B. of his Reversion supposing that the Tenant for life held of his Lease the Tenant confessed the Action upon which Iudgment is given B. enters and his Entry adjudged lawfull for this Recovery is adjudged in Law but an alienation to the disinheritance of him in the Reversion and there it appeareth that such Recovery by Covin is but an alienation and without any strength of a Recovery And he cited many other cases cited before by Altham 14 E. 3. Recept 135. where Tenant for life pleads in chief and prays in aid of a stranger where he might bar the Demandant and would not the same is a forfeiture Also 2 E. 3. 2. and 27 E. 3. where Tenant for life in a Quid juris clamat attorned to the Conusee upon a Fine levyed by him that had not any thing in the Land the same was a forfeiture and yet the Attornment doth not devest the Reversion out of the Lessor 50 E. 3. 7. and 8. Land was given by Fine in tail the Remainder over to a stranger in fee the Donee took a Wife and died without issue the Wife accepted Dower assigned by a stranger he in the remainder brought a Scire facias against the Wife she is Tenant in Dower of the assignment of a stranger and pleads to the Title the Demandant recovereth she hath lost her Dower for she hath not pleaded as she ought being a particular Tenant c. H. 4. Tenant for life loseth his Land in a Recovery against him against his Will and thereupon brings Quod ei deforceat and declares upon an estate-Estate-tail and recovers the same is a forfeiture because he hath challenged a higher Estate than he had 5 H. 5. Tenant for life joyns the Mise upon the meer right 2 H. 6. Lessee for years being ousted brings an Assise and recovers 1 H. 7. Accepts a Fine of a stranger upon condition come ceo c. all these are forfeitures In the principal Case here the Tenant who suffers his Recovery doth not plead at all to defend the Right but whereas he might have barred the Demandant he giveth strength to his pretended Title and makes it a perfect Title and by suffering this Recovery and Iudgment to pass upon it he hath taken the Reversion out of the Lessor to whom he owed Fealty and therefore he shall forfeit his Estate And without any doubt it is apparent to the Court that the Demandant in this Recovery hath not any Title but the Recoverors in such cases are but as Assignees or Purchasors which appears by the Statute of 7 H. 8. ca. 2. which gives Distress and Avowry to Recoverors c. As to the inventing of Recoveries it was a necessary device for it was to take away Estate-tails which were the causes of great mischiefs and inconveniencies in this Realm and there was great reason for it for Tenant in tail might by the common Law alien his Lands post prolem suscitatam and now he hath an Inheritance and may do Waste But he was so restrained by the Statute of West 2. that all the Realm and the Subjects in it were inveigled thereby Ioyntures of Wives Leases of Fermors Mortgages to Creditors Statutes and other Assurances were defeated by the deaths of Tenants in tail which
the Office found Also the Traverse is not good for he traverseth the matter of the Conveyance which is not traversable for if the King hath Title non refert quomodo or by what Conveyance he hath it As to the matter in Law scil Tenant in tail in Remainder is attainted of Felony if the King during the life of Tenant in tail shall have the freehold and he conceived that he should for it shall not be in abeyance and it cannot be in any other for when he is attainted he is dead as unto the King. The chief Lord cannot have it for Tenant for life is alive and also he in the Remainder in Fee c. the Donor shall not have it for the Tenant in Remainder is not naturally dead but civilly and the Land cannot revert before the Tenant in tail be naturally dead without issue but if there were any other in whom the Freehold might vest and remain then the King should not have the Freehold but onely the profits So if the Tenant be attainted the Lord shall have the Lands presently 3 E. 3. 4 E. 3. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have but the profits for the Freehold vests in the Wife and if the Lord entreth the Wife shall have an Assise And Tenant in tail may forfeit for his life as he may grant for his life See Old N. B. 99. If Tenant in tail for life dower or by the curtesie be attainted of Felony the King shall have the Lands during their lives and after their deceases he in the Reversion shall sue unto the King by Petition and shall have the Lands out of the King's hands and there it is farther said That the Lord by Escheat cannot have it for the party attainted was not his very Tenant nor he in the Reversion for the term yet endures But now it is to see if the Freehold be in the King without Office and he conceived and argued that it was Where the King is entituled to an Action there the King ought to have an Office and a Scire facias upon it as where the King is entituled to a Cessavit Action of Waste c. 14 H. 7. 21. where the Entry in case of a common person is necessary there it is requisite that there be an Office for the King As if a Villain of the King purchaseth Lands or an Alien born c. so for a condition broken Mortmain c. And in some cases an Office is onely necessary to instruct the King how he shall charge the Officer for the profits which may be supplied as well by Survey as by Office as if the King be to take by descent or as the Case is here And true it is that a person attainted of Felony may during his Attainder purchase Lands and yet he cannot hold it against the King and it is clear that by the Common Law in such cases the Land was in the King but not to grant for the Statute of 18 H. 6. was an impediment to it but now that defect is supplied by the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 20. So that now the King may grant without Office See Doughtie's Case 26 Eliz. And in our Case an Office is not necessary to entitle the King but for explaining of his Title and see 9 H. 7. 2. The Lands of a man attainted of High Treason are in the King without Office so where the King's Tenant dieth without Heir or Tenant in tail of the Gift of the King dieth without issue See Br. Office before the Escheator 34. and see 13 H. 4. 270. A man is attainted of Treason the King before Office grants his Lands and Goods Things which lie in Grant as Advowsons Rents Remainder such things upon Attainder are in the King without Office. As to the general pardon of 23 Eliz. he said That that doth not extend to this Case and that this interest of the Queen by this Attainder doth not pass by that pardon out of the Queen so if the Queen had but a Right or Title onely Popham Attorney General By this Attainder the Estate of him in the Remainder in tail accrueth unto the Queen for the life of him in the Remainder for by our Law Felony is punished by the death of the Offendor and the loss of his Goods and Lands for the examples of others therefore nothing is left in the party Tenant for life is attainted of Felony the King pardoneth him his life yet he shall have his Lands during his life and he may dispose of the same for his life And so is it of Tenant in tail for he may forfeit all that which he hath and that is an Estate for his life which is a Freehold If Lands be given to one and his Heirs for the term of the life of another and the Donee be attainted of Felony the King shall have the Land during the life of Cestuy que vie for the Heir cannot have it because the bloud is corrupt and there is not any occupancy in the case for 17 E. 3. the Iustices would not accept of a Fine for the life of another because there might be an Occupant in the case But for a Fine of Land to one and his Heirs for the life of another they would take a Fine for there is no mischief of occupancy Land is given to A. for life the Remainder to B. for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. who is attainted of Felony B. dieth now the King hath the Fee executed And here in our Case If the Tenant for life had been dead no Praecipe had lien against him in the Remainder being in possession but the party who hath right is to sue unto the King by Petition 4 E. 3. If one seised of Lands in the right of his Wife for life be attainted the King shall have exitus proficua but he conceived that Case not to be Law For see F. N. B. 254 D. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife in Fee is outlawed for Felony the King seiseth the Husband dieth now shall issue forth a Diem clausit extremum the words of which Writ in such case are Quia A. cujus Terr Tenement quae ipse tenuit de jure haereditate N. uxoris suae adhuc superstitis occasione ejusdem Utlagar ' in ipsum pro quadam Felonia unde indictatus fuit c. in Man. Domini H. patris nostri extiterunt c. therefore the King had not the issues onely but also the Lands See to the same purpose the Register 292. b. Stamford's Placita Coronae 186 187. affirms That Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall forfeit his Lands during his life And he said that the Estate of Thomas Venables was in the King without Office not to grant for that is restrained by the Statute of 18 H. 6. but it is in him before Office so as he who hath right ought
Statute and the penalties thereof And upon a great deliberation it was by them all resolved and agreed That notwithstanding the said Conveyance the said Lands were liable to the said Statute And as to the Iurors who against the Evidence given to them for the Queen gave their Verdict ut supra Process was awarded against them out of the Court of Exchequer for to appear before the Lord Treasurer and the Barons And for their said contempt they were committed to the Fleet and each of them fined 50 l. CLXXVI Moore and Savil 's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN an Ejectione firmae by Moore against Savil the Case was That Tenant in tail leased the Land to the father mother and son for their lives by Indenture in which it was comprehended That forasmuch as the Lessor is but Tenant in tail and so cannot by Law limit these Estates by way of Remainder but jointly in possession and his intent was That because this Lease was procured and obtained at the special suit and costs and charges of the father That the said son should suffer his father and after him his mother to take the profits of the said Lands demised and to occupy and hold the said Lands to their onely profit without interruption of the said son notwithstanding his joint Estate in possession with them Provisum igitur est That if the said son shall challenge claim demand or take any profits of the Lands so demised or enter into the same during the life of his said father or mother That then the Estate to him limited by the said Indenture should cease and be utterly void And it was the clear opinion of the whole Court That this Condition and Proviso was utterly void for it is contrary to the Estate limited before as in the Case cited by Coke at the Bar. If I lease to you my Lands for 20 years Proviso that you shall not occupy the same the two first years the same Proviso is void and contrary and repugnant to the Estate CLXXVII Lord Cromwel and Townsend 's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber HEnry Lord Cromwel exhibited a Bill in the Star-Chamber against Roger Townsend Esquire for that the said Roger Townsend in an Action betwixt James Taverner Plaintiff and James Cromwel Farmor of the said Lord Cromwel Defendant in Trespass in the favour and unlawfull maintenance of the said Taverner did procure a partial Iury to be retorned And upon the hearing of the Cause the matter given in Evidence was That the said Taverner was a Copiholder of the said Lord Cromwel and that the said Lord Cromwel pretending that the said Taverner had forfeited his Copihold caused the said James Cromwel to make an Entry in the right of the said Lord upon the said Taverner upon which Entry Taverner brought an Action of Trespass against the said James Cromwel in which Action the parties were at Issue upon the forfeiture And before any Venire facias issued forth Taverner hearing that one Steward who was Bailiff of the Franchize under the Earl of Arundel and who ought to make the Pannel c. was purposed to have made the said Pannel not duly viz. to retorn therein great Gentlemen of the County who were Lords of Manors in favour of the said Lord Cromwel went unto the said Roger Townsend who was then one of the principal servants and agents of the said Earl and shewed to him that if those great persons and Lords of Manors be retorned for the trial of that Issue peradventure they would not so easily appear for the expedition of the parties as people of lesser condition and also many of them being Lords of Manors and having customary Tenants and therefore not indifferent to try that Issue and prayed his Order to the said Steward for the making of an indifferent Pannel where upon a conference with the said Steward for the making of an indifferent Pannel and shewing to him the making of the said Pannel was not convenient or any equal course to retorn Knights Esquires or Lords of Manors but rather such sufficient persons for the greater expedition of Iustice and indifferency of the trial And afterwards the said Taverner exhibited a Petition shewing all the special matter and praying him to give Order for the making of an indifferent Pannel for the trial of that Cause which Petition was delivered to the said Earl by the said Townsend in the name of the said Taverner Vpon which the Earl did refer the said matter to three of his chiefest agents and Counsellours i. Dicksey Townsend and Carrel and delivered to them the Book of Freeholders within the said Franchise who according to their Commission made a Pannel which was retorned and the Iury passed with the said James Cromwel in the right of the said Lord And if this intermedling of Townsend with this matter as abovesaid c. especially his conference with the Bailiff be maintenance or not was the Question And by the Lord Anderson and the Lord Wray chief Iustices It was delivered for Law That because the said Townsend was in manner a servant of the said Earl who had retorn of Writs and one of his principal Counsellours and agents and hearing Ex insinuatione of the said Taverner the misdemeanour of the Bailiff of his Lord could not do better than to shew to the Bailiff his duty for it concerned the honour of his Lord and also his Inheritance in the Franchise But if the said Townsend had been a mere stranger to the said Earl so as no such privity had been betwixt them it had been clearly maintenance in Townsend as it was lately adjudged in this Court in the Case of one Gifford Gifford's Case where the parties being at Issue and a Venire facias was to the Sheriff to retorn a Iury a stranger wrote to one of the Iurors who was retorned in the Pannel praying him to appear at the day and to doe in the Cause according to his Conscience and that was adjudged Maintenance And afterwards upon the full hearing of the cause the said Townsend by the sentence of the said Court was acquitted of every Maintenance with great allowance and approbation of many Lords of the Council there present Bromley Cancellario tantum exclamante CLXXVIII Sir Moil Finch 's Case 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Roll 184. 1 Cro. 220. Poph. 25. 1 Roll 215. THE Case was this The King and Queen Philip and Mary leased for seventy years for certain Rent payable at the Feasts of Saint Michael and the Annunciation Proviso that if the Rent be behind and not paid by the space of forty days after any of the Feasts aforesaid that the Lease shall cease and be void At Mich. 9 Eliz. the Rent was not paid according to the Proviso but a Month after the said forty days it was paid and Acquittance given for it and so the Rents due after unto 30 Eliz. were duly paid and Acquittances given for the same
the Defendant Non parit actionem for there is not any consideration upon which it is conceived but is onely Nudum pactum upon which the Defendant could not have an Action against the Plaintiff And then here is not any sufficient consideration for the promise of the Defendant Mounson Iustice conceived that here the consideration is sufficient for here this counter promise is a reciprocal promise and so a good consideration for all the communication ought to be taken together Manwood Such a reciprocal promise betwixt the parties themselves at the match is sufficient for there is consideration good enough to each as the preparing of the Bows and Arrows the riding or coming to the place appointed to shoot the labour in shooting the travel in going up and down between the marks But for the Bettors by there is not any consideration if the Bettor doth not give aim Mounson A cast at Dice alters the property if the Dice be not false wherefore then is there not here a reciprocal Action Manwood At Dice the parties set down their monies and speak words which do amount to a conditional gift scil If that the other party cast such a cast he shall have the money CLXXXVIII Dunne 's Case 19 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DUnne possessed of divers goods in divers Dioceses died intestate at Bristow The Bishop of Bristow committed administration to Jones and his Wife who administred and afterwards the Bishop of Canterbury by reason of his Prerogative committed administration to Austen and Dunne and they brought an Action of Trespass against Jones and his Wife for taking of the goods of the intestate It was holden by Wray and Southcote 5 Co. 2 30. 1 Cro. 283. 457. that the Letters of administration granted by the Bishop of Bristow were void Gawdy and Jeofreys contrary for the granting of Letters of Administration de mero jure doth belong to the Ordinary and it might be that neither the Ordinary nor the parties to whom he granted the Letters of Administration had notice that the Intestate had bona notabilia in another Diocese and therefore it should be hard to make the Defendants Trespassors Exception was taken to the Declaration because it is shewed that the Archbishop of Canterbury by reason of his Prerogative committed Administration c. without shewing that the Intestate had bona notabilia c. but the Exception was not allowed for so are all the precedents as the Declaration is here which all the Clerks in Court did affirm and afterwards Exception was taken to the Bar because it is there pleaded that the Defendant had paid a certain sum of Money to one A. to whom the Intestate was indebted by Bond and did not shew how the Bond was discharged as by Release Acquittance cancelling of the Bond c. And that was holden to be a material Exception For the Defendants in such case ought to shew such discharge which is sufficient and by which the Plaintiffs may be discharged and for that cause the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CLXXXIX Kingwell and Chapman 's Case 19 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond by Kingwell against Chapman 1 Cro. 10. The Defendant pleaded that it was endorsed upon condition That where divers debates were betwixt the Plaintiff and one J. Brother of the Defendant the said Plaintiff and J. put themselves to the award of one Copston and the Defendant was bound by Bond to the Plaintiff that his brother should perform the award of the said Copston And the award was That the said J. should pay to the Plaintiff 30 l. viz. at the Feast of the Annunciation 20 l. and at Michaelmas after 10 l. and shewed that the said J. had paid the said 20 l. at the Annunciation and as to the 10 l. he pleaded That the said J. died before the said Feast of Michaelmas upon which there was a demurrer And by Wray Southcote and Gawdy Iustices the Bond is forfeit First because the sum awarded by the Arbitrament is now become a duty as if the condition of the Bond had been for the payment of it Secondly day is appointed for the payment of it 10 H. 7. 18. Thirdly the Executors cannot perform the condition But if I be bound by Bond to enfeoff the Obligee at such a day and before the said day I die my Executors shall not be charged with it for the Condition is become impossible by the Act of God for the Land is descended to the heir CXC Lodge 's Case 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Syderf Rep. 362. LOdge an Attorney of the Common-Pleas was indebted unto Booth in 34 l. payable at a day to come and Booth was indebted to Diggs in 40 l. Diggs according to the custome of London attached in the hands of Lodge 34 l. to be paid to him at the day as part of his debt of 40 l. Lodge brought a Bill of Privilege directed to the Mayor and Sheriff of London and that every person who had cause of Action against Lodge Sequatur ad Com. Legem c. Si sibi videbitur expedire c. At the retorn of which Writ Bendloes prayed a Procedendo And by Harper Iustice the privilege shall not be allowed because that this Attachment is by custome and not allowable here and if Lodge should have the privilege then is the other party without remedy And if an Attorney of this place be impleaded in London upon a Concessit solvere debit alterius he shall not have the privilege Manwood contrary For according to the Common Law Lodge owed nothing to Diggs but is his Debtor by a custome And as to the Case of Concessit solvere there the promise was to the party himself who brought the Action and he hath no other remedy but in the Case at Bar Diggs who is a stranger vexes Lodge who ows him nothing having remedy against his proper Debtor which Dyer granted and farther said That the privilege of this Court ought not to be impeached by any custome And the Prothonotaries cited a Case adjudged in the point That such a privilege was allowed in the Case of one Underhil and afterwards in the principal Case the privilege was allowed CXCI. Segar and Bainton 's Case 21 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 3 Len. 74. IN an Action of Trespass the Case was That King Hen. 8. an 27. of his reign gave the Manor of D. to Sir Edw. Bainton Knight and to the heirs males of his body Sir Edw. Bainton had issue Andrew his eldest son and the now Defendant his younger son and died Andrew Bainton covenanted by Indenture with the Lord Seymore That the said Andrew Bainton would assure the said Manor to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the use of the said Lord and his heirs and the said Lord in recompense thereof should assure other Lands to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the said Andrew Bainton in tail
Case 33 E. 3. Annuity 52. before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend de Dom. Capital Feod c. Reddend 10 s. Rent here because that the Tenure was reserved Capital Dom. feodi illius this Rent reserved is not parcell of the Tenure but a Rent in gross King Edward the sixth gave certain Lands to Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury Tenend by the fifth part of a Knight's Fee Reddend inde 6 l. per ann Cranmer made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest son in tail the remainder to the right heirs of Cranmer who is attainted of Treason by which the remainder in Fee escheated to the King by which the Seignory is gone But it was adjudged that notwithstanding that escheat the Rent did remain for the Rent was not parcel of the Seignory Now this Rent being a thing newly created and not parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy in 1 H. 4. nor ever descended from any Ancestor of the King being Duke of Lancaster shall be accounted to be in the King in the right of his Crown and so cannot pass by the Dutchy-seal See the said Statute of 1 H. 4. and the King cannot enlarge the said Dutchy nor the possessions thereof beyond the possessions which were of the Dutchy at the time of the making of the said Acts As if J. S. seised in Fee is impleaded and he saith that he holds the Lands in demand for life the remainder to the King in the right of his said Dutchy now the said remainder is vested in the King not in the right of the said Dutchy but in the right of his Crown The Villain of the King in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster purchaseth Lands the King seizeth he shall be seised thereof in the right of his Crown and not of the Dutchy The King grants Common out of certain Lands parcel of his said Dutchy and afterwards makes a Feoffment of the said Lands to another the Grantee of the Common dieth without heir so as the Common escheats to him now he shall have the Common in the right of the Crown and not of the Dutchy so although it is said That the Rent shall follow the nature of the Land out of which c. yet the same is but to some intents and not to every intent See the Statute of 2 and 3 Phil. Ma. cap. 20. by which it is enacted That all the Lands which have been granted or severed from the Dutchy to any person or persons and after such grant have come or reverted to the King in possession reversion or remainder or otherwise by attainder escheat forfeiture c. shall for ever be united to the said Dutchy and shall be adjudged and esteemed as part and member of the same which proves that such Lands were not holden of the King as Duke of Lancaster but as King for if they had been holden of the Dutchy upon the escheat they should be parcel of the Dutchy again without help of that Statute See the special Reservation Reddendo Domino Regi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet c. Now when the King grants the Seignory to the Lord Audley it was in the Election of the Ter-tenant to whom he would pay the Rent if it had been in the Case of a common person but it is otherwise in the Case of the King As if A. holdeth of two several Lords by owel Feoffment and dieth his heir within age the Lord which first gets the Ward shall have him but in the Case of the King it is otherwise Plowden The King is not bound by the Statute of West 3. But in this Case in the making of this Feoffment with this Tenend Reddend the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy for all grants of the King savour of the person of the King and then his Prerogative wrapt in the person shall guide the same and see the Statute of West 3. extends to all who make Feoffments Tenend de Feoffatoribus but the King is not Tenant to any one And if the King be seised of an Advowson in the right of his Dutchy and the same becomes void and the King presents to the same he may repeal his presentation and he vouched divers precedents of Patents made to many great Lords to hold of the Dutchy and also to hold of others And the King by his Dutchy-seal may give Lands in Mortmain And he argued That this Rent although newly created yet in so much as it came and accrued in respect of the Land which was parcell of the Dutchy it should be accounted also parcel of the Dutchy as if before the Statute of West 3. A. seised of Lands in Fee of the part of his father makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend by such services c. the same Seignory shall go to the heirs of the part of the father in lieu of which the Seignory is come Tenant in tail after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Lease for years according to the said Act rendring Rent to him and his heirs it shall be intended heirs in tail It was adjourned CXCVIII. Forster and Walker 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione firmae by Foster against Walker the Case was 3 Cro. 106. Shepherd's Touch-stonâ— of Conveâ—…ances 416. That Richard Meager was seised of a house in London and 6 E. 6. he devised the same to his Wife for life the remainder to John his son in tail the remainder to the Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors in London and died the Wife entred and died John died The Master Wardens and Commonalty of the Cordwaynors entred and leased the Plaintiff upon whom the heir general of the Devisor did enter The onely question was inasmuch as the Cordwaynors of London are incorporated by the name of Master and Wardens and Commonalty of Cordwaynors If this devise made to them by the name of Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors of London be good or not It was argued by Daniel that the Devise by the manner was good enough and he insisted much upon the favour which the Law gives to Wills and to Legatees in the Devises and construction of them even in Devises and Grants to Corporations and as to Grants to Corporations he cited the Case of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Decanus Capitulum sanctae individuae Trinit and they make a Lease leaving out these words sanctae individuae and yet held the Lease was good notwithstanding that for the words left out are not words of substance of the name but for the beauty and ornament of it But in the Case of Devise if the name be mistaken in matter of substance yet if upon the Devise the intent of the Devisor sufficiently appeareth it is good enough for the intent of the Devisor shall guide the Devise and
John Mutton took to wife the now Tenant upon which Bar the Demandant did demur in Law. And it was argued by Jeofries Serjeant 13 Co. 48 49 54 55 56. 1 Co. 101. 3 Len. 253. That here the wife taketh nothing by this limitation because she was not capable thereof at the time of the limitation But if the use had been limited especially to John Mutton untill he took a wife and then unto the use of him and his wife for their lives the same had been a good use to the wife But in our Case the use is limited to the wife in praesenti and not upon a contingent and because the wife at the time of the limitation was not capable she shall never take after and yet it may be said That a joynt Estate may be in esse and yet to begin at several times as 18 E. 4. 12. A Feoffment is made to three and Livery is made to one of them and first one of them agrees to the Livery and a year after another agreeth and afterwards the third although they take nothing untill agreement yet when they have agreed the agreement shall have relation to the time of the Livery but in truth the reason thereof is because the Freehold shall be adjudged in them all untill they have disagreed And if a disseisin be to the use of A. B. and C. And first A. agrees to it and afterward B. and after C. although they took nothing untill agreement yet when they have agreed their agreement shall have relation to the time of the first disseisin and if in such case the Disseisor had made a Lease before agreement the party to whose use after agreeing shall avoid such Lease CCLXXXIV Stamford 's Case Hill. 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case was A. took a wife and afterwards married Elizabeth Stamford living his first wife and by Deed gave part of his goods to the said Elizabeth and as to the residue of his goods being but of small value he made the said Elizabeth his Executrix and died she refused the Executorship for which the Ordinary committed Adminstration to B. Gawdy Serjeant asked the advice of the Court against whom the Action of Debt should lie for if the Creditor impleadeth the Administrator he hath not Assets if the Executrix her self she will plead that she hath renounced the Cxecutorship and that Administration is committed to B. And the opinion of Dyer Iustice was That the Gift is void by the Common Law and also by the Statute of 13 Eliz. and then if the Gift be void any way the Creditor may have an Action of Debt against the said Elizabeth as Executor of her own wrong And see that such a Gift is void by the Common Law 43 E. 3. 2. And by Manwood Iustice He who takes the goods of the dead shall not be charged as executor of his own wrong unless he doth something as Executor as to pay Debts make Acquittances c. See 41 E. 3. 31. 32 H. 6. 7. Dyer If one takes the goods of the dead and converteth them to his own use he is chargeable as Executor and so it hath been adjudged in the time of this Queen in the Case of one Stokes which was affirmed by Bendloes and Harper See now Co. 2 Part. 53. Reade's Case where no lawfull Executor or Administrator is there if a stranger takes the goods of the dead into his possession the same is a good Administration to charge him as Executor of his own wrong CCLXXXV Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Ante 178. THE Case was A man made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest son in tail and after to the use of his right heirs not having at the time of the Feoffment any son afterwards he suffered a common Recovery had issue a son who died in the life of his father having issue a son and afterwards he himself died It was holden by the Iustices in this Case That the son and heir of the son should not avoid this Recovery by the Statute of 32 H. 8. for there was not any remainder in him at the time of the Recovery had and the words of the said Statute are That such Recovery shall be void against such persons to whom the reversion or remainder shall then appertain i. e. at the time of such Recovery And it was said by one of the Serjeants at Bar That if lands be given to E. for life the remainder to B. in tail the remainder to C. in Fee B. dyeth his wife young with child with a son a Recovery is had against E. with the issue of C. and afterwards the son is born he shall not be helped by this Statute of 32 H. 8. for that remainder was not in esse at the time of the Recovery But it was holden in the principal Case That the heir might avoid the said Recovery by the Common Law for the recompence cannot extend to such a remainder which is not in esse CCLXXXVI Sidenham and Worlington 's Case Pasch 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 42. IN an Action upon the Case upon a Promise the Plaintiff declared That he at the request of the Defendant was surety and bail for J. S. who was arrested in the King's Bench upon an Action of 30 l. and that afterwards for the default of J. S. he was constrained to pay the 30 l. after which the Defendant meeting with the Plaintiff promised him for the same consideration That he would repay that 30 l. which he did not pay upon which the Plaintiff brought the Action the Defendant pleaded Non assumpsit upon which issue was joyned which was found for the Plaintiff Walmsley Serjeant for the Defendant moved the Court That this consideration will not maintain the Action because the consideration and promise did not concur and go together for the consideration was long before executed so as now it cannot be intended that the promise was for the same consideration As if one giveth me a Horse and a Month after I promise him 10 l. for the said Horse he shall never have Debt for the 10 l. nor Assumpsit upon that promise for there is neither contract nor consideration because the same is executed Anderson This Action will not lie for it is but a bare agreement nudum pactum because the contract was determined and not in esse at the time of the promise But he said it is otherwise upon a consideration of marriage of one of his cosins for marriage is always a present consideration Windham agreed with Anderson and he put the Case in 3 H. 7. If one selleth a Horse unto another and at another day he will warrant him to be sound of limb and member it is a void warrant for that such warranty ought to have been made or given at such time as the Horse was sold Periam Iustice conceived That the Action
did well lie and he said That this Case is not like unto the Cases which have been put of the other side For there is a great difference betwixt Contracts and this Case for in Contracts upon sale the consideration and the promise and the sale ought to meet together for a Contract is derived from con and trahere which is a drawing together so as in Contracts every thing which is requisite ought to concur and meet together viz. the consideration of the one side and the sale or the promise on the other side But to maintain an Action upon an Assumpsit the same is not requisit for it is sufficient if there be a moving cause or consideration precedent for which cause or consideration the promise was made and such is the common practice at this day For in an Action upon the Case upon a promise The Declaration is laid That the Defendant for and in consider action of 20 l. to him paid posted scil that is to say at a day after super se assumpsit and that is good and yet there the consideration is said to be Executed And he said that the Case in Dyer 10 Eliz. â—72 would prove the Case For there the Case was That the Apprentize of one Hunt was arrested when his Master Hunt was in the Country and one Baker one of the neighbours of Hunt to keep the said Apprentize out of prison became his ball and paid the Debt afterwards Hunt the Master returning out of the Country thanked Baker for his neighbourly kindness to his Apprentize and promised him that he would repay him the sum which he had paid for his servant and Apprentize And afterwards upon that promise Baker brought an Action upon the Case against Hunt and it was adjudged in that Case that the Action would not lie because the consideration was precedent to the promise because it was executed and determined long before But in that Case it was holden by all the Iustices That if Hunt had requested Baker to have been surety or bail and afterwards Hunt had made the promise for the same consideration the same had been good for that the consideration did precede and was at the instance and request of the Defendant Rhodes Iustice agreed with Periam and he said That if one serve me for a year and hath nothing for his service and afterwards at the end of the year I promise him 20 l. for his good and faith full service ended he may have and maintain an Action upon the Case upon the same promise for it is made upon a good consideration but if a servant hath wages given him and his Master ex abundanti doth promise him 10 l. more after his service ended he shall not maintain an Action for that 10 l. upon the said promise for there is not any new cause or consideration preceding the promise which difference was agreed by all the Iustices and afterwards upon good and long advice and consideration had of the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and they much relied upon the Case of Hunt and Baker 10 Eliz. Dyer 272. See the Case there CCLXXXVII Higham 's Case Trin. 25 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 1 Cro. 15. More 221. 3 Len. 130. IT was found by special Verdict That Thomas Higham was seised of 100 Acres of Lands called Jacks usually occupied with a House and that he let the said House and 40 of the said 100 Acres to J. S. for life and made his Will by which he devised the said House and all his Lands called Jacks then in the occupation of the said J. S. unto his Wife for life and that after the decease of his Wife the remainder thereof and of all his other Lands belonging to Jacks should be to R. his second son c. And by Mead The Wife shall not have by implication the residue of Jacks for she had an express Estate in the House and 40 Acres of Lands and having expressed his Will concerning the same it shall not be extended by implication and he said It had been adjudged between Glover and Tracy That if Lands be devised to one and the heirs Males of his body and if he die without heirs of his body that then the Land shall remain over that the Donee hath but an Estate in tail to the heirs Males of his body Anderson 1 Roll. 839. in the time of Sir Anthony Brown it was holden that if a man seised of two Acres of Lands deviseth one of them to his Wife for life and that J. S. shall have the other Acre after the death of his Wife that the Wife hath not any Estate in the latter Acre It was also moved What thing shall pass to his second son by this Devise and by the Lord Anderson The words usually occupied with it amount to the words the Lands let with it but these 60 Acres are not let with it therefore they shall not pass Windham contrary Although they do not pass by the words occupied with it yet they shall pass by the name of Jacks or belonging to Jacks and afterwards Anderson mutata opinine agred with him A TABLE OF THE Matters in this Book A ASsise 11 55 94 Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for Perjury 18 Abatement of Writs 18 64 Action upon the Statute of 13 E. 1. of Winchester 19 109 212 Actions of Slander 34 74 120 127 146 Assignment of a duty to the Queen for a Debt if good 79 Accompt 91 245 Appeal of Burglary 111 Award where good and where not 130 145 Action not good upon a Lease untill the whole term be expired 137 In Appeal of Robbery one shall not have restitution without fresh suit 183 Attaint of Felony 169 Appeal of Murther 195 Action against an Executor who refused the Executorship 221 Assumpsit upon an agreement to become bound in a Bond for the sum promised 223 Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. concerning Perjury 249 C COvenant 5 17 60 153 155 164 237 268 Covenant to levy a Fine 114 Custome 10 140 Costs none upon Non-suit in an Action upon an escape 12 Conversion by the Executors of the goods of the Testator 42 Challenge of Jurors 53 141 Common Recovery 61 89 169 170 275 Costs upon the Statute of 28 H. 8. not allowed 71 Copiholds and Copiholders 97 142 264 Capias ad satisfaciendum sued out and not prosecuted within a year and a day if Scire facias must be sued out 101 Condition in a Lease void if repugnant to the Demise 176 Conveyance of Lands to Feoffees with condition c. 175 Capias ad satisfaciendum sued out after a Release an Audita quaerela lies 215 Case for disturbing him of his Common 229 Case for Toll 240 Case for misusing of the Plaintiff's Horse to which the Defendant pleaded that the Horse was waved within his Manor c. 242 Case upon a promise whereas one became surety and bail to J. S. and afterwards for default of
demurred and it was moved that the Traverse was not good but the Defendant ought to say that the Plaintiff did not require him modo forma but the Exception was not allowed but the Traverse was holden good by the whole Court and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff VI. Elizabeth Dormer 's Case Trinit 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench ELizabeth Dormer was indicted upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusancy and Exception was taken to the Indictment 1 Len. 241. because that these words of the Statute were omitted out of the Indictment viz. non habens aliquam rationabilem causam But the Exception was not allowed for Wray chief Iustice said That upon conference betwixt himself and all his companions it was resolved by them That those words need not be put into the Indictment but are to come on the other side Another Exception was taken to the Indictment That she being of the age sixteen years refused to come to any Church contra formam Statut. 1 Eliz. in malum exemplum c. contra formam Statuti in hujusmodi casu editi provisi and the Statute of 1 Eliz. doth not speak of sixteen years but the same is mentioned in the Statute of 23 Eliz. Fenner was of Opinion that the last Contra formam Statuti should be referred to the Statute of 23 Eliz. Wray contrary and that it should be referred to the Statute of 1 Eliz. It was adjourned VII Cranmer 's Case 16 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That Thomas Cranmer 1 Anders 19. More Rep. 100. 1 Len. 196. 3 Len. 20. Dyer 309 310. late Archbishop of Canterbury made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life without impeachment of Waste and after his decease to the use of his Executors for twenty years and after the twenty years to the use of his Son and Heir in tail And afterward Thomas Cranmer was attainted of Treason and dyed so as he could not make Executors but dyed intestate without any assignment Office Executors 118. Note the limitation was to his Executors and Assigns Queen Mary claimed the term limited as aforesaid and granted the same over the Heir in tail entred and Leased the same for years the Patentee entred and the Lessee of the Heir of the Tenant in tail brought Ejectione firmae Manwood All the doubt of this case is If the said term was in Tho. Cranmer so as he might forfeit it And he conceived that the said term was in Tho. Cranmer and that he had not power onely to dispose of it but also had possession of it 11 H. 4. 186. Scire facias 67. And Br. Annuity 17. Such a Grant is good and effectual and if he do not grant it his Executors shall have it and yet the term was not limited to him but he shall have it by implication of Law. 39 E. 3. A Lease was made to one his Heirs and Assigns during his life and one year after the Executors shall have the said term after the death of the Lessee yet the said term was not limited to him 7 E. 3. A Lease made for term of live and a year after in that case the term is conjoyned unto the Estate for life by the act of the Grantor himself and there is a difference when the Remainder is joyned to the particular Estate by the act of the Grantor and by any Purchase Grant or any act after for in the first case the Remainder shall be executed but in the latter not A Lease for life the Remainder in tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of Tenant for life he in the Remainder in tail dyeth without issue in the life of Tenant for life now the Fee is executed to the Freehold c. and the Heir shall not have a Scire facias where such conveyance is made by Fine See 17 E. 3. 29. In a Cui in vita A. Executor of B. came and said that the Land in demand was Leased to the said B. for the term of his life the Remainder for the term of eight years to his Executors and prayed to be received and they were received See 19 E. 3. A Lease was made for life to A. the Remainder to his Executors for twelve years the Lesse for life died the Executors died there it is agreed that the Executors of the Executors should have an Action of Covenant if they be ousted And see 20 E. 3. Quid juris clamat 31. A Lease is made to A. for life and if A. dieth within twenty years that his Executors shall have the term until the end of such term and in a Quid juris clamat against A. he saved his term by protestation which proves that the term was quodam modo in him 49 E. 3. A Lease for life unto A. the Remainder to his Heirs and Executors for twelve years and afterwards the Lessor confirms the Estate of the Lessee for life to have and to hold the Land to him for life and thirteen years over to his Executors the Lessee deviseth the term and the Devise holden good which proves that the term was in him Harper Iustice contrary Many cases put before may be answered for in the said case the term is limited to begin immediately and not by way of Remainder or after the death of the Lessee and then the Executors in the life of the Testator are not known nor able to seek any thing by the name of Executors and therefore that term shall take its beginning in the life of the Testator But in the Case at Bar the term is limited to the Executors after the death of the Testator Co. 1 Inst 54. b. and the Executor takes the term as a Purchasor and he hath it not as a Chattel of the Testator but as his own Chattel And in the Case of Receipt before cited the Executor shall be received as Executor for the term was limited to him as Executor And here the Statute of 27 H. 8. 1 Cro. 666. is to be considered for it extends as well to Chattels as to Freehold and the Statute doth execute the possession to the use limited for years as for life or in Fee and here the use is limited to the Executors and not to the Testator and therefore it shall not be otherwise transferred And therefore if a man seised in the Right of his Wife discontinueth and afterwards the Discontinuee makes a Feoffment in Fee unto the use of the said Husband and Wife for their lives in that case the Wife shall not be remitted for the Statute doth transfer according to the use and the use was limited for their lives therefore they shall not be in of another Estate Dyer chief Iustice to the same intent The Feoffor i. Thomas Cranmer limits all the uses and therefore he shall not have that which he hath limited and it is in the nature of a Reservation which shall be taken strictly and very strong against him who
and that is by reason of the privity betwixt them and because they are compellable to make Partition and in our Case they are compellable by Subpoena in Chancery to make Partition and notwithstanding that the Lands entailed be allotted to one Coparcenor onely and the fee to the other three yet thereby the Partition is not void but voidable As an Exchange by Tenant in tail is not void but if the Issue in tail accept of it it shall bind him during his life So here and also by the death of the Husbands the Partition is not void but voidable onely Clench Iustice How shall the Heir be said seised of the Lands entailed which was allotted to his Father and Mother after acceptance and agreement Atkinson Of certain part as Issue in tail and of other parts by force of the Partition and acceptance Quaere of that for if it be not of the whole as Issue in tail then the Lease is not void but for so much whereof he was seised in tail and then the Lessee is Tenant in common with Weston and then the Conusance is not good Cooper Serjeant elect Here wants certainty for the words of reference are too general and therefore void ad usum rectorum haeredum without shewing of the Donor or of the Donee and they are not helped by the subsequent words secundum antiquam Evidentiam ante hac factam for that also is incertain for it appeareth upon the Record That there are divers Evidences of the said Lands as the Charter of Gift the Recovery and the Conveyances made 4 H. 7. and which of them is intended by the Devise non constat and the said defect is not helped by any of the Averments i. That the Devisor was possessed of the said Charter of Entail at the time of his death and it is also not to the purpose for it may also be that he was possessed of other Evidences as ancient as the said Charter of Entail It is said that there is no other ancient Evidence of the Lord Scroop but it is not averred That there was not other ancient Evidences of the said Lands But admit that the limitation be good by that reference yet there was not any estate-Estate-tail for every Estate-tail ought to be limited in certainty which see in the Statute of West 2. secundum formam in Charta Doni manifesto expressam c. and here it doth not appear upon the words of the Charter if the Estate-tail be limited to the Heirs of the Donor or unto the Heirs of the Donee and he said Admit that the same is an Estate-tail then the Question is If Jeofry be a Purchasor and if he be then by his death without issue the Estate-tail is spent And he said that the Estate for life in Jeofry is drowned by the Estate-tail limited to him for they are united together Egerton Solicitor-General Reasonable and favourable construction ought to be made of this Devise according to the intent of the Devisor As 35 Ass 14. Lands are given to B. and his Heirs if he hath issue of his body and if he die without issue of his body that the Lands shall revert to the Donor and his Heirs the same is a good Entail and upon the death of the Donee without issue the Donor shall re-enter And so here although that rectorum haeredum be incertain words yet the same is supplied by the subsequent words viz. secundum antiquam evidentiam As where the King grants to a Mayor and Commonalty such Liberties as London hath the same is a good Grant 2 H. 7. 13. 1 Leo. 245. And he conceived That this Estate-tail shall be said to begin in Henry although he was dead before and that all his Issues should inherit it and that it should not be determined by the death of Jeofry without issue and in proof thereof he vouched the Case before cited Littl. 81 82. for in that case the condition could not be holden to be performed if the Heir to whom the Gift was made in facto should be in by purchase and so the Estate-tail spent by his death without issue and also he vouched the Case of one Shelley That although the Heir took that which was not ever in his Ancestors yet he did not take it as a Purchasor but as in course of a descent and he also cited Robridge's Case And afterwards the same Term by award of the Court Iudgment was entred for the Plaintiff for the incertainty of these words secundum antiquam Evidentiam to what Evidence it should refer and also rectorum haeredum without shewing whose Heirs i. of the Donor or of the Donee And Wray chief Iustice said It shall be intended upon this Will That the meaning of the Testator was That the Lands should go unto his Heirs according to the Law according to all his Evidences which he had of his Lands and that is a Fee simple and it shall not be intended That the Testator had such a special remembrance of one Deed made two hundred years before viz. 25 E. 3. XXX Perry and Some 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 482. SOme Parson of the Church of Sherring in Essex 1 Cro. 139. libelled in the Spiritual Court against Perry for the Tithes of green Tares eaten before they were ripe and for the Tithes of the Herbage of dry Cattel and for Tithes of Sheep bought and sold and for Churchings and Burials Perry prayed a Prohibition and in his surmise as to the green Tares he said That they had used time out of mind c. in the same Parish In consideration that they had not sufficient Meadow and Pasture for their milch Kine and draught Cattel to pay for the Tithes of the ripe Tares the tenth shock but for their green Tares which are eaten up before they are ripe in consideration that they gave them to their Cattel they had used to be discharged of any Tithes thereof and the truth was That 400 Acres of Lands within the said Town had used to be plowed and sowed every year by the labour of draught Cattel and industry of the Inhabitants in consideration of which and that in the said Parish there was not sufficient Meadow nor Pasture for their draught Cattel they had used to be discharged of the Tithes of green Tares eaten before they were ripe It was holden by the Court that the same was a good custome and consideration for the Parson hath benefit thereby for otherwise the said 400 Acres could not be plowed for without such shift to eat with their draught Cattel the green Tares they could not maintain their plough Cattel and so the Parson should lose his Tithes thereof and for the Tithes of the green Tares he hath the Tithes of 400 Acres There was a Case lately betwixt the Lord Howard and Nichols where the suit in the Spiritual Court was for the Tithes of Rakings and a surmise to have a Prohibition was made that the
AN Information was exhibited in the Exchequer for the Queen against the Executors of William Jordan Surveyor of the Ordinance c. and the Executors of John Bowland Deputy of Ambrose Earl of Warwick Master of the Ordinance c. In which was set forth for the Queen That certain Powder Pellets and other furniture of War came unto the hands of the said Jordan and Bowland in respect of their said Offices to the value of 400000 l. and shewed how much came to each of them and the special charge incertain per quod onerabiles computabiles Dominae Reginae devenerunt nec tamen computum unquam inde reddiderunt nec reddere voluerant sed bona catalla praedicta ad usus suos proprios converterunt in deceptionem dictae Dominae Reginae c. The Defendants pleaded Not guilty upon which the Queen's Attorny did demur in Law because the Defendants have answered onely to the Conversion in which case although they have not converted yet if the said Goods have come to the hands of their Testator it is sufficient for the Queen and the Defendants are chargeable to the Queen for the same And the Opinion of all the Barons was clear that the Defendants ought to answer to the Charge c. XLIII Collet and the Bailiffs of Shrewsbury 's Case Pasc 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a false Imprisonment the Defendants justified by Prescription scil that they have used if any person within their Town contemptuose se gesserit against the Bailiffs of the said Town or any Warden of any Trade there to commit such a person to Prison for the space of a day or more at the least at their discretions And shewed farther That the Plaintiff did mis-behave himself tam factis quam verbis against the Wardens of such a Mystery in the said Town c. And when the Bailiffs super Querimoniam eis inde factam sent for the Plaintiff he would not come to them but mis-behaved himself against them tam dictis quam factis for which they did commit him to Prison c. upon which there was a Demurrer And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because their Prescription is not good for it is too large to imprison Subjects at their discretion Also they have set forth the offence of the Plaintiff generally i. Misbehaviour tam factis quam dictis without alledging any special Misdemeanor in certain XLIV Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 3 Leu. 79. IT was holden by the whole Court That where a man makes his Will in this manner I will and bequeath my Land to A. and the name of the Devisor is not in the whole Will yet the Devise is good by averment of the name of the Devisor 1 Cro. 100. 1 Leo. 113. and by proof that it was his Will. And if one lying sick in extremis having an intent to devise his Land by word makes such a Devise but doth not command the same to be put in writing but another without his knowledge or command puts the same in writing in the life of the Devisor it is a good Devise for it is sufficient if the Devise be reduced in writing during the life of the Devisor XLV Leonard Lovelace 's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN Waste the Case was 1 Anders 132. More Rep. 371. Savile Rep. 75. 1 Cro. 40. That Lands were devised to the Father of the Defendant and to his eldest Issue male de corpore suo exeunti And upon Demurrer it was adjudged That by this Devise no Estate passed but an Estate for life unto the Father of the Defendant the Remainder to his eldest Son for life so as no Estate of Inheritance passed thereby and therefore punishable for Waste XLVI Cobb and Prior 's Case Postea 48. Hill. 33 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was A man deviseth his Lands to his Wife during the minority of his Son upon condition That she shall not doe Waste during the minâ—â—â—â—y of her said Son and dieth The Wife takes a Husband aâ—â— dieth the Husband commits Waste It was holden by the whole Court That the same is not any breach of the Condition XLV Salway and Luson 's Case Mich. 30 and 31 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 1 Leon. 169. MAtthew Salway brought a Writ of Right against Luson and the Writ was Messuagium 200 acr jampnor bruerae and exception was taken to the Writ because that jampnor bruerae were coupled together where they ought to be distinctly severed and so many acr jampnor and so many acr bruerae although it was objected on the part of the Demandant in maintenance of the Writ That in the Register fol. 2. the Writ of Right is Redditu unius librae Mac. Obed. i. Mace and Cloves together without distinction or severance And it was said in a Writ of Right we ought to follow the Register and therefore a Writ of Right was abated because the word Pomarium was put in the Writ for in the Register there is no such Writ and the word Gardinum comprehends it But in other Writs as Writs of Entry c. it is otherwise See the Case of the Lord Zouch 11 Eliz. 353. In a Writ of Entry Sur Disseisin mille acr jampnor bruerae But the exception was not allowed for it may be that jampnorum bruerae lie so promiscuously that they cannot be divided And see 16 H. 7. 8. and 9. The respect which the Iustices there had to the Register so as they changed their opinions conformable to the Register Another exception was taken to the Writ because the Demandant demands duas partes custodiae de Hay in the Forest of C. and the opinion of the whole Court was that the Writ ought to be Officium custodiae duarum partium de Hay and not duas partes custodiae As Advocatio duarum partium Ecclesiae not duas partes advocationis another exception was because the Writ was duas partes c. in three to be divided whereas it should be divisus non dividend for dividendum is not in any Writ but a Writ of Partition And by Windham the parts of this Office are divided in right Quod Curia Concessit another exception was taken because in the Writ it is not set down in what Town the Forest of C. is so as the Court doth not know from whence the Visne should come for no Venire shall be de vicineto Forestae as de vicineto Hundredi Manerii and that was holden to be a material exception Another exception was taken because a Writ of Right doth not lie of an Office for at the Common Law an Office did not lie of it but now it doth by the Statute of West 2. For it was not liberum tenementum but the party grieved was put to his Quod permittat And of this opinion was the whole Court. XLVIII Johnson and Bellamy 's Case Hillar 31 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas
Postea 82 83. IN Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict That Mr. Graunt was seised of the Lands c. and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life and farther he willed That when Richard his brother shall come to the age of 25 years he should have the Lands to him and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten Mr. Graunt died having issue of his body who is his heir Richard before he had attained the age of 25 years levied a Fine of the said Lands with Proclamations in the life and during the seisin of Joan to A. Sic ut partes ad finem nihil habuerunt and if this Fine should bind the estate-Estate-tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged M. 29 and 30 Eliz. Tenant in tail discontinues to E. and afterwards levieth a Fine to B. although the partes ad finem nihil habuerunt yet the Fine shall bind the entail But the Serjeants at Bar argued That there is a great difference betwixt the Case cited and the Case at Bar for in that Case the said Fine was pleaded in Bar but here the Fine is not pleaded but found by special Verdict To which it was said by the Court that the same was not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or conclusion but by the Statute doth bind and extinguish the Estate-tail and the right of it and Fines are as effectual to bind the right of the entail when they are found by especial Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar And by Periam Collateral Warranty found by Verdict is of as great force as if it were pleaded in Bar And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate-tail by the Fine was utterly destroyed and extinct XLIX Jay 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas JAY brought an Action of Debt before the Mayor of Shrewsbury c. and declared upon an Obligation which was upon condition to pay money at London and issue was there joined upon the payment And it was moved how this issue should be tried viz. 4 Inst 205. If it may be removed by Certiorare into the Chancery and thence by Mittimus into the Common-Pleas and from thence sent into London to be tried and when it is tried to be remanded back to Shrewsbury to have Iudgment See 21 H. 7. 33. Vpon voucher in the County Palatine of Lancaster the Law is such in matters real for real actions cannot be sued but in the said County Palatine but in personal matters it is otherwise for such actions may be sued elsewhere at the pleasure of the party And thereunto agreed the whole Court and although such matters have been removed before yet the same were without motion to the Court or opposition of the other party and so not to be accounted Precedents See 3 H. 4. 46. abridg'd by Brook Cause de remover Plea 41. Where he saith That a Foreign Plea pleaded in London in Debt goes to the jurisdiction but upon a Foreign Voucher in a Plea real the Plea shall be removed in Bank by the Statute to try the Warranty and afterward shall be remanded L. Sands and Scagnard 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case The Plaintiff declared that he was possessed of certain Chattels which came to the Defendant by Trover The Defendant pleaded That heretofore the Plaintiff brought Debt against the now Defendant and demanded certain moneys and declared that the Defendant bought of him the same goods whereof the Action is now brought for the summ then in demand to which the then Defendant waged his Law and had his Law by which Nihil Capiat per breve c. was entred And demanded Iudgment if c. And by Windham and Rodes Iustices The same is no bar in this Action for the waging of the Law and the doing of it utterly disproves the Contract supposed by the Declaration in the said Action of Debt and then the Plaintiff is not bound by the supposal of it but is at large to bring this Action and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff LI. Spittle and Davie 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Owen Rep. 8 55. IN a Replevin the Case was That one Turk was seised of certain Lands in Fee and by his Will devised parcell of his said Lands to his eldest Son in tail and the residue of his Lands to his younger Son in Fee Provided that neither of my said Sons shall sell or make Leases of the Lands given or bequeathed unto them by this my Will or doe any Act with any of the said Lands to the hindrance of their children or mine by any devise or means before they come to the age of 30 years and if any of my Sons doe so then my other Son shall have the portion of my Lands so devised to his Brother the eldest Son before his age of 30 years leased the Lands to him devised ut supra for years against the intent of the said Proviso The younger Son entred 2 Cro. 398. and he leased the same Land for years before his age of 30 years Vpon which the eldest Son did re-enter and the opinion of the Court was that here is a Limitation and not a Condition and here the re-entry of the eldest Son was holden unlawfull for this Proviso did not extend but to the immediate Estate devised expresly to them and not to any new Estate which did arise upon the limitation and when the younger Son enters upon the eldest Son by the said Limitation he shall hold his Estate discharged of the Proviso or any limitation contained in it LII Martin Van Henbeck 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer AN Information was exhibited in the Exchequer against Martin Van Henbeck Merchant-stranger upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. Cap. 17. concerning the gaging of vessels of Wine and shewed That the Defendant had sold to such a one so many pipes of Wine and that none of them did contain as they ought 126. gallons and although they were so defective yet the Defendant had not defalked the price c. according to the want of measure for which he had forfeited to the Queen all the value of all the Wine so defective Exception was taken to the Information because there is not set down how much in every pipe was wanting as one or two gallons c. To as a ratable defalcation might be made according to the proportion of the want of measure But if the Informer had set forth in his Information that no defalcation was at all such general allegation of want of measure without other certainty had been good And the Case was cited 32 E. 4. 40. Lysle's Case Where the plea wants certainty or where he pleads that he was ready to shew to the Council of the Plaintiff his discharge of an Annuity c. and doth not shew
in execution it was adjudged in this Case that the Conusee should have the Corn sowed The same Law in case of a Recognizance LXXVI Smalman and Lane 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was a Capias upon an original Process was delivered to the new Sheriff of Warwick against Lane at the suit of Smalman And the Sheriff informed the Court that before that the Process was directed to him That the said Lane was taken in Execution by the old Sheriff upon a judgment given against him in the King's-Bench and that the said old Sheriff had imprisoned the said Lane by force of the Execution in his own house and there he remained and prayed the advice of the Court what retorn he should make upon that matter because the said Lane was never in his possession for all the other prisoners which were in the Gaol and in the ordinary Prisons were delivered to him and the old Sheriff would not bring Lane to the place where the other Prisoners were delivered And it was the opinion of all the Iustices That by the Law the old Sheriff ought to deliver the body of him who is in his custody by view to the new Sheriff and such Prisoners ought to be brought unto him to view and from that time the Law shall adjudge such Prisoners to be in the possession of the new Sheriff and not before for he is not bound to go to them not being in the ordinary Prison of the County Anderson The new Sheriff may retorn That the said Lane is in Execution in custodia sua and so charge himself For although the Office of the old Sheriff be determined yet it is not an escape so long as the party be in custodia and not at large Periam contrary It is an escape in the old Sheriff as soon as his authority is determined the Prisoner not delivered See now C. 3. part 71. Wesby's Case LXXVII Megot and Broughton and Davie 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 1 Cro. 105. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit it was found by Nisi prius for the Plaintiff and afterwards before the day in Bank one of the Defendants died and after Iudgment given the other Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the same Court where the Iudgment was given and assigned an Error in fact scil the death of one of the Defendants pendant the Writ Roll 798. b. 3 Len. 96. Vide 2 E. 3. 21. It was said that the Case is not like the Case of an Action of Trespass for every Trespass done by many is several by each of them but every Assumpsit is joint and not several Another point was moved If the Court could reverse their own Iudgement Quaere LXXVIII Farrington and Fleetwood 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer THE Case upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries was this 3 Len. 164 165. ante 333. Plus The Abbat and Convent of A. c. 29 H. 8. made a Lease of certain Lands for three lives to begin after the death of one F. if they so long live and afterwards 30 H. 8 within a year before the dissolution they make another Lease to Fleetwood If the first Lease in the life of the said F. be such an Estate and Interest as by virtue of the said Statute shall make the second Lease void was the Question for it was not in esse but a future Interest Manwood All the reason that hath been made for the second Lease is because the first Lease is but a possibility for F. by possibility may survive all the said three and so it shall never take effect But notwithstanding be it a possibility or otherwise it is such a thing which may be granted or forfeited and that during the life of F. And note the words of the Statute If any Abbat c. within one year next before the first day of this present Parliament hath made or hereafter shall make any Lease or Grant for years life or lives of any Manors c. whereof and in which any Estate or Interest for life or years at the time of the making of any such Lease or Grant then had his being or continuance and hereafter shall have his being or continuance and then was not determined c. shall be void c. And here is an Interest and that not determined at the time of the making of the Lease to Fleetwood And of such Opinion were all the Barons and divers other Iustices and therefore a Decree was made against the Lease c. LXXIX Beaumont 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte it was holden by all the Barons in the Exchequer Owen Rep. 46. That a Duty which is not naturally a Debt but by circumstances onely as Debt upon a Bond for performance of Covenants or to save harmless may be assigned over to the Queen for a Debt but in such case a present Extent shall not issue but a Scire facias shall issue forth to know if the party hath any thing to plead against such Assignment LXXX Goddard 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was moved in the Case of Goddard concerning the Manor of Staple in Hampshire 11 Leon. 8. If the Tenant of the King of Lands holden in Capite be disseised and the Disseisor aliens the Lands and afterwards the Disseisee doth re-enter Manwood said That the Land shall not be charged with a Fine for alienation without licence because the Title of the Alienee grew under the wrong of the Disseisor but the person of the Disseisor shall be charged with such Fine Tenant of the King in Capite makes a Lease for life the Lessee for life makes a Feoffment in Fee without licence the Lessor re-entreth neither his person nor the Land shall be charged But if my Feoffee upon Condition maketh a Feoffment without license and I re-enter for the Condition broken now my Land shall be charged with the Fine upon Alienation for the Feoffee was in by me by good and lawfull Title because he had power to make a Feoffment over although subject to the Condition So if Tenant in tail or the Husband seised in the Right of his Wife make a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards the Land is recontinued the Fine accruing for Alienation without licence shall bind the Land And if Tenant for life loseth issues and dieth the Lands shall be charged with the same LXXXI The Lord of Northampton and Lord St. John 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Roll. 195. Co. 12. 1 2. Co. 4. 95. Dyer 262. THE Lord of Northampton had by ancient Letters Patents bona catalla felonum fugitivorum within the Isle of Ely and one dwelling within the Island was attainted of Felony to whom another was indebted by Obligation and the money by the Condition of the Bond was to be paid at a Manor of the Lord St. John's who within his Manor
was but Tenant in Law because Vouchee and also that the Recovery was a good bar to him in the remainder notwithstanding that he was within age at the time of the Recovery And afterwards at another day the Case was argued by the Barons and Clark Baron conceived That the Entry of him in the remainder was congeable It hath been said That Sir William Pelham did not know that the Bargainor had an Estate but for his life or that any other person had any remainder therein the same is not to any purpose to excuse him for 42 E. 3. Every Purchasor ought at his own peril take notice of the Estates and charges which are upon the Lands of which he is Purchasor and the Law presumes that none will purchase Lands without advice of Councel and without knowing the Titles to the Lands And although divers Statutes have been made to provide against the practices of particular Tenants yet it is no argument that no other remedy was before And by Littleton If Tenant for life joyneth the Mise upon the mere right it is a forfeiture And he held strongly That the Iudgment did not take away the Entry cause of forfeiture being given before the Iudgment See 5 Ass 3. and 22 Ass 31. to that purpose For where Tenant for life is impleaded he ought to attend upon him in the reversion and to expect instructions from him in defence of his Title c. And therefore if he maketh default or confesseth Action the same is a forfeiture And as to the supposed recompence the same shall not help this Case for this is a common recovery and nothing else but an Assurance And Recoverors they are but Assignees and they shall take advantage of Conditions by 32 H. 8. and a Recoveror shall be seised to the use of him who suffereth the Recovery if no other use be expressed And he also held That when Tenant for life bargains and sells his Lands by Deed enrolled although no Fee passeth yet it is a forfeiture and that by reason of the Enrolment which is matter of Record And he said that if an Infant Tenant for life be disseised and the Disseisor dieth and afterwards the Infant dieth that he in the Remainder might enter Gent Baron argued to the same intent and he said That if Tenant for life suffereth a Recovery the same is not simply a forfeiture for he may have a warranty upon a Release or Confirmation made to him Attornment doth not give a Right but is onely a Consent yet if he who hath not any thing in the Reversion will levy a Fine thereof unto another and afterwards the Conusee brings a Quod juris clamat against the Tenant of the Land and he attorn it is a Forfeiture Manwood Baron to the same intent this is a new Case and I have not seen nor read the Case in any Book nor seen any presidents and it is a great case and a general case and worthy to be argued And I conceive clearly That here is a direct and express forfeiture the Dignity of Iudgments in reputation of Law hath been urged which ought to stand in force until they be reversed by Error or Attaint And also Littleton 481. hath been urged where upon the Statute of West 3. he saith That before the Statute aforesaid if a Lease had been made to one for life the remainder to a stranger and afterwards a stranger by faint Action hath recovered against Tenant for life by default and afterwards the Tenant for life died he in the Remainder had not any remedy But there Littleton doth not report the same as his own Opinion but as an Opinion conceived by a Reader upon the said Statute and in truth it is but a meer conceit And as to the main point he took this difference Such Recoveries in which the title of the Demandant stands indifferent to the Court and non constat if it be good or not being suffered by Tenant for life by default or confession without aid-prayer of him in the Reversion do not make any forfeiture although that the Tenant for life hath not dealt with him in the Reversion not having prayed in aid of him And in such case if a Lease be made for life the Remainder over in Fee upon such Recovery he in the remainder shall have a Formedon in the remainder or a Writ of Right and shall not put out him who recovered without any Action and that by the common Law. Then came the Statute of West 2. c. 3. which gave unto the Wife a Gui in vita upon a Recovery had against the Husband by default where before she had not any remedy but onely Writ of Right and notwithstanding si ulterius quaeratur si necesse habet ostendere jus suum secundum formam brevis quod prius impetraverat And if his Right be not better than the right of him in the Reversion he shall lose it notwithstanding the Iudgment given before for him and that Statute gave Receipt or Writ of Entry ad terminum qui praeteriit and that Statute is to be intended of such Recoveries where a good Title or indifferent is so as non Constat Curiae if it be good or not After that Tenant for life was driven unto a new shift and would not make default or lose for not pleading but he would plead but that faintly for the remedy of which mischief the Statute of 13 R. 2. which gave Receipt in such case the particular Tenant being restrained by this Statute he jugled yet and practised to suffer a Recovery secretly without notice of him in the Reversion for the remedying of which mischief the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made and that makes such Recovery had against such a particular Tenant void against him the Reversion It hath been objected That the said Statute of 32 H. 8. did not give any forfeiture in this case but makes the Recovery void and therefore he in the Reversion ought to stay until after the death of the particular Tenant To that I shall speak after But here our case is of a common Recovery and it doth appear to the Court that the Demandant hath not right for the Tenant might have barred him Also this Recovery is not to the use of the Recoveror but to the use of him who was Tenant in it and in truth it is nothing else but an assurance and in these feigned Recoveries the Recoveror comes in under the Title of the Tenant to it and not paramount as in case of a Recovery upon a good Title A Lease for years made by him who after suffers a Recovery is good and shall not be defeated by the Recovery otherwise it is where the Recovery is upon a good Title See Statute of Glocest cap. 11. where upon default of the Tenant Receipt is given for Lessee for years yet if the Tenant vouch upon default of the Vouchee the Lessee for years shall be received and now Receipt of Lessee for
the Defendant is cosin and heir of the Devisor and that he as heir entred and did the Trespass First it was agreed by all That by the first words of the Will the three Devisees had but for their lives But Fenner and Walmesley who argued for the Plaintiffs conceived that by force of the latter words scil If the said John Stephen and Roger live till they be of lawfull age and have issue of their body lawfully begotten Then I give the said Lands and Houses to them and their heirs in manner aforesaid c. that they have Fee and the words in manner aforesaid are to be referred not to the Estate which was given by the first words which was but for life but to make them to hold in severalty as the first Devise would and not jointly as the words of the second Devise do purport And Fenner said It had been resolved by good opinion That where a Fine was levied to the use of the Conusee and his Wife and of the heirs of the body of the Conusor with divers Remainders over Proviso That it should be lawfull to the survivor of them to make Leases of the said Lands in such manner as Tenant in tail might make by the Statute of 32 H. 8. Although those Lands were never devised before the Fine yet the Wife survivor might demise them by force of the Proviso notwithstanding the words in manner c. So if Lands be given to A. for life upon condition the remainder to B. in manner aforesaid these words in manner aforesaid shall refer unto the Estate for life limited to A. and not to the Condition nor to any other collateral matter The words If they live untill they be of full age and have issue are words of Condition and shall not be construed to such purpose to give to them by implication an Estate tail for the words subsequent are That they shall have to them and their heirs to give and sell at their pleasures by which it appeareth that his intent was not to make an Estate tail for Tenant in tail cannot alien or dispose of his Estate c. And as to the latter words And if it fortune they three to die without issue c. these words cannot make an Estate tail and the express limitation of Fee in the former part of the Will shall not be controlled by implication out of the subsequent words As if Lessee for fourty years deviseth his term to his Wife for twenty years and if she die the remainder of the term to another although she survive the twenty years she shall not hold over And here the second sale appointed to be made by the Executor shall not take away the power of the first sale allowed unto the Devisees after issue Snagg and Shuttleworth Serjeants to the contrary And they said that the Defendant hath right to two parts for no Inheritance vesteth in the Devisees until full age and issue and because two of the Devisees died without issue they never had an Inheritance in their two parts and so those two parts do descend to the Defendant as heir to the Devisor no sale being made by the Executor These words If John Stephen and Roger are to be taken Distributive viz. If John live c. are to be taken Distributive scil If John live untill c. he shall have Inheritance in his part Et sic de reliquis As if I have right unto Lands which A. B. and C. hold in common and I by Deed release unto them all the same shall inure to them severally 19 H. 6. And here these latter words If they three die without issue it seems to be but an Estate tail See to that purpose 35 Ass 14. 37 Ass 15. For a man cannot declare his intent at once but in several parts all which make but one Inheritance and so it is said by Persay 37 Ass 15. we ought to adjudge upon all the Deed and not upon parcell And see Clatche's Case 16 Eliz Dyer 330 331. And it was said That if I give Lands to one and his heirs as long as J. S. hath heirs of his body the same is a Fee-simple determinable and not an Estate tail Quaere of that Then here the Fee-simple is determined by the death of the Devisees without issue and therefore the Lands shall revert to the heir of the Devisor especially there being no person in rerum natura who may sell for the Executor before any sale by him made died intestate and if he had made Executors yet the Executor of the Executor could not sell which see 19 H. 8. 9 10. And afterwards the Iustices resolved That no Estate tail is created by the Will but that the Fee-simple is settled in them when they came to their lawfull age and have issue so as the residue of the Devise is void And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiffs XCIII Hil. 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. THE Case was this viz. By the Civil Law the Parson ought to have his Tythe by the tenth Ridg And in a great Field there was Corn upon the Arable Land Roll. 646. and Grass upon the Head Lands and in a Suit for Tythe Hay and Rakings of the Corn the Defendant did prescribe to pay the tenth Shock of Corn for all the Corn Hay and Rakings of the Corn and the Prescription was challenged not to be good for it is upon the matter a Prescription of Non Decimando for the tenth Shock is due of common Right and so nothing is for the Hay and Rakings It was holden by all the Iustices That for tying of Horses upon the Head Lands and eating of the Grass and Corn together that the Prescription was good But the doubt was when the Grass is made into Hay which is upon the Head Lands If it be a good Prescription then and discharge for the Hay because it is another thing than what is growing upon the Land But in the end all the Iustices agreed That by the Civil Law ut supra the tenth Ridg is due for Tythe Corn 1 Cro. 446. 475. therefore for the reaping binding and shocking it is a reasonable Prescription that the party shall have the Hay upon the Head Lands in recompence of the said other things and the Hay upon the Head Lands is but of little value XCIV 29 Eliz. Challoner and Bowyer 's Case IN Assise of Novel Disseisin by Challoner against Bowyer it was given in Evidence at the Assise That William Bowyer was seised and having issue two Sons and two Daughters devised his Lands to his younger Son in tail and for want of such issue to the Heirs of the body of his eldest Son and if he die without issue that then the Land shall remain to his two Daughters in Fee William Bowyer dieth the younger Son dieth without issue living the eldest Son having issue him who is Tenant in the Assise It was moved That notwithstanding that by way of Grant the
Law doth admit the oath of the party in his own cause as in Debt the Defendant shall wage his Law Periam That 's an ancient Law but we will not make new Presidents for if such oath be accepted in this Case by the same reason in all cases where is secrecy and no external proof upon which would follow great inconveniencies and although such an Oath hath been before accepted of and allowed here yet the same doth not move us and we see no reason to multiply such Presidents The Declaration is that the Plaintiff was robbed of 10 l. de denariis ipsius querentis and upon the Evidence it appeareth That the Plaintiff was the Receiver of the Lady Rich and had received the said money for the use of the said Lady and exception was taken to it by Shuttleworth but it was not allowed for the Plaintiff is accomptable to the Lady Rich the said money And it was agreed that if he who was robbed after he hath made Hue and Cry doth not farther follow the thieves yet his Action doth remain CX Large 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 3 Len. 182. THE Case was A. seised of Lands in Fee devised the Lands to his wife until William his son should come to the age of 22 years and then the Remainder of part of the Lands to his two sons A. and John The Remainder of other part of his Lands to two others of his said sons upon condition That if any of his said sons before William should come to the age of 22 years shall go about to make any sale of any part c. he shall for ever lose the Lands and the same shall remain over c. And before his said son William came to the age of 22 years one of the other sons Leased that which to him belonged for 60 years and so from 60 years to 60 years until 240 years ended c. Bois A. and J. are joynt-tenants of the Remainder and he said That the opinion of Audley Lord Chancellor of England is not Law scil where a man deviseth Lands to two and to their heirs they are not joynt-tenants as to the survivor but if one of them dieth the survivor shall not have the whole but the heir of his that dieth shall have the moyety See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 29. And he said That this Lease although it be for so many years is not a sale intended within the Will and so is not a Ioynture 46 E. 3. One was bounden that he should not alien certain Lands and the Obligor did thereof enfeoff his son and heir apparent the same was held to be no alienation within the Condition of the Obligation Of the other side it was argued The remainder doth not vest presently for it is incertain if it shall vest at all for if William dieth before he cometh to the age of 22 years it was conceived by him that the Remainder shall never vest for the words of the Will are Then the Lands shall remain c. 34 E. 3. Formedon 36. Land is devised to A. for life and if he be disturbed by the heir of the Devisor that then the Land shall remain to D. Here D. hath not any remainder before that A. be disturbed It was farther argued that here is a good Condition and that the Devisee is not utterly restrained from sale but onely untill a certain time scil to the age of William of 22 years And it was said that this Lease is a Covenous Lease being made for 240 years without any Rent reserved As such a Lease made for 100 years or 200 years is Mortmain as well as if it had been an express Feoffment or Alienation But it was said by some Antea 36 37. that here is not any sale at all nor any lease for the Lessor himself hath not any thing in the Land demised As if a man disseiseth a Feme sole and seaseth the Lands and afterwards marrieth the disseisee he shall avoid his own Lease 5 E 3. One was bound that he should not alien such a Manor the Obligor alieneth one Acre parcell of it the Obligation is forfeit See 29 H. 8. Br. Mortgage 36. A. leaseth to a religious house for 100 years and so from 100 years to 100 years untill 800 years be encurred the same is Mortmain Vide Stat. 7 E. 1. Colore termini emere vel vendere And in the principal Case if the Devisee had entred into a Statute to the value of the Land leased by the intent of the Will the same had been a sale and such was the opinion of the whole Court and by the Court the word in perpetuum shall not be referred to the words precedent but unto the words following scil in perpetuum perdat the Lands And if a custome be in the case that the Infant of the age of 15 years may sell his Lands if he make a Lease the same is not warranted by the custome And afterwards it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Lease made as before was a sale within the intent of the Will of the Devisor CXI Brooke 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench APpeal of Burglary was brought against Brooke who was found guilty and before Iudgment given the Plaintiff died And now Egerton moved that Iudgment should be given for the Queen upon that verdict or at least that the Declaration in the Appeal should be in lieu of an Indictment and that the Appealee be thereupon arraigned and put to answer the same For if the Appellant had been Nonsuit or released the Defendant should be arraigned at the suit of the Queen Coke God hath now by the death of the party delivered the Defendant and it is not like where the Plaintiff releaseth for there it is the default of the Act of the party but here it is the Act of God and he held it for a rule That where auterfoits acquit is a good Plea there also auterfoits convict shall be a good Plea And it was holden in Sir Tho. Holcroft's Case Sir Thomas Holcroft's Case That where the party is convicted at the suit of the Queen there the Appeal doth not afterwards lie Wray If the Appellant dieth before Verdict the Defendant shall be arraigned at the suit of the King But if his life hath been once in jeopardy by Verdict he conceived that it shall not again be drawn into danger and some were of opinion that the Defendant should be arraigned at the suit of the Queen upon the whole Record and plead auterfoits acquit and that they said was the surest way CXII Ognel and Paston 's Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer .. 1 Cro. 64. CLement Paston was Defendant in an Action of Debt brought against him by George Ognel upon an Escape and the Case was this Francis Woodhouse was bound in a Recognizance to the said Ognel Whereupon Ognel sued forth a Scire facias and upon two Nihils retorned had
to sue to the King by Petition if he will have his Land yet he conceived that before the Statute of 18 H. 6. the King might grant the Land before Office as it appeareth by Thirning 13 H. 4. 278. who was before the said Statute So if the King's Tenant makes a Lease for years the Remainder over to another in Fee who dieth without Heir the Remainder is in the King without Office because a common person in such case cannot enter but a claim is sufficient and therefore it shall be in the King without Office. As to the pardon he said That it doth not extend to this Estate for this is a Freehold ergo not within the pardon As if the King's Tenant be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all offences and all things which he may pardon these words shall not go nor extend to Freeholds but onely unto personal matters and such punishments and peins which do concern Chattels But it may be objected That by this pardon Title of Quare Impedit and Re-entries for Conditions broken are excepted and therefore if they had not been excepted they had been remitted by the pardon and therefore this pardon shall extend to Inheritances and Freeholds As to that I say That such Exceptions were not in use in the time of H. 4. and yet Inheritances and Freeholds were not taken to be within such pardons and such Exceptions did begin 5 Eliz And he said he had been of Council in such Cases where it hath been taken that such pardons did not extend to Freeholds As an Abbat was disseised and afterwards during the Disseisin the Abby is dissolved the King makes such pardon the same doth not transfer the Right of the King and in that Pardon are divers Exceptions of Goods and Chattels in many cases and therefore it cannot be intended that the pardon doth extend to Freeholds And see the said Act of pardon The Queen grants all Goods Chattels Debts Fines Issues Profits Amercements Forfeitures Sums of Moneys which word Forfeiture shall be intended of a personal Forfeiture non aliter for it is coupled with things of such nature And as to the Traverse he said It did not lie in this Case for the Office is not untrue but true in substance although void in circumstance And also the King here is entituled by double matter of Record scil the Attainder and the Office and he said that the Statutes of 34 and 36 E. 3. which gave Traverse are to be intended of Offices found virtute Officii and not virtute Brevis for then Efcheators were very troublesome And the Statute of 2 E. 6. doth not give Traverse but where the Office is untruly found as if Tenant of the King be disseised and the Disseisor be attainted the Queen seiseth the Land Now the Disseisee hath not remedy by Traverse upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. but is put to his Monstrans de Droit for the Office is true But if I be Tenant of the King and seised of Land accordingly and it was found that J. S. was seised of my Land and attainted c. whereas in truth he had not any thing in my Land there Traverse lieth for the Office is false and so in our Case for the Traverse it is at the Common Law and it was true that Venables was seised Coke to the contrary and he said That by the Attainder the Queen hath gained but a Chattel and that notwithstanding this Forfeiture if Venables had been in possession a Praecipe should be brought against him And where it hath been said by Mr. Attorney That Writs set down in the Register are the best Expositours of our Law the same is not so for the Register saith That Waste lieth notwithstanding a Mesn Remainder which is not now Law but it hath been clearly ruled to the contrary and see accordingly 50 E. 3. the Register therefore and the Writs are subject to the Iudgment of our Law and the Writ of Diem clausit extremum is not to the contrary for I confess that in such case the Land shall be seised into the hands of the King but the King shall not have but a Chattel therein It hath been argued It may be granted Roll. Tit. Grant. 4 Len. 112. ac Godb. 351. a. therefore it may be forfeited Nego Consequentiam for a man seised in the right of his Wife may grant but not forfeit Gardian in Socage may grant but not forfeit the Husband may grant a term for years which he hath in the right of his Wife but he cannot forfeit it A woman Inheretrix taketh a Husband who afterwards is attainted of Felony the King pardons him they have issue the Husband shall be Tenant by the curtesie which proveth that the King hath not the Freehold by that Attainder Before the Statute of Westm 2. Tenant in tail post prolem suscitatam might forfeit his Lands but now the Statute hath so incorporated the Estate tail to the Tenant in tail that it cannot be devested even a Fine levied by him ipso jure nullus although as to the possession it be a Discontinuance and that is the reason wherefore Tenant in tail shall not be seised to another's use See Stamford 190. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have the profits of the Lands of the Wife during the life of the Husband c. So if Tenant in tail be attainted of Felony and that is but a Chattel in the Lands of the Wife and also in the Lands of the Tenant in tail and if the possessions of a Bishop be seised into the Queen's hands for a Contempt in such case the Queen hath the possession and not the profits onely the same Law of the Lands of Tenant in tail or for life being attainted of Felony so of seisure for Alienation without license or of the possessions of Priors Aliens See Brook Reseiser 10. So where the Seisure is for Ideocy And he said That in the principal Case nothing is in the King until Office and as to the Case of 13 H. 4. 6. he confessed the same for at that time many and amongst them Lawyers and Iustices were attainted by Parliament and so was Sir John Salisbury whose Case it was and their Lands by Act of Parliament given expresly to the King and therefore I grant that their Lands were in the King before Office. Tenant in Fee of a common Lord is attainted of Felony his Lands remain in him during his life until the Entry of the Lord and where the King is Lord untill Office be found but in the Case of a common person after the death of the person attainted they are in the Lord before Entry and in the Case of the King before Office for the mischief of abeyances And see the Lord Lovel's Case 17 and 18 Eliz. 485 486. Plow where it is holden That upon Attainder of Treason by Act of Parliament the Lands were
extend ad onerand personam of the Grantor for here the Proviso is rather an Exception than a Condition A Lease for years without impeachment of Wast Proviso that he shall not do voluntary Wast the same is a Qualification of the liberty for doing Wast Grant of a Manor Proviso that it shall not extend to wood growing upon the Manor the same is an Exception not a Condition See the Bishop of York's Case 5 Eliz. Dyer 222. The said Bishop made a Lease for certain years of certain Lands Proviso quod tempore vacationis the Rent shall be paid to the Chapter It was holden that the Proviso was not a Condition And here in this Case the Will of George Scott was That the Recoverors should make to the said Hugh a favourable Lease which cannot be if it be a conditional Lease Another point was because the Rent is not well demanded for he hath demanded the whole Rent of the year whereas but half a years Rent was onely due Coke contrary where the Proviso is parcel of one sentence which contains a Covenant or abridgeth the Covenant there it shall not amount to a Condition but to an Exception as a Grant of a Rent-charge Proviso that he shall not charge the person abridgeth the force of the Grant so a Lease without impeachment of Wast Proviso that the Feoffee shall not do voluntary Wast the same abridgeth the liberty But in our Case this Proviso makes a Condition and not a Qualification of the sentence or of any Covenant contained in the sentence nor doth it participate altogether with the sentence but stands substantively for it was a full sentence before A Feoffment in Fee with Warranty Proviso that when he is impleaded he shall not vouch J. S. the same is a good Condition for J. S. is a stranger contrary that he shall not vouch the Feoffor And a Proviso never makes a Covenant and therefore it shall be either a Condition or void And he said That by the devise Hugh Scott had a Lease without any Lease to be made by the Recoverors As unto the demand of the whole Rent where but half a years Rent was due the same is good enough And so was it adjudged in a Case betwixt Andrew's and the Lord Cromwell for he is at his peril to pay the one moyety and in as much as he denieth the whole he denieth every part It was adjorned CLXXI. Hawkins 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench ONE Hawkins was seised of three Messuages in Bury in his Demesit as of Fee and had issue Robert Christian and Joan Postea 193. 1 Cro. 53. 3 Len. 180. and devised all his said Messuages to his wife for life the remainder of one of the said Messuages to his son Robert and his heirs the remainder of another of his said Messuages to his daughter Christian and to her heirs and the remainder of the third Messuage to Joan and her heirs And farther by his Will devised That if any of his said issues die without issue of his body that then the other surviving shall have totam illam partem c. between them equally to be divided The Devisor dieth the wife of the Devisor dieth Joan dieth having issue Robert dieth without issue Christian entreth into all the house of Robert and dieth and her husband holds in as Tenant by the Curtesie Coke The surviving child shall have the whole and the issue of Joan shall have nothing and he said That by this Devise they have an Estate in tail for the Fee doth not vest in any of them for it is written Who shall survive But when one overlives he shall have in Fee for these words totam illam partem go to the whole Estate as well as to the whole Land. I devise my Land wholy to one he hath Fee thereby And he said that the three Devisees have fee-Fee-tail and Fee expectant each severally as to the Messuage to him limited Golding contrary Each hath an Estate tail in the house devised to him and but an Estate for life expectant upon the death of the other without issue for there are no words by which it may appear what Estate he shall have by the survivorship I grant the Case which Perkins denies but Littleton affirms scil A Devise to one of lands in perpetuum for there the intent appeareth But where there are not words of Inheritance nor words amounting to so much then it shall be but an Estate for life And as to the words totam partem illam the same is all one as if he had said partem illam without the word totam And also he said That where one onely survives no farther the Estate vests for there ought to be two to take by the survivor for the words are Equally to be divided betwixt them And then if it cannot accrue by survivor then it shall descend and if it had accrued to two by the survivor they shall be thereof Tenants in common not Ioynt-tenants by reason of these words Equally to be divided Clench Iustice The words Totam illam partem go to the house and not to the Estate in it Shute Iustice accordingly and he said If both daughters had survived they should have Fee in the house of Robert but not by the Will but by descent in coparcenary Also when two are dead the son and one daughter then it cannot be divided therefore the Will as to that is void and then the common Law shall take place and put the house to the issue of one daughter and of the other daughter surviving Gawdy Iustice Here is but an Estate for life in the survivor It hath been objected That then having but an Estate for life the same Estate is drowned by the descent of the Fee-simple so as now the Estate limited by the Will is void To which it may be answered That although now upon the matter it be void yet Ab initio it was not so for it became void by matter of later time scil by the descent of the Fee-simple for if one of the daughters had died without issue before the death of Robert so as the house of such daughter should have come to the said Robert and the other sister there is no coparcenary for the son hath all the Fee and the moyety of the same is executed and the other moyety expectant and the sister hath a moyety for life and then the Devise not void Also here are not two survivors so nothing is to be divided and therefore the Law shall say that the house of Robert is descended scil the Fee of it to the daughter of Christian and Joan and so Iudgment was given against the husband who claims to be Tenant by the Curtesie of the whole Messuage CLXXII Wye and Throgmorton 's Case Pasc 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon a Bond by Wye against Throgmorton The Condition of the Obligation was to perform Covenants in a pair of Indentures And the
by the Lessor to the Lessee cannot enure and that for want of privity Lit. 109. And such Lessee cannot attorn and if the Lessor after that accepts of the Rent the same doth not make the Lease good and all for want of privity therefore here is no privity As to property such a Lease shall not be said Assets in the hands of an Executor nor shall be sold upon an Extent nor forfeited by outlawry And here in this Case the Queen cannot be said to take any thing by the breach of the Condition but hath her reversion discharged of the Lease and he said That the Office is found well enough for time and it shall relate to the time when the title accrued that is when the Rent was behind and the arrearages of the Rent do not pass by the grant of the Land or the reversion The Queen hath a Rent-charge out of Lands which is behind the Lands come to the Queen and she grants the same over yet she shall charge the Lands with the said arrearages but contrary in case of an injury done upon the Land of the Queen As the Tenant of the King aliens without licence and afterwards the Lands so aliened came to the King's hands who grants them over the Grantee nor the Land shall be charged but onely he who was party to the alienation his Lands and his Executors So of an Intrusion Tenant for life of the King makes a Feoffment in Fee the King grants over the reversion and afterwards the tortious Feoffment is found by Office this Office is soon enough for time and the Grantee of the reversion shall have advantage of it and the King the mean profits from the time of the alienation and afterward in Mich. Term 33 Eliz. the Case was argued by the Barons Clark Puisne Baron The Lease is conditional and with a limitation also so conditional and limitation mixt together 3 Ass 10. Land given to one untill he come from foreign parts Lands given to one so long as he shall continue sole is an Estate for life with limitation upon her marriage so during the coverture c. and these limitations are not collateral but begin with the Estates when the Estates are limited but conditions always come when the Estate is settled as it is in our Case yet if the intent and substance of the Contract betwixt the King and the Subject be well considered there shall not be any difference c. Lands devised to one Proviso That if the Devisee shall disturb the Executors of the Devisor his Estate shall be void and the land remain over c. the same is a good remainder for it is a limitation conditional See Scholastica's Case Plowd Com. 14 Eliz. 413. concerning an Estate tail with a limitation And Fitz. James Case there put by Dyer See Browning and Beston's Case before cited and Martin Dockra's Case where a condition is conceived in words of Covenant c. Gent Baron argued to the same intent Manwood chief Baron to the same intent The Rents reserved upon the Leases of the Queen are to be paid to Receivors Baileys or at the Receipt of the Exchequer The Queen shall not make any demand of her rent for she hath an infinite number of Farmors and if demand be necessary she were to send an army of Receivors or Baileys to receive and demand her rents If the Rent of the King be to be paid at the Exchequer if the King 's Fermor be there and tender the rent at due time and none be there to receive it he hath saved his Lease for he hath done his possible endeavor although the words of the Condition in the Lease be behind and unpaid yet not tendred shall be understood as in the common case of Mortgages and Obligations But in all the Record before us there is no words of any tender therefore according to the words of the condition the Lease is meerly void and determined in right in privity and in tenure for so is the pleasure of the Prince expressed in her Letters Patents under the great Seal of England That it shall be then void and of no effect Then i. whensoever the Rent shall happen to be behind and therefore as soon as the Rent was behind the Lease was determined so that if after the non-payment a stranger had entred upon him scil the Lessee upon which he brings Ejectione Firmae the Defendant might have pleaded the special matter against him Iudgment if Action so as the Lease is void in Right It is also void in Privity and Tenure for a Release to such Lessee after the Rent is behind is altogether void for he was not then Lessee and so the privity is gone and no acceptance can make such Lease good And if such a Lessee after his Rent would surrender and in consideration of such Surrender obtain a new Lease from the Queen this new Lease is also void for here upon the matter is no surrender Also such a Lease is void in property for if the Lessee in such case dieth his interest such as it is shall not be accounted Assets in the hands of his Executor upon the breach of this Condition for the Rent although that the Lease be become void yet the possession of the land is not resetled in the Queen without Office and although the Office doth not make the Lease void which was void before for non-payment of the Rent yet before Office found the possession is not vested in the Queen for before Office found we cannot award Process against such a Lessee for his continuing the possession after the Rent behind and untill Office found the Lessee cannot be found an Intruder and Tenant at Will he cannot be for no other Will appears of the Queen but that in the Letters Patents and that is to have the Lease void whensoever the Rent shall be behind and that Estate is gone because the Rent is behind Tenant at sufferance he cannot be in this case In case of a common person when Lessee for years holds over his term he is become Tenant at sufferance and such a Tenant shall not pay Rent for it is the folly of his Lessor to suffer his Lessee at sufferance to continue possession of the Land after his term so as every Tenancy at sufferance is made by the Laches of the Lessor which Laches cannot be imputed to the Queen therefore here this Lessee when the Condition is broken is not a Tenant at sufferance nor shall have the profits of the Lands to his own use but the Law shall account him to be a Bailiff of his own wrong and so be accountable to the Queen but no Intruder till Office be found and that appears in our Books 1 H. 7. 17. The King's Tenant dieth his Heir within age if any entreth into the Land of the Heir he shall not be an Intruder untill Office found but the Heir or a stranger who entreth before Office and takes the profits
in fact so as he might have an Assise or an Action of Trespass Antea 210 1 Cro. 920. Ow. 96. So the Law is now taken A. deviseth his Lands to B. and dieth and a stranger entreth and dieth seised before any Entry by the Devisee now is the Devisee without remedy And here in our Case the Intruder hath not gained any possession in the Lands by his intrusion no more than if the King gives Lands to one in Fee and before the Patentee enters a stranger enters now cannot the Patentee grant it over if he doth not reduce the Estate by Entry See Dyer 9 and 10 Eliz. 266. P. 20 Eliz. in Curia Ward Garbery's Case acc The Queen seised of the Manor of Beverley a stranger erected a Shop in a vacant plat of the Manor and afterwards took the profits of it without paying any Rent for the same to the Queen and afterwards the Queen granted the Manor to the Earl of Leicester and he never entred into the said Shop nor took any Rent for the same and afterwards the Occupier of the Shop died in possession and his Son and Heir entred and the better opinion was that the same was not a descent against the Patentee because at the first it was not a disseisin against the Queen Another Question was moved as to a path-way then in question And the Iury found that one side of the path-way was the Land of the Parson of the Church and the other side the Church-yard and prayed the opinion of the Court therein to whom the interest of the path-way did belong to which it was said by the Court That that ought to be found by the Verdict For although that both be the Freehold of the Parson yet the soil of the path-way might be conveyed by an express Grant unto another But the Court seemed to incline that the soil of the path-way did belong to him who had the Lands on both sides and that is the Case as well of a high-way as of a path-way And it is also good Evidence to prove such matter Who hath used to cut down the Trees or to cleanse the way CLXXXIII Wiseman 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Court of Wards 6 Co. Weeden Baldwin's Case IN the Court of Wards before the Lord Treasurer Master of the Wards Wray chief Iustice Anderson and Periam Assistants to him the Case was That Wiseman was seised of certain Lands holden by Knight's-service in Capite had issue by a former Wife who died and made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of her who should be his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of himself and of his issue of the body of such Wife to be begotten the remainder over Wiseman took a Wife and had issue and died If now living the Wife the issue shall be in Ward was the question It was argued by Coke That he shall not be in Ward And first it was agreed of both sides and also by the Iustices That it was a remainder and not a reversion and that at the Common Law the descent of a remainder during the Estate for life doth not entitle the King unto Wardship and there we are to see if upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. the last branch of it where two or more persons hold any Lands of the King by Knights-service jointly to them and the heirs of one of them and he that hath the Inheritance thereof dieth his heir being within age in every such Case the King shall have the Ward and marriage of the body of such heir so being within age the life of the Freeholder or Freeholders of such Lands notwithstanding See 33 H. 6. 14. That the father to prevent Wardship may alien and take to him and his son and the heirs of the father which mischief was intended to be remedied by the said Statute But these words shall not in construction thereof extend farther than the words especially because they cross the Common Law and go to charge the Inheritance of others and therefore they shall be taken strictly and not by equity as the Statute of West 2. cap. 40. Cum quis alienat jus uxoris suae concordat est Quod de cetero secta mulieris aut ejus haeredis non differatur propter minorem aetatem haeredis qui warrantizare debuit that Statute is taken strictly for if the Vouchee voucheth over the second Vouchee shall have his age Quod vide 18 E. 4. 16. Also the Stat. of West 1. enacts That where the Disseisor dieth seised the Disseisee shall have his Writ upon the Disseisin against the heir of the Disseisor of what age soever he be So the heirs of the Disseisee yet it is holden 9 E. 3. If the Disseisor leaseth for life and dieth and the Lessee be impleaded and makes default after default upon which the heir of the Disseisor prayeth to be received being within age he shall have his age notwithstanding the said Statute which shall be taken strictly because it controlls the Common Law and chargeth the Inheritance of the Subject So upon the Statute of West 1. cap. 39. That none shall vouch out of the line upon that Statute although the Tenant to the Action against whom the Praecipe is brought is bound by the Statute yet Tenant by receit is at large and he may vouch at the Common Law 2 H. 7. 2. 16 H. 7. 1. for these Statutes go in abridgment of the Common Law and therefore shall be taken strictly Now according to this Statute it is of the same nature as the other before remembred and therefore shall not be extended in construction beyond the Letter As Sir Rowland Hill's Case Grandfather father and son the grandfather seised of Land ut supra makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the son in Fee The grandfather dieth the father dieth the son shall not be in Ward Causa qua supra For this Statute shall not be construed by equity and by it the words thereof Preferment of children shall not extend unto the childrens children but to the children onely of the King's Tenant who makes the Conveyance And the words in this Statute or otherwise shall not be intended to other persons than are remembred in the Statute There was a Case late where the Statute was construed in such a manner Quod vide 18 Eliz. 345. Thornton's Case A Lady seised of Lands in chief made Conveyance of her Lands for the advancement of her bastard-daughter the same Conveyance is not within the Statute See also the Lord Powes's Case 14 Eliz. Dyer 313. So in the Case of Sir Hugh Calverley the Law was taken That where the Husband dieth seised in the right of his Wife and they levy a Fine unto the use of the Husband and Wife for the advancement of the Husband such Conveyance and disposition is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Popham contrary And as to
according to the custome of the Manor granted a Rent-charge to Sir William Cordel 2 Roll 157. Pro concilio impendendo for the term of his life and afterwards conveyed the Manor to Sir William Clifton in tail The Rent is behind 12 Brownl 208. Sir William Cordel dieth Sir William Clifton dieth the Manor descends to John Clifton who grants a Copihold to Hempston the Executors of Sir William Cordel distrain for the Rent It was agreed by the whole Court Antea 109. That the Copyholder should hold the land charged Windham Iustice It hath been adjudged that the wife of the Lord shall not be endowed against the Copyholder Dyer 270. which Periam granted but gave the reason of it for the Title of the Dower is not consummated before the death of the husband so as the Title of the Copyholder is compleated before the Title of Dower More 94. but the Title of the Grantee of the Rent is consummated before the Dower Fenner conceived That the Executors could not distrain upon the possession of the Copyholder and he argued that this case is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Wills For by the preface of the said Statute he conceived That the said Statute did extend but to those cases for which by the Common Law no remedy was provided but in this case the Executors by the Common Law might have an Action of debt ergo But Periam and Windham contrary For this Statute doth intend a farther remedy for that mischief scil not onely an action of debt but also distress and avowry See the words of the Statute Distrain for the arrearages c. upon the lands c. which were charged with the payment of such rents and chargeable to the Distress of the Testator or in the seisin or possession of any other person or persons claiming the said lands onely by and from the same Tenant by purchase gift or descent in like manner and form as their Testator might or ought to have done in his life time And it was moved by Fenner That here the said land charged doth not continue in the seisin or possession of the Tenant and here Sir John Clifton was issue in tail and therefore he doth not claim onely by the father but per formam Doni and therefore he is not liable therefore neither his Copyholder Shuttleworth Serjeant contrary That Sir John Clifton was chargeable and he claims onely from them who immediately ought to have paid the Rent and the Copyholder claims by purchase from Sir John Clifton so he claims from Sir William Clifton the Tenant c. although he doth not claim immediately from him For if the Tenant ought to have paid it and dieth and the land descendeth to his heir and the Heir maketh a Feoffment in Fee the Feoffee shall be charged within this Statute although he doth not claim immediately so where land descends from the Tenant which ought to have paid it and so from Heir to Heir The Statute of 1 R. 3. wills that all grants c. shall be good against the Donor his Heirs c. claiming onely as Heirs to Cestuy que use c. Yet if Cestuy que use granteth a Rent-charge and the Feoffees are disseised the Grant shall be good against the Disseisor and yet he doth not claim onely by Cestuy que use And although Sir John Clifton be Tenant in tail and claims per formam Doni Yet because the Estate tail cometh under the Estate of him who grants the Rent he shall be subject to the charge And this Statute extends not onely to him who claims by the Tenant but also to the Heir of him who grants c. And by Windham and Rhodes The Copyholder doth not claim onely by the Lord but he claims also by the custome but the custome is not any part of his Title but onely appoints the manner how he shall hold c. The possession continues here in Sir John Clifton for the possession of his Copyholder is his possession so as if the Copyholder be ousted Sir John Clifton shall have an Assise And so the strict words of the Statute are observed for the seisin and possession continues in Sir John Clifton who claims onely by Sir William Clifton who was the Tenant in demean who ought to pay the Rent But Fenner said to that that the seisin and possession intended in the Statute is the very actual possession scil Pedis dispositio and such a possession in which the distress may be taken and that cannot be taken in a Freehold without an actual possession CLXXXVI 19 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 3 Len. 65. A. Seised of land in Fee by his Will in writing granted a Rent-charge of 5. l. per an out of it to his younger son towards his Education and bringing up in Learning and if in pleading the Devisee ought to aver that he was brought up in Learning was the Question And it was holden by Dyer Manwood and Mounson that such averment needs not for the Devise is not conditional and therefore although he be not brought up in Learning yet he shall have the Rent and the words of the Devise are Towards his bringing up and he well knew that 5 l. per an would not nor could extend to maintain a Scholar in Learning Dy. 329. a. in diet apparel books c. and this Rent although it be not sufficient to such purpose yet he shall have it And Dyer said That such a case was here Two were bound to stand to the award of certain persons who awarded that the one of them should pay unto the other 20 s. per an during the term of six years towards the education and bringing up of such a one an Infant and within the two first years of the said term the Infant died so as now there needed not any supply towards his education yet it was adjudged that the yearly sum ought to be paid for the whole term after for the words toward his education are but to shew the intent and consideration of the payment of that sum and no word of condition c. CLXXXVII West and Stowel 's Case Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 870. Townsend 17. 1 Roll 28. More 549. Sty 353. a. IN an Action upon the Case by Thomas West against Sir John Stowell The Plaintiff Declared That the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that if the Defendant shall win a certain match at shooting made between the Lord of Effingham and the Defendant then the Plaintiff should pay to the Defendant 10 l. and promised to the Plaintiff That if the said L. Effingham shall win the same match of the Defendant that then the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff 10 l. And farther declared That the Lord Effingham won the match for which the Action is brought It was moved that here is not any sufficient consideration for the promise of the Plaintiff to
60 years and afterwards enfeoffed Oxenbridge to the use of the said Cheney and his wife for their lives with divers remainders over and it was adjudged in the Court of Wards that by the Feoffment the term was not extinct And he put the case of the Lord Paget in the King's Bench adjudged A Feoffment was made unto the use of the Feoffor for life the remainder to him whom the Feoffor should name at his death in Fee the Feoffor and the Feoffees for good consideration levied a Fine unto a stranger and afterwards the Feoffor named one and died the party named by the Feoffor shall have the land notwithstanding the Fine Beamount The contingent use here is utterly destroyed by the Feoffment aforesaid and it appeareth by the preamble of the Act of 27 H. 8. That the makers of the Act did not favour Vses but their intent was utterly to extirpate Vses And if contingent Vses which are not nor cannot be excused by the Statute should stand in force The mischief would be That no purchasor should be secured and safe in his purchase but should always be in danger of a new born Vse not known before and he grounded his farther argument upon the reason of Manwood and Dyer Where a man makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife which shall be and afterwards he and the Feoffees and those in remainder make a Feoffment to divers new Feoffees and to new Vses and afterwards he takes another Wife and dieth It was the opinion of the said two Iudges That by that Feoffment ut supra the contingent Vses are destroyed For when the Estate which the Feoffees accept is taken away which was the root and foundation of the Vses which are the branches and fruit of the body of the said Tree it necessarily followeth That they be also taken away and because the Feoffees by their Livery are barred to enter to recontinue the Estate which should yield such Vses they also are gone and extinguished Yelverton was of opinion that notwithstanding the said Feoffment that the Vse should rise in his due time according to the limitation of it It was adjourned CCXIX. The Lord North 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Queen granted unto the Lord North and his heirs the Fines pro licentia concordandi and one would not pay him the Fine for which cause the Lord North brought an Action upon the Case against him and declared upon Indebitatus assumpsit c. Godfrey moved this matter to the Court to know their opinion if such Action would lie for the matter or not Fenner For a Fine in a Court-Baron or Court-Leet debt lieth but as he conceived 1 Leon. 249 250. 3 Len. 56. 234. here this Action doth not lie for it is a real Fine and there is no contract betwixt the parties but the same is given by the Law and some were of opinion that debt lieth for a relief for there is a contract by Fealty Gawdy conceived That the Action doth well lie for it is not any casual profit and therefore debt lieth for it although it be an inheritance And see Dyer 28 H. 8. 24. The heir shall have an Action of Debt upon a Nomine poenae reserved by his Ancestour Wray I do not see that he hath any other remedy and therefore I am of opinion that this Action will lie CCXX Mrs. Paschall 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer MIstress Paschall was bound with sureties for her appearance before the high Commissioners that she should not depart without licence under the hands of three of them and she pleaded the general Pardon at the last Parliament in which there is an Exception of all Bonds and Recognizances except onely such Bonds and Recognizances as are for appearance And Atkinson argued That she ought to be discharged by the Exception for although the departure without licence be not specially named yet it is within the sense for the not departure without licence is no other thing than to continue her appearance Popham contrary For The Non departure without licence was set down in the Condition to this purpose That she should not go into the Countrey to be corrupted there or to corrupt other and receive Seminaries c. therefore it is another thing than appearance Between Hore and Hare the Case was One was bound to make his appearance at such a day and in the mean time thrice every Month to repair unto such a Preacher to be better informed in Religion although the Non appearance was pardoned yet the other point i. the resorting to the Preacher is to be answered Atkinson There the resorting to the Preacher is collateral and a several point from the appearance But in the Case at Bar the not departure is pursuant to the appearance And the opinion of all the Barons was That the pardon did not extend to the same CCXXI Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 1 Len. 205. AN Action was brought against an Executor who pleaded That he refused the Executorship upon which the parties were at issue The Bishop certified Quod non recusavit whereas in truth he had refused before the Commissary of the Bishop Fenner Serjeant moved to have the advice of the Court upon this matter and argued That the Court ought to write to the Commissary which was denied by the Court for he is not the Officer to this Court as to that purpose but the Bishop himself is our Officer and the party cannot have an Averment against the Certificate of the Bishop no more than against the Retorn of the Sheriff And the Court also held That the onely remedy for the Defendant was by an Action upon the Case against the Bishop for his false Certificate But it was moved That the issue joined upon the refusal ought to be tried by the Countrey and not by the Certificate of the Bishop and such was the opinion of Windham and Walmsley Periam Where the issue is that the Executor refused before such a day or after there the issue shall be tried by the Countrey contrary Where the issue is upon the refusal generally for the refusal is before him as Iudge as also resignation is CCXXII Giles 's Case Mich. 28 and 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A Writ of Error was brought in the King's-Bench to reverse a Iudgment given in an Action upon the Case in the Court of Common-Pleas where the Writ brought against the Defendant there in that Case was Quare exaltavit stagnum per quod pratum of the Plaintiff was inundatum The Defendant in the Action there pleaded Not guilty and the Iury found That the Defendant Erexit stagnum and they said That if the Court shall judge That Erectio and Exaltatio be all one then they find that the Defendant is guilty and afterwards Iudgment was given in the said Court of Common-Pleas for the Plaintiff Whereupon this Writ of Error is brought And Glanvile Serjeant who
as taken for Rent arrere yet he cannot be said his Bailiff at the time of the distress which was granted by Rhodes Periam and Windham and as to that which hath been objected That if this traverse be allowed the meaning of the party shall be drawn in question i. e. the meaning of him who took the cattel the same is not any mischief for so it is in other cases as in the case of Recaption See 9 H. 6. 1. 45 E. 3 4. CCLXXV Humphreston 's Case Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. More 103. 1 Anders 40. Dyer 337. Owen 64. Sty 293. IN an Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict That W. Humphreston seised of the Manor of Humphreston suffered a common Recovery to be had thereof by Kinnersley and Fowk in the Writ of Entry in the Post to the intent that they should make an Estate to the said W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife for their lives the remainder Seniori puero dicti W. and to the heirs of the body dicti senioris pueri legitime procreat the remainder to the heirs of the body of the said W. Humphreston with divers remainders over And afterwards the Recoverers in December following by Indenture made an Estate accordingly and made Livery to W. Humphreston and his wife and afterwards in November 2 E. 6. by Indenture between the said W. Humphreston of the one party and Kinnersley on the other part The said W. Humphreston did covenant with the said Kinnersley to do all such lawfull and reasonable things for to assure the said lands unto the use of the said W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife for their lives and afterwards to the use of the eldest child of the body of the said W. Humphreston lawfully begotten and to the heirs of the body of the said eldest child of the body of the said W. Humphreston and after to divers other uses over and afterwards Ter. Pasch 2 E. 6. W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife levyed a Fine of the said land to C. and B. in Fee to the use of the said Indenture Elionar died W. Humphreston married another wife and had issue a daughter named Frances and afterwards had issue a son named William and died William the son being of the age of six years entred into the lands and leased the same to the Plaintiff for years who being ejected by the Defendant brought the Ejectione firmae And this special Verdict And the points moved upon it were argued by Atkins Phetiplace Fenner Fleetwood Plowden and Bromley and afterwards this Case was argued by the Iustices And Gawdy puisne Iustice conceived That Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff First he conceived that this Lease for years made by the Infant without Deed and without Rent reserved is not void so as every stranger shall take advantage of it but onely voidable for an Infant may make a Bond and a Contract for his commodity and profit and the same shall bind him as for his meat and drink apparel c. But if upon such Lease he had reserved a small Rent as one peny where the land was worth 100 l. per ann such a Lease had been void and in our Case this Lease was made upon the land and was made for to try the title to it which is a good consideration and to the profit of the Infant and for his advancement and then the Lease is not void It hath been objected That here the Recovery being suffered to the intent that the Recoverers should make an Estate ut supra c. that the use shall rise presently upon the Recovery to him who suffered the Recovery and then the Recoverers could not make Livery unto him he held strongly That the use and the possession should be adjudged in the Recoverers untill they made the Estates c. for they otherwise could not make the Estates c. 2 Roll 789. and these words To the intent shall be construed that they shall have the lands untill they made the Estates c. And he held that the remainder limited Seniori puero where there is not any in rerum natura is good enough as a remainder limited to him who shall first come to Pauls And he conceived that the son should take this remainder and not the daughter and he conceived that the Estate tail here was not executed i. e. the second intail Divers Authors of Grammer have been produced to prove that Puer may be taken both ways Tam puer quam puella Desporterius Calapine Melancthon and the Grammer allowed but I conceive that Puer is a word proper for a Boy and Puella for a Maid and where we have proper words we ought not to iudge but according to them and because the word is doubtfull we ought to consider the cause upon the circumstances and therefore it is to be intended that W. Humphreston had a greater desire that his son should have his Inheritance than his daughter if there be not some special matter to prove that the intent of the father was for his daughter Southcote Iustice agreed with Gawdy in the first point and also that the Recoverers have convenient time to make the Estates and that they are to make the same without request for the benefit of the wife who is a stranger to it and is to have the lands for her ioynture and he cited the Case of the Abbat of York 44 E. 3. 8. and 9. where the difference is taken between a Feoffment made upon condition to re-enfeoff the Feoffor or to enfeoff a stranger And here in our Case the Feoffment is made in convenient time and here is sufficient consideration That the Recoverers shall be seised to their own uses untill c. And these words Roll supra Roll 407. Ea intentione shall be taken for a Condition And also that this remainder limited Seniori puero is good notwithstanding that there be not any Senior puer alive at the time And as to the word puer he held that it did extend to both Sexes indifferently and because it is doubtfull what Sex the father intended we are to construe the same upon the circumstances which appear upon the parts of the Indentures and here it appeareth upon the Indenture that he hath explained his mind scil Eldest child be it Male or Female As if I have two sons named J. and I devise my lands or limit a remainder to J. my son the Law shall construe this Devise to extend to my younger son for without devise or limitation my eldest son should have it But if J. S. hath two sons known by the names of A. and I Devise lands to A. son of J.S. there I ought to explain my meaning openly And he conceived That the Estate tail is executed defeasiable in W. Humphreston upon issue afterwards had and that the daughter should have the lands and not the son and if the Fine destroy the remainder in abeyance limited
to the eldest child then the said eldest child shall have it de novo by the later conveyance And as to the Warranty of the Fine because the possession of the Conusees is removed by the Statute of 27 H. 8. to the daughter she shall not have the benefit of the Warranty as to vouch but she shall Rebutt as 22 Ass 37. 69. Where a Feoffment in Fee is made to my Villein with Warranty and before that the Feoffor dieth I enter upon my Villein so as the Warranty upon the death of the Warrantor is not attached upon the possession of my Villein I shall not have advantage of that Warranty A Disseisor makes a Feoffment in Fee upon Condition the Disseisee re-leaseth the Feoffee with Warranty the Disseisor entreth for the condition broken now the Disseisor shall Rebutt by that Warranty but not vouch And here in our Case the Fine is a discontinuance so as the son is put to his Action if he had right and then the Warranty shall bind him but contrary if his entry be lawfull And as to the Lease made by the Infant he conceived that it being made without Rent it was meerly void for it was without consideration Wray chief Iustice As to the first point he was of opinion That the Recoverers shall be seised to their own use untill they make the Estate for that was the use implied for all uses are directed and ruled by the intent implied or expressed of him to whom the land is and his intent was that such Estates should be made and to such purpose the Recovery was suffered As if I enfeoff A. unto the use of B. for his life there it is implied That B. shall be seised of the Fee to my use I covenant That J. S. shall take the profits of my lands for his life this is a good use of the lands for his life and he held that the Recoverors should be seised to their own use untill c. And the Recoverers ought to make the Estates within convenient time or otherwise the use should be revested again in him who suffered the Recovery and here the Estate was made within convenient time And he said That in every Case where a remainder is limited in abeyance to one by a proper name the same is not good but by a general name it is good enough if the party be in esse when the remainder falls as a remainder limited upon an Estate for life unto the first son or daughter of J. S. where J. S. at the time hath not any son or daughter the same is good if such person shall be in esse at the time of the death of the Tenant for life 17 E. 3. A remainder limited Filio primo genito c. and 3 E. 3. Fitz. Tail. 8. Land given to J. S. Et uxori quam primo matrimonio duxerit in uxorem and afterwards he taketh a wife she shall take by the same Conveyance And as to the Warranty This Fine with Warranty was levyed to C. and B. unto the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the eldest child c. and he intended That the daughter should not have the benefit of this Warranty for by the Statute the possession is removed and transferred in the Post before the Warranty could attach and therefore the same shall not bind the son neither by Voucher nor by Rebutter But Tenant by the Curtesie shall have benefit of the Warranty for although he be in the Post yet he continueth the Estate which was made to the wife And as to the point in question we ought to consider that the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Vses is That Cestuy que use shall have the lands in such plight as he had the use which was without Warranty and therefore it shall be transferred into possession without Warranty As to the Lease made by the Infant without rent profit or other recompence he conceived the same to be utterly void as if he grant a Rent or an Advowson he may say that he did not grant c. for the thing included in the Deed doth not pass although he delivereth the Deed of Grant with his own hand Two ioynt-tenants within age one makes a Lease of years and dieth the other shall avoid it for the Lease is utterly void of which every stranger may take advantage but of acts voidable it is otherwise As two Infants joynt-tenants the one Leaseth for life and makes Livery in person and dieth the other shall not avoid it Two joynt-tenants the one maketh a Feoffment upon condition and dieth the other shall not take benefit of the condition But here the Lease is meerly void of which every stranger shall take advantage and therefore upon this point the Plaintiff shall be barred And also he was of opinion That this remainder in abeyance limited Seniori puero was not destroyed by the Fine for it is in the consideration of the Law and so preserved by the Law and therefore a descent in the time of vacation of an Abbat shall not bind the successor and so where the party is beyond the seas for such persons and their estates the Law privilegeth and preserveth So a remainder limited to the right heirs of J. S. And where the King seiseth by reason of a Ward and during such seisin of the King a descent is cast the same shall not bind him who hath right for he could not enter upon the possession of the King and by the Statute of 32 H. 8. A Recovery had against Tenant for life the remainder unto the right heirs of J. S. who is alive at the time of the Recovery is not helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. For the words of the Statute are To whom the reversion or remainder shall then appertain See 11 R. 2. Fitz. Detin 46. and so he concluded because that this remainder is in the custody of the Law and not in esse it is privileged and preserved and not destroyed by the Fine and upon issue had the remainder shall be executed notwithstanding the said act done by the father and without any entry to be made by the Conusees to raise the use for the remainder limited Seniori puero neither was nor could be discontinued As to the principal point of the Case viz. How these words Seniori puero shall be expounded although divers authorities have been cited out of Latine Authours That this word puer shall be taken for the Male or Female yet I conceive That more commonly it shall be taken for the Male than for the Female and we ought to judge according to the intent of the parties and not according to the strict signification of the word in Latine especially where it is doubtfull how it shall be expounded 9 H. 7. 16. A. was bound in a Bond upon condition to pay decem libras auri puri although there be not any such phrase in Latine yet because it appeareth so to be the
meaning of the Obligee to have fine gold it was so taken 39 H. 6. 10. and 11. The word uterque id est quilibet pro parte sua See the Book so it was lately adjudged in the Court of Common-Pleas where three were bounden Et eorum uterque which was construed to be Quilibet for we ought always in construction of Deeds to have regard to the meaning of the parties and not to argue the aptness of the Latine word And I conceive That if a Lease be made for life the remainder puero of J. S. who hath a son and a daughter the son shall have the land c. for the most worthy shall be preferred and therefore if a Freeman marrieth a Neife she is enfranchised for ever according to the opinion of Fitzherbert which I hold to be good Law for the husband is the more worthy So if the Lease for life be made 〈◊〉 J. S. the remainder to the right heirs of A. B. who hath issue three daughters and dieth the eldest shall have the remainder and not the other with her because she is the more worthy and so a remainder upon an Estate for life of lands in Gavelkind limited to the right heirs of J. S. who hath issue two sons the eldest shall have it So here in the principal Case Puer shall be expounded son because he is the more worthy But here are other circumstances which give occasion of another construction for this doubtfull word Puer is explained by the English Indenture which the father W. Humphreston caused to be made Unto the use of the eldest Child which is a good exposition of the former Conveyance and I am of opinion that the same ought to be meant of the daughter for so soon as she is born the remainder vests in her and by the birth of the son after shall not be devested Land is leased to A. for life the remainder to T. son of A. who hath two sons of the same name the eldest shall have it because the more worthy but if afterwards the Donor declares his meaning to the contrary the same shall stand c. And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff and that the daughter should have the Lands CCLXXVI Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Poph. 182. Hughs Abr. Tit. Devise 657. Case 5. Savile 72 73. Dy. 371. b. Shep. Touch. 449. 15 H. 7. 12. Ante 43. Perk. 547. A Man devised his Lands to his Wife for life and because he was in doubt whether he should have issue or no he farther willed by his Will That if he should not have any issue by his Wife that then after the death of his Wife the lands should be sold and the money thereof coming distributed to three of his bloud and made his Wife and another his Executors and died The Executors proved the Will The other Executor died and the Wife sold the lands and it was the opinion of Wray and Southcote Iustices That the sale was good although it be not expressed in the Will by whom the Lands should be sold for the moneys coming of the sale are to be distributed by his Executors to persons certain as Legacies and it appertains to Executors to pay the Legacies and therefore they shall sell c. As if a man willeth That his lands shall be sold and that the moneys coming thereof shall be disposed of for the payment of his debts now the Executors shall sell the Lands for to them it belongs to pay debts Also they held 3 Cro. 278. 3. More 341. 1 Inst 113. a. 1 And. 145. that the Lands should be sold in the life of the Wife otherwise it could never be sold and also the surviving Executor shall sell the lands because the authority doth survive CCLXXVII Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THree men were bounden by Recognizance jointly and severally against all which the Conusee sued forth Execution by Scire facias and upon issue joined it was found for the Plaintiff in the King's-Bench and Execution awarded by Capias ad Satisfaciend And because the same erronicè emanavit being upon a Recognizance it was drawn off the File and now the Conusee brought an Action of debt upon the Iudgment against one of them and the opinion of the whole Court was that it would not lie because the Iudgment was joint against them all three CCLXXVIII Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A. Brought an Action upon the Case and declared That the Dean and Chapter of Westminster did lease unto him a house for years by Deed indented of which Indenture he was possessed and afterwards lost it and by Trover it came to the hands of the Defendant who sold it and converted the money thereof coming to his own use The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and the Plaintiff gave in evidence That the said Lease was made to him and to one B. and that the said Indenture was delivered to the said B. And that was agreed to be the possession of them both and afterwards B. died and afterwards A. the Plaintiff was the sole owner of it and that was holdden to be good Evidence on the part of the Plaintiff and if the Plaintiff can prove the other part of his Declaration i. e. that the Indenture came unto the hands of the Defendant and that he sold it that then he should recover But it was given in Evidence on the Defendants parts that the said B. sold to the said Defendant his part and interest in the said Lease and also the said indenture so as now he is become Tenant in common with the Plaintiff and then his sale doth not give any cause of Action to the Plaintiff and that was holden by the whole Court to be good evidence without pleading of it The Case went farther That A. being within age his father leased the lands for 20 years and afterwards the son at his full age upon the back of the Indenture did release to the Defendant all his right and it was holden by Wray Iustice That when the father leased he did it as Guardian to his son and it was not any Ejectment of the son but it was a Lease in the behalf of the son although the son might avoid it and then when the endorsment is ut supra the same is a good assignment and afterwards the Plaintiff was Nonsuit CCLXXIX Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That B. by his Will did devise to each of his daughters he having two daughters 200 l. and that the survivor should have the whole and shewed farther that one of his two daughters died and that B. made his Wife his Executrix and that the said wife took to husband the Defendant and farther declared That the Defendant in consideration of all that and that the Defendant should take the surviving daughter to wife and in consideration that the Defendant had Assets to pay all Debts and
made the Reservation and he relied much upon the last Reason urged by Harper upon the Statute of 27 H. 8. that this was limited to the Executors Co. 13. Rep. and not to him who limited it and therefore the possession shall be executed to the Executors to whom the use was limited and this term shall not be Assets in the hands of the Executors And he said That he had seen a Record 2 H. 8. setting forth That A. having Feoffees to his use devised that his Feoffees should sell his Lands who did accordingly now the money coming by the sale shall be Assets c. but it is not so limited in our case therefore it shall not be Assets A Lease is made to A. for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of B. B. purchaseth the Estate of A. the Estate in Remainder is not executed for it is not conveyed by the Grant of the first Grantor but by the Act of another person after the Grant. A Lease for life to A. the Remainder to a Feme sole for years they entermarry Waste is committed the Lessor brings an Action of Waste he shall recover as well the Estate for years as for life A. Leaseth unto B. for life the Remainder unto the Executors of A. for years the Remainder over in Fee to a stranger the Remainder for years is good for the Lessor cannot limit such an Estate to himself and the Executors shall take the Estate as Purchasors and the term shall be in abeyance untill the death of A. There was a case before the Lord Brook in the time of Queen Mary viz. A Lease was made for life Proviso that if the Lessee dieth within the term of sixty years that the Executors shall have the Lands as in the Right and Title of the Lessee pro termino totidem annorum which do amount to the number of sixty years to be accounted from the said Indenture The Opinion of the Iustices of the Common Pleas upon the Case was That the term was not in the Lessee for life So this future term in the principal Case was not in Tho. Cranmer But see that Case cited by Dyer reported by himself 4 Ma. 150. and there the opinion of the Court was That the same was not a Lease but a Covenant And afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff That the future term was not forfeited by the Attainder of Cranmer VIII 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case was Dyer 317. b. 318. a. J. S. is seised of a Close adjoyning to the Close of J. D. and J. S. ought to enclose against J. D. J. S. leaseth his Close to another for years rendring Rent J. D. puts in his cattle into his own Close who for want of enclosure escape into the Close of J. S. and before that they be levant and couchant Distress for Rent J. S. distrains them for his Rent It was said by Manwood Iustice that the distress was not well taken Doctor Student 150. 1 Inst 476. Brown 1 part 170. Roll Tit. Distress 1 part in toto for there is a difference when the cattel come upon the Lands of another in the default of the owner of the cattel as by escape or stray and where in the default of another For in the first case the Lord may distrain them before they be levant and couchant but in the latter case not Also a Rent reserved upon a Lease for years is a new Rent and not like unto an ancient Rent due upon an ancient Tenure betwixt the Lord and the Tenant For for a Rent reserved upon a Lease for years Roll 1 part 672. acc Hob. 265. Brown part 2 170. or for a Rent charge a man cannot distrain the cattel before they be levant and couchant upon the Lands although they come upon the Lands by escape estray c. Dyer The Lord cannot distrain the cattel which escape into the Land of his Tenant for want of enclosure of his Tenant before they be levant and couchant and yet the seignory is favoured for the antiquity of it But here is new Rent not in respect of any seignory but of reservation upon a Lease for years and therefore no distress before the cattel be levant and couchant upon the Lands Quod Harper Mounson concesserunt and Iudgment was given accordingly IX 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Writ of Entry in the Per. THE Case was In a Writ of Entry in the Per against A. and B. A. pleaded several tenancy It was holden by Dyer chief Iustice that it is not any plea. Harper Iustice In Assise it is no plea for here the Land is not in demand Several Tenancy where no good Plea. but here it is a good plea and the Demandant ought to maintain his Writ Manwood In no action founded upon disseisin is this good For although the Demandant by policy will bring his Writ against the Tenant of the Land and another who he will name in the Writ upon trust and confidence and that he will not agree with the Tenant of the Lord in Dilatories for the Tenant of the Lands shall not be received to plead Dilatories Yet in that case several Tenancy is no plea for the Tenant but in a Formedon or other such like action which is not grounded upon disseisin if the Writ be brought in such manner as above the Tenant by policy that he may have the view and other reasonable delay may plead several Tenancy and so enforce the Demandant to maintain his Writ but contrary in the Case at Bar and so it was adjudged per Curiam X. Creswell and Cokes Case 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dyer 351. CReswell brought Debt against Coke and demanded 200 Marks upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. of fraudulent Deeds Gifts c. upon the second clause of the Statute Debt viz. That all parties or privies to such fraudulent Deed willingly putting in ure avowing c. as true simple Custome and given bona fide shall forfeit c. And shewed that one A. held of the Plaintiff 12 acres of customary Lands and died seised And that by the custome of the Manor Heriot the Lord was to have for a Heriot the best beast whereof his Tenant died possessed and farther shewed that the said A. in his life time and a little before his death being possessed of 30 Horses of the value of 200 Marks gave the said Horses to the Defendant with intent to defraud the Plaintiff and other Lords of their Heriots and that he went to the Defendant's house to seise his Heriot and the Desendant then strained the said Horses by reason of the Gift aforesaid for which the Action is brought To which the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff had seised one of the Horses nomine Herioti and as to the rest he did demurr in Law. Mounson Iustice was of opinion that the Plaintiff should recover the whole 200 Marks
he said Misnosmer shall be tried where the Writ is brought c. So Ne unque administer as Executor c. Manwood Here the Lease is said to be made at Durham in a place certain if now there be not any other local thing said which might draw the trial elsewhere it shall be tried at Durham where the Lease is made An Infant makes a lease for years rendring Rent and afterwards re-enters and avoids his Lease by reason of his nonage and Title is made against him by the Lease upon which he pretended nonage it shall be tried where the Lease was made and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XXIX Ross and Morrice 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench EDward Ross was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Edward Morrice 1 Cro. 108 109. and George Manly Defendants who made Conusance as Bailiffs to Jerom Weston The Plaintiff declares of the taking of two Geldings 20 Decemb. 29 Eliz. at Nayland in the County of Suffolk in a certain place called Nayland-Court-Meadow And the Conusance is that the place where was a Freehold of the said Jer. Weston c. The Plaintiff in bar of the Conusance shewed That long time before Sir Christopher Danby was seised of 30 acres of Meadow in Nayland whereof the place where c. and Leased the same by Indenture to Thomas Calton 19 Maii 31 H. 8. Habendum from the Feast of the Annunciation 1553. for the term of 45 years Who 1 E. 6. assigned his Interest to Edw. Ross the Plaintiff's Father who 1 Maii the said 1553. entred and 11 Eliz. granted his Interest to Bamford and Mascal who entred and were possessed Sir Christopher Danby died seised of the Reversion 13 Eliz. and the same descended to Thomas Danby his son and heir 14 Eliz. Mascal died Bamford 15 Eliz. granted to the Plaintiff Habendum from the 17 of March 1583. for three years which expired 26 Eliz. Bamford entred and afterwards Thomas Danby granted the Reversion to Edw. Rockwood in Fee to which the said Bamford Attorned and the Plaintiff by force of the said Lease put in his Cattel c. The Plaintiff Replicando said That long time before that Danby had any thing Jeofry Lord Scroop had issue of his body Henry Lord Scroop and died And that one John Guntwarby was seised of the said Manor of Nayland whereof c. in Fee by his Charter 25 E. 3. gave to the said Henry Lord Scroop the same Et haeredibus corpore suo exeuntibus who had issue Stephen who entred and died seised having issue John who entred and died seised having issue Thomas who entred and 3 H. 7. suffered a Common Recovery to the use of himself and his heirs The Recoverers enfeoffed Thomas seised also of many other Lands and had issue Ralph Jeofry Alice Elizabeth and Margery and afterwards died seised Ralph Lord Scroop entred and thereof did enfeoff divers persons unto the use of himself and Eleanor his wife for their lives and the heirs males of the said Ralph and afterwards the said Ralph being possessed of the said Charter of entail made ut supra by Guntwardy 7 H. 8. Devised that the Feoffees should be seised of the said Manor of Nayland to the use of himself and Eleanor his wife for their lives and if they died without issue of the body of the said Ralph the said Jeofry then living that then the Feoffees should be seised to the use of the said Jeofry being his Vncle for his life and after his decease ad usum Rectorum haeredum in perpetuum secundum antiquam Evidentiam inde ante factam with an averment that the said Ralph at the time of the said Devise and of his death was possessed of the Charter of Entail made by the said Guntwardy and that the said Charter was the most ancient Evidence of the said concerning the said Manor Ralph died without issue possessed of the said Charter by which the Feoffees were seised of the said Manor of Nayland to his use for life and after to the use of the said Jeofry for life and after his decease of the right heirs of the body of Henry Lord Scroop lawfully begotten by reason of the said Devise and the said Charter and of the residue of the Manors to the use of the said Jeofry and his heirs Eleanor died after whose decease the Feoffees were seised of the said Manor of Nayland to the use of the said Jeofry right heir of the said Henry Lord Scroop of his body begotten and of the other lands to the use of the said Jeofry in Fee Jeofry died without issue by which the Feoffees were seised to the use of the said Alice Elizabeth and Margery Cosins and heirs of the body of the said Henry Scroop c. And of the heirs of the bodies of the said Alice Elizabeth and Margery lawfully begotten by reason of the said Devise and Charter as to the said Manor of Nayland and of the other Manors to their use in Fee And afterwards the said Alice took to husband James Strangways who had issue Thomas Elizabeth took to husband Fitz Randolph who had issue Elizabeth Dorothy Agnes Alice Margery took to husband Danby who had issue Sir Christopher Danby named in the Bar and afterwards all the said husbands and their wives died by force of which the said Feoffees were seised of one part of the said Manor of Nayland in three parts to be divided to the use of the said Thomas Strangways and of another part to the use of the four daughters of the said Elizabeth and her husband Fitz Randolph and of another such part to the use of the said Christopher Danby and of their heirs in Tail and of the other lands to the use of them in Fee in degree of Coparcinary Elizabeth the eldest daughter of Fitz Randolph took to husband Shirley Dorothy her sister took to husband Eshe Agnes took to husband Maynel and Alice took to husband Dranfield Thomas Strangways had issue James and died And afterwards partition was made by which to James Strangways were allotted lands in Kent and agreed that the Feoffees should be seised of the said lands to the use of the said James and his heirs and to no other use To Sherley and Elizabeth his wife lands in Essex were allotted and agreed upon the partition that the Feoffees should be seised to the use of them c. in Fee c. And to Danby the said Manor of Nayland in tail by reason of the Devise and Charter aforesaid as to the said Manor of Nayland and of other lands in Fee. And afterwards 23 E. 8. notice was given to the Feoffees of the said partition and averred that the partition was equal c. and that the Feoffees were seised to the use of the said partition untill 27 H. 8. and confessed the Lease made by Danby to Calton and all the assignments set forth in the Bar to the Avowry and farther shewed That Thomas Danby
Inhabitants had used to till and sowe their Lands c. and they had used to be discharged of their Tithes of rakings after that the shocks were carried away And Coke who was of Council with the Parson durst not demurr upon it but traversed the Prescription Wray Chief Iustice The want of Meadow and Pasture in the Parish is the great matter here and there is not any mischief here as if they had surmised that for want of Meadow and Pasture they had eaten their Meadows with their Cattel And it was held by the whole Court that it was a good Prescription XXXI The Queen and Partridge 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 1 Cro. 125. IN a Quo Warranto brought against Partridge It was holden by all the Iustices That a man might prescribe to hold a Leet oftner than twice in a year and at other days than are set forth in the Statute of Magna Charta Cap. 35. because the said Statute is in the affirmative But Popham Attorney General said That one cannot prescribe against a Statute And it was moved by him If a general Pardon be granted with general Exception in it he which will have advantage of it ought to plead it and shew that he is not any person excepted for otherwise the Iudges cannot allow him the benefit of it because they do not know if he be a person excepted or not But if there be special persons excepted by name and no others excepted but so many persons there he need not to plead it for the Court may discern J. D. from J. S. 8 E. 4. 7. vide 26 H. 8. 7. If a man commits Felony and also Treason and afterwards comes a general pardon for Felony but Treason is excepted and the party is arraigned for Felony By Coke he shall have the benefit of the pardon Popham contrary For he is disabled by the Treason See Coke's Case 13 Eliz. Plowd 401. he pleaded to the Felony the general pardon by Act of Parliament and added that neither himself nor the said offence was excepted And it was agreed by the whole Court That in a Quo Warranto it is not sufficient for the Defendant to say That such a Subject hath lawfull interest to hold Leets without making title to himself for the Writ is Quo Warranto he claims them And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Queen XXXII Woodward and Bugg 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench WOodward libelled in the Spiritual Court against Bugg and Nelson for Tithes of certain Lands called Christian-Hill 1 Cro. 188. Owen Rep. 103. 2 Roll. 63. 3 Len. 257. The Defendant sued a Prohibition and surmised That one Prettiman was seised of the said Land and in consideration of 5 l. by him paid to the said Parson it was agreed betwixt them That the said Prettiman and his assigns should be discharged of the Tithes of the said Lands during his life And afterwards the said Prettiman leased the same to the Defendants upon which a Prohibition was granted and it was holden that the party need not to make proof thereof within six months for it is not within the Statute because a composition with the Parson But now a consultation was granted in the same Cause because the agreement is shewed but no need of it the which cannot be any discharge but if it had been for a time i. Unica vice it had been good but contrary being for life Also there is not any express Grant of Tithes but onely a Covenant and agreement that he should be discharged upon which he may have an Action but no Prohibition It was said on the other side That although without Deed Tithes cannot pass in point of interest yet by way of discharge they well may Coke It was holden betwixt Pendleton and Green That upon such words of Covenant and agreement the party should hold the Lands discharged of Tithes which was denied For if the Grantee of a Rent-charge will grant it to the Lands without Deed it is not good And there was of late a Case betwixt Westbed and Pepper where it was agreed betwixt the Parson and one of his Parish that for twenty shillings Rent per ann the Parishioner should be discharged of Tithes for twenty years if he lived so long and it was holden that no Prohibition did lie thereupon a Fortiori where the Estate is for life Gawdy In a Case of grant of Tithes for life a Deed is requisite but here it is but a Covenant for money See 21 H. 6. 43. Wray If it had been for years it had been good but here it is not any Contract but onely a discharge for life which cannot be during his life without Deed And afterwards the Record was read which was Concordatum agreatum fuit between the two parties pro omnibus decimis during the time that one should be Parson and the other occupier of the said Lands that in consideration of 5 l. the said Prettiman and his assigns should hold the said Lands discharged of Tithes Wray The same is not a Contract but Promise for he doth not grant any Tithes c. XXXIII Devered and Ratcliff 's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 185. That he himself had brought an Action in London against one A. and had Iudgment to remove and a Capias was awarded and issued forth to take the said A. in execution upon which Non est inventus was returned upon which one of the sureties of A. being in prison in London under the custody of the Defendant upon a Plaint against him was detained in Prison for the said Debt so recovered against A. Secundum consuetudinem Civitatis praedict prout per record ejusdem Curiae apparet and after the Defendant suffered the surety to escape upon which there was a demurr The matter was If the said surety was a Prisoner in Law for the said Debt as surety of A. for in the Declaration it is not expresly laid that there was such a custom in London ut supra but onely Secundum consuetudinem c. And secondly there were two sureties of A. and the one of them onely is detained in execution Also the custome as it is here laid is not reasonable For a Scire facias ought to issue out against the sureties and they ought not to be taken or detained in execution presently For the condition of the Recognizance of sureties is That they bring in the Defendant if he be condemned or to pray the Debt and now by this custome the party who is surety being taken cannot plead the release of the Plaintiff or the death of the Defendant in his discharge as he might upon a Scire facias which was agreed per Curiam and adjudged accordingly XXXIV Clark and Green 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench AN Action upon the Case was brought for these words He liveth by Charming Sorcery and Witchcraft It was moved
15 E. 4. 29. And he agreed the Case That if the Lord doth improve part of the common that he shall not have common in the residue of the Land for the Lands improved because That he cannot prescribe for that which is improved as the Book is in 5 Ass But here in the principal Case he doth not prescribe in any person certain or in or for any new thing but he sets forth that the use of the Town hath always been that the inhabitants should have common there And this common is not common appendent or appertinent but common in gross See Needham 37 H. 6. 34. b. And he said That if the house of a Freeholder which hath used to have such common doth fall down and he erecteth a new house in another place of the Land that he shall have common to that new erected house as he had before And he took a difference betwixt the case of Estovers where a new Chimney is erected and this Case and he stood much upon the manner of the prescription Gawdy Serjeant contrary And he took exception to the prescription For he said that it is said therein That it is Antiqua Villa but he doth not say that it hath been so time out of mind c. and so it ought to be said as the Book is in 15 E. 4. 29. a. And then if it be not an ancient Town time out of mind the parties cannot prescribe as Inhabitants of the said Town to have common time out of mind c. And he said That if such a prescription as is said in this Case be good in Law viz. That every one who erected a new house within the said Town should have common to his said new house the same should be prejudicial to the ancient Town and to the utter overthrow and manifest impairing of the common there and it might so happen that one who had but little Lands in the said Town might erect twenty new houses there and so an infinite number of houses might be newly erected there and there should be common allowed to every Inhabitant within the said new erected houses which should be inconvenient and unreasonable Anderson chief Iustice He who erects a new house cannot prescribe in the common for then a prescription might begin at this day which cannot be and he insisted much upon the general loss which should happen to the ancient Tenants if such a prescription for new erections should be good Periam If it should be Law That he should have common in this Case That all the benefit which the Statute gives to the Lord for improvement should be taken away by such new edifications and erection of new houses which were not reasonable And such was the opinion of the other Iustices and therefore they all agreed that in the principal Case the Plaintiff should not have common to this new erected house but the entry of the Iudgment was respited untill the Court had seen the Record and after they had seen and considered upon the Record Anderson and Periam were of opinion as before But Windham did not encline to the contrary but they all agreed That he who set up again a new Chimney where an old one was before should have Estovers to the said new Chimney and so if he build a new house upon the foundation of an old house That he should have common to his said house new erected So if a house falleth down and the Tenant or Inhabitant sets up a new house in the same place Also if a man hath a Mill and a Water-course to it time out of mind which he hath used time out of mind to cleanse if the Mill falleth and he erecteth a new Mill there he shall have the Watercourse and liberty to cleanse it as it had before and afterwards the same Term Iudgment was given for the Defendant to which Windham Iustice agreed LIX Rous and Artois Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was large but the points in this Case were but two Owen Rep. 27. 4 Co. 24. The first was If Tenant per auter vye after the death of Cestuy que vye holdeth over If he be a Disseisor or not The second point was If Tenant at will or at sufferance be such a Tenant of the Manor as he may grant Copyhold Estates to Copyholders For the first point It was agreed by Godfrey and he held that the principal Case was That if Tenant pur auter vye holdeth over the life of Cestuy que vye that he thereby gaineth the Fee But he granted the Cases That where a man holdeth at the will of another that after the Estate determined if he holdeth over he hath not thereby gained fee for he is Tenant at sufferance and as Littleton saith in his Chapter of Releases 108. Tenant at sufferance is where a man of his own head occupieth the Lands and Tenements at the will of him who hath the Freehold and such an occupier claims nothing but at will But he said That in the principal Case he otherwise claimed than at the will of the Lessor for that it appeareth that he hath granted Copy and he said that this difference doth give answer to the Case which is t. H. 8. br t. per Copy 18. where it is said for Law That none is Tenant at sufferance but he who first enters by authority of Law As if a man makes a Lease for years or for the life of another and he holdeth the Lands after his term expired or after the death of Cestuy que vye If he claim nothing but at the will of him who hath the Freehold he is a Tenant at sufferance But if he holdeth in the Lands against the will of his Lessor then he is a Disseisor and so if he do act after such continuance of possession contrary to the will of his Lessor he is a Disseisor 10 E. 4. If an Infant maketh a Lease at will and the Lessor dieth and the Lessee continueth in possession and claims Fee the Heir shall have Mortdancester 18 E. 4. If Cestuy que vye dieth and the Tenant hold in and was impleaded The Lessor shall not be received and he conceived the reason of the Case to be because that the reversion was not in him but that the Fee was gained and rested in the other 22 E. 4. 39. g. by Hussey If a Termor holdeth over his term there an Estate in Fee is confessed to be in him because he holdeth the possession of the Lands by wrong but there is a Quaere made of it if he be a Disseisor or not but I conceive that he is for Trespass doth not lie against him before the Lessor hath made his entry and therefore if the Lessee doth continue in the possession of the Lands by reason of the first entry that is the reason as I conceive that the Writ of Entre ad terminum qui praeteriit lieth against such a Termor who holds so over his Term and
14. but contrary in a Writ of Habere facias seisinam or in a Liberate for in these Writs there are not such words and therefore although they be not retorned Execution done by virtue of them is good enough See 11 H. 4. 212. If the Sheriff by force of an Elegit doth deliver the moyety of the Land and doth not retorn the Writ if the Plaintiff will plead a new Action of Debt the Defendant may plead in Bar the Execution aforesaid although the Writ be not retorned nor doth remain upon Record and it is not like unto the Case of Partition made by the Sheriff for that must be retorned because that after the Retorn of it a secondary Iudgment is to be given scil Quod Partitio praedict firma stabilis remaneat in perpetuum firma stabilis in perpetuum tenetur says the Book of Entries 114. And Egerton the Solicitor-General cited a Case to be lately adjudged betwixt the Earl of Leicester and the Lady Tanfield Earl of Leicester and Tanfields case That such an Execution was well enough although the Liberate was not retorned The second point was Admitting that it be a good Execution If the Executors being in possession of the Manor and suffering the Conusor to hold a Court there and saying the words aforesaid in the presence of the Lord who is Conusor if the same do amount unto a Surrender or not And it was the Opinion of Wray chief Iustice That it was not a Surrender for that here the words are not addressed to the Conusor who was capable of a Surrender but to other persons And it is not like unto the Case of 40 E. 3. 23 24. Chamberlains Assise where Tenant for life saith to him in the Reversion That his Will is that he enter upon the Land the same is a good Surrender because here is a person certain who may take the Land But in our case it is but a general speech and therefore it shall not be a Surrender LXVI Baskervile and Bishop of Hereford 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit brought by Walter Baskervile against the Bishop of Hereford and others the Plaintiff counted That Sir Nicholas Arnold Knight was seised of the Advowson in gross and granted the same to the said Baskervile and others to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of Richard Arnold his Son in tail Proviso That if the said Nicholas died his Heir being within the age of twenty three years that then the Grantees and their Heirs should be seised to themselves and their Heirs until the said Richard had accomplished the said age Sir Nicholas died Richard being but of the age of fourteen years by force whereof the Grantees were possessed of the said Advowson c. and afterwards the Church became void and so it appertained to them to present Exception was taken to the Count by Serjeant Gawdy because the Plaintiff had not averred the life of Richard upon whose life the interest of the Plaintiff did depend and he compared the same to the Case of the Parson which had been adjudged where the Lessee of a Parson brought an Ejectione Firmae and it was found for him and in Arrest of Iudgment Exception was taken to the Declaration because the life of the Parson was not averred and for that cause the Iudgment was stayed Anderson Vpon the dying of Sir Nicholas Richard being but of the age of fourteen years an absolute Interest for nine years vested in the Grantees not determinable upon the death of Richard or rather they are seised of a Fee determinable upon the coming of Richard to the age of 23 years Rhodes and Windham Iustices contrary and that here is an Interest in the Grantees determinable upon the death of Richard within the term for if Richard dieth without issue within the term the Remainder is limited over to a stranger And as to the Exception to the Count it was argued by Puckering Serjeant That the Count was good enough for although the life of Richard be not expresly added yet such an averment is strongly implied and so supplyed For the Count is Quod dictus Nich. obiit dicto Richardo being of the age of fourteen years non amplius by force of which the Plaintiff was possessed of the said Advowson quo quidem Nich. sic possessionato existente the Church voided and possessed he could not be if not that the said Richard had then been alive and that is as strong as an Averment See 10 E. 4. 18. In Trespass for breaking of his Close the Defendant pleaded That A. was seised and did enfeoff him to which the Plaintiff said That long time before A. had any thing B. was seised and leased to the said A. at will who enfeoffed the Defendant upon whom B. re-entred and leased to the Plaintiff at will by force whereof he was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass and that was allowed to be a good Replication without averring the life of B. who leased to the Plaintiff at will for that is supplied by the words scil virtute cujus the Plaintiff was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass See also 10 H. 7. 12. In an Assise of Common The Defendant made Title that he was seised of a House and a Carve of Land to which he and all those whose Estate he hath c. had common appendant and doth not say That he is now seised of the House but the exception was disallowed for seisin shall be intended to continue untill the contrary be shewed LXVII Morgan and Chandler 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt for Arrerages of Rent by Morgan against Chandler It was found by special Verdict That the Land out of which c. was assured by an Act of Parliament to the Marchioness of Northampton for the term of her life the remainder to the Lady Bourcher her daughter and the heirs males of her body the remainder to King H. 8. in Fee And it was ordained by the same Act Quod omnes concessiones dimissiones Anglice Grants and Leases factae vel in posterum fiendae by the said Marchioness of the Lands aforesaid per script Indentat dict Marchio bonae validae in Lege erunt durante termino c. The Marchioness made a Lease for 21 years to Kenelm Throgmorton rendring 10 l. Rent who assigned the same to the Defendant The Lady Bourcher died without Issue the Marchioness died and if the Lease should now bind the Queen was the Question And it was moved by Clark of Lincoln's-Inn That it should for the King was party to the Act of Parliament and those Estates for life in Tail and in Fee are all as one Estate and derived out of one Estate and the Estate of the King is bound with the Lease and it was moved by Broughton That the Lease should not bind the Queen and so by consequence not her Patentee and he
all this was before the Statute of 14 Eliz. And if the said Recovery should bind B. who was in the remainder in tail or if it be a forfeiture was the Question Altham of Gray's-Inn argued that here is a forfeiture First it is to see if a common Recovery suffered hy Tenant for life who is also Bargainor in this case be a forfeiture or not by the Common Law if no Execution be sued upon the same Recovery Secondly If the Recovery be executed if he in the Remainder may enter for the forfeiture When Tenant for life bargaineth and selleth the Messuage Post 65. acc 1 Len. 264. 1 Inst 251. b. acc 1 Inst 330. b. c. although upon it an Estate in Fee be limited yet nothing passeth from him but that which he may lawfully pass and that was the Estate for the life of the Bargainor for such Estate onely might lawfully pass and here the Bargainee is but Tenant for the life of another and when with his own consent he suffers a common Recovery and that without right the same is a forfeiture By matter in fact a particular Tenant may commit a forfeiture as well as by matter of Record By matter in fact he cannot commit a forfeiture if the Reversion be not thereby pulled out of him in the reversion As if Lessee for ten years maketh a Lease for 1000 years the same is no forfeiture for by that the Reversion is not touched but if he in matter of Record doe any thing which sounds to the disinheriting of him in the Reversion although in truth it doth not touch the inheritance yet it is a forfeiture which see 39 E. 3. 16. If Tenant for life plead any thing against the right of him in the Reversion it is a forfeiture And by Finchden and Belknap he cannot plead to the right 5 Ass 3. Tenant for life is impleaded in a Praecipe by a stranger and confesseth the Action upon which the Demandant hath Iudgment the Lessor enters against whom the Demandant sueth Execution and the Lessor brought an issue and had Iudgment to recover for it is a forfeiture because the Tenant for life hath admitted the Reversion in another because it is an alienation to the disinheritance of the Plaintiff i. the Lessor 19 E. 3. t. Receit 14. where Tenant for life pleads in chief or doth not gainsay the Action of the Demandant or makes default by Covin he shall forfeit his Estate but if a Rent be demanded against Tenant for life and he render the same it is no forfeiture 22 Ass 31. Tenant for life is impleaded by Covin betwixt him and the Demandant and pleads in chief without aid prayer upon which Iudgment is given he in the Reversion may enter In a Quid juris clamat against Tenant for life who pleaded faulty traversing the point of the Action he in the Reversion shall not be received for in as much as the Tenant hath traversed the Action he is not within the Statute of West 2. of default Reddition but he in the Reversion may enter by the Common Law 22 E. 3. 2. In a Scire facias to execute a Fine against Tenant for life who pleaded to the Enquest whereas in truth the Land in demand was not comprised within the Fine and Iudgment is given for the Demandant in the Scire facias that he in the Reversion may enter In the principal Case here there is apparent and manifest covin for the Tenant for life is vouched without cause and this Recovery is by assent and is to the use of the Bargainee who is Tenant for the life of another and therefore by the Common Law he in the Reversion may enter before the Execution be sued And it is well known that these common Recoveries are used to dock a Remainder in tail and that was the scope of this Recovery And as to the Case of 5 E. 4. 2. Tenant for life is impleaded in a Praecipe quod reddat who voucheth a stranger the Demandant counterpleads the vouchee and it is found for him he in the Reversion hath no remedy but a Writ of Right and if such vouchee enters into the Warranty and loseth by Action tried or by default c. That Book is to be intended of a Recovery executed for there in such a case he in the Reversion may not enter but is put to his Writ of Entry by the Common Law vide Br. Tit. Forfeit 87. 24 H. 8. Tenant for life is impleaded and prayes in aid of a stranger he in the reversion may enter but if he doth not enter untill the other hath recovered then he cannot enter but he is put to his Writ of Entry Ad terminum qui praeteriit vel de ingress ad com Legem and therein shall falsifie the Recovery And there by Brook Voucher of a stranger is not a cause of forfeiture for he doth not disaffirm the Reversion to be in the Lessor And he vouched 24 E. 3. 68. where Tenant for life pleaded in the Right without aid prayer and so he argued That before execution he in the Remainder might enter but after execution he is put to his Action but in our Case although Execution be sued yet he in the Remainder may enter for it is found by verdict That at the time of the Recovery he was within age and then no Laches of entry shall be imputed unto him and then he shall not be driven to his Action As if Tenant by the Curtesie maketh a Feoffment with Warranty and dieth and the same descendeth to his Heir within age yet he shall enter although that he had not avoided the Warranty in the life of his Ancestor And he also conceived that the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 31. did extend to this Case For Sir William Pelham the Bargainee was but Tenant for life and although that he be but Tenant for the life of another yet he is Tenant for life as fully as if he were Tenant for his own life The words of the Statute are or otherwise for the term of life or lives quo ad nom As upon the Statute of 20 E. 1. which gives receit i. de defensione juris the words are Cum quis aliquod Breve Dom. Regis impetret versus tenentem per Legem Angliae vel feodum talliatum vel sub nomine Dotis vel alio modo ad terminum vitae c. Also although that he who entreth at the time of the recovery was not next in the Remainder to the particular Estate yet he is within the Statute of 32 H. 8. for he was in the Remainder at the time of the Recovery and at the time of the entry he in the immediate Remainder was dead and then he next in Remainder See 15 E. 4. 9. by Littleton If I grant my services to one for life and he in a Praecipe brought against him plead in the Right or granteth unto another the said services in Fee the same is not any
forfeiture because it is not any discontinuance It will be objected That the words of the Statute of 32 H. 8. are That such Recoveries shall be utterly void and if so then he in the Reversion cannot be damnified and then no cause of forfeiture To that it was easily to be answered That where Tenant for life doth any thing which sounds to the disinheriting of him in the Reversion by matter of Record although it doth not devest or otherwise prejudice the Inheritance yet it is a forfeiture Coke contrary Here in our Case there is not any Covin Sir William Pelham the Bargainee he was deceived by the Bargainor for he did not know but that the Bargainor was seised in tail at the time of the Bargain and it was lawfull for him to doe other act in the farther assurance of his bargain and it was also lawfull for him to vouch his Bargainor and although the Bargainor vouched a stranger yet it is not a forfeiture 39 E. 3. 16. Aid prayer of a stranger is a forfeiture and the reason thereof is because he acknowledgeth the Reversion to be in a stranger and that is the cause of the forfeiture See Book of Entries 254. Where upon aid prayer the party to have aid sheweth special matter but in our Case Sir William Pelham hath vouched his Bargainor and that not without cause for he hath a Warranty from him and the Demandant could not counterplead it for he had seisin by force whereof he might make a Feoffment As unto the Case of 14 E. 3. Tit. Receit 135. Lesse for life in a Praecipe against him without aid prayer pleaded to the Enquest at the first day in that case it is said that he in the Reversion may enter It is true that he may enter in the Receit but not into the Land for forfeiture for then Fitz. would have abridged the Case in title of Entry Congeable and not in the Title of Receit and the Book of 5 E. 3. is good Law for there the Tenant doth confess the Reversion to be in another but in our Case the Tenant voucheth which is a lawfull act done and according to the Covenants of his purchase And although the Recovery be by agreement yet it is not therefore a forfeiture for if the Tenant for life voucheth truly it is no forfeiture Before the Statute of West 2. cap. 3. which gave Receit to the Wife and to those in the Reversion where the particular Tenant is impleaded and maketh default vel reddere noluerit there was no remedy in such cases but by Writ of Right but no entry and that was for the reason of the credit which the Law gave to Recoveries for if they might enter wherefore is Receit given but that was in two cases onely But afterwards because it was found that many particular Tenants being impleaded would plead faintly the Statute of 13 R. 2. gave receit in such cases And upon what reasons were these Acts and Statutes made if in such cases the entry was congeable But after these two Statutes another practice was devised for such particular Tenants would suffer Recoveries secretly in such sort that those in the Reversion could not have notice thereof so as they could not before Iudgement pray to be received to remedy which mischief the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made by which all Recoveries had against Tenant by the Curtesie or otherwise for life or lives by agreement of the parties of any Lands whereof such particular Tenant is seised shall be void as Tenant by the Curtesie c. should be void against him in the Reversion and yet there was an evasion to creep out of that Statute for such particular Tenants would make a Feoffment with Warranty and then the Feoffee should be impleaded in a Writ of Entry and he vouch the Tenant for life who would aver and such Recovery was holden to be out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. For the Recovery was not against such particular Tenants c. For the remedy of which mischief the Statute of 14 Eliz. was made by which it is provided That such Recoveries had where such particular Tenants are vouched shall be void if such Recovery be by Covin betwixt them And he conceived That the forfeiture is not in respect of the Recovery it self but of the Plea pleaded by the Tenant And here in our Case there is not any Covin found or that Sir William Pelham knew that he was but Tenant for life but it is found that this Recovery was with their assent and that was lawfull as the case is for they might agree to have such a Recovery for farther assurance and so Sir William Pelham hath not vouched any but his Bargainor and that according to their Covenants and this Bargainor was not a bare Tenant for life but he had also a Remainder in tail although not immediately depending upon the Estate for life which he had cut off there it was not meerly a feigned Recovery See 5 E. 4. 2. and 24 H. 8. br Forfeit 87. where Tenant for life being impleaded in a Praecipe voucheth a stranger the same is no Forfeiture for the same doth not disaffirm the Reversion but contrary of Aid prayer for a stranger may release with warranty to Tenant for life upon which he may vouch And he reported in his Argument That Bromley Chancellor of England sent him to both the chief Iustices to know their Opinions upon this point and they were of Opinion That the Voucher of a stranger was not any Forfeiture and also that after the Recovery was executed he in the Remainder could not enter but they conceided that the Right of him in the Remainder was not bound And he said That after the Recovery was executed that he in the remainder could not enter See 24 H. 8. Br. Forfeit 87. For if Entry in such Cases should be lawfull infinite Suits would follow thereupon which would be much to the Discredit of common Recoveries which are now the Common Assurances of the Land. As to the objection of the Enfancy the same will not help the matter Br. Sav. Default 50. 6 H. 8. A Recovery had against an Infant in which he voucheth and loseth is not erroneous contrary of a Recovery upon a default And if an Infant Tenant in tail suffer a common Recovery the same is a discontinuance for in such Recoveries Infancy is not respected And in a Scire facias upon a Iudgment had against the Father the Heir shall not have his age And he cited a case out of Bendloe's Reports 5 Eliz. Tenant for life the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee Tenant for life is disseised by Covin in a Praecipe quod reddat against the Disseisor he voucheth the Tenant for life who enters into warranty generally and voucheth over the common Vouchee It was adjudged That the Recovery was out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. for the Recovery was not had against the particular Tenant for he
was both against the common Law and also against all Conscience These matters coming to the knowledge of the Iustices and the mischiefs thereupon following being very frequent and it appearing that the Tenant in tail was a dangerous fellow and that there was no safe dealing with him they took consideration of them and considering also with themselves That Lineal Warranty and Assets and Collateral Warranty without Assets did bar the Entail upon this consideration they grounded the practice and usage of common Recoveries So as by that means Tenant in tail hath Potestatem alienandi as he hath at the Common Law and by this means right was done to the Common Law because its authority was restored and thereby injury was done to no man But as for Tenant for life he never had Potestatem alienandi And as to that which hath been said That the recovery shall stand in force untill after the death of Tenant for life and in our Case here Tenant in tail is alive Truly if the Law should be such great mischiefs would follow For then great Iointresses the Widows of great persons having assurances to them of great and stately Houses and of Lands furnished with Timber of great yearly value might suffer such Recoveries and so having plucked the Fee out of the Heirs might commit waste and the same should be dispunishable which would be an intolerable mischief and so he concluded that the suffering of a Recovery was a forfeiture and Iudgment Trin. 21 Eliz. was given and entred accordingly XC Noon 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer DEBT was brought in London against one as Executor and upon fully administred pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff who assigned the same to the Queen whereupon a Scire facias issued out of the Exchequer against the Defendant into the County of Dorset The Serhiff retorned Nulla bona c. which Scire facias was upon a Constat of goods in another County It was agreed by all the Barons that the Debt was well assigned to the Queen And also that the Scire facias might issue forth of another Court than where the Record of the Iudgment remained and that upon a Constat of goods in another County than where the Writ is brought or where the party is dwelling he may well have a Scire facias in another County But the Retorn was challenged because contrary to the verdict As in a Replevin No such beast is not a good Retorn but Averia elongata or Nullus venit ex parte querentis ad monstrand averia And here the Sheriff might have retorned Devastavit which well stands with the Verdict 5 H. 7. 27. But as to that it was said by the Barons That it is true that the Sheriff of the County where the Writ was brought is concluded by the Verdict to make any retorn contrary to it but the Sheriff of another County shall not so be but the Sheriff of the County where the Writ is brought ought to retorn Devastavit c. and thereupon the Plaintiff shall have Process into another County But the Question farther was If a Scire facias upon Testatum shall issue into another County before that the Sheriff of the County where the Writ is brought had retorned a Devastavit for some conceived That a Devastavit where the Writ was brought ought first to be retorned and then upon a Testatum Process should issue forth into any County within England But others were of opinion That without a Devastavit retorned upon a Testatum Process might be sued forth immediately into any other County Williams said If I recover goods by Action brought in Midd. I may upon a Testatum have a Capias into any foreign County XCI Western and Weild 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN a Writ of Accompt brought in London the Defendant pleaded Never his Receiver c. which was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgement given that the Defendant should accompt Afterwards the Defendant brought his Writ of Privilege and if the same should be allowed after Iudgment was the Question Coke It shall be allowed for the Defendant hath not surceased his time This Iudgement to accompt is not properly a Iudgment for no Writ of Error lieth upon it before the accompt be ended Manwood Regularly after Iudgment no privilege shall be allowed but that is to be intended of a Iudgment ended but here notwithstanding this Iudgment the Action is depending and therefore he conceived that the privilege should be allowed in this case It was objected That then the Plaintiff should be at great mischief for he should lose the advantage of his Trial for he must begin again and plead again and have a new Trial. Clark the Plaintiff shall have benefit of his former Trial by way of Evidence XCII Brian and Cawsen 's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Rot. 1353. 3 Len. 115. IN an Action of Trespass by Brian and his Wife and others against Cawsen That William Gardiner was seised in Fee according to the custome of the Manor of C. of certain Lands and surrendred them to the use of his last Will by which he devised them in this manner i. I bequeath to John Th. my House and Land in M. called Larks and Sone To Steph. Th. my House and Land called Stokes and Newmans and to Roger Th. my House and Lands called Lakins and Brox. Moreover If the said John Stephen or Roger live till they be of lawfull age and have issue of their bodies lawfully begotten then I give the said Lands and Houses to them and their Heirs in manner aforesaid to give and sell at their pleasure but if it fortune one of them to die without issue of his body lawfully begotten Then I will that the other brothers or brother have all the said Houses and Lands in manner aforesaid and if it fortune the three to die without issue in like manner Then I will that all the said Houses and Lands be sold by my Executor or his Assigns and the money to be given to the poor The Devisor dieth John Stephen and Roger are admitted according to the intent of the Will Roger dieth within age without issue John and Stephen are admitted to his part John comes of full age and hath issue J. and surrenders all his part of the whole and his Estate therein to the use of Stephen and his heirs who is admitted accordingly Stephen comes of full age John the father dieth Stephen dieth without issue John the son as cosin and heir of Stephen is admitted according to the Will and afterwards dieth without issue The Wives of the Plaintiffs are heirs to him and are admitted to the said Lands called Larks and Sone and to the moyety of the Lands called Lakins and Brox parcell of Lands where c. by force whereof they enter into all the Lands where the Trespass is done and it was found That A. sole Executor died intestate and that Cawsen
Son living his Father cannot take as heir i. by limitation as Heir to his Father because that none can be said or held Heir to his Father as long as the Father be alive yet by way of Devise the Law shall favour the intention of the party and the intent of the Devisor shall prevail But all the Court was strongly against it and held that as well in Case of Devise as of Grant all is one Whereupon the Tenant produced Witnesses who affirmed upon their Oaths That the Devisor declared his meaning concerning the said Will That as long as his eldest Son had issue of his body that the Daughters should not have the Land but the Court utterly rejected the matter and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XCV the Countess of Linnox Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN this Case it was said by Manwood chief Baron That whereas the Cistercians c. had a Privilege that they should not pay Tithes for their Lands quas propriis manibus excolant but their Fermors should pay Tithes and now by the Statute of 31 H. 8. they are dissolved That the Queen and her Fermors should be discharged of such Tithes as the spiritual persons were for the Queen cannot excolere ergo her Fermors shall be discharged and so long as the Queen hath the Freehold her Fermors shall have such Privilege although she Leaseth for years or at Will But if the Queen granteth over the Reversion then the Fermors shall pay Tithes More Rep. 915. XCVI Golding 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action upon the Case against Gloding the Case was 1 Len. 296. 1 Cro. 50. Noy 18. A Feme sole being Tenant for life by Devise of Lands Leased the same for years to begin after her death and afterwards made another Lease 18 Octob. for twenty one years to the same Lessee to begin at Michaelmas before and the Pleading was Virtute cujus quidem dimissionis and the Lessee entred Crast Sanct. Mich. which was before the making of the Lease And upon the Grant of these two Leases the consideration of Assumpsit was grounded in an Action of the Case thereupon and six hundred pounds damages given And now this was moved in Arrest of Iudgment Coke for the Plaintiff Where two Considerations are laid down in the Declaration although that the one be void yet if the other be sufficient the Action upon the Assumpsit lieth and damages shall be taken accordingly And the Grant upon the Assumpsit was That both the Leases should be assigned to the Defendant and the Plaintiff hath declared accordingly although that one of the Leases be void And the Agreement was That the Plaintiff should assign totum statum titulum interesse suum quae habet in c. It appears here in the Pleading That the Lease was made the eighteenth of October and the Lessee did enter and was thereof possessed Crast Mich. which was before and so the Lessee then entering was a Disseisor But by Coke the same is not a Disseisin although that the Lessee entreth before the Lease made for there was a communication of a Lease although the Lease was not made before the eighteenth of October and peradventure it was by assent of the Lessor in which case it cannot be a Disseisin but be it a Disseisin yet in as much as he hath assigned all his interest quod ipse tunc habuit the Consideration is answered and he hath also delivered both the Indentures of Demise and hath granted all that which he might grant be such Grant void or good it is good Consideration enough as to us Egerton Solicitor contrary In every Action upon the Case upon a Promise there are three things considerable Consideration Promise and Breach of Promise As to the Consideration in our Case the Grant of the Lease which is to begin after the death of the Lessor is merely void And as to the second Consideration it appeareth That the Lessor at the time of the making of the Lease had but a Right for he was disseised for he who was afterwards the Lessee entred before he had any Lease made unto him and so here is not any consideration to ground the Assumpsit upon But admit that there be a consideration yet the Action doth not lie For 19 Eliz. a difference was taken by the Iustices scil When in the Declaration in an Action upon the Case two or more considerations are laid and are not collateral but pursuant As if I owe you an hundred pounds and I say That in consideration that I owe you 100 l. and in consideration that you shall give me 10 l. I promise to pay unto you the said hundred pounds which I owe you If you bring an Action upon the Case against me for the hundred pounds and lay in your Declaration both considerations although you do not pay me the ten pounds yet the Action lieth But where the considerations are not pursuant but meerly collateral and do not depend the one upon the other As in consideration that you are of my Councel and you shall ride with me to York I promise to give to you an hundred pounds there both considerations ought to be performed or otherwise the Action doth not lie and so here in the principal Case the considerations being collateral they both ought to be performed Afterwards upon consideration had of the Case by the Court Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and it was said by Coke That there was not any Disseisin in the Case but he who entred was Tenant at sufferance by reason of the precedent communication XCVII Curtise and Cottel 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was this That one Bonham was seised of a Manor within which there were divers Customary Lands demisable by Copy for three lives The Lord of the Manor did demise some of those Lands to three Sisters Habendum to them for their lives successive for the Fine of 100 l. by them paid and they being seised accordingly the eldest Sister who was Tenant in possession took to Husband one Chapman after which the said Lord by Indenture leased the same Land to the eldest Sister the Remainder to the Husband the Remainder to the second Sister and no Agreement was made thereunto by the second Sister by Deed before or after the making of the Indenture but four days after the Lease made she agreed to it in the Country and then took to Husband Curtise and they entred claiming the said Land upon which Entry the Action was brought The point was That when the Lease by Indenture was made to the eldest Sister at which time no agreement was made by the second Sister who was in Remainder yet when after she agreed If by that Agreement her Right to the Copihold were extinct or not so as the interest of the eldest Sister being gone by the acceptance of the Estate by the Indenture the second Sister might come and claim
case Tithe shall not be paid but of the other part If the most part of the Wood be Sallows c. and here and there sparsim groweth an Oak c. and the Owner cuts down all the Wood and makes Faggots as before Tithes in such case shall be paid of them CVI. The Queen and Lord Lumley 's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer Hob. 304. 3 Len. 101. BEtwixt the Queen and the Lord Lumley it was moved in the Exchequer Queen Mary seised of the Rectory of D. granted advocationem Ecclesiae de D. If now by this Grant the Advowson passeth as now disappendant or the Rectory it self passeth as appropriate or nothing at all passeth was the Question And by Manwood chief Baron the Advowson doth not pass but doth remain appropriate as it was before for the Church as it was appropriate by a judicial act so without such an act it cannot be disappropriate And he said That by the Grant of the Advowson the Rectory did not pass for by the Appropriation the Advowson is gone and is not in esse and so by consequence cannot be granted And it is not within the Statute of 4 and 5 Ph. and Ma. of Confirmation of Grants of the King for the said Statute doth onely help misrecital misnaming mistaking c. but here there is no such thing in rerum natura as the Patentee pretendeth to be passed by the Patent and if it were in the case of a Subject nothing would pass Sand's Case as it was adjudged in one Sand's Case 11 Eliz. And he said that at this day a Parsonage may be disappropriated but that ought to be by a judicial act as by Presentment and not by any other private act of the Proprietor Roll. 240. Tit. Appropriat And so he said a Church was disappropriated by the Lord Dyer by Presentment which of late he made unto it CVII Herring and Badlock 's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 3 Len. 94. A Replevin was brought by Herring against Badlock who avowed for damage-feasant and shewed That the Lady Jerningham was seised of such a Manor whereof the place where c. and Leased the same to the Defendant for years c. The Plaintiff said That long time before King Henry the eighth was seised of the said Manor and that the place where c. is parcel of the said Manor demised and demiseable by Copy c. And that the said King by such a one his Steward demised and granted the said parcel unto the Ancestor of the Plaintiff whose Heir he is by Copy in Fee c. and upon that there was a Demurrer because that by that bar to the Avowry the Lease set forth in the Avowry is not answered for the Plaintiff in the bar unto the Avowry ought to have concluded And so was he seised by the Custome until the Avowant praetextu of the said term for years entred And so it was adjudged CVIII Moor and Sir John Savage 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case by Moor against Sir John Savage and his Wife for that the said Lady had reported That Moor was a lying Knave and a perjured Knave The Defendant justified That where an Estate for life absolute was devised to the said Lady by her former Husband the Plaintiff had deposed that the said Land was devised to the said Lady if she kept her self sole Postea 102 103. To which the Plaintiff replicando said Of his own wrong without such cause Egerton Solicitor did demur upon it for he said The Plea goeth to all the justification before for where part of a Plea scil the justification is matter of fact and part is matter of Record there Of his own wrong c. is no good Plea but there ought to be a special Traverse absque hoc that he so deposed or absque hoc that the Devise was absolute And this Plea here Of his own wrong c. goes to matters in fact onely and such which lie in the notice of the Iury See 5 H. 7. 6. Although that divers matters are alledged in the bar yet this Plea Of his own wrong without such cause c. extends to all where no matter of Record is alledged in the Plea As in false Imprisonment a Capias is directed to the Sheriff being Defendant to arrest the Plaintiff in such case such general Plea is not good but there he may plead Nul tiel Record See also 13 H. 7. 3. 21 H. 6. 5. And here a principal matter in the justification is matter of Record and therefore such a Plea here is not good Altham contrary If the principal matter in such justification be matter of Record then such a Plea is not sufficient but if the matter of Record be but inducement then the Plea is good enough And he vouched 45 E. 3. 7. In Trespass the Defendant saith That he is Forester of the said Forest of B. and at a Swanmoot it was presented by the Foresters Verderors Regardors and Agistors That the Plaintiff had taken Deer in the said Forest upon which the Defendant came to the Plaintiff and prayed him to find Pledges to answer before Iustices in Eyre c. and he refused so to do for which cause he kept the Plaintiff until he made agreement and demanded Iudgment if any wrong c. and the Plaintiff replicando said Of his own wrong c. and the issue was accepted of by the Court yet he said the Presentment in the Swanmoot was not matter of Record but onely inducement and the Request to find Sureties which he would not for which cause he took and imprisoned him the same was the principal matter and but matter in fact and therefore he said that the Plea was good and he said that in this case the Oath is not on Record And Coke said That in the Cases put by Altham Of his own wrong without such cause is a good Plea with an absque hoc unto the matter of Record See the Book of Entries 320. see 30 H. 8. Action upon the Case 104. without that that he swore modo forma It was adjourned CIX Firrell and the hundred of B 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Statute of Hue and Cry by Firrell against the Hundred of B. The Defendants pleaded Not guilty and in Evidence the Plaintiff to prove that he was robbed as he had declared offered to the Iury his oath in making good his Declaration which Anderson and Periam Iustices utterly refused But Windham affirmed That such an oath had been accepted in the Case of one Harrinton where the Plaintiff could not have other Evidence to prove his Cause in respect of secrecy For those who have occasion to travel about their business will not acquaint others what money or other things they have with them in their journies And we see that in some causes the
Scire facias shall issue forth against the Sureties and thereupon a Capias And this question If the Capias in this case lieth or not is to be decided either by Audita Querela in the Chancery or by Error in the King's Bench for the said Courts have authority to affirm the proceedings or to disaffirm them And here the Question was If Woodhouse were imprisoned or no and not if the Capias erronice emanavit or not And he took a difference where Process is awarded out of a Court which hath not authority of the Principal cause there it is coram non judice and the Process is void and if the Sheriff taketh the party by force of such Process it is meerly void and he a Trespassor but contrary if the Court hath authority of the principal cause there if the Process be misconceived it is onely erroneous 10 Co. 76. An unskilfull man in Chancery makes an Appeal of Murther retornable in the Common Pleas and there an unskilfull Clark makes a Capias upon it the same is coram non-judice and not all together void But if in a Writ of Entry in the nature of an Assise the Demandant hath Iudgment to recover Debt and Damages and thereupon issueth a Capias the same is not void for it is but a misawarding of the Process provide emanavit If out of the Common Pleas immediately a Writ issueth to the Sheriff of Chester which is a County Palatine where the King 's Writ doth not run the same is void and false imprisonment lieth upon such a taking A Formedon brought in the King's Bench and upon that a Capias is void coram non judice and the Sheriff is bound to take notice of the Law in such cases that those of the King's Bench have not authority to hold plea in real Actions As to that That Woodhouse was convict of Felony the same shall not avoid the Execution but I grant that the King shall be satisfied before the subject c. And he relied much upon the said Case cited before 13 E. 3. Bar. 253. as to the matter of the Capias 19 H. 9. In Escape the Defendant pleaded a Release of him who recovered to the Prisoner being in Execution and it was holden no Plea. And in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXIII Bridget Clark 's Case Antea 30 31. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer THE Case was Clark was indebted to Archdel by Obligation and afterwards delivered to Andrews certain Hogsheads of Wine to satisfie the said Archdel the said Debt and afterwards the Obligation of Clark is assigned to the Queen for the Debt of Archdel And if the property of the said Hogsheads of Wine were altered by the delivery of them to Andrews before the Assignment was the Question Egerton Solicitor The property is not altered for the Bailor might have an Action of Account against Andrews before that he hath delivered the same over according to the Bailment but if he hath delivered them over the same is a good bar in an Account But if one be accountable to me upon a Bailment and afterwards I do require him to deliver the Goods over to A. the same is not in bar of Account but is good in discharge of account before Auditors for the same is matter after the Bailment not upon the Bailment If Goods be bailed to bail over upon a consideration precedent of his part to whom they ought to be bailed the Bailor cannot countermand it otherwise it is where it is voluntary and without consideration but where it is in consideration of a Debt not countermandable contrary if it be to satisfie the Debt of another Manwood Where the Debtor of the King is sufficient there a Debt due to him ought not to be assigned to the King but onely where the Debt of the King is doubtfull and that was the ancient course but now at this day multi videntur habentur divites qui tamen non sunt and therefore omnis Ratio tentanda est for the Recovery of the King's Debts But as to the Case before us The Wife is Executrix to her Husband who was indebted to Archdel and she delivers the Goods to Andrews to satisfie Archdel and all that is before the Assignment And I am of Opinion That the property of the said Goods is altered for as the case is Andrews was Surety for Clark and hath a Counter-Bond of Clark to save him harmless If I borrow 100 l. and deliver unto the Lender Plate for the security of it the property general of it is in me yet the Bailee hath a special interest in it untill he be paid If Goods be delivered to A. to pay unto B. A. may sell them An Executor hath Goods of the Testators and he with his own Monies payeth the Debts of the Testator he shall retain the Goods and the property is altered And here in our case Andrews may by virtue of this Bailment sell the Goods and with the Monies arising thereof pay the said Archdel And afterwards Iudgment was given accordingly that the property of the Goods by the delivery over by Andrews was altered CXIV Foskew 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer FRancis Foskew seised of the Manor of Foskew in his Demesn as of fee in consideration of a Marriage to be had with Francis his Son with M. Daughter of Sir Edw. Huddleston 9 Feb. 25. Feb. covenanted to levy a Fine of the Manor aforesaid and that the said Fine should be to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives and after their deaths to the use of the said Erancis their Son and M. and the Heirs of their bodies begotten with remainders over The Fine was levied accordingly afterwards 19 Octob. 27 Eliz. Francis the Father acknowledged a Recognizance to the Queen and died his Wife died and now this Manor is extended for the Debt to the Queen by force of the Statute of 33 H. 8. And now Coke came into Court and prayed that the said Manor might be discharged of the Debt to the Queen because it is not chargeable by the said Statute the words of whicih Statute are All Manors Lands Tenements c. which hereafter shall descend remain or revert in Fee-simple tail general or special by from or after the death of any his or their Ancestor or Ancestors as Heir or by Gift of his Ancestor whose Heir he is which said Ancestor or Ancestors was is or shall be indebted to the King or any other person or persons to his use by Judgment Recognizance Obligation c. In every such case the said Manors c. shall be charged c. This Statute was made for the benefit of the King in two points 1. To make Lands entailed liable to the King against the issue tail for the Kings Debts in the cases aforesaid where they were not liable 2. To make Bonds taken by the Officers of the King to the use of the King as
's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 291. 1 Len. 247. 3 Len. 174. That whereas he was possessed of a parcel of Land called the Parsonage lying adjoyning to a certain River from the 29 of May 29 Eliz. untill the day of the bringing of this Writ the Defendant had the said twentieth day of May stopt the said River with certain Loads of Earth and so it continued untill the fourteenth day of February by which his land was drowned and so he had lost the profit of it by that time And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That upon the Declaration there doth not appear any cause of Action for the Plaintiff hath made Title to the Land drowned from the twentieth of May so as that day is excluded and the Nusance is said to be made the twentieth day and so it appeareth the Nusance was before the possession of the Plaintiff and if it were so then cannot he complain of any wrong done before his time To which it was answered That although the stopping was made before his possession yet the continuance of the same is after and a new wrong for which an Action lieth as 5 H. 7. 4. It was presented That an Abbat had not cleansed his Ditch c. by reason of which the Highway is stopt The Successor shall be put to answer to the said Indictment by reason of the continuance of it And see that continuation of a Nusance is as it were a new Nusance 14 and 15 Eliz. 320. And it may be that the Plaintiff was not damnified untill long time after the twentieth day of May scil after the stopping And the words of the Writ here are satisfied and true And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXX Trusto and Ewer 's Case Pasc 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 1 Cro. 23. IN this Case it was agreed for Law That if a Controversie be betwixt two for the Title of a Lease for years and they submit the matter to Arbitrement and the Arbitrators award that one of them shall have the term the same is a good Gift of the interest of the term See 12 Ass 25. 14 H. 4. 19. 24. But if the Award be that the one shall permit the other to enjoy the term the same is no Gift of the interest therein See as to the Arbitrement 9 E. 4. 44. CXXXI Andrew 's Case Pasc 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 214. IN the Case of Andrews of Grays Inn it was holden by Gawdy and Fenner Iustices That if a Lease for years be made by Deed indented with these words demisi ad firmam tradidi That upon that Writ of Covenant lieth against the Lessor if he himself entreth upon the Lessee but contrary if a stranger enter if it hath not clause of Warranty For by Fenner when Covenant is brought upon that word Demisi the Plaintiff shall recover the term it self but not damages and that cannot the Plaintiff do when a stranger entreth and that was holden for clear Law See 9 Eliz. Dyer 257. A covenant against the Heir in such case CXXXII Bigg and Clark 's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. Rot. 549. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case in the Court of Hertford the Plaintiff declared How that the Defendant hired a Horse of the Plaintiff to carry three Bushels of Coals from Ware to his House in Hertford and that the Defendant in consideration thereof did promise the Plaintiff quod ipse in via praedicta nollet onerare the said Horse aliter than with the said three Bushels of Coals And the Plaintiff said That the Defendant had loaded the said Plaintiff's Horse with a greater weight than with the said Coals and so had hurt his Horse upon which the Plaintiff recovered And Error was brought and the Error assigned was this That it is not specially shewed how the Defendant aliter loaded the said Horse with what thing As 19 H. 6. In Debt against Executors they plead That they have onely expended such a sum of the Goods of the Testator in Funeral expences absque hoc that they have administred aliter vel alio modo the Plaintiff cannot Reply and say that they have administred aliter vel alio modo without shewing how Another Error was assigned because it is not certainly shewed how the Horse was hurt but that Exception was not allowed for it is not the point of the Action but for the first matter the Iudgment was reversed CXXXIII Toley and Windham 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 206. 3 Len. 150. That whereas certain controversies were betwixt the Plaintiff and Defendant for the profits of certain Lands which the Father of the Defendant had taken in his life time and whereas he had brought a Writ of Subpoena out of the Chancery against the Defendant for the said profits taken by the Father of the Defendant in his life intending to put in a Bill against the Defendant in the said Court The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would stay his intended Suit promised That if the Plaintiff can prove that the Father of the Defendant took the profits or had the possession of the said Land under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff that he should pay to him for all the said profits And farther declared That he had proved that his Father had taken the profits under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff Coke took up Exception to the Declaration because it is not shewed How and by what means under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff he took the profits as by Lease for that is traversable Gawdy Iustice The Son hath not any cause of Action or Suit for the profits taken in the time of the Father therefore the staying of Suit arising from such matter is not any consideration But as to the other Exception because it is not shewed how and by what Title he took the profits it is well enough As unto the other Exception it was moved at another day that there was a Case betwixt Stone and Withypool An Infant promiseth to pay a simple Contract Stone and Withypool's Case and thereupon there was a Suit in the Chancery but it was holden that it was not maintainable for the promise was void because there was no consideration And it was agreed by all the Iustices that this Action would not lie for the Plaintiff hath declared That where certain Controversies were betwixt the Father of the Defendant and him scil the Plaintiff himself for the profits of certain Lands which the Father of the Defendant had taken in the time of the Father of the Plaintiff c. and he doth not shew that he himself is Heir or Executor of his Father and therefore the Chancery cannot give him any remedy And on the other
side if the Plaintiff had any remedy the same ought to be against the Executors of the Father of the Defendant and the Plaintiff hath not allowed that the Defendant is Executor to his Father and therefore he hath not any colour of Suit against him nor therefore is there any consideration Fenner The Defendant by the Law is not chargeable nor in conscience upon this matter he shall be charged for by the same reason he should be charged for the simple Contract of his Father and a promise to pay it will not bind him And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CXXXIV Veal and Robert 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Ejectione Firmae the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 199. How that John Veal leased to him 30 Eliz for twenty one years ten Acres of Land called M. The Defendant pleaded That before the Demise and Ejectment one John Roberts was seised of the said ten Acres called M. in Fee and 14 Eliz. demised the same to one John Cox for life and afterwards 25 Elizab. John Roberts dyed and the Reversion descended to the now Defendant Cox demised the Land to John Veal for thirty years who leased unto the Plaintiff as in the Declaration of which he was possessed quousque c. Cox dyed 30 Eliz. after whose death the Defendant entred and ejected prout was lawfull for him to do c. The Defendant by replication saith That before John Roberts had any thing one Wall of P. of Glocester was seised of the said ten Acres inter alia and 29 H. 8. demised to John Veal Father of the Lessor of the Plaintiff the said Land inter alia by the name of two Messuages and two Yard Lands in the County of Glocester nuper in tenura J. S. and of two other Houses in a Yard Land tunc in tenura E. H. nec non de ten acres vocat M. lying inter C. I. tunc in occupatione E. W. for term of years yet during Habendum dict four Messuages and three Yard Lands in tenura I.S. E.H. nec non the said ten acres to the said John Veal à tempore mortis sursum redditionis forisfactur vel determinationis status vel terminor praedict I.H. W. in eisdem for sixty years by force of which he was possessed of the interest of the term aforesaid and afterwards 14 Eliz. the Estate of the said E. W. in the said ten acres ended for which the said John Veal entred and 25 Eliz. dyed intestate and Administration was committed to J. S. Lessor of the Plaintiff by force of which he entred and Leased to the Plaintiff and so he was possessed untill ejected The Defendant did rejoyn and said That long before John Roberts had any thing William Roberts was seised in Fee and enfeoffed the said John Roberts before the Ejectment supposed who demised unto John Cox and so as in the Bar absque hoc That the said Abbat demised to the said John Veal modo forma prout the Plaintiff replicando allegavit the which matter he is ready to aver petit Judicium The Plaintiff said That the Abbat demisit ut supra hoc petit quod inquiratur per patriam and it was found for the Plaintiff And it was objected by Snag That this issue was not well taken for the Estate of John Veal was not to begin before all the Estates being in esse at the time of the making of the Lease by the Abbat of Glocester are expired Coventry contrary and that the Estates do begin severally and singulatim as the Estates precedent shall end and shall not expect untill the other Estates be determined which see Iustice Needham's Case now reported by Coke 5 part 37 Eliz. and see Pollard's Case there cited At another day it was objected by Snag That the new Estate could not begin in any part untill all the former Estates be determined for if this new Lease be made reserving Rent and one part thereof is now come in possession then he should pay for that part all the Rent But the Court was clear of Opinion That the Lease in the ten Acres did begin presently without having regard to the other Estates in demand for the intent of the Lessor was That no mean time should be betwixt the expiration of the Lease for ten years and the beginning of the new As in the Case betwixt Wrotesley and Adams 1 Eliz. Plo. Com. 198. A Lease is made to begin after the expiration of a former Lease for years the first Lessee takes a new Lease of the Lessor which was a Surrender of the former Lease If the Lease scil the second Lease shall now begin was the question or should expect untill the first Lease shall end by expiration for the former Lease is ended but not expired i. by effluction of time And it was holden that the said second Lease should begin presently for the intent of the Lessor was that no mean time should be betwixt the end and beginning of the said Estates And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXXV Pasch 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench NOTE If a Record be removed out of the Common-Pleas into the King's-Bench by Writ of Error and the Plaintiff shall not assign his Errors then a Scire facias shall issue forth quare executionem habere non debet and upon summons or two Nichels retorned the Plaintiff shall have Execution yet the Plaintiff may assign his Errors And to such a Scire facias Exception was taken because the Writ was coram nobis apud Westm where it should be ubicunque fuerimus in Anglia and for that cause a Supersedeas was granted It was also holden That although a Writ of Error doth not lie here upon a Iudgment given in London yet upon a Iudgment given at Newgate which is upon Commission in their Sessions Error lieth here CXXXVI Bows and Vernon 's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DEBT upon an Obligation was brought by Bows against Vernon and Hennington who pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. and shewed that Vernon was in Execution and that the Bond was made for his deliverance against the Statute The Plaintiff replied and said That at the time of the making of the said Bond the said Vernon fuit sui juris and at large absque hoc that he was in Prison tempore confectionis scripti praedict modo forma c. Egerton Solicitor moved that the Traverse was not good for if a man be in Prison in Execution and makes a promise to make a Bond for which he is inlarged and within an hour after he makes the Bond the same is within the Statute and therefore this issue is not well joined but it ought to be absque hoc that it was pro deliberatione c. and of such opinion was Fenner and Gawdy Iustices See Dive and Manningham's Case 4 E. 6. Plo. Com. 68 69. acc CXXXVII Hunt and Sone 's
take effect by way of use in the Bargainee and after the Statute to draw the possession to the use But the Court utterly rejected that Exception was dangerous Note Pasch 30 Eliz. it was adjudged for the Plaintiff in the Replevin scil the Conveyance of the Prioress was not well pleaded for it ought to be plead as a Bargain and Sale and not as a grant and Judgment was given accordingly for such was the Conveyance of the greater part of the possessions of Monasteries And by Shuttleworth Serjeant Although such a Corporation cannot take an Estate to the use of another yet they may charge their possessions with an use to another CLXIX Venable 's and Serjeant Harris 's Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. Quaeries Hughs R. 13. 3 Len. 185. 4 Len. 112. THE Case was a Lease was made to A. and B. for their lives the Remainder to Thomas Venables in tail who 3 Eliz. was attainted of Felony 23 Eliz. was a general pardon Thomas Venables 24 Eliz. levied a Fine and suffered a common Recovery to the use of Harris Serjeant An Office is found Harris traverseth the Office and upon that there is a demurrer Leke argued That traverse doth not lie in this Case 4 H. 7. 7. where the King is entitled by double matter of Record the party shall not be admitted to traverse nor to his Monstrans de Droit but is put to his Petition which see 3 E. 4. 23. in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland 3 Len. 75. where the Tenant of the King is attainted of Treason and the same found by Office See also 11 H. 4. in the Case of the Duke of Suffolk and that is not helped by the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 8. For the words are untruly found by Office but here the Office is true By this Attainder Thomas Venables is utterly disabled to do any Act for by Bracton a person attaint shall forfeit Patriam Regnum Haereditatem suam 11 H. 4. one was attainted of Felony and before Office found the King granted over his Lands Also he is not helped by the general pardon for before the general pardon he had a special pardon so as the general pardon non operatur But the Iustices said The forfeiture did remain untill the general pardon Harris contrary And he put the case of Sir James Ormond 4 H. 7. 7. where the King is entitled by matter of Record and the subject confesseth the King's title and avoids it by matter of as high nature as that is for the King Traverse in that case lieth and if the King be entitled by double matter of Record if the party doth avoid one of the said Records by another Record he shall be admitted to his traverse and so here we have the pardon which is a Record and that shall avoid the Record of the King See 3 E. 4. 24. in the Earl of Northumberland's Case and here the pardon hath purged the forfeiture in respect of the offence and he said Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall not lose his lands but the profits onely for he hath his Estate by the Will of the Donor and there is a confidence reposed in him as in Walsingham's Case he cannot grant his Estate over and see Wrothe's Case An annuity granted pro Consilio impendendo cannot be granted over or forfeited for there is confidence And see Empson's Case and Dyer 2. 29 Ass 60. If the issue in tail be outlawed of Felony in the life of his father and getteth his Charter of pardon in the life of his father after the death of his father he may enter but by Thorp If the issue in tail getteth his Charter of pardon after the death of his father then the King shall have the profits of the lands during the life of the issue And the Case of Cardinal Pool was debated in the Parliament Cardinal Pool's Case 27 Eliz. That he being Dean of Exeter was seised of Lands in the right of his Church and was attainted of Treason It was holden That he should forfeit the profits of such Lands But admit that by this Attainder the Land be forfeited yet the party hath the Freehold until Office found See Nicols's Case on the Commentaries and see also the Case of the Dutchy in the first Commentaries And here the Pardon hath dispensed with the Forfeiture Tenant of the King alieneth in Mortmain before Office found the King pardons it this is good The Lord Poynings conveyed all his Lands to Sir Adrian Poynings who was an Alien and afterwards is made a Denizen and the King pardons him and releaseth unto him all his right in the said Lands without any words of Grant and it was adjudged the same shall bind the King. And he said that he had found a good precedent 14 H. 7. where a general pardon before seisure into the King's hands was allowed contrary after seisure without words of Grant. See Br. 29 H. 8. Charter of Pardon 52. If a man be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all Felonies executiones eorundem the same shall not serve for life and Land if no Office be found but it shall serve for the Goods without words of Restitution and Grant for the King is entituled to them by Outlawry without Office but the King is not entituled to the Lands untill Office be found See ibid. 33 H. 8. 71. The Heir intrudes and before Office found the King pardons now the Heir is discharged as well of the issues and profits as of the Intrusion it self and also of Livery But a pardon given after Office is available for the Offence but not for the issues and profits And he cited the Case of Cole in the first Commentaries where a pardon was granted Mesne betwixt the stroke and the death See 35 H. 6. 1. 1 E. 4. 1. 8 Eliz. Dyer 249. Brereton's Case 11 Eliz. Dyer 284 285. Egerton Solicitor to the contrary This Traverse is not good for he that traverseth hath not made Title to himself as he ought upon which the Queen may take Issue for it is at the Election of the Queen to maintain her own Title or traverse the Title of the party At the Common Law no Traverse lay but where the Livery might be sued but that is helped by the Statute of 34 E. 3. cap. 14. but where the King is entituled by double matter of Record as in our case he is no Traverse is allowed until 2 E. 6. cap. 8. And in such case two things are requisite 1. That the Office be untruly found 2. That the party who is to be admitted to his Traverse have just Title or Interest of Estate of Freehold c. But in our case The Office is confessed by the Traverse to be true although that the Conveyance be not truly found Also Harris at the time of the Office found had not just Title but an interest came unto him long time after
The Queen gave and granted the Reversion in Fee to Sir Thomas Henage c. and after it was found by Office that the Rent was arrear ut supra Sir Thomas Henage entred and leased for years to Sir Moil Finch who being ejected brought a Quo minus in the nature of an Ejectione Firmae c. It was argued by Coke That this Lease upon the matter aforesaid is avoidable by the Patentee and that without Office for the conclusion of the Proviso is not that the Queen shall re-enter but that the Lease shall cease and be void and the Queen is not driven to demand her Rent as in such case a Subject is tied And he compared it to the Case of a common person If a common person leaseth for years upon condition that if the Lessee doth not build upon the Land demised a House within a year after that the Lease shall be void and afterwards grants the Reversion to a stranger the Grantee shall have advantage of this Condition be it broken before or after the Grant for the Lease in such case is void not onely voidable and the reason is because the Condition is collateral which see 11 H. 7. 17. A Lease for years is made upon Condition that if the Lessee doth not go to Rome before such a day that the Lease shall be void the Lessor grants the Reversion over the Lessee attorns and doth not go to Rome within the time appointed the Grantee may re-enter contrary if the conclusion of the Condition had been by way of re-entry for then it should run in privity by the Common Law But where a Lease with such Condition was made for life with this conclusion of the Condition that the Lease shall be void the Grantee shall not take advantage of that by the Common Law for there the Estate is not void untill re-entry for there is a Freehold which ought to be avoided by Entry But in our Case the Condition is upon the matter collateral for no demand is requisite to take advantage of the Condition And he said it is a general Rule where in the Case of a common person an Estate may be devested without Entry there in the Case of the Queen there needs not any Office but here in our Case if it had been a Case of a common person the Estate should be devested without Entry therefore in the Case of the Queen without Office See Stamford for the Major Proposition 55. but it doth not vest to have Trespass before Entry and he vouched the Case of Browning and Beston Plow 136. where such Lease after such Condition broken is merely void and dissolved And he said That it was the Opinion of the Iustices of the Common Pleas now late That by a Release to such Lessee after the condition broken nihil operatur for after the Condition broken he is but Tenant at sufferance and a Lease for years being but a Cattel may begin without ceremony and end without ceremony 2 H. 7. 8. If the King make a Lease for years with clause of Re-entry for not payment of the Rent although the Rent be behind yet the King shall not re-enter before Office found and there ought to be a Seisure for the Lease is not void by the non-payment of the Rent but onely voidable but if the Lease be void for not payment as in our case it is to what purpose shall an Office be for by the mere contract the Lease ceaseth without re-entry or without Office But admit that the Lease shall not cease without Office and before Office the Queen grants the Reversion over yet an Office found after the Grant shall avoid the Lease as well as if it had been found before the Grant. A Lease is made upon condition that if the Lessor build a House upon the Land leased and pay to the Lessee 20 l. that then the Lease shall be void the Lessor builds the House and afterwards grants the Reversion the Grantee pays the 20 l. now the Lease is void although the Condition be partly performed in the time of the Lessor and partly in the time of the Grantee So here although the Grant of the Queen be Mesn between the non-payment of the Rent and the Office for the Queen is not entitled by the Office to the Land but by the Condition broken and the Office is onely to inform the Queen of her Title and when the Office is once found it shall relate unto the time of the Condition broken and shall be of such force as if then it had been found H. 3. H. 7. f. 3. Cro. 221. and here in our case an Office was necessary for to entitle the Queen to the mean profits due betwixt the Rent arrear and the Grant of the Queen with which the Queen by her Grant hath not dispensed and without Office he could not have them for the arrearages of the Rent do not pass to the Patentee no more than if the Queen be seised of an Advowson and the Church become void if the Queen Grant the Advowson unto another the avoidance shall not pass The King seised of a Rent which is arrear grants the said Rent the arrearages shall not pass So here of the mean profits for they are flowers faln from the stalk c. Godfrey contrary and he said That the Lease is in being not impeached by the Condition or the Office and he said That notwithstanding that the words of the Lease are That the Lease shall be void yet before that an Office be found the Lease shall not be avoided In all cases where the Queen is entitled to any thing or to defeat the Estate of another an Office is necessary and that ground is taken in the case of the Lord Berkley Plow Com. 229. by Brown therefore here it ought to be found by Office See also the case of the Bishop of Chichester Fitz. Abridg. Forfeiture 18. 46 E. 3. The Bishop leased for life certain Lands given by the Progenitors of the King as parcel of the Barony of the Bishoprick rendring 30 l Rent and afterwards by assent of the Dean and Chapter released a great part of the said Rent the Lease and the Rent ought to be found by Office. So an Alienation in Mortmain ought to be found by Office because the interest of another is to be defeated So where the King's Tenant ceaseth c. the Villein of the King purchaseth Lands or but a Lease for years So where the King is but to have annum diem vastum Waste committed by the Committee of the King Lessee of the King for years makes a Feoffment in Fee in all these cases the King without Office shall not be entitled The same Law is in case of a Condition broken which see 2 H. 7. 8. Plow 213. Frowick in his Reading puts this case A Subject leaseth for years upon condition which is afterwards broken and afterwards the Lessor becomes King here needs no Office for at the time
the Case of making this Statute it was not to overthrow a foundation as it hath been said but it was rather a gratuity of the Subjects to the King for his bounty towards them for whereas by the Statute of Vses Vses were executed in possession so as the Subjects could not dispose of their Lands by their Wills as before the Vses Now by this Statute the King was pleased to give his Royal assent to an Act by which Lands might become devisable in respect of which the Subjects added to this Act the last clause to give him Wardship where it did not lie before by the Common Law and that as a recompence from the Subjects for the King's bounty and therefore it ought to be construed beneficially for the King. And to prevent covin and fraud was not the scope of this Statute For if three purchase Lands unto them and to the heirs of two of them now it is uncertain whose heirs shall inherit for non constat which of them shall survive and therefore no covin is averrable in such case and yet if the survivor of two to whom the Fee is limited dieth his heir within age such heir shall be in Ward So if such Lands be given to two and to the heirs of him of those two who shall first come to the Church of Paul Now it is uncertain which of them shall first come to the Church of Paul yet if he who first cometh to the Church of Paul dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward which Cases prove that covin and fraud were not the cause of making this Statute but onely the thankfulness of the Subjects unto the King for his bounty as abovesaid for if this Act had not been made the Subjects should not have power to dispose of their Lands for the advancement of their children but all should descend So as now the King hath lost the Wardship and Primer seisin of two parts of the Lands of his Tenant and hath also lost the averment of covin which he had by the Common Law where Estates were made by the King's Tenant for advancement of their children In respect of which losses the Subjects gave unto the King Wardship in case where the Lands continue in jointure as to that which hath been said That this Statute shall not be taken by equity I conceive the contrary the words of the Statute are In every such case i. e. In every like case not onely where two or more persons hold jointly to them and the heirs of one of them but also in every the like Case as the Case now in question and in every Case where the life of him who hath the Freehold is the sole impediment quo minus the heir hath not the Land by descent in Demesne And it may be resembled unto the Statute of Marlbridge of Collusion which speaks of Leases for years Quas tradere voluerint ad terminum annorum and yet a Lease for life or Lease for years is within the said Statute for the Statute was made in restraint of an ill liberty that the Tenants had by the Common Law in prejudice of their Lords which see 4 E. 6. 53. Plow 59. And as to the word otherwise that may be construed for payment of his Legacies And as to equity enlarging the Statute speaks where many hold and to the heirs of one yet if two hold to them and the heirs of one of them the same is within the Statute And as to Equity restraining he puts this case Land is given to the Husband and Wife and the heirs of the body of the Wife who have issue the Wife dieth the issue within age he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute but because that other matter That the Estate for life in the Husband is an impediment Quo minus he shall be in Ward It is a maxim of the Common Law That the father shall have the Wardship of the son and heir apparent therefore he shall not be within the meaning although he be within the Letter of the Statute So if Lands be given to my Villain and to another and to the heirs of my Villain who dieth seised his heir within age I seise the Villain and claim the remainder he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute But I conceive in our Case the King shall have two Wards Simul semel the heir general of Wiseman and the issue in tail the heir general by the Common Law by reason that his father was the King's Tenant who disposed of his Lands for the advancement of his children and therefore the Queen shall have the third part in Ward And also the heir special shall be in Ward for that part of the Statute And it is no new thing to have two Wardships for one and the same Lands As 14 H. 8. of the heir of Cestuy quae use and also of the Feoffee and if the Tenant dieth seised having issue a daughter who is his heir the Lord seiseth the daughter and marrieth her and afterwards a son is born he shall have the Wardship also of him So of the heirs of the Disseisor and Disseisee and he said If Lands holden in chief be leased for life the remainder to A. in Fee A. dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward and that by reason of these words in the Statute In every such case it is not the same Case but the like Case for if he who hath the Fee dieth so as the Freehold survives to the other now the Estate becomes as an Estate for life the remainder over It was adjourned CLXXXIV The Lord Howard and the Town of Walden 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Exchequer More Rep. 159. Post 162 163. BEtwixt the Lord Howard and the Town of Walden the Case was That the King made a Feoffment in Fee of Lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster Tenend in feodi forma reddend inde sibi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. The question was How and of whom the Tenure should be It was argued by Plowden That it should be holden of the King as of his Dutchy he said The King is not bounden by the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum but here upon this Feoffment the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy All Grants of the King notwithstanding that they be of Lands yet they savour of the person of the King and his Prerogative being wrapt up in his person shall guide the disposition of the land and he said that this Tenure shall be implyed by reason and in respect of his person And the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum extends to Tenants onely Libere tenentes magnatum aliorum but the King is not Libere tenens alicujus magnat 32 H. 6. 21 22. The King hath an Advowson in the Right of his Dutchy to which
being void he presents he may repeal his presentment and he vouched divers presidents of Grants of the King of such lands to hold of him as of his Dutchy and sometimes of others And the King by his Dutchy seal may give lands in Mortmain and the King under his Dutchy-seal hath made divers Corporations within his Dutchy And although this Rent be a new thing never parcel of the Dutchy yet because it is issuing out of the Dutchy lands and reserved thereout shall be of the same nature and accounted parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy If before the Statute of West 3. one seised of lands on the part of his mother made a Feoffment in Fee Tenend by such services and died the Seignory should go to the heir on the part of his mother and should be descendable as the land it self in lieu of which it came And if Tenant in tail now after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Lease for years according to the Statute rendring Rent to him and his heirs it shall be expounded such heirs which are inheritable to the land according to the entail Manwood chief Baron Demanded of Plowden this Question The King makes a Feoffment in Fee of lands of his Dutchy Is the same a matter of Record who answered yes Manwood Truely no for then there needed not any livery Egerton Solicitor argued to the contrary and he argued much upon the Statute of 1 H. 4. and 1 H. 7. of the separation of the Dutchy of Lancaster from the Crown which see in the Comment 215. in the Case of the Dutchy of Lancaster by which Acts the possessions of the Dutchy were devested out of the body Politick of the King and vested in his body natural and are as their corporal holding in the King as they were in the Duke of Lancaster being a Subject who if he had made a Feoffment the Feoffee should not hold of him but of the King Ergo so shall it be in the case where the King himself makes a Feoffment and he cited a Case put in the end of the Dutchy Case 4 Eliz. 223. The Queen made a Feoffment of lands of the Dutchy out of the County Palatine to hold of her in Capite the Feoffee shall hold of her in Capite as of her Crown of England The case went farther the King after this Feoffment granteth the Fee-farm the Question is If the Rent reserved upon this Feoffment shall pass by such grant or not and he said That this Rent is not parcel of the Fee-farm but rather a collateral charge upon the land for in all cases where there is a Tenure expressed in fait or implyed in Law there the rent reserved after shall not be parcel of the Tenure but a Rent in gross by it self As in our case Tenend in feod firm makes a Tenure therefore the Reddend after shall not make the sum reserved parcel of it 33 E. 3. Annuity 52. before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend de Dominis Capital rendring the rent of 20 l. that Rent is a Rent in gross and not parcel of the Tenure King E. 6. granted to Cranmer Archbishop and his heirs Tenend by the fifth part of a Knight's-fee Reddend 6 l. per ann Cranmer in Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of his son in tail the remainder to the use of the right heirs of Cranmer made a Fee who is attainted of Treason by which the remainder to his right heirs Escheats to the King and so the Seignory is extinct but it was adjudged That the Rent was in esse and not extinct by the Escheat of the remainder for it was not parcel of the Seignory So here in our case Another matter was moved If this Rent being a new thing created de novo and not parcels of the possessions of the Dutchy 1 H. 4. nor 1 H. 7. shall be accounted in Law in the right of the Crown or of the Dutchy and if of the Crown then it cannot pass by the Dutchy-seal and the Statute of 1 H. 4. speaks of such Lands and Tenements which were to his Ancestors Dukes of Lancaster but this Rent never was in them c. and the Queen cannot enlarge the possessions of her Dutchy by her own Act and therefore if J. S. being Tenant in Fee-simple be impleaded in a Praecipe quod reddat and saith that he holdeth for life the remainder to the King in Fee in the right of his Dutchy now this remainder is vested in the King in the right of his Crown and not in the right of his Dutchy for it is onely an Estoppel So the Villein of the King in the right of his Dutchy purchaseth lands the King seiseth he shall have the lands in the right of his Crown and not in the right of the Dutchy If the King giveth Common out of his lands parcel of his Dutchy and afterwards makes a Feoffment in Fee of the lands out of which the Common is granted and afterwards the Commoner dieth without heir the King shall have the same in the right of his Crown and not in the right of the Dutchy So although the rent doth follow the nature of the lands out of which it is issuing yet it is not so to all intents and he said That by the Statute of 2 3 Phil. Ma. the King could not enlarge the possessions of the Dutchy and therefore by the said Act authority is given for to annex possession unto the Dutchy by Letters Patents And there is another clause in the said Statute That if any part of the possessions of the Dutchy have been aliened or granted unto any subject and are reverted to the Crown by Escheat attainder forfeiture purchase c. they shall be deemed and accepted parcel of the Dutchy which case proves That if the King makes a Feoffment of such lands the same is a Tenure in chief for if it were a Tenure of the Dutchy then upon Escheat it should be parcel of the Dutchy again without the help of that Statute Now this Rent being a Rent in gross and not parcel of the Seignory Reddendo Domino Regi haeredibus successoribus suis aut Domino aut Dominis feodi when the King grants the Seignory to the Lord Audley it hath been moved that it was in the Election of the Feoffee to pay the Rent to the King or to the Lord Audley but that is not so for although the Law be so betwixt Subjects yet in case of the King it is otherwise for the King shall never be over-reached by an Election and therefore he shall pay the Rent to the King. It was adjourned CLXXXV The Executors of Sir William Cordel and Clifton 's Case Hill. 18 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 59. THE Case was The Earl of Westmerland seised of a Manor whereof the Demeans were usually let for three lives by Copy
who 37 H. 8. levied a Fine of the said Manor without Proclamations to two strangers to the uses according to the said agreement and before any assurance made by the said Lord the said Lord was attainted of Treason by which all his Lands were forfeited to the King And afterwards the said Andrew Bainton made a suggestion to Queen Mary of all this matter and upon his humble Petition the said Queen by her Letters Patents reciting the said mischief c. Et praemissa considerans annuens Petitioni illius granted to him the Manor aforesaid and farther De ampliori gratia sua did release to the said Andrew Bainton all her right possession c. which came to her Ratione attincturae praed vel in manibus nostris existant vel existere deberent after which 5 Eliz. Andrew Bainton levied a Fine to the Plaintiff with Proclamations and died without issue and the Defendant as issue in tail entred Puckering Serjeant First it is to see if by the words of the Patent of Queen Mary viz. De ampliori gratia c. the Reversion in Fee which the Queen had shall pass or not Secondly Admitting that the Reversion doth not pass then if the Fine levied by Andrew Bainton 5 Eliz. to the Plaintiff the Reversion being in the Queen be a bar unto the issue in tail For as unto the first Fine levied 37 H. 8. which was without Proclamations the same shall not bind the issue in tail neither as to the right nor as to the Entry for it is not any discontinuance because the Reversion is in the King as of things which do not lie in discontinuance as Rent Common c. for such a Fine is a Fine at the Common Law and not within the Statute of 4 H. 7. and such Fine is void against the issue But if such a Fine without Proclamation be levied of a thing which lieth in discontinuance then such a Fine is not void but voidable by Formedon and therefore this Fine in the Case at Bar being levied without Proclamation of Lands entailed whereof the Reversion is in the King at the time of the Fine levied shall not bind the issue and by such Fine the Conusee hath nothing but a Fee determinable upon the life of Tenant in tail which Fee was forfeited to the Queen by the Attainder of the Lord Seymore and that the Queen moved of pity did restore the same to A. B. in recompence for the Indentures of themselves were not sufficient to raise any use See 1 Mariae Dyer 96. As to the first point it seems that nothing passed of the Reversion for the Grant hath reference to the words All her Right Possession c. which came to her ratione attincturae and all the residue of the Grant ought to have reference to that to the ratione attincturae which was the foundation of the whole Grant and here the intent of the Queen was not to any other intent but onely to restore A. B. to the said Manor or to his former Estate in it and nothing appears in the Letters Patents by which it may appear that the Queen was knowing of her Reversion which she had by descent and therefore the same cannot pass by general words If the Queen grants the Goods and Chattels of all those which have done any Trespass for which vitam amittere debent the Goods of him who is attainted of Treason shall not be forfeited to the Grantee by such general words 8 H. 4. 2. The King grants omnia Catalla Tenentium suorum qualitercunque damnatorum the same shall not extend to the Goods of him who is condemned of Treason See 22 Ass 49. So in our Case the Patent shall not serve to two intents but to a restitution of the Manor and then nothing passed by this Patent but the Fee determinable which was conveyed to the Lord Seymore and forfeited by his Attainder Then we are to see how after this grant the said A. B. is seised And he said That he shall be in of the said Fee determinable and not of the Estate tail against his own Fine and then if he be not seised by force of the Entail at the time of the Fine levied 5 Eliz. the same Fine cannot bind the tail But admit that at the time of the second Fine levied he was in of an Estate in tail yet the same Fine shall not bar his issue For first this Fine cannot make any discontinuance because that the Reversion in Fee is in the King which is not touched by the Fine See the Case of Sanders where A. makes a Lease to begin at a day to come and afterwards levies a Fine to a stranger with Proclamations the five years pass and afterwards at the day of the Commencement of the Lease the Lessee enters his entry is lawfull and he shall not be bound by the non-claim And so it was adjudged 21 Eliz between Sanders and Starky After the making of the Statute of 4 H. 7. of Fines it was much doubted if the issues of common Tenants in tail should be bound by a Fine with Proclamation forasmuch as upon the death of their Ancestours they were as new purchasors per formam doni and therefore it was provided by the Statute of 32 H. 8. that the said Statute of 4 H. 7. should extend to such common Entails but there was no doubt of the Estate tail of the Gift of the King and see betwixt Jackson and Darcy Mich. 15 and 16 Elizab. Rot. 1747. in a Partitione facienda the Case was Tenant in tail the Remainder to the King after the Statute of 32 H. 8. levied a Fine with Proclamations and adjudged that that should bind the issues and the Act of 32 H. 8. doth not extend but where the Reversion is in the King but no mention is there of a Remainder because the words of the said Act are general of all Tenants in tail the makers of the said Act perceiving that it might be a doubt that the generality of the said words might exclude Estates tail of the Gift of the King they have restrained the words in a special manner as appeareth by the last words of the same Act Nor to any Fines heretofore levied or hereafter to be levied by any person or persons of any Manors c. before the levying of the said Fine to any of his or their Ancestors in tail by Letters Patents or Act of Parliament the Reversion whereof at the time of the levying of such Fine was in the King and so such Estates are excepted and that in such Cases where such Fines are levied they shall be of such force as they should have been if the said Act had not been made and therefore he conceived it appeared at the said Parliament That such Estate tails of the Gift of the King were not bound bâ— 4 H. 7. for otherwise that Proviso or Exception had been frivolous Walmsley Serjeant to the contrary and he agreed That the
Statute and it was moved If it should not be a good Indictment for the assault so as he might be fined for it and by Sands Clerk of the Crown and the whole Court The Indictment is void for the whole for the conclusion of the Indictment is contra formam Statuti and there the Iury cannot enquire at the Common Law. CCXXXV Mead and Cheney 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench MEad brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Cheney Executor of one Skipwith and recovered and upon a Fieri facias the Sheriff did retorn Devastavit and it was moved to have an Elegit and the Iustices would advise of it and afterwards at another day a Precedent was shewed to the Court of 17 Eliz. and thereupon the Elegit was granted CCXXXVI Tompson and Trafford 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 910. Poph. 8 9. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was That the Warden and Fellows of New College in Oxford 8 Eliz. leased a Mansion house in the Burrough of Southwark to one Standish for 21 years and afterwards 25 Octob. 21 Eliz. they demised the same Mansion house to the said Standish for 21 years to commence the Michaelmas after And the Stat. of 14 Eliz. cap. 11. and 18 Eliz. cap. 11. were also found And if this second Lease shall be said a Lease in Reversion and so be void by the Statute of 14 Eliz. was the Question Foster moved That it is a Lease in Reversion for the first Lease doth continue untill Michaelmas and so was the opinion of the Iustices of Assise at the trial Towse contrary For when Standish accepteth the second Lease the same is presently a surrender of the former Lease for he giveth power unto the Lessor for to contract for the house presently and to that purpose he cited Corbet's Case 8 Eliz. Coke It is a surrender presently for you cannot apportion the Term. It was adjourned CCXXXVII Wood and Avery 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DEBT upon a Bond by Wood against Avery the Condition was That where the Plaintiff had demised to the Defendant for term of years two Messuages c. If the Defendant at all times during the term shall maintain sustain and repair the said two Messuages with good and sufficient reparations that then c. And the Defendant pleaded That he had performed the Conditions in all but as to one Kitchin which was so ruinous at the time of the Demise that he could not maintain or repair and therefore he took it down and rebuilt it again in so short a time as he could possible in the same place so large and so sufficient in breadth length and heighth as the other Kitchin was and that the said Kitchin all times after the re-edifying of it he had sustained and maintained and well repaired and demanded Iudgment c. upon which Plea the Plaintiff did demurr in Law and by the Court the Plea were a good Plea if it were in an Action of Waste but here where he hath by his own Act tied himself to an inconvenience he ought at his perill to provide for it And here it was said That if the Condition be impossible the Bond is single contrary where a man is charged by an Act in Law. CCXXXVIII Bostwick and Bostwick 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas DOrothy Bostwick brought Dower against Bostwick an Infant Ante 59. and the Case was That the Husband of the Demandant was seised of certain Lands holden by Knight's-service of M. C. and by his last Will devised two parts of the Premisses to his Executors during the non-age of his heir and died his heir within age after whose death M. C. entred into the third part descended as Guardian in Knight's-service and the Executors into the other two parts upon which the Demandant brought one Writ of Dower against the Guardian to be endowed of the third part and another Writ of Dower against the heir within age in whom the Freehold of the two parts was The heir appearing by Attorney pleaded to issue which was found for the Demandant but the Iudgment was afterwards reversed because the heir being within age did not appear by Guardian but by Attorney for which cause she again brought a Writ of Dower against the heir and the Sheriff did retorn him summoned but the heir made default for which cause the Court was moved in the behalf of the Demandant to have the aid of the Court in this Case for if upon default of the Tenant a Grand Cape should issue forth and so a Recovery by default should follow the same would be Error which see 6 H. 8. Br. Liver Defaul 50. And therefore it was prayed that some person be appointed Guardian to the heir who may appear and plead for him for otherwise the Demandant is at great mischief for the Guardian now will not suffer the heir to appear in person And if the Widow now Demandant should stay for her Dower untill the heir should come of full age it would be a great mischief But by Walmesley Periam and Windham We cannot appoint a Guardian to the heir for his appearance here unless the heir be here in person in Court before us and he was appointed to be brought in person into Court. CCXXXIX Sir Anthony Denny 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas SIR Anthony Denny seised in Fee of the Manor of Chessam extending into Chessam and in the Town of Hertford and also of other Lands in Hertford by his last Will devised the Manor of Chessam to Henry Denny his son and heir in tail and his Lands in Hertford to Edward Denny his younger son c. It was holden by Walmsley Periam and Windham absent Anderson That the younger son should have that part of the Manor of Chessam which lieth in the Town of Hertford Another point in the Case was That upon the death of Sir Anthony and Office was found without any mention of this Devise for which cause the Queen seised and leased all the Lands so devised to a stranger during the minority of the heir The heir comes of full age and hath Livery of the whole and without any express entry leaseth the Lands for years rendring Rent the Lessee entreth and payeth the Rent to the heir the heir dieth the Lessee assigns over his term and the Rent is yearly paid to the right heir of Sir Anthony And how Edward Denny entred and per Curiam his entry is lawfull for if the heir entreth in this Case and many descents follow yet the Devisee may enter at any time for his entry doth not make any abatement or wrong but may well stand with the Devise for if the Devise be waved or the Devise doth defer the execution of the Devisee 1 Inst 111. a. 240. b. 3 Cro. 145. Ow. 86 87. it is reason that the heir enter and take the profits untill the Devisee entreth But if
That William Heydon was seised of the lands and enfeoffed him And upon Ne enfeoffa pas the parties were at issue and it was found by special Verdict That the said William Heydon was seised and leased the Lands to the Defendant for years and afterwards he made a Deed of Feoffment to the same Lessee of the same Lands in Fee by the words of Dedi concessi with a Letter of Attorney within the said Deed to make Livery to the Lessee and the Deed of Feoffment was delivered to J. to deliver the same to the said Lessee who delivered the same accordingly The Lessee delivered the same to the Attorney named in the Deed who made Livery accordingly And it was moved by the Council of the Plaintiff That upon all this matter here is not any Feoffment And by Walmesly Serjeant This Deed so delivered took its effect presently as a confirmation and then the Livery and Seisin comes too late for as soon as the said Deed was delivered to the Lessee for years the Law gave to it its operation to this effect To vest the Fee and the Freehold in the Lessee by way of confirmation See for that Littl. 532 533. But the whole Court was of a contrary opinion for it is in the election of the Lessee to take the Conveyance as a Feoffment or as a confirmation And here it appeareth upon the Deed that the intent of both parties was That the Lessee should take by way of Feoffment and not of confirmation for otherwise to what use should be a Letter of Attorney inserted in the Deed And here the Lessee hath liberty to make his election how he will take either by Feoffment or by confirmation which election he hath determined by the acceptance of the Livery And by Anderson If tenant in tail be disseised and makes a Charter of Feoffment and delivers the same to the Disseisor who delivers the same to the Attorney named in the Charter who makes Livery accordingly here is a good Feoffment and a discontinuance and afterwards after many motions made and day given to shew cause Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should be barred CCXLII. Rooke and Denny 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN an Action upon the Case by Rooke against Dennis for misusing of the Plaintiff's Horse by occasion of which misuse the said Horse became blind of one eye and gall-back'd The Plaintiff counted That the said Horse was stolen by three Felons after whom the Plaintiff made fresh suit and that the Felons were apprehended and attainted at his suit because Iustice Windham Hetley's Rep. 64. Rolls 809. More 572. Hetley's Rep. 64. and that the said Horse came unto the hands of the Defendant who misused it Ut supra The Defendant said that before that and the said Attainder of the said Felons the said Felons had waived the said Horse within his Manor in which Manor he had waife and estray c. And it was holden by the Court that the same was no Plea without traversing the fresh suit whereof the Plaintiff hath declared for by the fresh suit the property of the Plaintiff in the said Horse was preserved and so upon that misuser of the Horse by the Defendant an Action well lyeth and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff accordingly CCXLIII Pretiman and Cooke 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN Ejectione firmae The Case was Ante 129. 1 Cro. 52. 3 Len. 180. That one Hawkins was seised of three Messuages in Bury and had issue Robert a son and Christian and Joan daughters and by his Will devised his three Messuages to his wife for life the remainder of one of them to Robert his son and his heirs and the remainder of another of them to Christian his daughter and her heirs and the remainder of the third Messuage to Joan his daughter and her heirs And farther willeth That if any of his said three issues should die without issue of his or her body that then the other surviving shall have Totam illam partem betwixt them equally to be divided The Devisor died the wife died one of the daughters died having issue the son died without issue the sister surviving entred into the whole part of Robert the son and died her husband held in the land as tenant by the Curtesie and the question was If the surviving daughter should have all the part of him that died without issue or she and the issue of the other daughter Coke The survivor shall have the whole And he said that the Devisees have an Estate in tail for the Fee doth not vest in them for it is incertain which of them shall survive but when one surviveth then he shall not have for life but in Fee for the words Totam illam partem goe as well to all the Estate as to all the things A. tenant for life the remainder to B. in tail the remainder to the right heirs of A. A. grants Totum statum suum both the Estates pass and the Grant includes the whole See 41 E. 3. Fitz. Br. 541. In Ravishment of Ward supposing the ravishment of two daughters Quarum maritagium ad ipsum pertinet and it was challenged because he doth not say Maritagia but the challenge was not allowed and he said That if a man deviseth his land wholly to A. that he hath a Fee-simple See the Case H. 28 Eliz. the Case between Higham and Harwood And Coke said That they had by this Devise a fee-Fee-tail with a Fee-simple Expectant each of them severally in the Messuage to them limited Golding Each of the Devisees hath an Estate-tail in the Messuage to them devised and but an Estate for life in the Messuage which is to accrue upon the death without issue c. For no Estate is limited expresly nor what Estate the survivor shall have for here are not any words which do import a Fee-simple as according to Littleton imperpetuum or to do what he will with c. See for that 22 E. 3. ad Terminum qui praeteriit but here are onely bare words of which no farther construction can be made but for life And as to the words Totam illam partem the same doth not extend farther than if he said Partem suam And he said that nothing vests in him who survives for there ought to be two to take by the survivor or otherwise nothing shall accrue to the survivor for the words of the Devise are aequaliter inter eos dividend and that which accrues by survivor shall be divided betwixt two otherwise nothing shall accrue And if it cannot survive to two then it shall descend to the issue of the sister who is dead and to the surviving daughter and they shall be tenants in common and not joint-tenants Clench These words Totam illam partem go onely to the house and not to the Estate in it which Shute granted If both the daughters had survived Robert they should have Fee
good answer for they are Pleas onely before the Auditors and not in an Action upon Accompt and farther he said That although the Verdict be found but for part yet it is good for no damages are to be recovered in an Accompt In trespass it is true if one issue be found and not the other and joint-damages be given the Verdict is not good for any part but if several damages be given then it is good as it is ruled in 21 H. 6. Coke 26 H. 8. is That the Plaintiff cannot declare generally of an house Curam habens administrationem bonorum but he must farther say Twenty quarters of Corn or the like c. In the principal Case it is a joint-charge and but one for the shop and goods and he answers unto one onely but he ought to answer to all or else it is no answer at all But Coke found out another thing viz. That there is a thing put in issue which is not in the Verdict nor found nor touched in the Verdict and that was the Verdict of all which is found not to be good and it is not helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Jeofailes I grant that discontinuances are helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. but imperfect Verdicts are not helped thereby Vid. 205. It was a great Case argued in the Exchequer Chamber and it was Brache's Case An information was against Brache for entring into a house and an hundred Acres of Lands in Stepney He pleaded not guilty The Iury found him guilty for the hundred acres but said nothing as to the house upon which a Writ of Error was brought and Iudgment was reversed and he said it was not a discontinuance but no verdict for part Daniel That was the default of the Clerks who did not enter it and it hath been the usage to amend the defaults done by the Clerks in another Term All the Iustices said That is true if the Postea be brought in and not entred but here it is entred in the Roll in this form Daniel Where I charge one in Accompt with so much by the hands of such a one and so much by the hands of such a one although there be but one Absque hoc to them all yet they are as several issues The Court answered Not so unless there be several issues joined to every one of them But by Gawdy Iustice If there be several issues and the one be found and the other not no Iudgment shall be given Clench Iustice In the principal Case It is not a charge of the goods but in respect of the shop therefore that ought to be traversed Shute Iustice The Traverse of the shop alone is not good Egerton the Queen's Solicitor said That the Books might be reconciled and that there needed not a Traverse to the goods for the Traverse of the shop Prout is an answer to all But now he takes issue upon the goods onely which issue is not warranted by the Declaration and he said That if one charge me as Bailiff of his goods ad Merchandizandum I shall answer for the increase and shall be punished for my negligence But if he charge me as his Receiver ad computandum I shall not be answerable but for the bare money or thing which was delivered CCXLVI Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Postea 215. IN Trespass for taking of goods the Defendant justified as Bailiff to J. S. The Plaintiff by Replication saith That the Defendant prest his Cattel of his own wrong Absque hoc that he is Bailiff to J. S. And by Anderson 1 Leon. 50. If one hath good cause to distrain my Cattel and a stranger of his own head without any warrant or authority takes my goods not as servant or Bailiff to another and I bring Trespass against him he cannot excuse himself by saying that he did it as Bailiff c. for once he was a Trespassor but if one do distrain as Bailiff although that in truth he be not Bailiff if afterwards he in whose right he justifies assents to it he shall not be punished as a Trespassor for this assent shall have relation unto the time of the distress taken which Periam concessit and also Rhodes A. distrains and being asked for what cause he distrains and he assigns a cause which is not sufficient and afterwards an Action is brought against him 3 Co. 26. he may avow the distress for another cause CCXLVII. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That the Queen gave Lands in tail to hold in Capite and afterwards granted the Reversion Windham In this Case the Tenure is not incident to the Reversion but is in respect of the person and therefore the Tenure in Capite doth remain and the Donee shall hold of the Queen as in gross And also the Grantee of the Reversion shall hold of the Queen in Capite and so two Tenures in Capite for the same Lands See 30 H. 8. Dyer 45. If the Queen in this cause had reserved a Rent upon the Gift in tail the same should go with the Reversion CCXLVIII Dighton and Clark 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DIghton brought Debt upon a Bond the Condition of which was That whereas the Plaintiff was in quiet possession of such lands If now neither J. S. nor J. B. nor J. G. did not disturb the Plaintiff in his possession of the said lands by any indirect means but by due course of Law That then c. that Defendant pleaded That neither J. S. nor J. D. or J. G. did disturb the Plaintiff by any indirect means but by due course of Law upon which there was a demurrer Godfrey The Plea in Bar is not good for there is a Negativa pregnans scil a Negative which implies an Affirmative See 21 H. 6.9 In a Writ of Entry Sur Disseisin the Defendant saith That the Demandant by his Deed after the Darrein continuance did confirm and ratifie the possession of the Tenant c. The Demandant said Not his Deed after the Darrein continuance and the same was holden to be Negativa pregnans See more there and see also 5 H. 7. 7. And see farther 39 H. 6. 8 9. Another Exception was taken to the Plea in Bar because he hath pleaded That neque J. S. neque J. D. neque J. G. had disturbed the Demandant by any indirect means but onely by due course of Law and that issue cannot be tried not by the Countrey for they cannot know what is a due course of Law and by the Court it cannot be tried for the Defendant hath not certainly shewed by what due course of Law the Demandant hath been disturbed which see 22 E. 4. 40 41 c. The Lord Lisle's Case In Debt upon a Bond the Condition was That if the Defendant before such a day or any other for him and in his name come to B. and there shew unto the Plaintiff or one of his
such a pasture but so many beasts that such a prescription is a void prescription It was argued on the other side That the owner of the soil hath not the true property of the Conies in him but a kind of property And see F.N. B. 86 and 87. Quare clausum fregit 20 Cuniculos cepit Against a stranger he may have an Action but not against the commoner because he hath wrong in his common by the feeding of the Conies there for although he hath not an interest in the soil yet he hath an interest in the profits of it and a commoner may distrain the beasts of him who hath not right of common for damage-feasance as the books are 4 H. 7. 3. 15 H. 7. 15. and there the commoner hath not any remedy if he cannot enter and kill the Conies for he cannot take them damage-feasance nor can impound them for no Replevin lyeth of them if the owner of the soil ploweth the lands yet the commoner may put in his cattel claiming his common and he may well justifie the same because the wrong beginneth in the owner of the soil At another day the Case was moved again and then it was argued by Coke and he said The point is Whether a commoner having common of pasture may kill the Conies which are upon the ground and he argued That he might not And first he said It is to be considered what interest he who hath the Freehold may have in such things as are Ferae naturae and then what authority a commoner hath in the ground in which he hath common As to the first point he said That although such beasts are Ferae naturae yet they are reduced to such a property when they are in my ground by reason of my possession which I then have of them that I may have an Action of trespass against him who taketh them away as in the book in 42 E. 3. If one hath Deer in his Park and another taketh them away he may have an Action of Trespass for the taking of them See 12 H. 8. If a Keeper or Forrester follow a Buck which is chase out of the Park or Forrest although he who hunteth him killeth the Buck in his own ground yet the Keeper or Forrester may enter into his ground and seize the Deer because the property and possession of the Deer is yet in them by their persuit In 7 H. 6. It is holden That if a wild beast doth go out of the Park the owner of the soil hath lost his property in it but upon the said book it may be well collected that whilest it remains in the Parke That the owner of the Park hath property in it for 18 E. 4. 14. It is doubted whether a man can have property in such things which are Ferae naturae But in 10 H. 7. 6. it is holden That an action of Accompt lyeth for things which are Ferae naturae and see 14 H. 8. 1. In the Bishop of London's Case and 22 H. 6. 59. That as long as such things are in the parties ground they are in his possession and he hath a property in them and in an Action brought for them The Writ shall be Quare damas suas cepit by Newton And see in the Register fol. 102. where an Action was brought Quare ducent Cuniculos suos pretii c. cepit It hath been objected on the other side That the Defendant hath common there To that I answer Admit he hath common yet he hath not an interest in the soil for he cannot meddle with the wood grass or other profit arising of the soil but the interest which the commoner hath is onely the feeding of the grass with â—he mouths of his cattel and if he who hath the Freehold in the ground doth bring an Action against the commoner for entring into his land If the Defendant pleads Not guilty he cannot give evidence that he hath common there for such evidence will not maintain the issue See 22 Ass A commoner cannot take in the cattel of a stranger to agist upon the common and therewith agreeth the book of 12 H. 8. and so it hath been adjudged in this Court. Godfrey contrary And he argued That it is lawfull for the commoner to kill the Conies feeding in the common And he agreed all the cases which were put by Coke and farther he said That the owner of the ground had not an absolute but a kind of a qualified property in the Conies and therefore see the Book of 3 H. 6. and F.N. B. If a Writ of Trespass be brought Quare Cuniculas suas cepit the Writ shall abate and yet he hath a kind of property or a possession rather in them I grant that against a stranger the Plaintiff might have his Action for killing of his Conies but not against the commoner because the commoner hath a wrong done unto him by the Conies eating of his common and therefore he may kill them and although the commoner may not meddle with the land because he hath not an interest in it yet in some cases he may meddle with the profits of it and he may distrain the cattel of a stranger there damage-feasance as the Book is in 15 H. 7. I grant that it is not lawfull for Tenant for life to kill the Conies of him who hath free-warren in the land For if a man bringeth an Action of Trespass Quare warrenam suam intravit Cuniculos suos cepit It is no Plea for the Defendant to say That it is his Freehold See 43. E. 3. accordingly In L. 5 E. 4. In Trespass Quare clausum fregit Cuniculos suos cepit The Defendant said That the Plaintiff made a Lease at will to J. S. of the land and that he as servant to the said J. S. did kill the Conies there and it was holden a good Plea and yet it is there said That by the grant of the land the Conies do not pass but the reason of the book might be as I conceive because the feeding on the land with the Conies is to his damage and therefore that he might justifie the killing of them and so are the Books of 2 H. 7. and 4 E. 4. If I have common of pasture in lands and the Tenant ploweth up the land I shall have an action upon the Case in the nature of a Quod permittat And in 9 E. 4. If one hath lands adjoyning to my land and levyeth a Nusance I may enter upon the land and abate the Nusance So if a man taketh my goods and carrieth them unto his own lands I may enter therein and seize my goods So if a Tenant of the Freehold plows the land and soweth it with corn the commoner may put in his cattel and therewith eat the corn growing upon the land So if a man do falsly imprison me and put me in his house I may justifie the breaking open of his house to get forth In 21 H.
in which was parcel demised and demiseable according to the custome of the said Manor by Copy in Fee whereof Langley was a Copiholder in Fee c. and the said Earl so seised enfeoffed divers persons of the said Manor unto the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Lord Lumley and Elizabeth his wife daughter of the said Earl and the heirs of their two bodies begotten who made a Lease of the said Customary lands by Indenture unto the Plaintiff for 100 years and the question was If by this Lease the lands be so severed from the Manor that the Copihold is extinct Walmesly took exception to the pleading for that Langley pleads That the custome within the Manor is That if any Copiholder seised of Customary lands of the said Manor dieth thereof seised having many sons That the youngest son shall inherit and he sheweth That the Lord of the said Manor granted to his father and his mother the said customary lands by Copy to have to his said father and mother and the heirs of his father c. And that his father died and that his mother survived him and died and he as youngest son according to the custome entred and he said That this custome set forth by the Defendant doth not maintain his entry For the custome intendeth but a general and immediate descent upon a Copy made unto a man and to his heirs but such is not the descent here for the wife surviveth during whose life the heir cannot enter nor is there here such Estate in the father of the Defendant unto whom the custome set forth in the Avowry can extend For the custome is alledged Where a Copyholder hath a Copyhold Estate to him and his heirs And here the Title of the Defendant is That a customary Estate was granted to the father and the mother and the heirs of the father so as this Estate is not within the Letter of the custome And to that purpose he cited the Case of Sir John Savage Sir John Savage's Case ante 109. late adjudged Where one entitled himself to a Copihold in this manner That within the Manor there is such a custome that if one taketh to wife any customary Tenant of the said Manor in Fee and hath issue by her he if he over-live such wife should be Tenant by the Curtesie and the Case in truth was That he married a woman who at the time of the marriage had not any Copihold but afterwards during the coverture a Copihold descended to her In that Case it was holden That no Tenancy by the Curtesie did accrue by that custome which did not extend but where the wife is a Copiholder at the marriage and a custome shall be in construction taken strictly and shall not be extended beyond the words of it And as to the matter in Law he said That by this Lease the custome was gone and then by consequence the customary Tenancy as to that land is determined for the Estate of the Copiholder is Secundum consuetudinem Manerii ad voluntatem Dom. And now by the Lease Langley cannot hold Secundum consuetudinem Manerii for now the services reserved upon the Copy and the advantages of Waste and other forfeitures are extinct so that if notwithstanding the Lease the customary interest should endure then such a Copiholder should hold this land discharged of all services c. in better Estate than any Freeholder at the Common Law and because the services in Law are discharge and cannot be recovered for that cause the customary interest is determined For the Case is 7 E. 4. 19. by Danby That the Copiholder shall have remedy against his Lord if he put him out for he payes a Fine when he enters but here during this Lease no Fine can be paid upon any descent c. and the Fine is the cause for which the Copiholder shall maintain his possession against the Lord But here no descent or surrender can be presented for there is not any Tenant who can do it See 21 E. 4. 80. by Brian As long as the Copiholder payeth unto the Lord the customs and services If the Lord putteth him out he shall have an Action of Trespass 42 E. 3. 25. If the Copiholder will not do his services the Lord shall seize the lands Dyer 100. 1 Cro. 35. And he resembled this Case to the case where the King grants lands probis hominibus de D. the same is a good Grant and that onely in respect of the Rent and for the reason of that it is a good Corporation But if the King releaseth the Rent the Corporation is dissolved and the Grant is become void Fenner Serjeant contrary and he said That by this Lease being the act of the Lord himself the customary interest is not determined c. And the whole Court was of clear opinion with Fenner That the Copihold did remain for otherwise by such practices of the Lords all the Copiholders in England might be defeated and if any prejudice be grown to the Lord by this act it is of his own doing and against his own act he shall not be relieved And by Periam Iustice The Lord by his act i. e. the making of the Lease hath destroyed his Seignory and lost the services as to this land And Windham Iustice said That the Lord himself had destroyed the custome as to the services but not as to the customary interest of the Tenant but the Lord Anderson was of opinion That the Rents and services do remain and if the Copiholder after such Lease committeth Waste that it is a forfeiture to the Lord and that will fall in evidence upon a trial although such Waste cannot be found by an ordinary presentment and the same Law which alloweth the Copiholder his Copihold interest against this Lease will allow unto the Lord his Rents and services and he said That the Lord shall have the Rents and services and not the Lessee Quod mirum against his own Lease See 33 Eliz. between Murrel and Smith now reported by the Lord Coke in his 4 Report fol. 20. CCLVIII. Russel and Broker 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RUssel brought Trespass against Broker 3 Len. 218. for cutting down of four Oakes The Defendant pleaded That the place where c. and that he is seised of a Messuage in D. And that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Habere consuerunt rationabile estoverium suum for fuel ad libitum suum capiendum in boscis subboscis arboribus ibidem crescentibus and that in quolibet tempore anni but in fawning time The Plaintiff by Replication said That the place where is within the Forrest of c. and that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. Habere consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum de boscis c. per liberationem Forrestarii vel ejus Deputati prout boscus pati potest non ad exigentiam
Legacies c. did promise to pay to the Plaintiff 400 l. at four several days The first day of payment incurred and no money was paid whereupon the Plaintiff brought the Action the Defendant pleaded That he made no such promise and it was found for the Plaintiff and damages were assessed for the default of payment at the first day and that was moved in arrest of Iudgment because the Assumpsit was intire and the Plaintiff ought to have forborn his suit until all the days of payment were past and then to have one entire Action for the whole but the opinion of the whole Court was against that for they said It is not like unto a Debt upon a Contract or a Bill where the debt is to be paid at several days for here no debt is to be recovered but onely damages for the debt and this default of payment is a wrong and therefore the Action will well lie and so it was adjudged CCLXXX Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A. Devised that his lands should descend to his son but he willed 1 Cro. 252. Hob. 285. Dyer 251. a. Dy. 210. a. 3 Len. 9. 79. Yel en Ayleff Choppins Case Vaugh. 184. That his wife should take the profits thereof until the full age of his son for his education and bringing up and died the wife married another husband and died before the full age of the son and it was the opinion of Wray and Southcote Iustices That the second husband should not have the profits of the lands until the full age of the son for nothing is devised to the wife but a confidence and she is as Guardian or Bailiff for to help the Infant which by her death is determined and the same confidence cannot be transferred to the husband but contrary if he had devised the profits of the land unto his wife until the age of the Infant to bring him up and educate him for that is a Devise of the land it self CCLXXXI Bawell and Lucas 's Case Pasch 16 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Replevin by Bawell against Lucas It was agreed by all the Iustices viz. Mounson Manwood Harper and Dyer That if a man seised of a Manor leased part of the Demeans for years or for life That the reversion doth remain parcel of the Manor but such a Reversion by the Grant of the Manor doth not pass without Attornment of the Lessee And where a Manor is granted by Feoffment unto another and afterwards the Tenants attorn the services pass by the Livery and not by any Grant and although in the first Grant the Lessee doth not attorn but a long time after yet the Reversion is not severed from the Manor for the Attornment as to that intent shall have relation to the Livery to make the Reversion to pass from the time of the Grant but not to charge the Lessee with Waste and Dyer said That if a Feoffment in Fee be made of a Manor with an Advowson appendant and the Tenants do not attorn yet the Feoffee shall have the Advowson for the Advowson is appendant to the principal part of the Manor scil the Demeans and cannot be appendant to the services and Dyer said That if A. maketh a Feoffment in Fee of a Manor part of which is in Lease for years Habendum to the Feoffee and his heirs to the use of the Feoffee and his heirs upon condition that the Feoffee shall pay to the Feoffor within ten days 1000 l. and if he fail then to the use of the Feoffor for life the remainder to the use of his son in tail and the money is not paid the Lessee attorns after the ten days to the Feoffee 2 Leon. 265 266. the same is a good Attornment to raise secondary uses although that the first uses did not take effect for the condition is not annexed to the Estate of the Land but unto the use onely and the meaning was that the Feoffor should never have again the Inheritance A Feoffment is upon condition that the Feoffee shall give the Land in tail to a stranger who refuseth the gift there the Feoffor may re-enter but a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff a stranger or to grant a Rent-charge if the stranger refuseth there the Feoffor shall not re-enter for his intent was not that the Land should revert c. CCLXXXII Vavasor 's Case Hill. 16 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That Nicholas Ellis seised of the Manor of Woodhall leased the same to William Vavasor and his wife for the life of the wife the remainder to the right heirs of the husband The husband made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his wife for their lives the remainder to his right heirs the husband died the wife held in and committed waste in a Park parcel of the Manor It was moved If the Writ of Waste shall suppose that the wife holdeth in Ex dimissione Nichol. Ellis or Ex dimissione viri and the opinion of all the Iustices was That the Writ upon this matter ought to be general viz. That she holds in de haereditate J. S. haeredis c. without saying ex dimissione hujus vel illius for she is not in by the Lessor nor by the Feoffees but by the Statute of Uses and therefore the Writ shall be Ex haereditate c. And also the opinion of the Iustices was That the wife in this case is not remitted but that she is in according to the form of the Feoffment Dyer The Formedon brought against Manures rehearsed in the Writ a Will and divers Conveyances by reason of which the Writ was of exceeding length and in such cases the Writ is good yet if the Writ be general it is sufficient Note in this Case That the Plaintiff assigned the waste in destroying of Deer in the Park And Mead Serjeant said That waste cannot be assigned in the Deer unless the Defendant hath destroyed all the Deer and of that opinion was Dyer Manwood If the Lessee of a Pigeon-house destroy all the old Pigeons but one or two couple the same is waste and if the Keeper doth destroy all the Deer so as the ground is become not Parkable the same is waste although he hath not destroyed the whole See 8 R. 2. Fitz. Wast 97. If there be a sufficient store left in a Park Pond c. it is well enough c. CCLXXXIII Mutton 's Case Hill. 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. JAne Mutton brought a Writ of Entry Sur disseisin 1 Anders 42. More 96. against Anne Mutton who pleaded That one John Mutton was seised and levyed a Fine to the use of himself and such wife and wives as the said John should after marry by what name or names they should be called for term of their lives and afterwards to the use of the same Jane now Demandant in tail the remainder over to the right heirs of the said John Mutton and afterwards the said