the Grantee for life when his Estate was enlarg'd needing no new Attornment or privity he did not thereby lose the Rent-arrear If two Jointenants in Fee let the Land for life Litt. Sect. 574 reserving a Rent to them and their Heirs if one release to the other and his Heirs this Release is good and he to whom it was made shall have the Rent of Tenant for life only and a Writ of Waste without Attornment to such Release for the privity which once was between the Tenant for life and them in the Reversion So is it if one Jointenant confirms the Land to the other and his Heirs Litt. Sect. 523. The Law must necessarily be the same if a man seis'd of a Rent-service or Rent-charge in Fee grant it to two and their Heirs or to two and the Heirs of one of them and the Tenant attorn if after one Jointenant release to the other or he which hath the Inheritance to him which hath but an Estate for life and to his Heirs the person to whom such Release is made shall thereby have a Fee-simple whereas before he had but for life in the Rent and an Estate absolute which before was joynt without any new Attornment for the reason of the former Case because there was once a privity between the Tenant and them which was never destroyed So is it if there be Lessee for life the Remainder for life he Litt. Sect. 573 in the Reversion releaseth to him in the Remainder and to his Heirs all his right he in the Remainder hath thereby a Fee and shall have a Writ of Waste and likewise the Rent of Tenant for life if any were without any Attornment of the Tenant for life for the former privity between them Enlargement of Estate by descent If a man seiz'd of a Rent-charge in Fee grant it for life to A. and the Tenant attorns after the Grantor grants the Reversion of this Rent to the Father of A. and his Heirs to whom A. attorns as in this Case he may by Sir Edward Coke's Comment and after the Father dies Coke's Litt. Sect. 556. and this Reversion descends upon A. whereby he hath a Fee-simple in the Rent no new Attornment is requisite for this enlargement of Estate Diminishing of Estate A man seis'd of a Rent-charge in Fee grants this Rent for Seven years to commence from the time of his death the Remainder in Fee and the Tenant attorns in the life time of the Grantor 2. Rep. Sir Rowland Hayward's Case as he must by the Resolution in Sir Rowland Hayward's Case 2. Rep. here the Grantor hath diminish't his Estate in the Rent from a Fee-simple to an Estate for life yet it cannot be doubted but he may distrain for his Rent-arrear And so is the Law where a man seis'd in Fee of a Rent for good consideration Covenants to stand seiz'd for life with Remainder over Vpon these grounds upon Littleton If a man seis'd of a Rent-charge in Fee grant it over to a Feme sole for a term of years the Tenant attorns and she take Husband and during the term the Grantor confirm the Rent to the Husband and Wife for their lives or in Fee they become Jointenants for life or in Fee of this Rent and need no new Attornment This Case is proved by a Case in Littleton Sect. Hence it is manifest that where a man hath a Rent for which he may once lawfully distrain by Attornment of the Tenant which gives sufficient privity to avow such Grantee or Possessor of the Rent may enlarge or change his Estate in the Rent to a greater or lesser or different Estate and needs no new Attornment or privity therefore to distrain and avow for such Rent whenever Arrear unless he become dispossess'd of the Rent and the privity to distrain and avow thereby be destroyed by a Right gained by some other to have the Rent and a Right in the Tenant to pay it to some other 9 H. 6. f. 43. Br. Avoury p. 123. To this purpose there is a Case If a man be seis'd of Land in Jure uxoris in Fee and leaseth the Land for years reserving Rent his Wife dies without having had any Issue by him whereby he is no Tenant by the Curtesie but his Estate is determined yet he may avow for the Rent before the Heir hath made his actual Entry This Case is not adjudg'd but it is much the better Opinion of the Book Objections The Conizors are in possession since the Fine of another Estate Obj. 1 than they were before the Fine that is according to the uses of the Fine which they could not be without an Alienation of the Rent to the Conizee by the Fine to enable the raising of that new use out of the Estate transferr'd to the Conizee by the Fine That by such Alienation the former privity between the Conizors and the Tenant which they had as Parceners by Attornment to the first grant of the Rent was destroy'd and therefore they cannot now distrain but for Rent-arrear since the Fine by the possession given them by the Statute of 27 H. 8. to which no Attornment is necessary and not for any Arrears due before upon the old privity As specious as this Reason seems it may be answer'd Answ That the Conizors had alwaies an actual and separate seisin and possession of the Rent and were at no time without it therefore the Conizee could have no several and separate possession of it at any time for it is not possible that two severally can possess the same thing simul semel for the same thing can no more be in two separate possessions at the same time civilly then the same thing can be in two separate places at the same time naturally Is not the Reason then of equal force that the Conizors were at no time out of possession and seisin of this Rent and consequently never lost the power to distrain for it As to say the Conizee had sometime a separate possession of the Rent from the Conizors out of which the new uses were raised and therefore the privity to distrain for the old Arrears was for sometime destroy'd Besides if the old privity be destroy'd the greatest absurdity imaginable in Law follows That a man hath a right to a thing for which the Law gives him no remedy which is in truth as great an absurdity as to say the having of right in law and having no right are in effect the same When as on the other side the loss of the Arrears and the Conizors right to them is a Consequent deduc'd from the destruction of the old privity between the Conizors and the Tenant by an imaginary and not a real possession of the Rent by the Conizee Obj. 2 Ognell's Case 4. Rep. Nor will it serve to say as is insinuated in Ognell's Case that the Conizors have dispens'd with their own right in the Arrears and therefore such
than a local Subject ibid. 286 5. He must be otherwise a Subject than any Grant or Letters Patents can make him ibid. 6. The Natives of Jersey Garnsey Ireland and the English Plantations c. are not Aliens 268 in loco 278 279 7. Those which are born in the Kings Forreign Plantations are born his Natural Subjects and shall inherit in England 279 8. A Natural Subject is correlative to a Natural Prince and a man cannot have two natural Soveraigns no more than two Fathers or two Mothers 280 273 in loco 283 9. The several ways by which men born out of England may inherit in England 281 10. An Antenatus in Scotland shall not inherit without an Act of Parliament because he is an Alien 274 in loco 284 287 11. Who are the Antenati Postnati and the difference between them 273 in loco 283 12. An Act of Parliament in Ireland shall never Naturalize an Alien to England to make him inheritable there 274 in loco 284 13. No Tenure by Homage c. in any of the Kings Dominions acquired by Conquest or by Grant or Letters Patents can make a man inheritable in England 279 14. No Laws made in any Dominion acquired by Conquest or new Plantation by the Kings Governor or people there by virtue of the Kings Letters Patents can make an Alien inheritable in England 279 15. One Naturalized in Scotland since the Union cannot inherit in England 268 in loco 278 279 280 285 16. A man born a Subject to one that is King of another Country and who afterwards comes to be King of England is an Alien and shall not inherit in England ibid. 285 286 17. An act of Law making a man as if he had been born a Subject shall not work the same effect as his being born a Subject which is an effect of Law 280 18. An Alien hath issue a Son and afterwards is Denizen'd and he afterwards hath another Son here the youngest Son shall inherit 285 Allegiance 1. All Allegiance and Subjection are acts and obligations of Law the subjection begins with the birth of the Subject at which time the Kings protection of him likewise begins 279 Appendant 1. Whatsoever is appendant to the Land goes to the Occupier thereof naturally 190 2. An Advowson may be appendant to a Mannor 12 Apprentice 1. The Law permits not persons who have served Seven years to have a way of livelyhood to be hindred from the exercise of their Trades in any Town or part of the Kingdom 356 Arch-bishop See Ordinary Dispensation 1. The Arch-bishop may dispense for a Plurality 20 Assets 1. The manner of pleading Assets ultra 104 Assignee and Assignment 1. Offices or acts of personal Trust cannot be assigned for that Trust which any man may have is not personal 180 181 2. An Occupant becomes an Assignee in Law to the first Lessee 204 3. If a man Covenants against himself his Executors Administrators and Assigns yet if his Assigns do a tortious act it is no breach of the Covenant because he may have remedy by Action for the tort 118 to 128 Assise 1. An Assise will not lye for a Rent issuing out of Tythes barely 204 Attaint See Title Statutes 3 11. 1. An Attaint lies only in Civil not Criminal Causes 145 146 2. Jurors are not finable for a false Verdict an Attaint only lies against them 145 Attorney 1. An Attorney cannot bring Debt for Soliciting but Case only 99 2. The Defendant cannot wage his Law for Attorneys Fees ibid. Attornment 1. By the Common Law an Attornment was requisite to entitle the Lord the Reversioner the Grantee of a Remainder or of a Rent by Deed or Fine to distrain for Rent in arrear 39 2. By a Grant and Attornment the Grantee becomes actually seised of the Rent 40 3. Attornment and power to distrain follows the possession and not the use 43 4. An Attornment cannot be for a time 27 5. An Attornment of the Tenant doth not disclaim but affirm his possession For it is the act of the Tenant by reason of his being in possession 193 6. A mans Estate in a Rent-charge may be enlarged diminished or altered and no new attornment or privity requisite to such alteration 44 7. Attornment is requisite to the Grant of an Estate for life but to a Confirmation to enlarge an Estate it is not 44 45 46 8. A Rent-charge is granted to Commence Seven years after the death of the Grantor Remainder in Fee Attornment must be made in the life time of the Grantor 46 9. If a Fine is levied of the Reversion of Land or of a Rent to uses the Cestuy que use may distrain without Attornment 50 51 10. Where a Rent Reversion or Remainder is sold by Bargain and Sale the Bargainee may distrain without Attornment 51 11. Where a man is seised of a Rent-charge and grants it over to which the Tenant attorns and he afterwards retakes that Estate here must be a new Attornment for the former privity is wholly destroyed 44 12. Where an Attornment shall be good to a contingent use 52 Bargain and Sale See Intollment 1. WHere a Rent Reversion or Remainder is sold by Bargain and Sale the Bargainee may distrain for the Rent without Attornment 51 Baron and Feme 1. The man after the marriage hath the deduction of the woman ad Domum Thalamum and all the civil power over her and not she over him 306 2. The Interdicts of carnal knowledg in the Levitical Law were directed to the men not to the women who are interdicted but by a consequent for the woman being interdicted to the man the man must also be interdicted to the woman for a man cannot marry a woman and she not marry him 305 Bishop See Ordinary Archbishop 1. What Bishops were originally 22 2. A Parson is chosen Bishop his Benefices are all void and the King shall present 19 20 3. It is not at all inconsistent for a Bishop to be an Incumbent 22 4. A Bishop may be an Incumbent after Consecration 24 5. How many Benefices a Bishop may retain by a Dispensation 25 6. No Canon Ecclesiastical can be made and executed without the Kings Royal assent 329 7. Bishops in Wales were originally of the foundation of the Prince of Wales 411 Canons Ecclesiastical See Title Ecclesiastical Court 1. WHat Canons are good and binding and what not 327 328 Capias ad Satisfaciendum See Execution Certiorari 1. A Certior lies out of the Chancery to Ireland to certifie an Act of Parliament but it doth not lye to Scotland 287 2. A Certiorari doth not lye to Wales to certifie a Record to the Courts at Westminster to the intent that Execution may issue out here upon it 398 Certificate 1. There are many things whereof the Kings Courts sometimes ought to be certified which cannot be certified by Certiorari 288 Chancery 1. The Chancery may grant a Habeas Corpus and discharge a Prisoner thereupon as well
usually letten Lands which have been twice letten are within this proviso 33 2. Of Lands which have at any time before been usually letten that which was not in Lease at the time of the proviso nor twenty years before is out of the power 34 Possession 1. He that is out of possession if he brings his Action must make a good Title 8 2. Where one man would recover any thing from another it is not sufficient to destroy the Title of him in possession but you must prove your own to be better than his 58 60 3. When a man hath gotten the possession of Land that was void of a Proprietor the Law casts the Freehold upon him to make a sufficient Tenant to the Precipe 191 4. Prior possession is a good Title against him who hath no Title at all 299 5. A separate possession of one and the same Land can never be in two persons at one and the same time 42 47 6. By a Fine the Estate may be changed although the possession is not changed 42 43 7. The Conuzee of a Rent granted by Fine to Uses cannot have any actual Seisin nor be in possession since the 27 H. 8. 49 Quare Impedit 1. WHere in a Quare Impedit the Plaintiff and Defendant are both actors 6 7 8 58 2. The Plaintiff in his Count must alledge a presentation in himself or in those from whom he claims 7 8 17 57 3. So likewise must the Defendant because they are both Actors 7 8 57 60 4. The Plaintiff must recover by his own strength and not by the Defendants weakness 8 58 60 5. Where the King or a common person in a Quare Impedit sets forth a Title which is no more than a bare Suggestion he shall not then forsake his own and endeavour to destroy the Defendants Title 61 6. In all Quare Impedits the Defendants may traverse the presentation alledged by the Plaintiff if the matter of Fact will bear it 16 17 7. But the Defendant must not deny the presentation alledged where there was a presentation 17 8. Where the Presentation and not the Seisin in gross of the Advowson or Appendancy is traversable 10 11 12 13 9. When the Seisin in gross or appendancy is traversable 12 10. An Incumbent is elected Bishop and before Consecration he obtains a Dispensation in Commendam Retinere he is afterwards consecrated and dyes the Patron shall present and not the King 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 11. If a man who hath a Benefice with Cure accepts of another without Dispensation or Qualification the first Benefice is void and the Patron may present and his Clerk who is admitted instituted and inducted may bring his Action of Trespass or Ejectment 129 130 131 12. All Quare Impedits for disturbance to Churches within the Lordships Marchers of Wales shall be brought in England in the next adjoyning County 409 410 13. Judgment with a Cessat Executio upon the Bishops Disclaimer 6 14. Where the Parson Patron and Ordinary are sued in a Quare Impedit and the Ordinary disclaims and the Parson looseth by default the Plaintiff shall have Judgment to recover his presentation and a Writ to the Bishop to remove him with a Cessat Executio until the plea is determined between the Plaintiff and Patron ibid. Rebutter See Title Warranty 1. WWO may Rebut 384 2. The difference between a Rebutter and Voucher 385 386 387 3. Whether the Tenant in possession may Rebut without shewing how he came to the possession 385 4. Whether a Rebutter may be when the warranty is determined 387 5. How many several sorts of persons may Rebut and how those that come in ex institutione dispositione legis may Rebut 390 391 392 Recital 1. The Recital of one Lease in another is not a sufficient proof that there was such a Lease as is recited 74 75 Recognizance See Title Statutes 8. 1. The Chancery and all the Courts at Westminster had before the Statute of Acton Burnel and still have power to take Recognizances 102 2. So likewise may every Judge take a Recognizance in any part of England as well out of Term as in Term 103 3. Where a Recognizance taken before the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas is in the nature of a Statute Staple 102 4. Execution upon such Recognizances are not as upon Statutes but by Elegit ibid. Record 1. How a Record is to be pleaded 92 Recovery and Common Recovery See Title Statutes 13. See Voucher Warranty 1. Where a Recovery against its nature shall be a Forfeiture because it is taken as a common Conveyance 51 2. A Rent may arise out of the Estate of Cestuy que use upon a Recovery which was to have risen out of the Estate of the Recoverer 51 Release 1. Joyntenants may release and confirm to each other 45 Remainder See Title Warranty 1. A Remainder must depend upon some particular Estate and be created at the same time with the particular Estate 269 2. A Remainder cannot depend upon an absolute Fee simple 269 367 3. If Land is devised to A. and his Heirs as long as B. hath Heirs of his body the Remainder over this is good in a Devise not as a Remainder but as an Executory Devise 270 4. A Remainder in Fee upon a Lease for years 46 5. The Statute de Donis restrains not the warranty of Tenant in Tayl from barring him in the Remainder in Tayl by his warranty descending upon him 367 377 Rent 1. By the Common Law there ought to be an Attornment to enable the Distrainor to make a good Avowry upon a Distress for Rent 39 2. Where a Rent is well vested and there is an Attornment when ever the Rent is arrear a Distress is lawful unless the power is lost ibid. 3. An Estate in a Rent-charge may be enlarged diminished or altered and no new Attornment or privity requisite 44 45 46 4. The power to distrain may be lost by a perpetual Union Suspension pro tempore Dying without Heir Granting of it upon Condition and by a granting over 39 5. The several things that a Rent is subject to 40 6. Rent is granted pur auter vie the Grantee dies the Rent is thereby determined 200 201 7. Where Rent is arrear and afterwards it is granted over in Fee and an Attornment thereupon here the Grantor hath lost his arrears and cannot afterwards distrain 40 8. A Rent may arise out of the Estate of Cestuy que use upon a Recovery 52 9. There can be no Occupancy of a Rent 200 Reversion See Title Warranty 1. By the grant of a Reversion Lands in possession will not pass but by the grant of Lands a Reversion will pass 83 2. If Tenant for life alien with warranty which descends upon the Reversioner such alienation with warranty is not restrained by the Statute de Donis 370 3. An alienation with warranty which shall hinder the Land from reverting to the Donor or his
it is said The Rent was granted out of the Twenty Acres being the Locus in quo by the Name of all the Grantors Lands and Hereditaments in King's Norton and that a per nomen in that Case is not good The Case of Grey and Chapman was urg'd 43 Eliz. Cro. f. 822. where by Indenture S. one Prudence Cousin let a House and Twenty Acres of Land by the Name of all her Tenements in S. But it was not alledg'd in what Vill the Acres were The Court was of Opinion in Arrest of Judgment that the naming of the Vill in the per nomen was not material Another Case to the same purpose was urg'd of Gay against Cay where a Grant in possession was pleaded 41 Eliz. Cro. f. 662. pl. 10. and not as in Reversion And upon view of the Record the Grantor had granted Tenementa praedicta per nomen of a Mesuage which A. P. held for life where the per nomen was adjudg'd not to make good the Grant The Court is of Opinion notwithstanding these Cases That in the present Case the per nomen is well enough because it is alledg'd the Grantor was seis'd of Two hundred Acres of Land in Kings Norton whereof the locus in quo being Twenty Acres is parcel By reason whereof the Rent being granted out of every parcel of the Two hundred Acres it is well enough to say it was granted out of the Twenty Acres per nomen of all his Lands in Kings Norton because the Twenty Acres are alledg'd to be parcel of all his Lands there being Two hundred Acres But in Chapman's Case It is not alledg'd that the Twenty Acres of Land demis'd were parcel of all the Tenements in S. per nomen of which the Twenty Acres were to pass As for the second Case of Gay it was not possible that Lands granted as in possession should pass per nomen of Land that was in Reversion The second Exception is Because the Clause of Entry and Distress in the Deed upon Oyer of it differs from the Clause of Entry and Distress alledg'd in the Conizance For in the Conizance it is said It should be lawful to Enter and Distrain if the rent were unpaid and behind after any of the Feasts whereon it was due that is at any Feast that should first happen after the death of Anne or Thomas Greaves for the Rent did not commence before But by the Deed If the Rent were behind at any the Feasts the Entry and Distress is made to be lawful for it during the joynt Lives of Anne and Thomas Greaves the Uncle and during their joynt lives it could not be behind for it commenc'd not till one of them were dead Scarplus Handkinson 37 El. Cro. f. 420. words repugnant and sensless to be rejected So as the sense must run That if the Rent were behind it should be lawful to distrain during the joint Lives of Anne and Thomas Greaves which was before it could be behind for it could not be behind till the death of one of them Therefore those words during their joynt natural lives being insensible ought to be rejected For words of known signification but so placed in the Context of a Deed that they make it repugnant and sensless are to be rejected equally with words of no known signification Judgment pro Defendent The Chief Justice delivered the Opinion of the Court. Trin. 16 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 2487. But Adjudg'd Mich. 20 Car. II. Bedell versus Constable BY the Act of 12 Car. 2. cap. 24. It is among other things Enacted That where any person hath or shall have any Child or Children under the Age of One and twenty years and not married at the time of his death It shall and may be lawful to and for the Father of such Child or Children whether born at the time of the decease of the Father or at that time in ventre sa mere or whether such Father be within the Age of One and twenty years or of full Age by his Deed executed in his life time or by his last Will and Testament in writing in the presence of two or more credible Witnesses to dispose of the custody and tuition of such Child or Children for and during such time as he or they shall respectively remain under the Age of One and twenty years or any lesser time to any person or persons in possession or remainder other than Popish Recusants And such disposition of the Custody of such Child or Children made since the Four and twentieth of February 1645. or hereafter to be made shall be good and effectual against all and every person or persons claiming the custody or tuition of such Child or Children as Guardian in Soccage or otherwise And such person or persons to whom the custody of such Child or Children hath been or shall be so disposed or devised as aforesaid shall and may maintain an Action of Ravishment of Ward or Trespass against any person or persons which shall wrongfully take away or detain such Child or Children for the Recovery of such Child or Children and shall and may recover Damages for the same in the said Action for the use and benefit of such Child or Children And such person or persons to whom the custody of such Child or Children hath been or shall be so disposed or devised shall and may take into his or their custody to the use of such Child or Children the profits of all Lands Tenements and Hereditaments of such Child or Children and also the custody tuition and management of the Goods Chattels and personal Estate of such Child or Children till their respective Age of One and twenty years or any lesser time according to such Disposition aforesaid and may bring such Action or Actions in relation thereto as by Law a Guardian in Common Soccage might do By the Will is devised in these words I do bequeath my son Thomas to my Brother Robert Towray of Rickhall to be his Tutor during his Minority Before this Act Tenant in Soccage of Age might have dispos'd his Land by Deed or last Will in trust for his Heir but not the Custody and Tuition of his Heir for the Law gave that to the next of Kinn to whom the Land could not descend But Tenant in Soccage under Age could not dispose the Custody of his Heir nor devise or demise his Land in trust for him in any manner Now by this Statute he may grant the Custody of his Heir but cannot devise or demise his Land in trust for him for any time directly for if he should the devise or demise were as before the Statute as I conceive which is most observable in this Case I say directly he cannot but by a mean and obliquely he may for nominating who shall have the Custody and for what time by a consequent the Land follows as an incident given by the Law to attend the custody not as an Interest devis'd or demis'd
the Statute If the Father under Age should make such a Devise it were absolutely void for the same syllables shall never give the Custody of the Heir by the Father under Age which do not give it by the Father which is of Age. But in both Cases a Devise of the Custody is effectual and there is no reason that the Custody devis'd shall operate into a Lease when a Lease devis'd shall not operate into a Custody which it cannot do If a man devise the Custody of his Heir apparent to J. S. and mentions no time either during his Minority or for any other time this is a good devise of the Custody within the Act if the Heir be under Fourteen at the death of the Father because by the Devise the Modus habendi Custodiam is chang'd only as to the person and left the same it was as to the time But if above Fourteen at the Fathers death then the Devise of the Custody is meerly void for the incertainty For the Act did not intend every Heir should be in Custody until One and twenty Non ut tamdiu sed ne diutius therefore he shall be in this Custody but so long as the Father appoints and if he appoint no time there is no Custody If a man have power to make Leases for any term of years not exceeding One hundred and he demises Land but expresseth no time shall this therefore be a Lease for One hundred years There is no Reason it should be a Lease for the greatest term he could grant more than for the least term he could grant or indeed for any other term under One hundred Therefore it is void for incertainty and the Case is the same for the Custody For if the Father might intend as well any time under that no Reason will enforce that he only intended that And to say he intended the Custody for some time therefore since no other can be it must be for that will hold as well in the Lease and in all other Cases of incertainty If a man devises Ten pounds to his Servant but having many none shall have it for the incertainty It may be demanded If the Father appoint the Custody until the Age of One and twenty and the Guardian dye what shall become of this Custody It determines with the death of the Guardian and is a Condition in Law and the same as if a man grant to a man the Stewardship of his Mannor for Ten years or to be his Bailiff It is implyed by way of Condition if he live so long A Copyholder in Fee surrenders to the Lord Dyer 8 Eliz. f. 251. pl. 90. ad intentionem that the Lord should grant it back to him for term of life the Remainder to his Wife till his Son came to One and twenty Remainder to the Son in tayl Remainder to the Wife for life The Husband died The Lord at his Court granted the Land to the Wife till the Sons full age The Remainders ut supra The Wife marries and dies Intestate The Husband held in the Land The Wives Administrator and to whom the Lord had granted the Land during the Minority of the Son enters upon the Husband This Entry was adjudg'd unlawful because it was the Wives term but otherwise it had been if the Wife had been but a Guardian or next Friend of this Land The like Case is in Hobart Balder and Blackburn f. 285. 17 Jac. If it be insisted That this new Guardian hath the Custody not only of the Lands descended or left by the Father but of all Lands and Goods any way acquir'd or purchas'd by the Infant which the Guardian in Soccage had not That alters not the Case for if he were Guardian in Soccage without that particular power given by the Statute he is equally Guardian in Soccage with it and is no more than if the Statute had appointed Guardian in Soccage to have care of all the Estate of the Infant however he came by it Besides that proves directly that this new Guardian doth not derive his interest from the Father but from the Law for the Father could never give him power or interest of or in that which was never his The Court was divided viz. The Chief Justice and Justice Wylde for the Plaintiff Justice Tyrrell and Justice Archer for the Defendant Hill 19 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 506. Holden versus Smallbrooke IN Trover and Conversion and not Guilty pleaded Robinson the Iury gave a Special Verdict to this Effect That Doctor Mallory Prebendary of the Prebend of Wolvey founded in the Cathedral of Litchfield seis'd of the said Prebend and one Messuage one Barn and the Glebe appertaining thereto and of the Tithes of Wolvey in right of his Prebend 22 April 13 Car. 2. by Indenture demised to Giles Astly and his Assigns the said Prebend together with all Houses Barns Tenements Glebe Lands and Tithes thereto belonging for three Lives under the ancient Rent of Five pounds ten shillings Astly being one of the Lives died seis'd of the Premisses at whose death one Taverner was Tenant for one year not ended of the Demise of Astly of the Messuage Barn and Glebe Lands and in possession of them whereupon the Plaintiff entred into the Messuage and Glebe and was in the possession of the same and of the Tithes as Occupant And afterwards Frances Astly the Relict of the said Giles Astly enters upon the Messuage and claims the same as Occupant in haec verba Frances Astly Widow of Giles Astly enters upon the House and claims the same with the Glebe and Tithe as Occupant Taverner attorns to Frances Astly and afterwards grants and assigns all his Estate in the Premisses to the Plaintiff afterwards Conquest the Husband of Frances Astly took one Sheaf of Corn in the name of all the Tithes and afterwards demised the Tithes to the Defendant The Tithes are set forth and the Defendant took them whereupon the Plaintiff brought this Action Before I deliver my Opinion concerning the particular Questions before open'd arising upon this Record I shall say somewhat shortly of Natural Occupancy and Civil Occupancy First opening what I mean by those terms then briefly shewing their difference as far only as is material to the Questions now before me I call Natural Occupancy the possession either of such natural things as are immoveable fixt and permanent as Land a Pool River Sea for a Sea is capable of Occupancy and Dominion naturally as well as Land and hath naturally been in Occupancy as is demonstrated in Mr. Selden's Mare Clausum at large which lye unpossess'd and in which no other hath prior right Or of things natural and moveable either animate as a Horse a Cow a Sheep and the like without number or Inanimate as Gold precious Stones Grain Hony Fruit Flesh and the like numberless also wherein no man until the possession thereof by Occupancy had any other right than every man had which is
out of the former Premisses is That the Freehold qua Freehold is not the thing whereof there is an Occupancy for the Freehold is not a natural thing but hath its essence by the positive Municipal Law of the Kingdome it cannot abstract from the Land in this matter of Occupancy he either entred into or possessed The Freehold is an immediate consequent of the possession for when a man hath gotten the possession of Land that was void of a Proprietor or other thing capable of Occupancy the Law forthwith doth cast the Freehold upon the Possessor to make a sufficient Tenant to the Precipe Therefore As to the first Question Whether Holden the Plaintiffs Entry Quest 1 upon the Lessee Taverner's possession into the House Glebe and Barn the First of March 1666. and openly saying I enter and take possession of this House Glebe and Barn and the Ground thereto belonging and the Tithes of Woolney in my own Name and Right as Occupant upon a Lease made to Giles Astly and his Assigns for three Lives by Dr. Mallory Prebend of Woolney did make him Occupant of the House Land and Tithe or either of them the Lessee Taverner not having made any Claim as Occupant to any of them I hold clearly this Entry and Claim did not make Holden Occupant of the House Land or Tithe or of any of them To every Occupant of Land or other thing capable of Occupancy two things are requisite 1. Possession of the Land which was void and without Owner 2. The having of the Freehold to avoid an obeyance which is had as well where the possession is not void as where it is The first that is the possession is acquired by the party and his Act but the Freehold is acquir'd by the Act of Law which casts it upon the possession assoon as there is a Possessor or where it finds a Possessor when the Freehold is in none 1. This Claim and Entry was in Order to gain the first possession of the Land which was void but that was impossible to be had for the Lessee Taverner had the possession before he held it then therefore the Claim was to no end 2. Secondly A man cannot be an Occupant but of a void Possession or of a Possession which himself hath but here was no void Possession when Holden enter'd and claimed as Occupant for the Lessee was in lawful possession of the House and Barn and Land at the time of the entry and claim 3. Thirdly If this Entry and Claim should make Holden a legal Occupant which cannot be without gaining the possession then there would be two plenary legal possessors of the same thing at the same time Holden by his Entry and Claim and Taverner the Lessee by virtue of his lease but that is impossible there should be two plenary possessors of the same thing at the same time Therefore Holden can be no Occupant by such Entry and Claim Skelton Hay 17 Jac. Cr. 554. b. 4. This very Case in every point hath been resolv'd in the Case of Skelton and Hay 17 Jac. where upon an Ejectment brought a Special Verdict found That the Bishop of Worcester made a lease to Sir William Whorehood of certain land for his own and the lives of two of his Sons Sir William did let the land to John Mallett at will rendring Rent and dyed Mallett continued the possession not claiming as Occupant one of Sir William's Sons entred as Occupant and made a lease to the Plaintiff in the Action It was adjudg'd that Mallett the Defendant being in possession the Law cast the Freehold upon him without Claim and had he disclaim'd to hold as Occupant Chamberlayn Ewes C. Rolls 2. part f. 151. Lett. E. keeping the possession he must have been the Occupant for where one entred to the use of another he that entred was adjudg'd the Occupant Which Case proves one may be an Occupant against and besides his own intention and therefore a Claim to denote his intention 5. To be an Occupant is not necessary and Tenant for years as well as at will is Occupant by that Case Besides claiming to be Occupant is to claim to be in possession or to claim the Freehold or both but the Law binds not a man to claim that which he hath already and therefore he that hath possession and doth occupy the land is not to claim possession or to be Occupant of it no more is he to claim a Freehold which he already hath for the Law hath cast it where it finds the possession so having both possession and Freehold the Law binds him not to claim what he hath 6. Claim is never to make a Right which a man hath not but to preserve that which he hath from being lost As Claim to avoid a Descent whereby a man had lost his right to enter so a man makes no Claim to be remitted when by act of law he is in his Remitter As to the second Question Whether Frances Astly the Relict Quest 2 of Giles entring the Five and twentieth of March 1667. upon the Lessee Taverner's possession and claiming the House Glebe and Tithe as Occupant and the Lessee Taverner attorning to her makes her an Occupant of the House Land or Tithe The Question hath nothing in it differing from the former but only the Attornment and it is clear the Attornment of Taverner the Lessee doth not disclaim his possession but affirms it for Attornment is the Act of a Tenant by reason of his being in possession Besides admitting the Tenant a perfect Occupant he might continuing so attorn to whom he pleased as well as Astly might have done in his life time yet still continue the Estate that was in him It follows then that Taverner was the undoubted Occupant after Astly's death of the House Land and Barn but whether he had the Tithe of Woolney by such his Occupancy whereof Astly died seis'd is the difficult Question Another Question will arise when Taverner the Lessee who had by lease the House Barn and Land and so found and was Occupant certainly of those when afterwards Taverner the Lessee 12 June 1667 concessit assignavit totum statum suum de in praemissis to Holden the Plaintiff and gave him Livery and Seifin thereupon what shall be understood to pass by the word praemissis if only what was leas'd and his Estate therein as Occupant and likewise the Tithe if the Tithe accrued to him by reason of being Occupant of the land For if he were Occupant of the Tithe by Act in Law by being Occupant of the land it follows not that if he past all his Estate to Holden in the House and Land and gave him Livery that therefore he past his Estate in the Tithe nor is such passing found to be by Deed. To clear the way then towards resolving the principal Question 1. At the time of Giles Astly's death the Tithes and the House and Lands were sever'd in
no such Case in 38 E. 3. f. 26. but the Case intended is 38 E. 3. f. 21. and he quotes the folio truly in his Littleton But the Case is not That an Assignee may rebutt or have benefit of a warranty made to a man and his Heirs only but that a warranty being made to a man his Heirs and Assigns the Assignee of the Heir or the Assignee of the Assignee though neither be Assignee of the first Grantee of the warranty shall have like benefit of the warranty as if he were Assignee of the first Grantee which hath been often resolv'd in the old Books To the same purpose he cites a Case out of 7 E. 3. f. 34. 46 E. 3. f. 4. which doth but remember that of 7. as adjudg'd That the Assignee of Tenant in tayl might rebutt the Donor whence he infers as before that the Tenant in possession might rebutt without any right to the warranty But the Inference holds not from that Case The Case of 7 E. 3. was That Land was given in tayl and the Donor warranted the Land generally to the Donee his Heirs and Assigns the Donee made a Feoffment in Fee and died without Issue and the Donor impleading the Feoffee was rebutted because he had warranted the Land to the Donee his Heirs and Assigns and the Feoffee claimed as Assignee of the Donee and therefore rebutted not because he had a bare possession But this Judgment of 7 E. 3. Sir Edward Coke denies and perhaps justly to be Law now because the Estate tayl being determin'd to which the warranty was first annex'd the whole warranty determin'd with it But however the Case no way proves what it is alledg'd for in Lincoln Colledge Case That a man may rebutt without ever shewing the warranty extended to him for the Feoffee did in that Case shew it So in the Case 45 E. 3. f. 18. the Feme who rebutted shew'd she was Grantee of the warranty To this may be added That what is delivered as before in Lincoln Colledge Case is neither conducing to the Judgment given in that Case nor is it any Opinion of the Judges but is Sir Edward Coke's single Opinion emergently given as appears most clearly in the Case To conclude When the Feoffees were seis'd to the use of William Vescy for his life and after to the use of the Defendant his wife for her life and after to the use of the right Heirs of William Vescy And when by Operation of the Statute of 27 H. 8. the possession is brought to these uses the warranty made by William Vescy to the Feoffees and their Heirs is wholly destroy'd For if before the Statute the Feoffees had executed an Estate to William for life the Remainder to his wife for life the Remainder to his right Heirs The warranty had been extinguish'd by such Execution of Estate and releas'd in Law for it could be in none but in William and his Heirs who could not warrant to himself or themselves By Littleton Sect. 743. for his Heirs in such Case take not by Purchase but Limitation because the Freehold was in him with a Remainder over to his right Heirs and so hath as great an Estate in the Land as the Feoffees had and then the warranty is gone by Littleton Litt. Sect. 744. And now the Statute executes the possession in the same manner and the warranty is in none for the time present or future but extinct If the warranty had been to the Feoffees their Heirs and Assigns it might have been more colourably question'd Whether the mean Remainder were not an Assignee of the Feoffees and so to have benefit of the warranty but the warranty being to the Feoffees and their Heirs only no Estate remaining in them no Assignee can pretend to the warranty 2. William Vescy could by no possibility ever warrant this Estate to the Defendant during his life and where the warranty cannot possibly attach the Ancestor it shall never attach the Heir as by Littleton's Case If a man deviseth Lands in Fee to another with warranty for him and his Heirs his Heirs shall not be bound to the warranty because himself could never be And though in that Case the Estate to be warranted commenc'd after the death of the Warranter and here the Remainder to the wife is in being before his death yet the reason differs not for himself could no more warrant this by any possibility than that and his Heir might as equally warrant the Estate devis'd as this Next Justice Jones in Spirt and Bences Case cites a Case 7 Eliz. the same with this Resolution resolved in the Common Pleas That the mediate Remainder could not be warranted In this Case if the Feoffees before the Statute had either voluntarily or by coercion of the Chancery after the death of the first Cestuy que use for life executed the Estate of the mean Remainder such person in Remainder could have no benefit of the warranty being but an Assignee of the Feoffees because the warranty was only to them and their Heirs No more can the person in Remainder here whose Estate is executed by the Statute be warranted more than if such Estate had been executed by the Common Law There are another sort of persons who may rebutt and perhaps vouch who are neither Heirs nor formally Assignees to the Garrantee but have the Estate warranted dispositione instituto Legis which I conceive not to differ materially whether they have such Estate warranted by the Common Law or by Act of Parliament The first of this kind I shall name Ass p. 9. 35 is Tenant by the Courtesie who as was adjudg'd 35 Ass might rebutt the warranty made to his wives Ancestor yet was neither Heir nor formal Assignee to any to whom the warranty was granted nothing is said in the Book concerning his vouching but certainly the wives Heir may be receiv'd to defend his estate if impleaded by a stranger who may vouch according to the warranty or may rebutt as the Case of 45 E. 3. f. 18. is But this difference is observable also where such a Tenant rebutts it appears what claim he makes to the warranty and so the Inconveniences avoided which follow a Rebutter made upon no other reason than because he who rebutts is in possession of the Land warranted A second Tenant of this kind is the Lord of a Villain 22 Ass p. 37. and therefore the Case is 22 Ass That Tenant in Dower made a Lease for life to a Villain which in truth was a forfeiture for making a greater Estate of Freehold than she had power to make and bound her and her Heirs to warranty the Lord of the Villain entred upon the Land in her life time and before the warranty attach'd the Heir who had right to enter for the forfeiture the Mother died and the Heir entred upon the L. of the Villain who re-entred and the Heir brought an Assise The L. of the Villain
pleaded the warranty and that the Heir if a stranger had impleaded him was bound to warrant the Estate and therefore demanded Judgment if the Heir himself should implead him 1. It is there agreed if the warranty had attach'd the Heir before the Lords entry the Heir had been bound but quaere 2. By that Book it seems the Lord impleaded by a Stranger might have vouch'd the Heir if the warranty had attach'd him before the Lords entry But in this Case it appears the Lord was no formal Assignee of the Villains for this warranty must be as to an Assignee for the Estate warranted was but for life and the Lords Estate was only by order of the Law A third Case of this nature is Where the Ancestor granted Lands to a Bastard with warranty but how far the warranty extended as to the Heirs or Heirs and Assigns of the Bastard appears not in the Case the Bastard died without Issue and consequently without Heir the L. by Escheat entred upon whom the Heir entred the warranty of his Ancestor having not attach'd him before the Bastards death for it seems this was in a Case where the Heir might have entred in his Ancestors life time so avoided his warranty as in the former case of the L. of a Villain by the Book the warranty having not attach'd him during the Bastards life the Lord by Escheat could have no benefit of it but if it had attach'd him he might ut videtur In this Case if the warranty were to the Bastard and his Heirs only it determined he dying without Issue and then there could be no Rebutter or Voucher by the Lord by Escheat if the warranty had attach'd the Heir but if it were to him his Heirs and Assigns then the Lord whose title is by the Act and Disposition of the Law and not as Assignee in the per had notwithstanding the benefit of this warranty quod nota These Cases are mentioned in Lincoln Colledge Case and in Spirt and Bences Case in Cr. 1. and in both places admitted for Law Nor seems this very unreasonable That the warranty being an incident to the Estate warranted should accompany it where the Law dispos'd the Estate and Land warranted to all intents 2. In many Cases the Law disposing the Estate if the warranty attended it not the disposition made by the Law were in vain for without the warranty the Estate may be necessarily avoided Such persons who come to the Estate dispositione Legis are not properly in in the post but they modally have the Estate by consent both of the Warranter and Garrantee because they have it by the Act of Law Statute or Common to whose dispose every man is as much consenting and more solemnly than he is to his own private Deed. And after this way if the two last Cases be Law the Cestuy que use having his Estate by operation and appointment of the Statute of Uses of 27 H. 8. may have the benefit of the warranty attending the Estate though he be no formal Assignee or Heir to the Feoffees to use Many other Estates are of this kind as Tenant in Dower if endowed of all the Land warranted An Occupant Tenants by the Statute of 6 R. 2. c. 6. where the Feme consents to the Ravisher Tenant by 4 5 P. M. because the ward consented to her taking away without the Guardians consent Lands warranted which after become forfeited to the King or other Lords c. Quaere in the Cases of 22 Ass p. 37. 29 Ass p. 34. Whether notwithstanding the warranty had descended upon the Heir while the Lands were in the possession of the Villain in the first Case and of the Bastard in the second Case before any entry made by either Lord the Lands could have rebutted or vouched by reason of those warranties being in truth strangers to the warranty and not able to derive it to themselves any way But if after the warranty descended upon the Villain or Bastard the Villain or Bastard had been impleaded by the Heir and had pleaded the warranty against the Heir and had Judgment thereupon by way of Rebutter then the Lords might have pleaded this Judgment as conclusive and making the Villains Title or Bastard good against the Heir and the Heir should never have recover'd against the Lords And this seems the meaning of the Book 22 Ass p. 37. if well consider'd Though in Spirt and Bences Case no such difference is observ'd Caetera desiderantur The Court was in this Case divided viz. The Chief Justice and Justice Archer for the Demandant and Justice Wylde and Justice Atkins for the Tenant CONCERNING PROCESS Out of the COURTS at WESTMINSTER INTO WALES Of late times and how anciently Memorandum These Notes following were all wrote with the proper hand of the Chief Justice Sir John Vaughan and intended to be methodised by him in order to be delivered in Court A Man taken upon a Latitat in England 10 Jac. Bolstrode part 2. f. 54 55. Hall and Rotherams Case puts in two Welch men for his Bayl Judgment passing against him it was a Question Whether after a Capias ad Satisfaciendum issued against the Principal who was not to be found Process might issue into Wales which must be by Scire Facias first against the Bayl whereupon Mann the Secondary of the Kings Bench informed the Court that it had been so done in like Cases many times But the Court was likewise informed that Brownloe Chief Pronotary of the Common Pleas affirmed they did not then use to send such Process into Wales but only Process of Outlawry But Mann affirming that their Course was otherwise in the Kings Bench the Court awarded Process into Wales against the Bayl and said If the parties were grieved they might bring their Writ of Error 1. This Award of the Kings Bench hath no other Foundation to justifie it than Mann 's the Secondaries Information That the like had been often done which was his own doing possibly and never fell under the Consideration of the Court. 2. The Court weighed it no more than to say The parties grieved might have a Writ of Error which by the way must be into the Parliament for it concerned the Jurisdiction of the Court which the Act of 27 Eliz. for Errors in the Exchequer Chamber excepts and upon that ground any injustice might be done because the party wronged may have a Writ of Error 3. Brownloe the Chief Pronotary of the Common Pleas and a most knowing man affirm'd no such Process issued thence into Wales and but only Process of Outlawry So as this awarding of Process into Wales upon the usage of that Court affirmed by Mann is counter'd by the contrary usage of the Common Pleas affirmed by Brownloe Therefore that Book and Authority is of no moment to justifie the issuing of a Scire facias into Wales 11 Jac. Bolstrode part 2. f. 156 157. Bedo v. Piper The next Case
is not sufficient by the Rule of the Act of 25. unless confirmed by the King It was otherwise in the Popes case before the Act. There are many Presidents in Mr. Noy's Book where in like Obj. 2 case the King after the death of a Bishop holding in Commendam after his translation to another See and after his resignation hath presented All those Presidents are since the Twentieth of the Queen which Answ 1 cannot alter the Law 2. Who knows in the cases of death whether those Presentations were not by consent of the Patrons and doubtless there are Presidents wherein the Patrons did present else this Question had been earlier But Judicandum est legibus non exemplis Vpon Translation of a Bishop holding a Commendam in the Answ 2 Retinere as long as he continued Bishop there the King ought to present for the Dispensation is determined upon his remove and then is as if it had not been and a Dispensation gives no property to the Living nor takes away any But where property is given to the Living as by Presentation Institution and Induction or by Grant as in Appropriations Hob. Colts and Glovers Case and sometimes otherwise by the King such presenting or granting for a year or six is to grant it during life As an Atturnment cannot be for a time nor a Confirmation nor a Denization or Naturalization and the like but such Acts are perfect Manwarings Case 21 Jac. Crook f. 691. as they may be notwithstanding Restriction to time as is agreed well in Manwaring's Case I shall say nothing of the case of Resignation as not being in the present Question Judgment was given by the Opinion of the whole Court That the Avoidance was by Death not by Cession Hill 19 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 1785. Baruck Tustian Tristram Plaintiff Anne Roper Vicountess Baltinglass Vidua Defendant in a Plea of Trespass and Ejectment THe Plaintiff declares That the Defendant vi Armis entred into 20 Messuages 1000 Acres of Land 200 Acres of Meadow and 500 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Thornbury Shalston Evershaw Oldwick Westbury and Looffield and into the Rectory of Thornbury which Thomas Gower Kt. and Baronet and George Hilliard to the said Baruck demis'd the First of Octob. 19 Car. 2. Habendum from the Feast of St. Michael the Arch-angel last past for the term of Five years next ensuing into which he the said Baruck the same day entred and was ousted and ejected by the Defendant ad damnum 40 l. To this the Defendant pleads Not Guilty And the Jury have found specially That the Defendant is not guilty in all those Tenements besides 5 Messuages 400 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow 100 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Thornbury Shalston Evershaw Oldwick and Westbury and in the Rectory of Thornbury and besides in one Messuage 100 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Looffield And as to the Trespass and Ejectment aforesaid in the said five Messuages c. and in the Rectory of Thornbury the Iury say upon their Oath that before the said Trespass and Ejectment suppos'd 22 Junii 12 Jac. Sir Arthur Throgmorton Kt. was seis'd in Fee of the aforesaid Rectory and Tenements last mentioned and of the said Premisses in Looffield and so seis'd A certain Indenture Tripartite was made 22 Junii 12 Jac. between him the said Sir Arthur of the first part Edward Lord Wootton Augustine Nicholls Kt. Francis Harvey Esq and Rowly Ward Esq of the second part and Sir Peter Temple and Anne Throgmorton Daughter of the said Sir Arthur of the third part To this effect That the said Sir Arthur Throgmorton did covenant and promise with the said Lord Wootton and Sir Augustine Nicholls in consideration of Marriage to be had between the said Sir Peter Temple and the said Anne and other the considerations mentioned in the said Indenture by Fine or Fines before the Feast of St. Michael the Arch-angel next ensuing or other good Conveyance to be levied by him and the said Dame Anne his wife to the said Lord Wootton c. The scite and precinct of the Priory of Looffield the Rectory of Thornbury and divers Mannors Lands and Tenements in the said Indenture mentioned several yearly Rents therein mentioned and all other his Lands in the Counties of Northampton Buckingham and Oxford at any time belonging to the said Priory to convey and assure To the use of himself for life without Impeachment of Waste Then to the use of Dame Anne his Wife Then to the use of the said Sir Peter Temple and the said Anne his Wife during their natural lives and the longer Liver of them and after both their Deceases To the use of the first Son of the Body of Anne by the said Sir Peter begotten and of the Heirs Males of the Body of the said first Son so to the sixth Son Then to the use of all other Sons in succession in like manner of the Body of Anne begotten by the said Sir Peter And for default of such Heirs To the use of all the Issues Female of the Body of the said Anne by the said Sir Peter begotten and the Heirs of the Bodies of the said Issues Female For default thereof To the first Son of the said Anne by any other Husband and his Heirs Males and so to the tenth In like manner to the Issues Female of the Body of Anne with divers Remainders over A Proviso That it be lawful for Sir Arthur at all times during his life to lett set and demise all or any the said Premisses aforesaid which at any time heretofore have been usually letten or demised to any person or persons for and during the term of One and twenty years or under in possession and not in Reversion or for or during any other number of years determinable upon one two or three Lives in Possession and not in Reversion reserving the Rents therefore now yielded or paid or more to be yearly due and payable during such Lease and Leases unto such person and persons unto whom the said Premises so to be demised shall come and be by virtue of these Presents if no such demise had been made so long as the same Lessees their Executors and Assigns shall duly pay the Rents and perform their Conditions according to the true meaning of their Indentures of Lease and commit no waste of and in the things to them demised The like Proviso verbatim for Sir Peter Temple and Anne his Wife to make like Leases during their Lives and the Life of the longer liver of them after the death of Sir Arthur and Dame Anne his Wife That a Fine was accordingly levied c. to the uses aforesaid They find that all the Messuages Lands Tenements and Rectory in the Declaration mentioned are compris'd in the said Indenture Tripartite They find the death of Sir Arthur Throgmorton and Anne his Wife 2. Septemb.
Proviso namely Such as at any time before were not usually let and set to Farm For where a mans power is limited to lease Lands so specially qualified that is let and set usually at any time before when he could not lease at all without such special power given him he is absolutely barr'd from leasing Land which is not so qualified 2. It must be presumed Sir Arthur Throgmorton knew he had such Lands as according to his Intention were not at any time before usually set and let and had reason not to suffer them to be demiseable within that Proviso to the prejudice of those in Reversion As for example his Mansion-house Gardens Curtilages and Lands occupied in Demesne For it had been vain to provide against the leasing of Land in such manner condition'd whereof he had none so condition'd But if notwithstanding it shall be taken that any his Lands which at any time past how long soever since one two or three hundred years were demised as perhaps the scite of his House and all his Demesne were though he knew not of it shall therefore now be demiseable within this Proviso Then is the Proviso inconsistent with it self and repugnant to his meaning for he intended thereby to hinder the demising of some of his Lands But by that construction of the Proviso every part of his Land might be demised for doubtless at some time or other every part of it was demised and probably by Records or other ancient Evidence might appear so to be 3. If this were the meaning of the Proviso the word usually in it was to no purpose for it had been much clearer to say That any Lands at any time heretofore demis'd should be demiseable for 21 years by Sir Peter Temple which doubtless was not Sir Arthur's meaning and consequently this Lease of Looffield not according to his meaning 1. Now for the literal sense of the Proviso Rolls Title Power f. 261. n. 11. 2 Jac. in Banâ—o If power be to make Leases for 3 lives or 21 years of Lands usually letten Land which hath been twice letten is within the Proviso but not Land which hath been but once letten Therefore this Land of Looffield letten but once 12 Eliz. is not within the Proviso But I insist not much upon this case for the words usually demis'd may be taken in two senses The one for the often farming or repeated Acts of leasing Lands to which sense this Case doth reasonably extend But the other sense of Land usually demis'd is for the common continuance of Land in lease for that is usually demis'd and so Land leas'd for 500 years long since is Land usually demis'd that is in lease though it have not been more than once demis'd which is the more receiv'd sense of the words Land usually demis'd 2. The meaning of the words at any time is various and of contrary meaning If it be asked by way of Question Were you at any time at York It is the same as Were you ever or sometime at York So in the Question Was this Land at any time in Lease is the same as Was it ever or some time in Lease But when the words at any time are not part of a Question but of an Answer they have a different and contrary meaning As if it be asked Where may I see or speak with John Stiles and it be answered You may speak with him or see him at any time at his House There the words at any time signifie at all times and not as in the question at some time So when the words are used by way of a plain enunciation and not as part of a Question or Answer As You shall be welcome to my House at any time signifie You shall be welcome at all times So in the present Case if it-be made a Question Was such Land heretofore at any time usually letten and set to Farm imports in the Question Was this Land ever or at some time heretofore how long ago soever usually let to Farm But by way of enunciation if it be said This Land was usually let to Farm at any time heretofore it means This Land was commonly at all times heretofore let to Farm So this Land was usually in Pasture at any time heretofore signifies this Land was always or commonly in Pasture heretofore So you may lease any Land heretofore letten to Farm at any time usually is the same with heretofore letten to Farm commonly at all times And this Construction of the Proviso agrees both with the words and intention of Sir Arthur But what was not farmed at the time of this Proviso made nor 20 years before could not be said to be at any time before commonly Farmed for those 20 years was a time before in which it was not farmed But to come closer The Proviso is that Leases may be made for 21 years of any the Lands in the Deed reserving the Rents thereupon reserved at the time of the Deed made viz. 12 Jac. Which necessarily implies that the Land demiseable by that Proviso must be Land which then was under Rent for where no Rent then was the Rent then thereupon reserv'd could not be reserv'd But Looffield had then no Rent upon it for it was not let of 20 years before nor then and therefore was not demiseable by that Proviso The words or more will not at all help the Plaintiff for the words more or less are words of relation the one of addition to what was before the other of diminution for more or less must relate to something positive in the kind before and can never be a relation to nothing So more wages necessarily implies some before more meat more drink more company and in all expressions more denotes a relation to somewhat before of the kind and in the present Case reserving more Rent must imply some before reserved And therefore where none was at the time of the Deed made 12 Jac. there cannot in any congruity of speech more be reserved or intended to be reserved Quaere If the Record be mended in the point of finding the death of Sir Peter Temple and when he died In this the Chief Justice delivered the Resolution of the whole Court Hill 21 22 Car. II. Rot. 2259. C. B. Ralph Dixon Plaintiff Harts ss versus Dean Harrison Defendant In a Replevin Quare cepit Averia ipsius Radulphi ea detinuit contra vadios plegios c. Distress 21 Maii 21 Car. 2. THe Plaintiff declares That the Defendant 21 die Maii 21 Regis nunc at Sandridge in a place called Fregmorfield took three Cows of the Plaintiffs and detain'd them against Pledges quousque to his damage 40 l. The Defendant as Bailiff of Elizabeth Rooper Widow Samuel Hildersham Gent. and Mary his Wife Michael Biddulph Esq and Frances his Wife Humphrey Holden Esq and Theodosia his Wife avows and justifies the Caption for that the place in quo c. contains a Rood of
Avowry is in liew of an Action and thereto privity is requisite for the same cause he cannot have an Action of Waste nor many other Actions there mentioned and the Authorities cited and so is Littleton himself expresly Litt. Sect. 580. Section 580. Where a man by grant to himself or by descent from his Ancestor hath a Rent-charge and might once lawfully distrain and Avow for such Rent if Arrear by due Attornment made to him or his Ancestor he may still do so whenever the Rent is behind unless by Law that power be some way lost 1. That power may be lost by extinguishment of the Rent by a perpetual union of the tenancy to the rent or rent to the tenancy or in other manner the Grantee having no Heir 2. It may be lost for a time by Suspension as by such union for a time and after restored again 3. It may be lost by a Grant of the Rent upon Condition 7 H. 6.3 Br. Extinguishment p. 17. and upon performance or breach of the Condition restored again but the power of distraining is not in this Case lost by any of these ways 4. It may be principally lost by a sufficient granting over and transferring the Rent to another which way comes nearest to the Case in question And therefore I shall agree the Case so much insisted on which is said to be agreed per Curiam Andrew Ognell's Case 4. Rep. f. 49. in Andrew Ognell's Case in the fourth Rep. That if a man be seized of a Rent-service or Rent-charge in Fee and grant it over by his Deed to another and his Heirs and the Tenant Attorn such Grantor is without remedy for the Rent arrear before his Grant for distrain he cannot and other remedy he hath not because all privity between him and the Tenant is destroyed by the Attornment to the Grantee and he hath no more right than any Stranger to come upon the Land after such transferring over of the Rent I shall likewise agree another Case That if such Grantee should regrant the same Rent back to the Grantor either in fee in tail or for life and the Tenant Attorn as he must to this regrant yet the first Grantor shall never be enabled to distrain for Arrears due to him before he granted over the Rent for now the privity between him and the Tenant begins but from the Attornment to the regrant the former being absolutely destroyed and the Tenant no more distrainable for the ancient Arrears than he was upon the creation of the Rent for Arrears incurred before till first attorn'd If the Case in question prove to be the same in effect with either of these Cases then the reason of Law for these Cases must sway and determine the Case in question And I conceive that there is no likeness or parity between the Case in question and either of those Cases either for the fact of the Cases or the reason of Law I shall therefore begin with comparing this Case with the first of those Cases 1. In the first of those Cases he that is seis'd of the Rent-charge doth intend to transferr his Estate in the Rent to the Grantee and it is accordingly actually transferr'd by the Tenants Attornment to the Grant 2. The Grantee by his Grant and Attornment to it becomes actually seis'd of the Rent and may enjoy the benefit of it by perception of the Rent 3. His Wife becomes dowable of it 4. It is subject to Statutes Recognizances and Debts enter'd into by the Grantee or due from him to the King 5. It is possible to descend to his Heir 6. It may be Arrear and he hath a possibility to distrain and avow for it 1. But in the Case in question the Conizors of the Fine did never intend to transfer their Estate in the Rent to the Conizee nor that any Attornment be made to him What a man intends to pass to another he intends to be without it himself at least for some time which is not in this Case 2. The Conizee never becomes actually seiz'd of the Rent and not only doth not but never can enjoy the perception of it for there is no moment of time wherein the Conizors themselves are not actually in seisin of it and consequently may distrain if it be in Arrear and the Conizee can never have actually seisin or possibility to have Attornment or distrain his seisin being but a meer fiction and an invented form of Conveyance only 3. The Conizee's Wife is never dowable of it 4. It is not subject to any Statutes Recognizances or Debts of the Conizee 5. It is never possible to descend to his Heir for it instantly vests in the Conizors 6. It can never be Arrear to the Conizee nor hath he ever a possibility to distrain for it To this purpose what is agreed in the Lord Cromwell's Case L. Cromwell's Case 2. Rep. f. 77. 2. Rep. is applicable Then it is to be consider'd what seisin Perkins had who was the Conizee of a Fine in that Case and he had but a Seisin for an instant and only to this purpose to make a Render for his Wife shall not be endowed nor the Land subject to his Statutes or Recognizances f. 77. Therefore that first Case cited out of the Report of Andrew Ognell's Case which I admit to be good Law hath no resemblance with the present Case in any circumstance or consequent but had the Fine been to a third persons use the consequents had been the same as in the Case cited out of Ognell's Case not as to the Conizee but as to that third person to whom the rent was intended To conclude then this first part 1. That whereof the Conizors were alwaies actually and separately seiz'd the same was never by them transferr'd to the seisin of another But of this Rent the Conizors were alwaies in actual seisin for there was no moment of time wherein they were not seis'd therefore this Rent was never transferr'd to the seisin of another nor could any other for any moment of time have a separated seisin thereof for what was mine at all times could be anothers at no time 2. It is an impossibility in Law that two men severally shall have several Rights and Fee-simples in possession in one and the same Land Dyer 28 H. 8. f. 12. a. p. 51. simul semel per Fitz-herbert in the Argument of Bokenhams Case and the same impossibility is so to have of a Rent Nor hath this relation to the learning of Instants in Digbie's Case Coke 1. Rep. and Fitz-williams in the sixth Report That an old Use may be revoked and a new rais'd in the same time and an old possession ended and a new begun this is usual in all transmutation of Estates and things also For in nature a new form introduc'd doth in the same moment destroy the old according to that Generatio unius est corruptio alterius but a separate possession can never be
Arrears in strictness of Law when the Fine is levied are not due at all but remitted and so no absurdity to have no remedy for a thing not due 1. By this reason a Law should be equally good that provides no remedy for performance of Contracts as that which doth because all Contracts for performance of which the Law gives no remedy shall in Iudgment of Law be dispens'd with releas'd discharg'd 2. By this reason a Rent-seck before seisin had of it shall be no duty because the Law gives no Remedy before seisin And consequently such Rent or such Arrears as in the present Case being paid by the Tenant may be recover'd again as the proper mony of the Tenant deliver'd to the Grantee of the Rent without any consideration upon an indebitatus Assumpsit the Law creating a promise So might a Debt paid after six years elaps'd for which by the Statute of Limitations there was no remedy yet that doth not cease to be a Debt as if it had been released By like reason if a man hath by accident had his Bonds burn'd or destroy'd whereby he had no remedy to recover the Debt by Law it should cease to be a Debt at all 32 H. 8. c. 37. To this the words of the Statute of 32 H. 8. c. 37. may be added which gives remedy for recovery of such Debts by Executors as were due to the Testators and for which there was no remedy before viz. That the Tenants did retain in their hands such Arrearages of Rents whereby the Executors could not therewith pay the Debts and perform the will of the Testator c. and surely no Arrearages could be of Rent if they were remitted in Law nor was it fit the Executors should pay the Debts or perform the Testators Will with that which was no part of the Testators Estate either in possession or as a credit If a common Recovery had been to uses of Lordships and Mannors before the Statute of 27. the Recoverors had no remedy to make the Tenants attorn for a quid Juris clamat would not lye upon a Recovery before the Statute of 7 H. 8. 7 H. 8. c. 4. c. 4. which did give remedy and which saith That such refusal of Attornment was to the great offence of their Conscience refusing and not only to the disinheritance of the Recoverors but often to the breaking of the last Wills of the Recoverees and also to the disinheritance of Husbands Wives and others to whose use the Recovery was had By which it is plain that duties for which there is no remedy often in Law are not therefore dispenced with and discharged by the party as is superficially said in Ognell's Case That the Conizee of a Rent granted by Fine to uses cannot have any actual seisin or be in possession of such Rent since the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 10. Before the Statute of 27 H. 8 If a Feoffment had been to uses and no Livery given or given by one Attorney when it ought to have been by two the uses in such Deed of Feoffment could never rise so if a Reversion had been granted to uses and no Attornment to the Grantee no use could rise because there was no sufficient Estate in possession And when the Statute of Vses came it could have no operation when the Estates in possession were not sufficient So if an Estate for life had been granted to the use of a man and his Heirs an Estate in Fee could not rise out of it by the Statute of 27 H. 8. c. 10. And if before the Statute a Reversion had been granted by Fine to Vses and no quid Juris clamat brought though the Land pass'd by the Fine yet the Tenant could not be distrain'd nor a Writ of Waste brought against him until he attorn'd and when the Statute came to transferr the use into the possession it could be but into such a possession as the Conizee had by the Fine without power to distrain or bring Waste for the words of the Statute are That the Estate Title Right and Possession that was in such person or persons that were or hereafter shall be seis'd of any Lands or Hereditaments to the use confidence or trust of any person or persons be from henceforth adjudged to be in him or them that have or hereafter shall have such use confidence or trust c. And therefore if before the Statute of 27. a Fine had been levied of a Rent-charge to uses as this Case is if before Attornment to or seisin had by the Conizee the Statute had come and brought the possession of the Rent to the use the Cestuy que use could have had the Rent but as a Rent-seck for which he could not distrain for want of Attornment nor have an Assise for want of seisin for the Conizee had no other possession of the Rent but after Attornment and seisin to or by Cestuy que use his possession perhaps became perfected But since the Statute if a Fine be levied of a Reversion of Lands to uses or of a Rent because the use and possession by the Statute come instantly together and the Conizee of the Fine hath no time possible to bring either a quid Juris clamat or a quem redditum reddit Sir Moyl Finch's Case Coke 6. f. 68. a for or to receive an Attornment to perfect his possession It was resolv'd in Sir Moyl Finch's Case that the Cestuy use should notwithstanding distrain and have the same advantage as if the Conizees possession had been perfected by Attornment and seisin The intent of the Statute of 27. which was to bring together the possession and the use when the use was to one or more persons and the possession in one or more other separate persons was soon after the Statute wholly declined upon what good construction or inference I know not For now the use by the name of trust which were one and the same before the Statute remains separately in some persons and the possession separately in others as it did before the Statute and are not brought together but by Decree in Chancery or the voluntary Conveyance of the possessor of the Land to Cestuy que trust So as now the principal use of the Statute of 27. especially upon Fines levied to uses is not to bring together a possession and use which at no time were separate the one from the other but to introduce a general form of Conveyance by which the Conizors of the Fine who are as Donors in the Case may execute their intents and purposes at pleasure either by transferring their Estates to Strangers by enlarging diminishing or altering them to and among themselves at their pleasure without observing that rigour and strictness of Law for the possession of the Conizee as was requisite before the Statute Which I have sufficiently evidenc'd by shewing that the Attornment of the Lessee to the Conizee or Reversioner or of the Tenant to him as
Grantee of the Rent-charge is now dispenc'd with which was not before the Statute For if that were now requisite the Conizors could not only not distrain for the Rent due before the Fine but not for the Rent due since the Fine nor doth the Statute help the matter because the Cestuy que use is in possession of the Rent by the Statute and therefore needs no Attornment for that is true when the Conizee hath a perfect possession but without Attornment the Conizee had no perfect possession impowring him to distrain and therefore the Statute can bring no perfect possession to the uses to that end And so Sir Edward Coke agrees the Law Cok. Litt. f. 307. Sect. 55â— that since Littleton wrote If the Conizee of a Fine before Attornment by Deed indented and inroll'd bargains and sells a Seigniory to another the Bargainee shall not distrain because the Conizee that is the Bargainor could not for want of Attornment But on the other side a man perfectly seis'd of a Seigniory Rent Reversion or Remainder bargains and sells by Deed indented and inroll'd according to the Statute the Bargainee shall distrain without Attornment by vertue of the Statute And if a Fine be now levied to a man to the use of a third person the third person shall distrain without any Attornment made not only to himself by reason of the Statute but to the Conizee by the Resolution in Sir Moyle Finch his Case for otherwise the Fine were to little purpose Which Case though it make an Attornment not necessary where it is impossible to be had that the Conveyance might not be useless in effect and an intended right to be de novo introduc'd altogether hindred Shall it therefore destroy an old Attornment which cannot but be had and is still in being for no other use or end but to deprive the Conizors of a Rent and former Right justly due to introduce a general inconvenience upon all that have granted Leases for lives and are occasioned to settle their Estates And there is great difference between a Fine levied of a Reversion or of a Rent-charge to the use of a third person and to the use of the Conizors for a third person can never distrain unless either an Attornment were to the Conizee which is impossible because no possession continues in him so as to receive an Attornment or unless the construction of the Statute according to Sir Moyle Finch his Case to make the Conveyance of effect to Cestuy que use made the Attornment because it could not be had not necessary which is a great strain and violence upon the true reason of Law That a Conveyance which in reason could not be good without Attornment should be sufficient because it could not have an Attornment which was necessary to make it sufficient And this practice hath been frequent since the Statute of Uses Sir Will. Pelham's Case as in making a Recovery against his nature to be a forfeiture because taken as a Common Conveyance To make Vses declared by Indenture between the parties made a year after the Recovery to be the Vses of the Recovery Downan's Case 9. Rep. with such Limitations as are mentioned in Downan's Case the 9. Rep. L. Cromwell's Case 2. Rep. f. 72. b. To make a Rent arise out of the Estate of Cestuy que use upon a Recovery which was to arise out of the Estate of the Recoveror and his possession which is a principal point in Cromwell's Case and resolv'd because by the intention of the parties the Cestuy que use was to pay the Rent 14 Eliz. Harwell versus Lucas Moore 's Rep. f. 99. a. n. 243. Bracebridge's Case is eminent to this purpose Tho. Bracebridge seis'd of the Mannor of Kingbury in Com. Warwick made a Lease for One and twenty years of Birchin Close parcel del Mannor to Moore and another Lease of the same Close for Six and twenty years to commence at the end of the first Lease to one Curteis rendring Rent and after made a Feoffment of the Mannor and all other his Lands to the use of the Feoffees and their Heirs and Assigns upon Condition that if they paid not 10000 l. within fifteen daies to the said Tho. Bracebridge or his Assigns they should stand seiz'd to the use of Bracebridge and Joyce his Wife the Remainder to Thomas their second Son in tail with divers Remainders over The Remainder to the Right Heirs of Thomas the Father Livery was made of the Land in possession and not of Birchin Close and no Attornment the Feoffees paid not 10000 l. whereby Bracebridge the Father became seis'd and the first Tenant for years attorn'd to him Adjudg'd 1. That by Livery of the Mannor Birchin Close did not pass to the Feoffees without Attornment 2. That the Attornment of the first Lessee was sufficient Moore f. 99. n. 243. 3. Though the use limited to the Feoffees and their Heirs was determined before the Attornment yet the Attornment was good to the contingent use upon not paying the mony In the Resolution of this Case Wild Archer and Tyrrell Justices were for the Plaintiff and Vaughan Chief Justice for the Defendant Trin. 21. Car. II. C. B. Rot. 1714. The King Plaintiff in a Quare Impedit per Galfridum Palmer Atturnatum suum Generalem Robert Bishop of Worcester Thomas Jervis Esquire and John Hunckley Clerk Defendants THE King counts That Queen Elizabeth was seis'd of the Advowson of the Church of Norfield with the Chappel of Coston in gross in Fee in Jure Coronae and presented one James White her Clerk who was admitted instituted and inducted That from the said Queen the Advowson of the said Church with the said Chappel descended to King James and from him to King Charles the First and from him to his Majesty that now is who being seis'd thereof the said Church with the Chappel became void by the death of the said James White and therefore it belongs of right to him to present and the Defendants disturbe him to his damage of 200 l. which the said Attorney is ready to verifie for the King The Defendants plead severally and first the Bishop that he claims nothing in the said Church and the Advowson but as Ordinary The Defendant Jervis saith That long before the said Presentation suppos'd to be made by the late Queen one Richard Jervis Esquire was seis'd of the Mannor of Norfield with the Appurtenances in Com. praedicto to which the Advowson Ecclesiae praedictae tunc pertinuit adhuc pertinet in his Demesne as of Fee and so seis'd the said Church became void by the death of one Henry Squire then last Incumbent of the said Church and so continued for two years whereby the said late Queen praetextu lapsus temporis in default of the Patron Ordinary and Metropolitan Ecclesiae praedictae pro tempore existentis dictae nuper Reginae devolutae by her Prerogative afterward that is tertio die Decembris
f. 33. Letter H. if he cannot alledge a Presentation in himself or in his Ancestor or in another person through whom he claims the Advowson and that in his Count unless it be in a special Case Then puts that special Case As if a man at this day by the Kings Licence makes a Parochial Church or other Chantry which shall be presentable if he be disturbed to present to it he shall have a Quare Impedit without alledging any presentment in any person and shall Count upon the special Matter And the Law in this is the same in Case of the King with a Common Person by all the Books and Presidents in the Books of Entry To this add the Lord Hobarts Judgment which is alwaies accurate for the true reason of the Law Know that though it be true that a Presentation may make a Fee without more as a Presentation by Vsurpation doth that you never have a Declaration in a Quare Impedit L. Hobart Digby's Case f. 101. that the Plaintiff did present the last Incumbent without more but you declare that the Plaintiff was seis'd in Fee and presented or else lay the Fee-simple in some other and then bring down the Advowson to the Plaintiff either in Fee or some other estate The reason is That the Presentment alone is militant and indifferent and may be in such a Title as may prove that this new Avoidance is the Defendants and therefore you must lay the Case so as by the Title you make the Presentation past joyn'd to your Title shall prove that this Presentation is likewise yours as well as the last Whence it follows That to Count of an Estate and Seisin without a Presentation or of a Presentation without an Estate are equally vicious and naught be it in the Case of the King or of a Common Person and was never in Example or President 2. A second necessary Premise is this and is both natural and manifest When you will recover any thing from me it is not enough for you to destroy my Title but you must prove your own better than mine For it is not rational to conclude you have no right to this and therefore I have for without a better right melior est conditio possident is regularly Hobar 1. f. 162. Colt Glovers Case ad sinem paginae 3. Every Defendant may plead in a Quare Impedit the General Issue which is ne disturba pas because that Plea doth but defend the wrong wherewith he stands charg'd and leaves the Plaintiffs Title not only uncontroverted but in effect confess'd and the Plaintiff may upon that Plea presently pray a Writ to the Bishop or at his choice maintain the Disturbance for damages Hob. Digby versus Fitzherbert f. 103. 104. But if a man will leave the General Issue and controvert the Plaintiffs Title he must then enable himself by some Title of his own to do it but yet that is not the principal part of his Plea but a formal Inducement only And therefore there is no sense if you will quarrel my possession and I to avoid your Title effectually do induce that with a Title of my own that you shall fly upon my Title and forsake your own for you must recover by your own strength and not by my weakness The Lord Hobart goes further in giving the reason of this course of Pleading in Colt and Glovers Case in the place before cited of this form of pleading in Law there is one reason common to other Actions wherein Title is contain'd to the Land in question specially which is that the Tenant shall never be receiv'd to Counter-plead but he must make to himself by his Plea a Title to the Land and so avoid the Plaintiffs Title alledg'd by Traverse or confessing and avoiding But in the Quare Impedit there is a further reason of it for therein both Plaintiff and Defendant are Actors one against another and therefore the Defendant may have a Writ to the Bishop as well as the Plaintiff which he cannot have without a Title appearing to the Court And so are the Presidents Rastal L. Intratio f. 484. a.b. when a Quare Impedit is brought against the Patron for disturbance of his Clerk not being in possession The Case in brief and the Question upon it Vpon the Record as it hath been open'd and the pleading therein between the King and the Patron upon which all the Question ariseth first I shall not make the Question to be Whether there may be a Traverse taken upon a Traverse though that Question be in truth in the Case for that is a Question rather upon terms of Art than a Questio Forensis and rising upon the naked fact of a Case depending in Iudgment I shall therefore make the Question upon this Case such as nakedly it is without involving it in any difficulty of terms The King brings a Quare Impedit and declares That Queen Elizabeth was seis'd of the Advowson of the Church of Norfield in gross as of Fee and presented and derives the Advowson to himself and the Church became void by the death of the Queens Presentee and he is disturbed to present by the Defendant Jervis The Defendant saith That before the Queen presented R. Jervis his Ancestor was seis'd in Fee of the Mannor of Norfield to which the Advowson of this Church is appendant that it became void by the death of one Squire and continued so for two years and that the Queen then presented White her Clerk by lapse That the Mannor and Advowson descended from Richard to Thomas Jervis from Thomas to Sir Thomas Jervis who granted the next avoidance to one Phineas White who presented upon the death of James White one Timothy White who was instituted and inducted and then derives the Mannor and Advowson to himself and that the Church becoming void upon the death of the said Timothy he presented the other Defendant Hunckley and Traverseth the Queens Seisin of the Advowson in gross The Law in Case of a Common Person If a Common Person brings a Quare Impedit and counts his Title to present and that he is disturbed The Defendant to counter-plead the Plaintiffs Title makes as he must a Title to himself to present and confesses and avoids or Traverseth the Plaintiffs Title 1. The Plaintiff shall never desert his own Title and by falling upon and controverting the weakness only of the Defendants Title ever recover or obtain a Writ to the Bishop though the Defendants Title do not appear to the Court to be sufficient for the unanswerable Reasons given by the Lord Hobart in the first place 2. If you will recover any thing from another man it is not enough for you to destroy his Title but you must prove your own better than his 3. There is no sense if you will quarrel my Possession or Right and I to avoid your Title effectually either by Traversing it which is denying or confessing and avoiding
to that Issue but may take another This dis-affirms the former Case when the Information is by an Informer the King must maintain his Information Note the close of this Case Ut supra per Attornatum Regis alios legis peritos I shall give the Case here mentioned in this ut supra which will I think determine the Question and clearly establish the Law according to the Difference taken That Case is likewise in Br. and cited to be as in 34 H. 8. whereof there is no Year-book neither some four years before the last Case I mentioned It is thus Br. Prerogative p. 116. 34 H. 8. Nota by Whorhood Attornatum Regis alios When an Information is put into the Chequer upon a penal Statute and the Defendant makes a Barr and Traverseth that there the King cannot wave such Issue tender'd and Traverse the former matter of the Plea as he can upon Traverse of an Office and the like when the King is sole party and intitled by matter of Record for upon the Information there is no Office found before and also a Subject is party with the King for a moiety Quod nota bene Here it is most apparent That upon an Information when the King hath no Title by matter of Record as he hath upon Office found the King cannot waive the Issue tender'd upon the first Traverse though the Information be in his own name which disaffirms the second Case in that point And for the Supernumerary reason That the King is not the sole party in the Information it is but frivolous and without weight but the stress is where the King is sole party and intitled by matter of Record I shall add another Authority out of Stamford Praerogative If the King be once seis'd his Highness shall retain against all others who have not Title nothwithstanding it be found also that the King had no Title but that the other had possession before him 37 Ass pl. 11. as appeareth in 37. Ass p. 35. which is pl. 11. where it was found That neither the King nor the party had Title and yet adjudg'd that the King should retain for the Office that finds the King to have a Right or Title to enter Stamford Praerogative f. 62. b. makes ever the King a good Title though the Office be false c. and therefore no man shall Traverse the Office unless he make himself a Title and if he cannot prove his Title to be true although he be able to prove his Traverse to be true yet this Traverse will not serve him Stamford Prerogative f. 64. b. It is to be noted That the King hath a Prerogative which a Common Person hath not for his Highness may choose whether he will maintain the Office or Traverse the Title of the party and so take Traverse upon Traverse If the King take Issue upon a Traverse to an Office he cannot in another Term change his Issue by Traversing the Defendants Title for then he might do it infinitely But the King may take Issue and after Demurr 13 E. 4. expresly and several other Books 28 H. 6. f. 2. a. or first Demurr and after take Issue or he may vary his Declaration for in these Cases as to the Right all things remain and are as they were at first but this ought to be done in the same Term otherwise the King might change without limit and tye the Defendant to perpetual Attendance Judgment pro Defendente Hill 21 22. Car. II. C. B. Rot. 606. Thomas Rowe Plaintiff and Robert Huntington Defendant in a Plea of Trespass and Ejectment THE Plaintiff declares That Thomas Wise 1. April 21 Car. 2. at Hooknorton in the County of Oxford by his Indenture produc'd dated the said day and year demis'd to the said Thomas Rowe the Mannor of Hooknorton with the Appurtenances 4 Messuages 100 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow 400 Acres of Pasture and 50 Acres of Wood with the Appurtenances in Hooknorton aforesaid As also the Rectory and Vicaridge of Hooknorton and the Tithes of Grain Hay and Wool renewing in Hooknorton aforesaid To have and to hold the Premisses from the Feast of the Annunciation of the Virgin then last past to the end and term of Seven years then next ensuing That by virtue thereof the said Thomas Rowe the Plaintiff into the said Mannor and Tenements enter'd and of the said Rectory Vicaridge and Tithes was possessed That the said Robert Huntington the Defendant the said First of April with Force and Arms into the said Mannor Rectory Vicaridge and Tithes entred and him Ejected against the Peace to his great damage and whereby he is endamaged 100 l. The Defendant Huntington pleads not Culpable And thereupon Issue is Ioyn'd The Jury give a Special Verdict That as to the Trespass and Ejectment in the said Mannor and Tenements and in the said Rectory Vicaridge and Tithes aforesaid excepting 200 Acres of Pasture parcel of the said Mannor of Hooknorton That the Defendant Huntington is not Culpable And as to the said 200 Acres they say that long before the said Trespass and Ejectment That is the 14th day of October 1. Mar. one Robert then Bishop of Oxford was seis'd in his Demesne as of Fee in Right of his Bishoprick of the said Mannor whereof the said 200 Acres are parcel and so seis'd the said 14th of October 1 Mariae at Hooknorton aforesaid by his Indenture of Demise seal'd with his Episcopal Seal Dated the said day and year and shew'd in Evidence to the Jury made between the said Bishop of the one part and John Croker of Hooknorton Esq of the other part for Considerations in the said Indenture of Demise mentioned had demis'd and to farm lett to the said Croker Among other things the said Mannor with the Appurtenances whereof the said 200 Acres are parcel To have and to hold to the said Croker and his Assigns from the end and expiration prioris Dimissionis in eadem Indentur Mentionat for and during the term of Ninety years then next following The tenor of which Indenture of Demise follows in haec verba This Indenture made the Fourteenth day of October 1 Mariae c. Between the said Bishop and the said John Croker c witnesseth That where the said Bishop by the name of the Reverend Father in God Robert King Abbot of Tame and Commendatory of the late Monastery of Oseney in the County of Oxford and the Covent of the same by their Deed Indented Dated 6. April 29 Hen. 8. with the Consent of their whole Chapter Have demis'd and to farm lett All that their Mansion or Farm of Hooknorton with the Appurtenances in the said County and all the Mansion and Farm Demesne Lands Meadows Leasowes and Pastures with all Commodities and Profits to the said Mannor belonging or appertaining and the customary works of all the Tenants not granted nor remitted before the Date of the Deed And the Parsonage of Hooknorton and
England or into parts not of the Dominion of England nor follows it because Goods were intended to be sold that is as Merchandise in a place where good market was for them that they were intended to be sold at any other place where no profit could be made or not so much or where such Goods were perhaps prohibited Commodities therefore the words of the Act brought as Merchandise must mean that the Goods are for Merchandise at the place they are brought unto And Goods brought or imported any where as Merchandise or by way of Merchandise that is to be sold must necessarily have an Owner to set and receive the price for which they are sold unless a man will say That Goods can sell themselves and set and receive their own prises But wreck Goods imported or brought any where have no Owner to sell or prize them at the time of their importation and therefore are not brought by way of or as Merchandise to England or any where else Secondly Though in a loose sense inanimate things are said to bring things as in certain Seasons Rain to bring Grass in other Seasons some Winds to bring Snow and Frost some Storms to bring certain Fowl and Fish upon the Coasts Yet when the bringing in or importing or bringing out and exporting hath reference to Acts of Deliberation and Purpose as of Goods for sale which must be done by a rational Agent or when the thing brought requires a rational bringer or importer as be it a Message an Answer an Accompt or the like No man will say That things to be imported or brought by such deliberative Agents who must have purpose in what they do can be intended to be imported or brought by casual and insensible Agents but by Persons and Mediums and Instruments proper for the actions of reasonable Agents Therefore we say not That Goods drown'd or lost in passing a Ferry a great River an arm of the Sea are exported though carried to Sea but Goods exported are such as are convey'd to Sea in Ships or other Naval Carriage of mans Artifice and by like reason Goods imported must not be Goods imported by the Wind Water or such inanimate means but in Ships Vessels and other Conveyances used by reasonable Agents as Merchants Mariners Sailors c. whence I conclude That Goods or Merchandise imported within the meaning of the Act can only be such as are imported with deliberation and by reasonable Agents not casually and without reason and therefore wreck'd Goods are no Goods imported within the intention of the Act and consequently not to answer the Kings Duties for Goods as Goods cannot offend forfeit unlade pay Duties or the like but men whose Goods they are And wreck'd Goods have not Owners to do these Offices when the Act requires they should be done Therefore the Act intended not to charge the Duty upon such Goods Judgment for the Plaintiff The Chief Justice delivered the Opinion of the Court. Hill 23 24 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 695. Richard Crowley Plaintiff In a Replevin against Thomas Swindles William Whitehouse Roger Walton Defendants THE Plaintiff declares That the Defendants the Thirtieth of December 22 Car. 2. at Kings Norton in a place there called Hurley field took his Beasts four Cows and four Heifers and detain'd them to his damage of Forty pounds The Defendants defend the Force And as Bailiffs of Mary Ashenhurst Widow justifie the Caption and that the place contains and did contain when the Caption is suppos'd Twenty Acres of Land in Kings Norton aforesaid That long before the Caption one Thomas Greaves Esquire was seis'd of One hundred Acres of Land and of One hundred Acres of Pasture in Kings Norton aforesaid in the said County of Worcester whereof the Locus in quo is and at the time of the Caption and time out of mind was parcel in his demesne as of Fee containing Twenty Acres That he long before the Caption that is 18 die Decemb. 16 Car. 1. at Kings Norton aforesaid by his Indenture in writing under his Seal which the Defendants produce dated the said day and year in consideration of former Service done by Edmond Ashenhurst to him the said Thomas did grant by his said Writing to the said Edmond and Mary his Wife one yearly Rent of Twenty pounds issuing out of the said Twenty Acres with the Appurtenances by the name of all his Lands and Hereditaments scituate in Kings Norton aforesaid Habendum the said Rent to the said Edmond and Mary and their Assigns after the decease of one Anne Greaves and Thomas Greaves Vncle to the Grantor or either of them which first should happen during the lives of Edmond and Mary and the longer liver of them at the Feasts of the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary and St. Michael the Arch angel by equal portions The first payment to begin at such of the said Feasts as should first happen next after the decease of the said Anne Greaves and Thomas the Vncle or either of them That if the Rent were behind in part or in all it should be lawful for the Grantees and the Survivor of them to enter into all and singular the Lands in King's Norton of the Grantor and to distrain and detain until payment By vertue whereof the said Edmond and Mary became seis'd of the said Rent in their Demesne as of Free hold during their Lives as aforesaid The Defendants say further in Fact That after that is to say the last day of February in the Two and twentieth year of the now King the said Anne Greaves and Thomas the Vncle and Edmond the Husband died at King's Norton That for Twenty pounds of the said Rent for one whole year ending at the Feast of Saint Michael the Arch-Angel in the Two and twentieth year of the King unpaid to the said Mary the Defendants justifie the Caption as in Lands subject to the said Mary's Distress as her Bailiffs And averr her to be living at King's Norton aforesaid The Plaintiff demands Oyer of the Writing Indented by which it appears That the said Annuity was granted to Edmond and Mary and their Assigns in manner set forth by the Defendants in their Conuzance But with this variance in the Deed And if the aforesaid yearly Rents of Ten pounds and of Twenty pounds shall be unpaid at any the daies aforesaid in part or in all That it shall be lawful for the said Edmond and Mary at any time during the joynt natural Lives of the said Anne Greaves and Thomas Greaves the Uncle if the said Edmond and Mary or either of them should so long live and as often as the said Rents of Twenty pounds or any parcel should be behind to enter into all the said Thomas Greaves the Grantors Lands in King's Norton aforesaid and to Distrain Vpon Oyer of which Indenture the Plaintiff demurrs upon the Conuzance Two Exceptions have been taken to this Conuzance made by the Defendants The first for that
by the party This difference is very material for if the Father could devise the Land in trust for him until his Son came to One and twenty as he can grant the Custody then as in other Cases of Leases for years the Land undoubtedly should go to the Executor or Administrator of him whom the Father named for the tuition and the trust should follow the Land as in other Cases where Lands are convey'd in trust But when he cannot ex directo devise the Land in trust then the Land follows the Custody and not the Custody the Land and the Land must go as the Custody can go and not the Custody as the Land can go Coke Litt. f. 49. a. 1 H. 7. 28. 8 H. 7. 4. As where a House or Land belongs to an Office or a Chamber to a Corody the Office or Corody being granted by Deed the House and Land follows as incident or belonging without Livery because the Office is the principal and the Land but pertaining to it A second Consideration is That by this Act no new custody is instituted but the office of Guardian as to the duty and power of the place is left the same as the Law before had prescrib'd and setled of Guardian in Soccage But the modus habendi of that office is alter'd by this Act in two Circumstances The first 1. It may be held for a longer time viz. to the Age of the Heir of One and twenty where before it was but to Fourteen 2. It may be by other persons held for before it was the next of Kindred not inheritable could have it now who the Father names shall have it So it is as if an Office grantable for life only before should be made grantable for years by Parliament or grantable before to any person should be made grantable but to some kind of persons only The Office as to the Duty of it and its essence is the same it was But the Modus habendi alter'd If therefore this new Guardian is the same in Office and Interest with the former Guardian in Soccage and varies from it only in the Modus habendi then the Ward hath the same legal Remedy against this Guardian as was against the old But if this be a new Office of Guardianship differing in its nature from the other the Heir hath no remedy against him at all in Law For though this new Guardian be enabled to have such Actions as the old might have yet this Act enables not the Heir to have like Actions or any other against him as he might against the Guardian in Soccage The Intent of this Statute is to priviledge the Father against common right to appoint the Guardian of his Heir and the time of his Wardship under One and twenty But leaves the Heirs of all other Ancestors Wards in Soccage as before Therefore I hold 1. That such a Special Guardian cannot transferr the Custody of the Ward by Deed or will to any other 2. That he hath no different Interest from a Guardian in Soccage but for the time of the Wardship 1. When an Act of Parliament alteâ—s the Common Law the meaning shall not be strained beyond the words except in Cases of publick Vtility when the end of the Act appears to be larger than the enacting words But by the words the Father only can appoint the Guardian therefore the Guardian so appointed cannot appoint another Guardian 2. The Mother hath the same concern for her Heir as the Father hath But she cannot by the Act name a Guardian therefore much less can the Guardian named by the Father 3. The Father cannot by the Act give the custody to a Papist but if it may be transferr'd over by him whom the Father names or by Act in Law go to his Executor or Administrator it may come to a Papist against the meaning of the Act. 4. Offices or Acts of personal Trust cannot be assign'd for the Trust is not personal which any man may have Dyer 2 3 Eliz. f. 189. b. 5. At the Common Law none could have the Custody and Marriage of a mans Son and Heir apparent from the Father yet the Father could not grant or sell the Custody and Marriage of his Heir apparent though the marriage was to his own benefit as was resolved by the greater number of the Iudges in the Lord Bray's Case who by Indenture had sold for Eight hundred pounds the Custody and Marriage of his Son and Heir apparent in the time of Henry the Eighth to the Lord Audley Chancellor of England Lord Cromwell Lord Privy Seal Sir William Paulett Treasurer of the Houshold The Marquis of Winchester Lord Treasurer Dyer supra f. 190. b. pl. 19. The Reason given is That the Father hath no Interest to be granted or sold to a Stranger in his eldest Son but it is inseparably annex'd to the person of the Father Two Judges differ'd because an Action of Trespass would lye for taking away a mans Heir apparent and marrying him whence they conclude he might be granted as a Chattel 11 H. 4. f. 23. a. Fitz. N. Br. Tresp f. 90. b. Lett. G. f. 89. Lett. O. But an Action of Trespass will lye for taking away ones Servant For taking away a Monk where he was cloyster'd in Castigationem Pro Uxore abducta cum bonis Viri yet none of these are assignable West 1. c. 48. By the Statute of Westminster the First If the Guardian in Chivalry made a Feoffment of the Wards Lands in his Custody during his Minority the Heir might forthwith have a Writ of Novel Disseisin against the Guardian and Tenant and the Land recover'd should be deliver'd to the next of kinn to the Heir to be kept and accompted for to him at his full Age. This was neither Guardian in Soccage nor Chivalry Coke 2. Inst f. 260. b. By 4 5 P.M. c. 8. No woman child under 16. can be taken against his will whom the Father hath made Guardian by Deed or Will yet this is no Lease of the Custody till 16. nor is it assignable Ratcliffs C. 3. Rep. Shoplands C. 3 Jac. Cr. f. 99. but a special Guardian appointed by the Statute and such a Guardian could not assign over nor should it go to his Executors by the Express Book This Case likewise and common Experience proves That Guardian in Soccage cannot assign nor shall the Custody go to his Executors though some ancient Books make some doubt therein For expresly by the Statute of 52 H. 3. the next of kin is to answer and be accomptable to the Heir in Soccage as this special Guardian is here by Westminster the First These several sorts of Guardians trusted for the Heir could neither assign their Custody nor did it go to their Executors because the Trust was personal and they had no Interest for themselves The Trust is as personal in this new Guardian nor hath he any Interest in it for himself and
as much as to say wherein no man had right for that which is equally every mans right is no mans right Whence it follows for I shall not speak of the usage or extent of such a possession by natural Occupancy it being a subject too large and not necessary for my present purpose 1. That there can be no Occupancy natural of any thing wherein another than the Occupant hath right For by the definition made natural Occupancy is the first right 2. A Claim without actual possession cannot make a man a natural Occupant For 1. When a Claim is cannot be possibly known to all concern'd in the Occupancy of a natural thing and what cannot be known is as to all effect of right as if it had not been nor is there any Character of a natural Claim but the possession and use of the thing but civilly there may either by word or other sign agreed on 2. The end of a natural Right to any natural thing is the separate use of the thing to a part of Mankind which cannot be used by all Mankind but if Claim only would give a Right to the things of nature they might still remain as much without use after the Claim as before which agrees not with the end of Nature in giving a Right to natural things 3. If Claim could give a Natural Right one might claim all things in the Universe not already appropriated and might have done so in the beginning of time when nothing almost was appropriated 4. A natural Occupant hath no Estate of Fee Freehold or the like which are Estates formed and raised by municipal Laws but hath only a bare possession to keep or forsake 5. That Land possessed by a natural Occupant must be without any sort of Vassallage of Service Rent Condition or other Charge whatsoever for those servitudes upon the Land cannot be conceiv'd without a former right in him that laid them but natural Occupancy of things wherein none had any former right or having any have deserted it for naturally a man can have nothing against his own will 6. Two or more cannot at the same time have severally plenary possession that is Occupancy of the same thing therefore none can have right to that by reason of possession whereof another is already possess'd for then there would be two plenary Possessors severally of the same thing at the same time which is impossible And although every Nation hath by Consent and Agreement among the people of it its proper Laws to guide and determine mens Properties to all things capable of property and ownership yet the ancientest Nations of the World have no other right against each other to their own Countries and Territories than this original and natural occupancy and that Nation that will not admit a right by occupancy to another Nation in the Land so possess'd by it must at the same time confess they have no right to their own which they hold but in like manner They who would be further satisfied concerning this kind of occupancy may resort for exactness above other Books upon this Subject to Mr. Selden's Mare Clausum Seldeni Mare Clausum l. 1. Grotius de Jure Belli l. 1. c. 3 4. lib. 1. and to Hugo Grotius his first Book de Jure Belli Pacis c. 3. de acquisitione originaria rerum c. 4. de derelictione praesumpta eam secuta occupatione c. 1. By Civil Occupancy I mean such an occupancy either of things immoveable as Lands or of things moveable as is according to institution and the law of the place and particularly according to the Law of England as to the decision of the Question before us 2. By the Law of England there is no occupancy by any person of any thing which another hath a present right to possess wherein the Law of the Land agrees with that of natural occupancy Occupancy by the Law must be of things which have natural existence as of Land or of other natural things not of things which have their being and creation from Laws and Agreements of men for there is no direct and immediate occupancy of a Rent a Common an Advowson a Fair a Market a Remainder a Dignity and the like Cok. Litt. f. 41. b. Cr. 41 El. f. 721. Crauleys C. p. 50. no Occupancy of a Rent There can be no Occupant of any thing that lieth in grant and cannot pass without Deed because every Occupant must claim by a que estate and averr the life of Cestuy que vie And in this the Civil Occupancy with us of Land agrees with Natural Occupancy which must be of a thing that hath natural existence and not only legal But although the Occupancy be always of a natural thing yet the Occupant doth thereby by the Law enjoy several things many times that have their being by Law only as an Occupant of Land may thereby enjoy a Common Occupant of a House Estovers of the demesne Lands of a Mannor the Services and Advowsons appendant which are not themselves natural things but things created by Law nor are they immediately and by themselves capable of Occupancy but with reference to and as adjuncts of the Land and herein the civil Occupany differs from the natural And the reason is clear because the occupancy of the Land which ought not to lye void doth not sever or separate any thing from the Land which the Law hath joyned with it and if it doth not separate from it that which is joyn'd with it by Law though that be not capable of Occupancy in it self as an Advowson or Common it must follow that such things continue joyn'd or belonging to the Land as before notwithstanding the occupancy of the Land Cok. Litt. f. 41. b. In civil occupancy the Land in occupancy is charg'd with all the servitude impos'd by the first Lessor or by the Law As 1. to the payment of Rent 2. to be subject to waste 3. to forfeiture 4. to other Conditions wherein it differs from Land whereof a man is a natural occupant As to the civil occupancy of moveable things which are commonly termed personal things or goods there are few of those in our Law that have not a Proprietor and consequently no Occupant can be of them those which fall under occupancy of that kind are for the most part found in things ferae naturae whose acquisition is either per piscationem Bract. l. 2. c. 1. as in Fish or per aucupium as in Fowl or per venationem by hunting These do cedere occupanti communi Jure 1. Hence it follows by way of Inference and Corollary That there can be no primary and immediate Occupancy of a Tithe for it is not in its own nature capable of Occupancy more than a Rent or Common is and is in truth in its nature but a Rent it cannot pass by it self but by Deed and as other things which lye in grant A second thing that follows
Interest for the Lessee Taverner had a Lease of the House Glebe and Barn and the Tithe continued in Astly 2. This severance was equally the same as if the Tithe had been demis'd to Taverner and the House and Land had remained still in Astly's possession 3. Though the Freehold of both remained still in Astly at his death notwithstanding the divided Interest in the Land and Tithe yet the Freehold being a thing quatenus Freehold not capable in it self of Occupancy nor no natural but a legal thing which the Law casts upon him that is Occupant that will not concern the Questions either who was Occupant or of what he was Occupant Cok. Litt. f. 41. b. 4. I take it for clear That a naked Tithe granted by it self pur auter vie and the Grantee dying without assignment living Cestuy que vie is not capable of Occupancy more than a Rent a Common in gross and Advowson in gross a Fair or the like are it being a thing lying in Grant equally as those others do Coke's Littleton There can be no Occupant of any thing which lyeth in Grant and cannot pass without Deed. I cited the place at full before with other Authorities against Occupancy of a Rent 5. If a man dye seis'd of Land which he holds pur auter vie and also dies seis'd of Rent held pur auter vie or of an Advowson or Common in gross held by distinct Grants pur auter vie and the same Cestuy que vie or the several Cestuy vies for that will not differ the Case living Though the Grantee died seis'd of a Freehold in these several things I conceive that he which enters into the Land first after his death will be Occupant of the Land which was capable of Occupancy but neither of the Tithe Advowson nor Common which are not capable of Occupancy and have no more coherence with dependence upon nor relation to the Land than if they had been granted pur auter vie to another who had happen'd to dye in like manner as the Grantee of the Land did And that which hath intricated men in this matter hath been a Conception taken up as if the Occupant had for his object in being Occupant the Freehold which the Tenant died seis'd of which is a mistake for the subject and object of the Occupant are only such things which are capable of Occupancy not things which are not and not the Freehold at all into which he neither doth nor can enter but the Law casts it immediately upon him that hath made himself Occupant of the Land or other real thing whereof he is Occupant that there may be a Tenant to the Precipe But as was well observed by my Brother Wilmott No Precipe lies for setting out Tithe at Common Law and I doubt not by the Statute of 32 H. 8. c. 7. though Sir Edward Coke in his Litt. f. 159. a. seems to be of opinion Coke Litt. 159. a. that a man may at his Election have remedy for witholding Tithe after that Statute by Action or in the Ecclesiastical Court by that Statute doubtless he hath for the title of Tithe as for title of Land or for the taking of them away but not perhaps for not setting them out 6. When a Severance therefore is once made of the Land and Tithe it is as much severance of them though the Tithe remain in Astly's possession as if he had leas'd the Land to Taverner and the Tithe to another if then Taverner becoming Occupant of the Land should have had nothing in the Tithe leas'd to another as the Land was to him no more shall he have the Tithe remaining in Astly himself at his death Still we must remember the ground insisted on That no Occupancy begins with the Freehold but begins by possessing the Land or other real thing which was void and ownerless and that by Act of Law the Freehold is cast upon the Possessor either entring where the possession was void or being in possession when Tenant pur auter vie died either as Lessee for years or at will to Tenant pur auter vie for the Law equally casts the Freehold upon him as was resolved in Chamberleyne and Eures Case reported by Serjeant Rolls and others Second Part. f. 151. Letter E. and in Castle and Dods Case 5 Jac. Cr. f. 200. Therefore after such Severance made by the Tenant pur auter vie the Land and Tithe are as distinct and sunder'd from each other as if Tenant pur auter vie had held them by distinct Grants or leas'd them to distinct persons In the next place I shall agree That the Occupant of a House shall have the Estovers or way pertaining to such House the Occupant of the Demesne of a Mannor or of other Land shall have the Advowson appendant or Villain regardant to the Mannor or Common belonging to the Land and the Services of the Mannor not sever'd from the Demesne before the occupancy For a Possessor of a House Land Demesne of a Mannor as Occupant doth not by such his possession sever any thing belonging to the Land House or Demesne more than the Possessor by any other title than occupancy doth and if they be not sever'd it follows they must remain as before to the Possessor of that to which they pertain So if a Mannor being an intire thing consisting of Demesnes and Services which are parts constituent of the Mannor the possessing and occupancy of the Demesns which is one part can make no severance of the Services from the intire and therefore the Occupant hath all And these things though primarily there can be no occupancy of them being things that lye in Grant and pass not without Deed yet when they are adjuncts or pertaining to Land they do pass by Livery only without Deed. Coke Litt. f. 121. 8. Sect. 183. Whatsoever passeth by Livery of Seisin either in Deed or in Law may pass without Deed and not only the Rent and Services parcel of the Mannor shall with the Demesns as the more principal and worthy pass by Livery without Deed but all things regardant appendant or appurtenant to the Mannor as Incidents or Adjuncts to the same shall together with the Mannor pass without Deed without saying cum pertinentiis And if they pass by Livery which must be of the Land they must likewise pass by any lawful Entry made into the Land and such the Entry of the Occupant is But as by occupancy of the demesn Lands of a Mannor the Services are not sever'd so if they be sever'd at the time when the occupancy happens that shall never of it self unite them again Now in the Case before us The Tithe is neither appendant or appurtenant or any sort of Adjunct to the Glebe or House nor are they to the Tithe nor will a lease and livery of the Glebe simply with the appurtenances pass the Tithe at all nor a Grant of the Tithe pass the Glebe nor are either
of them constituent parts of the Prebendary or Rectory as the Services are of a Mannor for a total severance of the Services and Demesne destroy the Mannor but a severance of the Tithe or Glebe will not destroy the Rectory more than the severance of a Mannor parcel of the possessions of a Bishoprick will destroy the Bishoprick for the Glebe and the Tithe are but several possessions belonging to the Rectory But it is true that in the Case before us and like Cases a Grant of the Prebendary or of the Rectory una cum terra Glebali decimis de Woolney The Tithe which alone cannot pass without Deed doth pass by Livery of the Rectory Browlow part 2. f. 201. Rowles and Masons Case and so pass that though the Deed mentions the Tithe to be pass'd yet if Livery be not given which must be to pass the Land the Tithe will not pass by the Deed because the intention of the parties is not to pass them severally but una cum and together Therefore the Tithe in such Case must pass in time by the Livery which did not pass without it though granted by the Deed. Yet it is a Question Whether in such Case the Tithe passeth by the Livery or by the Deed For though the passing it by Deed is suspended by reason of the intention to pass the Land and Tithe together and not severally it follows not but that the Tithe passeth by the Deed where Livery is given though not until Livery given If a man be seis'd of a Tenement of Land and likewise of a Tithe and agrees to sell them both and without Deed gives Livery in the Tenement to the Bargainee in name of it and of the Tithe I conceive the Tithe doth not pass by that Livery But a Prebend or Church man cannot now by the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. make a Lease of the possessions of his Prebendary without Deed. 13 Eliz. c. 10. A Prebendary or Rectory is in truth neither the Glebe nor Tithe nor both for the one or the other may be recover'd and might at Common Law have been aliened the Rectory remaining But the Rectory is the Church Parochial whereof the Incumbent taketh the Cure and Seisin by his Induction after his Institution which is his Charge and without other Seisin then of the Ring or Key of the Church-door by Induction into the Rectory the Parson is seis'd of all the possessions belonging to his Rectory of what kind soever But though by the name of the Rectory the possessions belonging to it of what nature soever actually vest in the Incumbent upon Induction and may pass from the Prebendary by Livery of the Prebend or Rectory to his Lessee according to the parties intention Yet it follows not That therefore an Occupant who can be Occupant but of some natural and permanent thing as Land is should by being Occupant of that whereof occupancy may be have thereby some other thing heterogene to the nature of Land and not capable of occupancy as a Tithe is being neither appendant or appurtenant or necessary part of that whereof he is Occupant nor will it follow that because by giving Seisin of the Rectory the Tithe and Glebe belonging to it will pass that therefore giving Livery of the Glebe will pass the Tithe For it is observable That if a man be Tenant in tayl of a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant or of a Tenement to which a Common is belonging and discontinue the Issue in tayl shall never have the Advowson or Common until he hath recontinued the Mannor or Tenement But if a man be seis'd in tayl of a Rectory consisting of Glebe and Tithe and discontinue it after the death of Tenant in tayl the Heir in tayl shall have the Tithe which lay in grant but must recover by Formedon the Rectory and Glebe This was agreed in this Court in a Case between Christopher Baker and Searl in Ejectment Cr. 37 El. f. 407. p. 19. Baker and Searls Case upon a Demise by the Earl of Bedford of the Rectory of D. de decimis inde provenientibus for Lives of three other persons and that Case seems to admit an occupancy of the Tithe the Question being concerning the Tithe only Quest 3 The next Question will be That if Taverner being Occupant of the House and Land shall not have the Tithe whereof Astly was in possession at the time of his death what shall become of this Tithe during the lives of the Cestuy que vies which is the hard question And as to this Question If a Rent be granted to A. for the life of B. and A. dies living B I conceive this Rent to be determined upon the death of A. equally as if granted to him for his own life I say determined because it is not properly extinguish'd nor is it suspended For Extinguishment of a Rent is properly when the Rent is absolutely conveyed to him who hath the Land out of which the Rent issues or the Land is convey'd to him to whom the Rent is granted And Suspension of a Rent is when either the Rent or Land are so convey'd not absolutely and finally but for a certain time after which the Rent will be again reviv'd The Reasons why it is determined are because a thing so granted as none can take by the Grant is a void Grant that is as if no such Grant had been Therefore a Grant to the Bishop of L. and his Successors when there is no Bishop in being at the time or to the Dean and Chapter of Pauls or to the Mayor and Commonalty of such a place when there is no Dean or Mayor living at the time of the Grant is a void Grant that is as if it had not been though such a Grant by way of Remainder may be good By the same Reason it follows That when any thing is so granted that upon some contingent hapning none can take by the Grant nor possibly have the thing granted both the Grant and thing granted must necessarily determine for what difference is there between saying that Rent can no longer be had when it is determined by his death for whose life it was granted and saying none can longer have this Rent when it determines by the death of the Grantee pur auter vie For there is no Assignee Occupant or any other can possibly have it and it is therefore determined In an Action of Trover and Conversion brought by Salter against Boteler Salter versus Boteler 44 El. Cr. 901. the Defendant justifies for that one Robert Bash was seis'd in Fee of Twenty Acres in Stansted and granted a Rent-charge to another Robert Bash his Executors and Assigns during the life of Frances the Grantees Wife of Sixteen pounds per Annum The Grantee dies and Frances his wife takes Letters of Administration and the Defendant as her Servant and by her command took a Distress in the said Twenty Acres for Rent
arrear and impounded them And Traverseth the Conversion and taking in other manner Vpon Demurrer to this Plea all the Court held the Plea to be bad and gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff 1. Because the Rent was determined by the death of the Grantee because no Occupant could be of it 2. Because the Feme was no Assignee by her taking of Administration 3. None can make title to a Rent to have it against the terr Tenant unless he be party to the Deed or make sufficient title under it Moore 664. p. 907. Salter vers Boteler The same Case is in Moore reported to be so adjudg'd because the Rent was determined by the death of the Grantee and Popham said That if a Rent be granted pur auter vie the Remainder over to another and the Grantee dies living Cestuy que vie the Remainder shall commence forthwith because the Rent for life determined by the death of the Grantee which last Case is good Law For the particular Estate in the Rent must determine when none could have it and when the particular Estate was determined the Remainder took place And as the Law is of a Rent so must it be of any thing which lies in Grant as a several Tithe doth whereof there can be no Occupant when it is granted pur auter vie and the Grantee dies in the life of Cestuy que vie 20 H. 6. f. 7 8. This is further cleared by a Case in 20 H. 6. A man purchas'd of an Abbot certain Land in Fee-farm rendring to the Abbot and his Successors Twenty pounds yearly Rent If all the Monks dye this Rent determined because there is none that can have it It lies not in Tenure and therefore cannot Escheat and though new Monks may be made it must be by a new Creation wholly In vacancy of a Parson or Vicar the Ordinary ex officio shall cite to pay the Tithes Fitz. N. Br. Consultation Lett. G. This Case agrees exactly with the Grant of a Rent or other thing which lies in Grant pur auter vie the Grantee dying the Rent determines though it were a good Grant and enjoyed at first yet when after none can have it it is determined So was the Rent to the Abbot and his Successors a good Rent and well enjoyed But when after all the Covent died so as none could have the Rent for the Body Politique was destroyed the Rent determined absolutely By this I hold it clear That if a man demise Land to another and his Heirs habendum pur auter vie or grant a Rent to a man and his Heirs pur auter vie though the Heir shall have this Land or Rent after the Grantees death yet he hath it not as a special Occupant as the common expression is for if so such Heir were an Occupant which he is not for a special Occupant must be an Occupant but he takes it as Heir not of a Fee but of a descendible Freehold and not by way of limitation as a Purchase to the Heir but by descent though some Opinions are that the Heir takes it by special limitation as when an Estate for life is made the Remainder to the right Heirs of J. S. the Heir takes it by special limitation if there be an Heir when the particular Estate ends But I see not how when Land or Rent is granted to a man and his Heirs pur auter vie the Heir should take by special limitation after the Grantees death when the whole Estate was so in the first Grantee that he might assign it to whom he pleas'd and so he who was intended to take by special limitation after the Grantees death should take nothing at all But to inherit as Heir a descendible Freehold when the Father or other Ancestor had not dispos'd it agrees with the ancient Law as appears by Bracton which obiter in Argument is denied in Walsinghams Case Si autem fiat donatio sic Bract. l. 2. de acquirendo rerum dominico c. 9. Ad vitam donatoris donatorio haeredibus suis si donatorius praemoriatur haeredes ei succedent tenendum ad vitam donatoris per Assisam mortis Antecessoris recuperabunt qui obiit ut de feodo Here it is evident That Land granted to a man and his Heirs for the life of the Grantor the Grantee dying in the life of the Grantor the Heirs of the Grantee were to succeed him and should recover by a Writ of Mordancester in case of Abatement which infallibly proves the Heir takes by descent who died seis'd as of a Fee but not died seis'd in Fee 1. Hence I conclude That if a man dye seis'd pur auter vie of a Rent a Tithe an Advowson in gross Common in gross or other thing whereof there can be no Occupancy either directly or by consequence as adjuncts of something else by the death of the Grantee in all these Cases the Grant is determined and the Interest stands as before any Grant made 2. If any man dye seis'd of Land pur auter vie as also of many of these things in gross pur auter vie by distinct Grant from the Land The Occupant of the Land shall have none of these things but they are in the same state and the Grants determine as if the Grantee had died seis'd of nothing whereof there could be any occupancy But I must remember you that in this last part of my Discourse where I said That if a Rent a Tithe a Common or Advowson in gross or the like lying in Grant were granted pur auter vie and the Grantee died living Cestuy que vie that these Grants were determin'd my meaning was and is where such Rent Tithe or other things are singly granted and not where they are granted together with Land or any other thing out of which Rent may issue with Reservation of a Rent out of the whole For although a Rent cannot issue out of things which lye in Grant as not distrainable in their nature yet being granted together with Land with reservation of a Rent though the Rent issue properly and only out of the Land and not out of those things lying in Grant as appears by Littleton yet those are part of the Consideration for payment of the Rent Cok. Litt. f. 142. a. 144. a. as well as the Land is In such case when the Rent remains still payable by the Occupant it is unreasonable that the Grant should determine as to the Tithe or as to any other thing lying in Grant which passed with the Land as part of the Consideration for which the Rent was payable and remain to the Lessor as before they were granted for so the Lessor gives a Consideration for paying a Rent which he enjoys and hath notwithstanding the Consideration given back again And this is the present Case being stript and singled from such things as intricate it That Doctor Mallory Prebend of the Prebendary of Woolney consisting of Glebe-land
a House Barns and Tithe of Woolney and thereof seis'd in the right of his Prebendary makes a Lease to Astly of the Prebend una cum the Glebe House Barn and Tithe for Three Lives rendring the accustomed and ancient Rent of Five pounds Twelve shillings Astly demiseth to Taverner the House Glebe and Barn for a year reserving Twenty shillings and dies the Cestuy que vies living As I concluded before Taverner is Occupant of the House Barn and Glebe-land and consequently lyable to pay the whole Rent being Five pounds twelve shillings yearly though the Land House and Barn be found of the yearly value of Twenty shillings only but because the Rent cannot issue out of Tithes or things that lye in Grant it issues only out of the House Barn and Land which may be distrain'd on 2. If Taverner being Occupant of the Land shall not have the Tithes which remain'd in Astly according to his Lease for three Lives at the time of his death and whereof by their nature there can be no direct Occupancy It follows that the Lease made by Doctor Mallory is determin'd as to the Tithe for no other can have them yet continues in force as to the Land and House and all the Rent reserv'd which seems strange the Land and Tithe being granted by the same Demise for three Lives which still continue yet the Lease to be determined as to part 3. Though the Rent issue not out of the Tithe yet the Tithe was as well a Consideration for the payment of the Rent as the Land and Houses were and it seems unreasonable that the Lessor Doctor Mallory should by act in Law have back the greatest Consideration granted for payment of the Rent which is the Tithe and yet have the Rent wholly out of the Land by act in Law too which cannot yield it 4. Though Doctor Mallory could not have reserv'd a Rent out of the Tithe only to bind his Successor upon a Lease for Lives more than out of a Fair though it were as the ancient Rent and had been usually answered for the Fair as is resolv'd in Jewel Bishop of Sarum's Case Jewell's Case 5 Rep. Yet in this Case where the Tithe together with Land out of which Rent could issue was demis'd for the accustomed Rent the Successor could never avoid the Lease either in the whole or as to the Tithe only 13 Eliz. c. 10. This seems clear by the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. which saith All Leases made by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical persons having any Lands Tenements Tithes or Hereditaments parcel of the Possessions of any Spiritual Promotion other than for One and twenty years or three Lives whereupon the accustomed yearly Rent or more shall be reserv'd shall be void Cokes Litt. f. 142. a. f. 144. a. Whence it is apparent this Statute intended that Leases in some sense might be made of Tithes for One and twenty years or Three Lives and an ancient Rent reserv'd but of a bare Tithe only a Rent could not be reserv'd according to Jewell's Case for neither Distress nor Assise can be of such Rent though an Assise may be de Portione Decimarum as is clear by the Lord Dyer 7 E. 6. and the difference rightly stated Therefore a Lease of Tithe and Land out of which a Rent may issue and the accustomed Rent may be reserved must be good within the intention of the Statute or Tithe could in no sense be demis'd 5. Taverner the Lessee being Occupant here by his possession becomes subject to the payment of the Rent to Waste to Forfeiture Conditions and all things that Astly the Lessee or his Assignee if he had made any had been subject to Also Coke's Litt. 41. He must claim by a que Estate from Astly he must averr the Life of Cestuy que vie so as he becomes to all intents an Assignee in Law of the first Lessee 6. Without question the Occupant being chargeable with the Rent shall by Equity have the Tithe which was the principal Consideration for payment of the Rent when no man can have the benefit of the Tithe but the Lessor Doctor Mallory who gave it as a Consideration for the Rent which he must still have Therefore I conceive the Reason of Law here ought necessarily to follow the Reason of Equity and that the Occupant shall have the Tithe not as being immediate Occupant of the Tithe whereof no occupancy can be but when by his possession of the Land he becomes Occupant and the Law casts the Freehold upon him he likewise thereby becomes an Assignee in Law of Astly's Lease and Interest and consequently of the Tithe An ancient Rent reserv'd within the Statute of 1. or 13. of the Queen upon a Lease of One and twenty years or Three Lives is by express intention of that Statute a Rent for publique use and maintenance of Hospitality by Church-men as is resolv'd in Elsemere's Case Elsmers C. 5. Rep. the 5. Rep. and therefore if the Lessee provide not an Assignee to answer the Rent to the Successors of the Lessor for the ends of that Law the Law will do it for him and none fitter to be so than the Occupant in case of a Lease pur auter vie as this is And if the Occupant being Assignee hath pass'd all his Estate and Interest to the Plaintiff hath good cause of Action for the Tithe converted by the Defendant Pasch 22 Car. II. Judgment for the Defendant Three Justices against the Chief Justice Trin. 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 2043. Harrison versus Doctor Burwell In a Prohibition for his Marriage with Jane the Relict of Bartholomew Abbot his Great Uncle The Questions are Quest 1 WHether the marriage of Thomas Harrison the Plaintiff with Jane his now wife being the Relict of Bartholomew Abbot his great Vncle that is his Grand-fathers Brother by the Mothers side be a lawful marriage within the Act of 32 H. 8. cap. 38 Quest 2 Admitting it to be a lawful marriage within the meaning of that Act Whether the Kings Temporal Courts are properly Judges of it because the unlawfulness or lawfulness of it by that Act doth depend upon its being a marriage within or without the Levitical Degrees For if within those Degrees it is not a lawful marriage by that Act. And the right knowledge of marriages within or without those Degrees must arise from the right knowledge ot the Scriptures of the Old Testament specially the Interpretation of which hath been and regularly is of Ecclesiastick Conizance and not of Lay or Temporal Conizance in regard of the Language wherein it was writ and the receiv'd Interpretations concerning it in all succession of time Quest 3 Admitting the Kings Temporal Courts have by that Act of 32. or any other special Conizance of the Levitical Degrees and of marriages within them And though this be no marriage within the Levitical Degrees it being articled in general to be an Incestuous marriage
confessed that the Land was a Common and that he had approv'd the places in question leaving sufficient Pasture for the Tenants if then the Tenant had demurr'd upon his Plea of Sola separalis pastura the right of approving had properly come in question A man hath no right to any thing for which the Law gives no remedy This must be a Common or Nothing 1. If disseis'd the Assise is Quare disseisivit eum de Communia pasturae suae If surcharg'd an Admensuratio pasturae is Quare Superoneravit Communiam pasturam suam 22 Ass p. 48. Cok. Litt. 4. b. Trespass lies not for a Common but doth for Sola separalis pastura granted to one or more jointly But not here where all cannot joyn in Action and several Actions would cause several Fines to the King for the same offence which the Law permits not He cannot avow but for Damage done to his Common not for his Sola separalis pastura 2. No Common or Pasture can be claimed by Custome within the Mannor that may not be prescribed for out of the Mannor for what one might grant another might Foyston Cratchrod's Case 4. Rep. f. 31. But no Prescription can be for Sola separalis pastura out of the Mannor to such Common Therefore they shall not claim it by Custome in the Mannor For Copy-holders must prescribe out of the Mannor that the Lord for himself and his Tenants at will hath always had Common in such a place which Prescription gives the Lord what this Custome would take from him 3. No man enjoys a Real profit convey'd from the Lord which he cannot re-transfer again to the Lords benefit but a Commoner of such a Common cannot Release Surrender Extinguish or otherwise Convey this Common to the Lords benefit Smith Gatewoods Case 3 Jac. Cr. f. 152 6. Rep. f. 59. 15 E. 2. Title Prescript pl. 51. Which is the reason in Gatewood's Case That Inhabitants not corporate cannot prescribe in a Common none of them can extinguish or release that Common he claims A man prescribed in the sole Pasture after carrying of the Hay to a certain time of the year So tempore E. 1. a Prescription for all the Pasture and the Owner of the Soyl could only plough Fitz. pl. 55. super sow and carry his Corn but not depasture the Grass at all But no Case where different persons had by different Title as here in the same ground Solam separalem pasturam Nor no Case where Sola separalis pastura is granted to a man and his Heirs which seems the same as granting omne proficuum terrae For where it is alledged there may be Mines Woods and the like notwithstanding the Grant of Solam separalem pasturam these are casual and not constant profits they may be or not be at all When a man brings an Action as an Entry sur Disseisin or the like where he must alledge Esplees the profit of a Mine will not serve but for the Mine it self which may be a divided Inheritance from the Soyl. So may Woodland be a divided Inheritance from the Soyl and the profit or cutting of that is not Esplees of the Land generally but of the Woodland but the profits of all and every part are the Esplees of the Land and proves seisin of the whole Land which are in the form of pleading the Corn Grass and Hay which are profits pour moy pour tout and where Sola separalis pastura is granted generally away Seisin cannot be alledg'd in taking any of these It is agreed generally for Law Cok. Litt. f. 122. a. That a Prescription to have Solam separalem Communiam incertain Land doth not exclude the Owner of the Soyl to have Pasture or Estovers But by that Book a man may prescribe to have Solam vesturam terrae from a certain day to a certain day in the year and so to have Solam pasturam terrae And so are the Books of 15 E. 2. pl. 51. and of E. 1. pl. 55. in Fitz-herbert Title Prescription but they go no further nor determine what Estate he hath who claims Solam separalem pasturam to him and his Heirs excluding the Lord wholly from any Pasture Hay or Corn. In granting or prescribing to have Solam separalem Communiam why the Lord is not excluded is not clear by that Book or any other For There are two notions or senses of the word Communia the one as it signifies that Interest in the Common which one Commoner hath against another not to have the Common surcharg'd And is that Interest Fitz. Na. Br. de Admensuratione pasturae f. 125. a. to which the Writ De Admensuratione pasturae relates which only lies for Commoner against Commoner and not for a Commoner against the Lord or for the Lord against a Commoner as is clear by Fitz-herbert And in this sense there may be Sola separalis Communia for only one may have right of Common and no more either by Grant or Prescription So in this sense one part of the Tenants of a Mannor may have the sole right of Commoning in a certain place excluding the other part of the Tenants Foyston's C. 4. Rep. and may claim there Solam separalem Communiam à caeteris Tenentibus Manerii The other notion of Communia is when one or more hath right to Pasture with the Owner of the Soyl and in this sense it is impossible for a man to have solam separalem Communiam for one cannot have that alone which is to be had with another nor do that alone which is to be done with another So as a man may have Solam separalem Communiam in that sense that none is to be a Commoner but himself but not in that sense that none else should depasture the Land but he for Communia cannot signifie an absolute several As 't is a Contradiction that a Common which is to more than one can be a several and belong but to one So it is an equal Contradiction That what in its nature is to be the right of one only can be Common and the right of more than one Others cannot have what is only to be had by me more than I can have only what is to be had by others with me Therefore Sola separalis Pastura may be enjoyed by one or by many jointly and by way of Survivor but not by many by different Titles as belonging to several Free-holds for Sola separalis pastura can be but Soli separatim Na. Br. f. 231. a. l. c. 8 E. 4. f. 17. Br. grants pl. 95. If the King had a Corody from an Abby of two or three loaves of Bread per diem and of so many measures of Drink this might be granted to two or three several persons But if he had a Corody of one Meal a day or Sustentationem unius Valecti per diem this
not the Land devis'd to him when the son and the two daughters dye without Issue of their respective bodies by way of Remainder which cannot be but by way of Executory devise which well may be 5. That by such Executory devise no perpetuity is consequent to it or if it were such a perpetuity is no way repugnant or contrary to Law To manifest the difference taken between an implication in a Will that is necessary and implication that is only possible the first Case I shall cite is that known Case 13 H. 7. which I shall exactly put as it is in the Book at large 13 H. 7. f. 17. Br. Devise pl. 52. A man devis'd his Goods to his wife and that after the decease of his wife his son and heir shall have the House where his Goods are The son shall not have the House during the wives life for though it be not expresly devis'd to the wife yet his intent appears the son shall not have it during her life and therefore it is a good devise to the wife for life by implication and the Devisors intent Quod omnes Justitiarii concesserunt Here I observe 1. That this was a devise of the House to the wife by necessary implication for it appears by the Will that the Testators son and heir was not to have it until after the death of the wife and then it must either be devis'd to the wife for life by necessary implication or none was to have it during the wives life which could not be 2. I observe upon this Case That though the Goods were by particular devise given to the wife and expresly that was no hindrance to the wives having the House devis'd to her also by her husband by implication necessary which I the rather note because men of great name have conceiv'd That where the devisee takes any thing by express devise of the Testator such devisee shall not have any other thing by that Will devis'd only by implication Which difference if it were according to Law it makes clearly against the Plaintiff because his Lessor being one of the Daughters of the Testator had devis'd to her expresly for a Portion and therefore she should not have any Estate in the Land by the same Will by a Devise by Implication as is pretended But the truth is that is a vain difference that hath been taken by many as I shall anon evince and therefore I shall not insist upon any Aid from it to my conclusion 3. I note that this Devise being before the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Wills the House devis'd must be conceiv'd devisable by Custome at the Common Law Before I proceed further I must take notice that Brook in abridging the Case of 13 H. 7. in the same numero saith Devise Br. n. 52. It was agreed tempore H. 8. per omnes That if a man will that J. S. shall have his Land in Dale after the death of his wife the wife shall have the House for her life by his apparent intent I note first That this Case is imperfectly put in Brook for it mentions a devise of the Land in Dale to J. S. after the death of his wife and then concludes that the wife shall have the House for her life by his apparent intent whereas no mention is made of a House but of the Land in Dale in the devise And this Case seems to be only a memory of another Case Br. Devise 29 H. 8. n. 48. not abridg'd by Brook out of any other Year-book but reported in his Abridgment in the Title Devise as a Case happened in 29 H. 8. which is That if a man will that J. S. shall have his Land after the death of his wife and dies the wife of the Devisor shall have those Lands for term of her life by those words ratione intentionis voluntatis Which Cases being in truth but one and the same Case seem to go further than the Case of 13 H. 7. for there as I observ'd before the wife was to take by necessary implication because the Heir was excluded expresly by the Will during the life of the wife But by this Case in Br. Title Devise n. 48. 52. there is no excluding of the Heir and yet it is said the wife shall have the Land during her life by implication which is no necessary implication as in the Case of 13 H. 7. but only a possible implication and seems to cross that difference I have taken before But this Case of Br. hath many times been denied to be Law and several Iudgments have been given against it I shall give you some of them to justifie the difference I have taken exactly as I shall press the Cases Trinity 3 E. 6. A man seis'd of a Mannor part in Demesne 3 E. 6. Moore Rep. f. 7. n. 24. and part in Services devis'd all the demesne Lands expresly to his wife during her life and devis'd to her also all the Services and chief Rents for Fifteen years and then devis'd the whole Mannor to a stranger after the death of his wife It was resolved by all the Justices That the last devise should not take effect for any part of the Mannor but after the wives death but yet the wife should not have the whole Mannor by implication during her life but should have only the demesnes for her life and the Rent and Services for Fifteen years and that after the Fifteen years ended the Heir should have the Rents and Services as long as the wife liv'd Here being no necessary Implication that the wife should have all the Mannor during her life with an exclusion of the Heir she had no more than was explicity given her by the Will viz. the Demesnes for life and the Rents and Services for Fifteen years but after the Fifteen years the Heir had the Rents and Services for it could be no more at most but a possible Implication that the wife should have the whole Mannor during her life But with a small variance of this Case if the demesnes had been devis'd to the wife for life and the Services and Rents for Fifteen years and the whole Mannor after the wives life to J. S. and that after the wives life and the life of J. S. his Heir should have had the Demesnes and Services and Rents in that Case it had been exactly the same with the Case of 13 H. 7. because the Devisors intent had been then apparent that the Son was not to have the Mannor or any part until the wife and stranger were both dead and as it was adjudg'd the stranger had nothing in the Mannor until the wifes death therefore in that case by necessary implication the wife must have had both Demesnes and Services during her life notwithstanding the explicit devise to her of the Rents and Services for Fifteen years otherwise none should have had the Rents and Services after the Fifteen years
during the wives life which was not to be intended 15 El. Moore f. 123. n. 265. Another Case I shall make use of is a Case Paschae 15 El. A man seis'd of a Messuage and of divers Lands occupied with it time out of mind leased part of it to a stranger for years and after made his last Will in these words I will and bequeath to my wife my Messuage with all the Lands thereto belonging in the occupation of the Lessee and after the decease of my Wife I will that it with all the rest of my Lands shall remain to my younger Son The Question in that Case was Whether the wife should have the Land not leased by implication for her life because it was clear the younger Son was to have no part until the death of the wife And the Lord Anderson at first grounding himself upon that Case in Brook as it seems of 29 H. 8. twice by Brook remembred in his Title Devise n. 28. and after n. 52. was of opinion That the wife should have the Land not leased by implication But Mead was of a contrary opinion for that it was expresly devis'd That the wife should have the Land leas'd and therefore no more should be intended to be given her but the Heir should have the Land not in lease during the wives life To which Anderson mutata opinione agreed Hence perhaps many have collected That a person shall not take Land by Implication of a Will if he takes some other Land expresly by the same Will but that is no warrantable difference For vary this Case but a little as the former case was varied That the Land in lease was devis'd to the wife for life and after the death of the wife all the Devisors land was devis'd to the youngest Son as this Case was and that after the death of the wife and the youngest son the Devisors Heir should have the Land both leas'd and not leas'd it had been clear that the Heir exactly according to the Case of 13 H. 7. should have been excluded from all the Land leas'd and not leas'd until after the death of the wife and the younger son And therefore in such case the wife by necessary implication should have had the Land not leas'd as she had the Land leas'd by express devise and that notwithstanding she had the leas'd Land by express devise for else none could have the Land not leas'd during the wives life Horton vers Horton 2 Jac. Cr. f. 74. 75. Wadham made a Lease for years upon condition the Lessee should not alien to any besides his Children The Lessee deviseth the term to Humphrey his son after the death of his wife and made one Marshall and another his Executors and died The Lessor entred as for breach of the Condition supposing this a devise to the wife of the term by implication The opinion of the Judges was It was no devise by implication but the Executors should have the term until the wives death but it was said If it had been devis'd to his Executors after the death of his wife there the wife must have it by implication or none could have had it But Popham denied that Case because if the devise had been to the Executors after the wives death the Executors should when the wife died have had the term as Legatees but until her death they should have it as Executors generally which by all opinions fully confirms the difference taken That a devise shall not be good by implication when the implication is not necessary and in this Case all agreed the Case in 13 H. 7. to be good Law because the implication there was necessary Edward Clatch being seis'd of two Messuages in Soccage tenure Dyer 15 16 El. 4. 330. b. and having Issue a Son and two Daughters by three several Venters His Son being dead in his life time and leaving two Daughters who were Heirs at Law to the Father devis'd one of the Messuages to Alice his Daughter and her Heirs for ever and the other to Thomazine his Daughter and her Heirs for ever with limitation That if Alice died without Issue living Thomazine Thomazine should then have Alice's part to her and her Heirs and if Thomazine died before the Age of Sixteen years Alice should have her part in Fee also And if both his said Daughters died without Issue of their bodies then the Daughters of his Son should have the Messuages The youngest daughter of the Testator died without Issue having past her Age of sixteen years It was resolv'd That the words in the Will If his two Daughters died without Issue of their Bodies did not create by implication cross remainders in tayl to the Devisors Daughters whereby the eldest should take the part of the youngest but her part should go to the Heirs at Law according to the Limitation of the Will and those words were but a designation of the time when the Heirs at Law should have the Messuages Note That one of the Daughters dying without Issue the Heirs at Law by the Will had her part without staying until the other Daughter died without Issue 1. From these Cases I first conclude That only possible implication by a Will shall not give the Land from the right Heir but a necessary implication which excludes the right Heir shall give it 2. That the difference taken is not sound That one shall not take by implication of a Will any Land where the same person hath other Land or Goods expresly devis'd by the same Will for if the implication be necessary the having of Land or any other thing by express devise will not hinder another taking also by implication as appears in the three Cases by me made use of viz. 13 H. 7. 3 E. 6. 15 Eliz. cited out of Moore 3. Whether any thing be given expresly by Will or not a possible Implication only shall not disinherit the Heir where it may as well be intended that nothing was devis'd by implication as that it was But if any man think that to be material in this Case the Daughters had respective Portions expresty devis'd them viz. Six hundred pounds to each of them and therefore shall not have the Land also by implication only possible to disinherit the right Heir Quest 2 For the second point These words My Will is if it happen my Son George Mary and Katharine my Daughters to dye without Issue of their Bodies lawfully begotten then all my Free-lands shall remain and be to my said Nephew William Rose and his Heirs for ever are so far from importing a devise of the Land to the Son and Daughters for their lives with respective Inheritances in tayl by any necessary implication that both Grammatically and to common intendment they import only a designation and appointment of the time when the Land shall come to the Nephew namely when George Mary and Katherine happen to dye Issuless and not before And where
eas in omnibus sequantur In cujus c. T. R. apud Wadestocks ix die Septembris Out of the Close Rolls of King Henry the Third his Time Clause 1 H. 3. dorso 14. The Kings thanks to G. de Mariscis Justice of Ireland The King signifies that himself and other his Lieges of Ireland should enjoy the Liberties which he had granted to his Lieges of England and that he will grant and confirm the same to them Clause 3. H. 3. m. 8. part 2. The King writes singly to Nicholas Son of Leonard Steward of Meth and to Nicholas de Verdenz and to Walter Purcell Steward of Lagenia and to Thomas the son of Adam and to the King of Connage and to Richard de Burgh and to J. Saint John Treasurer and to the other Barons of the Exchequer of Dublin That they be intendant and answerable to H. Lord Arch-bishop of Dublin as to the Lord the King's Keeper and Bailiff of the Kingdome of Ireland as the King had writ concerning the same matter to G. de Mariscis Justice of Ireland Clause 5. H. 3. m. 14. The King writes to his Justice of Ireland That whereas there is but a single Justice itinerant in Ireland which is said to be dissonant from the more approved custome in England for Reasons there specified two more Justices should be associated to him the one a Knight the other a Clerk and to make their Circuits together according to the Custome of the Kingdom of England Witness c. The Close Roll. 5 H. 3. m. 6. Dorso The King makes a Recital That though he had covenanted with Geoffrey de Mariscis That all Fines and other Profits of Ireland should be paid unto the Treasure and to other Bailiffs of the Kings Exchequer of Dublin yet he receiv'd all in his own Chamber and therefore is removed by the King from his Office Whereupon the King by advise of his Council of England establisheth that H. Arch-bishop of Ireland be Keeper of that Land till further order And writes to Thomas the son of Anthony to be answerable and intendant to him After the same manner it is written to sundry Irish Kings and Nobles there specially nominated Clause 7. H. 3. m. 9. The King writes to the Arch-bishop of Dublin his Justice of Ireland to reverse a Judgment there given in a Case concerning Lands in Dalkera between Geoffrey de Mariscis and Eve his wife Plaintiffs and Reignald Talbott Tenant By the Record of the same Plea returned into England the Judgment is reversed upon these two Errors The first because upon Reignald's shewing the Charter of King John the King's Father concerning the same Land in regard thereof desiring peace it was denyed him The second Because the Seisin was adjudged to the said Geoffrey and Eve because Reynald calling us to warranty had us not to warranty at the day set him by the Court which was a thing impossible for either Geoffrey or the Court themselves to do our Court not being above us to summon us or compel us against our will Therefore the King writes to the Justice of Ireland to re-seise Reynald because he was disseised by Erroneous Judgment Clause 28. H. 3. m. 7. The King writes to M. Donenald King of Tirchonill to aid him against the King of Scots Witness c. The like Letters to other Kings and Nobles of Ireland Clause 40. E. 3. m. 12. Dorso The King takes notice of an illegal proceeding to Judgment in Ireland Ordered to send the Record and Process into England It was objected by one of my Brothers That Ireland received not the Laws of England by Act of Parliament of England but at the Common Law by King John's Charter If his meaning be that the Fact was so I agree it but if he mean they could not receive them by Act of Parliament of England as my Brother Maynard did conjecturally inferr for his purpose then I deny my Brothers Assertion for doubtless they might have received them by Act of Parliament And I must clear my Brother Maynard from any mention of an Union as was discoursed of England and Ireland Nor was it at all to his purpose If any Union other than that of a Provincial Government under England had been Ireland had made no Laws more than Wales but England had made them for Ireland as it doth for Wales As for the Judgment Obj. One of my Brothers made a Question Whether George Ramsey the younger Brother inheriting John Earl of Holdernes before the naturalization of Nicholas Whether Nicholas as elder Brother being naturalized should have it from him Doubtless he should if his Naturalizing were good He saith the Plaintiff cannot have Iudgment because a third person by this Verdict hath the Title Answ If a Title appear for the King the Court ex Officio ought to give Iudgment for him though no party But if a man have a prior Possession and another enters upon him without Title I conceive the priority of Possession is a good Title against such an Entry equally when a Title appears for a third that is no party as if no Title appear'd for a third But who is this third party For any thing appears in the Verdict George Ramsey died before the Earl 2. It appears not that his Son John or the Defendant his Grand-child were born within the Kings Liegeance Patient appears to be born at Kingston and so the Daughters of Robert by the Verdict The Acts of Ireland except all Land whereof Office was found before the Act to entitle the King but that is in Ireland for the Act extends not to England If Nicholas have Title it is by the Law of England as a consequent of Naturalization So it may be for the Act of 7 Jac. cap. 2. he that is Naturalized in England since the Act must receive the Sacrament but if no Alien by consequent then he must no more receive the Sacrament than a Postnatus of Scotland Obj. Ireland is a distinct Kingdom from England and therefore cannot make any Law Obligative to England Answ That is no adequate Reason for by that Reason England being a distinct Kingdom should make no Law to bind Ireland which is not so England can naturalize if it please nominally a person in Ireland and not in England But he recover'd by saying That Ireland was subordinate to England and therefore could not make a Law Obligatory to England True for every Law is coactive and it is a contradiction that the Inferior which is civilly the lesser power should compel the Superior which is greater power Secondly He said England and Ireland were two distinct Kingdoms and no otherwise united than because they had one Soveraign Had this been said of Scotland and England it had been right for they are both absolute Kingdoms and each of them Sui Juris But Ireland far otherwise For it is a Dominion belonging to the Crown of England and follows that it cannot be separate from it but by
the first Cestuy que use nor his Heir the last Cestuy que use in the Case could nor can have any benefit of this warranty because William the first Cestuy que use nor his Heir could not nor can warrant to himself but as to William and his Heirs the warranty is clearly extinct The Argument And as to the first Question I conceive the Law to be that the warranty of William the Tenant in tayl descending upon Elizabeth and Sarah the Demandants his Heirs at Law is no barr in the Formedon in Reverter brought by them as Heirs to William their Grandfather the Donor though it be a Collateral warranty I know it is the perswasion of many professing the Law That by the Statute of Westminster the second De donis conditionalibus the Lineal warranty of Tenant in tayl shall be no barr in a Formedon in the Descender but that the Collateral warranty of Tenant in tayl is at large as at the Common Law unrestrain'd by that Statute Sir Edward Coke in his Comment upon Section 712. Sect. 712. of Littleton A lineal warranty doth not bind the right of an Estate tayl for that it is restrain'd by the Statute de donis Conditionalibus And immediately follows A lineal warranty and assets is a barr of the right in tayl and is not restrain'd But the reason why the warranty of Tenant in tayl with Assets binds the right of the Estate tayl is in no respect from the Statute de donis but is by the Equity of the Statute of Glocester by which the warranty of Tenant by the Courtesie barrs not the Heir for the Lands of his Mother if the Father leave not Assets to descend in recompence And therefore it was conceived after the Statute de donis was made That if Tenant in tayl left Assets to descend in Fee-simple his warranty should bind the right of the Issue in tayl by the equity of that preceding Statute of Glocester Whereas if the Statute of Glocester had not been the Lineal warranty of Tenant in tayl had no more bound the right of the Estate tayl by the Statute de donis with Assets descending than it doth without Assets For the better clearing therefore of the Law in the Case in question I shall preparatorily assert some few things and clear what I so assert without which the truth of the Conclusion I hold will not appear so naked to the Hearers as it should Ass 1. The first is That at the Common Law the distinction of a lineal and collateral warranty was useless and unknown For though what we now call a Collateral and a lineal warranty might be in speculation and notionable at the Common Law as at this day a Male warranty or a Female warranty may be yet as to any effect in Law there was no difference between a Lineal warranty and a Collateral but the warranty of the Ancestor descending upon the Heir be it the one or the other did equally bind And this as it is evident in it self so is it by Littleton whose words are Litt. Sect. 697. Before the Statute of Glocester all warranties which descended to them who are Heirs to those who made the warranties were barrs to the same Heirs to demand any Lands or Tenements against the warranties except the warranties which commence by disseisin Therefore if a Question had been at the Common Law only Whether in some particular Case the Ancestors warranty had bound the Heir It had been a sensless Answer to say it did or did not because the warranty was Lineal or Collateral for those warranties were not defined at the Common Law nor of use to be defined But the proper Answer had been That the warranty did bind the Heir because it commenc'd not by disseisin for every warranty of the Ancestor but such descending upon the Heir did bind him So if after the Statute of Glocester Tenant by the Courtesie had aliened with warranty had it been demanded if the Heir were barr'd by that warranty it had been an absurd Answer That he was not because it was a Collateral warranty of his Father without Assets For all Collateral warranties of the Father were not restrained but his warranty in that Case which could be no other than Collateral was restrained by the Statute Therefore The adequate Answer had been That the Fathers warranty bound not in that Case without Assets because the Statute of Glocester had so restrained it My second Assertion is Ass 2. That the Statute de Donis restrains not the warranty of Tenant in tayl from barring him in the Remainder in tayl by his warranty descending upon him 1. For that the mischief complained of and remedied by the Statute is That in omnibus praedictis casibus therein recited post prolem suscitatam habuerunt illi quibus Tenementum sic conditionaliter datum fuit hucusque potestatem alienandi Tenementum sic datum exhaeredandi exitum eorum contra voluntatem Donatoris But the warranty of the Donee in tayl descending upon him in the Remainder who regularly claims by purchase from the Donor and not by descent from the Donee in tayl could be no disinheriting of the Issue of the Donee claiming by descent from him against which disinheriting only the Statute provides which is evident by the Writ of Formedon in the Descender framed by the Statute in behalf of such Issue of the Donee whom the Statute intends 2. The Statute did not provide against Inconveniences or Mischiefs which were not at the time of making the Statute but against those which were But at the making of it there could be no Remainder in tayl because all Estates which are Estates tayl since the Statute were Fee-simples Conditional before the Statute upon which a Remainder could not be limited So is Sir Edward Coke in his Comment upon the Statute de Donis The Formedon in Reverter did lye at Common Law Cok. part 2. f. 336. but not a Formedon in Remainder upon an Estate tayl because it was a Fee-simple Conditional whereupon no Remainder could be limited at Common Law but after the Statute it may be limited upon an Estate tayl in respect of the Division of the Estates 3. The Statute formed a Writ of Formedon in the Descender for the new Estate tayl created by the Statute and mentions a Formedon in the Reverter as already known in the Chancery for the Donor for whom the Statute likewise intended to provide but formed or mentioned none for the Remainder in tayl And the Cases are common in Littleton Litt. Sect. 716 718 719. and in many other Books that the warranty of Donee in tayl is Collateral to him in the Remainder in tayl and binds as at the Common Law But thence to conclude That therefore the warranty of the Donee in tayl shall barr the Donor of his Reversion because it is a Collateral warranty also is a gross Non sequitur for the Donees warranty doth not therefore barr
been breach'd is no Judicial Opinion nor more than a gratis dictum But an Opinion though Erroneous concluding to the Iudgment is a Judicial Opinion because delivered under the Sanction of the Judges Oath upon deliberation which assures it is or was when delivered the Opinion of the Deliverer Yet if a Court give Judgment judicially another Court is not bound to give like Judgment unless it think that Judgment first given was according to Law For any Court may err else Errors in Judgment would not be admitted nor a Reversal of them Therefore if a Judge conceives a Judgment given in another Court to be erroneous he being sworn to judge according to Law that is in his own conscience ought not to give the like Judgment for that were to wrong every man having a like cause because another was wrong'd before much less to follow extra-judicial Opinions unless he believes those Opinions are right The other Case is in Coke 5 Car. Salvin versus Clerk in Ejectment upon a special Verdict Alexander Sidenham Tenant in tayl to him and the Heirs males of his body the Reversion to John his eldest Brother made a Lease for three Lives warranted by the Statute of 32 H. 8. c. 28. with warranty And after 16 Eliz. levies a Fine with warranty and proclamations to Taylor and dies without Issue male leaving Issue Elizabeth his Daughter Mother to the Plaintiffs Lessor In 18 Eliz. the Lease for Lives expir'd In 30 Eliz. John the elder Brother died without Issue the said Elizabeth being his Neece and Heir The Defendant entred claiming by a Lease from Taylor and Points entred upon him as Heir to Elizabeth A question was mov'd upon a suppos'd Case and not in fact within the Case Whether if the Fine had not been with proclamation as it was and no Non-claim had been in the Case as there was this warranty should make a discontinuance in Fee and barr Elizabeth it not descending upon John after Alexanders death but upon Elizabeth who is now also John's Heir or determined by Alexander's death The Judges were of opinion as the Reporter saith That the warranty did barr Elizabeth and consequently her Heir because the Reversion was discontinued by the Estate for Lives and a new Fee thereby gain'd and the Reversion displac'd thereby and the warranty was annex'd to that new Fee But this Case is all false and mis-reported 1. For that it saith the Lease for Lives was a discontinuance of the Reversion thereby a new Fee gain'd to Tenant in tayl which he passed away by the Fine with warranty which could not be for in the Case it appears the Lease was warranted by the Stat. of 32 H. 8 and then it could make no discontinuance nor no new Fee of a Reversion could be gain'd 40 Eliz. Keen Copes C. 602. pl. 13. and then no Estate to which the warranty was annex'd and so was it resolv'd 40 El. Keen Copes Case 2. That Opinion was extra-judicial it being concerning a point not in the Case but suppos'd 3. That Case was resolv'd upon the point of Non-claim and not upon this of the warranty which was not a point in the Case 4. Some of the Judges therefore spoke not to that point as appears in the Case As to the second Question Admitting the warranty of Tenant in tayl doth bind the Donor and his Heirs yet in regard the Defendant Tenant in possession cannot derive the warranty to her self from the Feoffees as Assignee or otherwise Whether she may rebutt the Demandants or not by her possession only is the question and I conceive she may not as this Case is I shall begin with those Authorities that make and are most press'd against me which is the Authority of Sir Edward Coke in Lincoln Colledge Case in the third Report and from thence brought over to his Littleton f. 385. a. His words in Lincoln Colledge Case f. 63. a. are He which hath the possession of the Land shall rebutt the Demandant himself without shewing how he came to the possession of it for it sufficeth him to defend his possession and barr the Demandant and the Demandant cannot recover the Land against his own warranty And there he cites several Cases as making good this his Assertion In the same place he saith it is adjudg'd 38 E. 3. f. 26. That an Assignee shall rebutt by force of a warranty made to one and his Heirs only This Doctrine is transferred to his Littleton in these words If the warranty be made to a man and his heirs without this word Assignes yet the Assignee or any Tenant of the Land may rebutt And albeit no man shall vouch or have a Warrantia Chartae either as party Heir or Assignee but in privity of Estate yet any one that is in of another Estate be it by disseisin abatement intrusion usurpation or otherwise shall rebutt by force of the warranty as a thing annex'd to the Land which sometimes was doubted in our Books when as in the Cases aforesaid he that rebutteth claimeth under and not above the warranty I shall clearly agree no man shall vouch or have a warrantia Chartae who is not in in privity of Estate that is who hath not the same Estate as well as the same Land to which the warranty was annexed And the reason is evident because the Tenant must recover if the Land be not defended to him by the warranter such Estate as was first warranted and no other unless a Fee be granted with warranty only for the life of the Grantee or Grantor in which Case the Grantee upon voucher recovers a Fee though the warranty were but for life I shall likewise agree the Law to be as Sir Edward Coke saith in both places if his meaning be that the Tenant in possession when he is impleaded may rebutt the Demandant without shewing how he came to the possession which he then hath when impleaded be it by dissism abatement intrusion or any other tortious way And for the reason given in Lincoln Colledge Case That it sufficeth that the Tenant defend his possession But if his meaning be that the Tenant in possession need not shew that the warranty ever extended to him or that he hath any right to it then I must deny his Doctrine in Lincoln Colledge Case or in Littleton which is but the former there repeated to be Law For as it is not reasonable a man should recover that Land which he hath once warranted to me from me what title soever I have in it at the time when he impleads me So on the other side it is against reason I should warrant Land to one who never had any right in my warranty And the same reason is if a man will be warranted by Rebutter he should make it appear how the warranty extends to him as if he will be warranted by Voucher for the difference is no other than that in the case of Voucher a stranger impleads him in
case of Rebutter the Warranter himself impleads him and in a Voucher he must make his title appear to be warranted Ergo in a Rebutter But he needs not have like Estate in the Land upon a Rebutter as upon Voucher which is for the reason given of recovering in value And the only reason why the person who is to warrant impleading the Tenant of the Land shall not recover but be rebutted by the warranty is because if he should recover the Land the Tenant who is intitled to the warranty must recover in value from him again and therefore to avoid Circuit of Action he shall not recover but be rebutted and barr'd as is most reasonable I shall therefore first make it appear by all ancient Authorities That the Tenant in possession shall not rebutt the Demandant by the warranty without he first make it appear that the warranty did extend to him as Heir or Assignee To prove this are full in the point Hill 8 E. 3. f. 10. tit garranty pl. 48. New Edit f. 283. b. num 28 The Book of 8 E. 3. f. 10. of the Old Edition Hillary Term tit Garranty pl. 48. where upon a great Debate it was rul'd That the Tenant must shew how he was entitled to the warranty and how it extended to him and accordingly did so before his Plea was admitted by way of Rebutter 10. E. 3. f. 42. b. New Edit f. 391. b. num 42 Another Book full in the point is 10 E. 3. f. 42. b. of the Old Edition where in like manner the Tenant was forc'd to shew how the warranty extended to him upon Debate and it is remarkable in that Case That his shewing the Deed of warranty to him whose Assignee he was and the Deed of Assignment to himself was not enough but he was compell'd to plead orally as the manner then was That William who had the warranty assign'd to him by his Deed there shew'd forth and the reason given that the Deed of Assignment could not speak and make his Plea and was but Evidence of the truth of his Plea But in that very Case when it was replyed That he was not Tenant by the Assignment of William but by disseisin of the Plaintiff it was not permitted without traversing the Assignment of William For if he were once intitled to the warranty what Estate soever he had when impleaded he might rebutt though he could not vouch Which Case proves fully both my Positions That a man cannot rebutt without shewing how the warranty extends to him 2. That so doing he may whatever Seisin he hath at that time be it by Disseisin or Abatement c. or otherwise 22 Ass pl. 88. A third Case is when the Tenant being impleaded pleaded the warranty of the Demandants Father to one A. and bound him and his Heirs to warrant to A. his Heirs and Assigns and that he was Assignee of A. and demanded Judgment In that Case because he did not plead that he was Assignee of A. by Deed the Plea was disallow'd which since hath been thought not necessary but à fortiori if he had pleaded no Assignment at all from A. by Deed or without Deed to intitle him to the warranty his Plea had been necessarily disallowed My next Assertion is That the Tenant in possession setting forth how the warranty extends to him needs not set forth by what Estate or Title he is in possession To this I shall cite three Books full in the point 6 E. 3. f. 7. old Edit new Edit 6 E. 3. f. 187 Num. 16. 10 F. 3. f. 42. cited before old Book 45 E. 3. But in all these Cases it is to be noted That the Tenant rebutting though he was in possession of another Estate than that to which the warranty was annex'd yet constantly shew'd how the warranty was deriv'd to him which Sir Edward Coke observ'd not either in Lincoln Colledge Case or his Littleton but cites in Lincoln Colledge Case the Case of 45 E. 3. 45 E. 3. f. 18. and some others I shall mention after to shew a man may rebutt being in of another Estate than that which was warranted which is true but not without intitling himself to the warranty That the Law of rebutting stands upon the difference I have taken besides the Authorities urg'd will be evident for these Reasons As a warranty may be created so may it be determin'd or extinguish'd various ways 1. It may be releas'd as Littleton himself is Sect. 748. 2. It may be defeasanc'd as Sir Edward Coke upon that Sect. 748. 3. It may be lost by Attainder Sect. 745. 4. It may be extinguish'd by Re-feoffment of the warranter or his Heirs by the Garrantee or his Heir In all these Cases if the warranty be destroy'd it cannot be rebutted for there cannot be an accident to a thing which is not and rebutting is an accident incident to a warranty And therefore if the warranty have no being there can be no rebutter Why then admit A. warrants Land to B. and his Assigns during the life of B. after B. releases this warranty to A. and then Assigns to C. C. is impleaded by A. and pleads generally that A. warranted to B. for his life and that B. is still living if C. could rebutt A. by this manner of pleading without shewing when B. assigned to him so to derive the benefit of the warranty to himself A. could never have benefit of the Release of the warranty because it could not appear whether the warranty were releas'd before or after the assignment if before then the warranty is gone and cannot be rebutted but if after it may So if A. binds him and his Heirs to warrant to B. his Heirs and Assigns B. dyes his Heir releases the warranty and dies and then the Heir of the Heir assigns The Tenant is impleaded by A. If he may rebutt by his bare possession without shewing how the warranty extended to him A. can have no benefit of his Release before any assignment was made for the Demandant cannot be suppos'd to know the time of the assignment and consequently cannot know how to plead the Release until the time of the assignment appear which is most consonant in reason with the Authorities before urg'd Another reason is That constantly in elder times when the Tenant pleaded a warranty to rebutt he concluded his Plea that if he were impleaded by a stranger the Demandant was to warrant him which could not be without shewing how the warranty extended to him for he was not to warrant him if impleaded by a stranger because he had possession of the Land only Sir Edward Coke in Lincoln Colledge Case cites the Book of 38 E. 3. f. 26. as adjudg'd to prove that the bare possession of the Land is sufficient for the Tenant to rebutt for that the Assignee may rebutt a warranty made only to a man and his Heirs If that were so it were to his purpose but there is
Ne Exeat Regnum de Leproso amovendo de Apostata Capiendo ad quod damnum and Writs to call persons thence as hath been done before they had Burgesses to the Parliament of England And Writs of Error into all Dominions belonging to England lye upon the ultimate Iudgments there given into the Kings Courts of England to reverse Judgments or affirm which is the only Writ which concerns Right and Property between the Subjects that lies The Reasons are First for that without such Writ the Law appointed or permitted to such inferiour Dominion might be insensibly changed within it self without the assent of the Dominion Superiour Secondly Judgments might be then given to the disadvantage or lessening of the Superiority which cannot be reasonable or to make the Superiority to be only of the King not of the Crown of England as King James once would have it in the Case of Ireland ex relatione J. Selden mihi whom King James consulted in this Question The practice hath always been accordingly as is familiarly known by reversal or affirmance of Judgments given in the Kings Bench in Ireland in the Kings Bench here which is enough alone to prove the Law to be so to other subordinate Dominions 21 H. 7. f. 3. And it is as clear That Writs of Error did lye in the Kings Bench to reverse Judgments in Calais and the reason is alike per Curiam for which were divers Presidents This being the state of Wales when it first became an Accession to the Dominion of England under E. 1. and when it was far from the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Justice in England as before it was added to the Dominion of the Crown of England And as other Dominions added to it were 7 H. 4. f. 14. it was questioned only Whether a Protection quia moratur in obsequio nostro in Wallia were good because saith the Book it is within the Realm of England it may be as in the Case of Bastardy the Husband being infra quatuor maria which doubtless was the Isle of Brittain so the Primacy of Bishops in Scotland and Wales was that of England Qu. about this but that gives no Jurisdiction to the Courts There were two ways by which alteration might be wrought The first by Act of Parliament in England making Laws to change either the Laws or Jurisdictions of Wales or both The second by Alterations made in the Laws formerly by him established by E. 1. himself and perhaps by his Successors Kings of England without Parliament by a Clause contained in the Close of that Statute or Ordinance called Statutum Walliae in these words Et ideo vobis Mandamus quod premissa de caetero in omnibus observetis ita tantum quod quotiescunque quandocunque ubicunque nobis placuerit possimus predicta Statuta eorum partes singulas declarare interpretari addere sive diminuere pro nostrae libito voluntatis prout securitati nostrae terrae nostrae predictae viderimus expediri This seems to extend but to the person of E. 1. and not to his Successors and however no such change was made by Him or his Successors But the first remarkable Alteration made seems to have been by Act of Parliament and probably in the time of E. 1. who reigned long after the Statute of Wales but the Act it self is no where extant that I could learn But great Evidence that such there was which in some measure gave a Jurisdiction to the Kings Courts of England in Wales not generally but over the Lordships Marchers there This appears clearly by a Case Fitz. Ass 18 E. 2. pl. 382. not much noted nor cited by any that I know to this purpose being out of the printed Year-Books but printed by Fitz-herbert out of the Reports he had of E. 2. as he had of E. 1. and H. 3. all which we want wholly though some Copies are extant of E. 2. which Case is the only light that I know to clear the Question in hand An Assise of Novel Disseisin was brought against C. de libero tenemento in Gowre and the Writ was directed to the Sheriff of Glocester and the Plaint was made of two Commots which is mis-printed Commons and comprehends all govers-Gouers-land now part of the County of Glamorgan by 27 H. 8. but was not so then the Assise past against the Tenant before the Iustice assigned to take Assises in the Marches of Wales The Tenant brought his Writ of Error and Assignes for Error 1. That the Writ was directed to the Sheriff of Glocester and the Land put in view was in Wales 2 That the Land was out of the Power and Bayliwick of the Sheriff of Glocester 3 That the Assise ought to be taken in the County where the Land lies and that Goures-land was in no County 4 That the Writ was de libero tenemento in villa sive Hamletto de Gouerse and Gouer was no Village or Hamlet but an entire Country consisting of two Commots To these Errors assigned Scroope then Chief Justice made Answer 1. That Gower is a great Barony in the Marches of Wales and That every Barony of the Marches hath a Chancellor and its own Writs whereby one Tenant wronged by another may be righted But when the Lord is outed of his intire Barony he can have no remedy by his own Writ for he is outed of all his Jurisdiction And it is repugnant to demand Iustice of him whose Iurisdiction is questioned that is to give it ut mihi videtur That therefore it was ordained by Parliament when the Baron or Marcher is outed of his Barony in the Marches of Wales he ought to go to the King for Remedy and have a Writ in the Kings Chancery directed to the Sheriff of the next English County and the Sheriff of Glocester served the Writ as being the next English Sheriff This being the most material the other Errors were also answered and the Judgment was affirmed From this Case we may learn and from no other as I believe at least with so much clearness That the Summons of Inhabitants in Wales and the tryal of an Issue there arising should be by the Sheriff of and in the next adjoyning English County was first ordained by Parliament though the Act be not extant now nor is it conceived how it should be otherwise it being an empty Opinion that it was by the Common Law as is touched in several Books who knew the practice but were strangers to the reasons of it For if the Law had been that an Issue arising out of the Jurisdiction of the Courts of England should be tryed in that County of England next to the place where the Issue did arise not only any Issue arising in any the Dominions of England out of the Realm might be tryed in England by that rule but any Issue arising in any Forreign parts as France Holland Scotland or elsewhere that were not of the Dominions of England might pari
ratione be tryed in the County next adjoyning whereof there is no Vestigium for the one or the other nor sorts it any way with the rule of the Law 2. This Ordinance of Parliament extended not to all Wales but only to the Lordships Marchers there nor any way comprehended the ancient Shires of Wales or Body of the Principality to which the Ordinance of the Statute of Rutland only extended For Lordships Marchers were out of the Shires as appears by Statute 27 H. 8. 3. It appears by the Case that Gower was not within any County at that time Another Case to the same purpose is in Fitz herbert Fitz. Jurisdiction 13 E. 3. pl. 23. Title Jurisdiction and not in any other Reports 13 E. 3. in a Writ of Cosenage the Demand was of Castle of K. and Commot of J. the Defendant pleaded the Castle and Commot were in Wales where the King 's Writ runs not and it was said that the word was not intelligible in the Courts of England and Judgment was prayed if the Court would take Conizance To give the Court Jurisdiction it was urged pressingly 1. That they had given the Court Jurisdiction by alledging the Court knew not what was meant by Commot which the Court was to determine whether it did or not Therefore Jurisdiction was admitted therein 2. Parning pressed they had demanded the view which gave the Court Jurisdiction 3. For that the Original was directed to the Sheriff of Hereford who by his Retorn had testified the Summons and the Tenant had appeared and so affirmed the Summons 4. For that the view was had Notwithstanding all which to give the Court Jurisdiction it was said to Parning He must say more before the Court would have Jurisdiction Which evidently proves that the Court had no Jurisdiction generally of Land in Wales as I observed from the former Case And no act of the party gives Jurisdiction to the Court by elapsing his time to plead to the Jurisdiction if it appear by the Record the Court hath no Jurisdiction as in this Case it did Then Woodstock said Though the Castle and Commot were in Wales the Court ought not to be outed of Jurisdiction for by Commot a great Signiory was demanded consisting of Lands Rents and Services and that the Castle and Commot were held in Capite of the King as of his Crown and said those so held were to be impleaded here and not elsewhere 7 H. 6. f. 36. b. so is 7 H. 6. f. 36. b. And said the King by his Charter had granted the Castle and Commot to the Tenant in tayl and thereupon pray'd aid of the King and it was granted hereupon But before this was shew'd and that it was a great Signiory and held of the King in Capite by which it was no part of the Principality nor held under it the Court would own no Jurisdiction but when that appeared the Case was the same with the former in 18 E. 2. and the Defendant had no remedy but in the Kings Courts This Case was cited by Sir Edward Coke in the Case before cited 11 Jacobi concerning the Sheriff of Radnor but the difference not observ'd of its being a Lordship in Wales held immediately of the King in Capite nor that the Court owned no Jurisdictions generally concerning Lands in Wales by the Summons and view of the next adjoyning Sheriff William de Cosington and Elizabeth his Wife brought a Writ of Dower of the third part of the Land in Gower against the Earl of Warwick as Tenant and the Writ was Quod reddat ei rationabilem dotem de libero tenemento quod fuit Jo. Moubray quondam viri sui in terra de Gowre in Wallia It appears not in the Case to what Sheriff the Writ was directed though this Case be in the Book at large but it appears that those of the Chancery and the Judges of the Kings Bench had been consulted with concerning the Writ in bringing it for Dower in terra de Gower in Wallia therefore it must issue from the High Court of Chancery and must be directed consequently to the Sheriff of Glocester as the Assise was in 18 E. 2. Br. abridging this Case saith The Action was against the Earl of Warwick as being Lord of the intire Signiory of Gower and then he was to be impleaded by Writ out of the Chancery here equally and upon the same reason for a third part of the Signiory as for the whole according to the Case of 18 E. 2. first cited for the Lord could no more make a Precipe to summon himself to his own Minister or to make Execution against himself for a third part of the Royalty than for the whole And therefore the Ordinance of Parliament then mentioned equally extended to this Case as to that of 18 E. 2. This is not strange that Acts of Parliament are lost sometimes Note the Act of 3 E. 1. by which old Customes were granted not extant but clear proofs of it remain These three last Cases therefore wherein the Tenants were impleaded in the Courts here for Land in Wales and Summons and Execution made by the Sheriff of the next adjoyning County are well warranted by an Act of Parliament not extant being for either the Lordships Marchers themselves or some part of them and against the Lord himself as that Case of 18 E. 2. expresly resolves All these were real Actions The first an Assise of Novel Disseisin the second a Writ of Cosenage the third a Writ of Dower The like Case is cited 19 H. 6. 19 H. 6. f. 12. A. That when the Mannor of Abergavenny was demanded the Writ was directed to the Sheriff of Hereford as Newton urged for this was a Lordship Marcher and held of the King in Capite as appears by Moore 's Reports in Cornwals Case in that the Barony of Abergavenny was held by the Lord Hastings of the King in Capite to defend it at his charge ad utilitatem Domini Regis Exactly agreeing with this Doctrine is the Book of 21 H. 7. f. 33. b. if a Signiory in Wales be to be tryed 21 H. 7. f. 33. B. it shall be tryed here by the Course of the Common Law but if Lands be held of a Signiory in Wales it shall be tryed within the Mannor and not elsewhere As for that expression by the Course of the Common Law 19 H. 6. f. 12. A. it is also in the Book 19 H. 6. that Deeds and all other things alledged in Wales shall be tryed in the adjoyning Countries at the Common Law otherwise there would be a failer of Right And of this opinion seemed most of the Iustices arguendo obiter the Case before them not concerning Wales but the County Palatine of Lancaster Of Churches in Wales a Quare Impedit shall be brought in England yet the Land and other things in Wales 30 H. 6. f. 6. B. shall be determined before the Stewards of
Heirs is expresly forbidden by the Statute de Donis 374 Right See Title Action 1. Where there can be presumed to be no remedy there is no right 38 Seisin 1. THe profits of all and every part of the Land are the Esplees of the Land and prove the Seisin of the whole Land 255 2. In an Entry sur Disseisin or other Action where Esplees are to be alledged the profits of a Mine will not serve 254 Spoliation 1. The Writ of Spoliation lyes for one Incumbent against the other where the Patrons right comes in question 24 Statute See Recognizance 1. A Recognizance taken before the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in the nature of a Statute Staple 102 Statutes in general 1. Where an Act of Parliament is dubious long usage is a just medium to expound it by and the meaning of things spoken and written must be as hath been constantly received by common acceptation 169 2. But where usage is against the obvious meaning of an Act by the vulgar and common acceptation of words then it is rather an oppression then exposition of the Act 170 3. When an Act of Parliament alters the Common Law the meaning shall not be strained beyond the words except in cases of publick utility when the end of the Act appears to be larger than the words themselves 179 4. Secular Judges are most conizant in Acts of Parliament 213 5. When the words of a Statute extend not to an inconvenience rarely happening but doth to those which often happen it is good reason not to strain the words further than they will reach by saying it is casus omissus and that the Law intended quae frequentius accidunt 373 6. But where the words of a Law do extend to an inconvenience seldom happening there it shall extend to it as well as if it happens more frequently 373 7. An Act of Parliament which generally prohibits a thing upon a penalty which is popular or only given to the King may be inconvenient to diverse particular persons in respect of person place time c. For this cause the Law hath given power to the King to dispense with particular persons 347 8. Whatsoever is declared by an Act of Parliament to be against Law we must admit it so for by a Law viz. by Act of Parliament it is so declared 327 9. Where the Kings Grant is void in its creation a saving of that Grant in an Act of Parliament shall not aid it 332 10. How an Act of Parliament may be proved there hath been such an Act where the Roll is lost 162 163 404 405 407 11. An Act of Parliament in Ireland cannot effect a thing which could not be done without an Act of Parliament in England 289 12. Distinct Kingdoms cannot be united but by mutual Acts of Parliament 300 13. A repealed Act of Parliament is of no more effect than if it had never been made 325 Statutes 1. Merton cap. 4. The Statute of Merton which gave the owner of the Soyl power to approve Common did not consider whether the Lord was equally bound to pasture with his Tenants or not but it considered that the Lord should approve his own Ground so as the Commoners had sufficient 256 257 2. The inconveniences before the making of the Statute and the several remedies that were provided by it 257 1. Westm 1. 3 E. 1. The Antiquae Custumae upon Woolls Woolfells and Leather were granted to E. 1. by Parliament and therefore they are not by the Common Law 162 163 1. Westm 1. cap. 38. Attaints in Pleas real were granted by this Statute 146 1. Westm 2. cap. 24. The Quare Ejecit infra terminum is given by this Statute for the recovery of the Term against the Feoffee for an Ejectment lay not against him he coming to the Land by Feoffment 127 Statute of Glocester 1. Restrained warranties from binding as at Common Law 366 377 2. Before this Statute all Warranties which descended to the Heirs of the Warrantors were barrs to them except they were Warranties which commenced by Disseisin 366 3. The reason why the warranty of Tenant in Tayl with assets binds the right of the Estate Tayl is in no respect from the Statute de Donis but by the equity of the Statute of Glocester by which the Warranty of the Tenant per Curtesie barrs not the Heir for his Mothers Land if his Father leaves not assets to descend 365 4. If this Statute had not been made the lineal Warranty of Tenant in Tayl had no more bound the right of the Estate Tayl by the Statute de Donis with assets descending than it doth without assets ibid. Westm 2. De Donis 1. All Issues in Tayl within this Statute are to claim by the Writ purposely formed there for them which is a Formedon in the Descender 369 2. it intended not to restrain the alienation of any Estates but such as were Fee-simples at the Common Law 370 3. This Statute intended not to preserve the Estate for the Issue or the Reversion for the Donor absolutely against all Warranties but against the alienation with or without Warranty of the Donee and Tenant in Tayl only 369 4. Therefore if Tenant for life alien with Warranty which descended upon the Reversioner that was not restrained by the Statute but left at the Common Law 370 5. By this Statute the Warranty of Tenant in Tayl will not barr the Donor or his Heir of the Reversion ibid. 6. The Donee in Tayl is hereby expresly restrained from all power of alienation whereby the Lands entayled may not revert to the Donor for want of issue in Tayl 371 7. See a further Exposition upon this Statute from fol. 371 to 393 1. Wales Statute de Rutland 12 E. 1. after the Conquest of it by Edward the First was annext to England Jure proprietatis and received Laws from England as Ireland did Vide postea 9 17 18. and had a Chancery of their own and was not bound by the Law of England until 27 H. 8. 300 301 399 400 2. Although Wales became of the Dominion of England from that time yet the Courts of England had nothing to do with the Administration of Justice there in other manner than now they have with the Barbadoes Jersey c. all which are of the Dominions of England and may be bound by Laws made respectively for them by an English Parliament 400 See for a further Exposition 401 402 c. Acton Burnell 13 E. 1. 1. Recognizances for Debt were taken before this Statute by the Chancellor two Chief Justices and Justices Itinerants neither are they hindred by this Statute from taking them as they did before 102 28 E. 3. c. 2. concerning Wales 1. Tryals and Writs in England for Lands in Wales were only for Lordships Marchers and not for Lands within the Principality of Wales Vide ante 7. pòstea 17 18. for the Lordships and Marchers were of the Dominion of England and held of
to the King to license as he thought fit 355 2. The intent of the Act being That every man should not sell Wine that would his Majesty could not better answer the ends of the Act than to restrain the sellers to Freemen of London to the Corporation of Vintners men bred up in that Trade and serving Apprenticeships to it ibid. 13 El. c. 12 Not reading the Articles 1. Immediately upon not reading the Articles the Incumbent is by this Statute deprived ipso facto 132 2. Upon such Deprivation the Patron may present Ante 14. and his Clerk ought to be admitted and instituted but if he do not no Lapse incurrs until after Six months after notice of such Deprivation given to the Patron 132 3. Where the Incumbent subscribes the Articles upon his Admission and Institution that makes him perfect Incumbent pro tempore 133 4. But if he hath a Benefice and afterwards accepts another and doth not subscribe nor read the Articles then he never was Incumbent of the second and consequently never accepted a second Benefice to disable him from holding the first 132 133 134 1. That all Leases by Spiritual persons of Tythe c. 13 Eliz. cap. 10. Concerning Leases to be made by Ecclesiastical persons parcel of their Spiritual Promotions other than for One and twenty years or three Lives reserving the accustomed yearly Rent shall be void 2. This Statute intended that Leases in some sense might be made of Tithes for One and twenty years or three Lives and an ancient Rent Reserved but of a bare Tythe only a Rent could not be reserved for neither Distress nor Assise can be of such a Rent 203 204 3. Therefore a Lease of Tythe and Land out of which a Rent may issue and the accustomed Rent may be reserved must be good within the intent of the Statute 204 7 Jac. cap. 5.21 Jac. cap. 12. For Officers to be sued in the proper County 1. The question upon these Acts was Whether an Officer or any in their assistance that shall do any thing by colour of but not concerning their Office and be therefore impleaded shall have the benefit of these Acts. 2. Or if they are impleaded for any thing done by pretence of their Offices and which is not strictly done by reason of their Office but is a mis-seazante Whether they may have the like benefit 3. Without this Act the Action ought to be laid where the Fact was done and the Act is but to compel the doing of that where an Officer is concerned that otherwise Fieri debuit 114 4. The Statute intends like benefit to all the Defendants where the Fact is not proved to be done where the Action is laid as if the Plaintiff became Non-suit or suffered a Discontinuance viz. that they should have double costs 117 12 Car. 2. cap. 4. For granting Tonnage and Poundage to the King 1. Those Wines which are to pay this Duty according to the Act must be Wines brought into Port as Merchandise by his Majesties Subjects or Strangers 165 2. But Wines which are by their kind to pay Duty if they shall be brought into Ports or Places of this Kingdom neither by his Majesties Subjects nor Aliens they are not chargeable with this Duty ibid. 3. If they are not brought into the Ports and Places as Merchandize viz. for Sale they are not chargeable with the Duty 165 170 4. Wines coming into this Kingdom as Wreck are neither brought into this Kingdom by his Majesties Subjects nor Strangers but by the Wind and Sea 166 5. Wreck'd Goods are not brought into this Kingdom for Merchandise viz. for Sale but are as all other the Native Goods of the Kingdom for sale or other use at the pleasure of the owner ibid. 6. All Goods chargeable with the Duties of this Act must be proprieted by a natural born Merchant or Merchant Alien and accordingly the greater and lesser Duty is to be paid 166 168 7. All Goods subject to this Duty may be forfeited by the disobedience and mis-behaviour of the Merchant-proprietor or those entrusted by him 167 1. The intent of this Statute is to priviledge the Father against common Right 12 Car. 2 cap. 24. To enable the Father to devise the Guardianship of his Son to appoint the Guardian of his Heir and the time of his Wardship under One and twenty 179 2. Such a special Guardian cannot transfer the custody by Deed or Will to any other 179 3. He hath no different Estate from a Guardian in Soccage but for the time the of Wardship 179 4. The Father cannot by this Act give the custody to a Papist 180 5. If the Father doth not appoint for how long time under One and twenty years his Son shall be in Ward it is void for Uncertainty 185 6. The substance of the Statute and sense thereof is That whereas all Tenures are now Soccage and the Law appoints a Gardian till Fourteen yet the Father may nominate the Gardian to his Heir and for any time until his Age of One and twenty and such Gardian shall have like remedy for the Ward as Gardian in Soccage at the Common Law 183 Supersedeas 1. If a priviledged person as an Attorney c. or his Menial Servant is sued in any Jurisdiction forreign to his priviledge he may have a Supersedeas 155 Surplusage 1. Surplusage in a special Verdict 78 Suspension 1. A Suspension of Rent is when either the Rent or Land are so conveyed not absolutely and finally but for a certain time after which the Rent will be again revived 199 2. A Rent may be suspended by Unity for a time and afterwards restored 39 Tayl See Title Warranty 1. SEE an Exposition upon the the Statute de Donis 370 371 372 c. 2. What shall be a good Estate Tayl by Implication in a Devise 262 3. A. having Issue Thomas and Mary deviseth to Thomas and his Heirs for ever and for want of Heirs of Thomas to Mary and her Heirs This is an Estate Tayl in Thomas 269 270 4. A Copyholder in Fee surrenders to the use of F. his Son and J. the Son of F. and of the longest liver of them and for want of Issue of J. lawfully begotten the Remainder to M. here it being by Deed J. had only an Estate for Life but had it been by Will it had been an Estate Tayl by Implication 261 5. The Warranty of the Tenant in Tayl descending upon the Donor or his Heirs is no barr in a Formedon in the Reverter brought by them although it be a Collateral Warranty 364 365 6. The lineal Warranty of Tenant in Tayl shall not bind the Right of the Estate Tayl by the Statute de Donis neither with or without Assets descending 365 Tenures See Title Estates  Testament See Devise 1. A Custody as a Gardianship in Soccage is not in its nature Testamentary it cannot pay Debts nor Legacies nor be distributed as Alms 182 Title 1. When you would
presentation makes no Usurpation when the Kings Presentation gains a Title by Usurpation 14 2. If a man in time of Vacancy present his Clerk who is admitted instituted and inducted he gains a good Title to present by Usurpation when the Church becomes next void 10 11 12 15 57 Wager of Law 1. A Man can never wage his Law for a Demand which is uncertain because he cannot swear he paid that which consisted of Damages only 101 2. Debt lies against an Executor for Attorneys Fees because there the Testator could not wage his Law 99 Wales See Title Statute 7 9 15. 1. Wales after the Conquest of it by Edward the First was annexed to England Jure Proprietatis 300 2. It received Laws from England as Ireland did and differs nothing from it but only in Irelands having a Parliament 300 301 3. Wales before the Conquest of it by England was governed by its own Laws 399 4. When Wales came to be of the Dominion of the Crown of England and what Laws they were then obliged to 399 400 402 415 5. Process in Wales differs from Process in England 400 412 6. That the Summons of Inhabitants in Wales and the Tryal of an Issue arising there should be by the Sheriff of the next adjoyning County was first ordained by Parliament and not at the Common Law 404 408 412 7. This Ordinance extended not to all Wales but only to the Lordships Marchers there neither did it extend to the Body of the Principal ty of Wales to which the Statute of Rutland only extended 405 408 411 412 8. Where the Land is part of the Principality of Wales it was subject to the Laws of Wales but when it is held of the King then there was no remedy but in the Kings Courts 405 406 408 9. If a Signiory in Wales was to be tryed it should be tryed by the Common Law but if Lands were held of the Signiory it should be tryed within the Mannor 407 10. All Quare Impedits for disturbance to Churches in Wales within the Lordships Marchers only were tryable in England and not in Wales 409 410 11. The Bishops of Wales were originally of the Foundation of the Prince of Wales 411 12. By the 26 H. 8. Power is given to Indict Outlaw and Proceed against Traytors and Felons c. within the Lordships Marchers of Wales and to be indicted in the adjoyning County but not against Offenders within the Principality 413 13. What alterations have since been made by the 27 H. 8. and 1 E. 6. cap. 10. 414 415 416 c. 14. The uniting and incorporating of Wales to England doth not thereby make the Laws used in England extend to Wales without more express words 415 15. Since the Act of 27 Hen. 8. the Courts at Westminster have less Jurisdiction in Wales than they had for as they before had Jurisdiction in all the Lordships Marchers they now have only in these four Counties therein particularly mentioned but none over the rest 417 16. No Fieri Facias Capias ad satisfaciendum or other Judicial Process did run into Wales but only an Outlawry and an Extent had gone 397 412 414 17. A Judgment given in Wales shall not be executed in England 398 18. The Lordships Marchers did lye betwixt the Shires of England and the Shires of Wales 415 19. To what Counties and Places the Lordships Marchers in Wales are now annext by the 27 H. 8. 415 Warrantia Chartae 1. No man shall have a Warrantia Chartae who is not privy to the Estate that is who hath not the same Estate as well as the Land to which the warranty was annexed 384 Warranty See Title Statutes 5 6. 1. Dedi Concessi is a warranty in Law 126 2. Where there is a warranty in Law and an express warranty it is at the election of the party to take advantage of either 126 127 3. At the Common Law the distinction of a lineal and collateral warranty was useless and unknown and as to any effect of Law there was no difference between a lineal and collateral warranty but the warranty of the Ancestor descending upon the Heir be it the one or the other did equally bind 366 4. The warranty of Tenant Tayl descending upon the Donor or his Heirs is no barr in a Formedon in Reverter brought by them although it be a collateral warranty 364 365 368 5. The warranty of Tenant by the Courtesie barrs not the Heir if the Father leave not Assets to descend in Recompence 365 6. The lineal warranty of Tenant in Tayl shall not bind the right of the Estate Tayl by the Statute de Donis neither with or without Assets descending 365 366 7. The Statute de Donis restrains not the warranty of Tenant in Tayl from barring him in the Remainder in Tayl by his warranty descending upon him 367 As to him in Remainder in Tayl the warranty of the Donee is collateral and binds as at the Common Law 367 377 379 381 8. No Issue in Tayl is defended from the warranty of the Donee or Tenant in Tayl but such as are inheritable to the Estates intended within that Statute and no Estates are so intended but such only as had been Fee-simples conditional 369 9. The Statute de Donis preserves the Estate Tayl for the Issue or the Reversion for the Donor against the alienations of the Donee or Tenant in Tayl with or without warranty but not absolutely against all warranties that might barr them for it hath not restrained the collateral warranty of any other Ancestor 369 370 377 379 381 10. An alienation with warranty which shall hinder the Land from reverting to the Donor or his Heirs is expresly forbidden by the Statute de Donis 374 11. No mans warranty doth bind directly à priori because it is lineal or collateral for no Statute restrains any warranty under those terms from binding nor no Law institutes any warranty in those terms but those are restraints by consequent only from the restraints of warranties made by Statute 375 12 The Statute de Donis makes no difference between a Donor stranger and a Donor privy in blood to the Donee but the warranties are the same in both Cases 378 13. The Tenant in possession may Rebutt the Demandant without shewing how he came to the possession which he then hath when impleaded be it by disseisin or any other tortious way but he must shew how the warranty extended to him 385 386 14. If a man will be warranted by a Rebutter he must make it appear how the warranty extends to him but he need not have the like estate in the Land upon a Rebutter as upon a Voucher 385 15. The Tenant in possession shall not rebut the Demandant by the warranty without he first make it appear that the warranty did extend to him as Heir or Assignee 385 386 387 388 16. Where a man is once entituled to the warranty whatsoever Estate he had when