to have distrayned the Cattell of the Lord damage fesant and observe his BRaxall versus Thorold Trin. 8. Jac. In Replevin for the taking of 4 Oxen at Coringham in the County of Lincoln in a place called Dowgate leys Sept. 6. Jac. The Defendant says the place contained four acres in Coringham magna which was his Free-hold and justifies the taking damage fesant The Plaintiff in his bar to the Avowry that the place where c. lies in a place called Harrerart quarter parcell of a great Common Field called E. in Coringham aforesaid and that the Plaintiff the said time and long before was seized of one Messuage and of 14. acres of Land Medow and Pasture with the appurtenances to the said Messuage belonging and that the Plaintiff and all they whose estate the Plaintiff had in the Tenements ought to have common and so prescribed to have common for him his Farmers Tenants c. for all comunable cattell levant couchant upon the Tenements c. And upon issue taken upon the Common it was found for the Plaintif and alledged in arrest of Judgment that it did not appear by the Barre to the Avowry in what place the Messuage and Land to which the Common did appertain did lie to wit whether it did lie in Coringham or in any other place or County and thisof necessity ought to have been shewed in certain because the tenure ought to be both of the place where the House and Land did lye and of the place where the Land did lye in which the Common was claimed and therefore of necessity ought to have been shewed incertain and shall not of necessity be intended to be in Coringham where the Common is For a Common may be appendant or appurtenant to Land in another County And the trvall shall be of both Counties and Judgement was arrested by the whole Court TRuelock versus Riggsby Mich. 8. Jacobi In Replevin for the taking of six Kine in a place called Brisley hill in Radley in the County of Berks the Defendant as Bailiff of one Read makes Conisance that the place where c. contains fifty acres and is parcell of the Mannor of Barton whereof the place where c. is parcell and showes that E. 6. was seised of the Mannor of Barton whereof the place where is parcell and granted it by Letters Patents to R. Leigh and divers other Lands by the name of the Coxleyes c. and amongst other particulars in the Patent the King granted Brisley hill in Barton and deduces the Free-hold of the Mannor of which the place In which c. is parcell to Read and he as Bailiff to him took the Kine damage Fesant the Plaintiff replies and shows that one Hide was seised of a Messuage and divers Acres of Land in Radley and that he and those whose estate he hath for himself his Farmers and Tenants used to have Common in the said place called Brisley hill in Radley when the said Feild called Brisley hill in Radley was fresh and not sowed all that yeare with their Cattell Levant and Couchant and when the Field was sowne with Corne and when the Corne was carried away untill it was referred and so justifie the putting in of six Kine using his Common because the Feild was not sown with Corne at the time to which the Defendant pleads and saies that part of the Feild called Brisley Hill in the Avowry named was at that time sown with Corn c. and the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged for the Plaintiff for two reasons The first was because the Defendant in his Avowry referres the taking of the Cattell to another place then that set forth in the Avowry which is not in question and in which the Plaintiff claims no Common for the Plaintiff may claim Common in Brisley hill in Radley and the place named in the Defendants Avowry to which he referres his Plea is Brisley hill in Barton for Brisley hill in Radley is not named in the Avowry by any speciall name but onely by implication by this name the place in which c. and for that reason the rejoinder doth not answer the matter in the replication The second cause was because the Plaintiff claims Common when Brisley hill in Radley was unsown with Corn and the Defendant to that although his Plea should referre to the same Brisley yet hath he given no full answer for he saith that parcell of the said Feild was sowed with Corn and the Court held that sowing of parcell of the Feild shall not hinder the Plaintif from using his Common in the residue for that may be done by covin to deceive the Plaintiff of his Common for the Plaintif claiming his Common when the Field that is the whole Feild is sown shall be barred of his common by sowing of parcell of it notwithstanding that parcell be sowed the Plaintif shall have his common by the opinion of the whole court GOdfrey versus Bullein Mich. 8 Jacobi Bullein brought a Reple vin against Godfrey for the taking of six Beasts in such a place in Bale in the County of Norfolk the Defendant as Bailif of R. Godfrey makes conisance because before the time and at the time in which c. the said R. Geffrey was seised of a Court Leet in Baile of all the inhabitants and râ—â—dent within the Precinct of the Mannor of Baile to be holden within the Precinct of the Mannor as appertaining to his Mannor and shews how that he had used to have a Fine of ten shillings called a Leet Fine of all the cheif pledges of his Leet and if they failed to pay the Steward had used to amerce them that made default in payment shewed how that at a Court holden within the Mannor such a day it was presented that the Plaintif in the Replevin being an inhabitant in B. and resident within the Precinct of the Mannor made default in payment of the said Fine of ten shillings being then one of the cheif pledges of the Court by reason whereof he was amerced at five pounds which being not paid the Defendant took the Beasts and the Issue was whether Bullein at that court was a chief Pledge or no and the Venire to try his Issue was onely of the Mannor and found for the Plaintif and damages and costs to thirty pounds given against Geffrey upon which he brought a Writ of Error in the late Kings Bench and adjudged Error and the Judgement reversed for the Venire facias should have been both of Bail which was the Village as of the Mannor for although the Court be held within the Mannor yet the Leet it self is within the village of Baile and the Plaintiff was an inhabitant and resident within the village which village is within the Precinct of the Mannor and though Fleming cheif Justice held that nothing was in question but whether the Plaintiff was cheif pledge at the Court held within the Mannor or no and so nothing within the
of the King for the Plaintiff and day given for the argument of that till the next tearm Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. Tresham against Lambe LEwes Tresham was Plaintiff in waste against John Lambe the Plaintiff supposed the Defendant had made waste in sowing and plowing ancient meadow the which he had let to the Defendant for years in Rushton in the county of Northampton and sowed it with Woade and prayed Estrepement upon the Statute of Glocester chapter 13. And upon examination it appears that the Lands let was pasture and Meadow the Pasture was Ridge and furrow but had been mowed and used for meadow for diverse years and that the Defendant plowed and sowed that with Woade but this which had been ancient meadow he used that as Meadow and did not convert that to Arable Land but the Judges would not grant any Estrepement to the Pasture for that it was Ridge and furrow and it was no ancient meadow although that had been mowed time out of minde c. But to the ancient Meadow they granted a writ of Esterpement but Foster seemed to be of another opinion for that that it was to sow Woade for that that it is against common Right and the fume and smell of that is offensive and infectious but if it had been to sow Corne he agreed as above and for the executing the Writ of Estrepement they all agreed that the Sheriff ought to take if need be the power of the County against those which made the waste hanging the Action and may commit them if they will not obey him for the words of the Statute are that you shall cause to keep which shall be intended in safety But if Lessee for years trench or draine that is no Wast as it was now of late times adjudged where if the Lessee takes any of the reasonable Bootes that the Law allowes that it shall be no Waste nor Estrepement shall be granted see Fitzherberts Natura Brevium 59. m. If a man devise Land to his Executors for years this is assetts but if he devise that his Executors shall sell his Lands or devise his Lands to his Executors to be sold this shall be no assets untill the Lands are sold and the money for which the land shall be sold shall be assetts A Record of Nisi prius in an Action of Debt upon an obligation with condition to pay such a sum of Money at such a Feast next after the date of the obligation and the day of the date of the obligation was omitted in the Record of the Nisi prius so that it doth not appear which shall be the next Feast at which the mony ought to be paid after the date and by all the Justices that was no perfect Issue and for that the Justices of Nisi prius have no power to proceed upon it and for that it shall not be amended otherwise if it had been a good Issue though that another thing had been mistaken see Dyer 9. Eliz. 260. 24. And see before the same Tearm here The King pardoned a man attaint for giving a false verdict yet he shall not be at another time impannelled upon any Jury for though that the punishment were pardoned yet the Guilt remaines Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. James versus Reade THE case was the King was seised of a Mannor where there were diverse Copy-holders for life and was also seised of eight Acres of Land in another Mannor in which the Copy-holders have used time out of minde c. To have common and after the King grants the Mannor to one and the eight Acres to another and a Copy-holder puts in his beasts into the eight Acres of Land and in trespasse brought against him by the Patentee of the eight Acres he prescribes that the Lord of a Mannor and all those whose estate he hath in the Mannor have used time out of minde c. For themselves and their Copy-holders to have Common in the said eight Acres of Land and further pleaded that he was Copy-holder for his life by grant after the said unity of possession in the King and so demanded judgment if action against which the said unity of possession was pleaded upon which the Defendant demurrs and all the Justices seemed that though that prescription was pleaded that the common was extinct but it seems also to them that by speciall pleading he might have beene helped and save his common for this was common Appendant see 4. Coke Tirringhams Case 37. 6. Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Cartwright against Gilbert IN Debt upon an obligation with condition to be and perform an Arbitrement to be made the Arbitrators award that the Defendant should make Submission and should acknowledge himself sorry for all transgressions and words at or before the next Court to be held in the Mannor of P. And for the not performance of that Award the Plaintiff brought this Suit and the Defendant in Barr of this pleads that at the said next Court he went to the Court to make his submission and to acknowledge himself greived according to the Award and was there ready to have performed it but further he saith that the Plaintiff was not there to accept it upon which the Plaintiff demurred and it seemes to Coke and Foster that the Defendant hath done as much as was to be done of his part and for that that the Plaintiff was not there ready to accept the Defendant was discharged for this submission is personall and to the intent to make them freinds and for that both the parties ought to be present But Walmesley and Warburton seemed that it might have been very well made in the absence of the Plaintiff as well as a man may submit himself to an Arbitrement of a man which is absent for this is only to be made to the intent to shew himself sorrowfull for the Trespasses and words which he hath made and spoken and it was not argued but adjourned till the next tearme and the Justices moved the parties to make an end of that for that it was a trifling Suit Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610 In the Common Bench. Sir Edward Ashfeild SIR Edward Ashfeild was bound in an obligation by the name of Sir Edmund and subscribed that with the name of Edward and in Debt brought upon that he pleads it is not his Deed and it seemes to all the Justices that he might well plead that for it appears to them that he is not named Edmund and the originall against him was Command Edward otherwise Edmund and this was not good for a man cannot have two Christian names and if judgment were given against him by the name of Edmund and the Sheriff arrest him by Capias that false imprisonment lies against him But if he have a name given to him when he was christened and another when he was confirmed he shall be called and known by the name given unto him at the time
But in this case before Attornement the Grantee hath nothing and after Attornement the particuler Estate being granted it shall be drownd in the reversion Harris Serjeant the words of the devise are that his Feoffees and all other Persons which after his Death shall be seised shall be seised to the same uses before declared and of one Acre he hath not any Feoffees for of that the Feoffment was voyd and yet it was agreed that the devise was good as Lyngies Case was in 35. H. 8 cited by Anderson in Welden and Elkintons Case Commentaries 523 b. And he argued that though that when a conveyance may enure in severall courses yet it cannot enure for part in one course and part in another course and for that this devise enures as a devise of Land for one Acre and declaration of the use of the Feoffment foâ—…her Acre for it is agreed in Sir Rowland Haywards Case 2. 〈…〉 a. 6. Coke 18. a. Sir Edward Cleeres Case and also in this 〈◊〉 the devisor hath made expresse declaration that the Land shall passe by the Feoffment and that the Will shall be but a declaration of the use of the Feoffment and for that nothing shall passe by the devise with which the Justices seemed to accord and cited a case to be adjudged in the Kings Bench 40. Eliz. where the Father gives and grants Lands to his Son his heires with warranty and makes a Letter of Attorney within the deed to make Livery and adjudged that that shall not enure as a Covenant to raise a use for that that it appeares by the Letter of Attorney that his intent was that that should enure as a Feoffment and not as any other manner of conveyance see 14 Eliz. Dyer 311. 83. Master Cromwells Case and so it was adjudged accordingly Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench Gargrave against Gargrave Katherine Gargrave was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Sir Richard Gargrave Knight and the case was this The Father of Sir Richard Gargrave was seised of divers Tenements called Lyngell Hall in Lyngell Hall and of a Moore called Kingstey Moore in another Town and the Tenants of the said Father of Sir Richard have used to have Common in the said Moore and the said Father so being of that seised demised the said Tenements to the said Katherine Gargrave for her Joynture by these words by the name of Hingell Hall and certaine Land Meadow and Pasture in certainty and with all â—ands Tenements and Hereditaments to that belonging or with that occupied and enjoyed now or late in the Tenure of one Nevill and Nevill was Tenant of the said premises and had Common in Kingsley Moore upon which the question was if the said Katherine by this demise shal have Common in the said Moore or not And Hutton Serjeant argued that the said Katherine shall have Common in the said Moore for he said that the said demise shall be expounded according to the intent of the partie 〈◊〉 as it is agreed in Hill and Granges Case Commentaries 270. b. Where a man makes a Lease for yeares of a house and all the Lands to that belonging and though it is there agreed that Land cannot be appurtenant to a house yet this word appurtenant shall be taken in the effect and sense of usually occupied with the Messuage or lying to the house by which it appeares that the words are transferred from the proper signification to another to satisfie the intent of the parties for it is the office of the Judges to take and expound the words which the common People use to expresse their intent according to their intent and for that shall be taken not according to the very definition insomuch that it doth not stand with the matter but in such manner as the party used them And for that this grant shall amount to a new grant of Common in the said Moor for as it seems common or feeding for Cattell may be granted and passe by the name of Tenements Hereditaments or at least shall be included and comprised within the words Tenements and Hereditaments and so shall be construed as a thing occupied and injoyed with the said Messuages see Hen. Finches Case 39. Coke And it was an expresse endorsment upon the demise that the said Katherine should not have Common in the said Moore but it was agreed by all that this was vaine and idle and nothing worth but he urged that this shall have a favorable construction for that it was for Joynture which shall have as favorable construction as Dower And so he prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff and of the other part Nicholls Serjeant argued that this shall not amount to a new grant for he said that they are not apt words to receive such construction for he said that this is no Tenement or Hereditament no Common but only a Feeding for the Cattell of the Lessee in the wast of the Lessor see 20. Edw. 2. Fitzherbert admeasurement and it cannot passe as a thing used with the said house for that was not in Esse at the time of the grant and there is not any apt word to make a new grant â—nd he cited 〈◊〉 Iudgement in Action of wast between Arden and Darcy where Ardon was seised of the Mannor of Curball and also of Parkhall and makes a conveyance of the Mannor of Curball to divers uses and at this time parcell of the Mannor of Curball was occupied with Parkhall as parcell of that and after made another conveyance of all his Lands in England except the Mannor of Curball And adjudged that the Parke which is used with Parkhall shall not be within the exception Coke saith that it was only feeding and not Hereditament for the Inheritance of both was in the Lessor but if it be granted of feeding it shall be intended the same like feeding that the Tenant hath as if the King grant such Liberties as the City of London hath and that shall be good and so it was adjourned Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Cannige against Doctor Newman IN an Information upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. chapter 13. Of non-residency it was found by speciall Verdict that Doctor Newman was Incumbent invested in the Rectory of Staplehurst in the County of Kent and that hee was also seised of a house in Staplehurst aforesaid scituate within twenty yards of the said Rectory and that the mansion house of the said Rectory was in good repaire and that Doctor Newman held that in his hands and occupation with his one proper goods and did not let it to any other and that he inhabited in the said Messuage and not in the Parsonage the Statute of 21 H. 8 chapter 13. Provides that every Parson promoted to any Parsonage shall be personally resident and abiding in at and upon his said Benefice and in case any such spirituall Parson keep not residence at his Benefice as aforesaid but absent himself willfully by the space
defects and with this agreed the expresse Booke of 11 Edw. 3. Fitz. Ayde 32. and so he concluded that it should not be granted Warburton Justice doubted and insomuch that the granting of ayde where it is not grantable is no error but otherwise of the denying of that where it ought to be granted he would be advised But he conceived that the cause for which ayde is granted is not the feeblenesse of the Estate of him which prays it onely but to the intent that they may joyne together and one defend the other for Tenant for life may plead some Plea which he in reversion may plead saving the joyning of Issue in a Writ of Right and he had a Manuscript of the 11 Rich. 2. where Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder for life was and the first Tenant for life had ayde of them both in remainder and so concluded Coke cheif Justice that aid ought not to be granted in this Case insomuch that he which is the first Tenant hath greater Estate then he in Remainder for his Estate in Remainder is more Remote and uncertaine and to the Book of 11 R. 2. He agreed that the ayd was granted of all in Remainder but there they in Remainder had Estate tayle and he sayd that ayd is to be granted in two Cases in personall Actions to maintain Issue and when Tenant for life prays in ayd of him in Remainder or Reversion without which they cannot answer nor plead nor Issue cannot be deduced but so it is not here for the first Tenant for life may answer and plead to the Issue as well without him in Remainder for life as with him for if Tenant for life Remainder in tayl Remainder in fee if the first Tenant for life be impleaded he shall have ayd of him in Remainder in tayl otherwise if the Reversion had been to the first Tenant for life with a mesne Remainder in Tayle 41 Ed. 3. 42 Ed. 3. 10 Ed. 3. And 11 Ed. 3. Receit 118. Tenant for life Reversion for life Remainder in fee was he in Reversion for life shall be received upon default of the first Tenant for life and if he will not then he in Remainder in fee shall be received and yet he shall not have Wast as it appears by 24 Ed. 3. for this destroyes the first Estate but the receit maintains and preserves it and he sayd that the 11 Ed. 3. Ayd 32. before cited rules this case and so of 4 H. 6. And so he concluded and insomuch that Warburton doubted of it it was adjourned Trinity 10. Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Yet Rowles against Mason See before 57. WINCH Justice argued that the Defendant is not guilty and that the Plaintiff shall take nothing by his Writ for he conceived that the verdict is uncertaine insomuch that it is not found that Livery and Seisin was made upon the Lease for three lives of the Mannor but onely one Memorandum that it was made in the house of the Lord but it is not found that this House was parcell of the Mannor but after it is found that the Lessee by force of this was seised by which it is implyed that it was very well executed and this being in speciall verdict would be very good he conceived there were two principall matters in the Case First Upon the Bargaine and Sale of Trees if they be re-united to the Mannor or remaine undivided Secondly Upon the two customes the which he conceived depend upon a question for the first warrants the second And to the first When a man devises a Mannor for three lives and by the same Deed in another clause bargaines and sells the Trees and then insues the Habendum and this is of the Mannor only and limits Estate of that for three lives without mention of the Trees hee conceived that the Trees passe before the Habendum absolutely and it is not like to a Bargaine and Sale of a Mannor with Trees or Advowson appendant and here the purpose and intent appeares that they shall pass together and as appendant But in the first case they shall passe as a Chattell immediately upon the delivery of the Deed before any livery made upon this to pass the Mannor and if Livery had never been made yet he shall have the Trees see 23 Eliz. 379. 18 Dyer Where a man devises and grants a mannor and trees Habendum the Mannor for one and twenty yeares without mention of the Trees and yet by Windham Periam and Meade against Dyer the Lessee cannot cut and sell the Trees for there was all in one sentence that is the grant of the Trees and the Demise of the Mannor see the 8 Coke Pexells Case how a Grant shall be construed and where that shall be intended to pass Inheritance and where to pass but a Chattell where a man grants a Chattell and ten pound yearly to be payd and in 7 Ed. 4. If a man hath Inheritance and a Lease in one Town and he by one and the same Deed gives Grants Bargaines and sells all to one Habendum the Inheritance to him and his Heires this is no forfeiture of the Lease insomuch that the Fee doth not passe of that so in the Principall Case Fee-simple passeth in the Trees and Free-hold in the Mannor and he conceived that by the Demise over the Land and Trees are not re-united and this he collected out of Herlackendens Case 4. Coke and 12. Eliz. Bendlowes a man made a Lease for anothers life and bargaine and sold the Trees to him for whose life Lessee dyes he for whose life becometh occupant of the Land he shall have severall Estates one Estate in the Land and another Estate in the Trees and so in Ives Case 5 Coke 11. a. Lessee takes a Lease first of Land except the woods and after takes a Lease of the Woods and Trees and they remaine distinct and though that after there are generall words in the Lease that is of all Meadowes Pastures Profits Commodities c. That is not materiall for these shall be referred to all such things which belong to the Land and so he concluded this point that the Trees remain severall from the Land and do not passe to Hoskins by the Demise of the Copy-hold only and so he cannot take advantage of the forfeiture otherwise he did not doubt but that the particular Sum might take advantage of the forfeiture Secondly for the customes he conceived that the first that is that the Copy-holder for life might nominate his Successor and is good and so for the second that such Copy-holder may cut and sell all the Trees growing upon his Copy-hold and he conceived that the validity of the custome ought to be adjudged by the Judges and the Truth of that by the Jury and when it is found true by a Jury and that it hath such antiquity that exceeds the memory of man then this obtaines such priviledge as the
is appurtenant or appendant the Grantee shall have Common Pro Rata but if a commoner purchase parcell of the Land in which he hath Common appurtenant that this extincts all his Common And it was agreed that Common may be appendant to a Carve of Land as it appeares by the 6 Ed. 3. 42. and 3. Assise 2. as to a Mannor but this shall he intended to the Demesnes of the Mannor and so a Carve of Land consists of Land Meadow and Pasture as it appeares by Tirringhams case 4. Coke 37. b. And Common appendant shall not be by prescription for then the Plea shall be intended double for it is of common Right as it appeares by the Statute of Morton chap. 4. And the common is mutuall for the Lord hath Right of Common in the Lands of the Tenant and the Tenant in the Lands of the Lord And it was urged by Nicholls Serjeant that the Common shall be apportioned as if it were Rent and that the Lessee shall have Common for his Lease and then the Lessor hath no Common appurtenant or appendant to the two Virgats of Land and for that the Prescription was not good Coke cheife Justice if it had been pleaded that he had used to have Common for the said Beasts Levant and Couchant upon the said Land there had been no question but it should be apportioned for the Beastes are Levant and Couchant upon every part as one day upon one part and another day upon another part and for that extinguishment or suspention of part shall be of all as if a man makes a Leafe of two Acres of Land rendring Rent and after bargaines and sells the reversion of one Acre there shall be an apportionment of the Rent as well as if it had been granted and attornment And he agreed that if a man have Common appurtenant and purchase parcell of the Land in which he hath Common all the Common is extinct but in this case common appendant shall be apportioned for the benefit of the Plow for as it is appendant to Land Hyde and gain And in the principall case there was common appendant for it was pleaded to be belonging to two Virgats of Land and for commonable Beastes And he conceived also that the prescription being as appertaining to such Land that this shall be all one as if it had been said Levant and couchant for when they are appurtenant they shall be intended to Plow Manure Compester and Feed upon the Land And also he conceived that the right of Common remaines in the Lessor and for that he may prescribe for after the end of the Tearme shall be returned and in the intermin he may Bargain and sell and the Vendee shall have it and shall have common for his Portion And Walmesley Justice agreed to that and that during the Tearme the Lessor shall be excluded of his Common for his proportion Foster Justice agreed and that the possession of the Lessee is the possession of the Lessor but he conceived when the Lessor grants to the Lessee six acres of Land in such a feild where the Land lies and then the Beasts were taken in another feild And so they agreed for the matter in Law and also that the pleading was ill and so confesse and avoid the prescription But upon the traverse as it is pleaded the Jury shall not take benefit of it and Judgement was given accordingly Termino Pasche 7. Jacobi 1609 In the Common Bench. THOU art a Jury man and by thy false and subtill means hast been the Death and overthrow of a hundred men for which words Action upon the case for slander was brought and it seemed to Coke cheife Justice that it did well lye if it be averred that he was a Jury man and so of Judge and Justice for Sermo relatus ad personam intelligo debet de qualitate persone as Bracton saith and in the like Action brought by Butler it was not averred that he was a Justice of Peace and resolved that an Action upon the case doth not lye But Walmesley Justice conceived that an Action doth not lye for one Juror only doth not give the Verdict but he is joyned with his Companions and it is not to be intended that he could draw his Companions to give Verdict against the truth and false and subtill means are very generall Warburton Justice agreed with Coke and conceived that the Action well lies being averred that he was a Jury man as if one calls another Bankrupt Action well lies if it be alledged that the Plaintiff was a Tradesman and it is common speaking that one is a Leader of the Jurors and a man may presume that other Jurors will give Verdict and may take upon him the knowledge of the Act. Walmesley conceived that the Action did not lye for that the words are a hundred men which is impossible and for that no man will give any credit to it and for that it is no slander and for that Action doth not lye no more then if he had sayd that he had kild a thousand men But Coke Warburton Daniell and Foster agreed that the number is not materiall for by the Words his malice appears and for that they conceived that the Action doth well lye Pasch 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Denis against More ANthony Denis Plaintif in Replevin William More Defendant the case was this Two joynt Lessees for life were the Remainder or Reversion in Fee being in another person he in Reversion grants his Reversion Habendum the aforesaid Reversion after the death surrender or forfeiture of the Tenant for life it hapneth that the Lease determines for the life of the Grantee and Remains to another for life and resolved that this shall be a good grant of the Reversion to the first effect of Possession after the Deaths of the Tenants for life according to the 23 of Eliza. Dier 377. 27. And it shall not be intended to passe a future interest as if it were void of the other party and so was the opinion of all the Court see Bucklers case 2. Coke 55. a. and Tookers case 2. Coke 66. Upon a Fine the first Proclamation was made in Trinity Tearm 5. Jacobi And the second in Michaelmas Tearm 5. Jacobi And the third in Hillary Tearm 6. Jacobi where it should be in Hillary Tearm 5. Jacobi And the fourth and fifth in Easter Tearm 6. Jacobi And this was agreed to be a palpable Errrour for the fourth Proclamation was not entered at all and the fifth was entered in Hillary Tearm 6. Jacobi where it should have been in Hillary Tearm 5 Jacobi and it shall not be amended for that it was of another Tearm and the Court conceived that this was a forfeiture of the Office of the Chirographer for it was an abusing of it and the Statute of 4. H. 4. 23. and Westminster 2. Are that Judgement given in the Kings Court shall stand untill
to the estate casts the possession of his Ancestors upon him but a stranger to whom a Copy hold is surrendred hath nothing before admittance because he is a purchasor And a Copy made to him upon which he is admitted is his Evidence by the custome and before that he is not a customary Tenant and so he could not transfer any thing to another and adjudged so according to 24 Eliz Alderman Dixies Case BEdell versus Lull Pasch 7. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares in Ejectment upon a Lease made by Eliz James of certain Lands The Defendant pleads that before Eliz had any thing one Martin James was seised in fee of it and had issue Henry James and dyed seised by reason whereof it discended to H. J. as Son and Heir and that Eliz entred and was seised by abatement and made the Lease to the Plaintiffe and that afterwards the Defendant as servant to H James and by his command c. The Plaintiffe by way of replication confesses the seisen of M. James And that he being so seised by his last Will in writing devised the said Land to Eliz in fee and afterwards dyed seised by reason whereof she entred by force of the devise and made the Lease to the Plaintiffe and traverse without that Eliz was seised by abatement in manner and form c. And the Defendant demurrs upon this replication and shewed for cause that the traverse was not good and adjudged for the Defendant for the Plaintiffe by his replication need not both confesse avoid and traverse the abatement too for the Plaintiffe made a title to his Lease by the Will of his Ancestor and that proved that he entred legally and not by abatement as the Defendant had supposed And then to take a traverse over makes the replication vitious For a traverse shall not be taken but where the thing traversed is issuable And here the devise is onely the title issuable And it was also held that the traverse was not good as to the manner of it for he should not have traversed without that that he was seised by abatement but it ought to have been without that that he did abate and also if the Plaintiffe had minded to have fully answered the Defendant he ought to have took his traverse in the very same words the Defendant had pleaded it against him to wit without that that he did enter and was seised by abatement which observe The Case concerned Sir H. James to whom the Defendant was Tenant SAunders versus Cottington Mich. 7. Jac. An Ejectment brought of two Houses but the Bill was onely for one and it was filed And the Defendant by his paper book pleaded to both Messuages And the Roll in Court and the Record of Nisi prius were two Houses And there was a verdict for the Plaintiffe and Judgement entred accordingly And a Writ of Error was brought by the Defendant and before the Record was removed the Plaintiffe moved the Court that the Bill upon the file might be amended and made two Messuages And because the Defendant had pleaded to Messuages in his Answer in paper and that the Roll and Record were according it was resolved by the whole Court that the Bill upon the File should be amended and made two Messuages for that Bill which made mention onely of one House could not be the ground of all the proceedings afterwards but it was as if no Bill had been filed and therefore it should be supplied and so had been severall times before the Record was renewed Which observe THe Plaintiffe declared in Ejectment upon a Lease of an House 10 Acres of Land 20 Acres of Meadow 20 Acres of Pasture by the name of one Messuage and ten Acres of Meadow be it more or lesse and upon not guilty pleaded the Plaintiffe had a Verdict but moved in Arrest of Judgement and Judgement was stayed For by the Plaintiffs own shewing in his Declaration he could not have Execution of the number of Acres found by the Verdict for in the Lease there is but ten Acres demised And these words more or lesse could not in judgment of Law be extended to thirty or fourty Acres for it is impossible by common intendment and the rather because the Land demanded by the Declaration is of another nature then that which is mentioned in the per nomen c. For that is only of Meadow and the Declaration is of arrable and Pasture MOore versus Hawkins Mich. 8. Jacobi In Ejectment after issue Joyned upon a not guilty pleaded the cause came to be tried before Brook and Yelverton Judges of Assize in the County of Oxford the Plaintiffe had declared of divers Messuages and divers Acres of Land lying in three Villages in the said County And at the tryall before the Jury was sworn Walter the Defendants Counsell put in a Plea that after the last continuance to wit such a day in Trinity Terme before the day of Assize to wit the 20. of July the Assizes being held at Oxford the 21 of July the Plaintiffe had entred into such a Close by name containing eight Acres parcell of the premises specified in the Declaration c. and this Plea was received by the Judges of Assize And afterward in Mich. Terme Yelverton and Walter being of Counsell with the Defendant desired that they might amend their Plea to wit to put in the very Village where the Land did lye into which the entry of the Plaintiffe was because it was but matter of form and not of substance and they were of opinion that the tryall of that new lssue ought to be of all the three Villages named in the Declaration And Yelverton Justice having asked the opinions of all the Judges in Serjeants Inne Fleetstreet related their opinions in the Court the Record of Nisi prius was returned into the Exchequer to wit that it was in the discretion of the Justices of Assize to accept such a Plea as is before and that it might be well allowed as the 10 H. 7. is and it shall stay the Verdict But otherwise it is of a protection for although they allow a protection yet the Judges may take the Verdict de bene esse yet he said that in the 7. E 3. in a Precipe quod reddat a Release was pleaded at the tryal and the Jury found the Verdict but that was the indiscretion of the Judges to allow it when it should not have been allowed And all the said Judges held as he related that the Plaintiffe could not have a replication to that Plea at the tryall for the Justices have no power either to accept a Replication upon that Plea or to try it but onely to return it as parcell of the Record of Nisi prius And they held also that the Plea being put in the Countrey could not be amended in adding the Town in certain in which the Close did lye for it was matter of substance And that the Court of
by the whole Court held to be a condition but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff for doublenesse in the plea. BRown versus Dunri Hill 15. Iac. rotulo 1819. The Defendant made cognizance c. as Bailiff M. Walker Widow Administrator c. R. W. for one rent charge of 6 l. granted by one Warner to the said R. and M. his wife for life of the VVife And the said R. by the said writing granted c. That if it should happen the said yearly Rent to be behind and not paid in part or in all by the space of ten dayes next after any Feast c. being lawfully demanded that then c. the said Warner c. ten shillings nomine paene for every default and that then it should be lawfull to the said W. and M. and their Assigns to enter into the premises and distrain as well for the rent as for the nomine paene and shews that the rent was behind in the life of the Husband and that he dyed intestate and that administration was committed to the woman and made cognisance for the rent due at such a Feast in the life of the Husband and being then behind and the issue was that the Grantor was not seised and after a tryall diverse exceptions were taken one was for that a demand was not alledged another was that the cognisance was made as Bailifle to the Administrator when as the woman by the survivorship should have the rent Another was that it is not alledged that the rent was behind by ten dayes next after the Feast and the exceptions upon debate at diverse dayes were over-ruled First the demand is not necessary for the Distress is a sufficient demand as it was adjudged in Iaces case The second was because the cognisance as Administrator are void idle and superfluous and for the ten dayes it was good because that predicto tempore quo c. It was behind and adjudged by the whole Court for the Advowant SLoper versus Alen Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 3002. Replevin upon the taking of 40. Sheep the issue was that the Sheep were not levant and couchant and found by a speciall verdit that twenty Sheep were levant and couchant and that twenty Sheep were not levant and couchant and it was held upon the reading of the Record that the Plaintiff should have his Judgment BVrton versus Cony Hill 16. Iac. rotulo 2044. The Defendant avows for a rent charge granted to him for life by his Father issuing out of all his Lands in such a Town to have and to hold to levy and yearly to take the said annuity or annuall rent of c. during the naturall life of the said P. at two Feasts in the year to wit c. by equall portions the first payment to be made at the first and next Feast of the said Feasts which should next happen after the term of 8. years ended and determined specified and declared in the said will And if it should happen c. And averres in the avowry that there is not any term of years specified and declared in the said Testament before recited And note that in the premises of the Deed it is recited thus in fulfilling the Will or Testament of me the said T. bearing date such a date I have given c. And the Court held that the grant was present if no term was contained in the will and Judgment was given for the Advowant But after Judgment was entred upon Record an exception was taken because it was not averred that the Grantor was dead and it was allowed for a good exception but it came to late judgment being entred HEyden versus Godsulm Judgment for the Defendant who avowed for rent reserved upon a Lease for years and it was moved that the Plaintiff who brought the writ of Errour upon that Judgment ought to find bayle upon the writ of Errour by the Statute of 3. Iacobi and it was held by the greater number of the Judges that the Plaintiffe should not find bayle for Replevins are not within the Statute TVrny versus Darnes Trin. 17. Iac. rotulo 2887. Demurrer in a replevin upon a traverse of Lands when as the parties have not agreed of the quantity of Land The Avowry was that C. was seised of one Messuage two Barns one Mill c. and 100. acres of Land with the appurtenances in W. and held them of c. by fealty rent c. and suit of Court c. And the Plaintiff prayed in aide and he joyned and alledges that he was seised of 70. acres of Land with the appurtenances in his demesne as of Fee and held them of G. by fealty and rent c. and suit of Court and traverses that he held the Tenements of the said G. as if his Mannor of W. in manner and form as c. and a speciall demurrer and one cause was because he denies not the seisin of the said services but only denies and traverses the tenure and therefore they pretended that the plea contained double matter and was a negative pregnant and secondly whether the Seisin or Tenure be traversable and the Plea was held good by Hubberd and Warburton RIchards versus Young Trin. 16 Jacobi rotulo 104. vel 1700. A Replevin brought for taking of Cattel at Aller in a certain place called Land Mead the Defendant avows as Bailiff of Sir John Davies the Kings Serjeant containing four Acres for damage fesant the Plaintiff pleads in Barr that Henry Tearl of Hunt was seised of the Mannor of Aller whereof one Messuage c. was parcell and customary Land and devisable by Copy of Court Roll and that within the said Mannor there was a Custome that every customary Tenant of the said Messuage hath been used to have Common of Pasture in the said place called Land Mead rhe Issue was without that that within the said Mannour with the appurtenances whereof c. is and time out of mind was a custome that every customary Tenant of the laid Messuage c. had Common of pasture in manner and form c. and Serjeant Harris moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was no custome alledged because it did not appear in the pleading that the place where the taking was supposed to be was within the said Mannor and no custome of the Mannor could extend forth of the Mannor but he ought to prescribe in the Mannor and note he ought to have pleaded that the place in which c. was parcell of the Mannor and then the Plea had been good In a Replevin upon an Avowry for Rent the Plaintiff for part pleadeth payment for the other part an Accord the one Issue is found for the Paintiff and the other for the Defendant the Plaintiff shallrecover his costs and damages and the Defend shall have Judgement of Return habend and no costs and damages I think otherwise it is if the Avowries be severall then on both
or Geldings and no more and because the Beasts aforesaid in the narration aforesaid specified over and above the aforesaid other three Mares or Geldings the aforesayd time in which c. were in the aforesayd place in which c the Grasse then growing there eating and the Common of pasture of the sayd Robert Pargiter overcharging and doing damage to the sayd Robert there the sayd Robert Pargiter in his owne right doth wel avow and the aforesayd John Phillips as Bayliff of the aforesayd Pargiter doe well acknowledge the taking of the Beasts aforesayd in the aforesayd place in which c. and justly c. they then doing damage there c. And the aforesayd Robert Kenrick saith That neither the sayd Robert Pargiter for the reason before alleadged the taking of the aforesayd Beasts in the aforesayd place in which c. can justly avow nor the aforesayd John Phillips as Bayliff of the aforesayd Pargiter for the same reason the taking of the Beasts aforesayd in the aforesayd place in which c. justly can acknowledge Because by protestation that he the sayd Robert Kenrick and all those whose estate the sayd Robert Kenrick now hath and at the aforesayd time of the taking c. had in the sayd Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the appurtenances whereof c. time out of minde had not nor used to have or were accustomed every yeare at the first day of August called Lammas day and from thence to the next Feast of the Parification then next following Common of pasture in the aforesayd place in which c. onely for three Horses Mares or Geldings and not more in manner and forme as the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips above have alleadged for Plea the sayd Robert Kenrick sayth That he long before the time of the taking of the Beasts aforesayd and also at the same time of the taking c. was seised of the Mannor of Kings Sutton with the appurtenances in Kings Sutton and Astrop in the County aforesayd whereof the aforesayd Messuage and four Virges of Land with the appurtenances whereof c. are and at the aforesayd time of the taking c. and also time out of mind c. were parcell in his Demesne as of Fee and the aforesayd House and foure Virges of Land with the appurtenances thereof c. and of the taking and likewise time out of mind were parcell of the Demesne Lands of the Mannor of Kings Sutton aforesayd And the sayd Robert Kenrick so of the Mannor aforesayd with the appurtenances in manner aforesayd appearing seised the sayd Robert before the sayd time in which c. put his Beasts aforesayd which then were the proper Beasts of the sayd Robert Kenrick upon the aforesayd House and four Virges of Land with the appurtenances lying and rising in the aforesayd place in which c. to eate the Grafs there growing in the sayd place in which c. called Great Greens parcell c. the Grass in the same then growing feeding and the aforesayd Beasts were in the place aforesayd untill the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips the aforesayd fourth day of August the seventh yeare aforesayd at Kings Sutton aforesayd in the County aforesayd at Great Greene parcell c. took the sayd Beasts of the sayd Robert Kenrick and those unjustly detained against Sureties and Pledges untill c. as he above against those complaines and this he is ready to verifie whereof and from which the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips the taking of the aforesayd Beasts in the aforesayd place c. further acknowledge the sayd Robert Kenrick demands Judgment and his damages by reason of the taking and unjust detaining of those beasts to be adjudged unto him c. And the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John Phillips say that the aforesaid Plea of the said Robert Kenrick above in the Bar avowed pleaded and matter therein contained is very insufficient in Law justly to avoid the said Robert Pargiter and the said John from just acknowledging the taking of the Beasts aforesaid to have and shut up and that he to the said plea in manner and forme aforesaid pleaded hath no need not by the Law of the Land shall be held to answer and this they are ready to averr whereof for default of a sufficient plea of the aforesaid Robert Kenrick in this part the said Robert and John as before demand Judgement and Returne of the Beasts aforesaid together with their Damages c. To them to be adjudged c. And the aforesaid Robert Kenrick in respect he hath sufficient matter in Law justly to avoid the said Robert Pargiter and the aforesaid John from justly acknowledging the taking of the said Beasts to be shut out as above alledged which he is reaoy to verify which truly matter of the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John do not answer according to their verifying they altogether refuse to admit as before and demand Judgment and their Damages occasioned by the taking and unjust detaining of the said Beasts to be adjudged to them c. And because c. Upon the pleadings the Case was thus a Freeholder prescribs to have common in parcell of the Demesnes of the Mannor for six Horses and other Cattel in certain Land from Lammas to Candlemas that the Lord of the Mannor hath used to have the said Parcell of Land in severall to his owne use from Candlemas to Lammas and in consideration of that the said Lord hath used to have Common in the said parcell of Land for Horses only and not more and the Lord unjustly puts in other Beasts then the said three Horses in the said parcel of Land and surcharged the Common and the Free-holder distrayned them doing Damage and the Lord brings a Replevin and it was argued that prescription was not good for that that Free-holder claimes that as Common without number in his severall Soyle the Grantee cannot exclude the owner of the Soile 12 H. 8. Brooke so of him which hath Common Fishing in the severall of another he cannot exclude him which hath the severall 18 H. 6. 16. And it is not like to the Case of the time of Edward the first prescription the 55. Where is Prescription that the Owner of the Soile shall be excluded from his Common for part of the yeare for there the other claimes all the Vesture of the Land and so may well exclude the Lord but not when he claimes it but as Common but it was agreed that by Lawes by the Commoners consent they may order that their great Cattell shall be put in in such Feild only untill such a Feast and after that for sheep and swine and this is good as it appears by 46 Ed. 3. 25. And Coke cheife Justice said that such prescription to have Common and to exclude the Owner of the Soyle is not good and he saith that so it hath been adjudged between Whyte of Shirland 31 Eliz. And in
Plaintiff SMith versus Bolles Sheriff of London Pasc 9. Jac. rotulo 1353. In case for that the name of the Sheriffs were omitted on the venire fac And for that cause one Judgement given for the said Smith was reversed by Writ of Error And for that Misprision Smith brought such Action of the Case HArris versus Adams If thou hadst had thy Right thou hadst been hanged for breaking of Paches House the words not actionable Thou art a Thief thou hast stollen the Town-beam meaning the Town of Wickham Serjeant Hutton of opinion the Action would lie STephens Attourney versus Battyn for words Thou hast cozened M. Windsor of his Fee and I will sue thee for it in the Star-chamber for that thou didst not come for Windsor Judgement for the Plaintiff Trin. 11. Jac. BRadley versus Jones Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 3390. The Plaintiff brings his Action upon the Case for unjust vexation The Defendant had exhibited Articles against the Plaintiff to have the good Behaviour against him and took his Oath before Doctor Cary one of the Masters of the Chancery and afterwards the Defendant ceased prosecution there and obtained from the Kings Bench a Supplicavit to have the good Behaviour there And the Court was of opinon that the Action would lie because he prosecuted in the Kings Bench and not in the Chancery But the Court said that if he had prosecuted in the Chancery though the Articles had been scandalous yet no Action would have lyen for a man shall not be punished for mistaking the Law for he may be misadvised by his Counsel BRooks versus Clerk Pasch 11. Jac. rotulo 307. Action brought for these words His Son Brooks hath deceived me in a Reckoning for Wares And his Debt-book which he keepeth for Sale of Wares in his Shop is a false Debt-book and I will make him ashamed of his Calling Hubbart and Nichols against the Plaintiff and Warburton for the Plaintiff Pasch 11. Jac. rotulo 2147. Action of the Case brought for a Nusance for building the Defendants House so near the Plaintiffs that a great part of it superpends And the Plaintiff in the conveying his Title shews a Lease for years made to him if the Lessor should so long live and doth not aver the Life of the Lessor but saith that by vertue of the Demise the Plaintiff hath been and then was thereof possessed and adjudged sufficient MOrton versus Leedell Hill 10. Jac. rotulo 1783. Action of the Case for these words He meaning the Plaintiff is a lying dissembling Fellow and a mainsworn and forsworn Fellow And Judgement for the Plaintiff after divers motions THomas Attourney versus Axworth Pasch 11. Eliz. rotulo 352. Action of the Case for these words This is John Thomas his writing and he hath forged this Warrant meaning a Warrant made by Buller Sheriff of that County upon a Capias prosecuted out of the Court of Common Pleas by M. H. against the Defendant and directed to the Sheriff ROw versus Alport Mich. 11. Jac. rotulo 1527. Action upon the Case brought for suing in the Admiral Court for a thing done upon the Land and not upon the high Sea BRay versus Ham Trin. 13. Jac. rotulo 1994. Action of the Case for these words Thou art a cozening Knave and thou hast cozened me in selling false Measure in my Barley and the Countrey is bound to curse thee for selling with false Measure and I will prove it and thou hast changed my Barley which I bought of thee And the Plaintiff sets forth in his Declaration that he was Bayliff to W. C. and H. C. of certain Lands in P. for three years and during the said time had the care and selling of divers Corn and Grain growing upon the same Land and after Triall and Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Action would not lie but the Court were of a contrary opinion and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff BRown versus Hook Pasch 13. Jac. rotulo 234. Action of the Case for these words Brown is a good Attourney but that he will play on both sides And it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that those words would not bear an Action but the Court held they were actionable but did not give Judgement because the Plaintiff did not shew in his Declaration that the words were spoken of himself STober versus Green Mich. 11. Jac. rotulo 1â—91 Action of the Case for these words Thou didst keep and sell by false Weights and in 24. s. bestowing thy Weights were false two Ounces and thy Man will be a Witness against thee and I will prove it The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff occupied one Shop and kept unlawfull Weights and by such Weights sold by reason whereof he said these words Videlicet Thou didst keep and sell by unlawfull Weights and in 24. s. bestowing thy Weights were false an Ounce and three quarters and thy Man c. And traversed the words in the Declaration and it was adjudged a naughty Traverse for that the words in the Bar and justified by the Defendant are actionable AGar versus Lisle Mich. 11. Jac. rot 318. Action of Trover brought in York-shire the Defendant justifies for Toll at Darnton in Durham and traverse c. The Court doubts of his Traverse being onely for the County of York whereas it ought to be any where else generally And Hobart said the Bar was nought because in the justification no conversion was sufficiently alleadged And note that if a man doth a thing which is allowable by the Law as to distrain Cattle and impound them that is no conversion but if he work them it is a conversion AVstin versus Austin Trin. 10. Jac. rotulo 3558. In Troyer the Defendant pleads that before the time that the Plaintiff supposes the Goods to come to the Defendants hands one S. A. was possessed of the Goods and amongst other Goods sold them to the Defendant but kept them in his own hands and afterwards sold them to the Plaintiff by reason whereof the Plaintiff was possessed and afterwards looses them and they came to the Defendants hands who converts them as it was lawfull for him to do The Plaintiff demurs and it was held a naughty Bar for it amounts to a Non cul And Cook doubted whether the Court should compell the Defendant to plead Non cul or award a Writ of Injury And a Writ of Inquire was awarded ALlyns versus Sparkes al. Trin. 8. Jac. rotulo 1606 Action of the Case brought for stopping up the Plaintiffs way and the Plaintiff declares that one H. B. was seised of the Mannour of M. of which two Acres were customary Land and that the Lord of the Mannour had for himself and his customary Tenants for the said two Acres a certain high-way in by and thorow c. And that the Lord of the Mannour granted the said two
pair of Stones in your Mill and pay a Rate for them then if you put on another pair of Stones new Tithes must be paid in kinde If one in Fee make a Lease for Life and after granteth a Rent-charge if the Grantors Cattle come upon the Ground I may distrain them although I cannot distrain the Tenant in Possession but the Grantor cannot avoid it If the condition of a Bond be to discharge a Messuage of all Incumberances then one may plead generally that he did discharge it of all Incumberances but if it be to discharge it of such a Lease then I must shew how If a man devise his Trees to his Executors to pay his Debts the Executor must in convenient time cut down the Wood. And so if a man sell his Trees the Vendee must sell them in a convenient time If I grant you out of my Mannour 10. l. per ann and recite but five pounds the Recitall shall not diminish the Grant And so if I grant you ten pounds out of my Mannor and recite 20. l. this shall not inlarge it If I infeoff two of Land habendum to me in Fee and habendum to the other in Fee they are Tenants in common In the Court of Wards one Dymack was a Purchasor by Bargain and Sale and before inrolment D. dies and after his Death the Indenture was inrolled the Question was whether his Son shall be in Ward for the Land and it was adjudged that he is Heir to the Land and is in by the Statute of 27 Eliz. of Bargains and Sales and not by the Statute of Uses My Lord Hobard held that if an Executor pay a Bond made upon a usurious Contract it shall be a Devastavit in the Executor and if he be bound to present one to a Church and he present one upon a Simonaical Contract the Bond is broken Hill 10. Jac. Resolved if one make a Lease of a Mannour reserving Rent and afterwards the Lessor grants the Reversion of forty acres thereof now if an Action of Debt be brought by the Grantee he may aver the rate of the Acre and if the Defendant plead Nil debet per patriam the Jury shall rate the value and although the value be found less by the Jury then the Plaintiff surmiseth yet the Plaintiff shall recover after the proportion For Acts in Law no Attornement is necessary as if a Lease made for years reserving a Rent which is assigned to a Woman for Dower she shall have the Rent without Attornement In Cambels case upon an Elegit returned that the Lessor was seised in Fee and that by vertue of the Judgement the moity was delivered to the Plaintiff and for the Rent reserved upon the Lease for years before Judgement If a man top a Tree under the growth of 21. years and suffer the body to grow and afterwards when the boughes are grown out again he doth lop and top it again I shall pay no Tithes although the Tree was not priviledged at the first cutting by the opinion of the whole Court If a Debt be recovered in a Court of Record that Debt cannot be assigned over to any man by the opinion of the whole Court Mich. 10. Jac. Pasch 14. If Money be to be paid upon proof made there the triall shall be the proof to be made before but if it be to pay Money within 3. Moneths after proof there proof must be made first but if it be upon proof before A. then proof being made before A. this extending proof shall tie the party but Warburton held the contrary and he resembled this to a surmise to have a prohibition which is no binding proof for the Jury may pass against the proof in the surmise when a Bond is to pay Money upon proof this is a legal proof by Law if it be laid generally to be paid by proof if it were by proof before two Justices or two Aldermen this shall be intended a sufficient proof when the Action shall be brought upon the Bond and if the Defendant say that due proof was not made then they shall say that before the two Justices c. it was proved by testimony before them and then the Judges shall judge whether it be a sufficient proof or not If I devise Lands to my Executors for three years for the payment of my Debts this is Assetts in the Executors hands but if I devise my Land to be sold for the payment of my Debts it is no Assets before it be sold Mich. 9. Jacobi It was held in the Common Pleas by the whole Court that in the Kings case the consideration of the Money paid is never to be proved Likewise in a common case of Bargain and Sale in consideration of Money paid where in truth none was paid yet it is good and the Bargainee is not tied to prove the Payment for the Bargainer may have an Action of Debt If a Legacy be granted out of Leases and a Suit in the Spiritual Court for this shall not be prohibited but otherwise it is if it were out of Fee Simple Lands HE le versus Frettenden Resolution upon two Cases upon the Statute of E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes Videlicet A man possessed of Corn sels it and before two Witnesses sets out his Tithes and afterwards privately takes away his Tithes and the Parson sues him upon the Statute of treble Damages for not setting forth of Tithes and the Defendant proves by Witnesses that he set forth his Tithes yet this Fraud is helped for the words are without fraud or deceit In the second case one secretly sels his Corn to one who was not known and afterwards the Vendee commands the Vendor to cut the Corn which he doth and takes away the whole Corn without setting forth his Tithes and the Question was who should be sued for the Tithes and the Court held the first Vendor should be sued for it was fraudulent If a man be found guilty of Felony and after receives his Pardon he shall not be Legalis home to pass upon a Jury If a Venire facias be against an Arch-bishop the Venire facias shall be Tam milites quam alios liberos c. because he is a Lord of the Parliament If a man be obliged in a Statute staple his Copy-hold Land is not extendable but it is upon a Statute of Bankrupt If a man have Common in three Acres and purchase one of the three Acres his Common is extinct If a man of the Cinque Ports shall come to London he may be there arrested and shall not have the Priviledge of the Cinque Ports Difference between those things which are in the Prender and such things that are in the Render for if I take not such things as are in Prender according to my Prescription it is void If I have Estovers in Woods to be taken every other year if I
omit to take them every other year I cannot take them in the third year But for Rent and such other things that are in the Render I ought to have it when ever I demand it as it best pleases me And note that in such case one prescribed for eight Loads of Wood to be cut and taken as appertaining to a Messuage which was held naught by the whole Court for the Prescription should be laid for Estovers to be imployed upon Repairs of the said Messuage or to be spent in it for a man cannot prescribe to have a Prescription to come and cut down my Wood which is as much as I that have the Free-hold can do For the claim to take and sell my Wood cannot be good And the Court held it a good Prescription to prescribe to have Common every other year although you shew not the Commencement as to shew what time of the year when it begins If a man hath Common of Pasture in divers Closes and parcels of Ground where he hath some Land of his own there and in all other cases where one is to prescribe he need not to make his Title to every peice but to say he hath Common in loco in quo c. in t alia and need not to speak of the rest of the Land in the residue of the Feild because he hath Land of his own Common appendant belongeth to arrable Land not to Pasture Land If two Issues be joyned and in the awarding the Venire facias these words Videlicet Quoad triandum tam exit istum quam praedictum alium exit superius junct were omitted and after a Verdict such Default was moved in Arrest of Judgement and the Exception over-ruled and held good notwithstanding that omission The whole Court were of opinion that local things shall not be made transitory by laying the Action in a forrain Shire as for Corn growing in one Shire and an Action of Trover brought in another COmes Cumbr. versus Comitem Dorset It was moved by the Defendant that whereas the Plaintiff had prosecuted a Distring Jur. and onely eleven of the Jury appeared and the Inquest remained to be taken for want of Jurors and that at such time neither Plaintiff nor Defendant desired a Tales and afterwards the Defendant in another Terme prayed a Tales of that Writ which the Plaintiff had prosecuted and the Court denied to grant it because he prayed not a Tales when the Distress was retorned and if he would have a Tales he must purchase anew a Plur. distring and if then the Jury fill not the Defendant may pray a Tales and the Court ought to grant it And note upon the first Habeas Corpus the Defendant shall not have a Tales but in Default of the Plaintiff IF the Chamberlain of the County Palatine of Chester make an insufficient Return to the Court of Common Pleas upon a Writ issued out of that Court the Sheriff shall be amerced because the Sheriff is the Officer responsible to the Court. The King hath power to make and create a Leet anew where none was before A Distress is incident of Right but in a Court Baron a Prescription must be laid to distrain J. Rogers versus Powell My Lord Cook held that the Surrender of a Copy-hold in Tail is not any Discontinuance and Justice Foster of the same opinion In Doctor Husseys case in a Ravishment de gard wherein the Judgement is penal the Habeas Corpus was denied by the Court to be amended being a blank Writ after a Verdict but was adjudged Error For the Proviso in the Statute of Jeofailes 18 Eliz. excepts Actions upon penal Statutes One Jury was impannelled of the Town of Southampton and called to the Bar and made Default and the men of that Town shewed to the Court a Grant made to the Inhabitants of that Town that no Return should be made of the men of that Town to be of any Jury and prayed the Allowance of their Charter and the Court appointed them to plead their Charter and it was done accordingly TRier versus Littleton A special Verdict was found whether Fraud or not Fraud and the Jury did not finde the Fraud expresly but they found Circumstances that the Deed might seem thereby to be fraudulent but the Court will not adjudge it Fraud where the Jury do not expresly finde the Fraud for the Judges have nothing to do with matter of Fact and so by the whole Court no Fraud Tenant for Life Remainder for Life Remainder in Tail Remainder in Fee the first Tenant for Life suffereth a Recovery the Remainder in Tail is barred although the second Estate for Life be no party Baron Feme seised of the Wives Land for Life of the Wife Remainder to the Husband and Wife in Tail and afterwards the Husband doth bargain and sell the Land by Deed inrolled and a Precipe is brought against the Bargainee and he voucheth them in Remainder this is a good Recovery to barr the Estate Tail If an Information be brought against three upon the Statute of Maintenance and two of them appear and the third doth not appear the Plaintiff may declare against the two that do appear before the other appears for it is but a Trespass and Contempt as in Trespass and Conspiracy but it is otherwise in Debt upon a joynt Contract for there the Plaintiff cannot declare against one untill the Process be determined against the other by the opinion of the whole Court If Judgement be entred in Trespass of Oct. Hillarii the Writ to inquire of Damages may bear teste of any other Return of that Terme besides of Octab. Hillarii for the Terme is as one Day and so hath been adjudged upon a Writ of Error in the upper Bench but it is otherwise held in the Common Pleas. If a Bargain and Sale be void in part it is void in all If an Officer or priviledged person of the Court of Common Pleas sue another priviledged man of any other Court whatsoever yet he of the Common Pleas that first sued shall force the other priviledged person to answer in the Common Pleas but if a priviledged man be sued with another as Executor no Priviledge lies Summons and Severance lies between Executors Plaintiffs and if one of the Executors be outlawed or excommunicated he may be demanded and if he comes not shall be severed by an award without Process after he hath appeared and the other shall proceed without him but if he had not appeared then Summons and Severance shall issue out against him FLetcher versus Robson An Extent upon a Statute Merchant issued out against Robson the Cognisor and the Sheriff returned that the Cognisor was possessed of divers Goods and seised of Lands which he delivered to the Cognisee and that the Cognisee accepted of the Land and because the Sheriff did not return that he had not any other Lands Goods or Chattels it was
that is naught for it is a several Lease of their Moities and you must declare Quod cum one of them demised one moity and the other the other moity and good If a Tenant in Socage hath Issue and die his Issue being under the age of 14. years the next Freind of the Heir to whom the Inheritance cannot descend shall have the Guard of the Land untill the Heir come to the age of 14. years and he is called Guardion in Socage and in pleading a Lease for Life you are never to alleadge the place where the Lease was made because it passeth by Livery which was executed upon the Land He that pleads a Demise ought to shew that the Lessee entred and he that pleads a Descent ought to shew that he entred and an Exchange is a good Plea in Bar but it shall never be adjudged a good Exchange except this word Escambium be used in the Charter of Exchange HOpkins versus Radford A Defendant shall take no benefit of his own wrong In Sir James Harringtons case the Original was returned Quinque Pasch and the issue joyned that day and the Venire facias returned that day and held naught by the Court upon the first motion A future Lease cannot be surrendred but drowned For things in Action a Deed of Gift is void as Debts without Specialty although he say Goods Chattels and Specialties but for other Debts by Specialty and Goods it is good and for the Debts in Action after the Death of the Party Administration is to be granted and the Administrator is to have the Goods RAiner versus Mortimer One had Judgement upon a Scire facias to have Execution and a Capias ad satisfaciendum returnable 15. Martini and that Writ was returned Album Breve and a Testatum thereupon and the Defendant taken and this matter was moved to the Court and a Supersedeas prayed that the Testatum issued out erroneously because the Capias was not returned and it was granted by the whole Court because the Capias was not returned One seised in Fee may bargain and sell grant and demise Land to others and their Heirs to the use of one for years because he hath a Fee-simple but Lessee for years cannot bargain and sell his Lease to the use of one for years If a Marriage is intended between two men and one of them in consideration that the other hath upon the Marriage assured Land to his Son he doth assume to pay to my Son such a Summ immediately after the Marriage if the Money be not paid the Son must have the Action and not the Father MIch 5. Jacobi 61. One Jury-man appear in Court and when he came to the Barr to be sworn he informed the Court that he was eighty years old and prayed to be dischargâ—d and the Court could not grant it nor pass him by and swear others without committing Error except the Parties would consent for it is Error to skip a Juror who is returned if he appear and therefore the Juror was drawn by the consent of the Parties TRin. 6. Jacobi Upon a Levari facias out of a Court Baron Goods cannot be sold without a Custome to sell the Goods and if Goods be attached by Pone out of a Court Baron the Defendant shall not lose his Cattle otherwise it is if it be a Process out of the Common Pleas then the Defendant loseth his Cattle for not appearing if you lay that you have a Court time out of minde to be held before a Steward you must shew what Pleas you have used to have Conusance of A Sheriff returned but 21. onely upon a Venire facias and at the Triall ten onely appeared and a Decem tales was awarded and tried and Verdict for the Plaintiff and this matter was moved in Arrest of Judgement for that the Sheriff had returned but 21. and the Court were of opinion that if 12. of them had appeared that it had been good notwithstanding but because 10. onely appeared of the principal therefore it was naught and Judgement arrested for that cause If a Juror be sworn of the principal and the Jury remain when the Jury comes again he shall be sworn again TRin. 6. Jac. rotulo 251. Dunnall versus Giles A special Verdict and the Question was a man being possessed of a terme devises the whole terme to A. for Life and if he dies within the terme to B. during the minority of C. and that C. when he comes to full age shall have the Remainder of the terme and held a good Devise To devise Land or Terme or Lease all one it is an Executory Devise If one surrender Land to the use of an Estranger that is to resty the use in Reversion for the Land is in him immediately If a man hath a Rent in esse you cannot grant that in Reversion after your Death but if I surrender to the use of one after my Decease is not good by his opinion of Warburton and Daniel If the Sheriff shall by vertue of a Fieri facias levy the Debt and Damages of a man and make a Return that the said Goods remain in his hands for want of Buyers the Property remains still in the Defendant although the Sheriff hath Possession of the Goods A Sheriff may sell Goods levied upon a Fieri facias out of his County In Watermans case the Issue was whether a Copy-holder in one Town had Common in Land lying in another Town and the Plaintiff shews that he is Lord of the Hundred of C. within which Hundred one of the Villages lie and prayes a Venire facias of the Town next adjoyning to the said Hundred and it was granted and tried and Exception to the Triall for that the Venire was not of both Villages An Alien born being no free Denizen may defend and bring a Writ of Error and it is no Plea to say that he is an Alien born Note by the Common Law the Lord of the Mannour may come and take away a Tree cut down upon the Copy-hold Land by his Copy-holder without laying a special Custome for it If there be an unlawfull Marriage as the Brother doth marry his Sister and they have Issue and one of them dieth before any Divorce had between them now after the Death of one of them the Issue cannot be bastarded as in Cordies case 39 E. 43. 22 E. 4. After a general Imparlance one cannot plead an Outlary in Barr to an Action of Trespass or Case but it must be pleaded in abatement except he be outlawed after the last Continuance for you shall plead nothing in Barr but what goeth to the pit of the Action now the Damages in Trespass or Case are not forfeited by Outlary as Debt because of the incertainty To the Owner of the Soil on both sides of the way of common right belong the Trees that grow in the Lane whether
of Clanrickard with whom Yelverton was of Councel it was resolved that if the Issue be upon the custome of Tithing and that it be found against the Defendant he shall pay the value expressed by the Plaintiff in his Declaration for because by the collateral matter pleaded in Barr the Declaration is in whole confessed SMith versus Smith Trin. 6 Jacobi one Bisse made K. his Wife and John his Sonne being one year old Executors and K. solely proved the Will and afterwards married the Plaintiff and they two brought an Action of Debt as Executors against the Defendant and the Defendant pleads in abatement of the Bill that John was made Executor with K. and is yet in life and not named the Plaintiffes reply that John was but of the age of one year and that K. proved the Will and had Administration committed to her during the minority and that John is and was at the time of the Writ purchased within the age of seventeen years and upon that Yelverton demurred and adjudged for the Defendant that the Bill should abate for both of them in truth were Executors and ought to be named in the Action and although by the Administration granted during the minority K. had the full power yet the Infant ought to be named he being Executor GOmersall versus Ask Trin. 6. Iacobi The Defendant brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant as Administrator of her Husband upon two former Judgements given in two Actions of Debt against the intestate and shews the recoveries the Defendant pleads that the intestate entred into a recognisance 35 El. in Chancery to Sir Henry Bechel and shows that after the Judgements had by the Plaintiff Sir H. obtained a Judgement against the intestate upon the Recognisance and that she hath not assets to satisfie the Plaintiff of the intestates Goods beyond Goods that are chargeable and liable to the Judgement upon the Recognisance to which Plea the Plaintiff demurres and by Fennor and Williams justifies the Plea in Barr was good for although the Plaintiffes Judgements mentioned in his Actions are before Sir H. Judgement yet because the Plaintiff by his Action doth not demand Execution of the Judgements but onely his Debt recovered for this Action brought it as an originall and in the same Court as if he did demand the Debt upon the first Obligation and therefore because the Plaintiff had not sued out a Scire facias to execute the first Judgements but had prosecuted a new originall the Plea is good and allowable as it had been upon the said Obligation but Yeluerton and Fleming were of a contrary opinion for the Plea had not been good against the intestate himself and the Executor or Administrator represents his person and therefore the Plea is not good but onely in excuse of a Devastavit and they were of opinion that the Action brought by the Plaintiff was in nature of a Scire facias for he demanded the Debt in another course then it was at first for that Debt which was but matter of escript is now become by the Judgement to be Debt upon Record and of so high a nature that the Judgement being in Force he can never have an Action upon the Obligation which is adjuged in Higgins Case Co. 6 Rep. but Cook doubted and the Plaintiff dying the Court did not resolve APleton versus Baily Mich. 6. Jacobi Apleton as Executor of Apleton brought an Action of Debt against Baily for the Arrerages of diverse Rents as well Copy-hold Rents as Free-hold Rents pertaining to a Mannor whereof the Testator was seised and thereof died seised and the Rents were not paid to him in his life time by reason whereof they belonged to the Plaintiff as Executor And the Defendant though he was requested had not paid against the form of the Statute of the 32 H. 8. And the Court that the Action did not ly for the Arrerages of Copy-hold Land for the Statute of the 32 H. 8. doth not extend to them but only to Rents out of Free Land Secondly It lies not for the Rent of free Land because the Plaintiff hath not shewed in his Declaration that the Defendant had attorned to the Testator in his life And although in pleading it is good to alledge a Feoffment of a Mannor without pleading any Livery or of any Attornment of Tenements but when the Rent of any Free-hold Land comes in Debate it behoves both the Owner of the Mannor and and his Executor that demands it to convey the privity between the Tenant and the Lord which ought to be by attornment for Rents and Services rest not without Attornment which mark PEirson versus Ponuteis Mich. 6. Jacobi The Plaintiff as Executor of Peirson brought an Action of Debt against Jo. Ponuties of London Merchant that he should render to him three and thirty pounds twelve shillings in that the Defendant 5. Oct. 1598. at London c. By his Bill obligatory hath acknowledged himself to owe to the Testator 1518. Florens Polish which then amounted to thirty three pounds twelve shillings to be paid to the Testator Ad solucionem festi purificat c. Called Candlemas day next insuing and to that payment had obliged himself by the same Bill And the Plaintiff avers that Predicti soluciones dicti festi purificat c. Next after the making the Bill were according to the use of Merchants the twentieth of February 1598. Yet the Defendant had not paid the 1518. Florence Polish or the thirty three pounds twelve s. to the Testator nor to the Plaintiff The Defendant pleads Non est factum and found against him and moved in arrest of Judgment that the Declaration was not good because first the payment of Candlemas is not known in our Law but that was not allowed for that which is unknown in ordinary intendment is made manifest and helped by the Averment in the declaration because that payment among Merchants is known to be upon the twentieth of February and the Judges ought to take notice of those things that are used amongst Merchants for the maintenance of traffick and the rather because the Defendant doth not deny it but pleads non factum by which he confesses the Declaration to be true in that averment Secondly it was objected that as the Case is the use of Merchants is not materiall because the Testator by any thing that appears was not a Merchant but it was not allowed because the defendant that bound himself to pay was a Merchant and the Testator ought to take the Bill as the defendant would make it and he chose to make the payment according to the use of Merchants and not according to the Ordinary intercourse between party and party which mark this by the whole Court TAlbot versus Godbold Mich. 6. Jac. Godbold 28 Eliz. sealed a Bill to the Plaintiff made in this manner memorandum that I have received of Edw. Talbot who was the Plaintiffes Testator to the
Carr. The Tenant in Dower before the value inquired of and Damages found brought a Writ of Error and by the opinion of the whole Court a Writ of Error would not lie for the Judgement is not perfect untill the value be inquired upon The Demand in Dower was of the third part of two Messuages in three parts to be divided and the Judgement was to recover Seisin of the third part of the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances to hold to him in severally by Meets and Bounds and adjudged naught because they are Tenants in common and the Judgement ought to be to hold to him together and in common but if it had been in three parts divided it had been good Actions in Ejectment ALlen versus Nash Hill 5. Jacobi rotulo 719. The Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firme and a special Verdict upon a Surrender of Copy-hold Land which was to the use of the second Son for Life after the Death of the Tenant and his Heirs and it was adjudged not to be good in a Surrender for though it be good in a Will yet Implication is not good in a Surrender and in Copy-hold Cases a Surrender to the use c. this no use but an Explanation how the Land shall go if the Lord grant the Land in other manner then I appoint it is void if there be found Joynt-tenants and one Surrender to the use of his Will it was a Breach of the Joinder and the Will good EYer versus Bannaster Trîn 16. Jacobi rotulo 719. The Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firme and declared upon a Lease made by Ed. Kynaston to which the Defendant pleads not guilty and the Plaintiff alleadges a Challenge that the Wife of the Sheriff is Cosin to the Plaintiff and desires a Venire facias to the Coroners and the Defendant denied it and so a Venire was made to the Sheriff and at the Assises the Defendant challenges the Array because the Pannell was arrayed by the Sheriff who married the Daughter of the Wife of the Lessor and note the first Challenge was made after the Issue joyned and at the Assises the Defendant challenged as above and a demurrer to it and Hutton held that a Challenge could not be after a challenge except it were for some cause that did arise after the challenge made and that the party ought to rely upon one cause of challenge though he had many causes observe the Defendant could not challenge the Array untill the Assises but Husband held that a Challenge might be upon a Challenge but this challenge was adjudged naught by all the Judges HIll versus Scale Trin. 16 Jacobi rotulo 5. 18. the Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firmae and declares upon a Demise made to the Plaintiff by J. C. bearing date the first of January anno 15. and sealed and delivered the twelfth of January following to hold from Christmasse then last past for two years the Jury found a speciall Verdict and found the Lease and a Letter of Atturney to execute the Lease in this manner that the Lessor was seised of the Land in Fee and being so seised he made signed and sealed an Indenture of a Demise of the said Tenements and found it in haec verba this Indenture c. and they further found that the Lessor the said fifth day of January did not deliver the said Indenture of Demise to the Plaintiff as his Deed but that the Lessor the said fifth day of January by his writing bearing Date the same Day gave full power and authority to one C. to enter into all the premises and to take possession thereof in the name of the Lessor and after possession so taken to deliver the said Indenture of Demise to the Plaintiff upon any part of the premises in the name of the Lessor and find the Letter of Atturney in haec verba To all c. whereas I the said J. C. by my Indenture of Lease bearing date with these Presents have demised granted and to Farm let c. for and during the Term of two years c. and they further find that the said C. such a day as Atturney to the Lessor by vertue of that writing did enter into the Tenements aforesaid and took possession thereof to the use of the Lessor and immediately after possession so taken the said C. did deliver the said Indenture of Demise upon the Tenements as the Lessors Deed to the Plaintiff to have c. and the doubt was because the Lessor in the Letter of Attorney and said that whereas he had demised and if it were a Demise then the Letter of Attorney was idle but notwithstanding the Court gave Judgement for the Plaintiff WEeks versus Mesey An Ejectione firmae brought against two and one of them was an estranger and was in the house and the principall would not appear and the other appeared and pleaded non informat and the Court was acquainted with the proceedings and the Plaintiff prayed an habere facias possessionem and the Court told the Plaintiff that by that Writ and recovery he could not remove him that had Right when a Lease is made to bring an Ejectment of Land in divers mens hands then they must enter into one of the parcells and leave one in that place and then must he go unto another and leave one there and so of the rest and then after he hath made the last Entry there he sealeth and delivereth the Lease and then those men that were left there must come out of the Land and this is a good executing of the Lease and Pasch the ninth of James the Court held that an Ejectment would not ly of Common pasture or of Sheep-gate BEamont versus Cook Trin. 13 Jacobi An exception taken in Ejectment because the Originall was teste the very same day that the Ejectment was made and adjudged good by the whole Court and one Goodhall brought an originall in Ejectment against Hill and three others and the Plaintiff counts against three of the Defendants and no simulcum against the fourth and this matter was moved in arrest of Judgement And the Judgement was stayed by the whole Court COronder versus Clerk Hill 10 Jacobi rotulo 3315. Action upon an Ejectment brought the Jury found it specially upon a Devise the words of the Will were to my right Heires Males and posterity of my name part and part like the question was who should have the Land and the Court held the Land must go to the Heire at the Common Law and not according to the words of the Will because they cannot consist with the grounds of Law a Will must be construed in all parts the brother cannot have it by the Devise because he is not Heir and the Daughters cannot for they are not Heirs and posterity and therefore neither of them could have it because they are not Heirs and posterity because they that take it must be Heir and posterity
A special Verdict in an Ejectione firme the Question was upon the words of the Will which were that her Husband had given all to her and nothing from her and whether these words imply a consent and so an Agreement to the Devise of the Husband or no. And Foster Warburton and Walmsley that it was an Assent but Sir Edward Cook was of a contrary opinion and note she was made sole Executrix and she proved the Will and Justice Foster held it to be an Assent in Law The property of Goods cannot be in obayance they must be in the Executor Administrator or Ordinary and Warburton held that the words made an Assent and said that when the Bond is delivered to one to the use of another untill he dis-assent it is his Deed but when he dis-assenteth then it is not his Deed Ab initio if a Lease be given by Will to divers and made one of them his Executor in this Case the Executor must make his special Claime else he must have it as Executor and Sir Edward Cook held that the general Entry and proof of the Will is no Assent she must first have it as an Executor before she can have it as a Legatee a Legacy is waiveable but if the Law work it in me whether I will or no then I cannot waive it and therefore he held she should enter specially ROlles versus Mason Hill 6. Jacobi rotulo 2613. An Ejectment brought and the Question grew upon two Customes one was that the Copy-holder for Life may name to the Lord of the Mannour who should be his Successor in the Copy-hold and the other that the Copy-holder for Life may cut down all the Trees of wrong upon the customary Land and the third Question was whether the second Lessee of the Mannour may take advantage of the pretended Forfeiture for cutting down the Trees by the Law a Copy-holder shall have house-boot free-boot and hedge-boot and common of Turbary to burn in his house but he cannot sell them A Copy-holder by Custome may name his Successor and if the Lord refuse to admit him the Homage may set a reasonable Fine and so he shall be admitted The Lessee of the Mannour may take advantage of the Forfeiture but in this Case it is no Forfeiture and the Copy-holder may cut downe Trees for he hath a greater Estate then a sole Tenant for Life because he shall name his Successor APrescription goeth to one man and a Custome to many and Judgement for the Defendant MAson versus Strecher alios Pasch 7. Jacobi rotulo 606. An Ejectment brought for the Mannour of P. it was held by the Court that the consent of a Servant in the absence of him who is possessed of the Terme shall not out his Master of the Possession because the Servant hath no interest in the Land CRamporne versus Freshwater Pach 8 Jacobi rotulo 2742. An action of Debt brought upon an Ejectment the Plaintiff was non-suit upon his own Evidence because he declared upon a Devise made for three years and it was confessed by the Plaintiff that the Lands were Copy-hold Land and that the Plaintiff had not license to demise them for three years neither could he prove that by any custome he could demise them for three years without a license and so the Lessor was taken for a Disseisor by the opinion of the Court. CAffe versus Randall Trin. 9. Jac. rotulo 3299. An Ejectment brought against Randall and his Wife the Ejectment made by the Wife and not guilty pleaded and tried and it was moved in Arrest of Judgment because the Issue was pleaded in this manner Et dicunt quod ipsi in nullo sunt culpabiles c. And the Ejectment was made by the woman alone and ought to have been that she was not guilty and upon examination of the Plea Rol and Record of Nisi prius it appeared to the Court that the Plea Roll was right but the Record of Nisi prius mistaken but Serjeant Barker said that at the time when the Record of Nisi prius was tried the Plea roll agreed with the Record and was afterwards amended and Waller the prothonotary confessed that he amended the plea rol as upon his private examination of the roll but without notice that there was a Record sent down to try that Issue and therefore the Court ordered that the Record of Nisi prius should be amended according to the Plea roll which was done accordingly PAts versus Chitty Trin. 9. Iac. rotulo 2151. vel 2151. An Action of ejectment brought the Defendant pleads a concord with satisfaction in Bar the Plaintiff demurs and it was held by Winch and Foster a good Plea because the Action is not only in the realty for he recovers damages and possession which are meer Chattells Secondly Because the Defendant pleads the satisfaction as in discharge of that Action and all others and ten shillings for rests Warburton of the same opinion and he vouched the like case satisfaction is good Plea in a Quare impedit wherein a man recovers the presentation And Cook said that in all Actions wherein money or Damages are recoverable as well wherein the Defendant might wage his Law as wherein he might not it is a good Plea Pasc 3. Jacobi rotulo 1033. Eden and Blake but in matters where one Free-hold or Inheritance is recoverable concord is no Barr and in dower recompence in other Lands or Rent is no Barr. But by petition in Chancery but Rent Issuing out of the same Land demanded is a good Barr and in all Actions Quare vi armis wherein process of Outlary lies by the common Law concord or an Award is a good Barr 38 H. 6. title Barr satisfaction in trespass by an Estranger is a good Barr although it be without notice of the trespassor by the opinion of the whole Court CRaddock versus Iones Trin. Iacobi rotulo 2284. An Ejectment brought and declares upon a Lease made by W. Cotton Knight the Defendant pleads not guilty and makes a challenge and praies a venire facias to the Coroners because the Sheriff is Cozen to the Lessors Wife which is not a principle challenge but by favour and after a Triall and Verdict it was amended in arrest of the Judgment because it was mistried and Barker vouched a case in the Exchequer Chamber in 43 El. upon a Writ of Error between Higgins and Spicer upon a Venire facias awarded in the like manner and it was adjudged to be mistryed and it was then agreed that misconveyance of process is where one Writ is awarded in place of another to an Officer which of right ought to execute that process and he returns it this is helped after a Verdict by the Statute But if a writ be awarded to an Officer who ought not to execute that process and he returns it this is a mistriall and not helped by the Statute and Warburton said that Dyer
goes to issue upon it for if they discend to issue upon such a Plea and it be found against the Defendant it is peremptory and he shall loose the Land but upon demurrer it is not peremptory but onely to answer over Which mark VVOrkley versus Granger Mic. 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for two Houses and certain Lands c. And upon a speciall Verdict The case was one Heâ— Wels and his wife nere seised of a parcel of Land to them and the Heirs of their bodies begotten as for the joynture of the wife the remainder to the Heirs of the Husband in Fee the Husband bargains and sels the Land to Stamp and his Heirs in Fee And afterwards the Husband and one Winter leavie a Fine of that Land to another who grants that Land back again to Winter for one month the remainder to the husband and wife and the heire of their bodies to be begotten the remainder to the husband and his heirs The Husband dyes the Wife survives and makes a Lease to the Defendant for ninety nine yeers if she should so long live the woman dyes and the Plaintiffe claims under the bargainee and in this Case two points were debated First what Estate passed to the bargainee and Digges of Lincolnes Inne who argued for the Plaintiffe that the bargainee had a Fee simple determinable which issued out of both the Estates as it was held by Periam in Alton Woods Case And he said that the Proclamations upon the Fine are but a repetition of the Fine as it is held in Bendlones Rep put in the Case of Fines in Cooks 3. Rep. And see Pinslees Case for then for the same cause the Issue in tayl is bound although the Fine be levied by the Husband alone by the Statute of the 4. H. 7. and 32 H. 8. because he cannot claim but as Heir to the Father as well as to the Mother and therefore his Conveyance is bound and see 16. E Dyd 332. Husband and Wife Tenants in speciall tayl The husband is attainted of Treason and executed having Issue the woman dyes the Issue shall never have the Land And if husband and wife Tenants in speciall tayl And the Husband levies a Fine to his own use and devises the Land to his wife for life which remainded over rendring Rent the husband dyes the woman enters pays the Rent and dyes the Issue is barred for two causes first by the Fine which had barred his Conveyance of the intayl secondly by the Remitter waived by the Mother 18 Eli Dyer 531. See 5 H. 7. Assise Thorp and Tirrels Case Secondly the Lease made by the woman was determined by her death and it was said that the woman had not any qualitie of an Estate tayl but onely she might take the profits during her life within the Statute of 11 H. 7. And when she dyes the Estate is denised See Austens Case Doctor Wyat Tenant in tail leased for yeers And dyed without Issue the Lease was determined See first of Eliz title Executors And 31 H. 8. Dyer Where a Bishop made a Lease for yeers and afterwards makes another Lease to one of the Lessees c. And Fleming held that if the woman survived as under Tenant in speciall tayl and made a Lease for 21. yeers it is out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. and so it was adjudged in Wattes and Kings Case LAne versus Alexander Hill 5. Jaco The Plaintiffe declares in Ejectment upon a Lease made to him by Mary Planten for three yeers the Defendant saies c. that the Land is Copihold Land of the Mannor of H. in Norff. whereof the Queen Eliz was seised in Fee and long time before the Lessor had any thing there in Court such a day that J. S. her Steward at the Court c. granted the Land to the Defendant by Copie in Fee according to the custome and so justifies his entry upon the Plaintiffe The Plaintiffe replies and saies that long time before the Copy granted to the Defendant to wit at a Court of the Mannor held such a day the 43. Eliz the Queen by Copy c. granted the Land to the Lessor for life according to the custome by force whereof he entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe The Defendant by way of rejoynder maintained his barr and traverses with that the Queen at the Court of the Mannor by J. S. her Steward such a day c. granted the Land to the Lessor and upon this the Plaintiffe demurred in Law generally And Yelverton moved that the traverse was good in this Case upon the day and Steward and the difference is where the act done may indifferently be supposed to be done on the one day or the other there the day is not traversable as in the Case of a Deed made such a day there the day of the Deed is not traversable for it passes by the livery and not by the Deed. And the livery is the substance and the day but a bundance 10 E. 4. And the Law is the same if the day in trespasse wherein the day is not traversable For although it be done upon another day it is not materiall But when a man makes his title by an especiall kinde of Conveyance as in this case the Plaintiffe makes his title by one Copy there all that is concerned in the Copy is materiall and the party cannot depart from it for he claims not the Land by any other Copy but by that which is pleaded as is in the 18 H. 6. 14. where an Action is brought for taking his Servant and counts that he by Deed retained with him his Servant the Monday in one week in such a case it is a good plea for the Defendant to say that the Servant was retained by him such a day after without that that the Plaintiffe did retain him the Monday And the Law seems to be concerning Letters Patents wherein the day and place are traversable being the speciall conveyance of the party from which he cannot depart And also it seems that although the day in the principall case be traversed yet the Statute of 18 Eliz of Demurrers aids it it being but a generall Demurrer and the day being onely matter of form But the whole Court were of opinion that the day was not traversable in this case For the Queen granting an ancienter Copy to the Plaintiffs Lessor then to the Defendant and the traverse should have been without this that the Queen did grant in manner and form c. to the Plaintiffs Lessor and the Case is the same in the Letters Patents for there the traverse should be without this that the Queen granted in manner and form c. And the day and place shall not come into the traverse But Justice Fennor was of a contrary opinion for the Reason delivered by Yelverton before and he also and the Lord cheif Justice held it to be holpen by the Statute of 18 Eliz for it is but
matter of form For if the Jury finde a prior grant of the Queen to the Plaintiffs Lessor although it be at another Court it is sufficient and so by consequence the day is not materiall in substance which mark But Williams Justice and the rest held the traverse to be naught for by that the Jury should be bound to finde the Copy such a day by such a Steward which ought not to be and that it was matter of substance not helped by the Statute of 18 Eliz. DArby versus Bois Hill 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for an House in London and upon not guilty pleaded The Jury found a speciall Verdict And the case was Tenant in tail of divers Messuages in London 7 January 44 Eliz bargains and sels the said Houses to J. S. and delivers the Deed from off the Land the 8. of January the same yeer Indentures of Covenants were made to the intent to have a perfect recovery suffered of those houses and the ninth of January after a Writ of right is sued in London for those Messuages returnable at a day to come And the tenth of January the same yeer the Tenant in tail makes livery and seisin to J. S. of one of those Houses in the name of all And the other Messuages were in Lease for yeers and the Lessees did not atturn And the question was if the Messuages passed by the bargain and sale or by the livery And it was adjudged that they passed by the bargain and sale And Yelverton took a difference between severall Conveyances both of them Executory and where one of them is executed presently as in Sir Rowland Heywoods Case where divers Lands were given granted leased bargained and sold to divers for yeers the Lessees were at election whether they would take by the bargain and sale upon the Statute of 27 H 8. or by the demise at the Common Law But otherwise it is if one be executed at first for then the other comes too late as it is in this Case for by the very delivery of the bargains and sale the Land by the custome of London passes without inrollment for London is excepted and this custome was found by the Verdict And therefore it being executed and the Conveyance being made perfect by the delivery of the Deed without any other circumstances the livery of sesin comes too late for it is made to him that had the Inheritance of the Messuage at that time And the possession executed hinders the possession executory for if a bargain and sale be made of Land and before inrollment the bargain takes a deed of the said Land this hinders the inrollment because the taking of the livery did destroy the use which passed by the bargain and sale which was granted by the Court. And another reason was given because it appeared that the intent of the parties was to have the Land passe by the bargain and sale because it was to make a perfect Tenant to the Precipe as appears by the subsequent acts as the Indentures Covenant and the bringing the Writ of Right c. All which will be made frustrate if the livery of seisin shall be effectuall and when an Act is indifferent it shall be taken most neer to the parties intents that may be if a man hath a Mannor to which an advowson is appendant and makes a Deed of the Mannor with the appurtenances And delivers the Deed but doth not make livery of seisin yet now although the Deed in it self was sufficient to passe the Advowson yet because the party did not intend to passe it in Posse but as appurtenant if the Mannor will not passe no more shall the Advowson passe alone as it was agreed 14 Eliz in Andrews Case Which mark And the whole Court gave Judgment accordingly that the Defendant who claimed under the bargain sale should enjoy the Land CHalloner versus Thomas Mich. 6. Jacobi A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgement given in Ejectment in the Courâ— of Carmarthen and Yelverton assigned the Error because the Ejectment was brought de aquae cursu called Lothar in L. and declares upon a Lease made by D. de quidam rivulo aquae cursu And by the opinion of the whole Court the Judgement was reversed for rivulut seâ— aque cursus lye not in demand nor doth a precipe lye of it nor can livery and seisin be made of it for it cannot be given in possession but as it appears by 12 H. 7. 4. the Action ought to be of so many Acres of Land covered with water but an Ejectment will well lye by if a stang for a precipe lies of them and a woman shall be indowed of the third part of them as it is 11. E. 3. But if the Land under the water or River do not pertain to the Plaintiffe but the River onely then upon a disturbance his remedy is onely by Action upon the Case upon any diversion of it and not otherwise Which observe VVIlson versus Woddell Mich. 6. Jacobi The Grand-father of the Plaintiffe in an Ejectment being a Copy holder in fee made a surrender thereof to L Woddell in fee who surrendred it to the use of Margery I. for life who is admitted c. But L Woddell himself never was admitted The Grandfather and Father dye the Son who is Plaintiffe was admitted and enters upon the Land Margery being then in possession and the Defendant then living with her as a servant in those Tenements and this was the speciall verdict And Judgment was given for the Plaintiffe And the Court was of an opinion that the Defendant was found to be a sufficient Trespassor and Ejector though he be but a Servant to the pretended owner of the Land because the Verdict found that the Defendant did there dwell with Margery And in such case he had the true title and had made his entry might well bring his Action against Master or Servant at his election And perhaps the Master might withdraw himself that he could not be arrested And secondly it was adjudged that the surrender of J. S. of a Copy-hold is not of any effect untill J. S. be admitted Tenant And if I. S. before admittance surrender to a stranger who is admitted that that admittance is nothing worth to the estranger For J. S. had nothing himself and so he would passe nothing and the Admittance of his grantee shall not by implication be taken to be the admittance of himself for the admittance ought to be of a Tenant certainly known to the Steward and entred in a Roll by him and it was held that the right and possession remained still in him that made the surrender and that is descended to his Heir who was the Plaintiffe And they took a difference between an Heir to whom the Copy descended for he may surrender before admittance and it shall be good because he is by course of the Law foe the custome that makes him Heir
Exchequer where the Record was would not award the Venire Facias of all the three Villages named in the Record if it did not appear judicially to them that the Close did extend in all the Villages and it doth not appear for parcell if the premises doth not necessarily extend to all the Villages but may well be and so presumed in one Village onely and therefore it is matter of substance And the Judges had not power after their Commission determined to amend the Plea DAvis versus Pardy Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declared of a Lease made by one Cristmas the sixth of May Anno 7. of one Messuage c. In D. by reason whereof the Plaintiffe entered and was possessed untill the Defendant afterwards to wit 18. of the same month Anno sexto supradicto did eject him And not guilty being pleaded a verdict was found against the Plaintiffe And Yelverton moved in Arrest of Judgement to save Costs that the Declaration was insufficient For that Action was grounded upon two things first upon the Lease secondly upon the Ejectment and both those ought to concur one after the other And in this case the Ejectment is supposed to be one year before the Lease made for the Lease is made Anno 7. and the Ejectment supposed to be done Anno 7. 6. And therefore the Declaration naught And Yelverton vouched the case between Powre and Hawkins Anno septimo Termino Pasch Where the Plaintiffe declared upon the Lease of Edw. Ewer 27. April Anno sexto and laid the Ejectment to be 26. April Anno 6. And the Court held then that the Declaration was naught yet in the case in question the Declaration was adjudged good And the word sexto to be void for the day of the Ejectment being the 18. of the same month of May it cannot be intended but to be the same year in which the Lease is supposed to be made by the opinion of the whole Court AYlet versus Chippin Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares upon a Lease made by John Aylet for one year of certain Land in C. in the County of E. by vertue whereof he entred and was possessed untill the Defendant did eject him The Defendant pleads that the Copihold Land is parcell of the Mannor of D. c. of which one Jo Aylet the Lessors Father was seised in Fee according to the Custome and that he made a surrendor thereof to the use of his Will and by his will devised the Land in question to John the lessor and H. Aylet his sons and to their Heirs Males of their Bodies and willed that they should not enter untill their severall ages of 21 years And further willed that W. B. and H. B. his Executors should have the Lands to perform his Will untill his said Sons Jo and H. came to their severall Ages of one and twenty years c. To which Plea the Plaintiffe replies and confesses the Will but shews further how that such a day and year before the Lease Jo his Lessor attained to his full Age of one and twenty years and entred and made a Lease thereof to him c. To which Plea the Defendant demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiffe For although the Estate to Jo and H. precede in words and the devise to the Executors insues in construction yet the estate to Io Executors precedes in possession And is as if he should have demised the Land untill his Sons Io and H. should attain to their severall Ages of one and twenty years And afterwards to them and their Heirs Males c. to be enjoyed in possession at ther severall Ages so that the Executors have onely a limited estate determinable in time when either Son severally should attain to his full age for his part For so it appears the Devisors intent was that either Son might enter when he attained to the age of one and twenty years And although it was objected by Justice Williams that the two Brothers are joyntenants by the Will and if one should enter when he comes to his full Age the other Brother being under age that would destroy the intent of the devise for then they should not take joyntly but the Court as to that said that the entry of him that attained to his full age doth not destroy the juncture but that they are joyntenants notwithstanding For that entry in the intent of the Devisor was only as to thâ— taking of the the profits and the possession and not as to the estate in joyntenancy and this is proved by 30 H. 6. Devise 12. where a devise was to foure in Fee and that one of them should have all during his life and this was adjudged good and it was as to the taking of the profits onely which observe by the whole Court but Williams RIce versus Haruiston Pasch 10. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares of a Lease made by Jo. Bull c. The Defendant pleads that the Land is Copihold Land parcel of the Mannor of c. Whereof the King was seised and is seised and that the King by his Steward such a day granted the Land in question to him in Fee to hold at will according to the custome of the Mannor by vertue whereof he was admitted and entred and was seised untill the lessor entred upon him and outed him and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe and then he entred and did eject him c. The Plaintiffe replies that long before the King had any thing in the Mannor Queen Eliz. was thereof seised in Fee in right of her Crown and before the Ejectment supposed by the Defendant by her Steward at such a Court did grant the Land in question by Copy to him in Fee to hold at Will according to the custome of the Mannor who was admitted and entred and further shewed the descent of the Mannor to the King and how the Lesser entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe who entred and was thereof possessed untill the Defendant did eject him Upon which Plea the Defendant did demurr because he supposed that the Plaintiffe ought to traverse the grant alledged by the copy of the Defendant in his Barr. But the Court held the replication good for the Plaintiffe had confessed and avoided the Defendant by a former Copy granted by Queen Eliz under whom the King that now is claimed and so the Plaintiffe need not traverse the grant to the Defendant but such a traverse would make the Plea vitious for which see Hilliais Case 6. Rep. And 14 H. 8. Dotknis Case 2 E. 6. Dyer And Brooks title confesse and avoid for as no man can have a Lease for years without assignment no more can a man have a Copy without grant made in Court Which observe SHecomb versus Hawkins Pasc 10 Jacobi The case was in an especial verdict in Ejectment that one Mrs. Luttrel Tenant in fee of the Mannor of L. leavied a Fine to the use of her self for life and after death to
the use of her eldest Son in tayl c. With power to her self at any time to make Leases for one and twenty years and before the Lease in being expired she made another Lease to B. for one and twenty years to commence after the determination of the first Lease And as to the third part of the Land she made a Lease of that for one and twenty years after the death of one Carn who in truth never had any estate in the Land and afterwards she dyes the first Lease expires And I the Son enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiffe And the Defendant claims under B. the Lessee And adjudged for the Plaintiffe for by such a power she could not make a Lease to comence at a day to come but it ought to be a Lease in possession and not in interest to comence in future nor in reversion after another estate ended but the Law will judge upon the generall power to make Leases without saying such ought to be Leases in Possession for if upon such power she might make Lease upon Lease she might by infinite Leases detain those in Reversion or Remainder out of the Possession for ever which is against the intent of the parties and against reason and adjudged accordingly Trin. 30 Eliz. Earle of Sussex case 6 Rep. 33. And Justice VVilliams said that when he was a Serjeant it was so adjudged in the Common Pleas in the Earle of Essex Case and Judgement by the the whole Court BRasier versus Beal Trin. 10 Jacobi Upon an especial Verdict in Ejectment the Case was that a Copy-holder in Fee of the Mannour of B. in the County of Oxford by license of the Lord lease the Land in question for sixty years to M. if he should live so long rendring Rent with a Condition of re-entry the Copy holder surrenders to the Lessor of the Plaintiff in Fee who demands the Rent upon the Land which being not paid he entred and made a Lease to the Plaintif without any Argument the Court seemed to be of opinion that the Entry of the Lessor was not congeable for Copy-hold land is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Conditions nor the Lessor such an Assignee that the Statute intends for at the Common Law a Copy-holders Estate is but an Estate at will custome hath onely fixed his Estate to continue which Custome goes not to such collateral things as Entries upon Condition for such an Assignee of a Copy-holder being onely in by Custome is not privy to the Lease made by the first Copy-holder nor onely by him but may plead his Estate immediately under the Lord by the opinion of the whole Court ODingsall versus Jackson Mich. 10. Jac. In Ejectment the Declaration was that the Defendants intraverunt and that he did eject expulse and amove in the singular number and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon Not guilty pleaded the Defendant shewed this matter to the Court in Arrest of Judgement for the Declaration is incertain in that point because it cannot be known which of the Defendants did eject the Plaintiff for by his own shewing it appears that the Ejectment was but against one and upon that Declaration the Jury could not finde all the Defendants guilty for by the Plaintiffs supposal one onely did eject him but the Court gave Judgement for the Plaintiff that the Declaration should be amended in that point for it was but the Clerks fault and so it was and upon an Evidence in an Ejectment by the Lessees of Cresset and Smith Yelverton said that if a man comes into a Copy-hold tertiously and is admitted by the Lord and afterwards he makes a Lease for three Lives which is a Forfeiture of his Estate yet if he that hath the pure Right to the Copy-hold release to the wrong-doer that it is good for untill the Lord enter he is Tenant in fait and if the rever as Copy-holder 4 Rep. 15. But Walter seemed of another opinion and therefore quaere what benefit he shall have by the Release In an Ejectment the Plaintiff declared of an Ejectment of decem acris pisar and upon the general Issue it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement because the Plaintiff had declared de decem acris pisar which is not good for Pease are not known by the Acre and therefore he should have declared de decem acris tene pisis seminaris as if a man will demand Land covered with water he must say decem acras terrae aqua co opertas but the whole Court held it good for in a common acceptance ten Acres of Pease or ten Acres sowed with Pease is all one and so is the opinion of Catesby 11 E. 4. 1. And the man the Secondary said that so it had been adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Writ of Error MEerton versus Orib Trin. 11. Jacobi Orib brought an Ejectment against Meerton in the Common Pleas 6 Jacobi of a Cole-mine in Durham in the County Palatine there the Defendant pleaded not guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff before the Justices Itinerantes there upon which Judgement the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Errour that the Plaintif appeared by an Attourney whereas it ought to have been by Guardian being under age And upon an Issue that he was of full age was tryed at Durham and found that he was within age but the Plaintif had license to discontinue his Writ of Errour and brought a new Writ of Errour Quod coram nobis residat And declared that M. was inhabiting at Westminster in the County of Middlesex and being within age appeared by an Attorney the Defendant in the Writ of Errour confessed that he was inhabiting at Westminster but that he was at full age at the time And upon the tryall in Middlesex it was found that M. was under age And it was alleadged in Arrest of Judgement and it depended a long time that it was a mistryall and the doubt and question was onely whether the tryall at Westminster in this Case was good And Davenport and Yelverton were of opinion that it was not good for the Errour assigned was done at Durham and because they there have the best notice of it it ought to have been there tryed As if Errour be in a Record it shall be tryed where the Record is 19 H. 6. 79. Secondly This is a reall Action in which the Land shall be recovered and therefore though the Issue be upon a collaterall matter yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes because it concernes the realty but if it had concerned the person onely it had been otherwise and this difference is taken by Montham 19 H. 6. 10. And therefore if a Feoffment be made upon payment c. If upon an Assise brought the Defendant plead payment in another place yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes And so likewise if the Issue should be which
that it was collaterall warrantry where in truth it was a lineall warranty and it was held naught because the warranty was in Law a lineall warranty the Case was that Land was givenby Feoffment made to the use of the Feoffer for life remainder in Tail Tenant for life dies Tenant in Tail had Issue a Son and two Daughters and the Father and Son joyn in a Feoffment with warranty and after the Father and Son die without issue and the Daughters bring a Formedon and this is a lineall warranty PIt versus Staple Trin 14 Jac. rotulo 112. Formedon in le discender against three which plead non-Tenure and issue thereupon joyned and found specially that two of them were Lessees for life the remainder to the third person and whether the three were Tenants as is supposed by the writ was the question and the better opinion was that it was found for the Demandant for the Tenants should have pleaded severall Tenancy and then the Demandant might maintain his writ but by this generall non-Tenure if any be Tenant it is sufficient but in some Cases the Precipe may be brought against one who is not Tenant as a morgagor or morgagee COmes Leicester versus Comit. Clanriccard In Formedon upon a Judgement given in part for the Demandant and part for the Tenant the Tenant brought a writ of Error and had a Supersedeas upon it and afterwards the Demandant prosecuted a writ of Seisin and delivered it to the Sheriff and he executed the writ and immediately afterwards the Tenant delivered the Supersedeas to the Sheriff and the Tenant moved the Court and prayed a writ of restitution and it was granted him because the Tenant had done his indeavour and had not delayed the prosecuting the writ of Error COmes Clanriccard Francisca uxor Ejus Demandants versus R. S. milit vicecomit Lyple for three messuages c. which R. late Earl of Essex and Frances late wife of the said Earl by Fine in the Court of the Lady Elizabeth late Queen of England before her then Justices at Westminster levied and gave to William Gerrard Esquire and F. Mills Gentleman and the Heires of the said W. for ever to the use of Elizabeth Sydney Daughter and Heir of P. S. Milir and the Heirs of the Body of the said E. comming and for default of such issue to the use of the said F. then wife of the said Earl and the heirs of the said Fr. and which after the death of the said Eliz. ought to revert to the said Fr. by form of the gift aforesaid and by force of the Statute in such case provided because the said Eliz. died without Heir of her Body The Tenant pleaded in abatement of the writ because the writ ought to revert to the woman alone and it should have been to the Husband and wife and upon a demurrer Judgement was that he should answer over the writ may be either to revert to the Husband and wife or to the wife alone and herein the Tenant vouch two vouches and one is Essoined and an idem dies given to the other and Serjeant Harris demanded of the Court if he should Fourcher by Essoin because the Statute of Westminster the first is that Tenants Parceners or Joint Tenants shall not fourcher in Essoin therefore they two should not fourcher by Essoin but the Court held that before appearance it could not appear to the Court whether they were Tenants or not and therefore before appearance they shall have severall Essoins and Westminster the first is expounded by Gloucester the tenth which is that two Tenants shall not fourcher after appearance and at the day of the adjournment of the last Essoin the Tenant was Essoined and such Essoin was allowed and adjudged by the whole Court and the reason hereof seemed to some to be because the Tenant might be informed of the Vouchee that he vouched was the same person or no for he might be onother person for if he should be an estranger and demand the place and the Demandant could not hold him to the warranty the Demandant should loose his Land and they held that upon severall Processe to wit upon the view and upon the summons to warranty which are divers Processes the Tenant ought to be Essoined and the Court held that this Essoin was at the Common Law if the Tenant and the vouchee at the day given to the Tenant and the vouchee make default Judgement shall be given against the Tenant to wit a petty Cape and nothing against the vouchee SHotwell versus Corderoy In Formedon the Tenant prayes in aid â—nd the prayee in aid and Tenant vouch and the Vouchee was essoined and adjourned and at that Day the Attorney of the Tenant without the Prayer in aid cast an Essoin and an Idem dies given the Prayee in aid and it was quashed for they shall not have severall Essoines but joynt Essoines A Formedon brought of Lands in A. B. C. The Tenant pleads a Fine of all by the name of the Mannour and Tenements in A. B. And it was objected that he said nothing to the Land in C. but the Courtheld that by the name of the Mannor the Land in all the Villages would pass and the Demandant may if he will plead as to the Land in C. that it was not comprised in the Fine Hill 7. Jacobi rotulo 76. vel 69. Formedon in the Discender the Writ was general that J. L. gave to T. L. and the Heirs Males of his Body upon the Body of D. V. Widow lawfully to be begotten which D. the said T. afterwards took to Wife and which after the Death of the said T. c. Son and Heir Male of the Body of the said T. upon the Body of the said D. lawfully begotten to the said J. L. younger Son and Heir of the said J. L. Son of the said T. ought to descend by form of the Gift aforesaid c. and whereof he saith that the said T. was seised c. and 2 Eliz. of the said Tenements did infeoff the Plaintiff in Fee to the use of the said T. L. and his Heirs c. and note in the Count no mention made of the Marriage If a Gift be made in tail to D. and his Heirs Males the Remainder to A. in tail D. discontinues in the Life of A. and D. dies without Issue and the Heir of A. brought his Writ as the immediate Gift to A. his Ancestor who never was seised in his Life and for that cause the Writ was naught but if A. had been seised of the Land then it had not been necessary to have shewed the first Gift to D. by the opinion of the whole Court Actions upon the Statute of Hue and Cry NEedham versus Inhabitant Hundredi de Stoak Trin. 8. Jac. rotulo 534. Action brought upon the Statute of Hue and Cry by the Servant who was robbed in his own name and part of the Goods
were his Masters and part his own proper Goods and found guilty as to his own Goods and a special Verdict as to the Goods of his Master and Judgement for the Plaintiff COnstable versus Inhabitant in dimid Hundred de VValsham in Comitat. Essex Trin. 15. Jacobi rotulo 2244. The Action wabrought for a Robbery the Defendant is found guilty and it was alleadged in Arrest of Judgement that the Action would not lie because it was not brought against the whole Hundred and it was answered on the Plaintiffs behalf that the half Hundred is a Hundred by it self and the Court held the Writ should have been brought against them in this manner Inhabitantes in Hundredo de W. called the half Hundred of Waltham but the Writ was held good for the Writis so shall be intended to be brought against the men inhabiting in the half hundred of W. Judgement for the Plaintif in a special verdict the Jury found that the robbery was done upon the Sunday and it was held in the Kings Bench that the Hundred was liable NOrris versus Inhabitantes in Hundredo de G. Hill 14. Jacobi rotulo 431. And the Plaintiff declares upon a Robbery done the ninth day of October An. 13 Jacobi And the Originall bears Teste the ninth of October 14 Jacobi and after a Verdict Serjeant Harvey moved to stay the Judgement because the Writ was not brought within one year after the Robbery done according to the forme of the Statute of 27 Eliz. And the Court held it a good Exception CAmblyn versus Hundredum de Tendring Trin. 15. Jacobi rotulo 1952. The Plaintiff in his Declaration had mistaken to alleadge the very Day of the Robbery for he shewed the Robbery to be committed in October where in truth it was committed in September and the Court was moved that the Record which was taken out for Triall but never put in might be amended for the notice given to the Hundred as the Record is would appear to be before the Robbery and they granted that it should be amended Actions in Partition THe Process in Partition are Summons Attachment and Distress and the Process are returnable from fifteen Dayes to fifteen Dayes and if the Writ be brought against two or more several Essoines will lie but no View and the Sheriff upon the Distress is compellable to return the value of the Land from the teste of the Original untill the Return thereof and if the Writ be against two or more Deâ—eâ—â—iants and onely one appears the Plaintiff cannot declare against him untill the residue of the Defendants appear and Partition lies by the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 32. between Joint-tenants Tenants in Common Tenants for Life or for years but at the Common Law Partition was onely between Coparceners his Petit. is no Plea in Partition and in this Action there are two Judgements the first is that Partition shall be made and if the Plaintiff die after the first Jugement and before the second Judgement the Writ shall not abate but his Heir shall have a Scire facias against the Defendants to shew cause why Partition should be made and a Writ of Partition will not lie of the View of Frank Pledges and the Death of one of the Defendants abates the Writ And note the Plaintiff may have a general Writ but a special Count and if the Defendant confess part and plead Quod non tenet insimul pro indiviso for the residue the Plaintiff may have Judgement upon the Confession and a Writ to make Partition upon the Confession before the Triall and afterwards try the Issue for the residue or else he may respit his Judgement upon the Confession untill the Issue be tried but this is dangerous for if the Plaintiff be non-suit at the Assise then the whole Writ will abate and if the Sheriff return the Tenant summoned when in truth he was not an Action of Deceit lies not but an Action upon the Case because the Plaintiff shall not recover the Land by default and you shall never have a Writ of Partition against one where he cannot have one against the other thirteen men joyn in a purchase of a Mannour the Conveyance was of the moity to one of them in Fee and the other moity to the other twelve men in Fee the twelve make a Feoffment to one of twelve several Tenements and Land and that Feoffee makes twelve several Feoffments to those twelve men now the thirteenth man which had the other moity bringeth one Writt of Partition against them all pretending that they held insimul pro indiviso and by the opinion of the whole Court it would not lie but he ought to have brought several Writs and Mich. 6. Jacobi in Partition because both of them are in Possession he that is not prohibited may cut down all the Trees and no Estrepment will lie COcks versus Combstoks The Plaintiff declares that one A. was seised in Fee and demised for years to J. and L. and to the Plaintiff for term of Life and one of them demised to one of the Defendants for years the Defendant as to part pleads that he did not demise and the other pleads Non est informat and a Demurrer to the Plea of Non demisit because it is but argumentative Quod non tenet insimul and it was adjudged a naughty Plea a Writ of Error lies in Partition upon the first Judgement before the Writ be returned MIll versus Glemham The Defendant pleads that he before the purchasing of this Writ had brought a Writ of partition for the same Land against the Plaintiff which yet depends and demands Judgment if the Plaintiffs Writ were brought And the Court held that the Writ last brought is well brought for if the first Plaintiff will not proceed upon his Writ and the Defendant shall confess the Action yet the Defendant cannot sue a Writ to make partition upon that Plaintiffs Writ and therefore it is reasonable that the Defendant in the first Action may sue out a Writ to make partition and that the Defendants plea is naught and the last Writ is well prosecuted Actions upon Quare Impedit THe Process in this Action are Summons Attachment and Distress peremptory by the Statute of Marlborough cap. 13. the Sheriff must summon the Defendant by good summoners and return their names upon the original Writ and not return common summoners as John Doo and Richard Roo for a Writ of deceit lyeth in this Writ if the summons were not made indeed The Writs hereupon are returned from 15. days to 15. days The summons upon the first Writ may either be made at the Church door to the person of the Defendant And although a nihil be returned upon the first summons Attachment and Distress yet if the Defendant make default upon the Distress a Writ shall goe to the Bishop upon the title made by the Plaintiff but at the common Law
Winch held that the Plaintiffe should not be barred for the Misnomer and for the second he held that his house was within the Statute of Chaunterys and so the interest in the King H. 6. And so the Lease made by the Master of the Hospitall void Dyer 246. 287. And Warburton held the Plaintiffe should be barred upon both points SWynerton versus Mills Hill 14 Jacobi rotulo 2049. In a Replevin the Defendant a vows for a rent charge reserved by a Copiholder who is seised in Fee and made a Lease by the license of the Lord reserving Rent at foure Feasts or within one and twenty days being lawfully demanded and afterwards the Copiholder surrendred one moity in Fee to a stranger and afterwards surrendred the reversion of the other moity to another to which the Termer atturned and so avowed for Rent The Plaintiffe pleaded in Barâ— that he was seised of a Close adjoyning to the place in which c. and put therein his Cattell and that they escaped by fault of inclosure and issue taken upon that And after a Verdict by default those exceptions were taken to the Avowry in Arrest of Judgement First because it appeared by the Advowry that the Copiholder had surrendred a Reversion which could not be because a Copiholder is a Tenant at will and so could not have a reversion for he cannot make a Lease for yeers without the license of the Lord but this exception was over-ruled by the Couâ—t Secondly because there was no Atturnment alledged in the first surrender And it was held no exception because the Rent for which he avowed was reserved by the Copiholder by the second surrender to which the Termer had atturned And also the Court said that an Atturnment is not necessary for a Copiholder because there is no time when the Terme should atturn For before the surrender he cannot atturn and after the surrender and admittance it is too late And the Copihold estate is like an estate raised by uses or devise in which an Atturnment is not necessary As also in an estate raised by Fine and the like an Atturnment is not necessarie for if the Termer will not atturn he is compellable by Law as by a Quid juris clamat but a Copiholder hath no means to make the Termer atturn if he refuse And thirdly in the conclusion of the Advowry he doth not say that the Rent was behind such a day and one and twenty dayes after at least and this exception was disallowed because the distresse is a sufficient demand of the Rent and it appears that the day of the taking of the distresse was one and twentie dayes after the Feast at which the Rent was due and Judgment was given for the Advowant and note that a Covenant to distrain is idle for a man may distrain of common right HOwell versus Sambay Mich. 13 Jacobi rotulo 2009. In Replevin the Defendant a vows for a Rent charge and a Nomine pene granted by Tenant in tail generall and one Fine levied afterwards and the use expressed the Plaintiffe replies and saies that the Grantor had only an interest for life and so makes inducement and traverses the use of the Fine The Defendant demurrs And held by the Court that the Grantee was not seised in tail nor to the use of the Fine And it was said that in this case that it was necessary for the Advowant to plead the Fine with the estate tail for if the Tenant in tail grant a Rent charge and dye no Fine being levied and the estate tail discends the issue in tail is not chargable with the Rent And note the Advowry was as well for the Rent as for the Nomine pene and no speciall demand was alledged in pleading the Rent and it was adjudged by the Court a naughty advowry as to the Nomine pene but good for the Rent as it hath been adjudged in one Mildmaies Case COtterell versus Harrington Pasch 6. Jacobi rotulo 545. In a Replevin the Defendant avows for an Annuity for 20 d. granted for yeers payable upon demand and alledges a demand the Plaintiffe demands either of the Deed and by the Deed it appeared that for a hundred and ten pound one Rent of twenty pound was granted for eight yeers and another for 20 l. for two yeers if E. R. and T. should so long live the Plaintiffe pleads the Statute of Usury and sets forth the Statute and a speciall usurious Contract If it had been layed to be upon a loan of Money then it was Usury but if it be a bargain an Annuity it is no usury But this was alledged to be upon a lending VVOod versus Moreton Hill 6 Jacobi rotulo 1802. In Replevin the Defendant advows to have Common Appendant out to his house and Land the Plaintiffe saith that he had Common Appendant to his House and Land And the Defendant to avoid the Common saith that the Commoner sold to the Plaintiffe five Acres of the Land to which the Common is appendant pretending that he should not have Common for that Land being but parcell of the Land to which the Common was appendant Common Appurtenant cannot be to a House alone purchasing of part of Common Appendant doth not extinguish the Common otherwise it is of Common Appurtenant And it was pretended to be Common Appurtenant because it is to a House and Land whether by severance his Common is gone and held to be common Appendant and Judgment given for the Plaintiffe MOrse versus Well Replevin for Common of Pasture the casewas that the Father was seised of two yard Land with Appurtenances and had Common of Pasture for four rother Beasts three Horses and sixty Sheep and he demised part of the said two yard Lands in being And whether the Common should be apportioned and if it should be apportioned whether the Prescription failed because the issue was taken that he and all those c. had Common in the said two yard Land A Release of Common in one Acre is a Release of all If I have Common Appurtenant and purchase part the Common is gone but otherwise it is of Common Appendant And note this Common was Common Appendant and the purchasing of Common Appendant doth not extinguish the Common and Judgment was given for the Commoner by the whole Court HVghes versus Crowther Trin. 6 Jacobi rotulo 2220. In a Replevin a Lease for years made to Charles H. and the said A. T. to have and to hold from c. for sixty years if they live so long Charles dyed in this case Judgment was given that the Lease was ended by the death of Charles but otherwise it had been if it had been for life BIcknall versus Tucker Trin. 9 Jacobi rotulo 3648. in a Replevin the case was whether a Fine with five years will bind the Copy-holder in remainder there was a Copy-hold granted to three for lives to have and to hold successively the
Venire facias and upon the Habeas Corpus onely twenty and three were returned and the Jury did not appear full and a Tales was awarded and tried for the Plaintiffe and good because the Venire Facias was returned full PIgott versus Pigott Mich 20 Jacobi In Replevin Avowry that Ellen Enderby was seised in Fee of three Acres in Dale and took to Husband S. Pigott and had Issue Tho Ellen dyed and the husband was in by the Curtesie the Husband and Tho the Heir granted a Rent of 10. 〈◊〉 issuing out of the three Acres to the Avowant and avows for so much behind the Plaintiffe in barrsayes that before Ellen had any estate one Fisher was seised in Fee and gave it to John E. in tayl Jo had issue Ellen who after the death of her Father entred and was seised in tayl and took a Husband as is before declared And had Issue Tho and that Tho. Tenant by the Curtesie living grants the Rent as above without this that Ellen was seised in Fee of three Acres and issue was joyned thereupon and found for the Avowant And in arrest of Judgment it was objected that in effect there was no issue joyned For the traverse of the sesin of Ellen E. was idle for no title of the Rent is derived from her but they ought to have traversed the seisin of Thomas the grantor and then the Issue had been of such a nature that it had made an end of the matter in question which was not in this case no more then if the Tenant in Formulen should plead not guilty but the Court held that though an apter issue might have been taken and that the traverse is not good yet it was helped by the statute of Jeofailes For the estate of Ellen H. was in a sort by circumstance materiall For if she were seised in tayl and that estate tayl discended to Thomas the grantor then by his death the Rent is determined after the Fee discended to Tho from Ellen there the estate was of that nature that he might grant a sufficient rent charge And although it might well be presumed that Thomas after the Fee discended to him from Ellen had altred such estate tayl yet by Popham the Courts shal not now intend that because the parties doubted nothing but whether Ellen was seised in Fee or not when he dyed And that doubt is resolved by the Verdict as if a Defendant should plead a Dâ—ed of J. S to A. and B. and that it dyed and B. survived and infeoffed the Defendant if the Plaintiffe should say that J. S. did not infeoffe A. and that they should be at issue upon that and should be found against him although this be no apt issue yet it is helped by the statute because the parties doubted of nothing but of the manner of the feoffment of J. S. whether it was made to A or not and of the same opinion was Fennor Yelverton and Williams but not Gandy CRate versus Moore Mich. 3. Jacobi In Replevin of Cattell taken in D. the Defendant avowes as Bayliffe of H. Finch And the case was thus the Lady Finch Mother of H. Finch granted a Rent charge to H. issuing out of her Mannor of N. and out of all her Lands in D. E. and is in the County of Kent belonging or appeartaining to the said Mannor And the Plaintiffe to barr the Defendant pleads an abatement in H. Finch into the Lands in D. And upon the Defendant demurrs for the Lands in D. were not belonging or appertaining to the Mannor of N. and adjudged for the Defendant For no Land can be charged by that grant if it be not belonging to the Mannor And that for two Reasons the first is because by the word aut alibi it appears that it is all but one sentence and the Aut conjoynes the words proceeding to wit all the Lands in D. S. and to put in the County of Kent in these words following to wit alibi in the said County to the said Mannor appertaining and the sentence is not perfect untill you come to the last words to the said Mannor appertaining for if the Rent be issuing out of the Land in D. c. which is not appertaining to the Mannor then the sentence must be perfect and these words County of Kent and these aut alibi must begin a new sentence which was never seen that they should make the beginning of a sentence And therefore this case is not like the case between Bacon and Baker second of King James in the prohibition where Queen Eliz. grants all her â—ith Hay c. within the liberty and precincts of St. Edmonds Bury belonging and appertaining to the said Monastery and which were lately collected by the Almoner of the said Monastery for there the latter sentence is perfect and compleat And these words in the County of Suffolke and the nec non that ensues are a new sentence And therefore the last clause And which by the Almoner c. goe only to the Tiths following the nec non and not to the Tiths contained in the first clause but it had been otherwise if the nec non had been unacum as in truth the patent was but it was mispleaded for then the unacum would have reinjoyned all and made it but one sentence The second reason was in respect of the nature of the thing granted which was but a rent And therefore if rent be granted out of a Mannor to be perceived and taken out of one acre this shall be good and nothing shall be charged but that one acre only 17. Ass but otherwise it is of Land for a Feofment of a Mannor To have c. one acre it is a void habend For here it appears that the intent of the Lady Finch was only to charge the Mannor and such Land only which were appertaining to the Mannor But Popham held the contrary for he conceived that D. S. and W. in the County of Kent were particularly named and bounded in by the name of the place and County and therefore they should be charged although they were not appertaining to the Mannor As if a man grants all his Lands in D. R. and V. in the County of M. and in Darn in the same County which he hath by discent it should only extend to Darn but denyed by the Court but he was strongly of that opinion And he held that by the first of the charge out of the Mannor all the Lands parcell or appertaining to the Mannor are charged and therefore the subsequent words if they should be limited as is above-said would be idle and frivolous And Yelverton said that the words before belonging or appertaining shall be taken to extend to the Land occupied in the Mannor although it is not parcell of it and Fenwood and Willams granted and Judgment was given that the Defendant should have a return habend TOtt versus Ingram Trin. 4. Jac. In a replevin brought by T. against I.
village is in question or could come in Issue yet it was resolved by the whole Court but him that those of the village of Bail might well know whether the Plaintif being an inhabitant within the village in which the Leet was were a chief Pledge at the Court or no for to have cheif pledges doth properly belong to a Leet which Leet is within the village and therefore they of the Mannor cannot have so good knowledge of the matter as they of the Mannor and village together and therefore they all ought to have been of both as in the Case of Common or a way from one village to a house in another village this ought to be tried of both villages and so also of the Tenure of Land in D. held of the Mannor of Sale the triall must be as well of the village where the Land lies as of the Mannor of which the Land is holden as it was adjudged Hill 45. El. in the then Queens Bench in the Case between Lovlace and and Judgement was reversed and see 6 H. 7. and Arundels case in my Lord Cooks Reports BVrglacy versus Ellington Burglacy brought a Replevin against Ellington for the taking of his cattell c. the Avowant pleads that one W. B. was seised of the place in which c. in his Demesne as of Fee and being so seised died by reason whereof the Land descended to one Crist. his Daughter and Heir who took to Husband the Avowant the Plaintiff in his Barr to the Avowry confesses that W. B. was seised and that it descended to C. who took to Husband the Avowant but he further said that the 16 of April primo Jac. the Husband and Wife by their Deed indented and inrolled did bargain and sell the same Land unto one Missenden and a Fine levied by them and that M. the 30 of James bargained and sold it to F. M. in Fee and he being so seised licensed the Plaintiff to put in his cattell the Avowant replies if in the said Bargain and Sale made by the Husband and Wife a Proviso was contained that if the said Ellington should pay one hundred pounds a year after then c. and pleaded the Statute of 13 Eliz. of usury with an averment that the profits of the Land were of the value of twelve pounds by the year the Plaintif rejoyned that true it is there is such a clause in the Indenture but he further said that before the sealing of the Indenture it was agreed by word that the said Ellington should have and receive the profits and not the Plaintif and thereupon the Avowant demurres and the Case was thus Ellington bargains his Land to M for the payment of one hundred pounds a yeare after to be paid and that the Bargainee should have the profits the bargainor enters as upon a void Sale because of the statute of usury for by the Proviso â—he is to have the hundred pounds and ten pounds for the forbearance and by the Law he is to have the profits and the which did amount above ten pounds by the hundred the bargainee to avoid the usury pleaded an agreement by word before the sealing of the Bargain and Sale and the question arising upon this was if the Bargainee might plead this verball agreement for the avoiding of the Deed which did suppose the contrary and Moore of Lincolns â—nne counsell was of opinion that he could not put that maxime that every thing must be dissolved by that by which it is bound and his whole argument depended upon that and he cited divers Cases as 1 H. 7. 28. 28 H. 8. 25. 1 Eliz. Dier 16. 9. Rutlands Case 5 Rep. and Cheyney 6 Case there but the whole Court without any argument were of opinion that he might plead the verball agreement and avoid the usury and first they all agreed that when a Deed is perfected and delivered as his Deed that then no verball agreement afterwards may be pleaded in destruction thereof as it is in the Cases put but when the agreement is parcell of the Originall contract as here it is it may be pleaded and secondly otherwise it would bring a great mischief being the custome so to do by word but if it had been expressed within the Deed that the Bargainee should have the profits and that it was delivered accordingly that no agreement or assignment of the profits could now avoid it for it is an usurious contract and therefore the whole court gave Judgement for the Plaintif that he might well plead the agreement Actions of Trespass and Battery JOhnson versus Turner Trin. 44 Eliz. Trespasse brought for breaking the Plaintifs house and the taking and carrying away his goods the Defendant justifies all the Trespasse the Plaintif as to the breaking of the House and taking the goods and the matter therein contained demurres upon the Defendants Barr the Defendant joins in demurrer in this form to wit because the Plaintif aforesaid as to the breaking of the House and taking the goods is sufficient demands Judgement and Judgement given in the Common Pleas for the Plaintiff and a Writ to inquire of Damages upon which Damages are assessed for the breaking of the House and taking the goods and whether the subsequent words to wit and the matter therein contained go to the whole matter in the Barr to wit to the carrying of the Goods away also for when the Defendant joyned in Demurrer with the Plaintiff he joyned specially to wit to the breaking of the House and taking the Goods but nothing of the carrying them away and so as to the carrying of them away nothing is put into Judgement of the court yet the Writ to inquire is for the whole and the Judgement also and the carrying of the Goods away being parcell of the matter and for which greater Damages are adjudged and that being not put into the Judgement of the Court by the Demurrer therefore the Judgement is erronious for there is a discontinuance as to the carrying of the Goods away which is part of the matter and this businesse concerned Mr. Darcy of the privy chamber concerning his patent for Cards PVrrell versus Bradley Pasch 1 Jacobi The Plaintif declares in Trespass wherefore by force and Arms such a day the Defendant did assault him and one Mare price six pounds from the person of the Plaintiffe then and there did take and Yelverton moved for the Defendant in arrest of Judgement and the Declaration was not good for the Plaintif did not shew any property in the Mare for he ought to have that it was his Mare or the Mare of the Plaintif for as it is laid in the Declaration the words may have two intendments that the property of the Mare was to the Defendant and then the taking was lawfull or that the property was in the Plaintif and then the taking was wrongfull and it being indifferent to whether it shall be taken most strongly against the Plaintif for his
try the Issue anew DOwglas against Kendall Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintif declared that the Defendant the 21. of January 6. Jac. by force and Arms thirty Loads of Thornes of the Plaintifs ready to be carryed in a place called the Common wast at Chipping-warden in the County of Norfolk did take and carry away to the Plaintifs damage of ten pounds the Defendant pleaded not guilty to all but to ten Loads and as to them that the place where c. contained one Acre of pasture and that one William Palmer was seised in fee of a Messuage and three quarters of a yard Land in C. aforesayd and that he and those whose estate he had in the sayd Messuage c. time out of minde were used to have for their farmers c. all the Thornes growing upon the sayd Acre of pasture to their use to be imployed and spent upon the sayd Messuage c. as appurtenant thereunto and the sayd ten Loads were growing and unjustly cast downe by the Plaintif upon the sayd Acre of wast and being ready for them to carry the Defendant as servant to Palmer and by his command took them and carryed them away and imployed them upon the House as it was lawfull for him to doe the Plaintiff by protestation that Palmer and such c. time out of minde had not the Thornes growing upon the sayd Acre of pasture parcell of the wast and that Sir Richard Saltonstall was seised of the Mannor of Chipping-warden whereof the common wast was parcell in fee and that he the 21. of January the sixth yeare of K. James granted license to the Plaintif to cut and carry away thirty Loads of Thornes mentioned in the Plea in barr growing upon the Wast by reason whereof they cut those ten Loads of Thornes growing upon the wasts and they were ready to be carryed by reason whereof they were possessed thereof untill the Defendants took them away and upon this Replication the Defendants demurred and adjudged against the Plaintif and there was a differance taken by the Court where a man claimes reasonable Estovers in anothers Soyle and where a man claimes all the Thornes in anothers Soyle for in the first case if the Owner of the Soyle shall cut downe the Thornâ—s first he that hath title to the Estovers cannot take them for the property and interest of all the Thornes continues in the Owner of the Soyle and the other hath onely Common there and if the Owner of the Soyle cut them downe all he that should have the Estovers shall have an Action upon the Case onely and not an Assise for when all the Wood is destroyed it cannot be put in seisin as the Abridgement of the Assise is fol. 21. And so it appeares by Sir Thomas Palmers Case Co. lib. 5. fol. 25. And if one grant an hundred Cords of Wood to be taken at the election of the Grantee and the Grantor or an Estranger cut downe the Wood the Grantee cannot take the Wood but must supply his Grant out of the residue for the Grantee hath but an especiall interest in part of the Wood and not in all but now in this Case the Defendant in right of Palmer claimes all the Thornes in the name of all the Thornes growing upon the sayd Acre of pasture and if he hath all Sir Richard S. cannot have any and so by consequence cannot license the Plaintif to cut any and so the whole interest is in Palmer and it is not in the nature of Estovers for Estovers is but parcell of the Wood and that to be taken to a speciall purpose and in this case it was agreed that although the Defendant had alledged an imployment of the Estovers yet since the Defendant had claimed all the Thornes and Trees the imployment is not traversable for he that hath the generall interest and property in Trees by custome or prescription cannot be restrained but may use them at his pleasure And see 10 E. 4. 2. and adjudged accordingly MAssam against Hunt Mich. 6. Jacobi A Copi-holder of a Messuage and two Acres in fee. The Lord grants and confirms the Messuage and Lands with the appurtenances to the Copy-holder in fee and whether he to whom the confirmation was made shall have by the usage as a Copy-holder common in the wasts of the Lord was the question and adjudged he should not for the Copy-holder by that confirmation is extinct and infranchiz'd for the words with the appurtenances will not create a common for at first the Common was gained by custome and annexed to the customary estate and is lost and perished with that for Common of its own proper nature is incident to a Copy-hold Estate FArmer against Hunt Hilar. 8. Jacobi An Action of Trespasse brought for chasing the Plaintiffs Cattle in such a Close the Defendant justifies taking damage fesant in his Free-hold The Plaintiff replies and shewes one grant of Common in the place where c. by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and that afterwards the Defendant had erected a reek of Corn and the Plaintiff put in his Beasts to use his Common and the Defendant chased them But note that the Plaintiff in his replication in pleading the grant of the Common by Indenture did omit the bringing it into Court. And by all the Judges the chasing of the Cattell by the Defendant is not lawfull for by such means he may defeat his own grant for by the grant of common in such a place the Grantee may use the whole Common And then when the Grantor erects a Reek of Hay upon part of the Common he had granted he will diminish the Common and tend to the enfeebling of his Grant which ought not to be for the Beast ought to range over the whole place and eate the Hay without doing any wrong for the wrong did first begin in the Grantor who is the Defendant of which he shall never take advantage And whereas hee hath erected one Reek of Corn hee may erect twenty and so the Beasts shall have no liberty of pasture there but because the Plaintiff did not shew to the Court the Indenture of the Grant which is the ground of his title for that very cause judgment was given against the Plaintiff DVrant against Child Hillar 9. Jaco An Action of Trespasse brought for chasing the Cattell of the Plaintiff and shews what Cattell and that the Trespasse was done at B. to his damage of c. The Defendant justifies the chasing in one Close called M. in B. which is his Free-hold and that the Cattell were there damage fesant The Plaintiff replies and shews that one B. is seised of one Close called Catley in D. in fee and made a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff for years and that the Defendant is seised of one Close called Fursey in Fee which lies next adjoyning to the Close called Catley and that the Defendant and all those whose Estate he hath in Fursey Close have used
time out of mind to repair the Fence and Hedges betweene Catley Close Fursey Close which Fursey Close doth next adjoyn to the Close called M. where the Cattel were chased and shews that the Plaintiff put his Cattell in Catley Close to feed the Grass there which by default of inclosure escaped into Fursey Close as above but he said that between Catley Close and Fursey Close there is a little Brook which Brook at the side of Catley close had a banck next adjoyning to it which banck the Lessor of the Plaintiff and those whose Estate they have c. have used time out of mind c. to repair And that the Brook at the side of Fursey Close had another Brook next adjoyning which the Defendant used to repair and shews because the Plaintiff had not repaired the banck on the side of Catley Close the Cattell did escape into Fursey Close and stayed in the Close called M. By reason whereof the Defendant chased them as it was lawfull for him to doe whereupon the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged for the Plaintif for the Defendant had pleaded a good Barre and the Plaintif had replyed a good replication and had removed the fault from himselfe and laid it upon the Defendant by his negligent inclosure between Catley and Fursey and the rejoynder doth not confess and avoid the replication but perplexes the matter by adding one point of prescription on the Plaintiffs part that he ought to repair one banck between Catley and Fursey upon which an issue could not be taken for then two prescriptions should be an issue together which cannot be no more then two affirmatives as the 5. H. 7. 12. And also the matter contained in the Records doth not answer the matter contained in the Replication but by way of Argument only And whether that be true is no matter in evidence against the Plaintiff who is bound to prove his Replication true For the Plaintiff saith that Catley and Fursey doe lye together that is without any space between them And the Defendant in his Rejoynder saith there is a banck between Catley and Fursey which if it be so they do not lye together but the Defendant ought to have traversed the prescription alledged by the Plaintiff which had made an end of all the matter which observe was by the opinion of the whole Court SVtcliffe against Constable Trin. 10. Jac. Ch. Constable 32. Eliz. was seised in fee of the Mannor of East-hatfield in the County of Yorke and by his Indenture infeoffes H. Remingham paying for certain Lands parcell of the Mannor 60 l. at two Feasts with a clause of Distresse if it be behind by the space of 14. days Ch. 43. Elizab. by Indenture bargains and sells the 60 l. Rent to the Plaintiff which was inrolled by reason whereof he was seised of the Rent for the life of Ch. and being so seised loses that part of the Identure sealed by Remingham which the said day to wit the 24. Novemb 44. Eliz. came to the hands of the Defendant who by Force and Armes teared the seale of the Indenture against the Peace c. to his damage of 400 l. The Defendant pleads that Ch. hath not granted the Mannor of E. to Remingham paying the rent c. in manner and form and the Plaintiff demurres upon this Plea And it was argued that the Bar was good which is a direct traverse to the title of the Plaintiff to destroy the ground of the Plaintiffs action for if no rent were granted then the Indenture concerning which the Plaintif complains did not belong to the Plaintiff for it passes not to the Plaintiff but as an incident to the second Grant of necessity to make good his title As the Lord Buckhursts Case Co. 1. 7. E. 4. 30. in assize of rent the Plaintiff made his title by deed of a rent charge it was a good plea to say that nothing passed by the grant because the issue is taken upon the speciall matter and not the generall but in an Assize brought of an Office it is no plea to say there is no such Office for that amounts to no more but that he hath not disseised him 45. E. 3. In trespass for taking away of writing it is no plea to say that he never had such a writing but must plead not guilty So in an Action of Trespass for Goods it is no Plea to say that the property of them was to an Estranger and not to the Plaintif because by that plea hee denies not but that the Plaintif was in posaession which is sufficient to maintain the Action 20. H. 8. 28. which books prove that the Plea in Bar is not good for the Defendant destroys the Plaintifs Action but by way of Argument And the rent by such Action is not demanded but damages for tearing the Indenture and so the Title of Rent is not in question and exceptions were taken to the Declaration First the Action was brought for tearing the Counter-part by which the Rent was not created And the Indenture is not expresly granted to the Plaintif but the rent of 60 l. only is bargained and sold and by that the counter-part that pertains to Remingham doth not pass to the Plaintif as an incident for it is not the Originall Deed by which at first the rent was reserved which was granted by all but the Cheife Justice for he said that the counter-part waited upon the interest and was good evidence for that Secondly the Plaintif had not averred that Ch. for whose life the Rent was granted was alive at the time of tearing the Indenture and if C. was dead the Indenture pertained to the Defendant of right as Heir of Ch. for so much appeared by the Plaintifs own shewing which was granted And thirdly the Plaintiff shewed not that ever hee was posaessed of the Deed but by way of Argument to wit that he casually lost it which is not sufficient for none shall have trespass but he who is in actuall posaession which was also granted by the Court. Fourhly the counter-part whereof the Plaintif complains by the Plaintifs own shewing contained as well a warranty as the rent reserved And therefore without a special gift made of that Deed by Ch. to the Plaintiff that Deed doth not pass by Law to the Plaintiff as it is adjudged in Lord Buckhursts Case Fifthly if Ch. the Father be dead then the writing hath lost his force as to the rent for by his death the rent is determined and therefore of necessity the Plaintiff ought to averre the life of Ch. For no Action lies for a Deed that is determined and for these reasons the Plaintiff did discontinue his Action An Action of Trespass was brought for entring into a mans House and continuing there divers dayes c. And after a Tryall and verdict for the Plaintiff Yelverton moved in Arrest of Judgment and shewed for cause that the Plaintiff had declared with a continuando for breaking
Disseisin and Doddridge sayd It would be mischeivous if it should Hill 6. Iac. In the Common Pleas that if in the Common Barre in Trespass the place in the Common Barre is alledged to be Blackacre the Plaintiff may plead that it is his Free-hold and then it was held by the whole Court that an abuttall of one side is sufficient without alledging it of every side SWaine against Becket An Action of Trespass brought for cutting down of Trees And upon a speciall verdict the question was that whereas there is a Mannor wherein are Copi-holders for life which have used to lopp Trees growing upon the Copy-holds for their necessary fire and repairing of their customary Tenements the Lord of the Mannor maketh a Lease of the Mannor for yeares excepting the Trees the Lessee of the Mannor granteth a copy for life the Copy-holder loppeth the Trees growing on his Copy-hold whether by law he might do it or no was the doubt of the Jury And it was held by all the Court that the Copy-holder might lopp the Trees because he is in by the custome which is above the Lords Estate after he is admitted and that the copy-hold doth not depend upon the Lords interest And that the Trees excepted and the Soil remained parcell of the Mannor because the Lease was but for years but if the Lease had been for life it had been otherwise because it had been severed from the Mannor And whereas it was objected that the Tenant should not be in a better condition then his Author it was answered that a Lord of a Mannor at will may grant a copy for life or in fee and it is good If the Lord cut down all the Trees so that the Copy-holder can have no lopping he may have his Action upon the Case against the Lord as it was adjudged in Gosnolds case If the Lord sell away his waste and the Copy-holder dye and the Lord grant a new copy he shall have his Common If the Lord sell away the Trees so that the Copy-holder cannot have Estovers because the Bargainee felleth down the Trees the Copy-holder shall have his Action against the Bargainee Common and lopping are incident to the copy-hold Judgment for the Defendant HArris against Ap-John An Action of Trespasse brought the Defendant pleads not guilty and verdict found for the Plaintif And in Arrest of Judgment it was alledged that the venire facias was de placito debiti and so also was the habeas corpus and it should have been de placito transgressionis And it was amended by the whole Court MYnwinnock against Bligh Trin. 16. Jacob. rotulo 1697. An action of Trespasse brought for breaking the Plaintiffs Close done Septemb. in the 13. year of King James The Defendant pleads as to part of the Trespasse in award and that the Defendant submits himself to the award the 15. yeare and that the Arbitrators in the 13. yeare which was before the submission made the Award and traverses that he was guilty of the Trespasse after the award made And the Plaintiff replies that the Arbitrators the said day in the 13. year made not any award c. And after Tryall exception was taken that the issue was ill joyned being of a thing that was void yet notwithstanding Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and they resembled to a payment upon a single Bond and conditions performed at a Feast not contained in an Obligation Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 3044. An Action of Trespass brought wherfore by force and armes his Goods and Chattels to wit a thousand posts and forty railes took and caryed away and damages given intire and after a verdict exception taken because Rales was pretended to be no Latine word nor to have any exception but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff DVncomb against Randoll Hil. 9. Jac. rotulo 2267. Three issues in Trespasse One issue was upon a prescription to wit that they had accustomed to have for himselfe his Farme and Tenants of the same Mannor common of pasture in the said c. for all his Sheep which are levant and couchant in and upon the Demesne Lands of W. which lye and are in A. aforesaid every yeare And exception was taken for the uncertainty because it did not appear that those were demesne Lands which lye in A. for it was ill pleaded and ought to be averred but notwithstanding it was held good after a tryal and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and in this case an exception was taken to the venire facias because it was of A. and of the Mannor of C. and because it was made in this manner to wit de visu de A. and de visu manerij de C. but it was disallowed because against the form used in the Common Pleas. DOwnes against Skrymsher Trin. 9. Iac. rotulo 334. An Action of Assault and Battery brought and there was a Demurrer upon the Evidence And the case was that the Defendant the day specified in the Declaration said that the Plaintiff assaulted the Defenant and in defence of himselfe justifies the beating the Plaintiff replies that he did it of his own wrong without any such cause and in the Evidence the Defendant maintained that the Plaintiff beate him the day mentioned in the Declaration and in the same place And the Plaintiff perceiving that gave in evidence that the Battery was made another day and place to wit c. which was the cause of the speciall verdict for if there be two Batteries made between the Plaintiff and Defendant at divers times the Plaintiff is bound to prove the Battery made the same day in his Declaration and shall not be admitted to give another day in evidence by the opinion of the whole Court HEydon against Mich. 8. Jac. rotulo 839. An Action of Battery brought against three two of them pleaded not guilty and Judgment by non sum informat against the third and the two were found guilty for all And the Jury gave damages severally against one a 100 l. and against the other a 100 s. and what Judgement should be given was the question and at first the Court was of opinion that the Plaintiff should not have Judgment at all for where the Defendants are found guilty of all the Trespass in this case the damages shall be intire but if one shall be found guilty of part or at another time in this case the damages shall be severall otherwise not And they thought a Venire de novo ought to issue out because the Jury had mis-behaved themselves in severing the damages but afterwards it was resolved that the damages that were given by the first Jury to wit one 100 l. should be recovered against all the Defendants in that Writ named and that in Trespass the first Jury taxes the damages for the whole Trespass and that shall bind all the Defendants and therefore execution was given against all the Defendants for the hundred pounds Trin. 9. Jam. rotulo 1835.
because the first taker hath devested the property out of the Owner The Defendant in this justified the taking of the Mare as a stray and did not alledg that he came as an estray and the Plea was held insufficient and the Court held they could not tye them together And the Defendant said that the Hayward took the Mare and delivered her to the Defendant this was but not guilty and Judgment for the Plaintiff LVttrell against Wood and other Defendants Pasch 40. Eliz. An Action of Trespasse brought wherefore by Force and Armes he broke the Plaintiffs Close and cut down his Trees The Defendant in Barre to the new assignment alledges that he is a Copy-holder for life of the Mannor of Mynehead in the County of Somerset and that in that Mannor there was a Custome that every Copy-holder for life had used at his pleasure to cut downe all the Elmes growing upon his customary Lands and to convert them to his own use when and as often as hee would and so justifies and a Demurrer upon the Barre And the question was whether the Custome was good and reasonable and the later opinion was that it was a good and reasonable Custome but now it is otherwise held Actions of Waste IN Waste the Writ shall be brought where the Waste was committed And the Processe in this Action is Summons Attachment and Distresse peremptory by the Statute of Westminst 2. But at the Common Law the Distresse was infinite And if the Defendant doth not appear upon the Distresse although a Nihil be returned yet the Plaintiff shall have Judgment and a Writ to inquire of damages of the Waste and an Essoine lies as in a Quare Impedit and the Processe shall be executed as in a Quare Impedit and returned from 15 dayes to 15 dayes and the Plaintiff in this Action shall not recover costs but the value of the Waste found by the Jury shall be trebled by the Court for costs shall not be recovered in such Actions as are given by the Statute as in this Action a Decies tantum and Quare impedit And so Judgment is to recover the place wasted and severance lies in this Action Mich. 9. H. 4. rot 104. And note in the tryal of the issue in Waste if the Defendant by his Plea doth not confess the Waste six of the Jury which are impannelled to try the Waste must have the view of the place wasted to the intent that the Plaintiff may be put in possession of the place wasted by the view of the Jury And if the Defendant confesse the Waste the Jury ought only to inquire of the value of the Waste but not who committed the Waste But upon a default upon the grand Distress the Sheriff in his proper person shall repair to the place wasted and there inquire what waste and spoile is done And if he doth not return that he was there in his proper person it is naught But upon a Judgment by non sum informat nil dicit or in a Plea by which the Defendant confesses the waste the Sheriff shall inquire only of the damages And he is not bound to return upon that Writ that he in proper person went to the place wasted And when the Judgment is by default the challenge lies against the Sheriff and if it be denyed it is Errour And if the Plaintiff do not take jungment upon the first distress being returned executed but takes another distress it is Error And no receit lies by the VVife upon the default upon the Distress at the return of the VVrit to inquire of the wast Trin. 6. H. 6. rotulo 133. For if the VVoman at the Assize before verdict doth not pray to be received she shall never be received afterwards in the Court at the return of the Nisi prius And note that the Jury may give severall values and one joynt value of the place wasted but severall values is the better way If a Lessee for yeares makes a Lease of one moity to one man and of the other moity to another man and one of them commit Waste the Action shall be brought against the two for the Waste of one is the Waste of the other if a Lease be made by three to one for life and afterwards two release to the third and the Lessee commits wast he alone shall have a Writ of Waste supposing that hee demised onely If Waste be committed in two Villiages and the Sheriff hath executed his Office naughtily in one Villiage and well in another all shall be inquired of De novo because the whole in Inquisition was but one Inquest at one time but if the Plaintiff assigne the Waste in the Houses and Woods and it doth not appeare by the Count that the Houses were demised and upon a Nihil dicit a Writ to inquire of the damages issues out and the Jury find c. the Plaintiff shall have his of the Houses BEdell against Bedell Trin. 8. Jacobi rotulo 3052. An Action of Waste brought the Case was There is a devise to two for one and twenty yeares the Father and Son and made the Son Executor and he refuses to prove the Will and take the terme and so no Waste committed And if Lessee for life and his Lessor joyne in a Lease for yeares by Indenture and the Lessee for life dye and waste is committed the surviving Lessor shall have the Action of Waste and shall count that he did demise it alone If a Lease be made to Husband and Wife for life and for twenty yeares after their deaths and the Wife dye and Waste is committed the Wife shall not be named in the Wriâ— nor the terme after her death If Husband and Wife during the Coverture make a Lease and Waste is committed they both shall joyne in the Action of Waste And if a Lease be made but for one yeare or for halfe a yeare onely yet the Writ shall be for a terme of years but the Count shall be speciall if a Lessee for yeares or life grants Rent out of the Land he had for yeares and afterwards commits Waste if the Lessor recover the place wasted the Land shall be charged If a Lessee for a hundred yeares grants part of his terme to another and be commits Waste the Action shall be brought against the first Lessee If Tenant for life commits waste and afterwards grants his estate to another waste shall be brought against him in the Tenet and after Judgement a Scire facias shall issue to the Grantee to shew cause wherefore the Plaintiff shall not have Execution of the place wasted and the like if Lessee for yeares commit waste and grants over his Estate Waste shall be brought against him in the Tenet And if a Lease be made for life upon condition that if the Lessee shall do such an Act his Estate shall cease and he doth commit such an Act the Writ shall be brought against the Lessee in the Tenet
any private Prison And it seemes if any do against this Statute that an action of false Imprisonment lies For every one ought to be committed to the Common Goal to the intent that he may be dilivered at the next Goale delivery and also if any be committed to any of the Counters in London unlessthat it be for debt that an action of false Imprisonment lieth for that for these are private Prisons for the Sheriffes of London for Debt only Note in Debt for ten pound the Defendant confesseth five pound and for the other five pound pleades that he oweth nothing by the Law and at the day the Plaintiff would have been nonsuited And it was agreed by all that if he be nonsuited that he shall loose all as well the debt confessed as the other Note the yeare of the Reigne of the King was mistaken in the Record of nisi prius but the Record which remaines in the Court was very well and it was amended For insomuch that it was a sufficent and certaine Issue this was sufficent Authority to the Justices of nisi prius to proceed but nothing being mistaken but the yeare of the Reigne this shall be amended for it is only the misprision of the Clark see Dyer 260. 24 25. 9. Eliz. 11. H. 6. Note also if Tenant in Dower be disseised and the Disseisor makes a Feoffment the Tenant in dower shall recover aâ—l their dammages against the Feoffee for she is not within the Statute of Glocester chapter 1. By which every one shall answer for their time Hillary 8. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Reyner against Poell See Hillary 6. Jacobi fol IN second deliverance for copy-hold in Brampton in the County of Huntington the case was copy-hold Lands were surrendered to the use of a woman and the Heires of her Body and she took a Husband the Husband and the Wife have Issue 2. Sonnes and after Surrenders to themselves for their lives the remainder to the eldest Son and his Wife in fee the Husband and the Wife dye the eldest Son dies the youngest Son enters and Surrenders to the use of a stranger And the sole question upon which they relied if the Wife was Tenant in tayl or if she had fee simple conditionall and it was argued by Nicholls that the Wife was Tenant in tayl and to prove that he cited 2. cases in Littleton where it is expresly mentioned who may be Tenant in tayl see Sect. 73. 79. And who may have a Formedon see in the discender sect 76. And he grounded that upon reason for that that it cannot be denied But that fee simple might be of copy-hold according to the custome and as well as fee simple as well it may be an estate tayl for every greater containes his lesse and he said that this is grounded upon the reason of other cases as if the King grant to one to hold Plea in his Court of all actions of debt and other actions and then one action of debt is given in case where it lieth not at the common Law yet the Grantee may hold Plea of that But if a new action be framed which was not in experience at the time of the grant but is given after by Statute the grant shall not extend to that and to the Objection that copy-hold is no Tenement within the Statute of gifts c. As to that he saith that that shall be very well intended to be within the Statute as it is used and 4. H. 7. 10. A man makes a gift in tayl by deed the Donee hath an estate tayl in the deed as well as in the Land so Morgan and Maxells case Commentaries 26. And so of Office Honour Dignity and copy-hold also and Dyer 2 and 3. Phil And Mary 114. 61. It is found by speciall verdict that copy-hold Lands have been devisable by copy in tayl and so it is pleaded 2 and 3 Eliz. Dyer 192. b. And when a lesser estate is extracted out of a greater that shall be directed and ordered according to the course of the Common Law and for that the Wife shall have plaint in nature of a Cui in vita and 15. H 8. b. Title Tenement by copy of Court Roll it was said for Law that tayl may be of a copy-hold and that Formedon may well ly of that in descender by protestation to sue in nature of a Formedon in descender at the Common Law and good by all the Justices for though that Formedon in descender was not given but by Statute Yet now this Writ lieth at the Common Law and shall be intended that this hath been a custome time out of mind c. And the Demandant shall recover by advise of all the Justices and the like matter in Essex M. 28. H. 8. And Fitz. affirms that in the chamber of the Dutchy of Lancaster afterwards and also he saith that when custome hath created such Inheritances and that the Land shall be descendable then the Law shall direct the discent according to the Maximes and Rules of the Common Law as incident to every estate discendable and for that shall be possessio Fratris of a copy-hold estate 4. Coke 22. a. Brownes Case b. And there 28. a. Gravener and Tedd the custome of the Mannor of Allesley in the County of Warwick was that copy-hold lands might be granted to any one in fee simple and it was adjudged that a grant to one and the Heires of his Body is within the Custome for be that Estate Tayl or Fee simple conditionall that is within the Custome So he may grant for life or for yeares by the same Custome for Estate in Fee simple includes all and it is a Maxime in Law to him that may do the greater it cannot be but the lesse is lawfull and over he said that in all cases where a man was put to his reall action at the Common Law in all these cases a copy-holder may have plaint with protestation to prosecute in â—…re of the same action and to the objection that there cannot be an Estate tayl of copy-hold Land for that that the Tenant in tayl shall hold of him in revertion and shall not be Tenant to the Lord to that he said that this Estate may be created as well by Cepit extra manus Domini as by Surrender and then there is not any reversion or remainder but it is as if Rent be newly granted in tayl but he said there may be a reversion upon an Estate tayl as well as upon an Estate for life and he did not insist upon the Custome but upon this ground that if the Custome warrant the greater Estate which is the Fee simple the lesse shall be included in that And he did not argue but intended that it would be admitted that discent of copy-hold Land shall not take away entry nor Surrender of that nor shall make discontinuance so prayed Judgement and â—…rne Harris the youngest Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that it shall be
others which were present at the said marriage or Actors in that And upon Evidence it appeared that Doctor Hussey was not present nor Actor in it and for that the Jury found him not guilty but they found all the other Defendants guilty of the said Ravishment for upon the Evidence it appeares that the Wife of Doctor Hussey procured and provided the Minister which married them and in the last Michaelmas Terme this was tried here at the Barr and the Jury assessed Dammages to ten pound and the value of the Ward to eighty pound for so much Moore proved that he could have sold him for and also the Jury found that the Ward doth appeare married being of the Age of 16. yeares at the time of his marriage and exceptions were taken to that for that it was not found of what age the Ward was at the time of the verdict and it was urged by Dodridge that by the Statute of Westminster 2. chapt 39. The precise age ought to be found at the time of the verdict Secondly it was found that the Ward did appeare married and doth not say without License of the Guardian and the Guardian may give his consent where the Ward marries himselfe and then there is no cause of action The third and other exception was taken in the behalfe of the Wife of Doctor Hussey for that shee being a married Wife was found guilty of Ravishment of Ward against the Statute of Westminster the 2. chap. 39. And it was urged that it was not the intent of the Statute that provides that he which did Ravish not having right in the marriage though he should restore the Boy naked and not married or should satisfie for the marriage he shall be punished for the transgression by Imprisonment for two yeares and if he shall not restore him or shall marry the Heire after the marrying yeares and cannot satisfie for the marriage he shall abjure the Realme or shall have perpetuall Imprisonment And it was objected that a married woman was not intended to be within this Statute for it is apparent that a married woman hath not wherewith to make satisfaction and it shall not be intended that she shall have perpetuall Imprisonment or make abjuration for this was to make separation betweene the Husband and his Wife and so it was adjourned And the Judges moved the parties to compound amongst themselves see Michaelmas 8. Jacobi Trinity 9 Jacobi Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Kenricke against Pargiter and Phillipps RObert Pargiter Gentleman and John Phillipps were summoned to answer to Robert Kenricke Gentleman of a Plea why they tooke the Beasts of the said Robert Kenricke and those unjustly detained against Suerties and Pledges c. And thereupon the said Robert Kenricke by Thomas Pilkington his Attorney doth complaine that the said Robert and John the fourth day of August the yeare of the Reigne of our now King seventh at Kings Sutton in a certaine place called Great Greenes took Beasts that is to say one Gelding one Mare and one Colt of the said Robert Kenrickes and do unjustly detaine them against Suerties and Pledges untill c. By which meanes he saith he is the worse and hath losse to the value of twenty pound and therefore bringeth this suit c. And the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John Phillipps by John Barton their Attorney do come and defend the force and Injury when c. And the said Robert Pargiter in his owne right doth well avow and the aforesaid John Phillipps as Bailiff of the said Robert Pargiter doth well acknowledge the taking of the said Beasts in the aforefaid place in which c. and justly c. Because he saith that the said place in which it is supposed the taking of the said Beasts to be made did containe and at the aforesaid time in which it is supposed the taking of the aforesaid Beasts to be made did containe in it foure Acres of Meadow in Kings Sutton aforesaid which the said Robert Pargiter long before the aforesaid time in which c. and also at the same time in which c. was and as yet appeareth seised of one Messuage and one virge of land with the appurtenances in Kings Sutton in his Demesne as of Fee and that the aforesaid Robert Kenrick the aforesaid time when c. and long before was seised of a Messuage and foure Virges of land with the appurtenances in Kings Sutton aforesaid whereof the aforesaid place in which c. Is and at the aforesaid time when c. and also at the time to the contrary doth not appeare in the memory of man was parcell in his Demesne as of Fee And the said Robert Pargiter and John Phillipps further say that the said Robert Pargiter and all those whose Estate the said Robert Pargiter now hath and at the aforesaid time when c. had in the aforesaid Messuage and one Virge of Land with the Appurtenances of the said Robert Pargiter from time the contrary whereof doth not appeare in the memory of man had and have used to have and were accustomed to have Common of Pasture in the aforesaid place c. For six Horses Geldings or Mares two Colts six young Beasts called Steeres or young Beasts called Heifers and two Mares called breeders in and upon the said Messuage and one Virge of Land with the Appurtenances lying and rising in manner and forme following that is to say every year in and from the first day of August called Lammas day untill the feast of the purification of the blessed Mary the Virgin then next following as to the said Messuage and one Virge of Land with the Appurtenances belonging and the said Robert Pargiter and John Phillipps further say that the aforesaid Robert Kenricke of the aforesaid Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the Appurtenances whereof c. In the forme aforesaid appearing seised the said Robert and all those whose Estate the said Robert Kenricke now hath and at the aforesaid time in which c. had in the aforesaid Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the Appurtenances whereof c. time out of mind had and were used and accustomed to have the aforesaid place in which c. To their proper use in severalty every year in and from the feast of the purification of the blessed Virgin Mary untill the first day of August called Lammas day then next comming that by reason and in consideration therof he the aforesaid Robert Kenrick and all those whose Estate the said Robert Kenrick now hath and at the time in which c. had in the aforesaid Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the Appurtnances whereof c. time out of minde have had and were accustomed to have every yeare from the aforesaid first day of August called Lammas day and from thence untill the aforesaid purification then next following Common of pasture in the aforesaid place in which c. Only for three Mares
that yet the Copy-holder hath nor forfeited his Estate for the Trees and the Mannor are granted by severall Grants and for that though that they are by one selfe same Deed yet by that the Trees are severed from the Mannor and the Trees are the cause of the forfeiture and they are no parcell of the Mannor as in 31 Edw. 3. Assis 441. by sale of a Castle the services are extinct So here the forfeiture cannot accrue to the Mannor when that commeth by reason of Trees which are severed by reason of severall Grants and he thought that the Grant shall be taken more strong against him which made it as if a man in the Premises give Fee-simple to have in tayl the Estate tayl shall be precedent and the Fee-simple depending upon that so if a man have the next avoydance of a Church and the Church becomes voyd and after he purchase the Advowson yet the Presentation remaines as it was before for that is the best thing and so it is resolved in Herlackendens Case 4 Coke 63. b. That if a man makes a Lease for yeares of Land except the Trees and after grants the Trees to the Lessee that the Trees are not reunited to the Land and so he concluded that it shall be no forfeiture and prayed Judgment for the Defendant and this Case was argued againe Michaelmas 9 Jacobi by Shirley for the Plaintiff that the first custome was voyd insomuch that he claimed to doe a greater thing then his Estate would warrant as in 35 H. 6. Custome that if one Pawne the Goods of another that he which hath them Pawned may keep them whosoever they were is not good as Custome that the Tenant in tayle may devise is voyd for his Estate will not warrant it and it is prejudice to the Tenant in reversion So Custome that Copy-holder shall have Common and another Custome that none shall put in his Beasts till the Lord put in his 2. H. 4. 24. Also there is no Fine Limited to be tendred by the Tenant or to be demanded by the Lord And if a Copy-holder refuse to pay his Fine it is a Forfeyture and if the Custome do not provide for the Fine of the Lord as for the Copy-holder the Custome shall be void Also here cannot be admittance for Littleton saith that the sole meanes to transfer Copy-hold is by Surrender And here if the Custome should be good the copy-hold should be transferred by Nomination only and so the Lord should be Defeated of his Fine and it seemes also that the second Custome is void for it is contrary to the Estate of a copy-holder to sell all the Trees but he agreed that he might have Estovers for houseboote and hedgboote as it was adjudged in Swayne and Becketts Case and he cited the 19. assis Where a Commoner made a Lease for life and void for that that the Estate would not support it 9. H. 6. 56. and 11. H. 6. 40. Prescription to sell Estovers is void for Estovers are appropriate to a house And also it was adjudged in this Court between Poltocke and Powell that a copy-holder for life cannot prescribe to sell the Trees for it is contrary to his Estate as if a Custome be that if a Feoffor die his Heire within age that he shall be in Ward as 8. H. 6. And he thought that the Nomination was no alteration for he to whom the Nomination is made hath only an Estate for life when the Nomination is made and that doth not warrant the sale of the Trees and to the third it seemes that the Lord of the Mannor bargaine and sells the Trees and after lets the Mannor to the bargainee for years and then copy-holder makes wast he thought that the Trees were not severed from the Mannor as in 33. H. 8. 48. Dyer 2. if a man bargaine and sell a Mannor and after in the same Deed makes a bargaine and sale of an Advowson appendant this remaines appendant So if a man bargaine and sell a Mannor and also the Trees do not passe till Livery be made of the Mannor So if Lessee for yeares gives and grants the Land and makes a Letter of Attorney to make Livery the tearme passes without Livery and then it is a Forfeyture And here the Lessee shall have the benefit of Shade and Burrough and the Trees themselves during the Tearme as parcell of the Land and then when the copy-holder hath done more then his Estate will warrant this is a forfeyture and the Lessee shall take the advantage of it and so he praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Harris for the Defendant that the Customes are good but admitting that so yet the Plaintiff shall not take advantage of it and he argued that Custome ought to have two properties first reasonable secondly ought to have time to make that perfect and then shall be good as it appears by the examples of Littleton f. 37. of Burrough English and Gavelkind and custome may be against common right but not against common reason which is the common Law 8 Ed. 4. 18. 21 Ed. 3. 4. And he intended here that the second custome is good if the first be good for then it is perpetuall Free-hold and Copy-hold Estate of Inheritance is but an Estate at will at the Common Law and yet such Copy-holder may dispose the Trees as well as custome may create the Estate as well may it give such priviledge as custome may warrant the taking of Toll for passing over the soile of another 22 Assise 58. And so custome to have the Foldage of the Beasts which feeds upon his soil is good but custome for paying the Goods of another is not good for there is not any recompence but fishing in the Sea and to dig the soile adjoyning for landing of his Nets is good for this is for the publick good 8 Ed. 4. 23. So the custome for turning upon head-land of another is good and is for the preservation of Tilling and also it is between Lord an Tenant and shall be intended to have a reasonable beginning for consideration c. That this continues for he hath Fines and other Services and yet 3 Eliz. 199. Dyer If the Lord claim Harriot of his Tenant and if it be Esloyned alledge custome that he may take the Beasts that he found upon the Land in Withernam and this was adjudged unreasonable custome so 20 H. 7. 13. Custome to have three shillings of a stranger for pound-breach is void but of a Tenant is otherwise for it shall be intended to be a lawfull beginning 11 H. 7. 40. So here the beginning shal be intended to be lawfull and for valuable consideration and for this it shall be good and to the second custome it follows by consequence to be a good custome if the first should be good and then to the third he agreed that Copyholder cannot make wast and if he do it shall be a forefeiture of his Estate as it is said
Mannor held in cheife and of other Mannors and Lands held of a Common person in socage and had Issue foure Sonns Thomas William Humphrey Richard And by his Deed 12 Eliz. covenants to convey these Mannors and Lands to the use of himself for his life without impeachment of wast and after his desease to the use of such Farmors and Tenants and for such Estates as shall be contained in such Grants as he shall make them and after that to the use of his last will and after that to the use of VVilliam his second sonn in tayle the Remainder to Humphrey his third Son in tayle the Remainder to Richard the fourth Sonn in tayle the Remainder to his own right Heires with power of Revocation and after makes a Feoflment according to the covenant and after that purchases eight other acres held of another common person in socage and after makes revocation of the said Estates of some of the Mannors and Lands which were not held by Knights service and after that makes his Will and devises the Land that he had purchased as before and all the other Land whereof he had made the Revocation to Thomas his eldest son the Heirs Males of his body for 500. years provided that if he alien and dye without Issue that then it shall remaine to William his second sonne in tayle with the like proviso as before and after dyed and the Jury found that the Lands whereof no revocation is made exceeds two parts of all his Lands Thomas the eldest sonne enters the 8. Acres purchased as before and dyes without Issue male having Issue a Daughter of whom this Defendant claimes these eight Acres and the Plaintiff claims them by William the second Son And Dodridge the Kings Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff intending that the sole question is for the 8. acres purchased and if the devise of that be good or not by the Statute of 34. H. 8. And to that the point is only a man which hath Lands held in cheife by Knights service and other Lands held of a common person in Socage conveys by act executed in his life time more then two parts and after purchases other Lands and devises those if the devise be good or not And it seems to him that the devise is good and he saith that it hath been adjudged in the selfe same case and between the same parties And this Judgment hath been affirmed by writ of Error and the devise to Thomas and the Heirs males of his body for 500. years was a good estate tayle and for that he would not dispute it against these two Judgments But to the other question hee intended that the devise was good and that the Devisor was not well able to doe it by the Statute of 34. H. 8. And hee intended that the statute authoriseth two things 1. To execute estates in the life time of the party for advancement of his Wife or Children or payment of his debts and for that see 14. Eliz. Dyer and that may be done also by the common Law before the making of this statute But this statute restrains to two parts and for the third part makes the Conveyance voyd as touching the Lord But the statute enables to dispose by Will a parts where he cannot dispose any part by the Common Law if it be not by special Custome but the use only was deviseable by the common Law this was altered into possession by the statute of 27 H. 8. and then cometh the statute of 32. and 34. H. 8. and enables to devise the Land which he had at the time of the devise or which he purchased afterwards for a third part of this Land should remain which hee had at the time of the devise made and if a third part of the Land did not remain at the time of the devise made sufficient should be taken out of that but if the Devisor purchase other Lands after hee may those wholly dispose And for that it was adjudged Trin. 26. Eliz. between Ive and Stacye That a man cannot convey two parts of his Lands by act executed in his life time and devise the third part or any part so held by Knights service and also he relyed upon the words of the statute that is having Lands held by Knights service that this shall be intended at the time of the devise as it was resolved in Butler Bakers Case That is that the statute implies two things that is property and time of property which ought to be at the time of the devise But here at the time of the devise the Devisor was not having of Lands held by Knights service for of those he was only Tenant for life and the having intended by the statute ought to be reall enjoying and perfect having by taking and not by retaining though that in Carrs Case cited in Butler and Bakers Case rent extinct be sufficient to make Wardship yet this is no sufficient having to make a devise void for any part Also if the Statute extend to all Lands to be after purchased the party shall never be in quiet and for that the Statute doth not intend Lands which shall be purchased afterwards for the Statute is having which is in the Present tence and not which he shall have which is in the Future tence and 4. and 5 P. and M. 158. Dyer 35. A man seised of Socage Lands assures that to his Wife in joynture and 8. years after purchases Lands held in cheife by Knights service and devises two parts of that and agreed that the Queen shall not have any part of the land conveyed for Joynture for this was conveyed before the purchase of the other which agrees with the principall case and though to the Question what had the Devisor It was having of Lands held in Capite insomuch that he had Fee-simple expectant upon all the estates tayl he intended that this is no having within the Statute but that the Statute intend such having of which profit ariseth and out of which the K. or other Lord may be answered by the receipt of the profits which cannot be by him which hath fee-simple expectant upon an estate tayle of which no Rent is reserved and also the estate tayle by intendment shall have continuance till the end of the world and 40. Edw 3. 37. b. in rationabili parte bonorum it was pleaded that the Plaintiff had reversion discended from his Father and so hath received advancement And it seems that was no plea in so much that the reversion depends upon an estate tayle and upon which no Rent was reserved and so no advancement So of a conveyance within this Statute ought such advancement to the youngest sonne which continues as it is agreed in Binghams Case 2 Coke that if a man convey lands to his youngest sonne and he convey that over to a stranger in the life time of his father for good consideration and after the Father dies this
is now out of the Statute for the advancement ought to be continuing until the death of the Father And so he saith also it was adjudged in Butler and Bakers Case that if a man devise Socage Lands and after sell to a stranger for good consideration his Lands held by Knights service this devise is now good for all for hee hath not any Land held by Knights service at the time of his death and so he concluded that the devise was good and prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff Houghton Serjeant for the Defendant he thought the contrary and hee argued that before the statutes of 32. and 34. of H. 8. men were disabled to devise any Land and for that they cannot provide for their Wives Children or for payment of their Debts and for remedy to that Feoffments to uses were invented and then to dispose the use by their Wills and then experience finds that to be inconvenient and then the statute of 27. H. 8. transfers the use into possession and then neither use nor land was deviseable without speciall Custome and then this was found to be mischeivous after five years experience and then was the statute of 32. H. 8. made and where by the statute of Marlebridg of those which did enfeoff their begotten sons a Feoffment by the Father to his son and Heir was void for all Now by this statute this is good for 2. parts and void only for the 3d part that for the good of the Lord but as to the party that is good for all as it is agreed in Mightes case 8 Coke Then to consider in the case here if all things concur that the statute requires and to that here is a person which was actually seised of Land held by Knights service in 12. Eliz. So that it is a person which then was having within the statute 2. If here be such conveyance for advancement of his children as is intended within the statute and to that he seemed that so notwithstanding that it may be objected that here is no execution to the youngest children insomuch that it is first limited to such Farmers and Tenants c. But he intended that this is no impediment Secondly also there is a limitation to the use of his last Will. Thirdly also there is a limitation to the use of such persons to whom he devises any estate by his Will But these are no impediments for the last is no other but a devise to himselfe and his heirs and there is not any other person knowne but meerely contingent and it is not like to a remainder limited to the right heirs of I. S. for there the remainder is in Abeiance but here it is only in contingency and nothing executed in Interest till the contingency happen and the not having of a son at the time shall not make difference as in 38. Edw. 3. 26. in formedon in Remainder where the gift was in one for life the remainder to another in tayle remainder in fee to another stranger and he in remainder in tayle dyes without Issue in the life time of the Tenant for life he in remainder in fee may have formedon in remainder without mentioning the remainder in tayle But here he intends that the devise shall be void in respect of the Lands first conveyed which were held in cheife by Knight service for the words of the statute are by act executed either by devise or by any of them and they are conjoyned and it is not of necessity that the time of the Conveyance shall be respected but the time of the value And notwithstanding that the Testator doth not mention any time But in so much as the provision of the statute is to save primor seisin and livery to the King as if the man had 20 l. by year in Socage and one acre in cheife and makes a conveyance of all that it shall be void first to the livery and priâ—or seisin to the third part So if he make conveyance of the 20 l. by yeare and leave the said acre held in cheife to discend and after that purchase other Lands to the value of the third part of all the conveyance of the 20 l. land notwithstanding which for the advancement of his Wife Children or payment of his Debts for he had a full third part at the time of his death which discended And he supposed that the having of a dry reversion depending upon the estate tall is sufficient having within the words and letter of the Statute and yet he agreed the ease put in Butler and Bakers case that if a man devise his Socage Lands and after alien his Lands held in cheife by Knight service to a stranger bonafide this is good So if he had made a reservation of his Lands held in chiefe to himselfe for his life in so much that his estate in that ended with his life and hee remembred the case cyted in Bret and case Comment That if a man devise a Mannor in which he hath nothing and after hee purchaseth it and dyes the devise is good if it be by expresse name But when a man hath disposed of two parts of his Land the Statute doth not inable him to devise the Residue but he hath done all and executed all the authority which the Statute hath given to him But he agreed also that the reversion is not such a thing of value which might make the third part discend to the Heir but it is uncertaine as a hundred and the other things of uncertain value contained in Butler and Bakers Case And also he intended that the remainder could not take effect insomuch that the condition is precedent and it is not found that the eldest Sonne hath aliened and then dead without Heir male and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant In Replevin the Defendant avows for 9 s. Rent the Plaintiff pleads a Deed of feoffment of the same Land made before the Statute of quia emptores terrarum by which 6 s. 8 d. is only reserved and demands Judgment if he shall be received to demand more then is reserved by the Deed See 4 Ed. 2. Avowry 202. 10. H. 7. 20. Ed. 4. 7. Edw. 4. Lung 5 Ed. 4. 22 H. 6. 50. This Deed was without date and it was averred that it was made before the Statute of quia emptores terrarum which was made in the 18. of Edw. 1. And also it ought to be averred to be made after the beginning of the Reign of Richard 1. For a writing after the beginning of his Reign checks prescription But if a man hath a thing by grant before that he may claim by prescription for hee cannot plead the grant insomuch it is before time of memory and a Jury cannot take notice of that and for that the pleading before with the said averments was good If debt be due by Obligation and another debt be due by the same Debtor to the same Debtee of
are to be recovered agreement is a good Plea as in 47. Ed. 3. 24. and 10. Ed. 3. in Debt upon a Lease for yeares concord is a good Plea and 7. Ed. 4. 23. in Detinue for charters it is a good Plea and in 6. Ed. 6. Dyer 75. 25. it is a positive rule that in all Cases and Actions in which nothing but amends is to be recovered in Dammages there an agreement with an execution of that is a good Plea and for that in Detinue it shall be a good Barr So in Covenant it was adjudged in Blakes Case 6. Coke 43. 6. As where an Obligation is with a Condition to pay money at such a day the payment of another thing is good if the Obligation be to pay a certaine Sum of money But if a man be bound in a Sum of money to make another Collaterall thing the acceptance of an other thing Collaterall shall not be a Barr for money is to the measure and the price of every thing if a man be bound in two Horses to pay one acceptance of another thing shall be no Barr But the acceptance of such a Sum of money in satisfaction is good Barr for this is the just Estimation and measure of every thing see 12. H. 4 Where a man was bound in an Obligation with Condition that he shall make acknowledgement of the Obligation of twenty pound to the Obligee before such a day c. And agreements are much favoured for it is a Maxim and Interest of the Common-Wealth that there be an end of suits for by Concord small thing increase and by Discord great things are consumed and the beginning of all Fines is Et est Cordia talis c. and the 11. of Rich. 2. Barr. 242. In Debt upon a Lease for yeares the Defendant pleads that by the same Deed by which the Land is let the Plaintiff grants that the Defendant ought to repaire the houses lett when they are ruinous at the costs of the Plaintiff and he retaines the Rent for the repaire of the houses being ruinous and a good Barr And if it be a right of Inheritance or Free-hold that cannot be barred or extinct by acceptance of another thing though it be of other Land as of another Mannor as it is agreed in Vernons Case 4. of Coke A woman accepts Rent out of the Land of which shee is not Dowable in recompence of her Dower this shall not be a Barr 5. Ed. 4. 22. 3. Eliz. Dyer and he said that the book of 11. H 7. 13. is misprinted insomuch that it is reported to be adjudged But in truth this was not adujdged for then it would not say in 13. H. 7. 20. the residue before 11. H. 7. 13. And in the 16. of H. 7. warranty it is agreed that in wast against Lessee for yeares Agreement is a good Plea otherwise if it be against Lessee for life And if they have adjudged 11. H. 7. 15. which was so small a time before they would not have adjudged the contrary in 16. H. 7. and Hillary 6. Ed. 6. Bendlowes in wast against Lessee for yeares in the Tenet Agreement is affirmed to be good Barr And in the book of Reports in the time of H. 7. printed in time of H. 8. the yeare of the 11. of H. 7. there was no print at all And he then upon that inferrs that as well as a man might agree for Trees so well might he agree for Tearme and to the booke of 9. H. 5. 15. a. That release of one Plaintiff in an Action of wast is a good Barr he said that this is to be understood in wast of the Tenant and then it shall be a good Barr see in the 12. of Ed. 4. 1. a. Two joyne in an Action of wast and the one was summoned and severed the other recovered the halfe of the place wasted and in the 26. H. 6. 8. Agreement is a good Barr in an Action of wast and he intended that in all Actions by force and Armes where a Capias lies at the Common Law Agreement or Arbitrement are good Pleas as Ravishment of Ward which is given by Statute in lieu of Trespasse for taking of a Ward where a Capias lies at the Common Law and Agreement was a Bar and for that now Agreement shall be a Barr in Ravishment of a Ward And he intended that an Ejectione Firme which is Trespasse in his nature and the Ejectment is added of later times And in all their Entries this is entred Trespasse and severs the Trespasse from the Ejectment and the Ejectment will vanish and the Statute of 4. Ed. 3. chap. 6. which gives Action to Executor of goods carried away in the life time of the Testator extends to that which proves this to be Trespasse for by the Statute the Executors may have Ejectione Firme for Ejectment made to their Testator notwithstanding that ancient Demesne is a good Plea in that and in the 44. Ed. 3. 22. That is called an Action of Trespasse and so all the Entries are De Placito Transgressionis and in the book of Entries in Mayhme it is cited to be adjudged 26. H. 6. Trin. Rot. 27. that concord is a good Plea in an appeale of mayne 35. H. 6. 30. But in an Action in the realty it is no Plea otherwise in Quare Impedit for there nothing is to be recovered but that which is personall and he intended that Agreement by one of the Defendants in personall Action is a good Barr as in 36. H. 6. Barr concord made by the freind of one of the parties was a good Barr Statham Covenant accordingly and 35. H. 6. 〈◊〉 7. H. 7. One of the petty Jury in Attaint pleads agreement and good and in an Ejectione Frime Lease made to try Title is not within the Statute of buying of Titles if it be not made to great men but to a Servant of him which hath the Inheritance and cannot mainetaine or countenance the Action and Bracton fol. 220. Lessee for yeares hath three remidies if he be evicted that is Covenant Quare Ejecit infra Terminum against the Feoffee of the Ejector or an Ejectione Firme against the Immediate Ejectors and in Ejectione Firme the Tearme shall be recovered as 12. H. 4. 1. H. 5. and 11. H. 6. 6. Non-Tenure is a good Plea in Ejectione Firme ergo the Tearm shall be recovered 7. Ed. 4. 6. 13. H. 7. 21 and 14. H. 7. It is adjudged that the Tearme shall bee recovered in Ejectione Firme and so he concluded that the agreement shall be a good Barr because Wise men seeke peace Fooles seeke strifes And that Judgement shall be given for the Defendant which was done accordingly Mâ—hcaelmass 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Mallet against Mallet LANDS were given to two men and to the Heires of their two Bodies begotten and the one died without Issue and the remainder of the halfe reverted to the Donor and he brought an Action of wast
and before the originall purchased the Indentnre was by the assent of the Plaintiff and the Defendant cancelled and avoyded and so demands Judgment if action and it seemes by Coke cleerly that the Plea is not good without averment that no Covenant was broken before the cancelling of the Indenture Pasch 12. Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Barde against Stubbing IT was moved in arrest of Judgment that the Venire facias wants these words Et habeas ibidim nemina Juratorum but the words Venire facias duodecim c. were incerted and it seems by all the Justices that it was good and that the first words are supplyed in the last and they are aided by the statutes of Jeofai es after verdict and so it was adjourned In Audita querela sued by the sureties upon an escape made by the principall they being in execution offered to bring the Money into the Court or to put in sufficient Sureties to the Court and so prayed that they might be bayled and it was agreed that if Audita querela be grounded by specialty or other matter in writing or upon matter of Record Supersedeas shall be granted before that the party be in Execution and if he be in execution he shall be bayled but if it be founded upon a matter in Deed which is only surmise he shall not have Supersedeas in one case nor shall be bayled in the other case and so was the Opinion of all the Justices In an Action of Waste for digging of earth to make Brick Estrepement was awarded and upon Affidavit that the Writ of Estrement was delivered to the Sheriff and that he gave notice of that to the party and he notwithstanding that continues to make waste attachment was awarded Pasch 12 Iacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Fetherstones Case Trinity 1612. IN Ejectione firme The Plaintiff had Judgment and an Habere facias possessionem to the Sheriff of Coventry which returnes that he had offered possession to the Plaintiff and he refused to accept it and it seems that the Plaintiff cannot have Habere facias possessionem insomuch that it appeares by the Record that he hath refused to have the possession The case was A Dean and Chapter being Lord of a Maunor parcell of the Demesnes of the Mannor being severall adjoyned to the Common which was parcell of the wast of the Mannor and one Copy-holder which had Common in the sayd Wast puts his Beasts into the sayd waste to take his Common and they for default of inclosure escape into the sayd Demesnes by which the Lord brings his action of Trespass and upon this the Defendant pleads the speciall matter and that the Lord and all those whose Estate he had in the said place where the trespass is supposed to be made have used to fence the said place which is parcell of the Demesnes of the sayd Mannor against the Commoners which have Common in the sayd Common being parcell of the waste and also of the demesnes of the sayd Mannor and that the Beasts of the sayd Defendant escaped into the sayd place in which c for default of inclosure and so demands Judgment upon which the Plaintiff demurrs in Law In the agreement of which it was agreed by Hutton and Haughton the Serjeants which argued it whether a man by prescription is bound to make fence against Commoners as it is agreed in the 22 H. 6. 7. 8. 21 H. 6. 33. But the doubt which was made in this case by Haughton which demurred was for that that the Lord which by the prescription ought to inclose is owner of the soyle also against which he ought to inclose and so he ought to inclose against himself and for that he supposed that the pleading should have been that there is such a custome there and of time out of minde that the Lord shall inclose against the Common insomuch that by that the Copy-holder would bind the Lord and upon that it was adjourned c. Pasch 12 Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Sir Henry Rowles against Sir Robert Osborne and Margeret his Wife IN Warrantia Charte the case was Sir Robert Osborne and his Wife levyed a Fine of the Mannor of Kelmersh with other Lands in Kelmersh to Sir Henry Rowles against all persons and this is declared for the Lands in Relmersh to be to the use of Sir Henry Rowles for life with diverse Remainders over and for the Mannor no use was pleaded to be declared at all and then a Writ of Entry in the Post was sued against the sayd Sir Henry Rowles which vouched Sir Robert Osborne and his sayd wifeâ— and this was declared for the sayd Lands to be to the use of the sayd Sir Henry Rowles for his life with other Remainders over which were declared upon the Fine of the Lands in Kelmersh only and of the Mannor of Kelmersh no uses were declared upon the Recovery also and upon this Recovery pleaded in barr the Plaintiffe demurred and it was argued by Dodridge Serjeant of the King for the Plaintiffe that the Plea in Barr was not good insomuch that it doth not appeare that the warranty which was executed by the Recovery was the same warranty which was created by the Fine and also the Fine was taken for assurance against the Issue in tayle and the Recovery to Barr the remainders and so one shall not destroy the other and for the first he sayd that a man may have of another severall warranties and severall causes of Voucher and all shall be together for warranty is but Covenant reall and as well as a man may have severall Covenants for personall things as well he may have severall reall Covenants for one self same Land as if the Father infeoff one with warranty and the Sonn also releases to the same Feoffee with warranty or if the Father infeoff one with warranty against him and his Heires and the Sonn release with warranty against all men the Feoffee may vouch one and Rebut against the other so of Warranty of Tenant in tayle and release of an Ancestor collaterall with warranty in Law and expresse warranty as it is agreed in 31 Ed. 1. Fitzh Voucher 289. And upon that he concluded that a man may have severall warranties of one selfe same man and the one may be executed and the other remaine notwithstanding that it be for one selfe same Land and he supposed the effect of these warranties are as they are used for if that may vouch generally and bind himselfe upon the Fine or upon his owne warranty or upon the warranty of his Ancestor notwithstanding that the voucher be generally as it is 31. Ed. 3. Warranty of Charters 22. So if he be vouched as Heire though that it were speciall but if he be Heire within age otherwise it is for that is a good Counter Plea that he was within age and so praied that the word might demur during his nonage 17.
Ed. 2. Counter Plea of voucher 111. 21. Ed. 4. 71. Then he supposed here was generall warranty which is executed and also another warranty which remaines notwithstanding any thing which appears to the Court for he hath not demanded any binding 10. Ed. 3. 15. a. b. Also the warranty in the Fine is the warranty of all the Conusees and the warranty upon which the voucher is is only the warranty of Sir Robert Osborne which cannot be intended the same warranty which is contained in the Fine which is by two as it is resolved in 10. Ed. 3. 52. But admitting that it agrees in all that is the voucher and the warranty in the Fine that is in number of persons and quantity of land and all other circumstances yet it shall be no Barr for the Common Recovery is only as further assurance for it is for forfeiture if it be suffered by Tenant for life as it is resolved in Pelhams Case 1. Coke Also he supposed that notwithstanding that the Fine was levied hanging the Writ of entry and â—o Sir Henry Rowles made Tenant yet this is good being by purchase but not if it be by discent or by recovery upon elder Title And he supposed that if the recovery and the warranty might be together by any possible meanes they shall not be distroied insomuch that this is the common case of assurance and for that shall be taken as in Pattenhams Case 4. and 5. Phil. and Mary Dyer 157. and 2. Coke Cromwells Case 77. b. where a man makes a Feoffment upon condition rendring Rent and after suffers common recovery and yet this notwithstanding the condition and Rent remaines And so it seemes that in this case the warranty remaines notwithstanding the Recovery and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Nicholls Serjeant for the Defendant and he seemed that the warranty is destroied first insomuch that the Recovery was to other uses and the Fine was when proved that there was no further assurance also he supposed that insomuch that it doth not appeare to what use the Recovery was for the Mannor of Kelmersh that for that it shall be intended to the use of Sir Robert Osborne himselfe and then for that also the warranty is distroied insomuch that part of the Land is re-assured to Sir Robert Osborne as in 40. Ed. 3. 13. The Father enfeoffes the Son with warranty which re-enfeoffes the Father this destroies the warranty So if they make partition by their owne Act as it is agreed in the 34. Ed. 3. Also he supposed that the Tenancy in Sir Henry Rowles is distroied before that the Fine was Levied insomuch that this was Executed by voucher and so he did not purchase hanging the Writ for this is also conveied from him by the Recovery in the value before that the Fine is levied and it is all one with the case where a man recovers upon good Title hanging a Writ and he agreed that the recovery had been for further assurance that then it shall be as it hath been objected by the other party and the warranty had remained but this he supposeth it was not insomuch it was to other uses then the Fine was and he intended that if the Estate to which the warranty is annexed be distroied the warranty also shall be distroied 19. H. 6. 59. 21. H. 6. 45. 22. H. 6. 22. and 27. So if the Estate be avoided the warranty is distroied if it be by the Act of the parties named also he supposed that the warranty is executed and that it shall be intended the same tye upon which the warranty is created as it is 10. Ed. 3. 51. Mauxells case Com if he demand no tye but enter generally into the warranty there shall be execution of all warranties and shall bind all his rights for otherwise all the Estates tayl cannot be bound by that But where the Lieu is demanded as where there are three severall Estates tayl limited to one man and upon voucher he enters generally into the warranty all the tayles shall be bound but if he demand the Lieu's which he hath to bind him to warranty there shall be a Barr of that only upon which the voucher is and the remedy is that if he be impleaded by the party that hath made the warranty he shall be rebutted by his owne warranty But if he be Impleaded by a stranger he shall vouche him that warranted that and if warranty be once executed by voucher and Recovery in value though that the Land recoverd in value be a defeasable Title yet the party shall not voucheat another time by the same warranty as it is 5. Ed. 3. Fitz. voucher 249. and 4. Ed. 3. 36. And for that in this case insomuch that the warranty was once executed he shall not vouche againe upon the same warranty Also it is not alledged in the Count that the Plaintiff was Impleaded by Writ of Entry in the Post but in the Per in which he might have vouched and so shall not have this Action where he might have vouched And also he supposed that Sir Henry Rowles shall not have benefit by this warranty without praying aid of those in remainder insomuch that he is but Tenant for life but he supposed that it was no Remainder but reversion for otherwise they are but as an Estate and he may have advantage of the warranty as it seemes without aid praying But not where there is Tenant for life with the reversion expectant And so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant And he cited one Barons Case where Tenant in tayl levies a Fine with warranty and after suffers Recovery And it was agreed by all the Justices that yet the Recovery shall be a Barr to the Remainder notwithstanding that the Estate tayl be altogether barred and extinct by the Fine but Coke cheife Justice said that Wrayâ— cheife Justice would not suffer that to be argued insomuch that it was of so great consequence being the common course of assurances But it seemes that the Recovery shall not be a Barâ— for the Remainders for the causes aforesaid and he said that he was of councell in Bartons Case and thought this Objection to be unanswerable and of this opinion continued Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Richard Lampitt against Margeret Starkey EJECTIONE Firme upon speciall verdict the case was this Lessee for five hundred yeares devised that to his Father for life the remainder and residue of that after the death of his Father to his Sister the Devisor dies the Sister which hath a remainder takes a Husband the Husband at the request of the Father grants release and surrenders all his Right Tearme and Intrest to the Father which had the Possession And the question was if by that the remainder of the Tearme should be extinct or not And it was argued by Dodridge for the Plaintiff that the remainder remaines that notwithstanding insomuch that this is
Prerogative of a Prince and is part of Law and stands with it and this is reasonable custome and so it hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench the reason is insomuch that the custome is the life of the Copy-hold upon which that depends and the party is but a Conduit to nominate the Tenant and when he is nominated and admitted then he takes by the Lord and that stands with the rules and reasons of the Common Law that is that a man devises that a marryed wife shall sell his Land and she may sell notwithstanding the Coverture for she upon the matter nominates the party and he takes by the Devise and by this reason she may sell to her Husband as it is agreed by the 8 of Assises And also by devise that Executor shall sell Executor of Executor may sell notwithstanding that he is not in Esse at the time of the Devise and so a Lease for life to one Remainder to him that J. S. shall nominate is good after nomination and then he takes by the first Livery as it is agreed in 10 H. 7. and J. S. Only hath the nomination and nothing passes to him and with this also agrees 43 Ed. 3. 19 H. 7. So if a man makes a Feoffment to the use of himself for life with diverse Remainders over and power to himself to make Leases for three lives this is good as it is agreed in Mildmayes Case and Whitlocks Case 8 Coke and yet the Estate doth not passe from him but out of all the Estates and he upon the matter hath only the nomination of the Lessee and of the lives for all the estates apply their forces to make that good and the 2 El. Dyer 192. 23. Custome that the Wife of the Copy-holder for life shall have her Widdows Estate is allowed to be a good custome and there an Estate for life upon the matter is raised out of the estate for life and annexed to it and this is by the Custome and the reason he conceived to be for that that Women should be incouraged to marry with their Tenants and by that the marriage with the Tenant and the custome in this Case doth bind the Lord and so 4 Coke there are divers customes by which the Lord is bound and the 8 Coke Swaines Case where the Copy-holder by custome hath the Trees in Case where the Lord himself hath them not so if the Lord sell the Waste yet the Copy-holder shall not loose his Common in that notwithstanding that the Estate of the Copy-holder be granted after the Wast is severed from the Mannor and it is agreed in Waggoners Case 8 Coke that custome is more available then the Common Law And for that this cnse hath been adjudged in this point between Crab and Varney by three or four Judges he would not further question it And for the second custome he agreed that one bare Tenant for life could not meddle with the Sale or falling of the Trees but here is a Copy-holder for life which hath Aut ority given by the Lord and the Custome to dispose the Trees and he saith that Bracton and the old Laws of England calls Copy-holders Falkland and saith they cannot be moved but in the hands of the Lord they ought to surrender and agreed that this is within the Rules of the Common Law for Consuetudo privat communem legem and the Law doth nor give reason of that for this is as a ground and need not to be proved for the reason of every custome cannot be shewed as it was sayd in Knightly and Spencers Case and he sayd that Mannors are divided into three sorts of Tenures The first holds by Knights Service and this is for the defence of the Lord and they have a great number of Acres of Land and pay less Services The second holds by Socage and this for to plow and manure the Demesnes of the Lord and they shall pay no Rent nor do other services and this was at the first to draw such Tenants to inhabit there and for that they have Authority to dispose and sell the Trees growing upon theit Tenements The third holds by base Tenure and these were at the Will of the Lord and these were to do Services and then these in many Cases have liberty for their Wives in some cases to dispose that for another life and to dispose the Trees and so it is in Ireland at this day where some give more and greater priviledge then others to induce Tenants to inhabite and manure their Land for there every day is a complaint made to the Councell for inticing the Tenants of the Lord and 14 Ed. 3. Bar 277. The Tenant preseribes to have the Windfalls and if the Lord cut the Trees that he may have the Lops and 11 H. 6. 2. The Keeper of the Wood prescribes to have Fee and 46 Ed. 3. is prescription to stint the Lord in his own Soyl and all these are for the Incouragement of Tenants to inhabit upon the Land and time of Ed. 1. Prescription 75. A stranger prescribed to have all the profit of the Land of another for a great part of the yeare and to exclude the giver of the Soyl 6 Ja. It was adjudged in the Kings Bench between Henrick and Pargiter that the Lord may be stinsted for Common in his own Laud and in the Book of Entries 563. It appears that by Custome Copy-hold granted Sibi suis was a good Fee-simple and the reason of all this is shewed in the 4. Coke amongst his Copy-hold Cases where it is agreed that the Life of a Copy-hold Estate is the customes and then if the Custome gives life to the Estate this gives life also to all the Priviledges which are incident to the Estate and the Lord is but the means to convey the Estate from one to another and as in 38 Ed. 3. A man hath a House as Heir to his Mother and after a stranger grants Estovers to him and his Heirs to be burnt in the same House these Estovers shall go to the Heirs of the Mother insomuch that they are incident to the House so of Priviledg incident to a Copy-hold Estate by the Custome and at the Common Law if Tenant for life hath cut the Trees he hath not forfeited his Estate for he was trusted with the Land and was not punishable till the Statute of Glocester and at this day if there be a mesne Remainder for life which remains in Contingency and that shall prevent that the Tenant shal be punished for this waste and to make innovation of this custome will be dangerous and for that he concluded that the Plaintiff shall be barred Warburton Justice agreed And the first Custome that is for the nomination of the Successor he conceived that it is good and that it is good by the Common Law and good by Custome by the Common Law as a Lease for life remainder to him which the Tenant for life shall
Common Law mâ—â— be done by Custome and that an Estate may be created by such nomination it appeares by the case where a Remainder is Limited to him which the first Tenant for life shall nominate and it is very good and to prove that the Custome is good he remembred the custome of Millam in Norfolke where he was borne that is that if any Copy-holder will sell his Land and agree of the price that at the next Court when a surrender is to be made the next of his blood and if he will not any other of his blood may have the Land and so every one shall be preferred according to the neerenesse of his blood and with this also agreed the Leviticall Law as it appeares Leviticus 25. chap. verse 15. which appoints this to be at the yeare of Jubile and the Common Law within one yeare after the Alienation and upon this he infers that if Custome may appoint Heire in the life of the party then a Fortiore he may appoint Successor after his death and he conceived that at the beginning the Copy-holders might have had absolute Fee-simple of the Lord and they rather made choice to have such Estate insomuch that they did not know if their Children would be towardly or not and for that content themselves with the nomination of a Successor only and so is the Custome at Hamm also in Middlesex if any Copy-holder will sell the next Cleivener which is he that dwelleth next unto him shall have the refusall giving so much as another will and he which Inhabits one the East part first and the South and the West and last the North shall be preferred is the only way in his course and there the Successor is nominated by the Heavens and by the quarters of the Earth and so is the custome in Glocester And if any Husband hath an Estate for twelve yeares his Wife shall have it for twelve years also and so ad Infinitum and this makes nomination and so of Free-hold and so if it be good without nomination it shall be good by nomination And if the Estate determine by the Death of the Tenant without nomination when the Lord revives the Copy-hold Estates the priviledge also shall be revived But he conceived that the Tenant cannot nominate part to one and part to another nor that divided in fractions And he saith that this point hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench by foure Judges against Popham 5. Jacobi between Ball and Crabb And so he concluded this point and to the second custome he said he would speake to that Transitive but not Definitve and that it hath been adjudged 45. Eliz. between Powell and Peacock that bare Copy holder for life could not prescribe to cut and â—ell the Trees otherwise of Tenant in Fee-simple for he hath them cherished and fostered And it is against common reason incongruent and against the Common Law that a Copy-holder for life may cut and sell the Trees and custome ought to have reason and congruence for 10. Ed. 3. 5. Leete cannot be belonging to a Church insomuch that it is Incongruent and so in Writes Case 2. Coke Tythes cannot be appurtenant to a Mannor insomuch that it is incongruent and a spirituall thing shall not be pertinent to a temporall and so è Converso And so in the 5. Assis 9. and Hill and Granges Case Com. Turbary cannon be appurtenant to Land insomuch that it is incongruent but it ought to be to a house so in time of Ed. 2. Tenant of the Mannor prescribes to have free Bull and Bare and it is not good for the reason aforesaid otherwise it is of the Lord of a Mannor and 9 H. 5. 45. custome in Leete to present common and adjudged that it it is not good insouuch that it wants congruity for it is not proper to the Court and upon this he concluded that bare Tenant for life cannot prescribe to cut Trees for it is not congruent that such an Estate shall have such a priviledge and this for three reasons First insomuch that Trees growing are parcell of the Inheritance Secondly in respect of the perdurablenesse of them for it shall be intended that they will indure forever and so will not his Estate for this is as a shadow as Job said and 't is absurd that shadow should cut downe the Tree And also it is for necessity of habitation and Plow and Husbandry And it is for the Common Wealth that Copy-holder of Inheritanc might cut them by such custome for otherwise he would not be incurraged to plant and preserve them And notwithstanding that in this Case the custome be generall that the Copy-holder may cut down all yet that shall have a reasonable construction avd that this notwithstanding he leave sufficient for House-boot as if a man grants Common without number yet the Grantor shall not be excluded but shall have his Common there for excesse shall not be allowed As if a man which distraines another for Rent he shall not take excessive distress the Lessee for life excessive Tallage of villaines nor upon excessive Fines of Copy-holders and so it was adjudged in Heyden and Sir John Lenthorps Case that the Lord shall not take all but leave sufficient for reparations and so was the opinion of Wray cheife Justice in the 33 of Eliz. In evidence to a Jury but here he is in nature of Tenant in Fee-simple and it shall be intended that he hath cherished the Timber and every Copy-holders Estate granted is as a new Grant and hath affinity with Tenant in Fee-simple and he agreed that if Lessee for life the Remainder for years Remainder for life be and the first Lessee for life makes a forfeiture he in Remainder for years shall take advantage of that and that it hath been adjudged that the Lord of the Mannor shall take advantage of forfeiture made by the Copy-holder without presentment made by the Homage and in one Bacon and Flotsims Case and so Lessee for yeares of a Mannor shall take advantage of Forfeiture notwithstanding the Imbicillity of his Estate but the principall matter upon which he relyed was that the Trees were severed from the Free-hold and if the Lessee dy his Executors shall have them insomuch that they are meer Chattells and this First in respect of the Words of the Lease that is demise and to farm let the Mannor but bargain sell give and grant the Timber Trees to be felled and carried away at his Will As if a man makes a Lease for years except the Wood and after grants the Trees the Lease determines the Lessor shall not have the Trees again Secondly They are in two divided Sentences and also in respect of divided properties for the Executor of the Lessee shall have them and Quando duo Jura concurrunt in una persona equum est ac si esset in diversis also past at severall times for the Trees pass by the delivery of the Deed and the Land
if a Copy-holder be of twenty Acres and the Lord grants Rent out of those twenty Acres in the tenure and occupation of the sayd Copy-holder and name him There if this Copy hold Escheat and be granted againe the Copy-holder shall hold it charged for this is now charged by expresse words Trinity 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Kings Bench. Goodyer and Ince GOodyer was Plaintiff in a Writ of Error against Ince and the Case was this Ince brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation in the Common Bench against Goodyer and had Judgment to recover and by his execution prayed an Elegit to the Sheriff of London and another to the Sheriff of Lancaster and his request was granted and entred upon the Roll after which went out an Elegit to the Sheriff of Lancaster upon a Testatum supposing that an Elegit issued out to the Sheriff of London which returned Nulla bona and Quod Testatum sit c. That the Defendant hath c. in your County c. upon which Elegit upon this Testatum the Sheriff of Lancaster extended a forme of the Defendants in a grosse sum of a hundred pounds and delivered this to the party himselfe which sold that to another and now the Defendants brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error that this Elegit issued upon a Testatum where no Writ of Elegit was directed to the Sheriff of London and so this Writ issued upon a false supposall and upon that two points were moved in the Case First As this Case is if this were Error in the Execution or not Secondly Admit that it were Error if the Plaintiff shall be restored to the tearme againe or if to the value in Money and it was moved by Davenport of Grayes Inne that this was no Error and to that he took this difference That true it is when a man brings an Action of Debt in London and hath Judgment that without request of the Plaintiff he is to have his Elegit to the Sheriffs of London where originally the Action was brought and in such Case he cannot have Elegit to the Sheriff of another County without surmise made upon the returne of the first Elegit and the surmise ought to be true or otherwise it is Error but where upon the request the Elegit is granted to both Counties at the first and so entred upon the Roll It seems to him that insomuch that he may have both together that if the surmise be false that this is but a fault of the Clarke which shall be amended and shall be no Error and to that he cyted the Case of 44 Edw. 3. 10. Where an Elegit issued upon a Recognizance of a hundred Markes and the Writ of Extent was a hundred pounds and the Sheriff extended accordingly of the Land of the Defendant and he came and shewed this to the Court and praied that the Writ should abate and a new Writ to the Sheriff that he might have restitution of his Tearme and Thorp said this is but a misprison of the Clark and the Roll is good and he shall have the Land but till the hundred markes are Levied and after this you shall have restitution of the Land which case proves as he conceives that if the Roll warrant a writ in one manner and the Clark makes it in another manner that this shall not be Error and so in this case the Roll warrants an Elegit originally to the Sheriff of Lancaster and though that this is made upon a Testatum this shall not be Error because warranted by the Roll And to the second point he would not speake for if that were no Error the second point doth not come in question Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. in the Kings Bench. Marsam against Hunter IN Trespasse the case was this Copy-holder of a Mannor within which Mannor the custome was that the Copy-holders should have Common in the wast of the Lord The Lord by Deed confirmes to a Copy-holder to have to him and his Heires with the appurtenances and the point was insomuch that his Copy-hold was now distroied whether he shall have his Common or not And Davyes of Linclones Inne argued the Common is extinct and his reason was that this Common was in respect of his Tenure and the Tenure is distroid Ergo the Common and he cited the case of 5 Ed. 4. fol. ult Where the office of the King of Herraulds was granted to Garter with the Fees and profits Ab Antiquo and also ten pound for the office and there it is resolved if the office be determined the Annuity is determined also and the case in 7. Ed. 4. 22. b. Where an Annuity was granted to John Clark of the Crown and for Tearme of life and after he was discharged of the office and the oppinion of the Justices then was that the annuity was determined and in 19. Ed. 3. Assis 83. 12 Assis 22. A man gives Land to his Daughter and I. S. within the years of marrying in frank-marriage the Husband sues Divorce the marriage being dissolved the Wife from whom the Land first moved shall have the Land againe so in the principall case insomuch that this common was in respect of Tenure the Tenure being distroied the common is gone and this was all his argument and he prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff and another day Brautingham of Grayes Inne seemed that the common remaines for three reasons First of the nature of a prescription and to that there are three manner of prescriptions First personall prescription and in that Inhabitants may prescribe as for a way or matter of ease as it is said in 7. Ed. 4. 15. Ed. 4. and 18. Ed. 4. and 6. Coke Gatwoods case Secondly reall prescription and this is Inherent to the Estate and this is where a man prescribeth that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Thirdly locall prescriptions an that is where a man prescribes to have a thing appendant or appurtenant to his Mannor and this is so fixed to the Land that whether soever the Land goes the prescription is concommitant unto it and it seemes to him that this common is annexed to the Land by prescription and so locall and cannot be seperated but alwaies shall go with the Land into who soever hands that comes but Dixit non Probant And for this he supposed that the custome of Copy-hold is that the Copy-hold shall discend to the youngest Son if the Copy holder purchase the Free-hold and the Fee-simple of the Copy-hold so that this is made Free-hold this shall discend to the youngest Son so if a Copy-holder by custome is discharged of payment of Tythes in kind so the office of the master of the Rolles hath many liberties pertaining to it and this is granted but Durante placito yet if the King grant that in Fee as he may yet he shall have all the Fees and Priviledges annexed to that and so it seemes to him that
this common being annexed to the Land though that the Estate be increased yet the common remaines his second reason was of the manner of conveiance and that was by confirmation and if that conveiance had been by Feoffment peradventure the common had been gone But a confirmation enures allwaies upon an Estate precedent and though that this somtimes inlargeth the Estate yet this doth not alter the Estate as to any priviledges annexed to it his third reason was of the matter of the confirmation and that is that he hath confirmed it with the appurtenances and this seemes to him admitting that the common had been extinct yet these words with the appurtenances amount to a new grant of a common as in the case of Corody in 22 Ed. 4. 17. and 18. If the King grant to one such a Corody as I. S. had he shall have so much bread and beere as I. S. had so here when he grants and confirmes that with the appurtenances this is with all such priviledges as I. S. had so here when he confirmes with the appurtenances this is with all the priviledges that the old Estate had and so this should be a grant of such common as was annexed to that and so it seemed to him for these reasons that the common remaines to which it was said by Davies of the other part that he agreed al the manners of Prescriptions but he denied that it was a locall Prescription that is to Land but only to an Estate and this proves well the words of the Prescription for the Copy-holder ought to prescribe that is that every customary Tenant within the Mannor c. So he hath his common in respect that he is customary Tenant and this is in respect of the Estate which he hath by the Custome and not in respect of the Land and that this shall not enure as a new Grant he cited a case to be adjudged Michaelmasse 43. and 44. Eliz. in the Kings Bench Rot. 367 Where in Trespasse the Defendant justifies the lopping of Trees in the wast of the Lord where the custome was that every Copy-holder might shride the Trees in the wast of the Lord and that he was a Copy-holder there and the Lord granted to him the Inheritance of his Copy-hold with all such Lands Tenements and Commons of Estovers pertaining to the Copy-hold and adjudged that insomuch that the Customary Estate was distroied this custome was not now annexed to the Land but being determined with the Estate cannot be said appertaining to it and for that the Justification ill and it seemed to him to be all one with the principall case and it was adjourned and after in Michaelmasse Tearme 8. Jacobi It was adjudged that the Common was extinct and not revived Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench Proctor against Johnson THE Case hath depended seven yeares in this Court upon a Writ of Error was this Two Joynt Tenants for yeares of a Mill one grants his Estate severally to another and dies the Grantee doth not enter yet The other reciting the Lease to him made and to his companion joyntly and that his companion died so that all belonged to him as Survivor as he intended grants all the Mill to Johnson and all his Estate Right and Interest in that And covenants that the Grantee there shall continue discharged and aquitted of all Charges and Incumbrances or other Act or Acts done by him and after binds himselfe in a Bond to performe all Grants Covenants and Agreements contained in the Indentures according to the intent and meaning of the parties and after the Grantee of his companion entered into the halfe and the question was If the Bond were forfeit or not and it was adjudged in the Common Bench that the Obligation was forfeited And the matter was argued this Tearm in this Court by Yelverton of Grayes Inne that the Bond shall not be forfeited for the Bond was with Condition to performe all Grants c. According to the true intent and meaning of the parties and then let us see what was the intent of the parties and suerly this appeares by the recitall in the Indenture and for that he said that all appeares to him as survivor as he conceived so that he was doubtfull of that and for that his meaning was that if he had all then to grant all and if he had but a moity then to grant but the moity and this proves well the words subsequent where he saith that he granted the Mill and all his Estate Right and Interest in that so that he did not intend to grant more then his Estate and these words subsequent qualifie the generall words precedent and so it seemes to him that the Obligation shall not be forfeited And Sir Robert Hitcham the Queens Attorney to the contrary and that the Bond was forfeited for he hath bound himself to perform all grants and he hath not performed his Grant for he granted all the Mill and then though but a moity passeth yet he shall forfeit his Bond if the moity be evicted and for that if a man which hath nothing in the Mannor of D. makes a Lease by Deed indented to J. S. and binds himself to performe all Grants though that nothing passes yet if he enter and be ejected he shall have Debt upon his Obligation and he cited one Yelvertons Case to be adjudged but did not tell when where a man which hath nothing in the Mannor of Dale covenants with J. S. to stand seised to the use of him and his Heirs at Michaelmas and before Michaelmas he purchases the Mannor of Dale and it was resolved that no use shall be raised at Michaelmas for he had not the Mannor at the time of the Covenant and also it was resolved that no Action of Covenant lies upon the Covenant but he sayd that it is a cleer Case that if he had entred into a Bond to perform all Covenants in the Indenture that the Bond shall be forfeited though that he could not have action of Covenant upon the Covenant and also he sayd that he well agreed the Case of the Lady Russell which was adjudged also but Nescio quando where a man made a Lease for years of the Mannor of Dale except one Acre the Lessee binds himself to perform all agreements and after the Lessee enters into the Acre this shall be no breach of the condition for this exception is no agreement for nothing shall be sayd an agreement in an Indenture but that which passeth in Interest and so he sayd that though that the Lessee cannot have an Action of Covenant in the principall Case insomuch that this is so speciall yet the Bond shall be forfeited upon these Words grants and agreements and the Covenant special doth not qualify the generall express grant and after four Justices that is Flemming the cheife Justice Willams Yelverton and Crooke were of opinion that the Bond is forfeited and this for the generalty of the
and for these reasons he prayed a consultation and Yelverton to the contrary and he took a difference and sayd that he agreed that if the Wardens of the Church have once possession of the Church there in Action of Trespas brought for these Goods one Warden cannot release but this tax for which they sue is a thing meerly in Action of which they have not any possession of that before and there he cannot sue alone and for that this release shall barr his Companion And the Court interrupted him and sayd that cleerly consultation shall be granted and Flemming cheife Justice we have not need to dispute this release whether it be good or not and there is a difference where a suit is commenced before us as if Wardens of the Church brought Trespasse here for Goods of the Church taken and one Release then we might dispute if this release were good or not but when the matter is original begun before them in the spirituall Court and there is the proper place to sue for this Tax and not any where else we have nothing to do with this Release and for that by the whole Court a consultation was awarded Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Styles Case UPon a Motion made by Yelverton on the behalfe of one Styles the Case was this Styles had a Judgment in Ejectione firme and was put in possession by the Sheriff by an Habere facias possessionem and after the Defendant enters againe within the two weeks after Execution and the Writ was returned but not Fyled and Yelverton moved the Court for another Writ of execution and by Williams he could not have a new Writ of Execution but is put to his new Action and the Fyling of the Writ is not materiall for it is in the election of the Sheriff if he will Fyle or returne that or not but be sayd if the Execution had not been fully made as he sayd there was a Case where the Sheriff made an Execution of a House and there were some persons which hid themselves in the upper Lofts of the House and after the Sheriff was gone they came downe and outed those that the Sheriff had put in possession before and in this Case a new Writ of Execution was awarded but there a full Execution was not made and so the difference But the cheif Justice sayd That if the Sheriff put a man in possession and after the other which was put out enters in forthwith that in this Case the Court may award an Attachment against him for contempt against the Court. Hillary 7 Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Gittins against Cowper CUstome of one Mannor was That if any Copy-holder within the Mannor committed any Felony and this be presented by the Homage that the Lord may take and seise the Land a Copy-holder committed Felony and this was presented by the Homage and after the Copy-holder was Indicted and by Verdict acquit and the Lord entred and if his entry were lawfull or not was the question The points were two First If the Custome were good Secondly Admitting the Custome to be good if this Verdict and acquittall shall conclude the Lord of his entry And Walter of the Inner Temple argued that the Custome was good and that the Lord was not concluded by this Verdict And to the first point he sayd That it was a good Custome First insomuch it might have a reasonable beginning and for that he cyted the Book of 35 H. 6. where it is sayd that such Customes which might have reasonable beginning should be good and to that he cyted a Case which was adjudged as he sayd in 27 Eliz. and was one Delves Case and the Case was this A Quo warranto issued against Delves to know Quo warranto he held a Leet to which he pleaded that he was seised of such a Messuage and that he and all those whole Estate he hath in the said Messuage have used allwaies to have and hold a Leete there within the Messuage If this prescription that is to have a Leete appendant to a single Messuage was good or not was the question And it was adjudged insomuch that by resonable intendment it might be that this house was the Scite of a Mannor and the Lord granted that with the Leet the Prescription adjudged good and he sayd that many Customes are grounded upon the nature of the place and for that he sayd that this Mannor was adjoyning to great Woods and it might be that the Copy-holders committed Felonies and outrages and after fled into the Woods and there lived and yet injoyed the benefit of their Copy-holds and for that it was reasonable for the Lord to annex such a restraint and condition that is if they committed any Felony this should be a forfeiture of their Copy-hold and this should be a meanes to bridle them to commit such haynous and odious offences And that Customes ought to have a respect to the place he cyted the Case of 12 H. 3. where the Custome of the Isle of Man was That if any man stole a Hen or a Capon or such small matter that should be Felony but if he stole a Horse that should not be Felony for a man may privily convey away a Hen or might consume it but for the smalnesse of the place and being compassed with the water he could not so doe with a Horse So in 39. H. 6. That the married Wife of a Merchant in London may sue and be sued by the Custome and the reason is that London is the cheife City and place of Merchandise within the Realme of England and it is conceived that the Merchants cannot be alwaies resident there but sometimes beyond Sea or other where about their businesse and Affaires and for that it shall be reasonable that his Wife shall sue and shall be sued in his absence and in time of E. 1. Title Prescription the custome of Hallifax that if any Felon be taken with the manner he shal be forthwith beheaded and this was as it seems for the better suppressing the common Felonies there committed and so he concluded for this Reason that this custome might have such reasonable beginning and in respect of the place that should be a good custome His second Reason was that this might begin at this day lawfully Therfore this shall be good and for that he cited the case of 10 H. 7. 11. That if a man make a Feoffment upon condition that the Feoffee shall not commit Felony that this is a good condition but he sayd that he supposed that if the Feoffee commit Felony and the Feoffor enter into the Land and after the Feoffee is attaint of this felony that now the Lord shall enter by Escheate and his reason was that the Statute of Westminster 3. De quia emptores terrarum prohibits any man to make a Feoffment to the prejudice of the Lord to his Wardship or Escheat His third reason was that this
was Error and for this cause and another exception to the Record which was not much materiall he reversed the Judgment And at another day Flemming cheife Justice rehearsed the case and this argued and to the first matter he conceived First That it is no such entry that abates the Writ Secondly Admitting that it were yet this cannot be assigned for Errour And to the first matter he took this ground That every entry which may abate a writ ought to be in the thing demanded and for that he sayd if a man brings an Assise of Rent or common and hanging this Assise he enters into the Land this is not any Entry which will abate the Writ and he sayd that the Park and the keeping of the Park are two distinct things and for that the entry into one that is the Park will not abate the Writ for the keeping of that and to that which is sayd that he took a Fee that is a shoulder of a Buck that doth not make any matter for two reasons First he hath not shewed a Warrant he had to kill the Buck. Secondly the taking of the fee is no entring into the Office but the excercising of that but admit that this were an entry or the thing it self yet he sayd every entry into the thing shall not abate the Writ and to that he sayd that if this entry of the Earl of Rutland to hunt was no such entry that shall abate the Writ for his office was not to hunt and for that his entry being to another purpose it shall not be sayd an entry to abate the Writ and for that he cited a case which hath been cited as he sayd by Justice Yelverton that if a man have Common in the Land of J. S. between the Annunciation of our Lady and Michaelmas and the Commoner brought an Assise of his Common and at Christmas put in his Beasts and this shall not be any entry to abate his Writ for it cannot be intended for the same Common which case is agreed to be good Law and he cited the case put by Brooke in Assise of Freshforce before remembred Com. 93. Where hanging a Formedon the Tenant pleads in abatement of the Writ that the Demandant hath entred after the last continuance and upon the evidence it appears that many were cutting wood upon the Land and the Demandant comes into the Land to them and warnes them upon the perill that might ensue to them that they should do no more then they could do by Law and this was found no entry Also the case of 26. Assise before cited by Justice Crooke and he sayd that the Statute of Charta de Foresta chapter 11. willeth that every Arch-Bishop Bishop Earl or Baron comming to the King by his command and passing by his Forrest c. Was licensed to take one Beast or two by the sight of the Keeper c. Put case then that the King had sent for the Earl of Rutland and he had passed through this Park and had killed a Buck had this beene an entry to abate this writ Quasi diceret non for this was entry to another purpose so he sayd in the principall case the entry to hunt and so no entry to abate the Writ but admitting that this had been an entry which would abate the writ then let us see if this entry hath so abated the writ being Mesne between the Verdict and the Judgment it cannot be assigned for errour and to that he agreed the diversity before taken by Crooke and Williams where the writ is abated by Plea and without plea and he cited a Judgment in the Kings Bench between Jackson and Parker 2 Eliz. where in Ejectione firme the Plaintiff entred Mesne between Verdict and Judgment and this was assigned for Errour in the Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment notwithstanding affirmed and he sayd that if Memorandum had been made of it or if a Jury had found it and it had been prayed that that might be Recorded yet this had not been materiall and that that be not assigned for Errour And to the matter moved by my Brother Williams that there should be a variance between the plaint and the Title he conceived that there is no such variance that shall make the Judgment errronious and to that he examined the matter First that the Assise was of a Free-hold in Clepsom and his title is made of the parke of Clipson that that cannot be otherwise intended but that of necessity it ought to be the same park For first there is but one park by all the Record Secondly the plaint saith De parco predicto which hath reference to Clepsom park and there is but one park put in view by all the record Fourthly It shall be so taken according to the common speaking Fiftly when he hath made his plaint of the custody of the park of Clepsom and of the Herbage and paunage of the park aforesaid called Clepsom these words called Clepsom are but Idle and Trifles and that which is but Surplusage shall not annoy Also he said that J. and E. are letters which do not much differ in pronunciation and they are all one as I and he shall be pronounced as hi and he cited the Book of 4 H. 6. 26. Where in Debt variance was taken between the writ and the Obligation that is Quatuordecem pro Quatuordecim and this variance was not materiall but that the writ was awarded good and so he conceived that in this case the variance of Clepsom and Clipsom shall not be such a materiall variance that shall make the Judgment erronious and to the title First to Markhams grant that is where the Jury have found Quod ulterius concessit c. And doth not say Per easdem he held that good without scruple and this for the necessary relation that this had to any thing before granted for he sayd that this should be a strange and marvelous patent which begun in such a manner that is Et ulterius Rex concedit c. And there was not any thing granted before And for that he cited the case of 11 Ed. 4. 2. where Debt was brought upon an Indenture against the Abbot of Westminster and the Indenture was between the Abbot of the Monastry of the blessed Mary of Westminster and rehearsed divers Covenants for performance of which Covenants the Abbot of Westminster bound himself in twenty pound and doth not say that the aforesayd Abbot and yet good for it shall be intended the same Abbot for he is party to the Deed and the case of 10 H. 7. 12. Where in Assise of Common the plaintiff makes his plaint of Common appurtenant to his Free-hold in D. and shews for Title that he was seised of a Messuage and of a Carve of Land in D. to which the Common is appurtenant and that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estates c. have used Common of pasture with ten Beasts and exception
all their Study is practise and that if they have no practise of themselves then they attend upon others which practise and apply themselves to know the nature of Simples And to third objection that in London ought to be choyce men for the Statute appoints that they shall be examined by the Bishop and Deane and four others at least and for that there is a more strict course for them then in other places to that it is agreed But he said that in the University there is a more strict course then this for here he ought to be publickly approved by many after that he hath been examined and answered in the Schooles to diverse questions and allowed by the Congregation house And 35. H. 6. 55. Doctor is no addition but a degree quia gradatim et progressâ—one Doctrine provenit to that and that Doctor is teacher and that he was first taught by others as Scholers afterwards he is Master and Doctor dicetur a docendo quia docere permittitur and they are called Masters of their faculty and that the Originall of Doctor came of the Sinagogue of Jewes where there were Doctors of Law and it appeares that they had their ceremonies in time of H. 1. And when a man brings with him the Ensigne of Doctrine there is no reason that he should be examined againe for then if they will not allow of him he shall not be allowed though he be a learned and grave man and it was not the intent of the King to make a Monopoly of this practise And to the second point that he propounded it seemes that the Justification is not good which is Quia non comperuit upon Summons he was amerced and ordered that he shall be arrested and being arrested being examined if he would submit himself to the Colledge he answered that he was a Doctor and had practised and would practise within the sayd City as he conceived he might lawfully do and for that shewing of this case he was committed to prison and he conceived two things upon the Charter First That it doth not inhibit a Doctor to practise but punisheth him for ill using exercising and making and may imprison the Emperick and Imposter and so prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and after in Hillary Tearm in the same year this case was argued by all the Justices of the Common Bench and at two severall dayes and the first day it was argued by Foster Daniell and Warburton Justices at whose Arguments I was not present but Foster argued against the Plaintiff and Daniell and Warburton with him and that the Action of false imprisonment was well maintainable And the second day the same case was argued again by Walmesley Justice and Coke cheife Justice and Walmesley argued as followeth that is that the Statute of 3. H. 8. was in the negative that no person within the City of London or seven Miles of that take upon him to exercise or occupy as Physitian or Chirurgion c. And he doth not know in any case where the words of the Statute are negative that they admit any Interpretation against that but one only and that is the Statute of Marlebridge chapter 4. Which provides that no Lord shall distrain in one County and the beasts distrayned drive into another County in which case though that the words are uegative yet if the Lord distrain in one County he may drive the Beasts to his Mannor in another County of which the Lands in which the distresse was taken were held but it is equity and reason in this case that the Statute should admit such exception for it is not of malice but for that that the Beasts may remain within his Fee but in the principall case there is not the like reason nor Equity And also the King H. 8. in his Letters Patents recites as followeth that is Cum Regij officij nostri munus arbitremur ditionis nostri hominum felicitati omni ratione consulere id autem vel imprimis fore si Improborum conatibus tempestive occurremus apprime necessarium duximus improborum quoque hominum qui medicinant magis avaritiae sue causa quam ullius bonae conscientiâ— fiducia profitebantur c. By which it appears that it is the Office of a King to survey his Subjects and he is as a Phisitian to cure their Maladies and to remove Leprosies amongst them and also to remove all fumes and smells which may offend or be prejudiciall to their health as it appears by the severall Writs in these severall cases provided and so if a man be not right in his Wits the King is to have the Protection and Government of him least he being infirme wast or consume his Lands or Goods and it is not sufficient for him that his Subjects live but that they should live happyly and discharges not his Office if his Subjects live a life but if they live and flourish and he hath care as well of their Bodyes as of their Lands and Goods for Health for the Body is as necessary as vertue to the minde and the King H. 8. to express his extraordinary care of his Subjects made the said Act in the third year of his Reigne which was the beginning of his Essence to that purpose and by the Common Law any Phisitian which was allowed by the University might practise and exercise the sayd faculty within any place within England without any dispensation examination or approbation of any but after the making of the sayd Act made in the third year of King H. 8. none may practise exercise or occupy as Phisitian or Surgion within theCity of London and seven miles of that if he be not first examined approved and admitted by the Bishop of London and the Dean of Paules for the time being calling to them foure Doctors of Phisick or Chirurgions c. And that no practiser may occupy or exercise the sayd faculty out of the sayd Precincts if he be not first examined approved and admitted by the Bishop of the Diocess or in his absence by his Vicar generall every of them calling unto him such expert persons in the said faculty as their discretions thinks convenient and the reason of this difference as he conceived was for that that in this City and the sayd Precincts the King and all his Councell and all the Judges and Sages of the Law and divers other men of quality and condition live and continue and also the place is more subject unto Infection and the Heir more pestiferous and for that there is more necessity that greater Care diligence and examination be made of those which practised here in London and the precincts aforesayd then of those which practise in other places of the Realm for in other places the People have better aire and use more exercise and are not so subject to Infection and for that there is no cause that such care should be used for them for they are not in such danger and
part this shall not extend to other persons Commoners and it is like to the case in 9 Eliz. Dyer 257. 13. A man makes a Lease for years and covenants that the Lessee shal injoy the Tearm without eviction of the Lessor or any claiming under him if he be evicted by a stranger this shal be no breaking of the Covenant for a stranger is no party to the Deed nor claims under the Lessor and for this his Entry shal not give Action to the Lessee and so is the Case in 21 H. 7. between the Prior of Castleton and the Dean of Saint Stephens which was adjudged the 18 of H. 7. Pasch Rot. 416. Though that no Judgment be reported where it appears that the King Ed. 3. seised al the Lands of Priors aliens in time of War for that that they carried the Treasure of the King out of the Realme to the Kings Enemies and so it was made by H. 4. also during the time of his Reign and then in the second year of the Reign of King H. 5. by a statute made between the King and the sayd Priors aliens al the Possessions of the sayd Priors were resumed into the hands of the sayd King and adjudged in 21. H. 7. 1. before that this shal not extend to the Prior of Castleton which had Annuities issuing out of the Possessions of the sayd Priors for the said Prior of Castleton was not party to the sayd act of Parliament and for that he shal not be prejudiced by that and so it was adjudged 25. and 26. Eliz. In the Court of VVards in the case of one Boswell where the King made a Lease for years which was voydable and after by another Patent granted the Inheritance and then came the statute of 18. Eliz. to confirm al Patents made by the sayd Queen within her time and adjudged that the sayd Act shal not make the sayd patent voyd to the Patentee which is a stranger to the act of the Parliament but only against the Queen her Heirs and successors for by the statute it is made only against one person only and shal not be good against another though there be no saving of such person in the sayd Act. And also he conceived that the statute of 22 Ed. 4. Doth not extend to any woods in forrest in which another hath Common for it doth not extend only to such woods which a common person hath in the Kings forrest or common person and that it may be inclosed for the space of three years after the cutting of the wood in this before the making of the sayd statute and this was no wood in which an Estranger had Common as it appears by the Preamble of the sayd statute and then after in the sayd statute it is sayd such woods may be inclosed And also he conceived where the statute sayth that they may inclose the same Grounds with such sufficient hedges able to keep out all manner of Beasts and Cattell out of the same Grounds but this refers to the quality of the hedge for before it ought to be a small Ditch and by this statute it ought to be with such hedg which shall be able c. And it shall not be referred to the manner of the Cattell But for the difference between Beasts of Forrest Beasts of Chase and Beasts of Warrain see the Register fol. 96. 43 Ed. 3. 13. 12. H. 8. 12. b. Hollinsheads Cronicle fol. 20. b. 32. And he conceived that Sir Francis Barrington is such a Vendee of Wood that is within the statute though that he be Vendee of Inheritance and hath a greater Estate then Vnica vice but for that that he conceived that it was not within the statute for other reasons before cyted he would not dispute it But he conceived if this had been the question of the Case that this was within the statute and also he conceived that this was a generall statute of which the Judges shall take notice without pleading of this And this reason was for that that the King was party to it and this which concernes the King being the head concernes all the Body and Common Wealth and so it was adjudged in the Chancery in the case of Serjeant Heale that the statute by which the Prince is created Prince of VVales was a general statute and for that see the Lord Barkleyes case in the Commentaries Also he conceived that the said statute of 22 of Ed. 4. was repealed by 35. H. 8. for this was in the Negative that none shal cut any wood but only in such manner as is prescribed by the said statute and for that shal be a repeale of the first and that by the first Branch of the sayd statute it appeares that if such giving of Wood in his own Soyl within any forrest he cut to his own use he cannot inclose and by that Branch Commoner is not excluded but by the second Branch it is provided that he may inclose the fourth part of his Wood and cut that in such manner as is appointed by the said statute and then he shal loose his own Common in the three other parts and so he concluded that Judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff which is the Commoner and Judgment was entred accordingly Pasch 1610. 8. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Cesar against Bull. THomas Cesar Plaintiff in Assise against Emanuel Bull for the Office of Clock-Keeper to the Prince this he claims by grant of the King during his own Life with the fee of two shillings a day for the exercising of it and three pound yearly for Livery and the patent purports only the Grant of the Office and not words of creation of the Office as Constituimus officium c. And the Plaintiff could prove that it was an ancient Office and for that was non-suited in the Assise though that the Tenant had made default before Pasch 1610. 8. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Heyden against Smith and others THE Plaintiff counts in Trespasse against these Defendants and these Defendants justifie as Servants to Sir John Leventhorp who was seised of a free-hold of Land in which the Tree for which the action was brought was cut and so demands Judgment if action the Plaintiff replyes that the place where c. was parcel of a house and twenty Acres of Land which time out of mind c. have been demised and demisable by Copy of Court Roll which was parcel of the Mannor of A. of which the sayd Sir John Leventhorp was seised in his Demesne as of see and by Copy at a Court held such a day and year granted the said Messuage and twenty acres of Land whereof c. To the Plaintiff and his Heirs according to the custome of the said Mannor and prescribes that within the sayd mannor was a Custome that every Copy-holder may cut the boughs of all the Pollingers and Husbands growing upon his Copy-hold for fire to be burnt upon his
a Writ this is disturbance and Action upon the case lies And so in Quare Impedit And also he sayd that the Earle cannot make a Deputy but by writing as it is resolved 28. H. 8. Br. deputy 17. Where it is sayd that Deputation of an Office which lyes in Grant ought to be made by Deed and not by Word But here the Jury have found that the Earle hath made his Deputy this shall be intended in lawfull manner and cannot be but by writing And also he agreed that the Habendum mentioned in the third Grant shall extend only to this Grant which is his proper Grant that the Office of the Habendum And it appeares by Wrotsleys and Adams case Comment 17. That the Office of Habendum is to make certain the Estate and not the thing granted for this is the Office of the Premisses of the Deed And if the Habendum in the third Grant had had reference to the second Grant this would make the Grant void And in Grants of the King other construction shall be made as it was adjudged in the Court of Wards Michaelmasse 28. and 29 Eliz. between Brunkar Plaintiff and Robotham Defendant where the case was the King Hen. the 8. had two Mannors whereof diverse Lands of one Mannor extended the other Mannor and then the King granted one Mannor and all his Lands in the same Mannor Nec non omnies singulas Terras c. In the same Town and adjudged that the Lands which were parcell of the other Mannor which was not granted passe by this Grant though that they are in the other Mannor in the same Town and he denyed that the words Precipientes volentes shall be taken as a Grant for they are not spoken to the Patentee but to other Officers which are strangers to the Grant But if the thing granted had been a Chattell that a Covenant might enure as a Grant and 10. Eliz. Dyer 270. 22. The King Phillip and Queen Mary granted for them and their Heires and Successors to A. B. That he and his Factors and Assignes might Tavern and keep a Tavern c. Commanding all Mayors and Sheriffs c. and other Officers and Subjects and their Heires and Successors to permit and suffer the said A. B. during his life to hold and use a Tavern and to sell Wine without Impeachment and it seemes that the Grant is void for that that there is not any time limited for how long it shall indure and the mandate in the last clause shall not make any limitation for by the death of the Prince this altogether ceaseth for Omne mandatum morte mandantis expirat And for that all Proclamations made in time of the Raign of Queen Eliz cease and determine by her death And to the person of the Earle he said that it was a Maxime that Honour and Order shall be observed and that was a common saying of the said Queen and for that it was not her intention that this Maxime should be broken and that the said Earle should exercise the said Office in person but she intended the said Earle should overlook the said Mannor and place here a sufficient able man to exercise the said Office because he should answer for the misdemeanour of such a Deputy is the forfeyture of the Office and he saith that the Dignity of an Earle was the most high Dignity in this Realm that any Subject doth possesse till the 11. Ed. 3 The black Prince was the 1 Duke and Aubry de Vere the 1 Marquess in the 11. R. 2. and Beamount the first vicount in the time of H. 6. And none of these Dignyties are above an Earle in degree but only in precedency for Bracton lib. 1. chap. 8. saith Quod Comites dicunter a socitate quia Comitantur Regem And in ancient time none were made Earles but only those which were of the blood Royall and this is the reason that they are called Consanguinij Regis and also they may be called Consules a Consulendo Tales enim Regis sibi associunt ad consulendum regendum populum Dei And at their creation the King gives to them a Robe and Cap which signifies Councell and Corronet which signifies the greatnesse of his Blood and Honour and also sword Vt sit in ntrumque tempus as well ready for War as peace And for that it should be unfit that one of such Honour State and Dignity should be imployed in holding of Court Barons and there sit to enter Plaints and have a peny for every Plaint for his paines and to make Copies and such like base imployments which are Vividae rationes which was not the intent of the Queen that he should exercise the said Office in person and the Law requires conveniences in all Grants as in 12. and 13. H. 8. One licensed a Duke to come and hunt in his park and the Duke came with his Servants and many others of his Retinue and hunted there and it was adjudged that the Grant was sufficient to warrant his hunting in this manner in respect of the conveniency for it is not fit and convenient that the Duke should go alone and 21. Ed. 3. 48. The Bishop of Carlile sued the Executors of his Predecessor the Ornaments of the Chappel of the sayd Bishoprick and then recovered and though that the sayd Chappel was in the private House of the sayd Bishop yet it was thought fitting that such Chappel should be adorned with convenient Ornaments and that these Ornaments should go in succession to the Successors and not to the Executors and if conveniency be so required in all these cases then by the like Reason such inconveniency shall not be admitted that the Earl should be Clark to Suitors as every Steward is And for that he conceived that the Grant is good And that the sayd Earl may exercise this Office by a Deputy as well as if a Common person grant an Office of Fostership to the King he may exercise that by any party or grant it over though therebe no words of deputation in the Grant and this in respect of the quality of his person and in many other cases an Earle or another Noble man shall be priviledged as in 3 H. 6. A Noble man shal not be examined upon his Oath in account And 48 Ed. 3. 30. He shal not be sworn upon Inquests which is to serve God and his Country Register 179. And if a common person be in debt to me a hundred pound I may have a Capias and arrest his person for this Debt but if the King create him Baron or Earl then his person is so privileged that that cannot be attached for this Debt and this is without wrong to me as it appears by the Countesse of Rutlands case 6. Coke And if a Baron be returned of a Jury and if Issue be taken if he be a Baron or not this shal be tryed by Record whether he be a Baron or not 35 H. 6. 46.
which was Obligamus nos vel quemlibet nostrum adjudged to be joint and severall at the Plaintiffs Election Action of Debt upon an Obligation to perform an award and the breach assigned for exhibiting a chancery Bill and adiudged no Breach Action of Debt for Tithes the Defendants time ended before the Coâ—n carried yet held good for the Plaintiff An Action will lie against a stranger that shall carry away the Corn before the Severance Dower may be brought against the Heir or Committee of the Ward Nota. He in Reversion received after Default made by Tenant for Life Return of the Sheriff adjudged insufficient being too general No Writ of Error lies untill the value be inquired upon Implication not good in a Surrender though it be in a Will Challenge because the Sheriff married the Daughter of the Lessors Wife and held no cause Nota. How to execute a Lease to try a Title the Land being in many mens hands Originall against four and count against 3. without a Simulcum and held naught The intent of a will must be certain and agreeable to Law Nota. How to execute a Lease by Letter of Atturney A Venire facias of the Parish adjudged good A mistake of the Cursitor in the Originall amended after Triall Nota. Though the Defendants Plea be naught yet the Plaintiff shall not recover because he shewed not any Title by his replication The question is upon the Statute of 32 H. 8 upon Feoffements made by Husbands during the coverture A verbal averment shall not overthrow a will The mistaking of the Town not hurtfull in a Will Property of Goods cannot be in obayance Difference between Prescription and Custome Copihold Land cannot be demised for three years without license or custome Record of Nisi prius amended by the Roll. Concord with satisfaction a good Plea in Eiectment Misconveyance of process what it is and helped by the Statute A feme covert cannot make a Letter of Atturney to deliver a Lease upon the Land When a demand shall be made to the person and when upon the Land A Lease made to three for their lives with a Covenant that the Land should remaine to the survivor of them for ninety yeares a good interest in the survivor A precise Verdict makes the Declaration good which otherwise is naught A demand of Rent to avoid a Lease upon a condition ought to be in the most open place After an Imparlance cannot plead in abatement 22 H. 6. 6. Foxlies Case 5 Rep. 111. The day of a Copihold of Court roll traversed and adjudged naught Houses in London passe by the delivery of a bargain and sale without inrolment An Ejectment will not lye de aquae cursu A Servant is a sufficient Ejector if he dwell with the pretended owner He that is a Purchaser of Copihold hath nothing in it nor can he surrender to another before admittance How an Abatement shall be traversed 1 E. 4. acr 1 E. 4. 9. acr The Bill amended after a Writ of Error brought and before the Record was removed Where the Prenomen destroyesthe quantity inthe declation Where words in a Declaration shall be voyd rather then the Declaration shal be voyd Nonage shall be tryed where it is alleadged and not where the Landlyes Essoin lies in a writ brought by Journes account although he was essoined upon the first Writ By Deed an implicationbe intended Nota. By the Name of a Mannour the Land in all the Villiages will pass Nota. Action brought by the Servant in his own name part of the Goods being his Masters Nota. Nota. The Record of Nisi prius amended upon motion The Process in Partition Error in Partition upon the first Judgement Defendant pleads he had brought a Writ for the same land and adjudged no plea. Process in a Quare Impedit Exception taken to the Venire and over-ruled Severall Quare impedits may be brought against severall men Admittance of a Resignation by fraud takes not away the Kings Title The state is determined by the death of Tenant in Tail A presentment by words good Nota. A subsequent debt to the Qu. related to award an assurance made upon good consideration The King hath lost his presentation by the Clerks death Defendant pleads another writ depending against the said Bishop good The Bishopsplea shall not prejudice the Incumbent Nota. Liberty to make Leases A devise for years in confidence the condition must goe to the estate and not to the use The scisin of rent reserved upon a Feosment within the time of limitation not to be traversed Nota. The beast of a stranger shall not be distreined for rent except they have been upon the land some time Demand not necessary in a Replevin for rent Nota. Exctâ—tion to the advowry too late after judgment entred Replevin not within the statute of 3. Iac. Iudgment arrested for that the plea was naught Nota. Nota. The Plea naught for want of amendment Amends made to the Bailiff not good If one inclose part it is an Extinguishment of Common for cause of vicinage Avowry amended after Entry by consent One of the Juroâ—s names mistaken in the Pannell of the Return and amended upon the Sheriffes Oath that he was the same man If two men distrain one Mare and both have Judgement no Return Court Baron in order to the Mannor Nota. Nota. A lease for life to three to hold successively naught The pannell of the Habeas Corpus amended upon Oath Nota. Atturnment not necessary for a Copy-holder Demand necessary for a Nomine pene Common Appurtenant and purchase part the Common is gone but not if Appendant Nota. Nota. Demand of Rent service upon the Land sufficient Nota. A Commoner may take the cattell of the Lord damage fesant Judgment arrested for not shewing in what place the Messuage did lye to which the Common did belong Common when the field and acres unsown the sowing of parcell shal not debar him of his common in the residue When a Deed is perfected and delivered as a Deed one agreement after pleaded in defeasance thereof and when the agreement is parcell of the Original contract it may be pleaded The Defendant in his Demurrer â—nswers not the whole Declaration and Judgement reversed The mistake of the day of an Act by way of Bar not prejudiciall A confession after an issue joyned refused A Constable cannot detaine one but for Felony Marshalsey hath no authority to hold plea in debt except both are of the Houshold Judgment before a wrong Officer erroneous The Court could not mitigate damages in trespass which was locall The Defendant justifies the imprisonment by the command of the Maior of London and naught Just of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest in his absence without warrant in writing If a servant be beaten dye the Mr. shall not have an action for the losse of his service Declaration shall not abate for false Latin A man cannot prescribe to be a Justice of the Peace If