to the surrender or otherwise the admittance is not good Thurle and Madison Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at the Bar between Thurle and Madison Enrolment of a Deed. It was said by Glyn chief Iustice that if divers persons do seal a Deed and but one of them acknowledge the Déed and the Déed is thereupon enrolled this is a good enrollment within the Statute and may be given in evidence as a Deed enrolled Evidence at a Tryal It was then also said that if a deed express a consideration of money upon the purchase made by the Deed yet this is no proof upon a tryal Consideration that the monies expressed were paid but it must be proved by witnesses MEorandum Copy proved That upon the same Tryal an Act of Parliament produced in point for the selling of Delinquents estates was sworn to have been examined by the Parliament Roll and that it was a true Copy before it was read in evidence Nota. VVood and Gunston Mich. 1655. VPon a motion for a new tryal between Wood and Gunston Memorandum New tryal for miscarriage of the Iury. upon a supposition of excessive damages given by the Iury in an Action upon the case tryed at the Bar for words viz. Calling the Plaintif Traytor c. 1500 l. being the damages given It was said by Glyn chief Iustice that if the Court do believe that the Iury gave their verdict against their direction given unto them the Court may grant a new Tryal And a new Tryal was gronted in this Case after a full debate had by Councell on both sides Culliar and Iermin Mich. 1655. Banc. sup CUlliar brought an Action upon the Case upon a promise and declared Arrest of judgement upon a promise that the Testator of the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would mary such a Woman did promise that he would leave him half his Estate at his death and thereupon he did mary the party and yet he did not leave him half his estate at his death Vpon a verdict found for the Plaintif it was moved in arrest of judgement that the Declaration was not good for whereas the promise was that the Defendant should leave him half of all his estate which might be intended both of his real and also of his personal Estate and of any estate in reversion as well as of an estate in possession the Plaintif only says that the Testator died worth 3000 l. in possession and that he did not leave him half of that estate and it may be he left him part of his real estate or estate in reversion to the full value of half his whole estate But Glyn chief Iustice disallowed the exception and gave judgement for the Plaintif Iudgement Lance and Blackmore Mich. 1655. Banc. sup Hill 1654. rot 191. LAnce an Executor brought an Action upon the Case against Blackmore Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the Case upon a pro and declared that in consideration that the Testator would suffer the Defendant to enjoy such a Close of land the Defendant did assume and promise to pay 53 s. a year for the rent thereof for so long time as he should enjoy it and for so much rent due for it for so long time in the Testators life time and for so much rent due since his death he brings the Action Vpon non assumpsit pleaded a verdict was found for the Plaintif and entire dammages given It was moved in arrest of Iudgement That an Action of the Case doth not lie it being for the non-payment of rent which follows the nature of the land and doth sound in the realty for which a personal Action lies not 2ly Here doth not appear by the Daclaration Personal act on Consideration to the any consideration to ground the promise upon for the Declaration is that if the Testator in her life time would permit the Defendant to enjoy the Close then c. and it is not averred Averment that the Testator did in her life time suffer the Defendant to enjoy the Close Glyn chief Iustice If a promise be made to the Testator the Executor may have an Action Executor and it is a good consideration as to him for the executor is representative of the Testator And 2ly An Action upon the Case will not lie for rent upon a promise in law but upon a special promise of the party to pay it Promise in Law Special as our Case is it will lie Ingram and Fawset Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN this Case it was said by Glyn chief Iustice Administratâ—r must shew how Administrator That if an Administrator bring an Action against an Administrator it is not necessary for the Plaintif to shew by whom the letters of Administration were granted unto the Defendant but he must shew by whom the letters of Administration were granted to himself to entitle himself to the Action for if it appear not to the Court that he is Administrator he cannot sue by that name Mich. 1635. Banc. sup IT was said by Wild and agreed by Whitwick one of the Masters of the Vpper Bench office How far special bayl is lyable for the principal that if an Attorny do appear for one in the Vpper Bench special bayl is entred for his Clyent to that Action that that Bayl is not bound to stand Bayl to all other Actions that shall be declared in against the party upon the by but the Attorny for him is bound to appear for him in all such Actions and to put in Common bayl Wagstaff and Tempest Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IT was said by Glyn chief Iustice upon evidence given in a Tryal at the Bar Dispensation with a forfeiture of an Estate bayl between VVagstaff and Tempest that if tenant for life do levy a Fine of the Lands he is so seised of whereby he should forfeit his estate yet if he in the remainder will joyn with the Tenant for life in declaring the uses this is a dispensation with the forfeiture and Le Gay Mich. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was enformed For a time to accompt before Auditors that in an Action of Accompt brought there was a verdict that the Defendant should accompt before Auditors and that Auditors were assigned and the parties were now before the Auditors and thereupon it was moved on the Defendants part that this Court would grant him time to accompt for the reasons alleged But Wild answered that it was not proper to move here for the Auditors are now Iudges of the matter Auditors Iudges by the Statute and may give time if they see cause To which Glyn chief Iustice agreed and said the Auditors are Iudges by the Statute and therefore move before them and trouble not us with it Sergeant Bradshaw and Procter Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN the Case of Sergeant Bradshaw and Mr. Procter of Grays Inne Challenge to an array no part of
for cause shews 1. That the breach of this promise was in the Testators life time and therefore the Action should have béen brought against him and is not now to be brought against the Executor 2ly The Testator did not promise that his Executors should deliver the goods but that he would deliver them upon request Request and there appears no request to be made to the Testator as there ought to have been 15 Iac. Hob. rep f. 300. Bodwells Case But Roll chief Iustice answered Executor That an Executor may be charged upon a collateral promise if there were a breach of it in the Testators life time and here is a good request and goes to all Therefore let the Plaintif take his judgement except better matter be shewed to the contrary and Osborne Mich. 1649. 1 Reipub. Ang. Banc. super THe Plaintif brought an Action upon the Case upon two several promises the Defendant pleaded non assumpsit Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case Issue and upon this an issue was joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of iudgement and for cause shews that there is no issue joyned as to the second promise alleged for he doth not conclude with petit quod inquitatur per patriam and yet there is a verdict found upon both the promises The Iudgement was arrested till the other should move Mich. 1649. Banc. super VPon a special Verdict the case was this A Case upon a special verdict argued Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in tayl the remainder to the right heirs of him in the remainder for life the remainder man in tayl levies a fine in the life of tenant for life And the question was whether by the levying of this fine the estate tayl were discontinued or no. To prove that the estate tayl was discontinued these Books were cited 1 H 7.22 Lit. Cap. Discents Sect. 34.14 Ed 3. Fitz. Avâ—wry 117.3 Ed 3. Fitz. grants 60.15 Ed. 4 9.2 Rep. Butlers case 5. Cooks Lit. f. 25. Pasch 13 Car. Hungates Case Banc. Reg. Dyer 339. Twisden to the contrary argued that the estate is not altered neither to the right nor by way of Estople 46 Edward 3. f. 23. Estople An Estople supposeth a thing to be done and therefore if the thing be impossible which is alleged by way of estople it can be no estople And one shall not be construed to doe wrong by an Act which may be interpreted so that by it he may doe no wrong Brooks Abridgement Grants 49. Roll chief Iustice The matter here is not how the estates shall pass and how to make them good but the Question is upon the forfeiture Forfeiture for he levies the fine as of an estate in possession and not of a reversion in fée and this is not upon the rule in Bredons case 13 Car. Sir Julius Caesars case an Acceptance of an estate or an Attornment by Tenant for life to a stranger is a forfeiture Jerman Iustice held there was no forfeiture But the Court said the Verdict was ill sound and therefore ordered it should be amended that the whole matter in Law might come in question Amendment Gray against Walye Mich. 1649. Banc. sup VVAlye brought an Action upon the Case against Gray Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the case for speaking these words of him viz. Iack Walye was questioned for stealing of a gray Mare with a snip in her ear and hue and cry went out after him and he durst not shew his face hereabouts The Plaintif had a Verdict and the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable because they were general and uncertain words and it doth not appear the party was damnified by them nor how long ago they were spoken Roll chief Iustice said that the party was defamed by speaking of them and he hath laid it that he lost his Credit thereby Therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement except better matter be shewn But Nicholas Iustice doubted whether they were actionable or no. And Ask Instice nihil dixit Mich. 1649. Banc. sup AN Attorney of this Court that was within age Error against at Attorney in Court for appearing propria persona being within age Error in fact appeared to an Action propria persona and pleaded to issue and had a verdict and a judgment for him and upon this a writ of Error was brought here it being an error in fact because that being within age did not appear per guardianum nor by his Attorney and it was said that it is not helped by the Statute of Ieofails though it be after verdict And thereupon the Court stayed the Execution Mercer against Rule Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved For a Supersedeas attachment for taking out execution after a writ of Error brought and allowed Supersedeas Attachment Execution That a writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement and that it was received and allowed and notwithstanding the Plaintif that had the Iudgement had taken out execution and thereupon it was prayed for a supersedeas to supersede the execution and for an Attachment against the party for his contempt to the Court. And it was urged by the Councel that moved That after a writ of Error is received and allowed the hands of the Court that gave the Iudgement are foreclosed from granting out execution and that the writ of Error is in it self a Supersedeas and cited Dyer 283. and therefore concluded that the execution is not well issued forth Twisden of Councel on the other side said that the writ of Error was not duly pursued because the roll was not marked and therefore the party might well take out execution But Roll chief Iustice answered that the writ was well pursued though the roll were not marked Yet if neither the roll be marked Notice nor notice given to the Attorney on the other side of the bringing the writ of Error if the party procéed to take out execution it is no contempt to the Court otherwise it is a contempt Contempt Supersedeas And it is the duty of the Clerk of the Errors to mark the roll and not the Attorneys and therefore take a Supersedeas quia improvide emanavit to stop execution Pym against Morgan alias Bambery and Baselye Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 1062. IN an Ejectione firmae brought for the Mannor of Caledown Argument upon a special verdict in an Ejectione firmae The Defendant pleads Not guilty and upon this the Iury find a special verdict to this effect That Sir Thomas Morgan was seised in fée amongst other lands of the lands in question and that in 13 Car. he made a settlement of these lands to himself for life the remainder to his daughter Mary for life the remainder to the heirs of the first Tenant for life with a power of revocation
to alter all or any part of the settlement made at any time during his life The verdict finds further that there was an Ordinance of Parliament made in the year of our Lord 1645. that Sir Thomas Morgan should forfeit all his lands and estate which he was then seised or possessed of or had been seised or possessed of from the year 1641. and that by the same Ordinance the lands in question were given to Mr. Pym that by virtue of the said Ordinance he encred was seised pro ut that Mr. Pym died so seised after whose death the Plaintifs lessor as his heir entred made a lease to the Plaintif after that Sir Tho Morgan died Mary the Defendant claiming as tenant in remainder for life after the death of Sir Thomas her father by vertue of the settlement made 13 Carol. entred into the lands in question and the Plaintif as lessée of Pym brings the action Vpon this special verdict the Question was Whether by the Ordinance of Parliament made not till the year 1645. yet looking back to the year 1641. the remainder of the lands in question which was setled 13 Car. being before the making of the Ordinance and also before the time to which the Ordinance looks back be forfeited by the Ordinance or not Forfeiture Latch of Councel with the Defendant argued That it was not forfeited 1. Because that the Ordinance is penal and retrospective or looking back and therefore it is odious in Law and shall not be largely interpreted but as strictly as may be 2ly The preamble of the Ordinance sets forth 2. things as the reasons why the Ordinance was made 1. Mr. Pyms deserts to whom the lands were given 2ly Morgans offences for which he was thus punished and both these grounds for making the Ordinance can extend no further than to the year 1641. and so not to the time of the settlement made 13 Car. by Sir Thomas Morgan for then neither of these causes alleged were in being 2ly The purview of the Ordinance is double 1. punitive 2ly remunerative 1. the punitive part which concerns the punishing of Sir Thomas Morgan 2ly the remunerative part concerning the rewarding of Mr. Pym and the punitiue part made in the year 1645. cannot reach the estate setled upon Mary his daughter so long before viz. 13 Car. for it can reach no further back than to the year 1641. at the most to which time and no further the Ordinance is retrospective and in the Statute of 23 H. 8. general words of an Act are restrained Besides there is a demonstration in the Ordinance that shews the Ordinance doth not extend to the estate of the Defendant as may appear by the provisoes conteined in it for although the children of Morgan are to be punished within the Ordinance by the second proviso of it yet this extends not to so long time as to 13 Car. when the estate was setled but only to the estate as it was in the year 1641. And therefore prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Wadham Windham on the other side argued that the estate of Morgan though it was said to be setled 13 Car. was forseited by the Ordinance Because the estate was not absolutely setled at that time for there was a proviso in the conveyance to revoke the settlement so that at the time of the Ordinance made the estate was in Sir Thomas Morgan absolutely to dispose off as he pleased and by the words of the Ordinance all Morgans estate is passed without any saving and the provisoes of the Ordinance do prove that the Children of Sir Thomas Morgan were excepted out of the savings made to preserve the estates of others Also Boons and Favours bestowed use to be amply expounded and this being a Boon bestowed by the Parliament shall receive as large a construction as is possible Besides Morgan was a Papist therfore it may well be supposed that he intended not this for any real settlement but only by way of subtility for some private reasons for we know that Papists do use to make such settlements as this was to preserve them from penalties of the Law And the words of the Ordinance are accumulative to convey all Morgans estate and there are no restrictive words and if there were they should be void here for the Manor of Callidown being the Lands in question are expresly given by the Ordinance and as to these Lands the rights of all men are bound and therefore if there were a saving it would be void as it is Cook rep Alton Woods Case And an act of Parliament sometimes is as a conveyance sometime as a judgment and both waies a saving in it is void and srivolous 1 Rep. 4. A conditional estate or a right may be saved by Iudgment or fine but not an entire estate or interest Saving and therefore the estate of Mary in the Manor of Callidown cannot be saved by any proviso and he cited Alton Woods Case for authority in the principal Case f. 51. But admitting a general saving had been good to save Maries estate yet as the words of the Ordinance were penned her estate is not saved by it for the words were put in the Ordinance for the advantage of Pym and not to provide for Mary for she claims from Thomas Morgan and so prayed Iudgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice said that the provisoes in the Ordinance are not void to all persons as Windham argued for Strangers are clearly provided for by them But let the Case be argued again Saturday fortnight Postea Hatwood against Payte Mich. 1649 Banc. sup Entred Hill 24 Car. rot 78. THe question insisted upon in this Case was Whether Tithes be extendible upon an Elegit whether upon a recovery in an Action of Debt against a Parson the Tithes be extendible by Elegit Hales of Councel with the Plaintif held that they are because that Tithes may be said to be Tenements and the Parson hath a Free-hold in them although he hold them jure Ecclesiae But Roll chief Iustice said Elegit that a Parsonage cannot be extended but that the Debt may be levyed out of the profits of it by the Sherif as it was wont to be done Extent for now there being no Bishops the profits cannot be sequestred by the Bishop of the Dioces Sequestration as they used to be But Ierman and Nicholas Iustices doubted Clergy Ask Iustice agreed with Roll and said that by the Common-law the Clergy are no more privileged from paying their debts than Lay men are Roll chief Iustice said it hath been heretofore questioned whether a Clergy-man be subject to watch and ward or to contribute to satisfie for a robbery done within the Hundred but now it is no question but they are subject and shall contribute Adjourned till Saturday to be argued again Postea Tyndal and others against Harington Mich. 1649. Banc. sup TYndal brought an Action of Debt
for another man he had unwillingly committed a Trespass against the Plaintif in taking away 2 or 3 wheele-barroughs of Earth of the Plaintifs soil and therefore it was prayed that the matter might be referred to the Secondary to tax the damages and Costs for the Trespass which he was ready to pay that the proceedings might be stayed But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be but you may confess the Action Reference He le against Green Hill 1651. Banc. sup IN an Ejectione firmae a special Verdict was found upon which the Case fell out to be this A man being Lessee of a Manor for 199 years Special Verdict in an Ejectione firmae deviseth the Term to his wife for life with power to make such estates in as ample manner as he himself might have done during her life and the remainder in Tall to his Daughter and dies the Feme proves the Will and accepts of the Legacy and after makes a Lease for 99 years and dies and the daughter brings an Ejectione firmae against the Lessee of the Feme The question was whether this Lease made by the Feme were a good Lease or not Merifield argued that the Lease was not good after the death of the Feme because she having but an estate for life Lease and the Lease for 99 years being derived out of it when the estate for life ends the estate derived out of it must end also And 2ly If the Feme had any power to dispose of any part of the Term longer than for her life by the same reason she might have disposed of all of it which cannot be intended for the Testator did not mean that she should have power to destroy the Entayl made upon his Daughter And as to the Objection that she hath dissposed of but part of the Term and therefore hath not destroyed the Entayl I answer It matters not what she hath done but what she might have done for by the same reason that she disposed of part she might have disposed of the whole The rest of the Argument I could not hear Henage Finch on the other side argued That the Lease made by the Feme continues after her death because the Feme had a power given her to make such a Lease and by vertue of that power the Lease continues for the power given unto her relates to the Estates to be made by her and not to the continuance of her life And here the intent of the Testator is to be considered which was that his wife should have the power to dispose of all the Term if she would for he trusted her with it because she was his Wife and Mother of his Daughter to whom the Entayl was made and the very subject matter shews his intent to be so and because there is no other power expressed against this in any other part of the Will and the words that give her this power would be idle and trifling if they should receive any other Construction 2 Car. Banc. Reg. Danyel and Ogleys case and Gibs and Whites case 1 Car. nor does the assent of the Feme to the Legacy to have the Term for life destroy her power to make estates 2ly She hath well executed this power for the Iury have found that it is the Lease of the Feme 9 Iac. Suckham and Hawkins case a power given to an Executor may be executed by parts Roll chief Iustice held Lease the Lease was good for a Will ought to be so interpreted that all the parts of it may stand together and if the Feme here have not power to make this Lease the Clause of giving her this Lease is idle and the meaning is so without doubt the Feme hath the sole estate in Law in her and the power given here is but a restoring to her of that which she had before by the Law and her consenting to the Legacy doth not take away her power to make Estates And this limited power and the remainder to his daughter may stand together for it might be that the wife would not make such a lease and then the daughter should have had the land in tayl but if she dispose of it the daughter shall not have it Ierman as Roll. Nicholas Iustice held that the Feme could only dispose of the land during her life and that the Testators intent by the words was that the Feme should not be tyed to occupy the lands her self during her life but might dispose of them Ask as Nicholas that she can dispose of the lands only during her life for the power is only given during her life and this interpetation will make all parts of the Will stand together better than the other interpretation Adjourned Antea Dekins against Latham Hill 1651. Banc. sup Entred Hill 22 Car. rot 946. IN an ejectione firmae a special verdict was found Special verdict in an ejectione firmae upon which the Case fell out to be this One seised of lands covenanted to levy a fine to the use of himself and his wife for life and after he leased the lands for 21 years for 3 l. rent per annum by equal portions and after the death of I.S. to pay a gross sum of 125 l. by way of fine payable by 5 l. a year quarterly with a proviso in the Indenture that for default of payment of the rent or fine or for want of reparations it should be lawfull for the Lessor to re-enter After the Lessor levyes a fine and assigneth over his interest in the reversion The question here was whether the condition of entry be transferred over to the Assignee by the transferring over of the reversion Hales of councell with the Plaintiff held that the lease proceeds from the Husband only and not from the Baron and Feme and the condition is transferred over for the condition runs joyntly as well to the fine reserved as to the rent and is as it were a several condition in Law although it be comprised but in one clause and not several clauses and the condition as to the rent is transferred though not as to the fine In 19 E 4. f. 7. The law makes a several distribution of one praecipe and so may it do here of one condition and Rawlins case in the â— rep cited against this comes not to this case for there the question was of the suspension of a condition but here it is of the transferring over of a condition 2ly If it be but one condition yet it is well transferred by the Statute of 32 H. 8. C. â—4 an extinguishment in part is not extinguishment of all although a suspension of part be a suspension of all and the Grantee of the reversion shall have advantage of the condition because 1. He is within the words of the condition as to the condition 2ly The clause of re-entry is within the words of the Statute and Knights case objected comes not to this case for there
professision and cited one Hinkes case where these words spoken of the Plaintif being a Brasier were held actionable viz. Thou hast cozened me of a Pan. And if one say to another Thou hast poisoned a man If the man be dead the words are actionable although he doe not say that he did it wilfully The Court enclined the words are actionable because they are scandalous And the rule was Iudicium nisi c. Hill 1652. Banc. sup VVAdham Windham moved for a Certiorari to remove an Endictment preferred against one in Newgate Motion for a Certiorari to remove an Endictment Roll chief Iustice He lies there for murder and is outlawed thereupon yet take a Certiorari to remove the Record for his fact was the stabbing of a man and stabbing is in its nature but felony Felony Murther and is not murther although the party cannot have his Clergy for it by reason of the Statute made by King Iames against Stabbing else by the Common Law he might have had it Ashworth and Sir Tho. Stanley Hill 1652. Banc. sup VPon a Verdict given for the Plaintif in an Ejectione firmae Arrest of Iudgement in an Ejectione firmae Damages Ejectione firmae It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement That the Ejectment is laid to be of three Messuages or Tenements and a Toft which as to the Messuages or Tenements is incertain Roll chief Iustice You move too soon for it may be the Plaintiff will release the damages as to the Messuages or Tenement and take his judgement only for the toft and the Action lies well enough for that Hill 1652. Banc. sup TWisden moved to discharge Sir Thomas Revell and others of their recognisances for the peace in which they were bound the last Michaelmas Term Motion to discharge recognizances of the peace because the Affidavit upon which they were bound was only to this effect That the Prosecutor goes in fear of his life when he goes into such parcels of land whereas in truth those lands are setled upon Sir Thomas Revell by decree in Chancery and the Prosecutor hath also brought 18 several Actions against the Tenants of the lands and hath declared against none of them and there are four Affidavits against the first Affidavit Green on the other side said that the party is in Court and says he is still in fear of his life Peace and prays he may not be discharged But because upon reading the Affidavits and examining the matter it appeared to the Court that they were bound to the peace upon malice and for vexation they were discharged Hill 1652. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Who ought to repair High-ways of Common right All High ways of common right are to be repaired by the Inhabitants of that Parish in which the way lies But if any particular person will enclose any part of a way or waste adjoyning he thereby takes upon him to repair that which was so enclosed Massey and Aubry Hill 1652. Banc. sup AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation to stand to an Award Arrest of judgement in debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award The Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrators made no Award The Paintif replies that the Vmpire made an award and sets it forth and assigns the breach and upon issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the assignment of the breach was not good for the incertainty of it for the breach is assigned upon but a part of the Award for the breach assigned is that the Defendant should pay the Arrears of rent due after the purchase of certain lands and doth not shew what these Arrears are But Roll chief Iustice said That the words since the purchase thereof seem to make this certain yet stay till the other moves At another day the case was moved again and the same exception insisted upon by Barry of the Inner Temple who formerly moved it Hales held the Exception not good and that the breach was well assigned because though it seem uncertain of it self yet it relates to a thing which makes it certain As an Award for one to deliver to another all the goods in such a Shop which belonged to him hath been held to be good But Barry answered That it is utterly incertain and that there is nothing in the Award which can make it certain and here is a four-fold incertainty in the Award 1. It cannot be known what these arrears are that are awarded to be paid 2ly It appears not by the Award for what lands these arrerages of rent awarded to be paid are due for there are no lands mentiond but only two leases of land 3ly It appears not by whom the arrerages are due 4ly It appears not to whom the arrerages are due Roll chief Iustice All the matter is whether it appears that these arrerages of rent awarded to be paid were in question or no and it seems they were because the lease and the rent thereupon reserved are both in question but it is not certain what these arrears of rent are and so the party that is awarded to pay them cannot tell what sum of mony he is to pay Ierman Iustice said he may know because he was Tenant of the land Barry replyed he cannot know when the purchase was made and the arbitrement is that the party shall pay all the arrears since the purchase Curia advisare vult At another day the case was again moved by Barry and exceptions taken that the breach was assigned upon a thing not submitted unto or awarded to be performed And secondly The award is incertain in many things First It appears not what rent was due to be paid but only by implication which is not good Secondly It appears not for what the rent is due nor 3ly How much rent is due and Salmons case in the 5. rep was cited Also it was objected that the award was not finall and concluding and therefore not good Also the Award is unreasonable and for that cause also it is not good and he cited 21 E. 4. f. 40. and 17 E. 4. f. 51. and prayed for the Defendant that judgement might be stayed Hales on the other side prayed for judgement said That the Arbitrators were not to ascertain particularly the rent to be paid but it is sufficient for them to make the Award touching all the differences betwixt the parties and an averment may ascertain the particular things being they are only matters of fact although one may not be admitted by an averment to supply an Award in a matter wherein it was in the substance of it defective before Roll chief Iustice What certainty is there by the Award that the party shall enjoy all his right in the two leases in difference between the parties for the payment of the rent Both parties know what rent is due reserved by the leases but how can the party know what the
so and it shall be presumed it is rightly named so 2ly It is so found to be by the Iury and to prove that it is a free Chappell it is not presentative and 2ly It appears not to be within the Iurisdiction of the Ordinary 3ly The Act of 1 Ed. 6. is an Act which is general and gives all free Chappels and extends as well to Chappels which are only reputative free Chapbels as well as to them which are so indeed even as it is of a Chauntery College and an impropriation as the Books are and it is a free Chappell nevertheless it be presentative and with the cure of Souls for a free Chappel may now be with the cure of Souls although by the old Canon law it could not as was held in Childs case 1 Iac. The Chappel within the Tower is a free Chappell donative and yet it is presentative and hath cure of Souls so saith Lynwood of the free Chappel of St. Martins It is also the intent of the Statute that it should be so for a College and a Chauntery with cure are within the Statute as may appear by the Exceptions of the Statute of the Free Chappel with cure of Souls in the Isle of Eely called the Chappel of the Sea and the being presentative with cure hinders not but that it may be within the Statute for the presentation might arise at the first by special composition as it is 13 E. 4. f. 4. and Register f. 307. and it was instanced in the free Chappel of Hastings in Sussex and it may be a Chappel donative by prescription and yet presentative Adjornatur ad proximum terminum to be argued again Vid. postea Barker and Martyn Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe case between Barker and Martyn was again moved Arest of judgment in Trepass which was briefly this An action of Trespass was brought by Barker against Martin wherein he declares that the Defendant had broken his House and had taken away quinque instrumenta ferrea Anglice fetters In arrest of Iudgement exception was taken to the Declaration that Instrumenta serrea Anglice fetters was not a good expression in Latin as it ought to be of Fetters because there was a proper Latin word for Fetters namely Compes so that it ought to have been quinque Compedes or quinque paria Compedum and not as it is for the word Instrumentum is uncertain and may be used to signifie any thing else with an Anglice added to it as well as Fetters and as it is the pleading is not all in Latin as the Statute directs to avoid Barbarsm and the word Anglice when it is properly used in a Declaration is to help words of art which cannot be expressed without 〈◊〉 Anglice and is not to be used where there is a proper Latin word to signifie the thing as in this Case there is On the other side it was said that general words might be good in a Declaration and barbarous words sometimes and cited Hobarts Reports 267. and Ward and Smiths Case Trin. 4. Iac. rot 2305. Roll Iustice It is a hard thing to maintain this Declaration Declaration for if it should be admitted good it would bring in all Barbarism in pleadings Pleading and any senseless word might be used with an Anglice joyned with it and he said one was endicted for using quandam artem Anglice of a Draper and it was adjudged naught and in the case between Tailour and Taylour 9 Car. Trespass was brought pro Decem caponibus Anglice Capons avidbus domesticis Anglice powltry and adjudged not good Yet the rule of the Court was to argue it again Saturday next following Eeles and Lambert Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 22 Car. rot 1646. EEles brought an Action of Covenant against Lambert the Executor of Sir Molton Lambert An Action of Covenant against an Executor and declares that Sir Molton Lambert did in his life time by his indenture let certain lands unto him for years and covenanted thereby for himself his Executors Administrators and Assigns that the Lessee should not be put out of possession of the lands let by him during the said Term and that since the death of Sir Molton Lambert his Lessor he was put out of possession by such an one and upon this he brings his Action of Covenant against the Executor The Defendant pleads no Assets upon this an issue was joyned and a special Verdict was found To this effect That Sir Molton Lambert did let the lands mentioned in the Declaration to Eeles prout that there was such a Covenant in the Deed prout and that the Plaintiff was put out of possession of the lands prout They find likewise that Sir Molton Lambert made his Will and made the Defendant his Executor and died that Sir Molton Lambert by his will gave many legacies of goods and that the Defendant before the Plaintiff was put out of possession did pay all the Legacies in kind and that besides those Legacies he had not Assets to discharge the Covenant Vpon this Verdict the matter in Law was this whether the Executor ought to have forborn the payment of the Legacies and to have expected till the end of the Term let to the Plaintiff or till the Covenant had been broken and for doing otherwise should not be charged with the Covenant de bonis propriis or whether the Covenant not being broken in the life of the Testator nor before the Legacies paid he had not paid the Legacies as he ought and should not be freed from being charged with the Covenant de bonis propriis Vpon opening of the Case Rolle Iustice said that a decree in Chancery against an Executor Decree in Chancery shall not be satisfied before an Obligation made by the Testator and become due after his death Saturday following was set to here Councell again Jones and Stanley Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. IOnes brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation to perform Covenants of an Indenture against Stanley Arest of Judgment in an ACtion of Debt and hath a Verdict against him Stanley moves in Arrest of Iudgement and takes these exceptions 1. That the Goods valued in the Declaration are not within the condition of the Obligation 2. The goods are not certainly set forth what they are for the Declaration is of divers parcells of old stuff 3. Some of the things mentioned in the Declaration are not goods and so not to be valued for the Declaration is of partitions withi nt he house and of a shed which are part of the free hold and not goods upon these exceptions the Iudgement was arrested till the other should move it VVhite and Thomas Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 18 Car. rot 1400. WHite binds himself Error to reverse a Iudgment in Debt brought by an Heir his Heirs Executors and Administrators in an Obligation to Thomas for the payment of a certain summ of mony at a certain day
is scriptum and for the time the Defendant ought to have alleged that he bad not convenient time Tender if the truth were so but here doth appear convenient time and it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to tender the Obligation but the Defendant ought to do it at his own perill and to pay the mony in convenient time after the mariage and the other is not bound to demand it Intendment nor to be at the charge to make the Obligation Bacon Iustice to the same effect and said the words ought to be intended of a writing obligatory according to common intendment Time and the meaning of the parties although it be not so expressed and it cannot be meant of a promise by parol for there are no presidents in Law for verbal securities but only for securities in writing and the word in debita juris forma implies so much otherwise here would be only one promise to make good another promise Pasc 9 Iac. rot 361. Banc. Reg. 21 Iac. upon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer-Chamber the former Iudgement was affirmed and the breach here assigned meets with the Assumpsit for it is that he did not become bound per c. and so the breach is well assigned 2ly Here appears in the Declaration to be two Months for the performing the promise which is a convenient time and there doth not appear any hinderance and the Defendant was bound to do it without request and there is no necessity for the Plaintiff to make an election of the time when he will have it done The Court bid the Plaintiff take his Iudgement except better matter were shewed on Monday following Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of forcible entry To quesh an Endictment The Exception was that the forcible entry is said is to be made in messuagium sive tenementum which is incertain But Roll Chief Iustice doubted whether the exception was good or not because it was messuagium sive tenementum and the word Messuage may be good though Tenemen tum be not But it was quashed upon another exception The King against VVood. Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment taken at a Sessions against one Wood for getting the horse of another man into his possession To quash an Endictment by using another mans name and a false token The exceptions taken against it were 1. The Endictment doth not say that it was contra Statutum But to this the Court answered that it was an offence at the Comon Law and the Endictment lay at the Common Law and therefore it need not to be expressed to be contra formam Statuti 2ly It doth not shew what the false token was nor in whose name it was used But Roll chief Iustice took another exception viz. that the Endictment was that the Defendant did the fact nuper and that is so general a word that no answer can be given to it And for that it was quashed Twigg against Roberts Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Hil. 22 Car. rot 956. AN Action of Debt was brought against an Executor in Bristow upon a Custom of concessit solvere by him to pay a Debt due by the Testator upon a simple contract and a verdict and a Iudgement for the Plaintiff Error to reverse a Iudgment in Debt against an Executor The Defendant brought a Writ of Error in this Court to reverse the Iudgment and the Error assigned was that the custom of bringing an Action of Debt upon a concessit solvere is not a good custom Custom Wager of Law because it hindrers the party to wage his Law as by the Law he may do Walker of Councel with the Defendant in the Writ of Error argued that it was a good custom because the party is not thereby hindred of a tryal and there are customs in London which are against the Common Law as for example for the Recorder to give Iudgement upon an exigent The Court desired to see the book and to have presidents brought them And said This Custom had been allowed against the party that made the contract but the doubt is whether it be good against an Executor for a concessit solvere is without any consideration And Roll chief Iustice said that this custom doth break three rules of the Law Barker against Denham Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 1280. BArker brought an ejectione firmae against Denham Special verdict in an Ejectione firmae and upon not guilty pleaded an issue was joyned and the reupon a special verdict was found that by the Custom of the manour whereof the Lands in question were held a Copyholder might surrender his Copyhold out of Court into the hands of two customary Tenants to the use of another and at the next Court the party to whose use the Copyhold was so surrendred used to be admitted and That there was such a surrender made here but that the party to whose use the Copyhold was so surrendred dyed before the next Court and so was not admitted The question was whether he dying before his admittance shall be said to be a Copyholder by the Custom of the manour or no. Descent Hales Argued that he is not a Copyholder within the Custom and then if this Custom hinder not the Lands shall descend according to the rules of the Common Law for so is it of all Copyhold Lands if a speciall custom hinder not and here 1. the words of the Custom are to be considered and 2ly Custom how they are to be expounded and for this he cited 49 E. 3. f. 19.22 E. 3.2 E. 4. f. 24. A Custom shall be construed according to the Common apprehension of the lay gens and a Custom shall be interpreted according to the most effectual operation of the Law 3 H. 7.5 Doct. and Stud. 48.21 H. 7. f. 33.44 Ass f. 10.4 H 8. Dyer 28. A denyal actual by a Copyholder to pay his rent is a forfeiture Forfeiture not an implicative denyal lib. intrat f. 238. And by a surrender of a Copyhold before admittance the surrendree hath no real possession and the heir of a Copyholder before his admittance holds by the Copy of his Ancestor and so he hath title but the surrenderee can have no title before admittance Title and he cited Rawlins and Iones his case and Spurlins case A surrender before admittance is but a a consent of the party to part with the estate but passeth it not and after administration it should have no relation to the surrender Twisden for the Defendant Relation 1. He agreed that a Copyholder before admittance is not perfect in his Estate but yet the admittance shall relate to the surrender and both shall be accounted one entire Act contrary to other learnings 2ly The Son is in by descent and the descent must be ruled by the custom and he is now
really a Copyholder and cited Shellyes case and prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice said This Case differs from surrendring into the hands of Tenants for it is into the hands of the Steward out of Court Surrend Admission which is good and the Lords acceptance of his rent is an admission But Bacon doubted and therefore the rule was for the Case to be argued again the next Term and then by reason of sicknesse I was absent But that Term held not by reason of the Kings death Dunch against Smith Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. DUnch brought an Action of Debt as Executor for arrerages of a rent charge due to the Testator against Dunch Arrest of Iudgement in Debt brought by an Executor an occupyer of the land out of which the rent was issuing and hath a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and for Cause shewed that the Plaintiff doth not shew any title that the Defendant hath in the Land but only sayes generally that he entred into the Lands and so it appears not that he is to pay the rent To this the Councel on the other side answered that the Plaintiff being but an Executor cannot know the title and therefore is not bound to shew it Roll chief Iustice said there can be no Iudgement for the Declaration is too generall But Bacon Iustice held the Declaration good enough Antea Brown against Poyns Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case was this a man made his last Will and made two Executors For a prohibition to repeal an administration Prohibition Appeal the Executors dye in the life of the Testator the Testator dyes having two Sisters the eldest Sister procures Administration the younger Sister moves for a Prohibition to repeal the Administration because she being in equal degree of king ought to have equall share of the Administration But the Court answered that a prohibition lies not for you may appeal if the Administration be not rightly granted Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. A Processe issued out of this Court for a Cart and Horses that were cause of a mans death as a deodand 12. Iac. To stay processe for a deodand and it was moved that there hath been a generall pardon by Parliament since that time by which deodands were pardoned and therefore it was prayed the processe might be stayed General pardon The Court asked whether there be not an exception of deodands or the Almoners interest in the pardon The Councell answered there is not The Court demanded by what words in the pardon are deodands pardoned The Councel answered by the generall words The Court ordered thereupon it should be stayed till the Almoner be heard what he can say Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for a habeas Corpus for one that was taken in Execution by the Sheriff and was afterwards set at liberty For a habeas corpus for one taken upon one Execution Audita querela and after that retaken upon the same Execution The Court answered take it but you are in the wrong way for you ought to bring your audita querela The King against Bray Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of forcible entry made upon a Lessee for years upon the Statute of 21 Iac. To quash an Endictment of forcible entry The exceptions taken to it were 1. It doth not appear by the Endictment that the Lessee had any title to the Land at the time of the force committed for the force is supposed to be done before the lease commenced 2ly The lease is supposed to be a lease for so many years if I. S. shall so long live and it is not averred that I. S. was alive at the time of the forcible entry made Averment Roll chief Iustice cited the Lady Morlyes case that there ought to be a direct allegation of the life Therefore let it be quashed Mich. 24. Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of Assault and Battery of an overseer of the poor villae de A. in executing of his office The exceptions taken to it were To quash an Endictment for assaulting a Collector for the poor 1. That there is no such officer as an overseer of the poor villae but it ought to be parochiae but the Court said it was well enough as it was though it had been more proper the other way 2ly The Endictment is for the Assaulting and beating a Collector for the poor in executing his office whereas there is no such office appointed for any one particular man by the Law for the Statute is that there shall be two Collectors for the poor in every Parish and so the office is joynt and not several But the Court over-ruled this exception also 3ly It wants vi et Armis Vpon this exception the Court bid the Councel move it again Gill against Crosse Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt against two as Administrators upon fully administred pleaded issue was ioyned Speciall verdict in Debt against Executors and a speciall verdict was found to this effect viz. that one of the Administrators had fully administred and that the other Administrator had assets It was urged against the Verdict that the issue that was found is impertinent and impossible Verdict Iudgement and so there can be no judgement given upon it But the Court answered that the verdict is good yet if Iudgement should be given upon it the Iudgement would be ill and Nevills and Greenwoods case Hill 7. Car. in the Exchequer rot 1189. was cited and it was said that Iudgement may be against that Executor who hath assets and nil capiat per billam against the other that hath fully administred But take Iudgement at your peril Preston against Holmes Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. or Mich. 24 Car. rot 2052. VPon a special verdict found the Case in effect was this Arguments upon a special verdict upon a Will one in see having one Son by one venter and another Son by a second venter did by his last Will devise all his Lands to his wise for life and after her death to I. his eldest Son and to his Heirs and the question was whether the Son shall take these Lands by the devise or as Heir at Law and so the devise to be of no effect to make him come to the Lands by purchase Christopher Turner held that the devise is void because it sayes no more than the Law says for if there had been no such devise Iohn his Heirs should have had the Land and he cited Paramour and Yardlves Case in the Comentaries and Hob. rep Counden and Clarks case But it is objected that in this case the Law speaks one thing and the devise another thing and so the devise says not the same thing To this I answer there is no difference concerning the alteration of the Estate
between what the Law directs and what the devise directs all the difference is in the manner how his Son Iohn shall come to the Estate 3 4 Phil. Mar. Dyer 134. 37 Eliz. A man seised in fee had issue two Daughters and devised the Lands to them and to their Heirs and it was questioned whether they were Ioynt tenants and I conceive they are and where one omits a thing in a conveyance which the Law supplies this shall not hurt and he cited Iennings and Pollards Case 6 Car. Hales on the other side argued that the Son takes by purchase and not by descent for the devise is not to the Son in present but after the death of the Testators wife and if he had the Lands by descent he should have them presently VVaiver It is true the Son might have waived the taking by purchase and might have taken by descent but here prima facie he shall be intended to be in by purchase and not descent for here doth not appear to be any actual waiver of the purchase and the Son doth here as I conceive take by way of remainder and not by way of reversion And as to the verdict I conceive it is not good for it doth not shew how the lands are held whether in Chivalry or Socage and so it appears not whether the Testator had power to devise all of them or not for if they be held in Chivalry he can devise but two parts of them as the Statute directs 2ly It appears not that the Testator had but one Son by his first wife 3ly It is not shewed that the Lands are parcel of the Mannor 4ly It doth not appear in whose possession the Lands are Roll chief Iustice said Lands that are given by Will shall be intended to be socage tenure Intention if the contrary do not appear And he held that the devise is void and that it is not in the power of Iohn the Son to make the election to take by descent or by purchase at his pleasure but he must of necessity take the Land as the Law directs which is by descent Maxim and it is against a maxim in Law to give a thing to such a person to whom the Law gives it if it had not been so given 3 4 Phil. Ma. Dyer 134. and therefore the Plaintif ought to have Iudgement And as to the verdict he hath primer possession Verdict and therefore if the other make no title the verdict is for him and good enough Bacon Iustice to the same intent viz. that the Heir doth here take by descent and not by purchase for this the Law says and he cannot alter it and cited Foscues Case 4 Car. and a Case in 7 Iac. And so judgement was given for the Plaintif Franck against Burt and others Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintif brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his House For costs for the Desendant upon non-sute of the Plaintif and carrying away his Goods at the Tryal the Plaintif was non-sute The Plaintif moved that there was error in the Declaration and therefore there could have béen no Iudgement and prays that he may be spared costs Roll chief Iustice answered that heretofore it hath been made a question whether the Plaintif being non-sute should pay costs Cests but since the Statute of 4 Iac. it is clear he ought to pay costs for the vexation of the Defendant and so it hath béen ruled here and you are out of Court now by being non-sute and therefore you must pay costs And therefore except better matter be shewed let them be paid Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for a Prohibition to the great Sessions of Carnarvan in Wales to stop a sute in an English Bill of Equity exhibited there For a prohibition to the great Sessions at Carnarvan in Wales whereas by the Bill it appears there is no matter of Equity in the Case but only matter tryable at the Law The Court answered if they proceed there against Equity we cannot hinder them There was wont to be an Agent here from the Commissioners there for us to confer with in such cases as these but it seems there is not any here now Therefore give notice Prohibition and let them shew cause the next Term why a Prohibition should not be granted Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon reading of a retorn made by the Sherifs of the City of Norwitch upon a Habeas corpus directed unto them for one Chambers It was said by the Court How a Habeas corpus to an inferiour Court should be retorned Retorn that it hath been ruled That upon a Habeas Corpus to an inferiour Court to remove Corpus cum causa they ought to retorn all the causes that are depending there concerning the party that hath the Habeas Corpus if any of the causes depending be for above five pound of which they ought not to hold Plea and therefore because all the causes were not retorned here upon the retorn of this Habeas Corpus The Court held the retorn was not good and ordered that it should be amended upon pain of ten pounds by Monday next Raph against Davye Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. RAph brought an Action of the Case against Davy for speaking these words of her to the Plaintifs mother Arrest of judgement in an action for words viz. Your Daughter innuendo the Plaintif is a brazen faced Whore and deserves to be hanged and for speaking these other words to the Plaintif herself viz. you Huswife are a Thief and have stollen my Purse The Plaintif had a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement Averment that the Plaintif doth not aver that her Mother had not any other Daughter besides herself and so it is uncertain whether the words were spoken of her or no. But the Court held it was well enough without such averment because the Declaration is that the Defendant habens colloquium of the Plaintif did speak the words and that makes it certain enough And therefore bid the Plaintif take her Iudgement Jennings against Lee. Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. IEnnings brought an Action of Assault and Battery against Lee. The Defendant pleads a special plea Arrest of Iudgement in an action of assault and battery and justifies The Plaintif replies de injuria sua propria and upon this an Issue is joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement that the replication was not good because it answers not the special matter pleaded nor takes any traverse by an absque tali causa as it ought to do and so there is no issue joyned and consequently there can be no Iudgement Roll chief Iustice said that the replying de injuria sua propria Traverse Issue Ieofails and not traversing absque tali causa is not good for there is not an affirmative and a negative and so
parts it will be naught in all Hill 1649. Banc. sup THe Case of the Vills of Newton and Tyd concerning the presentments made to the Comissioners of Sewers for the Hundred of Wisbitch For quashing presentments and Orders of Commissioners of Sewers and their order made thereupon was again spoken to Twisden against the presentment said That it is not a presentment by Iury as it ought to be by the Statute for the Iury have only power to enquire of things within the Hundred of Wisbitch and it doth not appear that Newton and Tyd are within that Hundred 2ly The substance of the presentment is not good for the Commissioners cannot order that Newton and Tyd which have no benefit by the repairing of the bank shall contribute to the reparations 18 E. 3. f. 22. 3ly They cannot order to make a new wall notwithstanding Callice his opinion in his reading upon the Statute of Seâ—â—ers 4ly The Tax is not well laid for it is not laid upon all the Lands within Newton and Tyd as it ought to be charged if any ought to be Holhead answered to this last exception that it does not appear there are more Lands in Tyd or Newton than are charged And Roll chief Iustice said that is well enough To the third exception Holhead said it is not wholly a new work and therefore they may order to make it To which Roll chief Iustice assented and said it was so notwithstanding the Case of the I le of Ely for that was for the making of a new work totally To the 2d Exception he read the words of the presentment by which it appears that because the adventurers had no Lands to be charged and it is found necessary to be repaired that therefore it is to be repaired by Newton and Tyd for the present necessity Maynard answered that they are not bound to repair for the Act of a Stranger Taxes Roll chief Iustice answered Newton Tyd may take there remedyes against the strange adventurers and it seems there was a present necessity to repair it for publique safety If one be bound by prescription to repair a wall yet to prevent the present and publique danger the Commissioners may tax others to do it and the Law is just that is here made by the Commissioners But the 1. Exception is not answered and so the Commissioners have exceeded their authority Therefore let their be a new Law made by consent and quash the presentments except better matter be shewed But we cannot order you to have your monyes again But for that take your remedy at Law Garret against Blisard Hil. 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 983. VPon a special verdict found in an ejectione firmae The Case was this Grandmother Tenant for life Arguments upon a case upon a special verdict in an ejectione firmae the remainder to the Father for life the remainder to the Son for life the Son levyes a fine come ceo c. of the Land the question was whether it be a forfeiture of his estate or not Hales argued that it was a forfeiture but I could not here him well He cited these books 41 Ed. 3.10 24 E. 3. f. 70. Pasc 11. Car. Banc. Reg. Huttens reports Trin. 7 Car. Banc. Reg. and adjudged 11 Car. in King and Edwards case Dyer 339. And he said that a fine sur conisance de droit come ceo c. as it is in our case is a Feoffment upon Record and doth imply a Livery And said that a remainder may be forfeited by levying such a fine and concluded it was a forfeiture Wadham Windham on the other side argued that it was no forfeiture Forfeiture And cited Mich. 24 E. 3. and Dyer 139. and laid this for a ground that where a Feoffment in Fee made by a Tenant for lise doth displace any remainder that such a Feoffment is a forfeiture but it is not so in this Case and therefore it can be no forfeiture If Tenant for life of a rent or of an Advowson levy a fine it is a forfeiture although that no remainder be displaced this is the great objection 15 E. 4. f. 15 by Littleton and the fine fur conisance de droit implyes a Fee simple 40 Ed. 3. But there a Fee simple really passed with the estate for life But here it passes by way of interest and not by way of estopel and the Conusee may confesse and avoid and therefore here is no estopel and so it differs from the Cases objected 6 Rich. 2 Estopel 211. But it is objected that he hath taken upon him to passe all the estate which is more than he hath to passe and this makes it a forfeiture 43 E. 3. f. 22. It is good for the reversion in Fee and not for the other estate 37 H. 6. f. 5. 41 E. 3 f 14. by Thorpe It was answered that he hath not taken upon him to passe all the estate but only his own estate It is objected that the fine joyns all the estates together and purports the passing of them whole and entire It was answered that the fine doth not purport the entire estate 44 E. 3. f. 10. so much shall passe by the fine as may rightfully passe and no more and so the estate passes by fraction Cooks Instit 345. The Law construes the effect of the fine according to the intent of the parties and that wrong shall not be intended so is it here And if there be Tenant for life the remainder in fail the remainder in Fee to Tenant for life if Tenant for life levie a fine it is no forfeiture 10 H. 4. f. 2. Tenant for life may pray in ayd of all in the remainder and he said that in this case is no forfeiture nor estopel nor hath he passed more than he hath there is no wrong by the fine but it shall only passe what may be passed and he said a fine is a Feoffment when the thing to passe by it lyes in Livery otherwise it is but a grant and devests no estate as a Feoffment doth And in Baker and Hackers Case in this Court Bredons Case was denyed for Law by Bramston Iones and Barkley Hob. 388 389. It is no discontinuance and such estate shall first passe by which no wrong shall be done The Iudges ought to be Aâ—tuti to invent reasons to support estates and to defend from injuries and where the Conusee of the fine hath an interest to passe by it to satisfie the operation of it such a fine is good and doth no wrong as it is in our Case It is objected that there is a Fée simple here but it is of no value for it is after an estate tayl and shall not be assets in the Heir It was answered It is but of little value but it hath more than a right in it and so he prayed judgement for the Defendant Forfeiture Roll chief Iustice held it was a forfeiture although there be no
And as to the second the Court held that it shall be intended that the Posts and Pales were not fixed to the ground Amendment and there is no necessity to express how many Posts and how many Pales the Defendant took Intendment and it is not material whether they were fixed or not But the Court would advise and ordered Councel to spake again to it Popham against White Mich. 1650. Banc. sup AN Action of Trover an Coversion was brought Exception to a Declaration in a Trover and Conversion wherein the Plaintif declared pro Arboribus Twisden of Councel with the Defendant argued that the Declaration was not good because a Trover cannot lie de Arboribus Roll chief Iustice he may declare de Arboribus if he say that he was possessed sicut de Arboribus suis propriis But Ierman Iustice doubted Therefore the Court would advise Martin against Hendlye Mich. 1650. Banc. sup MArtin brought an Action of Debt against Hendlye a Sherif for an escape and had a Verdict against him Arrest of Iudgement in an action of Debt against a Sherif for an escape Advantage The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took these exceptions 1. That the Action was brought by the Plaintif as an Administrator for the escape which was made in the life of the Intestate only 2ly That there is no Capias issued to the Sherif The Court answered That the Sherif cannot take advantage of an erronious process but the first exception is good for the Action ought to be brought in the Detinet only the Plaintif being but an Administrator Detinet who recovers not to his own use Therefore stay Iudgement till the Plaintif move Dethick against Mich. 1650. Banc. sup DEthick moved for a Prohibition to the Admiralty for preferring an Endictment there For a prohition to the Admiralty Prohibition Certiorari which is not within the Statute touching the Admiralty and so they have no jurisdiction of the cause The Court answered that a Prohibition lies not in cases of Felony but if there be Cause it may be removed by Certiorari But we will advise Bennet and the Hundred of Hartford Mich. 1650. Banc. sup IN a tryal at Bar between the inhabitants of Hartford and Bennet a Caryer upon an Action brought against them upon the Statute of Winchester Evidence by one of the lury to the rest Evidence for a robbery committed within that Hundred upon his servant It was said by the Court that if either of the parties to a tryall desire that a Iuror may give evidence of something of his own knowledge Examination Where a hundred shall be charged for a robbery or where not to the rest of the Iurors that the Court will examine him openly in Court upon his oath and he ought not to be examined in private by his companions And it was also said that if a robbery be done in crepusculo the Hundred shall not be charged but if it be done by cleer day light whether it be before Sun rise or after Son set it is all one for the Hundred shall be charged in both cases Mich. 1649. Banc. sup SErjeant Earl A Iury being ready at the Bar for a tryal challenged the Atray for want of Hundreders A challenge of the array f r want of Hundredors the manner of it and delivered in the challenge in writing to Woodward the Clark of the Court to be read But the Court interrupted him and said to the Serjeant you ought first to read it your self in French which he accordingly did and afterwards Woodward read it in Latin Twisden of Councel on the otherside said that the challenge was taken to no purpose for the Iury was returned by the Secondary by rule of Court and the Hundreders were put out by the consent of the parties But the Court answered that the consent of the parties was to no purpose to avoid the challenge but that it was a good challenge Consent Challenge Tales and there cannot be a tales granted upon a challenge for default of Hundreders and therefore the panel was quashed and a new Iury ordered to be returned by the Sheriff In this case it was said that after the first man of a Iury is sworn the Array cannot be challenged Cage against Dod. Mich. 1650. Banc. sup VPon a tryal betwen Cage and Dod touching a Copyhold it was said by the Court that a Copyholder for life cannot prescribe against his Lord What copy-holder may prescribe against his Lord and what nor but a Copyholder in fee may for he hath the Copyhold in the nature of Land of inheritance And also that if a Copyholder for life cut down tymber trees the Lord may take them And that if an under Lessee for years of a Copyholder cut down tymber Forfeiture it shall not be a forfeiture of the Copy-holders estate The Countesse Rivers Mich. 1650. Banc. sup THe Countesse Rivers put in her plea of Privilege of Peerage into Court A Plea of privilege of peerage by Countess Privilege and prayed by Sejeant Glin of her Councel that it might be read and allowed Vpon which it was read by Woodward Clark of the Court. After which Roll chief Iustice said it is questionable whether a Countess made so by patent only for her life be privileged or no therefore let her remain in the Custody of the Sheriff till Saturday and not be turned over to the Custody of the Mareschall and then move it again Postea Burton against Low Mich. 1650. Banc. sup BUrton brought an Action of debt against Low Demurrer in debt upon a Sheriffs bond upon a Sheriffs bond given by Low to the Sheriff being arrested by him by virtue of an Attatchment directed to him out of the Chancery the condition of the Bond was that the Defendant should appear on such a day in Cancellaria apud Westmonasterium ubicunque suerit The Defendant pleads in Bar the Statute of 3 H. 6. she Plaintiff demurred to this plea. Moseley of Councell with the Defendant argued that the Bond upon which the Action was brought was void and against the Statute 1. Because the party is bound to appear in a Court which is not a fixt Court and so incertain namely the Court of Chancery at Westminster whereas the Chancery is a moveable Court and not fixt to Westminster or any other place 2ly The condition of the Obligation is impossible for it is that the Defendant shall appear in the Chancery at VVestminster wheresoever it shall be and it is impossible for him to appear at VVestminster and at another place at the same time 3ly The Bond varies from the Statute in some things and enjoyns more than the Statute requires in other things VVilmot on the other side held that the Bond is not within the Statute because the King is not within the Statute as was held 13 Car. 7 H. 4. f. 44. 5 rep VVhelpdales case Dyer 119. Roll chief
to the Sheriff for his appearance and therefore it was prayed that the party arrested might be discharged and that the bond given to the Sherif might be delivered up Roll the chief Iustice answered Endict the Bailies that made the Arrest or bring your Action against them if you please Discharge for we will not discharge the party arrested Bois against Cranfield Mich. 1650. Banc. sup rot Q. BOis as Executor to another brought an Action of Debt upon divers Obligations made to his Testator Debt upon divers Obligations by an Execution The Defendant pleaded that he did pay a lesser sum than is expressed in the Obligations to the Testator during his life and that he did accept there of in full satisfaction of the said Obligations To this plea the Plaintif demurred Roll Chief Iustice upon opening the matter said that the question here is whether the payment or the acceptance of the money paid in satisfaction be to be traversed And he held it was indifferent to traverse either of them Traverse but he said it was more proper to joyn issue upon the payment but the Court would advise It was then also said that if one pay money in satisfaction of an Obligation and the party to whom it is paid saith that he will receive it for another cause Satisfaction payment yet if he receive it it shall be judged to be paid in satisfaction of the Obligation for he must receive it upon such terms as the other will pay it Brian against Stone Mich. 1650. Banc. sup STone moves the Court for an Attachment against Brian and others For an Attachment for that he was arrested by a Latitat out of this Court in the County of Wilts and thence carried into the Town of Malborow and there arrested by a Serjeant of that Town by a writ out of that Corporation and the Plaintif procéeds there against him upon that writ and not upon the latitat by which he was first arrested which is a contempt to this Court. Attachment Habeas Corpus cum causa The Court ruled the party should have an Attachment nisi c. and also should have a Habeas Corpus cum causa Mich. 1650. Banc. sup THe Recorder of London moved for the Inhabitants of Bishopsgate against one Withringes For the setting a moderate fine upon one that submitted to a fine who for refusing to serve upon the Ward mote Enquest was indicted for his refusal in London and convicted and fined 20 l. the Defendant being committed for not paying his fine removed himself hither by a Habeas Corpus but now hath submitted himself to a fine it was therefore prayed he may be moderately fined here The Court thereupon fined him 20 l. Beal against VVyman Mich. 1650. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 849. VPon these words of a will Question upon words of a Will viz. I give and bequeath one half of my lands to my wife after her death I give all my lands to the heirs males of any of my Sons or next of Kin Latch made these questions in the Case 1. Whether there were a good estate created by these words of the will 2ly Whether the estate were destroyed by the fine levied of the lands For the 1. he held that the heirs males of any of his Sons are words certain enough to create an estate for it is all one as if he had said to the heirs males of all his sons if they have heirs males or to those who have heirs males and the words or to the next of Kin are also certain enough being joyned with the precedent words and shall be meant to the next of Kin and their heirs males if his sons have no heirs males For in a Win if there be words to express the meaning of the Testator it is sufficient enough though the words be not apt And he cited 21 Rich. 2. Devise 27. and 8 Rep. 46 and said that the case in 30 Ass pl. 47. is the same with this in terminis And here is no contingent remainder but only a contingent devise there is no necessity for a particular estate to support it for it ariseth out of the estate of the Devisor yet if there were néed of a particular estate here to support the remainder here is a particular estate in the wife who by implication of the will doth take all the land during her life as it is 13 H. 7.29 H. 8. Br. Devise 48. Trin. 3 Ed. 6. Bendloes Plow Com. 521. Whelpdales case Pasch 25 Eliz Com. Ban. To the 2 point he spake not holding it not material Hales of Councel on the other side held that the wife had not an estate for life in all the land by implication of the will but only an estate for life in a moyety of the land and so there is no particular estate to support the contingent remainder which he held was in this case that it is not a contingent Devise as Latch urged for the remainder here depends by way of remainder and not as a contingent Devise And he held the Devise it self to be void admitting all the precedent matter alleged to be true 1. Because the devise is uncertain for the intent of the deviser doth not appear for it appears not what heir male shall have the land whether the heir male of his son or the heir male of his next of Kin for the words are disjunctive 41 42 Eliz. Com. Banc. in the Case of Tayler Sawyer land devised to a Mans Issue was adjudged a void devise for the incertainty of it And he held that the intent was that the heir male of his son should inherit before the heir male of the next of Kin otherwise the further off of Kin should have the land before the nearer of Kin. And he said that Hill 2. Car. Rot. 1288. Com. Banc. in Hunt and Fishers case the case at the Bar was adjudged in point Roll chief Iustice said That the intention of the Testator here is coeca sicca Intention and senceless and cannot be known Will. and we ought not to frame a sence upon the words of a Will where we cannot find out the Testators meaning Ierman Iustice held that the devise was not void but that the words are to be interpreted as they may stand with Law and as the words will bear Nicholas Iustice prima facie that the devise is void but yet it is questionable Ask Justice to the same intent Roll chief Iustice said that there is too much way usually given to ambiguous devises But let it be argued again the next Term. Parker against Cook Mich. 1650. Banc. sup Hill 23 Car. rot 660. THe Action was an Action of Trespass quare Clausum fregit Upon a Demurrer the question was whether a Copyhold were forfeited or not The Defendant pleaded a special plea of justification viz. That the Plaintif was a Copyholder to his Manor and that for
take a procedendo nisi causa ostensa fuerit in contrarium Antea Davis against Ockham Hill 1650. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 557. DAvis brought an Action upon the Case against Ockham for speaking these words of him Demurrer to a plea in an Action for for words The knave the Apothecary that married my sister hath poysoned my Vncle and I will have him taken up again to hang him The defendant pleaded an accord betwixt him and the Plaintiff that whereas the Plaintiff had done a Trespass against him that one Trespass should be set against the other To this plea the Plaintiff demurred and Twisden said the plea was not good and cited 16 Ed. 4. f. 89. and prayed Iudgement for the Plaintiff Latch of Councell with the Defendant said that the Accord was executed on the Defendants part and therefore may be pleaded in Bar. To this Roll chief Iustice answered Bar. how have you discharged the Accord for you do not shew it Latch took Exceptions to the Plaintiffs Declaration 1. That the words set forth are not actionable for it doth not express that the Plaintiff wittingly poysoned the Defendants Vncle or that he did dye of the poyson and cited Hob. rep 8. Miles and Iacobs case and 275. Fleetwood and Caveleys case 2ly There is no Communication expressed in the Declaration to be of the Vncle and it may be spoken of another Vncle and the innuendo will not helâ— it because he may have divers Vncles Twisden answered that it is implyed in the sence of the words that he poysoned him feloniously and so consequently wittingly And 2ly He saith that he will have him digged up and so it must be intended that he dyed of the poyson Roll chief Iustice held that the words are actionable Case Bar. And 2ly That the Defendants plea in Bar is not good Ierman Iustice held the plea in Bar not good but he doubted whether the Declaration was good for it doth not appear thereby whether the party dyed of the poyson and the latter words help it not Nicholas Iustice and Ask Iustice agreed with 〈◊〉 Roll in all and thereupon the râ—le was Iudicium nisi Lundi Suivant Custodes c against Maine and Serjeant Hill 1650. Banc. sup A Ioynt Information was exhibited against Main Serjeant 2 Iustices of Peace for not enquiring of a Ryot and a verdict found against them Arrest of judgment upon an information found The Defendants move in Arrest of Iudgement and by Hales shew for cause that the information ought not to have béen joynt against them but several because their offences are several and not joynt and here one of them is acquitted and so judgement cannot be given against the other that is found guilty Roll chief Iustice answered That as an Attachment in a Prohibition is several Execution so the execution here may be several and it is not material though one be acquitted and the other found guilty Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same purpose It was then said that it is not necessary that the next Iustices only should remove a force but all the Iustices of the County are bound to it Force And these words in the Statute viz. That the 2 next Iustices shall do it are put but for conveniency and the more speedy execution of Iustice Nicholas Iustice doubted of this Judicium nisi pro custodibus Ailet against Watless Hill 1650. Banc. sup Trin 1649. rot 200. IN an Action of Trespass and Ejectment Special Verdict in Trespass and Ejectment there was a special verdict found upon which the case fell out to be this An Infant bargains and sells land and is vouched to warranty and comes in upon the Voucher and thereupon a common recovery is had and upon this the question was whether this be such a recovery that the Infant cannot avoid by Entry Hales held it could not be avoided but did bind the Infant during his life but I could not hear his reasons Wild of Councel on the other side argued that the Infant was not bound by the recovery because as an Infant cannot alien his lands so neither can he suffer a common recovery and cited 6 rep 28. 2ly No record made by an Infant can bind him and for this he cited 26 Ed. 3. Fitz. per que serv 24.41 E. 3. f. 3.44 E. 3.10.9 Ed. 4 3â— and though it be breve Amicabile and by consent yet it binds not and 9 Car. Newports case where a recovery suffered by a Guardian was adjudged good comes not to our case and for the intended value in a recovery that is not material to make it binding for it is but a fiction and not a real value Roll chief Iustice demanded whether a fine be not breve amicabile Fine Error Recovery and yet he said that that binds an Infant until it be avoided by writ of Error And he said that the Infant is not bound here but the question is whether he can avoid the recovery by Entry or must bring a writ of Error to avoid it And he held that a recovery suffered by a Guardian is not good notwithstanding the opinion in Newports case Hales replyed that the recovery here is binding till it be avoided by a writ of Error and that the Infant cannot avoid it by his Entry though an Infant may avoid a deed by Entry although it be enrolled And here appears no consent of the parties and the party cannot shew it and here is a formal judgement given which binds till it be reversed by a writ of Error Roll chief Iustice Entry An Infant may avoid a matter in paiis by Entry but not a matter of Record and here is a proper way by the law to avoid it namely by a writ of Error which is also matter of record and of as high a nature Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same effect and so judgement pro Defendente nisi Powell against Hopkins Hill 1650. Banc. sup Hill 23 Car. rot 787. IVdgement was given in an Action of Trover and Conversion for the Plaintif The Defendant brought a writ of Error Error to reverse a judgement given in a Trover and Conversion and the Exception taken was to the Declaration wherein the Plaintif among other things declared of a Trover de ducentis ponderibus aeris ducentis ponderibus plumbi Anglice of Brass and Lead and there wants an Anglice for the ponderibus so it is uncertain what the quantity of either are And upon this Exception the rule was that the Iudgement should be reversed nisi c. Denton against Caket Hill 1650. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 150. DEnton brought an Action upon the Case against Caket for speaking these words Demurrer to a plea in Bar of an Action upon the case for words He and his fellows have stollen her having speech of a Cow of the Defendants and I do charge him with flat felony By reason of which words
for septuagent and Pary and Dayes case quinquegent for quinquagint and these held no materiall variances Latch on the other side said the word in the Bond is uncertain and the condition hath nothing in it to reduce it to a certain signification and if it make any certainty in it it must make it signifie 400 l. and then the Plaintiff hath failed in his Declarasion and Hobarts case differs from this and as for Osborns case it is variously reported and so not to be relyed on Roll chief Iustice What say you to sessanta But the question here is what shall be meant by the word whether 40. or 400. And in Fiâ—zâ—â— berts case Iudgement was given upon a demurrer Variance that gent for gint was a material variance and our case is all one with that If the doubt be whether it should be 40. or 400. how shall we know the intent of the partyes and if it be certain it must he understood 400. and the Action is brought but for 40. l. 44 Eliz. Mich. rot 1301. Gray and Davis case Sexgint was adjudged to be a Bond of 60 l. and not of 600 l. And it is the gent. and gint in all the cases that makes the difference And the case of sessanta comes not to our case and so concluded Iudgement to be against the Plaintiff Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices of the same opinion Nicholas Iustice said that false Latin in a Bond doth not make it naught but he held this Bond was for 400 l. and not 40 l. and it is not incertain for the grammar rule ginta notat decem sed genta numero centum doth hold here Antea Gay against Gay Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1350. VPon a speciall verdict found in a replevin Whether an estate tail or fee conditionall The case was this A man seised of a Copyhold Borough English devised it to H. his grandchild and to his Heirs and if he dye during the life of his mother the remainder to H. his younger brother and to his heirs The question here was whether here be an Estate tail in H. or a Fee simple executory If it be an Estate tail then the devise was said not good because it is of a Copyhold but if it be a Fersimple Limitation then it is a good devise Roll chief Iustice said that a limitation of an inheritance after an absolute Fee simple is not a good limitation for this would be to make a perpetuity which the Law will not admit Perpetuity but if it be upon a contingent Fee simple it is otherwise Adjournatur Postea Heale against Greene. Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Hill 649 rot 370. IN an Action of Trespass and ejectment Case upon a special verdict in trespass and ejectment upon a speciall verdict sound the case proved to be this A man seised of a manor that had divers Tenants that held for lives by old rents deviseth it to his wife during her life with power to let and set and make estates out of them in as ample maner as the Testator might if he were living The questions were made by Latch 1. Whether this power given her to set and set c. doth not alter her Estate for life in the Lands devised to her 2ly Whether this power given her by the Will adds any power to her estate for life to make estates and he held for the first that the power given her did not alter her Estate And 2ly that it ads no power unto her Estate because the clause in the Will is one entire clause and not double and accumulative and so she can make no greater Estates than her estate for life will bear And for the obiection that is made That then the words that limit the power to her are void and idle He answered that it is not necessary that all the words in a Will should give something but some words may be explanatory of other words and so are these words here and yet the words here may add something to her Estate viz. to enable her to make Estates without impeachment of waste And the words shall not be intended of the time of Execution of the Estates made by the Feme for then they are idle Hill 1 Car. Banc. Reg. Danyel and Vplins case One may dispose an estate by Will for life with power to make Estates to continue after the death of the party that made them But here the estate is made only out of the interest of the wife which cannot endure after her life Pasc 44. Eliz. Bible and Dringhouse and so prayes Iudgement for the Plaintiff Hales for the Defendant made these questions 1. What power was given by the Will 2ly Whether it were well executed and he held the feme being executrix hath but an Estate for life But she hath a power to make estates as she hath done There is no question but such a power may be added The question only is if this power be added here in our case and he said it was added by the express words of the will for else those words are frivolous and operate nothing In Danyel and Vplins case cited which was entred 20 Iac. Hill 720. there is no express Estate given to the party but a meer power only and it was not by reason of the words added for they are only conjunctive words And Iustice Whitlock held there that the first words gave the power Though Iustice Iones differed in opinion and that case is the very same with ours The reason in our case That the words give power to the feme may appear by the comparing this part of the Will with the other parts of it In other parts of the Will where things are devised to his wife these words here used are not added and that argues that the Testator intended the Feme more power than in other things devised to her and the words themselves being a devise of a manor proves by the nature of the thing that the Testator intended to give power to the Feme to make Estates out of the manor And it cannot be intended that the words In as ample maner c do only give the feme power to assign over her term Vaughan and Longs case 24 C. the words were adjudged to be words to enlarge the power of the Legatée and so are they here And the subsequent clause during the term of her life restrains not the power for these words may be either referred to the Estates to be made or to the time of making them and here they are referred to the execution of the power and this is more suitable to the intention of the party in ordinary reason and they are added to expound the intent viz. that the remainder limited over shall not hinder the feme for he hath not barred her out and hath imposed this trust in her as Executrix and as Legatee And for the 2d point here is a good Execution of
words of a will which were these I give all my free lands wheresoever to my Brother Iohn Sanders and his heirs upon condition that he suffer my wife to enjoy all my Freelands in Holford for life the Testator having only a portion of tithes of inheritance in Holford and no lands The question here was whether this portion of tithes shall be accompted free lands within the intent of the will and so the wife be to have them during her life Twisden held the tithes were not devised by the will to the Feme for if I devise my fee-simple lands to Iohn a Stile and his heirs tithes do not pass by this devise for tithes are a collateral thing arising out of land and not part of the land it self 42 Ed. 3. f. 13. 10 Iac. Moyle and Ewers case 31 Eliz. Perkins and Hyndes case In the will here they pass not for there are no words in the will to devise them nor can the words he so expounded and here are other lands devised to satisfie the words of the will A term for years hath more relation to land than tithes and a term could not have passed by the words of the will Next the second Clause doth not pass the tithes for there is no such thing as is expressed in it but if it should pass to the wise by implication yet it cannot pass to Iohn Sanders the Brother for there are neither expresse words nor any implication to devise this portion of tithes to him but the contrary rather is to be collected from the Will Wadham Windham on the other side answered that the Testator calls the tithes in Holford his free lands It is true generally that by the devise of lands tithes do not pass but in a will by the intent of the Devisor they may pass and the word land includes all real things in common intention and legal construction as Lutrels Case is 1 Mar. Bro. Tit. Elegit An Elegit may be of a rent and tithes have a nearer relation to land than rent have 2ly Here is an apparent intention to devise the tithes for he explains his meaning in his second clause of the Will that he intends tithes by the word lands 44 Eliz. Com. Banc. Gery against Gery the question there was what passed by the word rents whether lands passed The words were as to all my lands in Dale I devise my rents c. and here the matter comes in by a Proviso which enlarges the matter Trin. 3 Iac. Fitz. Williams case One devised all his goods Iewels and Plate excepting his lease in C There it was adjudged that all his other Leases passed 4 Ed. â— Br. grants 51. Another circumstance in the Will enforceth this construction viz. the word wheresoever which word expresseth the intent of the Devisor to be so otherwise that word will be idle and to no purpose Hob. rep Stukely and Butlers case It may also appear out of the body of the Will for it appears thereby that his Daughter was provided for in his will by his personal estateâ— and that the intention was to dispose of his lands to the Heir and his Copyhold lands which he had in Holford were surrendred at the time of the making of the Will and so the devise cannot refer to them and besides this is called free lands which distinguisheth them from Copyhold lands and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice There is a Condition annexed to the Devise Condition that his wife shall enjoy this land though the words in the Will are not very proper to erpress it but we must consider them as used in a Will not in a conveyance Nicholas Iustice said the Devisor himself calls them free-holds and this distinguisheth them from Copyhold lands Adjourned till Saturday following to be argued again Dowse against Masters Pasc 1651. Banc. sup DOwse brought an Action of Debt upon an Indebitatus Assumpsit against Masters for five pound Demurrer to a plea in Debt upon Indebitatus assumpsit in which the Defendant pleaded that he did deliver bils to the Plaintif to the value of 6 l. in which the Plaintif was indebted to him which bills the Plaintif did accept in full satisfaction the Plaintif replyed protestando that he was not indebted to the Defendant that he did not receive bills to the value of 6 l. in satisfaction Vpon this a Demurrer was joyned Roll chief Iustice said Plea the Plea of the Defendant is ill for he doth not say that he delivered the Bills in full satisfaction but that the Plaintif received them in full satisfaction which is not good for the Plaintifs receiving of the Bills must be as they were delivered and not other ways and that is not expressed Therefore let the Plaintif take his judgement nisi c. Ross against Lawrence Pasch 1651. Banc. sup ROss brought an Action of the Case against Lawrence for speaking these Welch words of him viz. Dedingues Will Rols in mudon Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case for Welch words Englished which are in English William Ross hath forsworn himself upon Issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable as they are rendred in English and so the Action lies not Roll chief Iustice If the words sound in Welch that the Plaintif was perjured yet if the Plaintif do English them in English which doth not amount to perjury it is ill Case and an action will not lie for them Therefore let judgement be stayed Peck against Ingram Pasch 1651. Banc. sup PEck brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit and declares Arrest of Judgement in an action upon the case upon an Assumpsit that the Defendant in consideration that she the Plaintif would leave her Fathers house and come to the House of the Defendant in such a place did assume and promise unto her that he would mary her and that thereupon she did leave her Fathers House and did come to the Defendants House et obtulit se in maritagium conjungi and because he had not performed his promise Actio accrevit Vpon issue joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took Exceptions that the Plaintif did not shew in her Declaration when she left her Fathers House and came to the Defendants house nor that she gave him any notice thereof Wild moved for judgement notwithstanding the Exceptions for he said though it be not expresly said that she gave the Defendant notice when she came to his House yet it is said quod obtulit se in maritagium conjungi which implies the Defendant had notice and besides here is no need of notice for the Assumpsit is that if she will come to the Defendants house he will marry her and it is not said that when she comes he will marry her so that he is bound by
alias Heriots with the appurtenances whereof the said Close called Pipers Down was parcell which tenement and Close were parcell of the said manour and was then and had been time out of mind demised and demiseable in Fee by Copy of Court roll of the said manour did build a new messuage upon the said Tenement and did afterwards by his Letters patents under the great seal grant the office of Keeper and keeping of the said messuage to Iohn Gate for term of his life with all the Lands Tenements c. thereto belonging or adjacent and did also by the same Letters patents give and grant unto the said Iohn Gate amongst other things the Lands belonging to the said new built messuage whereof the said Close called Pipers down was part for Term of his life for the exercising of the said office with an averment in the plea that before that time there was no such office of the keeping of the said house and that the King did not know nor was at the time of the grant enformed that the said Tenement and Lands whereof the said Close was parcell were Copyhold of the said manour After the grant made to Iohn Gate as aforesaid H. the 8. dyed seised of the said manour of the reversion of the said Messuage and Close after the death of Iohn Gate and thereby Ed. the 6. became sofâ—ed of them in like manner and from Ed. the 6. they came to Quéen Mary Then Iohn Gate dyes and after his death Quéen Mary enters upon the said manour and Messuage whereof the said Close was a parcell and afterwards by her Letters Patents under her broad Seal doth grant the Manour and Messuage and Premises unto Susan Tong and her heirs for ever From Susan Tong by mean conveyance the said Manour Messuage and Premises came to Humphry White and his heirs and afterterwards Humphrey White being seized thereof in Fée did by his indenture of lease demise the said Manour Messuage and Premises to Leigh for 60. years to begin from Mich. before the making of the indenture afterward Humphrey White grants away the reversion of the said Manour Messuage Premises to Sir John Branch afterwards Sir Iohn Branch grants this reversion to Vdall Vdall grants it to Bathurst and Bathurst grants it to Thomas Boothby the Ancestor of Thomas Boothby whose Baily doth here make the avowry Afterwards Robert Leigh who had the lease of the said Manour and Premises as aforesaid for 60 years deviseth the residue of this lease then unexpired by his last Will and Testament unto Robert Leigh his Son and dyes Robert Lee the son being possessed of the residue or remainder of this Term for 60. years by virtue of the said Will did at his court held for the said Manour of Chingford grant the said Messuage with the appurtenances and Lands thereunto belonging whereof the said Close was parcell unto Edmund Lee his brother to hold of the same Manour in Fée at the will of the Lord by Copy of Court Roll of that Manour Edmund Lee was thereupon admitted accordingly Afterwards the said lease for 60. years made by Humphrey White unto Robert Leigh the Father expires Afterwards Thomas Boothby who had the reversion of the said Manour and Premises as abovesaid entred as in his reversion upon the said Manour and Premises and dyed seised thereof leaving issue Thomas Boothby his Son Thomas Boothby the Son enters into the said Manour and Premises and claims the said Messuage with the apurtenances with the lands thereunto belonging whereof the Close called Pipers down was parcell and was granted by Robert Leigh unto Edmund Leigh by Copy of Court Roll as aforesaid as parcell of the demaines of the said Manour of Chingford and doth deny it to be Copyhold and to the intent to try the title thereof did by the Avowant his Bailiff distrein the Cattel in the said Close as damage feasant in his soil and Freehold This Case was argued first by Arthur Harris of Lincolnes Inn who argued for the Plaintiff viz. he that brought the replevin and in his argument he made the generall question in the Case to be whether the close called Pipers Down in which the distress was taken were at the time of the distress taken demiseable by Copy of Court Roll or whether the Custom was not destroyed and he held it was demiseable and that the custom was not destroyed and hereupon he made four questions 1. Whether the grant of the new house to Sr. Iohn Gate per nomen officii of keeper thereof were a good grant 2ly Whether the King not being enformed at the time of the grant that the house was Copyhold tenure he was not deceived in his grant 3ly Whether by this grant the Custom was not destroyed 4ly Whether the Kings Patentee hath not the same privilege to grant this house c. again by Copy of Court Roll after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate And as to the 1. of these 4. questions he cited 8 E. 4. by Chock and 21 E. 4.79 and Mich 5 Car. Banc. Reg. Monsons case and Pasc 14 Car. Banc. Reg. Messand and Butterfields Case and 5 E. 4. f. 8. and Dyer 269. Savages Case To the 2d question he held that the King was not here enformed of his right and consequently he was deceived and therefore ought not to be prejudiced by his grant which he should be if he had not liberty to demise this house again by Copy of Court Roll after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate and he said that there are two rights in the King 1. At the Common Law and 2ly a customary right and of this Customary right or his jus concedendi he was not enformed and he cited these books 3 H. 7.10 rep 49.8 H. 625 Br. Ayd 45 4. H. 6.1 2 R. 3. Hunsons Case and he said that the book of 5 H. 7. f. 1. which is objected is not to purpose for the protestation is not well taken 19 H. 6. a protestation is to supply a matter which is not so here 41 E. 3. Fitzh protest 9.22 H. 6.37 Br. protestation 6. Plowd Coment Gresbrooks and Foxes Case and 20 Eliz. Burrell and Holcrofts Case 2ly The King is not enformed here in his grant in matter in Law as he ought to be and therefore his grant shall not turn to his prejudice 1 rep 52.18 H. 8. Lovels Case Pasc 2 Eliz. Sr. Thomas Mores Case 1. rep â—3 16 Jac. Needlers case and whereas it is said that the words ex certa scientia in the patent do declare that the King was enformed I answer that those words do intend no more but that the King was enformed of matters of fact and not of matters in Law and the Kings grant shall only be taken secundum intentionem and whereas it may be objected that by the granting of the Estate for life unto Sr. Iohn Gate the custom is destroyed I answer that this being in the Case of the King it is an extraordinary Case and not
the grant of the Office of the Custody of the house is a good lease for life notwithstanding it was Copyhold and it is not necessary to recite in the grant that it is Copyhold 2. That after the estate for life is determined the King may grant the house and land again by Copy of Court Roll because the Kings grants shall be taken favourably and not extended to two intents where there is no necessity for it as there is not here and we are not here to intend a collateral intent and so the Copyhold is not destroyed for the Law takes care to preserve the inheritance of the King for his Successors and it may be a benefit to the King to have it continue Copyhold viz. to have Common c. and his election is also destroyed if he may not have it Copyhold So Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi Pawsey and Lowdall Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1650. rot 275. IN this Case formerly argued Roll chief Iustice Iudgement reversed upon a special Verdict touching a Devise of Copyhold lands and Nicholas and Ask Iustices agreed that the devise of the Copyhold here is a devise to the Heirs of the Father and so a Fee-simple and that the party comes not in as a purchaser and for this cause the judgement was reversed nisi As to the other point whether the surrender of a Copyhold by a Tenant for life be good in this case the Court delivered no opinion Antea Trundall and Trowell Pasch 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 670. IN this Case it was held that Tenant in antient Demesn cannot after imparlance plead antient Demesn for he hath made a full defence Where antient Demesne cannot be pleaded for he says Defendit vim et injuriam quando c. which implyes all the rest Mich. 22 Car. Banc. Reg. Yet it was ruled to be again spoken to Peck against Ingram Pasch 1651. Banc. sup THis Case formerly spoken in was moved again and Latch held Whether a good notice that the words obtulit se in maritagium conjungi was a good notice upon the whole matter and therefore that the Action did well lye Roll chief Iustice answered this is a personal thing and ought to be offered to the party himself otherwise it is no notice and that doth not appear here and if there be no notice implyed then the Action lies not and Holmes and Twists case is that there ought to be notice if the thing be to be done by the party himself otherwise if it be to be done by a stranger so is it here but the question only is if notice be implyed here or not Ierman Iustice said there is no tender of mariage if the other party be not there The rule was for the Plaintif to take his Iudgement Rooke against Smith Pasch 1651. Banc. sup ROoke brought an Action upon the case against Smith for speaking these words of him Thou art a poor fellow Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case for words and art not able to pay 2s in the pound and art not able to pay thy debts Vpon an Issue joyned and a Verdict for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable for 1. the Plaintif is not by them charged with the crime of being a Bankrupt and so there is no particular losse to him 2ly It is not showed that the Plaintiff got his living by buying and selling or that he is indebted and 11. Iac. Brook and Clarks case was cited Twisden on the other side answered that the Plaintiffs credit was impaired by the words and by his credit his livelyhood is in part mainteyned And he cited Viccary and Barns case Adjourned to the next Term. Wild afterwards moved again for Iudgement because the words being spoken of a tradesman he conceived them to be actionable Maynard on the other side held them not actionable because there is no particular damage alleged to grow to the Plaintif by speaking of them and because there is no crime objected against the Plaintiff for poverty is no crime but a man may be poor and honest at the same time and he cited two cases to be adjudged that a particular damage ought to be alleged And said that these Actions are not favoured in Law and therefore if the words be not cleerly Actionable it was not reason to make a forced construction of them to make them so Next the Plaintiff hath not averred that he was able to pay all his debts for all the things bought but only of a debt contracted by the buying of the Oyl mentioned Twisden denyed the cases put by Maynard of the particular damage and held the words actionable Roll chief Iustice said a man may be a Bankrupt and yet be honest for he may become so by accident Averment and not of purpose to deceive his creditors But here is no need for the Plaintiff to shew he had a particular losse by the words for it is enough that he is generally scandalised by them neither is it necessary for him to averr that he was able to pay all his debts as Maynard hath alleged Therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement nisi Antea Owen against Jevon Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 211. OWen brought an Action of the case against Ievon for speaking these words of her Arrest â—f judgement in Action for words viz. This is the whore that my man Cowell begat a bastard on and spent all my mony upon and the quean hath been too long in Town to my ease Vpon an issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintiff Twisden for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgment urged that the words are not actionable because there is no special losse or damage alleaged by the Plaintiff hapning to her by reason of the words said that in one Lighfoot and Pigots case it had béen ruled that an Action lies not for saying a woman had a Bastard and he cited also Winter and Barnards case Trin. 1650. in this Court. Vpon these reasons Iudgment was stayed till the other side should move Iay against Iay. Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1350. THis case formerly put and spoken to Argument in a special verdict touching the consideration of the words of a will was again spoken unto by Latch wherein he made this question viz. whether the limitation to I. and his Heirs were good or not and he held it was not good for he said that such limitation in case of a freehold is void He confessed that in the case of Pell and Brown 17 Iac. rot 44. the contrary was adjudged but that there did appear such apparent inconvenience in it that upon it the Court was afterwards divided and 21 Iac. in the Serjeants case it was made a flat quaere and ever since it hath been disputable whether a contingent devise be good or not and in Iacob and Tellings case it is not
pacty who is to assign the dower may agrée that the dower shall be assigned without bounding it For consensus tollit errorem But dower ad ostium ecclesiae must be more certain Dower Mich. 43 44 Eliz. Bullock and Finches case Hill 4 Iac. C. B. Roll chief Iustice Of Common right a feme ought to be endowed per metas bundas where the Sheriff assigns dower who is an officer of the Law and ought to prevent incumbrance and disputes But it may be assigned generally of the third part in some cases Consent and the partyes may agree against Common right and here both partyes agreed to take dower in this Manor And though here the termer for years of the land who is a third person be prejudiced by this assignment yet this alters not the case because it is only an estate for years and toucheth no freehold Nicholas and Ask Iustices as Roll. Ierman Iustice If dower be of a third part it ought to be by metes and bounds generally but if it be of a moyety it is not so or if the partyes consent it shall be otherwise Roll if the Sheriff assign dower and do it not per metas bundas it is Error Error if it might have been so assigned and where a feme cannot be endowed per metas bund as she may enter without assignment Iudgement was given for the Defendant nisi c. Smith against the Earl of Dorset Trin. 1651. Banc. sup SMith moved the Court against the Earl of Dorset Motion for an attatchment for disobeying a rule of Court Attatchment for an attatchment for disturbing of him in the possession of certain Lands contrary to the rule of this Court for the Plaintiff to have possession The Court answered that for only disturbing his possession there ought not to be an attatchment granted but if he be put out of possession he shall have an attatchment The Councel replyed that the partyes cattel were driven off from the land which they conceived was an ousting of the party from his possession To this the Court answered that this seemed to be a putting out of possession And therefore ordered that the Defendant should shew cause why an attatchment should not be granted Owen against Ievon Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 211. THis case formerly spoken unto in arrest of Iudgement and then stayed Iudgement prayed in an Action for words was again moved and Iudgment prayed for the Plaintiff by Serjeant Glyn who argued that the words were actionable because if they were true the party of whom they are spoken is punishable by the Statute of 7 Iac. with corporal punishment and besides the words were spoken since the last Statute made against Adultery which doth aggravate the words and make them more actionable Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff nisi In this case it was said by the Court that it was adjudged in one Thecker and Duncombes case that a woman may have a child in 38. weeks and that a woman by cold or hard usage may go with child above 40 weeks Antea Nelson against Tompson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 24 Car. rot 343. NElson brought an action of the Case against Tompson Demurrer in an Action upon the Case upon a promise and did declare that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would cease to prosecute a sute in Law against him did assume and promise unto the Plaintif that he would pay unto him 8 l. the charges of sute which he had been at for breach of this promise Actio acrevit sets forth his damage To this Declaration the Defendant demurs in Law takes this Exception viz. That there is no time nor place set forth where or when he did forbear to sue the Defendant as it ought to be because it is a traversable matter But Roll chief Iustice answered It is not necessary to allege a place of a negative thing to be done viz. to say that he did not prosecute the sute in such a place or at such a time for he ought to surcease prosecution in all places and at all times Therefore let judgement be for the Plaintif except better matter be shewn Friday next Lydaâ—e and Lyster Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 387. AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation made to a Bishop and his Commissary for the payment of Debts and Legacies Iudgement in Debt upon a Bond reversed the Action was brought by an Executor and judgement given by Default against the Defendant the Iudgement was reversed by a Writ of Error because the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet whereas it ought to have been brought in the Detinet only because it was brought by an Executor Saunders against Ritch Trin. 1651 Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 758. IN an Action of Trespass and Ejectment upon a special verdict found The Case fell out to be this Special Verdict in Trespass and Ejectment A man by his last Will and Testament devised all his Fée simple land wheresoever to his Brother upon condition that he suffer his wife to enjoy all his free lands in Holford during her life and the jury found that the Testator had only a portion of tithes in Holford The question was whether the portion of tithes did pass to the wife by this devise Merifield held That the Tithes passed not by the devise because the word lands cannot extend to tithes for that would be a very forced construction and cited Trin. 17 Iac. Banc. Reg. Knight and Knights case and Mich. 39 40 Eliz. Entred 38 Eliz. rot 269. Yow and Hardings case Banc. Reg. That Houses are not devisable by the name of lands and he said that the word wheresoever makes no difference as to make the tithes pass and though there be an implication and an intent in the Testator here to dedevise the tithes yet that will not serve because there wants words to express this intent and though this be in a will yet there must be words used to support the intent of the Testator for wills must be ruled by the rules of the Common Law Ashinghurst and Curtice his case Mich. 7 Iac. Hob. rep 34. the last Edition Mich. 42 43 Eliz. Banc. Reg. a devise of Lands extend not to tithes for tithes are not lands but a meer collateral thing to them and have no relation to them Mich. 1. Iac. rot 192. Mills and Hides case Banc. Reg. 11 Rep. Bridle and Napers case f. 13. b. Trin. 42 Eliz. B. Reg. Sherwood and Winston held that tithes cannot be appendant to a Manor 1 Rep. 111. Albanies case and here are no words in the Proviso to pass the tithes It is true that tithes may lie in tenure and that an Action of debt lies for them but that is by the Statute 19 Eliz Dyer f. 354. The word land in a will doth not extend to tithes and heirs ought not to be
is a Iudgement well given Plea and it is too late to assign it for Error But the Court advised Postea Kerman against Iohnson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 153. KErman brought an Action of Trespass and Ejectment against Johnson Special verdict in Trespass and Ejectment and upon a special Verdict found the Case was this A man devised to I. S. his whole estate paying his debts and Legacies and dies possessed of Goods and Chattels to the value of five pounds only and dyed also seised in fee of divers lands and was indebted forty pounds at the time of his death The question was whether the lands passed by the Devise Barry of Councel with the Plaintif argued that the lands did pass because that wills ought to receive a favourable construction And 2ly The intent of the Testator is to be considered who by the words all his estate did mean to comprehend as well his land as his goods and chattels for there is no restraint of the words here 7 Ed. 3.10 The word estate is a word of large extent and extends as well to the real as personal estate if it were in Case of grant much more in the case of a Will And there is another word used here to explain the Testators meaning to be to devise his lands as well as his goods and that is the word All which comprehends all manner of estates without exception Next if the land should not pass his debts and Legacies cannot be paid according to the express intent of the Testator and the intent of the party ought to be satisfied although the words be not proper because it is in a will though it might be other wise in a grant And whereas it is objected that the Iuries finding of the value of the debts and Legacies is to no purpose because the will cannot be helped by the averment of the Iury. I answer that averments if they stand with the will may be received to make the Testators intent to appear But besides this is not an averment only but a true stating of the Case to the intent to find out the Testators meaning 3ly The devisee of the land is not made Executor but Trustee or Devisee this is since the Statute of Devises 32 H. 8. The 2. question is what estate the Devisee hath in the lands I conceive he hath Fee simple because he hath all the Estate which must be the largest and that is Fee-simple Hob. rep pl. 280. The word whole goes both to the quantity and quality of an estate also And here the consideration that he is to pay all his Debts and Legacies is a good consideration to pass the fee-simple of his lands and though there may be a surplusage after the Debts and Legacies paid this hinders nothing for it is his intent that the Devisee shall have that surplusage and so he prayed Iudgement for the Plaintif Twisden for the Defendant argued that either nothing passeth by the Will or if any thing then only an estate for life passeth He agreed that improper words may sometimes pais things yet sometimes proper words will not passe things viz. if the intent of the party appear to be contrary 24 Eliz in the Earl of Northumberlands case A Devise of all his Iewels did not pass his Collar of Esses and his Iewels annexed to his Parliament Robes and the words here are not that he deviseth all his estate in his lands but his whole estate generally and if the words here should pass the lands yet the fee simple passeth not but only an estate for life in the lands which do pass nor do the words paying his Debts and Legacies cause the Fee-simple to pass for here is no likelyhood of any loss to the Executor for the words are not that he shall pay all his Debts and Legacies and if he be an Executor as the contrary appears not he shall not be charged with more than the personal estate will discharge The words do amount to a Condition and it is not found that there are any Debts or Legacies paid and so it is not performed and the heir may well enter into the lands in question for the Condition broken 2ly The Verdict doth not find how the lands are held whether in Socage or by Knights service and so it appears not whether they can be devised or no and they shall not be intended to be Socage lands Dyer f. 207. Hill 32 El. rot 2. and Pell and Browns case 3ly It is not found that the Testator dyed seised of the lands as it ought to have been and he prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Special Verdict Roll. chief Iustice to the second Exception to the Verdict answered that in a Special verdict it is not necessary to find whether lands be held in Sorage or by Knights Service and he said that the words in the Will do goe to the nature and extent of the estate as Barry urged and he doubted how the verdict shall supply the Will if it be defective for that is only to make the intent of the Will certain Adjourned to be argued again Postea Marshal against Ledsham Trin. 1651. Banc. sup MArshal as Administrator brings an Action of Debt for rent Arrest of Judgement in Debt and upon a Verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and takes exception that the Plaintif had not shewn by whom the Letters of Administration were granted unto him as he ought to do but only says that the Administration debito more commissa fuit But it was answered that it is too late to move this Exception after a Verdict for the Iury have now found that the Administration was duly granted and the Letters of Administration were produced in Court and therefore not necessary to shew who granted them Declaration and it was said that in a Declaration it is not necessary to shew by whom Letters of Administration are granted or to say they were granted by him Cui pertinuit or per loci illius Ordinarium But in a Plea in Bar it is otherwise for this is not the cause of the Action Plea and effect of the sute but to shew they have been in the Spiritual Court Judicium nisi pro quaerente was afterwards given Antea Giles against Timberley Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 176. AN Ejectione firmae vi et armis was brought in the Common Pleas Error to reverse a judgement in an Ejectione firmae and a judgement given for the Plaintif upon a nihil dicit and in a writ of Error brought in this Court to reverse the judgement the Error assigned was in the judgement which was entred thus Ideo consideratum est quod recuperet and the word Capiatur was omitted which ought not to be because the Action is a Trespass vi et armis Roll chief Iustice said It is an ill course they use in the Common Pleas to enter
heir and an authority cannot divest them out of him this is not like to the surrendring of Copyhold lands into the hands of the Lord for such a surrender cannot be revoked but this authority may be revoked But which is more the Verdict here doth not find that the two Attorneys are customary Tenants of the Manor but only by way of recital which is not good for they ought to have been found to directly nor doth it appear that they were customary Tenants at the time of the admittance of the party neither is there any possession or title found in the Defendant and so the Plaintif having primer possession the Defendant is culpable neither is it found that the Customary Tenant who gave this authority had an estate in fee-simple in the lands and if he had but an estate for life he could not make such a Letter of Attorney neither is the authority given warranted by the Custom and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Wilmot for the Defendant As to the authority he said that it was good and did well enough survive the party that gave it because it is supported with a special direction from the party that gave it 1 H. 7.8 and this is the reason that an Executor may sell lands of the Testator after his death viz. because his authority is so supported 21 E. 4. f. 8. 31 E. 1. Fitz. Grants 45. And here in our case the heir hath neglected his advantage and therefore shall not now be admitted to take it But besides the authority here given is more than a bare authority for it is backed with the circumstances of time persons and of a Custom which is not of a slight esteem in Law and by such a Custom which is very reasonable for it is but to enable the party to dispose of his own lands and far more unreasonable Customs than this are allowed in our Law as that in Kent for an Infant of 15 years of age to have power to sell his lands neither is this Custom contrary to any positive rule of Law for it is here to create the authority to begin after the parties death that created it and so it is not to determine with his death for till then it begins not and the Custom here is but to alien lands which is no strange thing and this Custom extends but within the Manor which is but to a small compass of ground and so the publique is not much concerned in it and the case of 17 Car. in this Court Bambridge and Whaddons case differs from our Case for that was not supported with a custome as this is And it doth appear by the Record that Dalby the Attorney is a customary Tenant and the admission is also found by the Verdict to be secundum consuetudinem Manerii and so that is well enough and then one cannot gain a Copyhold estate by disseisin and so no primer seisin shall be intended as was urged on the other side and it is also found that the Copyholder was seised Roll chief Iustice It will be a hard matter to maintain the Custom Custom if it be not found that the Copy-holder was seised in fee of the Copyhold lands 2ly It is not here found that the land is demisable according to the will of the Lord and so it may be free land and then the custom doth not extend unto it nor is it found that the parties to whom the Letters of Attorney were made were Copyhold Tenants Disseisin And the primer possession will make a disseisin here by the Defendant if the custom be not-well found and so judgement must be for the Plaintif Devise And I cannot see how the Custom can be good it being against the rules of Law Surrender A man cannot devise Copyhold lands and this case is worse but he may surrender to the use of his last Will. If you will not consent to a new tryal we will advise for it is a hard case and my Brothers have not been attended with Books Mich. following Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi It was moved again and the Court would advise Postea Batchelour against Parsons Trin. 1651 Banc. sup Mich. 1652. rot 381. BAtchelour brings a writ of Error to reverse a Iudgement given against him for Parsons in an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas and the Error assigned was Error to reverse a judgement in debt that there are two Declarations in the Record one in the Emparlance Roll the other in the Plea Roll and the Original certified upon the writ of Error doth not warrant the first Declaration for it was filed after it Hales answered that the Record is good enough if the Original dowarrant the last Declaration for this is the common course used in the Common Pleas as the Clarks there do inform me there are many Cases like this in the Common Pleas. Wild of Councel on the other side answered that this is a strange course for they ought first to file the Original because it is the beginning and ground-work of the sute and it not being so done here the Iudgement is given without an Original this is a judgement by default and the imparlance is part of the sute Roll chief Iustice Imparlance Intendment Certiorari The Imparlance Roll is the principal part of the sute and to consound things by intendment that the imparlance may be touching another sute is not good and it matters not what the Custom is in the Common Pleas if it be against Law and both Rolls ought to be certified here Ierman Iustice ad idem Roll chief Iustice All the Record in the Common Pleas which is in the custody of the chief Iustice there ought to be certified by him upon the Retorn of the Writ of Error and here the Imparlance Roll is in his custody and therefore he ought to certifie it and if there be two writs of Error Error and one is good and the other naught we will take the best to affirm the judgement The Original ought not to be fitted to the Declaration but the Declaration to the Original because the Original is the foundation of the sute and therefore the course used in the Common Pleas is a preposterous course Original viz. to declare against the Defendant and after to file an original against him to warrant the Declaration It is here certifyed to be one Record and how can we take the emparlance Roll to be part of the Record it being not certyfied with it and if there be variance between the emparlance Roll and the plea Roll Variance it is Error We will advise but we must not suffer new wayes yet we are loth notwithstanding to reverse Iudgements given in the Common pleas Therefore shew cause next term why the Iudgement should not be reversed Kirman against Iohnson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup IN an ejectione firmae brought by Kirman against Iohnson a special verdict was found
in London and the Bill was found against him But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be granted upon a motion Good behaviour but you must prefer Articles against him here upon Oath and then you may move for it and if there appear cause in the Articles it shall be granted Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a writ to swear one in the Office of a Maior For a Writ to swear one in the Office of a Maior of a Town to which he was elected for the Borough of Trevenny in Cornewall because the old Maior did not swear him in due time as he ought to do but did adjourn the Court before it was done Roll chief Iustice answered that there is no president to swear such an Officer yet ordered that notice should be given to the Town and presidents to be brought into Court if any were to warrant it Whitway against Pinsent Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 61. A Man made a lease of lands for years by deed Demurrer to a plea in Covenants and covenanted that the Lessée his Assigns should enjoy them during the Term the Lessor made the Defendant his Executor dyed The Lessee assigns over his Term a Stranger enters upon the Assignee the Assignee takes 40 l. in satisfaction for his being ejected of the Assignor and afterwards brings an Action of Covenant against the Executor of the Lessor the Defendant The Defendant pleads the acceptance of the 40 l. of the Assignor in satisfaction of the wrong done him in Bar of the Action and to this plea the Plaintiff demurred Bar. The question here was whether the Action of Covenant did lye against the Defendant since that the Plaintiff had received 40 l. of his Assignor in satisfaction Roll chief Iustice said that here is a double Covenant one of the Lessor and the other of the Assignor and therefore the party may have two Actions Action and therefore he is not here barred to bring this second Action though he have barred himself by the acceptance of the 40 l. from bringing an Action against his Assignor and the Defendant hath not pleaded that the 40 l. was given in satisfaction of both the Covenants for then it had been otherwayes Ierman Iustice to the same effect That they are several Covenants by several deeds and both the parties are severelly bound and satisfaction given by one of them is not the satisfaction of the other And he said if Lessee for years assign over his Term the Lessor having notice thereof and he accept the rent from the assignee he cannot demand the rent of the Lessee afterwards yet he may sue other Covenants conteined in the lease against him as for reparations or the like The rule was for the Plaintiff to take his Iudgement nisi Mich. 1651. Banc. sup SErjeant Glyn moved for a certiorari to remove an endictment of forcible entry that was once before removed hither For a certiorari to remove an endictment and after sent down by a procedendo because the Iustices below will not grant restitution Roll chief Iustice answered There is a plea put in and in such case it is not usual to grant a certiorari yet it may be that it may be granted therefore let the other side shew cause on Monday next why it should not be granted Cantrell against Stephens Mich 1651. Banc. sup CAntreli brought an Action upon the case against Stephens for stopping his way in a Meoow called Madbrook in the parish of Redriff in Kent Arrest of judgement for an Action upon the case for stopping a way upon not guilty pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Plaintiff as Lessee to the Haberdashers company of London claimed to have a way for them whereas they having let the land cannot have the way but the Lessée in possession 2ly The prescription is not rightly applyed for it ought to be for them to have a way pro tenentibus et occupatoribus suis which is not so here Twisden answered it shall be intended Tenants and Occupyers to the Haberdashers though it be not said suis Latch said that a prescription per que estate is good in an Action upon the Case because no land is claimed and Green on the same side said the exception taken was helped by the verdict Wild on the other side said that it doth not appear that the Tenant who brings the Action comes in by the Haberdashers who claim the way and so he cannot prescribe to have it Prescription and the prescription ought to be laid pro tenentibus subtenentibus which Roll chief Iustice denyed and said that it is laid that the Haberdashers were seised in Fée postea huc usque and so they have the Fée at the time and may prescribe but it had been better for the party to have shewed that he was their Tenant but it being after a verdict the question is whether it be not helped Vpon reading the Record Roll chief Iustice observed that it appeared not whose Occupyer and Tenant the Plaintiff is but only by way of argument but said the question is whether the verdict do help it and he inclyned it did not Verdict because the Action is brought by the Tenant who hath not entitled himself to the Action for he hath made only a title to the way in the Haberdashers Title but hath derived no Estate from them to himself At another day Roll chief Iustice said we must not take things by intendment and here is a failer in the very gist of the Action for the Plaintiff hath not entitled himself to the Action for he hath no interest for it appears not how he is Ocupyer of the land for he doth not say he is Ocupator suus and as he hath laid the Declaration the Company ought to have brought the Action Ierman Iustice to the same effect and said that upon a demurrer it had been cleerly naught and the verdict here doth not help it for no title appears for the Plaintiff and the verdict cannot give him that he had not before Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same effect Roll If it had been Ocupator suus I doubt it would not make the Declaration good because it shews not by what title So The rule was nil capiat per billam nisi Tayler against Web. Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 240. IN an ejectione firmae upon a lease for 7 years there was a special verdict found Special verdict in an ejectione firmae and the questions in the Case grew upon the words of a Will that were false orthography viz. I do make my Cosen Giles Bridges my Solle Ayeare and my Yexecutor meaning my sole Heir and Executor Powis of Councel with the Plaintiff held that the Will was good to make Giles Briges the Testators Heir and Executor notwithstanding the mis-writing of the words
the Arbitrators have all of it to agree in and till it is ended the Vmpire hath no power at all otherwise the submission would be repugnant in it self The rest of the Iudges concurred in all and so ruled That the Plaintif all capiat per billam nisi Theoballs against Newton Mich. 1651. Banc. sup ONe was sued upon the Statute of Inmates and the distringas jurata bare date on a Sunday and out of Term and so is erronious The question here was whether it be not helped by the Statutes of Ieofails of 18 Eliz. and 21 Iac. Roll chief Iustice held Ieofails that the Statutes extend not to penal Laws although it be ambiguously penned nor to any processes grounded upon them for the Proviso exempts the Original action and by consequence all processes depending upon it are excepted Venire de novo so that here is no good tryal but there shall be a venire de novo nisi Tayler and Webb Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Case of Tayler and Webb which arose upon a special verdict upon these words of Will Special Verdict upon the words of a Will viz. I make my Cosen Giles Bridges my soll ayere and yexecutor was again moved and argued by Hales and he made three questions 1. Whether any estate passeth by the words of the will 2ly If any what estate passeth 3ly Whether the false Orthography doth hurt the Will For the first he said that by making one his sole heir his land passeth to him The word heir is to be considered either in relation to an Ancestor and so one cannot make one his heir or it may be considered in relation to a thing to be inherited to wit lands or tenements and so one may make another his heir and thus a Custom may make one a mans heir as it is in Borough English and an accident may thus also make one a mans heir as it is in the Case of possessio fratris Coundens case Hob. Rep. Case 947. And here it is all one to make one his heir and to make hint heir of hislands and the reasons are First the word heir here cannot have any other relation than to the Testators lands for he cannot make him his heir otherwise and the words may be more reasonably intended so 2ly The words carry in them the plain intention of the Devisor that the party should have his lands although the words are not very proper â— H. 7. A devise of lands to his son after the death of his wife passed an Estate for life to the wife although no such Estate was expressed in the Will so here although no expresse Estate of land be devised yet the Devisee shall have the lands by the intent of the Devisor 3ly In ordinary speech if one make such an one his Heir it is intended that he gives him his lands 8 Car. in the C. B. in Spurt and Bents case A devise of his inheritance was held a devise of his lands and Trin. 3. Iac. in Terryes case A devise of all his rents in tayl passed his lands because in vulgar acceptance it is the rents of lands and in Pits and Sands case in this Court A devise of all his free lands in Holford did passe a portion of Tithes and in the case of one Iohnson a devise of all his estate passed all his lands And the words cannot bear the fence to make him Executor according to the Civill Law as hath been objected for the Will shall be intended as it is to be an English mans Will and so the word Heir in it shall he interpreted according to out Law and not the Civill Law and even in the Civill law to make one his Heir doth convey unto him all his lands for he is haeres testamentarius although not haeres legitimus And in this Will here are two expressions for the party is made Heir and Executor which two words cannot signifie one thing for that would be an idle expression 4ly There are some clauses in the Will which shew the intent of the Testator was to convey his lands if it were needful to make use of them 1. There are several annuities for the Devisee to pay 2ly He directs him where the conveyances and assurances of his lands were laid up which plainly shew he meant he should have his land 3ly The words Heir and Executor are joyned together to shew that he gives him all his lands and goods else one of the words must be imperfect and ineffectual which shall not be intended For Authority 7 E. 6. Br. devise 38. by devising that one Son shall be Heir to the other it shall be intended of lands so in construction of law it shall be here intended that the Devisor made him Heir of his lands Hob. Reports in Sparkes and Burnells case William and Anthony shall be each others Heir and it is not said of land yet adjudged that it shall be so meant and so is it in our case and if I have lands in see simple and make one my heir it shall be intended that he shall have my lands in see simple although I say not that I make him Heir of my lands For the second question the reasons before expressed do also shew that the lands are passed in Fee as it is in Purnells and Hambletons case for the word Heir shall relate to the same Estate that the party had in the land who makes the other his Heir 8 Iac. Inkersals case For the 3d point whether here shall be any good devise at all by reason of the false English he said it was all one and to as good effect as if the words were all true English and neither the incongruity nor the insufficiency of the words shall hurt the Will as it is pretended For 1. This is not in case of pleading or of writs but in conveyance of lands It is true that in the former it doth hurt because writs and pleadings may be amended if they be naught but it is fatal in conveyances for they cannot be amended as in Trotman and Standards case Trin. 1651. in this Court it was held that impropriety of words shall not hurt it they can admit of a good construction Desinet in piscem mulier formosa superne 2ly This is in a Will which is such an instrument that is much favoured in Law and therefore to be favourably construed 3ly This is an English Will and admits of much variety of dialects and therefore is not to be critically interpreted Neither are there here any insignificant or missignificant words as hath been objected but significant for the sound of the word as it is written is the same as if it had been rightly spelled for Ayer and Heir sound both alike As in 3 H. 4. f. 4 Baxter and Baxster sounded alike 2ly If the word Heir might receive any other sence yet it cannot do so here because there are other words joyned to it to declare and signifie that the
Court Twisden on the other side confessed the Books were so but here the Battery is not apparent and the wound is internal and not to be viewed by the Court. Roll chief Iustice said 3 things are considerable 1. whether the Court can increase the damages 2ly Whether the wound be apparent and 3ly Whether the damages given be too small The Court upon view of the party and examination of Chirurgions and Witnesses on both sides upon Oath did conclude that they might increase the damages and that the wound was apparent and that the damages were too small and therefore they increased them to 400 l. and said they would not encrease them more because they could not inquire into all the circumstances of the fact as the jury might but they thought fitting to encrease them in some proportion because the offence was great and such outragious Acts are not to be slightly punished VVallis against Bucknal Hill 1651. Banc. sup VPon a special verdict found in an Ejectione firmae the case sell out to be this Special Verdict in an Ejectione firmse A Copyholder of inheritance made a Letter of Attorney to two joyntly and severally to surrender his Copyhold lands in Fee to certain uses after his death according to the Custom of the Manor The question made by Ellis of Councel with the Plaintif was whether the Custom was good or not he argued that it was not a good Custom In Sir Iohn Davis Reports it is said a Custom must be reasonable and a Custom may be reasonable when it is but against a particular Law and not a general Law but the Custom here thus to convey land is against a general Law Particular Customs may be against publique interest pro bono public but if they be not as in our case they are not they are not good Pro bono publico Next an authority given ought to be Countermandable and to determine at the death of the party but this is not so and therefore it is no good authority 19 E. 3. f. 5. 2ly None can give an authority to another to do a thing which he could not do himself but here it is otherwise and therefore it is not a good authority 3ly By the death of the Copyholder the lands are setled in the heir and this authority given shall not devest them and this is not like the surrendring of lands into the hands of the Lord for a surrender cannot be revoked but this authority is revokable Next the Verdict doth not find that the 2 Attorneys are Customary tenants but only by way of recital which is not good nor doth it appear they were customary tenants at the time of the admittance and here is not found any possession or title in the Defendant and so the Plaintif having primer possession the Defendant is guilty neither is it found that the customary Tenant had see-simple in the land And if he had but an estate for life he could not make such a letter of Attorney Also the authority given is not warranted by the Custom set forth Wilmot of Councel with the Defendant said That this authority here is supported with a special direction which may survive the party that gives it 1 H. 7.8 And an authority may survive the party that gives it else how can an Executor sell lands by the authority given unto him 21 E. 4. f. 8. 31. E. 1. Fitzherb 45. and as for the heir he hath neglected his advantage it he had any and cannot now take it But besides the authority here given is more than a bare authority for it is backed with circumstances of time and person and here is also a Custom to support it and this Custom is a reasonable Custom for it is but to enable a man to dispose of his own lands and there are far more unreasonable Customs than this allowed in our law as the Custom of Kent for one of the age of 15 years to be enabled to sell his lands and this Custom is not against any positive rule of Law for the custom is to create the authority to begin after his death and so it is not to determine by his death for till then it begins not and the Custom here is but to alien lands which is no strange thing and it is extended but within a small compass of land and so cannot be very prejudicial to the publique And Bambridge and Whaddons case 17 Car. in this Court cited on the other side doth differ from this case for tâ—ere was no Custom to support it And it doth appear here by the Record that Dalby the Attorney is a customary Tenant and the admission here is found to be secundum consuetudinem Manerii And one cannot gain a Copyhold estate by disseisin and so here can be no primer seisin intended and it is found the Copyholder is seised Roll chief Iustice said It will be hard to maintain the Custom Custom if it be not found that the party was seiâ—â—d in see of the Copyhold lands But 2ly it is not here found that the land is demisable according to the will of the Lord and so it may be free land then the custom doth not reach it Neither is it found that the 2 Attorneys were Copyhold Tenants and the primer possession here will make a disseisin by the Defendant if the Custom be not well found and then it is for the Plaintif and I cannot see how the Custom can be good it being against the rules of Law for a man cannot devise a Copyhold and here the case is worse Devise but he may surrender to the use of his last Will and Testament At another day Wilmot to the Exception taken That it is not found that the two Attorneys were Tenants of the Manor said there is so much found as shall make them be presumed to be Tenants of the Manor for it is found that the party is admitted secundum consuetudinem Manerii which cannot be a good admittance if they were not Tenants Roll chief Iustice answered to be admitted secundum consuetudinem goes â—o the Admittance not to the Letter of Attorney But we will advise At another day Twisden prayed judgement for the Plaintif and insisted upon the Exception that the two Attorneys were not found customary Tenants for one of them is not mentioned at all and the other is found so only by way of recital and so they have not entitled themselves to the Custom and then the Defendant hath no title The Court ruled to shew cause Saturday following why the Plaintif should not have judgement Antea Custodes against Tawny and Norwood Hill 1651. Banc. sup TAwny and Norwood were jointly endicted for blasphemous words severally spoken by them Endictment for speaking blasphemous words upon the late Statute made against blasphemy and were convicted the parties being removed hither by Habeas Corpus It was urged that the Endictment was not good because it was joynt whereas the words being
one as if the party had appeared for if he had appeared the Case would have béen otherwise So Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi c. Pasch 1652. Banc. sup MEmorandum One brought by Habeas Corpus from the Fleet remaâ—â—ed One was brought into the Court by the Mareschall of the Fléet by vertue of a habeas Corpus directed to him out of this Court and because it did appear upon Record that the party was charged with divers debts when he was turned over to the Fleet he was not suffered to put in Bail here but was remanded Gossage against Tayler Pasch 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 117. IN an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease for years of a Messuage Special verdict in Trespass and Ejectrueâ—â— and certain lands in Hatfield Broad-Oak in the County of Essex upon a special verdict found the case fell out to be this Rich. Frank seised amongst other lands and Tenements of the Messuage and lands in question upon the mariage of his Son Leventhorp Frank with Susan Cotele levies a fine of the lands to the use of himself during his own life and the life of Leventhorp his Son and after during the life of Susanna Cotele the wife of Leventhorp the remainder to the use of the heirs to be begotten upon the body of Susanna by Leventhorp her Husband The question here was whether the word heirs shall be intended the heirs of Leventhorp and Susanna his wife or whether the estate shall be intended to be limited to the heirs of Susanna only and that Leventhorp shall have barely an estate for life in the lands Serjeant Glyn of Councel with the Plaintif held That Susanna Cotele hath an estate tayl executed in the lands and that the word heirs shall relate only to the heirs of Susanna and not to the heirs of Leventhorp 1. Because that here is an estate limited for life unto Susanna by an express limitation and her heirs shall take immediately after the estate for life ended and they shall not come in as purchasors By express Terms the word heirs is not limited to any person but it is left to the construction of the Law and that doth apply it to Susanna as to a person to whom Richard that setled the lands hath expressed most affection as appears by the Deed Lit. f. 6. Sect. 28. There is an expression of the party to whom the word heirs shall relate but so is not here and therefore the cases differ In 3 Ed. 3. f. 31 32. It is ruled that both parties have an estate tayl because the estate is limited to both but so it is not in our case so those books are not against me In our case it doth not appear that Richard did intend to advance the Husband of Susanna and therefore it is not reason that the word heirs should relate to him but to Susanna his wife only for in case of limitation of estates the intention of the party is to be considered and doth direct the matter and the preceding limiting of the estate to Susanna and not to Leventhorp doth shew that the party did mean to promote the heirs of Susanna Lit. Sect. 27. Dyer 27. A second reason is drawn from the penning of the déed which in the limitation of it doth encline more that the word heirs should be applyed to Susanna than to Leventhorp for the words upon her is as much as to say of her and then it is the same case with Littletons case 3ly The Intention of the Donor appears to be such by the circumstances of the entire limitations which do shew that he did intend that Leventhorp should not have such an estate whereby it should be in his power to deprive his issue and therefore the word heirs are to be applyed to Susanna and not to Leventhorp for if it should be applyed to both then Leventhorp might destroy the estate of the issue contrary to the Donors intent And whereas Dyer 99 is objected against me I answer that case is not against me for there the word heirs is expresly limited to a certain person viz. to the heirs of the body of both of them but so it is not in our case and whereas Hill 13 Iac. Lane and Panels case in this Court is also objected against me I answer that that case is in effect the same case with Dyer and the question in our case came not in dispute And the will of the Donor in deeds is to be ohserved Lit. 22. C. Tayl. 1. rep Shelleys case 103. 〈◊〉 Notwithstanding in gifts in tayl this rule holds not so that a gift in tayl may be limsted contrary to the rule of the Common Law And I know not of any authority in print or writing against me but in 13 Ed. 3. Fitz. tit variance 81 there is an expresse authority for me and 4 H. 4. Fitz. br 448. in my experience I have known many estates limited as this is in the Southern parts held good estates tayl if it should be otherwise many estates would be shaken Roll chief Iustice We have delivered our opinions before against you viz. that it was not the meaning of the donour to apply the word Heirs to the body of Susanna only for this construction would offer violence unto the words as appears by Littleton who interprets that they are to be applyed to the Heirs of both the partyes and your reason is founded upon a wrong ground and expresly against Litletons case and for your second reason it is of no waight for the words are all one as if he had said to the Heirs of the Husband and wife begotten upon the wife 3ly We are not to frame a meaning against plain words which shew the Donors intent to be against you And the Baron cannot Bar the Estate tayl as you suppose Tayl. for the Feme hath an Estate for life and if she survive she may revive the remaining Estate and we must not consider of inconveniences which possibly may happen against the expresse words of the deed and the multitude of conveyances made in this manner are of no force to alter the Law Ierman Iustice as Roll. That the word Heirs shall be applyed to the Heirs of both partyes because voluntas donatoris secundum formam chartae expressa est observanda Nicholas and Ask Iustices of the same opinion Garland against Yarrow Pasc 1652. Banc. sup THis case being in arrest of Iudgement formerly spoken unto in an Action upon the case for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Act on for words you are a knave and keep a Bawdy house was again moved by Christ Turner who held that the words are not actionable 1. Because they are of spiritual cognisance 2ly It is not said that he kept a common Bawdy house 3ly here is no special damage laid 10 Car. These words he is a pimp adjudged not actionable in Lewis and Whittons case 4ly It is not alleged that he
be undestood eight hangings Roll chief Iustice A pair is properly when one of the things so called cannot be properly used without the other but yet the words may be also understood so many couple and here you cannot intend the words to mean so many suits of hangings and you might have expressed your meaning by so many pieces of hangings and therefore it seems doubtfull Ierman Iustice Here the words do not expresse the number of the things as they do when you say a pair of Oxen or the like Nicholas as Ierman Ask Iustice A pair is incertain for that word may be meant more than two in number as when you say a pair of cards and a pair of hangings in some places is meant a suit of hangings Roll chief Iustice If it be so then it is more incertain the word hangings may be good enough but how can the number be known Curia advisare vult Afterwards the Court moved the Defendant to suffer the Plaintiff to amend his Declaration and to plead anew and to consent to a new tryall Askwiths Case Hill 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an order of Sessions made at Durham against Askwith Motion to quash an order of Sessions for not serving the office of a Constable or finding an other able person to serve the place for him being elected according to the custom of the place where he was elected to serve The Exception taken was that it is not shewed that he was elected at a Court Leet and the Sessions have no power to elect a Constable Roll chief Iustice He is a Constable elected by a by-Law By Law it is not necessary there should be any other election then according to the custom and he must serve in his turn or contribute to the charge for another to serve for him Custom and this is a good custom used in many places and I do find one my self in my turn in one place and make no use of my privilege to avoid it Another exception was taken that the complaint made of the party was that he would neither serve the office nor contribute for another to serve it and the order is only that he refused to contribute and so is not warranted by the custom by which he hath an election to serve or contribute Quashed nisi c. Hill 1652. Banc. sup A Prisoner was brought into Court by a habeas corpus out of the Fleet to the intent to turn him over to the Marshalsea to charge him with an Action here Creditor examined upon oath it his debt were reall whereupon the creditor was examined upon his oath whether the debt was real for which he surmised he would bring his Action and upon making oath thereof the Prisoner was turned over accordingly Nota. Smith against Holyman Hill 1652. Banc. sup IT was moved in arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case upon an Assumpsit Arrest of Iudgement in Assumpsit False English and Exceptions taken 1. That the Defendants Christian name was mistaken And 2ly That the jurata was erroneous for it says in a plea of dept instead of a plea of debt and the Iudgement was arrested for dept written with a P. is no word though it sound like debt written with a B. Custodes and Howell Gwin Hill 1652. Banc. sup HOwell Gwin was brought to the Bar being convicted for forgeing of a deed Iudgement against one convicted of forgery and was demanded what he could say why Iudgement should not be given against him Boynton of Councel with the Prisoner moved the Court that in regard there was an information of perjury depending here against the witnesses upon whose Testimony the Prisoner was convicted of the perjury and that the Prisoner doth endeavour to proceed with all the speed that is possible against them in this information that the Iudgement may be stayed in the mean time against him Roll chief Iustice answered if they be found guilty of the perjury they shall be punished but we will give Iudgement against your Clyent in the mean time which was done accordingly in these words following Iudgement for forgery viz. you are convicted of forgeing a deed by putting a dead mans hand unto it therefore the Court gives this Iudgement against you that you are fined at a hundred pound and shall stand on the pillory two hours before the Hall dore with a paper on your head shewing the nature of your offence Memorandum the party cut off a dead mans hand and put a pen and a seal in it and so signed and sealed and delivered the deed with the dead hand and swore that he saw the deed sealed and delivered Mich. 1652 Banc. sup MRs. Lucy Fotherby was brought into Court to be turned over into the Marshalsea out of the Fleet with an intent to charge her with an Action of debt Against this it was urged that she was a Prisoner in the Fleet A Prisoner turned over committed thither by an order of the Court of Chancery Prisoner But Roll chief Iustice answered this order is nothing to hinder her turning over if the debt be reall and so upon proof that the debt was reall she was turned over Locky and Dumiloe Hill 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 1462. VPon a special verdict in an ejectione firmae the case fell out to be this Special verdict in an ejectione firmae I. S. seised of lands in Fée makes a lease of it to I. D. at Will A. B. puts the Tenant at Will out of possession and after the Tenant at Will enters and takes a lease at Will of him that put him out of possession the question was whether he should hold the land by virtue of his first lease or by virtue of his second agreement To this Roll chief Iustice said if one make a lease at Will to one and he be ousted Will. Determination and then enter again and take a new estate the Will is determined but a stranger cannot determine his Estate without his consent but here he hath determined his first Estate by his new contract with the disseisor of his Lessor And he said if Livery and Seisin be made upon one Acre of land in the name of two Acres it is good for both the Acres for it is not necessary that the party that gives the livery should go to all the land mentioned in the deed of Feoffment Livery and Seisin And he also said that if Tenant at Will cuts down a tree upon the land which he holds at Will by this Act he hath determined his Will Drake and Drake Hill 1652. Banc. sup DRake brought an Action against Drake for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words viz. Thou hast preached lyes in the Pulpit the Plaintiff being a master of Arts and incumbent of a living Wadham VVindham held the words actionable because they were spoken of the Plaintiff in relation to his
Iustice answered Denied It appears not to us but that the Parliament was sitting at the time and peradventure it will be made appear at the tryal Therefore plead and go to tryal and then move in Arrest of judgement if you have any thing to move Page and Parr Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1654. rot 1687. PAge brought an Action of Covenant upon a Covenant conteined in an Indenture of a demise for years Covenant upon an Indenture for the not paying the rent reserved by the Indenture according to the Covenant The Defendant pleads in bar that the Plaintif entred into part of the land demised before the rent due for which the Action was brought and so had suspended his rent The Plaintif replyed the Defendant did re-enter and so was possessed as in his former estate Suspension of ren and to this replication the Defendant demurred and for cause he shewed that here was no confession and avoidance or traverse of the plea in bar Roll chief Iustice Have you shewed that he continued in possession until the rent grew due for you ought to shew that he entred and was possessed untill after the rent-day but here you have only said that he was possessed in his former right Nil capiar per Billam Therefore nil capiat per Billam nisi Hill 1654. Banc. sup VPon an Affidavit read in Court Not to plead till costs paid assessed in a former Action that 20 l. costs were taxed upon a non-sute in an Action of Trespass and Ejectment brought to the Bar and that the Plaintif had not payed them nor was to be found and yet had brought another Action for the same land The Court was moved that the Defendant might not be ruled to plead to this second Action until the Plaintif had paid the costs taxed upon the former non sute and that another Plaintif might be named or that security might be given to pay the costs if the Plaintif should be non-sute again Shew cause The rule was to shew cause why it should not be so Hill 1654. Banc. sup DArcy moved that an Endictment of Michaelmas Term last might be amended in the Caption But Roll chief Iustice answered To amend an Endictment of a former Term denied It cannot be if it be of the last Term but had it been an endictment of this Term it might have been amended Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment for entring forcibly upon a Tenant for years against the Statute of 21 Iacobi To quash an Endictment and the Exception was that the Endictment doth not say that he entred manu forti Roll chief Iustice answered The Statute is only that if one enter by force and the words manu forti are not expressed in the Act Therefore move it again if you will Hill 1654. Banc. sup A Habeas Corpus cum causa was granted for Elizabeth Bayne To discharge a prisoner turned over to the Mareschal For a habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to the intent to charge her with an Action and upon the return thereof she was committed to the Mareschal Wild moved that she might be discharged because the return of the Habeas Corpus is erronious But Roll chief Iustice answered It could not be whereupon he moved for another Habeas Corpus for her ad subjiciendum to be directed to the Mareschal which was granted Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment preferred against one for practising Phisick not being skilfull in the profession To quash an Endictment for practising Phisick without licence and not having a License to practice from the College of Phisicians The Exceptions were 1. That no Endictment at the Common Law lies for the offence supposed to be committed for it is not an offence against the Common Law and 2ly an Endictment upon the Statute lies not and so no Endictment lies And upon these Exceptions it was quashed The Protector and Hart. Hill 1654. Banc. sup ONe Hart committed to the Gatehouse appeared in Court upon the return of a Habeas Corpus granted for him To remand a prisoner appearing upon a Habeas Corpus and turned over Denied and upon the prayer of his Councel the return was filed upon which it was moved on his behalf that he might be remanded to the Keeper of the Gatehouse and not turned over to the Mareschal to the intent to save his fees but the Court said it could not be because upon filing of the return there ought to be entred upon it a Committitur to the Mareschal whereby he becomes his prisoner Torret and Frampton Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1653. rot 178. VPon a special Verdict the Case was this Special verdict upon a Devise A man deviseth his lands to his wife for her life the remaindar to A. B. and C. and their heirs respectively for ever The question was whether A. B. and C. were joynt tenants or tenants in common Serjeant Twisden held that they were joynt renants Whether joynt tenancy or a tenancy in common and that this case differs from Radcliffs case and cited Wilds case in the 6 Rep. that a Will must be clear and conspicuous but so it is not here and here is no enforcement by these words respectively and they do relate to the persons and not to the lands bequeathed and a Covenant made by three respectively is a joynt Covenant and not a several Covenant and the word respectively hath relation to the survivorship which may happen betwixt the parties and a devise to one and his heir is a fee-simple Latch For the Defendant held that here is a tenancy in Common and not a joynt tenancy for the Estate ought to be whole out either a tenancy in Common or whole out a joynt tenancy and this of necessity for there cannot be a joynt tenancy for life and several inheritantes in the remainder and Littletons ground proves this to be so And 2ly It is against all construction to be otherwise as the word respectively is here placed and Ratclifs case which is not so strong a case as this case proves it to be so and although the word respectively may sometimes make a distribution of heirship as hath been objected viz. of several heirships yet here the placing of the word respectively shews it cannot be so Distribution of heirship and this using of the word is not operative but idle if here should be a joynt tenancy for the law says as much though the word respectively were left out and the word would be the more idle in explicating a thing so obvious to common understanding and no ways doubtfull and therefore we cannot think but that these extraordinary words do enforce an extraordinary construction and not a common one and an idle application and this comes not within the rule objected for the certainty for this word hath a proper meaning to make a several distribution
secrets of his Clyents cause Not to disclose a Clyents cause and thereupon he was forborn to be examined Pilkinton and Bagshaw Pasch 1655. Banc. sup VPon a tryal to be had at the Bar between Pilkington and Bagshaw Tryal at the Bar. the Plaintif would not put in his writ that the tryal might goe on Whereupon Roll chief Iustice bid the Cryer to call the Attorney of the Plaintif to appear and to bring in the writ upon pain of 20 l. and said Pain of 20 l. Attorney put out of the Roll. Non-sute upon the Record that if he brought it not in he should be put out of the Roll. Serjeant Maynard moved that if he brought not in the writ that the Plaintif might be called non-sute upon the Record which Roll chief Iustice answered might well be because the parties have day in Court by the Record or Roll afterwards the Sollicitor who had the writ brought it in yet Roll chief Iustice said There shall notwithstanding the writ be brought in be 20 l. fine set upon him for his trifling with the Court. The Protector and Sumner Pasch 165â— Banc. sup SErjeant Bernard moved that Sumner that appeared in Court upon his habeas corpus directed to the Kéeper of Northampton Gaol might be bailed To bail a prisoner denied for that having killed two men upon the Highway the Iury had found it Man-slaughter se defendendo Roll chief Iustice answered The Iuries conclusion is contrary to their premises Therefore let the prisoner be sent to Northampton Gaol whence he came yet that may not be for the fact was done in Peterborough Tryal Writ ad reâ—piendum and therefore he cannot be tryed at Northampton therefore let him be sent to Peterborough Gaol with a writ ad recipiendum to the Gaoler there to take charge of him Pilkington versus Bagshaw Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at the Bar in a Trespass and Ejectment betwixt Pilkington and Bagshaw Trespass and Ejectment the question being whether Copyhold lands may be entailed by the custom of the Manor It was said that if Tenant in tail and the issue in tail of Copyhold lands in tail joyn in a surrender in a Court Baron of the Copyhold lands Estopel Copyhold lands in tail Customary entail Fine State enjoyed Seisure of Cepyhold lands that this is not an estopel for it ought to be by fine or deed indented And Roll chief Iustice said that Copyhold lands in tail are not within the Statute of Westm 2. but it is a Customary entail like in its nature to another entail and such an estate must be docked by fine or by some other customary way It was also said by him that if Copies of Court Rolls be shewed to prove a Customary estate the enjoynment of such estates must also be proved otherwise the proof is not good It was also said upon the evidence That a seisure by the Lord made of Copyhold entailed lands within the Manor of Wakefield in Yorkshire is in the nature of a recovery to deck the entail and that the manner of doing it is either for the Copyholder to let his Copyhold for more years than he ought or to refuse to do his service and then the Lord seifes the lands for a forfeiture and grants it to another by the consent of the Copyholder that made the forfeiture It was then also said by Roll chief Iustice Custom that a Custom cannot be urged for a thing that had its beginning since Rich. the 1. if a Record can be shewed to the contrary Common recovery Recompense in value Custom Copyhold destroyed It was also said by him that a common recovery suproseth a recompence in value to all persons who lost the estate by the recovery He said also that he conceived that there could be no such Custom to cut off entails of Copyhold lands by the forfeiture and seisure of the Lord for his seisure upon the forfeiture destroys the Copy-hold estate by the Common Law for it is in the Lords election after the seisure whether he will grant the estate again or no and you do not prove that the Custom binds him to it Nota. Harris and Pasch 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved in the Case of one Harris To amend an old judgement Denied that the entry of a judgement twelve years past might be amended upon the Roll. But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be after so long time past Pasch 1655. Banc. sup VPon a writ of Error brought to reverse a fine levied by an Infant being a Feme Covert Day to inspect an Infant The Court was moved for a day to bring in the party that levied the fine to be inspected by the Court which was granted and at the day she was brought into the Court and viewed and two witnesses deposed that she was within age at the time of the fine levied Entry upon the Roll. which was entred upon the Roll upon which the Issue was tryed Pasch 1655 Banc. sup IT was said by Roll chief Iustice Election That if there be two Kinsmen in equal degree of kindred to the Intestate it is in the election of the Ordinary to which of them he will grant Letters of Administration Pasch 1655. Banc. sup AN Outlawry was reversed Outlawry reversed because the place where the County Court was held is not shewed in the secundo exactus Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IT was moved that there was a judgement given in the Common Pleas To affirm a judgement a writ of Error depending and thereupon the Defendant brought his writ of Error to reverse the judgement in this Court and since pending the writ of Error the partses were agréed and therefore they desired the judgement might be affirmed because that otherwise satisfaction of the judgement cannot be acknowledged upon the Roll because the Court of Common Pleas were forclosed to do any thing further upon the judgement given there by reason of the writ of Error But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be Denied for you shew no cause why we should affirm the judgement and therefore we will make no rule in it but enter satisfaction upon the Roll if you will at your own peril Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IT was said by Roll chief Iustice that an Action upon the case will lie against one that brings vexatious actions against another Action upon the Case for vexation or for entring of Actions of a great value to force his adversary to put in great bail where he hath but small cause of Action Nota. Trevanian and Penhollow Trin. 1655. TRevanian brought an Action upon the case against Penhollow for speaking of these words of him Plea to an Action on the Case Thou hast taken a false Oath at the Assizes and art false forsworn The Defendant pleads that the Plaintif had agréed to accept of 3 Iuggs of Beer from him in satisfaction The Plaintif
make a ditch or raise up a bank to hinder my way to my Common I may justifie the throwing of it down and the filling of it up Mich. 1655. BY Glyn chief Iustice Damages in Dower If a Feme bring a writ of dower and recover and the Defendant die the feme shall have her damages against the Terr-Tenants Mich. 1655. A Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet is when a writ of Error is brought to reverse a judgement given in the Common pleas Error quod coram vobis residet what it is or other Court where the Record was formerly removed into the Court of the Vpper Bench and by reason of the death of the party or for some other cause rests undetermined by reason of the abatement of the former writ of Error Le pool and Tryan Mich. 1655. Banc. sup VVIld moved for a prohibition to the Court of Admiralty to stay a tryal there in a Trover and Conversion For a prohibition to the admiralty in which they procéed upon a pretence that the goods in question were taken upon the High Sea and that by the late Act they have exclusive power in all such cases which is not so Glyn chief Justice It was resolved in Cremers and Cokelyes case so adjudged that they have no such power Therefore take a prohibition nisi c. Morden and Hart. Mich. 1655. Banc. sup MOrden brought an Action of debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award against Hart. Vpon nil debet pleaded Arrest of judgement in debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award and a verdict for the Plaintif it was moved in Arrest of judgement and the exception taken was that the Award was made but of one part and so not binding to all the parties submitting The case was this One Stephens and Body on one part also Hart on the other part submitted to stand to the Award The Arbitrators awarded that Body should pay a certain sum of money unto Hart in satisfaction for the differences betwixt Body and Stephens on the one part and Hart on the other part which was objected could not be good for the money paid by one could not be in satisfaction for another and so the Award is not made to conclude all the parties submitting for Stephens was not concerned in it and the Award is with an Ita quod which ought to be a general Award and include all parties and therefore if it be void in part it is void in all But Green on the other side answered though the Award should be naught in part yet it may be good as to Body that paid the money and the moneys ought to be received as they are paid and that is for Body and Stephens and may be well in satisfaction for both of them It was also urged by Howell on the same side that it appears that Body and Stephens are partners and this will make an end of the matter for then the money paid by one of them may satisfie for the other Award in part Glyn chief Iustice Here is a good Award betwéen two of the parties that submitted but there appears nothing to be awarded as to Stephens the third party for it doth not appear that he can take any benefit by the Award of the money to be paid by Body or that it can be any satisfaction for him but only for Body Iudgement for the Defendant Iudgement for the Defendant nisi c. Busfield and Norden Mich. 1655. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought by Busfield against Nordon to reverse a judgement given in the Court Military of Rippon in an action upon an indebitatus assumpsit for wares sold Error to reverse a judgement upon an indebitatus assumpsit by the Bail wherein there being a judgement given against the principal a scire facias issued out against the Ball and a judgement was thereupon and against him the bail thereupon brings a writ of Error to reverse both these judgements and assigns for Error that there was no issue joyned in the first judgement and that being erronious Bail cannot reverse the principal judgement The writ abaed and being the ground upon which the scire facias did issue forth whereupon the second judgement was given the second judgement cannot be good Glyn chief Iustice But the principal judgement ought to be reversed by the principal and not by the bail and therefore the writ of Error is not well brought by the bail therefore let it abate Vidian and Fletcher Mich. 1655. Banc. sup VPon view of an Infant brought into Court of to be inspected Scire facias for an Infant to â—everse a fine levâ—ed ouâ—ing Covertuâ—e who had during coverture joyned with her husband in levying a fine of her lands she was by the Court adjudged within age whereupon a scire facias issued out to the terr-Terr-tenants who came in and pleaded that she was of full age at the time of the fine levied upon which plea issue was joyned and a tryal was had at the Assizes and a Verdict for the Plaintif who now came in Court and prayed for judgement upon the Verdict Glyn chief Iustice The Court is to judge of the Infancy Iury not to try Infancy and not the Iury and therefore you have not proceeded duly but the proceedings do no hurt for we judge she was within age Fine reversed Therefore let the fine be reversed nisi c. Nota. and the hundred of Crondon Mich. 1655. Banc. sup AN Action of Trespass upon the case was brought against the Hundred of Crondon in Hampshire upon the Stat. of Winchester Arrest of Judgement in an Action upon the Statute of Huc and Câ—yes Case Statute by one that was robbed within the hundred upon the tryal a verdict passed for the Plaintif It was moved on the behalf of the Hundred in Arrest of judgement 1. That the Plaintif had mistaken his Action for whereas he hath brought a general Action of Trespass upon the case he ought to have brought an Action upon the Statute 2ly He declares that he took his Oath before I. S. a Iustice of Peace in the County Whereas it should be for the County 3ly He hath not expressed that he took his Oath before a Iustice assigned to keep the Peace 4ly There is no issue joyned 5ly He saith that he took his Oath 20 days but doth not say next before as the Statute directs Windham on the other side answered to the first Exception that it is usual of latter times to declare in an Action upon the Case generally To the second he said it is no exception for a Iustice of Peace is not an Officer affâ—red to a place Serjeant Twisden But it doth not appear that you took your Oath 20 days before your Original sued out Glyn chief Iustice That appears well enough upon the Record Variation But the writ here is in an Action upon the case
he was taken and imprisoned The Defendant pleaded an award made by Sir John Rivers and Sir Nicholas Miller two Iustices of Peace between the parties in Bar. Twisden of Councel with the Plaintif said that the award doth not bind the Plaintif for the award concerns only the speaking of the words and speaks nothing of the imprisoment And 2ly the Award is not good for there is not satisfaction made by it on both parties Wild of Councel with the Defendant held that the Declaration was not good and that therefore he needs not to justifie the plea for though it should be ill yet the Plaintif can have no judgement and he said the Declaration was naught because it alleged no day when nor place where the Defendant charged the Plaintif with the felony and made him to be imprisoned Twisden answered that there is a place alleged and that though there were none yet it is well enough for part and judgement may be given for that To which Roll chief Iustice agréed Wild replyed then the plea is good But the Court answered it is not and what say you to the Arbitrement Wild answered it was good to which Ierman and Ask Iustices assented Roll chief Iustice answered It is a benefit to the Parish and so to the Overseers of the poor Nicholas Iustice to the same purpose Roll chief Iustice said that the Declaration is ill and the Plea also for the Plea is entire Declaration Plea and yet goes not to all the matter alleged in the Declaration but the plea is only to part of them and therefore if any part of the Declaration be good judgement ought to be given against the Defendant for that part and the plea in Bar is naught so judgement ought to be entirely for the Plaintif But it is to be considered concerning the damages Rosyer against Langdale Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 100. ROsyer an Executor brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit against Langdale a Feme Administratrix Error to reverse a judgement in an Assumpsit by an Executor against an Administratrix and declares that the Defendant in consideration that he would forbear sute until she had taken out Letters of Administration did assume and promise to pay unto him the Plaintif a certain sum of money owing unto him by the Intestate Vpon Issue joyned and a Verdict and a Iudgement for the Plaintif The Defendant brought a writ of Error to reverse the Iudgement And Baldwin of his Councel took these Exceptions 1. That the Plaintif had set forth no consideration in his Declaration for the Assumpsit for all that is alleged is that the Plaintif should forbear sute till the Defendant had taken out Letters of Administration which is no consideration at all for the Defendant was not lyable to be sued as Administratrix until she had taken out Letters of Administration except there were a cause depending as here is not And he cited Hob. rep Bidwell and Cottons case That if there be a sute commenced though there be no cause for it yet forbearance to sue is a good cause to ground an Assumpsit upon Assumpsit A second Exception was that the Venire facias is not awarded per Curiam nec in Curia Roll chief Iustice held the 1. a good Exception for the Defendant was not chargeable before Letters of Administration taken forth if she do not intermedle with the goods of the Intestate and it doth not appear here that she did neither is the Defendant compellable to take forth Letters of Administration for they may be granted to the next of Kin if the Ordinary pleaseth according as the Statute ordains Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same intent thereupon the rule was reversetur nisi c. But because Day being of Councel on the other side took some Exceptions to the writ of Error and the retorn thereof It was adjourned Staples Hill 1650. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to supersede a scire sacias brought by a prisoner of the Marshalsea For a Supersedeas to a Scire sacias upon the late Act for discharging of poor prisoners because the Certificate of the cause for which he was a prisoner was false and so the procéedings erronious for the party was in execution for Trespass which is not within the Statute made for the prisoners 2ly Because there was no due notice given to the party at whose sute he lay in execution as the Statute doth direct there should The Court ordered to view the Certificate 〈◊〉 Den uneâ— and to file it otherwise there should be no proceedings upon the scire facias and directed the party to demur upon the scire facias if it be not good because the matter alleged cannot be pleaded to it Custodes against Arskot Hill 1650. Banc. sup MAynard moved the Court for one Arskot that was outlawed for murther For time to bring a Writ of Error and had leave to bring his writ of Error that he may have longer time to bring it because the King uses to sign the writ and the Parliament had not ordered who shall do it now and therefore the Attorney General must advise with the Parliament about it which cannot spéedily be done Thereupon time was granted till the Attorney could conveniently do it Newcomin against Leigh Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 16â—0 rot 52. LEigh did assume and promise unto Newcomin Whether a good Assumpsit that if Newcomin would take one Loe for his Debtor in the room of one Cooper and would spare Loe until such a time for the money that then he would pay the money to Newcomin if he did not and upon this Assumpsit Newcomin brought his Action against Leigh The question was whether this were a good Assumpsit And the Court held it was not because it is a collateral thing and he doth not say that he will discharge Cooper and so Newcomin may sue Cooper notwithstanding the Assumpsit For though it may be it was the intention of the parties to discharge Cooper yet it appears not so by the words of the Assumpsit set forth And it was then said by Roll. That if I promise to pay to Iohn a Down a Debt which Iohn a Stile oweth to Iohn a Down Nudum pactum this is nudum pactum Bawsy and Lowdall Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 275. VPon a special verdict in an Action of Trespasse and Ejectment Special Verdict upon the devise of a Copyhold in Fee the case in effect was this A man seised of Copyhold lands in fée devisable by Custom deviseth them in this manner I give and bequeath my lands c. to my son Richard during his natural life and after to the heir of his body for ever Hales of Councel with the Plaintif made these questions 1. whether by the words of the Will a Fee-simple at the Common Law passeth because there is an estate to Richard for life and after
to his heir in the singular number And he argued that the word heir includes heirs because it is Nomen Collectivum Next Whether the devising the land to Richard for his natural life and after to his heir for ever makes any difference in the Case and he held it did not and said that Archers case that is objected by the other side differs much from this for there the words are restrained for it is Proximo Haeredi and not Haeredi generally as it is in our Case and there the words next heir are not words of limitation but of purchase and to decipher the person but not to limit the estate and in our case if there should not be a limitation Richard should only take for life which is not the intent of the Will as may appear by the passages and clauses of it And Thomas and Kemishes case in 5 Car. in this Court makes an end of our Case Neither doth the adding of the word in perpetuum make a difference in the Case for if the words had béen omitted the same estate had passed to the Tenant Richard and his Estate is not enlarged by them 2ly The words in perpetuum relate to all the Estate and not to any particular Estate and so the surrender made by R. Hunt is good Next of all supposing that it be a limited Estate and a contingent remainder the question will then be whether this contingent remainder be destroyed or no and I conceive it is because the particular Copyhold estate which must support this contingent remainder is destroyed and the Law is the same in that point in Copyhold cases as it is in other cases at the Common Law for Copyholds are directed by the rules of the Common Law 13 Iac. Banc. Reg. It is also held that there is the same rule to support a contingent remainder of a Copyhold as there is of Land at the Common Law Next it is to be considered whether the particular Copyhold estate be extinguished or not And it is cléer that it is for the customary Estate is in the Lord who hath the Fée simple which cannot both stand together and so there is no estate to support the contingent remainder Copyhold and consequently all objections are by this answered 1. That the surrender shall not do wrong 2ly That the surrender destroys not the Custom Turner on the other side argued that only an estate passeth to Richard for life and that the word Heir is not a word of limitation to make the Ancestor take a Fée simple neither shall the word Heir be taken Collective here but singulariter and so according to the common sence number and matter ought it to be construed And Nowns Collective in the singular number do not signifie the same thing that they do in the plurall number as may be proved by other examples and there is no proper name to signifie one particular Heir in Law if the word Heir in the singular number shall not do it Shellyes case 1. Rep. f. 101. â—ooks institut f. 8.1 Rep. Archers case And there are two Iudgements in the Common pleas in the very point as I am informed by the Attorney on our side In a Will the word Heir shall not be taken Coliective out in the natural grammaticall sence and not as a word of art but it is otherwise taken perchance in conveyances which are made by men of Art and learned in the Laws whereas wills are made commonly by lay gents and unskilfull in the Law And the rule is that words shall be interpreted to make all the parts of a déed in which they are to stand together and to bear sence and to be in esse and effectual which cannot be here if the word heir shall be taken Collective but may be if it be taken singulariter Hob. rep Stukely and Butlers case Next if the word heir should be taken Collective then the Estate for life would merge 30 El. C. B. Hill 3 Iac. C. B. Hiller and Lewis his case 3ly Rich. hath only an Estate for life if it were otherwise the Testator would have otherwise expressed it and he hath well expressed an estate for life and no other Estate in him If one grant 4. parts of his mannor it shall passe 4. parts of 5. and not all For the other poynt the contingent remainder is not here destroyed by the destruction of the Copyhold Estate for Copyhold Estates do not depend one upon another as Estates of the Common Law do and here is one in esse to take the Estate Another question he spoke to viz. whether a Lessee at will being ousted by a stranger can reenter and he held he cannot for he hath but a meer right 38 H. 6. f. 27. Fortescue and Yelverton 3. Iac. Banc. Reg. rot 501. Carpenter and Collins But to this Roll chief Iustice Entry and Nicholas Iustice answered that he may enter notwithstanding it hath been heretofore controverted and the reason is because he hath the primer posseâ—sion Roll chief Iustice enclined that the contingent remainder is not destroyed because it doth not here depend upon the particular Estate but it ought to expect till the remainder happen and he conceived that the word heir and heirs were all one here by the intent of the partyes and the frame of the conveyance Ask Iustice said that it is a good Estate of Fee simple conditionall executed in Richard Ierman Iustice The intent in a Will if it be not contrary to Law ought to be taken and there must be words to make the intent appear and these words must stand together and shall not be made void and he conceived the contingent remainder not destroyed Adjourned till the next Term. Postea Port against Midleton Hill 1650. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action of debt upon an obligation Error to reverse a judgment in debt and the Error insisted upon was in the entring of the Iudgement which was quod recuperet Debitum suum and doth not say praedictum Roll chief Iustice answered Delivery Escrow that the debt is confessed by the party and the question is whether the deed was delivered as an escrow or not but it was delivered to the party himself and therefore could not be delivered as an escrow Ierman Iustice said that debitum suum without praedictum is not good for the word praedictum is verbum operativum Ask Iustice as Roll and there is but one debt Implication and the word ideo in the record implyes it to be the same debt Nicholas to the same effect The rule was affirmetur nisi causa die Iunae sequenti Hill 1650. Banc. sup AN administrator had a Iudgement against one to recover a debt due to the Intestate and then the Administrator dyed Intestate For a scire facias to revive a judgement denyed Scire facias and another took out new letters of administration de bonis non