Curia nostra non alibi tractari sicut praedict est cedere poterit attentetis sive attentim faciatis quovismodo By which also it appeareth That Tithes may be discharged and that the matter of discharge ought to be determined by the Common Law and not in the Spirituall Court And it is to be observed That in the said Iudgment nor in the Register any averment is taken of the value of the thing given in satisfaction of the Tithes Also by the Act of Circumspecte agatis made 13 E. 1. It is said S. Rector petat versus parochianos oblationes decimas debitas seu consuetas c. which proves that there are Tithes due in kind and other Tithes due by Custome as a Modus Decimandi c. And yet it is resolved in 19 E. 3. Jurisdiction 28. That the Ordinance of Circumspecte agatis is not a Statute and that the Prelates made the same and yet then the Prelates acknowledged That there were Tithes due by Custome which is a Modus Decimandi By which it appeareth also That Tithes by Custome may be altered into another thing So where a man grants a parcel of his Mannor to a Parson in Fee to be quit of Tithes and makes an Indenture and the Parson with the assent of the Ordinary without the Patron grants to him that he shall be quit of Tithes of his Mannor for that parcell of Land Afterwards if he or his Assignee be sued in the Spirituall Court for Tithes of his Mannor he or his Assignee shall have a Prohibition upon that Deed. And if that Deed was made before time of memory and he hath so continued to be quit of Tithes he shall have a Prohibition upon that Deed if he be sued for the Tithes of that Mannor or of any parcell of the same upon that matter shewed See 8 E. 4. 14. F. N. B. 41. g. vi 3. E. 3. 17. 16 E. 3. t. Annuity 24. 40 E. 3. 3. b. and F. N. B. 152. And therefore if the Lord of a Mannor hath alwaies holden his Mannor discharged of tithes and the Parson had before time of memory or in ancient times divers Lands in the same Parish of the Gift of the Lord of which the Parson is seised at this day in Fee in respect of which the Parson nor any of his Predecessors ever had received any tithes of the said Mannor If the Parson now sueth for tithes of the Mannor the Owner of the Mannor may shew that speciall matter and that the Parson and his Successors time out of mind have holden those Lands c. of the Gift of one who was Lord of the said Mannor in full satisfaction of the tithes of the said Mannor And the proof that the Lord of the Mannor gave the Lands that tithes should never be paid at this day is good evidence to prove the surmise of the Prohibition And so of the like and 19 E. 3. t. Jurisdiction 28. it is adjudged That Title of Prescription shall be determined in the Kings Court And therefore a Modus Decimandi which accrueth by Custome and Prescription in the Kings Court And it appeareth by the Statute of 6 H. 4. cap. 6. That the Pope by his Bulls discharged divers from payment of tithes against which the Act of Parliament was made and by the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 13. That the Possessions of Religious persons given to the King were discharged of payment of tithes in certain Cases and by the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 7. it is provided That all and singular persons shall divide set out yeild and pay all and singular tithes and Offerings aforesaid according to the lawfull customes and usages of the Parishes and places where such tithes or Duties shall come or immediatly arise or be due Provided alwaies and be it enacted That no person or persons shall be sued or otherwise compelled to pay any manner of tithes for any Mannors Lands Tenements or Hereditaments which by the Laws or Statutes of this Realm are discharged or not chargable with the payment of any such tithes And the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. Enacts That every of the Kings Subjects shall from henceforth justifie and truly without fraud or guile divide set out c. all manner of their prediall tithes in their proper kind as they will rise and happen in such manner and form as hath been of right yeilded and paid within forty years next before the making of this Act or of Right or Custome ought to be paid So as it appeareth by this that tithe is due of Right and by Custom And also in the same Act there is a Proviso in these words Provided alwaies and be it enacted That no person shall be sued or otherwise compelled to yeild give or pay any manner of tithes for any Mannors Lands Tenements or Hereditaments which by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm or by any Priviledge or Prescription are not chargable with the payment of any such tithes or that he discharged by any composition reall so as it appeareth by that Act that one may be discharged from the payment of tithes five manner of waies 1. By the Law of the Realm that is the Common Law As Tithes shall not be paid of Coals Quarries Brick Tiles c. F. N. B 53. and Register 54 Nor of the after Pasture of a Meadow c. nor of Rakings nor of Wood to make Pales or Mounds or Hedges c. 2. By the Statutes of the Realm As by the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 13. the Statute of 45 E. 3. c. 3. By Priviledge as those of S. Johns of Jerusalem in England The Cistertians Temptors c. as it appeareth by 10 H. 7. 277. Dyer 4. By Prescription As by Modus Decimandi or an annuall Recompence in satisfaction of them as appeareth before by the Authorities aforesaid 5. By reall Composition as appeareth by the said Writ cited out of the Register And so you have one or two examples for many others which may be added of these five manners of discharges of Tithes And by them all it appeareth That a man may be discharged of the payment of Tithes as before is said So as now it apparently appeareth by the Laws of England both Ancient and Modern That a Lay-man ought prescribe in modo Decimandi but not in non Decimando and that in effect agrees with the Opinion of Thomas Aquinas in his Secunda secundae Quaest 86. ar ultimo For there he saith Quod in veteri lege praeceptum de solutione Decimarum partim erat morali inditum ratione naturali quae dictat Quod iis Qui Divino Cultui ministrant ad salutem totius populi necessaria victui debent ministr juxta illud 1 Cor. 9. Quis militat c. Who goeth to War at his own charges c. Partim autem erat judiciale ex Divina institutione robur habens scil Quantum ad determinationem certae partis And all that
Trees and Clay c. which he had not but as things annexed to the Land and therefore he could not have them when he had departed with his whole interest nor he could not take them either for Reparations or otherwise But when Tenant for life Leaseth for years except the Timber Trees the same remaineth yet annexed to his Freehold and he may command the Lessee to take them for necessary Reparations of the Houses And in the said case of Saunders a Iudgment is cited between Foster and Miles Plaintiffs and Spencer and Bourd Defendants That where Lessee for years assigns over his term except the Trees that Waste in such case shal be brought against the Assignee but in this case without question Waste lieth against the Tenant for life and so there is a difference c. XXVIII Mich. Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards Hulmes Case THe King in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Lord Richard Hulm seised of the Mannor of Male in the County of Lancaster holden of the King as of his Dutchy by Knights service Mesne and Robert Male seised of Lands in Male holden of the Mesn as of his said Mannor by Knights service Tenant Richard Hulm dyed after whose death 31 Hen. the eight it was found that he dyed seised of the said Menalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during the time that he was within age Robert Male the Tenant dyed after which in anno 35 H. 8. it was found by Office That Robert Male dyed seised of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Heir within age and that the said Tenancy was holden of the King as of his said Dutchy by Knights service whereas in truth the same was holden of Edward Hulm then in Ward of the King as of his Menalty for which the King seised the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards anno quarto Jacobi Regis that now is after the death of Richard Male who was lineal Heir of the said Robert Male by another Office it was found That the said Richard dyed seised of the said Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy by Knights service his Heir within age whereupon Richard Hulm Cosin and Heir of the said Richard Hulm had preferred a Bill to be admitted to his Traverse of the said Office found in quarto Jacobi Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found in 35 H. 8. be any estoppel to the said Hulm to Traverse the said last Office or if that the said Hulm should be driven first to Traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. And it was objected That he ought first to Traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case of 26 E. 3. 65. That if two Fines be levyed of Lands in ancient Demesn the Lord of whom the Land is holden ought to have a Writ of Deceit to reverse the first Fine and in that the second Fine shall not be a Bar And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remains in force To which it was answered and resolved by the two Chief Iustices and the Chief Baron and the Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any estoppel for that is but an enquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it as it hath been confessed and therefore without question the same is no estoppel But when an Office is found falsly that Land is holden of the King by Knights service in capite or of the King himself in Socage if the Heir sueth a general Livery now it is holden in 46 E. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after add that the Land is not holden of the King but that is not any estoppel to the Heir himself who sueth the Livery and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly in 44 Assis pl. 35. That an Estoppel by suing of Livery shall estop onely himself the Heir during his life And in 1 H. 4. 6. b. there the case is put of express confession and suing of Livery by the issue in tayl upon a false Office and there it is holden that the Iurors upon a new Diem clausit extremum after the death of such special Heir are at large according to their conscience to finde that the Land is not holden c. for they are sworn ad veritatem dicendum and their finding is called veredictum quasi dictum veritatis which reason also shall serve when the Heir in Fee-simple sueth Livery upon a false Office and the Iurors after his death ought to finde according to the truth So it is said 33 H. 6. 7. by Laicon that if two sisters be found Heirs whereof the one is a Bastard if they joyn in a Suit of Livery she which joyneth with the Bastard in the Livery shall not alledg Bastardy in the other but there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer then during his life and when Livery is sued by a special Heir the force and effect of the Livery is executed and determined by his death and by that the Estoppel is expired with the death of the Heir but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one But as it is expressed the words of a general Livery are When the Heir is found of full age Rex Escheatori c. Scias quod cepimus homigium I. filii haeredis B. defuncti de omnibus terris tenementis quae idem B. Pater suus tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit ei terras tenement illa reddidimus ideo tibi praecipimus c. And when the Heir was in Ward at his full age the Writ of Livery shall say Rex c. Quia I. filius haeres B. defuncti qui de nobis tenuit in capite aetatem suam coram te sufficienter probavit c. Ceperimus homagium ipsius I. de omnibus terris tenementis quae idem B. Pater suus tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit ei terras tenement illa reddidimus ideo tibi praecipimus ut supra c. Which Writ is the Suit of the Heir and therefore although that all the words of the Writ are the words of the King as all the Writs of the King are and although that the Livery be general de omnibus terris tenementis de quibus B. pater I. tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit without direct affirmation that any Mannor in particular is holden in capite and notwithstanding that the same is not at the prosecution of the Kings Writ and no Iudgment upon it yet because the general Livery is founded upon the Office and by the Office it was found That divers Lands or
Lease be made to one for the lives of J. S. and J. N. there the Freehold doth not determine by the death of one of them for the reasons and causes given in the Case of Brudnel in the fifth part of my Reports fol. 9 Which Case was affirmed to be good Law by the whole Court XXXIII Easter Term anno 8 Jacobi In the Common-Pleas Heydon and Smiths Case RIchard Heydon brought an Action of Trespass against Michael Smith and others of breaking of his Close called the Moor in Ugley in the County of Essex the 25 day of June in the fifth year of the King quendam arborem suum ad valentiam 40 s. ibidem nuper crescen succiderunt The Defendants said that the Close is and at the time of the Trespass was the Freehold of Sir John Leventhrop Knight c. and that the said Oak was a Timber Tree of the growth of thirty years and more and justifies the cutting down of the Tree by his commandment The Plaintiff replyeth and saith That the said Close and a House and 28 Acres of Land in Ugley are Copyhold and parcel of the said Mannor of Ugley c. of which Mannor Edward Leventhrop Esquire Father of the said Sir John Leventhrop was seised in Fee and granted the said House Lands and Close to the said Richard Heydon and his Heirs by the Rod at the Will of the Lord according to the custom of the said Mannor and that within the said Mannor there is such a custom Quod quilibet tenens Customar ejusdem Manerii sibi haeredibus suis ad voluntatem Domini c. a toto tempore supradicto usus fuit consuevit ad ejus libitum amputare ramos omnimodum arborum called Pollingers or Husbords super terris tenem suis Customar crescen pro ligno combustibili ad like libitum suum applicand in praedicto Messuagio comburend and also to cut down and take at their pleasure all manner of Trees called Pollengers or Husbords and all other Timber trees super ejusdem Custumariis suis crescen for the reparation of their Houses built upon the said Lands and customary Tenements and also for Ploughbote and Cartbote and that all Trees called Pollengers or Husbords and all other trees at the time of the Trespass aforesaid or hitherto growing upon the aforesaid Lands and Tenements customary of the said Richard Heydon were not sufficient nor did serve for the necessary uses aforesaid And that the said Richard Heydon from the time of the said Grant made unto him had maintained and preserved all trees c. growing upon the said Lands and Tenements to him granted And that after the death of the said Edward Leventhrop the said Mannor descended to the said Sir John Leventhorp and that at the time of the Trespass the aforesaid Messuage of the said Richard Heydon was in decay egebat necessariis reparationibus in Maremio ejusdem Vpon which the Defendant did demur in Law And this Case was oftentimes argued at the Bar and now this Term it was argued at the Bench by the Iustices And in this case these points were resolved 1. That the first part of the Custom was absurd and repugnant scil Quod quilibet tenens Customarii ejusdem Manerii habens tenens aliqua terras seu tenementa Custom c. usus fuit amputare ramos omnimodum arborum vocat Pollingers c. pro ligno combustabili c. in praedicto Messuagio comburend which ought to be in the Messuage of the Plaintiff for no other Messuage is mentioned before which is absurd and repugnant That every customary Tenant should burn his Fuel in the Plaintiffs house But that Branch of the Custom doth not extend unto this case for the last part of the custom which concerneth the cuting down of the Trees concerns the point in question and so the first part of the custom is not material It was objected That the pleading that the Messuage of the Plaintiff was in decay egebat necessariis reparationibus in maremio ejusdem was too general for the Plaintiff ought to have shewed in particular in what the Messuage was in decay as the Book is in 10 E. 4. 3. He who justifieth for Housebote c. ought to shew that the House hath cause to be repaired c. To which it was answered by Coke chief Iustice That the said Book proved the pleading in the case at Bar was certain enough scil Quod Messuagium praed egebat necessariis reparationibus in maremio without shewing the precise certainty and therewith agrees 7 H. 6. 38. and 34 H. 6. 17. 2. It was also answered and resolved That in this case without question it needs not to alledg more certainty for here the Copyholder according to the custom doth not take it but the Lord of the Mannor doth cut down the Tree and carryeth it away where the rest was not sufficient and so preventeth the Copyholder of his benefit and therefore he needeth not to shew any decay at all but onely for increasing of the damages for the Lord doth the wrong when he cutteth down the Tree which should serve for reparations when need should be 3. It was resolved That of common Right as a thing incident to the Grant the Copyholder may take Housebote Hedgbote and Plowbote upon his Copyhold Quia concesso uno conceduntur omnia sine quibus id consistere non potest Et quando aliquis aliquid concedit concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest and therewith agreeth 9 H. 4. Waste 59. But the same may be restrained by custom scil That the Copyholder shall not take it unless by assignment of the Lord or his Bayliff c. 4. It was resolved That the Lord cannot take all the Timber Trees but he ought to leave sufficient for the Reparation of the Customary houses and for Ploughbote c. for otherwise great Depopulation will follow scil Ruine of the Houses and decay of Tillage and Husbandry And it is to be understood That Bote being an ancient Saxon word hath two significations the one compensatio criminis as Frithbote which is as much as to say to be discharged from giving amends for the breach of the peace Manbote to be discharged of amends for the death of man And secondly in the latter signification scil for Reparation as was Bridgbote Burghbote Castlebote Parkbote c. scil Reparation of a Bridg of a Borough of a Castle of a Park c. And it is to be known that Bote and Estovers are all one Estovers are derived of this French word Estouer i. e. fovere i. e. to keep warm to cherish to sustain to defend And there are four kinds of Estovers scil ardendi arandi construendi claudendi scil Firebote Housebote Ploughbote and Hedgbote 5. It was resolved That the Copyholder shall have a general Action of Trespass against the Lord Quare clausum fregit arborem
not of Tythes severed from the nine parts for that shall be in Case of a Praemunire and it appeareth to the Common Law See 16 H. 2. in the Case of Mortuary Vide Decretalia Sexti Lib. 3. tit de Decimis cap. 1. fo 130. Col. 4. Et summa Angelica fo 72. the same And that also appeareth by Linwood amongst the Constitutions Simonis Mephum tit de Decimis cap. Quoniam propter fo 139. 6. verbo Consuetudines Consuetudo ut non solvantur aut minus plene solvantur Decimae non valet and ibidem secundum alios Quod in Decimis realibus non valet Consuetudo ut solvatur minus decima parte sed in personalibus c. And ibidem Litt. M. verbo Integre faciunt expresse contra opinionem quorundum Theologorum qui dicunt sufficere aliquid dari pro Decima And that is the true Reason in both the said Cases scil de modo Decimandi de Limitibus Parochiorum c. that they would not adjudg according to their Canons and therefore a Prohibition lieth and therewith agreeth 8 E. 4. 14. and the other Boóks abovesaid and infinite presidents and the rather after the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. And also the Customs of the Realm are part of the Laws of the Realm and therefore they shall be tryed by the Common Law as is aforesaid See 7 E. 6. Dyer 79. and 18 Eliz. Dyer 349. the Opinion of all the Iustices VI. Mich. 6 Jacob. in the Exchequer Baron and Boys Case IN the Case between Baron and Boys in an Information upon the Sur Stat. 2 E. 6. cap. 14. of Ingrossers Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 14. of Ingrossers after Verdict it was found for the Informer That the Defendant had ingrossed Apples against the said Act The Barons of the Exchequer held clearly That Apples were not within the said Act and gave Iudgment against the Informer upon the matter apparent to them and caused the same to be entered in the Margent of the Record where the Iudgment was given and the Informer brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer chamber and the only Question was Whether Apples were within the said Act the letter of which is That whatsoever person or persons c. shall ingross or get into his or their hands by buying contracting or promise taking other then by Demise Grant or Lease of Land or Tythe any Corn growing in the Fields or any other Corn or grain Butter Cheese Fish or other dead Victual within the Realm of England to the intent to sell the same again shall be accepted c. an unlawful Ingrosser And although that the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 15. made against Sellers of Victual which for their great gain conspire c. numbereth Butchers Brewers Bakers Cooks Costermongers and Fruterers as Victualers yet Apples are not dead Victuals within the Statute of 5 E. 6. For the Buyers and Sellers of Corn and other Victuals have divers Provisoes and Qualifications for them as it appeareth by the said Act but Costermongers and Fruterers have not any Proviso for them also always after the said Act they have bought Apples and other Fruits by Ingross and sold them again and before this time no Information was exhibited for them no more then for Plums or other fruit which serveth more for delicacy then for necessary Food But the Statute of 5 E. 6. is to be intended of things necessary and of common use for the sustenance of man and therefore the words are Corn Grain Butter Cheese or other dead Victual which is as much to say as Victual of like quality that is of like necessary and common use But the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 15. made against Conspiracies to enhaunce the prices was done and made by express words to extend it to things which are more of pleasure then of profit So it was said That of those Fruits a man cannot be a Forestaller within this Act of 5 E. 6. for in the same Branch the words are any Merchandize Victual or any other thing But this was not resolved by the Iustices because that the Information was conceived upon that branch of the Statute concerning Ingrossers VII Hill 27 Eliz. in the Chancery HIllary Term the 27 of Eliz. in the Chancery the Case was thus One Ninian Menvil seised of certain Lands in Fee took a wife Fine Dower Relation and levyed a Fine of the said Lands with proclamations and afterwards was indicted and out-lawed of High Treason and dyed The Conusees convey the Lands to the Queen who is now seised the five years pass after the death of the Husband The Daughters and Heirs of the said Ninian in a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench reverse the said Attainder M. 26 and 27 Eliz. last past and thereupon the Wife sueth to the Queen who was seised of the said Land as aforesaid by Petition containing all the special matter scil the Fine with proclamations and the five years passed after the death of her Husband the Attainder and the reversal of it and her own title scil her marriage and the seisin of her Husband before the Fine And the Petition being endorsed by the Queen Fiat droit aux parties c. the same was sent into the Chancery as the manner is And in this case divers Objections were made against the Demandant 1. That the said Fine with proclamations should bar the Wife of her Dower and the Attainder of her Husband should not help her for as long as the Attainder doth remain in force the same was a bar also of her Dower so as there was a double bar to the Wife viz. the Fine levyed with proclamations and the five years past after the death of her Husband and the Attainder of her Husband of his Treason But admit that the Attainder of the Husband shall avail the Wife in some manner when the same is now reversed in a Writ of Error and now upon the matter is in Iudgment of Law as if no Attainder had been and against that a man might plead That there is no such Record because that the first Record is reversed and utterly disaffirmed and annihilated and now by Relation made no Record ab initio and therewith agreeth the Book of 4 H. 7. 11. for the words of the Iudgment in a Writ of Error are Quod Judicium praedict Errores praedict alios in Recordo c. revocetur admittetur c. quod ipsa ad possessionem suam sive seisinam suam as the case requireth tenementorum suorum praedictorum una cum exitibus proficuis inde a tempore Judicii praedict reddit praecept ad omnia quae occasione Judicii illius omisit restituatur By which it appeareth that the first Iudgment which was originally imperfect and erroneous is for the same Errors now adnulled and revoked ab initio and the party against whom the Iudgment was given restored to his possession and to
the Feoffee and another is not any new thing but the pernancy of the old profits of the Land which well may be limited to the Feoffee and another joyntly But if the use had been onely limited to the Feoffee and his Heirs there because there is not any limitation to another person nec in praesenti nec in futuro he shall be in by force of the Feoffment And it was resolved That Ioynt-tenants might be seised to an use although that they come to it at several times as if a man maketh a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and to such a woman which he shall after marry for term of their lives or in tayl or in fee in this case if after he marryeth a Wife she shall take joyntly with him although that they take the use at several times for they derive the use out of the same fountain and Freehold scil the Feoffment See 17 Eliz. Dyer 340. So if a Disseisin be had to the use of two and one of them agreeth at one time and the other at another time they shall be Ioynt-tenants but otherwise it is of Estates which pass by the common Law and therefore if a Grant be made by deed to one man for term of life the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. and B. in Fee and A. hath issue and dyeth and afterwards B. hath issue and dyeth and then the Tenant for life dyeth in that case the Heirs of A. and B. are not Ioynt-tenants nor shall joyn in a Scire facias to execute the Fine 24 E. 3. Joynder in Action 10. because that although the remainder be limited by one Fine and by joynt words yet because that by the death of A. the Remainder as unto the moyety vested in his Heir and by the death of B. the other moyety vested in his Heir at several times they cannot be Ioynt tenants But in the case of a use the Husband taketh all the use in the mean time and when he marryeth the Wife takes it by force of the Feoffment and the limitation of the use joyntly with him for there is not any fraction and several vesting by parcels as in the other case and such is the difference See 18 E. 3. 28. And upon the whole matter it was resolved That because in the principal case the Father and Son were Ioynt-tenants by the original purchase that the Son having the Land by Survivor should not be in Ward and accordingly it was so decreed XXIV Pasc 39 Eliz. Rot. 233. In the Kings-Bench Collins and Hardings Case THe Case between Collins and Harding was A man seised of Lands in Fee and also of Lands by Copy of Court Roll in Fee according to the Custom of the Mannor made one entire Demise of the Lands in Fee and of the Lands holden by Copy according to the Custom to Harding for years rendering one entire Rent and afterwards the Lessor surrendered the Copyhold Land to the use of Collins and his Heirs and at another time granted by Deed the Reversion of the Freehold Lands to Collins in Fee and Harding attorned and afterwards for the Rent behinde Collins brought an Action of Debt for the whole Rent And it was objected That the reservation of the Rent was an entire contract and by the Act of the Lessee the same cannot be apportioned and therefore if one demiseth three Acres rendering 3 s. Rent and afterwards bargaineth and selleth by Deed indented and inrolled the Reversion of one Acre the whole Rent is gone because that the Contract is entire and cannot be severed by the Act of the Lessor Also the Lessee by that shall be subject to two Fealties where he was subject but to one before As to these points it was answered and resolved That the Contract was not entire but that the same by the Act of the Lessor and the assent of the Lessee might be divided and severed for the Rent is incident to the Reversion and the Reversion is severable and by consequence the Rent also for accessorium sequitur naturam sui principalis and that cannot be severed or divided by the assent of the Lessee or express attornment or implyed by force of an Act of Parliament to which every one is a party as by force of the Statute of Inrolments or of Vses c. And as to the two Fealties to that the Lessee shall be subject although that the Rent shall be extinct for Fealty is by necessity of Law incident to the Reversion and to every part of it but the Rent shall be divided pro rata portionis and so it was adjudged And it was also adjudged That although Collins cometh to the Reversion by several Conveyances and at several times yet he might bring an Action of Debt for the whole Rent Hill 43 Eliz. Rot. 243. West and Lassels Case A man made a Lease for years of certain Lands and afterwards deviseth the Reversion of two parts to one he shall have two parts of the Rent and he may have an Action of Debt for the same and have Iudgment to recover Hill 42 Eliz. Rot. 108. in the Common-Pleas Ewer and Moyls Case The Devisee of the Reversion of part shall avow for part of the Rent and such Avowry shall be good and maintainable Note well these Cases and Iudgments for they are given upon great reason and consideration for otherwise great inconvenience would ensue if by severance of part of the Reversion the entire Rent should be lost and the opinion reported by Serjeant Bendloes in Hill 6 and 7 E. 6. to the contrary nihil valet scil That the Rent in such case shall be lost because that no contract can be apportioned which is not Law For 1. A Rent reserved upon a Lease for years is more then a Contract for it is a Rent-service 2. It is incident to the Reversion which is severable 3. Vpon recovery of part in Waste or upon entry in part for a forfeiture or upon surrender of part the Rent is apportionable 25. Note It was adjudged 19 Eliz. in the Kings-Bench That where one obtained a Prohibition upon Prescription de Modo Decimandi by payment of a certain sum of mony at a certain day upon which Issue was taken and the Iury found the Modus Decimandi by payment of the said sum but that it had been payd at another day and the Case was well debated and at the last it was resolved That no Consultation should be granted for although that the day of payment be mistaken yet it appeareth to the Court that no Tythes in kinde were due for which the suit was in the spiritual Court and the Tryal of the Custom de Modo Decimandi belongeth to the Common Law and a Consultation shall not be granted where the Spiritual Court hath not Iurisdiction of the Cause Tanfield chief Baron hath the Report of this Case XXV Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis IN an Ejectione Firmae the Writ and Declaration were of two parts of
same but they estreat the same into the Exchequer which hath power by the Law to writ forth Proces to the Sheriff to levy the same But if a man be convicted in the Star-Chamber for Forgery upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. that in that case for the double costs and damages that an English Writ shall be made directed to the Sheriff c. reciting the conviction and the Statute for the levying of the said costs and damages of the goods and chattels and profits of the Lands of the Defendant and to bring in the mony into the Court of Star-Chamber and the Writ shall be sealed with the great Seal and the Test of the King For the Statute of 5 Eliz. hath given Iurisdiction to the Court of Star-Chamber and power to give Iudgment amongst other things of the costs and damages which being given by force of the said Act of Parliament by consequence the Court by the Act hath power to grant Execution Quia quando aliquid conceditur ei omnia concedi videntur per quod devenitur ad illud And it was resolved That the giving of the damages to the Plaintiff was begun but of late times and although that one or two Presidents were shewed against this Resolution they being against the Law the Iudges had not any regard to them The like Resolution was in the Case of Langdale in that Court XXXI Hillary Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Morse and Webbs Case IN a Replevin brought by John Morse against Robert Webb of the taking of two Oxen the last day of November in the third year of the Reign of the King that now is in a place called the Downfield in Luddington in the County of Worcester The Defendant as Bayliff to William Sherington Gent. made Conusance because that the place where is an Acre of Land which is the Freehold of the said William Sherington and for damage-feasants c. In Bar of which Avowry the Plaintiff said That the said Acre of Land in parcel of Downfield and that he himself at the time and before the taking c. was and yet is seised of two yard Land with the appurtenances in Luddington aforesaid And that he and all those whose Estate he hath in the said two yards of Land time out of minde c. have used to have Common of pasture per totam contentam of the said place called the Downfield whereof c. for four Beasts called Rother Beasts and two Beasts called Horse-beasts and for sixty Sheep at certain times and seasons of the year as to the said two yards Lands with the appurtenances appertaining and that he put in the said two Oxen to use his Common c. And the Defendant did maintain his Avowry and traversed the Prescription upon which the parties were at issue and the Iury gave a special Verdict That before the taking one Richard Morse Father of the said John Morse and now Plaintiff whose Heir he is was seised of the said two yards Lands and that the said Richard Morse c. had the Common of Pasture for the said Cattel per totum contentum of the said Downfield in manner and form as before is alledged and so seised The said Richard Morse in the twentieth year of Queen Elizabeth demised to William Thomas and John Fisher divers parcels of the said two yards Lands to which c. viz. the four Buts of arable with the Common and intercommon to the same belonging for the term of four hundred years by force of which the said William Thomas and John Fisher entered and were possessed and the said Richard so seised dyed thereof seised by which the said two yards Lands in possession and Reversion descended to the said John Morse the now Plaintiff And if upon the whole matter the said John Morse now hath and at the time of the taking c. had Common of Pasture c. for four Beasts called Rother Beasts and two Beasts called Horse-beasts and for sixty Sheep c. as to the said two Acres of Land with the appurtenances belonging in Law or not the Iury prayed the advice of the Court. Note that this Plea began Trin. 5 Jacobi Rot. 1405. And upon Argument at the Bar and at the Bench it was resolved by the whole Court that it ought to be found against the Defendant who had traversed the Prescription For although that all the two years Lands had been demised for years yet the Prescription made by the Plaintiff is true for he is seised in his Demesn as of Fee of the Freehold of the two yards of Land to which c. And without question the Inheritance and Freehold of the Common after the years determined is appendant to the said two yard Lands and therefore clearly the issue is to be found against the Defendant But if he would take advantage of the matter in Law he ought confessing the Common to have pleaded the said Lease but when he traverseth the Prescription he cannot give the same in evidence 2. It was resolved That if the said Lease had been pleaded that the Common during the Lease for years is not suspended or discharged for each of them shall have Common Rateable and in such manner that the Land in which c. shall not be surcharged and if so small a parcel be demised which will not keep one Ox nor a Sheep then the whole Common shall remain with the Lessor so always as the Land in which be not surcharged 3. It was resolved That Common appendant unto Land is as much as to say Common for Cattel levant and couchant upon the Land in which c. So that by the severance of part of the Land to which c. so prejudice can come to the Ter-tenant in which c. 4. See the Case of in the fourth part of my Reports fo was affirmed for good Law and there is no difference when the Prescription is for Cattel levant and couchant and for a certain number of Cattel levant and couchant But when the Prescription is for Common appurtenant to Land without alledging that it is for Cattel levant and couchant there a certain number of the Cattel ought to be expressed which are intended by the Law to be levant and couchant XXXII Hill 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Hughes and Crowthers Case IN a Replevin between Robert Hughs Plaintiff and Richard Crowther Defendant which began Trin. 6 Jacobi Rot. 2220 The Case was that Charls Fox was seised of six acres of Meadow in Bedston in the County of Salop in Fee and 10 Octob. 9 Eliz. leased the same to Charls Hibbens and Arthur Hibbens for 60 years if the aforesaid Charls Hibbens and Arthur Hibbens should so long live and afterward Charls died and if the Lease determine by his death was the Question and it was adjudged That by his death the Lease was determined for the life of a man is meer collaterall unto the Estate for years otherwise it is if a
the Rule of the Court is Because it was an usage only in that Town and not in the Towns that is in the Country adjoyning he was put to answer So as by the same it appeareth that a Custome was not good in a particular Town which perhaps might be good and of force in a Country c. See 40 Ass 21. and 27 39 E. 3. 2. A Custome within a Town that an Infant c. might alien is not good But yet such a Custome within Kent hath often times been adjudged to be good See 7 H. 6. 26. b. 16 E. 2. Prescription 53. Dyer 363. 22 H. 6. 14. 21 E. 4. 15. and 45 Ass 8. See Doctor and Student lib. 2. cap. 55. A partciular Country may prescribe to pay no Tithes for Corn Hay and other things but that is with this caution so as the Minister hath sufficient portion besides to maintain him to celebrate the Divine Service And fol. 172. It is holden That where Tithes have not been paid of under-woods under twenty years growth that no Tithes shall be paid for the same because that they do not renew nor increase from yeare to year so as they are not due to the Parson but by Custome And he saith fol. 174. That such a Custome of a whole Country that no Tithes of a Lordship shall be paid is good and it is to be observed that in all Libells for Tithes of Woods they alledge a prescription to have Tithes of them But the Court would advise whether such a Custome for a Town or a Country should be good But in ancient times The Parishioners have given or procured to the Parson a Wood or other Lands c. to have and to hold to him and his Successors in satisfafaction of all Tithes of Wood in the same Parish and the Parson is now seised of the same Wood and that without question is a good discharge of his Tithes and that in such case if he sueth for Tithes of Wood a Prohibition lieth And therefore it hath been said now of late That such opinions were new and without any antiquity unto the great prejudice of the Church I will cite you an ancient Iudgment many years past Mich. 25 H. 3. Wilts Rot. 5. before the King at Westminster Samson Foliet brought an Attaint upon a Prohibition against Thomas Parson of Swynden because he sued him in the Spirituall Court for a Lay Fee of the said Sampson in Draycot contrary to the Kings Prohibition c. The Defendant pleaded Quod Coram Judicibus Delegatis petiit de eodem Decimas foeni de quodam prato ipsius Samsonis in Walcot unde est in possessione per sententiam Judicum suorum fuit antequam Prohibitio Dom. Regis ad eum pervenerit quod Pratum praedict est in Walcot unde ipse est Persona non in Draycot To which the said Samson replyed and said Quod Antecessores sui antiquitus dederunt Duas acras prati Ecclesiae de Draycot pro decimis foeni quam praedict Thomas modo petit in eodem prato quas quidem duas acras prati eadem Ecclesia adhuc habet semper hucusque habuit unde videtur ei quod illud quod praedict Thomas ultra petit est de laico feodo suo dicit quod pratum illud in quo idem Thomas petit Decimas est in Draycot sicut Breve dicit non in Walcot de hoc ponit se super Patriam And the Iury found Quod praedict Thomas Persona de Swyndon secutus fuit placita in Curia Christianitatis de Laico feodo praedict Samsonis contra Prohibitionem Dom. Regis petendo ab ipso Decimas foeni de quodam prato ipsius Samsonis in Draycot unde Antecessores sui antiquitus dederunt Ecclesiae de Draycot duas acras prati pro Decima faeni quam praedict Thomas modo petit quas eadem Ecclesia adhuc habet semper hucusque habuit c. Et quod Pratum praedict in quo idem Thomas petiit Decimas est in Draycot non in Walcot c. Ideo Consideratum est quod praedict Thomas sit inde in misericord reddat praedi Samsoni 20. Marcas quas versus eum pro Damnis c. Which ancient Iudgment I have recited at large because that the same agrees with the Rule and reason of the Law continued untill this day For Iudgments or Presidents in the time of Ed. 2. E. 1. H. 3. John R. 1. and more ancient are not Authorities or Presidents to be now followed unlesse that they concur and agree with the Law and common experience and practice at this day for many Acts of Parliaments and some of them not extant have changed the ancient Laws in divers Cases and Desuetudo hath antiquated and time and Custome hath taken away divers others So as the Rule is good Quod Judiciis posterioribus sides est aâ—hibenda Et a Communi observantia non est recedendum There are two points adjudged by the said Record 1. That satisfaction may be given in discharge of payment of Tithes And if the Successor of the Parson enjoyeth the thing given in satisfaction of the Tithes and sueth for Tithes in kind he shall have a Prohibition because that he chargeth his Lay Fee with Tithes which is discharged of them By which it appeareth that Tithes cannot be discharged and altogether taken away and extinct And herewith agreeth the Register which is the most ancient Book of the Law fol. 38. Rex c. tali Judici c. saltem Monstravit nobis A. tenens quandam partem Manerii de D quod licet E. nuper Dominus Manerii praedict per quoddam scriptum Indentat dedisset concessisset F. nuper Personae Ecclesiae de D. quatuor acras terrae cum pertin in eodem Manerio Habend tenend eidem F. successoribus suis Personae Ecclesiae praedict in perpetuum Et eidem F. per praedictum scriptum de assensu voluntate Episcopi Lincoln Diocesani loci praedict J. tunc Patroni Ecclesiae praedict concessit pro se successoribus suis quod idem E. haeredes assignati sui essent quieti de Decimis vitulorum c. in Manerio praedict pro praedict quatuor acris sibi datis c. Et tamen nunc Persona Ecclesiae praedict tenens praedict quatuor acras terrae praedict praedict A. assignato praedict E. super decimam hujusmodi vitulorum c. in eodem Manerio sibi praesentand trahit in placitum coram c. in Curia Christianitatis c. Et quia discussio hujusmodi Donationis de laico feodo in regno nostro in Curia nostra non alibi tractari fieri debet vobis prohibemus Quod placitum aliquod laicum feodum in Regno nostro non teneatis in Curia Christianitatis nec quicquam in hac parte quod in enervationem dicti scripti aut Donationis concessionis praedict quae in
tenementorum per eundem B. dicto medio tempore percept sine dilatione haberi sacias Et qualiter hoc praeceptum nostrum fuerit execut constare facias c. in Octab. c. By which it appeareth That the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error shall have restitution against him who recovereth of all the mean Profits without any regard by them taken for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error cannot have any remedy against any stranger but only against him who is party to the Writ of Error and therefore the words of the said Writ command the Sheriff to enquire of the Issues and Profits generally between the Reversal and the Iudgment with all which he who recovers shall be charged and as the Law chargeth him with all the mean profits so the Law gives to him remedy notwithstanding the Reversal against all Trespassors in the interim for otherwise the Law should make a construction by relation to discharge them who are wrong doers and to charge him who recovers with the whole who peradventure hath good right and who entereth by the Iudgment of the Law which peradventure is reversed for want of form or negligence or ignorance of a Clark And therefore as to that purpose the Iudgment shall not be reversed ab initio by a Fiction of Law but as the truth was the same stands in force until it was reversed and therefore the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error after the Reversal shall have any Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean because he shall recover all the mean profits against him who recovered nor he recovereth after shall be barred of his Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean by reason that his recovery is reversed because he shall answer for all the mean profits to the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error and therewith agreeth Brian Chief Iustice 4 H. 7. 12. a. Note Reader If you would understand the true sence and Iudgment of the Law it is needful for you to know the true Entries of Iudgments and the Entries of all proceedings in Law and the manner and the matter of Writs of Execution of such Iudgments See Butler and Bakers Case in the third part of my Reports good matter concerning Relations So as it was resolved in the Case at Bar Although that to some intent the Reversal hath relation yet to bar the Wife of her Dower by Fiction of Law by the Fine with proclamations and five years past after the death of her Husband when in truth she had not cause of Action nor any right or title so long as the Attainder stood in force should be to do wrong by a Fiction of Law and to bar the Wife who was a meer stranger and who had not any means to have any Relief until the Attainder was reversed And as unto the other point or Objection that the Demandant on the Petition ought to have an Office found for her it was resolved that it needed not in this case because that the title of Dower stood with the Queens title and affirmed it otherwise if the title of the Demandant in the Petition had disaffirmed the Queens title also in this Case the Queen was not entituled by any Office that the Wife should be driven to traverse it c. for then she ought to have had an Office to finde her title But in Case of Dower although that Office had been found for the Queen which doth not disaffirm the title of Dower in such case the Wife shall have her Petition without Office because that Dower is favored in Law she claiming but onely for term of life and affirming the title of the Queen See the Sadlers Case in the fourth part of my Reports And the case which was put on the other side was utterly denyed by the Court for it was resolved That if a man seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Wife of eight years of age and alieneth his Lands and afterwards the Wife attaineth to the age of nine years and afterwards the Husband dyeth that the Wife shall be endowed For although at the time of the alienation the Wife was not dowable yet for as much as the marriage and seisin in Fee was before the alienation and the title of Dower is not consummate until the death of her Husband so as now there was marriage seisin of Fee age of nine years during the Coverture and the death of the Husband for that cause she shall be endowed For it is not requisite that the marriage seisin and age concur together all at one time but it is sufficient if they happen during the Coverture So if a man seised of Lands in Fee take a Wife and afterwards she elopes from her Husband now she is barrable of her Dower if during the Elopement the Husband alieneth and after the Wife is reconciled the Wife shall be endowed So if a man hath issue by his Wife and the issue dyeth and afterwards Land descendeth to the Wife or the Wife purchaseth Lands in Fee and dyeth without any other issue the Husband for the issue which he had before the Discent or purchase shall be Tenant by the curtesie for it is sufficient if he have issue and that the Wife be seised during the Coverture although that it be at several times But if a man taketh an Alien to Wife and afterwards he alieneth his Lands and afterwards she is made a Denizen she shall not be endowed for she was absolutely disabled by the Law and by her birth not capable of Dower but her capacity and ability began onely by her Denization but in the other case there was not any incapacity or disability in the person but onely a temporary Bar until such age or reconcilement which being accomplished the temporary Bar ceaseth As if a man seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Wife and afterwards the Wife is attainted of Felony and afterwards the Husband alieneth and afterwards the Wife is pardoned and afterwards the Husband dyeth the Wife shall be endowed for by her birth she was not uncapable but was lawfully by her marriage and seisin in Fee entituled to have Dower and therefore when the impediment is removed she shall be endowed VIII Trinit 44 Eliz. In the Kings-Bench Sprat and Heals Case JOhn Sprat Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Walter Heal for Tythes Covin substraction of Tythes the Defendant in the Spiritual Court pleaded that he had divided the Tythes from the nine parts and then the Plaintiff made addition to the Libel in the nature of a Replication scil That the Defendant divided the Tythes from the nine parts quod praedict the Plaintiff non fatetur sed prorsus diffitetur yet presently after this pretended division in fraudem legis he took and carryed away the same Tythes and converted them to his own use and the Plaintiff thereupon obtained sentence in the Spiritual Court and to recover the treble value according to the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. And thereupon Heal made a
in the case of Modus Decimandi before and see Register fo 38. when Lands are given in satisfaction and discharge of Tythes 4. See the Statute of Circumspecte agatis Decimae debitae seu consuetae which proves that Tythes in kinde and a Modus by custom c. 5. 8 E. 4. 14. and Fitz. N. B. 41. g. A Prohibition lieth for Lands given in discharge of Tythes 28 E. 3. 97. a. There Suit was for Tythes and a Prohibition lieth and so abridged by the Book which of necessity ought to be upon matter De Modo Decimandi or discharge 7. 7 E. 6. 79. If Tythes are sold for mony by the sale the things spiritual are made temporal and so in the case De modo Decimandi 42 E. 3. 12. agrees 8. 22 E. 3. 2. Because an Appropriation is mixt with the Temporalty scil the Kings Letters Patents the same ought to be shewed how c. otherwise of that which is meer Temporal and so it is of real composition in which the Patron ought to joyn Vide 11 H. 4. 85. Composition by writing that the one shall have the Tythes and the other shall have mony the Suit shall be at the Common Law Secondly By Acts of Parliament 1. The said Act of Circumspecte agatis which giveth power to the Ecclesiastical Iudg to sue for Tythes due first in kinde or by custom i. e. Modus Decimandi so as by authority of that Act although that the yearly sum soundeth in the Temporalty which was payd by Custom in discharge of Tythes yet because the same cometh in the place of Tythes and by constitution the Tythes are changed into mony and the Parson hath not any remedy for the same which is the Modus Decimandi at the Common Law for that cause the Act is clear that the same was a doubt at the Common Law And the Statute of Articuli Cleri cap. 1. If corporal pennance be changed in poenam pecuniariam for that pain Suit lieth in the Spiritual Court For see Mich. 8 H. 3. Rot. 6. in Thesaur A Prohibition lieth pro eo quod Rector de Chesterton exigit de Hagone de Logis de certa portione pro Decimis Molendinarium so as it appeareth it was a doubt before the said Statute if Suit lay in the Spiritual Court de Modo Decimandi And by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 20. it is provided and enacted That every of the subjects of this Realm according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church and after the laudable usages and customs of the Parish c. shall yield and pay his Tythes Offerings and other duties and that for substraction of any of the said Tythes offerings or other duties the Parson c. may by due Proces of the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws convent the person offending before a competent Iudg having authority to hear and determine the Right of Tythes and also to compel him to yeild the Duties i. e. as well Modus Decimandi by laudable usage or Custom of the Parish as Tythes in kinde and with that in effect agrees the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 7. By the Statute of 2 E. 3. cap. 13. it is enacted That every of the Kings Subjects shall from henceforth truly and justly without fraud or guile divide c. and pay all manner of their predial Tythes in their proper kinde as they rise and happen in such manner and form as they have been of Right yielded and payd within forty years next before the making of this Act or of Right or Custom ought to have been payd And after in the same Act there is this clause and Proviso Provided always and be it enacted That no person shall be sued or otherwise compelled to yield give or pay any manner of Tythes for any Mannors Lands Tenements or Hereditaments which by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm or by any priviledg or prescription are not chargeable with the payment of any such Tythes or that be discharged by any compositions real And afterwards there is another Branch in the said Act And be it further enacted That if any person do substract or withdraw any manner of Tythes Obventions Profits Commodities or other Duties before mentioned which extends to Custom of Tything i. e. Modus Decimandi mentioned before in the Act c. that then the party so substracting c. may be convented and sued in the Kings Ecclesiastical Court c. And upon the said Branch which is in the Negative That no person shall be sued for any Tythes of any Lands which are not chargeable with the payment of such Tythes by any Law Statute Priviledg Prescription or Real Composition And always when an Act of Parliament commands or prohibits any Court be it Temporal or Spiritual to do any thing temporal or spiritual if the Statute be not obeyed a Prohibition lieth as upon the Statute de articulis super Cartas ca. 4. Quod Communia Placita non tenentur in Scaccario a Prohibition lieth to the Court of Exchequer if the Barons hold a Common-Plea there as appeareth in the Register 187. b. So upon the Statute of West 2. Quod inquisitiones quae magnae sunt examinationis non capiantur in patria a Prohibition lieth to the Iustices of Nisi Prius So upon the Statute of Articuli super Cartas cap. 7. Quod Constabularius Castr Dover non teneat Placitum forinsecum quod non tangit Custodiam Castri Register 185. So upon the same Statute cap. 3. Quod See Lib. Entr. 450. a Prohibition was upon the Statute that one shall not maintain and so upon every penal Law See F. N. B 39. b. Prohibition to the Common Pleas upon the Stat. of Magna Charta that they do not proceed in a Writ of Praecipe in Capite where the Land is not holden of the King 1 2 Eliz. Dy. 170 171. Prohibition upon the Statute of barrenes and pettit is onely prohibited by implication Senescallus Mariscallus non teneant Placita de libero tenemento de debito conventione c. a Prohibition lieth 185. And yet by none of these Statutes no Prohibition or Supersedeas is given by express words of the Statute So upon the Statutes 13 R. 2. cap. 3. 15 R. 2. cap. 2. 2 H. 4. cap. 11. by which it is provided That Admirals do not meddle with any thing done within the Realm but onely with things done upon the Seas c. a Prohibition lieth to the Court of Admiralty So upon the Statute of West 2. cap. 43. against Hospitalers and Templers if they do against the same Statute Regist 39. a. So upon the Statute de Prohibitione regia Ne laici ad citationem Episcopi conveniant ad recognitionem faciend vel Sacrament praestanda nisi in casubus matrimonialibus Testamentariis a Prohibition lieth Regist 36. b. And so upon the Statute of 2 H. 5. cap. 3. at what time the Libel is grantable by the Law that it be granted and
of Iustice And this was the end of these three days consultations And note That Dr. Bennet in his discourse inveighed much against the opinion in 8 E. 4. 14. and in my Reports in Wrights Case That the Ecclesiastical Iudg would not allow a Modus Decimandi and said That that was the mystery of iniquity and that they would allow it And the King asked for what cause it was so said in the said Books To which I answered that it appeareth in Linwood who was Dean of the Arches and of profound knowledg in the Canon and Civil Law and who wrote in the Reign of King Henry the sixth a little before the said Case in 8 E. 4. in his title de Decimis cap. Quoniam propter c. fo 139. b. Quod Decimae solvantur c. absque ulla diminutione and in the gloss it is said Quod Consuetudo de non Decimando aut de non bene Decimando non valet And that being written by a great Canonist of England was the cause of the said saying in 8 E. 4. that they would not allow the said plea de Modo Decimandi for always the Modus Decimandi is lesse in value then the Tithes in specie and then the same is against their Canon Quod decimae solvantur absque diminutione quod consuetudo de non plene Decimando non valet And it seemed to the King that that Book was a good Cause for them in the time of King Edward the fourth to say as they had said but I said That I did not relie upon that but upon the grounds aforesaid scil The common Law Statute-Laws and the continuall and infinite judgements and judiciall proceedings and that if any Canon or Constitution be against the same such Canon and Constitution c. is void by the Statute of 25. H. 8. Cap. 19. which see and note For all Canons Constitutions c. against the Prerogative of the King the common Laws Statutes or Customs of the Realm are void Lastly the King said That the high Commission ought not to meddle with any thing but that which is enormious and exorbitant and cannot permit the ordinary Proces of the Ecclesiasticall Law and which the same Law cannot punish And that was the cause of the institution of the same Commission and therefore although every offence ex vi termini is enormious yet in the Statute it is to be intended of such an offence is extra omnem normam as Heresie Schisme Incest and the like great offences For the King said That it was not reason that the high Commission should have conusance of common offences but to leave them to Ordinaries scil because that the party cannot have any appeal in case the high Commisson shall determine of it And the King thought that two high Commissions for either Province one should be sufficient for all England and no more XV. Mich. 39 and 40 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Bedell and Shermans Case MIch 39 and 40 Eliz. which is entred Mich. 40 Eliz. in the com-Pleas Rot. 699 Cantabr the Case was this Robert Bedel Gent. and Sarah his wife Farmors of the Rectory of Litlington in the County of Cambridge brought an Action of Debt against John Sherman in the custody of the Marshall of the Marshalsey and demanded 550 l. And declared that the Master and Fellows of Clare-Hall in Cambridge were seised of the said Rectory in fee in right of the said Colledge and in June 10. 29 Eliz. by Indenture demised to Christopher Phesant the said Rectorie for 21 years rendering 17 l. 15 s. 5 d. and reserving Rent-corn according to the Statute c. which Rent was the ancient Rent who entred into the said Rectory and was possessed and assigned all his interest thereof to one Matthew Batâ— who made his last Will and Testament and made Sarah his wife his Executrix and died Sarah proved the Will and entred and was thereof possessed as Executrix and took to husband the said Robert Bedel by force whereof they in the Right of the said Sarah entred and were possessed thereof and that the Defendant was then Tenant and seised for his life of 300 acres of arable Lands in Litlington aforesaid which ought to pay Tithes to the Rector of Litlington and in anno 38 Eliz. the Defendant grano seminavit 200 acres parcel c. And that the Tithes of the same did amount to 150 l. and that the Defendant did not divide nor set forth the same from the 9 parts but took and carried them away against the form and effect of the Statute of 2 E. 6 c. And the Defendant pleaded Nihil debet and the Iury found that the Defendant did owe 55 l. and to the residue they found Nihil debet c. and in arrest of Iudgement divers matters were moved 1. That grano seminata is too generall and incertain but it ought to be expressed with what kinde of corn the same was sowed 2. It was moved If the Parson ought to have the treble value the forfeiture being by expresse words limited to none by the Act or that the same did belong to the Queen 3. If the same did belong to the Parson if he ought to sue for the same in the Ecclesiasticall Court or in the Kings Temporall Court 4. If the husband and wife should joyn in the Action or the husband alone should have the Action and upon solemn argunent at the Barre and at the Bench the Iudgement was affirmed XVI Trinity Term 7 Jocob in the Court of Wards John Bailies Case IT was found by Writ of Diem clausit extremum That the said John Bailie was seised of a Messuage or Tenement and of and in the fourth part of one acre of land late parcel of the Demesne lands of the Mannor of Newton in the County of Hereford in his Demesne as of fee and found the other points of the Writ and it was holden by the two chief Iustices and the chief Barons 1. That Messuagium vel Tenementum is uncertain for Tenementum is nomen collectivum and may contain land or any thing which is holden 2. It was holden that is was void for the whole because that no Town is mentioned in the Office where the Messuage or Tenement or the fourth part of the acre lieth and from the Visne of the Mannor upon a Traverse none can come because it is not affirmed by by the Office that they are parcel of the Mannor but Nuper parcel of the Mannor which implieth that now they are not and it was holden by them that no Melius inquirendum shall issue forth because that the whole Office is incertain and void XVII Trinity 7 Jacobi Regis in the Court of Wards THe Attorney of the Court of Wards moved the two chief Iustices and chief Baron in this Case That a man seised of lands in fee-simple covenants for the advancement of his son and of his name and blood and posterity that he will stand seised
Court. See 21 Eliz. Dyer 362. If Tenant in Socage dyeth seised in possession his Heir within the age of fourteen years he shall not sue Livery but shall have an Ouster le main una cum exitibus but otherwise it is if the Heir be of the age of fourteen years which is his full age for Socage and therewith agreeth 4 Eliz. Dyer 213. And two presidents were shewed which were decreed in the same Court by the advice of the Iustices Assistants to the Court. One in Trinity Term 16 Eliz. Thomas Stavely the Father enfeoffed William Strelley and Thomas Law of the Mannor of Ryndly in the County of Nottingham upon condition that they re-enfeoff the Feoffor and his Wife for their lives the remainder to Thomas Stavely son and heir apparent of tho Feoffor in Fee which Mannor was holden of Queen Elizabeth in Socage in capite and upon consideration of the saving in the Statute of 32 H. 8. next after the clause concerning Tenure in Socage in chief it was resolved That no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in such case and the reason was because that the precedent clause giveth liberty to him who holdeth in Socage in chief to make disposition of it either by act executed or by Will at his free will and pleasure and before the said act no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in such case and the words of the Saving are Saving c. to the King c. all his Right c. of primer seisin and relief c. for Tenure in Socage or of the nature of Tenure in Socage in chief as heretofore hath been used and accustomed But there was no use or custom before the Act that the King should have any primer seisin or relief in such case and the words subsequent in the said Saving depend upon the former words and do not give any primer seisin or relief where none was before Another president was in Pasc 37 Eliz. in the Book of Orders fo 444. where the case was that William Allet was seised of certain Lands in Pitsey called Lundsey holden of the Queen in Socage in chief and by Deed covenanted to stand seised to the use of his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of Richard his younger son in Fee and dyed his Heir of full age and all that was found by Office and it was resolved ut supra That no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in that case but the doubt in the case at Bar was because that Henry the Feoffor had a Reversion in Fee which descended to the said VVilliam his eldest son XXI Trinity Term anno 7 Jacobi Regis The Case of the Admiralty A Bill was preferred in the Star-Chamber against Sir Richard Hawkins Vice Admiral of the County of Devon and was charged that one William Hull and others were notorious Pirats upon the High Seas and shewed in certain what Piracy they had committed the said Sir Richard Hawkins knowing the same did them receive abet and comfort within the body of the County and for bribes and rewards suffered them to be discharged And what offence that was the Court referred to the consideration of the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron who heard Councel of both sides divers days at Serjeants Inn. And first it was by them resolved that by the Common Law the Admirals ought not to meddle with any thing done within the Realm but onely with things done upon the Sea and that appeareth fully by the Statute of 13 R. 2. cap. 5. by which it appeareth that such was the Common Law in the time of King Edw. the third and therewith agreeth the Statute of 2 H. 4. cap. 11. and the Statute of 15 H. 2. cap. 3. That because the Admirals and their Deputies encroach to themselves divers Iurisdictions and Franchises more then they ought to have Be it enacted that all Contracts Pleas and Complaints and all other things arising within the bodies of the Counties as well by Land as by Water as also of Wreck of the Sea the Admiral Court shall not have any conusance power or jurisdiction c. Nevertheless of the death of a man and of Mayheme done in great Ships being in the main stream of great Rivers onely below the Bridges nigh to the Sea and not in other places of the same Rivers and to arrest Ships in the great Flotes for the great Voyage of the King and of his Realm and by the Statute of 2 H. 5. cap. 6. the Admirals of the King of England have done and used reasonably according to the ancient Law and Custom upon the main Sea See the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 5. And all this appeareth to be by the common Law and with that agreeth Stamford fo 51. And if a man be killed or slain within the Arms of the Sea where a man may see from the one part of the Land to the other the Coroner shall enquire of it and not the Admiral because that the Country may well know it and he voucheth 8 E. 2. Coron 399. So saith Stamford the same proves that by the common Law before the Statute of 2 H. 4. cap. 11. the Admiral shall not have Iurisdiction unless upon the High Sea See Pla. Com. 37. 6. If the Marshal holdeth Plea out of the Verge or the Admiral within the body of the County the same is voyd See 2 R. 3. 12. 30 H. 6. 6. by Prisoit 2. It was resolved that the said Statutes are to be intended of a power to hold Plea and not of a power to award execution scil de jurisdictione tenendi placiti non de jurisdictione exequendi For notwithstanding the said Statutes the Iudg of the Admiralty may do execution within the body of the County and therefore in 19 H. 6. 7. the case was W. T. at Southwark affirmed a Plaint of Trespass in the Court of Admiralty before the Steward of the Earl of Huntington against J. B. of a Trespass done upon the High Sea upon which issued a Citation to cite the said J. B. to appear before the Steward aforesaid at the common day then next ensuing directed to P. who served the said Citation at which day the said J. B. made default and the usage of the Court is that if the Defendant maketh default he shall be amerced by the discretion of the Steward to the use of the Plaintiff The which J. B. for his default aforesaid was amerced to twenty marks whereupon command was made to the said P. as Minister of the Court aforesaid to take the goods of the said J. B. to make agreement with the beforesaid W. T. by force of which he for the said twenty marks took five Cows and an hundred sheep in execution for the mony aforesaid in the County of Leicester And there it is holden by Newton and the whole Court that the Statutes restrain the power of the Court of Admiralty to hold Plea of a thing done
his Deed indented dated the 22 of December in the first year of King James made between him of the one part and the said John Sammes and George Sammes Son and Heir apparent of the said John of the other part did bargain sell grant enfeoff release and confirm unto the said John Sammes the said Mead called Grany Mead to have and to hold the said Mead unto the said John Sammes and George Sammes and their Heirs and Assigns to the onely use and behoof of the said John Sammes and George Sammes their Heirs and Assigns for ever and by the same Indenture Sir Thomas did covenant with John and George to make further assurance to John and George and their Heirs to the use of them and their Heirs and Livery and Seisin was made and delivered according to the true intent of the said Indentures of the within mentioned premisses to the uses within mentioned John Sammes the Father dyeth George Sammes his Son and Heir being within age the Question was Whether George Sammes should be in Ward to the King or no And in this case three points were resolved 1. For as much as George was not named in the premisses he cannot take by the Habendum and the Livery made according to the intent of the Indenture doth not give any thing to George because the Indenture as to him is voyd but although the Feoffment be good onely to John and his Heirs yet the use limited to the use of John and George and their Heirs is good 2. If the Estate had been conveyed to John and his Heirs by the Release or Confirmation as it well may be to a Tenant by Copy of Court Roll the use limited to them is good for upon a Release which creates an Estate a use may be limited or a Rent reserved without question but upon a Release or Confirmation which enures by way of Mitter le droit an use cannot be limited or a Rent reserved But the third was of greater doubt If in this case the Father and Son were Ioynt-tenants or Tenants in common For it was objected when the Father is onely enfeoffed to the onely use of him and his Son and their Heirs in the Per that in this case they shall be Tenants in common By the Feoffment the Father is in by the common Law in the Per and then the limitation of the use to him and his Son and to their Heirs cannot devest the Estate which was vested in him by the common Law out of him and vest the Estate in him in the Post by force of the Statute according to the limitation of the use and therefore as to one moyety the Father shall be in by force of the Feoffment in the Per and the Son as to the other moyety shall be in by force of the Statute according to the limitation of the use in the Post and by consequence they shall be Tenants in common But it was answered and resolved That they were Ioynt-tenants and that the Son in the Case at Bar should have the said Grange by the Survivor for if at the common Law A. had been enfeoffed to the use of him and B. and their Heirs although that he was onely seised of the Land the use was joyntly to A. and B. For a use shall not be suspended or extinct by a sole seisin or joynt seisin of the Land and therefore if A. and B. be enfeoffed to the use of A. and his Heirs and A. dyeth the entire use shall descend to his Heir as it appeareth in 13 H. 7. 6. in Stoners Case and by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 10. of Vses it appeareth That when several persons are seised to the use of any of them that the Estate shall be executed according to the use And as to that which was said That the Estate of the Land which the Father hath in the Land as to the moyetyof the use which he himself hath shall not be devested out of him To that it was answered and resolved That that shall well be for if a man maketh a Feoffment in Fee to one to tho use of him and the Heirs of his body in this case for the benefit of the issue the Statute according to the limitation of the uses devests the Estate vested in him by the common Law and executes the same in himself by force of the Statute and yet the same is out of the words of the Statute of 27 H. 8. which are Where any person c. stand or be scised c. to the use of any other person and here he is seised to the use of himself and the other clause is Where divers and many persons c. be joyntly seised c. to the use of any of them c. and in this case A. is sole seised But the Statute of 27 H. 8. hath been always beneficially expounded to satisfie the intention of the parties which is the direction of the uses according to the Rule of the Law So if a man seised of Lands in Fee-simple by Deed covenant with another that he and his Heirs will stand seised of the same Land to the use of himself and the Heirs of his body or unto the use of himself for life the remainder over in Fee in that case by the operation of the Statute the Estate which he hath at the common Law is devested and a new Estate vested in himself according to the limitation of the use And it is to be known that an use of Land which is but a pernency of the profits is no new thing but part of that which the owner of the Land had and therefore if Tenant in Borrough-English or a man seised of the part of his Mother maketh a Feoffment to another without consideration the younger Son in the one case and the Heir on the part of the Mother on the other shall have the use as they should have the Land it self if no Feoffment had been made as it is holden in 5 E. 4. 7. See 4 and 5 Phil. and Mar. Dyer 163. So if a man maketh a Feoffment unto the use of another in tayl and afterwards to the use of his right Heirs the Feoffor hath the Reversion of the Land in him for if the Donee dyeth without isse the Law giveth the use which was part of the Land to him and so it was resolved Trinity 31 Eliz. between Fenwick and Milford in the Kings-Bench So in 28 H. 8. Dyer 11. the Lord Rosses Case A man seised of one Acre by Priority and of another Acre by Posteriority and makes a Feoffment in Fee of both to his use and it was adjudged that although both pass at one instant yet the Law shall make a Priority of the uses as if it were of the Land it self which proves that the use is not any new thing for then there should be no Priority in the Case See 13 H. 7. b. by Butler So in the Case at Bar The use limited to