it is not known whether he be guilty or not and in Cuddingtons Case it was a general Pardon and that was the cause that the Action did lie for that it is not known whether he committed the Felony or not But they conceived that if it had been a particular Pardon that then in that case the Action would not have been maintainable For the procuring of a special Pardon doth presuppose and it is a strong presumption that the party is guilty of the offence Note it did not appear in the Case of Fines the principal Case whether the Pardon by which Dr. Spicer was pardoned were a general Pardon or whether it were a particular and special Pardon Pasch 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 415. DAVER's Case IN Davers Case who was arraigned for the death of William Dutton Ley Chief Justice delivered it for Law That if two men voluntarily fight together and the one killeth the other if it be upon a sudden quarrel that the same is but Man-slaughter And if two men fight together and the one flieth as far as he can and he which flieth killeth him who doth pursue him the same is Se defendendo Also if one man assaulteth another upon the High-way and he who is assaulted killeth the other he shall forfeit neither life nor lands nor goods if he that killed the other fled so far as he could Quod nota Pasch 21 Jacobi â—n the Court of Wards 416. Sir EDWARD COKE's Case THis Case being of great consequence and concernment The Master of the Court of Wards was assisted by four of the Judges in the hearing and debating of it and after many Arguments at the Barr the said four Judges argued the same in Court viz. Dodderidge one of the Justices of the Kings Bench Tanfield Lord chief Baron of the Exchequer Hobart Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas and Ley Lord Chief Justice of his Majesties Court of Kings Bench The Case in effect was this Queen Elizabeth by her Letters Patents did grant to Sir Christopher Hatton the Office of Remembrancer and Collector of the first Fruits for his life Habendum to him after the death or surrender of one Godfrey who held the said Office then in possession Sir Christopher Hatton being thus estated in the said Office in Reversion and being seised in Fee-simple of diverse Mannors Lands and Tenements did Covenant to stand seised of his said lands c. unto the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of J. Hatton his son in tail and so to his other sons intail with the Remainder to the right heirs of J. Hatton in Fee with Proviso of Revocation at his pleasure during his life Godfrey the Officer in possession died and Sir Christopher Hatton became Officer and was possessed of the Office and afterwards he became indebted to the Queen by reason of his said Office And the Question in this great Case was Whether the Mannors and Lands which were so conveyed and setled by Sir Christopher Hatton might be extended for the said Debt due to the Queen by reason of the Proviso and Revocation in the said Conveyance of Assurance of the said Mannors and Lands the debt due to the Queen was assign'd over and the Lands extended and the Extent came to Sir Edward Coke and the heir of John Hatton sued in the Court of Wards to make void the Extent And it was agreed by the said four Justices and so it was afterwards decreed by Cranfield Master of the Court of Wards and the whole Court That the said Mannors and Lands were liable to the said Extent And Dodderidge Justice who argued first said that the Kings Majestie had sundry prerogatives for the Recovery of Debts and other Duties owing unto him First he had this prerogative ab origine legis That he might have the Lands the Goods and the Body of the Person his Debtor in Execution for his Debt But at the Common Law a common person a common person could not have taken the body of his debtor in execution for his debt but the same priviledg was given unto him by the Statute of 25. E. 3. cap. 17. At the Common Law he said that a common person Debtee might have had a Levari facias for the Recovery of his Debt by which Writ the Sheriffe was commanded Quod de terris Catallis ipsius the Debtor c. Levari faciat c. but in such Case the Debtee did not meddle with the Land but the Sheriffe did collect the Debt and pay the same over to the Debtor But by the Statute of West 2. cap 20. The Debtee might have an Elegit and so have the moyetie of the Lands of his Debtor in Execution for his Debt as it appeareth in C. 3. part 12. in Sir William Harberts Case Secondly He said That the King had another prerogative and that was to have his Debt paid before the Debt of any Subject as it appeareth 41. E. 3. Execution 38. and Pasc 3. Elizabeth Dyer 197. in the Lord Dacres and Lassels Case and in M. 3. E. 6. Dyer 67 Stringfellows Case For there the Sheriffe was amerced because the King ought to have his Debt first paid and ought to be preferred before a Subject vid. 328 Dyer There the words of the Writ of Priviledg shew that the King is to be preferred before other Creditors By the Statute of 33. H. 8. cap. 39. The Execution of the Subject shall be first served if his Judgment be before any Processe be awarded for the Kings debt In the Statute of 25. E. 3. Cap. 19. I find that by the Common Law the King might grant a Protection to his Debtor that no other might sue him before that the King was satisfied his debt See the Writ of Protection Register â— 81. B. the words of which are Et quia nolumus solutionem debitorum nostrorum caeteris omnibus prout ratione Perogativae nostrae totis temporibus retroactis usitatae c. But that grew such a Grievance to the Subject that the Statute of 25. E. 3. Cap. 19. was made And now by that Statute a common person may lawfully sue to Judgment but he cannot proceed to Execution and so the Kings Prerogative is saved unless the Plaintiffe who sueth will give security to pay first the Kings Debt For otherwise if the Paty doth take forth Execution upon his Judgment and doth levy the money the same money may be seized upon to satisfie the Kings Debt as appeareth in 45. E. 3. title Decies tantum 13. The third Prerogative which the King hath is That the King shall have the Debt of the Debtor to the Kings Debtor paid unto him v. 21 H. 7. 12. The Abbot of Ramseys Case The Prior of Ramsey was indebted to the King and another Prior was indebted to the Prior of Ramsey and then it was pleaded in Barr that he had paid the same Debt to the King and the Plea holden for a good Plea
24. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 19. IN an Action upon the Case upon a Promise The consideration was Where I. S. had granted a Term to I. D. That afterwards upon the request of I. S. I. D. did make to W. an Estate for four years upon which W. brought his Action And after Verdict it was moved in stay of Judgement that there was no good consideration and a difference taken where the Promise was upon the Grant and where afterwards If it were before then the Condition was good but if it were afterwards it was not good And it was adjudged That the Plaintiffe Nihil capiat per billam Pasch 24. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 20. AN Action upon the Case upon a Promise was The Consideration was That in consideration that the Plaintiffe Daret diâ—m solutionis the Defendant Super se assumpsit and because he doth not say in facto that he had given day It was adjudged that no sufficient Consideration was alledged But if the Consideration were Quod cum indebitatus c. the same had been a good Consideration without any more for that implies a Consideration in it self Pasch 24. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 21. IT was said by Cooke That the Chancellor or any Judge of any of the Courts of Record at Westminster may bring a Record one to another without a Writ of Certiorare because one Judge is sufficiently known one to the other as 5. H. 7. 31. where a Certificate was by the Chancellor alone and to this purpose is 11. H. 4. But that other Judges of base Courts cannot do nor Justices of the Peace as 3. H. 6. where the certificate by Suitors was held void Pasch 25. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 22. SKIPWITH'S Case IT was found upon a speciall verdict in an Action of Trespass that the place where c. was Copy-hold land And that the Custome is That quaelibet foemina viro cooperta poterit devise lands whereof she is seised in Fee according to the custome of the Manor to her Husband and surrender it in the presence of the Reeve and six other persons And that I. S. was seised of the land where c. and had issue two Daughters and died and that they married husbands and that one of them devised her part to her husband by Will in writing in the presence of the Reeve and six other persons and afterwards at another day shee surrendred to the Husband and he was admitted and she died and her Husband continued the possession And the Husband of the other Daughter brought an Action of Trespasse Rodes Serjeant The Custome is not good neither for the Surrender nor for the Will for two causes One for the uncertainty of what estate shee might make a Devise and because it is against reason that the Wife should surrender to the Husband Where the Custome shall not be good if it be uncertain he vouched 13. E. 3. Fitz. Dum fuit infra aetatem 3. The Tenant saith that the lands are in Dorset where the Custome is that an Enfant may make a Grant or Feoffment when he can number twelve pence And it was holden that because it is uncertain when he can so do the Custome is not good 19. E. 2. in a Ravishment of Ward the defendant pleaded that the custome is that when the Enfant can measure an ell of cloth or tell twelve pence as before that he should be out of Ward and it is holden no good custom for the cause aforesaid 22. H. 6. 51. a. there a man prescribed That the Lord of D. had used to have Common for him and all his Tenants And because it is not shewed what Lord whether the Lord mediate or immediate it is adjudged no good custome And as to the Surrender it is against reason that the Wife should give to the Husband for a Wife hath not any Will but the Will of her Husband For if the Husband seised in the right of his Wife make a Feoffment in Fee and the Wife being upon the land doth disagree unto it saying that shee will never depart with it during her life yet the Feoffment is good and shall binde during the life of the Husband as it is holden in 21. E. 3. And therefore it is holden in 3. E. 3. Tit. Devise Br. 43. That a Feme covert cannot devise to her Husband for that should be the Act of the Husband to convey the land to himself And in the old Natura Brevium in the Additions of Ex gravi quaerela it is holden so accordingly And the Case in 29. E. 3. differs much from this Case For there a woman seised of lands devisable took an Husband and had issue and devised the lands to the Husband for his life and died and a Writ of Waste was brought against him as Tenant by the Courtesie and it was holden that it did lie and that he is not in by the Devise for the reason there is because he was in before by the Courtesie But as I conceive that Case will disprove the Surrender for in as much as he had it in the Right of his wife he could not take it in his own Right Also he took another Exception in the principal Case because that the wife was not examined upon the Surrender but none of the Justices spake to that Exception but when the Record was viewed it appeared that it was so pleaded Further He said That the devise was void by the Statute of 34. H. 8. Cap. 5. where it is said It is enacted That Wills and Testaments made of any Lands Tenements c. by women Coverts or c. shall not be taken to be good or effectual in Law And he said That this Statute doth extend to customary Lands And as to that all the Justices did agree That it is not within the Statute And as to the Statute of Limitations Andâ—rson chief Justice said That if a Lease for years which perhaps will not indure sixty years shall be taken strong this shall Anderson moved That if the Lord Lease Copyhold land by Word Whether the Lessee might maintain an Ejectione firme and he conceived not for in an Ejectione firmâ— there ought to be a Right in Fact And although it be by conclusion it is not sufficient for that the Jury or Judge are not estopped or concluded And he conceived That if Tenant at Will make a Lease for years that it is no good lease betwixt him and the Lessor but that he may well plead that he had nothing in the land Meade contrary but they both agreed That the Book of 14. E. 4. which saith That if Tenant at Will make a lease for years that he shall be a Disseisor is not Law Anderson said That the prescription in the principal Case was not good for it is Quod quaelibet foemina viro cooperta poterit c. and it ought to be that feme Coverts possunt and by the Custome have used to devise to the
husband and therefore the prescription is not good that Potest ponere retes upon the land of another upon the Custome of the Sea for prescription must be in a thing done also by him the devise is not good according to the Custome for that is that she may devise and surrender and that ought to be all at one time and that in the presence of the Reeve and six other persons as well as the Surrenderer and the words of a Custome shall be so far performed as they may be Meade contrary And that these Witnesses shall be referred to the surrender onely for a devise may be without Witnesses And he said that sometimes the latter clause shall not refer to all the precedent matter but unto the latter onely as 7. H. 7. is Where a Praecipe was brought of lands in A. B. and C. in Insula de Ely the Clause in Insula de Ely is referred onely to C. And it was said That if in the principal Case the Will were good that then the husbands are Tenants in common and then the Action of Trespass is not maintainable Pasch 25. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 23. THis Case was moved by Serjant Gawdy Thomas Heigham had an hundred Acres of lands called Jacks usually occupied with a house and he leased the house and forty Acres parcel of the said hundred Acres to I. S. for life and reserved the other to himself and made his Will by which he doth devise the house and all his lands called Jacks now in the occupation of I. S. to his wife for life and that after her decease the remainder of that and all his other lands pertaining to Jacks to R. who was his second son Whether the wife shall have that of which her husband died seised for her life or whether the eldest son should have it and what estate he shall have in it Meade The wife shall not have it for because that he hath expressed his Will that the wife shall have part it shall not be taken by implication that she shall have the whole or the other part for then he would have devised the same to her And therefore it hath been adjudged in this Court betwixt Glover and Tracy That if Lands be devised to one and his heirs males and if he die without heirs of his body that then the land shall remain over that he had no greater estate then to him and his special heirs viz. heirs Males and the reason was because the Will took effect by the first words Anderson Chief Justice It was holden in the time of Brown That if lands were devised to one after the death of his wife that the wife should have for life but if a man seised of two Acres deviseth one unto his wife and that I. S. shall have the other after the death of the wife she takes nothing in that Acre for the Cause aforesaid For the second matter If the Reversion shall pass after the death of the wife to the second son we are to consider what shall be said land usually occupied with the other and that is the land leased with it But this land is not now leased with it and therefore it cannot pass Windham The second son shall have the Reversion for although it doth not pass by these words Usualy Occupied as Anderson held yet because the devise cannot take other effect and it appeareth that his intent was to pass the land the yonger son shall have it Anderson Jacks is the intire name of the house and lands And that word when it hath reference unto an intire thing called Jacks and is known by the name of Jacks shall pass to the second son for words are as we shall construe them And therefore If a man hath land called Mannor of Dale and he deviseth his Mannor of Dale to one the land shall pass although it be not a Mannor And if I be known by the name of Edward Williamson where my name is Edward Anderson and lands are given unto me by the name of Edward Williamson the same is a good name of purchase And the opinion of the Court was that the Reversion of the land should pass to the second son Pasc 25. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 24. The Lord MOUNTJOY and the Earle of HUNTINGTON'S Case NOte by Anderson Chief Justice and Periam Justice If a man seised of any entrie Franchises as to have goods of Felons within such a Hundred or Mannor or goods of Outlaws Waifes Strares c. which are causual There are not Inheritances deviseable by the Statute of 32. H. 8. for they are not of any yearly value and peradventure no profit shall be to the Lord for three or four years or perhaps for a longer time And such a thing which is deviseable ought to be of annual value as appeareth by the words of the Statute And also they agreed that the said Franchises could not be divided and therefore if they descend to two coparceners no partition can be made of them And the words of the Statute of 32. H. 8. are That it shall be lawful c. to divise two parts c. and then a thing which canot be divided is not diviseable And they said That if a man had three Manors and in each of the three such Liberties and every Manor is of equal value that yet he cannot devise one Mannor and the Liberties which he hath to it Causá quâ supra but by them an Advowson is deviseable because it may be of annual value But the Lord Chancellor smiling said That the Case of the three Manors may be doubted And there also it was agreed by the said two Justices upon Conference had with the other Justices That where the Lord Mountjoy by deed Indented and Inrolled did bargaine and sell the Manor of â—amford to Brown in Fee and in the Indenture this Clause is contained Provided alwayes And the said Brown Covenants and Grants to and with the Lord Mountjoy his Heirs and Assigns that the Lord Mountjoy his Heirs and Assigns may digg for Ore within the land in Camford which was a great Waste and also to digg Turffe there to make Allome and Coperess without any contradiction of the said Brown his Heirs and Assigns They agreed That the Lord Mountjoy could not devide the said Interest viz. to grant to one to digg within a parcel of the said Waste And they also agreed That notwithstanding that Grant That Brown his Heirs and Assigns owners of the Soile might digg there also like to the Case of Common Sans number The Case went further That the Lord Mountjoy had devised this Interest to one Laicott for one and twenty years and that Laicott assigned the same over to two other men And whether this Assignment were good or not was the Question forasmuch that if the Assignement might be good to them it might be to twenty and that might be a surcharge to the Tenant of the soile And as to that
taile and waives the Lands taken in Exchange and before any other entry the heir of B. enters upon the Land which was given in Exchange and the opinion of the whole Court was That it was no breach of the Condition because that was not the Land of the Devifor at the time of the devise therefore it was out of the Condition Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 116. PLYMPTON'S Case AN Action of Debt was brought by one Plympton and his wife Executors of one Dorrington upon a Bond with Condition to perform Covenants of an Indenture of Lease whereof one Covenant was That he should pay forty shillings yearly at the Feast of the Annunciation or within fourteen days after And the breach assigned was for not payment at such a Feast in such a year The Defendant said That hee paid it at the Feast upon which they were at issue And upon evidence given to the Jury it appeared That the same was not paid at the Feast but in eight dayes after it was paid And the opinion of the Court was That by his pleading that hee had paid it at such a day certain and tendring that for a speciall issue That hee had made the day part of the issue and then the Defendant ought to have proved the payment upon the very day But if the Defendant had pleaded That hee paid it within the fourteen dayes viz. the eighth day c. that had not made the day parcell of the issue but then hee might have given evidence that he paid it at another day within the fourteene dayes Then for the Defendant it was moved That the Plaintiffe had not well assigned the breach in saying that he had not paid it at the Feast without saying Nor within the fourteen dayes But the Court said That the Jury was sworn at the Barre and bid the Councell proceed and give in their evidence for the time to take exception was past Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 117. IT was the opinion of Anderson Chiefe Justice and so entred by the Court That if a Copie-holder doth surrender to him who hath a Lease for years of the Mannor to the use of the same Lessee That the Copie-hold estate is extinct For the estate in the Copie-hold is not of right but an estate at will although that custome and prescription had fortified it And Wray said That it had been resolved by good opinion That if a Copie-holder accept a Lease for years of the Mannor that the Copie-hold estate is extinct for ever Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 118. Anderson Chiefe Justice and Periam Justice being absent in a Commission upon the Queen of Scots Shuttleworth moved this case to the Court. If the Queen give Lands in taile to hold in Capite And afterwards granteth the Reversion how the Donee shall hold Windham Justice and Fenner Serjant The tenure in this case is not incident to the Reversion and the Donee shall hold of the Queen as in grosse and so two Tenures in Capite for one and the same Land And thereupon Windham Justice cited 30. H. 8. Dyer 45 46. That the Queen by no way can sever the tenure in chiefe from the Crown And therefore if the Queen do release to her Tenant in Capite to hold by a penny and not in Capite it is a void Release for the same is meerly incident to the Person and Crown of the Queen But Rodes Justice held the contrary viz. That the Tenure in Capite doth not remain But it was said by Windham That if the Queen had reserved a Rent upon the gift in tail the Grantee of the Reversion should have it Also he said That the Queen might have made the Tenure in such manner viz. to hold of the Mannor or of the Honor of D. Shuttleworth If Lands holden of the Mannor of D. come to the King may he give them to be holden of the Mannor of S that should be hard Windham I did not say That Lands holden of one Mannor may be given to be holden of another Mannor perhaps that may not bee but Lands which is parcell of any Mannor may be given Vt supra Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 119 SErjeant Fenner moved Case If Lands be given to the Husband and Wife and to the heirs of their two bodies and the Husband dieth leaving Issue by his Wife and the Wife makes a Lease of the lands according to the Statute of 32. H. 8. If the Lease be good by the Statute Windham and Rodes Justices conceived that it is a good Lease Fenner The Statute saith that such Lease shall be good against the Lessor and his Heirs and the Issue doth not claim as Heir to the Wife onely but it ought to be Heir to them both and he cited the case That the Statute of R. 3. makes Feoffments good against no heirs but those which claim onely as Heirs to the same Feoffors c. So here Rodes Justice There the word only is a word efficacy And Windham agreed cleerly That the Lease should binde the issue by the said Statute of 32. H. 8. Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 120 WAlmesley Serjeant moved this Case If a man deviseth Lands in taile with divers Remainders over upon condition that if any of them alien or c. that then he who is next heir to him to whom the land ought to come after his decease if the said alienation had not been made might enter and enjoy the land as if he had been dead But Ady of the Temple said That the words of the Devise are viz. That if any of them alien or c. that then his estate to cease and hee in the next Remainder to enter and retain the land untill the aliener were dead Rodes Justice The Devise is good and an estate may cease in such manner so as it shall not be determined for ever but that his Heir after him shall have it And he put the case of Scholastica Plow Com. 408. where Weston fo 4. 14. was in some doubt that if the Tenant in talle had had Issue if the Issue should be excluded from the land or whether hee should have the land by the intent of the Devisor And therefore if it were necessary to shew that the Tenant in taile had not Tssue But Dyer said that the words of the Will were that such person and his Heirs who alien or c. should be excluded presently so as the estate by expresse words is to be determined for ever But it is otherwise in this Case Windham doubted of the Devise Fenner cited the Case 22. E. 3. 19. Where a Rent was granted and that it should ceâ—se during the Nonage of the Heir of the Grantee and it was good Windham When a thing is newly created he who creates it may limit it in such manner as he pleaseth Fenner 30. E. 3. 7. Det. 10. A Feoffment was made rendring Rent upon
Chief Justice did conceive it might be a good custome and so also was the opinion of Rodes Justice and he vouched 11 H. 7. where the Lord had Three Pound for Pound-breach Fenner It is extortion if the amercement be not for a thing which is a common Nusans and cited 11 H. 4. to prove it Periam Justice said That hee said well Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rot. 1962. 159 GILE'S and NEWTON'S Case THE Case was That the Queen seised of the Manor of Gascoigne and of the Graunge called Gascoigne Graunge in D. did grant all her Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in D. and it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Manor did not pass And so Anderson Chief Justice said it is if it were in the Case of a common person but an Advowson shall passe by the Feoffment of the Manor without Deed without the words cum pertinentiis for that is parcell of the Manor which the whole Court granted Pasch 23. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 160 J. S. was arrested by force of a Latitat out of the King's Bench at the Suit of J. D. and the Sheriffe took an Obligation of him with two Sureties upon condition that he appear such a day in the King's Bench and also that ad tunc ibidem he answer the said J. D. in a Plea of Trespass It was moved by Rodes Serjeant That the Obligation was void by the Statute of 23. H. 6. by which Statute no Obligation shall be said to be good if not for appearance only and this Obligation is for appearance and also that he shall answer to J. D. which is another thing then is contained in the Statute and therefore it is void But all the Justices were of opinion That the Obligation was good notwithstanding that because that the words of the Writ directed to the Sheriffe are Quod capias such a man It a quod habeas corpus ejus hîc such a day ad respondendum tali in a Plea of Trespasse and so nothing is contained in the Bond which is not comprised within the Writ directed unto him but if any other collaterall thing be put into the Obligation then the Bond shall be void for the whole 31. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 161 BUCKHURST'S Case LEssee for ten years granted a rent charge unto his Lessor for the years Afterwards the Lessor granted the Remainder in Fee to the Lessee It was the opinion of the whole Court that the rent was gone and extinct because the Lessor who had the rent is a party to the Destruction of the Lease which is the ground of the Rent 29. Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 162 ALLEN and PATSHALL'S Case A Copy-holder doth surrender unto the use of a Stranger for ever and the Lord admits the Surrendree to have and to hold to him and his Heirs It was adjudged in this Case That if it were upon a devise that such a one should have the Copyhold in Fee and afterwards a surrender is made unto the Lord to grant the Copy-hold according to the Will and he grants it in Fee to him and his Heirs that the Grant is good But quaere in the first Case for it was there but a bare Surrender only Mich. 27 28. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 163 STRANGDEN and BARNELL'S Case AN Action of Trover and Conversion was brought of Goods in Ipswich the Defendant pleaded That the Goods came to his hand in Dunwich in the same County and that the Plaintiffe gave unto him the goods which came to his hands in Dunwich absque hoc that he is guilty of any Trover and Conversion of Goods in Ipswich And by the opinion of the Court the same is a good manner of Pleading by reason of the speciall Justification Vide 27. H. 6. But when the Justification is generall the County is not traversable at this day Vide 19. H. 6. 6 7. Mich. 27. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 164 BARTON and EDMOND'S Case AN Infant and another were bounden in a Bond for the Debt of the Infant The Infant at his full age did assume to save the other man harmelesse against the said Bond afterwards the Infant died It was resolved by the whole Court that upon this Assumpsit an Action upon the Case would lie against the Executors of the Infant But if a Feme Covert and another at her request had been bounden in such a Bond and after the death of her Husband she had assumed to have saved the other harmelesse against such Bond such Assumpsit should not have bound the Wife Trinit 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 165 ZOUCH and BAMPORT'S Case THis Case was moved When the Defendant pleads in Bar to the Action and the Plaintiffe replies and the Defendant doth demur specially upon the Replication and the Bar is insufficient Whether the Justices shall give Judgment upon the Replication or shall resort unto the insufficient Bar the Replication being also insufficient And the opinion of the Court was That when the Action is of such a nature that the Writ and the Count doth comprehend the Title as in a Formedon and the like then because there is a sufficient title for the demandant by the Writ and the Count so as the Judges may safely proceed to Judgement for the Plaintiffe there they shall resort to the Barr. Contrary in Cases where the Title doth commence only by the Replication as in Assize Trespass and the like 40. Eliz. in the Exchequer 166 NOte it was said by Sir Francis Bacon the King's Solicitor That it was adjudged 40. Eliz. in the Exchequer That where the King had made a Lease for life who was ousted by a Stranger that the same should be said a Disseisin of the particular estate against the common ground which is That a man cannot be disseised of lesse estate then of a Fee-Simple 40. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 167 IT was holden and adjudged by Popham Chief Justice of the Kings Bench That where a Lease was made unto the Husband and Wife for their lives the remainder to the Heirs of the Survivor that the same was a good remainder notwithstanding the uncertainty and that in that Case the Husband after the death of the Wife should have Judgement to recover the Land 33. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 168 PROCTER'S Case IT was adjudged in this Case That the Lachess of the Clark in not entring of the Kings Silver shall not prejudice the King or the Crowne 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 169 HARDING'S Case IT was holden by the whole Court of Kings Bench as it was reported by Sir Robert Hitcham Knight That if a man make a Lease of Copy-hold land and of Free-hold land rendring Rent and the Copy-hold descends to one and the Free-hold to another that the rent shall be apportioned Trinit 25. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. Rot. 1702. 170 LEONARD and STEPHEN'S Case IN Trespass the issue joyned was Whether it were a Feoffment or not and
that a Man was seised of the Manor of D. and of a house called W. in D. and also of a Lease for years in D. and he did bargain and sell unto another his Manor of D. and all other his Lands and Tenements in Dale and in the indenture did covenant that he was seised of the premisses in Fee which was left out of the Verdict and if the Lease for years should pass by the general words was the question Quaere of the case because Trinit 10. Jacobi the Court was divided in opinion in this Case Mich. 9. Iacobi In the King 's Bench. 262 HUGHES and KEENE's Case THe Plaintiff declared that whereas he was possessed of a Messuage for years which had ancient lights and the Defendant possessed of another House adjoyning and a Yard that the Defendant upon the said Yard had built a House and stopped his lights The Defendant pleaded that the custom of London was that every man might build upon his old Foundation and if there be not any agreement might stop up the Windows of his Neighbour upon which the Plaintiff did demurre in Law and it was adjudged for the Plaintiff because that the Defendant did not answer the Plaintiffs charge that he had built upon the new and not upon the old Foundation And it was holden by the whole Court in this Case that a man may build upon an old Foundation by such a custom and stop up the lights of his Neighbour which are adjoyning unto him and if he make new Windows higher the other may build up his house higher to destroy those new Windows But a man cannot build a House upon a place where there was none before as in a Yard and so stop his Neighbours lights And so it was adjudged in the time of Queen Elizabeth in Althans Case upon such a custom in the City of York And it was said by Cook Chief Justice That one prescription may be pleaded against another where the one may stand with the other as it was adjudged in Wright and Wrights Case That a Copy-holder of a Bishop did prescribe that all Copy-holders within the Manor have been discharged of Tithes But not where one prescription is contrary to the other whereas one prescribes to have lights and the other prescribes to stop the same lights Quaere Hill 9. Iacobi in the King 's Bench. 263 SAMFORD and HAVEL's Case IN an Action of Trespass for 30. Hares and 300. Coneys hunted in his Warren taken and carried away which Trespass was layd with a continuando from such a time till such a time the Defendant justified because he had common in the place where c. to a Messuage six Yard Lands for 240. Sheep and that he and all those whose estate he hath time out of mind have used at such time as the Common was surcharged with Coneys to hunt them kill and carry them as to his Messuage appertaining upon which the Plaintiff did demurre in Law because a man cannot make such a prescription in the Free-Warren and Free-hold of another Man And secondly because a man cannot so prescribe to hunt kill and carry away his Coneys as pertaining to his Messuage But a Man may prescribe to have so many Coneys to spend in his House and for these causes in the principal case the prescription was holden for a void prescription and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff Hill 9. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 264 COX and GRAY's Case IT was adjudged upon a Writ of Error brought upon a Judgment given in the Marshalsey in an Action of trover and conversion of goods That if none of the parties be of the Kings houshold and judgment be given there that the same is Error and for that cause the Judgment was reversed Hill 9. Iacobi in the Common Pleas. 265 MORRIS's Case IN an Action upon the case for putting of cattel upon the common it was adjudged that if the cattel of a Stranger escape into the common the Commoner may distrain them damage feasance as wel as where the cattel are put into the common by the stranger Pasch 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 266 The Lord MOUNTEAGLE and PENRUDDOCK's Case IT was holden by the whole Court in this case and agreed by all the Serjeants at the Barre That if two men submit themselves to the arbitrament of I. S. And the Arbitrator doth award that one of them shall pay ten pound and that the other shall make a release unto him that the same is a void Award if the submission be not by Deed and hee to whom the Release is to be made by the Award may have remedy for it for otherwise the one should have the ten pound and the other without remedy for the Release And it was resolved That upon submission and arbitrament that the party may have an Action upon the Case for not making of the Release And Cook chief Justice said That it was wisely done by Manwood chiefe Baron when he made such award That a Lease or such like Collaterall thing should be done To make his Award that he should make the Release or pay such a sum of money for which the party might have a remedy I conceive that the reason is That no Action upon the case upon an Arbitrament lieth because it is in the Nature of a Judgement At another day the opinion of the Court was with Cook and 20. H. 6. and 8. E. 4 5. cited to the purpose that there ought to be reciprocall remedy It was also said in this Case That by the Statute of 5. H. 5. A man cannot be Nonsuit after verdict Pasch 10. Jacobi In the Common Pleas. 267 COOK and FISHER's Case IN a Replevin the Defendant did avow for rent granted to him by a private Act of Parliament The Plaintiffe did demand Oyer of the Act and the opinion of the Court was that he ought to have Oyer for they held that the Oyer of no Record shall be denied to any person in case he will demurre And the Record of the Act shall be entred in haec verba Pasch 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 268 The Bakers Case of Gray's-Inne against Occould AN Action of Debt was brought in London against Occould late Steward of Gray's-Inne upon a generall indebitatas assumpsit without shewing the particulars which plea was removed into the Common Pleas. And it was holden by the Court That the Action as it was brought would not lie for the inconvenience which might follow For the Defendant should be driven to be ready to give an answer to the Plaintiffe to the generality And therefore the Plaintiffe ought to bring a speciall Action for the particular things The like Case was in the Marshalsey and because they did not declare in a speciall manner Exception was taken to it and adjudged the Action upon a generall Indebitatas assumpsit did not lie Quaere Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 269 READ and HAWE's Case IN a Replevin Trinit
of the Justices was That the Fee was executed for a moitie Manwood If the Land be to one for life the Remainder for yeers the Remainder to the first Tenant for life in Fee there the Fee is executed so as if he lose by default he shall have a Writ of Right and not Quod ei deforceat for the term shall be no impediment that the Fee shall not be executed As a man may make a lease to begin after his death it is good and the Lessor hath Fee in possession and his wife shall be endowed after the Lease And I conceive in the principall case That the term shall not be extinct for that it is not a term but interesse termini which cannot be granted nor surrendred Mounson If he had had the term in his own right then by the purchase of the Fee the Term should be extinct But here he hath it in the right of another as Administrator Dyer If an Executor hath a term and purchaseth the Fee the term is determined So if a woman hath a term and takes an husband who purchaseth the Fee the term is extinct Manwood The Law may be so in such case because the Husband hath done an act which destroyes the term viz. the purchase But if the woman had entermarried with him in the Reversion there the term should not be extinguished for the Husband hath not done any act to destroy the term But the marriage is the act of Law Dyer That difference hath some colour But I conceive in the first case That they are Tenants in common of the Fee Manwood The Case is a good point in law But I conceive the opinion of Manwood was That if a Lease for yeares were to begin after the death surrender forfeiture or determination of the first lease for yeares that it shall not begin in that part for then perhaps the term in that part shall be ended before the other should begin Pasc 20. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 3. A Man seised of Copyhold land descendable to the youngest Son by Custome and of other Lands descendable to the eldest Son by the common Law leaseth both for yeers The Lessee covenanteth That if the Lessor his wife and his heirs will have back the land That then upon a yeers warning given by the Lessor his wife or his heirs that the Lease shall be void The Lessor dieth the Reversion of the customary Land descends to the younger son and the other to the eldest who granteth it to the younger and he gives a yeers warning according to the Covenant Fenner The interest of the term is not determined because a speciall heir as the youngest son is is not comprehended under the word Heir but the heir at common Law is the person who is to give the warning to avoid the estate by the meaning of the Covenant But Manwood and Mounson Justices were cleer of opinion That the interest of the term for a moity is avoyded for the Condition although it be an entire thing by the Descent which is the act of Law is divided and apportioned and the warning of any of them shall defeat the estate for a moity because to him the moity of the Condition doth belong But for the other moity he shall not take advantage by the warning because that the warning is by the words of the Condition appointed to be done by the Lessor his wife or his heirs And in that clause of the Deed the Assignee is not contained And they agreed That if a Feoffment of lands in Borough-English be made upon condition That the heir at common Law shall take advantage of it And Manwood said that hee would put another question Whether the younger son should enter upon him or not But all Actions in right of the Land the younger son should have as a Writ of Error to reverse a Judgment Attaint and the like quod nota Pasc 22. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 4 IT was holden by Meade and Windham Justices of the Common Pleas That a Parsonage may be a Mannor As if before the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum the Parson with the Patron and Ordinary grant parcel of the Glebe to divers persons to hold of the Parson by divers Services the same makes the Parsonage a Manor Also they held That a Rent-Charge by prescription might be parcel of a Manor and shall passe without the words cum pertinentiis As if two Coparceners be of a Manor and other Lands and they make partition by which the eldest sister hath the Manor and the other hath the other Lands and she who hath the Lands grants a Rent-charge to her sister who hath the Manor for equality of partition Anderson and Fenner Srjeants were against it Hill 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5. THis Case was moved by Serjeant Periam That if a Parson hath Common appendant to his Parsonage out of the lands of an Abby and afterwards the Abbot hath the Parsonage appropriated to him and his Successors Whether the Common be extinct Dyer That it is Because he hath as high an estate in the Common as he hath in the Land As in the case of 2 H. 4. 19. where it is holden That if a Prior hath an Annuity out of a Parsonage and afterwards purchaseth the Advowson and then obtains an Appropriation thereof that the Annuity is extinct But Windham and Meade Justices conceived That the Abbot hath not as perdurable estate in the one as in the other for the Parsonage may be disappropriated and then the Parson shall have the Common again As if a man hath a Seignorie in fee and afterwards Lands descend to him on the part of the Mother in that case the Seignory is not extinguished but suspended For if the Lord to whom the Land descends dies without issue the Seignorie shall go to the heir on the part of the Father and the Tenancy to the heir on the part of the Mother And yet the Father had as high an estate in the Tenancy as in the Seignory And in 21 E. 3. 2. Where an Assize of Nusance was brought for straightning of a way which the plaintif ought to have to his Mill The defendant did alledg unity of possession of the Land and of the Mill in W. and demanded Judgment if c. The plaintif said that after that W. had two daughters and died seised and the Mill was allotted to one of them in partition and the Land to the other and the way was reserved to her who had the Mill And the Assize was awarded And so by the partition the way was revived and appendant as it was before and yet W. the Father had as high an estate in the Land as he had in the Way Hill 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 6. A Man makes a Feoffment in Fee of a Manor to the use of himself and his Wife and his heirs In which Manor there are Underwoods usually to be cut every one and twenty yeers and
of the Term with the Remainder over And the Devisee of the Occupation of a Term hath one speciall Property and the Remainder another Property As if a Lease be extended upon a Statute the Conusee during the Extent hath one Property and he who is to have it afterwards another Property and the reason of the difference is apparent when the Occupation is devised and when the terme is devised for in the first Case he puts but only a confidence in the Devisee as it appears in Welkdens Case But in the other Case all the Property goes and there is no confidence reposed in the Devisee And there is a Case in the very Point with which I was of Councell and was decreed in the Court of Chancery it was one Edolf's Case Where the Devise was of a terme the Remainder to another and he made the Devisee his Executor and he entred Virtute donationis as in this Case and it was decreed That the Executor might alien the Terme and that the Remainder could not be good And to this purpose Vid. 33. H. 8. 2 E. 6. 37 H. 6. 30. But if there might be a Remainder yet Incertae Personae nulla donation for if all the Children be preferred then the Remainder is void and then the Property of the Lease is in the Wife and she might preferre her at any time during her life and the generall property cannot be in another but in the Executor for the Legatee cannot enter although that 27 H. 6. seemeth to be contrary And if the whole Property be in the Wife her Husband might alien it and therefore it may be extended for his Debt as 7. H. 6. 1. is But it may bee objected That the Cases before put are of a devise of a Term and this is of a Lease That makes no difference for in Wroâ—â—slâ—y's Case Lease there is said to contain not only a terme but also the years to come in the terme Then the Question is If by the sale of the Sheriff upon the Fieri facias if the term be so gone that the Wife shall not have it by the Reversall of the Judgment by Error for the Judgement is that the Party shall be restored to all that which he hath lost It is very cleer that it shall never return for if it should be so then no sale made by the Sheriffe might be good unlesse the Judgement be without Error which would be a very great damage to the Common Wealth And also by reason and by the Judgment in the Writ of Error it should not be so restored for the Judgment is That he shall be restored to all that which he hath lost ratione judicii and here the Defendant hath not lost any thing by force of the Judgment but by force of the Execution For the Judgment was to have Execution of 200 li and of the 200 li. he shall be restored again and not of the Lease And therefore in 7. H. 7. If a Manor be recovered and the Villains of the Manor purchase Lands and afterwards the Judgment is reversed by Error the Recover or shall have the Perquisite and the other shall not be restored to it And 7. H 7. A Statute was delivered in Owell maine and a recovery was by the Conusee upon Garnishment of the Conusor and the Conusee had Execution and afterwards the Judgement is reversed by Error yet the Conusor shall not be restored to the Land taken in Execution but only the Statute shall be redelivered back where it was before And in this Case if the party should be restored to the term it should be great inconvenience Also if I give one an Authority upon Condition and the Party doth execute the Authority and after the Condition is broken the Act is lawfull by him who had Authority upon Condition And so was the Lord of Arundels Case where the Feoffee upon Condition of a Manor granted Coppies it was holden That the Grants made by him were good notwithstanding the Condition was afterwards broken And in 13 E. 3. Barr 253. That a Recovery was Erroneous and the Party being in Execution the Gaoler suffered him to escape and after the Recovery was reversed for Error yet the Action lay against the Gaoler Also by him the Jury have given an imperfect Verdict so as we cannot tell whether the Party were preferred or not for the Will was unpreferred generally and the Jury find that she viz. A. the daughter was not preferred by her father in his life time so as the Preferment by the taile is limited generally so as if any other prefer her she shall not have the Remainder And the Jury have found that she was not preferred by one certain viz. by her Father nor in a certain time in his life time which is as much as to say That she was preferred by the Uncle Aunt or Mother and if it were so then the Remainder is not good to her Also they find no preferment in the life of the father and it may be that the Father hath given her preferment by Will and that was no preferment in his life but is consummate only by his death and so she might be preferred by him by Implication by his Will So as upon the whole Matter I conceive That the Judgement ought to be reversed Note that this Case was afterwards adjudged at Hertford Terme and the Judgement was That the Issue of the Wife had Judgement for her Terme and that the Judgement upon which the Execution was was Erroneous and reversed by the Writ of Error and that the opinion of the Justices was That the Term was not to be restored but so much for which it was sold upon the Execution And the Daughter of Perepoynt brought an Action for it and had Judgement 27 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 37. ONE had certain Minerall Lands Leased to him for years with liberty to dig and make his Profit of the Mine The Lessee afterwards digged for Mine and sold the Gravell which came of it And by the Opinion of the whole Court This sale was no Waste for no Sale is Waste if the first act be not Waste As the Sale of Trees by Tenant for life or Years is not waste if the Cutting and Felling down of them was not Waste before for the Vendition is but a secondary Act and but subsequent to the Act precedent which Act if it were lawfull the Sale also is lawfull for the Sale alone is not waste But they said That if the Lessee fell or cut Timber Trees and sell them it is waste Non quia vendebat sed quia scindebat For if he suffer them to be upon the ground without doing any thing with them yet it is waste but he may use them for the Reparation of his house and then it is no waste And yet when he fels them with an intent for Reparations and afterwards sells them it is waste Non propter Venditionem only but for the felling
which implyes an Affirmative which yet seems to be repugnant to a Negative as in 21. H. 6. 19. In a Writ of Entrie the Defendant pleaded the deed of the Demandant after the darrein Continuance The Demandant said It was not his deed after the darrein Continuance And that was holden a Negative pregnans wherefore he was compelled to plead and say he made it by dures before the darrein Continuance such a day absque hoc that he made it after the darrein continuance and then Issue was taken upon it The same Case is in 5. H 7. 7. But there it is said That in Debt upon a Bond to perform an Arbitrement Non fecerunt Arbitrementum per diem is no Negative pregnans The same Law that non deliberavit arbitrium in Script 38. H 6. in Formedon Ne dona pas in taile is a Negative pregnans Vide 39 H. 6. The Case of the Dean and Chapter The second Exception was That he hath pleaded neque such nor such nor such had disturbed him by any indirect means but onely by due course of Law And that cannot be tryed neither by Jury nor by the Judges Not by the Jury because it is not to be put to them whether they had disturbed him by indirect means or by due course of Law for they shall not take upon them the construction What is an indirect means and what is the due course of Law for it appertaineth to the Justices to adjudg that Not by the Judges because hee hath not put it certain that it was a due course of Law by which he disturbed him As 22. E. 4. 40. In Debt upon a Bond the Defendant saith that it is upon condition That if the Defendant or any for him came to Bristow such a day and there shewed to the Plaintiff or his Councell a sufficient Discharge of an Annuity of forty shillings per annum which the Plaintiff claims out of two Messuages of the Defendant in D that then c. The Defendant said that A. and B. by the assignement of the Defendant came the same day to Bristow and tendered to shew to N and W. of the Plaintiffs Councell a sufficient Discharge of the Annuity and that they did refuse to see it and demanded judgment of the Action The Plaintiff did demur upon the Plea And after a long argument it was adjudged by all the Justices to be no Plea c. because it lay in the judgment of the Court to judg of it and he did not shew in certain what discharge he tendered as a Release Unitie of possession c. If a man be bound to plead a sufficient plea before such a day in Debt upon such a Bond it is no plea to say That he hath pleaded a sufficient plea before the day but hee ought to shew what plea he hath pleaded For the Court cannot tell whether it be a sufficient plea or not if it do not appear what manner of plea it is 35 H. 6. 19. The Condition of a Bond was That where the Plaintiff was indebted to J. S. in one hundred pounds If the Defendant acquit and discharge the Plaintiffe that then c. The Defendant pleaded That hee had discharged him c. and the Plaintiffe did demurre upon the plea because hee did not shew how and it was holden no good plea. So 38. H. 8. Br. Condition 16. per curiam in the Kings Bench where a man pleaded That he had saved him harmlesse it was no Plea without shewing how because he pleaded in the Affirmative contrary if he had pleaded in the Negative as Non damnificatus est Suit and Clenche Justices said That if he had pleaded That he was not disturbed by any indirect means it had been good enough Gaudy If he had said That he was not disturbed contra formam conditionis praedict ' it had been good as upon a pleading of a Statute Ne entra pas contra formam Statuti Clench If I be bound to suffer I. S. to have my house but not I. D. I ought to answer That I have suffered the one and not the other to have it Suit Justice They are both severall issues and one shall not be repugnant to the other Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 75 STURGIE'S Case A Case was moved upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. Cap. 14. The Case as I conceive was thus Grandfather Father and Daughter Land descended from the Grandfather to the Father who made a Lease for one hundred years the Father died and the Daughter forged a Will of the Grandfather by which he gave the Land to the Father for life the Remainder to the Daughter in Fee and the same was forged to have avoided an Execution of a Statute Staple the Lease being defeated and if it were within the Statute of 5. Eliz. was the question Solicitor That it was within the statute and within the first Branch viz. If any shall forge any deed c. to the intent that the Estate of Free-hold or Inheritance of any person c. in or to any Lands Tenements or Hereditaments Freehold or Copyhold or the right Title or Interest of any c. of in or to the same or any of them shall or may be molested c. Lessee for years hath a Title hath an Interest hath a right therefore within the words of the Statute and those words shall be referred to the words Lands Tenements c. But Cook said They shall be referred to the words precedent viz. Estate of Freehold or Inheritance and then a Lease for years is not within them Also by the Solicitor A Testament in writing is within the words of the Statute and therefore he recited a clause in the end of the Statute viz. and if any person plead publish or shew forth c. to the intent to have or claime thereby any Estate of Inheritance Freehold or Lease for years And also he said a Statute Staple is an estate for years although it be not a Lease for years because it is not certain Cook If she should be within both branches then she should be twice punished which Law will not suffer And the Statute is whereby any Estate for years shall be claimed and she would not claim but defeat an Estate for years and a Statute Staple is not a Lease for years and the Statute is not to be taken by Equity because it is a Penall Law Solicitor When the Statute is extended then it is an Estate for years although it be uncertain If a man forge a Lease for years it is directly within the Statute But if a man have a Lease and another is forged to defeat it it is a question whether it be within the Statute And all the doubt of this Case is upon the reference of these words Right Title Interest And it was adjourned Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 76 THE Vicar of Pancras Case was argued again by Godfrey And he said That no Plea shall be
Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 146 LONDON doth prescribe to have a Custom That after Verdict given in any of the Sheriffs Courts or such like Court there that the Maior may remove any such Suit before himself and as Chancellor secundùm bonam sanam conscientiam moderate it and it was moved whether it were a reasonable custom or not because that after tryal by ordinary course at Law he should thereby stay judgment Gaudy Justice It ought to be before judgment otherwise it cannot be for the Statute of 4. H. 4. is that judgment given in any Court shall not be reversed but by Error or Attaint Vide Rastal Tit. Judgment Mich. 28. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. Rot. 2619. 147 GREENE and HARRIS Case IN an Ejectione firme upon a special Verdict it was found that one John Brenne was seised of a Manor where there were Copyholders for life and by Indenture leased a copyhold called Harris Tenure parcel of the Land in question to Peter and John Blackborow for eight years to begin after the death of Brenne his Wife and by the same Indenture leased all the Manor to them as before The Copyholder did surrender and Brenne granted a copy to hold according to the custom of the Manor Brenne and his Wife died So as the lease of Blackborow was to begin Peter entred and granted all his Interest unto a stranger and died John entred into the whole as Survivor and made a lease thereof to the Plaintiff and the Copyholder entred and he brought the action Shuttleworth for the plaintiff The question is whether the plaintiff shall have Harris Tenure as in gross or as parcel of the Manor and he conceived that because it is named by it self that it shall pass as in gross for so their intent appeareth to be In 33. H. 8. Dyer 48. A Feoffment was made of a Manor to which a Villein was Regardant by these words viz. Dedi unam acram c. And further Dedi concessi Villanum meum and there it was holden that the Villein should pass as in gross and that they were several gifts although there was but one Deed. The same Law shall be of an Advowson appendant 14. and 15. El. Dyers Husband and Wife were joint-tenants in Fee of a Manor out of which the Queen had a Rent of twenty pound per annum and she by her Letters patents in Consideration of Money paid by the Husband did give grant release and remise unto the Husband and his heirs the said twenty pound Rent habendum percipiendum to him and his heirs The Husband did devise the Rent unto another and his heirs and dyed There it is debated whether the Wife should pay the Rent or not and it was holden that she should pay it for the deed having words of grant and release it shall be referred to the Election of the Husband and for his best avail how he will take it and there is no necessity that the Rent be extinguished in his possession for it is a maxime in Law that every grant shall be taken beneficially for the grantee so is it if it contain words of two intents he may take that which makes best for him 21. and 22. H. 6. A deed comprehending Dedi concessi was pleaded as a Feoffment In 5. E. 3. A Rent issuing out of Lands in Fee was granted to Tenant by the courtesie to have and to hold to him and his heirs It shall not be taken as extinct but the Rent shall go to his heires although he himself could not have it Then in our Case because it is more beneficial for the Termor he shall have it in gross And so he shall avoid the Estate of the Copyholder afterwards and here is an Election made by Peter so to have it by the grant of his Interest over Our Case is not like unto the Case of 48. E. 3. 14. Where a Cessavit was brought supposing that the House was holden of the Plaintiff by five Shillings and the Defendant pleaded that the Ancestor of the Plaintiff by his deed which he shewed forth gave the house to him and a shop which are holden by one intire service and demanded judgment c. And there it was holden that that deed did not prove but that the shop might be parcel of the house and not a shop in gross by it self And there Finchdon saith That if a man grant the Manor of F. to which an Advowson is appendant and the Advowson of the Church of F. so as it is named in gross yet it shall pass as appendant I yeild to that for there it is not more beneficial for him the one way or the other as it is in our Case It may be perhaps objected That the Plaintiff here shall not recover at all for the cause alleadged in Plo. Comm. 424. in Bracebridges Case because that the action is brought for a certain number of Acres as one hundred Acres and it is found that the Plaintiff hath right but to a moyty of them But it hath been ruled against that viz. that he shall recover Walmesley Sergeant contrary Notwithstanding that this Copy-hold be twice named yet it shall pass as parcel of the Manor and not as a thing in gross and there is but one Rent one Tenure and one reversion of both 45. E. 3. A Fine was levyed of a Manor unto which an Advowson was appendant wherein a third part was rendred back to one for life with divers Remainders over And so of the other two parts with the advowson of every third part as abovesaid and there it is debated who shall have the first avoidance And it is holden notwithstanding the Division as aforesaid and the naming of one before the other that they are all Tenants in common of it So as if they cannot agree to present that Lapse shall incurre to the Bishop and there no Prerogative is given to him who is first named nor any prejudice to the last named for being by one Deed it shall passe uno flatu 14. H. 8. 10. A Lease was made for a year Et sic de anno in annum c. And there it was debated whether it were a severall Lease for every year and it was ruled That an Action might be brought supposing that he held for one and twenty years if in truth by force of the same Demise the Lessee occupy the Land so long And if I by my Deed grant unto A. and B. the services of I. D. and by the same Deed the services of I. S. are also granted unto them they are Joyn-tenants of the Services or Seignories So if I lease a Manor reciting every parcell of the Land of the Manor for the whole consists in severall parcels In 33. H. 8. before remembred It is said That the Advowson shall be appendant if the whole Manor be granted c. But if it be admitted that there be severall Leases and that it passeth as a thing in grosse
yet in the interim during the life of Brenne and his wife it is one entire Manor For if Blackborow had levied a Fine thereof before entry his Interest in the Land had not passed And if a Fine be levied of the Manor and the Conusee render back part to one for life and another part to another for life the remainder of the whole to a third until the Two enter it is one entire Manor in the hands of the Conusee If I devise that my Executors shall sell such Lands which are parcell of a Manor and dye untill they sell it remains parcell of the Manor So if the heir selleth the Manor that Land shall passe for it is but executory and remains parcell untill it be executed Wherefore in the principall Case here the Copy-hold is good The reason of the Case 33. H. 8. Dyer 48. is because before the grant the advowson was not appendant to that acre onely but to the whole Manor and to that acre as parcell of it Also he said that the Copy-hold shall be good against the Lessee being granted before execution of his term when as the Manor was entire For he who hath a Manor but for one year may grant Copies and the grant shall be good to bind him in the Reversion And if one recovereth an acre parcell of a Manor before execution it is parcell of the Manor and by grant of the Manor shall passe Periam Justice But yet now being executed by the death of the Lessor and his wife it is no part of the Manor if they be severall Leases Walmesley But the Defendant is in by Custome by one who is Dominus pro tempore Anderson Chief Justice The Case of 48. E. 3. is like our Case And I conceive clearly here is no severance but if there had been any severance it had been otherwise but I doubt of the other point Periam Justice In 13. H. 4. the difference is taken betwixt a grant of a Manor una cum advocatione and a grant of a Manor et ulterius a grant of the Advowson In 14. Eliz. Dyer 311. in the Case of the Lord Cromwell and Andrews it is moved If a man bargain and sell give and grant a Manor and Advowson to one and afterwards levieth a Fine or inrolleth the Deed Dyer held that the Advowson shall passe by the Bargain and Sale as in gross before that the Deed be enrolled But I conceive that it cannot pass if the Deed be not enrolled and then it shall pass as appendant by reason of the intent of the parties and so in this Case And for the last matter I conceive very strongly that when the Lease which is executory takes effect that it shall avoid the Copy-hold for although at once viz. during the expectancy of the said Lease to begin at a day to come the Copy-hold be not extinct yet now he may say That all times as in respect to him the Copy-hold Custome was broken I hold That a Tenant in Dower shall not avoid a Copy-hold made during the Coverture and so it hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench. But I conceive there is a difference betwixt that Case and the Case in question for in that Case the title of the wife to have Dower is not consummate till the death of the Husband Anderson Chief Justice I can shew you an Authority That if I grant unto you such Land and the Manor of D. there the Land shall pass as parcell of the Manor Periam True there for it doth enforce the first grant But here the intent of the parties doth appear and the same is to be respected Anderson But their intent ought to be according to the Law as in 19. H. 8. it is holden it shall be in a Devise Anderson upon the Argument of this Case said That if a Warranty be to a whole Manor and also to an Advowson the party cannot have Two Warrantia Chartae Periam If he had further said in the Deed That his intent was that it should be severall the same had altered the Case Anderson No truely because his intent did not stand with the rule of Law As if a man devise that his Lands shall be sold and doth not say by whom it is void and yet the intent is expressed If the Lease had been by severall Deeds Periam said The Copy-hold had beene severed Windham denied that If both the Deeds bee delivered at one time It was adjourned Hill 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 148 AN Information was upon the Statute of 5. 6. E. 6. for buying of seed Corn having sufficient of his own and not bringing so much unto the Market of his own corn and a generall issue was found upon it And it was delivered for Law to the Jury by the Justices That a Contract in Market for corn not in the Market or which was not there that day is not within the Branch of the Statute But if corn or graine be in the Market although that the Contract be made in a house out of the Market and delivered to the Vendee out of the Market yet it is within the Statute And in the Argument of that Case Anderson said That the Market shall be said The place in the Town where it hath used to be kept and not every place of the Town And a Sale in Market overt in London ought to be in a Shop which is open to the street and not in Chambers or inward rooms otherwise the property is not altered And so it is of all Statutes in open Markets And the Recorder of London said That such was their Custome in London Hill 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 149 It was holden by Anderson chiefe Justice That if one deviseth Lands to the heirs of I. S. and the Clerk writes it to I. S. and his heirs that the same may be holpen by averrment because the intent of the Devisor is written and more And it shall be naught for that which is against his intent and against his will and good for the residue But if a Devise be to I. S. and his heirs and it is written but to the heirs of I. S. there an averrment shall not make it good to I. S. because it is not in writing which the Statute requires anâ— so an averrment to take away surplusage is good but not to encrease that which is defective in the Will of the Testator Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 150 A Feoffment was made unto A. unto the use of him and his wife dis-punishable of Wast during their lives one died and the Survivor committed Wast It was the opinion of the whole Court that an Action of Wast would not lie by him in the Reversion for it is a Priviledge which is annexed to the Estate which shall continue as long as the Estate doth continue Mich. 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 151 A. grants annualem redditum out of Lands in which he hath nothing The opinion of
the Court was That it is a good grant of an Annuity by these words annualem redditum But whether the Husband shall have a Writ of Annuity after the death of the wife for an Annuity during the Coverture they were in some doubt because it is but a thing in Action as is an Obligation Otherwise were it of a Rent which she had for life Note in pleading for a Rent he shall plead That he was seised c. Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 152 WINKFEILD'S Case Winkfeild devised Land in Norfolk to one Winkfeild of London Goldsmith and to his heirs in Fee And afterwards he made a Deed of Feoffment thereof to divers persons unto the use of himselfe for life without impeachment of waste the Remainder unto the Devisee in fee. But before he sealed the Deed of Feoffment he asked one if it would be any prejudice to his Will who answered No. And the Devisor asked again if it would be any prejudice because he conceived that he should not live untill Livery was made And it was answered No. Then he said that he would seale it for his intent was that his Will should stand And afterwards Livery was executed upon part of the Land and the Devisor died Rodes and Periam Justices The Feoffment is no Countermand of the Will because it was to one person but perhaps it had been otherwise if it had been to the use of a stranger although it were not executed Anderson Chiefe Justice and others the Will is revoked in that part where the Livery is executed And he said It would have been a question if he had said nothing And all the Justices agreed That a man may revoke his Will in part and in other part not And he may revoke it by word and that a Will in writing may he revoked by word Periam said It is no revocation by the party himselfe but the Law doth revoke it to which Windham agreed But he said That if the party had said nothing when he sealed the Feoffment it had been a revocation of the party and not of the Law Periam If the Witnesses dye so as he cannot prove the words spoken at the sealing of the Feoffment the Feoffment will destroy the Will and so he spake to Anderson who did not deny it All this was delivered by the Justices upon an Evidence given to a Jury at the Barre Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 153 NOte That it was said by Anderson Chiefe Justice That if one intrude upon the possession of the King and another man entreth upon him that he shall not have an Action of Trespasse for he who is to have trespasse ought to have a possession and in this case he had not for that every Intruder shall answer the King for his time and therefore he shal not answer to the other party To which Walmesley and Fenner Serjeants agreed Periam doubted of it for he conceived That he had a possession against every stranger Snagg Serjeant conceived That he might maintain an Action of Trespasse but Windham and Rodes Justices were of opinion that he could not maintain Trespass Walmesley he cannot say in the Writ Quare clausam frâ—git c. Rodes vouched 19. E. 4. to maintain his opinion Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 154 NORRIS and SALISBURIE'S Case IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond the Case was this Norris was possessed of wools for which there was a contention betwixt the Defendant and one A. And Norris promised A. in consideration that the goods were his and also that he should serve processe upon Salisbury out of the Admiral Court that he would deliver the goods to A. And afterwards he delivered the goods to Salisbury the Defendant who gave him Bond with Condition to keep him harmlesse from all losses charges and hinderances concerning and touching the said wools Afterwards A. served processe upon him and he did not deliver to him the goods for which A. brought his Action upon the Case against Norris who pleaded That he made no such promise which was found against him And afterwards Norris brought an Action of Debt upon the Bond against Salisbury because he did not save him harmlesse in that Action upon the Case And the opinion of the whole Court was That the Action of Debt would not lie because that the Action upon the Case did not concern the wools directly for the Action is not brought but for breach of the promise And that is a thing of which the Defendant had not notice and it was a secret thing not concerning the wools but by circumstances and so out of the Condition Anderson Chiefe Justice said That if A. promise B. in Consideration that B. is owner of goods and hath them to deliver them to C. the same may be a good consideration yet he somewhat doubted of it But Walmesley did affirme it to be a good Consideration Mich. 29 Eliz in the Common Pleas. 155 IT was holden by the whole Court That in an Action of Trespasse It is a good plea in barre That the Plaintiffe was barred in an Assize brought by him against the Defendant and issue joyned upon the Title But otherwise if it were upon the generall issue viz. Nul tort nul disseisin For then it might be that the Plaintiffe was never ousted nor disseised and so no cause to recover In which case it was no reason to put him from his Writ of Right Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. Intratur Mich. 27. Rot. 1627. 156 BRAGG'S Case A Woman having cause to be endowed of a Manor in which are Copy-holders doth demand her Dower by the name of certain Messuages certain Acres of land and certain Rents and not by the name of the third part of the Manor and she doth recover and keeps Courts and grants Copy-holds It was holden by the whole Court that in such Case that the Grants were void for she hath not a Manor because she hath made her demand as of a thing in grosse Otherwise if the demand had been of the third part of the Manor for then she had a Manor and might have kept Courts and granted Copies And the pleading in that Case was That she did recover the third part of the Manor per nomen of certain Messuages and Acres and Rents which was holden to be no recovery of the third part of the Manor Hill 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 157 NOte it was holden for Law That the Justices may increase but not decrease damages because the party may have an Attaint and so is not without remedy But note contrary by Anderson and Periam Justices Hill 39. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 158 SErjeant Fenner moved this Case That the Lord of a Manor doth prescribe That if the Tenant do a Rescous or drive his Cattel off from the Land when the Lord comes to distrain that the Tenant shall be amerced by the Homage and that the Lord may distrain for the same Anderson
did admit a Copy-holder in Remainder for life That the same was a good admittance according to the Custome And that he was a sufficient Dominus pro tempore as to this purpose Although it was objected by Walmesley That the Gardian is but Servus and not Dominus But because it was agreed that he had a lawfull Interest the admittance was good and so it was adjudged 33. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 178 SHIPWITH and SHEFFIELD'S Case THe Custome of a Copy-hold Manor was That a feme Covert might give Lands to her Husband And if it were a good Custome or not was the Question Fleetwood The Custom is good and vouched 12. E 3. That in York there is such a custome That the Husband might give the Land of his own purchase to his wife during the Coverture and it is a good Custome That an Infant at the age of fifteen years may make a Feoffment 29. E. 3. and the same is good at the Common Law and yet the same all began by custome But the Court was of opinion That the Custome is unreasonable because it cannot have a lawfull Commencement And Anderson Chiefe Justice said That a Custome that an Infant at the age of seven years might make a Feoffment is no good custome because he is not of age of discretion And in this case at Barre It shall be intended that the wife being sub potestate viri did it by the Coherison of her Husband The same Law is of a Custome That the wife may lease to her Husband Fleetwood urged That the custome might be good because the wife was to be examined by the Steward of the Court as the manner is upon a Fine to be examined by a Judge To which the Court said nothing 31. Eliz. in the King's Bench 179 AN Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit was brought And the Plaintiff layed his Action That such a one did promise him in respect of his labour in another Realme c. to pay him his contentment And he said That Twenty five Pound is his contentment and that he had required the same of the Defendant Cook moved in arrest of Judgement it being found for the Plaintiffe upon Non Assumpsit pleaded that no place was alledged where the contentment was shewed And the opinion of the Court was against him for Gawdy and Wray were of opinion that he might shew his contentment in any Action and so it is where it is to have so much as he can prove he might prove it in the same Action Cook said That it had been moved in stay of Judgement in this Court upon an Assumpsit because the request was not certain And that case was agreed by the Justices because the request is parcell of the Assumpsit and the entire Assumpsit together in such case is the cause of the Action but in this case that he should content him is not the cause of the Assumpsit but only a circumstance of the matter and it was resembled to the Case of 39. H. 6. where a Writ of Annuity was brought for Arrerages against an Abbot pro consilio c. And the Plaintiffe declared that the Councel was ad proficuum Domus and was not alledged in certain and it was holden that the same was not materiall although it were uncertain because it was but an induction and necessary circumstance to the Action And so the Plaintiffe recovered and had Judgement Mich. 29 Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 180 THE Statute of 23. Eliz. cap. 25. is Quod non licuit alicui to engrosse Barley c. and in the Statute there is a Proviso That he may so do so as he convert it into Malt. The question was If in an Information upon that Statute That the Defendant had converted it to Malt he might plead the generall Issue Not guilty and give in Evidence the speciall matter or whether he ought to plead the speciall matter Clench Justice He may plead Not guilty c. for the Proviso is parcel and within the body of the Statute as 27. H. 8. 2. where upon an Information upon the Statute of Farmors it is holden by Fitzherbert That the Vicar may plead Non habuit seu tenuit ad firmam contra formam Statuti c. and yet the Statute in the premises of it restrains every Spirituall Person to take in Farme any Lands c. and afterwards by a Proviso gives him liberty to take Lands for the maintenance of his house c. As upon the Statute of R. 2. If he do plead That he did not enter contra formam Statuti he may give in Evidence that he entred by Title as that his father was seised and died and the same is not like unto the condition of a Bond for that is a severall thing But the Proviso and the Statute is but one Act. Mich. 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 181 NOte It was said by Master Kemp Secondary of the King's Bench That there is a Court within the Tower of London but he said That it was but a Court Baron and said That he can shew a Judgement That no Writ of Error lieth of a Judgement given there And it was a question Whether Process might be awarded to the Lieutenant of the Tower for Execution upon a Judgment given in the Kings Bench because the Defendant was removed and dwelt within the Liberty of the Tower And it was said It could not but the Writ ought to be awarded to the Sheriffs of London and if they returne the Liberties of the Tower then a Non omittas shall be awarded But some Counsellors said That although a Non omittas be awarded yet the Sheriffs durst not go unto the Liberties of the Tower to serve the Process 2 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 182 The Lady STOWELL'S Case IT was adjudged in this Case That the wife who is divorced causa adulterii shall have her Dower 3. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 183 WARNER'S Cafe LEssee for twenty years doth surrender rendring rent during the term It was adjudged a good rent for so many years as the term might have continued 3. Jacobi in the King 's Bench. 184 WHITLOCK and HARTWELL'S Case TWO Joint-Tenants for life the one demised and granted the moyty unto his companion for certain years to begin after his death Adjudged void because it is but a possibility And so is it of a Covenant to stand seised to the use c. as it was adjudged in Barton and Harvey's Case 37. Eliz. 3. Jacobi In the Kings Bench. 185 PINDER'S Case A. devised lands in Fee to his son and many other lands in tail And afterwards he said I will that if my son die without issue within age that the lands in Fee shall go to such a one Item I will that the other lands in tail shall go to others and doth not say in the second Item if the son dieth without issue within age It was adjudged That the second Item should be without
plain Case for the Plaintiff the reason of Estrayes was because when there is none that can make title to the thing the Law gives it to the King if the Owner doth not claim it within a year and a day and also because the Cattel might not perish which are called Animalia vagantia c. But the Defendants plea is not good because the Defendant is to keep them until proof be made unto him and the Law doth not take notice of any proof but by twelve Men which the Defendant cannot take 7. H. 2. Barre 241. But if the Owner can make any reasonable proof as if he shew the Markes c. it is sufficient and the party suo periculo ought to deliver to him the Estray Secondly It is not sufficient to keep the Estray within the Manor but it ought to be kept in a place parcel of the Manor Thirdly It ought to be in Land in the possession of Sir John Spencer and not of any other and it doth not appear that that Land was in his possession Fourthly If they do go in the Land of Sir John Spencer Yet it is absurd to maintain that the Bailff might delegate his power to another to keep them until he be satisfied Walmesley Justice agreeeth for when it is spoken generally of proof it shall be taken for judicial proof which needeth not in his Case for these Vagrant Beasts and the party shall not be his own Judge but as it hath been remembred upon the Statute of Wrecke si docere poterit if he can instruct him and give him any reason wherefore the Estray doth appertain unto him he ought to deliver it suo periculo Also it is cleer that agreement ought to be made with the party for the victual and the quantity thereof shall be tryed in this Court if it come in question as the quantity of Amends in a Replevin Warbarton agreed and said That an Estray ought not to be wrought but the party must agree for his meate also the Lord cannot put the Owner to his Oath but if the party doth tell the Marks it is sufficient and he ought to deliver it at his peril and if he require more then belongs to him for the Meate it is at his peril for this Court shall jugde of that Daniel agreed and said That the Lord ought to proclaim them and in his Proclamation ought to shew of what kinde the Estray is whether sheep Oxe Horse c. and ought to tell his name who seised them so as the Owner might know whither he might resort for his Cattel and then it ought to be kept within the Lordship and Manor which may extend into several Counties Cook said that the Owner ought not to be pressed to his Oath Pr. Cases 217. Pasch 5. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 196 LANGLEY and COLSON'S Case AN Action upon the Case was brought by Langley against Colson for these words viz. Richard Langley is a Bankrupt Rogue I may well say it for I have payed for it and it was adjudged for the Plaintiff for by all the Justices the first words are Actionable although the word Bankrupt be spoken adjectivè because they scandalize the Plaintiff in his Trade At the same time another Action was brought by another Man for speaking these words viz. Thou art a Bankruptly Knave and canst not be trusted in London for a Groat and it was adjudged that the words were not Actionable because the words were spoken adjectivè and adverbialitèr and are not so much as if he had called him Bankrupt Knave but Bankruptly viz. like a Bankrupt Pasch 5. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 197 BALLET and BALLE'TS Case AWarrantia Charta was brought by Thomas Ballet the younger against Thomas Ballet the elder and the Writ was of two Messuages and the moytie of an Acre of Land unde Chartam habet c. and declared whereas himself and the Defendant and one Francis Ballet were seised in the new Buildings and of one piece of Land adjoyning c. in the Tenure c. containing from the East to the West twenty foot by assize and from the North part to the South thirty foot and the said Thomas the elder and Francis did release unto him all their Right in c. the said Thomas the elder for him and his heirs did Warrant tenementa praedict ' to the said Thomas the younger and his heirs The Defendant did demand Oyer of the deed and thereby it appeared that the said Thomas and Francis and one R. did release to him all their Right in c. And that Thomas the elder for him and his heirs did Warrant tenementa praedict ' to Thomas the younger his heirs and that Francis by another clause for him and his heirs did Warrant tenementa praedict ' to Thomas the younger and his heirs upon which it was Demurred in Law and after Argument by the Serjeants some matters were unanimously agreed by all the Justices First that upon such a release with Warranty contra omnes gentes a Writ of Warrantia Charta lyeth Secondly although that every one passeth his part onely viz. a third part yet every one of them doth Warrant the whole and because they may so do and the words are general without restraint by themselves the Law will not restrain them The words are that they do Warrant tenementa praedict ' which is all the premisses Thirdly For the reason aforesaid It needs not to be shewed how they hold in jointure Fourthly that the Writ is well brought against one onely because the Warranties are several But if they had been joint Warranties then it ought to have been brought against them both so against the Survivor the heir of one of them and if they had both dyed against both their heirs so as it differs from an Obligation personal which onely binds the Survivor Fifthly that the Writ was well brought for the things as they are in truth without naming of them according to the Deed. Sixthly that if there be new Buildings of which the Warranty is demanded which were not at the time of the Warranty made and after the Deed is shewed the Defendant shall not have any benefit by Demurring upon it But if he will be aided he ought for to shew the special matter and enter into the Warranty for so much as was at the time of the making of the Deed and not for the residue Vide Fitz. Warrantia Charta 31. Seventhly that a Warrantia Charta doth not lye of a piece of Land no more then a Praecipe quod reddat nor of a Selion of Land Mich. 5. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 198 AN Action upon the Case was brought for these words viz. Thou hast spoken words that are treason and I will hang thee for them It was adjudged by the whole Court that the words were actionable Mich. 5. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 199 A Man was bound to pay twenty pound to another when he should
And per Curiam a Prohibition shal be awarded And Cook chief Justice said That there were three Causes in the Bill for which a Prohibition should be granted which he reduced to three Questions 1. If a Copy-holder payeth his rent and the Lord maketh a Feoffment of the Manor Whether the Copy-holder shall be compelled to attorn 2. If a man be seised of Freehold Land and Covenants to stand seised to an use Whether in such case an Attornment be needfull 3. If a Feoffment be made of a Manor by Deed Whether the Feoffee shall compell the Tenants to attorn in a Court of Equity And for all these Questions It was said That the Tenants shall not be compelled to attorn for upon a Bargain and Sale and a Covenant to stand seised there needs no attronement And Cook in this case said That in 21. E. 4. the Justices said That all Causes may be so contrived that there needed to be no Suit in Courts of Equity and it appears by our books That a Prohibition lies to a Court of Equity when the matter hath been once determined by Law And 13. E. 3. Tit. Prohibition and the Book called the Diversity of Courts which was written in the time of King Henry the eighth was vouched to that purpose And the Case was That a man did recover in a Quare Impediâ— by default and the Patron sued in a Court of Equity viz. in the Chancery and a Prohibition was awarded to the Court of Chancery Mich. 11 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 298 Sir JOHN GAGE and SMITH's Case AN Action of Waste was brought and the Plaintiffe did declare that contrary to the Statute the Lessee had committed Waste and Destruction in uncovering of a Barn by which the timber thereof was become rotten and decayed and in the destroying of the stocks of Elmes Ashes Whitethorn and Blackthorn to his damage of three hundred pound And for title shewed That his Father was seised of the Land where c. in Fee and leased the same to the Defendant for one and twenty years and died and that the Land descended to him as his son and heir and shewed that the Waste was done in his time and that the Lease is now expired The Defendant pleaded the generall issue and it was found for the Plaintiffe and damages were assessed by the Jury to fifty pound And in this case it was agreed by the whole Court 1. That if six of the Jury are examined upon a Voyer dire if they have seen the place wasted that it is sufficient and the rest of the Jury need not be examined upon a Voyer dire but onely to the principall 2. It was agreed if the Jury be sworn that they know the place it is sufficient although they be not sworn that they saw it and although that the place wasted be shewed to the Jury by the Plaintiff's servants yet if it be by the commandment of the Sheriffe it is as sufficient as if the same had been shewed unto them by the Sheriff himselfe 4. It was resolved That the eradicating of Whitethorn is waste but not of the Blackthorn according to the Books in 46. E. 3. and 9. H. 6. but if the blackthorn grow in a hedg and the whole hedg be destroyed the same is Waste by Cook chief Justice It was holden also so that it is not Wast to cut Quick-set hedges but it shall be accounted rather good husbandry because they will grow the better 5. It was agreed That if a man hath under-woods of Hasell Willowes Thornes if he useth to cut them and sell them every ten years If the Lessee fell them the same is no wast but if he dig them up by the roots or suffereth the Germinds to be bitten with cattel after they are felled so as they will not grow again the same is a destruction of the Inheritance and an Action of wast will lie for it But if he mow the Stocks with a wood-sythe as he did in the principall Case the same is a malicious Wast and continuall mowing and biting is destruction 6. It was said That in an Action of Wast a man shall not have costs of Suit because the Law doth give the party treble damages And when the generall issue Nul Wast is pleaded and the Plaintiff counted to his damages 100l. the Court doubted whether they could mitigate the damage But 7. It was agreed That in the principal Case although the issue were found for the Plaintiff that he could not have judgment because he declared of Wast done in 8. several closes to his damage of 300l. generally and did not sever the damages And the Jury found That in some of the said Closes there was no Wast committed Wherefore the Court said he could not have judgement through his own default But afterwards at another day Hobart then chief Justice and Warburton Justice said That the verdict was sufficient and good enough and so was also the declaration and that the Plaintiffe might have judgment thereupon But yet the same was adjourned by the Court untill the next Term. Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 299 CLARK's Case NOte It was said by Cook chief Justice and agreed by the whole Court and 41. and 43. E. 3. c That if a man deliver money unto I. S. to my use That I may have an Action of Debt or account against him for the same at my election And it was agreed also That an Action of Trover lieth for money although it be not in bags but not an Action of Detinue Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 300 IRELAND and BARKER's Case IN an Action of Wast brought the Writ was That the Abbot and Covent had made a Lease for years c. And it was holden by the Court that it was good although it had been better if the Writ had been That the Abbot with the assent of the Covent made the Lease for that is the usuall form but in substance the Writ is good because the Covent being dead Sons in Law by no intendment can be said to make a Lease But the Dean and Chapter ought of necessity to joyne in making of a Lease because they are all persons able and if the Dean make a Lease without the Chapter the same is not good per curiam if it be of the Chapter Lands And in Adams and Wâ—oâ—â—stey's Case Harris Serjeant observed That the Lease is said to be made by the Abbot and Covent and it is not pleaded to be made by the Abbot with the assent of the Covent Mich. 11 Iacobi In the Common Pleas. 301 The Dean and Canons of Winsor and WEBB's Case IN this Case it was holden by the Court That if a man give Lands unto Dean and Canons and to their Successors and they be dissolved or unto any other Corporations that the Donor shall have back the Lands again for the same is a condition in Law annexed to the Gift and in such Case no Writ of
And if Rent be due and payable unto me by my Lessee for years the same may be taken for the Kings Debt and the special matter shall be a good barr in an Avowry for the Rent 38. E. 3. 28. A Prior Alien was indebted to the King for his Farm Rent And being sued for the same he shewed That there was a Parson who held a certain portion of Tythes from him which were part of the Possessions of the same Priory which he kept in his hands so as he could not pay the King his Farm-Rent unlesse he might have those Tythes which were in the Parsons hands Wherefore a Writ was awarded against the Parson to appear in the Exchequer and to shew cause why he should not pay the same to the King for the satisfying of the Kings Rent And there Skipwith Justice said That for any thing which toucheth the King and may turn to his advantage to hasten the Kings business that the Exchequer had jurisdiction of it were it a thing Spiritual or Temporal V. 44 E. 3. 43 44. the like Case but there it is of a Pension And the Case of 38 Ass 20. was the Case for Tythes See also 12 E. 3. Swalds Case to the same purpose If two Coparceners be in ward to the King upon a suggestion that one of them is indebted to the King the staying of his Livery shall be for his moytie untill the King be satisfied his debt but the other sister shall have Livery of the other moytie which belongs unto her Fitz. N. 5. 263. a. Mich 19 E. 3. and Hill 20. E. 3. which was one and the same Case The Kings Debtor brought a Quo minus in the Exchequer against his Debtor the Defendant appeared And the Plaintiffe afterwards would have been Nonsuit but the Court would not suffer him so to be And it was there said That a Release by the Kings Debtor unto his Debtor would not discharge the Kings Debtor as to that Debt In a Quo minus in the Exchequer upon a Debt upon a simple Contract the Defendant cannot wage his Law because the King is to have a benefit by the suit although the King be no party to the suit C. 4. par 95. The fourth Prerogative which the King hath is That the King shall have an Accompt against Executors because the Law there maketh a privity it being found by matter of Record that the Testator was indebted to the King which Record cannot be denied But in the Case of a common person an Accompt will not lie against Executors for want of privity The Accompt which the King brings is ad computandum ad Dominum Regem c. without setting forth how the party came liable to accompt But a common person in his accompt brought ought to shew how that the party was Receiver Bailiff c. If a man doth entermeddle with the Kings Treasure the King pretending a title to it he shall be chargeable for the same to the King C. 11. part 89. the Earl of Devonshire's case The Master of the Ordnance pretending that the old broken and unserviceable Ordnance belonged unto him by reason of his Office procured a Privy-seal c. and afterwards disposed of them to his own use and dyed And his Executor was forced to accompt for them Sir Walter Mildmay's Case Mich. 37. 38 Eliz. Rot. 312. in the Exchequer Sir Walter Mildmay was Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggested unto the Lord Treasurer of England That his Office was of great attendance and desired the Lord Treasurer that he would be pleased to allow unto him 100l. for his dyet and 40l. per annum for his attendance which the Lord Treasurer did grant unto him and he enjoyed it accordingly and afterwards dyed and his Executors were forced to accompt for it and to pay back the mony for all the time that their Testator received it C. 11. part 90 91. there is cited That Sir William Cavendish was Treasurer of the Chamber of King H. 8. E. 6. and Queen Mary and that he was indebted to K. E. 6. and to Q. Mary and that being so indebted he purchased divers lands and afterwards aliened them and took back an estate therein to himself and his wife and afterwards dyed without rendring any Accompt the Terre-Tenants of the land were charged to answer to Q. Elizabeth for the monies to which they pleaded the Queens special Pardon and it was in conclusion said That the Pardon was a matter of grace ex gratia but in Law the Terre-Tenants were chargeable to the said Queen for the monies v. Com. 321. 5 Eliz. Dyer 244 245. in the Exchequer Mich. 24. E. 3. Rot. 11. ex parte Rememb Regis Thomas Farel Collector of the Fifteenths and Tenths being seised of lands in Fee and being possessed of divers goods and chattels at the time when he entred into the said Office being then indebted to the King did alien them all and afterwards dyed without heir or Executor And a Writ went out unto the Sheriffe to enquire what lands and tenements goods and chattels he had at the time he entred into the said Office and Processe issued forth against the Terre-Tenants and the Possessors of his goods and chattels ad computand pro collectione predict ad respondendum satisfaciendum inde Domino Regi V. Dyer 160 50 Ass 5. A notable Case to this purpose Mich. 30. E. 3. rot 6. William Porter Mint-Master did covenant with the King by Indenture enrolled That for all the Bullion which should be delivered ad Cambium Regis pro Moneta faciend that mony should be delivered for it within eight dayes which Covenant he had broken and therefore the King paid the Subject for the Bullion And afterwards because John Walweyen and Richard Piccard duxerunt praesentaverant dict William Porter in officium illud tanquam sufficientem and that they offered to be Sureties for him but were not accepted of which they did confesse Ideo consideratum est quod predict Walweyen Piccard onerentur erga Dominum Regem And they afterwards were charged to satisfie the King for all the monies which the King had paid for the said Porter And although that none of the Kings treasure came to their hands nor they had not any benefit as appeared by any matter in the Case yet because they were the means and causers that the King sustained damage and losse they were adjudged to be chargeable to the King C. 11. par 93. this Case is there cited Upon these Cases vouched by me I make divers Observations 1. I observe That from Age to Age what care the Judges had for the Advancing and the recovering of the Kings Debts because Thesaurus Regis est vinculum Pacis Bellorum nervus And it is the slowing fountain of all bounty unto the Subject 2. I observe That the King hath a Prerogative for the Recovery of Debts due unto him 3. I observe That although the Debt due to the King be
puisne or the lesser Debt and although the Debtor be able and sufficient to pay both Debts viz. the Kings Debt and the Debt owing to the Subject yet the Kings Debt is to be first paid Now to apply these cases to the Case in question Here is a Subject who is indebted to the King And I say That the Lands which such a Debtor hath in his power and dispose although he hath not any Estate in the Lands shall be liable to pay the Debt to the King And I say That Sir Christopher Hatton had a Fee in the Mannors and Lands in this case And although he did convey them bona fide yet untill his death by reason of the Proviso of Revocation they were extendable Trin. 24. E. 3. Rot. 4. Walter de Chirton Customer who was indebted to the King for the Customs purchased Lands with the Kings monies and caused the Feoffor of the Lands to enfeoffe certain of his friends with an intent to defraud and deceive the King and notwithstanding he himself took the profits of the Lands to his own use And those Lands upon an Inquisition were found and the values of them and retorned into the Exchequer and there by Judgment given by the Court the Lands were seized into the Kings hands to remain there untill he was satisfied the Debt due unto him And yet the Estate of the Lands was never in him But because he had a power viz. by Subpena in Chancery to compell his Friends to settle the Estate of the Lands upon him therefore they were chargeable to the Debt You will say perhaps there was Covin in that Case But I say that neither Fraud Covin nor Collusion is mentioned in the Report in Dyer 160. C. 11. par 92. And that Case was a harder Case then our Case is For Walter de Chirton in that Case was never seised of the said lands But in our Case Sir Christopher Hatton himself had the lands And when he had the lands he was assured of the Office although he had not the possession of it For he was sure that no other could have it from him and no other could have it but himself And for another cause our Case is a stronger Case then the Case of Walter de Chirton For Chirton had no remedy in Law to have the lands but his remedy was only in a Court of Equity and a remedy in Consc ' onely But in our Case Sir Christopher Hatton had a time in which he might let the land to passe and yet he had a power to pull it back again at his pleasure So as he had the disposition of it but before the alteration of the uses he dyed And if he had been living being indebted to the King the King might have extended the lands because that then he had the possession of them There were two Considerations which moved Sir Christopher Hatton to Convey the Lands the first was honorable viz. For the payment of his Debts the second was natural viz. For the preferment of his Children Although the Conveyance of the Lands for payment of his Debts was but for years yet the same was too short like unto a Plaister which is too short for the sore For the Covenanters were not his Executors and so they were not liable to Debts And although he be now dead and cannot revoke the former uses yet he had the power to revoke the uses during his life And so he was chargeable for the Debt due to the King Tanfield Chief Baron agreed with Justice Dodderidge in all as before And he said That all powerful and speedy courses are given unto the King for the getting in of his Revenues and therefore he said he had the said Prerogatives as have been recited And in 25 E. 3. in libro rubro in the Exchequer there the Foundations of the said Prerogatives do appear If a common person arrest the body in Execution he shall not resort to the lands contr to Blumfields Case C. 5. par The course of the Exchequer makes a Law every where for the King If any Officer be indebted unto the King and dyeth the course of the Exchequer is For to call in his Executors or the Heir or the Terre-Tenants to answer the Debt and if he hath no lands then a Writ issueth out of the Exchequer to know what goods he had and to whose hands they be come All Inquisitions concerning Lands in the like Cases are Habuit vel seisitus and not that he was seised onely The word Habuit is a large word and in it is contained a disposing power But in this Case Sir Christopher Hatton had a power every day to revoke the uses And when he had once revoked them then was he again as before seisitus 7 H. 6. in the Exchequer the Kings Farmor had Feoffees to his use and dyed indebted to the King And upon an Inquisition it was found that Habuit for he had them in his power by compelling his Feoffees by Equity in Chancery and therefore it was adjudged that the King should have the Lands in the Feoffees hands in extent But in this case Sir Christopher Hatton might have had the Lands in him again without compulsion by a Court of Equity for that he had power to revoke the uses in the Conveyance at his pleasure Mich. 30. H. 6. rot in the Exchequer A Clark of the Court was assigned to receive monies for the King who had Feoffees of lands to his use And the lands were found and seised for the Kings monies by force of the word Habuit 32 H. 6. Philip Butler's Case who was Sheriffe of a County being indebted to the King his Feoffees were chargeable to the Kings debt by force of the word Habuit For habuit the lands in his power 6 E. 4. Bowes Case acc ' 34 H. 6. A widow being indebted to the King her Feoffees were chargeable to pay the Kings debt because she had power of the lands It being found by Inquisition that habuit 1 R. 3. the like Case And 24 Eliz. in Morgan's Case it was adjudged That lands purchased in the names of his Friends for his use were extended for a debt due by him to the King Hobart Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas argued to the same purpose and agreed with the other Justices and he said in this case it was not material whether the Inquisition find the Deed to be with power of Revocation For he said that the Land is extended and that the extent remains good untill it be avoided And he said that a revocable Conveyance is sufficient to bind the Parties themselves but not to bind the King but the Lands are lyable into whose hands soever they come When a man is said to forfeit his body it is not to be intended his life but the freedom of his body Imprisonment At the Common Law a Common person could neither take the bodie nor the Lands in Execution But yet at the Common Law
thing and shall he be bound by a Conveyance Anno. 16. H. 6. then in the time of Civil War Uses began and of Lands in use the Lord Chief Baron Tanfield in his Argument hath cited diverse cases where the lands in use were subject and lyable to the debt of Cestuy que use in the Kings Case and so was it untill the Statute of 27. H. 8. of Uses was made Babbington an Officer in the Exchequer had lands in the hands of Feoffees upon Trust and a Writ issued out and the lands were extended for the Debt of Babbington in the hands of his Feoffees Sir Robert Dudley having lands in other mens hands upon Trusts the lands were seized into the Kings hands for a contempt and not for debt or damages to the King And in this Case although that the â—nquisition do find the Conveyance but have not found it to be with power of Revocation yet the Land being extended it is well extended untill the contrary doth appear and untill the extent be avoided by matter of Record viz. by Plea as the Lord Chief Baron hath said before Ley Chief Justice of the Kings Bench argued the same day and his Argument in effect did agree with the other Justices in all things and therefore I have forborne to report the same at length And it was adjudged That the Extent was good and the Land well decreed accordingly Pasch 21 Jacobi in the Exchequer Chamber 417. The Lord SHEFFIELD and RATCLIFF'S Case IN a Writ of Error brought to reverse a Judgment given in a Monstrans de Droit in the Court of Pleas The Case was put by Glanvile who argued for Ratcliffe the Defendant to be this 2 E. 2. Malew being seised of the Mannor of Mulgrave in Fee gave the same to A. Bigot in tail which by divers discents came to Sir Ralph Bigot in tail Who 10 Jannarii 6 H. 8. made a Feoffment unto the use of â—is last Will and thereby after his Debts paid declared the use unto his right heirs in Fee and 9. H. 8. dyed The Will was performed Francis Bigot entred being Tenant in tail and 21 H. 8. made a Feoffment unto the use of himself and Katherine his wife and to the use of the heirs of their two bodies Then came the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. by which Tenant in tail for Treason is to forfeit the Land which he hath in tail Then the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Uses is made Then 28 H. 8. Francis Bigot did commit Treason And 29 H. 8. he was attainted and executed for the same Anno 31 H. 8. a private Act of Parliament was made which did confirm the Attaindor of Francis Bigot and that he should forfeit unto the King word for word as the Statute of 26 H. 8. is saving to all strangers except the Offendor and his heirs c. 3 E. 6. The heir of Francis Bigot is restored in blood Katherine entred into the Mannor and dyed seised 8 Eliz. their Issue entred and married with Francis Ratcliffe and had Issue Roger Ratcliffe who is heri in tail unto Ralph Bigot And they continue possession untill 33. Eliz. And then all is found by Office and the Land seised upon for the Queen who granted the same unto the Lord Sheffield Francis Bigot and Dorothy die And Roger Ratcliffe sued a Monstrans de Droit to remove the Kings hands from off the lands and a Scire facias issued forth against the Lord Sheffield as one of the Terre-Tenants who pleaded all this special matter and Judgment was thereupon given in the Court of Pleas for Roger Ratcliffe And then the Lord Sheffield brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer-Chamber to reverse the said Judgment And Finch Serjeant argued for the Lord Sheffield that the Judgment ought to be reversed And now this Term Glanvile argued for Roger Ratcliffe that the Judgment given in the Court of Pleas ought to be affirmed There are two points The first If there were a Right remaining in Francis Bigot and if the same were given unto the King by the Attaindor and the Statute of 31 H. 8. Second If a Monstrans de Droit be a proper Action upon this matter which depends upon a Remitter for if it be a Remitter then is the Action a proper Action The Feoffment by Ralph Bigot 6 H. 8. was a Discontinuance and he had a new use in himself to the use of his Will and then to the use of his Heirs Then 9 H. 8. Ralph Bigot dyed And then Francis Bigot had a right to bring a Formedon in the Discendor to recover his estate tail 21 H 8. then the point ariseth Francis Bigot having a right of Formedon and an use by force of the Statute of 1 R. 3. cap. 1. before the Statute of 27 H. 8. by the Feoffment he had so setled it that he could not commit a forfeiture of the estate tail When a man maketh a Feoffment every Right Action c. is given away in the Livery and Seisin because every one who giveth Livery giveth all Circumstances which belongs to it For a Livery is of that force that it excludes the Feoffor not only of all present Rights but of all future Rights and Tytles v. C. 1. par 111. and there good Cases put to this purpose 9 H. 7. 1. By Livery the Husband who was in hope to be Tenant by Courtesie is as if he were never sised 39 H. 6. 43. The Son disseiseth his Father and makes a Feoffment of the lands the Father dyeth the hope of the heir is given away by the Livery It was objected by Serjeant Finch 1. Where a man hath a right of action to recover land in Fee or an estate for life which may be conveyed to another there a Livery doth give away such a Right and shall there bind him But an estate in tail cannot be transferred to another by any manner of Conveyance and therefore cannot be bound by such a Livery given I answer It is no good Rule That that which doth not passe by Livery doth remain in the person which giveth the Livery 19 H. 6. Tenant in tail is attainted Office is found The estate tail is not in the King is not in the person attainted but is in abeyance So it is no good Rule which hath been put When Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment Non habet jus in re neque ad rem If he have a Right then it is a Right of Entre or Action but he cannot enter nor have any action against his own Feoffment 19 H. 8. 7. Dyer If Discontinuee of Tenant in tail levieth a Fine with proclamations and the five years passe and afterward Tenant in tail dyeth his issue shall have other five years and shall be helped by the Statute for he is the first to whom the right doth accrue after the Fine levied for Tenant in tail himself after his Fine with Proclamations hath not any right But if Tenant in tail be
E. 3 17 a. Persay Executors cannot make a Feoffment but they ought to make a Sale and the Vendee viz. the Bargainee is in without Livery and Seisin But if they do make a Feoffment by the Livery all their right is given away But if an Attorney giveth Livery in the name of his Master nothing of his own right to the same Land is given away by the Livery and Seisin but if he maketh Livery in his own name then he giveth away his own right and the Statute of 1 R. 3. cap. 1. maketh the Feoffment good which is made by Cestuy que use against him and his heirs C. 1. pt 111. By Livery and Seisin his whole right is given away Com. 352. The Feoffees of Cestuy que use are disseised the Disseisor enfeoffeth Cestuy que use who enfeoffs a stranger And the Question was If by this Feoffment made by Cestuy que use the right of the first Feoffees were determined and extinct Fitzherbert held that the right was gone and in that case the Uses were raised after 1 R. 3. and before 27 H. 8. cap. 10. Although Yelverton held that it was meant of a Feoffment before the Statute of 1 R. 3. Jus recuperandi was in Francis Bigot Then the question is Whether this Right were given away by the Statutes of 26 31 H. 8. The Statute of 26 H. 8. 31 H. 8. are several and distinct Statutes The words of the Statute of 26 H. 8. are That the party offending shall forfeit all his Possession and Vse but there is no word of Right in the Statute and that Statute doth not extend to give any land but that which was in possession or use And the cause was because before that Statute of 26 H. 8. Uses were not given unto the King for Attaindor for Treason they being but a Trust and Confidence C. 11. part 36 b. The Statute sayes By any wayes title or means But observe when this Statute was made It is a penal Statute and therefore shall be taken strictly Stamford 129 b. C. 11. part 36 b. The Statute of 5 6 E. 6. takes away Clergy but if a stranger be in the house by licence of the Owner the party shall have his Clergy because out of the words and being a penal Law it shall be taken strictly The Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 20. forfeits for Treason Right to the Land viz. right of Entry but the Statute of 26 H 8. giveth not any Right Before the Statute of 33 H. 8. a right of Entry was not given to the King for Treason à fortiori a right of Action was not forfeited to the King It is the Statute of 31 H. 8. the private Act which hurteth us which expresly gave Rights But this Right in our Case is not forfeited by this Statute which giveth Rights which a man hath But in our Case Francis Bigot had not the Right but the Right was in abeyance Statutes in points of Forfeiture forfeit no more then a man hath But yet a Statute may give to the King that which a man hath not C. 11. part 13. The statute of Monasteries gave that to the King which was not viz. Monasteries in reputation saving to none but strangers no not to the Donors Hussies Case Tenant in tail doth bargain and sell to the King and a statute gave it to the King saving to strangers but neither the Donor nor his issue were within the saving Old Entries 423. b c d. It was enacted That the Duke of Suffolk should forfeit for Treason all his Lands Rights and Tenements and all such Rights and Titles of Entry which he had But thereby rights of Action were not given to the King but only rights of Entries The statutes of 31 33 H. 8. are alike in words If Tenant in tail the Remainder over forfeit c. the Remainder is saved without words of saving But if the statute giveth the land by name unto the King then the Remainder is not saved but is destroyed If a Right of Action be given unto the King the statutes of Limitation and Fines are destroyed for he is not bound by them C. 485 486. in point of forfeiture Stamf. 187 188. There is a difference betwixt real and personal Rights given to the King C. 3. part 3. A right of Action concerning Inheritances are not forfeited by Attaindor c. But Obligations Statutes c. are forfeited by Attaindor C. 7. part 9. A right of Action is not given to the King by general words of an Act because it lieth in privity And it would be a vexation to the subject if they should be given C. 4. pt 124. Although that a Non compos mentis cannot commit Felony yet he may commit Treason for the King is Caput salus reipublicae If Non compos mentis maketh a Feoffment and then committeth Treason the King shall not have an Action to recover the Land of the Non compos mentis as the party himself may have But if Non compos mentis be disseised and then be attainted of Treason then the King may enter into the Lands because the party himself had a right of Entry which is given to the King It was objected That a right of Action clothed with a possession might be given to the King Tenant in tail discontinues and takes back an estate and is attainted of Treason This right of Action shall not be forfeited to the King for his right of Action was to the estate tail In our Case the right of Action was to Katherine for she was Tenant for life The Attaindor was 29 H 8. and the Act which forfeited the Right was made 31 H. 8. and then the right and possession were divided 30 H. 6. Grants 91. The King may grant the Temporalties of a Bishop before they happen to be void And so he may grant a Ward But the King cannot grant the Lands of J. S. when he shall be attainted of Treason for the Law doth not presume that J. S. will commit Treason The Devise of a Term the Remainder over is good But if the Devise be of a Term to one in tail the Remainder over the Remainder is void because the Law doth presume that an estate in tail may continue for ever C. 8. part 165 166. The Law did not presume that Digby at the time of the Conveyance intended to commit Treason It was objected That whatsoever may be granted may be forfeited I deny that C. 3. part 10. by Lumley's Case If the issue in tail in the life of his Father be attainted of high Treason and dyeth it is no forfeiture of the estate tail But if the issue in tail levieth a Fine in the life of his Father it is a bar to his issues C. 3. part 50. Sir George Brown's Case 10 E. 4. 1. there Executors may give away the goods of the Testator but they cannot forfeit the goods of their Testator Com. 293. Osborns Case Guardian in
but in Francis Bigot which may be regained in due time Dyer 340. there was Scintilla juris as here in our Case 19 H. 8. 7. Where Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment and the Feoffee levieth a fine and five years pass there it is said that the Issue in tail shall have five years after the death of Tenant in tail who made the Feoffment and the reason is because he is the first to whom the right doth discend This Case was objected against me yet I answer that Tenant in tail in that Case hath right but he cannot claim it by reason of his own Feoffment he cannot say he hath right but another may say he hath right In our Case Francis Bigot cannot say he hath a Right in him but another may say he hath a Right It is like where Tenant in Fee taketh a Lease for years by Deed Indented of his own Lands He during the years cannot say that he hath Fee yet all other may say that he hath the Fee C. 4. part 127. The King shall avoid the Feoffment for the benefit of a Lunatique which Feoffment the Lunatique had made and shall not the King avoid a Feoffment which a Lunatique hath made for his own benefit viz for the benefit of the King himself I conceive that he shall Secondly Admit the right be in the person viz. in Francis Bigot yet they object that it is a right of Action and so not forfeited If this right be in the person at the time of the Attainder it shall be forfeited if it be not in his person but in Nubibus yet it shall be forfeited Tenant in tail makes a Feoffment unto the use of himself and his wife in tail if the old right of entail rest or not in his person it is forfeited to the King 34 Eliz. this very Point was then adjudged Where Tenant in tail before the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Uses made a Feoffment unto the use of himself and his wife in tail It was resolved upon mature deliberation by all the Judges of England that the old Estate tail was in such case forfeited for Treason Set this Judgment aside yet it rests upon the Statute of 26 H. 8. A general Act for forfeiture for Treason and the particular Act of 31 H. 8. which was made for the particular Attaindor of Francis Bigot I will argue argue only upon the Statute 26 H. 8. which hath three clauses First to take away Sanctuary Secondly to provide that no Treason be committed and the Offender punished The third which clause I am to deal with which giveth the forfeiture of Lands of Inheritance c These three clauses do depend upon the Preamble It was high time to make this Statute For when H. 8. excluded the Pope he was to stand upon his guard And that year of 26 H. 8. there were five several Insurrections against the King therefore it was great wisdom to bridle such persons King Ed. 6. and Queen Mary repealed divers Statutes for Treason and Felony yet left this Statute of 26 H. 8. to stand in force Anno 5 E. 6. cap. 5. this Statute of 26 H. 8. somewhat too strict was in part repealed viz. That the Church lands should not be forfeited for the Treason of the Parson This third branch doth insist upon a Purview aâ—d a Saving and both agree with the Preamble The Purview is ample Every Offender and Offenders of any manner of High Treason shall forfeit and lose c. I observe these two words in the Statute shall Forfeit those things which are forfeitable and Lose those things which are not forfeitable But it shall be lost that the heir of the Offender shall not find it shall Forfeit and lâ—se to the King his heirs and successors for ever so it is a perpetual forfeiture shall forfeit all his Lands which includes Use Estate and Right by any right title or means So you have Estate Right Title and Use Here Francis Bigot shal forfeit the Castle and Mannor of Mulgrave unto the King his heirs and Successors and he must forfeit the Land Right Title and Use otherwise it cannot be to the King for ever and what is saved to strangers all shall be saved and what will you not save to the Offender and his heirs all his Lands Right c. as was saved to strangers It was objected that it was not an Act of Assurance but an Act of Forfeiture which is not so strong as an Act of Assurance I do not doubt of the difference but how much will that difference make to this Case doth the Statute goe by way of Escheat it doth not but in case of Petty Treason Land shall Escheat but when the Statute of 25 E. 3. speaketh of High Treason the words of the said Statute are Shall forfeit the Escheat to the King But is the Right devided from the King Truely no the word Forfeit take it in nomine or in natura is as strong a word as any word of Assurance Alienare in the Statute of West 2. cap. 1. Non habeant illi potestatem alienandi so non habent illi potestatem forisfaciendi is in the nature of a Gift Com. 260. Forfeiture is a gift in Law Et fortior est dispositio legis quam hominis and so as strong as any assurance of the partie If a Statute give the Land to the King then there needeth not any Office 27 H. 8. Br. Office Com. 486. The Right vests before Office It was objected that the statute of 26 H 8. doth not extend to a right of Action but to a right of Entrie The purpose of this Act of 26 H. 8. is not to attaint any particular person as the Statute of 31 H. 8. was made for the particular Attaindor of Francis Bigot 5 E. 4. 7. Cestuy que use at the Common Law did not forfeit for Felony or Treason but by this Act of 26. H. 8. Cestuy que use shall forfeit both Use and Lands out of the hands of the Feoffees 4 E. 3. 47. 4 Ass 4. The husband seised in the right of his wife at the Common Law for Treason shall not forfeit but the profits of the lands of his wife during his life and not the Freehold it self but by this Act of 26 H. 8. the Freehold it self is forfeited 18 Eliz. in the Common Pleas Wyats Case C. 10. Lib. Entries 300. And if the Statute of 26 H. 8. had had no saving all had been forfeited from the wife 7 H. 4. 32. there it is no forfeiture yet by this Statute it is a forfeiture A right of Action shall not Escheat 44 E 3. 44 Entre Cong 38 C. 3 part the Marquess of Winchesters Case and Bowtiâ—s Case and C 7. part Inglefieldâ—s Case A right of Action per se shall not be forfeited by the Rules of the Common Law nor by any Statute can a right of Action be transferred to another but by the Common Law a right of Action may
the Kings Bench by the opinion of the whole Court the Judgment was reversed Trin. 21 Jacobi Intratur Hill 20 Jac. Rot. 137. in the Kings Bench. 444. KITE and SMITH's Case ONe Recovered by Erronious Judgment and the Defendant did promise unto the Plaintiffe That if he would forbear to take forth Execution that at such a day certain he would pay him the debt and damages And Action upon the Case was brought upon that Promise And now it was moved by the Defendants Councel That there was not any Consideration upon which the Promise could be made because the Judgment was an Erronious Judgment It was adjourned But I conceive that because it doth not appear to the Court but that the Judgment is a good Judgment that it is a good Consideration Otherwise if the Judgment had been reversed by a Writ of Error before the Action upon the Case brought upon the Promise for there it doth appear judicially to the Court that the Judgment was Erronious Trin. 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 445. TOTNAM and HOPKIN's Case AN Action upon the Case was brought upon an Assumpsit And the Plaintiff did declare That in Consideration of c. the Defendant 1 Martii did promise to pay and deliver to the Plaintiffe 20 Quarters of Barley the next Seed-time Upon Non Assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiffe It was moved for the Defendant That the Plaintiffe ought to have shewed in his Declaration when the Seed-time was which he hath not done But it was answered That he needeth not so to do because he brings his Action half a year after the Promise for not payment of the same at Seed-time which was betwixt the Promise and the Assumpsit Dodderidge Justice If I promise to pay you so much Corn at Harvest next If it appeareth that the Harvest is ended before the Action brought it is good without shewing the time of the Harvest for it is apparent to the Court that the Harvest is past And here the Action being brought at Michaelmas it sufficiently appears that the Harvest is past And Judgment was given for the â—laintiffe Trin. 21 Iacobi Iatratur Hill 1â— Iacobi Rot. 652. inter Hard Foy in the Kings Bench. 446. KELLAWAY's Case IN an Ejectione Firme brought for the Mannor of Lillington upon a Lease made by Kellaway to Fey It was found by a special Verdict That M. Kellaway seised of the Mannor of Lillington in Fee holden in Soccage did devise the same by his Will in writing in these words viz. For the good will I bear unto the name of the Kellawayes I give all my Lands to John Kellaway in tail the Remainder to my right Heirs so long as they keep the true intent and meaning of this my Will To have to the said John Kellaway and the heirs of his body untill John Kellaway or any of his issues go about to alter and change the intent and meaning of this my Will Then and in such case it shall be lawfull to and for H. Kellaway to enter and have the Land in tail with the like limitation And so the Lands was put in Remainder to five several persons the Remainder to the right heirs of the Devisor M. Kellaway dyed without issue John Kellaway is heir and entred and demised the same to R. K. for 500 years and afterwards granted all his estate to Hard. Afterwards John Kellaway did agree by Deed indented with W. K. to levy a Fine of the Reversion to W. and his heirs H. Kellaway entred according to the words of the Proviso in the Will and made the Lease to Foy who brought an Ejectione Firme against Hard. And whether H. Kellaway might lawfully enter or no was the Question It was objected That in the Case there is not any Forfeiture because the Fine was without proclamations and so it was a Discontinuance only The first Question is If the Remainder doth continue The second is If it be a Perpetuity or a Limitation John Kellaway is Tenant in tail by Devise untill such time as John Kellaway or any of his issues agree or go about to alter or change the estate tail mentioned in the Will with Proviso to make Leases for 21 years 3 lives or to make Jointures Then his Will is That it shall be lawfull for H. K. to enter and to have the Land with the same limitations If it be a Perpetuity then it is for the Plaintiffe but if it be but a Limitation then it is for the Defendant The Fine was levied without proclamations and H. K. entreth for the Forfeiture Damport It is no Perpetuity but a Limitation which is not restrained by the Law as Perpetuities are Untill such time as c. shall discontinue c. The Jury find an Agreement by Indenture The act which is alleadged to be the breach is Conclusivit agreavit not to levy a Fine with proclamations but to levy a Fine without proclamations which is but a Discontinuance Yelverton If the Fine had been with proclamations then without doubt he in the Remainder during the life of him who levied it had been barred The Devise was To have to them and to the heirs of their bodies so long as they and every of their issues do observe perform fulfill and keep the true meaning of this my Will touching the entailed Lands in form following and no otherwise And therfore I M. Kellaway do devise unto John Kellaway the issue of his body the Remainder c. â—o have to the said John Kellaway and the issue of his body untill he or any of his issue shall go about to conclude do or make any act or acts to alien discontinue or change the true meaning of this my Will That then my Will is and I do give and bequeath to H K in tail And that it shall be lawfull for him the said H. K. or his issue to enter immediately upon such assent conclusion or going about to conclude c. And that H. K. and his issue shall leave it untill he or any of them go about c. C. 9 part Sundayes Case 128. where it was resolved That no Condition or Limitation be it by act executed or by limitation of an Use or by a Devise can bar Tenant in tail to alien by a common Recovery v. C. 3. part acc The Case was not resolved but it was adjourned to another day to be argued and then the Court to deliver their opinions in it Trin. 21. Intratur Trin. 20 Jacobi Rot. 811. in the Kings Bench. 447. KNIGHT's Case IN this Case George Crook said That Land could not belong to Land yet in a Will such Land which had been enjoyed with other might pass by the words cum pertinaciis As where A. hath two houses adjoyning viz. the Swan and the Red-Lyon and A. hath the Swan in his own possession and occupieth a Parlour or Hall which belongs in truth to the Red-Lyon with the Swan-house and then leaseth the Red-lyon
removed but if the VVrit of Error want only form but is sufficient for the matter in substance the VVrit shall not abate but the partie may have a new VVrit of Error coram vobis residet c. Trin. 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 464. MILL's Case ACtion upon the Case for these words Thou hast Coyned Gold and art a Coyner of Gold Adjudged the Action will not lie for it may be he had Authority to Coyn and words shall be taken in mitiori sensu Pasch 3 Car in the Kings Bench. 465. BROOKER's Case THe question was VVhether the Feoffee of the Land might maintain a VVrit of Error to reverse an Attaindor by Vtglary and the Case was this William Isley seised in Fee of the Mannor of Sundridge in Kent had issue Henry Isley who was Indicted of Felony 18 Eliz. and 19. Eliz. the Record of the Indictment was brought into this Court and thereupon 20 Eliz. Henry Isley was outlawed William Isley died seised Henry Isley entred into the Mannor and Land as son and heir and being seised of the same devised the Mannor and Lands to C. in Fee who conveyed the same to Brooker and Brooker brought a Writ of Error to reverse the Outlawry against Henry Isley Holborn argued for the King and said that Brooker was no way privy to the attaindor of Henry Isley but a meer stranger and therefore could not maintain a Writ of Error And first he said and took exception that he had not set himself down Terre-Tenant in possession Secondly he saith in his Writ of Error That the Mannor and Lands descended to Henry Isley as son and heir when as he was attainted The third exception was That he saith that Henry Isley did devise the Lands and that he could not do because he was a person Attainted Fourthly he said that Brooker was not Tenant so much as in posse 4 H. 7. 11. If it were not for the words of Restitution the partie could not have the mean profits after the Judgment reversed 16 Ass 16. Lessee for years pleaded to a Precipe and reversed it the question was whether he should be in statu quo vi Librum for it is obscure If this Attaindor of Henry Isley were reversed yet it cannot make the devise good For there is a difference betwixt Relations by Parliament which nullifie Acts and other Relations Vi. 3 H. 7. Sentlegers Case Petition 18. The violent Relation of Acts of Parliament If a Bargain and Sale be the Inrollment after will make Acts before good but a Relation by Common Law will not make an Act good which was before void C. 3. part Butler and Bakers Case A gift is made to the King by Deed enrolled and before the enrollment the King granteth away the Land the Grant is void yet the enrollment by Relation makes the Lands to pass to the King from the beginning Admit in this Case that Brooker were Terre-Tenant yet he is not a party privy to bring a Writ of Error to reverse the Attaindor of him who was Tenant of the Land and I have proved That although the Attaindor were reversed yet he hath nothing because the Devise was void and is not made good by Relation It is a rule in our Books that no man can bring a VVrit of Error but a partie or privy 9 E. 4. 13. 22 E. 4. 31 32. 9 H. 6. 46. b. Ass 6 C. 3. part in the Marquiss of Winchesters Case The heir of the part of the mother cannot have the VVrit of Error but the heir of the part of the father may So if erronious Judgment be given in the time of profession of the eldest son and afterwards he is dereigned he shall have the Writ of Error In 22 H. 6. 28. The heir in special taile or by Custom cannot have Error But yet M. 18 Eliz. in Sir Arthur Henninghams Case it was adjudged That the special heir in tail might have a Writ of Error The Baile cannot maintain a Writ of Error upon a Judgment given against the Principal because he was not privy unto the Judgment therefore it shall be allowed him by way of plea in a Scire facias I never find that an Executor can have Error to reverse an Attaindor but for the misawarding of the Exigent Marshes Case was cited C. 5. part 111. Fitz 104. Feoffee at the Common Law could not have an Audita Quaerela in regard he was not privy 12 Ass 8. 41. Keâ—laway 193. There the Terre-Tenant brought a Writ of Error in the name of the heir and not in his own name 24 H. 8. Dyer 1. There it is said That he who is a stranger to the Record shall have Error To that I answer That he in the Reversion and the particular Tenant are but one Tenant for the Fee is demanded and drawn out of him But in the principal Case at Barr no Land is demanded but a personal Attaindor is to be reversed Also there it is put That if the Conusee extend before the day there it is said that the Feoffee may have Error 17 Ass 24. 18 E. 3. 25. Fitz. 22. To that I answer That the Feoffee is privy to that which chargeth him for the Land is extended in his hands and if the Feoffee there should not have a Writ of Error the Law should give him no manner of remedy for there the Conusor himself cannot have Error because the Lands are not extended in his hands Also it is there said that the Feoffee brought a Scirefacias against him who had execution of the Land To that I answer That that is by special Act of Parliament Also there it is said That if the Parson of a Church hath an Annuity and recovereth and afterwards the Benefice is appropriated to a Religious house the Soveraign of the house shall have a Scirefacias I answer That in that Case he is no stranger for that he is perpetual Parson and so the Successor of the Parson who recovered 12 H. 8. 8. There a Recovery was against a Parson and there Pollard said that the Patron might have Error I answer That Pollard was deceived there for it is said before that the Parson hath but an Estate for life and then he viz. the Patron is as a Recoverer who shall have a Writ of Error Dyer 1. But the Parson hath the Fee and therefore Pollard was mistaken as it appeareth by Brook Fauxi fier de Recovery 51. 19 H. 6. 57 Newton A false verdict is had against a Parson the Patron cannot have an Attaint There is a difference if one be partie to the Writ although not partie to the Judgment Error 72. A Quare Impedit was brought by the King against the Patron and the Incumbent and Judgment only was had against the Patron and the Incumbent Parson brought a Writ of Error but if he had not been partie to the Writ he could not have maintained Error So in Attaint the partie to the Writ though not to the Judgment shall
39 H. 6. 9. is ruled in the point there the Attachment is in his own hands there the other pleaded there was no debt It is there ruled that the debt is not traversable for if there be no debt then he shall have restitution in London upon the pledges It was objected That he is to swear his debt to be a true debt I answer It ought to be so intended and then if he lay a Custom to swear the Debt and we say we have sworn our Debt then we have pursued the Custom 3. It was objected that it is not shewed where the goods were whether within the jurisdiction of the City 4 E. 4. 36. there the place came not in question But in our Case we lay That the Custom is that the goods must be in London Old Entries 155 156. there it is not alleadged that the goods were within the City of London at the time of the Attachment If a Precept be awarded to the Officer who retorns that he hath not any thing within the City and upon the allegation of the Plaintiff that such a one hath goods of the Defendant in his hands was the Objection I answer If we have not proceeded well yet the Process is well enough for here is a Judgment against him in London then so long as the Judgment is in force against him he cannot have the goods 21 E. 4 23. b. It is a Rule That a stranger unto a plaint shall not be received to alleadge discontinuance in the process So the Sheriff shall not excuse himself upon an Escape that there was Error in the Judgment nor a privy shall not take advantage of it Ognels Case Trim. 31 Eliz. there lies no process of Capias by the Law upon a Recognisance but Extent or Levari facias Yet there a Capias was awarded and if the party taken escape the Sheriff shall not take advantage of the Erronious process So I desire Judgment for the Defendant And he took an Exception to the Declaration In Detinue if the Declaration be general it is good sc Licet sepius requisitu c. But here he shews that he delivered the Cloak to be redelivered upon Request and he doth not shew any particular Request but sayes generally Licet sepius requisitus Ward There is a difference betwixt Detinue and Action upon the Case For in an Action upon the Case he ought to shew a particular Request 26 H. 6. If I bail goods to redeliver upon request yet I may seise them without request Dodderidge Justice The reseisure of the goods is a Request in Law a Request with a witness a Request with effect and untill Request he hath just cause to keep them Jones Justice In Debt and Detinue the very bringing of the Action and demand of the Writ is a demand and request And if he appear at the first Summons then he excuses himself otherwise he shall be subject to damages but the Request ought not to be so precisely alleadged But if a collateral thing be to be done upon Request there to say sepius requisitus is not sufficient So if I sell a horse for 10â— to be paid upon Request there the Request must be precisely laid for it is parcel of the Contract And in Action upon the Case and upon Debt you must lay a Request Dodderidge Justice The Request is no part of the Debt for the Debt is presently due but if I make the Request to be part of the Contract there it is otherwise As if I deliver goods to redeliver to me there needeth no precise Request but if it be to redeliver upon Request there the Request ought to be alleadged for there the Request is part of the Contract The Case was adjourned till the next Term. Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 484. MOLE and CARTER'S Case IN an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit it was moved in arrest of Judgment That the Plaintiff declares that he was possessed of certain Goods viz. such c. at London And that in consideration of two shillings That the Defendant at London did promise to carrie the said Goods aboard such a Ship if the Plaintiff would deliver the Goods to him And he shewed that he did deliver the Goods to him and that he had not carried them aboard He shewed that he was possessed of the Goods but did not shew when or where he delivered the said Goods to the Defendant but said only deliberavit c. And then the Law saith that they were not delivered Jones Justice The same is but matter of Inducement to the promise and ought not to be shewed so precisely Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 485. FRYER and DEW'S Case DEW being sued prayed his Priviledg because he is a Commoner in Exeter Colledg in Oxford and brought Letters under the Seal of the Chancellor of Oxford certifying their Priviledg and he certifies that Dew is a Commoner as appeareth by the Certificate of Doctor Prideaux Rector of the said Colledg Whereas he ought to certifie that he is a Commoner upon his own knowledg and not upon the Certificate of another But afterwards Certificate was made of his own knowledg and then it was allowed as good The Declaration came in Hill 2 Caroli The Certificate bore date in the Vacation and he prayed his Priviledg this Easter Term. After Imparlance he comes too late to pray his Priviledg The Certificate is not that at the time of the Action brought he was a Commoner in Exeter Colledg but that now he is a Commoner And the Certificate bears date after the Action brought He ought to have said that at the time of the Action brought and now he is a Commoner in Exeter Colledg The Priviledg was allowed per Curiam Trin. 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 486. TANFIELD and HIRON'S Case THe Plaintiff brought an Action upon the Case against the Defendant for delivering of a scandalous Writing to the Prince and in his Declaration he set forth what place he held in the Commonwealth and that the Defendant seeking to extenuate and draw the love and favour of the King Prince and Subjects from him did complain that the Plaintiff did much oppress the Inhabitants of Michel Tue in the County of Oxford and that he did cause Meerstones to be digged up which might be a cause of great contention amongst the Inhabitants of Tue. The Plaintiffe denyed the oppression alledged against him and the Defendant did justifie and said that I. S. being seised of the Mannor of Tue did demise certain Lands parcel thereof unto I. F. for eighty years who made a Lease of the same at Will and afterwards I. S. did Enfeoff Tanfield the Plaintiff of the said Mannor to whom the Tenants did attorn Tenants And the Defendant shewed That time out of mind the Inhabitants of the Town of Tue had Common in the Waste of the said Mannor and that a great part of the said Mannor was inclosed and the Meerstones removed
for the Judgment was not given upon the verdict Pasch 25 H. 8. Rot. 25. Plot and his wife against Treventry in a Writ of Error after the Record removed Diminution of the Original was alledged and there it was pretended that the Judgment was given upon another Original and one of the Originals was before and the other after the Judgment and there the Judgment was reversed because it cannot appear to the contrary but that the Judgment was given upon the later Original Trin. 18 Jacobi Rot. 1613. Bowen and Jones's Case In an Action upon the Case brought upon Assumpsit Error assigned was because that no place was limited where the payment should be made The Original was That the promise was in consideration that the Plaintiff did lend to the Defendant so much he at London did promise to pay the same to him again There were two Originals which bore date the same day Judgment was in that Case for the Plaintiff And the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and alledged Diminution of the Original then the other Original was certified The Defendant in the Writ of Error said That the Original upon which the Recoverie was grounded was an Original which had a place certain The Judges did affirm the same to be the true Original which did maintain the Judgment and agree with the proceedings otherwise great mischief would â—ollow George Crook contrarie and recited the Case viz. Hayns brought a Writ of Error against Crouch and the Writ of Error is to reverse a Record upon a Judgment which was given in the Common Pleas The Original which is certified bears date Trin. 18 Jacobi and the Ejectione firme is brought Trin. 18 Jacobi for an Ejectment which is made in September following and now upon this Errour assigned the partie had a Certiorari to remove the Record upon which you alledge Diminution For you say That the Originall upon which the Judgment was given bore date in September 18. Jacobi which was after the Ejectment The bodie of the Record is Trin. 18. Contrary to this Record you say that there was an Originall Mich. 18 Jacobi and so that is contrary to the Record Error 2. upon the Record The Originall is not part of the Record but you ought to assigne Errour in that which is alledged in Diminution 6 H. 7. 4 Fitz. 21 a. To alledge any thing against a Record is void The Ejectment was after the Originall which warrants the Record and it was after the Action brought They alledge that the Originall was not truely certified and that then after an Imparlance an Originall Writ is made to Warrant the Action Jones and Bowâ—ns Case before cited There a vitious Originall was certified and then upon the Complaint of the Defendant the true Originall was certified both were retornable at the same day And in the Case before cited of Plott and Treventris The Originall which was first certified did not bear date according to the Record which was certified But in our Case the last Originall doth not agree with the Record but the first But in the Case of Plott the Judgement was reversed for another Error The Diminution when it stands with the Record shall be allowed but when it differs from the Record then it shall not be allowed The Ejectment was layed after the first Originall purchased which agrees with the Record and after the Action brought Quod nota It was adjuorned till another Terme viz. Mich. 21. Jacobi Trin. 21. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 489. SOMMERS Case THe Case was between Sommers and Mary his Wife Plaintiffs who Traversed an Office found after the death of one Roberts The parties were at Issue upon one point in the Traverse and it was found against the King Henden Serjeant moved The Office finds That Roberts dyed seised of two Acres in Soccage and four foot of Lands holden in Capite which was alledged Roberts had by Encroachment Sommers and his Wife pleaded That Roberts in his life time did enfeoffe them of one of the Acres Absque hoc that that Acre did discend And for the other Acre they pleaded and entitled themselves by the Will of Roberts Absque hoc that Roberts was seised thereof That I take to be an insufficient Traverse First it is found by the Office That Roberts dyed seised and that the same discended to four Daughters and One of the Daughters is the Wife of Sommers And hee and his Wife traverse the Office and confesse that the Ancestor died seised Absque hoc that the same discended The Traverse is repugnant in it self for if he did Devise it then untill Entry by the Devisee it doth discend but if they had pleaded the Devise only and Entry by force thereof it might have been a good Traverse The Office findes that it did discend to four Daughters and the Wife of Sommers is one of the four Daughters and he and his Wife Traverse the discent and that is not good for one cannot Traverse that which makes a Title to himself 37 Ass 1. The Rule there put is That a Man cannot Traverse the Office by which he is intitled but in point of Tenure he may Traverse it wherewith agrees Stamford Prerogat 61. 62. 42 Ass 23. One came and Traversed an Office and thereby it appeared that Two there had occasion to Traverse it and it was holden that they all ought to joyne in the Traverse Finch Recorder of London contr ' The Office found generally That Roberts had four Daughters and had two Acres and four Foot of Lands and that the same discended to four Daughters Sommers and his Wife Traverse the Office and plead That as to one Acre Roberts made a Feoffment thereof unto them Absque hoc that he died seised thereof 2. That Roberts devised the other Acre to them Absque hoc that the same did discend 5 Eliz. Dyer 221 Bishops Case There it is resolved That a Devise doth prevent a Remitter and then by consequent it shall prevent a Discent 49 E. 3 16. There a Devise did prevent an Escheat to the King As to the four Foot gained by Encroachment which is holden of the King in Capite They traverse Absque hoc that Roberts was seised thereof I agree that where their Title is joynt there all must Traverse but in our Case we Traverse for our selves and deny any thing to be due to the three other Sisters The four Foot of Waste was part of the Mannor of Bayhall and the Venire facias was out of that Mannor and the Towns where the other lands lay 9 E. 4. A. disseises B. of a Mannor and A. severs the Demeasnes from the Services Now B. shall demand the Mannor as in Truth it now is Henden contr ' It is no part of the Mannor of Bayhall for it is encroached out of it therefore the Venire facias ought not to be of the Mannor of Bayhall The Jury finde that he had encroached four Foot Ex vasto Manerii c.
Dodderige Justice the encroachment doth not make it to be no parcell of the Mannor Ley chief Justice it is not layed to be a Disseisin but an Encroachment and therefore it is not so strong as a Disseisin with a Discent but in Right it belongs to the Mannor Tenant in Tail makes a Feoffment to the use of himself and deviseth the Lands to A. the Devise doth prevent the Remitter Haughton Justice the Discent is Traversed The Father dieth seised and hath issue two Sons and that the Lands discended to him the other may say That the Land is borough English and that the Lands discend unto him Absque hoc that they discended to the Eldest Dodderidge Justice Regularly you shall not Traverse the Discent but by the dying seised but in this Case it ought to be of necessity sc â— in case of a Devise the Traverse must be of the Discent for here they cannot traverse the dying seised for if they traverse the dying seised then they overthrow their own Title sc the Devise but here in Case of a Will the partie shall traverse the Discent for he cannot say that it is true that the Lands did discend and that he Devised it c. The heir cannot traverse that which entitles him by Discent but here his Title is by the Devise and not as heir Finch Recorder the Devise is not of the four Foot for if we confess the dying seised of the four Foot which was holden in Capite then we should overthrow our own Devise The Office finds that he died seised of the whole and therefore of the four foot He being never seised we traverse the dying seised thereof and we deny that he ever had it so the Traverse is good without making of us any Title unto it for we desire not to have it Dodderidge Justice If a man deviseth to his heir it is a void Devise for the discent shall be preferred But if one hath Issue four daughters and he deviseth to one of them it is good for the whole Land so devised to her and no part of the Land so devised shall discend to the other the Lands being holden in Socage Ley Chief Justice and the whole Court did agree That they might deny and traverse the four Foot if the Ancestor had no Title unto it and Judgment was given accordingly against the King quod nota Trin. 21 Jac. in the Kings Bench. 490. PAYNE and COLLEDGES Case AN Agreement was made between Payne and Colledg That if Payne being Chirurgion did Cure Colledg of a great Disease viz. A Noli me tangere That then he should have 10l and that if he did not cure him That then for his pains and endeavours Colledg would give him 5l In an Action upon the Case brought by Payne he doth not shew in his Declaration in what place he used his endeavour and Industry And there is a difference where the Plaintiff is to do any thing of Skill and Industry for there he may do the same at several times and in several places and so this Case differs from the Cases in our books 15 H. 6. Accord 1. is expresly in the point There the Defendant pleaded an Accord That if the Defendant by his Industry c. And exception was taken because that he did not shew a place 3 E. 4. 1. Debt brought by a Servant and declares that he was reteined by the predecessor of the Defendant c. and that he had performed his Service c. It was moved in Arrest of Judgment and Exception taken as in our Case because he did not shew where he did the Service for that is issuable and Denly there said That he need not shew the place because he might do it in several places Bridgeman Serjeant contrarie If the issue had been upon a Collateral matter it had been good enough but here the issue is taken upon an endeavour and you ought to alleadg a place for the tryal of it Dodderidge Justice The Jury was from the place where the Agreement was made the verdict will not make good the Declaration although the Jury have found the whole matter of fact for it doth not appear to us That that was the Jury which could try his endeavour The Case of 3 E. 4. of the Servant was to serve him seaven years and there he need not shew any place where he did his Service but only that he obeyed his Master in his Service for the seaven years If the Plaintiff in this Case had shewed but any one place of doing his endeavour in it had been sufficient but here he sheweth no place at all And therefore Judgment was given That Querens nihil Capiat per Billam Trin. 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 491. The Lord ZOUCH and MOORES Case IN an Action of Trespass for cutting down of Trees in Odiham Park in Hampshire It was found by special Verdict That King Henry the eighth was seised of the Mannor and Park of Odiham And by his Letters Patents 33 of his Reign did grant unto Genny the Office of Stewardship of the said Mannor and the Office of Parkership of the said Park with reasonable Herbage and by the same Letters Patents did grant unto him the Mannor of Odiham cum pertinaciis and 100. Loads of Wood excepting the Park the Deer and the Wood for fifty years if he should so long live Then they found That after that Genny did surrender and restore the Letters Patents in the Chancery to be cancelled and that in truth they were cancelled and that the said Surrender was made to the intent to make a new Lease thereof unto Pawlet and that this Lease of 33 H. 8. being surrendred That King Henry the 8. Anno 36. of his Reign reciting the Letters Patents made to Genny to be dated anno 32 H. 8. whereas in truth they were dated 33 H. 8. and that they were surrendred and that the intent of the Surrender was to make a new Lease to Pawlet Did grant the same to Pawlet as before they were granted to Genny excepting as before They further found That King Philip and Queen Mary 5 6 of their Reigns being seised of the said Mannor and Park in jnro Coronae reciting that Henry the 8. anno 36 of his Reign had granted unto Paulet as before omitting the Proviso which was for 50 years if he should so long live and the Exceptions before And reciting that those Letters-Patents were surrendred ea intentione to make a new Lease in forma sequente They in consideration of good service and 200l paid did grant the Office as before and by those Letters-Patents did grant Herbage generally whereas the first Patent was reasonable Herbage And by these Letters-Patents did grant to him the Mannor cum pertinaciis except the grand trees and woods in the Park and Felons goods which were granted by the first Letters Patents for 50 years And here was a Rent reserved and a Proviso that for doing of Waste that the
reasonable Herbage Here the Grant is not De omnibus grossis arboribus bonis catellis Felonum and of the Goods of Felons themselves and in the former Patent these were granted and so the Grant is for the Kings benefit and to the prejudice of the Patentee Also this Patent is ad proficuum Domini Regis For here is a Rent reserved and here is a Proviso for the committing of Waste in the premisses which were not in the first Letters Patents and in these Letters Patents there are divers Covenants which were not in the former Patents and so it is in forma sequente And so the Lease of Philip and Mary is good The King seised of a Manor to which he hath a Park doth grant the Stewardship of the Manor and the Custodie of the said Park with reasonable Herbage Afterwards in the same Letters Patents hee grants the said Manor of O. and all the Lands in O. excepting grosse trees in the Park If this Grant be not good for the Manor it is not good for the Park that was the Objection It is good for the Manor and also for the Park It was objected That the King grants the custody of the Park and so not the Park it selfe for how can the King grant the custody of the Park if he grant the Park it selfe it is dangerous that upon an implication in one part of a Patent the expresse words which follow should be made void the subsequent words in this Case are The King grants the Manor and all the Lands to the same belonging now the Park doth belong to it and the King excepts only the Deer C. 10 part 64. The King at this day grants a Manor unto a man as entirely as such a one held the same before it came into his hands c. the Advowson doth passe without words of grant of the Advowson for the Kings meaning is That the Advowson shall passe The meaning of the King is manifest in our Case C. 3. Part 31 32. Carr's Case There the Rent was extinct betwixt the Parties yet for the benefit of the King for his tenure it hath continuance for a thing may be extinct as to one purpose and in esse as to another purpose 38. Ass 16. a Rent extinct yet Mortmain Dyer 58 59. The Exception ought to be of the thing demised In our Case the Park doth passe but the King shall have the liberties in it and so here the Park shall passe and the Exception is of the liberties Com. 370. the Exception ought to be of that which is contained in the former words in the former Patents the Offices were first granted and in the same Letters Patents the Manor was afterwards granted But now King James grants the Manor first and then the Offices Construction of Statutes ought to be secuncundùm intentionem of the makers of them and construction of Patents secundùm intentionem Domini Regis C. 8. part 58. You ought to make such a construction as to uphold the Letters Patents C. 8. part 56. Auditor Kings Case There the Letters Patents were construed secundùm intentionem Domini Regis and adjudged good But to make void the Patent they shall not be construed secundùm intentionem but to make a Patent good they shall be construed secundùm intentionem Domini Regis The Case was adjourned till Michaelmas Terme next Note I have heard Sir Henry Yelverton say That it was the opinion of the Judges in this Case That he had but the custody of the Park and not the interest of the Park for that by the acceptance of the custody of the Park when he had a Lease of the Park before it was a surrender of his Lease Trinit 21. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 492 SHORTRIDGE and HILL's Case SHortridge brought an Action upon the Case against Hill for ravishing of his Ward and the Writ was contra pacem without the words Vi armis Lib. Dent. 366. where three Presidents are of Actions upon the Case without Vi armis An Action upon the case for doing of any thing against a Statute must be contra pacem Ley Chief Justice Recovery in this Action may be pleaded in Barre in a Writ of Ravishment of Ward brought Dodderidge Justice The Action of Trespasse at the common Law is only for the taking away of the Ward and here he hath elected his Action at the common Law and then he shall not have an Action upon the Statute viz. a Ravishment of Ward but here the Action upon the Case is brought for the taking and detaining of the Ward so as he cannot preferr him in marriage and upon this speciall matter the Action upon the Case lieth without the words Vi armis A Writ of Ravishment of Ward ought to be brought in the Common Pleas but yet you may bring a Writ of Ravishment of Ward in this Court if the Defendant be in the custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsey for in such special Case it shall be brought in this Court if there be an extraordinary matter besides the Trespass then an Action upon the Case lieth as when A. contracts with B. to make an estate unto B. of Bl. Acre at Michaelmas if C. enter into Bl. Acre A. may have an Action upon the Case against C. for the speciall damage which may happen to him by reason that he is not able to perform that contract by reason of the entry of C. and he shall declare contra pacem but not Vi armis Trinit 21. Jacobi in the King 's Bench. 493 BAKER and BLAKAMORE's Case IN Trespass the Defendant pleaded That J. S. being seised in Fee gave the Lands unto Baker and the Heirs of his body and conveyed the Lands by descent to four Daughters and Blakamore the Defendant as servant to one of the Daughters did justifie The Plaintiff did reply That the said J. S. was seised in Fee and gave the same to Baker and the Heirs Males of his Body and conveyed the Land by descent to himself as Heir Male absque hoc that J. S. was seised in Fee Henden Serjeant did demur in Law upon the Replication and took Exception to the Traverse for that here he traverseth the Seisin of J. S. whereas he ought to have traversed the gift in tail made by J. S. for the being seised is but an inducement not traverseable and therefore he ought to have traversed the gift in taile for then he had traversed the seisin for he could not give the Lands in tail if that he were not seised thereof in Fee L. 5. E. 4 9. there in Formedon the Tenant would have traversed the Seisin of the Donor but the book is ruled that the Traverse ought to be of the gift in tail and that includes the Seisin Bridgment for the Plaintiffe and said That the Serjeant is of opinion contrary to the Books when he saith positively that you ought to traverse the gift in tail and not the seisin of the Donor
of his eldest son in tail and afterwards he married a wife and died that the wife should not be endowed for when he had limited the use to himself for his life he could not limit arâ— Remainder over And Edwards Case adjudged in the Court of Wards which was That there was Tenant for life the Remainder in tail he in the Remainder granted his Remainder to I. S. and his heirs and afterwards Tenant for life dyed and then the grantee dyed his heirs within age it was adjudged that the heir of the garntee should not be in ward because the Tenant in tail could not by his Grant grant a greater estate then for his own life But he said That in the principall Case it appeareth That the Tenant in tail in Remainder hath particularly recited his estate And where it appeareth in the Conveyance it self that he hath but an estate in tail a greater estate shall not passe As if Tenant for life granteth a Rent to one and his heirs the same at the first sight seems to be a good Rent in Fee but when it appeareth in the Conveyance that the grantor was but Tenant for life there upon the Construction of the Deed it self it cannot be intended that he granted a Fee but that an estate for life passed only in the Rent Secondly he argued That although the estate in tail in the principall case was an abeyance Yet a Common Recovery would barr such estate tail in abeyance And therewith agreeth C. 2. part Sr Hugh Cholmleys Case 3. He said That the estate was out of the King and vested in the party without any Offence found as 49. E. 3. Isabell Goodcheaps case A man devised houses in London holden of the King in tail and if the Donee dyed without Issue that the Lands should be sold by his Executors The devisee died without Issue The bargain and sale of the Lands by the Executor doth divert the estate out of the King without Petition or Monstrans de Droit So If there be Tenant in tail the Remainder in tail and Tenant in tail â—n Remainder levieth a fine of his Remainder to the King and afterwards dyeth without Issue the Kings estate is determined and there needs no Petition or Monstrans de Droit 4. He said That in the principall case nothing was in the King because it doth not appeare that there was any seisure or Offence found to entitle the King And the Tenant in tail in the Remainder died in the life of King James and then if the Kings estate were then determined as before by the death of the Tenant in taile the King which now is never had any title And hee said that he needed not to shew a greater title then he had And hee took a difference when Tenant in taile doth onely defend or make defence and when he makes title to Lands in the one Case he ought for to shew That the Tenant in taile died without issue and in the other Case not And therefore in the principall case he demanded Judgment for the Defendant The Case was adjourned to another day Mich. 4. Caroli in the Star-Chamber 511 TAILOR and TOWLIN's Case A Bill was preferred against the Defendant for a Conspiracy to Indict the plaintiff of a Rape And the Plaintiff aleadged in his Bill That an Indictment was preferred by the Defendant against the Plaintiff before the Justices of Assise and Nisi prius in the County of Suffolk And did not lay it in his Bill that the Indictment was preferred before the Justices of Oyer and Terminer and Gaole delivery and the same was holden by the Court to be a good Exception to the Bill for that the Justices of Assise and Nisi prius have not power to take Indictments But afterwards upon veiw of the Bill because the Conspiracy was the principall thing tryable and examinable in this Court and that was well layd in the Bill the Bill was retayned and the Court proceded to Sentence And in this Case Richardson Justice said That in Conspiracy the matter must bee layed to be falsè et malitiosè and if it be layed for a Rape It must be layd that there was recens persecutio of it otherwise it will argue a Consent And therefore because the Defendant did not preferre an Indictment of Rape in convenient time after the Rape supposed to be done but concealed the same for half a years time and then would have preferred a Bill of Indictment against the plaintiff for the same Rape he held that the Indictment was false and malitious And Hyde Chief Justice said That upon probable proof a man might accuse another before any Justice of Peace of an Offence and although his accusation be false yet the Accuser shall not be punished for it But where the Accusation is malitious and false it is otherwise and for such Accusation he shall be punished in this Court Trinit 8. Caroli in the King Bench. 513 JONES and BALLARD's Case AN Action upon the Case was brought for these words viz These Jones are proper Witnesses they will sweare any thing They care not what they say They have already forsworn themselves in the Chancery and the Lord keeper Committed them for it Jermyn took Exceptions because it was not said to be in the Court of Chancery nor that it was in any Deposition there taken upon Oath But it was adjudged per Curiam That the Action would lie and Jones Justice said that the Addition in the Chauncery was as much as if he had said he was perjured there And Hâ—msies case was vouâ—hed by him Where one said of a Witness presently after a Tryall at the Guild Hall in London You have now forsworn your self That it was adjudged that the words were actionable Trinit 8. Caroli in the Kings Bench. 513. SYMME's and SMITH's Case A Woman being entituled to copyhold Lands of the Manor of D did covenant upon reasonable request to be made unto her to surrender the Copy-hold Land according to the Custome of the Manor And it was found That the Custome of the Manor is That a surrender may be made either in person or by Letter of Atturney and that the plaintiff did request the woman to make the surrender by a Letter of Atturney which shee refused to do And whether shee ought to surrender presently or might first advise with her Councell was the Question It was argued for the plaintiff that shee ought to do it presently And Munser's Case C. 2. part and 16. Eliz. Dyer 337. Sir Anthonie Cooks Case were vouched that she was to do it at her perill And the Election in this Case was given to the Covenantee and hee might require it to be done either in Court in person or by Letter of Atturney And C. 2. part Sir Rowland Heywards Case and C. 5. part Hallings Case was vouched to that purpose Rolls contrary for the Defendant And he said That the woman was to have convenient time to do it and
Judgement was affirmed for by intendment the Judgment was given upon the first Original which bore date before the Iudgment Another Error was assigned because the Plea was That such a one was seised of the Castle and Mannor of Mulgrave predictis in the plural number I answer that there is not any colour for that Error for the word predictis doth shew that the Mannor and Castle are not one and the same thing So upon the whole matter I pray that the Iudgment given in the Court of Pleas may be affirmed Sir Henry Yelverton argued for the Lord Sheffield that the Iudgment might be reversed There are three things considerable in the Case First If any right of the ancient estate tail was in Francis Bigot who was attainted at the time of his Attainder Secondly admit that there was an ancient right if it might be forfeited being a right coupled with a Possession and not a right in gross Thirdly Whether such a Possession discend to Francis Bigot that he shall be remitted and if this Remitter be not overreached by the Office First If by the Feoffment of Francis Bigot 21. H. 8. when he was Cestuy que use and by the Livery the right of the ancient entail be destroyed And I conceive it is not but that the same continues and is not gone by the Livery and Seisin made There is a difference when Cestuy que use makes a Feoffment before the Statute of 1 R 3. and when Cestuy que use makes a Feoffment after the said statute of 1 R 3 For before the statute hee gives away all Com 352. but after the statute of R. 3. Cestuy que use by his Feoffment gives away no Right In 3 H. 7 13. is our very case almost For there the Tenant in Tail made a Feoffment unto the use of his Will so in our Case and thereby did declare that it should be for the payment of his debts and afterwards to the use of himself and the heirs of his body and died the heir entred before the debts paid but in our Case he entred after the debts paid there it is said that the Feoffment is made as by Cestuy que use at the Common Law for his entrie was not lawfull before the debts paid But when Francis Bigot made a Feoffment 21 H. 8. he was Cestuy que use in Fee and then is the Right of the Estate tail saved by the Statute of 1. R. 3. And by the Statute of 1. R. 3. he gives the Land as Servant and not as Owner of the Land and so gives nothing but a possession and no Right 5 H. 7. 5. Cestuy que use since the Statute of 1 R. 3. is but as a Servant or as an Executor to make a Feoffment And if an Executor maketh a Feoffment by force of the Will of the Testator he passeth nothing of his own Right but only as an Executor or Servant 9 H. 7. 26. proves that Cestuy que use since the Statute of 1 R. 3 hath but only an Authority to make a Feoffment For Cestuy que use cannot make a Letter of Attorney to make Livery for him for he hath but a bare Authority which cannot be transferred to another Cestuy que use hath a Rent out of Land and by force of the Statute of 1 R. 3. he maketh a Feoffment of the Land yet the Rent doth remain to him for he giveth but a bare possession So in our Case the right of the Estate Tail doth remain in Francis Bigot notwithstanding his Feoffment as Cestuy que use by the Statute of 1 R. 3. If Cestuy que use by force of the Statute of 1 R. 3. maketh a Feoffment without Warranty the Vouchee shall not Vouch by force of that Warranty For as Fitzherbert saith Cestuy que use had no possession before the Statute of 27. H. 8. Cap. 10. 27 H. 8. 23. If Feoffees to Use make a Letter of Attorney to Cestuy que use to make a Feoffment he giveth nothing but as a Servant The Consequent of this Point is That the right of the old Estate Tail was in Francis Bigot at the time of his Attainder and was not gone by the Feoffment made 21 H. 8. The second Point is Whether a right mixt with a possession of Francis Bigot might be forfeited by the Statutes of 26. H. 8. and the private Act of 31. H. 8. The Statute of 31. H. 8. doth not save this Right no more then the Statute of 26. H. 8. For they are all one in words I say that he hath such a right as may be lost and forfeited by the words of the Statute of 26. H. 8. Cap. 13. For that Statute giveth three things First It gives the Forfeiture of Lands and not of Estates Secondly How long doth that Statute give the lands to the King For ever viz. to the King his Heirs and Successors Thirdly It gives the lands of any Estate of Inheritance in Use or Possession by any Right Title or means This Estate Tail is an Estate of Inheritance which he hath by the Right by the Title and by the means of coming to the Right it is forfeited These two Statutes were made for the punishment of the Child For the Common Law was strict enough against the Father viz. he who committed the Treason And shall the same Law which was made to punish the Child be undermined to help the Child The ancient Right shall be displaced from the Land rather then it shall be taken from the Crown which is to remain to the Crown for ever And this Statute of 26 H. 8. was made pro bonoâ— publico and it was the best Law that ever was to preserve the King and his Successors from Treason for it is as it were a hedg about the King For before this Statute Tenant in Tail had no regard to commit Treason For he forfeited his Lands but during his own life and then the Lands went to the issue in Tail But this Statute doth punish the Child for the Fathers offence and so maketh men more careful not to offend least their posterity may beg I take two grounds which are frequent in our Law First That the King is favoured in the Exposition of any Statute Com. 239 240. The second That upon the construction of any Statute nothing shall be taken by equity against the King Com. 233 234. Here in this Case although the Right were not in possession yet it was mixed with the possession from Anno 13. E. 1. untill 26. H. 8. Tenant in Tail feared not to commit Treason For the Statute of West 2. did preserve the Estate Tail so as the Father could not prejudice his issue per factum suum And therefore the Commonwealth considering that a wicked man did not care what became of himself so as his issue might be safe provided this Statute of 26. H. 8. Cap. 13. although the Statute of 16. R. 2. Cap. 5. which giveth the Premunire doth Enact that all Lands and
Tenements of one attainted in a Premunire shall be forfeited to the King Yet Tenant in Tail in such Case did not forfeit his Lands C. 11. part 63. b. as the Statute of West 2. Cap. 1. saith in particular words That Tenant in Tail shall not prejudice his issue Therefore the Statute of 26. H. 8. in particular words saith That Tenant in Tail shall forfeit his Lands for Treason The Right of Francis Bigot is not a right in gross but a Right mixed with a possession The Statute of West 2. Cap. 1. brought with it many mischiefs For by that Statute the Ancestor being Tenant in Tail could not redeem himself out of prison nor help his wife nor his younger children and that mischief continued untill 12. E. 4. Taltaram's Case and then the Judges found a means to avoid those mischiefs by a common Recovery and this Invention of a common Recovery was a great help to the Subject Then came the Statute of 32. H. 8. Cap. 36. which Enacted That Fines levied by Tenant in Tail should be a good barr to the issue of any Estate any way entailed If the Son issue in tail levieth a Fine in the life of his Father who is Tenant in tail it shall be a barr to him who levieth the Fine and to his issues And both these viz. the Common Recovery and the said Statute did help the Purchaser And shall not this Statute of 26. H. 8. help the King The Statute of 26. H. 8. Cap. 13. hath not any strength against the Ancestor but against the Child For the Construction of Statutes I take three Rules First When a Case hapneth which is not within the Letter then it is within the intent and equity of the Statute Com. 366. 464. Secondly All things which may be taken within the mischief of the Statute shall be taken within the Equity of the Statute 4. H. 6. 26. per Martin Thirdly When any thing is provided for by a Statute every thing within the same mischief is within the same Statute 14. H. 7. 13. The Estate tail of Francisâ— Bigot and Katharine his wife is forfeited by the Statute of 26 H. 8. There is a difference when the Statute doth fix the forfeiture upon the person As where it is enacted that J. S. shall forfeit his lands which he had at the time of his Attaindor The Judges ought expound that Statute only to J. S. But the Statute of 26 H. 8. doth not fix the forfeiture upon the person but upon the land it self And Exposition of Statutes ought to extend to all the mischiefs 8 Eliz. Sir Ralph Sadler's Case in B. R. where an Act of Parliament did enact That all the lands of Sadler should be forfeited to the King of whomsoever they were holden Sadler held some lands of the King in that case the King had that land by Escheat by the Common-Law and not by the said Statute Com. 563 The Law shall say that all the rights of the tail are joyned together to strengthen the estate of the King Tenant in tail before the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 14. of Chauntries gave lands to superstitious uses which were enjoyed five years before the said Statute of 1 E. 6. made Yet it was adjudged that the right of the issue was not saved but that the land was given to the Crown for the issue is excluded by the saving in the said Statute If Tenant in tail give the lands to charitable uses the issue is barred For the saving of the Statute of 39 Eliz. cap. 5. excludes him And he is bound by the Statute of Donis So the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. and the private Act of 31 H. 8. do save to all but the heirs of the Offenders The third Objection was That Ratcliffe was not excluded by the saving for it was said That the same doth not extend but to that which is forfeited by his Ancestors body And here Ratcliffe had but a Right and that was saved And the Statute doth not give Rights I answer first The Statute of 26 H. 8. is not to be expounded by the letter for then nothing should be forfeited but that only which he had in possession and use Tenant in tail is disseised and attainted for treason By the words of the said Statute of 26 H. 8. he forfeits nothing yet the issue in tail shall forfeit the lands for the issue in tail hath a right of Entrie which may be forfeited 6 H. 7. 9. A right of Entrie may escheat and then it may be forfeited Secondly The Statute is not to be construed to the possession but if he hath a mixt right with the possession it is forfeited but a right in grosse is not forfeited Tenant in tail of a Rent or Seignorie purchaseth the Tenancie or the Land out of which the Rent is issuing and is attainted He shall forfeit the Seignorie and Rent or the Land for the King shall have the Land for ever And then the Seignorie or Rent shall be discharged for otherwise the King should not have the Land for ever For the King cannot hold of any Lord a Seignorie 11 H. 7. 12. The heir of Tenant in tail shall be in Ward for a Meanaltie descended unto him the Meanaltie not being in esse and yet it shall be said to be in esse because of the King C. 3 part 30. Cars Case Although the Rent was extinguished yet as to the King it shall be in esse The difference is betwixt a Right clothed with a possession and a right in grosse viz. where the Right is severed from the possession there it is in grosse For there the Right lieth only in Action and therefore neither by the Statute of 26 H. 8. nor by the private Act of 31 H. 8. such a Right is not forfeited C. 3. part 2. C. 10. part 47 48. Right of Action by the Common-Law nor by Statute-Law shall escheat and therefore it is not forfeited For no Right of Action is forfeitable because the right is in one and the possession in another Perkins 19. A Right per se cannot be charged 27 H. 8. 20. by Mountague A man cannot give a Right by a Fine unless it be to him who hath the possession C. 10. part Lampits Case Sever the possibility from the right and it doth not lie in grant or forfeiture but unite them as they are in our Case and then the Right may be granted or forfeited for that Right clothed with a possession may be forfeited A Right clothed with the possession 1. It tastes of the possession 2. It waits upon the possession 3. It changes the possession The Bishop of Durham hath all Forfeitures for Treason by the Common-Law within his Diocess viz. the Bishoprick of Durham And if Tenant in tail within the Bishoprick commits Treason and dyeth the Issue in tail shall enjoy the land against the Bishop Dyer 289 a. pl. 57. For the Bishop hath not the land for ever but the Issue
but doth not shew by whom And shewed that the Lands inclosed out of which the Inhabitants had their Common And said That there were divers other Grievances to the Inhabitants of Tue but did not shew by whom they were nor what they were and shewed that at a Parliament the Defendant did deliver such a Writing to the Prince as one of the Peers of Parliament supposing that the grievances were set upon the Inhabitants by the Plaintiff by reason the Plaintiff occupied the Lands so inclosed and for Reformation thereof that he delivered the Writing to the Prince Absque hoc that he did deliver it in any other manner And upon this Plea in Barr Tanfield the Plaintiff did demurr in Law Noy for the Plaintiff said That the Defendant complains of wrong and doth not shew any wrong to be done by Tanfield the Plaintiff It is a grievous scandal to deliver this Writing for it is a scandalous Writing and no Petition for therein he doth not desire any Reformation but complains generally Betwixt John Frisel and the Bishop of Norwich The Case touched in 21 E. 3. was That Frisel brought a Prohibition to The Bishop and the Bishop excommunicated him for the delivering of it unto him The Bishop was fined And there it is said As Reverence is due to the King so it is due to his Ministers Our Action is brought at the Common Law and not upon the Statute of R. 2. de scandalis magnatum M. 18 E. 3. Rot. 162. Thomas Badbrook sent a Letter to Ferris one of the Kings Councel the effect of which was That Scot Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and his Companions of the same Bench would not do a vain thing at the Command of the King yet because he sent such a Letter to the Kings Councel although he spake no ill yet because it might incense the King against the Judges he was punished for it might be a means to make the King against his Judges We are to see here if the Defendant hath made any good Justification If there were no wrong then there was no cause to complain Secondly If he had demeaned himself as he ought he ought to have had the wrong if there were any reformed and that he did not do 11 H. 4. 5 H. 7. A voice of Fame is a good cause for to Arrest a man of Felony but then some Felony ought to be committed 7 H. 4. 35. A certain person came and said to one that there were certain Oxen stoln and that he did suspect such a one who he arrested upon the suspition It is a good cause of Justification if any Oxen were stoln but if no Fellony was committed if one be arrested upon suspicion that he hath committed Fellony it is not good If Fellony be done then a good cause to suspect him but if no Fellony be done nor he knoweth nor heareth of any Fellony committed there is no cause for to suspect that the partie hath committed Fellony but there ought to be suspition that the partie hath committed such a particular Fellony Where Fellony is committed certainly one may be arrested upon suspition but unless a Fellony be committed he cannot be arrested For where no Fellony is committed at all he shall not be drawn to a Tryal to clear himself of the suspition but if a Fellony be certainly committed and he be arrested upon the suspition there he being forced to answer to the Fellony he may clear and purge himself of the infamy upon his tryal and so the infamy is not permanent as in case when no Fellony is committed for there he may bring his Action upon the Case Here he saith that parcel of the Waste is inclosed and doth not shew what parcel so as no certain issue can be taken upon it Moor and Hawkins Case in an Ejectione firme It was alledged that he entred into parcel of the Land and the Land was alledged to lie in two several Towns and it was not good because no certain issue could be thereupon He saith the same was inclosed but doth not shew by whom it was inclosed viz. whether by the Feoffor or Tanfield the Feoffee he complains of many grievances but doth not shew what they are and he ought not to be his own Judge Secondly He hath not demeaned himself as he ought for he hath not desired in the Letter any Reformation but only he complains of the oppression of Tanfield He ought to have directed the Writing unto the Parliament and he directed the same unto the Prince by name In the Letter he doth not shew that Tanfield the Plaintiff did oppress but that the Plaintiff was an oppressor but he doth not shew in what thing The Case was adjourned Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 487. SCOT'S Case PRoborum legalium hominum is omitted in the Certificate of an Indictment by the Clark of the Sessions Curia If it had been in Trespass the omission of the said words had vitiated the Indictment but not in Case of Felony Quaere the reason Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. Intratur M. 19 Jac. Rot. 322. 488. CROUCH and HAYNE'S Case IN a Writ of Error the Record is removed out of the Common Pleas The Defendant pleads in nullo est Erratum and a Demurrer is joyned and the Defendant afterwards alledgeth Diminution of the Original 7 E. 4. 25. The Assignement of Errors is in lieu of the Declaration 4 E. 4. Error 44. After that in nullo est erratum is pleaded the Defendant shall not alledg Diminution for they are agreed before that that is the Record The Writ of Error was general and did not shew when the Judgment was when the Ejectment was what the Lands were and nothing is certain in the Writ of Error but the persons and the Action He shall not be concluded by the general retorn of the Record by the Chief Judg of the Common Pleas. Fitz. 25. a. C. 6. Entr. 231. The Record was removed and a Scire facias awarded ex recorde and Diminution was alledged for omitting of certain words yet the Retorn there was of the Record omnia ea tangentia Dyer 330. The Court certifie that the partie was not essoigned there then cannot be any Certificate of the Chief Justice to the contrary The Principal Case was An Original bore date in June 18 Jacobi and another Original in September 18 Jacobi and both were retornable S. Mich. And the Trespass was done after the first Original sued forth and before the later and both the Writs are in Court The question was upon which of the Originals the Judges should judge 4 E. 4. 26 27 28. There it is holden that the Judges ought not to suppose any Error 22 E. 4. 45 Error was brought to reverse a Judgment in a Writ of Dower And the Error assigned was That there was not any Issue joyned but because there was sufficient matter upon which the Judges might give their verdict therefore the Judgment was affirmed