Plaintiff had before brought a Quare impedit against the Defendants for the same Church which Writ was returned and that they did appear to defend it First we must know that this Assise shall be taken only in the Common Bench vide Mag Char cap 13. Assize of Darrein presentment abate by a Quare â—â—pedit then the Arch-bishop making default and the Assise being awarded against him by default if the other Defendants plead to the Assise yet the Assise shall not be presented because an Assise shall not be taken by parcels and therfore a Resummons shall be awarded against the Arch-bishop and the same for the Iury. But the other Defendants pleading their Plea to the Writ the Court was of opinion that it was a good Plea in abatement of the Writ for the Quare impedit is a Writ of a higher nature vide Regist fol 30. That if he against whom an Assise of Darrein presentment is brought brings a Quare impedit the Darrein presentment shall abate And the Statute of West 2. cap 5. saies it may be in the Election of one whether he will have an Assise of Darrein presentment or Quare impedit ergo he cannot have them both And if an Assise of Darrein presentment be brought and after that a Quare impedit for one avoidance the Assise shall abate for the Quare impedit is higher in his nature that is for the right and for the possession And Iustice Warburton vouched 10 Ed 3 Statham in Darrein presentment 3. If a man shall have a Quare impedit and also an Assise of Darrein presentment of one and the same Advowson pending at one and the same time the Darrein presentment shall abate and the Quare impedit shall stand because that it is of an higher nature By Hank and Hill it was urged that the Quare impedit was not depending untill he had appeared and it is not pleaded that he did appear but vide 2 Ed 4. fol that it is depending when it is returned And in a Quare impedit by the Earl of Bedford against the Bishop of Exeter Bedford versus the Bishop of Exeter it was adjudged Pasch 15 Jac. that he could not have two Quare impedits of one Church and for one avoidance And in this Case the whole Court agreed that the plea was good in abatement of the Writ and awarded that the Assise should abate Mich. 14 Jac. Rot. 3297. Shaw versus Taylor Wigorn. Replevin Where the Lord shal lose his Heriot when the Tenant have not any Beasts BRidget Shaw brought a Replevin against George Taylor for the taking of an Horse at Northfield in a place called Little falling the Defendant makes Cognizance as Bayliff to Sir Thomas Gervas because that one Richard Shaw was seised of an House and divers Lands of which the place where c. was parcell in his Demesn as of Fee and them held of the said Sir Thomas Gervas as of his Mannor of Northfield by Fealty and Rent of twenty pounds and rendring and paying after of every Tenant dying therof seised one Heriot and alledged Seisin and that he died seised And that for one Heriot so due and not delivered he distrained in the place in which c. as within the Fee The Plaintiff plead in Bar to the Avowry and takes the whole Tenure by protestation and for Plea saies that the said Richard Shaw at the time of his death had no Beasts wherof a Heriot might or could be rendred upon which the Defendant demurrs And upon the matter it seemed to the Court that if he had not any Beasts than the Lord must lose it for it is a casuall thing if he have it unlesse the Custom or Tenure be to have the best Beast or such a summ And if he had conveyed it away and so prevented him by any fraud then the Statute of 13 Eliz. had provided remedy but where there is nothing of any such thing which may be rendred at the time of the death there the King must lose his right And it was resolved by the Court that the Cognizance was not good for it ought to be certain i. e. for the best or two best Beasts and not generally for one Heroit and not shewing what thing in certain vide 3 Eliz Dyer 199. A Heriot is Quaedam prestatio c. and see there the Plea that there was no Beast at the time of his death And the opinion of the Court was also that the Bar to the Avowry was not good because the Issue is tendred to a thing not alledged for in the Avowry he made not mention of any beast but generally of one Heriot which is not certain And therfore it was awarded that the Plaintiff should recover and should have a return c. and Damages Pasch 14 Jac. Rot. 907. Norris versus Stapes Goldsborough Berk. RObert Norris and Thomas Trussells Wardenâ— and the Society of Weavers in the Burrough of Newbury Deâ— 1. By lawes in the County of Berkshire brought an Action of Debt for five pounds against John Stapes and Count that Queen Eliz. by her Letters Patents 14. of Octob An 44. at the request of the Inhabitants there using the Art of Weaving and to the intent that Corruption therin might be taken away and avoided c. did grant to all Weavers within the said Town to be a Body Politick by the name of the Wardens and Society c as before and to have perpetuall succession power to purchase to plead and to be impleaded And also power to make Laws and Ordinances agreeable to reason and not in any wise contrary and repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm for the well Government of the Society Apprentices and Servants and all using the Trade of weaving or selling of any thing therto belonging within the same Burrough and power to inflict punishment by Imprisonment Fine or Amercement upon the Offenders And granted further that the said Wardens and Society shall have the survey of those Lawes and the benefit of the Forfeitures And that no other person born within or without the said Burrough shal exercise the Art of weaving within the said Burrough if he shall not be admitted therto by the Wardens and Society And they recite the Act of 19 H 7. cap 7. of not putting of any Law or Ordinance in execution before it shall be allowed by the Lord Chancellor Treasurer and two chief Iustices or three of them or before both the Iustices of Assise in their Circuits upon pain of forfeiting forty pounds And shew that one Cuthbert Goodwin and John Hame Wardens of the said Society with the greater part of the said Society 1. Maij 45 Eliz. at the Guildhall within the said Burrough made divers Lawes and Ordinances for the Government of Weavers and that the 18 Novemb. 1 Jac. the said Orders were confirmed by the Lord Chancellor Lord Treasurer and Lord Anderson one of the chief Iustices among which one
Defendants disturbed her The said Bishop died and the Defendant plead that he is parsona imparsonata ex presentatione Domini Regis nunc And said that Sir Thomas Chichley was seised in Fee of the said Advowson and also of the Mannor of Preston and divers other Lands in the County of Cambridge which Mannors and Lands were holden of King James in Capite by Knights-service and being so seised he died and that this Advowson and the Mannor descended to Thomas Chichley his Son and Heir who at the time of his death was within age And that afterwards by force of a Writ of Diem clausit extremum this matter was found wherby the King seised the body and was possessed of the Mannor and of the Advowson and that the said King James died the King which now is suscepit regimen hujus regni and was possessed and the Church became void And the King by his Letters Patents under the great Seal presented the Defendant Thompson and traversed the Grant made by Sir Thomas Chichley to Thomas East and Edward Anger of the said Advowson as the Plaintiff had alledged The Plaintiff replyed protestandâ— that the Defendant is not Parson Imparsonee and that the Plea is insufficient Pro placito dicit quod non habetur aliquod tale recordum talis inquisionis post mortem praedicti Thomae Chichley militis modo forma prout wherupon the Defendant demurred And after many Arguments at Baâ— by Attho Henden Davenport and Hedley it was adjudged for the Defendant And that the Title of the Plaintiff being traversed brought to have been maintained and not to traverse other matter alledged by the Defendant for Traverse upon Traverse is only when the matter traversed is but Inducement Also it appears fully that the King is entituled to this Presentation though there was not any Office vide 21 E 4. 14 H 7. and then all the Titles of the King should be answered and therfore the deniall of the Office is not materiall for if he dies seised the King may present without Office vide Bendoes case 21 Eliz Rot 1378. Crachford against Gregory Lord Dacren when the King is entituled by Office to an Advowson though the very Title be in a stranger yet if the Church be void and he which hath Title present this is but Vsurpation Vide 17 H 7. Kel 43. 11 H. 8. ibid. fol. 200. vide 21 E 4. 1. 5 E 4. 3. or 13. of things which lye in Grant the King is in actuall possession Crachfords case 20 E 4. 11. Stamf. fol 54. 2. R 3. issue 7. 28. 23 H 8. Kel 97. new Book of Entries fol 130. vide there that Traverse is allowed to be taken upon Traverse vide for that 9 H 7. 9. 10 E â— 49. Dyer 107. 10 E 4. 2. 3. 6 E. 3. â— When two Titles appear for the King as here the dying seised of the Advowson of Sir Thomas C. who also died seised of the Mannor of Preston holden in Capite that is a good Title and the Office found is another Title and â—oth ought to be answered in case of the King vide for that matter 37 H 6. 6. 24 H 3. 27. 46. E. 3 25 9 H 6. 37. 39 H 2. 4. 40 E 3. 11. In case of severall charges to the King although the King be not party yet they ought to be answered Hedley Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that the presentment of the King tolls all the right of the Plaintiff and therfore only ought to be answered and he ought not to traverse the Title of the Plaintiff which by the Plea was toll'd but notwithstanding that he answered not the dying seised of the Advowson and the Tenure by which the King is intituled upon the Office and therfore all is one And the Plaintiff had waved his Title and not maintained it And therfore Iudgment was given for the Defendant Pasch 4 Car. Congham's Case Rescous by the Plaintiff in the primer action IN an action upon the Case against Congham and his Wife That wheras the Plaintiff hath recovered in Debt against one and had a Writ of Capias ad satisfaciendum directed to the Sheriff of Cambridgeshire and the Sheriff had arrested the party and had him in Execution for the Debt the Defendants rescued the party and he escaped Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Feme was found guilty of the Rescous And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Aleph that this action lies not because that Debt lies against the Sheriff And the Sheriff shall have an action for the Rescous vide F N B. 102. And properly this action of Rescous lies where it is upon mean processe and that is for the delay by the Rescous and damage may be greater or lesser accordingly And the Rescous is according to the condition of him which is arrested for if he may be easily taken again and that he becomes not more poor that then the damage is the lesse vide 16 E 4. fol. 3. But after divers motions at Bar Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And the Lord Richardson held strongly that it lies And this Tort may be punisht at the Suit of the party who had damage therby viz. the party the Sheriff or Baily And Harvey and Crook agreed but Yelverton and my self doubted therof because that it is an immediate wrong to the Sheriff or Baily and the party had no prejudice in common presumption because that his action is transferred to the Sheriff who hath more ability to satisfie him Farrington versus Caymer LIonell Farrington qui tam pro se quam pro c. brought an Information against William Caymer Information where it shall be brought upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 4. against Ale-brewers and Bear-brewers for selling Bear at higher prises then were assessed by the Iustices upon Not guilty pleaded the Plaintiff had a Verdict at Norfolk Assises And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Information was brought in the Common Bench and yet it was brought and tryed in the proper County where the Offence was committed wheras by 33 H. 8. cap 10. 37 H 8 cap 7. 21 Jac cap 4. it ought to be brought in the Country and not in the Common Pleas. And upon grand deliveration and hearing of councell of either part the Court resolved that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff And first it was agreed that wheras by the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 4 which appoint that the Iustices of Peace assesse the prises of Barrels and other Vessels of Beer and that they which sell against that rate forfeit six shillings c. to be recovered by action of Debt Bill Plaint or Information in any Court of Record in which no wager of Law c. and gives one Moyety to the party which will sue and the other to the King no action may be brought in any Court of Record but onely in one of the four Courts of Record at Westminster
to him and he will pay for the making therof that is a good consideration vide Coke lib 8. fol 147. And in this case all the Court were of opinion that the consideration was good for wheras he might have detained the Horse untill he had been paid for the pasture and feeding he at the speciall request of the Defendant had delivered the Horse to him to the use of the Owner which is to the prejudice of the Plaintiff and alienest to him to whose use he was delivered And Iustice Harvey vouched a case which was in this Court adjudged which was in consideration that the Plaintiff had promised to pay to the Defendant ten pounds at a day according to the Condition of an Obligation the Defendant promised to deliver the Obligation and adjudged a good Consideration Turner versus Hodges THe Custom of the Mannor of _____ is found to be for the Copyholders without the License of the Lord of the Mannor they being seised in Fee may make any Lease for a year Custom in a Mannor to make aâ— Lease for years or many years and when they dye that â—â—e 〈◊〉 shall cease and that the Heir or Heirs may enter It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that this was a bad Custom and that the Copyholders had by Custom an Inheritance and might by the generall Custom of the Ream make a Lease for one year And that tenor the generall Custom of the Realm but the Custom of every Mannor within the Realm vide Coke lib 4. fol 26. in Melwiches Case Custom creates the Estate and the Custom is as ancient as the Estate and is casuall and upon the Act of God and is reasonable that the Heir who is to pay the Fine should have the Possession And yet a Custom that if the Copyholder had surrendred to the Lord that the Lease should be void had been a 〈◊〉 Custom because that he might subvert and destroy by his own act that Estate that he himself had made and he which took the Lease haâ—ing notice of the Custom takes the Lease at his perill for otherwise he might have procured the License of the Lord and then by this License the Lord had dispenced therwith and that is as it were the Confirmation of the Lord For if a Copyholder makes a Lease for twenty years with the License of the Lord and after dies without Heirs yet the Lease shall stand against the Lord by reason of his License which amounts to a Confirmation And the Plaintiff had Iudgment Hil. 4 Car. EJectione firmae was brought and count upon a Lease made by Husband and Wife Lease by Baron and Feme without reservation of any Rent and that was by Indenture And upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was given in which the sole question was Whether this Lease was made by Baron and Feme being there was no Rent reserved therby It was objected that this Lease could not be made good by the Feme by any acceptance and therfore it is not the Lease of the Feme no more then if the Verdict had found that the Lease was by an Infant and no Rent reserved that had been a void Lease But it is contrary of a Baron and Feme for the Baron had power and the Feme joyning in the Lease it is not void for she may affirm the Lease by bringing a Writ of Wast or she may accept Fealty And so was the opinion of the Court and Iudgment entred accordingly vide Coke lib 2. fol 61. in Wiscots case Count of a Lease by Baron Feme and shew not that it was by Deed and yet good vide Dyer 91. Pasch 5 Car. Paston versus Utber JOhn Paston brought Ejectione firmae against Barnard Utber upon a Lease made by Mary Paston And upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was found at the Bar and the Case was thus Custom that the Lord have a Feild-course over the Lands of his Coppyholders if the Tenant inclose it is no forfeifture Barnard Vtber seised of the said Land to him and his Heirs by Copy of Court-Roll according to the Custom of the Mannor of Binham And that within that Mannor there is such a Custom that the Lord had had one field course for five hundred Ewes in the North-field and the West-field wherof these fifteen acres were parcell from the Feast of Saint Michael if the Corn were inned and if it were not then after the Corn were inned untill the Feast of the Annunciation if it were not before that time sown again with Corn in all the Lands of the Copyholders not inclosed And that it is a Custom that no Copyholder may inclose any Copyhold Land without the License of the Lord And if any be inclosed without License then a reasonable fine should be assessed by the Lord or his Steward for the Inclosure if the Lord would accept therof And it is also a Custom that if the Lord will not accept therof then the Copyholder which so incloseth shall be punished at every Court after untill he open that Inclosure And the said Vtber inclosed the 15. acres with an Hedge and Fence of Quick-set 3. feet deep and 6. feet broad and that he had left 4. spaces of 9. feet broad in the said 15. acres And that the said Vtber was required by the Steward to lay open the said Inclosure and he did it not whereupon there was a command to the Bayliff to seise them as forfeit which was done And the said Mary being Seignoress of the Mannor entred and leased to the Plaintiff and the Defendant entred upon him Serjeant Davenport argued that it is a forfeiture and against the Custom which creates the Feildage for the Lord as well as the Estate of Copyhold for the Tenant and that this leaving of four spaces is a fraud and device and that it is against his Fealty and is to the damage of the Lord and a thing unlawfull vide Dyer 245. 34 E. 1. Formedon 88. 15 A 7. 10. 29 E 3. 6. That if the Tenant inclose the Commoner may break his hedges And though by Littleton an Inclosure which is a Disseisin is a totall Inclosure wherby he which hath the rent cannot come to distrain yet this also is an Inclosure because that it obstructs the feild-course for they cannot come so freely without interuption or damage for the hedges may deprive the Sheep of their wooll And he compared it to the case of 3 H. 7. 4. One is obliged to make an Estate of his Mannor of Dale if he alien part and then make a Feoffment the Condition is broken and vide 5 E 3. fol 58. a Recognizance with Condition to make a Feoffment to I. S. of the Mannor if he alien part therof he forfeit his Recognizance he vouched 42 E 2. 5. and Coke lib 4. that deniall of Services or making of Wast is a forfeiture 22 H 6. 18. 41 E 3. Wast 82. Dyer 364. And though that the Lord may
latter Lease taken by him which was void did nâ—t surrender his former Lease which was good Sir Rowland Heywards Case the Lessee had Election to take as a Lease or as a Bargain and Sale and that it is not by way of Estoppell because it was contracted out of the Reversion Trin. 14 Jac. Rot. 3308 Thompson against Green Thompson and Green Mills and Whitewood adjudged that when one grants Proximam Advocationem to mother this is meerly void 13 Eliz. Rot. 1428. Ejectione firmae brought by Mills against Whitewood adjudged that where Lessee for years takes a new Lease after the death of his Lessor of the Gardian in Socage this is no surrender of his Lease 42 Eliz. Rot. 105. In Sir Arthur Capels Case adjudged _____ Rud who was Lessee for sixty years of an Advowson when the Church was void took a Presentation to himself of the Lessor and is admitten and inducted this was a Surrender of his Lease Mich. 5 Car. Baker versus Johnson A Iury was at the Bar in an Ejectione firmae brought by Henry Baker against Bartholomew Johnson upon a Lease made by James Baker which was seised of two Marshes among others called Knightswick and Southwick In a recovery if the Town be omitted the Land do nor pass which lye in an Island called Camby in the Parish there called North-Benfleet And he being Tenant in tail and intending to dock it and to make himself seised in Fee by Indenture the 10. of Eliz. Covenanted to suffer a recovery of these two Marshes by name and of many other Lands and that it should be to the use of himself in Fee and the recovery was had and therin South-Benfleet and many other Parishes named and Camby but the Parish of North-Benfleet was omitted And if the Lands in North-Benfleet passed or no was the Question And it was strongly argued by Crew and Henden to have it found specially it being in a Common Recovery which is but a Common Conveyance But all the Court agreed that the Town and Parish being omitted although that Camby was a place known but it appeared that that extends in and to ten Towns yet being in a Town that the Recovery extends not therto no more then if one had a Mannor in the Town of Dale which Mannor is called Bradford and within the said Mannor is a place known which is called Braisty Wood and he omit the Mannor and the Town and say the hundred acres of Land in Braisty Wood that is not good And the Court agreed that a Common Recovery is good in a Town Parish or Hamlet and peradventure in a place known out of the Town Parish or Hamlet as in the Forrest of Inglewood in Insula de Thamete c. But if it should be admitted that a Common Recovery shall be good in a place known in a Town or Hamlet that shall be absurd for there is no Town in which there are not twenty places known and it had been adjudged that a Venire facias de viceneto of a place known in a Town without making the Visne of the Town is not good Mich. 5 Car. Bill versus Lake London Case FRancis Bill brought an action upon the Case against Sir Aurthur Lake and counted that wheras at the speciall instance of Lettice Wife of the Defendant Where the request is the cause of action he had provided for the said Lettice a Tasfety Roll the Defendant did assume to pay as much as it was worth upon request And so in like manner for providing of Linnen stuff c. and making of severall Garments for the Wife and aver that the severall things bought amount to such a summ and the making therof was worth such a summ which in toto c. and alledge the request And aver that they were necessary Vestments and convenient for the degree of the Wife and after the making of them he had delivered them to the Wife The Defendant pleaded the Statute of 21 of King James for Limitation and said that the Plaintiff within six years after the promise supposed nor within three years after the end of the Parliament had not prosecuted any Originall or any Action upon this promise and Assumpsion wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And upon Argument at Bar by Serjeant Brampton for the Plaintiff and Davenport for the Defendant the matter was reduced to this Question Whether the cause of Action shall be said upon the request Quest or upon the promise Brampton agreed that where it is found upon an Assumpsit in Law and that the request is but for increase of Damages and not issuable there the Assumpsit is the cause of the Action But this cannot be founded upon an Assumpsion in Law because that it is not certain but to be made certain first by the Plaintiffs buying and providing of the Stuff Secondly by the Plaintiffs termining and making therof and then the matter of promise is for the payment of so much money as it should be reasonably worth and therfore the request is there collaterall and then it is the cause of the action and so within the Statute if it be an action which is founded upon an Assumpsit in Law then it doth not charge the Husband see the difference when request is materiall and shall be alledged and when not in Mecholl and Pecks Case before and a Feme Covert is not capable to make any Contract because she is Sub potestate viri And though it be for necessaries of Diet and Apparrell that shall not charge the Husband Sir William Alephs Case But an Infant is capable to make Contract for Diet and Apparrel necessary An 25 Eliz Sir William Alephs case was adjudged that where an Infant had taken so much for his necessary Apparrell and Diet which amounted to fifty pounds which was paid by Sir William Aleph And he took an Obligation with a penalty adjudged that it did not bind him in regard of the forfeiture And Dyer 234. Sir Michael Penits case the Wife took Sattin and Stuff to make her a Gown and Sir Michael paid the Taylor for the making therof And yet upon an action of Debt brought against the Husband it was resolved that it did not charge him And that the request to the cause of the action he vouched Dyer 31. 18 E 4. 4. solvend sur request and 9 H 7. fol 22. Replevin and Tenure for plowing the Land when he shall be required he ought to alledge the request and he concluded with a Case adjudged Hil 4 Car Rot. 710. Banco Regis between Shuesouth and Fernell an action upon the Case and count that the Defendant An 1618. had kept a Dog which he know had used to woory Sheep and that the Dog had wooried and killed divers Sheep of the Plaintiffs And the Defendant in consideration therof promised to satisfie the Plaintiff what he was damnified when he should be required therto and the promise was An 18 Jac. and the request and
Court 12 E. a. granted a Rent-charge of two shillings out therof to John Milleton and Walter Milleton In Replevin one makes Conusance derive his Estate from one as Cosin and Heir and shews not how John Milleton dies and Walter survived and died seised and this Rent descended to one John Milleton of P. as Cosin and Heir to the aforesaid Walter and he was seised in Fee and one John Dinham was seised in Fee of one house and twenty acres of Land in Pensons and by Deed shewn in Court exchanged them with the said John Milleton for the said Rent and Walter de la Therne being seised of the Land out of which the Rent issued attorned and gave Seisin of the Rent to John Dinham wherby he was seised in Fee of the Rent and conveyed the Rent by three discents to this John Dinham for whom the Defendant makes Conuzance for ten shillings for five years arrear And the Plaintiff demurs generally upon the Conuzance And the cause was that it is not shewn how John Milleton is Cosin and Heir to Walter upon the discent First if it be good as this Case is viz. That he claimes not as Cosin and Heir but makes Title under him by conveyance afterwards Also because the Defendant makes Conuzance and is a stranger Secondly if it be but forme And this Case was argued at Bench briefly in Trin. 16. And I was of opinion because that this is the Conuzance of a Bayliff and it is a discent in one blood to which Dinham is a stranger and because that a good Issue might be taken therupon as it is alledged And if it had been a case of Bastardy the Iury might have tryell it therfore it is good by the Common Law and differs from a Formedon for there he which brings it is privy vide 41 Eliz. 13 14 in a Scire facias good without shewing how 33 H. 6. 34. Sir T. C. Case 27 H. 6. 2. 4 E. 3. 43. vide 19 E. 3. Quare impedit 58. And if it were not good by the Common Law yet it was but form and aided by the Statute of 27 Eliz cap. 5. vide in Doctor Leifeilds Case lib 10. fol 94. And Iustice Winch agreed with me but Warburton to the contrary and argued strongly that it was substance and was very materiall and he relied upon the Book in the 38 H 6. 17. and he put the cases of 11 H 6. 43. 8 H 6. 22. 2 H 2. and Wimbish and Talbois case Plowden There is debate and argued two against two and no Iudgment given because that it is not shewn Comment Cosin vide 2 H 5. 7. a good Issue there is no such Ancestor a generall Demurrer confesse not the matter as in Debt upon a Bill he plead payment and the Plaintiff demur that Demurrer doth not confesse the payment Lord Hobart would not speak of the Common Law but it seemed good to him by the Statute The Title of the Act is An Act for furthering of Justice Definitive Iustice and Interlocutery The Statute takes not away form but the intrappings and snares of form No place where the Obligation is made cannot be tried by them affirmatively Hough and Bamfields case matter and no form and so Dyer 319. But the point of Cousinage which comes by videlicet is form And if the case of Wimbish and Talbois had been at this day it should bee aided and Iudgment for the Defendant Sheriff ought to deliver the Moyety by meets and bounds IT was argued by the Court that upon an Elegit the Sheriff ought to deliver the Moyety by meets and bounds and if it be so that the Conuzor be Ioynt-tenant or Tenant in Common then it ought to be so specially alledged and contained in the return Pasch 16 Jac. Drury versus Fitch Case DRury an Attorney of this Court brought an action upon the case against Fitch one of the Serjeants of London for saying I arrest thee for Felony and after not guilty pleaded the Plaintiff was Non-suited Costs upon Non-suit where the Plaintiff hath no cause of action And now it was moved that no costs should be given to the Defendant because that the words will not beare action and therfore Iudgment shall be given Quod nil capiat per billam And they vouched one President in Grewstons case in Ban. Reg. vide that now by the last Statute costs shall be given to the Defendant in all cases where the Plaintiff should have costs if he recover but in such case where the Plaintiff if he recover shall not have costs the Defendant upon the Non-suit of the Plaintiff shall not have costs But it seemed to Lord Hobart that in this case the costs are for vexation and this is more vexation if he had no cause of action vide 29 H 8. fol 32. It is there resolved that an action lies for the costs notwithstanding a Writ of Error brought And the last day of this Term the Court was of opinion that the action lies for the words for it is more then these I charge thee with Felony and if the Action lies not yet the Defendant shall have costs for it was such an Action in which the Plaintiff ought to have costs if he recover Vpon motion in Court by the direction of Iustice Warburton who had caused a Iury to be drawn by reason of the slendernesse of the matter and for avoiding the charge of a speciall Verdict the Case was A Copyholder was a Lunatick and the Lord committed the custody of his Land to one which brought an Action of Trespasse Action brought by the Committee of a Lunatick which is a Copyholder and whether it ought to be brought by him or by the Lunatick was the question And the opinion of the Court was that the Committee was but as Bayliff and hath no Interest but for the profit and benefit of the Lunatick and is as his Servant and it is contrary to the nature of his Authority to have an Action in his own name for the interest and the Estate and all power of Suits is remaining in the Lunatick And it was ruled in this Court that a Lunatick shall have a Quare impedit in his own name vide Beverlies case Coke lib 4. the diversity between a Lunatick and an Ideot and H 8. Dyer fol 25. And though when Guardian in Socage as it was adjudged makes a Lease for years his Lessee shall have an Ejectione firmae yet there the Guardian hath the Interest and is accountable therfore But in this case the Committee hath no Interest but is as a Servant appointed by the Lord to keep the possession for him who is not able to keep it for himself Lord Hobart and the Court also agreed that the Lord of a Mannor hath not power to commit or dispose of the Copyhold of a Lunatick without speciall Custom no more then a man shall be Tenant by the Curtesie c. of a Copyhold
c. but at the time of taking was so To this it was answered That the Count chargeth not the Defendant absolutely with all the time but Diversis diebus vicibus And also he justifie for two weeks which is the same Trespasse Then upon the matter the question is if he which hath Estrayes or Waifes if he seise an Estray qui est ferox whether he may fetter such Estray It was agreed by the Court that when an Estray comes within a Mannor and walk there this is a Trespasse and the party in whose Land the Estray is Damage-feasant may chase him out of his ground Also it was agreed that untill the Lord or his Bayliff or Tithing-man seise the Estray that shall not be said an Estray but when the Lord seise than he hath the Commencement of a property therby and he is chargable against all others for the Trespasse which this Estray doth and if this Estray within the year estray out of the Mannor the Lord may chase back the Estray untill he be seised by another Lord which hath Estrays But if he be seised by another Lord then the first hath lost all his possibility of gaining the property and the other Lord ought to proclaim it de novo It was moved that if a Lord of a Mannor which hath Estrayes and hath seised an Estray suffer that Estray by negligent keeping to stray away and never can be found again the Owner may have an action upon the case of Trover and Conversion against the Lord Quare vide 44 E 14. there the Lord seised an Asse for an Estray he to whom the property did belong came and challenged the Estray the Lord may detain him untill he tender sufficient recompence for the Pasture vide purc 20 H 7. 1. by Vavisor and 39 E 3. 3. That the Owner cannot take an Estray untill he tender recompence likewise the Lord after seisin of the Estray if he took him not Damage-seasant may have Replevin and he ought to make him amends The Lord cannot work the Estray but may keep him in his Stable And if the Sheriff upon a Fieri facias fetter the Colt and after the Defendant redeem him for money he shall not have trespasse vide 6 E 3. 8. it is not alledged that the fettering was to any damage of the Estray vide 22 Ass 56. Entred Pasch 18 Jac. Rot. 650. Treherne versus Cleybrooke Debt IOhn Treherne brought an action of Debt against Cleybrooke and count of a Lease made by John Treherne Grand-father to the Plaintiff of Lands in S. Olives in Surrey and intituled himself by the Will of the Grand-father by which he devised the Lands to the Plaintiff in tail Devise the remainder over to Leonard Vpon Nil debet pleaded the Iury found specially scilicet the Devise of the Reversion in tail the remainder over to A. in tail the remainder of one Moyety of the Land to one Daughter in tail and the other Moyety to another with Proviso that for the raising of a Stock for John Treherne the Grand-child when he come to the age of one and twenty years or if he dies for the raising of a Stock for Leonard in like manner he willed that Edward Griffin and Anne his Wife shall take the profits and shall receive all the rent of the Land devised to John Treherne to their own use untill he come to the age of one and twenty years upon Condition and so as the said Edward Griffin and Anne shall within three months after the death of the Testator become bound to his Overseers in an Obligation with such penalty as the said Overseers shall think fit to pay to the said John or if he dye without Issue to the said Leonard within three months after he come of age such a summ the Condition to be drawn and devised by his Overseers And if Edward Griffin and his Wife refuse then the Overseers should receive the Rent and Profits to their proper use But the Condition appoint not to whom the Overseers shall be bound And made Edward Griffing and William Iremonger his Executors and I. and others Supervisors and died and that within fourteen daies after the death of the Testator the Will was read to the said Overseers And that they did not devise or draw within the time appointed any Obligation nor tendred any within that time and that notice therof was given to the Defendant and that the Rent was demanded and the Reversion claimed by the Plaintiff sed utrum c. Vpon the Argument of Serjeant Harris which argued for the Plaintiff and vouched 21 H. 6. 6. That when one made Executors and also Coadjutors the Coadjutors are not Executors and that it is a Condition precedent vide 14 H 8. 22. Wheelers case 46 E 3. 5. Truels case Coke lib 5. 127. Palmers case 4 E 3. 39. 11 H 4. 18. And because that in this case the said Edward Griffin and his Wife are to have benefit they ought to require them to nominate the summ But because it appears to the Court that this Action is founded upon a Contract in Law therfore it ought to be brought in Surrey as it was agreed in Ungle and Glovers case An 36 Eliz vide Coke lib 3. fol 23. Nota that the Iudgment is speciall for this cause and no costs upon the Statute of 23 H 8. for the Defendant for the Statute saies that upon a Contract made by the Plaintiff the Defendant shall have costs and yet upon this Statute if the Executor be non-suited or Verdict given against him he shall not pay costs Where costs shall not be against Executors by common experience alwaies after the Statute and yet he shall have costs if he recover And in this case the Plaintiff shall have costs if he recover and yet it seems upon this Iudgment the Defendant shall not have costs against him and especially because that they are expresse words in the Statute that the Defendant shall have costs after Non-suit or lawfull tryall against the Plaintiff and here is neither Non-suit nor lawfull tryall vide Statute 4 Jac cap. 3. seems to be full in all cases where the Plaintiff shall have his costs upon Non-suit or when the Verdict passe against him the Defendant shall have costs yet it hath been taken that it shall be intended in actions of Debt upon the Contract of the Plaintiff himself for Executors neither upon Verdict nor upon Non-suit shall pay any costs because that their actions are brought upon Debts or Contracts not made between them and the Defendants vide the Statute of Glocester cap 1. that where a man recover damages there also he shall have costs Hickson versus Hickson HIckson Demandant in Dower against Hickson They are at issue the Tenant offer to be essoined upon the Venire facias and for want of the Adjornment therof by the Demandant Essoin shall not be allowed in Dower the Tenant had procured a Non-suit and yet the
Peter Edgecombe and it was to the intent of granting the Rent to the King and his Heirs and then of the recovery of the Mannor out of which c. to the said Sir Peter Edgecombe in tail the remainder to the King and they being seised by their Deed dated the third of June 11 H 8. sealed and delivered which is found in haec verba and that it was inrolled afterwards viz. 7. June granted the said Rent to H 8. Et si super totam materiam the Court adjudged it a Grant by Deed the third of June 11 H 8. then for the Defendant c. And upon Argument at Bar and conference had we all declared our opinion and agreed that Iudgment should be given for the Defendants The first reason was that the Issue is joyned upon the Grant modo forma and not upon the day as is offered by the Traverse but upon the Grant modo forma And the matter found is generally as is alledged vide Littleton Title Release that modo forma avoid and prevent the matter of day and goes solely to that which is materiall And by any thing which appears by the Verdict there is no intervening matter after the third day and before the seventh when the Deed was enrolled and then it is a good Grant of the third of June vide H 7 31. Then the speciall Conclusion found which is contrary to Law shall not conclude the Iudges to give Iudgment according to Law And so Iudgment was given for the Defendants Mich. 8 Car. Col. versus Wilkes SAmpson Cole brought an action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 H. 6. against Leonard Wilkes Tryall at the Bar Debt Debt upon the Statute of the 2 E. 6. for Tithes A Lease was made to two they enter and occupy and set not out their Tithes Debt was brought against one of them it lies not But here it was found that one only occupyed the Land and therfore the action well lies Sir John Gerards case And a Case was shewn Mich 8 Jac. An action of Debt was brought upon this Statute by Sir John Gerard against two Tenants in Common and it appeared that one of them set out his Tithe and that the other afterwards took it and carried it away and adjudged that the action lies only against him which carried it away Pasch 9 Car. Strilley's Case Amendment of the proclamation of a fine VPon motion made in this Court for the amendment of a Proclamation of a Fine levied by Strilley of Lands in Nottinghamshire Mich 11 Eliz. The Proclamations endorsed by the Chirographer upon the Fine were well but in the Transcript and Note of the Fine which is delivered to the Custos brevium by the Chirographer according to the Statute the second Proclamation was entred to be made the twentieth of May where it should have been the twenty third day of May and that by the misprision of the Clerk And it was moved that that might be amended And the Court was of opinion that it should be amended for the Ingrossement upon the Fine by the Chirographer is the foundation and that being well it is sufficient Warrant to amend the other And the Court was of opinion that it was a good Fine without any amendment But it being the misprision of the Clerk it shall be amended as in the case Coke lib 8. Blackamores case The Proclamation made and entred before the Originall shall be amended And it was objected that this Fine and Proclamations as they found in the Office of the Custos brevium are exemplified under the Great Seal and therfore by a Clause in the Statute of 23 Eliz cap. 3. could not be amended after such exemplification To that it was answered that that Statute extends only to Fines before levied which should be exemplified before the first day of June An 1582. And the latter clause in the said Statute doth not extend but to Fines exemplified according to the said Statute And therfore it was awarded to be amended Pasch 9 Car. Glasier versus Heliar Sussex Case GLasier brought an action upon the case for words against Heliar and shewed that three Colliers being in an house in Sussex were feloniously burnt in the said house and shewed that two or three men were indicted convicted and executed for the said Murther the Defendant knowing therof and intending to bring the Plaintiff in perill of his life Words as accessary to the said Murther sayd to him Thou didst bring Faggots a mile and a half to the burning of the Colliers And after Verdict for the Plaintiff and motion in Arrest of Iudgment it was adjudged that the words were actionable For if a Mansion-house be burnt feloniously to say You brought fire to set in the Thatch of the house which is burnt it is actionable Iudgment pro quaerente Smith versus Cornelius Southamp JOhn Smith Town-Clark of Southampton Case brought an action upon the case against one Cornelius an Attorney of this Court and shew that the Plaintiff was of good fame and Town-Clark of the Major and Burgesses of Southampton and was their Scribe and had the custody of all Rolls Pleas and Certificates Words and other proceedings before the Major and Burgesses in the Court before them to be holden And the Defendant intending to draw him into Infamy and to cause him to lose his Office said to him Thou hast made many false Certificate to the Major and Burgesses in that Court and the more thou stirrest in it the more it will stink And it was adjudged that these words are not actionable 1. Because that it is not alledged that there was any Colloquium concerning his Office of Town-Clark 2. Because that it appears not in the Count that the making of Certificates belong to his Office but only that he had the custody of them 3. It might be false and yet no blame to him if he did know them to be false or that he had made them false maliciously And therfore Iudgment was given for the Defendant And this Case was moved again by Hitcham the first day of Trinity Term next And then Iudgment was affrmed Hil. 9 Jac. Edwards versus Laurence Trin. 9 Car. Rot. 2488. Suff. RAchel Edwards brought an action of Trespasse against Richard Laurence for breaking of her Close Trespasse The Defendant in Bar to the new Assignment plead Traverse of Seisin that before the time of the Trespasse supposed to be done one Francis Tayler was seised in Fee of the Tenements wherof c. and so being seised died wherby it descended to Francis his Son and Heir who being seised therof 8 Car. demised it to the Defendant for two years by vertue wherof he entred and gives colour to the Plaintiff by a Grant made to him by Francis the Father where nothing passed therby and so iustifie The Plaintiff replyed that long before Francis Tayler the Son had any thing one Francis Tayler Grand-father of
are not Affirmative or Positive but a supposition only as if he had said Nowels case I will indite him for such a matter it was vouched to be adjudged 51 Eliz. in Nowels case that to say of an Attornaâ—â— That he was Cooped for forging Writs maintain an action And 14 Eliz. He is infected of the Robbery and he smelleth of the Robbary adjudged actionable In balls case There is never a Purse cut in Northamptonshire but Ball hath a part of it will not bear action But the Court would not declare their opinion Quia sub spe Concordiae Griggs Case GRigg which is the Examiner at Chester preferred there this Bill in the Chancery vocat the Exchequer Prohibition â—i Chester against one which inhabite within the same County and another which inhabite in London being executors to one to whom the said Grigg was indebted by Obligation which Obligation was put in suit in the Court of Common Pleas and there proceed to processe before the Bill exhibited and the Bill concern equity of an Agreement that the Testator had promised that one Robert Grigg should assign a lease of Tithes to the Plaintiff in consideration of his entry into the said Obligation and if he could not procure it that then the Obligation should not be prejudiciall to him and he which was distributing in Chester answered therto And an Order was made by Sir Thomas Ireland Vice-Chamberlain that Processe should be awarded to him which dwelleth in London And an Inquisition was granted to stay the proceedings at Common Law And afterwards upon the motion of Serjeant Hitcharâ— Sir Thomas Ireland was in Court and shew all that he could to maintain the Iurisdiction viz. That the Contract was made in the County Palatine and that the priviledge pursued the Plaintiff and ipse qui est reus non potest eligere c. Yet it was resembled to ancient Demesn and Guildable And by Lord Hobart he which inhabit at Doveâ— by this way may be inforced to come and answer to a Bill in Chester which would be infinite trouble and the matter is transitory And it was resolved that the Court of Chester had not power in this case but it belonged to the Chancery of England And a Prohibition was granted Hil. 20 Jac. ONe case was in the Kings Bench viz. Trespasse Baron and Feme brought in action of Trespasse Quare clausum fregit Trespasse by Baron and Feme for breaking the Close of the Baron for the Battery of the Wife and for Battery of the Feme the Defendant pleaded a License to enter into the Close made by the Baron and not guilty as to the Battery And the Court was moved in Arrest of Iudgment because the Husband and Writ could not ioyn for the weaking of the Close of the Baron the Writ shall abate for all But the Lord chief Iustice and Iustice Dodderidge were of opinion that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment And it seems that the Law is clear accordingly vide 9 E 4. 51. Trespasse by the Husband and Wife for the Battery of them both the Iury found so much for the Battery of the Husband and so much for the Battery of the Wife and so Damages assessed severally because the Wife could not soon with the Husband in an action for the Battery of the Husband for that part the Writ shall abate and for the Battery of the Wife they shall recover for for that they ought or joyn in an action vide 46 E 3. 3. Baron and Feme brought Trespasse for the Battery and Imprisonment of the Wife and the Writ was ad damnum ipsorum and yet good vide 9 H 7. in the case of Rescous and 22 E 4. 4. there is a good diversity when the Writ is falsified by the shewing of the party himself and when it is found by Verdict And Iustice Haughton and Iustice Chamberlain were of opinion that the Writ should abate for it is apparent that as to the Trespasse Quare clausum fregit the Wife had no cause of action But this case being debated at Serjeants Inn in Chancery Lane at the Table the Lord chief Baron was of opinion that Plaintiff should have Iudgment for that part and he held the Writ good in part and Reddenda singula singulie Meâ—enest issint as it seems no more then in the case of 9 E 4. for there the Writ shall avate for part And if an action of forgery of Deeds be brought against two for forging and publishing and found that one forged and the other published the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment Howell versus Auger Trespasse IN an action of Trespasse brought by Noy Howell against Auger for breaking of a house and five acres of Land in Fresham upon Non Culp pleaded the Iury gave a speciall Verdict Devise of a Fee after a Fee Robert Howell seised of the Land in Question and of other Land by his Will in writing devised this Land to Dorothy his Wife for life and devised this Land to Thomas Howell his younger Son to him and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition which shall be afterwards declared And the other Land was also devised to Dorothy for life and to the Plaintiff and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition hereafter limited If Dorothy died before the Legacies paid then he will that they shall be paid by Noy and Thomas his Sons portion-like out of the Houses and Lands given them And if either of my Sons dye before they enter or before the Legacies paid or before either of them enter Then I will that the longer liver shall enjoy both parts to him and his Heirs And if both dye before they enter then his Executors or one of them to pay the Legacies and to take the profits till they be paid and a year after and made Dorothy his Wife and Christopher Roys his Executors and died Dorothy entred the Plaintiff Noy by his Deed In 33 Eliz. in the life of Dorothy released to Thomas all his right c. with Warranty Release of Lands devised before they be vested Thomas by his Will devised the Land for which the action is brought to Agnes his Wife and died in the life of Dorothy and before Legacies paid Dorothy died and Agnes entred and took to Husband Henry Ayleyard who leased to the Defendant upon whom Noy entred and the Defendant re-entred And Si super totam Materiam c. And this Case was well argued at Bar in two Terms and the first question was If this Devise of a Fes after a Limitation be good or not much was said for it and they relyed upon a case which was adjudged in the Kings Bench between Pell and Brown of such a limitable Fee Pell and Brown And many Cases put that this operate as a future Devise Executory as well as one may by his Will Devise that if his Son and Heir dye before he marry or before that he come to the age of
Yelverton and I were opinion that the Debt is gone for it is at the suit of the King and Iudgment is given for the King And there shall be an answer to the King And we relyed upon the cases vouched by the Lord Coke but Iustice Harvey and Crook to the contrary And upon conference with all the Iustices of Serjeants Inne it was resolved that this action was at the suit of the party for he might be Non-suited vide 25 H 8. Br. Non-suit that the Informer may be Non-suited vide 6 E. 2. Fitz Non-suit 13. when the Iury come again to deliver their Verdict the King cannot discharge them and be Non-suited and the King cannot discharge this action And his Attorney reply not as in an Information Clotworthy versus Clotworthy Amendments Debt SImon Clotworthy brought an action of Debt against John C. Cosin and Heir of Bartholmew C. And the Imparlance Roll is Quod cum praedictus B. cujus consanguineus heres idem Johannes est viz. filius Johannis Clotworthy fratris praedicti B. C. And upon the Plea Roll upon which Iudgment is given this space was perfected and Iudgment for the Plaintiff and now the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and it was moved to be amended And if the Imparlance Roll shall be amended which is the foundation of the subsequent Rolls is the question For it is commonly holden that the Plea Roll shall he amended by the Imparlance but not e converso Hil. 18 Jac. Rot. 67â— Walker versus Worsley Amendments WAlker brought an action of Debt against Worsley Debt as Son and Heir of Thomas W. in the Imparlance Roll which was entred Mich 18 Jac Rot 576. the words which bind the Heir were omitted viz. Ad quam quidem solutionem obligasset se Heredes suos but they were in the Plea Roll And after Iudgment that was assigned for Error in the Kings Bench and it was amended in the Common Bench by the Court vide there that it was by the fault and mis-prision of the Clerk who had the Obligation and so amendable by the Statute of 8 H 6. cap 15. 1. Hil. 9 Jac. Rot. 516. Govard versus Dennet GOvard against Dennet and Iudgment and the name of the Attorney viz. Henry was omitted in the Imparlance Roll and it was in the Plea Roll Henry and after Error brought it was amended Mich. 16 Jac. Rot. 581. Arrowsmith's Case THe Imparlance Roll Trin 16 Jac Rot 1727. Debt for three hundred pounds against Arrowsmith for part sur emisset and the other part sur in simul computasset And in the Imparlance Roll both parcells did not amount to three hundred pounds but wanted six pounds therof and after Error brought it was amended Pasch 12 Jac. Rot. 420. Godhow versus Bennet REplevin by Godhow against Bennet divers spaces in the Imparlance Roll were supplyed in the Plea Roll after Verdict Hil. 12 Jac. Rot. 420. Parker versus Parker THe Imparlance Roll was Mich 12 Jac Rot 547. Parker against Parker in Trover and Conversion the Imparlance Roll wanted the day and year of the possession and conversion but the Issue Roll was after the Verdict and motion in Arrest of Iudgment amended Mich. 2 Car. Crocker versus Kelsey JOhn Canterson and Agnes his Wife Tenants in speciall tail had Issue a Son Lease made by Feme in speciall tail viz. John and John the Father died John the Son levied a Fine with Proclamations to the use of himself in Fee Agnes leased to John Herring and Margaret his Wife Lessors to the Plaintiff for one and twenty years rendring Rent c. by vertue wherof they entred Agnes died John the Son entred and afterward the said John Herring and Margaret his Wife entred And the said John the Son made his Will in writing and by that devised the Land to Kelsey the Defendant and another in Fee and died John Herring and Margaret leased to Crocker the Plaintiff who entred and being ousted by Kelsey brought Ejectione firmae And this speciall Verdict being found Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and now affirmed upon Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber Mich. 2 Car. Franklin versus Bradell FRanklin a Woman servant brought an action upon the case upon a promise against John Bradell Consideration in an Assumpsit ex post facto And count that wheras she had served the Defendant and his Wife and done to them loyall service the Defendant after the death of his Wife in consideration of the service which the Plaintiff had done to the Defendant and his Wife promised to pay her thirteen shillings four pence upon request and alledged request and non-payment And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment upon the Book of 13 Eliz. Dyer that this is no sufficient consideration because that it is not alledged that the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant had served him Also it was not sufficient because that it was done after the service performed And it was answered that it was a good consideration and that the service was to the benefit of the Defendant And therfore in consideration that the Plaintiff had married the Daughter of the Defendant he promise to pay twenty pounds it is a good consideration and so in consideration that you have been my surely to such a man for such a Debt I promise to save you harmlesse And in consideration that the Plaintiff was Baile for the Defendant he promised to give him a Horse this is good And in consideration that I.S. being a Carpenter had well built my house I promise to give him five pounds And Iudgment for the Plaintiff Hil. 2 Car. Hearne versus Allen. Entred 22 Jac Rot 1875. Oxford 1. RIchard Hearne brought an Ejectione firmae against John Allen Ejectione firmae for two acres of Land in Langham upon a Lease made by Anne Keene which was the Wife of Edward Keene and upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was found Richard Keene was seised of an house in Chippin-norton Devise and of two acres of Land there in Fee and of two acres of Meadow in Langham in Fee used with the said Messuage which were holden in Socage And by his Will in writing dated the 20. May 30 Eliz. he devised the said house Cuni omnibus singulis ad inde pertinentibus vel aliquo modo spectantibus to Tho. K. and his Heirs for ever And for want of Heirs of him the said Thomas then to one Anne K. the Daughter of the Devisor and her Heirs for ever And for default c. then to Iohn K. his Cosin and his Heirs for ever And by the same Will devised his Goods and all his Lands to Eliz. his Wife during her Widow-hood and died Elizabeth his Wife entred Thomas the Son entred upon the Wife and disseised her and having enfeoffed one Edward K. in Fee died and Tho. K. also died without Issue Edward K. by his Will devised
use of the Kings Bench is never to enter the Admission but only to recite it in the Count vide 11 H 7. Rot 412. In a Writ of Right by Baron and Feme and another Feme Infants there per custodes good vide 8 E 4 5. for the Mainprise entred in another Term lib Intractionum fol 366. It was vouched by Croke and affirmed by Yelverton in one Simpsons case in Durham Simpsons case where the Tenant was by Prochein amy where it should be by Guardian was Error The Presidents are that an Infant when he sue may be by Guardian or Prochein amy the one or the other but when he is sued it shall be by Guardian Mich. 3 Car. Wolfe versus Hole WOlfe an Attorney Plaintiff against Hole by a Writ of Priviledge Amendment and he Count upon an Assumpsit And after Verdict given and Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought and moved that there was a default in the Imparlance Roll viz. fault de trover pledges which was as it ought to be in the Plea Roll And it was moved that it might be amended and after debate at Bar by Henden and Davenport it was resolved that the not finding of Pledges is not matter of form but matter of substance and it concerns the King for if the cause to amerce the Plaintiff the Iudgment is Ideo le Plaintiff ses pledge sont Amerce and that it is not aided by the Statute of 18 Eliz. quod quaere and vide 12 Eliz Dyer 288. there is a Case written by me that An 17 Jac was amended after the Verdict and in one Hillaries case and vide thâ—re in Dyer that the Plaintiff when he is sued by Priviledges ought to find pledges and that as well as when a Bill is filed against an Attorney But now because that it was assigned for Error and that if it be amendable the Iustices of the Kings Bench would amend it this Court would not but if it had been in the Imparlance Roll and omitted in the Plea Roll it should be amended vide 18 E 4. 9. that Pledges may be entred at any time Hil. 2. Car. Rot. 565. Hilton versus Paule RIchard Hilton brought an action of Trespasse against Robert Paule Trespasse Which shall be said a Parish Church within the act of 43 Eliz. for the maintenance of thâ— poor for the taking of a Saddle at Stoke-Goldenham And upon Not guilty pleaded the Iury gave a speciall Verdict Viz. That the Parish of Hinkley was de temps dont memory c. and yet is an ancient Rectory and a Church Parochiall And that the Town of Stoke-Goldenham is an ancient Town and parcell of the Rectory of Hinkley And that from the time of H. 6. and afterwards untill this time there hath been and is in the Town of Goldenham a Church which by all the said time hath been used and reputed as a Parish And that the Inhabitants of Stoke-G by all the said time had had all Parochiall Rights and Church-wardens And that the Towâ—â— of Stoke-Goldenham is distant two miles from Hinkley And the Verdict concluded it it should seem to them that Stoke Goldenham is a Parish for the relief of Poor within the Statute of 43 Eliz. cap. 2. then they find for the Plaintiff if not for the Defendant And this Case was argued by Serjeant Barkley and he vouched Linwood fol 89. and said that there is Ecclesia major minor and a dependant Church upon the principall and another Church and which is found to be used and reputed ergo it is not a Parish And that the Exception of the Chappell of Foulnes which by the Statute is made a Parish proves that Chappell and Parish are not within the Statute he vouched 4 E 4. 39. and 5 E 4. to prove that divers Town may be one Parish And the Lord Richardson said that it is a clear case that this is a Parish within the intent of the Statute of 43 Eliz. for the relief of Poor And that the Church-wardens and Overseers of Stoke-Goldenham might assesse for the relief of the Poor And though it be found that after the time of H. 6. and untill now it had been used as a Parish Church that doth not exclude that it was not used so before And a Reputative Chantery is within the Statute of Chantries 1 E 6. And this Statute being made for the relief of the Poor and that they might not wander therfore the intent of the Statute is to confine the relief to Parishes then in esse and so used And every one of the Court delivered their opinion and concurred And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 3 Car. Peto versus Pemmerton Mich. 3 Car. Rot. 414. Replevin SIr Edward Peto Knight brought Replevin against Robert Pemmerton and Giles Thompson The Defendants made Conusance as Bayliffs to Humphrey Peto Where Grantee of a Rent-charge takes a Lease of part of the Land and surrenders it the Rent shall be revived and that Humphrey the Father of the said Humphry was seised of the place in which c. in Fee and by his Deed granted the Rent of six pounds to the said Humphrey his Son for life out therof to Commence after the Death of the Grantor and shewed that Humphrey the Father died and for Rent arrear c. The Plaintiff in Bar to the Avowry confesse the grant and seisin of the Land and that the said Humphrey died seised of the Land out of which the Rent was granted and that that descended to William and from William to the Plaintiff who entred and demised to the said Humphrey the Son parcell of the Lands unde c. for five hundred years by force of which Lease the said Humphrey had entred and was possessed The Defendants replyed that afterwards and before any part for which they made Conusance was arrear the said Humphrey the Son surrendred the said Lease to Sir Edward Peto to which surrender the said Sir Edward agreed wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And this Case was argued by Henden and he said that when the act of him which had the Rent made the suspension his act alone could not revive it But a Rent suspended might be revived by the act of Law or by the joynt act or agreement of the parties by whom the suspension was made 21 H. 7. 7. 19 H 6. 4. 19 H 6. 45. 7 H 6. 2. As for the personall things when they are suspended they are extinct unlesse it be in auter droit as if Feme Executrix take the Debtor to Husband and the Baron dies the Wife shall have an action of Debt against his Executors One reason in this case is because that by the surrender which is accepted the Contract is determined and that is by the act of both And by the surrender the Estate for years is extinguisht to all purposes as to that to which the surrender was made as if he had granted a Rent now it shall
reasons the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff And Serjeant Ward argued well and vouched divers good Cases The Writ of Detinue supposeth properly in the thing demanded vide 50 E. 3. 6. Cook versus Cook WIlliam Cooke alias Barker brought an Action of Wast against George Cook alias Barker and count against him as Tenant for life How a Writ of Wast shall be where there is a lease for life remainder in fee. of the Lease of George Cook and intitle himself to the Reversion Ex assignatione of the said George and shews that George Cook being seised in Fee and the Ter-tenant in Socage devised the Land to the Defendant for life the remaineer in tail to the Plaintiff And upon the Count the Defendant demurred And the Question was how the Writ should be where a Lease is made for life the remainder in Fee for it cannot be Quod de ipso tenet And it seems that the Writ shall be speciall upon the Case as a Fine levied to one for life the remainder in Fee the Writ shall be speciall upon the Case And it seems that it shall never be Ex assignatione but where the Reversion is granted over vide 38 E 3. fol. 23. the direct Case and vide 38 H. 6. fol. 30. in the Writ of Consimili casu vide F N B fol 207. in the Writ of Consimili casu qui illud tenet ad vitam D. ex Assignatione praedicti B. quam I. filius heres R. qui quidem R. illud praefat D. demisit ad eundem terminum inde fecit praefat B. c. The Estate for life with a Remainder over is but one Estate and it was a question at Common Law if he in remainder shall have an action of Wast vide 41 E 3. 16. 42 E 3. 19. 50 E. 3. 3. Reg. 75. But at this day the Law is cleer that he in remainder shall have an action of Wast F N B fol 207. but these Books prove that the Writ of Wast ought to be Ex divisione non ex assignatione Mich. 6 Caroli Case Words AN action of the case was brought for these words Thou art a Theef and hast stoln one Passions Lamb and marked it and denied it And upon Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Serjeant Ashley moved in Arrest of Iudgment because that it is not shewn whose Lamb for Passions is no word of any signification without the name of Baptisme And the Court was of opinion that the Count was good for it had been sufficient to call him Theef and then the subsequent matter and words aggravate and contain matter of Felony And it is a generall Rule that when the first words are actionable the latter words which toll the force therof ought to be such as do not contain Felony Babbington versus Wood. BAbbington brought an action of debt against Wood upon an Obligation of 600 l. the Condition was That if Wood resign a Benefice upon request that then the Obligation should be void A Condâ—tion to resign a Benefice upon request And the Condition was entred the Defendant demurred and Iudgment in Banco Regis pro querente And upon Error brought Iudgment was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber for this Obligation is not voidable by the Statute of 14 Eliz. which makes Obligations of the same force as Leases made by Parsons of their Gleaves viz. Per non residency And it doth not appear by the Plea of the Defendant that it was not an Obligation bona fide which might be lawfull As if a Patron which hath a Son which is not yet fit to be presented for default of age and he present another with an agreement that when his Son comes to the age of 24. years be shall resign it it is a good Obligation And this Case viz. an Obligation with Condition to resign had been adjudged good in the case of one Jones An 8 Jac. And the Councel said that he who is presented to a Church is married therto Jones Case and it is like as if a man who hath married a Wife should be bound to be divorced from her or not co-habit with her these Conditions are void But these resemble not our Case Wilson versus Briggs WIlson brought an action of Account against Briggs as Bayly of his Mannor in the County of Cambr. Tryall of an action of Account upon receit in two Counties and also as Bayly to another Mannor in the County of Suff. And this action was brought in the County of Cambr. and found for the plaintiff and Iudgment to account and found in the arrearages and Iudgment given And now the Defendant brought a Writ of Error Iudgment was reversed because it was mis-tryed for it should be tryed at the Bar by severall Ven. fac to be directed to the severall Sheriffs First it is agreed that a writ of Account against one as Bayliff of his Mannor cannot be brought in another County but only in that County where the land lies vi 8 E. 3. fol 46. Fitz. Acc. 93. see there that two actions of Account brought against one for receit in two Counties And there it is said that it being upon a day that he may have one writ and count in the two Counties But to that it is said that that proves not but that he might have two Writs wherby it might be awarded that he should answer But in this case it was resolved that it was a mis-tryall for it ought to be by two Ven. fac and tryed at Bar and it is not aided by the Statute of 21 Jac cap 13. Trin. 8 Car. Purnell versus Bridge Hil. 6 Car. Rot. 1235. Fine to two and the heirs of one to the use of them two in fee. HEnry Pernell brought Replevin against William Bridge Robert Bridge and two others William Bridge plead Non cepit and the other made Conusance and upon Demurrer the case was such Richard Braken was seised in Fee of sixty acres of arrable Land and forty eight acres of Meadow and Pasture wherof the place in which c. was parcell And he the sixth of Febr. An 18 Eliz. by Deed granted an Annuity or Rentcharge of thirteen pounds six shillings out therof to Edward Steward in Fee payable at the Feast of Saint Peter or within eight and twenty daies after And if it be arrear for eight and twenty daies after the said Feast that then he forfeit for every Fine after forty shillings with a clause of Distresse as well for the said Rent as for the said forty shillings if it shall be arrear Edward Steward seised of the Rent died wherby it descended to Ioan Iermy Wife of Thomas Iermy Daughter and Heir of the said Edward Steward and they being seised therof in the right of the said Ioan An. 41 Eliz. in Crastino animarum levied a Fine of the said Rent to Robert Brook and Isaac Iermy and to the Heirs of Robert which Fine was to the
happen as in Chudleys case Coke lib 1. fol 133. a Feoffment to the use of the Feoffor for life and after his death to his first Son which shall be afterwards born for his life and so to divers And afterwards to the use of I. D. in tail It is resolved that all the uses limited to-persons not in Esse are contingent but the uses to persons in Esse vest presently and yet these contingent uses when they happen vest by interposition if the first Estate for life which ought to support them be not disturbed And in this case it was a good Estate for life in Margaret And then gives the remane in the Feoffees for eighty years if Nicholas and Elizabeth Sanders so long should live and if Elizabeth survive Nicholas then to Elizabeth for her life and after her decease to Posthumus in tail and after his decease to the said three Daughters in tail so that there the Estate for years determines upon the death of Elizabeth and so also the Estate for life to Elizabeth which was contingent determines by his death And the Lord Darbies case a Feoffment to the use of Edward The Lord Derbies case late Earl of Derby in tail and then to the use of the two Feoffees for eighty years if Henry late Earl of Darby should so long live and after his decease to Ferdinand and to the Heirs Males of his body and for default of such Issue to the use of William now Earl of Derby And it was adjudged that the remainders vest presently And this possibility that Henry might have over lived the eighty years will not make the remainders contingent And in a Suit which was at Lancaster between Farrington and another Farringtons case upon a speciall Verdict there found about 8 Jac. and many times argued at Serjeants Inn it was afterwards adjudged a good remainder and not contingent And the same case in this Court upon a Scire facias for two have executor of certain Land for debt recovered against the Earl of Derby which Land was intailed by the same Conveyance c. brought against the Earl of Bridgwater and his Wife one of the Co-heirs of Ferdinand Earl of Derby was adjudged in this Court vide Borastons case Coke lib 3. fol 20. 14 Eliz Dyer 314. Lovies case Coke lib 10. 27 H 8. 24. 38 E 3. 26. 5 E 3. 27. 30. E 3. Collthurst and Bemchins case was urged that the remainder limited to B. for life and after that C. hath married Ja. S. then to the use of C. in Fee this is contingent and is collaterall And this case is not like to that And after Argument at Bar this Term it being argued before that the Lord Richardson was there who was of the same opinion we all concurred and Iudgment was entred for the Plaintiff Pasch 8 Car. Metcalfe versus Hodgson Case MEtcalfe brought an action upon the case against Hodgson and Wharton late Sheriffs of the City of York and count That wheras time out of memory c. there hath been a Court of Record holden before the Sheriffs of the said City upon the Bridge called Ousbridge An action of the case lies not against a Sheriff for taking of insufficient Bail being Iudges and that in this Court every one having cause of action arising within the said City had used to commence any action for debt there and that the Defendants being arrested by their bodies the Sheriffs had used to take Bayle of them and to let them to Bayle finding sufficient sureties and that the Sheriffs are also and time out of memory have been Keepers of the Gaol there And wheras the Plaintiff had brought an action against one Smith and recovered the now Defendants being Sheriffs had taken insufficient Bail of him c. And upon Not guilty pleaded it was tryed before the Lord chief Baron at York for the Bail are supposed to be taken at Wakefield but that was not alledged for any thing which appears to be out of their Iurisdiction And the Iury contrary to the direction of the Lord chief Baron gave Verdict for the Plaintiff And after many motions in Arrest and praying of Iudgment it was resolved that this act was done by them as Iudges and for this Iudiciall Act no action lay And though that the Bail by the event appear to be insufficient yet there is no remedy by action upon the case it being without fraud or corruption and not for reward And this Case differs nothing from the ordinary cases of all insufficient Bailes taken by any of the Kings-Bench Common Bench or Exchequer And that they having two Authorities in una persona it shall be taken to be done by that Authority by which they have power to vail and that is as Iudges of the Court and not as Gaolers for by this they have no power to Bail any and in this capacity they are only subject to an escape vide Dyer 163. Error cannot be assigned in that which the Court of Common Bench do as Iudges vide 12 E 4. 19. Conspiracy lies not for that which a Iustice doth as Iudge of Record Quaerens nil capiat per breve Mich. 8 Car. Hickes versus Mounford Trin. 7 Car. Rot. 514. Replevin REplevin brought by Walter Hickes against Simon Mounford and others the Defendants make Conusance as Bayliffs to Sir John Elliot Executor of Richard Giddy And that the place contain twenty acres and was parcell of the Mannor of Trevelun And that Thomas Archbishop of York and Cardinall and three others were seised of the Mannor wherof c. in Fee Traverse of a day and the third of June 11 H 8. by Deed inrolled granted to King H. 8. a Rent-charge of fifty Marks per annum out therof in Fee with clause of Distresse and convey the Rent by discent to E. 6. Mary and Elizabeth who by her Letters Patents granted it to Richard Giddy for life who made the said Sir John Elliot his Executor and died and for such a summ arrear they Avow c. The Plaintiff pleaded in Bar to this Avowry and confessed the Seisin of the said Arch-bishop and the others and said that the said Arch-bishop and the others the fourth of June 11 H 8. enfeoffed Peter Edgecombe in Fee of the said Mannor who conveyed it to Richard Edgecombe Knight who entred and licensed the Plaintiff to put in his Beasts which he did and that they were there untill by the Defendants distrained absque hoc that the said Arch-bishop and the others the aforesaid 3. June 11 H 8. granted the said Rent to the said King and his Heirs Modo forma prout the Defendants alledged Et hoc paratus est verificare The Defendants say that the Arch-bishop and the others granted the Rent to the King modo forma as they had alledged and Issue therupon and the Iury found That the said Arch-bishop and the others 11 H 8. recovered this Land against Sir