Slade and Morleys case a case was put which proves it to be according Snig Baron agreed that Iudgement ought to be given for the Plantiff and by Tanfield if I take your goods and detain them until I have caused you to pay me 10. l. a general Action of Trespass lieth and not an Action upon the case and it is cited 7. H. 4. or 7. E. 4. to be accordingly but yet he agreed that judgement should be entred and so it was appointed to be done but then Chibborn for the Defendant said that here is a mistrial for if this trust be not material because it is not effectually shewed in the Declaration as you have argued then the Venue shall come only from the parish where the Wares were laid upon the land and not from the parish also where the appointment or trust was made by the Plantiff and therefore the trial also being from both parishes is a mistrial and the Court agreed that this is a mistrial upon that reason for now the appointment or Trust is but an inducement and therefore needs not to be shewed within what parish it was made and therefore a new Venire facias was granted and upon that a new trial and damages more then before and judgement was given accordingly Arden against Darcie NOta a good case of Attornament which was decreed in the time of Baron Manwood betwixt Arden and Darcie and it was this one Arden was seised in fee of divers lands in the County of c. and made a lease for years and after made a feofment with words of Grant of those lands to A. and B. to the use of the feoffor and his wife for their lives the remainder to Arden his son in tail and after the feoffor said to the Lessee that he had conveyed his land which the Lessee held in lease to the uses aforesaid and the Lessee said I like it well and after he paid his rent to the feoffor generally and it was decreed in the Exchequer Chamber that this is no Attornament because the Attornament ought to be to the feoffees and it appeareth not that the Lessee had notice of the names of the feoffees and therefore it cannot be said to amount to an Attornament but notwithstanding that Decree Arden the same to whom the remainder was limited had his Action depending in the Kings Bench to trie the point again as he said to me also this Term a point concerning the said Decree was in question upon another Bill exhibited in the Exchequer Chamber by Sir Edward Darcie against Arden and the case was as followeth Sir Edward Darcie exhibited his Bill here in the nature of a scire facias against Arden to shew cause wherefore the said Edward Darcie should not have execution of a Decree made in the time of Baron Manwood and the Defendant shewed that Darcie in his first suit supposed by his Bill that he had a grant of the land then and now in question from Queen Elizabeth rendring rent as it appears by the letters Patents and in facto there was no rent reserved upon the Patent and that the Defendant gave answer to the said Bill and admitted the Iurisdiction of the Court and after a Decree was made against the Defendant and the Defendant now having shewed this special matter demurred upon this Bill in respect that by his pretence the Court had not jurisdiction to hold plea in the first suit and here it was shewed that the first decree was made upon a matter in Law not properly examinable by English Bill and that in facto the Law was therein mistaken and therefore the Defendant prayed that the decree may be re-examined Tanfield chief Baron it is usual in the office of Pleas that if an action be brought as a debtor of our Lord the King this is good although that de facto no suggestion be made thereof if it be not shewed on the other side and therefore a writ of Error for this falsity shall not cause the judgement to be reversed as it was resolved in a case in which I was of Councel and so here as it seemeth Altham Baron here we are in equity wherein we are not tied to so strickt a course as if it were in the office of pleas Brock of the Inner Temple for the Defendant in a Court of equity it is in the discretion of the Court to deny Execution of a decree if good cause be shewed and in 18. E. 4. fo 1. judgement was given against a married wife by the name of a feme sole and reversed although she did not shew in the first suit that she was married and in 8. E. 4. judgement was given in the Kings Bench in a suit and by writ of error was reversed although the Defendant had admitted the Iurisdiction of the Court and the chief Baron and all the Court inclined that Arden may exhibit a Bill to reverse this Decree made against him and may shew what point in Law the Iudges mistook in the Decree or otherwise we should not do as Law and Iustice requireth for it is not expedient to be examined by way of Bar to this Bill in the nature of a scire facias and after Arden according to the Decree of the Court and their direction did exhibit his Bill in the nature of a writ of error Comprising how the first decree was erroneously made and prayed that the said decree might be reversed and in his Bill he shewed the point in Law which was decreed and that upon divers long conveyances appears to be thus and so it was agreed by Councel on both parties that Arden the father was seised of the Mannor of Cudworth in the County of c. and was also seised of the Mannor of Parkhal in the same County and of Blackclose c. which was parcel of the Mannor of Cudworth but lying neer unto Parkhal and alwayes used and occupied with it and reputed parcel thereof but in truth it was parcel of Cudworth and that Arden the father made a Conveyance of the Mannor of Parkhal and of all the lands thereunto belonging and reputed as parcel thereof or occupied with it as part or parcel thereof and of all other his lands in England except the Mannor of Cudworth to the use of Arden his son that now is Plantiffe here and if Blackclose will pass to the son by this conveyance or if by intendment it shall be excepted by the exception made it was the question here and was decreed in the time of Baron Manwood that it is excepted by the exception but all the Barons now thought it to be a strong case that Blackclose is not excepted by the exception of the Mannor of Cudworth and so the first decree was upon a mistake out of the Law and Tanfield chief Baron said that the point is no other but that I infeoffe you of Blackacre parcel of the Mannor of D. exceyt my Mannor of D. this doth not except the King
of 99. years is agreed to be given Secondly if there be such an imployment of this land as the Statute requireth admitting the lease was not given Thirdly if the livery upon the Queens Lessee for years be good and I hold that the Fee is not given to the Queen Secondly the land is not imployed c. admitting that it was given Thirdly that the Feofment here is not good and as to the case at Bar the Feoffees may enter I doubt not of that because there is not any thing found but that it was imployed to the uses intended for 99. years Secondly if it were not imployed according to the condition after 1. Ed. 6. yet they cannot enter for themselves were parties to the Art which did prohibit it as 34. H. 8. Dyer 52. the Queen gives licence that Belmelt shall be transported notwithstanding any Statute made or to be made if after it be prohibited the licence is determined because the Patentee himself was a partie to such Statutes Secondly it is said in Addams and Lamberts case that a superstitious devise or other estate upon condition is within the Statute because the Patentee was partie thereunto Thirdly it is said in the said case that a superstitious devise or other estate upon condition is within the Statute because it is penal and compulsorie for the maintenance of a thing prohibited by the Law and also there it is said that there is a proviso towards the end of that Act that it shall not be Lawful by reason of any remainder or condition for any man to claim any lands c. for the not doing or finding of any such Priest as to the other point which was moved at Bar I hold that the use doth not arise upon the words subsequent and if they do not re-enter that then the land shall go to the use of the four Feoffees to the intent aforesaid is not a mis-ordering nor an imployment Secondly these words to the intent do not raise any use but only a confidence and trust reposed in the Feoffees Doctor and Student 94. for the first point therefore he held that there is no superstitious gift of the Fee-simple and if there were it is not imployed c. and therefore it is not given by the Statute of 1. Ed. 6. to the Queen and touching that we are to consider the Statute Indenture and the Schedule and there is not a word that after 99. years the land shall finde a Priest but the money and the land is not given but the money as in the Dean of Pauls case 22. Eliz. Dyer 368. if land be given to finde a Priest with part of the profits thereof those profits are only given to the King by this Statute and not the land but that belongs to the Dean and Chapter also the Schedule is if then it may be lawful and therefore if it were not then lawful the money is not given and it is like to the case where I make a lease for 21. years if I do allow of it before Michaelmas and before Michaelmas do not allow of it this is a void lease and so if I give land to the use of Westminster School if the Dean will enter into a Recognizance c. and if he will not enter into a Recognizance it is no gift like to the case 15 H. 7. a grant of Annuitie if such a thing be done c. secondly as to the imployment the lease is only found to be imployed and the imployment of the lease is no imployment of the Fee which was not given until the Term was expired and if the gift be not superstitious the imployment ought not to be superstitious and yet as it is said in Adams case there ought to be an imployment to intitle the Queen as the case there is if one gives the Mannor of D. and S. to superstitious uses the Queen shall have the lands out of the hands of the Feoffee and if land be given to finde a Priest in the Church of D. for 20 years and after to finde one in S. for 21. years and before the expiration of the first Term the Statute is made it seems the Queen shall have only the first Term because there is no imployment of the second Term within the Statute 5. Ed. 4.20.15 Ed. 3. Execu 63. I agree those cases for land or rent issue from a seisin 30. Ed. 3.12 in a quare impedit 5. Ed. 6. Benlowes a devise to 8. to the uses and intent that the Feoffees with the profits shall finde a Priest whilst the Law of this Realm will suffer it and if the Law will not suffer it then to the use of three of the poorest of the Parishes adjoyning by all the Iudges this is not within the Statute and as to the last point it seems that the Feofment is good and the interest of the Queen is no impediment which if it be not then there is no question as Dyer 20. Eliz. 363. Tenant in tail makes a feofment the servants of the Lessee for years being upon the land and livery is made and after the Lessee for years agrees saving his Term this is a discontinuance 14. Ed. 4.2 3. and 4. Ph. et M. Dyer 139. possession shall not be gained from the Queen but by matter of Record 4. Assises 5.21 Assises 2.8 H. 4.16.1 H. 7. no livery upon the Kings possession it may be devised by the heir or conveyed by bargain and sale or by fine from him and the Kings estate in reversion doth not priviledge the estate in possession as it is 23. Ed. 3.7 a disseisor conveys land to the Queen who grants for life and the disseisee shall have a writ of entrie against the Queens Lessee for life by the opinion of Thorp Cook lib. 4.55 a disseisor makes a lease for life the remainder to the King a recovery of the land against Tenant for life will defeat the Kings remainder 7. Rich. 2. aide of the King 61. Tenant in tail grants the land to the King with warranty and the King makes a lease for life if the issue recover in a Formedon the Kings estate is defeated and I was of Councel in the Court of wards in a case which was Pasch 43. Eliz. betwixt Chackston and Starkey for the Wardship of the heir of Clifford and it was this the Ward at full age tendred his livery and had six moneths to sue it and within the six moneths made a Feofment and after died before livery sued in this case the livery and seisin was void and it is all one as if no tender had been made for the Queens possession was priviledged the second point was that one being in Ward to the King had a reversion in Fee expectant upon an estate for life and before livery sued made a Feofment in Fee this makes a discontinuance of the reversion notwithstanding the Kings interest which he had in reversion for the Wardship which case is like to the case
above mentioned of a lease for years and also it was there said that if Tenant for life be the remainder to the King for years the remainder to another in Fee and the Tenant for life makes a Feofment in Fee this drawes the Kings remainder out of him and so he held that here is no gift Secondly that here is no imployment and so the Feofment is made good Altham second Baron contra I will consider only two points First if it be a gift for years or for ever and I say that it is a gift for ever for here is no intent in the Donor to determine the superstitious use because he doth not limit any other use to which it should revert but only that the Priest should be maintained for ever and as that which hath been said that it was not imployed he answereth that out of the Book of 22. Assises 52. where 12. d. is reserved for three years and after 100. s. seisin of 12. d. is seisin of the 100. s. because it is issuing out of the freehold as the case is in Littleton in the Chapter of Atturnement Tenant for life the remainder in Fee the Lord shall not avow upon the remainder but shall have it by way of Escheat for all the estates together are holden of the Lord but if land be given to finde a Priest in D. and one is maintained in S. this is a mis-imployment but in our case I conceive that the Feoffees have power to dispose the land as to them seems best and therefore it is uncertain and then given to the King as it was in Dales case land was given to the intent that a Priest should be maintained as I. S. and I. D. thought fit so that he had not less then 8. marks yearly the King shall have all for the Feoffees may give all to the Priest if they please and in Turners case land was devised to a Priest and divers poor men all is given to the King by the superstitious imployment and as to the words if by the Law it may be they are idle for id possumus quod de Jure possumus and therefore 9. Ed. 6. an office was given to one if he were able to exercise it these words are idle for the Law saith that he shall not have it if he be not able to execute it 30. Ed. 3.8 a gift to two and to the longer liver of them that the Survivor shall have it are idle words 10. H. 7. a Condition that c. and here it the condition had been until an Act of Parliament prohibit it they are Idle words for if land be given to I. S. and his heirs upon condition that if he die without heirs c. this is a void condition and Repugnant to Law Lastly I hold the feofment good by way of Admittance and that the livery takes effect notwithstanding the Queens interest 4. H. 6.19 the Kings Tenant for life is disseised he shall have an Assise and yet there is no intrusion upon the King 17. H. 7.6 the Kings Lessee makes a feofment the King enters and so he held that the judgement should he given for the Defendant Snig Baron argued much to the same intent that Bromley had done and that the Schedule is so circumspect that nothing is given after the 99. years and that a spirit of Divination forwarned him of the alteration and he agreed the Feofment to be good with this difference where the King is in possession actually and where the Reversion is in the King and the book of 2 H. 4.9 that none shall enter upon the Kings Farmor is to be understood of the Kings under Tenants and not of his Lessees Tanfield chief Baron said that neither by the intent of the Statute nor of the parties the fee is given to the Queen but it is apparant that during the 99. years the parties intent is in suspence for fear of alteration and that they would see the difference of the times and leave the disposing thereof to his Feoffees and if they had sold the land and with the money maintained a Priest as many stocks of money have used to do without doubt it had been forfeited to the King and not the land and it would be in vain to speak of an Amortization if it be for a stipendary Priest only for this would not be necessary to have a foundation incorporated and to make an Amortization for such a Priest and therefore it seems to him that there is no determination of his will after the 99. years but that all is left to the determination and disposition of the feoffees who then should be and after the intent of the Statute which was penned by Hales Iustice of the Common Pleas. I observe four words given appointed limited and assigned and I do not conceive that our case is within the compass of any of them for as I said before it is in suspence until the end of 99. years and the parties who should have the interest are not known untill the time come nor the estate setled until that time but if it had been conveyed to superstitious uses after it had been given to the Queen notwithstanding the conveyance had not been sufficient if he who did convey had power in respect of the abilitie of his person and the estate in him and therefore Pasch 22. Eliz. the case was this Sir William Say before the Statute of 32. H. 8. of Wills was seised of lands in fee not devisable and before the said Statute he devised it to finde a Priest and notwithstanding that the devise was not good yet it was adjudged that the land was given to the Queen by 1. Ed. 6. but if it were a feme covert or an infant who are disabled in Law or a Tenant in tail who is disabled in respect of his estate there it had not been given to the Queeen but in all cases there ought to be an assignment or otherwise nothing is given and there is a difference where one grants land to the intent with the profits thereof to finde a Priest there all the land is given to the Queen and where he grants a rent for the maintenance of a Priest for there the King shall have but the Rent and he said that the Case cited 5. Ed. 6. Benlos is good Law and as to that which hath been said That because the power of the Feoffees is uncertain it should be given to the Queen true it is where the power is uncertain to bestow the profits but if their power be certain it is otherwise and as to the imployment there is none because there is no gift but the imployment of the particular estate is an imployment of the Remainder and a small thing will make an imployment James case was of the Greyhound in Fleetstreet which was given to finde a Priest and the White Horse for the maintenance of another and the Feoffees of the White-horse maintained the Priest of the
declares the use to be to himself for life and after to T. B. with power of revocation and to limit new uses and if he revoke and not declare then the use shall be to the use of himself for life and after to Henry Becket with power in that indenture also to revoke and limit new uses and that then the fine shall be to such new uses and no other and after 42. Eliz. by a third Indenture he revoked the second Indenture and declared the use of the fine to be to the use of himself for life and after to Hen. Becket in taile the remainder to I. B. c. R. B. dies and T. B. his brother and heire is found a Recusant and the lands seised and thereupon comes H. B. and shews the matter as above and upon that the Kings Atturney demurreth Bromley and Altham Barons that the Declaration of the uses made by the third Indenture was good and he having power by the first to declare new uses may declare them with power of Revocation for it is not meerly a power but conjoyned with an interest and therefore may be executed with a power of Revocation and then when he by the third Indenture revokes the former uses now it is as if new uses had been declared and then he may declare uses at any time after the Fine as it appears by 4. Mar. Dyer 136. and Coke lib. 9. Downhams case and in this case they did rely upon Diggs case Cooke lib. 1. where it is said that upon such a Power he can revoke but once for that part unlesse he had a new power of Revocation of Vses newly to be limited whereby it is implyed that if he had a new power to appoint new uses he may revoke them also Snig Baron to the contrary and said that he had not power to declare 3. severall uses by the first contract which ought to Authorise all the Declarations upon that Fine and then the Revocation by the third Indenture is good and the limitation void and then it shall be to the use of R. B. and his heirs and so by the death of R. B. it doth descend to T. B. the Recusant and also he said that such an Indenture to declare uses upon uses was never made and it would be mischievous to declare infinite uses upon uses Tanfield held that the uses in the second Indenture stand unrevoked and the new uses in the third Indenture are void and then H. B. ought to have the Land again out of the Kings hands The power in the second Indenture is that he may revoke and limit new uses and that the Fine shall be to those new uses and no others and then if there be a Revocation and no punctuall limitation he had not pursued his Authority for he ought to revoke and limit and he cannot doe the one without the other Also he said that after such Revocation and limitation the fine shall be to such new uses and no other then if there be no new uses well limited in the third Indenture the former uses shall stand void Nota it seemeth that if a man make a Feoffement and declare uses and reserve a power to revoke them without saying moe he cannot revoke them and limit new for the use of the Fine being once declared by the Indenture no other use can be averred or declared which is not warranted thereby for he cannot declare the fine to be to new uses when it was once declared before Cook lib. 2.76 That no other use can be averred then that in the conveyauce Cooke lib. 9 10 11. Although that the first uses are determined as if a man declare the use of a Fine to be to one and his Heires upon condition that he shall pay 40. l. c. or untill he do such an Act if the first use be determined the Fine cannot be otherwise declared to be to new uses And therefore it seemes that all the uses which shall rise out of the Fine ought to spring from the first Indenture which testifieth the certain intention of the parties in the leaving thereof and then in the Case above the second Indenture and the limitation of new uses thereby are well warranted by the first Indenture and in respect that this is not a naked power only I conceive that they may be upon condition or upon a power of Revocation to determine them But the power to limit the third uses by a third indenture after revocation of the second uses in the second indenture hath not any Warrant from the first Indenture and without such Warrant there can be no Declaration of such new uses which were not declared or authorised by the first Indenture which Note for it seems to be good Law FINIS AN EXACT TABLE of the Principall Matters contained in this BOOKE A. AN Action of false impriprisonment for taking his wife in execution she appearing as a Feme sole 48 52 An Action upon the Case for conspiring to outlaw a man in a wrong County 49 Amerciament for a By-law 55 An Action upon the Case where against a Servant for breach of trust much good matter 65 66 67 68 Amerciament where well levied by the Sheriff 74 Action by an Executor against a Sheriff in the debet and deâ—â—net where good 80 81 Authority in fact and authority in Law abused a difference 90 Action for these words against I. S. spoken of the Plaintifs wife she would have out her husbands throat and did attempt to doe it 98 C. Custome for Pirates goods if payable 15 Coppy hold surrendred to the use of a younger Sonne he can have no Action before admittance 20 Churchwardens if elected by Vestry-men where good and capable to purchase Lands 21 Conspiracy see Action Collector of a fifteenth leviable upon one Township 65 Commissioners of inquiry and their power 83 84 D. DEbt against the Sheriff for an escape a good Case 20 Distresse for a By-law upon the Kings Tenant he must bring his Action in the Exchequer 55 Devise to the wife until the issue accomplish 18. years endeth not by death of the issue before 56 57 Decree where execution thereof may be stayed 68 69 E. ERror a Writ directed to an inferiour Court ought to be executed without fee paid or tendered 16 Elegit the party who sued it dieth no scire facias for the Heire 16 Equity where releviable in the Exchequer 54 Estreats where they may be discharged for insufficiency in the Indictment or not mentioning the offence 55 Estoppell in the Kings case 65 Exception in a Grant 69 Escape a difference where caused by a rescous and where by the Sherif or Bailif 70 71 Executor see Action 80 81 Erroneous judgement given in the Kings Mannor reversed in the Exchequer by Petition 98 F. A Feoffement to the use of the Husband and Wife for their lives and after to the heirs of the body of the wife begotten by the Husband what estate 17 First fruits ought
the which the Lord chief Baron Tanfield said insist not upon a labour of that kinde for it is plain enough because the Queen being partie there can be no Estoppel as to any part in that case also as to that part of his argument Mr. Walter agreed on the other side and also he said that if a grant of the Queeen were void at the Common Law for default of want of consideration this Statute aids not Walter for the Defendant and he divided the case into foure points the first whether the Tenant for life by the Kings guift by surrendring his letters Patents hath also surrendred his estate Secondly if the surrender in this case made be defective only for want of matter of circumstance as the inrolment c. whether such defects are saved by the Statute 43. Eliz. Thirdly whether in this case an actual surrender be the consideration meerly which moveth the Queen to grant or what shall be intended the consideration in this case Fourthly admitting that an actual surrender is the sole consideration in this case then whether a Patent shall be adjudg'd void for default of such consideration for a false consideration doth not avoid a Patent but a false surmise doth first when the Kings Tenant for life doth surrender or give up his Patent although without deed yet with such circumstances as the law requireth the surrender is good for although a surrender of letters Patents made by the Kings Tenant in tail will not make estate tail void or determine as it appears by the book case of 35. H. 8. title surrender and Cook 6. the Lord Chandos case yet the bare giving up of the letters Patents by a Tenant for life is a surrender of his estate so here in this case is some proportion between a Tenant for life of the Queen and a Tenant for life of a Common person to amount to a surrender and therefore it appeareth by 43. E. 3. that a Tenant for life may surrender without deed and without livery and from the land but a Tenant in tail may not do so also if a Common person hath a rent or other thing which cannot pass but by deed yet a surrender of such a rent shall be good by a bare deliverie up of the deed if he hath but an estate for life in the Rent and this also although it be but to the disseissor of the land out of which c. the same Law he took it of a particular Tenant for life of years also 32. H. 8. Brook Patents 97. it is made a doubt whether the estate tail of the Kings Donee be determined and gone by surrendring of the letters Patent and he referred that if thought worthy of a doubt whether it should be a good surrender of an estate tail they would hade held it clearly a surrender for an estate for life and it was admitted 3. Eli 2. Dyer fo 193. Mack-Williams case that if in the principal case if a Vacat or cancellation had been the surrender had been good actually without question and Sir Maurice Barkleys case cited on the other part proves the same also for there it is admitted that if the letters Patents had been given up there had been a perfect surrender And 40. H. 3. fol. 5. Belknap held that a surrender may be by word which is to be intended by giving up the Patent and that appears by Rolfs case in Dyer that a voluntary surrender needs no Conftat also where it hath been objected that the special verdict in this case hath not found in what Court the surrender was made he answered that the Law shall intend it to be made in the same Court from whence the letters Patents did issue for a surrender cannot be good being made in another Court and therefore it must needs be intended the same Court and he vouched 11. Ed. 3. fo 1. and 18. Eliz. Plinies Case and Covel and Cabels Case in Banco Regis 38. Eliz. wherein a special verdict it was holden that all things necessary for the perfecting of that the Iury hath found to be done must be necessarily intended concurrent Secondly the want of circumstances in a surrender are perfected and supplied by the Statute of 43. Eliz. for although matters of substance are not aided within this Statute yet matters of circumstances are aided And he said that all the defects in this Case are matters of circumstance and to prove that the defects in this Case are only in circumstance he said that there are three principal defects in conveyances which are meerly matters of circumstance and aided within this Statute the first is meerly want of form in a conveyance and that such a defect is aided he cited Hussies Case to be adjudged accordingly the second is where words are wanting in a conveyance and that such a conveyance is aided by this Statute he cited the opinion of Popham and Gawdy in 44. Eliz. in a cause depending in the Chancery the third matter of circumstance is where there is want of some matter concerning the executing of an estate and that such defect is only matter of circumstance and aided within this Statute he cited Morley and Whartons Case to be adjudged 7. Eliz. in the Common Pleas that the default of not inrolling is aided by this Statute and Mack-Williams and Kemps Case cited in Dyer before proves this to be but matter of circumstance and for that he thought the surrender in the principal Case wanting nothing but inrolment is aided by this Statute also in the argument of the second point he shews what defects in conveyances should be accompted matter of substance and so not aided by this Statute of 43. Eliz. and to this purpose he held that all disabilities of the person in a grant is matter of substance and so not aided within this Statute and he cited Twynes Case 32. Eliz. in the Exchequer to be accordingly Secondly he held that the nature of an assurance is not aided by this Statute and therefore if a man hath power to grant an estate by fine and he doth it by Deed this is not aided by the Statute for this is defective in matter of substance and he cited Wisemans Case and Sir Hugh Cholmleys Case in Cook l. 2. also he said if a man give land to the King and his heirs to have ten years after such grant this is not made good by the Statute Thirdly whereas it may be Collected that because it is found in the special verdict that an actual surrender was the cause which moved the Queen to grant or that it appears to be the cause he held that no consideration plainly appeareth but only by relation to a consideration before mentioned and he said that these words used by the Queen viz. modo habens et gaudens shew that the Queen took notice the state was still injoyed notwithstanding the delivery up of the letters Patents and therefore it cannot be intended by the verdict that the Queen intended
Earl of C. now dead and found that by fine and recovery he conveyed an estate in this land to the use of his brother that now is Earl of C. in tail the remainder over to c. and died having a daughter now Countess of Dorset who moved by Dodderidge the Kings Serjeant in the Court of wards that this office was insufficient for by the pretence of the said Countess the first estate given to the Cliffords by E. 2. was a general tail and then the fine levied and the recovery suffered by the last Earl her father is no Bar but that it may discend to this Countess as his heir in tail and therefore Serjeant Dodderidge said to the Lord Treasurer then present in Court that if this should be allowed that Iurors may finde generally a grant made and shew no quallitie of the conveyance nor any place or time but if this were a grant of reversion or of a possession he said that many men by such offices should have their lands given away whereunto they had no means for uncertainties to take a Traverse and as to insufficiency of this office he said that the insufficiency therein consisted first in matter Secondly in form for the insufficiency of the matter is two fold First because that the office findes only that King H. 6. by sufficient conveyance not limited any manner of conveyances nor any qualitie thereof which ought to be shewed and it is material because we may give a different answer thereunto for against letters Patents we may plead one thing and against an other conveyance we may plead another thing and so our answer differeth according to the qualitie of the conveyance Secondly it is insuffient in matter because it is found that H. 6. granted the possession and that he granted the reversion nec non manerium which is repugnant for if the King grant a reversion then no possession passeth and if he pass a possession then no reversion passeth and therefore it is repuguant to say that he granted Reversionem nec non manerium which implieth a possession also he said that his exceptions to the office as to the Mannor of it are two-fold First the office doth finde any time of the grant made by H. 6. and this is material for the grants upon Record take their force from the time of their date as appears by Ludfords Case in Plowdens Commentaries and he said that at this time the case is material to be exprest in respect that H. 6. was for part of his reign deposed and after restored and it might be in the time that he was deposed by Edward the fourth but unto that it was answered by the attorney of the wards that the office found that H. 6. granted c. that it was not in the time when he was deposed the second insufficiency in the Mannor is because it is not found at what place H. 6. made the said grant and that this is material to be found by office he vouched 36. H. 6.32 and he said that it is very requisite that in such offices all circumstances ought to be expressed in as ample certaintie as in a declaration so that the partie prejudiced by the office may know where to search for the conveyance but the Attorney general said that there needs no such express finding of all circumstances by a Iury as it ought to be in pleading for it shall be taken by intendment in divers cases but yet he said that it appears by 1. Eliz. Dyer 174. it is a good plea to say that A. granted a reversion c. to the King without shewing how much more in office which is the Act of the Iurors and therefore Serjeant Harris cited the Book of 14 15. H. 7.22 where an office found an estate tail without mention of the Donor and yet good and the Attorney general said also that it appears by the finding of the Iury in Fulwoods Case Cook lib. 4. that the Iury need not precisely to finde all circumstances for if there be convenient certaintie the residue shall be supplied by intendment as it is there said and the Attorney said that whereas it hath been objected that the issue is evil because it is found that H. 6. granted the reversion and also the Mannor and Castle aforesaid and doth not limit incertaintie that the King granted a reversion or that he granted a Mannor in possession to that he said that it is clear that the King may after recital of a particular estate grant the reversion nec non terras sive manerium and then be the land in lease or be the lease void in Law yet the land shall pass and this is his course alwayes in granting the Kings lands to others and therefore the Iury did well to finde the truth without determining what should pass for admit that there were no estate precedent in being yet by this finding it appears plainly that the Mannor and Castle should pass by the grant in the time of H. 6. to which the Lord Cook agreed for Law and so he said it was his use when he was Attorney general to which also the Lord Treasurer Flemming chief Justice and Tanfield chief Baron agreed and the Attorney general said that his use was if A. had a lease from the King of B. acre which by effluction is to determine in Anno. 1612. and the said A. doubting that this lease was not good in Law prayed to have a new lease that in this case he recited the first lease in the new letters Patents and thereby granted the land for twentie years from c. which shall be in Anno 1612. or from the sooner determination of the former lease and the Iudges allowed it to be good and Dodderidge Serjeant said that after the difference taken between the pleading and the finding of the Iury it seemed to him that there is a great difference between them but after the finding of the Iury upon an office as our case is and a pleading there is no difference for the office is a thing to which an answer may be made but a verdict given upon issue joyned between the parties hath no other proceeding but to judgement immediately and therefore such a verdict shall be divers times supplied by the construction of the Iudges but a verdict upon an office ought to be as certain as an indictment because the partie may Traverse and to prove that upon such uncertain offices there is no remedy by Traverse he vouched the case of 3. H. 4 5. upon an insufficient office after the outlawry of A. and no time is found of the outlawry and he observed out of the said book that the partie outed by the said insufficient office had no remedy by Traverse but was compelled to make a motion to the Court and after this case for difficultie was referred to the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron to consider upon who the said Term at Serjeants Inne appointed it to be
Heir except that judgement be given against the Ancestor and for that see 40. E. 3. Executors 74. and 41. Ass pl. 15. and 15. Eliz Dyer 322. And also if a Recusant had been convicted upon the Sat. of 23. Eliz. and dyed before judgement cleerely this forfeiture shall never be charged upon the Heir for the words are that a Recusant shall forfeit 20. l. a moneth and if he doe not pay it then appoints the recovery by Bill Plaint or Information and this ought to be alwaies in the life of the party then the Stat. of 28. Eliz. maketh not a new debt or Forfeiture but gives a penalty for the non-payment of that which was a debt within 23. Eliz. and that the intent of the Stat. of 28. Eli. was but such this is proved by the Title of the Act. viz. for the more speedy and due execution c. 2. It is proved by the first words of the Act for the avoiding of all delaies c. so that it appears that this Act is but as a penalty meerly Also he said that this Stat. of 28. Eliz. dispenceth with the conviction as to the penalty but doth not take away the Conviction also he said that conviction without Iudgement maketh not a Debt Also he who is convicted by proclamation and dieth is discharged Also he said that our Case hath been compared to a Debt upon an Obligation but this is not like for the Stat. stands not indefinite but hath reference to 23. for otherwise a Recusant may be doubly charged that is upon both the Statutes for there is no means to recover the Debt but by this Statute of 23. Eliz. See Sir Edward Walgraves case Dyer 231. Wentworth and others against Stanley WEntworth and his Wife and Rich and his Wife brought an Ejectione firmae against Stanley and shewed in their Declaration how one Edward Stanley was seised in Fee and infeoffed the Earl of Darby others to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the Plantiffs wife for 100. years and died and the Plantiffs entred and the Defendant ejected them c. and this Feofment was made in 40. Eliz. the Defendant saith that long before one Richard Stanley was sesed in Fee and gave it to the said Edward Stanley in tail and that he so seised made a Feefment to the uses as is alledged and died and the Plantiffs entred and the Defendant as issue of the Feoffor re-entred and so by his pretence his is remitted whereupon it was demurred and upon the opening this case the Barons were clear of opinion that the issue in tail is remitted and came paramount the lease and so the lease for years is gone also by the chief Baron and Baron Snig there needs no Traverse to be alledged by the Plantiffe because it was but of a fee gained in an instant by the feofment of a Tenant in tail and a fee-simple gained in an instant needeth not to be Traversed 5. H. 7. and 2. E. 4. wherefore the Court said that judgement ought to be given against the Plantiffs but yet at the desire of the some the Court gave day to the Councel on both parts to argue the case at which day came Heneag Finch for the Plantiffs and he argued to the matter in Law and therein he said that by the feofment of Tenant in tail the use to himself for life the remainder to his daughters for years without limiting the residue of the use that in this case the residue of the use shall be in the feoffes and not in the feoffor for by him there is a difference between a feofment by him who had a fee with limitation of an use as above and a feofment made by him who derives an estate out of a fee for when Tenant for life or Tenant in tail makes a feofment and limits an use for part of the estate as above there the residue of the issue shall be to the feoffee and he vouched Castle and Dods case adjudged in the Common Pleas 8. Iac. that if Tenant for life grant over his estate without limiting of an use it shall be to the use of the grantee more strong here in a tortious act as our case is but if Tenant in tail will levy a fine with limitation of uses as above there the residue of the use shall be to the use of the Conusor Secondly admit that the residue of the use in this case shall he to the feoffor yet he shall not be remitted to the use as it seemeth the words of the Statute of 27. H. 8. are that cestuy que use shall have like estate in the land as he had in the use and therefore it is clear that the first taker of the use shall not be remitted as it is resolved in Amy Townsends case in Plowden and although the words of the Statute mention not heirs or issues yet by the intent of the Statute they are in equal degree but the Books which are against this opinion are two viz. 33. H. 8. Dyer fo 51. but there it is not expresly said that the issue is remitted but 34. H. 8 Br. remitter 49. is expresly against me but the same year in Dyer fo 54. it is there made a quere and in Bevils case it is only said that the first taker of the use cannot be remitted but of my opinion was Baldwin and Shelley in 28. H. 8. Dyer 23 24. and in Sanages case and 29. H. 8. it is resolved that if a man hath land by Act of Parliament there shall be no remitter and so here wherefore c. and he said if Tenant in tail be the remainder in fee and Tenant in tail makes a feofment to the use of himself in tail the remainder to him in remainder in fee in this case he in the remainder in fee shall not be remitted for then the first taker should be remitted to the pleading it seemeth that the bar is not good and first the general demurrer here doth not confess the matter of fact no more then in Gawins case in 29. H. 8. fo 40. by Brown a demurrer upon account in an appeal is no confession of the fact and in 44. Eliz. in Crisp and Byrons case accordingly see Sir Henry Browns case before a good case to this purpose then as to the Bar it seems it is not sufficient for want of a Traverse of a seisin in fee alledged in the feoffor who was Edward Stanley for it is a rule that two affirmatives cannot be allowed in a Declaration and the Bar without Traverse of that which is mentioned in the Declaration is not good except there be cause of some impossibilitie or inconvenience but yet this is to be understood where the affirmatives are express and not by implication as in Moiles case if the Defendant in his Bar confess a fee determinable he needs not Traverse the fee alledged by the Plantiffe but in our case here is an allegation made by the
this be confessed that the King there should take nothing without inrolment yet this is not like to our case for here this is but to merge a particular estate which differs much from the case of conveying of an inheritance also this is confessed if there had been a Memorandum made in the Margent then the surrender had been good and the want thereof is the laches of the Clark and then if it should not be a surrender before the Memorandum made the Clark should make the surrender and not the partie and as to the Book of 37. H. 6. it is not answered for to say that the King hath no right to the thing granted before inrolment but that he hath the propertie that cannot be and to that which hath been objected that there doth not appear any intention of the surrender because that although the Patents are surrendred the estate remained the Book of 32. E. 3. Monstrance of faith 178. proveth nothing for there it is said that a man may plead that a Dean and Chapter did not lease modo et forma without shewing any Deed for there this pleading is not to devest any thing out of c. and also it appears in the principal case that his intent was to surrender for the Iury do finde that the Letters Patents were restored by the command of the Lord Seymor to be cancelled and to that which hath been objected if the second Patent should be good that the Queen might lose her Rent or condition because the first lease hath his continuance to that I give answer that the first lease hath not his continuance and therefore no loss can grow to the Queen and to that which hath been objected that the Queen is deceived it appears by these words modo habens c. restituit c. that the intention of the Queen was that the Lord Seymor had surrendred his estate before and that he now had nothing because that the word modo being joyned with the word reddidit signifieth the time past but as to that it seems to me that although modo poetica licentia in the strict construction of Grammer may signifie the time past yet the signification thereof shall not be so taken in the letters Patents for there it shall be taken in common construction and not to the deceipt of the King and therefore in the Dean and Chapter of Bristols case 7. E. 6. Dyer the words are nuper in Tenura I. S. et modo in Tenura A. B. there nuper is taken for the time past but modo for the present time and in 11. H. 7. Rogerum Townesend modo militem is to be intended that he is now Knight and not that he was a Knight in time past and not now also it is so to be observed here that these words habens et gaudens are annexed to this word modo both which are in the present time and restituit comes afterwards and so modo is not annexed to restituit but unto habens et gaudens also although the word shall be referred unto restituit yet all may well stand together for restituit may be referred unto the time present as siquae fuerint in 35. H. 6.11 and to that which hath been objected that until the Queen agrees unto the surrender the estate is not in the Queen he thought that where Tenant for life surrenders before agreement he in the reversion is Tenant to the Praecipe although he shall not maintain a Trespass before entrie for by 21. H. 7.12 it appeareth that an estate for life may be determined aswel by word as by surrender so in 9. H. 7. where the Tenant dies without heir the freehold is immediately in the Lord but yet he shall not have an action of Trespas before entrie now as to the first point he conceived it to be an actual surrender although there be no Vacat made nor any Memorandum and to examine it he did relate what Acts might make a surrender and to that purpose he said that words being used which do prove an assent of the Tenant that he in reversion shall have an estate that shall be a surrender without express words of a surrender for a man may surrender by these words Remisit or resignavit for the words are not material if so there be substance as in 40. E. 3. placito 14. and 40. Assises pl. 16. if a lessee for life saith to his lessor that you shall enter and I will that you shall have this land this is a good surrender So in 28. H. 8. Dyer 33. if a Termor agree that he in the reversion shall make a feofment that is a surrender so in 8. Eliz. Dyer 251 252. lessee for life is content that he in the reversion shall have the land and his interest that is a surrender but in that case it appeared that a rent was reserved and an agreement that the lessee should have it againe if he survived the lessor and therefore appearing plainly that it was not intended to pass by way of surrender it was at the last adjudged no surrender so in 14. H. 8. the Grantee of a Rent did surrender the Deed and that held to be a good surrender of the Rent it is daubted in 2. Eliz. Dyer in Sir Maurice Barkleys case 156. if the surrender of the Patent of an Office unto a master of the Chancerie out of the Court be good without beliverie of the Patent to be cancelled but that Book proveth nothing but that a delivery of a Patent to be cancelled shall be a good surrender though the Patent be not cancelled in facto it hath been objected that it matters not what commandment the Lord Seymor did give nor in what Court the Patents were given up nor before whom but to that he said in asmuch as it is found that the Patents were given up by the commandment of the Loâ—d Seymor to be cancelled that being it was by his command it was his own surrender also it appears that the letters Patents were under the great Seal of England which alwayes issueth out of the Chancery and therefore it cannot be cancelled in any other Court and it shall be intended that they were given up to be cancelled there also this word restituit signifieth to restore and a man cannot restore any thing but where he had it and he had it out of the Chancery and therefore it shall not be otherwise intended but to be there restored so in Baggots Assise 9. E. 4.7 it is pleaded Quod restituit litteras Patentes Cancellandas and sheweth not to whom nor where and it was held to be very good but it is there pleaded Quod sursum reddidit Patentes Domini Regis and shewed in special to whom they were surrendred because it may be to any that hath power at the time of the surrender but a man cannot restore unto any but such a one who granted unto him and therefore needs not shew unto whom he did restore
it seems to me it is apparant by the Statute of the 26. H. 8. Cap. 10. which gives power to the King by his letters Patents to limit the time for importing of Wines against the Statute of 23. H. 8. Cap. 7. which was no more but a restoring of his power abridged before and so was the Statute of 31. E. 3. for otherwise the Parliament would never have given him Authoritie to contradict an Act of Parliament by his letters Patents or to revive these Acts Impositions are meerly a new custome and so are they stiled in the Margent of the Roll of the 3. E. 1. in this Court where it is Recorded that the King had assigned Merchants to receive using the same words which are used here half a Mark for every Sack of Wool and a Mark of every Last of Leather and that if the Merchant who is so appointed Transport any after that it shall be forfeited and out of this record I observe that three hundred Pelts make a Sack of Wooll from the 21. Ed. 1. unto the 28. E. 1. the customs for Wools was 40. s. a Sack and in 25. E. 1. the Imposition of Maletolt was repealed by Act of Parliament which Maletolt was an increase of Impost upon staple commodities and therfore was given to the King a great subsidie with this cause that it should never be drawn into president which shews that this Maletolt was rightly imposed otherwise the Parliament would never have given him so great a Recompence for the Abrogation of it but after in the 13. of E. 3. because it was a thing of so great consequence to the Crown it was revived and made 40. s. for Wool and Woolfels and 3. l. for Leather for denizens and double for strangers in the 14. Ed. 3. a Petition in Parliament to abate it and for a great subsidie it was released and in the 18. of Ed. 3. it was again revived and a new petition was made in Parliament and this petition was continued until the 36. of Ed. 3. and then it was abated and also by the 45. E. 3. it was again abated so that it seem that between these times it was revived but after it did not continue long for in 48. E. 3. it was again revived and for Wool the Impost was 50. s. et sic de singulis and in 1. R. 2. after it was answered to the King as it appears in the accompts here and in 5. R. 2. it was again suppressed by Parliament for a subsidie granted to the King with a saving of antient rights all these Statutes prove expresly that the King had power to increase the Impost and that upon commodities of the land and that he continually used this power notwithstanding all Acts of Parliament against it and so much for commodities of this land but for forrain commodities it appears by no Act of Parliament or other president that never any petition or suit was made to abate the Impost of forrain commodities but of them the Impost was paid without denial as for example for Wines in the 16. E. 1. as appears in this Court upon Record it was commanded to the Bailiff of Dover to levie and Gollece of every Tun of Wine of a stranger 4. s. and in the 22. E. 1.2 s. thereof was released at the suit of the French Ambassador in the 26. of E. 3. the King granted priviledges to Merchants strangers but there was given for it an increase of custome and this was answered as it appears upon accompt in the times of E. 1. and E. 2. the case of Allom was as it hath been recited by my brother Clark it is objected that the Merchant ought to have free passage upon the Sea but that both not conclude the King but that he shall have his Impost if he cometh into his Ports and here the question is for Merchandise after that they are brought into the Port but it is said that they cannot come into the Port but by the Sea that is true but if this reason should hold then the King could not grant Murage Pontage and the like because the common Channel to them is free and Average is for securitie aswel as Ports another objection that the Defendant here is not restrained but that is answered for if a pain be inflicted upon them who import this is an inhibition upon a pain to all another objection was that there was no consideration of the Imposition and if it be demanded what differences between the cases I answer as much as is between the King and a subject and it is not reasonable that the King should express the cause and consideration of his Actions for they are arcana Regis and no satisfaction needeth for if the profits to the Merchant faileth he will not trade and it is for the benefit of every subject that the Kings Treasure should be increased an objection was made against the form of proceeding because it was by the great Seal to the Treasurer and that he by the customers Peteret et reciperet and this could not be better as it was answered before it was objected that it should be by Proclamation and that needs not for it toucheth not all the subjects but only those who are Traders in Merchandising the best and aptest means to give them notice by the customers and it is alledged by the information expresly that he had notice It was lastly objected that there ought to be a quod damnum in the case before the grant that is not so for that shall be only when the King granteth any thing which appertaineth to his prerogative and not when he maketh Charters to his servants to levy his duties due to his Crown wherefore I think that the King ought to have judgement which was after given accordingly 6. Jac. in the Exchequer An Information against Sir Edward Dimock THe Bishop of Carlisle called John May in A. 26. Eliz. made a lease in reversion to Queen Eliz. of the Mannor of Horncastle whereof the Bishop was seised in right of his Bishoprick and this was for 4. years and it was acknowledged before Commissioners appointed for this purpose and the Bishop prayed it to be inrolled and this prayer is indorsed but not inrolled and in 37. Eliz. this lease was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter in the life of the lessor and in 44. Eliz. the successor Bishop leased this land to Sir Edward Dimock the Statute of the 43. of Eliz. hath a proviso that it shall not extend to any lease before made by the Bishop of Carlisle to Queen Eliz. then not inrolled and after the death of the Queen viz. 5. Jac. this lease in 26. Eliz. is returned and certified to be acknowledged and is then also inrolled and Sir Edward Dimock had entred and was in possession by vertue of his lease in the 3. Jac. and the information was for entrie and intrusion in 3. Jac. and upon the Bar all this matter was discovered and a
Sir Robert Dudley appointed and after Sir Robert Dudley by licence from the King Travelled beyond the Seas to Venice and after the Barganees made a lease to Sir Robert Lee to the intent that the Lady Dudley should take the profits of part thereof for ten years if the estate of the Barganees should continue so long unrevoked and after the King having notice of divers abuses made by the said Sir Robert Dudley in the parts beyond the Seas commanded the said Sir Robert Dudley by privy Seal delivered unto him the 10th of April in the 5th year upon pain of forfeiture of all his lands and fortunes to return again immediately c. and after a Commission issued forth to inquire what lands and Tenements c. Sir Robert Dudley had or others for him in use or upon confidence and the Iury found this special matter but found not any fraud expressy and thereupon the King exhibited his Bill here against the Barganees and also against Sir Robert Lee their Lessee who truly discovered all this special matter and that they were not knowing of the Deed until long time after making of it and that no consideration was given by them in this case for the lands so bargained and it was argued by Sir Henry Mountague Recorder of London for the King if these lands should be seised or not he conceived that there are three things considerable in the case First the contempt of Sir Robert Dudley in his not returning upon the sight of the privy Seal and of what quality this offence is Secondly what interest the King had by this offence in the land of Sir Robert Dudley being the offender Thirdly if notwithstanding these offences these lands ought to be seised for the King touching the first point he said that it is requisite to examine if a subject at the Common Law may go beyond the Seas without Licence and in what cases the Law allows a man to go out of the Realm without Licence and as to that he said that it appears by the reason in the 12th of Eliz. Dyer that at the Common Law every man may go out of the Realm but the Statute of the 5. Richard 2. restraineth all but Merchants noble men and Souldiers and as he conceived this was but an affirmance of the Common Law notwithstanding the Book before cited and to prove that he said that the opinion of Dyer in the first Eliz. fo 165. seemeth to agree also it is proved by divers Licences granted before this Statute see F. N. B. fo 85. in the writ de securitate invenienda quod Se non divertat ad partes exteras sine licentia regis according to the 12. Eliz. in Dyer and he further said that there are two reasons to prove that no man may go beyond the Sea without Licence at the Common Law for by 2. E. 3. and the 16. E. 3. and Glanvil in his Chap. of Essoynes by such means the subjects may be deprived of their suits for debt and also the King may be deprived of the attendance of his subject about the business of state and it appears by the Register fo 193. 194. that religious persons purchased licences to go beyond the Seas and it appears by Littleton in the Chap. of confirmation that a dissent takes not away an entry of him who is beyond the Sea except it be by the Kings commandment see the case intended by Littleton in the Chap. of Continual claim there it seems to be a doubt to Littleton then he argued further if the Common Law alloweth not a subject to go beyond the sea without licence but reputes it a great contempt this is a great contempt in him who will not return by the Kings command and the Law hath alwayes punished such contempt as it appears by Dyer fo 28. 177. 19. E. 2. John de Brittons Case also there is a president for seisure of all his lands for such contempt and he vouched the book what the King had done where he cited that the Prior of Oswaldshire forfeited all his lands and possessions for such contempts and so concluded the first point of the quality of the offence and spoke nothing of the licence which Sir Robert Dudley had of the King at the time the which as it seemeth was not expired nor the power which the King had to Countermand it within the time to which the Attorney general in his argument did speak to the Second point it seemeth that the contempt giveth such an interest to the King that he shall retain the land until conformity for he who dwelleth in contempt ought not to have any possessions here and he cited the 22. H. 6. and the 21. H. 7. and divers other books which are cited in Calvins Case Cook lib. 7. also he said that there is a difference where the King is offended as King of England and where as head of the Kingdome as this case is which is a greater offence in qualitie then for any offence for which men should lose their lives as if they should stand mute upon their arraignment c. also there is a great difference between this contempt and by outlawry and therefore in case of outlawry he needs no office but the King is only intitled to the profits of his lands which is but a transitory Chattel in which case an office is not necessary but where an interest coms to the King there ought to be an office and he vouched Pages Case in Cook lib. 5. and Sir William Herberts Case but he did not endeavour to prove what interest came to the King in this case for when an interest comes to the King there ought to be on office as to the second point he said that trust between parties is fraud as to the King and in this case the badges of fraud are found by the office First his purpose to go beyond the Seas Secondly his Barganees are not privy to the Deeds Thirdly no summe was paid by them Fourthly here is a power of Revocation Fifthly covenants to execute all grants as Sir Robert Dudley appointed Sixthly the subsequent Act that is viz. his staying beyond the Seas and his not returning upon the Kings command and although in this case there be no fraud in the parties who are Barganees and so the fraud is only of one partie yet it appeareth by the 19. of H. 8.12 that if an infant hath right to land and a stranger disseise the Tenant to the intent to infeoffe the infant without Covin in the infant yet the infant shall not be remitted and he vouched Delamores case in Plowden to be accordingly also there are divers cases in our books to prove the inveterate hatred which our law beareth to all Acts which are fraudulent and therefore in 44. E. 3. 41. Assise pla 28. it appears that a recovery upon a good title although it be in Dower which is favoured in Law against a Tenant who comes to the
Common Law it is also to make an obligation in the name of another to be forfeitable although it was not at the Common Law so if we will have a confidence or a trust to be forfeited we ought to have a Statute made to this purpose and as to Pauncefoots case he said that the King had a title by the indictment of recusancy before the conveyance made by Pauncefoots but so it is not in our case whereby appeareth a plain difference betwixt the cases see the 14. H. 8. fo 8. the Attorney general to the contrary at another day and first he spake to the quality of the offence viz. the contempt and this offence as he said is aggravated by these circumstances First the command of the King himself came and not of any inferiour officer as Sheriff c. and it is immediately directed to the partie himself Secondly the command is that he shall return upon his faith and allegeance which is the strongest compulsion that can be used Thirdly the thing required by the King is the principal dutie of a subject viz. to be at the command of the King for service and not as the common summons in Law is to answer at the suit of I. S. and he said that this contempt is to be accompted in quality of a contempt from the very time when the privy Seal came to his hands for the words quod indilate c. and it hath been in all ages the course and use to punish contempts of this kinde by seising their lands and he vouched in proof thereof the presidents of John de Brittons case in 19. E. 2. and of Edward de woodstock in the time of E. 2. and the case in 2. Ma. Dyer fo 128. 2. Eliz. Dyer Barners case fo 176. and 23. Eliz Dyer 375. and Englefields case Cook lib. 7. moreover he argued in so much it is clear that the King shall seise his lands for this contempt it is to be considered what estate or interest the King shall gain by this seisure and as to that he thought that the King hath an estate at the least for the life of the effendor and that he conceived is proved by the presidents for these words are used in the seisure c. donec aliter duxerimus ordinandum c. and he said that this is proved by Englefields case and also by the way and manner of the seisure and disposing of the land for such contempt in 23. Eliz. Dyer 375. by the Statute of 13. and 14 Eliz made against fugitives also he used this reason to prove that the King had an estate for life viz. because the offender by this contempt had impliedly deserted his land and left it to the Kings dispose and then it is all one as if he granted the land to the King to hold and use as long as he pleaseth and such an express grant will create an estate for life in the King as is proved by 35. H. 6. where it is agreed that if I give land to A. as long as he will this is an estate for life and so here by this implied Art c. also as to that that may be pretended in this case that the King granted licence in this case to Sir Robert Dudley to travel for a time certain which time is not yet expired and therefore the contempt qualified or satisfied by reason of this licence to that he said that notwithstanding that was the case yet the contempt is all one as if he had no licence at all in regard it is countermanded by the privy Seal which injoyns him to return and to prove that this licence is alwayes countermandable by the King he said that besides the common usage and obedience of countermands of this kinde he said that it was to be proved by reason also and authority of our books for although here be a licence indeed yet there is great adversitie between a licence indeed which giveth interest and a licence indeed which giveth only an authoritie or dispensation as in our case for the one is not to be countermanded but the other is as appeareth by 5. H. 7. and 1. Ma. Dyer 92 and admit that after this licence and before the departure of Sir Robert Dudley the King had said unto him you shall not go this had been a good countermand as seemed to him and he vouched 9. E. 4.4 and 8. E. 4. if I licence A. to stay in my house for three dayes yet I may put him out in the mean time but otherwise it is if I licence A. to hold my land for 3. dayes because there an interest passeth and the reason wherefore this licence in our case is countermandable is because all licences of this kinde have tacite conditions annexed to them for no Act or licence wil. free a subject from his allegeance as appeareth by Doctor Stories case in the 13. Eliz. Dyer fo 300. and no man can put off or be dismissed of duties which belong to a subject no more then he can put off his subjection and this is the reason that an honor or dignitie intailed ought to be forfeited although it be intailed for the honor which is given by the King hath a tacit condition in Law annexed unto it and it ought not to continue in him who committeth Treason nor in his posteritie although that the partie had but an estate tail therein see Nevels case Cook lib. 7. and so had the King his licence which is but a dispensation for the time and countermandable by the King and he said that the Book in 2. Eliz. Dyer fo 176. makes it a doubt but he thought it clear for the reasons aforesaid and as to the material point viz. if this land shall be priviledged from seisure by reason of this bargain or not and he said that it shall not be priviledged for this conveyance which is revokable at the will of the Bargainor is meerly fraudulent against any interest of forfeiture for otherwise the Kings subjects are but as ferae naturae which when they are out of their pale the King had no means to reduce them within the Park again for in this case had no means directly to punish this offence upon the body of the offender but by the depriving him of the means of his maintenance and although there be no fraud here in the parties Bargainees yet the fraud in the Bargainor makes the conveyance void against the King for as it appeareth by our books the King cannot be an instrument of fraud although he may be party thereunto see 17. and 21. E. 3. so in the case of an infant cited before by Mountague all which and many others to this purpose of fraud are cited in Farmors case Cook lib. 3. fo 48. and whereas it was objected that here can be no fraud intended in the offender in regard he had a licence to travel and it cannot be intended that he presupposed any countermand of this licence and
and therefore he vouched a case between Scockwood and Sear where a man devised part of his land to his wife for life and another part of his land until Michaelmas next ensuing his death and further by the said will he devised to his younger son all his lands not devised to his wife and adjudged that by the said words the younger son shall have only that parcel which was devised to the wife for life and not that which was devised unto her till Michaelmas and yet by Popham it appeareth that his intent was otherwise viz. that all that should go to his younger son so there ought not to be a strained construction made against the heir and so in our case the words being that if he die without issue c. that then it shall go to his wife herein as much as he had issue at the time of his death it cannot be said that he died without issue but that he is dead without issue and this appeareth by the pleading in the Lord Bartleys case in Plowden and he vouched also a case in the Kings Bench 4. Jac. between Miller and Robinson where a man devised to Thomas his son and if he die without issue having no son there it was holden that if the devisee had issue a son yet if he had none at the time of his death the devisee in the remainder shall have it yet he was once a person having a son and so in our case there was a person who did not die without issue and he vouched also the case of Bold and Mollineux in 28. H. 8. Dyer fo 15.3 when a man deviseth to his wife for life paying a yearly rent to his sister and that if the rent be not paid that the sister may distrain it seems to me that this is a conditional estate in the wife notwithstanding the limitation of the distress and he vouched 18. Eliz. in Dyer 348. which as he said proved the case expresly for there in such a case it is adjudged that the devisee of the rent may after demand thereof distrain and yet the heir may enter for the not payment of the rent although it were never demanded so that the subsequent words of distraining do not qualifie the force of the condition although there be there an express condition and in our case but a condition implyed and he said that it seemed reasonable that such a construction for the distress and condition also shall stand as appeareth by divers cases that upon such words the Law will allow a double remedy and therefore he vouched Gravenors case in the Common Pleas Hill 36. Eliz. Rot. 1322. where a lease was made by Magdalen Colledge to husband and wife so that if the husband alien that the lease shall be void and provided that they do not make any under-tenants and to this purpose he vouched the case of the Earl of Pembrook cited in the Lord Cromwels case Cook lib. 2. where the words amounted to a covenant and a coudition and if this word paying should not be construed to be a condition then it were altogether void and idle and such a construction ought not to be made in a will and he conceived that this rent ought to be paid by the wife without any demand upon the pain of the condition and therefore he vouched 22. H. 6. fo 57.14 E. 4 21. E. 4. by Hussey and 18. Eliz. Dyer 348. vouched before and so it was resolved as he said in the Court of Wards in Somings case where a man made a devise paying a rent to a stranger this ought to be paid without demand and he said that the Common case is proved when a feofment is made upon condition that the feoffee shall do an act to a stranger this ought to be done in convenient time without request by the stranger and so here it seemeth although a demand ought to be made by the sister yet the wife ought to give notice to the sister of the Legacy so that she may make a demand and therefore he vouched Warder and Downings case where a man devised that his eldest son upon entry should pay to the younger son such a summe of money here the eldes brother ought to give notice at what time he will enter to the intent that the younger brother may be provided to make a demand Edwards of the Inner Temple contrary First it seemeth that by this limitation the wife ought to retain the land until the issue of the devisor should have come to the age of 18. years for this a time certain and as it is construed upon such words in Borastons case Cook lib. 3. that the Executors there have an interest certain so it should be construed here to refer to a certainty which is until the time by computation that the issue should have attained to 18. years and the rather in this case in respect the devisor had otherwise disposed of the land until the son should have accomplished the said age Secondly it seemeth that the wife hath an estate for life not conditional in so much as the words are not joyned in the case the 18. Eliz. Dyer hath been vouched but that was upon an express condition but here it is by implication and then the clause of distress taketh away the force of the implication which otherwise might be thereupon inferred and therefore in 5. Eliz. Dyer it appeareth that the word Proviso annexed to other words makes it no condition in judgement of Law and so in 14. Eliz. Dyer 311. and he vouched also 18. Eliz. Dyer Greens case that if a man deviseth lands to his friends paying to his wife with a clause of distress this is no condition as it is adjudged Thirdly it seemeth that this summe to be paid to the sister is a rent and therefore ought to be demanded or otherwise in judgement of Law the condition shall not be broken and the 21. E. 4. the case of an obligation to perform covenants c. and a case between Wentworth and Wentworth 37. Eliz. that a demand ought to be made for a rent which is granted in liew of Dower for the wife brought a writ of Dower for the land of her husband the Tenant pleaded that she accepted a rent out of the land in liew of her Dower and the wife replied that the said rent was granted upon condition that if it were not paid at certain dayes that it should be void and that she should have Dower of the land and she said that the rent was not paid at the dayes c. but shewed not in her pleading any demand to be made and therefore it was holden evil pleading for such a rent ought to be demanded or otherwise the condition is not broken and so here Nota that this case was appointed to be argued again but after as I heard the Barons amongst themselves resolved to give judgement for the Defendant upon one point only which was that the estate
in 1. Jacobi and no other conviction ever was and yet de facto he continued a Recusant untill his death and his Land viz. two parts thereof were seised in his life and the King answered of 200. l. thereof which incurred in the moneths contained in the Indictment and now a Writ is issued which supposeth the said Robert to be indebted to the King in 20. l. for every moneth be lived after 28. Eliz. untill 1. Jacobi for his Recusancy which amounted to 4000. l. which Writ also commands to enquire what Lands the said Robert Becket had at the time of his death and thereupon it was found that he had divers Lands c. and upon a Scire facias to the Terretenants to shew cause wherefore two parts of the Lands of the said Robert Becket should not now be seised for the debt of the Recusant aforesaid one Henry Becket as Terretenant or Tenant of the Premisses pleaded that the King is satiefied of all the 20. l. and for all the moneths that the said Robert was convicted to be a Recusant and he vouched the Constat thereof under the hand of the Deputy of the Pipe Office and for the residue he said that by 28. Eliz. cap. 6. it is amongst other things enacted that if any person which hath not repaired or shall not repaire to some Church Chappell or usuall place of Common Prayer but hath forborne or shall forbeat the same contrary to the Tenor of the Statute of 23. Eliz. cap. 1. and hath been heretofore convicted for such offence shall forfeit c. provided that it he hath made submission and been conformable according to the true meaning of the said Statute or shall fortune to dye that then no forfeiture of 20. l. for any moneth or for seisure of the Lands of the same offender from and after such submission and conformity or death and full satisfaction of all the arrerages of 20 l. monethly before such seisure due or payable shall ensue or be continued against such Offendor and traverseth without that that there is any Record besides this Writ to charge the said Robert Becket deceased of or for the summe of 4000. l. towards our said Lord the King c. and so prayeth to be discharged thereof Vpon which Plea the Kings Atturney Generall demurred and Coventry argued that the Plea is good he said that there are three Points to be considered First that if a man be convicted of Recusancy in 28. Eliz. for 10. moneths then passed and de facto continueth a Recusant untill his death in 1. Jac. without other conviction if now the King can claim 20. l. a moneth for more moueths then are contained in the Indictment whereupon he is convicted Secondly admit that the King may have the forfeiture for every moneth whereof no conviction was as well as if a conviction had been then if the King can seise the Lands for the payment thereof after his death no seisure being had for it in his life by the Stat. of the 28. Eliz. or if the power of seisure be altogether gone by the death of the Recusant Thirdly admitting that the King shall have more then is contained within the Indictment if the Debt it self be not gone by the death of the Recusant To the first Point there is no President to be found that any man convicted before 28. Eliz. was charged to the Payment of more then that which was within the Indictment and the words of the Statute of 28. Eliz. contained within this Clause which provides for the payment due since the Conviction do not inforce any construction to the contrary and in this Clause the words being do yet remain unpaid are not proper words but for a thing payable before this Statute for so many moneths whereof he was convicted of Recusancy and the words without any other conviction are to be understood for so much as was unpaid of that contained in the Indictment and the last Clause of this Branch of the Statute hath not the words without any conviction and the other Clause provides that by expresse words for the future time every person who shall be once convicted shall forfeit c without other conviction and it was resolved Hill 4. Jacobi in the Kings Bench between Grinstone and Oliver that the Statute of 28. Eliz. alters and adds three things to the Statute of 23. Eliz. 1. That all the money due for Recusancy shall be paid into the Exchequer 2. This limits a time for payment thereof yearly viz. in the four Terms of the year 3. This giveth a penalty viz. power to seise all the goods and two parts for non-payment but all that is only for that which was payable before the conviction and therefoâ—e the words in the Branch which contains our Case have apt words of construction that he shall pay all due for the paine of seisure for 23. Eliz. gives no seisure but imprisonment if payment be not made within three moneths after judgement and so in our case Conviction ought to precede the duty To the second Point it seemeth that the power of seisure within this Statute is gone by the death of the Recusant for before the Statute of 1. Jacobi the power for seisure was but a penalty that if the party fail in payment of 20. l. a moneth then c. and in all cases upon penall Laws if the party die before the penalty inflicted this shall not be inflicted at all and that this is but a penalty he vouched one Grayes case in 1. and 2. Jacobi to be adjudged accordingly Also the words in this Statute which give the seisure of Land appointeth a levying to be of the 3. part for the maintenance of the Offendor his Wife Children and Family and after his death he hath no Wife so that if it be demanded when the seisin must be the answer is then when a third part may be left for his use which cannot be but in the life of the Recusant Also it appoints that the seisure ought to be by Processe which ought to be in the life of the party by intendment Also the Proviso of the Statute of 28. Eli. saith that if any person shall dye no seisure shall insue or be continued aâ—d out case is within those words for in regard there hath been no seisure in his life therefore after his death no seisure ought to insue and the words which purport another semblance of construction viz. and satisfaction of all arrerages are to be understood only in case where there was a former seisure that is in the life of the party and have reference to the words to be continued and that the intent is so he said that the words are so that the Heir shall pay no more but so much as the Land was seised for To the third it seemeth that in this case the debt it self is gone by the death of the party At the Common Law a penalty shall never be recovered against the
by seisure of two parts of the land c. then when a Statute gives a new thing which was not at the Common Law and limits a course and means whereby it shall be levied that course ought to be pursued and it cannot be done in any other manner the Statute of 8. H. 6. cap. 12. makes the imbesting of a Record Felony and that this shall be inquired by Iury whereof one halfe shall be Clarks of some of the same Courts and that the Iudges of the one Bench or of the other shall hear and determine it and the case was that part of the offence was done in Middlesex and part in London so that the offence could not have such proceeding as the Statute appointed and therefore it was holden that it should not be punished at all Mich. 41. et 42. Eliz. Betwixt Aggard and Standish the Statute of 8. Ed. 4. cap. 2. inflicts a penaltie upon him that makes a retainer by parol and moreover it is thereby ordained that before the King in his Bench before the Iustices of the Common Pleas Iustices of the Peace Dyer and Terminer every man that will may complain against such person or persons doing against the form of this ordinance shall be admitted to give information for the King and it was holden that the informer could not sue for himself and the Queen upon this Statute for an offence done in any Court not mentioned in that Statute the Statute of 35 Eliz. cap. 1. appoints that for the better and spedier levying and Recovering for and by the Queens Majestie of all and singular the pains duties forfeitures and payments which at any time hereafter shall grow due or be payable by vertue of this Act and of the Act made in the 23 d. year of her Majesties Raign concerning Recusants that all and every the said pains duties c. may be recovered to her use by Action of debt Bill plaint or information or otherwise in any of her Courts of her Benth Common Pleas or Exchequer in such sort in all respects as by the ordinary course of the Common Lawes of this Realm any other debt due by any such person in any other case should or may be recovered wherein no essoin c. Note that this Statute extends not to any penaltie upon the Statute of 28. Eliz. cap. 6. also the Common Law doth not give any means to levie a debt upon a trust and as to the general point it seems that no land can be seised after the death of the Recusant 23. Eliz. cap. 1. enacteth that every person of the age of 16. years which shall not repaire to some Church c. but forbear the same contrary to the Tenor of the Statute made in the first year of her raign for uniformity of common prayer and being thereof lawfully convicted shall forfeit to the Queen for every moneth which he or she shall so forbear 20. l. And that statute doth give no forfeiture at all for Lands And also it giveth no penaltie without conviction so that the death of the party before conviction dischargeth all and so without question it was at that day This last Point seems to be remedied in part by the Statute of 28. Eliz. cap. 6. for thereby if the party be once convicted he shall alwaies pay after without other conviction and this Statute gives also a Seisure but before any seisure Three things ought to concur 1. Recusancy 2. Conviction 3. Default of payment And the last of these was the tâ—ue cause of the seisure viz. That is the contempt of not payment Therefore it was adjudged in Sir William Greenes case that this seisure shall not go in satisfaction of such debt but the King shall hold it as a penalty for the contempt untill the debt be paid so that when a Statute imposeth a penaltie for a contempt as the contempt is personall so is the penalty And therefore the death of the party before that it be excuted or turned in rem judicatam dischargeth all and I shall prove it by the different plea in an Action upon a penall Statute and other common Actions and therefore in debt not guilty is no plea but in debt upon a penall Law it is a good Plea for in truth untill it be adjudged it is no debt but a contempt Michaelmas 41 42. Eliz. betwixt Car and Jones and in debt upon the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. not guilty was adjudged a good plea Trin. 42. Eli between Morley Edwards 2. It may be proved by the different forms of judgment for in common actions the judgment is Quod quaerens recuperet c. But in informations the usuall form is Quod defendens foris faciet 41. Ass which implies that it is not perfect untill the Iudgement and before it is only a contempt and if so then by the death of the party it is discharged Thirdly I shall prove it by Authority that the death of the parties before Iudgement dischargeth aswell the contempt as the penaltie of a penall Law 40. Ed 3. Executor 74. debt lies not against the Executors of a Iaylor who suffers Prisoners to escape 15. Eliz. Dyer 322. in the like Case the opinion of the Court was that an Action did not lye against the Executors of the Warden of the Fleet. but there ought to have been a Iudgement against him in his life time for the Offence is but a Trespass by negligence which dies with the Person 18. Eliz. Dyer An Action brought against the Heire and ruled that it doth not lie for it is a Maxime that no Law or Statute chargeth the Heir for the wrong or trespasse of his Father Also it is to be observed in the Principall Case that the Statute limits the seisure to be by Proces out of the Exchequer so no seisure can be without Proces as it may be upon some other Statute But a judiciall course is hereby prescribed whereupon the Partie may plead with the King for his Land and therefore if that course be not pursued in the life of the party it is too late to pursue it after his death Also the words are that he shall seise all the goods and two parts of the Lands of such Offendors But after his death the goods are not his but his Executors and the Lands are not his but his Heirs and a seisure by way of penalty relateth no higher then to the time of the seisure also the words of the subsequent Proviso explame it further for it it be demanded when the King shall seise two parts it is answered at the same time when he leaveth the third part and when must be leave the third part it is auswered in the life of the Recusant That it may be for the maintenance of his Wife Children and Family and after his death he hath neither Wife Children nor Family for in a Writ of Dower the Demandant shall say that she was Wife and not that she is Wife As to the