is scriptum and for the time the Defendant ought to have alleged that he bad not convenient time Tender if the truth were so but here doth appear convenient time and it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to tender the Obligation but the Defendant ought to do it at his own perill and to pay the mony in convenient time after the mariage and the other is not bound to demand it Intendment nor to be at the charge to make the Obligation Bacon Iustice to the same effect and said the words ought to be intended of a writing obligatory according to common intendment Time and the meaning of the parties although it be not so expressed and it cannot be meant of a promise by parol for there are no presidents in Law for verbal securities but only for securities in writing and the word in debita juris forma implies so much otherwise here would be only one promise to make good another promise Pasc 9 Iac. rot 361. Banc. Reg. 21 Iac. upon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer-Chamber the former Iudgement was affirmed and the breach here assigned meets with the Assumpsit for it is that he did not become bound per c. and so the breach is well assigned 2ly Here appears in the Declaration to be two Months for the performing the promise which is a convenient time and there doth not appear any hinderance and the Defendant was bound to do it without request and there is no necessity for the Plaintiff to make an election of the time when he will have it done The Court bid the Plaintiff take his Iudgement except better matter were shewed on Monday following Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of forcible entry To quesh an Endictment The Exception was that the forcible entry is said is to be made in messuagium sive tenementum which is incertain But Roll Chief Iustice doubted whether the exception was good or not because it was messuagium sive tenementum and the word Messuage may be good though Tenemen tum be not But it was quashed upon another exception The King against VVood. Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment taken at a Sessions against one Wood for getting the horse of another man into his possession To quash an Endictment by using another mans name and a false token The exceptions taken against it were 1. The Endictment doth not say that it was contra Statutum But to this the Court answered that it was an offence at the Comon Law and the Endictment lay at the Common Law and therefore it need not to be expressed to be contra formam Statuti 2ly It doth not shew what the false token was nor in whose name it was used But Roll chief Iustice took another exception viz. that the Endictment was that the Defendant did the fact nuper and that is so general a word that no answer can be given to it And for that it was quashed Twigg against Roberts Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Hil. 22 Car. rot 956. AN Action of Debt was brought against an Executor in Bristow upon a Custom of concessit solvere by him to pay a Debt due by the Testator upon a simple contract and a verdict and a Iudgement for the Plaintiff Error to reverse a Iudgment in Debt against an Executor The Defendant brought a Writ of Error in this Court to reverse the Iudgment and the Error assigned was that the custom of bringing an Action of Debt upon a concessit solvere is not a good custom Custom Wager of Law because it hindrers the party to wage his Law as by the Law he may do Walker of Councel with the Defendant in the Writ of Error argued that it was a good custom because the party is not thereby hindred of a tryal and there are customs in London which are against the Common Law as for example for the Recorder to give Iudgement upon an exigent The Court desired to see the book and to have presidents brought them And said This Custom had been allowed against the party that made the contract but the doubt is whether it be good against an Executor for a concessit solvere is without any consideration And Roll chief Iustice said that this custom doth break three rules of the Law Barker against Denham Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 1280. BArker brought an ejectione firmae against Denham Special verdict in an Ejectione firmae and upon not guilty pleaded an issue was joyned and the reupon a special verdict was found that by the Custom of the manour whereof the Lands in question were held a Copyholder might surrender his Copyhold out of Court into the hands of two customary Tenants to the use of another and at the next Court the party to whose use the Copyhold was so surrendred used to be admitted and That there was such a surrender made here but that the party to whose use the Copyhold was so surrendred dyed before the next Court and so was not admitted The question was whether he dying before his admittance shall be said to be a Copyholder by the Custom of the manour or no. Descent Hales Argued that he is not a Copyholder within the Custom and then if this Custom hinder not the Lands shall descend according to the rules of the Common Law for so is it of all Copyhold Lands if a speciall custom hinder not and here 1. the words of the Custom are to be considered and 2ly Custom how they are to be expounded and for this he cited 49 E. 3. f. 19.22 E. 3.2 E. 4. f. 24. A Custom shall be construed according to the Common apprehension of the lay gens and a Custom shall be interpreted according to the most effectual operation of the Law 3 H. 7.5 Doct. and Stud. 48.21 H. 7. f. 33.44 Ass f. 10.4 H 8. Dyer 28. A denyal actual by a Copyholder to pay his rent is a forfeiture Forfeiture not an implicative denyal lib. intrat f. 238. And by a surrender of a Copyhold before admittance the surrendree hath no real possession and the heir of a Copyholder before his admittance holds by the Copy of his Ancestor and so he hath title but the surrenderee can have no title before admittance Title and he cited Rawlins and Iones his case and Spurlins case A surrender before admittance is but a a consent of the party to part with the estate but passeth it not and after administration it should have no relation to the surrender Twisden for the Defendant Relation 1. He agreed that a Copyholder before admittance is not perfect in his Estate but yet the admittance shall relate to the surrender and both shall be accounted one entire Act contrary to other learnings 2ly The Son is in by descent and the descent must be ruled by the custom and he is now
between what the Law directs and what the devise directs all the difference is in the manner how his Son Iohn shall come to the Estate 3 4 Phil. Mar. Dyer 134. 37 Eliz. A man seised in fee had issue two Daughters and devised the Lands to them and to their Heirs and it was questioned whether they were Ioynt tenants and I conceive they are and where one omits a thing in a conveyance which the Law supplies this shall not hurt and he cited Iennings and Pollards Case 6 Car. Hales on the other side argued that the Son takes by purchase and not by descent for the devise is not to the Son in present but after the death of the Testators wife and if he had the Lands by descent he should have them presently VVaiver It is true the Son might have waived the taking by purchase and might have taken by descent but here prima facie he shall be intended to be in by purchase and not descent for here doth not appear to be any actual waiver of the purchase and the Son doth here as I conceive take by way of remainder and not by way of reversion And as to the verdict I conceive it is not good for it doth not shew how the lands are held whether in Chivalry or Socage and so it appears not whether the Testator had power to devise all of them or not for if they be held in Chivalry he can devise but two parts of them as the Statute directs 2ly It appears not that the Testator had but one Son by his first wife 3ly It is not shewed that the Lands are parcel of the Mannor 4ly It doth not appear in whose possession the Lands are Roll chief Iustice said Lands that are given by Will shall be intended to be socage tenure Intention if the contrary do not appear And he held that the devise is void and that it is not in the power of Iohn the Son to make the election to take by descent or by purchase at his pleasure but he must of necessity take the Land as the Law directs which is by descent Maxim and it is against a maxim in Law to give a thing to such a person to whom the Law gives it if it had not been so given 3 4 Phil. Ma. Dyer 134. and therefore the Plaintif ought to have Iudgement And as to the verdict he hath primer possession Verdict and therefore if the other make no title the verdict is for him and good enough Bacon Iustice to the same intent viz. that the Heir doth here take by descent and not by purchase for this the Law says and he cannot alter it and cited Foscues Case 4 Car. and a Case in 7 Iac. And so judgement was given for the Plaintif Franck against Burt and others Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintif brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his House For costs for the Desendant upon non-sute of the Plaintif and carrying away his Goods at the Tryal the Plaintif was non-sute The Plaintif moved that there was error in the Declaration and therefore there could have béen no Iudgement and prays that he may be spared costs Roll chief Iustice answered that heretofore it hath been made a question whether the Plaintif being non-sute should pay costs Cests but since the Statute of 4 Iac. it is clear he ought to pay costs for the vexation of the Defendant and so it hath béen ruled here and you are out of Court now by being non-sute and therefore you must pay costs And therefore except better matter be shewed let them be paid Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for a Prohibition to the great Sessions of Carnarvan in Wales to stop a sute in an English Bill of Equity exhibited there For a prohibition to the great Sessions at Carnarvan in Wales whereas by the Bill it appears there is no matter of Equity in the Case but only matter tryable at the Law The Court answered if they proceed there against Equity we cannot hinder them There was wont to be an Agent here from the Commissioners there for us to confer with in such cases as these but it seems there is not any here now Therefore give notice Prohibition and let them shew cause the next Term why a Prohibition should not be granted Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon reading of a retorn made by the Sherifs of the City of Norwitch upon a Habeas corpus directed unto them for one Chambers It was said by the Court How a Habeas corpus to an inferiour Court should be retorned Retorn that it hath been ruled That upon a Habeas Corpus to an inferiour Court to remove Corpus cum causa they ought to retorn all the causes that are depending there concerning the party that hath the Habeas Corpus if any of the causes depending be for above five pound of which they ought not to hold Plea and therefore because all the causes were not retorned here upon the retorn of this Habeas Corpus The Court held the retorn was not good and ordered that it should be amended upon pain of ten pounds by Monday next Raph against Davye Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. RAph brought an Action of the Case against Davy for speaking these words of her to the Plaintifs mother Arrest of judgement in an action for words viz. Your Daughter innuendo the Plaintif is a brazen faced Whore and deserves to be hanged and for speaking these other words to the Plaintif herself viz. you Huswife are a Thief and have stollen my Purse The Plaintif had a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement Averment that the Plaintif doth not aver that her Mother had not any other Daughter besides herself and so it is uncertain whether the words were spoken of her or no. But the Court held it was well enough without such averment because the Declaration is that the Defendant habens colloquium of the Plaintif did speak the words and that makes it certain enough And therefore bid the Plaintif take her Iudgement Jennings against Lee. Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. IEnnings brought an Action of Assault and Battery against Lee. The Defendant pleads a special plea Arrest of Iudgement in an action of assault and battery and justifies The Plaintif replies de injuria sua propria and upon this an Issue is joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement that the replication was not good because it answers not the special matter pleaded nor takes any traverse by an absque tali causa as it ought to do and so there is no issue joyned and consequently there can be no Iudgement Roll chief Iustice said that the replying de injuria sua propria Traverse Issue Ieofails and not traversing absque tali causa is not good for there is not an affirmative and a negative and so
for cause shews 1. That the breach of this promise was in the Testators life time and therefore the Action should have béen brought against him and is not now to be brought against the Executor 2ly The Testator did not promise that his Executors should deliver the goods but that he would deliver them upon request Request and there appears no request to be made to the Testator as there ought to have been 15 Iac. Hob. rep f. 300. Bodwells Case But Roll chief Iustice answered Executor That an Executor may be charged upon a collateral promise if there were a breach of it in the Testators life time and here is a good request and goes to all Therefore let the Plaintif take his judgement except better matter be shewed to the contrary and Osborne Mich. 1649. 1 Reipub. Ang. Banc. super THe Plaintif brought an Action upon the Case upon two several promises the Defendant pleaded non assumpsit Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case Issue and upon this an issue was joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of iudgement and for cause shews that there is no issue joyned as to the second promise alleged for he doth not conclude with petit quod inquitatur per patriam and yet there is a verdict found upon both the promises The Iudgement was arrested till the other should move Mich. 1649. Banc. super VPon a special Verdict the case was this A Case upon a special verdict argued Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in tayl the remainder to the right heirs of him in the remainder for life the remainder man in tayl levies a fine in the life of tenant for life And the question was whether by the levying of this fine the estate tayl were discontinued or no. To prove that the estate tayl was discontinued these Books were cited 1 H 7.22 Lit. Cap. Discents Sect. 34.14 Ed 3. Fitz. Avâ—wry 117.3 Ed 3. Fitz. grants 60.15 Ed. 4 9.2 Rep. Butlers case 5. Cooks Lit. f. 25. Pasch 13 Car. Hungates Case Banc. Reg. Dyer 339. Twisden to the contrary argued that the estate is not altered neither to the right nor by way of Estople 46 Edward 3. f. 23. Estople An Estople supposeth a thing to be done and therefore if the thing be impossible which is alleged by way of estople it can be no estople And one shall not be construed to doe wrong by an Act which may be interpreted so that by it he may doe no wrong Brooks Abridgement Grants 49. Roll chief Iustice The matter here is not how the estates shall pass and how to make them good but the Question is upon the forfeiture Forfeiture for he levies the fine as of an estate in possession and not of a reversion in fée and this is not upon the rule in Bredons case 13 Car. Sir Julius Caesars case an Acceptance of an estate or an Attornment by Tenant for life to a stranger is a forfeiture Jerman Iustice held there was no forfeiture But the Court said the Verdict was ill sound and therefore ordered it should be amended that the whole matter in Law might come in question Amendment Gray against Walye Mich. 1649. Banc. sup VVAlye brought an Action upon the Case against Gray Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the case for speaking these words of him viz. Iack Walye was questioned for stealing of a gray Mare with a snip in her ear and hue and cry went out after him and he durst not shew his face hereabouts The Plaintif had a Verdict and the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable because they were general and uncertain words and it doth not appear the party was damnified by them nor how long ago they were spoken Roll chief Iustice said that the party was defamed by speaking of them and he hath laid it that he lost his Credit thereby Therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement except better matter be shewn But Nicholas Iustice doubted whether they were actionable or no. And Ask Instice nihil dixit Mich. 1649. Banc. sup AN Attorney of this Court that was within age Error against at Attorney in Court for appearing propria persona being within age Error in fact appeared to an Action propria persona and pleaded to issue and had a verdict and a judgment for him and upon this a writ of Error was brought here it being an error in fact because that being within age did not appear per guardianum nor by his Attorney and it was said that it is not helped by the Statute of Ieofails though it be after verdict And thereupon the Court stayed the Execution Mercer against Rule Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved For a Supersedeas attachment for taking out execution after a writ of Error brought and allowed Supersedeas Attachment Execution That a writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement and that it was received and allowed and notwithstanding the Plaintif that had the Iudgement had taken out execution and thereupon it was prayed for a supersedeas to supersede the execution and for an Attachment against the party for his contempt to the Court. And it was urged by the Councel that moved That after a writ of Error is received and allowed the hands of the Court that gave the Iudgement are foreclosed from granting out execution and that the writ of Error is in it self a Supersedeas and cited Dyer 283. and therefore concluded that the execution is not well issued forth Twisden of Councel on the other side said that the writ of Error was not duly pursued because the roll was not marked and therefore the party might well take out execution But Roll chief Iustice answered that the writ was well pursued though the roll were not marked Yet if neither the roll be marked Notice nor notice given to the Attorney on the other side of the bringing the writ of Error if the party procéed to take out execution it is no contempt to the Court otherwise it is a contempt Contempt Supersedeas And it is the duty of the Clerk of the Errors to mark the roll and not the Attorneys and therefore take a Supersedeas quia improvide emanavit to stop execution Pym against Morgan alias Bambery and Baselye Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 1062. IN an Ejectione firmae brought for the Mannor of Caledown Argument upon a special verdict in an Ejectione firmae The Defendant pleads Not guilty and upon this the Iury find a special verdict to this effect That Sir Thomas Morgan was seised in fée amongst other lands of the lands in question and that in 13 Car. he made a settlement of these lands to himself for life the remainder to his daughter Mary for life the remainder to the heirs of the first Tenant for life with a power of revocation
alias Heriots with the appurtenances whereof the said Close called Pipers Down was parcell which tenement and Close were parcell of the said manour and was then and had been time out of mind demised and demiseable in Fee by Copy of Court roll of the said manour did build a new messuage upon the said Tenement and did afterwards by his Letters patents under the great seal grant the office of Keeper and keeping of the said messuage to Iohn Gate for term of his life with all the Lands Tenements c. thereto belonging or adjacent and did also by the same Letters patents give and grant unto the said Iohn Gate amongst other things the Lands belonging to the said new built messuage whereof the said Close called Pipers down was part for Term of his life for the exercising of the said office with an averment in the plea that before that time there was no such office of the keeping of the said house and that the King did not know nor was at the time of the grant enformed that the said Tenement and Lands whereof the said Close was parcell were Copyhold of the said manour After the grant made to Iohn Gate as aforesaid H. the 8. dyed seised of the said manour of the reversion of the said Messuage and Close after the death of Iohn Gate and thereby Ed. the 6. became sofâ—ed of them in like manner and from Ed. the 6. they came to Quéen Mary Then Iohn Gate dyes and after his death Quéen Mary enters upon the said manour and Messuage whereof the said Close was a parcell and afterwards by her Letters Patents under her broad Seal doth grant the Manour and Messuage and Premises unto Susan Tong and her heirs for ever From Susan Tong by mean conveyance the said Manour Messuage and Premises came to Humphry White and his heirs and afterterwards Humphrey White being seized thereof in Fée did by his indenture of lease demise the said Manour Messuage and Premises to Leigh for 60. years to begin from Mich. before the making of the indenture afterward Humphrey White grants away the reversion of the said Manour Messuage Premises to Sir John Branch afterwards Sir Iohn Branch grants this reversion to Vdall Vdall grants it to Bathurst and Bathurst grants it to Thomas Boothby the Ancestor of Thomas Boothby whose Baily doth here make the avowry Afterwards Robert Leigh who had the lease of the said Manour and Premises as aforesaid for 60 years deviseth the residue of this lease then unexpired by his last Will and Testament unto Robert Leigh his Son and dyes Robert Lee the son being possessed of the residue or remainder of this Term for 60. years by virtue of the said Will did at his court held for the said Manour of Chingford grant the said Messuage with the appurtenances and Lands thereunto belonging whereof the said Close was parcell unto Edmund Lee his brother to hold of the same Manour in Fée at the will of the Lord by Copy of Court Roll of that Manour Edmund Lee was thereupon admitted accordingly Afterwards the said lease for 60. years made by Humphrey White unto Robert Leigh the Father expires Afterwards Thomas Boothby who had the reversion of the said Manour and Premises as abovesaid entred as in his reversion upon the said Manour and Premises and dyed seised thereof leaving issue Thomas Boothby his Son Thomas Boothby the Son enters into the said Manour and Premises and claims the said Messuage with the apurtenances with the lands thereunto belonging whereof the Close called Pipers down was parcell and was granted by Robert Leigh unto Edmund Leigh by Copy of Court Roll as aforesaid as parcell of the demaines of the said Manour of Chingford and doth deny it to be Copyhold and to the intent to try the title thereof did by the Avowant his Bailiff distrein the Cattel in the said Close as damage feasant in his soil and Freehold This Case was argued first by Arthur Harris of Lincolnes Inn who argued for the Plaintiff viz. he that brought the replevin and in his argument he made the generall question in the Case to be whether the close called Pipers Down in which the distress was taken were at the time of the distress taken demiseable by Copy of Court Roll or whether the Custom was not destroyed and he held it was demiseable and that the custom was not destroyed and hereupon he made four questions 1. Whether the grant of the new house to Sr. Iohn Gate per nomen officii of keeper thereof were a good grant 2ly Whether the King not being enformed at the time of the grant that the house was Copyhold tenure he was not deceived in his grant 3ly Whether by this grant the Custom was not destroyed 4ly Whether the Kings Patentee hath not the same privilege to grant this house c. again by Copy of Court Roll after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate And as to the 1. of these 4. questions he cited 8 E. 4. by Chock and 21 E. 4.79 and Mich 5 Car. Banc. Reg. Monsons case and Pasc 14 Car. Banc. Reg. Messand and Butterfields Case and 5 E. 4. f. 8. and Dyer 269. Savages Case To the 2d question he held that the King was not here enformed of his right and consequently he was deceived and therefore ought not to be prejudiced by his grant which he should be if he had not liberty to demise this house again by Copy of Court Roll after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate and he said that there are two rights in the King 1. At the Common Law and 2ly a customary right and of this Customary right or his jus concedendi he was not enformed and he cited these books 3 H. 7.10 rep 49.8 H. 625 Br. Ayd 45 4. H. 6.1 2 R. 3. Hunsons Case and he said that the book of 5 H. 7. f. 1. which is objected is not to purpose for the protestation is not well taken 19 H. 6. a protestation is to supply a matter which is not so here 41 E. 3. Fitzh protest 9.22 H. 6.37 Br. protestation 6. Plowd Coment Gresbrooks and Foxes Case and 20 Eliz. Burrell and Holcrofts Case 2ly The King is not enformed here in his grant in matter in Law as he ought to be and therefore his grant shall not turn to his prejudice 1 rep 52.18 H. 8. Lovels Case Pasc 2 Eliz. Sr. Thomas Mores Case 1. rep â—3 16 Jac. Needlers case and whereas it is said that the words ex certa scientia in the patent do declare that the King was enformed I answer that those words do intend no more but that the King was enformed of matters of fact and not of matters in Law and the Kings grant shall only be taken secundum intentionem and whereas it may be objected that by the granting of the Estate for life unto Sr. Iohn Gate the custom is destroyed I answer that this being in the Case of the King it is an extraordinary Case and not
secrets of his Clyents cause Not to disclose a Clyents cause and thereupon he was forborn to be examined Pilkinton and Bagshaw Pasch 1655. Banc. sup VPon a tryal to be had at the Bar between Pilkington and Bagshaw Tryal at the Bar. the Plaintif would not put in his writ that the tryal might goe on Whereupon Roll chief Iustice bid the Cryer to call the Attorney of the Plaintif to appear and to bring in the writ upon pain of 20 l. and said Pain of 20 l. Attorney put out of the Roll. Non-sute upon the Record that if he brought it not in he should be put out of the Roll. Serjeant Maynard moved that if he brought not in the writ that the Plaintif might be called non-sute upon the Record which Roll chief Iustice answered might well be because the parties have day in Court by the Record or Roll afterwards the Sollicitor who had the writ brought it in yet Roll chief Iustice said There shall notwithstanding the writ be brought in be 20 l. fine set upon him for his trifling with the Court. The Protector and Sumner Pasch 165â— Banc. sup SErjeant Bernard moved that Sumner that appeared in Court upon his habeas corpus directed to the Kéeper of Northampton Gaol might be bailed To bail a prisoner denied for that having killed two men upon the Highway the Iury had found it Man-slaughter se defendendo Roll chief Iustice answered The Iuries conclusion is contrary to their premises Therefore let the prisoner be sent to Northampton Gaol whence he came yet that may not be for the fact was done in Peterborough Tryal Writ ad reâ—piendum and therefore he cannot be tryed at Northampton therefore let him be sent to Peterborough Gaol with a writ ad recipiendum to the Gaoler there to take charge of him Pilkington versus Bagshaw Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at the Bar in a Trespass and Ejectment betwixt Pilkington and Bagshaw Trespass and Ejectment the question being whether Copyhold lands may be entailed by the custom of the Manor It was said that if Tenant in tail and the issue in tail of Copyhold lands in tail joyn in a surrender in a Court Baron of the Copyhold lands Estopel Copyhold lands in tail Customary entail Fine State enjoyed Seisure of Cepyhold lands that this is not an estopel for it ought to be by fine or deed indented And Roll chief Iustice said that Copyhold lands in tail are not within the Statute of Westm 2. but it is a Customary entail like in its nature to another entail and such an estate must be docked by fine or by some other customary way It was also said by him that if Copies of Court Rolls be shewed to prove a Customary estate the enjoynment of such estates must also be proved otherwise the proof is not good It was also said upon the evidence That a seisure by the Lord made of Copyhold entailed lands within the Manor of Wakefield in Yorkshire is in the nature of a recovery to deck the entail and that the manner of doing it is either for the Copyholder to let his Copyhold for more years than he ought or to refuse to do his service and then the Lord seifes the lands for a forfeiture and grants it to another by the consent of the Copyholder that made the forfeiture It was then also said by Roll chief Iustice Custom that a Custom cannot be urged for a thing that had its beginning since Rich. the 1. if a Record can be shewed to the contrary Common recovery Recompense in value Custom Copyhold destroyed It was also said by him that a common recovery suproseth a recompence in value to all persons who lost the estate by the recovery He said also that he conceived that there could be no such Custom to cut off entails of Copyhold lands by the forfeiture and seisure of the Lord for his seisure upon the forfeiture destroys the Copy-hold estate by the Common Law for it is in the Lords election after the seisure whether he will grant the estate again or no and you do not prove that the Custom binds him to it Nota. Harris and Pasch 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved in the Case of one Harris To amend an old judgement Denied that the entry of a judgement twelve years past might be amended upon the Roll. But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be after so long time past Pasch 1655. Banc. sup VPon a writ of Error brought to reverse a fine levied by an Infant being a Feme Covert Day to inspect an Infant The Court was moved for a day to bring in the party that levied the fine to be inspected by the Court which was granted and at the day she was brought into the Court and viewed and two witnesses deposed that she was within age at the time of the fine levied Entry upon the Roll. which was entred upon the Roll upon which the Issue was tryed Pasch 1655 Banc. sup IT was said by Roll chief Iustice Election That if there be two Kinsmen in equal degree of kindred to the Intestate it is in the election of the Ordinary to which of them he will grant Letters of Administration Pasch 1655. Banc. sup AN Outlawry was reversed Outlawry reversed because the place where the County Court was held is not shewed in the secundo exactus Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IT was moved that there was a judgement given in the Common Pleas To affirm a judgement a writ of Error depending and thereupon the Defendant brought his writ of Error to reverse the judgement in this Court and since pending the writ of Error the partses were agréed and therefore they desired the judgement might be affirmed because that otherwise satisfaction of the judgement cannot be acknowledged upon the Roll because the Court of Common Pleas were forclosed to do any thing further upon the judgement given there by reason of the writ of Error But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be Denied for you shew no cause why we should affirm the judgement and therefore we will make no rule in it but enter satisfaction upon the Roll if you will at your own peril Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IT was said by Roll chief Iustice that an Action upon the case will lie against one that brings vexatious actions against another Action upon the Case for vexation or for entring of Actions of a great value to force his adversary to put in great bail where he hath but small cause of Action Nota. Trevanian and Penhollow Trin. 1655. TRevanian brought an Action upon the case against Penhollow for speaking of these words of him Plea to an Action on the Case Thou hast taken a false Oath at the Assizes and art false forsworn The Defendant pleads that the Plaintif had agréed to accept of 3 Iuggs of Beer from him in satisfaction The Plaintif
to alter all or any part of the settlement made at any time during his life The verdict finds further that there was an Ordinance of Parliament made in the year of our Lord 1645. that Sir Thomas Morgan should forfeit all his lands and estate which he was then seised or possessed of or had been seised or possessed of from the year 1641. and that by the same Ordinance the lands in question were given to Mr. Pym that by virtue of the said Ordinance he encred was seised pro ut that Mr. Pym died so seised after whose death the Plaintifs lessor as his heir entred made a lease to the Plaintif after that Sir Tho Morgan died Mary the Defendant claiming as tenant in remainder for life after the death of Sir Thomas her father by vertue of the settlement made 13 Carol. entred into the lands in question and the Plaintif as lessée of Pym brings the action Vpon this special verdict the Question was Whether by the Ordinance of Parliament made not till the year 1645. yet looking back to the year 1641. the remainder of the lands in question which was setled 13 Car. being before the making of the Ordinance and also before the time to which the Ordinance looks back be forfeited by the Ordinance or not Forfeiture Latch of Councel with the Defendant argued That it was not forfeited 1. Because that the Ordinance is penal and retrospective or looking back and therefore it is odious in Law and shall not be largely interpreted but as strictly as may be 2ly The preamble of the Ordinance sets forth 2. things as the reasons why the Ordinance was made 1. Mr. Pyms deserts to whom the lands were given 2ly Morgans offences for which he was thus punished and both these grounds for making the Ordinance can extend no further than to the year 1641. and so not to the time of the settlement made 13 Car. by Sir Thomas Morgan for then neither of these causes alleged were in being 2ly The purview of the Ordinance is double 1. punitive 2ly remunerative 1. the punitive part which concerns the punishing of Sir Thomas Morgan 2ly the remunerative part concerning the rewarding of Mr. Pym and the punitiue part made in the year 1645. cannot reach the estate setled upon Mary his daughter so long before viz. 13 Car. for it can reach no further back than to the year 1641. at the most to which time and no further the Ordinance is retrospective and in the Statute of 23 H. 8. general words of an Act are restrained Besides there is a demonstration in the Ordinance that shews the Ordinance doth not extend to the estate of the Defendant as may appear by the provisoes conteined in it for although the children of Morgan are to be punished within the Ordinance by the second proviso of it yet this extends not to so long time as to 13 Car. when the estate was setled but only to the estate as it was in the year 1641. And therefore prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Wadham Windham on the other side argued that the estate of Morgan though it was said to be setled 13 Car. was forseited by the Ordinance Because the estate was not absolutely setled at that time for there was a proviso in the conveyance to revoke the settlement so that at the time of the Ordinance made the estate was in Sir Thomas Morgan absolutely to dispose off as he pleased and by the words of the Ordinance all Morgans estate is passed without any saving and the provisoes of the Ordinance do prove that the Children of Sir Thomas Morgan were excepted out of the savings made to preserve the estates of others Also Boons and Favours bestowed use to be amply expounded and this being a Boon bestowed by the Parliament shall receive as large a construction as is possible Besides Morgan was a Papist therfore it may well be supposed that he intended not this for any real settlement but only by way of subtility for some private reasons for we know that Papists do use to make such settlements as this was to preserve them from penalties of the Law And the words of the Ordinance are accumulative to convey all Morgans estate and there are no restrictive words and if there were they should be void here for the Manor of Callidown being the Lands in question are expresly given by the Ordinance and as to these Lands the rights of all men are bound and therefore if there were a saving it would be void as it is Cook rep Alton Woods Case And an act of Parliament sometimes is as a conveyance sometime as a judgment and both waies a saving in it is void and srivolous 1 Rep. 4. A conditional estate or a right may be saved by Iudgment or fine but not an entire estate or interest Saving and therefore the estate of Mary in the Manor of Callidown cannot be saved by any proviso and he cited Alton Woods Case for authority in the principal Case f. 51. But admitting a general saving had been good to save Maries estate yet as the words of the Ordinance were penned her estate is not saved by it for the words were put in the Ordinance for the advantage of Pym and not to provide for Mary for she claims from Thomas Morgan and so prayed Iudgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice said that the provisoes in the Ordinance are not void to all persons as Windham argued for Strangers are clearly provided for by them But let the Case be argued again Saturday fortnight Postea Hatwood against Payte Mich. 1649 Banc. sup Entred Hill 24 Car. rot 78. THe question insisted upon in this Case was Whether Tithes be extendible upon an Elegit whether upon a recovery in an Action of Debt against a Parson the Tithes be extendible by Elegit Hales of Councel with the Plaintif held that they are because that Tithes may be said to be Tenements and the Parson hath a Free-hold in them although he hold them jure Ecclesiae But Roll chief Iustice said Elegit that a Parsonage cannot be extended but that the Debt may be levyed out of the profits of it by the Sherif as it was wont to be done Extent for now there being no Bishops the profits cannot be sequestred by the Bishop of the Dioces Sequestration as they used to be But Ierman and Nicholas Iustices doubted Clergy Ask Iustice agreed with Roll and said that by the Common-law the Clergy are no more privileged from paying their debts than Lay men are Roll chief Iustice said it hath been heretofore questioned whether a Clergy-man be subject to watch and ward or to contribute to satisfie for a robbery done within the Hundred but now it is no question but they are subject and shall contribute Adjourned till Saturday to be argued again Postea Tyndal and others against Harington Mich. 1649. Banc. sup TYndal brought an Action of Debt
Hill 24. Car. rot 1062. THis case arising upon a special verdict found in an Ejectione firmae Argument upon the Case concerning the Manor of Callidown given to Mr. Pym. touching the title of the Manor of Callidowne being part of Sir Thomas Morgans estate that was given to Mr. Pym by Ordinance of Parliament and heretofore argued on both parts was again spoken to First by Twisden who argued for the Plaintif who said the Question is Whether the estate setled by Sir Thomas Morgan before the year 1641. be forfeited by the Act of Parliament and consequently well given to Mr. Pym or no And he said the intent of the Parliament in making this Act is first to be interpreted and he held that according to the Act no estate passeth but such estate as Morgan had in the year 1641. and no more for no man can forfeit a thing that he hath not but only that which he hath but Morgan then had not this estate and therefore he could not forfeit it 2ly There is a priority of vesting the estate in the Parliament and next from the Parliament to the Trustees and the Trustees can have no more than is forfeited to the Parliament and the estate setled before the year 1641. is not forfeited to the Parliament 3ly The penning of the Act is considerable The Act saith all the said lands that is all the said lands that Morgan had in the yeart 1641. and not all the lands that Morgan ever had before that time and had setled for the precedent words are restrained by the words subsequent Althams case 8 Rep. Dyer 369. and from the preamble of the Act to make a construction to punish innocent persons is against the Law of God Man and Nature Nichols case f. 398. Of rewards and punishments consist the essence of Commonwealths and it could not be the intent of the Parliament to punish innocent persons 3 Ed. 4. 2. The Parliament did not intend to give more of Morgans estate than what he had 1641. for then they might give that which might be evicted which they intended not And whereas it is objected that there is a clause of Revocation in Morgans settlement and so the estate was not absolutely setled It is answered That notwithstanding this power of Revocation the estate is not given by this Act unto Pym for it cannot give a power 7 Rep. 13. and a power cannot be forfeited and Mary Morgan had an interest in the land notwithstanding the power of Revocation And notwithstanding there is no saving for Mary yet the estate is not passed for Mary Morgan is not intended to be punished Nichols case Com. f. 483. and so there needs no saving for her 14 H. 8. f. 2. and it cannot be intended because there is no saving for her that therefore she shall forfeit her estate and the saving is not therefore idle for it hath an operation another way The saving is not intended of the estate of a Collateral Auncestor only for this is the begging of the question for the saving saves not any thing and the penning of the words are against this exposition and so he concluded that nothing was given by the Statute to Mr. Pym but the estate of Morgan which he had in the year 1641 and prayed judgement for the Plaintif Steel the Recorder of London for the Defendant said he would only answer the argument of Twisden because he had heard no other arguments And first he held that the Ordinance reaches all the estates that Morgan had as well before as at the time 1641. and the estate setled by Morgan before 1641. was the estate of Thomas Morgan in the year 1641. 2ly The lands are expresly named which are given by the Statute it is not material who hath the estate in them for certitudo nominis tollit demonstrationem Dowbey and Dudingtons case and Mildmayes case 1 Rep. do interpret how the word others shall be interpreted And here cannot be said to be any injustice in the Parliament The Question here is Whether the estate be setled by the Parliament and if it be setled it would be a supposition of injustice to suppose it is not rightly done The Law hath invested the Parliament with a power to dispose of all lands and therefore it cannot be intended injustice And the estate is not in Mary Morgan notwithstanding the Conveyance because there is a clause of Revocation in it for it is a void Conveyance as to her estate by reason of the clause of Revocation for that makes it fraudulent And the estate of Mary Morgan is not passed by the Statute notwithstanding the clause of eviction in the Ordinance an if or an an are no saving of an estate and here is no eviction in the case and here is no saving otherwise their estate cannot be saved for then the lands are all passed And the saving extends to the lands descended to the Children of Thomas Morgan from Collateral Ancestors and not from Tho. Morgan the Father and as reasonable a Construction ought to be made of an Ordinance of Parliament as this is as of an Act of Parliament and so he praid Iudgement for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice said He did not doubt of the power of the Parliament in this case but of their meaning whether they intended these lands should be forfeited or not And the Ordinance was made by the House of Commons without any proviso in it and the proviso was put in by the House of Lords and he enclined that Mary Morgans estate was saved But Jerman Iustice said he conteived that Maries estate was not saved but only the estate of strangers The Court was divided and said they would consider till next Term and then give Iudgement in this and the Case of Garret and Blizard Quaere What Iudgement was given in both cases for I was not in Court at the day they were spoken to again Vincent against VVallis Hill 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 966. rot 906. IN a Replevin for distraining of Cattel the Defendant emparled A Demurrer to a plea in a replevin after imparlance and afterwards pleaded that the lands are antient Demesne where the distress was taken and to this plea the Plaintif demurred Serjeant Parker for the Plaintif and against the Demurrer held that the plea is not to be admitted because that the party hath made his defence Plea and cannot therefore afterwards plead to the jurisdiction of the Court and cited 11 H. 4. f. 47. 2 H. 7. f. 17 b. That freehold only is to be sued for in antient Demesne And 2ly the plea is not sufficient for it doth not appear that the lands are held of the Manor but only are parcel of the Manor and such lands are pleadable in other Courts 20 H. 6. Nat. Brev. 11 M. 41 Ed. 3. 3ly It is not said that the lande are pleadable by Writ of Droit Close which ought to be 2 H. 7. f. 17. 3 H. 6. f.
14. 4ly He prescribes that the lands are not pleadable elsewhere which is not true for in some cases they are pleadable here in this Court Nat. Brev. 19 D. and so prayed judgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice demanded why is there not a special demurrer here Special Demurrer After imparlance one may plead that the lands are antient demesne for a plea of lands in antient Demesne to the jurisdiction of the Court differs from other pleas pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Court It is true that parcel of a Manor of antient demesne is pleadalbe at the Common Law but lands held of the Manor are pleadable in the Court of the Lord. Adjourned to be heard Tuesday following Afterwards it was moved again and Roll chief Iustice said that after imparlance this plea is not good because by it he hath admitted the jurisdiction of the Court And therefore lâ—â— him shew cause why he should not plead in chief Pascall against Sparing Hill 1649. Banc. sup Pasch 1649. rot 75. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action in Bristow upon a Concessit solvere by the Defendant Error to reverse a judgement in Debt for Concessit solvere Declaration Roll chief Iustice said that an Action of Debt did well lie upon a Concessit solvere by the custom of Bristow and so is it in London 28 H. 6. 1 E. 4. f. 6. Another Error assigned was that it is said that the party recovered the damages per juratores Compert whereas it ought to be Assess for this is the proper word but this exception was also over-ruled Latch took another exception that there wants the words pro misis et custagiis in the assessing the damages and so it doth not appear for what the damages are assessed And for this the Iudgement was reversed except better matter shewn Damages Iennings against Lee. Hill 1649. Banc. sup GEnnings brought an Action of Trespaâ—s of an assault and battery against Lee and his wife Whether an issue well joyned for an assault and battery made by the wife the Feme pleads a special plea of justification that it was in defence of her Husband The Plaintif replies de injuria sua propria upon this there was an issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the issue was nor well joyned because the replication was not good and so the verdict not good and so there can be no Iudgement Serjeant Parker prays judgement for the Plaintif for he held the replication was good and so a good Issue joyned and if there be not yet it is helped by the Verdict Issue or else by the Statute of Ieofails or if not yet it is at least good in part And the issue here doth imply a negative although there be not a direct negative but an affirmative in the words of it And 6 E. 4 16 b. in a Replevin and 9 H. 5. f. 1. b. there are good issues joyned in the affirmative because they imply a negative Trin. 18 Jac. Banc. reg Aldridge and Walthalls case and here wants only a Traverse which is but only matter of form and not material 2ly The Verdict hath made the issue good although it be not well joyned 5 H. 7. f. 15. 3ly If the Verdict helps it not yet the Statute of Ieofails helps it 5 Rep. Nichols case 19 Eliz. Dallisons Reports 8 9 Eliz. Bendloes Reports and 14 Car. Banc. Reg. 4ly If the Statute help not yet it is well enough because it is good in part and for part it is well found and damages shall be intented to be given for that which is well found Damages 9 H. 7. f. 4. 16 H. 7. f. 1â— 10 Rep. James and Osburns case 3 Iac. Banc. Reg. Bigrane and Selling Mich. 1649. Desmond Osborn this case the Court denied Roll chief Iustice said Issue if there be 2 issues and one issue is not well joyned and damages be given entire this is not good but will make all naught 40 Ed. 3. f. 40. 18 Iac. Aldridges case 16 Iac. Iones and Gates adjudged and he said that the material thing is not here put in issue and so the issue is immaterial and there is a Ieofail and the damages being given entire there can be no judgement given Jeâ—â—ail Ierman Iustice did differ in opinion and said if the Defendant plead an immaterial thing and the Plaintif joyn issue and it be found for him he shall have judgement otherwise where the plea is partly material partly immaterial for there the issue ought to be upon the material thing otherwise there can be no judgement It was adjourned till Thursday following The Case was this An Action of Assault and Battery and wounding was brought the Defendant pleads non cul to the wounding and justifies the Assault and Battery in defence of her Husband in keeping possession of certain lands The Plaintif replied de injuria sua propria and doth not traverse absque tali causa The Iury find entire damages for all whereas there is not a perfect issue joyned as to the Assault and Battery for want of the Traverse Postea Hodges against Iane. Hill 1649. Banc. sup IN an Arrest of Iudgement in this case the question was Whether debt lie against an Executor sur concessit solve of the Testator Wager of Law Debt Executor Whether an Action do lie against an Executor upon a Concessit solvere of the Testator upon a special custom Roll chief Iustice held that it doth not for this would be to charge an Executor in an Action of Debt where he may by the Law wage his Law and an Action of Debt lies not against an Executor upon a simple contract made by the Testator And he said that the reason for Ley gager is because it is intended that as well as the contract to pay money may be in private so may also the payment be made in private Adjourned Giaves against Drake Hill 1649. Banc. sup IN an Action of Trover and Conversion for divers parcels of Houshold stuff an Exception was taken to the Declaration Arrest of Iudgement in a Trover and Conversion because the Plaintif amongst other things had declared pro sex parcellis plumbi cinerii Anglice Pewter Porringers whereas the word parcellis is uncertain for a parcel doth consist of many things in number and so sex parcelli cannot be properly applyed to six Porringers but if it had béen sex peciis it had been better though that be also incertain Hales held it was all one as if it had béen pro sex peciis plumbi Cinerii Roll chief Iustice enclined it was well enough because though the words are not so proper yet the description is good enough Declaration Words Ierman Iustice was of the same opinion But Nicholas Iustice held that the Latin is not good for if there be proper words for a thing they ought to
to be measured by ordinary rules of Law And 2ly Antient grants are to be construed as the Law was at that time when they were made 9. rep 27.6 rep 48. 〈◊〉 H. 7. 〈◊〉 14 E. 3. Fitzh Scire facias 23. and the King is not bound by a general custom as Common persons are 35 H. 6.29 by Prisot 22 Ed. 3. The King shall not pay a heriot upon the purchase of heriatable Lands and we shall find that many maximes of Law upon serious scanning of them are not so certain to be relyed on as they are commonly held to be 5. rep Knights Case Pasc 3 Eliz. B. R. Conisby and Risby Dyer 10 Eliz. and the patentee of the King shall have the same privilege that the King should have had if he had not granted the Letters patents 27 Eliz. Stubs and Rigfords case At another day Arthur Harris spake again to the point that the King had no legall intent to destroy the Copyhold Estate by his patent and therefore it should not be destroyed and cited Grotius de jure belli et pacis 343. and that no such intent can appear in the words of the patent and cited 7. rep Inglefields Case and 17 E. 3. f. 19. and Cooks Institutes 373. and 1. rep 46. and Plow 333. and as to the last point he argued that the Patentée of the King shall be in the same condition as to the reviving of the Copyhold Estate as the King should have been if he had not made the grant because that the King hath the Fee and he may grant it as he pleaseth Dyer 16 Eliz. 337.1 rep 31.10 Eliz. Dyer 266.24 Ed. 3. Fitz. Tit. guard 27. and no priority can be pleaded against the King nor against his Patentee Hill 30 Eliz. Stubs and Rightwayes Case an Action of Accompt against Executors doth lye only for the King It is true that prerogatives inseparable and annexed to the person of the King cannot be granted away by the King but prerogatives separable may be granted away 12 H. 4. Fitzh guard 81. The Grantee of the Grantee of the King shall have the prerogative of the King by reason of the thing granted by the King Brook praerog 17. 21 H. 7.2 Br. entre congeable 4â—â— The King may distrein for a rent seck but not his Grantee because it is a prerogative executory and not executed for in such case it is otherwayes and as to the objection to the cause of the demurrer set forth that the Concessit is not answered because it only sayes mentionat esse concessum I hold it well enough but if it should not be yet it is helped for both partyes do agree in the setting forth of the Letters Patents 34 Eliz. B. R. in Harâ— and Smiths case and the grant is confessed in our rejoynder and though the demurrer should not be good yet the Avowant cannot have Iudgement for he hath not entitled himself to the Action as appears by his grant for his grant is void and cannot take effect rep 46.8 rep 201.39 Eliz. in the Chequer Chamber Where 2. Manours are granted by the name of one of them the grant is not good And in our case Thomas Boothby had nothing in the land at the time of making of the deed of Covenant to stand seised to use as it appears by the Avowants own pleading and the postea cannot help it Dyer 111. Clarks Case Hill 15 Iac. entred Trin. 15 Iac. rot 29. Desmons case 20 H. 615. Hales on the other side argued for the Avowant and prayes a return of the Cattel distreyned first he put the Case at large And he said that the Plaintiff hath not well set forth the Kings grant in his bar and so it is all one as if he had not set it forth at all Plowd 563. and he hath disputed that which we have not alleged and the sur rejoynder is but argumentaive and not positive and nothing appears to the Court and he hath quite mistaken his course and way But admitting the case and the points to be as they are made viz. 1. Whether the new Office be well granted because the word Constituimus is omitted 2. Whether the grant for life be good 3. Whether the grant of the Copyhold for life be a suspension of the Copyhold estate or an extinguishment of it which is the great question in the Case For the 1 point I hold that here is a good grant of this new Office and that the word Constituimus is not necessary because that there are special fées also newly granted 2ly This is not an Office in gross consisting and resting upon it self but it is a relative Office or an imployment incident in the interest of the house granted and therefore the word Constituimus is not here necessary Dyer 200. 3ly If it be not a formal Office yet here is a good grant of an employment to which a recompence may be added although an Assize cannot be brought for it 3 Ass Trin. 6 Iac. Abercromies Case And here the protestation that the King was not informed that this was Copyhold land is unnecessarily alleged and therefore it is not of necessity it should be answered and if it be not well set forth it is not material For the 2 question whether the King was deceived in his grant he said that the King needed not to take notice of any former estates and that the Statute expresseth that it is not necessary to recite them 24 H. 8. 2â— To the 3 point the chief question whether the Copyhold estate be suspended or extinguished he held it was extinguished and cited Knights case Alton woods case and said that the rules of the Civil Law ought not to be applyed to the Common Law nor to be cited to perplex the proceedings thereof and were this in the case of a Common person without doubt the Copyhold estate would be destroyed 20 Eliz. by Popham and Fenn and the King here hath the Fee simple and there is no difference between the case of the King and of a Common person in this regard a thing which will not pass by the King without notice will not pass with notice and here is no prejudice to the King in not taking notice whether by the Patent the Custom to grant Copyhold estates be destroyed or not and here is a necessary consequence in Law that the custom is destroyed because the King that had the fee in the Manor hath suspended the Copyhold by his grant All the Arguments used on the other side are to destroy the Kings grant and the cases put do all differ from our case and do stand upon their own bottoms Nor shall the King be intended to be mis-conusant of his particular grant such as this is although he may be in a general grant lib. Ass 21. pl. 19. Pasch 12 Car. C. B. Glover and Edgars case and it would be a great mischief if the Copyhold estate should be revived As to the last point whether the
Patentee shall be in the same condition as the King was he said that it is not material whether he be or no as to the Case in question and rested upon the 3 question If the King hath free warren in land and grants the land and mentions not the warren yet the warren passeth by the grant And here out Avowry stands pro confesso because the Plaintif hath made no title A grant of a Manor per nomen maneriorum is a good grant of the Manor and here is a good grant and if not yet it is helped by the Statute of 3 4 Phil. Mar. C. 1. 1 H. 7. f. 28 and the Postea here refers not to the grant of the Copy and here is no ouster alleged and if there be there is do disseisin but it passeth an estate for will between the parties Roll chief Iustice It would be dangerous to make the Patent void because the King took no notice of the Copyhold estate and this point is not fit to be argued A thing not materially alleged in pleading is not necessarily to be answered and it is not necessary to create such an Office as this is for it is but an employment The great question is whether after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate the Copyhold estate can be revived or not in the case of the King It may be dangerous whether it be one way or the other As to the pleading we will not make it ill if it may be good Argue the great point again for it is a difficult point and of great consequence Ierman Iustice to the same effect and enclined that the King had no intent to destroy the Copyhold and he held that the Office was well granted because it was but an imployment Nicholas Iustice inclined that the Copyhold was destroyed At another day Wadham Windham argued for the Plaintif and first he put the case at large and then said that 1. It appears by the replication that the Avowant hath no title 2. He confesseth that the Plaintif hath a Title Queen Mary seised of the Manor of Chingford Comitis whereof Pipers Down is parcel grants it per nomen duorum illorum maneriorum and it is not averred that she had two Manors First it is considerable whether the Patent be good by the Common Law 2ly Whether if not yet it be made good by the Statute of H. 8. and he held 1. That it is not good at the Common Law because it is incertain and wants sufficient words and here is an apparent falsity for he hath two Manors and he grants but one and if the King have two Manors and grant them per nomen Manerii this is not a good grant As tithes belonging to a Rectory cannot pass by the name of a portion of tithes neither do all the Statutes of Confirmation of Patents confirm less or greater values granted than are comprised in the Letters Patents 41 Eliz. Pasons case in the Exchequer A presentation to a Rectory where it ought to be ad Medietatem Rectoriae is not a good presentation 2. rep Dodingtons Case Dyer â—31 An ill grant is not helped by the Statute because it is not named 2ly A false suggestion is not helped by the Statute of 34 H. 8. 3 Car. Sir Hatton Farmers case and in our case here is a mistake of a thing and not of the name for it is a Manor for Manors and so there is no true meaning and therefore it cannot be helped by the Statute Pasch 1 Iac. rot 216. C. B. Dawson against Pickering The Queen was seised of two Manors viz. of Rushworth and of Dale and granted the Manor of Rushworth habendum the Manor of Rushworth with the Manor of Dale and it was held an ill grant at the Common Law and not helped by the Statute But it is objected that this Manor may be known by the name of two Manors and so in our case although the King was seised of one Manor and granted this Manor habendum per nomen duorum Maneriorum this is good Mich. 22 H. 6. pl. 16. f. 13. To this the answer is that it cannot be pleaded per nomen without an averment that there are two Manors 2 Ed. 4. f 28. the last case There is a difference between a feofment and a release a feofment may be pleaded per nomen without an averment but a release cannot be so pleaded for in a feofment the livery operates to pass the land 22 H. 6. Hill f. 39. pl. 9.13 and Dyer the Serjeants Case where there is certainty there needs no averment but it is not so in our Case 1 H. 7. f. 28. and it is a forein intendment to suppose that one Manor of Chingford Comitis shall be known by the name of the two Manors of Chingford Comitis and we need not plead by a non concessit because the Avowant hath made no title and so he can have no return 1 H. 7. f. 28. 6 H 7. f. 6. and here is no certainty added to make it certain by the words illorum quod nuper perquisivimus de c. To the second point The Avowant hath confessed the Plaintifs title for he hath confessed that K. H. the 8th hath made it a Copyhold and if the Copy be good our title is good As to the question whether when a Copyhold comes to the King and he leaseth it this doth not so destroy the Copyhold that when the lease is out it may not be Copyhold again I hold that if a Common person lease a Copyhold the Copyhold is destroyed but it is not so where the King leaseth it as it is in our case which ought not to be measured by the Common rule of Law for the Law of the Crown over-rules the Common Law and the Law of Custom 22 E. 3. The King is not bound by Custom as a common person is 35 H. 6. The King having Gavelkind lands may destroy the Custom which runs with such lands pro tempore only and the Kings grant shall not enure to a secondary operation as Knights case is and here is no prejudice to any person that the Copyhold estate should be revived here the consequence may be severed and it is not necessary and therefore the lease of the Copyhold not naming it Copyhold is good As to the Objection made that it is no benefit to the King to make it Copy-hold again the answer is That it is a prejudice to take away a mans privilege and liberty if there were no other inconvenience but here is more for there may be prejudice by losing the Common c. And the rule that a Custom is an entire thing and cannot be apportioned shall not bind the King although it do bind common persons and the Statute makes not the grant good as to the reversion The Copyhold is demised and yet shall be demisable hereafter and so it may be pleaded for pleading follows the Law A Custom interrupted in the right is gone for ever
but if it be interrupted but in part it is not so as it is in the case cited where the King hath Gavelkind lands Com. Plowd 114. and so prays judgement for the Plaintif Adjourned Latch at another day argued for the Avowant and said that the Plaintif in his rejoynder hath made no title unto Susan Tong from whom he claims It is objected that by the grant of the Manor of Chingford Comitis per nomen duorum illorum maneriorum c. that Tong cannot be intituled It is answered that the other side hath confessed that Tong hath a title for they derive from her also and the contrary doth not appear to the Court and it being agreed the Court will not make a doubt of it He made 3 Questions 1. Whether the Manor of Chingford Comitis passeth per nomen duorum illorum maneriorum de c. 2ly Whether if the grant be ill it be aided by Statute 3ly Whether it be helped by the Averment For the 1. he held that here is a good grant without any averment or aid of the Statute for if the King grants two Manors one shall pass and e converso it shall not be so in the Case of the King but it is good in the case of a Common person with an Averment The grant of the Manor of Saperton cum Rippen is an ill grant for the incertainty of it but here is no such incertainty here is no non nosmer of the thing for the word nomina requires not a proper name but it is all one as if it had been expressed by words comprehending it and the word Manors doth comprehend it If the King grant his two Acres of Land lying in a Common field although but one Acre is to be found yet the grant is good and it is not like to the grant of a Manor with the Advowson where the King hath but a moyety of the Advowson or a moyety of the Manor for the Moyety is not actual in the whole but one is actually in two and so it is well named here 2ly Whether it be good without an averment that the land was in the Lord Darcy and he held it was If the words were general in the grant all of them ought to be true otherwise nothing will passe by the grant as Dodingtons case is but here is a proper name to express it and therefore the grant is not destroyed although the latter description do not agree to it 10. Rep. Harpers Case 2 H. 4. f. 2. If the King grant all the lands in the Patent annexed bearing date 10 of Iune though the Patent bear date the 10 of Iuly yet is the grant good for veritas nominis tollit errorem demonstrationis and if the grant should not be good at the Common Law yet it is ayded by the Statute of 3. 4 Phil. Mar. and here is a full and a strong averment in the pleading for it is Manerium praedictum and not Manerium generally and here is not only a possibility but also a facility for it to pass and it may be called Manor or Manors and in a feofment a thing may pass per nomen because that the livery passeth it where one pleads per nomen he is to make the Plea agree with the Record or specialty otherwise per nomen shall not be pleaded and Newtons opinion against this is but a single opinion 33 H. 8. Br. Averment 42. The word praedict makes an averment in the name of the Feoffor â—4 H. 4.30.22 H. 6.40 Barton and Escott here is also a full averment of the thing granted this is in grants 7 E. 4.24.33 H. 6. f. 22 26 Ass 2.24 Ass 6. so in Letters Patents Dyer 86. the Serjeants case and if this be authority it is in the very point Dyer 207. praedict per nomina is a good averment Pasch 7. Iac. Rot. 430. B. reg Stonehouse and Reeds case where there was not so much as a per nomina but only decimas praedict and yet adjudged to be a good intitling by the word praedict because it was held a good averment although it was not led on by a per nomina and there admitted to be clear if it had been with a per nomina as the Case here is so Tong is well intitled 2ly The Plaintifs title is well avoided and we have well destroyed his Copy without doubt if a Common person had granted the Copyhold for life the Copy-hold had been thereby extinguished and our case is not a prerogative case for the King is bound by the Custom of the Manor and the Custom is here destroyed and the prerogative cannot create the Custom anew and it is against the Kings Prerogative to have things drawn out of the King without matter of Record and it is prejudice to the King to have the Custom revived for the lands are now made free and shall never return again to the Vassalage The Kings Prerogative exalts him above a Common person but this custom makes him equal to a common person 2ly The Custom here cannot be supported but here is an absolute extinguishment of the Copyhold so that it cannot be regranted The law will confirm things necessary to the grant of the King in some cases where it is prejudicial to the King 16 H. 7. f. 8. Nicholas case Plowd 489. The king seised of a donative makes it presentative if he do but once present unto it so if he turn an Annuity into a rent charge by taking a distress And the nature of this Custom here ought not to be examined with other Customs for it is more strict than in other cases for if it be once destroyed it is always destroyed and cannot be suspended and it is not for the Kings dis-advantage to have the Copyhold destroyed but it is for his advantage and conveniency and so he prays judgement for the Avowant Roll chief Iustice All will come and rest upon the last point for all the other things are admitted The grant is good by the per nomen and it is only nominal and doth not imply that there are two Manors and it may stand well enough with reason that it may be known per nomen But the last point is considerable he enclined to Latch Nicholas Iustice to the same effect and that the praedict is a good averment The last point is considerable but prima facie here the custom is not destroyed Ask Iustice to the same effect and that it appears that the King intended to grant but one Manor Roll We will take time till the next term to speak to the last point which is only doubtfull and to deliver our opinions Ierman Iustice the pleading of the party per nomen helps not the Patent if it be not good in it self The next Term Roll chief Iustice for himself and the rest of the Iudges who he said concurr'd in opinion with him delivered the opinion of the Court to this effect 1. That they were agreed that
pacty who is to assign the dower may agrée that the dower shall be assigned without bounding it For consensus tollit errorem But dower ad ostium ecclesiae must be more certain Dower Mich. 43 44 Eliz. Bullock and Finches case Hill 4 Iac. C. B. Roll chief Iustice Of Common right a feme ought to be endowed per metas bundas where the Sheriff assigns dower who is an officer of the Law and ought to prevent incumbrance and disputes But it may be assigned generally of the third part in some cases Consent and the partyes may agree against Common right and here both partyes agreed to take dower in this Manor And though here the termer for years of the land who is a third person be prejudiced by this assignment yet this alters not the case because it is only an estate for years and toucheth no freehold Nicholas and Ask Iustices as Roll. Ierman Iustice If dower be of a third part it ought to be by metes and bounds generally but if it be of a moyety it is not so or if the partyes consent it shall be otherwise Roll if the Sheriff assign dower and do it not per metas bundas it is Error Error if it might have been so assigned and where a feme cannot be endowed per metas bund as she may enter without assignment Iudgement was given for the Defendant nisi c. Smith against the Earl of Dorset Trin. 1651. Banc. sup SMith moved the Court against the Earl of Dorset Motion for an attatchment for disobeying a rule of Court Attatchment for an attatchment for disturbing of him in the possession of certain Lands contrary to the rule of this Court for the Plaintiff to have possession The Court answered that for only disturbing his possession there ought not to be an attatchment granted but if he be put out of possession he shall have an attatchment The Councel replyed that the partyes cattel were driven off from the land which they conceived was an ousting of the party from his possession To this the Court answered that this seemed to be a putting out of possession And therefore ordered that the Defendant should shew cause why an attatchment should not be granted Owen against Ievon Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 211. THis case formerly spoken unto in arrest of Iudgement and then stayed Iudgement prayed in an Action for words was again moved and Iudgment prayed for the Plaintiff by Serjeant Glyn who argued that the words were actionable because if they were true the party of whom they are spoken is punishable by the Statute of 7 Iac. with corporal punishment and besides the words were spoken since the last Statute made against Adultery which doth aggravate the words and make them more actionable Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff nisi In this case it was said by the Court that it was adjudged in one Thecker and Duncombes case that a woman may have a child in 38. weeks and that a woman by cold or hard usage may go with child above 40 weeks Antea Nelson against Tompson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 24 Car. rot 343. NElson brought an action of the Case against Tompson Demurrer in an Action upon the Case upon a promise and did declare that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would cease to prosecute a sute in Law against him did assume and promise unto the Plaintif that he would pay unto him 8 l. the charges of sute which he had been at for breach of this promise Actio acrevit sets forth his damage To this Declaration the Defendant demurs in Law takes this Exception viz. That there is no time nor place set forth where or when he did forbear to sue the Defendant as it ought to be because it is a traversable matter But Roll chief Iustice answered It is not necessary to allege a place of a negative thing to be done viz. to say that he did not prosecute the sute in such a place or at such a time for he ought to surcease prosecution in all places and at all times Therefore let judgement be for the Plaintif except better matter be shewn Friday next Lydaâ—e and Lyster Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 387. AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation made to a Bishop and his Commissary for the payment of Debts and Legacies Iudgement in Debt upon a Bond reversed the Action was brought by an Executor and judgement given by Default against the Defendant the Iudgement was reversed by a Writ of Error because the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet whereas it ought to have been brought in the Detinet only because it was brought by an Executor Saunders against Ritch Trin. 1651 Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 758. IN an Action of Trespass and Ejectment upon a special verdict found The Case fell out to be this Special Verdict in Trespass and Ejectment A man by his last Will and Testament devised all his Fée simple land wheresoever to his Brother upon condition that he suffer his wife to enjoy all his free lands in Holford during her life and the jury found that the Testator had only a portion of tithes in Holford The question was whether the portion of tithes did pass to the wife by this devise Merifield held That the Tithes passed not by the devise because the word lands cannot extend to tithes for that would be a very forced construction and cited Trin. 17 Iac. Banc. Reg. Knight and Knights case and Mich. 39 40 Eliz. Entred 38 Eliz. rot 269. Yow and Hardings case Banc. Reg. That Houses are not devisable by the name of lands and he said that the word wheresoever makes no difference as to make the tithes pass and though there be an implication and an intent in the Testator here to dedevise the tithes yet that will not serve because there wants words to express this intent and though this be in a will yet there must be words used to support the intent of the Testator for wills must be ruled by the rules of the Common Law Ashinghurst and Curtice his case Mich. 7 Iac. Hob. rep 34. the last Edition Mich. 42 43 Eliz. Banc. Reg. a devise of Lands extend not to tithes for tithes are not lands but a meer collateral thing to them and have no relation to them Mich. 1. Iac. rot 192. Mills and Hides case Banc. Reg. 11 Rep. Bridle and Napers case f. 13. b. Trin. 42 Eliz. B. Reg. Sherwood and Winston held that tithes cannot be appendant to a Manor 1 Rep. 111. Albanies case and here are no words in the Proviso to pass the tithes It is true that tithes may lie in tenure and that an Action of debt lies for them but that is by the Statute 19 Eliz Dyer f. 354. The word land in a will doth not extend to tithes and heirs ought not to be
Crisp and Prats case doth somewhat resemble this Bankrupt The Law intends a Bankrupt which is so by fraud as well as a Bankrupt who becomes so by accident and for this cause is he called an Offender in the Statute and here the year of our Lord 1637 is the 13 year of the late King the recovery suffered by the Bankrupt was then and within half a year after the recovery he became a Bankrupt so that me thinks there plainly appears to be fraud in the Conveyance Fraud but the fraud is not expressed in the pleading as it might have been The Statute of 1 Iac. is somewhat doubtfull as I conceive and I do not sée any provision made in it against the wife if fraud do not appear for here is no valuable consideration mentioned Nicholas justice said it is doubtfull yet he conceived it within the Statute of 1 Iac. which ought to receive a large construction because it was made for the good of the Commonwealth Ierman and Ask agreed with Roll in omnibus Roll Here the matter in dispute is not in a special Verdict but comes in question upon point of pleading Pleading which shall be taken most strong against him that pleads it and he hath not expressed any valuable consideration as he might have done by saying in consideration of a portion or in recompence of mariage or in performance of Articles made upon mariage or that the wife had joyned in selling some part of the land The Court would advise but enclined judgement ought to be for the Avowant Afterwards judgement was given accordingly for the Court held the wife was within the Statute of 1 Iac. and the providing for wife and children to be providing for himself Chapman against Brook Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 200. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintif declared upon a Custom of commoning in such a place The Defendant demurred to the Declaration Demurrer to a Declaration in an Action on the Case and for cause shews that the Custom was not well laid for the Plaintif declares of a Custom of commoning pro averiis viz. pro equis bobus equabus et pullis and the word pullis is of an uncertain signification for it may signifie a Calf a Lamb or any other young Beast or Foul and 23 Car. Segar and Dyers Case was cited The Court held the exception good and said that it is incertain what is meant by the word pullus and said that if the prescripsion had been pro omnibus averiis it had been good Prescription and the viz. should have been void but here it is only pro averiis Therefore nil capiat per billam Newton against Godard Trin. 1651. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in an Action of Debt at Ipswitch Error to reverse a judgement in debt The Case was this There issued out a Capias against the Principal and a judgement was given against him and after a scire facias issued out against the Bail and a judgement thereupon was given against the Bail Then the Plaintif takes out an Execution viz. a fieri facias against the Principal and Bail upon both the judgements to levy the debt recovered upon the goods and chattels of the Principal and Bail or either of them It was alleged that the execution thus taken out was not good for there ought to have been several executions upon the several judgements Execution and not one execution and to this the Court agreed and ordered the Defendant in the writ of Error to shew cause why the judgement should not be reversed In this Case Roll chief Iustice took an exception to the scire facias Abreviation because it was scire fac with a dash which might be as well scire faciatis as scire facias Spittlehouse against Farmery Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 43. AN Action of accompt was brought against a Feme Covert an Administratrix and her Husband in the Common Pleas Error to reverse a judgment â— ven in an Action of Accompt and judgement given against the Defendants quod computent The Feme dies and the Husband brings a writ of Error in this Court to reverse this Iudgement Roll chief Iustice held that the writ of Error did not lie because the Record cannot be removed by it for that would disturb the proceedings in the Common Pleas and the party would have no fruit of his sute if the Record should be removed nor any remedy to recover the arrears due unto him Original Scire facias Yet the Original is determined by the Iudgement given quod computent and a scire facias lies by the Executor as the case here is Ierman Iustice to the same effect and cited 1 H. 7. f. 2. Nicholas Iustice to the same intent and said he did not much regard the Book of 21 Ed. 3. because there are other Books against it Ask Iustice ad idem Roll chief Iustice put these cases A judgement was given in Dower for the Demandant and another judgement that she shall recover her damages and this second judgement for the damages was reversed by a writ of Error because she did not aver that her Husband died seised in which case she is to have no damages Iudgement yet the first judgement for the Dower stood unreversed and Hill 43 Eliz. C. B. in one Williams and Whites case in an â—â—ction of Accompt 2 judgements were given and the second wâ—s reversed and the first stood unreversed In the principle case the rule was judicium nisi VVallis against Bucknal Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 600. VPon a special Verdict the case fell out to be this Sâ—ecâ—al verdict upon a Custom of a Manor One selfe d of Copy-hold lands of inhâ—ritance made a Letter of Attorney unto two joyntly and severally to surrender the lands after his death to certain uses according to the Custom of the Manor The question was whether this was a good Custom or no. Ellis of Councel with the Plaintif argued that it was not a good Custom because a Custom ought to be reasonable but this Custom is unreasonable because it is not only against a particular Law but it is against the general rule of Law to pass estates of inheritance in such a Manor and although particular Customs may be against publique interest pro boâ—o publico yet this is nothing to our case for this is not for the publique good and therefore it is not good 2ly An authority ought to be countermandable and to determine by the death of the party that gives the authority but here it is not so but it is to continue after his death Next no man can give authority to another to do a thing which he himself could not do but here it is otherwise and therefore it is not good Also by the death of the Copyholder the Law settles the lands in the
heir and an authority cannot divest them out of him this is not like to the surrendring of Copyhold lands into the hands of the Lord for such a surrender cannot be revoked but this authority may be revoked But which is more the Verdict here doth not find that the two Attorneys are customary Tenants of the Manor but only by way of recital which is not good for they ought to have been found to directly nor doth it appear that they were customary Tenants at the time of the admittance of the party neither is there any possession or title found in the Defendant and so the Plaintif having primer possession the Defendant is culpable neither is it found that the Customary Tenant who gave this authority had an estate in fee-simple in the lands and if he had but an estate for life he could not make such a Letter of Attorney neither is the authority given warranted by the Custom and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Wilmot for the Defendant As to the authority he said that it was good and did well enough survive the party that gave it because it is supported with a special direction from the party that gave it 1 H. 7.8 and this is the reason that an Executor may sell lands of the Testator after his death viz. because his authority is so supported 21 E. 4. f. 8. 31 E. 1. Fitz. Grants 45. And here in our case the heir hath neglected his advantage and therefore shall not now be admitted to take it But besides the authority here given is more than a bare authority for it is backed with the circumstances of time persons and of a Custom which is not of a slight esteem in Law and by such a Custom which is very reasonable for it is but to enable the party to dispose of his own lands and far more unreasonable Customs than this are allowed in our Law as that in Kent for an Infant of 15 years of age to have power to sell his lands neither is this Custom contrary to any positive rule of Law for it is here to create the authority to begin after the parties death that created it and so it is not to determine with his death for till then it begins not and the Custom here is but to alien lands which is no strange thing and this Custom extends but within the Manor which is but to a small compass of ground and so the publique is not much concerned in it and the case of 17 Car. in this Court Bambridge and Whaddons case differs from our Case for that was not supported with a custome as this is And it doth appear by the Record that Dalby the Attorney is a customary Tenant and the admission is also found by the Verdict to be secundum consuetudinem Manerii and so that is well enough and then one cannot gain a Copyhold estate by disseisin and so no primer seisin shall be intended as was urged on the other side and it is also found that the Copyholder was seised Roll chief Iustice It will be a hard matter to maintain the Custom Custom if it be not found that the Copy-holder was seised in fee of the Copyhold lands 2ly It is not here found that the land is demisable according to the will of the Lord and so it may be free land and then the custom doth not extend unto it nor is it found that the parties to whom the Letters of Attorney were made were Copyhold Tenants Disseisin And the primer possession will make a disseisin here by the Defendant if the custom be not-well found and so judgement must be for the Plaintif Devise And I cannot see how the Custom can be good it being against the rules of Law Surrender A man cannot devise Copyhold lands and this case is worse but he may surrender to the use of his last Will. If you will not consent to a new tryal we will advise for it is a hard case and my Brothers have not been attended with Books Mich. following Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi It was moved again and the Court would advise Postea Batchelour against Parsons Trin. 1651 Banc. sup Mich. 1652. rot 381. BAtchelour brings a writ of Error to reverse a Iudgement given against him for Parsons in an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas and the Error assigned was Error to reverse a judgement in debt that there are two Declarations in the Record one in the Emparlance Roll the other in the Plea Roll and the Original certified upon the writ of Error doth not warrant the first Declaration for it was filed after it Hales answered that the Record is good enough if the Original dowarrant the last Declaration for this is the common course used in the Common Pleas as the Clarks there do inform me there are many Cases like this in the Common Pleas. Wild of Councel on the other side answered that this is a strange course for they ought first to file the Original because it is the beginning and ground-work of the sute and it not being so done here the Iudgement is given without an Original this is a judgement by default and the imparlance is part of the sute Roll chief Iustice Imparlance Intendment Certiorari The Imparlance Roll is the principal part of the sute and to consound things by intendment that the imparlance may be touching another sute is not good and it matters not what the Custom is in the Common Pleas if it be against Law and both Rolls ought to be certified here Ierman Iustice ad idem Roll chief Iustice All the Record in the Common Pleas which is in the custody of the chief Iustice there ought to be certified by him upon the Retorn of the Writ of Error and here the Imparlance Roll is in his custody and therefore he ought to certifie it and if there be two writs of Error Error and one is good and the other naught we will take the best to affirm the judgement The Original ought not to be fitted to the Declaration but the Declaration to the Original because the Original is the foundation of the sute and therefore the course used in the Common Pleas is a preposterous course Original viz. to declare against the Defendant and after to file an original against him to warrant the Declaration It is here certifyed to be one Record and how can we take the emparlance Roll to be part of the Record it being not certyfied with it and if there be variance between the emparlance Roll and the plea Roll Variance it is Error We will advise but we must not suffer new wayes yet we are loth notwithstanding to reverse Iudgements given in the Common pleas Therefore shew cause next term why the Iudgement should not be reversed Kirman against Iohnson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup IN an ejectione firmae brought by Kirman against Iohnson a special verdict was found
in London and the Bill was found against him But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be granted upon a motion Good behaviour but you must prefer Articles against him here upon Oath and then you may move for it and if there appear cause in the Articles it shall be granted Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a writ to swear one in the Office of a Maior For a Writ to swear one in the Office of a Maior of a Town to which he was elected for the Borough of Trevenny in Cornewall because the old Maior did not swear him in due time as he ought to do but did adjourn the Court before it was done Roll chief Iustice answered that there is no president to swear such an Officer yet ordered that notice should be given to the Town and presidents to be brought into Court if any were to warrant it Whitway against Pinsent Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 61. A Man made a lease of lands for years by deed Demurrer to a plea in Covenants and covenanted that the Lessée his Assigns should enjoy them during the Term the Lessor made the Defendant his Executor dyed The Lessee assigns over his Term a Stranger enters upon the Assignee the Assignee takes 40 l. in satisfaction for his being ejected of the Assignor and afterwards brings an Action of Covenant against the Executor of the Lessor the Defendant The Defendant pleads the acceptance of the 40 l. of the Assignor in satisfaction of the wrong done him in Bar of the Action and to this plea the Plaintiff demurred Bar. The question here was whether the Action of Covenant did lye against the Defendant since that the Plaintiff had received 40 l. of his Assignor in satisfaction Roll chief Iustice said that here is a double Covenant one of the Lessor and the other of the Assignor and therefore the party may have two Actions Action and therefore he is not here barred to bring this second Action though he have barred himself by the acceptance of the 40 l. from bringing an Action against his Assignor and the Defendant hath not pleaded that the 40 l. was given in satisfaction of both the Covenants for then it had been otherwayes Ierman Iustice to the same effect That they are several Covenants by several deeds and both the parties are severelly bound and satisfaction given by one of them is not the satisfaction of the other And he said if Lessee for years assign over his Term the Lessor having notice thereof and he accept the rent from the assignee he cannot demand the rent of the Lessee afterwards yet he may sue other Covenants conteined in the lease against him as for reparations or the like The rule was for the Plaintiff to take his Iudgement nisi Mich. 1651. Banc. sup SErjeant Glyn moved for a certiorari to remove an endictment of forcible entry that was once before removed hither For a certiorari to remove an endictment and after sent down by a procedendo because the Iustices below will not grant restitution Roll chief Iustice answered There is a plea put in and in such case it is not usual to grant a certiorari yet it may be that it may be granted therefore let the other side shew cause on Monday next why it should not be granted Cantrell against Stephens Mich 1651. Banc. sup CAntreli brought an Action upon the case against Stephens for stopping his way in a Meoow called Madbrook in the parish of Redriff in Kent Arrest of judgement for an Action upon the case for stopping a way upon not guilty pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Plaintiff as Lessee to the Haberdashers company of London claimed to have a way for them whereas they having let the land cannot have the way but the Lessée in possession 2ly The prescription is not rightly applyed for it ought to be for them to have a way pro tenentibus et occupatoribus suis which is not so here Twisden answered it shall be intended Tenants and Occupyers to the Haberdashers though it be not said suis Latch said that a prescription per que estate is good in an Action upon the Case because no land is claimed and Green on the same side said the exception taken was helped by the verdict Wild on the other side said that it doth not appear that the Tenant who brings the Action comes in by the Haberdashers who claim the way and so he cannot prescribe to have it Prescription and the prescription ought to be laid pro tenentibus subtenentibus which Roll chief Iustice denyed and said that it is laid that the Haberdashers were seised in Fée postea huc usque and so they have the Fée at the time and may prescribe but it had been better for the party to have shewed that he was their Tenant but it being after a verdict the question is whether it be not helped Vpon reading the Record Roll chief Iustice observed that it appeared not whose Occupyer and Tenant the Plaintiff is but only by way of argument but said the question is whether the verdict do help it and he inclyned it did not Verdict because the Action is brought by the Tenant who hath not entitled himself to the Action for he hath made only a title to the way in the Haberdashers Title but hath derived no Estate from them to himself At another day Roll chief Iustice said we must not take things by intendment and here is a failer in the very gist of the Action for the Plaintiff hath not entitled himself to the Action for he hath no interest for it appears not how he is Ocupyer of the land for he doth not say he is Ocupator suus and as he hath laid the Declaration the Company ought to have brought the Action Ierman Iustice to the same effect and said that upon a demurrer it had been cleerly naught and the verdict here doth not help it for no title appears for the Plaintiff and the verdict cannot give him that he had not before Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same effect Roll If it had been Ocupator suus I doubt it would not make the Declaration good because it shews not by what title So The rule was nil capiat per billam nisi Tayler against Web. Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 240. IN an ejectione firmae upon a lease for 7 years there was a special verdict found Special verdict in an ejectione firmae and the questions in the Case grew upon the words of a Will that were false orthography viz. I do make my Cosen Giles Bridges my Solle Ayeare and my Yexecutor meaning my sole Heir and Executor Powis of Councel with the Plaintiff held that the Will was good to make Giles Briges the Testators Heir and Executor notwithstanding the mis-writing of the words
Court Twisden on the other side confessed the Books were so but here the Battery is not apparent and the wound is internal and not to be viewed by the Court. Roll chief Iustice said 3 things are considerable 1. whether the Court can increase the damages 2ly Whether the wound be apparent and 3ly Whether the damages given be too small The Court upon view of the party and examination of Chirurgions and Witnesses on both sides upon Oath did conclude that they might increase the damages and that the wound was apparent and that the damages were too small and therefore they increased them to 400 l. and said they would not encrease them more because they could not inquire into all the circumstances of the fact as the jury might but they thought fitting to encrease them in some proportion because the offence was great and such outragious Acts are not to be slightly punished VVallis against Bucknal Hill 1651. Banc. sup VPon a special verdict found in an Ejectione firmae the case sell out to be this Special Verdict in an Ejectione firmse A Copyholder of inheritance made a Letter of Attorney to two joyntly and severally to surrender his Copyhold lands in Fee to certain uses after his death according to the Custom of the Manor The question made by Ellis of Councel with the Plaintif was whether the Custom was good or not he argued that it was not a good Custom In Sir Iohn Davis Reports it is said a Custom must be reasonable and a Custom may be reasonable when it is but against a particular Law and not a general Law but the Custom here thus to convey land is against a general Law Particular Customs may be against publique interest pro bono public but if they be not as in our case they are not they are not good Pro bono publico Next an authority given ought to be Countermandable and to determine at the death of the party but this is not so and therefore it is no good authority 19 E. 3. f. 5. 2ly None can give an authority to another to do a thing which he could not do himself but here it is otherwise and therefore it is not a good authority 3ly By the death of the Copyholder the lands are setled in the heir and this authority given shall not devest them and this is not like the surrendring of lands into the hands of the Lord for a surrender cannot be revoked but this authority is revokable Next the Verdict doth not find that the 2 Attorneys are Customary tenants but only by way of recital which is not good nor doth it appear they were customary tenants at the time of the admittance and here is not found any possession or title in the Defendant and so the Plaintif having primer possession the Defendant is guilty neither is it found that the customary Tenant had see-simple in the land And if he had but an estate for life he could not make such a letter of Attorney Also the authority given is not warranted by the Custom set forth Wilmot of Councel with the Defendant said That this authority here is supported with a special direction which may survive the party that gives it 1 H. 7.8 And an authority may survive the party that gives it else how can an Executor sell lands by the authority given unto him 21 E. 4. f. 8. 31. E. 1. Fitzherb 45. and as for the heir he hath neglected his advantage it he had any and cannot now take it But besides the authority here given is more than a bare authority for it is backed with circumstances of time and person and here is also a Custom to support it and this Custom is a reasonable Custom for it is but to enable a man to dispose of his own lands and there are far more unreasonable Customs than this allowed in our law as the Custom of Kent for one of the age of 15 years to be enabled to sell his lands and this Custom is not against any positive rule of Law for the custom is to create the authority to begin after his death and so it is not to determine by his death for till then it begins not and the Custom here is but to alien lands which is no strange thing and it is extended but within a small compass of land and so cannot be very prejudicial to the publique And Bambridge and Whaddons case 17 Car. in this Court cited on the other side doth differ from this case for tâ—ere was no Custom to support it And it doth appear here by the Record that Dalby the Attorney is a customary Tenant and the admission here is found to be secundum consuetudinem Manerii And one cannot gain a Copyhold estate by disseisin and so here can be no primer seisin intended and it is found the Copyholder is seised Roll chief Iustice said It will be hard to maintain the Custom Custom if it be not found that the party was seiâ—â—d in see of the Copyhold lands But 2ly it is not here found that the land is demisable according to the will of the Lord and so it may be free land then the custom doth not reach it Neither is it found that the 2 Attorneys were Copyhold Tenants and the primer possession here will make a disseisin by the Defendant if the Custom be not well found and then it is for the Plaintif and I cannot see how the Custom can be good it being against the rules of Law for a man cannot devise a Copyhold and here the case is worse Devise but he may surrender to the use of his last Will and Testament At another day Wilmot to the Exception taken That it is not found that the two Attorneys were Tenants of the Manor said there is so much found as shall make them be presumed to be Tenants of the Manor for it is found that the party is admitted secundum consuetudinem Manerii which cannot be a good admittance if they were not Tenants Roll chief Iustice answered to be admitted secundum consuetudinem goes â—o the Admittance not to the Letter of Attorney But we will advise At another day Twisden prayed judgement for the Plaintif and insisted upon the Exception that the two Attorneys were not found customary Tenants for one of them is not mentioned at all and the other is found so only by way of recital and so they have not entitled themselves to the Custom and then the Defendant hath no title The Court ruled to shew cause Saturday following why the Plaintif should not have judgement Antea Custodes against Tawny and Norwood Hill 1651. Banc. sup TAwny and Norwood were jointly endicted for blasphemous words severally spoken by them Endictment for speaking blasphemous words upon the late Statute made against blasphemy and were convicted the parties being removed hither by Habeas Corpus It was urged that the Endictment was not good because it was joynt whereas the words being
be undestood eight hangings Roll chief Iustice A pair is properly when one of the things so called cannot be properly used without the other but yet the words may be also understood so many couple and here you cannot intend the words to mean so many suits of hangings and you might have expressed your meaning by so many pieces of hangings and therefore it seems doubtfull Ierman Iustice Here the words do not expresse the number of the things as they do when you say a pair of Oxen or the like Nicholas as Ierman Ask Iustice A pair is incertain for that word may be meant more than two in number as when you say a pair of cards and a pair of hangings in some places is meant a suit of hangings Roll chief Iustice If it be so then it is more incertain the word hangings may be good enough but how can the number be known Curia advisare vult Afterwards the Court moved the Defendant to suffer the Plaintiff to amend his Declaration and to plead anew and to consent to a new tryall Askwiths Case Hill 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an order of Sessions made at Durham against Askwith Motion to quash an order of Sessions for not serving the office of a Constable or finding an other able person to serve the place for him being elected according to the custom of the place where he was elected to serve The Exception taken was that it is not shewed that he was elected at a Court Leet and the Sessions have no power to elect a Constable Roll chief Iustice He is a Constable elected by a by-Law By Law it is not necessary there should be any other election then according to the custom and he must serve in his turn or contribute to the charge for another to serve for him Custom and this is a good custom used in many places and I do find one my self in my turn in one place and make no use of my privilege to avoid it Another exception was taken that the complaint made of the party was that he would neither serve the office nor contribute for another to serve it and the order is only that he refused to contribute and so is not warranted by the custom by which he hath an election to serve or contribute Quashed nisi c. Hill 1652. Banc. sup A Prisoner was brought into Court by a habeas corpus out of the Fleet to the intent to turn him over to the Marshalsea to charge him with an Action here Creditor examined upon oath it his debt were reall whereupon the creditor was examined upon his oath whether the debt was real for which he surmised he would bring his Action and upon making oath thereof the Prisoner was turned over accordingly Nota. Smith against Holyman Hill 1652. Banc. sup IT was moved in arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case upon an Assumpsit Arrest of Iudgement in Assumpsit False English and Exceptions taken 1. That the Defendants Christian name was mistaken And 2ly That the jurata was erroneous for it says in a plea of dept instead of a plea of debt and the Iudgement was arrested for dept written with a P. is no word though it sound like debt written with a B. Custodes and Howell Gwin Hill 1652. Banc. sup HOwell Gwin was brought to the Bar being convicted for forgeing of a deed Iudgement against one convicted of forgery and was demanded what he could say why Iudgement should not be given against him Boynton of Councel with the Prisoner moved the Court that in regard there was an information of perjury depending here against the witnesses upon whose Testimony the Prisoner was convicted of the perjury and that the Prisoner doth endeavour to proceed with all the speed that is possible against them in this information that the Iudgement may be stayed in the mean time against him Roll chief Iustice answered if they be found guilty of the perjury they shall be punished but we will give Iudgement against your Clyent in the mean time which was done accordingly in these words following Iudgement for forgery viz. you are convicted of forgeing a deed by putting a dead mans hand unto it therefore the Court gives this Iudgement against you that you are fined at a hundred pound and shall stand on the pillory two hours before the Hall dore with a paper on your head shewing the nature of your offence Memorandum the party cut off a dead mans hand and put a pen and a seal in it and so signed and sealed and delivered the deed with the dead hand and swore that he saw the deed sealed and delivered Mich. 1652 Banc. sup MRs. Lucy Fotherby was brought into Court to be turned over into the Marshalsea out of the Fleet with an intent to charge her with an Action of debt Against this it was urged that she was a Prisoner in the Fleet A Prisoner turned over committed thither by an order of the Court of Chancery Prisoner But Roll chief Iustice answered this order is nothing to hinder her turning over if the debt be reall and so upon proof that the debt was reall she was turned over Locky and Dumiloe Hill 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 1462. VPon a special verdict in an ejectione firmae the case fell out to be this Special verdict in an ejectione firmae I. S. seised of lands in Fée makes a lease of it to I. D. at Will A. B. puts the Tenant at Will out of possession and after the Tenant at Will enters and takes a lease at Will of him that put him out of possession the question was whether he should hold the land by virtue of his first lease or by virtue of his second agreement To this Roll chief Iustice said if one make a lease at Will to one and he be ousted Will. Determination and then enter again and take a new estate the Will is determined but a stranger cannot determine his Estate without his consent but here he hath determined his first Estate by his new contract with the disseisor of his Lessor And he said if Livery and Seisin be made upon one Acre of land in the name of two Acres it is good for both the Acres for it is not necessary that the party that gives the livery should go to all the land mentioned in the deed of Feoffment Livery and Seisin And he also said that if Tenant at Will cuts down a tree upon the land which he holds at Will by this Act he hath determined his Will Drake and Drake Hill 1652. Banc. sup DRake brought an Action against Drake for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words viz. Thou hast preached lyes in the Pulpit the Plaintiff being a master of Arts and incumbent of a living Wadham VVindham held the words actionable because they were spoken of the Plaintiff in relation to his
professision and cited one Hinkes case where these words spoken of the Plaintif being a Brasier were held actionable viz. Thou hast cozened me of a Pan. And if one say to another Thou hast poisoned a man If the man be dead the words are actionable although he doe not say that he did it wilfully The Court enclined the words are actionable because they are scandalous And the rule was Iudicium nisi c. Hill 1652. Banc. sup VVAdham Windham moved for a Certiorari to remove an Endictment preferred against one in Newgate Motion for a Certiorari to remove an Endictment Roll chief Iustice He lies there for murder and is outlawed thereupon yet take a Certiorari to remove the Record for his fact was the stabbing of a man and stabbing is in its nature but felony Felony Murther and is not murther although the party cannot have his Clergy for it by reason of the Statute made by King Iames against Stabbing else by the Common Law he might have had it Ashworth and Sir Tho. Stanley Hill 1652. Banc. sup VPon a Verdict given for the Plaintif in an Ejectione firmae Arrest of Iudgement in an Ejectione firmae Damages Ejectione firmae It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement That the Ejectment is laid to be of three Messuages or Tenements and a Toft which as to the Messuages or Tenements is incertain Roll chief Iustice You move too soon for it may be the Plaintiff will release the damages as to the Messuages or Tenement and take his judgement only for the toft and the Action lies well enough for that Hill 1652. Banc. sup TWisden moved to discharge Sir Thomas Revell and others of their recognisances for the peace in which they were bound the last Michaelmas Term Motion to discharge recognizances of the peace because the Affidavit upon which they were bound was only to this effect That the Prosecutor goes in fear of his life when he goes into such parcels of land whereas in truth those lands are setled upon Sir Thomas Revell by decree in Chancery and the Prosecutor hath also brought 18 several Actions against the Tenants of the lands and hath declared against none of them and there are four Affidavits against the first Affidavit Green on the other side said that the party is in Court and says he is still in fear of his life Peace and prays he may not be discharged But because upon reading the Affidavits and examining the matter it appeared to the Court that they were bound to the peace upon malice and for vexation they were discharged Hill 1652. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Who ought to repair High-ways of Common right All High ways of common right are to be repaired by the Inhabitants of that Parish in which the way lies But if any particular person will enclose any part of a way or waste adjoyning he thereby takes upon him to repair that which was so enclosed Massey and Aubry Hill 1652. Banc. sup AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation to stand to an Award Arrest of judgement in debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award The Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrators made no Award The Paintif replies that the Vmpire made an award and sets it forth and assigns the breach and upon issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the assignment of the breach was not good for the incertainty of it for the breach is assigned upon but a part of the Award for the breach assigned is that the Defendant should pay the Arrears of rent due after the purchase of certain lands and doth not shew what these Arrears are But Roll chief Iustice said That the words since the purchase thereof seem to make this certain yet stay till the other moves At another day the case was moved again and the same exception insisted upon by Barry of the Inner Temple who formerly moved it Hales held the Exception not good and that the breach was well assigned because though it seem uncertain of it self yet it relates to a thing which makes it certain As an Award for one to deliver to another all the goods in such a Shop which belonged to him hath been held to be good But Barry answered That it is utterly incertain and that there is nothing in the Award which can make it certain and here is a four-fold incertainty in the Award 1. It cannot be known what these arrears are that are awarded to be paid 2ly It appears not by the Award for what lands these arrerages of rent awarded to be paid are due for there are no lands mentiond but only two leases of land 3ly It appears not by whom the arrerages are due 4ly It appears not to whom the arrerages are due Roll chief Iustice All the matter is whether it appears that these arrerages of rent awarded to be paid were in question or no and it seems they were because the lease and the rent thereupon reserved are both in question but it is not certain what these arrears of rent are and so the party that is awarded to pay them cannot tell what sum of mony he is to pay Ierman Iustice said he may know because he was Tenant of the land Barry replyed he cannot know when the purchase was made and the arbitrement is that the party shall pay all the arrears since the purchase Curia advisare vult At another day the case was again moved by Barry and exceptions taken that the breach was assigned upon a thing not submitted unto or awarded to be performed And secondly The award is incertain in many things First It appears not what rent was due to be paid but only by implication which is not good Secondly It appears not for what the rent is due nor 3ly How much rent is due and Salmons case in the 5. rep was cited Also it was objected that the award was not finall and concluding and therefore not good Also the Award is unreasonable and for that cause also it is not good and he cited 21 E. 4. f. 40. and 17 E. 4. f. 51. and prayed for the Defendant that judgement might be stayed Hales on the other side prayed for judgement said That the Arbitrators were not to ascertain particularly the rent to be paid but it is sufficient for them to make the Award touching all the differences betwixt the parties and an averment may ascertain the particular things being they are only matters of fact although one may not be admitted by an averment to supply an Award in a matter wherein it was in the substance of it defective before Roll chief Iustice What certainty is there by the Award that the party shall enjoy all his right in the two leases in difference between the parties for the payment of the rent Both parties know what rent is due reserved by the leases but how can the party know what the
Iustice answered Denied It appears not to us but that the Parliament was sitting at the time and peradventure it will be made appear at the tryal Therefore plead and go to tryal and then move in Arrest of judgement if you have any thing to move Page and Parr Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1654. rot 1687. PAge brought an Action of Covenant upon a Covenant conteined in an Indenture of a demise for years Covenant upon an Indenture for the not paying the rent reserved by the Indenture according to the Covenant The Defendant pleads in bar that the Plaintif entred into part of the land demised before the rent due for which the Action was brought and so had suspended his rent The Plaintif replyed the Defendant did re-enter and so was possessed as in his former estate Suspension of ren and to this replication the Defendant demurred and for cause he shewed that here was no confession and avoidance or traverse of the plea in bar Roll chief Iustice Have you shewed that he continued in possession until the rent grew due for you ought to shew that he entred and was possessed untill after the rent-day but here you have only said that he was possessed in his former right Nil capiar per Billam Therefore nil capiat per Billam nisi Hill 1654. Banc. sup VPon an Affidavit read in Court Not to plead till costs paid assessed in a former Action that 20 l. costs were taxed upon a non-sute in an Action of Trespass and Ejectment brought to the Bar and that the Plaintif had not payed them nor was to be found and yet had brought another Action for the same land The Court was moved that the Defendant might not be ruled to plead to this second Action until the Plaintif had paid the costs taxed upon the former non sute and that another Plaintif might be named or that security might be given to pay the costs if the Plaintif should be non-sute again Shew cause The rule was to shew cause why it should not be so Hill 1654. Banc. sup DArcy moved that an Endictment of Michaelmas Term last might be amended in the Caption But Roll chief Iustice answered To amend an Endictment of a former Term denied It cannot be if it be of the last Term but had it been an endictment of this Term it might have been amended Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment for entring forcibly upon a Tenant for years against the Statute of 21 Iacobi To quash an Endictment and the Exception was that the Endictment doth not say that he entred manu forti Roll chief Iustice answered The Statute is only that if one enter by force and the words manu forti are not expressed in the Act Therefore move it again if you will Hill 1654. Banc. sup A Habeas Corpus cum causa was granted for Elizabeth Bayne To discharge a prisoner turned over to the Mareschal For a habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to the intent to charge her with an Action and upon the return thereof she was committed to the Mareschal Wild moved that she might be discharged because the return of the Habeas Corpus is erronious But Roll chief Iustice answered It could not be whereupon he moved for another Habeas Corpus for her ad subjiciendum to be directed to the Mareschal which was granted Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment preferred against one for practising Phisick not being skilfull in the profession To quash an Endictment for practising Phisick without licence and not having a License to practice from the College of Phisicians The Exceptions were 1. That no Endictment at the Common Law lies for the offence supposed to be committed for it is not an offence against the Common Law and 2ly an Endictment upon the Statute lies not and so no Endictment lies And upon these Exceptions it was quashed The Protector and Hart. Hill 1654. Banc. sup ONe Hart committed to the Gatehouse appeared in Court upon the return of a Habeas Corpus granted for him To remand a prisoner appearing upon a Habeas Corpus and turned over Denied and upon the prayer of his Councel the return was filed upon which it was moved on his behalf that he might be remanded to the Keeper of the Gatehouse and not turned over to the Mareschal to the intent to save his fees but the Court said it could not be because upon filing of the return there ought to be entred upon it a Committitur to the Mareschal whereby he becomes his prisoner Torret and Frampton Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1653. rot 178. VPon a special Verdict the Case was this Special verdict upon a Devise A man deviseth his lands to his wife for her life the remaindar to A. B. and C. and their heirs respectively for ever The question was whether A. B. and C. were joynt tenants or tenants in common Serjeant Twisden held that they were joynt renants Whether joynt tenancy or a tenancy in common and that this case differs from Radcliffs case and cited Wilds case in the 6 Rep. that a Will must be clear and conspicuous but so it is not here and here is no enforcement by these words respectively and they do relate to the persons and not to the lands bequeathed and a Covenant made by three respectively is a joynt Covenant and not a several Covenant and the word respectively hath relation to the survivorship which may happen betwixt the parties and a devise to one and his heir is a fee-simple Latch For the Defendant held that here is a tenancy in Common and not a joynt tenancy for the Estate ought to be whole out either a tenancy in Common or whole out a joynt tenancy and this of necessity for there cannot be a joynt tenancy for life and several inheritantes in the remainder and Littletons ground proves this to be so And 2ly It is against all construction to be otherwise as the word respectively is here placed and Ratclifs case which is not so strong a case as this case proves it to be so and although the word respectively may sometimes make a distribution of heirship as hath been objected viz. of several heirships yet here the placing of the word respectively shews it cannot be so Distribution of heirship and this using of the word is not operative but idle if here should be a joynt tenancy for the law says as much though the word respectively were left out and the word would be the more idle in explicating a thing so obvious to common understanding and no ways doubtfull and therefore we cannot think but that these extraordinary words do enforce an extraordinary construction and not a common one and an idle application and this comes not within the rule objected for the certainty for this word hath a proper meaning to make a several distribution
to the surrender or otherwise the admittance is not good Thurle and Madison Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at the Bar between Thurle and Madison Enrolment of a Deed. It was said by Glyn chief Iustice that if divers persons do seal a Deed and but one of them acknowledge the Déed and the Déed is thereupon enrolled this is a good enrollment within the Statute and may be given in evidence as a Deed enrolled Evidence at a Tryal It was then also said that if a deed express a consideration of money upon the purchase made by the Deed yet this is no proof upon a tryal Consideration that the monies expressed were paid but it must be proved by witnesses MEorandum Copy proved That upon the same Tryal an Act of Parliament produced in point for the selling of Delinquents estates was sworn to have been examined by the Parliament Roll and that it was a true Copy before it was read in evidence Nota. VVood and Gunston Mich. 1655. VPon a motion for a new tryal between Wood and Gunston Memorandum New tryal for miscarriage of the Iury. upon a supposition of excessive damages given by the Iury in an Action upon the case tryed at the Bar for words viz. Calling the Plaintif Traytor c. 1500 l. being the damages given It was said by Glyn chief Iustice that if the Court do believe that the Iury gave their verdict against their direction given unto them the Court may grant a new Tryal And a new Tryal was gronted in this Case after a full debate had by Councell on both sides Culliar and Iermin Mich. 1655. Banc. sup CUlliar brought an Action upon the Case upon a promise and declared Arrest of judgement upon a promise that the Testator of the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would mary such a Woman did promise that he would leave him half his Estate at his death and thereupon he did mary the party and yet he did not leave him half his estate at his death Vpon a verdict found for the Plaintif it was moved in arrest of judgement that the Declaration was not good for whereas the promise was that the Defendant should leave him half of all his estate which might be intended both of his real and also of his personal Estate and of any estate in reversion as well as of an estate in possession the Plaintif only says that the Testator died worth 3000 l. in possession and that he did not leave him half of that estate and it may be he left him part of his real estate or estate in reversion to the full value of half his whole estate But Glyn chief Iustice disallowed the exception and gave judgement for the Plaintif Iudgement Lance and Blackmore Mich. 1655. Banc. sup Hill 1654. rot 191. LAnce an Executor brought an Action upon the Case against Blackmore Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the Case upon a pro and declared that in consideration that the Testator would suffer the Defendant to enjoy such a Close of land the Defendant did assume and promise to pay 53 s. a year for the rent thereof for so long time as he should enjoy it and for so much rent due for it for so long time in the Testators life time and for so much rent due since his death he brings the Action Vpon non assumpsit pleaded a verdict was found for the Plaintif and entire dammages given It was moved in arrest of Iudgement That an Action of the Case doth not lie it being for the non-payment of rent which follows the nature of the land and doth sound in the realty for which a personal Action lies not 2ly Here doth not appear by the Daclaration Personal act on Consideration to the any consideration to ground the promise upon for the Declaration is that if the Testator in her life time would permit the Defendant to enjoy the Close then c. and it is not averred Averment that the Testator did in her life time suffer the Defendant to enjoy the Close Glyn chief Iustice If a promise be made to the Testator the Executor may have an Action Executor and it is a good consideration as to him for the executor is representative of the Testator And 2ly An Action upon the Case will not lie for rent upon a promise in law but upon a special promise of the party to pay it Promise in Law Special as our Case is it will lie Ingram and Fawset Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN this Case it was said by Glyn chief Iustice Administratâ—r must shew how Administrator That if an Administrator bring an Action against an Administrator it is not necessary for the Plaintif to shew by whom the letters of Administration were granted unto the Defendant but he must shew by whom the letters of Administration were granted to himself to entitle himself to the Action for if it appear not to the Court that he is Administrator he cannot sue by that name Mich. 1635. Banc. sup IT was said by Wild and agreed by Whitwick one of the Masters of the Vpper Bench office How far special bayl is lyable for the principal that if an Attorny do appear for one in the Vpper Bench special bayl is entred for his Clyent to that Action that that Bayl is not bound to stand Bayl to all other Actions that shall be declared in against the party upon the by but the Attorny for him is bound to appear for him in all such Actions and to put in Common bayl Wagstaff and Tempest Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IT was said by Glyn chief Iustice upon evidence given in a Tryal at the Bar Dispensation with a forfeiture of an Estate bayl between VVagstaff and Tempest that if tenant for life do levy a Fine of the Lands he is so seised of whereby he should forfeit his estate yet if he in the remainder will joyn with the Tenant for life in declaring the uses this is a dispensation with the forfeiture and Le Gay Mich. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was enformed For a time to accompt before Auditors that in an Action of Accompt brought there was a verdict that the Defendant should accompt before Auditors and that Auditors were assigned and the parties were now before the Auditors and thereupon it was moved on the Defendants part that this Court would grant him time to accompt for the reasons alleged But Wild answered that it was not proper to move here for the Auditors are now Iudges of the matter Auditors Iudges by the Statute and may give time if they see cause To which Glyn chief Iustice agreed and said the Auditors are Iudges by the Statute and therefore move before them and trouble not us with it Sergeant Bradshaw and Procter Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN the Case of Sergeant Bradshaw and Mr. Procter of Grays Inne Challenge to an array no part of
make a ditch or raise up a bank to hinder my way to my Common I may justifie the throwing of it down and the filling of it up Mich. 1655. BY Glyn chief Iustice Damages in Dower If a Feme bring a writ of dower and recover and the Defendant die the feme shall have her damages against the Terr-Tenants Mich. 1655. A Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet is when a writ of Error is brought to reverse a judgement given in the Common pleas Error quod coram vobis residet what it is or other Court where the Record was formerly removed into the Court of the Vpper Bench and by reason of the death of the party or for some other cause rests undetermined by reason of the abatement of the former writ of Error Le pool and Tryan Mich. 1655. Banc. sup VVIld moved for a prohibition to the Court of Admiralty to stay a tryal there in a Trover and Conversion For a prohibition to the admiralty in which they procéed upon a pretence that the goods in question were taken upon the High Sea and that by the late Act they have exclusive power in all such cases which is not so Glyn chief Justice It was resolved in Cremers and Cokelyes case so adjudged that they have no such power Therefore take a prohibition nisi c. Morden and Hart. Mich. 1655. Banc. sup MOrden brought an Action of debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award against Hart. Vpon nil debet pleaded Arrest of judgement in debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award and a verdict for the Plaintif it was moved in Arrest of judgement and the exception taken was that the Award was made but of one part and so not binding to all the parties submitting The case was this One Stephens and Body on one part also Hart on the other part submitted to stand to the Award The Arbitrators awarded that Body should pay a certain sum of money unto Hart in satisfaction for the differences betwixt Body and Stephens on the one part and Hart on the other part which was objected could not be good for the money paid by one could not be in satisfaction for another and so the Award is not made to conclude all the parties submitting for Stephens was not concerned in it and the Award is with an Ita quod which ought to be a general Award and include all parties and therefore if it be void in part it is void in all But Green on the other side answered though the Award should be naught in part yet it may be good as to Body that paid the money and the moneys ought to be received as they are paid and that is for Body and Stephens and may be well in satisfaction for both of them It was also urged by Howell on the same side that it appears that Body and Stephens are partners and this will make an end of the matter for then the money paid by one of them may satisfie for the other Award in part Glyn chief Iustice Here is a good Award betwéen two of the parties that submitted but there appears nothing to be awarded as to Stephens the third party for it doth not appear that he can take any benefit by the Award of the money to be paid by Body or that it can be any satisfaction for him but only for Body Iudgement for the Defendant Iudgement for the Defendant nisi c. Busfield and Norden Mich. 1655. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought by Busfield against Nordon to reverse a judgement given in the Court Military of Rippon in an action upon an indebitatus assumpsit for wares sold Error to reverse a judgement upon an indebitatus assumpsit by the Bail wherein there being a judgement given against the principal a scire facias issued out against the Ball and a judgement was thereupon and against him the bail thereupon brings a writ of Error to reverse both these judgements and assigns for Error that there was no issue joyned in the first judgement and that being erronious Bail cannot reverse the principal judgement The writ abaed and being the ground upon which the scire facias did issue forth whereupon the second judgement was given the second judgement cannot be good Glyn chief Iustice But the principal judgement ought to be reversed by the principal and not by the bail and therefore the writ of Error is not well brought by the bail therefore let it abate Vidian and Fletcher Mich. 1655. Banc. sup VPon view of an Infant brought into Court of to be inspected Scire facias for an Infant to â—everse a fine levâ—ed ouâ—ing Covertuâ—e who had during coverture joyned with her husband in levying a fine of her lands she was by the Court adjudged within age whereupon a scire facias issued out to the terr-Terr-tenants who came in and pleaded that she was of full age at the time of the fine levied upon which plea issue was joyned and a tryal was had at the Assizes and a Verdict for the Plaintif who now came in Court and prayed for judgement upon the Verdict Glyn chief Iustice The Court is to judge of the Infancy Iury not to try Infancy and not the Iury and therefore you have not proceeded duly but the proceedings do no hurt for we judge she was within age Fine reversed Therefore let the fine be reversed nisi c. Nota. and the hundred of Crondon Mich. 1655. Banc. sup AN Action of Trespass upon the case was brought against the Hundred of Crondon in Hampshire upon the Stat. of Winchester Arrest of Judgement in an Action upon the Statute of Huc and Câ—yes Case Statute by one that was robbed within the hundred upon the tryal a verdict passed for the Plaintif It was moved on the behalf of the Hundred in Arrest of judgement 1. That the Plaintif had mistaken his Action for whereas he hath brought a general Action of Trespass upon the case he ought to have brought an Action upon the Statute 2ly He declares that he took his Oath before I. S. a Iustice of Peace in the County Whereas it should be for the County 3ly He hath not expressed that he took his Oath before a Iustice assigned to keep the Peace 4ly There is no issue joyned 5ly He saith that he took his Oath 20 days but doth not say next before as the Statute directs Windham on the other side answered to the first Exception that it is usual of latter times to declare in an Action upon the Case generally To the second he said it is no exception for a Iustice of Peace is not an Officer affâ—red to a place Serjeant Twisden But it doth not appear that you took your Oath 20 days before your Original sued out Glyn chief Iustice That appears well enough upon the Record Variation But the writ here is in an Action upon the case