have a Writ of Disceit after a Fine levyed and the Kings Silver paid 22. If one comes to a Justice of Peace and complains that I. S. is a Felon and hath stolen certain goods and the Justice commands the party who complaines to be at the next Sessions and prefer a Bill of Indictment against the Felon and give Evidence against him who doth accordingly Adjudged That neither he nor the Justice shall be punished in Conspiracy although I. S. the Felon be acquitted 23. A man made a Lease for 40. years by Deed and in the Deed Covenanted and granted to the Lessee that he might take Convenient Housebote Firebote c. in his whole Wood called S. within the Parish of S. which Wood was other Lands and not parcel of the Land Leased Resolved the grant was good and the Lessee should have it during the Term and his Executors shall take the same as his Assignes and the grant shall not restrain him but that he shall have Housebote Firebote also in the Lands Leased to him 24. A man seised of a Mannor parcell in Demesne and parcell in service deviseth to his Wife for life all the Demesne Lands and all the services and chief Rents for 15. years and deviseth the whole Mannor to another after the death of the Wife Resolved That the Deviser should not take any effect for any part of the Mannor till after the death of the Wife and that the Heir of the devisor after the 15. years spent and during the life of the Wife should have the services and cheif Rents 25. Tenent in Dower makes a Lease for years rendring Rent and takes Husband the Rent is behind the Husband dyes Adjudged his Executos shall have the Rent 26. A man destrains for 10 l. Rents due at Mick Cattel which were not of the value of 40 s. and afterwards destrains for the Residue Adjudged he cannot avow for the distresse is not good and it was his folly so to distrain But if a man be behind of hiâ— Rent at several dayes and he take a distresse for one day at one time anâ— for another day at another time it is good 27. Resolved That a Custome That a Lessee for years may hold the Land for half a year after his Term ended is no gâ—oâ— Custome But the Lord of a Copyhold may by Custome Lease thâ— same for life and 40. years after and it is good 28. Upon an Extent the Sheriff returned that he hath extended a Tenement at 20 s. paid but doth not make mention of any House Land nor pasture which should make the Tenement Adjudged the nor Extent was void for the incertainty 29. If a man be Robbed and afterwards for mony he agreeâ— with the Felon that he will not give evidence against him for which the Felon Escapes It was doubted whether he was accessary to the Felon But it was agreed That if after the Robbery hâ— pursue the Felon and take his goods of which he was Robbed and so suffer the Felon to escape the same is a Concealment of the Felony but he is not Accessary to it 30. A Women Tenent in Tail makes a Lease for years to her Husband and dyes The Husband being Tenent by the Curtesie surrenders to the Issue Adjudged the Issue shall avoid the Lease 31. A man says I will you shall have a Lease for 21. years of my Land in D. paying 10 s. Rent make a Lease in Writing and I will seal it Adjudged It is a good Lease in years by paroll though no Writings be made of it 32. Land was let to I. S. Habend to him for life and for the lives of I. his Wife and his Son Quaere What estate I. S. shall have and if there shall be an Occupancy in the Case It was not Resolved 33. If my keeper of my Park will not serve a Warrant which I send him nor suffer it to be served Resolved it is no forfeiture of his Office but only a Disobedience and a Misfeasance which is not a forfeiture But cutting down of Trees is a forfeiture of his Office 34. A man made a Lease for years the Leasor sold the Trees growing upon the Lands the vendor cut them down The Cattel of the Lessee which were in the Close destroyed the springs Resolved That the Leaser could not take the Trees growing upon the Land and it was a wrong in him to cut them down and it is not reason that he should by his own wrong should compel the Lessee to enclose the Lands wherefore Adjudged it was no Wast 35. In a Replevin the Plantiff being Lessee for years prayd in aid of his Leasor and upon Issue joyned upon a false verdict it was found for the Avowant The Plantiff and the prayee in aid joyned in Attaint and pendent the Attaint the prayee in aid which was his Lessor dyed Resolved That the Writ should abate for the prayee is dead who ought to recover the Reversion by the Attaint and his Heir should be at great mischief If the Attaint be found against the then Plaintiff who then should louse his Reversion 36. Resolved by the Court That if an Obligation or a grant be raised after the ensealing of it it is void but it is otherwise of an Indenture if it agreeth in words with the other Indenture and it was agreed If a man be bounden in an Obligation which is rased and the Obligation is endorsed with a Condition to perform the Covenants in an Indenture and the Indenture expresserh the debt notwithstanding the rasure of the Obligation the Plantiff must shew the Indenture to prove the Bond good 37. Action upon the Case for words viz. Thou art a False Knave a Wretch and a Whoremonger Adjudged actionable although for the word Whoremonger he might have his remedy in the Spiritual Court 38. A man hath Issue a Bastard and after marryes the same Woman and hath Issue by her divers Sons and then deviseth all his Goods to his Children Quaere If the Bastard shall take by the Devise But if the Mother of the Bastard make such a Devise It is clear the Bastard shall take because he is known to be the Child of the Mother 39. Lessee for years Proviso he shall not assign the Term nor any parcel of it without the assent of the Lessor Resolved He cannot give grant or sell it without assent of the Lessor But agreed That the Executors of the Lessee may assign it without assent of the Lessor 40. Resolved That if the Lessor makes a Letter of Attorney to his Lessee for years to make Livery of the Land in Lease to a Stranger who doth it accordingly That it is not a surrender of his Term for he doth not make the Livery in his own right but as Servant to his Lessor and by his authority 41. Resolved That if the Lessor infeoff a Stranger and makes Livery the Lessee for years being upon the Land who agrees to it It shall enure as an
when the Vendee had once cut down the Woods and Underwoods that he could not cut them again if Woods were standing and growing notwithstanding the words in the Grant viz. To Have c. for the life of the said A. Wilson and Wise Case 56. In Trespass for taking of his Cow The Defendant justified that he was seised and held of I. S. as of his Mannor of C. by Fealty rent suit of Court of I. S. And that within the said Mannor the Custom was That the Lord of the Mannor time out of mind c. after the death of every Tenant of any Messuage or Tenements of the said Mannor dying seised used to seise the best Beast of the Tenants found within the Mannor for an Heriot and if the Tenant had no Beast or if it were esloyned out of the Mannor before the Lord seized it Then the Lord had used to seise the best Beast Levant and Couchant upon the Messuage Lands and Tenements It was demurred upon the Custom and it was adjudged that the Custome was void and unreasonable and Judged for the Plaintiff 57. An Infant by his Prochin Amy brought a Scire facias to execute a Plea by Fine limited to his Grandmother The Defendant prayed that the Attainder might demur Resolved it should not But if the Defendant had pleaded the Deed of the Ancestour of the Infant in Barre there the Plea should have stayed 3 Eliz. Austin and Bakers Case 58. Attaint was brought into the Common Pleas upon the Statute of 23 E. 3. cap. 3. against the Executors of I. S. and the Terre Tenants and adjudged it was well brought although the Statute is that the Attaint shall be between the Parties of the first Judgement 59. A Subsidy is granted by Parliament That every one who expends in Land above 20 s. shall pay A man is assessed and before payment he dyes the Lands in the hands of the Heir shall be charged with it because it is a Duty upon Record and the Land chargeable with it 60. Judgement being against two upon an Avowry in Replevin They brought an Attaint depending which one of them dyed It was adjudged that the Writ should abate and it differs from the Case of Nonsuit for the Nonsuit is the Judgement of the Court that the Heir may proceed in Suit but when one is dead it is not so for then no act is done by the Court. 61. Note It was resolved That after a Verdict given it is no Plea for to say that the Jurors did eat and drink mean between the Court and their Verdict given but such Exception ought to be before the Verdict given 62. A Lease for years the Remainder for Life the Reversion in Fee Lessee for years committed Waste he in Remainder for Life dyed It was holden by the Justices That he in the Reversion in Fee should have an Action of Waste for waste done before the death of him in the Remainder because that the mean Remainder was the Cause that he could not have the Action at the first but when that Estate is ended the Action is maintenable because it was to the dis-inheritance of him in the Remainder in Fee 63. Tenant in Dower had power to cut down the Trees growing upon the Land and she covenanted with him in the Reversion that it should be lawfull for him every year to cut down 20. Trees and afterwards she cut down and destroyed all the Trees It was the opinion of the Justices That an Action of Covenant did lye against her and it was agreed by them That if a Covenant be that it shall be lawfull for the Covenantee to take the Trees and sell them or imploy them to his own use That in that Case the Covenantor cannot cut down the Trees because he hath given a propriety in the Trees to the Covenantee Mich 2 Eliz. 64. Trespass The Case was A man made a Lease for years of Lands a Stranger entred upon the Land let and cut down Trees growing and made them Tymber and carryed unto the Land where the Trespass is supposed and then gave the Timber to the Plaintiff and the Defendant entred into the Land and took the Timber It was the opinion of the Justices That in all Cases where a thing is taken wrongfully and altered in form If yet that which remains is the Principal part of the Substance the Notice of it is not lost and therefore if a man takes Trees and makes Boards of them The Owner may retake them quia major pars substantiae remanet and so in the principal Case But if an House had been made of the Timber there it had been otherwise 65. Father and Son made a Feofment in Fee with VVarranty the Father dyed The Feoffee impleaded brought a Warrantia Chartae against the Son unde Chartam Patris sui habet cujus haeres ipse est and in his Count shewed the Deed was made by them both It was the Opinion of the Justices the Count was agreeable to the VVrit and that the VVarranty against the Son was double the one of his Father the other of himself and that each of them warranted the whole so the Action well brought 66. Resolved by the Justices If Lessee for Life makes a Lease for years and afterwards purchaseth the Reversion and dyeth within the Term the Lease for years is determined But if one who hath nothing in the Lands makes a Lease for years and afterwards purchaseth the Lands and dyes if it be by Indenture his Heir is estopped to avoid the Lease 67. Two Copartners are one grants her Part and warrants that the Grantee shall have and hold it in common without partition It is a void Warranty because it is against Law 68. A Lease was made to Husband and VVife for years Provided that if the possession of the Lands came to the hands of any ther than the Husband and VVife and their Issues then upon tender of 100 l. it shall be lawful for the Lessor to reenter the Husband dyed the Wife took an other Husband the Lessor tendred the 1000 l. It was the greater opinion of the Justices That the Condition was not broken because that the second Husband was not possessed by vertue of the Lease but in the right of his Wife But the Court doubted of it It was adjourned 68. A Capias ad satisfaciend was awarded and an Extent and between the date of the Writ and before the Sheriff took the Inquisition the Defendant sold his Goods It was the Opinion of the Justices That the Sheriff might extend the Goods which were sold and it was said That if the Tenant in a Precipe allien after the date of the Writ and before the Retorn yet he continnes Tenant to the Action 69. Note it was holden by the Justices That if an Infant for Monies by Indentures bargain and sells Lands and afterwards levyes a Fine Sur Conusans de droit with Proclamations the Indenture is not void but voidable and
was adjudged Murder for the Malice which he had to Herbert 208. A man made a Lease for years upon Condition if the Rent was behind the Lease to be void the Rent is behind the Lessee continued possession for 3. years after the Lessor brought debt for the Rent for all the time Quaere if it doth lye the Justices were divided in opinion Moreton and Hopkins Case 209. In a second Deliverance by A. against H. the Defendant he made Conusance as Bayliff to I. S. and M. his Wife The Case was the Plainâ—iff 17 Octob. 4. 5. Mar. by deed granted a Rent of 10 l. to B. and to E. and W. the younger Son of the said A. Habend for the life of E. to the use of E. and gave seisin of it W. and E. so seised W. dyed E. took Husband I. S. who for 5 l. Rent arrere avowed The Plaintiff said That the said I. S. Z October 7. Eliz. acknowledged that he had received 5 l. of the Plaintiff of the said Rent It was adjudged that the said receipt and acquittance of I. S. the Husband was a good barre of the Conusans Howse and the Bishop of Elys Case 210. In Debt the Plantiff declared that the predecessor of the Bishop granted to him the Office of keeping the Mansion House of D. of the Bishop for the Term of his life with the Fee of 2 d. per diem to be issuing and paid out of the profits of the said Rents and Farme of D. by the Receiver of the Bishop and also an yearly Robe which grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter the Bishop dyed the Annuity and Robe was not paid for which the Plaintiff brought his Action against the Successor Bishop who pleaded that the Plaintiff did not exercise the said Office and because D. was within the Isle of Ely where the Kings Writ did not run a Venire was to the Sheriff of Cambridge from S. next adjoyning to D. in the said â—sle of Ely who found for the Plaintiff and he had Judgment to recover the Annuity and the Arerages and the Robe and that the grant did binde the Successor Luken and Eves Case 211. In Replevin The Defendant avowed for that A. was seised of the Mannor of D. in Fee and had a Leet within the Mannor to be holden in the Feast of c. and let the Mannor to the Defendant for years And that the Defendant held the Court Leet such a Feast and that the Plaintiff was an Inhabitant within the Leet at the time and being Summoned to appear at the said Leet did not appear which being presented by the Homage he was Amerced 5 s. which was afferred and for the Amercement the Defendant did destrain The Defendent pleaded that he was not a Resient within the Leet at the time which was found against him wherefore the Defendant was adjudged to have a Return of the Cattel and his damages Stephens and Clarks Case 212. Quare Imp. King Henry 8 seised of the Mannor of D. and the Advouson Appendent presented I. S. the Mannor with the Advouson by Discent came to the Queen who granted it to the Lord Stafford and his Wife and the Heirs of the body of the Lord the Lord Stafford dyed His Wife and eldest Son granted the Mannor and Advouson to I. D. and his Wife for their lives The Incumbent dyed who during the Avoydance granted the Advouson to the Plaintiff It was Resolved That the grant of the next Avoidance to the Plaintiff during the Avoidance was void in Law Playn and Crouches Case 213. A Villein was Regardant to a Mannor the Lord of the Mannor had not seisin of the Villein nor any of his Ancestors from 1. H. 7. to this time but they had seisin of the Mannor to which the Villein was Regardant and if seisin of the Mannor was seisin of the Villein was the Question The Issue in an Assise being upon the seisin Quaere It was not Resolved It was Conceived that in favore Libertatis the Lord could not now seise the Villein No Judgment was in the Case 214. If the Husband be seised of Land in the Right of his Wife the Husband makes a gift in Tail of it rendering Rent and afterward the Husband and Wife grant the Reversion by Fine It was holden it should bar the Wife of the whole but if they had granted the Rent only then the Wife after the death of the Husband might enter into the Land 215. A man Leaseth a Mannor for years rendring Rent with a Reentry a stranger recovers in Debt against the Lessor and hath Elegit upon the Judgment Resolved he shall have the moyety of the Reversion and the moyety of the Rent in Execution and the Condition is suspended for the whole vide before 216. Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for 21 years and afterwards makes a Feoffment in Fee with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery who enters and ousts the Lessee and make Livery Adjudged It was a discontinuance And it was said That it was adjudged in the Earl of Warwicks Case A man made a Lease for life and afterwards made a Feoffment in Fee and a Letter of Attorney to make Liver who ousted the Lessee and made Livery That it was a good Feoffment and if the Lessee for life reentred the Reversion remainder in the Feoffee 217. A maid Servant conspires with her Lover to rob her Mistrisse the Man comes in the night the Maid hides him and after the Man kills the Mistresse Adjudged Murder in the Man and Petty Treason in the Maid Servant Symonds Case 218 A. 24. H. 8. Covenants with I. S. that all persons who were Feoffees of Certain of his Land should be seised thereof to the use of the said A. for life and after his decease to the use of W. his Son and M. S. and the Heirs of their bodies begotten and for want of such Issue the remainder to the Right Heir of A. and after he makes a Feoffment to those uses W. and M. S. intermary A. dyeth After 27. H. 8. the Husband aliens the whole and dyeth his Wife enters into the whole Adjudged her entry into the whole was not Lawfull but only for a moyety and it was agreed that several moyeties may be of an Estate tail aswell as of a Fee simple between Husband and Wife 219. A man made a Feoffment to the use of a Woman for â—â—fe who was a Feme sole at the time the remainder to the right Heirs of their two bodies the remainder to his right Heirs in Fee after they intermarried and the Husband having Tenants at Will of the Lands Devised that the Wife should have the Reversion in Fee so as she pay his debts and Legacies and performe his Will and by his Will deviseth his Tenant should have the Tenements for life and dyeth the Wife takes another Husband who ousts the Tenants at Will It was Resolved the same was no forfeitute of her remainder But if the Will
had been upon condition that his last Will should be performed It had been otherwise 220. A man made a Lease for 30. years The Lessor Covenanted to Repair the House The Lesse granted parcel of the Term for 10 years It was holden that his Grantee should not have an Action of Covenant by the Statute of 32. H. 8. of Conditions for he is not Tenant to the first Lessor But if the Lessor ganteth his Reversion for years his Grantee shall have Covenant or benefit of the Condition with which the Lessee is charged for he is an Assignee within the Statute because the Lessee holdeth of him 221. If the Ancestor of the Husband Covenant to stand seised of Certain Lands to the use of the Husband and Wife in Consideration of Marriage and also for a Certain Sum of Mony If the Wife alien that Land after the death of the Husband It was said that the Heir of the Husband might enter by the Statute of 11. H. 7. for the Consideration of Marriage shall be preferred before the Consideration of Mony and then it shall be said the gift of the Ancestors of the Husband and within the Statute as it was said it was adjudged in Villiers Case The Lord Treasurer and Bartons Case 222. A man made a Lease for 100 years The Lessee made a Lease for 20. years rendering Rent with clause of Reentry the first Lessor granted the Reversion in Fee attonement was had the grantee purchased the Reversion of the Term It was holden and adjudged that he should not have the Rent not the reentry for that the Rent which was incident to the Reversion was extinct by the purchase of the Reversion in Fee 223. A man was Tenant by the Curtesie of a Mannor a Copy-hold came to his hands by forfeiture Afterwards he was bound in a Statute and afterwards demised the Copyhold Land again It was holden this Copyhold should be lyable to the Statute because it was once annexed to the Freehold of the Lord and bound in his hands Pasch 12. Eliz. 224. If the Lord grant to his Copyholder the Trees growing upon the Land and which afterwards shall grow and that it shall be Lawfull for the Tenant to cut and carry them away It was holden to be No forfeiture of his Copyhold because he hath dispensed with the forfeiture by his grant but he cannot cut the Trees which shall after grow for as to them the grant is void Brabrokes Case 225. I. D. 19. H. 8. gave the Mannor of N. to I. S. and A. and the Heirs of the body of the said I. S. on the body of A. remainder to a stranger in Tail the remainder in Fee I. S. Maried A. and after 26. H. 8. he suffered a Common Recovery with single voucher to the use of him and his Heirs the Statute of 27. H. 8. was made and after he in the remainder in Tail was attainted of Treason and 28. H. 8. It was Enacted in Parliament that all his Lands and hereditaments which he had or ought to have should be forfeited the Recovery was without any Original Afterwards I. S. gave the Mannor to I. D. and his Heirs who made a Joynture thereof to M. his Wife for life after the death of I. D. M. took to Husband the Plaintiff against whom Intrusion was brought It was adjudged against the Plaintiff for one moyety Hil. 14. Eliz. 226. The Earl of Oxon. Tenant for life of certain Mannors made a Copy in reversion to I. S. for life and dyed the Copyholder in possession dyed The Heir of the Earl demised the same by Copy to I. S. It was the opinion of all the Justices that the Copy in Reversion was not good But it was agreed If it come in possession during the Tenant for life then it is good 227. Two Acres discend to two Coparceners one of them before Partition grants a Rent Charge out of one of the Acres and upon Partition the Acre charged is allotted to the other Sister It was adjudged she should hold it discharged of the Rent Pledall and Pledalls Case 228. It was Adjudged in this Case That the Jurours are not to to take Notice of matters of Estoppel which are given in Evidence between the parties upon pain of Attaint for they are strangers to the Conclusions of the parties Evans Case 229. A man had issue two Sons and devised Lands to his youngest Son in Tail and dyed the eldest having Issue a Son the younger Son aliened the Land in Fee with Warranty and went beyond Sea and there dyed without Issue the Son of the eldest being within age It was the opinion of the Justices the same was a Collateral Warranty and without asserts was a bar to the Issue of the eldest Son notwithstanding his Nonage Muttons Case 330. A man seised of Land levyed a Fine to the use of himself and such Woman as he should after Marry and after their decease to the use of I. his daughter and the Heirs of her body afterwards he Married A. and dyed who entred It was the opinion of the Justices to A. for her life Appowel and Monnoux Case 231. A. seised of the Mannors and Rectories of B. G. and D. let the same except the scite of the Mannor of B. to I. S. for 25. years Reserving for the Mannor of B. 76 l. for the Mannor and Reversion of B. 30 l. for the Rectory of B. 14 l. and for the Rectory of D. and the Lands to it belonging â—3 l. payable yearly at â— Feasts in the Church of F. not parcel of the Premisses upon Condition if the said Rents or any of them were behind for the space of 7. Weeks it should be Lawfull for him his Heirs and Assignes to Reenter on all the premises and afterwards he bargained and sold the Scite of the Mannor of B. and the Reversion of all the Mannors and Rectories to I. D. and his Heirs who enfeoffed certain persons and granted the Reversion of all the Mannors and Rectory to have and hold the Scite of the Mannor of B. and the Reversion of the Rectory of D. to the use of himself and Eliz his Wife for their lives and the life of the Survivour of them the remainder to W. his Son and his Heirs for ever And to have the Reversion of all the other Mannors and the Rectories of B. and C. to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the said W. his Son and his Heirs I. S. the Lessee attorned I. D. dyed Eliz. his Wife held the Scite of B. and the Reversion of the Rectory of D. by Survivour W. seised of all the Mannors and Rectories as aforesaid granted the Reversion of a Messuage parcell of the Mannor of B. to W. D. and his Heirs to which grant I S. attorned and afterwards by Bargain and sale enrolled granted the Reversion of all the said Mannors and Rectories to H. I. and K. and their Heirs half a years Rent reserved for the Mannor
Resolved it was a good Saving and that all Justices in their Sessions to be holden within the city might hear and determine Offences committed in the County but no offence done within the city though in the time of the Sessions Heydon Smith and others Case 857. Audita Querela The case was A. and B. seised of Capite Lands and P. seised of Soccage Lands they all three acknowledged a Statute of 8000 l. to R. A. and B. levyed two several Fines of their moyeties to C. and W. to the use of themselves and their heirs until default of payment was of certain Annuities and then to the use of C and W. they after default of payment sold the Lands to H. and D. H. released to D. who devised the Land in tail and died the Devisee in tail died without Issue the Wives of the Plaintiff were Heirs to D. to whom the third part of the Capire Land discended R. had extended the Lands upon Statute before the default of payment of the Annuities and before the Bargain and Sale and although he sued the extent against A. and B. and also P. yet the Sheriff extended the Lands of A. and B. and to defeat the extent and to have Restitution because the Land of P. was not extended the Audita Querela was brought The principal point in this case was if the Bargainee and those which claim under him should have no Audita Querela for the extent made before his time Another point was if the Coheirs should have an Audita Querela without the owner of the two parts all of them being Tenants in common and equally grieved with the extent The case is very learnedly argued pro con but not Resolved Salter and Botelers Case 858. A Rent was granted to A. his Executors and Assignes for the Life of B. out of Bl. acree A. died living a Cestuy que use The Executors of A. distreined for the Rent and averred the Life of B. It was adjudged the Distress was not lawfull because by the death of the Grantee the Rent was determined but if the Rent had been granted to the Grantee and his Heirs the Heir of the Grantee should have bin a special Occupant and he might distrein for the Rent Ewer and Moiles Case 859. In a Replevin by E. in the Kings Bench against M. M. being an Infant appeared there by Artorney also an Imparlance was entred Petit licentiam interloquendi usque and no day was named and Judgment being there given for these Errors the Judgment was reversed Boulton and Bastards Case 860. A. and his Wife seised in the Right of the Husband of the Mannor I. exchanged the same with S. and D. for the fourth part of the Mannor of S. A. died the Wife entred into I. and evicted it for her Life It was adjudged it was a defeating of the Exchange for ever because the exchange was of Land in possession and yet the Justices held that a Reversion might be exchanged for Lands in possession and Note It was said that unequall value or quantity in the one more then the other should not avoid the exchange but otherwise it is of unequality of Estate Stephen and Tots Case 861. T. and his Wife being divorced in the spiritual Court à thoro mensa The Father of the Wife devised a Legacy to her for which she sued the Plaintiff his Executor in the Spiritual Court he there pleaded the Release of the Husband which the Spiritual Judges would not allow of It was the opinion of the Justices in this Case that the Release of the Husband was good notwithstanding this Divorce Sparke and Sparkes Case 862. A man made a Lease for life and after made a Lease for 99. years after the death of Tenant for life if the Lessee for 99. years should so long live and if he dyed within the Terme the Lessor granted that the Land should Remain to his Excecutors and Assignes for 21. years after the death of the Survivor of both the Lessees The Lessee for 99. years granted the Lease for 21. years rendring Rent and dyed Intestate having survived the Lessee for life the Administrator brought Debt against the Assignee of the Terme for 21. years for the Rent It was adjudged that the action did not lye because the Contingent foe 21. years never vested in the Lessee for 99. years the Intestate nor ever was in him to dispose or grant Bridge and Atkins Case 863. Words viz. Thou art an old perjured Knave and that is to be proved by a stake between the ground of such and such adjudged that for these words the Action did not lye Bothes Case 864. He was arraigned of Felony for a second forgery after Cónviction of a former forgery in the Star Chamber upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of writings concerning the Lands of I. S. In this Case Resolved that no Accessary can be in Forgery but all one principally 2. Resolved that for Felony the Kings Bench might commit one to the Fleet or unto any other Prison and also that a Prisoner who is condemned to perpetual Imprisonment was not Baileable nor Removeable Shaw and Norwoods Case 865. A man by his Will devised 40 l. to two Infants equally the Executrix delivered the money to one to whom the Defendant was Executor who made a Bill testifing he had received the 40 l. to the use of the Infants one of the Infants dyed Intestate his Administrator brought Debt against the Defendant the Executor of the Baylee It was adjudged the Action was maintainable and the specialty although it was not made to the Infants yet it was a sufficient Testimony of the debt Fort and Wards Case 866. A Copyholder had Common of Estovors in the Lords Woods appurtenant to his Copyhold and he purchased the Freehold of Inheritance in the Copyhold and had words in his deed of purchase of all Commons appertaining to the said Messuage Yet it was adjudged that the Common which he had to the Copy estate was extinct but if there had been special words in the Grant of the like Common as he had in the Copyhold before the surrender it had been good and as a new grant of Common Morgan and Slades Case 867. It was Resolved by all the Justices of England that an action upon the Case upon Assumpsit lyeth upon every contract Executory as well as an Action of Debt Seymayne and Greshams Case 868. G. and B. were Joynt Tenants of a house in Lond wherein they had several goods B. acknowledges a Statute and dyed a Writ of Execution came to the Sheriff of Lond. who came to the house with a Jury to extend the goods of B. G. seeing them and knowing the Cause of their comming to the intent to frustrate the Execution shut the Door of the house so as the Sheriff could not do Execution For which the Plaintiff brought his Action upon the Case and layd it to be to his damage of 2000 l. It was adjudged against the
or the Remainder and therefore no traverse could be to it but they conceived if it was a Reversion a Traverse did presently lie if a Remainder that it did not lie till after the death of the Tenant for Life which was B. Countess of B. Worleys Case 959 A seised in Fee of the Mannor of D holden in capite with 500 l. to be sold having a long intent to sell the same that he might more freely dispose of his other Lands and satisfie a just debt of 60 l. which he owed to I. S. by Deed indented and enrolled in consideration of the said Debt and other considerations viz Vpon trust and confidence that he should pay to W. his Executors or Assigns within one year so much mony above the said 60 l. He bargained and sold the said Mannor of D to I. S. and his Heirs W. within one year died no mony paid his Heir within age It was Resolved his Heir should not be â—n Ward because neither the Land nor Surplusage of the same ought to come to his Heir by the Trust nor be paid to the children or wife oâ— W. Drowâ—s Case 960. A. seised of divers Messuages in the Parish of S. in London made a Lease thereof for 31. years to B. and M. his Wife paying yearly during the Term 60. l. at four Feasts viz. The Nativity c. or within 28 days after each of the said Feasts afterwards he covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of his eldest Son and his Wife and the Heirs of their two Bedâ—es and then for mony he bargained and sold the Land by Deed enrolled to I. S. to hold to him and his Heirs during the Life of the Lessor I. S. dyed seised of that Land and of other Lands holden in capite his Heir within age It was found by Office that A. died after the Feast of the Nativity and within the 28 days next following Resolved the Rent was due to him in the Remainder and that the Wardship of the Land being but a Freehold discendable did not belong to the Queen Digbies Case 961. A Tenant in Tail in the Mannor of C in the County of W. the reversion in the Crown and in Fee of Lands in the County of D. and in C. aforesaid and of Lands in the County of B. by his Will devised that his Lands in D. which he appointed to be a third part of the whole should discend to his Heir the Manner of C. and all his Lands in B. he devised to his Wife in recompence of her Dower for Life so long as she should be Soâ—e and then to his Son and Heir and he charged his Lands in B. with Annuities to his younger Sons and portions to his Daughters Afterwards by a Codicill annexed to his Will he devised to I. S. and I. D. and their Heirs all and singular his Lands in C. whereof himself was then seised to him and his Heirâ— in Fee simple to the use of his Son and Heir so long as he and all claiming under him should suffer his wife and children to enjoy the Lands and Annuities devised to them and he should interrupt or deny it then he devised all his Fee-simple Land to his Wife and his younger Sons A. died his Son and Heir within age It was in this case Resolved that the Qâ—een by reason of the Wardship of the Heir should not have more of the Fee-simple Lands in D then so much as would make the entailed Land to be the third part of the whole Creswâ—lls Case 962. Certain Lands called S. were holden of the Mannor of P. by rent and Suit of Court P. was holden of the Mannor of G by Rent and Suit of Court the Mannor of G. came to the Crown by the Statute of Disâ—olutions The King H. 8. granted the Mannor of G. to I. S. and his Hâ—irs to hold by Knight Service in capite I. D. purchased the Mannor of G and afterwards he purchased the moiety of the Mannor of P. and the Lands called S. I. D. died the Lands purchased by him discended to his Son who purchased the other moiety of P. and afterwards enfeoffed C. of the Lands in S. It was Resolved in this case that I. D. held the Lands called S. by Knight Service in capâ—te by a whole Knights Fee Lâ—mâ—oâ—s Case 963. It was Resolved in this case in the Court of Wards that if the Jâ—ry do not find an Office according to the direction of the Court they shall be committed to the Fleâ—t vide diverse Presidents there accordingly Sir William Knoâ—ts Case 964. The case was A. died seised of Lands purchased by him and discendable to the Heis Males of his Body holden by Knight Service in capite of the value of 140 l. per annum and also of capite Land discendable to his Heirs general of the value of 13 l. per annum and an executed Estate for the advancement of his Sons of Soccage Land in capite to the value oâ— 48 l. B. was his Son and Heir Male and the two Daughters of his eldest Son deceased were his Heirs general It was Resolved that no Livery nor Primer Seisin should be of the Lands executed for advancement because the Queen was satisfied by the discent to the Heirs Males of the Livery and Primer Seisin of more then of a third part of the Lands Strangways and Sir Henry Newtons Case 965. The case is very long put but in effect was this The Father limited divers Mannors and Lands by Indenture to the use of himself and his Heirs untill the marriage of his Son with the Daughter of I. S. and after marriage to the use of the Father for Life only and after to his Sons Wife for Life for her Joynture The Father died before Marriage and afterwards the Marriage took effect The Question was if the use should rise to the first Wife Note That the Father before his death made his Will and thereby devised portions to his Daughters to be raised out of the said Land by his Executors and then died his Heir within age The two chief Justices doubted much this case but they enclined to be of opinion that if there was a devise of the Land that the same had interrupted the raising of the Future use for the Joynture c but they doubted of the Devise because he devised portions out of the Lands but did not devise the Lands themselves Framptons Case 966. A seised in Fee of the Mannors of M. and B. and of the moiety of the Mannor of V. covenanted to levy a Fine to I. S. and others of the said Mannors viz. of all the said Mannors to the use of himself for Life and afterwards of the Mannor of M. to the use of I. his wife for her Life and after to such Heirs of the Body of A. as be should afterwards beget of the Body of her or of any other woman which he should after marry
a Libell or false Rumor although he produceth his Author yet he is fineable Damuâ—'s Case 1038. The Case was I. S. was indebted to M. 1800 l. upon a Statute who dyed Intestare A. his Wife took Administration of his goods and married B. and during her Coverture made her Will by which she appoinâ—ed to her Kindred 400 l. in Charitable uses Proviso if any crosse in Law or losse of the said Debt of 1000. should arise it should fall upon the last 900 l. mentioned befor the Proviso of which 900 l. the 408 l. the Charitable use was the last A. dyed Administration de bonis non c. of M. was committed to D. which had of the Debts 2000. besides the 1800 l. upon a Commission upon the Statute of 43 Eliz. of Charitable uses against D. it was Decreed for the Charitable uses to which Exceptions was taken 1. That A. had not power to make a Will of this Debt 2. That the 2000 l. were desperate debts 3. That there was a crosse in this Debt there being a Suit by the next of Kin to revoke the Administration committed to D. Vpon the exceptions it was Decreed in Chancery with the Assistance of the Judges 1. That though the Will of A. was void in Law yet it would serve by the Statute if there was assers of that estate or of the estate of A. her self to support the Charitable use For the goods in the hands of Administrators are all to Charitable uses and it is the Office of the Administrator so to imploy them and the Children or Kinred have no property in them but under the Title of Charity 2. Because it appeared that at the time of the making of the Decree that the estate would bear both the Legacies and the Charitable use also with an Overplus and if any of the debts of the 2000 l. became desperate it was by the negligence of the Administrators and should not retard the Charitable use The King and Howards Case 1049. In this Case these points were Resolved by the Justices 1. A man makes a Feoffment of Lands in 5. Counties with a Condition of Re-assurance a Re-assurance is made of Lands in 5. Counties It is a breach of the Condition but only for the Lands in one County and a good performance for the other 2. Tenant in Tail Remainder in Tail Remainder in Fee he who hath the Remainder in Fee grants it to the first Tenant in Tail this acceptance of the Deed is an Attornement which shall bind those in the Remainder â— If an Act of Parliament be certified into the Chancery no averment shall be against it that it was not an act of Parliament because the Commons did not assent to it but with a Proviso which is lost but if it appeaâ—eth in the body of the Act that the Commons did not assent the Act is void The Case of the Commissioners of Sewers 1050. Upon complaints against diveâ—s ill disposed persons of Suits and vexations by them against the Commissiâ—ners of Sewers and their Officers for the counties of Northamoâ—â—â— Huntingdoâ— Cambridge and Lincoln It was holden by the Lords of the Council the Commissioners of Sewers may make new works as well to stop the fury of the waters as to repaire the old when necessity requires it 2. That for the safety of the Country they may lay a Tax or Rate upon any Hundreds Towns or Inhabitaâ—ts thereof in general who are interessed in the Benefit or Loss without attending a particular Survey or Admeasurement of Acres when the Service is to have a speedy and suddain execution 3. That they have sufficient power to imprison Refractory and Disobâ—dient persons to their Orders Warrants and Decrees and that Actions of Trespass False Imprisonment c. brought against the Commissioners or their Officers for extremity of their Order or Warranty are not maintainable nor will lie Goodson and Dâ—ffâ—â—dâ— Case 1051. Error of a Judgment in a Court of Pipowders in Rochestâ—r The case was A. dwelling in the Town was bound to pay B. 150 l. the first day of May at the House of B. in Rochâ—ster the Bond was sued there 24. September in the Court of Pipowders the Defendant pleaded payment at the House Issue upon it It was found for the Plaintiff Error brought and assigned that the Prescription was alledged to hold a Court of Pipowders before the Mayâ—r and two Citizens and by the Plea it appeareth it was holden before the Deputy of the Mayor and two Citizens The Court held the same to be Error 2. Error The Issue was misjoyned for the payment is alledged at the House of the Plaintiff in Rochester and it ought to have been pleaded apud Rochester in domo mansionali of the Plaintiff This the Court conceived to be Error and the Judgment was reversed Billingsby and Hercys Case 1052. A Demise was made of Lands in D. for years by the word Demise and to Farm let the Mannor and also all Timber Trees growing upon the same with an exception of six Oaks during the Term the Term was assigned to a Feme Sole who took Husband the Plaintiff and they assigned all their Interest to the Defendant reserving the Wood and Trees the Husband died his Executors cut down the Trees the Wife brought Trespass It was adjudged the Action did not lie because no propriety in the Trees passed by the words Demise Grant and to Farm Let though there was Liberty to Fell and Sell. Price and Almeries Case 1053. A possessed of a Term for Forty years devised the same to his Wife if she should live so long the remainder to I. his Son and the Heirs of his Body and made his Wife his Executor who entred and claimed the Term as a Legacy the Son died in the Life of the Wife the Wife died the Executor of the Son entred Adjudged his Entry was not lawful because the Son had not any Interest but a possibility Edwards and Dentons Case 1054. A man seised in Fee of the Mannor of D. and of an house called W. in D. and also of a Lease for years in D. by Deed did grant bargaine and sell the Mannor of D. and all his Lands and Tenements in â— to I. S. and his Heirs It was adjudged that the Term for years did not pass for the intent appears that nothing shall pass but that which the Heir might take for that the Habendum was to him and his Heirs Sir William Waller and Hangers Case 1055. The case was King Ed. 3. reciting that he had of every 10. Tun of Wine imported a tun and of every 20. Tun two Tuns one before the Mast and another behind the Mast granted to the citizens ef London that Nulla prisagia sint soluta de vinibus civium liberorum hominum London The Husband of the Defendant a Freeman and citizen of London having Wines in the Port and others upon the Sea died and made his wife his Executrix An Information was against her
817 Wells and Fentons case 822 Web and Hargraves case 835 Williams and Greens case 836 Worleys case 842 Walter and Pigotts case 845 Whetstone and Mintons case 852 Webster and Allens case 873 Ward and Lakings case 876 Wilmot and Knowles case 884 Ward and Sudmans case 894 Westby Skinner and Catchers case 902 Wiseman and Jennings case 904 Wilcoks and Hewsons case 920 Wilcocks and Greens case 934 Wood and Bucklâ—ys case 936 Waâ—ley and Mosleys case 947 VVortesleys case 956 Worleys case 959 Williams Vaughans case 1014 Whitlock and Hartwells case 1015 Waltham Mulgars case 1017 Sir Will. Walter and Hangers case 1055 VVheeler and Heydons case 1056 VVrights case 1064 VVorral and Harpers case 1065 Eliz VViimots case 1093 VVhite and Halls case 1097 VVeaver and VVards case 1126 VVindham Kemps case 1134 The VVeavers of Newberries case 1140 VVood and Shirleys case 1149 VVhitlock and Hardings case 1152 VValter and the Dean and Chapter of Norwiches case 1157 VVilkings and Perrotts case 1161 VVatbrooke and Griffiths case 1163 VVinscomb and Pulisons case 1164 VVolley and Davenants case 1182 VVray and Clenches case 1203 Y. YArdley and Prestwoods case 435 Yelverton and Yelvertons case 442 Yelding and Fays case 458 Yotes and Goths case 882 Yelland and Fiches case 1026 Yardley and Ellices case 1107 Z. ZOuch and Bampfields case 382 ☞ THere is newly extant an ABRIDGEMENT of the Three Volumes of the REPORTS of Sir George Croke Kt. of all such Select Cases as were adjudged in the Courts of Kings Bench and Common Bench during the Raigns of Q. Elizabeth King James and King Charles Collected by the Author of this Abridgement AN ABRIDGEMENT OF THE REPORTS OF Sir FRANCIS MOORE Knight Serjeant at Law Mich. 1. Hen. 7. Capell and Churches Case A Writ of Right Patent in the Court of the Castle of Rising of the King was directed Balivis suis de Rising whereas the proceedings were senatoribus Curiae held good because the Paylifs are to make the Sommons and the suitors Justice Capell and Aprices Case 2. Replevin The Defendant avowed That A. and B. held the Mannor of H. and divers Lands of the Bishop of London parcel of the Bishops Castle of S. by Homage Fealty Escuage and by the Rent for Castleguard pro reddit auxil Vic. The Defendant pleaded That the Castle was utterly decayed and as to the auxil Vic. demurred in Law The Plantiff was Nonsuit but the Rents are still paid to the Bishop though the Castle be decayed Cleydon and Spensers Case 3. Resolved That if an Executor with his own proper monies pay a debt due by the Testator he may retain so much of the value of the goods of the Testator in his hands Case of the Sheriffs of London 4. The Custome of London is That if a Villein remaineth in the City by the space of a year and a day without any Claime made of him he may all time during his life live in the City Free 5. Resolved by the Justices That that which is written after the words In cujus rei Testimonium is parcel of the deed aswell as that which is written before it 6. Resolved It is no principal Challenge That a Juror is endebted either to the Plaintiff or Defendant 7. Resolved In a Replevin That one of the Jurors was Steward of the Mannor to the avowant is a principal Challenge 8. Two are bound each to other to stand to the award of Arbitrators They award that the one shall make a Lease for years to the other rendering Rent to the Lessor the Lease is made the Rent is not paid adjudged the Bond is not forfeit because Distresse or Debt are proper remedies for the Rent contr if it be awarded the Lessee should pay the Rent 9. Debt for not performance of an Arbitrament Adjudged It is no plea generally That he hath performed it but he must show how he hath performed it 10. Resolved It is a good Challenge to one of the 4. Knights who come to impannel the Grand Assise that one of them is maried to the Plantiffs daughter and the other 3. shall try it 11. If a submission be de jure titulo possessione of certain Lands The Arbitrators cannot award that one of the parties shall procure the Lord of the Mannor to grant a Copy holdor that a stranger shall release because out of the submission Frances Case 12. Resolved That the King by his Letters Patents cannot grant the Lands of a Lunatique to another to take the profits to his own use because the King himself is not entitled to them for his own use but for the use of the Lunatique his Issues Wife c. Otherwise it is of an Ideot for then the King hath the profits to his own use making allowance to the Idiot for his keeping Levet and Lewknors Case 13. An Executor recovered in Debt and then dies Intestate and the Ordinary commits Administration de bonis non c. Resolved the Administrator shall not have a scire fac upon the Judgement but a new Action of Debt as Administrator to the first Intestate Sir Godfrey Foliambs Case 14. Quare Imp. The Case was A. seased of the Mannor of D. to which Mannor an Advouson was Appendent granted the next Avoydance to B. and D. eorum cuilibet conjunctim divifim haered executor assignis suis The Church voyd B. presents D. to the Church adjudged That the presentment of him was good though he was one of the Granters 15. The Husband is entitled to Land in the Right of his Wife Resolved The Husband alone without joyning the Wife in the Writ shall have an Action upon the Statute of 8. H. 6. because the words of the Statute are Expulit disscisivit 16. A man was indicted for a Robbery done in the Foot way leading from London to Islington Resolved That he should have his Clergy because the Indictment is not of a Robbery in alta via regia nor in the High way but in a Foot way Vaughan and Lord Burghs Case 17. In a Writ of Prohibition there wanted the word Ostensurus Resolved though after Issue joyned that the Writ was amendable by the Statute Baker and Brooks Case 18. A Parson granted an Annuity of 5 l. issuing out of his Rectory pro Consilio impenso to I. S. Habend recipiend to the said I. S. and his Assignes The said I. S. granted it over to I. D. Resolved That the grant of the Annuity was good and the Assigne may have Debt for it 19. Wast was brought against Lessee for years He pleaded in Barre an Accord which was executed Adjudged to be a good plea. 20. Resolved by the Justices That the Master cannot Sollicite Counsel nor give Mony to Counsel in an Action brought against his Servant for his Servant but yet he may give what is due to his Servant for his Wages to Counsel for their Fees and it is not maintenance 21. Resolved That the Lord in Ancient Demesne shall
Attornment and not as a Surrender but if the Lessee be not upon the Land then it is not a Feoffment and when the Lessee enters again he shall have his Term and the Feoffee the Reversion and if the Lessee be upon the Land and denyes the Lessor to make Livery notwithstanding that Livery be made nothing passeth by the Feoffment nor is a grant of the Reversion 42. Lessee for life of a Mannor seizeth an Estray and dyeth before the year and the day passed Resolved the Executors of the Lessee shall have it and not he in the Reversion for although the Lessee had not an absolute propriety in it during his life yet when the year is past the property shall have relation to the time of the Seizure 1 2 Ma. Stapleton and Trewlocks Case 43. Debt by Executors of I. S. against A. Trewlock Administratrix of Rich. Trewlock The Will was That the Testator made the Plaintiff and Rich. Trewlock his Executors but said further in his Will I will my Friend Rich. T. shall pay to my other Executor all such debts as he oweth me before he shall meddle with any thing of this my Will by reason I have made him one of my Executors for the discharge of the said Debt The Defendant averred Trewlock in the Will and Trewlock the Intestate to be one and the same Person and said He in his life had paid to the Executor the debt in demand and all other debts which he owed at the time of the death of the Testator Adjudged that the Dfendants plea was not good because she ought to have pleaded an Acquittance of the said debt for that payment without an Acquittance is no plea and for the other Debts she ought to have shewed them certain and pleaded payment of them and she should have shewed that T. administred with the other Executor Agar and Bishop of Peterborough's Case 44. Quare Imp. And for Title to the Avoidance the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. taking a second Benefice with Cure was pleaded Issue was upon the Induction By which it seemed to be admitted That Admission and Institution did not make the first Benefice void without Induction 45. Resolved That upon an Appeal of Manslaughter the Party may challenge 20. peremptorily as well as upon an Indictment 46. Upon an Habere facias seisinam upon Recovery of Dower of 3. Mannors Resolved The Sheriff cannot give her seisin of one Mannor but he must give her seisin of the third part of every Mannor But if the Recovery be of all Lands viz Meadow c. Pasture the Sheriff may assign her her Dower in the Meadow only The Queen and Deans Case 47. Writ of Disceit by the King and Queen upon a Fine levyed by C. to D. of Lands in antient Demesne who rendred to C. for life reversion to K. D. dyed pendent the Writ Resolved The Writ shall not abate because it is in the nature of a Trespasse which doth not demand the Land but is to punish the Disceit Tuck and Frenchman's Case 48. A. seized of Lands in Fee holden in soccage devised the same to C. F. and the Heirs males of his body and if he dyed without Heirs males of his body the Remainder c. C. F. dyed without Issue male of his body Resolved That C. F. had not general tail but special tail to him and the Heirs males of his body Joslin and Chelstons Case 49. Assumpsit In consideration of a Marriage of the Son of the plaintiff with the Defendants Daughter the Defendant assumed to pay to the Plaintiff 40 l. in 7. years next following by equal portions Found upon Non Assumpsit for the Plaintiff and because one of the 7. years was to come at the time of Action brought the Judgement was stayed 3 4. Ma. Eaton Colledge Case 50. A Lease was made by the Dean and Chapter of the Colledge was of Eaton whereas they were incorporated by the name of Dean and Chapter of the Colledge of St. Maryes of Eaton Resolved the Lease was void for the Misnosmer Stokes and Porters Case 51. Debt upon an Obligation against the Defendant Executor of I. S. who pleaded that he was not Executor nor administred as Executor It was found that he received a Debt of 7 l. which was due to the Testator and made an Acquittance thereof and took possession of other Goods of the Testator and converted them to his own use Adjudged That it was an Administration Hill 2 Eliz. Helior and Okedens Case 52. A Lease was made to I. S. of the Mannor of F. Habend from Mich. last past for 20. years and by the same Deed it was agreed That after hold expiration of the 20 years that the said Lessee his Wife and their Son should have hold and enjoy the Mannor Habend for their lives cuilibet diutius vivent and he made a Letter of Attorney to make Livery secundum formam of the said Grant and Lease Resolved If the Deed was delivered by the Attorney and Livery made at one time it was a good Lease for years with a Remainder for their Lives but if the Deed was first delivered by the Lessor to the Lessee and after Livery and Seisin by the Attorney there the Livery was void Thorn and Rolfes Case 53. Dower The Defendant pleaded that the Husband of the Demandant was alive at Canterbury in Com. Kent The Defendant said her Husband dyed at F. in the Parish of P. in the said County of K. upon which they were at Issue Day given to make Proofs the Plaintiffe examined her Witnesses in Court the Defendant examined no Witnesses Judgement was the Plaintiffe should â—â—cover her Dower Hill 3 Eliz. Corket and Sheldons Case 54. A. in consideration of a Marriage intended betwixt him and B. by Deed covenants with S. to execute an Estate in Fee to the use of the said A. for life and after to the use of the said B. for by and untill the Son or one of the Sons of the said A. of the body of the said B. begotten shall accomplish the age of 21. years The Marriage takes effect A. dyed without Issue between them and before any Issue had Resolved That B. had a good Estate for life before any Issue and in Case there was no Issue But if there had been Issue which had accomplisht 21. years the Estate of B. had been abridged 3 4 Eliz. in C. B. Gower and Andrews Case 55. In Trespass for cutting down of Trees the Case was A. a Woman in her Widdow-hood by Indenture bargained and sold to B. and C. all those Woods Underwoods and Hedgerowes as have accustomedly been used to be fallen and sold standing growing and being in upon and within the Mannor of D. to have and to hold for the life of the said A. B. dyed C. survived and cut down by vertue of the said Bargain the VVoods and Underwoods growing and standing at the time of the making of the said Deed. Resolved upon this Bargain
the Use passeth to the Bargainee and then the Fine being levyed upon it the Bargain is irrevocable if not by Error 70. Lord and Tenant by Knights service the Tenant dyes his Heir being a Daughter within age of 14. years the Lord seizeth the VVard and after at 13. years she marryeth without the assent of the Lord It was the opinion of Wray Justice That the Lord should not have the forfeiture of the Marriage without tender but otherwise of the value of the Marriage because that de mero jure pertinet ad Dominum 71. Lessee for years hath Execution by Elegit of the Moyety of the Rent and Reversion against his Lessor the Lease being upon Condition Resolved That it is a suspension of the whole Condition during the Extent and although but the moyety of the Rent was extended yet the entire Condition was suspended and cannot be proportioned being entire 72. A man was bound in a Bond to make a sufficient Lease to the Obliger before such a day the same to be made at the Costs of the Obliger In Debt upon the Bond it was a holden a good Plea That the Plaintiff did not tender the Costs to him and if then that he was ready c. The Lord Windsors Case 73. A Precipe was brought against him It was Edwardo Domino Windsor de London Militi and because the word Militi was after the name of Dignity the VVrit abated 74. Entry sur Disseisin was brought the Writ was of an Entry in duas partes in tribus partibus dividend unius Messuagii and not in duas partes unius Messagii in tribus partibus dividend and yet adjudged good Pasch 3. Eliz. 75. Debt upon Obligation conditioned if the Obligator pay all such sums which he was Obliged to pay by his several writings Obligatory that then c. The Defendent said That there were not any writings Obligatory by which he was to pay any sum Adjudged to be no plea because it is repugnant to the Condition and he is estopped to say against the Condition 76. Wast The Case was Lease for life Covenanted to repair the houses at his proper Costs during the Terme The groundsels of the houses were rotten and the Lessee cut down trees upon the Land to repair them Resolved he might do it and it was not Wast and his justification of it good notwithstanding the Covenant which shall not exclude him from that benefit which the Law gives him 77. Debt against an Executour of an Executor the Defendant pleaded That the Executor his Testator had fully Administred and so nothing in his hands It was found that he had Assetts upon which a Fieri fac issued to the Sheriff who returned he had nor any thing adjudged a void Return and the Sheriff was amerced for if he had not goods of the Testator he should be payed of his own goods because when he pleads the first Executor had fully administred he doth not deny but Assetts remained after the death of his Testator 78. A grant was made per nomen Messuagii sive tenement It was holden by Dyer that neither a Garden nor Land do passe by the Grant but nothing but the House and Carthage Weston said the Garden should passe with the Messuage with an Averment that they have been occupied together Quere The Earl of Worcesters Case 79. Debt was recovered against the Earl and the Plantiff had an Elegit in the County of M. The Sheriff returned he had no goods nor Cattels Land nor Tenements within his County It was holden that after the year he might have a scire facias and upon that that an Elegit And it was holden that the party might divide his Execution and have several Elegits into Several Counties and to that purpose diverse Presidents were shewed by Lenard one of the Prothonotories Lady Audleys Case 80. Detinue A Woman delivered Goods to rebayl and after took Husband who after his Intermarriage released all Actions to the Baylee Adjudged the Release was good for that by the Intermarriage the Property of the Goods was in the Husband 81. In Dower The Tenant vouched the Heir of the Husband within the same County and he appeared and entred into Warranty as he who had nothing by Discent Judgement shall be given presently and the Sheriff by a special Writ shall put the Woman in Possession of all the Lands of the Tenant and that to avoid Circuit of Action betwixt the Tenant and the Vouchee Then the Question was If the Heir had nothing by Discent but Lands in tayle if they should be assigned to the Woman for her Dower It was the greater opinion she should not have Dower of the Lands intailed because the Execution for the Wife against the Vouchee is given only for Avoidance of Circuit of Action betwixt the Tenant and the Vouchee and therefore it follows That she shall not have Execution of other Lands whereof the Tenant could not have Execution against the Vouchee and the Lands intayled cannot be rendred in value 82. A Lease was made to 3. Habendum to them and the Survivor of them modo forma sequente viz. to one for Life the Remainder to another for Life the Remainder to the 3d. for Life It was holden they are not joynt Lessees by this Lease but they take by way of Remainder but if the viz had been before the Habendum or no Habendum had been then they had taken a joynt Estate notwithstanding the Limitation by the viz. because the viz. is but a declaration of the precedent Text and shall not confound the same mala est expositio quae corrumpit textum Skernes Case 83. A. by Indenture let an House to I. S. for 40. years The Lessee by the same Deed covenanted with the Lessor that he would repair the House during the Term and that it should be lawfull for the Lessor his Heirs and Assigns after the 40. years past every year during the Term to come into the House to see if the Reparations were sufficient by the Lessee his Executors or Assigns and if it should be repaired upon the view of the Lessor that then the Lessee should hold the Lease during 40. years after the first years ended I. S. granted over his Term by these words Totum interesse terminum terminos quae tunc habuit intenementis illis It was resolved in this Case That the words in the Assignment did not extend but to the first Term and therefore the possibility of the future Term did not pass but that by the Assignment there was a separation between the first Term and the possibility and by consequence the possibility determined 2ly That the want of the word Assignes did not hinder the possibility for it was a thing inherent which passed without such word But yet they held That if there had been the word Assignes yet the Assigns could not have taken the possibility 84. Debt upon Obligation The Defendant said he was to pay 20 l. at a
day and at the time of the delivery there was not any Day written in the Deed but a space for it and that after the Delivery the Plaintiff put in a Day and so Non est factum It was conceived the Plea had been better to have set forth the special matter per quod scriptum praedict perdidit effectum and Judgement if Action 85. Lands were given to Husband and VVife in tayle The Husband by Fine and Deed inrolled aliened the Land and dyed Resolved That the VVife might enter by the Statute of 32 H. 8. although the words are Of Tenements being the Inheritance or Freehold of the Wife And it was holden That by the Entry of the VVife the Inheritance of the Heir should thereby be recontinued 86. A man made a Feoffment to divers persons that they should infeoffe the Son of the Feoffor and his Wife in tail the remaynder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor who made the estate accordingly and the Son dyed It was Resolved the same was a Joynture within the Statute of 27 H. 3. cap. 10. for although she did not clayme it by the Ancestor himself but by his Feoffâ—rs yet because the Feoffes derive their Estate from the Ancestors of the Husband it is within the Statute But if he had bargained and sold the same upon trust to make the Joynture it had not been within the Statute 87. Resolved That an Action upon the Case doth not lye for calling one Adulterer because that is not punishable at the Common Law but in the Spiritual Court 88. Two Joynt tenants make partition by word and for equality of the partition one assignes to the other a Rent It is void if he hath not a Deed of it 89. In a Praecipe quod reddat at the Nisi Prius the Tenant made default and Petit Cap. returned at which day he in the Reversion prayed to be Received and was so received by the Rule of the Court notwithstanding he did not require it at the Nisi Prius 2. By the Equity of the Statute of West 2. he in the remainder shall be received upon the default of the Tenant for life although the words of the Statutes be ad quos spectat reversio 90. Resolved by the Justices That the Coroner super visum Corporis cannot enquire of an Accessary after the Murder 91. Two were joyntly and severally bound in an Obligation in Debt brought the Defendent said the Plantiff recovered against the other the same Debt and had Execution and adjudged a good plea notwithstanding it was not shewed by what proces he had Execution because the Execution is on Record and shall be tryed by the Record but if he paid the monies in pais to the Plantiff and not in Court It is not an Execution of the Judgement 92. A Recordare was to remove a Plaint in Curia nostra and the plaint was in Curia Mariae Resolved that for this variance the Record was not removed for it could not be the plaint whereof c. 93. It was said If the Defendant will plead to the Writ matter apparent within the Writ he must begin his plea with Petit Judicium of the Writ but if he plead matter de hors as Joyntenancy or Nontenure c. he shall make the conclusion in such manner only and not the beginning 94. Ejectione firme Of a Lease made by the Prebendary Ecclesiae Beatae Mariae whereof the foundation was Ecclesiae Beatae Mariae de Thornton and Thornton being omitted the Leaser to make it agree entertayned the words de Thornton It was the opinion of the Justices That non est factum is no proper plea because it was once his deed but he is to shew the special matter and demand Judgment of Action vide before 95. A Rent was granted to I. S. for life the remainder to I. D. in Fee I. S. dyed the Rent was behind he in the Remainder destraind and avowd for the Rent and good for the grant was good to him in the remainder which took effect with the particular estate and so adjudged 96. One made his Will in this manner I have made a Lease for 21. years to I. S. paying but 10 s. Rent adjudged a good Lease at Will and the word I have shall be taken in the present tence 97. Replevin The Defendant avowed for a Rent charge granted to him but did not alledge any seisin of it within the years according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. Cap. 2. and yet holden good for the Statute is to be intended where seisin ought to have been alledged before at the Common Law 98. Dower The Case was The Husband made his Will thereby devised all his Lands to his Wife the now demandment during her Widdowhood and dyed the Wife entred by force of the Will and after took Husband It was the opinion of the Justices that this estate devised being as great an Estate for her life and her acceptance of it she not being Compellable to Marry was in the nature of a Joynter to her and a good barre of her Dower 99. Note by the Justices If a man seised of a Rent charge be bounden in a Statute and Execution be sued upon it the Rent shall be extended in Execution and yet the Statute de Mercatoribus speaks only of the Goods and Lands of the debtour and doth not speak of Tenements or other things 100. I. S. Tenant in tail by Indenture upon Consideration of Marriage Covenants to stand seised to his own use for life and after his death to the use of his Son and heir apparant Resolved there is no change of the use but only during the life of the Tenant in tail 101. A man seised of Land in the right of his Wife makes a Lease for life the remainder in Fee and afterwards he and his Wife recovers the same Land in a Writ of Entry against the Tenant for life Dyer held the Wife should be remitted and no act shall be adjudged in the Wife for the bringing the Writ shall be adjudged the sole act of the Husband and not of the Wife Quaere if she shall not be estopped by the Record 102. Note by the Justices That a Writ of Curia Claudenda lyeth of a Close which lyeth in a Field aswell as where there are 2. Messuages Courts oâ— Gardens adjoyning But after Imparlance in this Writ the Defendant shall not have the view 103. In a Quid juris Clamat after Issue joyned upon Ne dona pass at the Nisi Prius the Jury gave a privy verdict the Court being risen for the Defendant and had License to eat and drink and at another day when the Court was sitting they returned and gave an open Verdict for the Plantiff Resolved That Judgement should be entred for the Plantiff for the last Verdict which is given openly in Court is the Verdict in fact and not the first and the eating and drinking of the Jurours before the second Verdict given doth not
Error but is without remedy Hawtree and Anger 's Case 194. Debt against A. B. and E. the daughter of C. Coheirs in Gavelkind upon an Obligation of their Father A. and B. were Outlawed and had their pardon E. the daughter of C. who was dead was waive The Plaintiff declared against A. and B. simul cum E. who was waive The Defendants pleaded that E. now one of the Heirs in Gavelkind was within age It was Resolved that the Heir of an Heir should be chargeable with an Obligation simul cum the immediate Heirs and that such Heir should have his age and if he was within age the parol should demur for them all Mich. 7. Eliz. Swann and Searles Case 195. Covenant against A. and B. Executors of I. D. I. D. was Tenant for life the remainder to A. I. D. by Indenture demised the Land to the Plaintiff for years rendering rent by the word dimisit Concessit I. D. dyed A. who was in the remainder entred and avoided the Terme and thereupon the Plaintiff the Lessee for years brought the Action against the Executors of I. D. and it was adjudged that the Action did not lye Mich. 7. Eliz. Worleyes Case 196. An Enfant was bound in a Statute of 600 l. and afterwards was taken in Execution upon it and at full age he brought an Audita Querela to avoid the Execution The Case was argued by the Judges and at length Resolved That the Audita Querela should abate For it was Resolved that if any Enfant acknowledge a Statute or Recognizance or Levyeth a Fine of his Land he shall not reverse it by Error or otherwayes when he is of full age it being matter of Record but if he will avoid it it must be during his Minority 197. One came to an Inn and brought goods with him The Inkeeper said to him There are many resort to this House and I do not know their behaviour therefore here take the Key of such a Chamber and put your goods there for I will not take Charge of them and afterwards the goods were stolen It was the opinion of Wrey Justice that an Action did lye against the Inkeeper for he is by the Law chargeable with all things which come into his Inn and by Law he cannot discharge himself by such words as are in this Case Price and Jones Case 198. Error by A. and B. against I. S. of a Judgment in an Assise of Novel Disseisin given by the Justices of Assise at Monmouth It was demurred unto and Adjudged here in C. B. That a Writ of Error here upon that Judgement did not lye Stakely and Thynns Case 199. In Debt the Plantiff and Defendant both appeared by their Attorneys and day was given to the parties in statu quo tune till 8. Hill at which time the Defendant made defaust Holden the Plantiff should not have Judgment because Dies Datus is as strong as an Imparlance Lucas and Cottons Case 200. Words viz. George Lucas is a false Knave and worthy to stand upon the Pillory The Defendant Justified because the Plantiff swore his debt falsely to be true upon an Attachment according to the Custome of the City of London which by the Court was holden to be a good justification wherefore adjudged against the Plantiff Slisield and Sibills Case 201. Debt by Husband and Wife upon a Lease for years the Defendants said that they had not any thing in the Land at the time of the Lease as to part It was found that they had and did demyse and as to other parts that they did not demyse It was holden the Plantiffs could not have Judgement for any party Arden and Mischells Case 202. Replevin The Defendant avowed as Bayliff to the Countesse of Rutland for Rent The Defendant said that the Abbot of C. 29 H. 8. was feised and made a Lease to I. S. for 60. years rendering Rent viz. 22 s. and expressed the same by such figures viz. 22 s. and that after the making and delivery of the Indenture the Plantiff caused the said 22 s. to be rased into the forme of 5. and after the said 5. caused to be adjoyned the Letter m by which the Indenture was void It was the opinion of the Justices that by such rasure the deed was void Bâ—lfield and Rouse Case 203. Dower The Defendant pleads as to part in abatement that he was not Tenant and as to the Rest he pleads a gift in Fee to the Husband by which he claimed the Land as Brother to the Husband and also pleads a Will by which he was entitled to other parts both which the Plaintiff did Detain Upon Non Detinet it was found for the Plaintiff and she had Judgment for damages from the death of the Husband Watson and Bishop of Cant. Case 104. In a Quare Impedit the Defendants at the Distresse made default and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff against all the Defendants to recover damages because they were supposed all disturbers by their default but the Plaintiff was compelled to make Title Bullock and Bardetts Case 205. The Case was the Bishop of Salesbury in temps R. 2. made a Feoffment in Fee of a Messuage and 3. Roodes of Land in Erbonfield parcel of the Mannor of S. nec non of 17. Acers of Wood in a great Wood containing a 1000. Acres to Bullock and his Heirs and after 5. discents the Land came to the Plaintiff who 6. of the Queen entred into the great Wood and made election of the 17. Acres in a place called Saltors Hill parcel of the said great Wood and distinguished them by Metes and Bounds The Question was if the 17. Acres passed to G. Bullock and whether the election of them by R. Bullock his Heirs in the 5th discent was good or not It was the opinion of the Justices that nothing thereof was vested in G. Bullock the Ancestor and the Election to have the 17. Acers was not given to the Plantiff the Heir for that nothing was in the Ancestors which might discend to him and as a purchasor he could not take for that nothing was given to him Pasc 10 Eliz. The Lord Dacres Case 206. The Lord Dacres and others agreed to enter into a Park and hunt there and to kill those who should resist them They entred and I. S came to one of them and asked one of them what he had to do there and the other killed him the Lord being a quater of a myle distant from the place and knew not of it It was adjuged Murder in him and all his Companions Sir Rich. Mansfields Case 207. Difference being betwixt Sir Rich. and one Herbert for Wreck of the Sea they appointed a Duell Herbert with his Servants came to Sir Richards house to fight with him a Friend to them both perswaded with them to take up the matter One of the Servants of Sir Richard cast a Stone at Herbert and his Servants and perchance therewith killed their Friend It
of B. was behind for which the grantees destrained by their Bayliffs In this Case it was Resolved 1. That this demise and Lease was joynt and entire and so was the Condition of it notwithstanding the several Reservations of the Rents 2. That the grantee of parcell of the Reversion could not take advantage of the Condition but that the Condition as to the grantee was determined 3. That the bargainee was a sufficient Assigne within the Statute to take advantage of the Condition by the Statute of 27. H. 8. of uses which gives Cestuy que use the possession and the Estate of the Feoffees and all the advantages which the Feoffes might have and they agreed the Condition to be determined upon this difference viz. When it is entire one cannot divide it by his own act but by act of Law in may be divided and apportioned and so it was in this Case Hunks and Alboroughs Case 232. A man made his Will and gave divers Legacies and in the end of it he gave all the rest of his goods to his Wife who he made his Executor to pay his debts she took Husband who made the Defendant his Executor and dyed against whom the Wife Executrix brought Detinue of the goods of her first Husband and adjuged maintainable because she took the goods not as Legatee but as Executrix Harwell and Lucas Case 233. A. seised the Mannor of K. leased 6. acres parcel of it to I. S. for 21. years without any Remainder and after lets the 6. Acres to I. D. for 26. years to begin after the expiration of the first Lease rendring rent and afterwards made a Feoffment of the Mannor and all his Lands to the use of the Feoffees their Heirs upon Condition if they did not pay 10000 l. within 15. dayes then it should be to the use of himself and his wife the Reversion to their second Son in tayle with divers Remaâ—nders over the Remainder to his right Heirs Livery was made of the Land in possession and not in the 6. Acres the Money was not paid afterwards the first Lessee for years attorned the Husband and wife dyed the first Lease ended the second Lessee dyed his Wife married the Defendant The Son of A. distreyned for the Rent It was adjudged in this Case That although the reversion of the 6. Acres did not passe by the Livery without attornment yet the attornment of the first Lessee was sufficient and although the use to the Feoffees and their Heirs was determined before the attornment yet the attornment was good to passe the Reversion to the last contingent use and so the Title of the Sonne of A. to the Rent was good Cranmers Case 234. King Henry 8. made a Lease of Land for 21. years the Reversion came to E. 6. who Anno primo of his reign granted the same to Cranmer Bishop of Canterbury He 6 E 6. granted the Reversion to D. and C. to the use of the Bishop for life the Remainder for 20. years to the use of the Executors of the Bishop the Remainder in tayle to the Grantor the Remainder to his right Heirs The Bishop in time of Queen Mary was attainted of Treason and all his Lands and Chattels given to the Queen by Act of Parliament The Queen was possessed of the Term for 20. years and granted the same to I. S. It was adjudged That the term for years in remainder was never in the Bishop to forfeit but it was only an authority to nominate Executors in whom the Term should vest by purchase and because by reason of his Attainder he could not make Executors the Term for 20. years did never rise and so the Grant of it by the Queen Mary to I. S. not good See Dyer 310. contr Plastow and Batchâ—llors Case 235. Aâ—man brought a Formedon in Discender and pending it he brought a Writ of Estrepment which he delivered to the Defendant who notwithstanding the Writ afterwards committed Waste It was adjudged the Plaintiff should recover his Dammages and Costs Manwoods Case 236. Wast was brought and assigned in digging of Clay and selling of it and in plowing of Meadow and cutting down of 100. Oaks The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty as to all but cutting down of 6. Oaks which grew in a Hedge row which he said were Pollards not sufficient for building upon which it was demarred and adjudged for the Plaintiff Calthrops Case 237. Ejectione formae The Case was A. seised in Fee 26 H. 8. in consideration of Marriage between E. his Brother and F. the Daughter of W. and 200 l. of Money paid by W. covenanted to execute an Estate of the Mannor of N. to the uses following viz. of Lands of the value of 20 l. to the use of the said E. and F. for their lives and after carnal Copulation to the use of the Issues of their Bodyes with remainder over to E. and the Heirs of his Bodye the remainder to the right Heirs of A. and of the residue to the use of A. for life the remainder to E. F. for their lives and after carnal Copulation the remainder as before and afterwards he executed the estate by Fine and Recovery to the said uses The Marriage did not take effect but E. by another Wife had Issue 3. Daughters A. took a Wife and had Issue by her and dyed E. and F. dyed C. conveyed the Mannor to D. upon whom the eldest Daughter of E. entred and made a Lease of her part In this case It was resolved 1. That the use for the life of E. and F. did well rise although the marriage took no effect the use being declared upon an Estate executed which needs not any consideration but otherwise if it had been upon a Covenant to stand seâ—sed upon consideration of Marriage and Money for there without Marriage no use would rise although the Money was paid 2ly That the Election should go to him who was to take the use 3ly That the limitation was not void for the incertainty 4ly That in this Case although the Cestuy que use did not make the Election during his life yet he in the Remainder might after his death 5ly The Court doubted whether the Remainder did take effect because the Marriage did not take effect and they conceived it was not the intent of the Parties that should be advanced with so much Land if the Marriage did not take effect The matter was afterwards ended by Arbitrament Lane and Coopers Case 238. The Case was The Mannor of H. to make a Joynture was conveyed by a Deed in Latine to himself and his VVife for the Term of their lives the Reversion Seniori puero de corpore ipsius W. H. Haered de corpore suo legitimo procreato the Remainder to the general tayl to the Husband the Remainder to I. S. in fee thereof Afterwards by an Indenture between him and I. S. in English he covenanted that he and his wife should levy a Fine to B. and C. to
the use of himself and his wife for their lives the Remainder to the use of the eldest Child of the said W. H. and the Heirs of the body of such eldest Child the Remainder over A Fine was levyed accordingly and after his wife died without issue and W. H. married another woman and by her had issue a Daughter his eldest Childe and a Sonne his younger It was a Question which of them should have the Remainder It was the opinion of the Justices That the Daughter should have the Remainder and not the Sonne for that was the intent of the Ancestour as they conceived though puero in Latine is intendable rather to an Issue Male than Female and yet they said That many Authors have taken the word indifferently to extend to both Sexes Mich. 17 18 Eliz. Andrews Case 239. Q. Imp. The Case was A Tenant in Tayle the Remainder to the Lord Mountjoy in fee of a Mannor with an Advowson appendant bargained and sold the same by Indenture not enrolled to I. S. and his Heirs rendring 42 l. rent with Clause of Distress and Nomine pene and covenanted for further assurance to levy a Fine to the Bargainee Proviso that the Bargainee grant the next Avoydance to A. for life and if it happen not void then one life to his Executors A and I. S. afterwards levyed a Fine with the render of a Rent of 42 l. to A. in tayle the remainder to I. S. in fee B. in his life did not grant the Advowson to A. and dyed the Church became void A. entred for the Condition broken It was in this Case resolved 1. That the Proviso made a Condition 2ly That the Fine levyed had not extinguished the Condition 3ly That no time being limited for the regrant the Bargainee was bound to regrant it without request at his peril during the life of the Bargainor if he were requested in the life of the Bargainor and because the Bargainor dyed the Condition was broken Fox and Colliers Case 240. Ejectione firme the Case was E. G. Bishop of York 6. Nov. 18. had made a Lease from the date of the Indenture of Lands for 21. years to the Plaintiff which Lease was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter at which time there was unexpired 4. years of an antient Lease made for 40. years Afterwards E. G. was removed to Canterbury and S. elected Bishop of York the 4. years expired the Plaintiff entred The Defendant upon a Lease made to him by S. after the 4. years ended put him out It was resolved by all the Justices and Barons in the Exchequer Chamber That the Lease made to the Plaintiff was good yet they agreed it should be void if it was not for the Confirmation 2ly They held that the Lease now in Question being to commence presently in Estoppel but not in Interest was not void by the Statute of 1 Eliz. neither within the letter nor the intent of the Statute not within the letter because it is not prejudicial to the Successor and the Statute is satisfied in the intent it not being a Lease longer than 21. years and having the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter it is now good although it was not good by the Statute of 32 H. 8. Knowles and Lines Case 241. Ejectione firme The Case was Sir Francis Englesfield was seised in the right of K his wife of the Mannor of S. whereof a Messuage and Lands in question were Copyhold demiseable for 3. lives 1 Eliz. Sir Francis Englefield went beyond Sea with license for 3. years after his Licence expired the Queen sent a Privy Seal to him commanding him upon his Allegiance to return he spretis Mandatis of the Queen continued there and adhered to the Queens Enemies This being retorned a Commission issued to seize his Lands upon which the said Mannor of S. was seized The Queen at the Suit of K. his Wife for her Releif granted the Mannor to St. John and Fetiplace the Friends of K. for her Releife quamdiu in manibus nostris fore contigerit who entred and were thereof possessed accordingly and then the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives was made After which the Defendant procured a Warrant from the Lord Treasurer to C. and F. joynt Stewards for the Queen to hold Court within all the Lands of Sir Francis Englefield and to grant Copyes according to the Custom of the Mannor C. alone executed the Grant and granted the Messuage and Lands to the Defendant's being Copyhold In the Case was two points 1. If the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives had taken away the Estate of St. John Fetiplace and reduced the Mannor again to the Queen 2ly If the Court holden by C. only being a joynt Grant of Stewardship was good Resolved 1. That the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. of Fugitives was made in affirmance of the Common law and did not give the Queen any new thing but added only some Circumstances to it and therefore the Grant made to St. John and Fetiplace stood good so as the Queen could not oust the Patentees and so by consequence the Grant of the Copyhold to Lines the Defendant was not good 2ly They held that the Court holden by C. only was good For it was said a Disseasor c. might hold Courts and make admittance and take surrenders and the like because he is but an Instrument of Conveyance but he could not grant Copyhold estates 242. Note by the Justices If a man be to make sufficient proof it may be made by Witnesses produced as by Jury 243. A man seised of Lands parcell Copyhold and of Lands at the Comon Law and by Licence of the Lord makes a Lease of them for 21. years Provided if the Lessor or his Wife or his Heirs or Assignes or any of them give warning to the Lessee that the Husband or Wife or their Heirs will dwell there that then the Lessee should avoid Except that the Lessor or his Heirs shall pay to the Lessee then 20 l. The Lessor and his Wife dyes and the Reversion of one part discendeth to the eldest Son and the Reversion of the other to the youngest and the youngest purchaseth the Reversion of the eldest and then the youngest gives warning to the Lessee It was the opinion of the Justices that the warning given by him was good and that the Law which hath severed the Reversion hath severed also the Condition although at the begining they were entire and so for one part as Heir and for the other part as Assignee he shall take advantage of the Cndition 244. A man makes a Lease of Land and of an House for years reserving one Rent for all and afterwards the Lessor grants the Reversion of all the Lands saving the Reversion of the House to himself Resolved that by agreement betwixt the Lessor and grantee in the Reversion in pays the Rent may be apportioned if it be according to the quantity and quality of the Land
which they have otherwise not 245. Tenant in Tail disseiseth the Discontinuee and Levyeth a Fine and the proclamation passes but the Discontinuee during the proclamation makes claime and after the Tenant in Tail dyes and the Discontinuee enters It was the opinion of the Justices that the Issue in Tail was barred by the Fine and in this Case it was said That if the Lord entreth upon his Tenant and enfeoffs a stranger and the Tenant Reenters he avoids the Disseisin and estate but the seignoury is not revived but extinct Pasch 20. Eliz. Jackson and Darceys Case 246. Tenant in Tail the Remainder to the King levyeth a Fine with Proclamation It was holden it shall binde the Issue notwithstanding the saving in the Statute of 32. H. 8. for that here is not any Reversion in the King but a Remainder of which the Statute speaks nothing but yet this Fine doth not devest the Remainder out of the Kâ—ng but the Conusee shall have a Fee determinable upon the Tail 247. The Master takes an Obligation of his Apprentice that he shall not use his Trade within 4. years in the Town of N. where his Master dwells and he is an Apprentice It was holden the Obligation was not good not should binde the Apprentice 248. A man hath a Warren which extends into 3. Townes and by deed makes a Lease of it for years Rendering rent and after grants the Reversion in one of the Townes to another and the Lessee Attornes It was the opinion of the Justices That the grantee should have no part of the Rent nor the Granter because no Covenant can be apportioned Duland and Cleypooles Case 248. Information upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. of Tillage That the Defendant had Converted 300. Acres of arable Lands to Pastures and that the Conversion hath continued from 15. Eliz. to 20. Eliz. The Defendant as to the Conversion pleaded Not guilty and as to the Continuance the general pardon of 23. Eliz. upon which it was demurred It was argued that the Condition did not extend to the Continuance of the said conversion It was said That if A be seised of arable Lands and converts the same to pasture and so converted Leaseth it to B. who continues it in pasture as he found it he shall be charged by the Statute And Note the words of the Statute are Conversion permitted and Conversion continued is Conversion permitted and the Statute doth not punish only the Conversion but the continuance of it One the other side It was said That the Conversion and the continuance thereof are 2. several things by it self and so the Conversion being only excepted the Continuare thereof is within the Pardon Quaere the Case was adjorned Term. Pasc 24. Eliz. Leeke and Grevells Case 249. Information upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. for converting and using of 2000. Acres of arable into pasture The Defendant said and justified as to 800. Acres That the Queen by Deed under her Great Seal Licensed him to enclose the Mannor of Weston and Welford in the County of Gloucester and to make a Park so as it was not within any Forrest and to Convert and use the Land inclosed of tillage into pasture pro sustentatione ferarum Damarum averiorum suorum by which he enclosed them and converted the Tillage into pasture for the Sustentation of his beasts Upon which it was demurred It was argued that the License was not good because the Statute of 5. Eliz. was to continue but till the beginning of the next Session of Parliament at which time the Statute ended and was not revived till Anno 13. Eliz. so as in Anno 9. when the License was there was not any Statute to prohibit the Conversion of tillage into Pasture and therefore the License in 9. Eliz. could not dispense with the Statute of 13. Eliz. and the Statute of 13 Eliz. did not make such reviver of the Statute of 5. Eliz. as made mean Acts good by any Relation Quaere the Case was not adjudged but adjorned Dolman and the Bishop of Salisburies Case 250. Quare Imp. brought the Defendent pleaded the Statute of 21. H. 8. Cap. 13. of Pluralities that the last Incumbent had a Benifice with Cure of the value of 8 l. and took another Benefice and was Inducted 1 Eliz. upon which the Queen did present the Defendant by Lapse The Plaintiff shewed the Proviso in the Statute of 25. H. 8. that Chaplains qualified might purchase Dispensations and take 2. Benefices and that 1 Eliz. before the Parliament he purchased a Dispensation from the Pope and after he took the second benefice and dyed The question was whether the Pope before the Statute of 25 H. 8. might grant dispensations It was Resolved he could not for that the Kings of England had been Soveraigns within their Realms of the Spiritualties and the Justices held that the dispensation in question was made 1 Eliz and so out of the Statute of 25 H. 8. and that this dispensation to retain a second benefice was against the Statute of 21 H. 8. Lacyes Case 251. In a scire facias upon a Recognizance for not appearing before the Justices of Assise at York the Defendant pleaded that after the Recognizance taken a Commission issued to the Admiral and others to hear and determine Treasons Felonies c. done within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty and that the Commissioners sent to Arrest him before the day of his Appearance because he had mortally wounded a Man upon Scarborow sands if within the flux and reflux of the Sea of which wound he dyed at Scarborow and that thereupon he was Arrested and detained in prison till after the day of Appearance and afterwards was Indicted and arraigned of the said Felony before the Commissioners The Court inclined to be of opinion that the Arrest was a sufficient excuse of his appearance because the Recognizance is a duty to the Queen and the Commission is the Act of the Queen and all that the Commissioners do is by authority from the Queen and in her person and shall be accounted her Act and then when she her self is a cause that the Defendant could not appear that she should not have benefit of the Recognizance 252. The Condition of an Obligation was That if the Obligor pay at or before the 25th day of March he tenders the money the 24th day It was the opinion of Anderson that if he tender the money the last instant of the 24th day he saveth his Bond But the other Justices held the contrary because the word before is not to have any Construction but the Obligor shall be admitted to pay it before by agreement only of the Obligee Quaere 253. A man seised of 3. Mannors in Fee of the value of 300 l. Covenanted in Consideration of the Mariage of his daughter that he would suffer 20 l. yearly to discend come and remain to his daughter and her Husband and the Heirs of their bodies It was the opinion
of the Justices that for want of Certainty no use is created by the said Covenant and Consideration but the same amounts to a Covenant and no more and the words Discend come and remain cannot create an Use but to the Heir apparant only 254. In Trespas the Case was The Custom of a Mannor was Quod quilibet tenens per Copiam poterit dimittere terras suas for life in Fee or alâ—ter and that a Woman Cooperta viro poterit devise her Copyhold Lands to any other or to her Husband by the assent of the Husband The Court held that the custome was not unreasonable but because it was poterit devisorre where it should be usi sunt devisorre and also because it appeared that the Plaintiff was Tenant in Common with the Defendant It was adjudged against the Plaintiff 255. A seised in Fee of a Messuage and of divers Lands time out of minde occupied with it let parcel of the Lands to a stranger for years and afterwards made his Will in this manner viz. I will and bequeath to my Wife my Messuage with all the Lands thereunto belonging in the occupation of the Lessee and after the decease of my Wife I Will that it with all the rest of my Lands shall remain to my Younger Son It was the opinion of the Justices that the Wife should not have the whole but only that which was Leased before and therefore that the remainder thereof could not be in the Younger Son till after the death of the Wife and that till the death of the Wife the Eldest Son Heir at Law should enjoy it 256. A man bound himself in an Obligation that he and his Wife would levy a Fine upon reasonable request of the Obligee he made the Request the Wife being very sick so as she could not travail Resolved that her sicknesse did save the Obligation from being forfeited 257. A Copyholder in Fee by License of the Lord made a Lease for years Rendring Rent and having Issue a Son and a Daughter by one Woman and a Daughter by another dyed his Son within age who before any Rent incurred or any admittance dyed Adjudged The Eldest Daugter should have the Land and that the discent of the Reversion is possessio fratris quae facit sororem esse haeredem Kenrick and Burges Case 258. A Lease in Reversion for years was granted to I. S. who dyed Intestate his Wife assigned it to B. and afterwards took Letters of Adminâ—stâ—ation and made an Assignment of it to the Plaintiff Resolved that the last Assignee should have it Trinit 25. Eliz. in Exchequer The Queen Her Almoner and Coxeheads Case 259. The Case was I. S. Anno 9. of the Queen took the Office of Bayliff of the Hundred of A. and 11. Eliz. became indebted to the Queen by Obligation and 13. Elz. he being seised of Land Covenanted with C. in Consideration of Mariage with his daughter to stand seised to the use of himself for life and after to the use of C. and the Daughter in Tail and afterwards he took the Office of Woodwardship of the Mannor of S. and became indebted for that also and then granted a Rent Chaâ—ge for years out of the Land and then C. and I. S. joyned in a Fine to the use of the said I. S. for life the remainder to C. and afterwards I. S. having purchased the Rent and possâ—ssâ—d of goods and Chattells because Felo de so for which his Lands and goods were seized It was the opinion of the Justices the Almonor had no title to his goods because the Patent did not extend to the goods of a Felo de se against the Queen for her debt because it wanted the Words Licet tanget nos and that the Lands and goods of the said I. S. were chargeable as well for the debts which were due by the Obligation as also upon the accompt aswell before the Conveyance as after Wherefore C. paid the Queen her debts and had the Lands cleered Newtons and Barnardines Case 260. A. had Issue 3. Sons F. R. and G. F. dyed his Wife with Child The Father A. devised in this manner viz. To the Child my Son F. his Wife now goeth with 28 l. yearly to be paid to the use of the Child for 20 years And if my Son R. dyeth before he hath Issue of his body so as my Lands discend to G. before he come of the age of 21. years then my Executors shall occupy it till G. be of the age of 21. years the Father dyeth R. enters a Daughter is born who enters and lets the Land to the Defendant rendering Rent It was adjudged That R. in this Case had an estate Tail by Implication of the words of the Will and that the entry of R. was a Lawfull eviction of the Terme and destroyed the Rent Hâ—dons Case 261. It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case An Abbot made a Lease for 8. years of Lands of the possession of the Abby a Copyhold estate being in esse at the time that it was an estate in being as did make the Lease for years void by the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries The Case of the Skinners of London 262. In Intrusion the Case was A. a Cittizen and Freeman of London seised of divers Messuages and Tenements of the yearly value and profit of 30 l. 6 s. 8 d. by his Will before the Statute of 1 E. 6. devised the same to the Corporation of Skinners and that 42 s. 8 d. thereof should be imployed upon an Obit and 12. Marks yearly thereof upon the Priest and the Residue to be imployed upon poor men of the Corporation decayed by misfortune who inhabited the said Messuages and Tenements and appointed the said poor men to pray for his soul and further with the profits to repair the Messuages and Tenements and after the Statute of 1 E. 6. of Chauntries was made It was the opinion of the Court 1. That Lay Corporations are Excepted out of the Statute for their Lands which they have to increase their Treasure for the good of the Corporation but not for Lands which they have to imploy to superstitious uses 2. Resolved that all the money which was given for the Obit and the finding of the Priest was a superstitious use and given to the King by the Statute but that which was given for the maintenance of the poor men and although it was appointed them to pray for his soul which was a precept suteable for that time and which was given for the Reparations of the Messuages c. was not given to the Crown by the said Statute and Turnors Case was vouched to be adjudged Where Land was given to the intent that his Feoffees should keep an Obit with so much of the profits of it as they should think fit in their discretions that the Land thereby was not given to the Crown but so much of the yearly Rent as the Feoffees imployed to that purpose
the Rent that the Lessor should not enter which being immediately sworn and the Records of the Outlawries against him produced the Justices dismissed the Lessee and that the Lessor should enter upon him Broughtons Case 269. Broughton a Justice of the Peace brought an Action upon the Case against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield because he wrote a Letter to the Earl of Leycester one of the Privy Council wherein he wrote That the Plaintiff was a Vermin in the Common wealth a false and corâ—upt man an Hypocrite in the Church of God a Dissembler He hath used many corrupt practises to work his VVill He procured my Register to be indicted of Extortion He willingly and wilfully hath boulstred out one Greenwood a Convict man of many offences and knowing him to be an Evil man maintaineth him against me without Law Conscience or Honesty Upon Not Guilty it was found for the Plaintiff and 300 l. Dammages It was objected the Action did not lye not being an overt Act but words written in a Letter Resolved the Act on did well lye being writ to a Stranger but otherwise if it had been written to the Party himself and it was also resolved That although but some of the words will bear Action yet the Dammages are well assessed because they are put in to increase the Dammages In this Case it was said if a slanderous Bill be exhibited in the Star Chamber against one the Action doth not lye because it is a Court of Justice and hath Jurisdiction to redress things but to exhibite a slanderous Bill into a Court waich hath not power to redress the thing is scandalous and an Action will lye for it Griffith and Clarks Case 170. A Writ of Disceit by the Lord of the Mannnor upon a Fine levyed of the Land within antient Demeasne The Defendants pleaded that the Lord of the Mannor in the time of E. 2. did release to one who was Tenant of the same Land de omnibus servitiis consuetudinibus salvis servitiis infrascriptis viz. pro una virgat terrae 2 s. rent suit of Court and Releife It was resolved The Custome of the Antient Demesne was extinct by the Release but the Rent Releife and suit of Court remained as parcel of the Seignory by the saving Ivors Keales Case 271. A. seised of Lands in Fee borrowed 20 l. of B. and they are agreed to assure Lands for it They went to the Land and A. there said to B. I am endebted to you 20 l. If I do not pay you at Michaelmas then I bargain and sell this Land to you and if I do pay you I am to have my Land again B. continued upon the Land a little space the Monyes was not paid at Michaelmas Adjudged the Land passed to B. upon a Condition subsequent for payment of the Mony by B. Mildmay and Standiskes Case 272. Action upon the Case for Slandering his Title In which the Defendant justified the Case was A. seised of Lands in fee had Issue 3. Daughters V. G. O. V. dyed without Issue The Father for love and affection and the better maintenance of G. and O. covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for life the remainder to G. in tale of one Moyety the remainder to O. of the Moyety in Tail Provided it shall be Lawfull for the said A. for the payment of his Debts and Legacies and better preferment of his Servants and other good Considerations to devise the said Lands by his Last VVill and dispose of the same for lives or years and afterwards he devised the said Lands to F. and the said O. his wife for 1000. years and dyed wherefore the Defendant published the said Lands were assured for 1000 years upon which it was demurred It was said that the said V. might at any time determine any of the said uses and induce other Estates at his pleasure and the payment of his Debts and Legacyes with good considerations for the Leases But it was resolved for the Plaintiff because the Proviso was against the Law to enduce an Estate to a Stranger by way of Lease upon Covenant of Considerations to raise uses but such power might be good upon an Estate executed Or a Proviso good which did extend to determine the Estate but not to give another Estate to Lessees Veere and fâ—ofryes Case 273. It was Resolved That if the Metropolitan grant Administration where the Intestate had not bona notabilia indivers diocesses it is voidable only but not void But if a Bishop of a Diocesse grants Administration which belongs to the Metropolitan the same is void Russells Case â—74 Trover and Conversion of goods by the Executors of R. against Husband and Wife of the goods of the Testator which came to the hands of the Wife dum sola fuit The Defendant pleaded a Release of the Plaintiff after the death of the Testator and after the Trover and Conversion The Plaintiff said he was then within age It was adjudged that because there was no Consideration alledged for the Release it should not binde the Executor because it should be a Devastavit in him Twineos Case 275. Grandfather and Grandmother Tenants in special Tail before the Statute of 27 H. 8. the remainder to the right Heirs of the Grandfather The Father by deed enrolled Fine and Proclamation conveyed the Lands to the Queen and her Heirs and Successors in the life time of the Grandmother It was Resolved that by the Statute of 32 H. 8. by the Fine and Proclamation the Issue in Tail was Barred Vâ—ncent and Lees Case 276. It was adjudged in this Case That when a man devised that his Sons in Law should sell the Reversion of his Lands without naming their particular names and that some of them dyed That the Survivors could not sell the Land Sir Peter Carewes Case 277. It was Resolved in this Case That the Lord of a Mannor for life or a particular Tenant having interest in the Mannor might grant Copies in Reversion although they were not executed in the life of the grantor Moris and Franklyns Case 278. The Statute of 27 H. 8. which began 4. Feb. Anno 27. H. 8. and ended 14. April gave Monasteries of Petty value to the King The Abby of T. being of Petty value viz. 100 Marks per Ann. was mean between the 1. day and the last day Surrendred to the King It was holden the King should be in by the Statute and not by the Surrender Thorrowgood and Tarvors Case 279. In Trespasse The Defendent pleaded in bar the Release of the Plaintiff of all his right in the Land The truth was the Plaintiff was a man unlearned and the Release was read unto him only as a Release of the Arrerages of an Annuity It was the opinion of the Justices that he might plead Non est factum to it and it should nor bar him Dorrell and Thyns Case 280. Error was assigned in a Common Recovery That no Warrant of Attorny was
being at Rome and his Return into England that the Obligation should be void In debt brought the Defendant pleaded and tendred Issue that the Obligor never was at Rome It was said by the Justices That where the condition contains matter not triable the condition is void but where the matter is parcell tryable parcel not that the Condition is good But in this Case the Justices doubted of it because 2. things are Coupled by a Conjunction so as they cannot be severed otherwise if they were mentioned in the Disjunctive 302. A man was Arraigned and Condemned of Felony and Imprisoned for it in Newgate and an Execution out of the Exchequer at the suit of a comon person was delivered to the Sheriff against him who served it upon him It was the opinion of all the Barons that the Sheriffs might choose to serve the Executon or not because the King had an Interest in the body of the person Imprisoned but if they do serve the Execution notwithstanding the pardon yet it is good by which it appeareth that the Attainder shall not extinct the debts of other Subjects but that if the Attainder be purged by a Pardon the Execution of all other duties are revived and stand good for the parties 303. A man made a Feoffment in Fee reserving Rent Suit of Court and Relief and by the deed granted that if the Feoffee his Heirs or assignes should be destrained for other services then are reserved in the deed that then it should be Lawfull for the Feoffee his Heirs and Assignes to distrain in his Mannor of D and keep the distresse till he was satisfied the damage of so much as he had sustained by the distresse The Feoffee made a Feoffment over It was Resolved that in such Case the second Feoffee might Destrain because it was a Covenant which ranne with the Lands 304. Words for calling the Plaintiff a Caterpiller for he liveth by Robbing of his Guests he being an Inholder Adjudge the words not Actionable otherwise if he say He is a Caterpiller and liveth by Robbing in the High way 305. Resolved that an Action upon the Case lyeth for calling an Attorney a Common Barretor It was Colborns Case 306. Note it was Resolved by the Justices that for a Common Nusans done in via Regia as for making a ditch in it so as he cannot passe the way with his Cart and Carriages an Action upon the Case will not lye without shewing some particular injury thereby done to his person for that he is thereby no more endamaged then the Kings other Subjects but such Offence is to be presented in the Leet being a Common Neusans and not punishable by a private Action but where there is to him a particular damage 307. Debt upon Obligation the Condition was if the Obligor his Excecutors or Assignes do pay to the Obligee 10 l. within 3. Moneths next after his Arrival from Rome the said Obligee proving the same by Testimonial or other Witnesses that then c. the Defendant said that the Plaintiff had not made proof that he was at Rome the Plaintiff shewed a Testimonial under the seals of several great Persons living at Rome that he was there It was Resolved in this Case that the proof might be by Witnesses or Testimonial and it is no Mischief for if the Testimonial be Counterfeit he may take Issue upon it that it is not a true Testimoniall James Case 308. A man seised of Lands in Fee took a Lease for years of a stranger by deed Indented of his own Land the Terme expired and the stranger entred and the other brough Trespas Resolved by all the Justices that it should be an estoppel against the Lessee but only during the Terme Linsâ—is Case 309. It was Resolved in this Case That an Action upon the Case doth not lye for calling the Plaintiff a Common Extortioner unlesse it be averred that the Plaintiff was an Officer for that none can be a Common Extortioner unlesse he be an Officer 310. An Action was brought for speaking these words viz. Thoâ— meaning such an one art a perjured man and a procurer of perjury and many the like words tending to that purpose The Court said that the Action did not lye for the words if they were not spoken directly and in the affirmative and an Action doth not lye for words by circumstance tending to slander Manxells Case 311. A man made a Feoffment in Fee of his Lands and bound himself in an Obligation that he and his Son would do all Acts devised by the Obligee The Obligee devised a Deed of Release the Father delivered it as his deed but the Son did not deliver it but because hâ— was unlearned he required the Obligee to read it unto him and refused to seal and deliver it where Debt was brought against the Fâ—ther It was Resolved that the Son was bound to deliver it at his peril because the Father had bound himself that his Son should do it and that Debt did well lye against the Father his Son not sealing and delivering the Release 312. Diverse persons brought one Joynt Quare Impedit and in the Declaration they varied upon the title It was adjudged that the Writ should abate for the Judgment ought to be according to the Writ unlesse there be Summons and severance and upon diverse titles a joynt Judgement cannot be given because there is but one Lawfull title 313. Note It was holden by the Justices That an Attaint did not lye upon a verdict given in a Rediâ—â—eisin before the Sheriff and Coroners notwithstanding the Register fol. 20. is that Attaint doth Lie 314 The Lord licensed his Copyholder to make a Lease of Copyhold for 21. years to begin at Mich. following the Copyholder made a Lease accordingly by Indenture and also before Mich. by deed made another Lease to another for 21. years to begin also at Mich. following Anderson Chief Justice said the making of the second Lease was a forfeiture Hide and Neuports Case 315. A Copyholder in Fee took a Lease for years of the Mannor Resolved the Copyhold was extinct for ever and not only during the Lease Allen and Givers Case vide â—03 316. Husband and Wife brought an Action upon the Case against the Defendant and his Wife because the Defendants Wife said that the Wife of the Plaintiff had procured one to Murder I. S. It was adjudgeâ— that the Action did well lye and it was said that where one said to another that he layed wait in the Highway to Rob him that the Action did lye for the slander though nothing succeeded upon it 317. In false Imprisonment the Defendant said at the time of the Imprisonment he was Sheriff of the County of W. and Justified by reason of a Capias directed to him to arrest the Plaintiff the Plaintiff said the Defendant was not Sheriff but one I. S. It was adjudged against the Plantiff for the Court said That all things which he did as Sheriff were
Lawfull before he had a discharge of this Office or perfect notice of a new Sherff Johnson and Smiths Case 318. Action upon the Case for slandring of his Title and declared That he was seised of Lands by discent from hâ—s Father and was agreed with I. S. for a sale of the same Lands and I. S. went to the Defendant being an Attorney and prayed his advice for the making the Assurance and that the Defendant said to I. S. that he had heard that the Father of the Plaintiff had granted a Rent Charge out of the Lands in Fee by reason of which words I. S. refused to buy the Lands and all other persons for fear of the said Incumbrance to his damage c. The Defendant said he was an Attorney at Law and I. S. came to him for Counsell in secret he said the words spoken in the Declaration It was strongly urged that although he was an Attorney that would not excuse him because an Attorney is allowed to give Counsell and the utterance of the words in private did not excuse being spoken to the buyer himself But it was Resolved the Action did not lye and adjudged against the Plantiff Dawbney and Goores Case 319. In Disceit D. G. and G. were Joynt Merchants they made F. and S. their Factors in Barbary G. and G. conspired with S. to demand allowance of 1000 l. which was allowed them upon accompt by which D. was damnified for that the money was not due and the truth was S. only made the Account The poynt was if one Factor might make an Account for both and if the two Merchants might take an Account for them all three It was said that they all ought to joyn in Account but one solely might Assigne Auditours to take the Account on the other side it was said there was no Joynture in Merchandize and that one Merchant shall have an Account against his Companion Quaere the Case was not Resolved Hill and Morses Case 320. It was Resolved in this Case That a Copyhold without a special Custome could not be entailed 321. An Enfant acknowledge a Fine before the Cheif Justice but the Conusee would not have the Fine ingrâ—ssed till his full age The Enfant came now with the Note of the Conusance and prayed a Wriâ— of Error and examination of his age which the Justice agreed unto and that an Entry be made thereof and by that save to him his advantage 322. A man sold his Land and Covenanted to save the Vendee harmlesse upon request It was said if the Land be extended by force of a Statute before the request the Covenant is not broken for that now the Covenant is become impossible by the negligence of the Covenantee himself but if he had made request before the extent there the Covenant should be broken for default of saving harmelesse Foreman and Bobâ—ams Case 323. Repâ—evin The Defendant avowed for a Rent charge of 3 s. 4 d. â—issâ—ing out of the place where c. which was one parcell of the Mannor of W. of whâ—ch Mannor I. S. was seised in Fee and 33 H. 6. made a Feoffment of the said Close rendering Rent with distresse and dyed seâ—sed and it discended to his Son who bargained and sold the Mannor with all Lands Rents Reversions services and herediraments which are parcell or had been deemed reputed or taken as part parcell or member of the Mannor and the Defendant as Bayliff of the Heir of the Bargainee made Conusans for the Rent and whether the Rent did passe as parcell of the Mannor was the Question by the bargain and sale It was said it did nâ—t passe by the word parcell but it passed by the words reputed parcell if it were so reputed parcell at the time of the grant Quaere the Case is not Resolved in this Book but vide Pasch 26 Eliz. in B. R. Leon. 1. part 13. there the Judgment was given against the Avowant Justice Windhâ—ms Case 324. A Lease was made reciting that whereas he had made a Lease of one Close to the Lessee for â—0 years rendring 8 s. Rent and another Lease of another Close to the same Lessee for 40 years now he demised to the same Lessee both the said Closes for 40. year from and after the determination of the several demises It was a question if the last Lease was good because there is not any certain time of the begining of it Resolved the Lease was good and the Law shall make an Interpretation of the demise reddendâ— singula singulis how the Terme shall begin Vide Cook 5. part the same Case Dolman and Vavasors Case 325. A. seised in Fee of Lands 15 Eliz. suffered a Common Recovery to B. which Recovery was executed by Habere facias seisinam After the Recovery had it was declared by Indenture between the parties that the Recovery should be to the use of the said A for life without impeachment of Waste the remainder to the first begotten Child of his body and the Heirs male of such first begotten Child and so to his 9. Issues and for want of such Issue to V. the Tenant or Defendant and the Heirs male of his body and if these Indentures were sufficient to declare the uses of the Recovery was the Question It was Resolved that these Subsequent Indentures were sufficient to declare the uses of the said Recovery for so was the Intent of the parties as appeareth by the Indentures and it was adjudged that the declaration by the subsequent Indentures should stand good because there was not any other declaration of any other use Scroggs and Lady Greshams Case 326. Debt upon an Obligation against the Defendant Executrix of Sir Thomas Gresham The Defendant pleaded several Obligations made by the Testator to the Queen amounting to 8000 l. solvendum eidem Doâ—inae Reginae quando requisitus â—uisset ultra quam non habet upon which the Plaintiff demurred because the Obligation not being upon Record but taken in paâ—s was not good for that the Queen could not take but by matter of Record and also the solvendum is not to the Queen and Successors and the Queen is not to have the preferment of payment of her debts unlesse they be debts upon Record But yet in such Case if the Queen first sue she shall be preferred although she hath Judgement after another who sueth The Lord Pagetts Case 327. The Case was the Lord Pageâ—t seised of divers Mannors by deed Indented Covenanted with I. S. and others that in consideration of discharge of his Funerals payments of his Debts and Legacies and advancement of his Son and others of his blood to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of the said I. S. and others for the Life of the Lord Pagett and after to the use of C. P. and other for 24. years and after the expiration of the said Term of 24. years to the use of William Pagett his Son in tail Afterwards the Lord Pagett
Praecipe but the Recovery as to the estate of the Husband took effect only by way of Estoppel but it was no bar as to him who was in Remainder and in this case it was said That if Lands be given to husband and wife and the heirs of their two bodies and the Husband alone suffers a common Recovery that the same should not bind the Estate tail although the husband doth survive the wife Martin and Wilks Case 335. It was adjudged in this Case in B. R. That Land in Antient Demesne is extendable upon a Statute Staple or Statute Merchant Hill 11. Jac. in t C. B. Cox and Barnesbyes Case adjudged accordingly Wolstan Dixies Case 336. A seised in Fee of Lands in London made a Lease to I. S. for years and after by Deed enrolled in the Chancery he sold the reversion to Dixie and his wife and afterwards the Rent was behind and he brought debt against I. S. The Defendant said That after the Lease and before the Sale to Dixie A. the Lessor by Deed enrolled in London bargained and sold the Land to him It was adjudged a forfeiture of the Term and judgment was for the Plantiff Rudhall and Milwards Case 337. Rudhall Serjeant at Law Cestuy que use before the Statute of 27. H. 8. Devised the use to C. his younger Son and the Heirs Males of his body the Remainder to I. his eldest Son and his Heirs upon condition that C. should not alien nor discontinue but for the Joynture of his Wife and only for the life of such wife C. after the death of his Father entred and levyed a fine to a stranger and declared the use to himself and his wife and to the Heirs Males of his own body the Remainder to the right Heirs of his Father afterwards C. having Issue male died the Wife died the Heir of I. the eldest Son entred upon the Lessee It was adjudged that because the Statute of 27. H. 8. gave the possession in quality and condition with the use and also gave to Cestuy que the same advantages as the Feoffees had that the said Heir was enabled to take advantage of the Condition be it a Condition or a Limitation The Vis-Countess Bindons Case 338. The Executors of Viscount Bindon brought Detinue against the Widdow of the deceased Viscount and declared upon the Detainer of certain Jewels The Defendant did justifie the Detainer of them as her Paraphronalia It was agreed in this Case by the Chief Baron and others That Paraphronalia ought to be allowed to a Widdow having regard to her Degree and in this Case the Husband of the Defendant being a Viscount that 500. Marks was but a good allowance for such a matter Mich. 28 Eliz. in Cur. Wardor Mounsons Case 339. A Commission in the Nature of Diem clausit extremum after the death of Robert Mounson issued to Enquire what Lands and Tenements he had the day of his death of whom by what services the yearly value of them who was his next Heir and of what age he was It was found that the Father of Robert was seised of the Mannor of B. in Fee and gave the same to Robert in tail the remainder to G. brother of Robert the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father That G. died in the Life of Robert and Robert died without Issue and that F. the Son of G. was within age and the Lands holden of the Queen in Capite and that Robert long before his death was seised in tail of H. Farm and N. and 17. Eliz. levied a Fine to the use of himself in tail the Remainder to F. the Son of G. in tail and died such a day without Issue of his body and upon this Office one Mounson the Heir general prayed a new Office for it was said that the said Office was insufficient to entitle the Queen to the Wardship of F. the Son of G. It was the opinion of the Court that the Office was good to entitle the Queen to the Wardship of F. the Son of G. But if it was not then a Melius inâ—quirendum should issue forth and not a New Office Branches Case 340. In the Case of a Prohibition It was Resolved that an Union of Copyhold Lands and of the Parsonage in the hands of the Parson as Parson Impersonce was no discharge of the Tythes of the Copyhold Lands and in this Case also it was adjudged That a Farmer of Lands might prescribe in modo Decimandi but not in non Decimando Moor and Williams Case 341. Assumpsit The Case was Lessee for years the reversion to M. the Lessee in defence of the Plantiffs Title spent such a Sum money and prayed contribution or recompence Moor said in consideration thereof he should have the like Lease after the expiration of the Term which Williams the Defendant required and the said Lessor refused to make upon which Williams brought Assumpsit Resolved it did not lie because the Consideration was executed before the promise Stanley and Bakers Case 342. A man possessed of a Lease for years devised the same to his eldest Son and the Heirs of his body and if he died without issue to his youngest Son and the heirs of his body and for want of such Issue that the Term should remain to his Daughters he died having two daughters and afterwards another daughter was born The eldest Son sold the Term and died without Issue the youngest Son died without Issue the three daughters entred It was adjudged they all three should have the Term although the youngest Daughter was not born at the time of the death of the Devisor Owens Case 343. Tenant in tail the Remainder in tail Tenant in tail bargained and sold to him and his Heirs and levied a Fine which was not alledged to be with Proclamation It was adjudged that the Bargainee was not such a Grantee of the Reversion as should maintain Wast because it was no discontinuance and but for the Life of Tenant in tail Higham and Harwoods Case 344. A man had houses and Land which had bin in the tenure of those who had the Houses and he devised his Lands with the appurtenances It was adjudged That the Lands did pass by the words with the appurtenances for that it was in a Will in which the intent of the Devisor shall be observed Watkins and Ashwels Case 345. A seised in Fee made a Feoffment upon condition that if he or his Heirs paid such a sum such a day to reenter He died his Son and Heir within the age of 14. years The Mother of the Infant without the privity of the Infant and who was not Guardian in Socage in the name of the Infant tendred the mony at the day It was resolved it was an Insufficient tender otherwise if she had been his Guardian in Socage Carewas Case 346. The Abbot of M. was seised and made a Lease for years De scitu Manerii Rectoriae suae de omnibus aedificis
c. de Decimis eidem pertinent spectant Habendum dectum scnum cum pertinenciis The question was what estate the Lessee had in the Tythes at Will or for years It was the opinion of Manwood Chief Baron that he had an Estate in them for years and not at Will for where several things are in a Grant and after the Habendum comes to limit the Estate it is superfluous to recite the particular things in the Habendum and the Tythes being particularly recited shall therefore pass by the Habsndum which limits the Estate for years Crops Case 357 A man made a Lease for years reserving Rent at Mich. and the Annunciation and if it be behind by the space of a month to reenter The next day after Mich. the Lessor sent the Rent by his Servant to the house of the Lessor who tendered it to his person and he refused it and afterwards upon the last instant of the day it was demanded upon the Land It was adjudged a good tender and the Lessor could not enter Beverley and the Bishop of Canturburyes Case 348. A seised of an Advowson in gross presented K. who was Inducted the Advowson afterwards desdended to B. and C. Coparceners B married I. S. C. married T. B. and had Issue C. died T. B. the Plantiff being Tenant by the Curtesies the Church became void by the deprivation of K. and because they could not agree in the presentment the Clerk of B. the eldest Sister was received by the Bishop which was since dead so the Plantiff Tenant by the Curtesie presented and being disturbed brought the Writ The Incumbent being presented by the Queen pleaded thae K. being inducted accepted a second Benefice of the value of 8. l. and so the Church was void by the Statute of 21. H. 8. of Pluralities It was adjudged for the Plantiff for that the deprivation of K. and the Plurality of the Clerk of the eldest Sister since dead were not denied after the acceptance of the second Benefice Saunders Case 349. Information upon the Statute of 1. E. 6. for landing of goods at Ratcliff Custom not paid nor agreed for It was pleaded in a Bar A. was seized of the Mannor of S. in Sussex and had wreck of the Sea appertaining to his Mannor by Prescription and that the Mannor Contigue adjâ—câ—t mare altum and said the goods were wreck and cast upon the land of the Lord and that he seized them and so justified Qu. If a good Justification Morris and Wâ—â—bors Case 350. The Case in effect was this A man was divorced Causa â—rigiditatis and afterwards took another wife and had issue It was argued by the Civilians and also by the Justices if the Issue was Bastard or not It was adjudged that the Issue by the second wife was not a Bastard For that by the Divorce the Marriage was dissolved â— vinculo Matrimonii and each of them might marry again But admitt that the second marriage was voidable yet it stands good till it be dissolved and so by consequence the Issue born during the Coverture is a lawful Issue Term. Hill 29. Eliz. Fanshaws Case 351. In Ejâ—ctione firme the Case was shortly thus King Henry the Seventh erected and Founded an Hospital by the name of Mâ—ster and Chaplains of the Hospital of King Henry the Seventh de le Savoy And afterwards in the time of Queen Mary a lease was made of Lands parcel of the Hospital by the name of Master of the Hospital Henrici nuper Regis Angliae septimâ— vocat le Savoy and if it was a good Lease or not was the Question The Case was first argued in the Exchequer and there adjudged that the Lease was void by the Judgment of two Barons Afterwards a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber there the Case 3. Eliz. was argued again but it was not adjudged but afterwards the Case was compounded but the better opinion of the Justices there seemed to be that it was a good Lease and that the words De le Savoy vocat le Savoy were idem sensu Crosman and Reads Case 352. Debt against the Defendant Executrix of T. R. her former husband upon an Obligation of 200. l. The Defendant pleaded fully administred It was found she had Asserts to the value of 80. l. parcel of the 200. l. and that the said T. B. borrowed of F. R. her late Husband 60. l. and that the Defendant being Executrix to T. B. took the said F. R. to Husband who died the Court gave Judgment that the Plantiff should recover the 80. l. and for the residue in misericordia pro falso clamore so as the Court conceive the 60. l. was not Assetts in her hands Rous and Artois Case 353. A man was Tenant for another mans life of a Mannor Cestuy queuse died The Tenant continued possession of the Mannor and held Courts and made voluntary Grants by Copy It was adjudged he should not bind the Lord for he was but Tenant at Sufferance who had not any Interest and so he was a Disseisor of the Mannor Broke and Smiths Case 354. The Case was Lord and Tenant the Tenant levied a Fine to the King who afterwards gave the Land Tenendum of the King by Knights Service The Lord distreined the Patentee for the Rent and Services If the Seignory was revived was the Question It was conceived it was and that it was suspended only for the time in the King Qu. It was not resolved Knowles and Powels Case 355. The Queen seized in Fee made a Lease for years to one who was Out-lawed at the time of the Lease made and afterwards the person was Out-lawed again and before seizure came a generall Pardon of all goods and chattels forfeited In this Case Resolved First that a man Out-lawed was capable of a Lease from the Queen as a Farmer to the Queen and that the Pardon with restitution was sufficient to revive the Term forfeited Secondly That a man Outlawed and Pardoned had property in his goods Bonds Case 356. Bond erected a Pigeon-House upon certain Lands which he held in Lease for years the reversion in the Queen being parcel of her Mannor of F. in the County of S. It was the opinion of Manwood Chief Baron and Gent. That none could erect a Dove-house but the Lord of the Mannor or the Parson and said that in ancient time it was accounted a Common Nusance presentable in the Leet 357. Note by Manwood Chief Baron where it is ordained by the Statute that for doing misdoing or not doing of a thing the Offendor shall forfeit such a Sum not expressing to whom there the forfeiture shall be intended to be to the Queen unless the penalty be assessed for taking Goods Chattels or other things in which the Subject hath a Property and then he which hath the loss shall have the forfeiture Warrams Case 358. A Protection was granted to him by the Queen and it was Quod Praerogativa
Covenant he devised to each of the Daughters 10. l. to be paid at their several ages of 21. years One of the daughters sued his Executors in the Spiritual Court for her Legacy and upon suggestion by the party that he is bound to pay her 10. l. at her age of 21. years a Prohibition was granted and the intent of the Devise was that he should not be twice charged 369. One sued an Administrator for debt upon pleinement administr The Jury found Assetts for part to the value and Judgment for that part for the Plaintiff and that for the residue the Defendant eat siae die and now he brought a Scire fac surmising Assetts to the value of the Residue It was the opinion of the Court that it did not lie 370. Debt upon Obligation with condition if the Obligor pay to the Obligee 10. l. or four Kine such a day at the then Election of the Obligee the Obligation to be void It was the opinion of the Court that the Obligor is to tender both at the day appointed by reason of the words at the then Election which word then shall have relation to the day appointed 371. A Lease was made to three Habendum to them for 99. years viz. to the first for 99. years if he should so long live and if he died to the Second pro residuo termino anaorum tunc ventur if he should so long live and if he died within the Term then to the third pro residuo termino annorum ad tunc ventur It was the opinion of the Justices that it could not enure by way of Remainder because there was not any Estate in esse during the particular Estate Yet they conceived the Estate of the second was good because it did enure as a new Grant Qu. 372. In a false Imprisonment against a Mayor he justified because he being a Magistrate the Plantiff said he was a Fool It was the opinion of the Justices that if he called him Fool in the place and exercise of his Offic◠that the Imprisonment was lawfull otherwise not Vdeson and the Mayor of Nottinghams Case 373. Vdeson was in the custody of the Mayor upon the Statute of 23. H. 8. and he would not let him at liberty upon Sureties wherefore he sued by Bill here and and Declared against the Mayor in Custodia Marischalli and recovered by Verdict It was the opinion of the Justices that by the Statute of 18. Eliz. none should sue for any penalty upon a penal Law but by original Writ or Information and so it was said it was adjudged in the Bayliffs of Bosworths Case Griffiths Case 374. It was was Resolved by the Justices That Error lyeth in the Kings Bench upon a Judgment given in an Ejectione firmae in Wales given before the Justices there 375. A Draper having a Servant to sell Clothes in his shop the Servant took the clothes and converted them to his own use It was adjudged that Trespasse vi armis lyeth only against the Servant because he had the possession as Servant and it was Resolved That in all cases where the Servant hath not a speciall nor general property Trespasses lyeth 376. One made a Lease for years the Lessee devised the Term to his wife for so many years as she should live and after to his Son the Wife purchased the Inheritance and sold the same again and covenanted that it was discharged of all Incumbrances and died The Son claimed the Term it was adjudged the possibility to the Son was a forfeiture of the Covenant and Bond of the Wife Sir Thomas Gorges Case 377. The Queen seised of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant and granted the Mannor una cum advocatione Ecclesiae the Church being then void Adjudged the Avoidance did not pass but the Queen should present pro hac vice 378. A man who was bound in a Recognizance for the good Behavior was indicted that he called one Pealer Lier Druakard and said I will make thee a poor Kirton and also Quare clausam fregit averia cepit injustè detinet It was Resolved by the Justices in B. R. That these were not words which threaten a battery of his Body without which the Recognizance is not forfeited 379. Debt brought in the City of Oxon The Defendant pleaded that he was one of the Barons of the Cinque Ports within the County of Kent and pleaded to the Jurisdiction of the Court upon which the Plaintiff demurred Qu. If a good Plea It was not Resolved Hayward and Bettesworths Case 380. Replevin the Defendant avowed for Rent the Case was The Father was seised in Fee and let the Land to the Plaintiff for years rendring Rent and afterwards he infeoffed a Stranger and executed livery upon parcel of the Land in a Close called D. the Lessee nor any of his Cattel being there but being in the house It was adjudged that nothing passed by the Livery but that the reversion of the whole descended and therefore it was adjudged for the Avowant Pigott Palmers and Grangers Case 381. The Case was A. was seised of Land which he intended to sell to the Father for 160. l. of which 140. l. was paid by G. in consideration of the Marriage of Pigott with the daughter of Granger and that the Land shall be conveyed for the Joynture of the daughter and the Heirs Males of their Bodies they intermaried and had Issue the Plaintiff Pigot died the wife took Husband Palmer the Defendant and they accepted a Fine of a Stranger with a render to the Stranger for 100. years rendering the ancient rent the wife died It was resolved that the taking of the Conveyance with the render for 100. years made the Estate of the wife void by the Statute of 11. H. 7. Zouth and Bamfields Case 382. In a Formedon in the Discender brought of the Moiety of a Mannor The Defendant pleaded in Bar that the Grandfather of the Demandant levied a Fine sur Conusance de droit c. with Proclamation of the moiety of the said Mannor by which Fine it was granted and rendered to the Grandfather and his Heirs whose estate the Tenant in the Formedon had The Defendant replyed that at the time of the Fine levyed and after the Demandant was seised of the Land in his Demesne as of Fee It was Resolved That the Defendant being Heir in tail against such Fine levyed by his Ancestor whose Heir he is was estopped to aver his seisin and continuance thereof as a stranger at the time of the Fine levyed Nor to add Quod partes finis nihil habuerunt Against which it was objected 1. That by the Statute of Donis It is provided Quod finis ipso jure sit nullus 2. That the Statute of 27. E. 1. of Fines doth not extend to Heirs in tail but to Heirs in Fee and that the Issues in tail are not bound by Fines which enure by way of Estoppel 3. That the Statute of Fines
not avoid it and therefore Resolved that it was a joynt Estate and that the Proviso should not sever it Hudson and Lees Case 402. In Appeal of Maihem The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff had brought an Action of Battery and recovered therein for the same Battery and Wounding upon which the Appeal was brought and it was adjudged a good and sufficient Plea in Bar. Lee and Lees Case 403. A. had three Sons F. I. and G. he devised his Land to I. for 21. years to the intent to perform his Will and pay his Debts and he made him his Executor and if I dyed within the Term then G. to have the like Term as I. had and G. then also should be his Executor and devised the Land to F. in tail the remainder to I. in tail the remainder to G. I. entred F. died without Issue I. had â—ssue P. the Defendant and died within the Term It was the opinion of the Court That if Land be devised for years to one and if he die within the Term that another shall have the residue of the years that no Act of the first can prejudice the Remainder of the second but otherwise if one who hath a Term deviseth his Term with such a Remainder and a difference taken between a devise of the Term and a devise of the Land Beverley and Cornwell 's Case 404. Note in this Case which Case vide before That if any Advowson comes to the Queen for forfeiture by Outlawry and the Church becomes void and the Queen presents and then the Outlawry is reversed for Error yet the Queen shall enjoy the Presentment because it came to the Queen as a profit of the Advowson but if the Church be void at the time of the Outlawry and the Presentment is forfeited as a Chattel principal and distinct and then the Outlawrie is reversed the party shall have restitution of the presentment More and Hales Case 405. The Case was A Vicar let his Viccarage and all his Glebes and Tythes to I. S. for 21. years rendring 22. l. rent to him and his Successors which Lease was confirmed by the Patron Dean and Chapter the Lessee assigned over his Term to the Plaintiff and averred the Rent was the usual Rent The Plaintiff devised the Viccarage to the Defendant rendring 30. l. per an and for not payment of 15. l. half a years Rent brought debt The Defendant pleaded the Statute of 13 Eliz that no Lease of a Benefice with Cure should continue longer then the Lessor should be resident serving the Cure without absence 80. days and averred the Viccarage was a Benefice with Cure and that before the Rent day the Lessor died and that I. R. was made Vicar Whether the Lease was void the Court was now divided in opinion But vide in Cro. 3. part 131. It was Resolved that in this Case the Lease was void by the death of the Lessor Page and Griffiths Case 406. Ejectione firme the Case was Lessee for Life bargained and sold the Land to one and his Heirs and afterwards 14. Eliz he suffered a Recovery thereof to the use of the Bargainer It was adjudged that the suffering of the Recovery was a forfeiture Spitle and Davies Case 407. A man devised Lands to his youngest Sons Proviso If his Sons oâ— any of their Issues devise any of the Lands before their age of 30. years then the others shall have the Estate the eldest Son made a Lease thereof before his age of 30 years the youngest Son entred and before â—he 30. years ended aliened the Land the eldest Son entred Resolved 1. It was a Limitation 2. That when the younger Brother hath once entred for the Alienation then the Land is discharged of the Limitation Vide Owens Rep. 8. the same Case Ever and Asâ—ons Case 408. The Custom of a Mannor was That if any man had a Wife who was a Copyholder in the Fee of the Mannor and had Issue by her that he should be Tenant by the Curtesie of the Land It was found that A. a Copyhold was seised and had â—ssue a Daughter who was married to I. S. who had Issue A. died his Wife entred the Wife died before admittance The points were 1. If Ejectione firme did lie upon a Lease made by Copyholder 2. If by the entry of the Husband without admittance of the Wife he should be Tenant by the Curtesie The Court doubted of the first point but for the second were of opinion that the Husband was well entituled to be Tenant by the Curtesie before admittance of the Wife and the delay of the admittance by the Lord should not prejudice the husband being a third person Bewacorn and Caters Case 409. Sir Ralpâ— Rowlet possessed of a Term of years devised the same to Sir Robert Cutlin Lord Chief Justice during his Life and after to a strarger and made the said Sir Robert with the Lord Keeper and others his Executors and died The Executors writ their Letter and annexed the Will unto it to Doctor Dlae praying that because they could not attend the Execution of the Will that he would condition the Administration to I. S. which he did so reciting in his Register Quia Executores distulerunt adhuc differunt executionem Testamenti Afterwards Sir Robert without assent of the Administration entred into the Term and devised it The point was if the Letters so written was a Refusal of the Executorship It was Resolved by the Justices after the Case had been argued by the Civilians in Court that it was a Refusal of the Executorship Osborn and Gameones Case 410. The Case was I. levyed a Fine of 48 â— 8. d. Rent charged in W. to I. S. and his Heirs and the use was to such persons as I. S. should declare who afterwards declared the use to I. D. and his Heirs and the Defendant in a Replevin avowed as Bayliff of I. D. It was demurred unto because he did not shew any Attornment The Question was If Cestuy que use of a Rent in esse grant a Rent by Fine after 27. H. 8. might avow without attornment Quaere not Resolved Ognell and Pastons Case 411. In Debt in the Exchequer The Case was W. and F. acknowledged a Recognisance of 200. l. in the Chancery to the Plaintiff for payment of mony at a day to come they failing upon two Scire facias issued and nibil returned a Levari fac issued to the Sheriff of N. and afterwards a Capias ad satisfaciendum to the Defendant the Sheriff who arrested W. the said W. being then in his Custody upon an Indictment of Felony who after upon his arraignment was found Guilty of the Felony and afterwards he escaped being let at large The points were First if a Capias did lie upon a Recognisance in Chancery Second if it did not lie yet if it was void or voidable Third if the Conviction of Felony had discharged the Execution Resolved That if the Chancery had consideration of
Consideration of Blood Covenants with B. his brother to stand seised to the use of himself for life and after the use of B. in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of B. Provided that if A. by himself or by any other during his Natural life tender to B. a Gold ring to the intent to make void the said use that then the said uses should be void Afterwards A. 26 Eliz. is attainted of Treason and Outlawed for it and the King makes a Lease of the Lands to C. and D. for 40 years The attainder is confirmed by Act of Parliament and Enacted That the said Act shall not extend to make any Lease void made by the K. after the said Treason Also Enacted that all persons which claim an estate or interest in Land not enrolled since 18 Eliz. shall within 2. years after the Session of that Parliament shew and bring into the Court of Exchequer his or their Grant or assurance to be void The King reciting the Proviso and benefit thereof given him by Act of Parliament authorizeth E. to deliver the Gold ring to B. to the Intent to make void the uses he reads the Patent to B. and makes a tender to him which he refuseth to accept of E. certifies the same into the Exchequer This Case was very largely and Learnedly Argued by all the Serjeants and others at the â—arre which vide in the Book at Large afterwards it was argued by all the Barons in the Exchequer and there amongst other things it was Resolved by them That the Condition in the principal Case viz. the tender of the Gold ring was not annexed to â—he person of A. but that any one might make the tender and thaâ— it was given to the King by the Act of Parliament and when a Statute gives a Condition to the King the performance of it which is the substance and which is not inseparably annexed to the person is given to the King 2. That the Tender and Certificate of it was good without Office found 3. That presently by the tender the uses were determined and the Land vested in the King by force of the Act of Parliament The Earl of Northumberlands Case 434. A. 15 June 22 Eliz. bargained and sold the Mannor of D. to the Earl of Northumberland and his Heirs who because the Land was holden in Capite 3. Sept. the same year purchased a License of Alienation in Octob. the same year a Fine was Levyed for further assurance and in Novemb. the same year the Deed was enrolled The Queen seised the Lands for a Fine for Alienation without License It was adjudged the Queens hands should be removed from the Land because the bargainee was now in by the Fine and not by the bargaines and sale and also because the Licence did precede the Fine the Alienation was not made without License Yardley and Prestwood and others Case 435. In a Quare Impedit It was holden by the Justices in this Case That a double usurpation upon the Queen did put her out of possession of Advowson and put her to her Writ of Right of Advowson But the Law hath been taken since that time and so adjudged that a double usurpation did not put the Queen out of possession of her Advowson Vide 33 Eliz. Hassies Case Tr. 4. Jac. The King and Champians Case accordingly Isabell Mordants Case 436. An Enfant Levyed a Fine to the Queen The Queen granted the Lands to Bowes Treasurer of Barwick Error brought to reverse the Fine Bowes pleaded in Barre the Statute of 18 Eliz. It was Resolved that notwithstanding that Statute the Writ of Error did lye for that Statute did not extend to make grants good of such persons who could not make grants by the Common Law as Enfants persons of Non sane Memorie c. Sir Mayle Finch and Hen. Finches Case 437. The Mother of Sir Moyle Finch and the Defendant in her Widdowhood levyed a Fine to the use of her self for life and after her death to the use of her Executors for 5. years and after to Sir Moyle in Tail with divers remainders over and afterwards she maried I. S. and she with I. S. granted the Terme of 5. years to Sir Moyle and after that she and her Husband levyed a Fine to Sir Moyle and I. D. and after that the Wife with her Husbands assent made her Will and made the Defendant her sole Excecutor and dyed the Defendant entred It was agreed by the Justices 1. That the use limited to the Excecutors was good 2. That the Wife could not grant it in her life time 3. That it was extinguishable in the Wife by a Fine come ceo c. but not by a Release 4. That the Fine sur Conusans de droit c. had extinguished the Terme and the said Fine had made such a disturbance of the possession that the use being future at the instant of her death in the Excecutors could never rise 5. That a Feme Covert with the assent of her Husband might make a Will but not thereby to dispose of Legacies 6. It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the Wife who had the estate for her life had levyed a fine sur Conusans de Droit c. 438. Action upon Indebitatus Assumpsit solvere It was Resolved the Plaintiff could not give in evidence matter of specialty to prove his debt but he might give in Evidence matter of Contract Fitzherberts Case 439. He was Arrested in Execution by the Sheriff of Derby the 3. day of Feb. at 7. of the Clock in the Morning and the same day at 10. of the Clock he was elected a Burgesse of Parliament for the Borrough of New Castle It was agreed in Parliament because he was arrested before he was chosen Burgesse he could not have the Priviledge of the House Hunger and Freys Case 440. A man had recovered in Debt and had Judgment and an Elegit and had an extent delivered him and Nihil as to goods Afterwards he suggested the Defendant had more Lands goods and chattells in the same County and had a New Elegit and upon that he had a Lease for years in Execution and no other Land was found It was adjudged that the sale of the Lease for years by the Sheriff and delivery in Execution was good Townsend and Walleys Case 441. A man had 6 l. Land in possession and Lands in Peversion upon an estate for life and by his Will he deviseth all his Lands to his Excecutors for 10. years to pay his Debts and perform his Will and after the 10. years ended that his Executors or one of them or the Executors of his Excecutors or any of them should sell his Lands and he made diverse Excecutors and gave 40 l. Legacies by his Will and dyed After the 10. years 2. of the Executors sold the Land 1. Resolved that the Land in reversion might be sold as well as the Land in possession 2. That the sale by the 2. Executors was
a good sale by the intent of the Will 3. Resolved that the devise that his Excecutors might sell was a good sale within the Statute of Wills though the words of the Statute are That a man having Lands holden in socage might devise two parts of it and that by the Equity of the Statute Yelverton and Yelvertons Case 442. A man seised of Lands Covenanted to stand seised thereof to the use of his eldest Son and also of all the other Land which he after should purchase he Covenanted that he and his Heirs would stand seised to the use of his eldest Son Afterwards he purchased Lands to him and his Heirs by bargain and sale Adjudged that the purchase could not be intended to other use then to him and his Heirs Sir Hugh Cholmeleys Case 443. The Case is very long but is this in effect viz. Tenant in Tail the remainder in Tail he in the Remainder bargained and sold his Remainder to A. for the life of the Tenant in Tail and after his death the remainder to the Queen in Fee Tenant in Tail in possession suffered a Common Recovery The Queen granted her remainder to Tenant in Tail and his Heirs Afterwards he in the remainder bargained and sold his remainder to B. the remainder to the Queen upon Condition another Recovery was had Tenant in Tail dyed without Issue It was Resolved in this Case that he in the Remainder and all Claiming under him were barred by the Recovery 2. That the Common Recovery did bar the Tenant in Tail and the estate of A. in the remainder although the Remainder was in the Queen 3. That the grant of the Queen to the Tenant in Tail and his Heirs was a good grant Corbett and Marshes Case 444. Error brought upon a Recovery in Dower because the Tenant was not summoned by 15. dayes nor Proclamation made thereof at the Church door Because the party had remedy against the Sheriff the Court would not allow of the Error Crispe and Fryers Case 445. Copyholder in Fee rendring Rent at Mich. and our Lady-day The Lord at the last instant of the day of payment demands the Rent upon the Land and the Copyholder is not there to pay it Qu. If it be a forfeiture the better opinion of the Justices was that it was a forfeiture Paramour and Verwolds Case 446. False Imprisonment the Defendant justified by a Recovery in Debt in Warda de F. London and a Writ of Execution in Sandwich in Kent absque hoc that he was culpable in London The Plaintiff said that he was culpable at London absque hoc that there is tale Recordum in Sandwich Adjudge the Yraverse upon the Traverse was good because the place is material Pannell and Fens Case 447. A man seised of Lands and possessed of a Term devised all his Lands and Tenements to his Executors untill they had paid all his Debts and Legacies and levied all charges which they should expend against I. S. or others in Execution of his Will and made two Executors and died the Executors entred generally into the Land and Term and one of them sold the Term to one man and the other sold it to another It was adjudged they took the Term as Executors and not as Devisees and yet they took the Freehold as Devisees and they said that the words of the Will as to the Term was no more then the Law gave and that they should have it as Executors Blackwell and Eyres case 448. Issue was joyned betwixt the Lessee of the Plaintiff and the Defendant in an Ejectione firme which was to be tryed at the Assizes The Defendant in consideration the Plaintiff and his Lessee should forbear to enforce their Title and give slender evidence against the Defendants promised to pay a certain Sum of money to the Plaintiff Vpon Non assumpsit it was found there were two Issues joyned in the Suit and the Defendants had not joyned but one of them had pleaded the general Issue and the other a special Plea It was adjudged for the Plaintiffs because the common Speech is the Parties have joyned issue Walker and Harris Case 449. It was adjudged in this Case That although Lessee for years assignes over his Term yet Debt lyeth against himself for the Rent by the Lessor or his year Moss and Packs Case 450. A Recoverie was had against the Executor of I. D. of debt and damages And Fire fac issued de bonis testatoris si si non damna de bonis propriis the Executor dyed the Sheriff did execution of the Goods of the Testator before the Return of the Writ and adjudged good Portman and Willis Case 451. It was adjudged in the Case that by a Devise of omnia bona a Lease for years did pass if there be not other circumstances to guide the intent of the Devilor 2. Resolved That if a Copyholder for life or years surrender to an use that the surrender is good and the use void as a surrender rendring Rent with Warranty shall be a good Surrender and the Rent and Warranty void Beswick and Combdens Case 452. Action upon the Case for not keeping a Bank by reason of which the River drowned his Land It appeared upon the evidence that it was levyed and kept before by one who enfeoffed the Defendant Yet it was adjudged that the Action did lye against the Feoffee for the continuance of it Fuller and Fullers Case 453. The Case was A man had four Sons and devised his Land to his youngest Son named R. and the Heirs Males of his Body with the Remainder successively to the other three and the Heirs Males of their Bodies the first Devise dyed in the life of his Father having Issue Male After which the Father said I will that my Will stand good to the Children of R. as if he had over lived me but the words were not put in writing The point was If the Children did take by the devise or by discent Quaere The Court was divided in opinion The Dean and Canons of St. Pauls and others Case 454. King Edward the Fourth by his Letters Patent granted to the Dean and Canons and their Successors that they should be discharged of Purveyance the Charter was confirmed by King Henry the Seventh and also by King Henry the Eight The Statute of 27. H. 8. was made That Purveyors assigned by the Kings Commission for provision for him his Queen and Children might provide all Victual Corn c. as well within Liberties as without any Grants or Allowances to the contrary Queen Mary granted that no Purveyance should be taken of the Dean and Canons and their Successors against their Wills notwithstanding the Statute of 27. H. 8. and Queen Elizabeth reciting all the Patents granted to the Dean and Canons doth confirm them It was Resolved That the Charter granted to them was good Wherefore that they should be discharged from all Composition for Provisions for the Queen Preston and Hinds Case 455. Error
one saith he hath Title or Interest to anothers Land an action doth not lye although he hath no Title but when he saith that another hath Title he cannot salve the same by applying the same to himself for his Justification Shaw and Thompsons Case 536. A Woman recovered Dower of a Copyhold within the Mannor and 40 l. damages because her Husband dyed seised and she brought Debt for the damages in B. R. adjudged it did not lye because the Court Baron could not hold plea not award Execution of 40 l. damages although the damages were there well assessed Huntbage and Shepheards Case 537. The Issue in an Ejectione firme was if Jemet the Wife of the Defendant was alive at the time The Jury found Julian the Wife of the Defendant was alive It was the opinnion of the Justices they cannot be intended one person without finding that by the Custome of the Country Weomen baptized by the name of Julian had been called Jemet Stile and Buts Case 538. Trespas for carrying away Clay the Defendant Justified by a Prescription as a Tenant of the Mannor but because the Clay was digged by another and not by the Tenant the Justification was ruled not to be good Doggerell and Pokâ—s Case 539. Covenant upon an Apprentiship the Defendant pleaded a By-law in London where he was Apprentice by the Common Councell That if any Freeman takes to Apprentice the Son of an Alien the Bonds and Covenants should be void It was adjudged no plea for that the Common Councel cannot make the Bonds and Covenants void but may Impose a Fine upon the Master for taking such an Apprentice Bab and Clerks Case 540. False Imprisonment the Defendat Justified That the Borough of St. Albans had authority by Charter to make By-lawes and they made a By-law That if any Burgesses give opprobrious words to the Major he should be Imprisoned of the Major at his pleasure and that he being Major sent an Officer to the Defendant being a Burgesse to come to the Common Hall for the affairs of the Town and he sent him this Answer Let the Major come to me if he will for I will not come to him Adjudged the Justification was not good that the By-law was not Lawfull and that the words were not opprobrious words Reynold and Purchowes Case 541. Assumpsit where the Plaintiff had recovered 4 l. against the Defendant in Consideration the Plaintiff had given him 3 l. he promised to acknowledge satisfaction and had not done it It was said it was no Consideration to pay that to him which is due The Court held the Consideration good because speedy payment will excuse and prevent travail and expense of Suit Gregory and Blasfields Case 542. Error of a Judgment in Ludlow upon the Statute of 4 and 5 Mar. for weaving of wollen Cloathes It was assigned that the Statute of 5 Eliz. had abrogated that Statute The Court said the Statute of 5 Eliz. had not abrogated it but encreased the penalty But because the Suit was there by Bill or plaint but ought not to be but by Writ or Information the Judgment there was Erroneous 543. The Custome of a Mannor was layed to be That if a Copyholder hath 2. Sons and a Wife and dyes and the eldest Son hath Issue and dyeth in the life of the Wife the younger Son shall have the Land The Issue being upon the Custome The Jury found the Custome That the younger Son shall have the Land unlesse the eldest was admitted in his life and paid the Lords Fine The Court held the verdict to be insufficient to prove the Issue Walter and Dawes Case 544. Assumpsit upon a promise to pay 20 l. yearly for 10. years to the Testator of the Plaintiff in consideration the Testator had granted him the Office of the Clerk of the Fines in the Counties of B. C. and Glamorgan The Defendant pleaded he did not exercise the said Office and the Venire was awarded in the County of Worcester It was adjudged against the Plaintiff because there they cannot take Notice of the Issue Necton and the Wardens of Wexchandlers Case 545. The Plaintiff sued a Prohibition against the Defendant upon Libell exhibited by them for a Legacy given to them by the Testator of the Plaintiff The Plaintiff surmised that there were divers Obligations for monies depending and Suits But in Conclusion the Defendants had a Consultation upon security to repay the Legacies to be there recovered by them if any things were Recovered by the Excecutors upon the Obligations Vide this case more largely Reported in Cr. 3. part 467. Wright and Major and Commonalty of Wickhams Case 546. Error was brought to reverse a Fine viz. that the Ancestor dyed mean between the Teste and the Return of the Writ of Covenant The Defendant pleaded that after the death of the Father the Plaintiff entred into parcell of the Land and made a Feoffment It was the opinion of the Court that he was barred by his entry and Feoffment of part upon the difference If a man hath an Action to Land if he suspend or extinguish it in part it is extinct in the whole but if he hath right to Land he may Release or suspend it in part and remain good for the Residue and upon this point the Judgment was reversed Welshes Case 547. Note It is the same case with the case of Attonwood Reported at Large in Cook 1. p. of his Reports upon the points there more largely debated and adjudged and therefore I have forborn here to abridge it I shall mention this case put by Pirriam Justice viz. If Tenant in tail be the remainder in tail the remainder to the Queen and Tenant in tail commits Treason and the Queen makes a Lease and the Tenant in tail dyeth without Issue and afterwards he in the Remainder dyeth without Issue that this Lease shall continue good upon the Reversion Lord Darcies Case 548. Quo Warranto for using a liberty to be exempt of Purveyance The Defendant pleaded that King Edward 4 granted to the Dean and Cannons of St. Pauls and their successors the said liberty within all their Lands and averres that they were seised of the Land in which at the time of the Grant and that afterwards the said Lands came to Edw. 6. who granted the same to his Grandfather and his Heirs with a Clause de tanta talia consimilia libertates c. quae quot qualia quanta the Dean and Canons or their predecessors ever had by reason of any Charter Grant of any of the Progenitors of the said King with a general non obstante aliquo Statuto c. It was Replyed that 27 H. 8. it was enacted by Parliament that the Kings Purveyors should execute their Commission in all places aswell within Liberties as without any Charter c. notwithstanding The Court was of opinion for the Queen because at the time of the Grant of tot tanta talia libertates the
absque hoc that he promised in London the Plaintiff said he promised in London absque hoc that there is any such Accord although this was a Traverse upon a Traverse yet it was adjudged good Montague and Jeoffries Case A seised in Fee of the Mannor of M. and of Lands called G. expectant upon a Lease for years by his Will he devised the Mannor and G. to the Defendant and afterwards he covenanted with I. S. to make a Feoffment to the use of himself and E. the daughter of I. S. whom he did intend to marry which was by Letter of Attorney executed in the Mannor not in G. nor any Atonement of the Tenant of it He married E. and afterwards in the Will with his own hand where he had made M. his Daughter his Executor he added these words viz. E. my Wife and then died It was the opinion of the Justices in this case that the Feoffment did countermand the whole Will but they doubted whether the writing of the new words in the Will was a new publication of it The Lady Greshams Case 577. Scire facias to execute a Recognizance acknowledged in Chancery accordingly B. the Defendant pleaded in abatement of it that B. was seised of three Acres at the time of the Recognizance whereof I. S. was now seised not named in the Writ they were at Issue upon the Seisin and it was found that B. and another were jointly seised and enfeoffed I. S. It was said that although the moyetie of the Land was extendable yet the Writ as brought should abate Corbet and Downings Case 578. An Obligation was taken by the Sheriff for an appearance at Westminster and the Term was adjourned to St. Albans and the party appeared there adjudged he had not forfeited his Obligation Qu. If the word Westminster in the condition did not make the Bond void because by the Statute of 22. H. 6. there is not any such name in the Writ Blodwell and Edwards Case 579. The case was B. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of such Issue of the Body of M. from eldest to eldest as were reputed to be begotten by the said B. whether it be lawfull or unlawful It was adjudged in this Case That it was a good Remainder limitted to a Bastard for a Son in reputation is sufficient to make him a Purchaser 580. It was Resolved by the Justices that Fenny ground dreined should pay Tythes and was not barren Land within the Statute to be discharged of Tythes for seven years Mounson and Wests Case 581. In Assise The parties were at Issue upon the Seisin and Diseisin the Jury found West Tenant and that he disseised the Demandant Nisi such words in a Will give the Tenant a Title It was said the Verdict was imperfect because of the words nisi c but the Court held the Verdict good enough for the finding of the Disseisin implies a Seisin also Walford and Mashams Case 582. Resolved that an Alien borne under the Obedience of an Enemy of the King may have Debt upon an Obligation for personal things Palmer and Porters Case 583. Action upon the case against the Bailiff of N. for that upon a fieri fac directed to the Sheriff of N. return Octob. Mich. he sent his Warrant to the Defendant being Bailiff of N. to execute it who returned Nulla bona c. before Mich. and at Mich. they were removed from their Office and new Chosen Resolved it was a void Return for the Sheriff ought not before Octob. Mich. have accepted return of Nulla bona for he might have some afterwards and before the return of the Writ and the return by them after Mich. being out of their Office was void but if they had executed the Writ before Mich. then the Sheriff might have accepted of their return before Mich. but not after Hobs and Tadcastles Case 584. Audita querela the case was A. sued a Bill of Debt against B. who found bail the Plaintiff and another Afterwards B. was was condemned and dyed without paying the consideration or rendring his body A. scire fac was sued against the Plaintiff his Bail and upon 2. Nihils returned Execution was awarded against him Whereupon he brought the Audita querela It was prayed he might be discaarged out of Execution for that it is now become impossible by the act of God the principal should render his body and there was never any Capias awarded against him in his life time The Court held it very unreasonable to sue Execution against the bail till a fault was returned in the principal and the Recognisance of the bail is that the principal shall render himself which is to be intended upon Capias awarded against him Judgment was given for the Plaintiff in the Audita querela and he was discharged out of Execution Slade and Morleys Case 585. A man sowed his Land with Corne and sold the Corne to the Defendant for 16 l. to be paid at Midsomer next and the Defendant in consideration of such sale promised to pay the money at Midsomer but did not upon which Assumpsit was brought It was the greater opinion of the Justices in the Exchequer Chamber that the Action did not lye because properly Debt did lye in which the Defendant might wage his Law Robins Gerrard and Princes Case 586. The Case very long in effect was this A man is Admitted Instituted and Inducted into a Benefice with Cure of the value of 8 l. and afterwards the King presents him to the Church of D. which is a Benefice with Cure and he is admitted and Instituted The Archbishop grants to him Letters of Dispensation for plurality which Letter the King confirmes and afterwards he is Inducted to the Church of D. It was adjudged in this case that the Dispensation came too late because it came after the Institution for by the Institution the Church is full against all persons but against the King and as to the Spiritualties he is full Parson by the Institution 2. Resolved that admit the Church was not void by the Institution untill Induction Yet the Dispensation came too late for that the words of the Satute of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities are may purchase Licence to receive and keep two Benefices with Cure of Souls and the words of Dispensation in this case were recipere retinere and because by the Institution the Church was full he could not purchase Licence to receive that which he had before and he cannot retaine that which he cannot receive The Queen and Cattons Case 587. Scire fac to repeal a Patent made 29 Jan. 35 Eliz. which Recited Whereas A. and B. conjunctim divisim were bound by Obligation to the Queen in a 1000 l. dated 21 April 33 Eliz. with Condition that A. should stand to the award of I. S. for controversies betwixt him and C. which Obligation is become forfeited and Recites that the Queen by
of himself for Life the Remainder to F. in tail the Remainder to the Defendant in tail and the Remainder to the Right Heirs of the Father F. had Issue I. the Lessor of the Plaintiff and died in the Life of his Father The Father made a Lease for years the Lessee for years made a Feoffment in Fee the Father Releases with Warranty to the Feoffee and dyed The Feoffee enfeoffed the Defendant It was the opinion of the Justices in this Case that the Warranty by reason of the Covyn should not bar and that it was a Warranty which did commence by disseisin The Earl of Lincoln and Fishers Case 644. The Defendant gave the Plaintiff the Lye openly in the Leer for which the Steward assessed a Fine of 20. s. upon him The Plaintiff brought Debt for the Fine It was adjudged the Action was maintainable because they are words of contempt in a Court of Justice to a Judge for which the Judge might fine him Canes Case 645. A Venire fac at the Suit of the Plaintiff was prayed to the Coroners because the Sheriff was his Master and the Defendant confessed it It was tried for the Plaintiff It was said it was a Mis-Tryal because a Venire fac ought not to be to the Coroners upon any suggestion if it be not a principal Challenge But the Court held it good although he did not conclude his Challenge and so favorable Revera and Baptistaes Case 646. Assumpsit The Jury found the Assumpsit but that it was upon another consideration and not upon the consideration layed in the Declaration Adjudged against the Plaintiff Tarrants Case 647. The Father made a Feoffment to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his eldest Son and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to his own Right Heirs Proviso That if any of them to whom the Estates are limited or any Issue Male of their Body intend or attempt or do any Act by which the Premises or any part of them should be discontinued that then of that part his Feoffees should be seised to the use of him to whom the Premises after the death of the said party should come as if he were naturally dead The Defendant being Tenant in tail suffered a common Recovery he in the Remainder entred It was Resolved that Tenant in tail could not be restrained from suffering a common Recovery vide accordingly Chomeleys case and Germin and Ascotts case before The Lord Cromwell and Andrews Case 648. In Assise the Case was A seised of a Mannor with an Advowson appendent granted bargained and sold the Mannor and the Advowson to B. and his Heis rendring Rent to A. and his Heirs and covenanted to suffer a Recovery to the use of B. and his Heirs and covenanted to levy a Fine to B. and his Heirs with a render of the Rent to A. and his Heirs Proviso that B. shall regrant the Advowson to A. for his Life so as he shall present as often as it should be void during his Life B. and A. both joyn in a Fine to I. S. who renders the Rent to A. in tail with the Remainder to I. D. and renders the Land to B. and his Heirs Afterwards B. died before a Regrant of the Advowson A. enters upon the Heir and enfeoffs the Lord Cromwell upon whom the Heir of B. reenters There were three points in this Case 1. If the Proviso for the regrant of the Advowson made the Estate of B. conditional in the whole Mannor 2. If the condition by the death of B. without regrant of the Advowson be broken 3. If the Condition be extinct by the Conusance and fine and revived as a Limitation in the use of the Fine The case is here only largly argued but not adjudged Vide Resolution of this Case Coo. â— pa. and here before pl. 229. Hiddy and Welhouses Case 649. In Trespass for taking of his Chattel The sole point in the Case was Whether Toll was incident to a Fair of common Right It was Resolved that Toll is not incident to a Fair of Common Right and that none shall have Toll in a Fair if he hath it not by Grant or Prescription But it was agreed that the King might grant Toll with a new Fair if the Toll be reasonable and not excessive but if it be to have 1 d. upon every Beast they took it to be unreasonable vide Cro. 3. part 559. accordingly The Queen and Doddingtons Case 650. In account against the Defendant Executor of Sir Walter Mildmay The Case was The Marquiss of Winton 1 Eliz. being Treasurer of England and Sir Walter Mildmay Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Court of Augmentation then lately dissolved and united to the Exchequer allowed Sir Walter Mildmay 100 l. per an for diet and 40. l. per an for his attendance in the Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer After which 2 Eliz. a Privy Seal came to the Treasurer Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay the Fees and Allowances by Patent or Parliament to the Treasurer Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Offices and to give such Rewards to other Officers they should think they deserved There were divers points in this Case 1. If the Treasurer alone ex officio might increase Fees or Allowances to the Queens Officers 2. If a Privy Seal was a sufficient Warrant to do it 3. If he might give a Reward to the Chancellor by the Warrant 4. If the Privy Seal being after the allowance made and before payment come in time to excuse the payment 5. If account did lie against Sir Walter Mildmay himself 6. If his Executors were chargable in account This Case is in this Report only argued but not Resolved But vide in Coo. 11. pa. in the Earl of Devonshires case this case is put and there it was said it was Resolved in this case that no officer of the King might ex officio issue or dispose of the Kings Treasure although it be for the honor and profit of the King without a Warrant from the King and a Warrant by word of mouth or under his privy Signet is not sufficient but the Warrant ought to be under the Great Seal or Privy Seal and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer doth receive the Kings Treasure to his own use he shall be charged in account for the same Worme and Websters Case 651. A seised in Fee of Lands holden in capite made a Feoffment thereof to B. and C. to such intents and purposes and to such uses and estates and in such manner as are declared and limited or should be declared in the last Will of the said A. Afterwards he made his Will in this manner viz. I Will and Devise that E. my wife during her Life shall have and take the profits of all my Mannors and Lands and after her decease I devise them to G. P. and the Heirs of his body and died E. entred and died G. P. entred 1. Question if the
Devisees took their estates respectively by the Will or by the Feoffment if by the Will it was void for a third part and a Tenancy in common If by the Feoffment it was good for the whole 2. point when the use of the Feoffment is expressed to such persons as should be declared by the Will and he deviseth the Land if the same shall be said to be a limitation of the use according to the Authority The case not Resolved because the Justices were divided in their opinions It was adjourned Prat and Phanners Case 652. Debt upon Obligation The condition was Whereas Suits have bin brought prosecuted betwixt the Defendant and A his Wife which controversies are now finally to be ended betwixt them if the Defendant do not from henceforth commence and prosecute any Suit or Action in any Court or Courts Spiritual or Temporal against the said A. his Wife for any matter precedent or cause from the beginning of the World but shall from henceforth during the natural Lives of him the Defendant and A. his Wife account of use and maintaine the said A. as his lawful wife to all intents c. then c. The Defendant pleaded he had not brought any Action in any Court against the said A. after the said Obligation and that before A. was married to him she was married to I. S. who is yet alive for which cause he cannot accept of and maintain the said A. as his lawfull wife according to the Form of the Condition upon which it was demurred It was Resolved that the material part of the Condition did consist in the first part of the Condition if he do not prosecute any Suit and the Defendant having pleaded an Issuable Plea to that it is not material if he plead to the latter part of it or not and if his Justification be insufficient the Plaintiff ought not to have demurred upon it But the Court held his Justification to be good because the Condition as to that part is against the Law of God and so the Obligation void And whereas it was objected that he is estopped to plead the special matter of her former Marriage because in the Condition she is called A. his wife The Court said he was not estopped by it because he may confess and avoid it for she may be his Wife as to some purposes but as to use her as a lawfull wife she is not his wife Lloyd and Wilkingsons Case 653. In Ejectione firme the case was A. Rector of C. by Indenture between him of the one part and E. R. W. and T. of the other part devised the same to E. for 80. years if she should so long live and should not alien the premises and if she should die within the Term or should alien that then her Estate should cease and that then the same should remain to R. pro durant ' residuo praedicti termini praedict ' 80. annorum and if he should alien c. ut supra then his Estate should cease and then the same should remain to W. pro durant ' tot annis praedict termini 80. annorum si c. and if he should alien ut supra then his Estate should cease and then the said A. concessit praemissa durante tot annis praedict ' 80. annorum quod ad tunc continuarent remanerent in expiratis to T. his Executors and Assignes A. died F. died E. and R. died The Administrator of F. entred and assigned over the same In this Case it was Resolved That the Demise to R. and W. were void because that the Estate which E. had was not for 80. years absolutely but sub modo under a condition and then the Demise to them pro tot annis quot remanerent after the death of the said E. pro durante residuo termini praedict ' 80. annorum was void for there could not be a residue of the said Term because that determined by the death of E. 2. Resolved That the Lease and Limitation to F. was void for the uncertainty for it was uncertain at the making of the Lease how many years should be behind at the time of the death of E. 3. Resolved That the Demise and Limitation to T. was not good because that R. and W. survived F. which was against the express Limitation for his Estate was limited upon two Contingents Pigot and Hearns Case 654. In Trover and Conversion the case was this The Lord of the Mannor of B. in the Parish of D. did prescribe that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estate c. had used from time to time whereof c. to pay to the Parson of D. the now Plaintiff and his Predecessors 6 l. per an for all manner of Tythes growing within the said Parish and that by reason thereof he and all those whose Estates c. Lords of the said Mannors had used time whereof c. to have Decimam garbam decimum cumulum garbarum of all of his Tenements within the said Mannor It was in this case Resolved that it was a good Prescription and that a Modus decimandi by the Lord for himself and all the Tenants of his Mannor from barring the Parson to demand tythes in kind is a good Prescription because it might have a lawful commencement 2. It was Resolved That it was a good Prescription to have Decimam garbam in or Decimum cumulum garbarum or gramorum or the tenth Shock for he hath it as a profit appender and not as Tythes 3. Resolved in this case that if the Queen be Lady of the Mannor she might prescribe to have Tythes for that she is capable of them she being Persona mixta capax Spiritualis Jurisdictionis Holcrofts Case 655. A seised of Lands in Fee levyed a Fine thereof to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to B. his Son for the Term of his Life only so long and untill he attempt to alien and then to the use of C. and the Heirs Males of his Body during the Life of B. and immediately after his death to the use of the first begotten Son of B. then after to be begotten and the Heirs Males of his Body and so successively to his Second Third or Fourth Son to be begotten in lawful Marriage and if it fortune the Fourth Son to die without Heir Male of his Body then to the use of C. and the Heirs Male of his Body with diverse Remainders over in tail the remainders to the right Heirs of A. A. dyed B. having only one Son born after the Indenture and Fine which dyed without Issue Male joyned in a Fine with C. to I. S. and I. D. who rendred the Land to B. for 80. years next following if the said B. so long lived and immediately after his Decease to the first begotten Son of the said B. or which afterwards he should beget and the Heirs Males of his Body and so successively to the Second or Third
Sons the Remainder to C. and his Heirs B. never had any Son afterwards but dyed having Issue a Daughter his sole Daughter and Heir Afterwards C. dyed having Issue It was Resolved in this case that it shall be intended in the Limitation of the use that after the death of B. without Issue Male that C. should have the Land as well where no attempt is to alien as where there is an attempt because the words are and immediately after his decease then to the first Son c. by which they conceived that the use which should rise upon the attempt to alien is only restrained to the use of B. for Life 2. Resolved that by the words If it fortune the Fourth Son to die without Issue then to C. and in truth B. never had a Son that the use should rise to C. 3. Reâ—olved when the render was made to B. for 80. years if he should so long live and after his Decease to his first Son c. with the Remainder to C. that all the Remainders were void because the Estate of the Freehold during the Life of B. did not pass by the Render out of the Conusees but the Inheritance compleat did remain in the Conusees 4. Resolved That the Conusance of the Fine is of necessity to be intended to the use of the Conusees because they otherwise could not render by the Fine but if the Render had bin void in all as it is in part then they conceived the use should go according to the Render but not in this case because the Render for 80. years was good and so the use remains in the Conusees The Lord Buckhursts Case 656. The case it self is very long being upon several Conveyances Settlements of very many great Mannors Lands in several Counties within the Realm of England and by her last Will to several persons or to their uses or to her Executors for the performance of her last Will upon which diverse matters of Law did arise which were very largely and Learnedly argued by Council but not Resolved some points in Law were agreed upon and Resolved which vide in Coo. 1. Reports in rhe Lord Buckhursts Case and were these in Substance viz. 1. If a man grant Land for him and his Heirs to another and his Heirs that is a general Warranty because it is not restrained to any person certain 2. If a man seised in Fee-simple hath diverse Evidences some containing Warranty and some not and convey the Land to another without Warranty upon which he may be vouched the Purchaser shall have all the Charters and Evidences as well those which contain the Warranty as the other for in as much as the Feoffor hath conveyed his Estate absolutely and is not bound to Warranty it is reason that the Feoffee for his better assurance have all his Charters as incidents to the Land although they are not granted to him by express words 3. If the Feoffee in the case aforesaid make a Feoffment with Warranty so as he is bound to render in value in such case without express Grant the Feoffee shall not have any Charters which comprehend Warranty upon which the Feoffor may have his Waranty paramount for the Feoffee hath not taken upon him to defend the Title but the Feoffee shall have the Evidences which do concern the possession 4. If A. enfeoff B. with Warranty to him his Heirs and Assignes and B. enfeoff C. with Warranty although that C. may vouch A. as Assignee yet he shall not have the first Deed for B. hath made a Warranty to him and may be vouched and therefore he shall have the first Deed. 5. If A. be seised of a Seignory Rent Advowson or any thing which lies in Grant and grants the same over to B. with Warranty and B. grants the same over to C. with VVarranty C. shall have the Charter although that B. is bound to VVarranty for that it is for his necessity to make his Title and without it he cannot make any defence against A. or any claiming by him 6. If a man maketh a Feoffment in Fee with VVarranty and dieth the Heir of the Feoffee shall have all the Charters which the Feoffor himself may have although the Heir hath nothing by discent for the possibility of discent after Barker and Bornes Case 657. Debt against the Heir upon an Obligation of his Father and Judgment is given against him upon nihil dicit the Judgments shall be general and not only of the Lands special which discend but extend to his own Lands Thompson and Butlers Case 658. An Annuity is granted to a woman for Life she takes Husband the Husband during the Coverture by express words releases the Annuity Resolved that the Release of the Husband doth not extinct the Annuity but that if the VVife survive she shall have it 659. It was Resolved by all the Justices That if the Clerk of the Market do take a Fee of a peny for view only of Vessels which are not defective and doth not Seal them or if he Seal them he take 2 d. upon every Vessel the same iâ— extortion 660. Resolved upon the Statute of 33. H. 8. 28. 23. Eliz. That if Tenant in tail become Recusant is convict but not by Judgment upon Tryal or Confession and dieth and his Lands seized that the Issue shall avoid it because it is not a debt by Judgment as the Statute of 33. H. 8. requires The Lady Willoughbyes Case 661. Sir Francis Willoughby died his VVife with Child P. W. who had married the Daughter of Sir Francis and had a great part of the Possessions setled upon him for want of Issue Male of Sir Francis attempted to suffer a Common Recovery to the intent to bar the Issue Male of Sir Francis and disinherit this Issue in ventre of his VVife to stop the Recovery she pretended she was with Child P. W. prayed a VVrit de Ventre inspiciendo which was granted and the Sheriff of London came to the Ladies House and brought a Jury of women whereof two were Midwives and they searched the Lady and the Sheriff returned that she was with Child Clark and Hardwicks Case 662. Scire fac upon Recognizance in Chancery acknowledged by H. to M. of 200 l. The VVrit was brought by the Plaintiffs Executors of M. the Sheriff returned Mortuus whereupon a new scire fac issued against the Heir and Terrae-Tenants The Sheriff returned K. Terre-Tenant of certain Lands and C. Terre-Tenant of the Mannor of D. K. made default C. appeared and pleaded a Joynt-tenancy with two other who were alive not named in the Writ nor Returned It was adjudged that upon this Return and Plea of Joynt-Tenancy that the Scire facias should abate and a new Scire facias was awarded Davy Matthew and Binfields Case 663. 3 â— Eliz. Ejectione firme The Case was Husband and wife seised for the Life of the wife made a Lease of a Mill to B. the Defendant for 17. years who 34.
l. of the râ—nt to 3. persons divisim viz. to each of them a full 3. part which was 9 l. 6 s. 8 d. One of the devisees brought debt for his part against the Lessee It was the opinion of the Justices that the Rent was apportionable and that the Tenant is chargeable without attornment by the devise to each of the devisees for the 3. part of the Rent Winters Case 705. It was said by Popham Chief Justice that Clergy is allowable upon the standing Mute for such a Felony for which Clergy is allowable if the party be found guilty and therefore he allowed Clergy to Winter who stood Mute upon an Indictment of Felonious taking of goods 706. The Case was a man robs one in the high way in one County and is apprehended with the goods in another County and indicted for the goods and found guilty to the value of 10 d. The question was if by the Statute of 25 H. 8. he shall have Judgment of death or be whipt It was the opinion of the Justices the Case being put to them at Serjants Inn that he shall be but whipt and that the Statute of 25 H. 8. doth not extend but to those who demand Clergy which they shall be denyed if it be found by examination to be done with Robbery Lever and Heyes Case 707. The Father of the daughter promiseth to the Father of the Son that if he will give his consent to the Marriage and assure 40 l. Land to his Son that the Father of the Daughter will pay 200 l. to the Son in Mariage It was Resolved in this case that if the Father of the daughter do not pay the 200 l. that the Son shall have the Action upon the promise and not the Father Egertons Case 708. Egorton the Queens Sollicitor was commanded by Writ to attend upon the Lords in the upper House of Parliament After he attended there 3. dayes he was chosen Burgesse for the Borough of Reading and Returned The Commons came to the upper House and demanded that he might be dismissed from his attendance there and be sent them into the Lower House but upon Consultation he was retained there still because he being neither Inhabitant not Free of the said Town might choose if he would serve at their Election or not which he expresly refused to do 2. Because he was first attendant in the upper House 3. Because the Queen had power to prefer him to the upper House aswell as she had power to command him The Bishop of Norwiches Case 709. The Bishop pleaded a private Act of Parliament and mistook the day of the Commencement of the Parliament It was adjudged against the Bishop for although the Judges are not to take notice of the private act yet of the beginning of the Parliament they are to take notice of Helgor and Whiteacres Case 710. Replevin The Defendant avowed that a Parsonage was parcell of the Prebendary the Prebend before the Statute of 13 Eliz. was Leased for 50. years in Reversion to I. who assigned it to B. who assigned it to C. who assigned it to H. the Lease in possession ended H. enâ—red and made the Lease to the Plaintiff The Plaintiff confessed the Lease to I. and the Assignments but said that I. so possessed took to Husband T. who before the assignment to B. assigned the Terme to I. S. who dyed possessed absque hoc that the said I. assigned her estate and Interest to B. It was adjudged for the Avowant because when the Plaintiff confessed and avoided he ought not to have traversed but might have prayed Judgment without Travers and so by reason of the Travers it was adjudged against the Plaintiff Vavisoâ—s Case 711. Resolved That if the Sheriff makes his Warrant to a Corporation who have return of Writs to arrest I. S. they may make a Bailiff to arrest by perol only Robes Bent and Cocks Case 612. A a villain purchased the Inheritence of a Copyhold in the name of B. and another in Trust B. surrendred his moyety to the use of his own Son the other dyed seised The Son of B. and the Heir of the other for mony sold the Copyhold to C. for 50 l. being of the value of 80 l. A sued the Son of B. and the Heir of the otherand C. in Chancery for the 80 l. It was Decreed the A. should recover the 50 l. only from B. and the Heir of the other and C should be discharged of it The Lord Hunsdons Case 713. In a Monstrance de droit for certain Lands in ward to the Queen for the Nonage of B. upon Jury returned the Array was challenged by the Queens Attorney because it was Returned by the Sheriff of Kent who was also Tenant to the Plaintiff A Counterplea was thereunto that he was Tenant to the Queen It was the opinion of the Justices that the Counterplea was little material for although he was Tenant to both yet he who takes the Challenge shall have advantage thereof Afterwards the array was Quashed and a venire de novo awarded Lady Russell and Gulwells Case 714. The Lady demised Lands to the Defendant by Indenture Defendant entred bonds to performe the Agreements in the Indenture Debt brought by the Lady for breach of Covenants and assignes the breach in disturbance of her in the occupation of certain Lands excepted in the Indenture out of the demyse and adjudged against the Lady for that it was breach neither of Covenant nor agreement 715. Nore by Egerton Lord Keeper if there be Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in Fee and the Tenant for life committeth Wast so as he is dispunishable by the Common Law yet upon Complaint he in the remainder in Fee may have an Injunction against him not to do Wast Penner and Cromptons Case 716. In a Prohibition It was holden that none shall be chargeable for contribution to Church Reckonings if he do not Inhabite there or to consent to them Powle and Veeres Case 717. A. made a Lease to B. of the Mannor of S. for life which was executed by Livery with these words that if it fortune B. to marry any Woman during his life who shall happen to overlive him then the Land to remain to such Woman for her life Proviso If B. do not declare by writing sealed â—or his last Will that he Wills she shall have it then it shall not remain to her B. before any marriage makes a Feoffment to I. S. to whom a Fine is levyed and a Recovery suffered Afterwards B. takes a Wife and declares she shall have the Remainder and after D. and his Wife Levy a Fine to the Heirs of I. S. and afterwards B. makes another declaration that the Land shall remain to the Wife and then B. dyes and the Wife enters It was adjudged her entry was not Lawfull because the Remainder if it was ever good was destroyed by the Feoffment and the Freehold supplanted before the Remainder took
The Wife entred and elected one yard Land and a half A. entred upon her Resolved that the use for the Life of the Father did cease in it without entry into the Land of the Wife and that she should haue the Election The Lady Burghs Case 791. A seised of Land bargained and sold the same to B. and C. with power of Revocation by tender of 20. s. to them or one of them in the Hall of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster in Westminster A. tendred the 20. s. in the Hall none of the Bargainees being present nor having any notice of it Afterwards A. covenanted to stand seised to the use of I. S. her Nephew It was Resolved in this Case that the tender of the 20 s. was no performance of the Condition to avoid the Estate 2. That the conveyance by Covenant to stand Seisor for consanguinity should make void the former Conveyance containing the power of Revocation wherefore it was adjudged for the Plaintiff Paramour and Veralls Case 792. The Town of Sandwich did prescribe that if any Goods of any Freeman of that Town came to the hands of a Freeman and citizen of London the Mayor of Sandwich c. had used to write to the Mayor c of London to take good order for restitution and it they refused and did not return the Answer to the Mayor of Sandwich c. and did not make Restitution within 15. days then they of S. used to detain the Body of any Londoner which they should find there till restitution was made It was Resolved by all the Justices that such a Prescription was not good Diggs Case 793. The case is very long but this in effect A man seised of Lands in Fee for diverse considerations covenanted to stand seised thereof to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of his Son in tail Provided that at any time during his Life with consent of divers by Deed indented to be enrolled in any Court of the King to revoke the said uses and estates and to limit new uses and afterwards by Deed indented enrolled in the Chancery he revokes the uses in part of the Land and limits the same to him and his Heirs and afterwards by another Deed he declares that from the time of the enrollment of the Deed in the Chancery that all the first uses in the first Indenture shall be void and that the Land shall be to the use of himself in Fee and after he levyes a Fine of all the Land and after the Deed is enrolled in the Chancery In this case these points were Resolved 1. That he might revoke part at one time and part at another time but he could revoke one part but once 2. That where the Revocation is to be by Deed Indented to be enrolled it is as much as to say by Deed Indented Enrolled for it is no Revocation till enrollment 3. That there was not a compleat and perfect Revocation till the Deed was enrolled in the Chancery 4. That the Fine before the Enrollment had extinguished the power of Revocation 5. If the Fine had not been levyed then by the Revocation the ancient Uses had bin destroyed without entry or claim because he himself was Tenant for Life and he could not enter and Acts of Revocation are as strong as a claime 6. That by the same conveyance the ancient Uses might be recovered their Uses might be limitted Costard and Wingates Case 794. A Lay-man presented to a Benefice before the Statute of 13. Eliz. made a Lease for 60. years which was confirmed by the Patron and Ordinary After the Statute his Successor became bound in an Obligation that the Lessee should enjoy the Term and after he was absent from his Living 80. days It was adjudged the Obligation was not void by the Statute of 14. Eliz. because the Lease for years was good and the Bond for enjoyning it which the Successor cannot avoid 795. Resolved by the Justices of the Kings Bench that if the Sheriff hath a capias against one to find Sureties for the good behaviour he may break the House and enter and arrest the party as well as he may do upon a capias utlagatum Talbots Case 796. He was indicted for Recusancy That being of the age of 16. years and more non accessit ad Ecclesiam c. by the space of 6. months It was said the Indictment was not good for Existens aetatis 16. annorum shall be referred to the time of absence from the Church and not to the time of the Indictment but the Court held the Indictment to be good Lovegraves Case 797. A man sued in the Spiritual Court for calling him Goose Woodcock he being a Clerk A Prohibition was awarded and in this case it was said the High Commissioners could not hold Plea for slanderous words spoken of a Clerk but for laying of violent hands on him they might Binghams Case 798. The case was this Grand-father Father and Son the Grand-father held the Mannor of D. of B. as of his Mannor of S. by Knight-Service and levyed a Fine thereof to the use of himself for Life the remainder to the use of the Father in tail and after to the use of the Right Heirs of the Grand-father the Father died his Son within age B. the Lord suffered a Recovery of his Mannor of S. unto the use of himself and his Wife in tail the Remainder to the use of C. and his wife in tail the Remainder to the Right Heirs of B. B. and his Wife died without Issue C. entred into that Mannor the Grand-father died his Wife died the Son entred and made a Lease for years It was Resolved in this case that as long as the Grand-father lived no Wardship of the body or Land was due because the Reversion remained in himself and the mean man could not be in ward during the Life of the particular Tenant for Life and in case of a Subject as long as the Reversion remained in the Donor or his Heir the Issue in tail should not be in ward to the Lord Paramount when the Son in remainder in tail died his Heir within age â— 2. Resolved that a man shall never have the Wardship of the Heir when the Land was never in his Fee or Seignory of him or any of his Ancestors at the time of the death of the Tenant Bullock and Thornes Case 799. The case upon the matter was shortly this A man conveyed Land to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of divers of his blood with a future power of Revocation as after such a Feast and afterwards and before the power of Revocation began he for valuable consideration sold the Land to one and his Heirs It was Resolved that this bargaine and sale is within the Remedy of the Statute of 27. Eliz. of Fraudulent Conveyances for the Act will not that such voluntary conveyance originally subject to a power of Revocation should stand
took him upon the Capias Utlegatum and returned Cepi and after suffered him to Escape It was adjudged an action of Escape lay against the Sheriff by the party and that the Jury are to give him the value of his debt and the damages Web and Hargraves Case 835 Debt upon Obligation the condition was where W. was Patron of a Benefice with Cure then void if he presented the Defendant and if the Defendant continued Incumbent for a year and after the year all time within three moneths after Notice and request was ready to resigne and did resigne the Benefice to the Ordinary to be presented thereunto again by W. and should not before Resign that then c. the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 13 and 14 Eliz. that Obligation and Covenants for enjoyage of Lease were void and pleaded that after he was Inducted he made a Lease to the Plaintiff W. of the benefices for 21. years and avered the Obligation was made for the enjoying of the Land by the Lease upon which the Plaintiff demurred It was the opinion of the Court that the plea was good but that the averment was not sufficient It was adjudged against him Williams and Greens Case 136. Debt upon a single Bill the Defendant pleaded he delivered it to the Plaintiff as an Escrowle upon Condition that if he delivered him a horse at such a day it should be his deed otherwise not It was the opinion of the Court that the Plea was not good because a Deed cannot be delivered to the party himself as an Escroale Hungate Mease and Smiths Case 837. Debt upon an Obligation to perform an accord of all Controversies betwixt the parties from the beginning of the World to the 30. of August 4 Eliz. so as the Award be pronounced and delivered utrique parti ante 14. diem Augusti and shewed that he awarded that all Suits should cease and they should be friends and that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff 7 l. and that the Award was pronounced to the parties before 14. Augusti upon nihil debet all the said matter was found only that the pronouncing of the Award was to Mease and not to Smith It was adjudged against the Plaintiff because he ought to have pronounced the Award to each of the parties Defendants and also it was void it was but an Award of one part also void that all Suits should cease which could not be without Non-suit Retraxit or discontinuance of the parties Dogett and Vowells Case 838. Assumpsit In consideration the Plaintiff had lent to the Defendant 20 l. the Defendant promised to lend the Plaintiff 10 l. quando requisitus c. It was adjudged no good consideration because consideration of a thing past is not sufficient to ground Assumpsit Parhan and Nortons Case 839. Replevin The Defendant avowed for a Relief by the death of I. S. late Tenant The Plaintiff said the Land discended from I. S. to his two Daughters who enfeoffed the Plaintiff and that the Lord accepted the Rent of him Adjudged that the acceptance of the Rent from a new Tenant was no bar of the Reliefe due by the former Tenant Lord Berkley and Countess of Warwicks Case 840. Before the Statute of West 2. Lands are given to Husband and Wife in Frankmarriage the Remainder to the Heirs of the Husband if it be tail Quaere not adjudged vide 25. Eliz. Webb and Potters Case Guy and Brownes Case 841. A Farmor of the King of a capital Messuage made a Conduit to convey the water to his House over the Land of a Copy-holder of the Mannor afterwards the Mannor is granted to one and the Copyhold to another Resolved the Farmer may amend the Pipes in the Land of the Copyholder without Trespass Worleys Case 842. A. lent B. a 100 l. for a year and took an Obligation of him for 10 l. Interest Interest being then 10 l. per cent payable 5 l. at the half year and 5. l. at the end of the year Adjudged it was not Usury within the Statute Hainsworth and Prettyes Case 843. A seised in Fee having four Sons and a Daughter by Will devised 20 l. to each of his younger Sons and his Daughter to be paid by his eldest Son at their ages of 21. years and if the eldest Son do not pay he devised the Land which he had before devised to his eldest Son and his Heirs to the younger and the Daughter and their Heirs It was Resolved 1. That the eldest Son took by discent and not by the Devise 2. The breach of payment to one of them should give the estate to them all and the eldest Son should lose the Land for not payment of the Fourth and they should have the Lands as Joynt-Tenants 3. That the entrie of one of them in the name of the rest was good because they are Joynt-Tenants More and Morecombs Case 844. The condition of an Obligation was to deliver all the tackle of a ship mentioned in an Inventory under the hands of four men or in default thereof to pay so much mony to the Plaintiff before such a Feast as the four men shall value the tackle at the Defendant said they did not value the tackle Adjudged no Plea because the Defendant had Election to do two things and if he cannot do the one for any default of a Stranger or other he is to do the other and in this case he at his peril is to procure the men to value the tackle Walter and Pigotts Case 845. Debt upon an Obligation de Septingentis Libris The condition was Septuagintis Libris Adjudged he was to pay 400 l. not 70 l. and the Bond good Bibell and Dringhowses Case 846. A. conveyed Lands to the use of himself in tail with divers Remainders in tail with a Proviso it should be lawful for him to make Leases for Life or years afterwards he made a Lease for the Life of D. the Defendant After the death of A. the Plaintiff in the â—ight of his Wife in Remainder entred The points were 1. If the Demise generally made unto was Tenant in tail in Interest and who had Authority by the Proviso to make Leases shall be constâ—ued to be made by his Interest or his Authority without declaring his Election the Court doubted of this point 2. Because the Deed did comprise as well Fee simple Land and Lands in tail if it shall enure by way of Interest for the Fee simple Land only and by Authority for the Land in tail Quaere also But they Resolved the Proviso to make Leases was good 847. Note Upon the Statutes of 13 Eliz. Cap. 4. and 39 Eliz. Cap. 7. upon Sale made by the Queen upon Accomptants and Debtors Lands That if any Officer be Tenant in tail the Remainder over and afterwards the Officer dieth without Issue before any sale made by the Queen and he in the Remainder enters and is in by force of his Remainder which was created before the
Tenant in tail became Officer yet that Land shall be sold by the Queen 2. When an Officer is endebted to the King and his Land subject to be sold by the Act 13. Eliz. and he to prevent the sale of the Queen and to evade out of the Act makes a conveyance of his Lands to his Issues or others of his Blood in consideration of natural affection that such conveyance shall not be good not said to be Bona fide within the Proviso of the Act of 39 Eliz. but that the Queen may sell the Land for so much of her debt as was due before the conveyance 3. If the Officer or Debtor of the Queen after 39 Eliz. be Tenant in tail or hath power of Revocation there the Queen may sell the Land by the Statute of 39 Eliz. and if any such Officer or Debtor before 39. Eliz. and and after 13. Eliz. had made any conveyance to his Issues or Blood without valuable consideration especially if it be with power of Revocation that Land may be sold by the Queen by the Statute of 39. Eliz. Adams and Lamberts Case 848. A man devised Lands to his Brother for Life the Remainder for Life the Remainder in tail upon condition to find a Chaplain for ever to pray for Souls and for the Souls of all Christian people to celebrate Mass Annusaries and other Superstitious uses and if they failed to perform the Uses then he devised the Remainder for eight years to an Hospital and because he doubted the profits of those Lands would not suffice he devised other Lands to supply them upon condition that if they aliened or let the Land to the prejudice of those in the Remainder they should presently enter and to be seised to the said uses It was resolved 1. That the Devise of Land to find a Priest c. was a Superstitious use 2. That although one of the uses was uncertain and no certain Sum limitted to it 3. That although the Devise was for the Sustentation and Maintanance of poor men yet the Limitation to them to pray for Souls was a Superstitious use because they depended upon the Superstitious uses and therefore it was Resolved in this case that all the Lands were given to the King by by the Statute of 1. Eliz. of Chaunteries Salway and Wales Case 849. It was holden by the Justices That if a man makes a Deed of Feoffinent in December and after and before Livery executed the Feoffor sells the Land by good assurance to another and after that the Feoffee takes Livery and Seifin of the Feoffor it is Forgery in the Feffor and the Feoffee So if the Feoffee causeth Livery to be endowed generally upon the Deed without a special day of making the Livery the Indorsement is Forgery Mouse and Weavers Case 850. The case was A. after a Recovery in an Assize in the Court of the Mannor of Isleworth and before Seisin delivered by the Bayliff of the Mannor bought the Copyhold by Surrender It was adjudged maintenance within the Statute of 32. H. 8. But it was holden by the Justices that if one recover Land and be in possession by Writ of Seisin he may sell the same although he nor his Ancestor or other by whom he claims was in possession by the space of a year next before And in this case it was holden by the Justices that a Clerk or Attorney in one Court cannot sollicite a Cause in another Court although it be for the same matter which was in his own Court Pollard and Moretons Case 851. It was Resolved in this case that a Justice of Peace coming to remove a Force may take posse comitatus with him 2. Resolved if one entreth into an house where no man is in the house with armed men or company unusual the same is a forceable entry Whetstone and Mintons Case 852. A. a Citizen of London seised divers Messuages in the Parish of St. Mary Sommerset in Queen-hith London 25 H. 6. devised the same to his two Daughters in tail and for want of such Issue to the Parson and Churchwardens of St. Michael and their Successors they yearly holding and making an Anniversary in the Church for the Soul of him and his Wife paying 6 s. 8 d. yearly amongst the Chaplains and others there and if the Parson and Churchwardens were remisse in holding Anniversary then the Parson and Curchwardens and Successors for that time should pay 20 s. of the Uses of those Lands Nomine poenae to the use of the Chamber of London The Devisor died the Land being of the yearly value of 10 l. 3 s. 4 d. The Daughter 's died without Issue the Parson and Churchwardens entred and took the profits and held the Anniversary and paid yearly the 6 s. 8 d. amongst the Chaplains c. et non ultra The Statute of 1. Ed. 6. of Chaunteries was found The sole Question in this case whether the Land or Annual Rent were given to the Crown by the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. of Chaunteries It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case that only the Annual Rent of 6 s. 4 d. was given to the Crown by the Statute and not the Lands for they said it had bin often adjudged that where a stipend was appointed to an Anniversary Obit Legacy c. there although the Land was given in the Premises the Crown should have but the stipend and in this case the intent of the Devisor was clear that the Parson and Churchwardens should have all the profits over and above the 6 s. 4 d. yearly to their own use Grills and Rigewayes Case 853. The case was A man was in Execution for debt and brake Prison and escaped The Sheriff made fresh Suit and retook him It was adjudged in this case no escape and it was holden that if the Prisoner who escapes be out of his sight yet if the Sheriff or Goaler take him upon Fresh Suit in recenti persecutione he shall be in Execution again 854. Note it was Resolved by the Justices that the breaking of a Dwelling-house in the night to the intent to rob or kill any one is Burglarie although that no person be in the house and if a man have two houses of Habitation which he dwells in by turnes if a Thief in the night breakes the house in which the person is absent it is Burglarie Austin and Twynes Case 155. It was Resolved in this case if two Churches one of the value of 10 l. and the other of 8 l. be within one mile of another the Ordinary may consolidate them and if the Patron and King confirm it the consolidation is good by the common Law and by the Statute pf 37 H. 8. 856. The King made the city of Gloucester a County with a clause of exemption from the County of Gloucester and of the power of the Officers of the County saving to the King and his Heirs Liberty for their Justices of Assize Goal-delivery and keeping Sessions there
Plaintiff that the Action did not lye Vide this Case more at large in Cook 3. part of his Reports Cornwalls Case 869. Quo Warranto for claiming goods of Felonum de se The Defendant said that the Mannors of S. and L in the County of Gloucester were within the Principality of Wales before the Statute of 27 H. 8. and the Kings Writ did not run there and that his Grandfather seised of those Mannors as Lord Marcher used amongst others to have that Liberty of goods of Felons de se and that the Statute of 27 H. 8. which united Wales to England had a Proviso that the Lord Marchers should retain their Franchises to hold Courts to have Waifes and Estrays infangtheef outfangtheef and Felons goods and deduced the Mannors to himself and eo Warranto he claimed to have the good of Felons de se within his Mannors upon which it was demurred the Case is only argued bet not Resolved Ideo Quaere Darcy and Allens Case 870. The Queen by her Letters Patents granted to Darcy the Importation and sole making of playing Cards within the Realm of England for a certain Terme of years A Citizen and Freeman of the Company of Haberdashers in London Cards beings Merchantable Commodities brought Cards into England and sold them for which Darcy brought his Action of the Case and declared it was to his damage of 2000 l. upon which there was a demur in Law It was in this Case after long and Learned Arguments at length Resolved That the Letters Patents for the sole making of playing Cards within the Realm was void because it being a Mechanical Trade it was contrary to the Liberty and to the prejudice of the Subject 2. That the dispensation or sole License to have the Importation of Cards was a Monopoly and so void by the Law See Coo. 11. pt the Case of Monopolies Garrard and the Dean and Chapter of Rochesters Case 871. The Dean and Chapter by deed under their Common Seal granted to the King the Mannor of S. in exchange for other Lands the deed was made without a Letter of Attorney but they acknowledged it to be their deed in their Chapter house before I. S. Attorney of the Court of Augmentations who brought it into Court and it was there enrolled with a Memorandū that the enrolment was such a day which was a moneth before the date of the deed In this Case it was Resolved 1. That the acknowledgment of the deed in the Chapter house was sufficient without doing it by Attorney 2. That the Attorney of the Augmentation might take the acknowledgment of a Deed out of Court he being a Judge of the Court. 3. That the enrolment of the deed before the date of it was not void as to make the deed void because it was only the Misprision of the Clark which shall not make the deed void Prine and Allingtons Case 872. A Capias ad satisfaciend ' was 2. July delivered in Holborne to the Sheriff of C. he the same day made his Warrant to his Bailiffs but afterwards the same day there came a Supersedeas to the Sheriff the Bailiffs not having notice of it took the party in Execution who escaped and they retook him upon which false Imprisonment was brought It was adjudged the Action did lye for the retaking of him was not Lawfull because the Authority of the Sheriff was determined by the Supersedas Yet the Court held the Bailiffs were excused in this Case and no action of Debt upon the escape did lye because they had no notice of the Supersedas Webster and Allens Case 873. A Copyholder where the custome was to demise for three Lives demised to one for life the Remainder to such a one as he should marry and the first Son of his body Resolved that both the Remainders were void but the estate for his own life good Penny and Cores Case 874. Debt upon Obligation for payment of 8 l. the Defendant pleaded payment of 5 l. before the day and acceptance of it in satisfaction of the 8 l. It was adjudged a good plea. The Queen and Bishop of Peterboroughs Case 875. A Baronesse which was a Widdow retained two Chaplains they purchased Dispensation the Baronesse was married before they accepted double Benefices It was adjudged they might after take two Benefices because the marriage was no discharge of their Service but if the Baronesse dye before they accept the Benefices they cannot afterwards take two Benefices within the Statute of 21 H. 8. Ward and Lakins Case 876. In a Replevin the Plaintiff declared of the taking of two Heifors apud W. tali die and did not say in quodam loco vocato c. and for that cause the Declaration was held to be insufficient Scarles Case 177. Debt against an Excecutor by Original he pleaded a Recovery in the Court of I. and that ultra he had not goods the Recovery was after the Teste of the Original but the Defendant avered that he had not notice of the Original It was holden by the Court a good plea but if a man be sued upon an Obligation and he will pay another debt after without suit if he have notice of the first suit Devastavit in an Execuror Gregory and Harrisons Case 878. Resolved Ejectione firme doth not lye of a Copyhold if the Plaintiff doth not declare the Custome Lease and Ejectment 879. A Woman recovered Dower in the Common pleas and had a Writ to the Sheriff to put her in possession of the same The Sheriff returned the Writ that he delivered her 84. Acres and that she had entred into 24. Acres parcel thereof and accepted of the same Resolved it was a good bar to her although it was a lesse quantity then the 3. part of the Land mentioned in the Record Aoliffe and Archdales Case 780. Resolved in this Case If a man be bounden to pay money for the Meat Drink and Apparel of an Infant and pay it and take a Bond of the Infant to repay the money such a Bond is void and the Infant shall avoid it for Nonage Broke and Smiths Case 881. It was adjudged in this Case that where a man by a Deed was to discharge Lands from all Incumbrances and before the sealing and delivery of the Deed there is Memorandum endorsed that it should not extend to such an Incumbrance It was Resolved the Endorsement is an explanation of the Deed and made parcell of it and a suit upon an Obligation to discharge Incumbrances shall not extend to the Incumbrances mentioned upon the endorsement of the Deed. Yate and Goths Case 882. A. was indebted to B. who dyed Intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and brought debt and had Judgment and after dyed Intestate It was adjudged that an Administrator de bonis none of the first Intestate could not sue forth Execution upon the Judgment but is put to a new action of debt Swelman and Cuts Case 883. A Lease was made for years upon
Attorney to sue the principal in his name It was adjudged for the Plaintiff in B. R. and upon Error brought the Judgment was reversed because it was an insufficient Consideration Dickenson and Sheres Case 942. Upon the awarding of the Venire facias upon the Roll the day of the return of it was omitted this being assigned after verdict for Error was holden by the Court not to be Error 943. Note it was Resolved by the Justices that an action lyeth for the Rector of a Parsonage against the Parishoners for not seting forth of their Tythes although the Statute of a Edward 6. drâ—h not appoynt who shall have the action English and Bowers Case 944. Covenant upon an Indenture of demyse of the Rectory of S. in the County of O. The Indenture was made at London and the Venire Issued to the Sheriff of O. It was assigned to be Error but the Court held it good because it shall be of the County where the Land lyeth Heley and Rigs Case 945. A Bill was exhibited in the name of Rigs per Johannem Keeling attornaâ— ' suum and the Warrant of Attorny was posuit lcco suo Gulielmum Keeling the same was assigned for Error but the Justices caused it to be amended and affirmed the Judgement Maylard and Kesters Case 946. Assumpsit In Consideration the Plaintiff would sell and deliver to the Defendant pannos laneos pro funer alibus of a Clark he promised to pay him for them cum inde requisitus esset and alledged he sold and delivered divers Cloths to him viz. 31. yards of black Cloth for 19 l. and recited divers other particulars amounting to 160 l. upon Non Assumpsit found for the Plaintiff Error brought in Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment was reversed because Debt properly lay and not Assumpsit Wolley and Mosleys Case 947. Action of Assault and Battery in B. R. upon a demur the Plaintiff had Judgment to recover It was a Warded upon the Roll à Fierifac to enquire of damages returnable die Martis post tres Trinitatis and the Writ was in facto returned die Mercurii post tres Trinitatis which was the very date of the return upon the Roll and the Plaintiff had damages and Costs 40 l. Error was brought and assigned whereas by the Record of the Continuance the Plaintiff appeared by I. P. his Attorney that before that time he was dead The Court held that to be no Error because the Record is to be credited before the allegation of the party 2. Because there was variance between the Roll and the Writ the Court held that was amendable 3. That the Writ is executed the same day of the Return that was holden to be no Error and so it was said it was adjudged Mich. 37. and 38. Eliz. in Gawen and Ludlows Case In the Court of Wards The Queen and Savages Case 948. A. seised of Lands holden in Capity by Knight service by License 27 H. 8. conveyed the same to his Son and Heir apparent and F. and their Heirs in consideration of Marriage betwixt them who intermarried and 2 E. 6. by Fine regranted the Land to the Father who rendred it to the Son and his Wife and to the Heirs of their two bodies begotten the Father dyed the Son haveing Issue three Daughters dyed 5 Mar the eldest Daughter had Issue Fran. Mooâ—e and dyed 25 Eliz. F. took second Husband W. Savage and they 28 Eliz. Leased the Rectory of K. to I. S. for 60. years and after granted the Reversion of the Rectory and Leased the Mannor to A. Savage for the life of F. Afterwards a Common Recovery was had in which S. and his Wife were vouched The Queen prayed to have the Wardship of Fran. Moore and to have the primer seisin and profits of the Land after the death of the Wife W. Savage averred the Recovery was to the use of himself pretending thereby that the Issues in Tail of the Son of Agnes and F. were barred In this Case it was Resolved for the Queen for one moyety and that the first Feoffment by A. to his Son F. before Marriage was not within the Statute of 11 H. 7. but when they Reconveyed back the Land that was a Conveyance of each of them their parts and then the render of the whole to them in special Tail as to the moyety of the Son the gift of the Father to the Son and his Wife within the Statute of 11 H. 7. but as to the gift of the Wife by the Fine was not within the Statute but the Recovery as that should bind the Issue Fishers Case 949. It was found by Office that A. seised in Fee of divers parcells of Lands holden by Knight service in Capite 21. Eliz. by License conveyed them to I. S. and E. his Wife Daughter of the said A. and that afterwards by Indenture he Covenanted for Fatherly love and affection that after the sealing of the said Indenture he would stand seised of the premises to the use of the said I. S. and E. his Wife in Tail Remainder in Fee to a stranger It was not found when the said Indenture was sealed and delivered nor that I. S. and E. his Wife were seised in Tail nor was it found in the Office Sic inde Seisitus did Covenant Notwithstanding these Exceptions it was Resolved that the Office was sufficient wherefore a Travers was to the Office Gervoyes Case 950. A. seised of the Mannor of N. in the County of W. and of Lands called F. in the County of of S. in Consideration of Marrage and for a Jointure for his Wife Covenants that he and his Heirs shall stand seised of the Mannors Lands c. to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives after their deceases to the use of the Heirs of the body of A. The Lands in F. are recovered by verdict from A. only during the Coverture between them A. dyeth his Heir within age It was Resolved in this Case that the Wife should have recompence for the Lands which were Enrolled during the Coverture although she accepted of the Residue of her Joynture after the death of her Hâ—sband Forsters Case 951. The Husband seised of Land in the Right of his Wife which was holden in Knight service the Heir being in Wards committed wast in the Lands Resolved the Husband should be charged to the value of the Lands and lose the possession of the Lands so long as his Wife should live Georges and Stanfields Case 652. Lands by Act of Parliament were assigned to the Countesse of Bindon during her life the Reversion to her Daughter who was in Ward to the Queen the Viscountesse took Husband and she and her Husband committed wast in the Land For the punishing of which a Bill was exhibited in the Court of Wards Resolved that the Court of Wards could not adjudge treble damages for the wast in this Case and therefore the Case was dismissed to Law Bridges Case 953. A. bargained and
sold Lands to B. and C. by Deed enrolled they suffered a Recovery to the use of A. and his Wife who was the Daughter of B. for her Joynture the Remainder over in Tail to their Issues A. dyed his Heirs within age Resolved in this Case it was an Assurance by A. himself for the advancement of his Wife and her Issues within the Statute of 34 H. 8. and the Heir of A. should be in Ward for the third part of the Land The Earl of Bedfords Case 954. The Case was this Francis Earl of Bedford made a Feoffment in Fee of the Mannor of D. to the L. St. John and others to the use of himself for 40. years and after to the use of John his second Son and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Afterward Edward Lord Russell Heir apparent of the Earl dyed without Issue male of his body having issue Eliz. and Anne Daughters Afterward Francis by Indenture between him and I. S. and others for the advancement of the Heirs males of the body of the said Earl and the establishing of his Mannors in his blood Covenanted to stand seised of the said Mannor to the use of himself for life and after his decease to the use of Francis Lord Russell his youngest Son and the Heirs males of his his body with divers Remainders over Afterwards Francis Lord Russell dyed having Issue Edward Lord Russell and after dyed and if the Daughters of the said John Lord Russell or the Earl of Bedford should have the Mannor of D. was the Question in the Court of Wards It was Resolved the Daughters should not have the said Mannor but the Earl because there was no right Heir to take as purchasor when the estate Tail was determined by the death of John Lord Russell without Issue male for the Remainder to the right Heirs cannot be preserved by the mean estate for years for it ought to be a Freehold at least which ought to preserve such a Remainder till there be one to take it by the name of a purchasor as right Heir Andrews and Sheffields Case 955. A. hath Issue three Sons B. C. and D. and seised of Lands in P. by Will deviseth them in this manner viz. I will that all my Lands in P. shall Remain after the death of my Wife to C. my Son and his Heirs and if it fortune that D. liveth untill the said Lands come to C. then I will that C pay to D. 10 l. every year as long as D. liveth A. dyeth C. commeth to the Lands and payeth the Rent hath Issue and dieth It was Resolved that in this Case the devise did enure as a Rent-seck for the life of D. and the Lands in the hands of the Heir or Assignes of C. should be chargeable with the same Wrotesleys Case 956. A. seised in Fee of the Mannors of N. and W. of the Mannor of D. in Tail Covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife and to his own right Heirs Afterward he dyed seised of these Mannors and also sole seised of other Lands in Fee The Mannor of D. was holden in Capite It was found that A. dyed his Heirs within age the body and Lands of the Mannor of D. was committed to I. S. and I. D. the committee ousted the Wife of D. It was Resolved that the Wife of A. should have recompence to the value of the said Mannor of D. out of the other Lands of the Heir of which his Ancestors dyed seised Boydell and Walthalls Case 957. The Case was A. seised of Land in Fee an Indenture was made purporting a Feoffment to B. and C. with Waranty There was another Indenture bearing date the same day with the first between the Feoffees and the Feoffor whereby the Feoffer reciting the former Feoffment to them granted that immedâ—atly after the said Feoffees and their Heirs and Assignes have taken and received the profits of the Lands during the Terme of 100 years then it should be Lawfull for A. his Heirs and Assignes to reenter and have the said Lands in their first right and Title It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case that the Intent upon the Livery was that the Feoffor should have the Lands after the 100. years quit possession of the Feoffees and that the use did immediately arise to the Heirs of the Feoffor as soon as the Lands had been enjoyed for 100. years and that by the Statute of 27 H. 8. the Heir of the Feoffor might enter The Earl of Rutlands Case 958. Ed. Earl of R. seised in Fee of and in the Reversion or Remainder of the Mannor of E. expectant upon the death of B. Countesse of B. who held the same for life for the augmentation of the Joynture of I. his Wife Covenanted 21 Eliz. with I. S. and I. D. before the last day of Trinity Term next following by Fine or other assurance to assure the Reversion or Remainder of the said Mannors to them and their Heirs and the parties thereof seised should stand seised of and in the Reversion and Remainder of the said Mannor to the use of the said Earl and the said I. his Wife and the Heirs of the said Earl for ever Afterwards in the same year by another Indenture made between the said Earl the Lord Treasurer and the said I. S. and others of the other part for the advancement of him who should succeed him in the Earldom and the advancement of the Heirs male of T. late Earl of R. his Grandfather to convey the Castle and Honor of B. and the said Mannor of E. amongst other Lands to the said Lord Treasurer and others to the use of the said Earl and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the Heirs males of Tho. his Grandfather with divers Remainders over and by the last Indenture further Covenanted that if the said Earl before the Feast of our Lady next should not sufficiently convey all the said Honors Mannors c. in the last Indenture in manner and forme as therein is mentioned that then he and all other persons seised should from thenceforth stand and be seised to the uses in the last Indenture No Fine was levyed of the Mannor of E. before the end of Trinity Term but in Mick Term a Fine was levyed of the said Mannor within the time limited in the last Indenture and another Fine was levyed of other Land but not of the Mannor of E. and after the Earl died The Quest on in this case only was whether I. the wife of the said Earl might during the Life of B. Countess of B trayerse the Office found after the death of the Earl viz. That the Fine levyed of the Mannor of E. was not to the uses limited in the latter Indenture Resolved that the Office was insufficient for the Incertainty where it found the Earl was seised of the Reversion
and after to the use of C. in tail and after to D. in tail and after to the right Heirs of A. and of the Mannor of B. immediately after he the said A. should die without Issue of his Body to the use of E. daughter of I. for her Life and afterwards to D in tail and afterwards to C. in tail and to the right Heirs of A. And of the moiety of the Mannor of W. and other the Premises of which no use was before declared to the use of the said A. and such Heirs of his Body and after to the use of the said E for Life the remainder to D. in tail the remainder to C. in tail the Remainder to his right Heirs Provided That if at any time after he should be minded to revoke the said Indenture or any use or estates therein contained or to raise and create any other use or Estate and should declare the same to any person c. in the presence of two Witnesses then the Remainders and all other Estates in the said Indenture to be void and the Conusees of the Fine to stand seised to the use of the said A. and his Heirs Afterwards A. reciting the former Indenture and the Proviso in consideration of a Marâ—iage between I. D. and the said E. did declare to I. N. in the presence of two Witnesses that he did revoke and make void the former Deed and every Article therein concerning the Mannor of B. but as touching the Mannor of M that the same should stand in force and by the last Indenture did covenant with I. D. and E. his Wife that the Conusees of the Fine c. should stand seised of the Mannor of B. and the moiety of the Mannor of V. to the use of the said I. D. and E. his Wife for their Lives and after to the Issue of the Body of the said I. D. and E. as should be then eldest living at the death of the Survivors of them for the Life of such Issue and after to the use of the said A. and of such the Heirs of his Body as he should after beget on the body of I. his Wife or on the Body of any other woman which he should marry and after to â— in tail and after to C. in tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. It was found that E. was the Daughter of I. but born before her marriage with A. A and I. his Wife died and found he married no other woman and that F. was Son and Heir of A. and was of full age The Questions in this long case were these 1. Whether all the use and agreements in the first Indenture as to the Mannors of B. and V. were revoked by the second Indenture 2. Whether the new uses limited by the second Indenture and such Revocation of the former uses were effectual to convey any Estate to I. D. and E his Wiâ—e with the Remainder over to take away the immediate discent from the Heir at Law The case was argued in B. R. and the Justices were divided in their opinions and afterwards it was adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber but whether there Resolved or not Quaere Sir Arthur Goâ—ges Case 967. The case was the Lord Viscount Brindon was seised of Lands holden of the Queen in capite he had Issue Douglasse his Daughter and Heir who was married to Sir Arthur Gorge and she by him had Issue Ambrosia Gorge Sir Arthur married his Daughter Ambrosia when she was above the age of eight years and before she was of the age of nine years to Francis Gorge Son and Heir of Sir Thomas Gorge who died before Ambrosia accomplished her age of eleven years The Question upon the whole matter was if the Wardship of the body of Ambâ—osia did belong to the Queen or not It was Resolved in this case amongst other points that the Queen should have the Wardship in regard the Marriage was not a compleat Marriage because the Husband died before the years of consent of Ambrosia Bartons Case 968. A seised of the Mannâ—rs of O. and R. and of Lands called F. in the counry of Lanc. holden in capite 16 Octob. 19 Eliz made a Writing purporting that he did give the said Mannors and Lands to B. C. D. and E. and their Heirs to the several uses and under the agreements contained in a Schedule to the said Deed annexed and by the Schedule he declared the uses to be to himself for Life without Impeachment of wast and afterwards of part of the Lands to M. his Wife for her life and then to the â—ight Heirs of A. with a Proviso that if at any time after his Life during the Life of the said M. the Heirs of â—he said A. or any claiming under his Heirs trouble or disturb the said M. that then the said B. and other the parties should stand seised of the Lands in which she should be disturbed to the use of the said M. and her Heirs for ever Afterwards the said A. made a Lease of the said Mannors and Lands to I. S. for 100 years to begin after the death of M. A. died M entred The Heir of A after his death entred and disturbed M. contrary to the Pâ—oviso it was Resolved by the Justices in this case that the future use was checked by the Lease although it was but interesse termini and that the use to M. and her Heirs could not rise upon her dusturbance but that it was destroyed for ever Vernons Case 969. Margaret Winter Widow the late wife of Henry Vernon seised of Lands in Fee holden in capite enfeoffed thereof I. S. and others to the use of herself for Life and after to B. her younger Son and the Heirs of his body with divers Remainders over with a Proviso if she should be minded to alter the uses and signâ—fie the same under her hand and Seal to her Feoffâ—es and tender to them 10 l. that then all the uses in the Indenture should be voâ—d and hâ—r Feâ—ffees should stand seâ—sed to sâ—ch new uses as should be limited by the said M. M. according â—o the Proviso signified her intent and tendred 10 l. to her Feoffees and then declared that her said Feoffees should stand seised thereof to the use of G. W. for Life the Remainder to the said M. for Life the Remainder to H. Vernon her Son and the Heirs of his Body Henry Vernon died having Issue a Daughter within age and after M. W. died It was holden clearly in the Court of Wards that because there is no mention of any entry by the eldest Son and Heir that the Estate which Henry Vernon had in Tail was not avoided and so by consequence the Daughter of Heary Vernon should be in Ward Sir Robert Remington and Savages Case 970. A levyed a Fine of Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his Executors for 20. years the Remainder to his Son in tail with diverse Remainders over Afterwards he
levyed another Fine to all the said uses but only the Estate for 20. years to his Executors and made his wife his Executrix the wife married Sir Robert Remington It was adjudged in this case that by the second Fine the Lease for 20 years to his Executors was extinct Littletons Case 971. A seised of Lands holden in copite in consideration of a Marriage of M. his Daughter with W. L. Son of Sir John and of 1300 l paid by Sir John the Father of W. levyed a Fine of part of the Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to W. and M. and the Heirs of the Body of W. upon the Body of M. the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. and the residue to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his first Son in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. with power to make a Joynture â—o his second Wife and to make Leases for Twenty one years or three Lives The marriage took effect A. took a wife and had Issue by her I. and died I. his Son and Heir within age W. died without Issue G. L. being his Brother and Heir the second wife of A. living and also M living It was upon â— Melius Inquirend found that M. was the Daughter of A. It was Resolved in this case that the Queen should have the Wardship of the third part of the whole Land during the minority of I. the Son of A. Also it was Resolved by them that although money was paid and so the consideration of the Marriage was a mixt consideration yet â—hat should not alter the Law for the duty to the Crown 1. and one Ciffias case was cited to have been so adjudged The Lord Ross and the Earl of Rutlands Case 972. H. Earl of Rutland 2 Elâ—z levyed a Fine with Proclamation to the use of himself and B. his Wife and the Heirs of his own Body and died B. married the Earl of Bedford they covenanted with Edward Earl of Rutland Son of H. Earl of Rutland to levy a Fine which Fine was levyed with Proclamation sur concâ—ssit of the said Mannors and Lands by the said Edward Earl to the said B. for Life Afterward Edward Earl of Rutland 29 Eliz. covenanted with the Lord Burâ—eigh and others to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of himself and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the Body of Thomas Earl of Rutland his Grandfather Edward Earl 29 Eliz. died without Issue Male having a Daughter which was the Lady Roâ—s the Mother of the Lord Ross the plaintiff B. died the entail made by the Earl of Rutland and the discent to the Lord Ross the Plaintiff was found by Office It was Resolved by the Justices in this case That the Mannors did belong to the Plaintiff the Lord Ross as Issue in tail of Henry Earl of Rutland notwithstanding the Fine levyed by Edward Earl of Rutland because the Fine being sur concessit the same remained a Bar no longer then during the Life of B. Also they held the taking of the Fine by B. to be a surrender of her Estate but to be no discontinuance because not seised of the Tail at the time 3. Resolved the Lands should be in the King during the Minority of the Lord Ross Anno 1. Jacobi 973. It was Resolved by the Justices that Informations for the Queen alone in any Latin Court should not abate by the Demise of the Queen and so like of Informations tam pro the party quam for the Queen and so also it was of Informations in English Courts they were not discontinued by the Demise of the Queen Handall and his Wife and Browns Case in Chancery 974. The case was A. possessed of a Term for years had Issue a Son and two Daughters and by Will he devised his Term to John his Son and if he died to his two Daughters and if they died to his Wife he made his Son his whole Executor who entred claiming by the Will and after Probate he died Intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and for mony sold the Term to Brown the Defendant It was the opinion of the Justices that the Assignee of the Administrator should have the Term and not the two Daughters and Decreed in Chancery accordingly 975. Upon the cases of claims at the Coronation of the King these points were Resolved by the Justices 1. That where a Barony or a Mannor or Land holden by grand Serjeanty to do special Service at the Coronation is come to many hands by purchase there each Tenant is chargable with the whole Service but the King may appoint which of them shall do the Service and he which doth the Service shall alone have the Fee but if the Division be by Copartners there the eldest is only to do the Service and the other shall contribute to the charge and the eldâ—st shall have the Fees but if each Sister sell her part the Feoffee of the eldest shall not have the preheminence 2. Resolved where Grand Serjeanty is to be done at the Coronation by Tenure and the Lands come to an ignoble person who is unmeet to do the Service the Lord Steward may appoint a Noble or meet person to do the Service as Deputy to the Tenant of the Land 3. Resolved where Land is given to hold as to be Hostiarius Câ—merae Regis or the like In such Case the Tenants are to make their claims yet they are not to be admitted to the said Services by the Commissioners for claims or the Lord Steward but they are to be referred to the King himself their Tenure being perpetual and continuing Leigh and Helyers Case 976. A man supposing he had Title to certain Lands which were in the possession of I. S. contracted to sell them to I. D. and sealed a Lease for years to a third person to the use of I. D. with whom the contract made and the year and day long before expired Resolved it was maintenance by the Common Law but not within the Statute of 32. H. 8. Foster and Kings Case 977. A man made his Will and gave diverse Legacies and devised that the rest and residue of his Goods after his Debts and Legacies paid to his wife and after in the same Will he devised that his Overseers should enter into the Lands and cut down so much of the Woods as would suffice to pay his Debts Quere in this case if the Debts and Legacies shall be paid of the Woods if the Goods be not sufficient to pay them Skipwiths Case 978. Tenant in tail and he in the Reversion bargaineth and sells the Lands to the King and before enrollment Tenant in tail suffers a common Recovery Quere if the Issue in tail be barred by the Recovery not Resolved Lucas Case 979 Resolved in this case that before the Statute of 13 R. 2â— Murder was pardonable by the name of Felony but since that Statute the
it was Resolved that upon such Writ the Sheriff or his Officer might without any Offence by a Warrant arrest the person of the Countesse for he is not to dispute the authority of the Coâ—rt in awarding the proces but he is to execute the Writ to him directed But because the Defendants did arrest the Countesse upon a feined action of their own heads without Warrant They were fined and sentenced by the Court. Dag and Penkevells Case 1007. A bill was exhibited in the Star Chamber against the Defendant and divers others for several Offences The Defendant for that he inserted the name of a special Bailiff in a Warrant which was made by the Sheriff with blanks without privity or direction of the Sheriff Note in this Case it was holden that where there are several Defendants and one only is sentenced the other shall have Costs because not charged with the offence for which the sentence was but with other Offences of which they were acquitted 2. It was holden in this Case that a Defendant shall not have benefit of a general pardon at hearing of the Cause unlesse he prayes the same upon his answer put into Court Clerks Case 1008. Note in this Case being the Case of a Purveyor who was sentenced in the Star Chamber for several Offences in executing his Office of Purveyor It was said there were 7. properties incident to every Purveyor 1. He ought to be sufficient to answer the King and the party 2. He is to do his service in person and not by Deputy because it is an Office of Tâ—â—st 3. He is to be sworn in Chancery before he execute his Office for he ought to have authority under the great Seal with blank Labells to insert what he takes 5. His Authority is to continue but six moneths without renewing 6. He ought to take where is plenty and in Convenient time and no more then is sufficient 7. He is to take the things in kind and not money for them Lovice and Goddards Case 1009. The Case was A. the Grandfather had Issue two Sons T. and W. and by his Will devised to T. all his Mannors Lands c. within the Counties of D. and C. viz. to T. and the Heirs males of his body after his decease for 500. years Provided if T. or any Issue male of his body give grant c. the premises or any parcel thereof oâ—herwise then to Lease and demise the same for any term or number of years as may or shall be determinable upon the deaths of aâ—y 2. persons c. to be made in the Leases c. then all the premises for default of such Issues males of the said T to be begotten c. immediatly upon such alâ—â—nation gift grant c. shall remain and come to W. and to the Heirs males of his body c. The devisor dyed T. entred and made a Lease for 1000. years to I. S. who never entred T. dyed without Issue male I. being his Daughter and Heir W. dyed having Issue the Plaintiff who entred upon whom I. entred In this Case it was Resolved in C. B. that the devise to T. and the Heirs males was an estate Tail and the limitation for years void 2. Resolved that there ought to be a concurrence of death without Issue male and also of alienation before the rising of the Remainder 3. That the Remainder should never rise because the particular estate was destroyed by the alienation before the Remainder could commence 4. That the Lease for 1000. years made to I. S. was not an alientation within the Proviso upon which the estate might rise to W. when T. was dead without Issue male because that T. who made the Lease was but Tenant in Tail and then the Lease was determined upon his death It was the opinion of all the Justices in C. B. that the Judgment should be for the Defendant upon which Judgment the Plaintiff brought a Writ of Error in B R. and there by all the Justices upon the matter in Law the Judgment was reversed Mich 3. Jan. Cargenter and Collins Case 1010. In Debt for Rent the Case was A. had a Son and a Daughter and devised that his Son should have his Land at his age of 24. years and gave 40 l. to his Daughter to be paid at her age of 22. years and appointed that C. should be his Excecutor and should have the oversight and dealing of his Lands and goods till his Children should come to the ages aforesaid and dyed C. the Plaintiff made a Lease to the Defendant at Will rendering Rent at Mich. and our Lady-day the Daughter entred upon the Tenant at Will the Tenant attorned to her the Son dyed within the age of 24 years the Defendant did not pay the Rent for which C. brought Debt against him It was adjudged against the Plaintiff Resolved 1. The word Oversight and dealâ—ng with his Lands and goods did not give any Interest to C. the Excecutor but an authority only and that the estate discended to the Son 2. That by the death of the Son the Interest of the Executor was determined for it was noâ— the intent of the devisor to bar the Heir of the Son untill the Son should come to the age of 24 years if he lived 3. That the Tenury at Will was determined by the entry of the Daughter because she entred by Title i. e. as Heir to her Brother Lord Aburgavenny and Edwards Case 1011. An Excommengement was pleaded in Bar and the Certificate of the Bishop of Lâ—ndaph shewed of it but doth not mention by what Bishop the party was Excommenge wherefore it was adjudged void Rastoll and Drapers Case 1012. Debt upon an Obligation for payment of so much Flemish mony the Plaintiff declared for so much English money and it was holden good by the Court. Doyly and Drakes Case 1013. A man had two Closes adjoyning time out of mind and sold one of them who should make the Inclosure the Purchasor or the vendor the Court was divided in opinion Vide 21 Eliz. Diâ—r 372. Williams and Vaughans Case 1014 Scire facias by the Plaintiff against the Defendant who was bail in Debt for I. S. who did not render his body nor pay the Debt the Defendant demurred 1. Because no Capias was sued against the principal and also because the Principal was dead before the Scire facias brought but both points overruled because the Condition of the bail was broken before Whitâ—ock and Harâ—wells Case 1015. A. and B. Sisters Joynt Tenant A. Covenanted with a stranger that he should enjoy the moyety which she held with her Sister in Joynture for 60. years from the death of her Sister if she the said A. should so long live and demised to him the other moyety from her own death for 60. years if her Sister so long lived Adjudged the Lease was void for both moyeties â—he one because of her moyety after the death of her Companion and the other is
be of the Castle The Court held it to be a Mis-tryal although it was tryed for the Defendant who moved the Exception Cooper and Andrews Case 1120. Prohibition upon a Modus Decimandi in a Park the Viccar had 2s yearly and the Shoulder of every third Dear killed in the Parke the Parke being Dis-parked the Viccar sued for Tythes in kind The Court was divided in opinion Nichols and Hobart Justices that notwithstanding the Dis-parking the Modus did remaine Winch and Warburton Justices that by the Dis-parking the prescription as to the Modus Decimandi was determined that Tythes should be paid in kind Quere Cuddington and Wilkins Case 1121. Action upon the Case for calling the Plantiff Theif the Defendant justifies that he had stollen the Sheep of I. S. the Plaintiff said that before the words were spoken he was pardoned by the general pardon and pleaded the Pardon adjudged the Action did lie by reason of the Pardon Pope and Skinners Case 1122. The Case was more fully reported in Hobarts Reports 73. and was this In a Replevin the Defendant avowed as a Commoner taking the Cattle dammage feasants The Plaintiff said that A. was seised of an House and Land wherein he had Common and devised the same to him the 30th of March 11. Jac. to hold from the Feast of Annunciation next for a year The Avowant traversed the Lease modo forma Issue was taken and found thereupon That A. made a Lease to the Plaintiff 25 of May. for a year thence next ensuing It was holden that although this be not the same Lease that the Plaintiff pleaded Yet the Court gave Judgment for the Plantiff for the substance of the Issue is whether the Plaintiff have such a Lease from A. or not as by force thereof he might have Common which appeared he had and the modo forma in the rest is not material but yet it was said he must not depart altogether from the forme of this Issue for if it had been found that he had right of Common by a Lease from another it would not have served his turn for that had been clear out of the Issue both for matter and form 1123. Debt upon an Obligation The Obligation was in Octogefimis Libris Yet the Court held the Obligation to be good Sparke and Parnells Case 1124. A. seised of Gavelkind Land had issue 3. Sons and devised to each of his Sons a several part and if any of them dyed without Issue the other should be his heir It was adjudged Tail in each of them and the Fee simple by the word Heir in the other Slawny and Elbridges Case 1125. It was Resolved in this Case That the Ordinary cannot take an Obligation of the Administrator after the Debts and Legacies paid but the residue of the goods shall remain at the appointment of the Ordinary Weaver and Wards Case 1126. Batterie the Defendant justified that he being a Training at a Common Master as a Soldier discharged his Gun per insortunium hurt the Plaintiff and traversed that he was guilty aliter vel alio modo adjudged the Justification was not good because he ought to have further said that he could not otherwise avoid the fact and when he justifieth the whole fact there needs no traverse Pye and Cookes Case 1127. Two persons exhibited two several informations against an Ecclesiastical person for taking a Lease for years contrary to the Statute of 21. H. 8. It was the opinion of the Court they being exhibited at one time and for one thing the Defendant was not Answer to any of them Pits and James Case 1128. The Case was The Hospital of Donnington in the County of Berks was founded by the name of Minister Dei pauperis domus de Donnington and they made a Lease of parcell of the Lands of the Hospital in English Minister of the Almeshouse of God of Donnington besides Newbury in the County of Berks. It was holden the seeming variance did not hurt nor avoid the Lease for if they do agree in Common understanding it shall be good vide the same Case Hil. 43. Eliz. in Banco Regis Sherborn and Lewis Case Robins and Barnes Case 1129. In a Quod permittat for erecting of an Newsance 20. foot in length and 8 in bredth It was Resolved by the Court that if one be owner of 2 Houses and one doth a Newsance to the other and the owner sells the house which makes the Newsance that the vender shall never abate the Newsance 1130. Words spoken of I. S. he was in prison for stealing of Horses adjudged an Action lyeth for the words otherwise it is if but for suspition 1131. In an Assise the Writ was Recognitionem illum where it should have been illum It was amended Lampleigh and Braithwaits Case 1132. Assumpsit B. having killed a man required the Plaintiff to do his endeavor to get his pardon for which he went to the King to Royston and obtained the pardon In consideration the Plaintiff had done his endeavour the Defendant promised him 200l It was said it was no good consideration because the consideration was executed before the promise But Resolved the Action did well lie because there is a Request before the endeavor had and then the Assumpsit subsequent after the Consideration executed is sufficient Tasker and Salters Case 1133. Batterie The Defendant Justified that he was a Copyholder and that the Lord of the Mannor for him and his Copyholders had a way over the Land of the Plaintiff who was also a Copyholder of the Mannor and that he going in the way was resisted by the Plaintiff for which Molliter he laid his hand on him upon which they were at Issue It was agreed by the Court that the Lord of the Mannor could not have a way over his own Land 2. Agreed although the verdict passed upon a void Issue the same was not remedied by the Statute of 32. H. 8. Wherefore a Repleader was awarded VVintham and Kemps Case 1134. Quare Impedit the Plaintiff counted that he was seized of a Mannor with an Advouson appendant viz. to present every first Turn It was said the viz. was void and made the Count insufficient because crossed the premises but the Court Resolved that the Count was good Coxes Case 1135. Words spoken of an Atturney viz. Thou art a Common maintainer of Suites and a Champerter I will have thee thrown over the Barre the next Terme Adjudged the words were Actionable Small and Dales Case 1136. A. seised of Lands in Copitie had Issue B. his Son and Heir and E. a Daughter by one woman and two Daughters by a second Wife and W. a Son by a third Wife and devised all his Lands to his Wife durante viduitate and dyed the Wife entred and dyed B. before any entred dyed It was Adjudged the Will was void for a third part and that the entry of the Wife in the whole made her seised but of two parts in Common