he had a way over the place where it is not material to the justification whither it leads it being after a Verdict when the right of the case is tried And it is aided at last by the Statute of Oxford 16 Car. And so Twysden said it was the Opinion of all the Iudges at Serjeants Inn he putting the Case to them at Dinner Norris and Cuffuil IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in consideration of six pence paid in hand the 13 of Jan. 17 Car. and that the Plaintiff would pay him 20 s a Month he promised to serve him in his Glass-house after the first Iourny of Glass and sets forth quod primum iter vitrij tunc prox sequens aggreamentum praedictum fuit 21 Feb. 17 Car. which was the year before and that the Defendant did not come to serve him After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That the Plaintiff had not declared sufficiently of any Iourny of Glass after the Agreement but that alledged appears to be the year before Et Adjornatur This Case being moved again Twysden said he had put it to the Iudges at Serjeants Inn and they were all of Opinion that it was well enough after a Verdict Heath versus Pryn. IN an Ejectione Firmae of the Rectory of Westbourn in Chichester upon Not Guilty pleaded it appeared upon the Evidence that the Plaintiffs Title was as Presentee of the Grantee of the next Avoidance from the Lord Lumly and Letters of Institution under the Seal of the Ordinary were produced but by reason of the times the Ordinary Parson and Patron being Sequestred no Induction followed thereupon until the Kings Restauration this Institution was 1645. Soon after the Defendant was placed in this Church by an Ordinance of Parliament and hath enjoyed it ever since and there was an Act of Parliament made 12 Car. 2. which confirms Ministers in their Possessions of any Benefice with cure tho' they came not in by Admission Institution and Induction but according to a Form used in those times in which Act there is also a Clause of Restitution of sequestred Ministers to such Benefices as they had been seized of by taking the profits It was alledged on the Defendants side that the Plaintiff proving nothing of a Presentation the Institution could not be admitted as Evidence of it especially in this case where the Induction was so long after to which the Court did incline And then the Oath of the Grantee of the next Avoidance was offered which was not admitted altho' his Interest was executed by the Presentment And it was said that an Assignor might be sworn a Witness to the Assignment of a Lease where there were no Covenants It was also said that the Plaintiff was not within the clause of Restitution of the Act of 12 Car. because he was never seized by taking the Profits which cannot be until Induction according to Hare and Bicklers Case in the Commentaries quod suit concessum To which it was replied That neither was the Defendant within the clause of Confirmation because the Rectory in question was not a Benefice with cure for there is belonging to it a perpetual Vicaridge Endowed and the Vicar comes in by Admission Institution and Induction who performs Divine Service pays the Synodals and Procurations repairs the Chancel and therefore it hath been adjudged that such a Vicar shall have Arbores in Coemiterio And it was said that the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. against Pluralities doth not extend to Rectories where there are Vicaridges Endowed And Linwood describes a Benefice without cure cujus cura Vicariis perpetuo exercenda est Otherwise where the Vicar is Temporal and removeable And the difference is inter curam actualem habitualem And 't is the Cure that the Rector hath and so hath every Bishop in his Diocess who when he gives Institution saith accipe curam tuam et meam but the Act only extends to the first It appeared also on the other side That the Parson had come once or twice a year Preached and Administred Sacraments and that without the Vicars leave and also paid First-fruits Vpon all this matter the Opinion of the Court was That the Parson had a concurrent Cure with the Vicar and resembled it to the case where there are two Incumbents in one Church and coming in by Admission Institution and Induction the Vicar could not discharge him of the cure of Souls But Donatives which are conferred by Laymen are sinè cura Note The Plaintiffs Counsel would have denyed the Act of 12 Car. to be an Act of Parliament because the were not Summoned by the Kings Writ but the Iudges would not admit it to be questioned and said That all the Iudges resolved that the Act being made by King Lords and Commons they ought not now to pry into any defects of the Circumstance of calling them together neither would they suffer a point to be stirred wherein the Estates of so many were concerned Vid. Hob. 109. 33 H. 6. 19. Notwithstanding all this the Jury found for the Plaintiff It seemed by the Court in this case that Letters of Institution must be under the Episcopal Seal sed vide Cro. lib. 1. 249. Vid. postea The King against Burford HE was Indicted for that he scandalose contemptuose propalavit publicavit verba squentia viz. That none of the Justices of Peace do understand the Statutes for the Excise unless Mr. A. B. and he understands but little of them no nor many Parliament men do not understand them upon the reading of them And it was moved to quash the Idictment for that a man could not be Indicted for speaking◠of such words and of that Opinion was the Court But they said he might have been bound to his Good Behaviour Stones Case A Writ of Priviledge was prayed for Stone an Attorney of the Court who was Copyholder of a Mannor where the Custom was for the Homage to chuse one of the Tenants to collect the Lords Rents for the year following and they elected him But it was said that this might be taken to be parcel of his Tenure for the Lords use to seize the Land for not executing of it and his Priviledge ought not to deprive the Lord of the Service of his Tenant 1 Cro. 422. In the Book of H. 6. The Archbishop of York being bound by Tenure to Collect the Tenths pleaded the Kings Letters Patents in discharge thereof and they were disallowed and tho' Attorneys have had their priviledge where they have been pressed Souldiers as in Venables Case 1 Cro. 8. Co. Entries 436. Springs Case and 1 Cro. 283. and where by Custom it came to an Attorneys turn to be Constable vid. Rolls 2. part 276. yet these are publick Services to which every one is bound but Priviledges may be allowed to exempt particular persons as the King may grant to one that he shall not be of
is where it is imposed for such things as are of common Right incident to its Jurisdiction as for Contempts or the like Yet where Custom only enables them to set a Fine it cannot be Distrained for without Custom also 11 Co. Godfrey's Case And to this Opinion did the Court incline Sed Adjornatur Anonymus TWo Actions of Account were removed into this Court by Habeas Corpus and Special Bail put in And it was moved that the Bail might be discharged and Common Bail filed because in an Account Special Bail is not to be put in But it was said the Plaintiff had declared in one in an Action upon the Case and so prayed that the Bail might stand quoad that But it was Ruled That the Bail should be discharged and if the Plaintiff would have Special Bail he must Arrest the Defendant again in an Action upon the Case Doctor Lee's Case DOctor Lee having Lands within the Level was made an Expenditor by the Commissioners of Sewers whereupon he prayed his Writ of Priviledge in this Court and it was granted For the Register is Vir militans Deo non implicetur saecularibus negotiis and the ancient Law is Quod Clerici non ponantur in Officia F.N.B. Clergy-men are not to serve in the Wars Jemey versus Norris ERror to Reverse a Judgment in an Assumpsit upon a Quantum meruit for divers things sold It was assigned for Error that the Declaration amongst the rest was for unum par Chirothecarum and did not express what sort of Gloves they were which are of much different prices according to the different Leather they are made of And Playter's Case 5 Co. was cited where Trespass for taking of his Fishes was held not good because not ascertainedb of what kind Sed non allocatur Another of the things declared for was una parcella fili which as it was said was utterly uncertain and that was held to be naught Tho' it was said an Action was brought for taking away unum cumulum Foeni Anglicè a Rick of Hay and not alledged how much it contained yet held good But in Webb and Washburn's Case an Action was brought for a pair of Hangings and it was Adjudged against the Plaintiff for the Incertainty Jones contra and cited a Case in this Court 24 Car. 1. Green and Green in Trover for six parcels of Lead and notwithstanding the Incertainty the Plaintiff had Judgment So in Trover for a Trunk de diversis Vestimentis and did not say what Garments and yet held good But admitting it should not be good in Trover yet it is well in this Action 'T is the Common course to declare sur Indebitatus pro mercimoniis and never express what they are And the Court were of Opinion that the Plaintiff was to have Judgment for it is an Action much of the same nature with an Indebitatus And Twisden said Where the Promise is to pay Quantum meruit he knew not why the Plaintiff might not declare upon an Indebitatus in a certain Sum and that he might prove the value upon the Evidence and if such a Case came to be tried before him he would have a Special Verdict found in it The Court said Such an uncertain Declaration would hardly be good in Trover or Replevin and held the Case of the six Parcels to be strange and for the Trunk that an Action lies for that the things contained in it were alledged but as matter of aggravation of Damages Vid. the Case of Taylour and Wells ante Trover de decem paribus velorum tegularum Anglicè Ten pair of Curtains and Vallance Wilson versus Armorer IN Debt against the Heir and Reins per discent pleaded the Case upon Special Verdict was thus The Ancestor made a Feoffment of a Mannor to divers uses excepting two Closes for the Life of the Feoffor only and whether those two Closes did discend was the Point referred to the Iudgment of the Court. And it was Adjudged That they did discend either for that the Exception was good tho' the latter part of the Sentence viz. for the Life of the Feoffor only was void and therefore to be rejected or if the whole Exception were void because one intire Sentence Yet they all agreed that there was no Vse limited of those two Closes which were intended to be excepted for the Vse was limited of the Mannor exceptis praeexceptis which excluded the two Acres For altho' there were not sufficient words to except them yet there was enough to declare the intention of the Feoffor to be so Anonymus AN Indictment for Erecting of a Cottage for Habitation contra Statut ' 31 Eliz. cap. 7. was quashed because it was not said that any had inhabited in it for 't is no Offence before per Rainsford Moreton caeteris absentibus Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 22 23 Car. II. In Banco Regis Robson's Case A Prohibition was prayed to a Suit for Tythes by the Parson upon a Suggestion of a Modus paid to the Vicar and that the Vicaridge had time out of mind been Endowed Coleman moved for a Consultation because the Endowment of the Vicaridge was not proved by two Witnesses within six Months according to the Statute But it was denyed for that part of the Suggestion is not to be proved by Witnesses but only the payment of the Modus And it was said If the Suggestion consisted of two parts it was sufficient to produce one Witness to the one and another to the other Dacon's Case DAcon was presented in the Court Leet for refusing the Office of Constable and Fined It was moved to quash it because it expressed the Court to be held infra unum mensem Sancti Michael ' viz. 12 November and so the Day shewn above a Month after Michaelmas And it is necessary to set down the precise Day for it may else be upon a Sunday and yet within a Month after Michaelmas and for this cause the Court held that it must be quashed Error AN Outlawry was Reversed for that the Proclamations were Returned to be ad comitat ' meum tent ' apud such a place in Com' praedict ' and not said pro Comitatu For anciently one Sheriff had two or three Counties and might hold the Court in one County for another Calthorpe versus .... IN Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declared that he let the Defendant such Land anno 16 of the King quamdiu ambabus partibus placeret and that anno 16 the Defendant entred and occupied it pro uno anno tunc proximê sequent ' and because the Rent was behind pro praedict ' anno finit ' 18 he brought the Action Vpon which it was Demurred Because the Rent is demanded for the Year ending 18 and it is not shewn that the Defendant enjoyed the Land longer than anno 17. And in Debt for Rent upon a Lease at Will Occupation of the Tenant must be averred To which it was Answered That it is said
here to forbear to Sue generally but to stay a Suit against the Defendant whom he could not Sue To which it was answered That after a Verdict it shall be intended there was cause of Suit as Hob. 216. Bidwell and Cattons Case And Attorney brought an Assumpsit upon a Promise made to him in Consideration that he would stay the Prosecution of an Attachment of Priviledge and there held that it need not appear that there was cause of Suit for the Promise argues it and it will be presumed And here 't is a strong intendment that the Bond was made in Common Form which binds the Heirs But Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for the Court said it might be intended that there was cause of Action if the contrary did not appear which it doth in this Case for the Bond cannot be intended otherwise than the Plaintiff himself hath expressed it which shews only that the Ancestor was bound And whereas it was said by the Plaintiff's Counsel that this would attaint the Jury they finding Assumpsit upon a void Promise Hale said there was no colour for that conceit The Plaintiff having proved his Promise and Consideration as 't was laid in the Declaration which is the only thing within their charge upon Non Assumpsit modo forma Bulmer versus Charles Pawlet Lord Saint John IN an Ejectment upon a Tryal at Bar this question arose upon the Evidence Tenant for Life Remainder in Tail to J. S. joyn in a Fine J.S. dies without Issue whether the Conusee should hold the Land for the Life of the Tenant for Life Serjeant Ellis pressed to have it found Specialy tho' it is resolved in Bredons Case that the Estate of the Conusee shall have Continuance but he said it was a strange Estate that should be both a Determinable Fee and an Estate pur auter vie and he cited 3 Cro. 285. Major and Talbots Case where in Covenant the Plaintiff sets forth that a Feme Tenant for Life Remainder in Fee to her Husband made a Lease to the Defendant for years wherein the Defendant covenanted with the Lessors their Heirs and Assigns to repair and they conveyed the Reversion to the Plaintiff and for default of Reparations the Plaintiff brought his Action as Assignee to the Husband And resolved to be well brought because the Wives Estate passed as drowned in the Fee The Court said Bredons Case was full in the point but the Reason there given Hale said made against the Resolution for 't is said that the Remainder in Tail passes first which if it does the Freehold must go by way of Surrender and so down but they shall rather be construed to pass insimul uno flatu Hob. 277 In Englishes Case it was resolved it Tenant for Life Remainder in Tail to an Infant joyn in a Fine if the Infant after Reverse the Fine yet the Conusee shall hold it for the Life of the Conusor 1 Co. in Bredons Case and he resembled it to the Case in 1 Inst a Man seized in the right of his Wife and entituled to be Tenant by the curtesie joyns in a Feoffment with his Wife the Heir of his Wife shall not avoid this during the Husbands Life Nevertheless he told Ellis That he would never deny a Special Verdict at the request of a Learned Man but it appearing that he Plaintiff had a good Title after the Life should fall the Defendant bought it of him and the Jury were discharged Sacheverel versus Frogate PAs 23 Car. 2. Rot. 590. In Covenant the Plaintiff declared That Jacinth Sacheverel seized in Fee demised to the Defendant certain Land for years reserving 120 l Rent And therein was a Covenant that the Defendant should yearly and every year during the said Term pay unto the Lessor his Executors Administrators and Assigns the said Rent and sets forth how that the Lessor devised the Reversion to the Plaintiff an for 120 l Rent since his decease he brought the Action The Defendant demanded Oyer of the Indenture wherein the Reservation of the Rent was yearly during the Term to the Lessor his Executors Administrators and Assigns and after a Covenant prout the Plaintiff declared and to this the Defendant demurred It was twice argued at the Bar and was now set down for the Resolution of the Court which Hale delivered with the Reasons He said they were all of Opinion for the Plaintiff For what interest a Man hath he hath it in a double capacity either as a Chattel and so transmissible to the Executors and Administrators or as an Inheritance and so in capacity of transmitting it to his Heir Then if Tenant in Fee makes a Lease and reserves the Rent to him and his Executors the Rent cannot go to them for there is no Testamentary Estate On the other side if Lessee for a 100 years should make a Lease for 40 years reserving Rent to him and his Heirs that would be void to the Heir Now a Reservation is but a Return of somewhat back in Retribution of what passes and therefore must be carried over to the Party which should have succeeded in the Estate if no Lease had béen made and that has béen always held where the Reservation is general So tho' it doth not properly create a Fee yet 't is a descendible Estate because it comes in lieu of what would have descended therefore Constructions of Reservations have been ever according to the Reason and Equity of the thing If two Joynt-teants make a Lease and reserve the Rent to one of them this is a good to both unless the Lease be by Indenture because of the Estoppel which is not in our Case for the Executors are Strangers to the Deed. 'T is true if A. and B. joyn in a Lease of Land wherein A. hath nothing reserving the Rent to A. by Indenture this is good by Estoppel to A. But in the Earl of Clare's Case it was resolved That where he and his Wife made a Lease reserving a Rent to himself and his Wife and his Heirs that he might bring Debt for the Rent and declare as of a Lease made by himself alone and the Reservation to himself for being in the Case of a Feme Covert there could be no Estoppel altho' she signed and sealed the Lease There was an Indenture of Demise from two Joynt tenants reserving 20 l Rent to them both one only sealed and delivered the Deed and he brought Debt for the Rent and declared of a Demise of the Moiety and a Reservation of 10 l Rent to him And resolved that he might Between Bond and Cartwright which see before and in the Common Pleas Pas 40. Eliz. Tenant in Tail made a Lease reserving a Rent to him and his Heirs It was resolved a good Lease to bind the Entail for the Rent shall go to the Heir in Tail along with the Reversion tho' the Reservation were to the Heirs generally For the Law uses all industry imaginable to conform
that time this made an Estate Tail But if it had béen and after their decease to their Children then the Children should take by Purchase tho' born after 'T is true that case is variously reported in the Books but I adhere to my Lord Coke presuming that being brought before all the Judges in the Argument of VVilds Case it was a true Report As for the second Point 't is plain that the power is extinguished for by the Recovery the Estate for Life to which it was annexed in privity is gone and forfeited so that 't is not necessary to dispute the third Point whether well executed or no But upon the whole I agree with my Brother Rainsford that the Plaintiff ought to have Judgment Hale I differ from my two Brothers and tho' I was of their Opinion at the finding of the Special Verdict yet upon very great Consideration of the Case I am of Opinion for the Defendant I shall proceed in a different method from my Brothers and begin with that Point which they made last and I agree with them admitting that Bernard had but an Estate for Life that the power was destroyed also here the Recovery does not only bar the Estate but all powers annexed to it for the recompence in value is of such strong Consideration that it serves as well for Rents Possibilities c. going out of and depending upon the Land as for the Land it self So Fines and Feoffments do ransack the whole Estate and pass or extinguish c. all Rights Conditions Powers c. belonging to the Land as well as the Land it self Secondly I agree with my Brother Rainsford that if Bernard had but an Estate for Life by the Devise the power was not well executed Where Tenant for Life has a power to make Leases 't is not always necessary to recite his power when he makes a Lease but if he makes a Lease which will not have an effectual continuance if it be directed out of his interest there it shall be as made by virtue of his power and so it was resolved in one Roger's Case in which I was Counsel Again Tho' it be here by Covenant to stand seized an improper way to execute his power yet it might be construed an Execution of it Mich. 51. In this Court Stapleton's Case where a Devise was to A. for Life Remainder to B. for Life Remainder to C. in Fee with power to B. to make his Wife a Joynture B. covenanted to stand seized for the Joynture of his Wife reciting his power tho' this could not make a legal Joynture yet it was resolved to enure by virtue of his power quando non valet quod ago ut ago valeat quantum valere potest But in this Case Bernard has got a new Fee which tho' it be defeasible by him in Remainder yet the Covenant to stand seized shall enure thereupon and the use shall arise out of the Fee Thirdly I was at the first opening of the Case of Opinion that Bernard had but an Estate for Life but upon deep Examination of the Will and of the Authority and Considerations of the Consequences of the Case I hold it to be an Estate Tail And first to ease that Point of all difficulties if cannot be denied but a Devise to a Man and the Heirs of his Body by a second Wife makes an Estate Tail executed tho' the Devisee had a Wife at the time As the Case often cited Land given to a Married Man and a Married Woman and the Heirs of their Bodies We are here in case of the Creation of an Estate-Tail where intention has some influence voluntas Donatoris c. and may help words which are not exactly according to legal form 39 Ass 20. Land given to a Man and his Wife haeredi de corpore uni haeredi tantum this judged an Entail Again we are in case of an Estate Tail to be created by a Will and the intention of the Testator is the Law to expound the Testament therefore a Devise to a Man and his Heirs Males or a Devise to a Man and if he dies without Issue c. are always construed to make an Entail It must be admitted that if the Devise were to B. and the Issue of his Body having no Issue at that time it would be an Estate Tail for the Law will carry over the word Issue not only to his immediate Issue but to all that shall descend from him I agree it would be otherwise if there were Issue at the time Tayler and Sayer 41 Eliz. rot 541. a Devise to his Wife for Life 1 Cro. 742. Remainder to his Issue having two Children it was held the Remainder was void being to the Issue in the singular number for incertainy which should take But that was a little too rank for Issue is nomen collectivum Again I agree if a Devise be made to a man and after his death to his Issue or Children having Issue at that time they take by way of Remainder And that was the only Point adjudged in Wild's Case and there also against the Opinion of Popham and Gawdy This way being made I come to the Case it self and shall briefly give my Reasons why I hold Bernard has an Estate Tail First Because the word Issue is nomen collectivum and takes in the whole Generation ex vi termini and so the Case is stronger than if it were Children And where 't is said to the Issue that he shall have of the Body of the second Wife that is all that shall come of the second Wife For so 't is understood in common Parlance Secondly In all Acts of Parliament Exitus is as comprehensive as Heirs of the Body In Westm 2. de donis Issue is made a term of equivalence to Heirs of the Body for where it speaks of the Alienation of the Donee 't is said quo minus ad exitum discenderet So in 34 H. 8. of Entails setled by the Crown 'T is true in Conveyances c. the wisdom of the Law has appropriated the word Heirs as a Term of Art In Clerke's Case A Lease was made to commence after the death of his Son without Issue the Son had a Son and died and then that Son died without Issue It was Resolved both in the Kings Bench and the Exchequer that the Lease should commence for Issue being nomen collectivum whenever the Issue of the Son failed the term of Commencement did happen But now to see the difference Tyler's Case Mich. 34 Eliz. B.R. He had Issue A. B. C. and D. and Devised to his Wife for Life and after her death to B. his Son in Tail and if he dies without Issue then to his Children A. had Issue a Son and died and B. died without Issue Resolved that the Son of A. should not take as one of the Children of the Testator Which Case I cite to shew the odds between the word Issue and the
excused yet 't is merely void as to the Party Et Ad jornatur Norton versus Harvey THe Case was an Executor being possessed of a Term let part of it reserving a Rent and died And the Question was whether his Executor should have the Rent or the Administrator de bonis non It was argued for the Executor that this Rent is meerly due by the Contract and not incident to the Reversion and the Administrator is in Paramount it being now as if the Testator had died Intestate and therefore before the Statute of this King such Administrators could not have had a Scire facias upon a Judgment obtained by the Executor tho' in the Case of Cleve and Vere 3 Cro. 450 457. 't is held that he may have a Liberate where the Executor had proceeded in the Execution of a Statute so far as an Extent for there the thing is executed and not meerly Executory as a Judgment If a Man that hath a Term in the right of his Wife le ts part of it reserving a Rent the Wife surviving shall not not have the Rent On the other side it was said that this case differed from that because the Reservation here is by him that had the whole Right executed in him Another objection against the Action was that here in the Declaration being in Covenant for Non payment of Rent there is not any demand alledged But that was answered because the Covenant was to pay such a Sum for the Rent expresly but if the Condition of a Bond be for performance of Covenants expressed in such a Lease one of which is for payment of Rent in that case the Bond will not be forfeit without a demand and of that Opinion were the Court and that the Executor should have the Rent but when recovered Hale said it should be Assets in his Hands And accordingly Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 26 Car. II. In Banco Regis Silly versus Silly DOwer of 300 Acres of Land 200 Acres of Pasture 100 Acres Meadow The Tenant pleaded Non Tenure The Jury found him Tenant as to 320 Acres of Land and as to the rest that he was not Tenant And the Iudgment was that the Demandant should recover the 320 Acres Error was assigned in this Court that the Verdict and Judgment were for more Acres of Land than were demanded But on the other side it was said Land was a general word and might include Meadow and Pasture Curia In a Grant Land will extend to Meadow Pasture c. but in Pleading it signifies Arable only and here in regard they are distinguished in the Count the Verdict and Judgment must be reversed for the whole Tho' Hale said antiently such Iudgment would have been reversed but for the surplusage Vid Post Batmore Vxor versus Graves TRover for a 100 Loads of Wood upon a Special Verdict the Case was this Copyhold Land was surrendred to the use of J. S. for years Remainder to the Brother of the Plaintiff's Wife who died before the Term expired and so was not admitted any otherwise than by the admission of the Tenant for years And it was resolved First That the admittance of him that had the Estate for years was an admittance for him in the Remainder 4 Co. 23. a. 3 Cro. 504. Fine sur Grant and render to A. for Life Remainder to B. Execution sued by A. serves for B. So an Attornment to Tenant for Life serves for him in Remainder and this brings no prejuduce to the Lord for a Fine is not due until after admittance and the Lord may Assess one Fine for the particular Estate and another Fine for the Remainder But Wild said he need not pay it until his Estate comes in Possession after a Surrender the Estate remains in the Surrender before admittance of the Cestuy que use yet where Borough English Land was Surrendred to the use of J. S. and his Heirs and he died before admittance It was held that the younger Son should have it Secondly It was resolved that the Possession of the Tenant for years was so the Possession of him in Remainder as to make a Possessio Fratris But then it was moved that the Conversion was laid after the Marriage and so the Feme ought not to have joyned with her Husband in the Action But the Court held that in regard the Trover was laid to be before the Marriage which was the inception of the cause of Action the Wife might be joyned as if one has the Custody of a Womans Goods and afterward Marries her she may joyn in Detinue with her Husband for in case of Bailment the Proprietor is to some purposes in Possession and to some out of Possession Hale said in this case the Husband might bring the Action alone or joyntly with his Wife And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Anonymus IN Debt upon a Bond the Condition was to save the Obligee harmless from another Bond. The Defendant pleaded Non damnificatus The Plaintiff replies that the Money was not paid at the day and he devenit onerabilis and could not attend his business for fear of an Arrest The Defendant rejoyns that he tendred the Money at the day absque hoc that the Plaintiff devenit onerabilis to which it was Demurred and the Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the Money not being paid at the day the Counter Bond is forfeited Vid. 1 Cro. 672. 5 Co. and the Traverse in this case is naught The Mayor and Commonalty of London versus Dupester IN Debt for a Duty accruing to the City for Timber imported called Scavage The Declaration was that they were and had been a Corporation time out of mind and their Customs were confirmed by Act of Parliament Temps R. 2. c. The Defendant tendred his Law and Co. Entries 118. was cited where in Debt for an Amerciament in a Court Baron tho' the imposing of it was grounded upon a Prescription yet Wager of Law was admitted But notwithstanding in this case the Court overruled the Wager of Law for here the Duty it self is by Prescription and that confirmed by Act of Parlimant Debt for a Duty growing by a By-Law if the By-Law be Authorised by Letters Patents no Wager of Law lies So in Debt for Toll granted by Letters Patents 20 H. 7. Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 26 Car. II. In Banco Regis Silly versus Silly THe Case was moved again And the Court said that the Demandant might have taken Judgment for the 300 Acres only habito nullo respectu to the rest and released all the Damages But this was not proper for an Amendment the Mistake being in the Verdict but if it could have been amended in the Common Bench the Court might here have made such Amendment Ante. Burfoot versus Peal A Scire facias was brought against the Bail who pleaded that the Principal paid the Debt ante diem impetrationis Brevis
have admitted Wager of Law and therefore lies not against the Executor It was difficultly brought in that Debt should lye against the Executor upon a Surmize of a Devastavit by himself But that Point is now setled but no Reason to extend it further And he cited a Case where Debt was brought against A. Executor of B. Executor of C. who pleaded that he had not of the Goods of C. in his hands To which the Plaintiff Replied That B. had Wasted the Goods of C. to the value of the Debt demanded Vpon which Issue was joyned and found for the Plaintiff and he had Judgment to recover de bonis B. in the hands of A. But that Judgment was Reversed Anonymus IF A. Engages that B. shall pay for certain Goods that B. buys of C. this is good to charge him upon a Collateral Promise but not upon an Indebitat ' Assumpsit for it doth not create a Debt Anonymus IN an Information for a Riot it was doubted by the Court whether it were Local being a Criminal Cause And it was observed that divers Statutes in Queen Elizabeth and King James's time provided that Prosecutions upon Penal Laws should be in their proper Counties Which was an Argument that at the Common Law they might have been elsewhere Taylor 's Case AN Information Exhibited against him in the Crown Office for uttering of divers Blasphemous Expressions horrible to hear viz. That Jesus Christ was a Bastard a Whoremaster Religion was a Cheat and that he neither feared God the Devil or Man Being upon this Trial he acknowledged the speaking of the Words except the word Bastard and for the rest he pretended to mean them in another Sense than they ordinarily hear viz. Whoremaster i. e. That Christ was Master of the Whore of Babylon and such kind of Evasions for the rest But all the Words being proved by several Witnesses he was found Guilty And Hale said That such kind of wicked Blasphemous words were not only an Offence to God and Religion but a Crime against the Laws State and Government and therefore punishable able in this Court. For to say Religion is a Cheat is to dissolve all those Obligations whereby Civil Societies are preserved and that Christianity is parcel of the Laws of England and therefore to reproach the Christian Religion is to speak in Subversion of the Law Wherefore they gave Judgment upon him viz. To stand in the Pillory in Three several places and to pay One thousand Marks Fine and to find Sureties for his Good Behaviour during Life Walker versus Wakeman THe Case was An Estate which consisted of Land a Rectory c. was conveyed to the use of one for Life c. with a Power to Lett the Premisses or any part of them so as 50 l Rent was reserved for every Acre of Land The Tenant for Life Demised the Rectory reserving a Rent which Rectory consisted of Tythes only and whether this was within the Power was the Question Serjeant Pemberton Argued That this Lease is not warranted by the Power for a Construction is to be made upon the whole Clause and the latter Words that appoint the Reservation of the Rent shall explain the former and restrain the general Word Premisses to Land only for if it shall be extended further the Settlement which was in Consideration of a Marriage Portion is of no effect for the Rectory As in case it should de Demised reserving no Rent which it might be if not restrained to the latter words and they applied only to the Land But it was Resolved by the Court that the Lease of the Rectory was good for the last Clause being Affirmative shall not restrain the Generality of the former And this Resolution was chiefly grounded upon Cumberford's Case in the 2 Rolls 263. where a Conveyance was made to Vses of divers Mannors and Lands with a Power to the Cestuy que use for Life to make Leases of the Premisses or any part of them so that such Rent or more were reserved upon every Lease which was reserved before within the space of Two years and a Lease was made of part of the Lands which had not been Demised within Two years before And Resolved it was a good Lease and that thereupon any Rent might be reserved because the Power was General To Lease all and the restrictive Clause should only be applied to such Lands as had been demised within Two years before Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 28 Car. II. In Banco Regis MEmorandum The last Term Sir Richard Rainsford was made Chief Justice Hale Chief Justice quitting it for infirmity of Body and Sir Thomas Jones was made one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench. Anonymus IN an Action upon the Case brought against the Defendant for that he did Ride an Horse into a place called Lincolns in Fields a place much frequented by the Kings Subjects and unapt for such purposes for the breaking and taming of him and that the Horse was so unruly that he broke from the Defendant and ran over the Plaintiff and grievously hurt him to his damage c. Vpon Not guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff It was moved by Sympson in Arrest of Judgment that here is no cause of Action for it appears by the Declaration that the mischief which happened was against the Defendants Will and so Damnum absque injuria and then not shewn what right the Kings Subjects had to walk there and if a man diggs a Pit in a Common into which one that has no right to come there falls in no Action lies in such Case Curia contra It was the Defendants fault to bring a Wild Horse into such a place where mischief might probably be done by reason of the Concourse of People Lately in this Court an Action was brought against a Butcher who had made an Ox run from his Stall and gored the Plaintiff and this was alledged in the Declaration to be in default of penning of him Wild said if a Man hath an unruly Horse in his Stable and leaves open the Stable Door whereby the Horse goes forth and does mischief an Action lies against the Master Twisden If one hath kept a tame Fox which getts loose and grows wild he that kept him before shall not answer for the damage the Fox doth after he hath lost him and he hath resumed his wild nature Vid. Hobarts Reports 134. The Case of Weaver and Ward Anonymus IN Trespass in an inferiour Court if the Defendant plead son frank Tenement to oust the Court of Jurisdiction It was said by Wild that they may enforce the Defendant to swear his Plea as in case of Foreign Plea negat Twisden and as in this Court where a Local justification in Trespass c. is pleaded the Defendant must swear it But the Court held no Indictment will lie for Perjury in such Oath no more than upon a Wager of Law Anonymus IN Trover the Hab. corpora
that he should suffer a Recovery his Term is not drowned 195 Tenant for Life with power to make a Jointure suffers a Recovery the Power is extinguished 226 227 Good tho' a Stranger that hath nothing in the Land be made Tenant to the Praecipe for a Recovery being a Common Assurance is to be favourably expounded 358 Whether a Recovery can be suffered where the Tail is expectant upon an Estate for Life the Tenant for Life not being made Tenant to the Praecipe 360 Release See Obligation Of all Demands its effect 314 Remainder Contingent Remainder by what Act destroyed 188 306 334 345 No Cross Remanders upon Construction in a Deed tho' sometimes in a Will 224 Rent Difference between a Rent and a Sum in Gross 99 Lease by Tenant in Fee and Rent reserved to the Lessor Executors Administrators and Assigns the words Executors and Administrators void 162 A Rent may be reserved by Contract without Deed 242 Where Rent shall be suspended and where apportioned by the Lessors Entry 276 277 Reputation Lands repurted parcel of a Mannor shall pass in a Recovery under the Word Appurtenances 52 Retorn Sheriff amerced for retorning Non est inventus on the Writ brought against his Bayliff 12 24 Sheriff retorns that Goods came to the Executors hands elongavit vendidit disposuit ad proprium usum suum convertit this tantamounts to quod devastavit 20 221 Sheriff retorns upon a Fi. fa. that he had taken Goods and that they were rescued from him not good 21 Action against Sheriff for a false Retorn of Cepi Corpus 85 Revocation What shall be a good Revocation upon a Power reserved 278 infra S. Scandal See Action upon the Case for Slander Scandalum Magnatum I do not know but my Lord of P. sent G. to take my Purse Action lies 59 Difference between an Action on the Statute of Scandalum Magnatum and a Common Action of Slander the Words in one Case shall be taken in mitiori sensu and in the other in the worst sense against the Speaker that the Honour of Great Persons may be preserved 60 Sewers Commissioners of Sewers and their Proceedings subject to the Jurisdiction of the King's Bench notwithstanding the Clause in Statute 13 Eliz. cap. 9. 67 Sheriff Sheriff may bring Trover for Goods taken in Execution and after taken away by the Defendant in the first Action 52 Soldiers Every Officer and Soldier as liable to be arrested as a Tradesman or any other person whatsoever 251 A Captain and Serjeant committed to Newgate for a great Misdemeaner in rescuing a Soldier ibid. Statutes When a Statute makes an Offence the King may punish it by Indictment but an Information will not lie when a Statute doth barely prohibit a thing 63 31 Ed. 1. Statute of Winton in an Action upon this Statute what taking shall be sufficient to discharge the Hundred 118 235 4 Ed. 3. cap. 7. Action lies for Executors upon this Statute for cutting and carrying way Corn 187. This Statute hath been always expounded largely ibid. 3 H. 7. cap. 2. A Wife forcibly married contrary to this Statute shall be admitted to give Evidence against her Husband 244 5 Eliz. cap. 4. For using a Trade not being Apprentice thereto 8 51 142 326 346 364. This Statute in relation to Apprentices expounded 174 31 Eliz. cap. 7. Of Cottages no Offence against this Statute to erect a Cottage if no body inhabits therein 107 43 Eliz. cap. 2. Poor By this Statute that enables Justices of Peace to tax a Neighbouring Parish the Justices may tax any of the Inhabitants and not the whole Parish 350 21 Jac. cap. 26. Of Felony to Personate 301 12 Car. 2. Of Ministers A good Act being made by King Lords and Commons and any defects in the Circumstances of calling them together ought not to be pried into 15 This Act extends only to Benefices with Cure ibid. 14 Car. 2. cap. 10. 16 Car. 2. cap. 3. Harth-mony Smiths Forges shall pay 191 192. So empty Houses 312 14 Car. 2. cap. 33. Of Printing Seditious Books 316. 16 Car. 2. cap. 7. Of Gaming Articles for above 100 l at a Horse Race within this Statute 253 254 17 Car. 2 cap. 2. Of Non Con-Ministers explained 328 29 Car. 2. Of Frauds and Perjuries No Promise made before the 24th of June within this Act 330. What Contracts within ths Act 361 31 Car. 2. Habeas Corpus Prayer must be made by Council wiihin the first Week after the beginning of the Term 346 T. Tail THO' a Term in gross cannot be entail'd yet where man hath a Term in point of Interest and at the same time the Trust of the Inheritance here he may entail the Trust of the Term to wait upon the Inheritance 194 What Words create an Estate Tail and what in Remainder contingent or vested 215 230 231 Estates Tail how forfeitable for Treason 299 infra A Devise to a Man and the Heirs Males of his Body with a proviso if he attempts to alien the Estate to cease the Condition void 321 322 A Limitation in Tail how it operates 378 Tender Tender and refusal is as much as payment 167 Tender where not good 252 261 Teste Where the Teste of a Writ before it was taken out is notwithstanding good 362 Tythes May be paid of a Warren by Custom 5. So of Doves and Fish ibid. Whether an Executor may bring Debt upon the Statute 2 E. 6. for Tythes due to the Testator 30 31 Where and what Modus shall bar the Recovery of Tythes in specie 32 A Prescription cannot be suggested time out of mind to pay a Modus for Tythe Hops since they were not known in England till Queen Elizabeth's time 61 Tythes of VVood tho' not Fewel payable unless exprest to be burnt in a House for the maintenance of Husbandry 75 Treason In Coyning and Clipping the Judgment 254 For raising a Rebellion in Carolina 349 Trespass See Pleading Quare Clausum fregit and threw down his Fences what Plea in Justification good 221 Continuando in Trespass where good and where not 363 Trust See Tayl. A Use in former time the same with what a Trust is now 130 Where a Trust for Life Remainder over with Power of Revocation is forfeitable and where not 128 infra Whether a Trustee is compellable to produce Writings or the Key of the Box wherein they are against the Interest of the Party for whom he is Trustee 197 Tryal See Venue What shall be Cause for new Tryal what not 30 Justices of Assize may try Informations tho' commenced before the Justices of a former Assizes 85 181 V. Venue WHere a Deed is forged at S. and given in Evidence at D. from whence the Venue ought to come in an Information thereupon 17 A Breach of Covenant assigned in Barwick the Venue shall arise from the next place in Northumberland 58 Judgment by Nihil dicit reverst after a Writ of Enquiry executed because no
redd ' unius anni mediet ' redd ' unius anni per quem talia terrae vel tenementa sic alienat ' tent ' fuer ' in Manerio praed ' nomine finis pro alienatione and lays a Custom to distrain for the said Alienation Fine and then sets forth an alienation of the said Messuage and Premisses by the said Sir John Sabin to one Walter Tyndall in fee and shews that the said Walter Tyndall made another alienation in fee to one Christopher Yates and so sets forth that there were two Fines due upon the said alienations after the rate aforesaid amounting to 18 l 7 s and 7 d ob and that he as Bayliff of the said Dean and Chapter captionem praed ' bene cognoscit in praed ' loco in quo ut in parcell ' tenement ' praed ' To this the Plaintiff demurred and it was spoken to at the Bar the last Term and likewise this Term The main thing was that the Custom as it was laid was not good for the Alienation Fine is set forth to be due upon the Alienation of any parcel of Lands or Tenements held of the said Mannor to have a year and halfs Rent by which the Lands or Tenements so aliened were held so that if the 20th part of an Acre be aliened a Fine is to be paid and that of the whole Rent for every parcel is held at the time of the alienation by the whole Rent and no apportioning thereof can be but subsequent to the Alienation and this the whole Court held an unreasonable Custom and it is set forth it could not be otherwise understood than that a Fine should be due viz. a year and halfs Rent upon the Alienation of any part of the Lands held by such Rent The Court doubted also whether the Custom was good as to the claiming an Alienation Fine upon an Alienation for Life because by that the tenure of the Lands aliened is not altered for the Reversion is still held as before by the same Tenant Judicium pro Quer ' Colley versus Helyar IN an Action of Debt for 34 l the Plaintiff declared against the Defendant an Attorney of this Court praesente hic in Cur. in propria persona sua upon a Bond of 34 l The Defendant pleads in Bar quoad quinque libras sex solid tres denar of the aforesaid 34 l that the Plaintiff post confectionem Scripti Obligat ' praedict ' scilicet vicesimo c. anno c. ê‘ quoddam Scriptum suum acquietantiae cognovisset se accepisse habuisse de praed Defendente 5 l 6 s and 3 d in part solutionis majoris summae and pleaded a frivolous Plea as to the rest of the Mony to which the Plaintiff demurred And it was argued that the Acquittance under the Plaintiffs Hand and Seal for 5 l 6 s and 3 d part of the Mony due might have been pleaded in bar of the whole and that if the Defendant here had relied upon it it would have barred the Plaintiff of the whole Vide for that matter Hollingwoth and Whetston Sty 212. Allen 65. Beaton and Forrest Note there the payment was since the Action brought and pleaded in abatement where it was said that it could not be so pleaded without an Acquittance Vide Kelw. 20. 162. 3 H. 7. 3 B. receipt of parcel pending the Writ 7 Ed. 4. 15. a. But it seems clear by the Book of Edw. 4. 207. Mo. 886. Speak versus Richards That if part be received and an Acquittance given before the Action it is a Bar only of so much but it seems the Action must be brought for the whole Dickman versus Allen. Cantabr ' ss Case brought against the Defendant for not folding his Sheep upon the Plaintiffs Land according to Custom The Colledge of St. Mary and St. Nicholas seized in Fee jâ—re Collegii ABRAHAMUS ALLEN nuê‘ de Grancester in Com' praedicto Yeom ' attach ' fuit ad respondend ' Roberto Dickman Gen ' de placito transgr ' suê‘ Casum c. Et unde idem Robertus per Robertum Drake Attorn ' suum queritur quare cum Praepositus Scholares Collegii Regalis Beatae Mariae Sancti Nicholai in Cantabr ' in Com' praed ' seisit ' fuissent de uno Capitali Messuagio cum pertinen ' in Grancester in Com' praedicto ac de centum sexaginta acris terrae arrabil ' jacen ' in Communibus Campis de Grancester praedicta cum pertinen ' in dominico suo ut de feodo in jure Collegii sui praedicti iidemque Praepositus Scholares omnes ill quorum statum ipsi habuer ' de in tenementis praed ' cum pertinen ' a tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit habuer ' habere consuever ' ê“ se Firmariis Tenentibus suis eorundem A Custom for all the Tenants to sold their Landlords Land Tenementorum cum pertinen ' libertatem Faldagii Anglicê Foldage omnium Ovium Ovibus suis ê“priis Ovibus tenen ' occupatorum ê“ tempore existen ' quorundam Messuagiorum Terrarum in Villa de Coton in Com' praed ' qui a tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit respective usi fuer ' Common of Vicinage intercÌ„oiare causa vicinagii in quibusdam Communibus Campis de Grancester praed ' cum Ovibus suis in super praed ' Messuagiis terris suis in Coton praed ' Levant and Couchant levan ' cuban ' except ' suor ' depascen ' infra Communes Campos territoria de Grancester praedicta a vicesimo quinto die Martii usque primum diem Novembris quolibet anno suê‘ praedictas centum sexaginta acras terras arabil percipiend ' From such a day to such a day faldand ' tanquam ad tenementa praedicta cum pertinenciis pertinen ' praedictisque Praeposito Scholaribus Collegii praed ' de Tenementis praedictis cum pertinen ' The Principal and Scholars demise to the Plaintiff by Indenture in forma praedicta seisit ' existen ' Praepositus Scholares postea scilicet decimo nono die Octobris Anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo octogesimo primo apud Grancester praedictam quodam Johanne Coppleston Sacrae Theologiae Professor ' adtunc Praeposito Collegii praedicti existen ' ê‘ quandam Indenturam inter ipsos Praepositum Scholares ex una parte quendam Johannem Wittewronge Mil Barronet ' ex altera parte factam cujus alteram partem Sigillo cÌ„oi ipsorum Praepositi Scholarium signat ' idem Robertus Dickman hic in Cur ' profert cujus dat' est eisdem die anno dimiser ' ad firmam tradider ' eidem Johanni Wittewronge Tenementa praedicta cum pertinen ' Habendum habend ' occupand ' praefat ' Johanni Assign ' suis a tempore confectionis Indenturae illius usque plenum finem terminum viginti
and that Isaack Knight his Executor took a Capias thereupon out of the Common-Pleas Now it being a Statute-Merchant it ought first to have been certified into the Chancery and from thence a Capias should be issued out Returnable in the Court of Common-Pleas And so the Statute of Acton Burnel 30 Ed. 3. Enacts and so is Fitz. N.B. 130. whereas here the Capias goes out of the Common Pleas and for ought appears was the first step towards the execution of this Statute for it doth not appear that it was ever certified or that the Court had any Record before them to award this Capias upon and so the Execution is quite in another manner than the Statute provides and in a new Case introduced by the Statute and therefore it seems to be void and if so then the Statute of Knight could not be assigned so as to pass the Interest of it to Edward Lewis and the Fines will have no effect upon it and indeed it puts it clean out-of the Case before us as if it had never been acknowledged and the Interest of that Statute must be still in the Executor of Knight But then admitting it to have been extended and consequently well assigned together with Gerrard's Statute to Edward Lewis if so I take it to be drowned in Gerrard's Extent As to that the Case is no more than this that after the Statute is extended there comes another Extent upon a puisne Statute for 't is found that Gerrard's Statute was extended after Knight's Statute whether the Estate by Extent upon the puisne Statute be in the nature of a Reversional Interest for if so then when the Interest of the first Extent and the latter comes into one person the first must be drowned for an Estate for years or other Chattel Interest will merge in a Chattel in Reversion that is immediately expectant And that is Hughes and Robotham's Case in the 1 Cro. 302. pl. 32. If a Lease for years be made and then the Reversion is granted for years with Attornment the Lessee may surrender to the Grantee and the Term will drown in the Reversion for years To which it is Objected That an Extent is rather in the nature of a Charge upon the Land than an Interest or Estate in the Land it self In the Case of Haydon and Vavasor versus Smith in Mo. 662. an Extent is thus described that it is onus reale inhaerens gremio liberi tenementi tout temps Executory as the words of that Book are If the Tenant by an Extent purchase the Inheritance of part of the Lands extended the whole falls So a release of the Debt will immediately determine the Extent and it has been compared to one that enters into Lands by virtue of a power to hold until the arrear of Rent is satisfied It is true an Extent is an Execution given by the Statute Law for the satisfaction of a Debt and therefore the release of the Debt must determine the Estate by Extent because the Foundation of it is removed and so if the Inheritance of part of the Land extended comes to the Conusee it destroys the whole Extent whereas if a Lessee for years purchaseth the Reversion of part the Lease holds for the rest But in case of an Extent if it should be so the Conusee would hold the residue of the Land longer because the Profits that should go in satisfaction of the Debt must be less and this would be to the wrong of him in the Reversion But in other respects an Extent makes an Estate in the Land and hath all the properties and Incidents of and to an Estate and doth in no sort resemble such an Interest as is only a Charge upon the Land An Interest by Extent is a new Species of an Estate introduced by Statute Law Our Books say that 't is an Estate treated in imitation of a Freehold and quasi a Freehold but no Book can be produced that says that 't is quasi an Estate The Statute of 27 Ed. 3. cap. 9. Enacts That he to whom the Debt is due shall have an Estate of Freehold in the Lands and the Statute of 13 Ed. 1. de Morcatoribus say That he shall have Seisin of all the Lands and Tenements When a Statute is extended it turns the Estate of the Conisor into a Reversion and so are the express words in Co. 1 Inst 250. b. and so the Objection That he does not hold by Fealty is answered and there are no Tenures that are to no purpose but he that enters by virtue of a power to hold till satisfied an Arrear of Rent he leaves the whole Estate in the Owner of the Land and not a Reversion only If a Lease for years be made reserving Rent and then the Lessor acknowledge a Statute which is extended the Conisee after the Extent shall have an Action of Debt for the Rent and distrain and avow for the Rent as in Bro. tit Stat. Merch. 44. and Noy fo 74. but he that enters by a Power to hold for an Arrear of Rent shall not He in Reversion may release to the Tenant by Extent which will drown the Interest and emerge his Estate according as it is limited in the Release Co. 1 Inst 270. b. 273. Tenant by Statute may forfeit by making a Feoffment Mo. 663. He is to Attorn to the grant of the Reversion 1 Roll. 293. and is liable to a Quid juris clamat 7 H. 4. 19. b. Tenant by Extent may surrender to him in Reversion 4 Co. 82. Corbet's Case therefore these Cases are to shew That an Extended Interest makes an Estate in the Lands as much as any Demise or Lease And I take it the consequence of that is That when an Estate by Extent is evicted by an Extent upon a prior Statute as Elwaies and Burroughs Extent was by the Extent of Knight's Statute or where the prior Statute is first extended and then a Statute of later date is extended as Gerrard's Statute is found to be extended after the Extent upon Knight's Statute In both these Cases the Extent upon the puisne Statute will be in the nature of a Reversional Interest A Reversion is every where thus described viz. An Estate to take effect in possession after another Estate determined 'T is not in nature of a future Interest as a Term for years limited to commence after the end of a former Term for such an one shall not have the Rent upon a former Lease as I have shewn before but he that extends upon a Lessee for years shall for the Liberate gives a present Interest to hold ut liberum tenementum but indeed cannot take effect in possession by reason of a prior Extent or by prior Title And this is the very case of a Reversion which is an actual present Interest tho' it be to take effect in possession after another Estate Now I conceive it will plainly follow from this That Knight's Statute is drowned in Gerrard's
See Rent IF part of a Debt upon Bond be received and an Acquittance given before the Action it is a Bar only of so much as was received but if after the Action brought it seems it may be pleaded in bar to the Whole 135 Whether an Action of Debt may be brought upon a Judgment pending a Writ of Error and whether the Defendant in such Action ought to Demur or plead Specially 261 A Consideration creates a Debt tho' that Debt be not reduced to a certain Sum as in the case of a Quantum meruit 282 Debt secured is Payment in Law 358 Devise See Tail Vse Of implicit Devises and where Lands shall pass by Implication in a Will and where not 56 57 A Reversion shall pass in a Will by the Words All my Hereditaments 286 Whether Money in the Court of Orphans be devisable 340 If Money be devised to one to be paid at his Age of 21 years if the Party dies before it shall go to his Executors but if Money be bequeathed to one at his Age of 21 years and he dies before the Money is lost 242 366 Where a Sum of Money is devised to a Child at such an Age it shall have the Interest in the mean time rather than the Executor shall swallow it especially when no Maintenance is otherwise provided 346 Devise to J.S. at the Age of 21 and if J.S. dies before 21 then to A A. dies after J. S. dies under 21 the Administrator of A. shall have it 347 If Lands be devised for payment of Debts and Legacies the Personal Estate shall notwithstanding as far as it will go by apply'd to the payment of Debts c. and the Land only make up the Residue 349 Where an Administrator shall have an Estate devised to an Infant and where not 355 356 A Sum of Money devised to be raised out of the Profits of his Lands the Profits will not amount to the Sum the Land may be sold 357 Diversity where a Child's Portion is devised out of Personal Estate and where to be raised out of Land 366 367 Distress Whether a Drover's Cattel put into a Ground belonging to a Common-Inn upon the Road to London may be distrained for Rent due from the Innkeeper 50 Leave given to mend the Conisans upon a Distress after a Demurrer paying Costs 142 A Distress may not be sever'd as Horses out of a Cart and therefore in some Cases a Distress of great Value may be taken for a small matter because not severable 183 Where one holds a Third part of certain Land and another two Third parts of the same Land undivided he who hath the One part cannot distrain the Cartel which were put in by Licence of him who hath the two Parts 228 283 E Ecclesiastical Court See Marriage WHether the Ecclesiastical Court may proceed against Conventicles or whether they be punishable only at the Common Law 41. They may 44 The legal Method of Proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts 42 43 The Proceeding ex Officio 43 A Suit may be tryed in the Ecclesiastical Court upon a Prescription to Repair the Chancel so also for a Modus Decimandi 239 Ecclesiastical Persons A Curate incapable of taking an Estate devised in Succession for want of being Incorporate but the Heir of the Devisee shall hold the Estate in Trust for the Curate for the time being 349 Ejectment In Ejectment the Declaration of Michaelmass Term and the Demise laid 30 of October after the Term began 174 Elegit See Execution Enrolment A Deed where the Grant is exprest to be in Consideration of Natural Affection as well as Money need not be Enrolled but the Land will pass by way of Covenant to stand seised 150 Error See Debt Essoine Where several Tenants in a Real Action may be Essoigned severally 57 Regularly Proceedings in an Essoine in Dower 117 Estate What Words shall create a Tenancy in Common 265 266 Evidence See Action on the Case Chancery Exchange Bills of Exchange have the same Effect between others as between Merchants and a Gentleman shall not avoid the Effect by pleading He is no Merchant 295 310 The Custom of Bills of Exchange 307 310 Execution How the Sheriff ought to behave himself in Executing a Fieri facias 94 95 Whether Money paid for Goods taken upon a Fieri facias is properly paid to the use of the Sheriff or Plaintiff ibid. A Fieri facias was executed after the Party was dead upon the Goods in the hands of the Executor but Teste before tho' not delivered to the Sheriff till after This was a good Execution at the Common Law but quaere since the Statute of 29 Car. 2. cap. 3. 218 An Extent upon an Elegit being satisfied by perception of Profits he in Reversion may enter 336 Executor See Award Rent Waver And Executor may detain for a Debt due upon a simple Contract against a Debt grounded upon a Devastavit 40 Whether the Executor of a Bishop may bring an Action of Covenant for breach of a Real Covenant relating to Lands of the Bishoprick 56 Where a Woman disposes of Goods as Executrix in her own wrong if she takes Administration afterwards tho' before the Writ brought this will not hinder the Plaintiff from charging her as Executrix in her own wrong 180 An Executor in his own wrong cannot retain ibid. The Mother Executrix shall not discount for Maintenance and Education out of the Money left by the Father for the Mother ought to maintain the Child But Money paid for binding him Apprentice may be discounted 353 After an Executor assents to a Legacy he shall never bring it back again to pay Debts Secus where he is sued and pays by Decree in Chancery there the Legatee shall refund 358 Where an Executor pays a Debt upon a Simple Contract there shall be no refunding to a Creditor of a higher nature Vid. Legacy 360 Money decreed in Chancery to the Executor of an Administrator do bonis non and not the second Administrator de bonis non where no Debts appeared of the first Intestate 362 Minority as to Executorship determines at the Age of 17 and then a Personal Estate devised to such Executor vests in him 368 Exposition of Words Faldagium 139 The force of these Words in forma praedicta 215 F Fieri facias See Execution Fine WHere and how a Fine levied by a Feme-Covert shall be set aside and where the Commissioner who took it may be fined by the Court 30 A Fine acknowledged before the Revolution and Writ of Covenant sued out after allowed good 47 48 A Right to an Estate by Extent barr'd by a Fine and Non-claim 329. So also the Right to a Term for years ibid. Secus where a Statute is assigned in Trust to wait upon the Inheritance 330 Fine Customary What Customary Fine between Lord and Tenant shall be allow'd good upon Alienation 134 135 Forfeiture See Office Generally where a Statute gives a Forfeiture and not said to
Mesne Process but an Action upon the Case only Vaughan Loyd IN an Audita Querela the Party appeared upon the Sciri Facias and demurred for that the Sciri Facias bore Date the 23 day of October and the Audita Querela the 3 of November after To which it was said that this fault in the Mesne Process is aided by Appearance but if an Original should bear Date upon a Sunday or the like the Appearance of the Party would not help it But on the other side it was said That the Party had no day in Court by the Audita Querela and this was a default in the first Process against him and compared it to a Sciri Facias upon a Judgment in which such a fault will not be cured by Appearance To which the Court agreed For there the Sciri Facias is the Foundation and quasi an Original and the Judgment is given upon it 2 Cro. 424. but here the Sciri Facias is only to bring in the Party to answer and in the nature of a Mesne Process and the Judgment is given upon the Audita Querela wherefore they disallowed the Demurrer Barnes versus Hughes DEbt tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso upon the Stat. of 5 Eliz. cap. 4. for exercising of the Trade of a Grocer in Salisbury not being bound Apprentice thereunto The Defendant pleads Nil debet and being tried by Nisi prius and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that this Action could not be brought in this Court for by the Stat. 21 Jac. cap. 4. It is Enacted that all offences against any penal Statute for which an Informer may lawfully ground any popular Action Bill Plaint Suit or Information before Justices of Assize Nisi prius or Gaol-delivery Justices of Oyer and Terminer or of the Peace in their General Quarter-Sessions shall be Commenced Sued c. before the said Justices they having power to hear and determine the same and not elsewhere which Negative words as it was said take away the Iurisdiction of this Court And whereas 31 Eliz. restrained not the Kings Attorney because it only made mention of Common Informers the Kings Attorney is expressely named in this Statute and the Cases in 2 Cro. 85. between Beane and Druge and Moyl and Taylours Case 2 Cro. 178. were quoted And the Statute would be to little purpose if it did not extend to Actions of Debt as well as Informations and Indictments But it was said on the other side That it could not extend to Actions of Debt for they could not be brought before Iustices of Assize or the other Iustices named in the Act and it shall only extend to such Suits as an Informer might lawfully Commence before them And it hath been resolved that this Act did give no new Iurisdiction as 1 Cro. 112 Farrington and Keymer's Case in an Information upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 4. for selling of Beer at an unlawful price which gives the forfeiture to be Recovered in Courts where no Protection or Wager of Law shall be allowed in any Suit grounded upon it extends only to the Courts at Westminster as 6 Co. in Gregory's Case it was resolved That no Information for an offence against this Statute could be commenced before the Iustices of Assize or Peace at the Sessions notwithstanding the Act in 21 Jac. which ordains That Suits for offences against Penal Laws shall be before them and the rest there mentioned for the Act only extends to those offences for the which an Informer might lawfully ground any popular Action before them and it was never held that that Act gave any new Iurisdiction Now if this Action cannot be brought in this Court the Statute must Repeal a great part of the Remedies given by 5 Eliz. against this offence and only leave it to be punished by Indictments and Informations which certainly was never the intent of the Statute and would be very mischievous for if the Offender goes out of the Country after the offence committed he cannot be punished for the Iustices named in the Statute cannot award Process out of the County and therefore for that reason there should be remedy in a Court of General Jurisdiction and since 21 Jac. there have béen many Presidents of like Actions all which would be Reversed if that Act should take away Actions of Debt in this Court. And for these Reasons the Case being moved divers times the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Styl 340. Anonymus IN Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant pleads That he delivered it as an Escrow hoc paratus est verificare This Plea is vicious for he ought to shew to whom he delivered it and also he ought to conclude his Plea issint nient son fait Anonymus A Lease for Years is made to A. and then another Lease is made for Twenty years to commence after the Expiration of the former Lease if B. and C. shall so long live with a reservation of several things and reddend ' 3 l nom ' Hariotte after the death of B. or C. B. dies during the continuance of the first Lease The 3 l must be paid for it is not in the nature of a Rent but a Sum in gross Clipsham and Morris THe Plaintiff in an Assumpsit declared That J. S. being indebted unto him in 50 l gave him a Note directed to the Defendant requiring him to pay the Plaintiff the said Sum of 50 l then he saith That the Defendant upon view of the Note in Consideration that the Plaintiff would accept of his Promise for the Mony and stay a Fortnight for the same he did assume to pay him To which the Defendant demurs for the Insufficiency of the Consideration it being nothing of trouble or prejudice to the Plaintiff or benefit to the Defendant for he might Sue his Debtor in the mean time neither is it alledged that the Defendant was indebted to J. S. But if it had been in Consideration That the Plaintiff would accept of the Defendant for his Debtor that might have béen good for that is an implied Discharge of the other whom if he had sued the Defendant might have had an Action Roll's 1st Part 29. And for this Reason the Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff And this Point was said to be Adjudged between Newcomen and Lee in this Court Paschae 1650. Rot. 62. Styl 249. Anonymus A Man was Indicted for saying The Justices of the Peace had nothing to do with the Excise And it was quashed by the Opnion of the Court for such an Information could not make a man Criminal Nurstie versus Hall THe Grantee of a Reversion brings a Writ of Covenant against the Lessee for years for non-payment of Rent The Question was Whether it ought to be laid where the Lease is alledged to be made or where the Land lies It was said That the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 34. which
Nonsuit him Dyer 76. b. for the Defendant could have no Scire facias into Ireland Leech versus Widsley IN an Action of Trespass for Chasing of his Sheep and Impounding of them and there detaining of them until he gave him 12 d per quod one of the Sheep died The Defendant pleads that J.S. was seised in Fee of the place Where and that the Sheep were there Damage feasant and that he by the Command of J. S. leniter chaceavit eas and Impounded them until he gave him satisfaction quae est eadem Transgressio The Plaintiff in his Replication entitles himself to Common there The Defendant Rejoyns and says that the place Where was parcel of a great Waste wherein the Plaintiff had Common appurtenant and that the Lord Inclosed the place Where and that the Plaintiff had tempore quo c. semper postea sufficient Common for all his Sheep levant and couchant To which the Plaintiff Demurs First For that the Bar was Insufficient for the Plaintiff chargeth him with detaining them until he paid him a Shilling and he pleads that he detained them until he gave him satisfaction sed non allocatur Vid. 3 Cro. 384. Hill and Prideaux's Case but here the Plaintiff hath waived that Advantage by pleading over Again He doth not answer to the killing of the Sheep sed non allocatur for he pleads leniter chaceavit so that if the Sheep did dye he is not answerable neither doth the Plaintiff declare of any extraordinary Chasing but alledges the dying of the Sheep only in aggravation of the Damages coming after the Per quod and that is not traversable As in an Action for Beating of his Servant per quod servitium amisit the loss of the Service cannot be traversed But that which was most insisted on was what he alledges in his Rejoynder viz. That the Plaintiff had Common sufficient left him for his Sheep levant and couchant upon the Tenements Whereas he ought to have said Sufficient ad tenementa praedicta For it may be the Ground was understocked Also 't is not set forth that he had free Egress and Regress the Words of the Statute of Merton are Tantam pasturam habeant quantum sufficit ad tenementa sua quod habeant liberum ingressum sed non allocatur for his Sheep levant and couchant is intended as many as the Land will maintain and if there were no Egress or Regress it ought to come on the other side So Judgment was given for the Defendant nisi causa Anonymus AN Infant Executor brings an Action It was said by Twisden That it had been Adjudged that he ought to sue by Guardian Ely versus Ward IN a Writ of Error to Reverse a Judgment given in the Court at Hull upon an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That it was Agreed between them at a place infra Jurisdictionem Curiae That upon Request c. and that he Requested him at a place infra Jurisdictionem Curiae It was assigned for Error That this Action ought not to have been brought in Hull because the Request was not appointed to be made within the Iurisdiction by Agreement Sed non allocatur As long as the Agreement and Request were made there tho' the Request might have been elsewhere Another Error was assigned in that the Precept to the Serjeant at Mace for Returning of the Jury was Probos legales homines qui null affinitat ' c. attingen ' whereas the Form of the Venire is attingunt Sed non allocatur For it was held to be as well Tho' Twisden said The Form of a Writ ought not to be altered into another Expression of the same signification Then the Entry was Ad quem diem venerunt the Plaintiff and Defendant Juratores and it should have been Veniunt sed his non obstantibus the Judgment was affirmed Anonymus IT was held That if the Sheriff Returns a Cepi Corpus upon a Capias altho' he hath not his Body in Court at the day of the Return yet no Action can be brought against him but he is to be amerced for it at the Common Law One so taken could not be Bailed but by a Homine Replegiando and now the Statute of the 23th of H. 6. obliges the Sheriff to take Bail however the Return is as at the Common Law Cepi Corpus Freeman versus Barnes TRin. 20 Car. 2. Rot. 554. Error to Reverse a Judgment given in Communi Banco in an Ejectment where upon Not Guilty pleaded the Jury found a Special Verdict to this effect Tenant in Fee makes a Lease for an hundred years in Trust for himself to wait upon the Inheritance the Lessee enters Cestuy que Trust enters and takes the Profits and makes several Leases all which being expired he makes a Lease for 54 years and for the corroborating of it Levies a Fine with Proclamations the Lessee enters 5 years pass And Tyrrel and Archer they being the only Judges in the Common Plea then gave Iudgment That the Fine should bar the Lessee for an hundred years Vpon which a Writ of Error was brought in this Court and Argued this Term by Levins for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error and Finch Solicitor for the Defendant And for the Reversing of the Judgment Levins Argued That this Lease by the Cestuy que Trust and the Entry of his Lessee did not dispossess the former Lessee and then the Fine and Non-claim could not prejudice his Interest which was not put to a right For first the Cestuy que Trust was at least Tenant at Will So is Littleton Sect. 464. Cestuy que Use may enter and hold at the Will of his Feoffees then his Lease can be no Disseisin because the Inheritance was in himself 'T is true in some Cases a man may do an Act which shall divest his own Estate As if a Stranger disseises Tenant for Life to the use of him in the Reversion and he assents Co. Lit. 180. b. the Law shall not construe a Disseisin against the parties Intention Rolls 661. He that enters by colour of a void Lease is no Disseisor 1 Cro. 188. nor any one that enters by Consent 15 E. 4. 5. b. Neither shall the Interest of the Lessee be divested but at his Election for this Lease works in point of Contract and not so violently upon other mens Interests as Livery doth In Latche's Rep. 75. Sir Thomas Fisher's Case Tenant for years le ts at Will the Lessee makes a Lease for years this works no dispossession If a Copyholder makes a Lease for years without Licence the Entry of the Lessee is no Disseisin to the Lord and he may chuse whether he will take it as a Forfeiture Rolls 830. Lease for years upon Condition to be void upon Non-payment of Rent a demand is made the Lessor may make a new Lease of the Land the former Lessee being still in possession And Blunden and Baugh's Case was cited in 1 Cro.
be good Now this being the way of Operation there is no reason why he may not Devise it to one after the death of two as well as after the death of one This would be so in Grants were it not that a certainty is required in them 1 Cro. 155. which is not required in Devises Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 22 Car. II. In Banco Regis Freeman versus Barnes EError to Reverse a Judgment in an Ejectione firmae in the Common Pleas the Case upon a Special Verdict was thus The Marquess of Winchester being seised in Fee of the Lands in Question the 8 of July 9 Jac. Lets them to Sir An. Maynee for 100 years in Trust for the Marquess and his Heirs and to wait upon the Inheritance The Lessee enters afterwards the Marquess enters and Lets it to the Lord Darcy for 7 years and then Le ts to the Spanish Embassador for 7 years which Leases being expired Sir A.M. Demises to Freeman for a Term yet unexpired this Demise is not found to be upon the Land Afterwards the Lord Marquess Demises to Germin for 54 years upon Consideration of Money and Reserves a Rent and Covenants to Levy a Fine for the assurance of the Term which was afterwards done with Proclamation Germin enters and five years passed without any Claim made which Lease by mean Assignment came to Wicherly the Lessor of the Defendant who was Plaintiff in the Common Pleas and there had Iudgment The only Question upon this Special Verdict was Whether the Fine and Non Claim should barr the interest of Sir A. M. the Lessee in Trust This Case having béen argued thrée several times at the Bar The Court did this Term deliver their Opinons and did all agrée that the Iudgment ought to be affirmed It was considered quid operatur by the entry of the Marquess and they all except Moreton held that Prima facie he was Tenant at Will as Littleton Sect. 463. is where the Feoffor enters upon the Feoffée to his use but that the Entry of Germin his Lessée did ouft Freeman the Assignee of Sir A.M. which Assignment though not found to be upon the Land 2 Cro. 660. was good as the Chief Justice held because the two former Leases made by the Marquess were expired so he became Tenant at Will again but them he making of another Lease and the Lessee entring this must work an ouster and so the Fine would bar the Right For they agreed that a Fine regularly shall not work upon an Interest which is not divested though in some Cases it doth as upon the Interest of a Term according to Safins Case 5 Co. which yet cannot be divested but though the first Entry make but a Tenancy at Will yet taking upon him to make Leases that is enough to declare his intent to dispossess his Lessee in Trust Besides he reserves a Rent and Covenants for quiet Enjoyment and to make further assurance which could not stand with the Interest of the Lessee in Trust And for the Cases that were objected as Blunden and Baughs 1 Cro. 220. Where it is adjudged That the Entry of the Lessée for years of Tenant at Will should be no disseisin nolens volens to him that had the Freehold for there was no intention of the Parties to make it so and here the Law shall rather give the Election to him which had the Inheritance to make it a devësting than the Lessee or rather as the Chief Justice said the Law construes such Acts to amount to a divesting or not divesting as is most agreeable to the intention of the Parties and the right of the thing which distinguishes it also from the Case of Powsley and Blackman cited in Blunden and Baughs Case where the Mortgageor held at the Will of the Motrgageē and let for years the Lessee entred and held notwithstanding that the Mortgagee might Devest So Sir Tho. Fishes Case in Latches Rep. Where Tenant for years Le ts at Will and the Lessée makes a Lease for years and then the remainder is granted over This Grant is held to be good which whether by the remainder there be understood the interest of the Lessee or the Fee-simple yet it is no more than my Lord Nottinghams Case and not like the Case in Question For there the Lessee held the interest in his own Right and here but in Trust and for the Case in Noyes Reports 23. Twisden said he wholly rejected that Authority for it was but an Abridgment of Cases by Serjeant Size who when he was a Student borrowed Noyes Reports and abridged them for his own use The Case was this Tenant in Fée makes a Lease for years then Levies a Fine before Entry of the Lessee It is held there though five years pass the Lessée is not barred which is directly against the Resolution of Saffins Case and for Authority in this Case they relied upon the Case of Isham and Morris in 1 Cro. 781. Where upon Evidence it was resolved by the Justices That if the cesty quo Trust of a Lease for years Purchaseth the Inheritance and Occupies the Land and Levies a Fine that this after five years shall bar the Term which is not so strong as this Case because there were no Leases made and Entry thereupon and the Trust must pass inclusively by the Fine as is resolved in divers Books especially in this Case where it is to wait upon the Inheritance which though it arises but out of a Term yet it shall follow the Land and go to the Heir And for the inconveniences which were objected That if any Man purchased Land by Fine that he could not keep on Foot Mortgages and Leases which it is often convenient to do The Chief Justice declared his Opinion That in that Case the Fine should not bar there not being any intention of the Parties to that purpose And as to the other that where the Mortgageor continuing in Possession Levies a Fine this should bar the Mortgagee he denied that also and grounded himself upon Fermours Case in 3 Cro. And Twisden agreed Dighton's Case HE brought a Mandamus to be restored to his place of Town Clerk of Stratford super Avon The Corporation returned Letters Patents whereby they were empowered to chuse one into the Office of Town Clerk Durante bene placito and that they removed him from his Office Jones prayed that he might be restored notwithstanding because no Cause of his removal was returned nor that they had ever Summoned him whereas if they had he might peradventure have shewed such Reasons as would have moved them to have continued him and he cited Warrens Case 2 Cro. 540. who was restored to his Aldermanship where the Return was as here But the Court held that they could not in this Case although they confessed they knew the Merits of the Person help him And the Chief Justice said The Case of the Alderman differed for he is a part of the Corporation which
Defendant pleaded that the place Where was the Freehold of Sir Thomas Hooke and that by his Command he entred The Plaintiff traverseth That it was the Freehold of Sir T.H. And thereupon this Special Verdict was found That Nicholas Heale was seised in Fee and that 16 Dec. 1640. he made a Deed to Jane Heale Enrolled within six Months by which the said Nicholas did for and in Consideration of Natural Love augmentation of her Portion and preferment of her in Marriage and other good and valuable Considerations give grant bargain sell alien enfeoff and confirm unto the said Jane Heale and her Heirs Then they found there was a Covenant that the said Jane Heale should after due Execution c. quietly enjoy c. and also a special Clause of Warranty And that the Deed was Enrolled within six Months and that there was no other Consideration of making the Indenture than what was expressed And if it were sufficient to convey the Premisses to the said Jane they found for the Plaintiff if not for the Defendant And it was Argued by Winnington for the Plaintiff He agreed that it could not take the effect as a Bargain and Sale because no Money was paid but Argued that the Deed should enure as a Covenant to stand seized It is a Ground in the Law that the intention of the parties ought to guide the raising of Uses and the Construction how they shall enure Co. Lit. 49. Rolls 2d part 789. and to give the effect the words shall be disposed to other Construction than what otherwise they would import As if a man demises grants and to Farm-lets certain Lands in Consideration of Money and the Deed is Enrolled this is a good Bargain and Sale So if a man Covenants in Consideration of Money to stand seised to the use of his Son 8 Co. 93. Foxes Case 2 Rolls 789. it is said Nota per Cur ' if it appears that it was the Intent of him that made the Deed to pass the Estate according to Rules of Law it shall pass though there be not formal Words Again the Consideration expressed in this Deed is purely applicable to a Covenant to stand seised and a Deed shall enure upon the Consideration expressed rather than upon one that is implied As in Bedell's Case 7 Co. 40. If the Father in Consideration of 100 l paid Covenants to stand seised to the use of his Son and the Deed is not Enrolled nothing shall pass But where there are two Considerations expressed there the Vse may arise upon either As if the Father in Consideration of Blood and 100 l paid by the Son Covenants to stand seised c. and the Deed is not Enrolled yet the Vse shall arise as upon a Covenant to stand seised Pl. Com. 305. And so it was Adjudged between Watson and Dicks in the Common Pleas 1656. The Father by Deed in Consideration of Love and 100 l paid by the Son conveyed Land to him with a Letter of Attorney in the Deed to make Livery in that case the Son hath his election to take by the Enrolment or Livery which shall be first Executed 2 Rolls 787. pl. 25. But it hath been Objected here that there is a Clause of Warranty in the Deed which shews that the parties intended a Conveyance at the Common Law for if it enure by way of Covenant to stand seised the Warranty can have no effect but to Rebut Also there is a Covenant for quiet Enjoyment after Sealing and Delivery of the Deed and due Execution of the same which shews the parties had a prospect of Executing it by Livery c. To which he Answered That such remote Implications as those shall never make a Deed void against an express Consideration upon the which an Use may arise 'T is true if there had been a Letter of Attorney in the Deed it might have been void unless Livery had followed As if the Father by Deed grants Land to the Son and a Letter of Attorney in it to make Livery if none be made nothing passes Co. Lit. 49. a. The Authorities which have been cited on the other side are first Pitfields and Pierce's Case 2 Roll. 789. where the Father by Deed Poll in Consideration of Blood did give grant c. as in our Case to his Son Habend ' after his decease and a Proviso in it That the Son should pay a Rent during the Father's Life It was Adjudged That the Lands should not pass in that Case by way of Covenant to stand seised But in that Case the Conveyance was repugnant to the Rules of Law for that it was Habend ' the Land after the death of the Grantor and also repugnant in it self For notwithstanding that it reserves the Land to the Father during his Life yet it provides for a payment of Rent to him wherefore the Law would not help out a Deed so contradictory and repugnant by way of raising an Vse The other Case relied upon is between Foster and Foster Hill 13. of this King in this Court in Ejectment The Case was The Mother for divers good Considerations and 20 l paid did by a Deed which was Entituled Articles of Agreement demise grant bargain sell assign and set over to the Son and his Heirs for ever certain Lands the said Margery the Mother quietly enjoying the Premisses during her Life The Court Resolved that it should not amount to a Covenant to stand seised for they were but intended as Articles of Agreement and preparatory for a further Conveyance So the Case differs very much from ours as also that it reserves the Land to the Mother during her Life The Case also of Osborn and Bradshaw in 2 Cro. 127. hath been cited Where the Father in Consideration of Love which he hears to his Son and for Natural affection to him bargained and sold gave granted and confirmed Land to him and his Heirs the Deed was Enrolled It was held the Land should not pass unless Money had been paid or the Estate executed This Case cannot be urged as any great Authority for it appears that the Son was in possession Therefore the Court Adjudged that the Deed should be a Confirmation and it being clear that way they had not much occasion to insist upon or debate the other Point And he relied upon Debb and Peplewell's Case as an Authority in the Point 2 Rolls 78. 6. where there was a Clause of Warranty in the Deed and an Enrolment within six Months as in the Case at Bar But they Resolved there If a Letter of Attorney had been in the Deed it should not have been construed a Covenant to stand seised and therefore he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Finch Attorney General contra The Lands here cannot pass by Bargain and Sale there being no Money paid which I find is admitted by the other side neither shall it amount to a Covenant to stand seised There are Five things necessary to raise an Use by way of Covenant
the Reservation to the Estate Whitlocks Case 8 Co. is very full to this where Tenant for Life the Remainder over so setled by Limitation of uses with power to the Tenant for Life to make Leases who made a Lease reserving Rent to him his Heirs and Assigns Resolved That he in the Remainder might have the Rent upon this Reservation So put the Case That Lessee for a 100 years should let for 50 reserving a Rent to him and his Heirs during the Term I conceive this would go to the Executor 'T is true if the Lessor reserves the Rent to himself 't is held it will neither go to the Heir or Executor But in 27 H. 8. 19. where the Reservation is to him and his Assigns It is said that it will go to the Heir And in the Case at Bar the words Executors and Administrators are void then t is as much as if reserved to him and his Assigns during the Term which are express words declaring the intent and must govern any implied construction which is the true and particular Reason in this Case The Old Books that have been cited have not the words during the Term. Vid. Lane 256. Richmond and Butchers Case indeed is judged contrary in point 3 Cro. 217. but that went upon a mistaken ground which was the Manuscript Report 12 E. 2. Whereas I suppose the Book intended was 12 E. 3. Fitz. Assize 86. for I have appointed the Manuscript of E. 2. which is in Lincolns Inn Library to be searched 6 Co. 62. and there is no such Case in that year of E. 2. The Case in the 12 E. 3. is A Man seized of two Acres let one reserving Rent to him and let the other reserving Rent to him and his Heirs and resolved that the first Reservation should determin with his Life for the Antithesis in the Reservation makes a strong Implication that he intended so In Wotton and Edwins Case 5 Jac. the words of Reservation were Yeilding and Paying to the Lessor and his Assigns And resolved that the Rent determined upon his Death In that case there wanted the effectual and operative Clause during the Term. The Case of Sury and Brown is the same with ours in the words of Reservation and the Assignee of the Reversion brought Debt Lane 255. and did not aver the Life of the Lessor And the Opinion of Jones Croke and Doderidge was for the Plaintiff Latches Rep. 99. The Law will not suffer and Construction to take away the energy of these words during the Term. If a Man reserves a Rent to him or his Heirs 't is void to the Heir 1 Inst 214. a. But in Mallorys Case 5 Co. where an Abbot reserved a Rent during the Term to him or his Successors it was resolved good to the Successor It is said in Brudnels Case 5 Co. that if a Lease be made for years if A. and B. so long live if one of them dies the Lease Determines because not said if either of them so long lives So it is in point of Grant But it is not so in point of Reservation for Pas 4 Jac. in the Common Pleas between Hill and Hill The Case was a Copyholder in Fee where the Custom was for a Widows Estate made a Lease by Licence reserving Rent to him and his Wife during their lives and did not say or either of them and to his Heirs It was resolved First That the Wife might have this Rent tho' not party to the Lease Secondly That tho' the Rent were reserved during their lives yet it should continue for the life of either of them for the Reversion if possible will attract the Rent to it as it were by a kind of Magnetism Hoskins versus Robbins A Replevin for six Sheep The Defendant makes Conusance c. for Damage Fesant The Plaintiff replied That the place where was a great Wast parcel of such a Mannor within which there were time out of mind Copyhold Tenants and that there was a Custom in the Mannor that the said Tenants should have the sole and several Pasture of the Wast as belonging to their Tenements and shews that the Tenants licenced him to put in his Beasts The Defendant Traverses the Custom and found for the Plaintiff The exceptions moved in Arrest of Judgment were now spoken to again First That the Custom to have the sole Pasture and thereby to exclude the Lord is not allowable It hath béen ever held That such a Prescription for Common is not good and why should the same thing in effect be gained by the change of the name That Prescription for Pasture and Prescription for Common is the same thing Vid. 3 Cro. Daniel v. Count de Hertford 542. and Rolls tit Prescription 267. It is held a Man may claim Common for half a year excluding the Lord and that one cannot prescribe to have it always so is not because of the Contradiction of the Term for if the sole Feeding be but for half a year 't is as improper to call it Common but the true reason seems to be because it should in a manner take away the whole profit of the Soil from the Lord and he should by such usage lose his greatest Evidence to prove his Title for it would appear that the Land was always fed by the Beasts of others and it would be very mischievous to Lords who live remote from their Wasts or that seldom put their Beasts there as many times they do not so that by the Tenants solely using to feed it they should lose their Improvements provided for the Lords by the Statute and so come at last for want of Evidence to lose the Soil it self Secondly This Custom is laid To have the sole Feeding belonging to their Tenements and 't is not said for Beasts levant and couchant or averred that the Beasts taken were so 15 E. 4. 32. and Rolls tit Common 398. Fitz. tit Prescription 51. A Man cannot prescribe to take Estovers as belonging to his House unless he Avers them to be spent in his House Noy 145. So 2 Cro. 256. tho' the Prescription was there to take omnes Spinas for it is necessary to apply it to something which agrees in nature to the thing Brownlow 35. Thirdly Here the Plaintiff justifies the putting in his Beasts by a Licence and doth not say it was by Deed whereas it could not be without Deed and so is the 2 Cro. 575. Fourthly Those defects are not aided by the Verdict for they are in the right and of substance But the Court were all of Opinion for the Plaintiff First They held the Prescription to be good and being laid as a Custom in the Mannor it was not needful to express the Copy-hold Estates it doth not take away all the profit of the Land from the Lord for his interest in the Trees Mines Bushes c. continues Co. Inst 122. a. is express that a Prescription may be for sola separalis pastura ' and if
Car. nunc cap. 3. in pursuance of which he distrained the said Nails for the Duty due by those Acts out of a Smiths Forge c. The Plaintiff demurred So the sole question was whether a Smiths Forge were within the Acts it being once argued the last Term the Court now gave their Opinion Moreton I think a Smiths Forge ought to pay 't is a great part of the Kings Revenue almost in every Village there is one we should explain the Act liberally for the King Rainsford of the same Opinion 't is within the words scilicet an Hearth whereon Fire is used and within the meaning for there is an exception of things not so properly Fire hearths as this viz. Private Ovens Where the Act excepts Blowing Houses I take it is meant Glass houses and the Houses at Ironworks by Stamps I think is meant Presses Calenders for Cloaths by the very words Houses that are not Dwelling Houses are charged The objection that it is his Trade is answered by the instance of Cooks Chandlers Common Ovens Hearths of Tripewomen who boil Neats Feet Twisden of the same Opinion the words are general yet I would not extend it to every Hearth that has a Fire upon it as Stils and Alembicks for so we might extend it to a Chaffing dish of Coals but we must take it for a Rule to extend it to those things which are most general A Smiths Forge is of such use that 't is found almost in every Village therefore 't was reckoned a great piece of hardship and slavery upon the Children of Israel that they were not permitted a thing so useful amongst them The exceptions enumerate particulars therefore it excludes whatever is not expressed Hale I would fain know how the fact is Do Silver Smiths c. pay It were too narrow to extend it only to Common Chimneys and too great a latitude to extend it to every place where Fire is where a Man can but warm his Hands I suppose Boylers in Cooks Chimneys and the Fireplaces of Worstead Combers do not pay Common Ovens should have paid tho' there were no exception of Private Ovens for they never are or can be without a Chimney This is matter of fact I have not enquired into and I would be loath to deliver an Opinion without much inquiry but 't is very probable that they are Firehearths and not excepted but it appears plainly upon the Record that 't is a Firehearth and by the general Demurrer 't is admitted Note There was a Special Rule that no advantage should be taken of the Pleading by either side But Hale said he did not know how they were bound by that Rule Termino Paschae Anno 24 Car. II. In Banco Regis Monk versus Morris and Clayton THe Plaintiff after he had obtained Iudgment in Debt became Bankrupt and the Defendants brought a Writ of Error The Judgment was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber and the Record sent back Then a Commission of Bankrupts is sued out and the Commissioners Assign this Judgment The Plaintiff Sues out Execution and the Money is levied by the Sheriff and brought into Court The Assignee moves that it may not be delivered to the Plaintiff surmising that the Judgment was assigned to him ut Ante. The Court said they might have brought a Special Sicre facias which they having delayed and that it would be hard to stay the Money in Court upon a bare surmise and for ought appeared it was the Plaintiff's due But however because it might be hazardous to deliver it to him they consented to detain it so that the Assignee forthwith took out a Scire facias against the Defendant in order to try the Bankrupcy or otherwise that it should be delivered to the Plaintiff Sir Ralph Bovyes Case IN an Ejectment upon a Tryal at Bar the Case appeared to be this Sir William Drake was seized in Fee of the Lands in question and 19 Car. 1. infeoffed Sir William Spring and five others to such uses as he should declare by his Will in Writing or by his Deed subscribed by three Witnesses In August 20 Car. 1. by his Deed ut supra he limits the use of the said Lands to his Brother Francis Drake for 90 years and declares That the Feoffees should be seized to their own use in Trust for the said Francis Drake and his Heirs with a power to Francis Drake to alter and limit the Trust as he should think fit In the same Month there is a Treaty of Marriage between F.D. and the Daughter of Sir William Spring and it was agreed by certain Articles between F.D. and Sir W. S. c. reciting that he should receive 2500 l with his intended Wife which Money was proved to be paid that F. D. should convey the Lands in question to himself and his Wife and the Heirs Males of their two Bodies c. for the Joynture of the Wife The Marriage afterwards in 20 Car. takes effect and soon after the same year F.D. by Indenture between him Sir W.S. and another reciting the Articles of Marriage Assigns his Term of 90 years to Sir W. S. and the other in Trust to himself for Life the remainder to his Wife for Life and after to the Heirs Males of their two Bodies and by the same Deed limits the Trust of the Inheritance of the Lands in the same manner Afterwards in 23 Car. 1. he in consideration of 6000 l proved to be paid Grants out of the said Lands a Rent of 400 l per annum to Sir Ralph Bovy and his Heirs with power to enter into the Land in case the Rent was not paid and to retain it until satisfaction Afterwards F. D. and his Wife dye the Rent was Arrear Sir R. Bovy enters Sir Will. Spring and the other Trustees Assign the term of 90 years to Sir Will. Drake Heir Male of F.D. and his Wife the Lessor of the Plaintiff In this case these Points were agreed by the Court. First That when Sir W. D. enfeoffed divers to such Uses as he should declare by his Will or Writing that if he had in pursuance of that Feoffment limited the Uses by his Will that the Will had been but Declaratory tho' if he had made a Feoffment to the Use of his Will it had been otherwise according to Sir Ed. Cleeres Case 6 Co. And Hale said my Lord Co. made a Feoffment provided that he might dispose by his Will to the use of the Feoffee and his Heirs and resolved in that case he might declare the Use by his Will which should arise out of the Feoffment Secondly That this Settlement being in pursuance of Articles made precedent to the Marriage had not the least colour of fraud whereby a Purchaser might avoid it and if there had been but a Verbal Agreement for such a Settlement it would have served the turn And the Court said if there had been no precedent Agreement so that it had been a voluntary Conveyance tho' every such
the Earl of Warwick and the Earl of Manchester or the major part of them And in case she Marries without such Consent or happen to dye without Issue then I give and bequeath it to George Porter viz. the Lessor of the Plaintiff The Earl of Newport dies and the Lady Anne Knolles being of the Age of 14 years marries with Fry without the Consent of her Grandmother or either of the Earls and it was found that she had no Notice of the Will until after the Marriage and that George Porter at that time was of the Age of 8 years and that after the Death of the Countess she Entred and George Porter Entred upon her and made the Lease to the Plaintiff This Case having been twice Argued at the Bar viz. in Michaelmas Term by Sir William Jones for the Plaintiff and Winnington for the Defendant And in Hillary Term last by Finch Attorney General for the Plaintiff and Sir Francis North Solicitor General for the Defendant It was this Term Resolved by the Court viz. Hale Twisden and Rainsford Moreton being absent for the Plaintiff upon these Reasons Rainsford Here have been three Questions made First Whether the words in the Will whereby the marriage of the Defendant is restrained make a Condition or Limitation If a Condition then none but the Heir can Enter for the Breach But 't is clear that they must be taken as a Limitation to support the intent of the Devisor and to let in the Remainder which he limits over 1 Rolls 411. Secondly Whether the Infancy of the Defendant shall excuse her in this Breach and clearly it cannot For a Condition in Deed obliges Infants as much as others 8 Co. 42. Whittingham's Case the difference between Conditions in Fact and Conditions in Law Especially in this Case the nature of the Condition shewing it to be therefore imposed upon her because she was an Infant Thirdly and the main Point of the Case Whether the want of Notice shall save the Forfeiture of the Estate As to that Let the Rules of Law concerning Notice be considered First I take a difference where the Devisee who is to perform the Condition is Heir at Law and where a Stranger The Heir must have Notice because he having a Title by Discent need not take notice of any Will unless it be signified to him And so is Fraunce's Case 8 Co. Where the Heir was Devisee for 60 years upon Condition not to disturb the Executor in removing the Goods and Resolved that he should not lose his Estate upon a Disturbance before he had Notice of the Will But where the Devisee is not Heir as in this Case he must inform himself of the Estate devised to him and upon what terms Another Rule is When one of the Parties is more privy than the other Notice must be given but where the Privity is equal Notice must be taken by the party concerned A Bargainee shall not Enter for a Condition broken before Notice for the Bargain and Sale lies in his Cognizance and not the Lessees So if a Lease be made to commence after the end of the former if the first be surrendred the Lessor shall not Enter for a Condition broken for Non payment of Rent until Notice given of the Surrender 3 Leon. 95. And therefore there shall be no Lapse to the Ordinary upon a Resignation without Notice If a man makes a Feoffment upon Condition to Enter upon payment of such a Sum at a place certain he must give Notice to the Feoffee when he will tender the Money Co. Lir. 211. a. Dyer 354. And upon this Reason is Molineux's Case 2 Cro. 144. where a Devise was that his Heir should pay such Rents and if he made default then his Executors should have the Lands paying the said Rents and if they failed of Payment then he devised the Land to his younger Children to whom the Rents were to be paid It was Resolved Non-payment by the Executors should be no Breach until they had Notice that the Heir had failed which was a thing that the younger Children must be privy to But in 22 E. 4. 27 28. Tenant for Life Lets for years and dies the Lessee must remove in convenient time to be reckoned from the death of the Tenant whether he had Notice of it or no For he in Reversion is presumed to be no more privy to it than himself So Gymlett and Sands's Case 3 Cro. 391. and 1 Rolls 856. where Baron and Feme were Tenants for Life Remainder to the Son in tail Remainder to the right Heirs of the Baron the Baron makes a Feoffment with Warranty and dies then the Feme and Son joyn in a Feoffment this is a Forfeiture of the Estate of F. tho' she had no Notice of the Feoffment or Warranty whereby the Right of the Son was bound So Spring and Caesar's Case 1 Rolls 469. A. and B. joyn in a Fine to the use of A. in Fee if B. doth not pay 10 l to A. before Michaelmas and if he doth then to the use of A. for Life Remainder to B. B. dies before Michaelmas the Heir of B. is bound to pay the 10 l without any Notice given by A. The Reason given which comes home to our Case is For that none is bound to give Notice and then it must be taken tho' indeed a second be added For that B. from whom his Heir derives had Notice The Mayor and Comminalty of London aganst Atford 1 Cro. where a Devise was to six Persons to pay certain Sums for the Maintenance of an Almshouse c. and if through Obliviousness or other Cause the Trusts were not performed then to J. S. upon the same Condition and if he failed by two Months then to the Mayor and Comminalty of London upon the same Trusts The six did not perform the Trusts J.S. enters J. N. enters upon him and a Fine with Proclamations was levied and Five years passed and the better Opinion was that the Mayor and Comminalty of London were bound to pay the Money appointed by the Will altho' they had no Notice that the six persons or J. S. had failed tho' indeed the Case is adjudged against them as being barred by the Fine and Non-claim Sir Andrew Corbet's Case 4 Co. is very strong to this purpose where a Devise is to J. S. until he shall or may raise such a Sum out of the Profits of the Land If a Stranger Enters after the death of the Devisor tho' the Devisee had no Notice of the Will yet the time shall run on as much as if he had the Land in his own possession These Rules being applied to the present Case it will appear no Notice is to be given First The Defendant is as privy to the Will as any one else viz. as George Porter who is found also to be an Infant It is not found whether there were any Executors if it had they were not concerned to give Notice nor did it
business to enquire of the Condition of her whom he will make his Wife Then the next thing to be considered is the Infancy of the Defendant and that is nothing in this Case Porter who was the probablest person to give notice is found to be an Infant too Conditions in Fact bind Infants Again the Condition here relates to an Act which she is capable of doing The Statute of Merton which Enacts Non currant usurae c. whereby Infants are exempted from Penalties yet in another Chapter gives the Forfeiture of the said double value to the Lord where his Ward Marries without his consent 'T is a restraint laid upon her in a matter proper for her Condition and with respect to her Condition that being and Infant she might advise with her Friends about her Marriage The Cases which have been objected do not come to this Case as the Opinion in Sanders and Carwells Case which might be good Law if it could be known what that case was for the words might either explicitly or implicitly require notice as if they were if he refused to pay c. or it may be no time might be set for payment for in Molineux Case there Rents were granted and after a Devise for the payment of them which naturally lie in demand Secondly There it concerned the younger Children to give notice for the Rents were not only to be paid to them but upon failer of payment the Land was Devised to them So that was a Concurrence of concern in them as to the performance of the Condition and the Estate they should acquire by the Breach Whereas the Plaintiff in this Case is not concerned in the performance of the Condition Thirdly The penning of the Condition were quite differs for 't is upon default of payment which implies notice must be first had In Frances Case there would have been no need of notice if the Devise had not béen to the Heir which is the only thing wherein it differs materially from this Case In Alfords Case the debate was occasioned by the special penning for it was thus that if thorough Obliviousness the Trusts should not happen to be performed Now there could be no Oblivion of that they never knew therefore there is some Opinion there that the Mayor and Citizens of L. ought to have had a precedent notice yet the Judgment is contrary for they could not have been barred by the Fine and Non-claim if notice had been necessary to the Commencement of their Title and 't is not found whether those to whom the Estate was devised before had notice so that this cause proves rather that there needs no notice in this case than otherwise Wherefore the Plaintiff must have his Judgment When my Lord Chief Justice had concluded Rainsford said he had spoken with Justice Moreton who declared to him that he was of the same Opinion Fitzgerald versus Marshall ERror of a Judgment given in the Kings Bench in Ireland in affirmance of a Judgment removed thither by Error out of the Common Pleas in Ireland By the Record it appeared that the Writ of Error to the Common Bench was directed Rob. Booth Militi Socijs suis quia in Recordo processu ac in redditione Judicij loquelae quae suit coram vobis Socijs vestris And the Judgment certified appeared to be in an Action commenced in the time of Sir R. Smith who died and Sir R. Booth made Chief Justice in his place before Judgment given And the Court here were of Opinion that the Record was not well removed into the Kings Bench there by that Writ which commanded them to remove Recordum loquelae coram R. Booth whereas the loquela commenced before R. Smith and the Titling of the Record is in such case placita coram R. Smith c. tho' some of the Continuances might be entred coram R. Booth and the Judgment given in his time and for this Cause the Judgment given in affirmance in the Kings Bench there was reversed Sir Samuel Sterling versus Turner ERror of a Judgment in the Common Bench in an Action upon the Case where the Plaintiff declared upon the Custom of London of Electing of two Men in the Office of Bridge-masters every year by the Citizens assembled in a Common Hall and a Custom that if two be Competitors he that is chosen by the greatest number of Votes is duely Elected and that if one in such case desire the Polls to be numbred the Mayor ought to grant the Poll. And shews that there was a Common Hall assembled the 18 of October 22. Regis nunc Sterling being Mayor and that then the Plaintiff and one Allet stood as Competitors to be chosen to that Office and avers that he had the greatest number of Voices and that he affirmed then and there that he had the greatest number which the other denying he requested the Mayor that according to the Custom they might go to the Poll and the Defendant not minding the Execution of his Office but violating the Law and Custom of the City then and there did maliciously refuse the numbering of the Polls but immediately made Proclamation and dismissed the Court by which he lost the Fees and Profits of the Place which he averred belonged unto it Vpon Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff after it had béen several times argued in Arrest of Judgment that this Action did not lie it was adjudged for the Plaintiff by Tyrrel Archer and Wyld Vaughan dissenting And now Error was brought and assigned in the matter of Law and argued for that it was incertain whether the Plaintiff should have been Elected and that he could not bring an Action for a possibility of damage and this was no more not being decided who had the greatest number of Voices But the Court were clear of Opinion that the Judgment should be affirmed for the Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of the means whereby it should appear whether he had the greatest number of Electors or no. And Hale said it was a very good President and so it was adjudged by both Courts One D. of Bedfordshire Esquire was indicted of High Treason for coyning a great number of counterfeit pieces of Guinnies of Gold 23 Regis nunc and being Arraigned at the Bar he pleaded the Kings Pardon which was of all Treasons and of this in particluar but did not mention that he stood indicted Twisden said that my Lord Keeling was of Opinion that such a Pardon was not good But Hale said it might be well enough in this case but in case of Murther it is necessary to recite it because of the Statute of 27 E. 3. 2. vid. 10 E. 3. 2. 14 E. 3. 15. and so it was allowed The Lady Chesters Case A Prohibition was prayed to the Prerogative Court of Canterbury Sir Henry Wood having devised the Guardianship of his Daughter by his Will in VVriting according to the Act of this King to the Lady Chester his
of Kin was upon the Presumption That the Intestate intended to prefer him But now the Presumption is here taken away the Residuum being disposed of to another and to what purpose should the next of Kin have it when no benefit can accrue to him by it and 't is reasonable that he should have the management of the Estate who is to have what remains of it after the Debts and Legacies paid And the Averment That there is no Residuum is not material for being once out of the Statute upon Construction of the Words of the Will there is nothing ex post facto can bring it within it And there are certain Administrations which have been always Ruled to be out of the Statute as Administrations during Minority pendente lite which need not be granted to the next of Kin and granting it to the Husband comes not within the Words of the Statute But because in this case Administration had been granted so long before the Residuary Legatee came in and the Administrators by Decrees in Chancery had got in great part of the Estate and still there were Suits depending there for obtaining of the rest which were near their Effect which would be abated and set aside if the Administration were now Repealed The Court proposed an Accommodation as most useful to either of the Parties and advantagious to the Estate which was accepted The Civilians said That a Legatee that had got Administration tho' it were after Repealed upon a Citation should yet retain for his Legacy Otherwise upon an Appeal for there the Administration is avoided ab initio Vid. Blackman's Case 6 Co. Bedniff Ux ' versus Pople Ux ' A Prohibition was prayed to stay a Suit for Defamation in the Ecclesiastical Court for Words spoken to the Servant of the Plaintiff viz. Go tell thy Mistress Whore she is a Whore and I will prove it It was said they were common Words of Brabling and not importing any such Slander for which Suit could be there 3 Cro. 393. Dimmock versus Fawcet 3 Cro. 456. Pewe and his Wife versus Jeffryes Hale These cannot be said to be Words of Heat as if spoken when the Parties are Scolding together but were uttered deliberately in the Parties absence to her Servant Formerly they would Prohibit unless the Words implied some Act to have been done Vid. Eaton versus Ayloff 3 Cro. 110. But 't is Reason the Suit should proceed in this Case seeing it is for matter of Slander which is punished by publick Pennance Therefore Suit lies in London for calling Whore because by the Custom there Whores are to be Carted Wherefore the Court denied a Prohibition Road versus Wilmott IN False Imprisonment the Defendant Iustified by a Capias directed to him upon a Suit commenced against the Plaintiff in an Inferiour Court. To which the Plaintiff Demurred because it was not shewn that a Summons was issued first and Inferiour Courts can Award no Capias but upon a Summons first Returned To which it was Answered That this being admitted yet it is but an Erroneous Process in the Execution of which the Officer is excused who is not to be punished when the Court proceeds inverso ordine Hale said It was a great Abuse in those Courts their ordinary Practice being to grant a Capias without any Summons so that the Party is driven to Bail in every trivial Action and that tho' upon a Writ of Error this Matter is not assignable because a Fault in the Process is aided by Appearance c. yet False Imprisonment lies upon it and the Officer cannot Iustifie here as upon Process out of the Courts of Westminster For suppose an Attachment should go out of the County Court without a Plaint could he that executes it Iustifie Yet a Sheriff may Iustifie an Arrest upon a Capias out of the Common Pleas 10 Co. 76. 3 Cro. 446. tho' there were no Original But Ministers to the Courts below must see that things be duly done Wherefore the Plaintiff must have Judgment Monk's Case A Debt was recovered against him in this Court and the Money levied by the Sheriff which he did not deliver but was ordered to bring it into Court until a difference that arose about it was determined Monk being indebted to the King a Writ was issued out to enquire what Goods and Chattels he had The Kings Attorney moved that they might have leave to find this Money the Court conceived that the Money being but as a Depositum there they might find it and that the Court did not protect it from the Inquisition as when Goods are under an Attachment they cannot be distrained but they would not make any direction for the finding of it Blackamore versus Mercer IN Judgment against an Executor a Fieri facias issued out to the Sheriff with a Scire fieri inquiry and a Devastavit was found according to the common course the return whereof was quod diversa bona quae fuerunt restatoris c. habuit quae elongavit in usum suum proprium convertit It was objected against this Return That it was not said Devastavit for in some Cases an Executor may justly convert the Goods to his own use Hale said antiently when the Sheriff returned a Devastavit which was not found by any Inquisition and to which there was no answer it was necessary to insert the word Devastavit But otherwise in a return upon this Special Writ for if the case be that he hath not wasted the Goods but only eloigned then so as the Sheriff cannot come at them the Executor is chargeable upon this Writ de bonis propriis and this Return answers the Writ Perrot versus Bridges IN Trespass quare clausum fregit and threw down his Fences The Defendant pleaded Not guilty to all but the breaking of the Fences and for that he justifies for that he was possessed of certain Corn in the place where as of his proper Goods and made a breach in the Fence as was necessary for the carrying of it away The Plaintiff Demurrs Specially because he did not shew by what Title he was possessed of the Corn. And the Court were of Opinion that for that cause the Plea was insufficient for if a Man enters upon anothers Land and sows it 't is his Corn while he that hath right re-enters so if Tenant at Will sows the Ground and then determins his own Will he cannot break the Hedges to carry the Corn away And Twisden said if the Sheriff sells Corn growing by a Fieri facias the Vendee cannot justifie an entry upon the Land to Reap it until such time as the Corn is Ripe Anonymus IF an Administrator brings an Action the declaring hic in Curia prolat ' of the Letters of Administration is but matter of Form tho' it hath béen held otherwise For Hale said 't is not part of the Declaration as a Specialty is upon which Debt Covenant c. is brought but
only shewn upon the Declaration to enable the Plaintiff to bring his Action Note This is aided by a late Act of Parliament Jay versus Bond. IN Trespass the Defendant pleads that Ante Quinden ' Sancti Martini usque ad hunc diem praed ' Jay Excommunicatus fuit adhuc existit protulit hic in Cur ' literas Testamentarias Episcopi Sarum quae notum faciunt universis quod scrutatis Registeriis invenitur contineri quod Excommunicat ' fuit c. pro contumacia in non comparendo to a Suit for Tythes c. in cujus rei Testimonium praed ' Episcopus Sigillum apposuit It was objected that such a kind of Certificate of Excommunication as this is was not allowable for it ought to be positive and under the Seal of the Ordinary whereas this is only a relation of what is found in their Register Sed non allocatur for tho' such a form of pleading would be altogether insufficient in our Law yet their course is sometimes to certifie Excommunication sub sigillo Ordinarij and sometimes per literas Testamentarias as here Hale said to plead Letters Patents without saying sub magno sigillo is naught and that because the King has divers Seals Note The entry was here quod Defendens venit dicit c. Hale doubted whether he ought not to have made some kind of defence tho' no full defence is to be made when Excommengment in the Plaintiff is pleaded Owen versus Lewyn THe Plaintiff declared in Action upon the Case upon the Custom of the Realm against a Common Carrier and also sur Trover and Conversion Hale said so he might for Not guilty answers both but if a Carrier loseth Goods committed to him a General Action of Trover doth not lye against him Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 24 Car. II. In Banco Regis Davenant against the Bishop of Salisbury IN Covenant The Plaintiff declared that the Bishop of Salisbury the Defendants Predecessor being seized in Fee demised unto him certain Lands for 21 years reserving the antient Rent c. and Covenanted for him and his Successors to discharge all publick Taxes assessed upon the Land and that since the Defendant was made Bishop a certain Tax was assessed upon the Land by vertue of an Act of Parliament and that the Plaintiff was forced to pay it the Defendant refusing to discharge it unde Actio accrevit c. The Defendant demurred first to the form for that 't is said that the Predecessor Bishop was seized and doth not say in jure Episcopatus But Hale said the Old Books were that where it was pleaded that J. S. Episcopus was seized that it implies seizin in the right of the Bishoprick which is true if he were a Corporation capable only in his politick capacity or as an Abbot c. but in regard he might also be seized in his natural capacity the Declaration was for this Cause held to be ill The matter in Law was whether this were such a Covenant as should bind the Successor as incident to a Lease which the Bishop is empowred to make by the 32 H. 8. For 't is clear if a Bishop had made a Covenant or Warranty this had not bound the Successor at the Common Law without the consent of the Dean and Chapter and if it should be now taken that every Covenant would bind the Successor then the Statute of 1 Eliz. would be of no effect But Hale said admitting this were an antient Covenant and if so it should have been averred to have been used in former Leases to discharge ordinary payments as Pentions or Tenths granted by the Clergy then it might bind the Successor by the 32 H. 8. But it were hard to extend it to new charges And we all know how lately this way of Taxes came in But the Court said that the Declaration being insufficent for the other matter they would not determine this But they held that however this Covenant should prove it would not avoid the Lease Vid. Gee Bishop of Chicester and Freedlands Case 3 Cro. 47. Note Hale said that antiently when the Sheriff returned a Rescous upon a Man he was admitted to plead to it as to an Indictment But the course of the Court of latter times has been not to admit any Plea to it but to drive the party to his Action upon the Case as upon the return of a Devastavit c. Cole versus Levingston IN Ejectment upon a long and intricate Special Verdict the Chief Justice said never was the like in Westminster Hall these following Points were resolved by the Court and declared by Hale as the Opinion of himself and the rest of the Judges First That where one Covenants to stand seized to the use of A. and B. and the Heirs of their Bodies of part of his Land and if they die without Issue of their Bodies then that it shall remain c. and of another part of his Land to the use of C.D. and E. and the Heirs of their Bodies and if they die without Issue of their Bodies then to remain c. that here there are no cross Remainders created by Implication for there shall never be such Remainders upon construction of a Deed tho' sometimes there are in case of a Will 1 Rolls 837. Secondly As this Case is there would be no cross Remainders if it were in a Will for cross Remainders shall not rise between three unless the words do very plainly express the intent of the Devisor to be so as where black Acre is devised to A. white Acre to B. and green Acre to C. and if they die without Issue of their Bodies vel alterius eor ' then to remain there by reason of the words alterius eor ' cross Remainders shall be Dier 303. But otherwise there would not Gilbert v. Witty and others 2 Cro. 655. And in this case tho' some of the Limitations are between two there shall be no cross Remainders in them because there are others between three and the intent shall be taken to the same in all The Dean and Chapter of Durham against the Lord Archbishop of York IN a Prohibition the Archbishop pleaded a Prescription that he and his Predecessors have time out of mind been Guardians of the Spiritualties of the Bishoprick of Durham Sede vacante and Issue joyned thereupon and tried at the Bar this Term. Hale said De jure communi the Dean and Chapter were Guardians of the Spiritualties during the vacancy as to matters of Jurisdiction but for Ordination they are to call in the aid of a Neighbouring Bishop and so is Linwood But the Usage here in England is that the Archbishop is Guardian of the Spiritualties in the Suffragan Diocess and therefore it was proper here to joyn the Issue upon the Usage There was much Evidence given that antiently during the vacancy of Durham the Archbishop had exercised Jurisdiction both Sententious and other as Guardian of the Spiritualties
word Children My second Reason is from the manner of the Limitation which is to his Issue and of his Body lawfully begotten upon the second Wife Phrases agreeable to an Estate Tail and the meaning of a Testator is to be spelled out by little Hints It is admitted in Wild's Case in the 6 Co. 17. that if the Devise had been to the Children of their Bodies it would have been an Entail Thirdly It appears by the Devise that the Testator knew there could be no Children at that time and shall not be supposed to intend a contingent Remainder Fourthly It appears that the Testator did not intend to prefer the Children of the first Wife of Bernard but did the Children of the second and therefore cannot be thought to mean that John the younger Brother of Bernard should take before failure of the Issue which Bernard should have by his second Wife And to this purpose is Spalding's Case 3 Cro. 185. A Devise to his eldest Son and the Heirs of his Body after the death of his Wife and if he died living the Wife then to his Son N. And devised other Lands to another Son and the Heirs of his Body and if he died without Issue then to remain c. The first Son died living the Wife It was strongly urged that his Estate should cease for being said If he died living the Wife this was a Corrective of what went before But 't was Ruled by all the Court that it was an absolute Estate Tail in the first Son as if the words had been If he died without Issue living the Wife for he could not be thought to intend to prefer a younger Son before the Issue of his eldest Fifthly The words are further and for want of such Issue then to John which words in a Will do often make an Estate Tail by Implication As 4 Jac. Robinson's Case A Devise to A. for Life and if he died without Issue then to remain A. took an Entail So Burley's Case 43 Eliz. A Devise to A. for Life Remainder to the next Heir Male and for default of such Heir Male then to remain Adjudged an Estate Tail 'T is true Dyer 171. is where Lands were Devised to a man and the Heirs Males of his Body and if he died without Issue c. these last words did not make a Tail General to the Devisee For an Implication of an Estate of Inheritance shall never ride over an express limitation of an Inheritance before being 't is said here for want of such Issue the Land should remain 't is plainly meant that it should not before the Issue failed and then the Issue must have it so long for none else can and so 't is an Estate Tail I come now to Authorities 6 Eliz. Anderson num 86. Moor pl. 397. A Devise to his Son for Life and after his decease to the Men Children of his Body said to be an Estate Tail and so cited by Coke in that Book and so contrary to his Report of it in Wild's Case Bendloes num 124. But that Case is not so strong as this for Children is not so operative a word as Issue Rolls 839. A Devise to his eldest Son for Life non aliter for so were the words tho' not printed in the Book and after his decease to the Sons of his Body it was but an Estate for Life by reason of the words Non aliter Hill 13 Car. 2. Rot. 121. Wedgward's Case A Devise to his Son Thomas for Life and after his decease if he died without Issue living at his death then to the Daughter c. it was held to be an Estate for Life But were it an Estate Tail or no it was not necessary to be Resolved the Case depending upon the destruction or continuance of a Contingent Remainder which would have been gone had the Devise made an Estate Tail again there being an express Devise for Life they would not raise a larger Estate by Implication Again Wild's Case where Lands were Devised to A. for Life Remainder to B. and the Heirs of his Body Remainder to Wild and his Wife and after their decease to their Children And the Court of Kings-Bench were at first divided Indeed it was afterwards adjudged an Estate for Life to Wild and his Wife First Because having limited a Remainder in Tail to B. by express and the usual words if he had meant the same Estate in the second Remainder 't is like he would have used the same words Secondly It was not after their decease to the Children of their Bodies for then there would be an Eye of an Estate Tail Thirdly The main Reason was because there were Children at the time of the Devise and that was the only Reason the Resolution went upon in the Exchequer Chamber And tho' it be said in the latter end of the Case That if there were no Children at that time every Child born after might take by Remainder 't is not said positively that they should take And it seems to be in opposition to their taking presently but however that be it comes not to this Case For tho' the word Children may be made nomen collectivum the word Issue is nomen collectivum of it self Hill 42. and 43 Eliz. Bifield's Case A Devise to A. and if he dies not having a Son then to remain to the Heirs of the Testator Son was there taken to be used as nomen collectivum and held an Entail I come now to answer Objections First 'T is objected that in this Case the Limitation is expresly for Life and in that respect stronger than Wild's Case And this is the great difficulty But I Answer That tho' these words do weigh the Intention that way yet they are ballanced by an apparent Intention that weighs as much on the other side which is That as long as Bernard should have Children that the Land should never go over to John for there was as much reason to provide for the Issue of the Issue as the first Issue Again A Tenant in Tail has to many purposes but an Estate for Life Again 'T is possible that he did intend him but an Estate for Life and 't is by consequence and operation of Law only that it becomes an Estate Tail 1651. Hansy and Lowther The Case was A Copyholder surrendred to the use of his Will and Devised to his first Son for Life and after his decease to the Heir Male of his Body c. This was Ruled to be an Estate Tail and this differs from Archer's Case in the 1st of Co. for that the Devise there was for Life and after to the Heir Male and the Heirs of the Body of that Heir Male There the words of Limitation being grafted upon the word Heir it shews that the word Heir was used as Designatio personae and not for Limitation of the Estate So is the Case of Clerk and Day 1 Cro. 313. Another Objection was That there being a Power appointed
same Goods before which Action is still depending And demanded Iudgment of the Writ The Plaintiff Replied That the other two died before the Action was brought and so that Writ abated To which it was Demurred and Iudgment quod respondeat ouster For in all Actions where one Plaintiff dies the Writ abates save in an Action brought by two Executors And Hale said So it should in a Quare Impedit but that it is revivable by Journeys Accounts Wild said That the Pleading That the Two died before the Action brought was double Hale No for he must shew both were dead to enable him to bring this Action alone Twisden How comes this Plea in Abatement after an Imparlance Hale Tho' after an Imparlance the Defendant cannot plead a Misnosmer or the like or Ancient demesne because he admits he ought to answer the Writ yet such a Plea in Abatement as this he may But that comes not in question because the Plaintiff Replied to it and did not Demur Nota Debt for Rent in the Detinet against an Executor shall be brought where the Lease was made because 't is for the Arrears in the Testators time But where 't is in the debet and detinet viz. for Rent incurred in the Executors time it must be where the Land lies And so Agreed by the Court. Nota No Tythes to be paid for Pasture wherein the Plow-Horses are fed And Hale said So it is of Saddle-Horses Anonymus A Foreign Attachment in an Inferiour Court was pleaded in this manner That by Custom time out of mind whoever Leavied a Plaint pro aliquo debito against another upon Surmize That a Stranger was Indebted to the Defendant that Process issued forth to attach c. Against this Pemberton Objected That it was not said pro aliquo debito which did arise infra Jurisdictionem Curiae The Court said that they need not express that the Debt did arise infra Jurisdictionem for perhaps it did not And yet if an Action be brought in such case and the Debt be laid to be Contracted infra Jurisdictionem Curiae if the Defendant will plead to it he may but he shall never be admitted to assign for Error in Fact that the Debt did arise extra Jurisdictionem Curiae But if he had tendred such a Plea in the Inferiour Court upon Oath then if they had refused it it would have been Error Wherefore 't is enough in this case to say If a Plaint were Levied pro aliquo debito infra Jurisdictionem without averring that the Debt did arise within the Jurisdiction Also there cannot be a Custom for a Foreign Attachment before there be some Default in the Defendant Wherefore the Pleading was there held to be Ill. Mosdel the Marshal of the Court against Middleton IN Debt upon a Bond with Condition to be a true Prisoner and to pay him so much by the week for Chamber Rent To this was pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. And the Court resolved it was void by that Statute Hale said a Bond for true Imprisonment is good prima facie but the Defendant may aver that it was also for ease and favour And so it was adjudged in Sir John Lenthals time who brought Debt upon a Bond of 2000 l and the party pleaded That it was taken for ease and favour and upon the Tryal it appeared That after that Bond the Defendant was permitted sometimes to go into the Country with a Keeper whereas before he was kept strait Prisoner and upon this matter the Bond was ruled to be void Twisden cited my Lord Hob. That a Gaoler could not take a Bond of his Prisoner for a just Debt Hale That seems hard because he takes it in another capacity But he cannot take a Bond for his Fees because it would give him opportunity to extort Also here part being against the Statute it avoids all but the Condition of a Bond or Covenant may in part be against the Common Law and stand good in the other part Hob. Cox versus Matthews IN Action for a Nusans in stopping of the Lights of his House Exception was taken to the Declaration for that he did not say autiquum Messuagium and yet it was ruled to be good enough for perhaps the House was new Built And the truth of this Case was said to be that the Defendant had Built the House and Let it to the Plaintiff and would now go to stop up the Lights Hale said if a Man hath a Watercourse running thorough his Ground and erects a Mill upon it he may bring his Action for diverting the Stream and not say antiquum molendinum and upon the Evidence it will appear whether the Defendant hath Ground thorough which the Stream runs before the Plaintiffs and that he used to turn the Stream as he saw cause for otherwise he cannot justifie it tho' the Mill be newly erected Watson versus Snead IN Debt for 20 l the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant concessit se teneri per scriptum suum Obligatorium c. the words of the Deed were I do acknowledge to Edward Watson by me twenty pounds upon Demand for doing the work in my Garden Vpon a Demurrer to the Declaration it was adjudged a good Bond. Morse versus Slue THe Case was argued two several Terms at the Bar by Mr. Holt for the Plaintiff and Sir Francis Winnington for the Defendant and Mr. Molloy for the Plaintiff and Mr. Wallop for the Defendant and by the Opinion of the whole Court Iudgment was given this Term for the Plaintiff Hale delivered the Reasons as followeth First By the Admiral Civil Law the Master is not chargeable pro damno fatali as in case of Pirates Storm c. but where there is any negligence in him he is Secondly This Case is not to be measured by the Rules of the Admiral Law because the Ship was infra corpus Comitatus Then the First Reason wherefore the Master is liable is because he takes a Reward and the usage is that half VVages is paid him before he goes out of the Country Secondly If the Master would he might have made a Caution for himself 4 Co. Southcotes Case which he omitting and taking in the Goods generally he shall answer for what happens There was a Case not long since when one brought a Box to a Carrier in which there was a great Sum of Money and the Carrier demanded of the Owner what was in it who answered That it was filled with Silks and such like Goods of mean value upon which the Carrier took it and was robbed And resolved that he was liable But if the Carrier had told the Owner that it was a dangerous time and if there were Money in it he durst not take charge of it and the Owner had answered as before this matter would have excused the Carrier Thirdly He which would take off the Master in this Case from the Action must assign a difference between it and the Case of
five years pass Whether the Lessor should have five years after the Term expired was the question and after the hearing of Arguments the Court resolved that he should as well as when Lessee for Life levies a Fine which differs not in reason from this Case for there the Lessor may have his Writ de consimili casu presently as here he may bring his Assize And though in 9 Co. Podgers Case 'T is said that where Lessee for years is ousted by a Disseisor who levies a Fine if five years pass without claim the Lessor is barred that is not the same with this Case for the Disseissor comes in without the consent of the Lessee and of his own wrong and if he can defend his Possession five years he shall hold it but here all is done with the privity and by the means of the Lessee who is trusted with the Possession and it would be of most mischievous import to Mens Inheritances if they should not have five years after the Lease ended and it being put of a Disseisin in Podger's Case seems to imply the contrary in other Cases and tho' there were many notorious Circumstances of fraud in Fermours Case which Co. in his report of it lays much weight upon yet it does not thence follow that the Law is not the same where there are not such evidences of fraud In other Books where that case is reported the resolution does not seem to go so much upon the particularities of the Fraud 'T is Fraud apparent in the Lessee Wilston versus Pilkney IN Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declared that the Dean and Chapter of c. demised to the Defendant for Life by force of which he entred and demised the Land to the Plaintiff for years by virtue of which he was possessed and afterward granted to the Defendant reserving a Rent for which he brings his Action To this Declaration the Defendant Demurrs First Because he doth not say of the Deans Demise hic in Curia prolat ' which Demise must be by Deed. Secondly He says that the Defendant entred by force thereof which is impertinent to be alledged upon a Lease for Life because Livery implies it Thirdly As to the matter that the Reservation was void it being upon a surrender by Parol A Rent cannot be reserved upon a Feoffment by Parol so where Lessee for life or years assigns over his whole interest 12 H. 4. 14. 9 H. 6. 43. 12 H. 4. 17. also no Rent can be reserved upon a Conveyance that works an Extinguishment unless by Deed where it is good upon the contract Peto's Case 3 Cro. 101. is that a Surrender drowns the interest to all intents and purposes between the Parties Dier 251. The Tenant for Life agreed with him in Reversion that he should have his Land for the Annual Rent of 20 s 't is doubted there whether this amounts to a Surrender there being no Deed or Livery But in 2 Rolls 497. 't is said if it had been a Surrender the reservation had béen void Hale I do most doubt of the first exception because the Deed was not produced And for the second it were better pleading to have said by force of which he was seized but that 's not of necessity And as to the matter the Court resolved for the Plaintiff For 1. The Reservation was good by the contract tho' without Deed. And so it was adjudged in this Court in Manly's Case that Tenant for years might assign his whole Term by Parol rendring Rent so in the Case of Purcas and Owen 23 Car. But it was doubted whether an Action would lye until the last day were past 'T is all one where the Grant is made to him in Reversion which is not actually but consequentially a Surrender by operation of Law before which the contract is perfected upon which the Rent arises 7 E. 4. is that the Lessee may Surrender upon Condition and there is no reason why a Rent cannot be created upon it as well as a Condition If it were in the case of Tenant for Life a Deed were requisite as well for a Rent as a Condition in respect of the Freehold but that is not so in case of Tenant for years Vide Postea Cartwright and Pinkney Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 25 Car. II. In Banco Regis Hanslap versus Cater IN Error upon a Judgment in the Court of Coventry where the Plaintiff Cater declared That the Defendant being indebted to him infra Jurisdictionem Curiae pro diversis Bonis Mercimoniis ante tunc venditis deliberatis did then and there assume c. Vpon Non Assumpsit pleaded and a Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff the Error assigned was That the Goods were not alledged to be sold within the Jurisdiction of the Court. Hale and Wild seemed to be of Opinion that it was well enough the being indebted and the promise being laid to be within the Jurisdiction Twisden Contra and said he had known many Judgments reversed for the same Cause It being moved again this Term Hale consented that it should be reversed according as the latter Presidents have been for he said it was his Rule Stare decisis Parsons and Muden Pasch 22. Car. 2. Rot. out of Barnstaple Court John Brown's Case HE was indicted upon the Statute of 3 H. 7. cap. 2. for the forcible taking away and marrying of one Lucy Ramsy of the Age of fourteen years having to her Portion 5000 l He was tried at the Bar and the fact appeared upon the Evidence to be thus She was inveigled into Hide Park by one Mrs. P. confederate with Brown who had prepared a Coach for that purpose to take the Air in an Evening about the latter end of May last and being in the Park the Coachman drove away from the rest of the company which gave opportunity to Brown who came to the Coach side in a Vizar-mask and addressing himself first to Mrs. P. soon perswaded her out of the Coach and then pulls out a Maid servant there attending Mrs. Ramsy and then gets himself into the Coach and there detains her until the Coachman carried them to his Lodgings in the Strand where the next Morning he prevails upon her having first threatned to carry her beyond Sea if she refused to Marry him but was the same day apprehended in the same House It was a first doubted whether the Evidence of Lucy Ramsy was to be admitted because she was his Wife de facto tho' not de jure But the Court seriatim delivered their Opinions that she was to be admitted a Witness First For that there was one continuing force upon her from the beginning till the Marriage wherefore whatsoever was done while she was under that violence was not to be respected Secondly As such Cases are generally contrived so hainous a Crime would go unpuished unless the Testimony of the Woman should be received Thirdly In Fulwoods Case reported in 1 Cro. which was read in the
c. be indicted for not repairing of a Way within their Precinct they cannot plead Not guilty and give in Evidence that another by Prescription or Tenure ought to repair it for they are chargeable de communi Jure and if they would discharge themselves by laying it elsewhere it must be pleaded Error ERror to Reverse a Judgment in Debt upon a Bond given in Norwich Court where by the Custom the plea of the Defendant was quod non dedicit factum sed petit quod inquiratur de debito First It was moved to be Error for that the Venire was XII Men c. in figures Sed non allocatur for being in these letters XII and not in the figures 12. it was well enough Secondly It was ad triandum exi tum whereas there was no Issue joyned wherefore it ought to have been ad inquirend ' de debito c. Sed non allocatur for the Presidents are as the Case is here Thirdly The Condition of the Bond was to pay at Alborough and that ought to have been shewn to be within the Jurisdiction of the Court Sed non allocatur for the Plea here is not payment secund ' formam Conditionis but the Jury is to inquire by the custom of all manner of payments and discharges Fourthly In the Record it was continued over to several Courts and in the Court where the Judgment is given 't is said in Curia praedicta and so incertain which but notwithstanding these matters the Iudgment was affirmed Anonymus THe Case upon Evidence at a Tryal in Ejectment was this a Dean and Chapter having a right to certain Land but being out of Possession Sealed a Lease with a Letter of Attorney to deliver it upon the Land which was done accordingly and held to be a good Lease for tho' the putting the Seal of a Corporation aggregate to a Deed carries with it a delivery yet the Letter of Attorney to deliver it upon the Land shall suspend the operation of it while then Tenant for Life being in Debt to defraud his Creditors commits a Forfeiture to the end that he in Reversion may enter who is made privy to the contrivance The Opinion of Hale was that the Creditors should avoid this as well as any fraudulent Conveyance Anonymus IN an Ejectment upon a Tryal at Bar for Lands in antient Demesne there was shewn a Recovery in the Court of antient Demesne to cut off an Entail which had been suffered a long time since and the Possession had gone accordingly But there was now objected against it First That no sufficient Evidence of it appeared because the Recovery it self nor a Copy of it was shewn for in truth it was lost But the Court did admit other proof of it to be sufficient and said if a Record be lost it may be proved to a Jury by Testimony as the Decree in H. 8. time for Tythe in London is lost yet it hath been often allowed that there was one Secondly It appeared that a part of the Land was leased for Life and the Recovery with a single Voucher was suffered by him in Reversion and so no Tenant to the Praecipe for those Lands But in regard the Possession had followed it for so long time the Court said they would presume a Surrender as in an Appropriation of great Antiquity there has been presumed a Licence tho' none appeared Thirdly It was objected That the Tenant in Tail which suffered the Recovery having first accepted of a Fine sur Conusans de droit come ceo his Estate Tail was changed for he was estopped during his Life to say that he had any other Estate than Fee then he being made Tenant to the Praecipe the Recovery was not of the Estate Tail and so should not bind But the Court held clearly that the acceptance of this Fine made no alteration of his Estate If Tenant for Life accepts such a Fine 't is a Forfeiture because he admits the Reversion to be in a Stranger but it does not change his Estate so where two Joynt-tenants in Fee accept a Fine which is to the Heirs of one of them yet they continue Joynt-tenants in Fee as they were before Fourthly The Writ of Right Close did express the Land to lie in such a Mannor and a Praecipe that demands Land ought to mention the Vill in which they lie for a Praecipe of Land in Parochia or in Manerio is not good But this exception was disallowed by the Court for Hale said the Writ of Right Close is directed Ballivis Manerij c. quod plenum rectum teneant of the Land within the Precinct of the Mannor and it is not to be resembled to another Praecipe But if a Praecipe be faulty in that Point unless exception be taken to it in Abatement it cannot be assigned for Error but if it were Erroneous the Recovery would bind until reversed Note After Judgment quod computet tho' it be not the final Judgment yet no motion is to be admitted in Arrest of Judgment and after such Judgment a Scire facias lies against the Executor of the Defendant Note In an Action of Debt against the Lessee he may plead nil debet and give the expulsion in Evidence Anonymus IN an Assumpsit the consideration appeared to be that the Defendant promised to pay a Sum of Money which he owed this is no good consideration tho' after a Verdict unless it appeared that the Debt was become remediless by the Statute of Limitations but payment of a Debt without Suit is a good consideration Anonymus A Justice of the Peace brought an Action of Slander for that the Defendant said He was not worth a Groat and that he was gone to the Dogs and upon motion in Arrest of Judgment notwithstanding that it was urged to maintain it that the Statute of H. 6. requires that a Justice of Peace should have 40 l a year And therefore in regard an Estate was necessary to his Office that the Action would lie yet the Judgment was stayed for such words will not bear an Action unless the person of whom they are spoken lives by buying and selling Anonymus IT was returned upon Elegit that the Sheriff had delivered medietatem Terrar ' Tenementorum in extent and after the Filing and Entry of it upon the Record the Plaintiff moved to quash it because it was insufficient for the Sheriff ought upon such Execution to deliver the Possession by Metes and Bounds Wild held that it being entred upon the Record there was no avoiding of it but by Writ of Error But Hale held that in regard it appeared by the Record to be void it might be quashed as if upon an Ejectment to recover Possession upon such a return it appears upon the Evidence that there was more than the half the Land delivered this shall be avoided So if a Fieri facias be not warranted by the Judgment upon which it is awarded tho' the Sheriff shall be
of Wood he hath the effect of his Grant But Trees differ in value exceedingly from each other Bolton versus Cannon IN Debt against an Executor for Rent Arrere in his own time in the debet detinet The Defendant pleads that the Rent is more worth than the Land and that he tendred a Surrender before the time for which the Rent is demanded and that the Plaintiff refused to accept the Surrender and that he had fully administred and so demands Iudgment of the Action The Plaintiff replies that there was Rent Arrear to him and that therefore he was not bound to accept of the Surrender and to this the Defendant Demurrs The Court said First That an Executor that does intermeddle cannot wave a Lease or any other part of the Testators Estate for he cannot assume the Executorship for part and refuse for part Secondly That in case the Land be not more worth than the Rent it is a good Plea to an Action of Debt in the debet and detinet for he is to be charged in the detinet only tho' where the Rent is of less value he may be charged in the debet detinet for that which is accrued in his own time according to Hargraves Case 5 Co. Thirdly The doubt here is that the Defendant having waved the material part of his Plea viz. That the Rent exceeded the value of the Land and relied upon his tender of a Surrender which is nothing to the purpose whether Judgment can be here for him and that otherwise his Plea is double but because the Plaintiff hath not demurred to that but answered only to one part of it the Defendant might well Demurr upon the Replication because it does not answer all contained in the Plea for unless the party Demurrs for doubleness he is bound to answer all the matters alledged Et Adjornatur But being this Term moved again Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because the Defendant relinquished the material part of his Bar and offered matter meerly frivolous Cartwright versus Pinkney TEnant for years Surrenders to the Lessor reserving a Rent the question was Whether it was a good Reservation And held that it was upon the Contract and that Debt lay after the first day was incurred wherein it was reserved to be paid for it was in the nature of a Rent and not of a Sum in Gross Ante Wilson and Pinckney Anonymus IN Trespass for Fishing in his several Fishery pisces cepit After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff ought to have alledged what kind of Fishes and the number of them as in Playters Case 5 Co. is But for that it was said on the other side that at that time they were more strict in the certainty of pleading than since for now and indebitat ' Assumpsit for Work done or Goods sold is allowed without further certainty And that however the Oxford Act 15 Car. 2. here helped it for tho' this be none of the defects there enumerated yet the words of the Act being That Judgment shall not be arrested for any other exception that doth not alter the nature of the Action or Tryal of the Issue shall extend to this Case But the Court were of Opinion that none of the Acts had aided this Case in regard that there was not so much as the number of the Fishes expressed as if a Man should bring Trespass for taking of his Beasts and not say what But Hale said Trover for a Ship cum velis had been allowed because all made but one aggregate Body both the Ship and Sails But Trover pro velis would not be good Vid. 2 Cro. 435. Trespass quare clausum fregit Spinas cepit and 3 Cro. 553. Child and Greenhills Case Dr. Webb versus Batchelour al' IN Trespass for taking so many Cowes upon Not guilty a Special Verdict was found That an Act of this King for repairing of the High-ways appoints that such persons as keep Carts and Horses c. should send them at certain times to assist in the repairing of the Ways not having a reasonable excuse and that warning was given to the Parishioners of the Parish whereof the Plaintiff was Parson to send in their Carts and that the Plaintiff omitting to do it a Justice of Peace made a Warrant to the Defendant to distrain him according to the Authority given by the Act c. It was alledged for the Plaintiff First That Clergymen were not obliged by this Act for Ecclesiastical Persons have always had immunities from such charges as Pontage Murage c. and shall not be comprehended in the general words Parishioners Secondly That in regard the Act allows an excuse the Justice of the Peace ought to have caused the Plaintiff to have appeared before him to have seen whether he had an excuse before he could have made his Warrant and tho' the Officer that executes the Process of a Court of Record be indemnified where the proceeding is Erroneous yet 't is not so where the proceeding is not of Record as the 10 Co. in the case of the Marshalsey 3 Cro. 394. Nicholls versus Walker and Carter Where a Warrant was made by a Justice of the Peace to distrain for a Poors Rate Trespass was maintained against the Officer that executed the VVarrant because the Plaintiff was not chargeable as an Inhabitant of the Parish for whose Poor the Rate was made Curia contra 1. The Clergy are liable to all publick charges imposed by Act of Parliament and that hath been resolved as Hale said upon debate before all the Judges 2. The Officer that executes the VVarrant though unduely made for the cause alledged is not answerable for he is not to judge but to execute the matter it being within the Jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace and 't is not like the Case in the 3 Cro. for there the Churchwardens And Overseers of one Parish distrained in another Parish which was out of the limits of their Authority but in 14 H. 8. 16. where a Justice of the Peace made a VVarrant to Arrest a Man for Felony which in those times was held beyond his power tho' otherwise since unless there had been some Indictment of Record yet 't is there held the Officer that executes such VVarrant is not punishable Wherefore Judgment was given here for the Defendants Termino Sanctae Michaelis Anno 27 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus A Judgment was removed by Error into this Court and affirmed the Capias that is Awarded thereupon must mention it and not be general as upon a Judgment originally in this Court and if such a Writ issues out the Court will upon motion grant a Supersedeas and there needs no Writ of Error in Adjudicatione Executionis tho' it was taken out in a former Term. Anonymus LIbel was by the Churchwardens of c. in the Ecclesiastical Court for 1 l 6 s 8 d upon a Custom
for payment of so much for being Buried in the Body of the Church and a Prohibition was prayed suggesting that there was no such Custom The Court held such a Custom must be good because the Parish is to be at the charge to make up the Church Floor but if the Custom be denied it must be tried at Law And therefore inclined that a Prohibition was to go tho' it was objected that this duty belongs properly to the Ecclesiastical Court and no remedy for it elsewhere for so is the Case of a modus decimandi which may be demanded in the Spiritual Court but if the Custom be denied there shall be a Prohibition and so the case of a Mortuary since the Statute of H. 8. And it afterwards being moved again Hale Chief Justice being present the Prohibition was granted Which Hale said was sometimes granted pro defectu Jurisdictionis and sometimes pro defectu Triationis as in this case and others where the ground of the Suit is Prescription for in their Law they have sometimes allowed Prescriptions of 20 years sometimes of 40 years but we admit none but what are de temps dont c. St. John versus Moody IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That he was possessed of a Wood and that he had a way leading from such a place to the said Wood and that the Defendant had obstructed it Vpon not Not guilty it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff had not set forth his Title to the way whether by Prescription or otherwise and this ought to be that the Defendant might be ascertained what to make defence unto Also 't is proper to the nature of an Action upon the Case to set forth the Case at large Curia contra The Action here is grounded upon the Possession indeed if Trespass were brought by the owner of the Soil in a justification for a way 't is necessary to express by what right 't is claimed but this for ought appears may be against a Stranger In Assize for a Rent against the Terre-tenant he may demand Judgment whether he ought to answer before Title made otherwise of an Assize brought against the Pernor of a Mans Rent Where 't is pleaded that the Party ought to keep the Fence it sufficeth to say occupatores reparare consueverunt for in Truth the greatest part of the Enclosures in England have been within time of Memory The Writ of Curia claudenda is only quod debet solet 't is true before 7 Jacobi the usage has been in Actions of this nature to prescribe but not since Vid. 2 Cro. 43 123 3 Cro. 499 575. Sands and Trefuses Case and 325 Symonds and Seabourn Whereupon Iudgment was given for Plaintiff Note This Case was afterwards affirmed upon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber Drue versus Baily THe Case was an Executor had a Term and let part of it reserving a Rent and made his Executor and died The question was Whether the Executor should have the Rent or the Administrator de bonis non And it was held that the Executor should have it Bell versus Thatcher IN Error upon a Judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas where the Plaintiff in an Action upon the Case declared That he had been retained by the under Postmaster to carry about post Letters of which he made a profit and had behaved himself honestly in that Employment And that the Defendant to defame him said He had broken up Letters and taken out Bills of Exchange which brought him to such discredit that he lost the said Employment And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and Error assigned upon the matter for that the words do not import but that he might break open the Letters by the direction of those to whom they were directed neither do they express that they were Post Letters and the innuendo will not help it unless there had been such a signification in the words Neither is it such an Employment that an Action should lie for Scandalizing Also the Plaintiff does not declare that he was retained for above a year and seems to be little more then a Common Porter And for these reasons by the Opinion of the Court the Iudgment was reversed and Hale principally from the quality of the Employment for he said a Man should not speak disparagingly of a mans Cook or Groom but an Action would be brought if such Actions as these should be maintained Anonymus IN an Action for words the case was that the Defendant speaking to the Plaintiff said thus I know my self and I know you I never buggered a Mare And the Opinion of the Court was that the words were Actionable or else there might be sly ways to defame any Man and evade an Action Hodgkins versus Robson and Thornborow IN Debt for Rent The Defendants pleaded in Bar to the Action that the Plaintiff had entred into a Back-yard part of the Land demised by Force and Arms c. The Plaintiff replied that he ought not to be foreclosed of his Action for that the Defendant had let that Back-yard to J.S. for a lesser Term reserving no Rent and that J. S. entred and after assigned unto the Plaintiff c. which is the same Entry in the Bar. The Defendants rejoyns that J. S. did not enter to which it was demurred And after it was several times spoken to at the Bar Iudgment was given this Term by the whole Court for the Plaintiff viz. Hale Chief Justice Twisden Rainsford and Wild. And First They all held that as the pleading was in this case there could be no Apportionment of the Rent for when there is to be an Apportionment either the Jury shall do it upon nil debet pleaded or the Defendant may in his pleading set forth the value of the Land and to what the Apportionment shall be Hale said if the Lessee redemise part to the Lessor reserving a Rent there shall be no Apportionment for the parties by the Reservation have ascertained what Rent shall be allowed for that part but where there is no Rent reserved upon the Redemise there shall be an Apportionment but if part be assigned by the Lessee to a Stranger who Assigns it to the Lessor and the Lessee had reserved no Rent in that case there shall be no Apportionment for the Lessor comes under the benefit of the Strangers Contract And Hale resembled it to the Case of Lord and Tenant by an entire Service if such Tenant aliens part the Service is multiplied and after it be conveyed to the Lord the entire Service still remains upon the Tenant that holds the residue A Rent upon a Lease is not within the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum yet in many Cases there shall be an apportionment at Common Law If the Lessor enters into part by Wrong this shall suspend the whole Rent for in such case he shall not so apportion his
own Wrong as to enforce the Lessee to pay any thing for the residue Otherwise of a Rightful Entry into part as in the Case at Bar. 'T is true in Ascough's Case in the 9 Co. 't is said a Rent cannot be suspended in part and in esse for part And so in the 4 Co. Rawlin's Case it is held That the whole Rent is suspended where part is Redemised to the Lessor But the Court observed that the Resolution of that Point was not necessary to the Judgment given in that Case which was upon the Extinguishment of the Condition which is entire and not to be apportioned But as to the Rent no Book was found to warrant such an Opinion but Brook tit Extinguishment 48. where 't is said If there be Lord and Tenant by three Acres and the Tenant lets one to the Lord for years the whole Rent is suspended This Case is not found in the Book at large An in 7 Ed. 3. 56 57. where a Formedon was brought of a Rent-Service issuing out of three Acres and as to one Acre it was pleaded that the Demandant himself was Sole seised and concluded Judgment of the Writ But it was Ruled to be a Plea to the Action for so much and to the rest the Tenant must answer which is a full Authority that in such case the Rent is to be apportioned And the Case of Dorrell and Andrews Rolls tit Extinguishment 938. is full in the Point That where Lessee for years let ts at Will which Lessee Licenses the Lessor to enter that the Entry of the Lessor thereupon shall not suspend his Rent For Hale said Tho' it might be Objected that in regard the Lessee at Will cannot lett the Entry of the Lessor thereupon might be a Disseisin but that is ever at the Election of the Lessor And if that were now the Question perhaps the Lessor cannot take such an Entry for a Desseisin It is the Common Experience that where it comes to be tryed upon Nil debet if it be shewn that the Lessor entred into part to Answer this by proving it was the Lease of the Lessee and if the Law should not go upon this difference it would shake abundance of Rents it being a frequent thing for a Lessor to Hire a Room or other part of the thing demised for his Conveniency Hale said That a Case of a Lease for years was stronger than a Lease for Life where the remedy is by Assize and the Tenants of the Land out of which the Rent issues are to be named And for a Condition that must be extinct where part of the thing Demised comes to the Lessor because 't is annexed to such a Rent in quantity For if the Rent be diminished the Condition must fail Holland versus Ellis IN Trespass Quare clausum fregit herbas conculc ' diversas carectat ' tritici ibid ' asportavit After Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Declaration did not mention whose the Loads of Wheat were for it was not ibid. crescent ' Adjornatur Resolved per Cur ' That an Inquisition before the Coroner taken super visum corporis that finds that the Person was Felo de se non compos mentis may be traversed But the fugam fecit in an Inquisition before the Coroner cannot be traversed Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 27 28 Car. II. In Banco Regis The Earl of Leicesters Case IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case was to this effect Robert Earl of Leicester in the .. of Eliz. levied a Fine of the Lands in question to the use of the Earl of Pembrook and his Heirs for payment of his Debts reserving a Power to himself to Revoke by any Writing Indented or by his last Will subscribed with his Hand and sealed with his Seal And sometime after he Covenants by a Writing Sealed and Subscribed as aforesaid to Levy a Fine to other uses and after the Covenant a Fine was levied accordingly And whether this should be taken as a Revocation and so an execution of the Power and the extinguishment of it was the Question It was Argued by Jones Attorney General that this should not be taken as a Revocation In Powers of Revocation there is to be considered the Substance and the Circumstance and that which Revokes must be defective in neither The Deed alone in this Case cannot revoke for tho' it has the Circumstance limited viz. Indenting Writing Sealing Subscribing yet it wants Substance for it doth nothing in praesenti but refers to a future Act viz. the Fine If a man has made his Will a Covenant after that he will levy a Fine or a Charter of Feoffment made will not be a Revocation of the Will 1 Roll. 615. yet there appeared an intention to Revoke and less matter will Revoke a Will than a Deed. Again the Fine alone cannot Revoke because it is defective in the Circumstances contained in the Power but then to consider them both together how can it be conceived that the Fine should communicate Substance to the Deed or the Deed give Circumstances to the Fine But 't is Objected That they make but one Conveyance I Answer If so then the words of the Power here are to Revoke by Deed and not by Deed and Fine Again This Construction is repugnant to the words of the Power which are That it shall be lawful for him to Revoke by his Deed And yet it is agreed here that the Deed of it self is not sufficient to revoke but only in respect of another Act done which as it must be observed is executed at another time The Books agree that a Condition or Power c. may be annexed to an Estate by a distinct Deed from that which conveys the Estate but not unless both are Sealed and Delivered at the same time and so they are but as one Deed But in the present Case the Deed was made in one year and the Fine levied in another Suppose the Power to be with such Circumstances as in our Case and a Deed is made which contains some of them at one time and another Deed comprehending the rest of another time Should both these make a Revocation is one Deed Surely not Again Suppose the Fine had been Levied first and then afterwards such Deed had declared the Uses surely the Power had been extinguished by the Fine tho' there the Fine and Deed might be taken as one Conveyance as well as here Again the different natures of these Instruments makes that they cannot be taken as one entire Act within the Power for the Covenant is the Act of the party and the Fine the Act or Iudgment of the Court. But it has been Objected That this ought to have a favourable Construction I Answer But not so as to dispence with that Form the Execution of the Power is limited to be done by In the 6 Co. 33. Powers that are to divest an Estate out of another person are
taken strictly and here upon the first Fine the Earl of Leicester had no Estate left in him Mich. 6 Car. 1. in Communi Banco the Case of Ingram and Parker which tho' it may not be a clear Authority for me yet I am sure it does not make against me The Case was Catesby levied a Fine to the use of himself in Tail with Remainders over reserving a Power to himself and his Son to Revoke by Deed c. as in our Case and his Son after his decease by Deed intended to be Enrolled conveyed to one and his Heirs and after levied a Fine and it was held no Revocation First Because he having an Estate Tail in him the Deed might operate upon his Interest Secondly Because it was but an inchoation of a Conveyance and not perfected and they held it no Revocation and that the Fine levied after tho' intended to be to the Vses of the Deed yet should extinguish the Power Hale Chief Justice Vpon the close and nice putting of the Case this may seem to be no Revocation for 't is clear that neither the Deed nor Fine by it self can revoke but quae non valent singula juncta prosunt The Case of Kibbett and Lee in Hob. 312. treads close upon this Case where the Power was to Revoke by Writing under his Hand and Seal and delivered in the presence of three Witnesses and that then and from thenceforth the Uses should cease It was there Resolved that a Devise of the Lands by Will with all the Circumstances limited in the Power should Revoke yet the Delivery was one of the Circumstances and the Uses were to cease then and from thenceforth Whereas a Will which could have not effect while his Death did strongly import that the meaning was to do it by Deed and yet there the Will alone could be no Revocation for clearly he might have made another Will after and so required other Matter viz. his Death to compleat it And in that Case there is another put That if a Deed of Revocation had been made and the party had declared it should not take place until 100 l paid there the operation of it would have been in suspence until the 100 l paid and then it would have been sufficient yet there it had been done by several Acts and of several Natures the Intention in things of this nature mainly governs the Construction In Terries Case it was Ruled That if A. makes a Lease for years to B. and then Levies a Fine to him to the end that he might be Tenant to the Praecipe for the suffering of a Recovery that after the Recovery suffered his Lease should revive 'T is true in the Case at Bar if the Fine had been levied first and then the Deed of Uses made afterwards the Power had been extinguished by the Fine and so no Revocation of that which had no being could have been by the Deed. Twisden What if before the Fine levied the Intent had been declared to that purpose Hale I doubt whether that would have helped it I cannot submit to the Opinion in Parker and Ingrams Case cited viz. That the Deed not being Enrolled should make no Revocation For in case of a Power to make Leases for life it has been always held by the best Advice that the better way is to do it by Deed without Livery tho' Livery by the Common Law is incident to a Lease for life and so Adjudged in Rogers's Case for Lands in Blandford forum in Moor's Rep. where Tenant for life hath power to make Leases for life and makes a Lease by Livery 't is there held a Forfeiture tho' I conceived not because by the Deed the Lease takes effect and so the Livery comes too late Therefore the omission of Enrolling the Deed in that case does not seem to be material but if that Opinion be to be maintained it is because the party had such an Interest upon which the Deed might enure without Execution of his Power and so rather construed to work upon his Interest But that Reason does not satisfie because such an Estate as was intended to be conveyed could not be derived out of his Interest therefore it should take effect by his Power according to Clere's Case in the 6 Co. So by the whole Court here the Deed and Fine taken together were Resolved to be a good Execution of the Power and Judgment given accordingly Richardson versus Disborow A Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court where the Suit was for a Legacy and the Defendant pleaded That there was nothing remaining in his hands to pay it and that he had fully Administred And producing but one Witness to prove it Sentence was given against him and after he Appealed and because their Court gave no regard to a single Testimony he prays a Prohibition But it was urged on the other Side That it being a Matter within their Cognizance they might follow the Course of their own Law And tho' there are diversities of Opinions in the Books about this Matter yet since 8 Car. 1. Prohibitions have been been denied upon such a Surmize Hale Where the Matter to be proved which falls in incidently in a Cause before them is Temporal they ought not to deny such Proof as our Law allows and it would be a great Mischief to Executors if they should be forced to take two Witnesses for the payment of every petit Sum And if they should after their Death there would be the same Inconvenience In Yelv. 92. a Prohibition was granted upon the not admitting of One Witness to prove the Revocation of a Will Which is a stronger Case because that entirely is of Ecclesiastical Cognizance Wherefore let there go a Prohibition and let the party if he please Demur upon the Declaration upon the Attachment Hob. 188. 1 Cro. 88. Popham 59. Latch 117. Pigot versus Bridge IN Debt upon a Bond Conditioned for performance of Covenants and the Breach assigned was in the not quietly enjoying the Land demised unto him The Defendant pleads that the Lease was made to hold from Michaelmas 1661 to Michaelmas 1668 and that paying so much Rent Half yearly he was to Enjoy quietly and shews that he did not pay the last half years Rent ending at Michaelmas 1668. To which the Plaintiff Demurred supposing that the words being to Michaelmas 1668. there was not an entire Half year the Day being to be excluded and that it was so held in the Case of Umble and Fisher in the 1 Cro. 702. Cur ' contra 'T is true in pleading usque tale Festum will exclude that Day but in case of a Reservation the Construction is to be governed by the Intent Anonymus NOte per Hale Debt doth not lye against the Executor of an Executor upon a Surmize of a Devastavit by the first Executor For First 'T is a Personal Tort for which his Executor cannot be charged Secondly 'T is such an Action of Debt as would
Trover inter al' de uno Instrumento ferreo Anglicè an Iron Range After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that Instrumentum ferreum was too uncertain and that a Range was the same with a Grate for which Crates was a proper Latin word Sed non allocatur For Crates is such a Grate as is before a Prison But a Fire Range was not in use in the Romans time and therefore Instrumentum ferreum is well enough with the Anglicè Twisden said Trover de septem libris has been held good without saying what they were Blackman's Case IT was assigned for Error that the Venire was to Summon probos legales homines instead of liberos and so a material Variance and alledged that many Judgments had been Reversed for it But the Court here being informed that the Presidents were generally probos instead of liberos would not allow the Exception The King versus Armstrong Harrison al' c. THey and others were Indicted for Conspiring to Charge one with the Keeping of a Bastard Child and thereby also to bring him to Disgrace After Verdict for the King it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the bare Conspiring without Executing of it by some Overt act was not subject to Indictment according to the Poulterers Case in the 9 Co. And it doth not appear that he was actually Charged with the Keeping of a Child nay 't is alledged 't was but a pretended Child neither was he by Warrant brought before a Justice of Peace upon such an account but only that they went and affirmed it to the party himself intending to obtain Money from him that it might be no further disclosed Sed non allocatur For there was as much Overt act as the nature and design of this Conspiracy did admit in regard there was no Child really but only a Contrivance to Defame the Person and Cheat him of his Money which was a Crime of a very heinous nature Then it was alledged That this was tryed at the Old-Baily commonly called Justice-Hall in London and the Jury came de Warda de Faringdon extra London which appeared to be out of the Iurisdiction Sed non allocatur For the Name of the Ward is Faringdon extra to distinguish it from Faringdon infra but both are known to be in London Whereupon Judgment was Entred up against them and Armstrong which appeared to be the principal Offender was Fined 50 l and the other 30 l Burrough's Case HE and others were Indicted for that they being Church-wardens Overseers of the Poor and a Constable did contemptuously and voluntarily neglect to Execute diversa Praecepta Watranta directed to them by the Bayliffs of Ipswich being Justices of the Peace under their Hands and Seals c. It was moved to quash it for that the nature and tenour of the Warrants were not expressed in the Indictment For unless the parties know particularly what they are charged with they cannot tell how to make their Defence And for that Reason it was quashed by the Court. Note The Court never gives Costs for not Executing of a Writ of Enquiry of Damages tho' Notice be given Anonymus AN Indictment of Forcible Entry into certain Lands in the possession of J.S. was quashed for not shewing what Estate J.S. had and tho' the word Disseisivit were in the Court held that tho' that might be taken to imply a Freehold yet it was not sufficient Vid. Mo. 481. And another was quashed because it was said possessed pro termino But the Court held that if it had been pro termino annorum tho' not said for how many years it had been well Note A Bayliff caught one by the Hand whom he had a Warrant to Arrest as he held it out of a Window And the Court said that this was such a Taking of him that the Bayliff might justifie the breaking open of the House to Carry him away Kent versus Harpool AN Ejectment The Case came hither by a Writ of Error out of the Kings-Bench in Ireland and divers Points were in it which concerned the Act for Settlement of Lands in Ireland But the Case was as to the great Point at Common Law to this effect Father Tenant for Life Remainder to the Son for Life Remainder to first Son of that Son who was not born Remainder to the Heirs of the Body of the Father the Father died before the first Son was born and Whether the Descent of the Entail to the Son did prevent the Contingent Remainder was the Question It was Argued that it did not because the Inheritance came to the Son by Act in Law And the Opinion in Cordal's Case in the 1 Cro. 315. was cited the great Reason in Chudley's Case and other Cases wherein Contingent Remainders have been held to be destroyed was for the preventing of Perpetuities which would have been let in if Contingent Remainders had been preserved whatever Act had been done by those which had the Actual Estate But there is no such necessity of making the life Construction upon Acts in Law If Lessee for years makes the Lessor Executor the Term is not drowned But if the Executor that hath a Lease purchases the Inheritance the Term is gone because it is his own act but in the other Case the Law shall not work that which must be construed a Devastavit In Lewis Bowles's Case in the 11 Co. and Co. Litt. where there is an Estate for Life Remainder to the first Son Remainder in Fee to the Tenant for Life the Estates at first close and open again upon the Birth of the first Son which should take the Remainder And so it may be here But the Court seemed to be of Opinion that the Contingent Remainder was destroyed by the Descent of the Estate Tail And Rainsford Chief Justice relyed upon Wood and Ingersol's Case in the 2 Cro. 260. where a Devise was to the first Son for Life Remainder to the Son which should survive and there three Judges against one held that the descent of the Fee upon the first Son prevented the Contingent Remainder to the Survivor Et Adjornatur Note In Lewis Bowle's Case the Estates were united at the first upon making of the Conveyance Smith versus Tracy IN a Prohibition the Case was One died Intestate and whether his Brother of the Half-blood should come in for Distribution upon the new Statute of 22 23 Car. 2. cap. 10. was the Question It was Argued that the Half blood should have no share for the Words are The next of Kindred to the Dead person in equal Degree which the Half-blood is not The Words likewise are Those which legally represent their Stocks and that must be intended in an Act of Parliament such as the Common Law makes to be Representatives and not the Civil Law For then it would be that the Bastard eigne should come in for Distribution For their Rule is that subsequens matrimonium facit
should be informed what their course is and has been and therefore let us hear the Civilians as to this point Post The King and Marlow THe Defendant being a Printer was indicted for his second Offence for Printing of a Seditious Book contrary to the Act of 14 Car. 2. cap. 33. and being found Guilty at the Sessions of the Old Baily the Iudgment was given That he should be for ever disabled to exercise the Art or Mistery of Printing and pay 20 l Fine and to stand in the Pillory And a Writ of Error was brought and Errors were assigned in the Judgment as varying from the words of the Act. For First The Act is That he should be disabled to exercise the Art and Mistery of Printing or Founding of Letters And the Judgment is only to disable him from Printing Secondly The Act is That he shall receive such further punishment by Fine Imprisonment or other Corporal Punishment And the Judgment is both for a Fine and Corporal Punishment when it ought not to be for both Curia The first is as it should be for Printing and Founding of Letters are two distinct Trades and the words are to be taken respectively to such Trade as the Defendant is of Again 't is a Rule that a Man shall not Assign an Error in that which is for his advantage But the second was held an Error for that the Act did not intend a Fine and Corporal Punishment both and therefore the Judgment was reversed Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 29 Car. II. In Banco Regis Davis versus Price IN Error upon a Judgment in the Common Bench in an Action of Trover where Iudgment was given by default The Error was assigned in the Declaration which was de decem Juvencis Anglice Bullocks and Heifers and not said how many of one and of the other But it was answered that the Latin word being proper and of known signification the Anglice was void according to Osborns Case 10 Co. But the Court reversed the Judgment and cited the Case before in this Court Trover de viginti ovibus matricibus agnis And it was resolved to be naught for not ascertaining the number of each But Twisden said there was a Trover brought de Viginti averiis ivz. Bobus agnis c. and Viginti was applied to each Species and held well It was offered in this case to distinguish it from the case de Ovibus matricibus agnis that there the Latin was of two sorts Sed non allocatur for the words here being Equivocal it was all one Dutton versus Pool AN Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That his Wives Father being seized of certain Lands now descended to the Defendant and about to cut a Thousand pounds worth of Timber off from the said Lands to raise a Portion for his said Daughter the Defendant promised to the Father in Consideration that he would forbear to fell the Timber that he would pay the said Daughter 1000 l After Verdict upon Non Assumpsit for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Father ought to have brought this Action and not the Husband and Wife and there was a case shewn to be adjudged in the Common Bench Hillary 23 and 24 Car. 2. Rot. 1538. between Pine and Norris where the Son promised the Father that in Consideration that he would Surrender a Copyhold to him that he would pay a certain Sum to his Sister for which she brought the Action and then held that it would lie for none but the Father for where the Party to whom the Promise is to be performed is not concerned in the meritorious cause of it he cannot bring the Action But if a Promise were to a Man that if his Daughter should Marry his Son he would give her 1000 l there because the Daughter does the Act which is the Consideration she may bring the Action On the contrary the Case was cited 1 Rolls 32. Starkey and Miln where in Consideration of certain Goods sold the Promise was to pay part of the Money to another there that other might bring the Action And it differs from the case where Money is delivered to A. to pay over to B. B. may bring Debt Yelv. 24. If the Father had in the Case at Bar cut the Trees And the Son had said Let me have the Trees and I will pay the Daughter so much that had been the same with the Case before cited 1 Roll. and it doth not seem to differ as it is 1 Cro. 163. Rookwook Case where the Father being about to charge the Land with a Rent of 4 l per Annum to his Younger Sons the Eldest promised that if he would forbear to charge the Land he would pay the 4 l per Annum and the Sons upon this brought the Assumpsit and recovered Sed vide librum that Promise is said expresly to be made to the Sons who were present Vid. 1 Cro. 619.652 Levett and Haws Case where the Promise was made to a Man in Consideration that he had agreed that his Son should Mary his Daughter and to settle such a Joynture upon her that he would give the Son 200 l with her and for this the Father brought the Action and held well brought tho' the Court seemed to incline that the Son might also have brought it And the Court here inclined for the Plaintiffs Sed Adjornatur Post Saunders versus Williams IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff Declared that he was seised in Fee of one Acre and possessed for a certain number of years in another Acre and had a Common in Black-acre for Beasts levant and couchant thereupon and that the Defendant put his Beasts in the place and disturbed him The Defendant pleaded a Title of Common to himself also there Vpon which Issue was joyned and found for the Plaintiff and it was now moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff had made no Title to the Common by Prescription or otherwise Sed non allocatur The Defendant being a Wrong-doer And the same Matter was Adjudged in the Court between St. John and Moody St. Mich. 27 Car. 2. quod vide ante and in the 2 Cro. 43.122 3 Cro. 500. Robinson versus Woolly THe Case was this Term Argued again And Holt Argued That the Induction tho' executed by the Archdeacon after the New Bishop was Consecrated was sufficient The Bishop is only to Admit and Institute and to send a Mandate to the Archdeacon to Induct who is to do it de communi Jure and therefore if the Bishop hath Admitted and Instituted and made a Mandate for Induction 't is a sufficient Excuse for him in a Quare impedit 11 H. 4. 9. for the Bishop is meerly a Spiritual Officer A Prebendary is to be Inducted by the Dean and Chapter Pl. Com. 529. But 't is Objected That the Archdeacon does not Induct ex Officio â—ut a Mandate from the Bishop is requisite scilicet First The
the Suit against one alone ought not to be as in an Assize for a Rent-charge all the Ter-Tenants are to be named and here the party has an Election to Sue a Writ of Annuity and if so be must have named all that had been chargeable Curia 'T is true in our Law it were a good Plea in Abatement but perhaps their Law and Course is otherwise And here they have Jurisdiction and may proceed according to their own Rules or if not you may have an Appeal Whereupon a Prohibition was denied Anonymus IN an Habeas Corpus and Certiorari for the Body of J. S. who had been Imprisoned for not paying of a Fine of 20 l set at the Quarter Sessions The Return was that he being Constable and demanded by the Court to Present an High-way which was sworn before him by Two Witnesses to be out of Repair said in Contempt of the Court That he would not Present it For which and certain other contemptuous words the Fine was set The Counsel for the Prisoner moved that it might be Filed Which was done The Court were of Opinion that the Fine was not well set for Constables are to Present upon their own Knowledge and the Two Witnesses should have been carried to the Grand Jury for the Constable was not obliged to Present upon their Testimony This Court is to judge of their Fines whether without Cause or to mitigate them when excessively imposed and for the Contemptuous Words the Return is ill because not expressed what On the other side it was prayed that the Return might be amended for he had spoken Opprobious Words but that could not be admitted after the Filing And so the party was discharged Anonymus IT was moved to quash an Order of Sessions for the Keeping of a Bastard Child First That it doth not appear that the Child was born within the Parish Secondly 'T is to allow so much Weekly until the Child is Eight years of Age whereas the Statute gives power to make a Weekly allowance while the Child shall be chargeable Thirdly The Order was at Eight years old to pay 5 l for the Binding of it out But the Court would not quash it for they said it was implied by saying it would be chargeable to the Parish that it was born there and 't was apparent it would continue Chargeable for so long as they appointed the Allowance and they might Order 5 l to be paid in the end Sed Quaere For a Sum in gross ought not to be set but a Weekly allowance And the Court said they must shew that respect to Justices of the Peace who served the Country at their own charge as not too nicely to examine their Orders Anonymus ERror upon a Judgment by Nihil dicit given in the Common Pleas where the Action was for Words which in the Declaration were laid thus That the Defendant said Quidam J. S. which was the Plaintiffs Name innuendo the Plaintiff was c. The Error assigned was that there was no Averment that these Words were spoke of the Plaintiff for there might be more of the name But Holt for the Defendant said the Innuendo would help that fault and he cited the Case of Rebotham and Venlecke in the 3 Cro. 378. where the Plaintiff Declared that he had made an Oath before a Judge upon certain Articles exhibited for the Good Behaviour and the Defendant to Scandalize him said He made a false Oath Innuendo the said Oath before the Judge where it was held that the Innuendo was sufficient to ascertain what Oath was meant But the Court Reversed the Judgment in this Case and said that not saying in the Declaration that the Words were spoken of the Plaintiff it was not sufficient to bring that in by an Innuendo which ought to have been Averred and it is the worse because 't is said quidam J.S. which imports another person than the Plaintiff Anonymus ERror to Reverse a Judgment given in the Kings-Bench in Ireland in a Prohibition where the Issue was Whether he had Prosecuted in the Court Christian after the Prohibition and it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages assessed to 100 l and 6 d pro misis custagiis And now the Error was assigned in the Judgment given which was That the Plaintiff should recover damna praedicta per Juratores assess ad 100 l nec non pro misis custagiis de incremento per Cur ' adjudicat ' 20 l omitting the 6 d Costs given by the Jury On the other side it was said That damna praedicta in the Judgment included all and the saying 100 l was but a Miscomputation Et Adjornatur Postea Hill 33 34 Car. 2. How versus Whitfield A Fine of certain Lands to the use of J. S. for Life and after to his Executors and Assigns for 80 years with Power to the Lessee and his Assigns to lett Leases for 21 years reserving the ancient Rent After several mean Assignments the Assignee of an Executor of an Assignee made a Lease for 21 years which in the Special Verdict was found to be made of the said Lands inter alia reserving proinde six shillings per annum and found that six shillings was the ancient yearly Rent for the Land The Court seemed to be of opinion that an Assignee after so many Removes might execute this Power for it was coupled with an Interest and annexed to the Estate tho' to be construed strictly but in regard the Lease was made of the Land inter alia reserving proinde c. in case the Reservation should be taken to be for the whole Land then it was not the ancient Rent reserved for this and upon that they doubted Et Adjornatur Postea Anonymus AN Indictment was quashed for want of Addition For the Court said no Process ought to go out thereupon because the party cannot be Outlawed Anonymus IN an Habeas Corpus the Return was that the party was taken upon an Excom ' Cap ' It was moved that the party might be discharged because upon Search it appeared that the Writ had not been Enrolled in this Court for so it ought to be by the Statute of the 5th of the Queen tho' the Writ issues out of Chancery The Court doubted whether they could Discharge him upon a Motion or that he should be driven to plead this Matter And it was said the Course had been both ways Vid. Parker's Case 3 Cro. 553. But the party was afterwards Discharged ut opinor Herne versus Brown A Prohibition was prayed to a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court The Libel sets out That a Tax had been made for the Repairs of a Church where the Defendant inhabited and was to make him pay his proportion To which they required his Answer viz. Whether he had paid c. The Suggestion was that the party had tendred his Answer but the Court had refused it because it was not upon Oath and that the Ecclesiastical Court
cannot tender an Oath to the party sued nisi in causis Matrimonialibus Testamentariis But the Court after hearing divers Arguments denied the Prohibition for they said It was no more than the Chancery did to make Defendants answer upon Oath in such like Cases Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 31 Car. II. In Banco Regis How versus Whitfield ante in ult ' Term. IN Repl the Plaintiff declares of the taking of his Cattle in a Close containing five Acres The Defendant avows and sets forth a Fine to the use of A. in Tail which discended to him Virtute cujus he was seised in Dominico ut de feodo talliato c. The Plaintiff Replies that the Fine was first to the use of J. S. for Life the Remainder to his Executors Administrators and Assigns for 80 years with Power to him and his Assigns to lett the five Acres in Possession or Reversion for 21 years determinable upon three Lives reserving the ancient Rent and that J. S. Devised this Term to J. N. and died his Executors assented and after it came to the Executors of J. N. who assigned it and that the Assignee made a Lease of the said five Acres inter alia reserving proinde the Rent of 6 s per annum and avers that the ancient Rent was 6 s per annum The Avowant Rejoyns setting forth his former Title And the Plaintiff Demurrs It was Objected First That the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the Seisin in Tail alledged by the Avowant seeing in his Replication he sets forth and intitles himself under an Estate inconsistent with it To this it was Answered and the Court agreed that there ought to be no Traverse for the Avowant doth not say it was his Freehold or that he was Seised in Tail but only under a Virtute cujus c. And the Plaintiff in his Replication sets forth a Title consistent with all that the Avowant alledges and so confesses and avoids and all depends upon the execution of the Power And for that Secondly It was Objected That he which made this Lease was not Assignee of J. S. for Executors were not within the Power and consequently not their Assignee This is a Power collateral to the Estate and shall not run with the Land for then Assignees of Commissioners of Bankrupcy the Vendee of the Term by the Sheriff upon an Execution c. should execute this Power It is like Covenants annexed to Leases which the Assignee could not take advantage of till 32 H. 8. Again Here appears to be no good Reservation for the Lease is of the five Acres inter al' reserving proinde so that the Rent issues out of other Lands as well as the five Acres and therefore cannot be said to be the ancient Rent reserved upon that The Court were all of Opinion that the Assignee in this case might execute the Power and conceived that Assignees might include Assignees in Law Vid. Mo. 855. as well as Fact but however the Tenant for Life devising this Term the Devisee was an Assignee and the Power in the greatest strictness of acceptation was in him and consequently must go to his Executors and by the same Reason to their Assignee As to the Reserving the Rent proinde the Court said it might be intended that the inter al' might comprehend nothing but such things out of which a Rent could not be reserved and then the six Shillings was reserved only for the five Acres However the proinde might reasonably be referred only to the five Acres and not to the inter al and that a distinct Reservation of Six shillings might be for five Acres And so Judgment was given for the Plaintiff Ante. Steed versus Berrier ERror upon a Judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas upon a Special Verdict the Case was to this effect J.S. made his Will in Writing and devised Lands to his Son J.S. and his Heirs and in the same Will gave a Legacy of 100 l to his Grandson The Son died afterwards in his Life time after whose decease J. S. the Grandfather made a Codicil wherein he gave away part of the Lands devised as aforesaid to a Stranger and afterwards declared by Parol that his Intention was that his Grandson J. S. should have the Lands which his Son J. S. should have had The Question upon this Special Verdict was Whether this were sufficient to carry the Lands to the Grandson And Judgment was given in the Common Pleas by three Judges against one that it was Whereupon a Writ of Error was brought in this Court Finch Solicitor Argued that this Will was sufficient to carry it to the Grandson He agreed Brett and Ridgen's Case in Pl. Com. that a Devise to a man and his Heirs who dies in the Life of the Devisor a new Publication will not be enough to make the Heir take by the Will because named in the Will by way of Limitation of the Estate and not Designation of the Person that should take But in Fuller's Case in the 1 Cro. 423. and in Mo. 2. where the Devise was to his Son Richard and the Heirs of his Body which Richard afterwards died in his Life time and then the Devisor said My Will is That the Sons of Richard my Son deceased shall have the Land devised to their Father as they should have had if their Father had lived and died after me There Popham and Fenner held that this new Publication would carry the Land to Richard's Son Gawdy and Clench contra But our Case is much stronger for there Heirs of the Body were used only for Limitation but in the Will here where the words are I Devise to my Son J. with this new Publication the Grandson J. may take because a Grandson is a Son and when a Will is new Published it is all one as if it were wrote at the time of such Publication Beckford and Parncot's Case in the 1 Cro. 493. Mo. 404. Devise of all his Lands and after the Will the Devisor purchaseth other Lands and then publishes it again it will carry the new purchased Lands Dyer 149. Trevanian's Case Cestuy que use before the 27th of H. 8. Devised the Lands a new Publication will pass the Lands executed in him by the Statute The Opinion of the Court inclined to Reverse the Judgment they held it to be the same with Fuller's Case in the 1 Cro. that no Parol averment can carry Lands to one person when the words of the Will plainly intended them to another They agreed If a man having no Son but a Grandson deviseth his Lands to his Son the Grandson may take But here is an opposition contained in the new Publication viz. Those Lands which my Son J. should have had my meaning is my Grandson J. shall have And in the Will it self there is a Legacy devised to the Grandson by that Name so where they are so distinguished 't is impossible to take the Grandson to be
makes a Lease for the Life of the Lessee not warranted by the Statute and dies leaving B. in Remainder his Heir B. let ts for 99 years to commence after the death of the Tenant for Life reserving Rent and then the Tenant for Life surrenders to B. upon Condition and dies B. suffers a Recovery with single Voucher and dies the Lessee for years enters the Heir of B. distrains for the Rent and the Lessee brings a Replevin and upon an Avowry and Pleadings thereupon this Case was disclosed to the Court of Common Bench and Judgment given there for the Avowant and Error thereupon brought in this Court For the Plaintiff in the Error it was Argued That the Lease being derived out of a Reversion in Fee which was Created in A. upon the Discontinuance for Life and the New Fee vanishing by the Surrender of the Tenant for Life for it was urged he was in his Remitter altho' the taking of the Surrender was his own Act that the Lease for years by consequence was become void Again It was Objected against the Common Recovery that the Tenant in Tail and a Stranger which had nothing in the Estate were made Tenants to the Praecipe and therefore no good Recovery Again In case B. were not remitted after acceptance of the Surrender then he was Seised by force of the Tail and so no good Recovery being with single Voucher On the other side it was Argued to be no Remitter because the acceptance of the Surrender was his own Act and the Entry was taken away But admitting it were a Remitter because by the Surrender the Estate for Life which was the Discontinuance was gone and it was no more than a Discontinuance for Life For if Tenant in Tail letts for Life and after grants the Reversion in Fee if the Lessee for Life dies after the Death of the Tenant in Tail so that the Estate was not executed in the Grantee during the Life of the Tenant in Tail the Heir shall immediately Enter upon the Grantee of the Reversion Co. Litt. It seems also to be stronger against the Remitter in this case because 't is not Absolute but only Conditional However the Lease may be good by Estoppel for it appears to have been by Indenture and if the Lessor cannot avoid the Lease the Lessee shall without question be subject to the Rent But it was Objected against the Estoppel that here an Interest passes and the Lease was good for a time As if the Lessee for Ten years makes a Lease for Twenty years and afterwards purchaseth the Reversion it shall bind him for no more than Ten. To which Pemberton Chief Justice said The difference is where the party that makes the Estate has a legal Estate and where a Defeasible Estate only for in the latter a Lease may work by Estoppel tho' an Interest passed so long as the Estate out of which the Lease was derived remained undefeated As to the Recovery it was held clearly good altho' a Stranger that had nothing in the Land was made Tenant to the Praecipe with the Tenant in Tail for the Recompence in Value shall go to him that lost the Estate and being a Common Assurance 't is to be favourably Expounded Et Adjornatur Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 33 34 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Error upon a Judgment in Ejectione Firmae in the Common Pleas where the Case was That the Bishop of London was seized injure Episcopatus of a Mannor of which the Lands in question were held and time out of mind were demised and demisable by Copy of Court Roll for Life in Possession and Reversion and J.S. being Copyholder for Life in Reversion after an Estate for Life in Ann Pitt and J.N. being seized of the Mannor by Disseisin J.S. at a Court holden for the Mannor in the name of J. N. surrendred into the Hands of the said J.N. the Disseisor Lord to the used of the said Lord. Afterwards the Bishop of London entred and avoided the Disseisin Ann Pitt died and an Ejectment was brought by J. S. And it was adjudged in the Common Bench that he had a good Title and now upon a Writ of Error in this Court the Matter in Law was insisted upon by Pollexfen for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error That this Surrender to the Disseisor Lord to the Lords own use was good for all the Books agree a Copyholder may Surrender to a Disseisor of the Mannor to the use of a Stranger and why not to the Lords own use As if Lessee for years be ousted and he in Reversion disseised and the Lessee Releases to the Disseisor this extinguishes his Term. Here is a compleat Disseisin of the Mannor by Attornment of the Freeholders without which the Services cannot be gained and the Copyholders comeing to the Disseisors Court and by making Surrenders c. owning him for their Lords tantamounts Serjeant Maynard contra And he insisted that this Surrender was not good for the Disseisor had no Estate in this Land capable of a Surrender for the Copyholder for Life continuing in Possession and never having been ousted there could be no Disssesin of that And he endeavoured to distinguish it from a Surrender to a Disseisor Lord to the use of another for in such Surrenders the Lord is only an Instrument and does but as it were assent and until admittance the Estate is in the Surrenderer And he resembled it to the Attornment of a Tenant when è converso a Seigniory is granted and he put Cases upon Surrenders of Leases that they must be to one that hath the immediate Reversion as an under Lessee for part of the Term cannot Surrender to the first Lessor and he cited a Case of Lessee for years Remainder for Life Remainder in Fee to a Stranger he that had the Fee enfeoffed the Tenant for years by Deed and made Livery and the Conveyance held void for it could not work by Livery to the Tenant for years who was in Possession before and a Surrender it could not be because of the intermediate Estate for Life and it could not work as a Grant for want of Attornment He said it had been commonly received that a Common Recovery cannot be suffered where the Tail is expectant upon an Estate for Life not made Tenant to the Praecipe which he said was true in a Writ of Entry in the Post which are commonly used And the true reason is because such Writ supposes a Disseisin which cannot be when there is a Tenant for Life in Possession But as he said a Common Recovery in such case in a Writ of Right would be good Pemberton Chief Justice said his reason of Desseisin would overthrow Surrenders to the use of a Stranger for if the Possession of the Copyholder would preserve it from a Disseisin then was it pro tempore lopped off or severed from the Mannor and then no Surrender could be at all Et Adjornatur Berry
upon the Warranty as well as the other tho' the Declaration saith knowing them to be naught yet the knowledge need not to be proved in Evidence Debt upon a Bond and a mutuatus may be joyned in one Action yet there must be several Pleas for Nil debet which is proper to the one will not serve in the Action upon the Bond. Sed Adjornatur Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 34 35 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus A Quo Warranto was brought against divers persons of the City of Worcester why they claimed to be Aldermen c. of the said Corporation The Cause came to be tried at the Bar and a Challenge was made to the Jury in behalf of the Defendants for that the Jury men were not Freeholders The Court said that for Juries within Corporate Towns it hath hath been held that the Statutes that have been made requiring that Jurymen should have so much Freehold do not extend to such places for if so there might be a failer of Justice for want of such Jurymen so qualified but then to maintain the Challenge it was said by the Common Law Jurymen were to be Freeholders But the Court overruled the Challenge but at the importunity of the Counsel they allowed a Bill of Exceptions and so a Verdict passed against the Defendants and afterwards it was moved in Arrest of Judgment upon the Point But the Court would not admit the Matter to be Debated before them tho' divers Presidents of like nature were offered because they said they had declared their Opinions before and the Redress might be upon a Writ of Error Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 35 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus A Motion for a Prohibition to a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Churchwarden's Rate suggesting that they had pleaded That it was not made with the Consent of the Parishioners and that the Plea was refused The Court said That the Churchwardens if the Parish were Summoned and refused to meet or make a Rate might make one alone for the Repairs of the Church if needful because that if the Repairs were neglected the Churchwardens were to be Cited and not the Parishioners and a Day was given to shew Cause why there should not go to a Prohibition Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 35 Car. II. In Banco Regis Gamage's Case ERror out of the Court of the Grand Sessions where in an Ejectment the Case was upon Special Verdict upon the Will of one Gamage who devised his Lands in A. to his Wife for Life Item his Lands in B. to his Wife for Life and also his Lands which he purchased of C. to his Wife for Life and after the decease of his Wife he gave the said Lands to one of his Sons and his Heirs And the Question was Whether the Son should have all the Lands devised to the Wife or only those last mentioned And it was Adjudged in the Grand Sessions that all should pass And upon Error brought it was Argued that they were Devises to the Wife in distinct and separate Sentences and therefore his said Lands should be referred only to the last On the other side it was said that the word Said should not be referred to the last Antecedent but to all If a man conveys Land to A. for Life Remainder to B. in Tail Remainder to C. in forma praedict ' the Gift to C. is void 1 Inst 20. b. It is agreed if he said All the said Lands to his Son and his heirs it would have extended to the whole This is the same because Indefinitum equipollet universali Et Adjornatur Herring versus Brown IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case was Tenant for Life with several Remainders over with a Power of Revocation Levied a Fine and then by a Deed found to be Sealed ten Days after declared the Vses of the Fine which Deed had the Circumstances required by the Power The Question in the Case was Whether the Fine had extinguished the Power It was Argued that it had not because the Deed and Fine shall be but one Conveyance and the use of a Fine or Recovery may be declared by a subsequent Deed in the 9 Co. Downam's Case And a Case was Cited which was in this Court in my Lord Hale's time between Garrett and Wilson where Tenant for Life with Remainders over had a Power of Revocation and by a Deed under his Hand and Seal Covenanted to levy a Fine and declared it should be to certain Vses and afterwards the Fine was Levied accordingly This was held to be a good execution of the Power and limitation of the new Vses and the Deed and Fine taken as one On the other side it was Argued That the Deed was but an Evidence to what Vses the Fine was intended and the Power was absolutely revoked by the Fine Suppose he in Remainder had Entred for the Forfeiture before this Deed should the Defendant have defeated his Right Et Adjornatur Postea Hodson versus Cooke IN an Action upon the Case for commencing of an Action against him in an Inferiour Court where the Cause of Action did arise out of the Jurisdiction After a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon Not Guilty it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That it was not set forth that the Defendant did know that the Place where the Action arose was out of the Jurisdiction which it would be hard to put the Plaintiff to take notice of On the other side it was said that the party ought to have a Recompence for the Inconvenience he is put to by being put to Bail perhaps in a Case where Bail is not required above and such like Disadvantages which are not in a Suit brought here and the Plaintiff ought at his peril to take notice However to help by the Verdict And of that Opinion were Jeffreys Lord Chief Justice Holloway and Walcot but Withens contra The Court said that it could not be assigned for Error in Fact that the Cause arose out of the Jurisdiction because that is contrary to the Allegation of the Record neither is the Officer punishable that executes Process in such Action but an Action lies against the party And so it was said to be resolved in a Case between Cowper and Cowper Pasch 18 Car. 2. in Scac. when my Lord Chief Baron Hale sate there Anonymus AN Indictment of Perjury for Swearing before a Justice of the Peace that J. S. was present at a Conventicle or Meeting for Religious Worship c. It was moved to quash it because it did not appear to be a Conventicle viz. That there was above the number of Five and so the Justice of the Peace had no power to take an Oath concerning it and then it could be no Perjury To which the Lord Chief Justice said That Conventicles were unlawful by the Common Law and the Justices may punish Unlawful Assemblies And he seemed to be of Opinion that a man might be
because the Intent of the parties appears that it should be so There 's no great difference between the Construction of a Deed of Uses and a Will 13 H. 7. The Wife takes an Estate for Life by Implication where the Land is devised to the eldest Son after her decease Manning and Andrew's Case in 1 Leon. 259. The Reason of these Cases is the fulfilling of the Intention of the Parties and here this Limitation cannot be made good by way of a Future Use nor by any other way but only by creating of an Estate for Life in Michael the Father by Implication and this is according to the nature of a Covenant to stand seiz'd For the Use is not to pass out of the Covenantor till the proper time for the subsequent Estate to commence As to my Lord Paget's Case 't was his Intention to have the Use during his Life And my Lord Coke was certainly very well satisfied with the Resolution in Fenwick and Mitford's Case when he wrote his Institutes for he Argued before to the contrary as appears by the Report of that Case in Moor. Rainsford Justice to the same Intent If no Use rises immediately to Ralph yet if a Use rises by the Deed so that he has the Land any way be it by discent from his Father 't is within the Conclusion of the Verdict By the scope of the Conveyance it appears that it was intended that Robert should never have his Land till Twelve hundred Pound was paid for the provision of younger Children so that if Robert should have it it would be against the Intention of Michael There are two Reasons and Grounds in Law by which we may make this Deed agree with the Intention of the Parties First Because it is in the Case of an Estate Tail ubi voluntas donatoris observari debet Secondly It is in a Conveyance setled by way of Use and in Cases of Uses the Intention of the parties ought to be pursued And this is in Case of a Use that rises by Covenant to stand seiz'd which makes the Case the stronger And I conceive this is not a void Limitation but such an one as gives an Estate to Ralph In speaking to which I shall observe what my Lord Coke in the 1 Inst 23. says viz. That so much of the Use as the Owner of the Land does not dispose of remains in him c. and so in Cownden and Clark's Case in Hob. 30. And this is the Reason of Bingham's Case 1 Co. 91. Now here when Michael Covenanted to stand seiz'd to the Vse of his Heirs Male on the Body of his second Wife begotten I conceive he shall retain the Land as parcel of his ancient Vse during his Life for non est Haeres viventis according to Archer's Case 1 Co. And that Michael shall retain an Estate for Life is prov'd by my Lord Paget's Case 1 Co. 154. Dyer 310. N. 79. 1 Co. Chudleigh's Case 129. 2 Rolls 788. 21 H. 7. 18. From my Lord Paget's Case upon which I shall rely and the other Cases it appears that were there 's a Limitation to one after the death of another the Covenantor shall retain the Land during the Life of the other and here in our Case this Estate not taking effect till after the Death of Michael he shall retain the Estate and shall be Tenant for Life of the old Vse Now the Question is Whether Ralph shall take by Discent or Purchase And I conceive this Estate for Life with the Remainder in Tail makes but one Estate Tail in Michael and that he becomes Tenant in Tail and so Ralph shall take as Heir in Tail I shall not trouble my self whether Ralph may take here as a Purchaser because in Cownden and Clark's Case in Hob. it is Resolved that he cannot take as Heir Male of the Body by Purchase because all the words are not verified in him for he is not Heir I shall rely upon the First Point That here is an Estate Tail executed in Michael For when an Estate for Life is in the Auncestor by way of Retainer and an Estate is afterwards limited to his Heirs this is within the Rule put in Shelley's Case in 1 Co. where the Auncestor takes an Estate of Freehold and by the same Conveyance an Estate is limited to his Heirs Mediately or Immediately they are Words of Limitation and not of Purchase because the Heir is part of his Father Our Case is stronger that Fenwick and Mitfords Case It s true the same Reason for that Case is not given by Anderson and More which is given by my Lord Coke More 437. There the Reason is because the Limitation to the right Heirs is merely void here Michael hath an Estate in Tail of the ancient Use therefore 't is not necessary for the Law to create an Estate for Life Obj. That this cannot be an Estate Tail executed in Michael because the Estate for Life is not by the same Limitation but by Construction of Law But my Lord Coke says in Fenwick and Mitfords Case 1 Inst 22. b. that there is no difference where the Estate is created by Law and where by the Deed. 1 Anderson 259. and the Law retaining an Estate in Michael for Life our Case is the same as if the Estate had been limited to him with the Remainder to his Heirs Male begotten on his second Wife which would be an Estate Tail executed in Michael and would have discended to Ralph Twisden Justice for the Plaintiff I hold there 's no Use raised to Ralph by this Deed. We are here in the construction of a Deed and not of a Will It may be an Estate should be raised in such a case by a Will altho' my Lord Hobart is of a contrary Opinion I agree the Case of Hodgkinson and Wood Cro. Car. 23. but it cannot be argued from thence that it shall be so in a Deed for a Devise is not to take effect till after the Death of the Devisor and then 't is apparent that he is Heir Male of his Body It hath been agreed that Heirs Male of the Body are words of purchase It is plain that Ralph cannot take as Special Heir unless by Purchase and that he cannot do because he who shall take by virtue of such a Limitation ought to be Heir as well as Issue Male and Ralph here cannot take by vertue of the Statute de Donis Conditionalibis because none can take as Special Heir but where his Ancestor took before and therefore this Limitation is utterly void To make this Limitation good divers ways have been urged First That this Deed has an operation by way of returning of the Use and it has been compared to my Lord Pagets Case which differs from it here cannot be any part of the old Use in Michael for if he hath an Estate for Life it ought to be a new Use It cannot be a returning Use for the Limitation to the Heirs Male of the Body
of Jane the second Wife is void and it cannot be returning where the Use is not setled in any Person I agree my Lord Pagets Case because there the Estate was vested in William Paget and the other Use returned by operation of Law and the Estate setled could not be divested but here the Limitation to the Heirs Males being void the ancient Use remained yet in Michael for nothing was out of him he having limited a thing which cannot be And as to a returning Use tho' all be done in an instant yet there is a priority of time in the Eye of the Law for it ought to vest first in him in Remainder and then Return but here nothing vests in the Remainder Secondly It hath béen urged That it shall be made good by Implication of Law and so shall amount to a Covenant to stand seized to the Used of the Covenantor for Life c. and the rather as it has béen said by Wild because Uses are guided by Equity But I answer we are here in case of a Deed where an Estate shall not be raised by Implication as it shall by a Will Cro. Car. Seagood ad Hone 366. A Deed differs greatly from a Will for if a Man Surrenders Copyhold Land to two equally to be divided they are joynt-Joynt-tenants but such a Devise would have made them Tenants in Common Admit in some Case an Estate shall be raised by Implication in a Deed yet it shall not be so here for it would be to the disinheriting the Heir As to the case of 13 H. 7. I agree that a Devise to the Eldest Son after the Death of the Wife gives an Estate for Life to the Wife but otherwise it would be upon such a Devise to the Younger Son for there the Eldest Son and not the Wife should have the Estate in the mean time Cro. Jac. Horton and Horton 57. We are not herein Favorabili materiâ and therefore no construction shall be made which does not appear by the words It hath béen strongly urged that this being by way of Use which is a matter of Equity shall be favoured Admit it yet it shall be guided by the Common Law for aequitas sequitur legem There never shall be a Settlement by way of Use to make one capable who is not capable by the Common Law I do not see any difference between a Feoffment to Uses and a Covenant to stand seized for if a Feoffment be made to the use of one for Life the Use shall return which is not disposed of as well as upon a Covenant to stand seized Thirdly It has been urged if these severally cannot support this Limitation yet the intention operating with the Deed will both together make an Estate for Life in Michael But I do not see his intent here to have it for Life the intention even in a Will which is much stronger ought to be collected out of the words of the Will. Cro. Car. Spirt and Bence 368. agreed by the whole Court that words in a Will ought to have an apparent intent to disinherit an Heir and here there is not any apparent intent but rather to the contrary for of some Lands Michael Covenants to stand seised to the Use of himself for Life Remainder c. but of the Lands in question he makes a difference in the Limitation And the words of the Deed are to be considered He Covenants to stand seized to the Uses mentioned declared and limited in the Deed and if Michael shall have an Estate for Life he must have it by operation of Law There was a like case between Flavil and Ventroise in the Common Pleas in which the Court was divided but the same Point came afterwards in question in the Case of Mr. Tape of Norfolk and it was adjudged to be the ancient Use And no Case can be shewn that the Law will create an Estate in the Covenantor where the Use is not vested in any Person but the ancient Use remains in him As to the Cases cited on the other side I have answered my Lord Pagets's Case already And as to my Lord Cokes Case 1 Inst 22. b. I agree the Use returns and the Son is in by discent and so it was adjudged in Fenwick and Mitfords Case there cited But the Paraphrase he makes there I do not understand It is said there when the Limitation is made to his right Heirs and right Heirs he cannot have during his Life the Law doth create an Use in him during his Life Wherefore is this said to make the Heir in by discent No doubt without this he is in by discent and so was the Iudgment in that Case for what Reason then should there be an Estate for Life raised by the Law to be merg'd by the Fee as soon as raised And there 't is said Till the future use come in Esse I do not conceive then where it is so long as the Father lives and what he means by the Future Use I do not know for it always was in Esse and never was out of the Feoffor and this was so adjudg'd in that Case of Fenwick and Mitford and not the construction of my Lord Coke And t is strange that no other Reports should mention his construction Hale Chief Justice for the Defendant If Ralph takes either by Discent from Michael or by Purchase the one way or the other answers the Verdict and the Issue is for the Defendant I shall divide the Case into two Points 1. If he takes by Discent 2. Admitting he does not If he may take by Purchase as this Case is I shall Premise two or three things First It has been agreed if an Estate for Life be raised to Michael the Remainder being to his Heirs Male of the Body of Jane his second Wife the Estate Tail is executed in him be the Estate for Life raised by Implication or express Limitation Secondly It is plain quacunque via It be rais'd that the Estate was long'd in Michael till Ralph the Son be in a capacity to take it either by Discent or Purchase for be it part of the ancient Use or a new Use it ought to be in Michael during his Life for there is nothing to bring it out of him Thirdly In all Cases touching Uses there is a great difference between a Feoffment to Uses a Covenant to stand seized and a conveyance at the Common Law If a Man by Feoffment to uses conveys Land to the use of J.S. for Life he may remit the Use to himself and the Heirs Male of his Body by the same Deed and so alter that wich was before a Fee simple and turn it into another Estate but if A. gives Land to B. for Life Remainder to A. and the Heirs Male of his Body because a Man cannot give to himself the Remainder is void for a Man cannot convey to himself by a Conveyance at the Common Law These things being premised I conceive here is an
Usage in England is that the Archbishop is Guardian of the Spiritualties in the Suffragan Diocess 225 234 Blasphemy Blasphemous Words not only an Offence to God and Religion but a Crime against the Laws State and Government and Christianity is parcel of the Laws of England 293 Bond. See Obligation What Bond a Gaoler may not take of his Prisoner 237 The Condition of a Bond or Covenant may in part be against the Common Law and stand good in the other part ibid. C. Certiorari PRisoners cannot be removed by Certiorari from a Country Gaol till the Indictment be found below 63 Lies to remove an Indictment of Manslaughter out of Wales to be Tryed in the next English County 93 So of Murder 146 Challenge What is good Cause and where Cause shall be shewn 309 Where the Kings Council shall shew Cause ibid Chancery Tryals directed out of Chancery the Course 66 Answer in a Court of Equity Evidence at Law against the Defendant 212 Churchwardens Bring Account against their Predecessor for a Bell whether it shall be said to be de bonis Ecclesiae or de bonis Parochianorum 89 Whether they may refuse to take the Oath to present and how to proceed 114. 127 General VVords to present Offenders do not extend to the Church-warden himself but relate only to the rest of the Parish 127 May make Rates themselves if the Parishioners are Summoned and refuse to meet 367 Common See Pasture Where Common is claimed for Beasts Levant and Couchant on certain Land no other Beasts ought to be put on the Common but those of the Tenant of the Land to which it is appendant or those which he takes to compester his Land 18 A Man cannot prescribe for Common by a Prescripeion that is unreasonable 21 Common apurtenent for Beasts Levant and Couchant how pleaded 54 Common in another Mans Soyl how to be claimed 383 A Commoner cannot prescribe to exclude his Lord 394 The Comencement of Commons 395 In a Title of Common for Beasts Levant and Couchant the Levancy and Couchancy is not Traversable 385. Nor material among Commoners 397 Condition What Words make a Condition what a Limitation and what Conditional Limitation 202 203 Conspiracy If one be acquitted in an Action of Conspiracy the other cannot be guilty but where one is found guilty and the other comes not in upon Process or Dyes yet Judgment shall be against the other 238 Indictment lies for Conspiring to charge with a Bastard Child and thereby also to bring him to disgrace 305 Constable See Attorney Tenant in Antient Demesne not excused from serving Constable 344 Contingency See Grant Remainder Conveyance Contingent Estates what and how destroyed 215 334 Whether a Descent in Tayl prevents a Contingent Remainder 306 Contract A Verbal Contract cannot create a Penalty to oblige the Heir 76 Conveyance The Modern VVays of Conveyancing to prevent the disappointing Contingent Estates 189 VVhere a Conveyance is good before Inrolment and where not 360 Difference between a Conveyance at Common Law and a Conveyance to Uses 373 378 Copyhold See Pasture Admittance of Tenant for years is an Admittance of him in the Remainder 260 VVether Copyholder for Life in Reversion after an Estate for Life in being can Surrender to a Lord Disseizor 359 Coroner VVhere a Melius Inquirendum shall be granted after a Coroners Inquisition super visum Corporis 182 A Coroners Inquisition that finds a person Felo de se non Compos may be Traversed 278. And quasht 352 Corporation VVhat they can do without a Deed and what not 47 48 Costs See Assault and Battery Treble Costs in an Action on the Stat. 8 H. 6. of Forcible Entry 22 Costs where payable in a VVrit of Error 88 VVhere payable by an Executor 92. and Administrator 110 116 If an Executor be sued and the Plaintiff Non-suit he shall have Costs but an Executor Plaintiff shall pay no Costs upon a Non-suit 94 Costs and Damages not to be given in an Action Popular 133 Costs de Incremento 337 362 Covenant VVhat Collateral matters shall be implied upon a Covenant 26 44 45 Thô a Covenant be made only to a Man his Heirs and Assigns yet if a Breach be in his Life time his Executors may bring the Action for Damages 176 VVhere a Covenant shall bind notwithstanding a subsequent Act of Parliament 175 176 Covenant with an Intended VVife whether discharged by subsequent Marriage 344 Courts See Jurisdiction Inferiour Courts cannot make a Continuance ad Proximam Curiam but always to a Day certain 181 Customs See Prescription To maintain a Common Key for the unlading of Goods and therefore every Vessel passing by the said Key to pay a certain Sum a void Custom as to those Vessels which did not unlade at the said Key 71 A Custom that Lands shall descend always to the Heirs Males tho' of the Collateral Line Good 88 D. Damages See Costs NOne but the Courts at Westminster can increase Damages upon View 353 Date See Lease Demurrer The old way of Demurring at the the Bar 240 Devastavit See Executor Return Devise Whether a Termor may Devise in Remainder and limit a Possibility upon a Possibility 79 To Dr. V. during his Exile from his Country what Estate passes 325 Divers parcels of Lands being devised whether these words the said Lands pass all the parcels or only the last mentioned 368 A Devise of Lands to two equally to be divided makes them Tenents in Common 376 Discents The various Kinds of Discents or Hereditary Successions and the Rules whereby they are to be governed 414 The Discent from a Brother to a Brother thô it be a Collateral Discent yet it is an immediate Discent 423. And therefore two Brothers Born in England shall Inherit one the other tho' the Father be an Alien 429. Secus in Cases of Attainder 416 417 If the Son purchase and have no Kindred on his Fathers side but an Alien his Estate shall discend to the Heir on the part of his Mother 426 Distress Whether in Distress for Rent Horses may be severed from a Cart 36 An Information lies not against a Landlord for taking excessive Distress of his Tenents 104 Hindring the Carrying off a Distress a provocation to make killing no more than Homicide 216 Dower The regular proceedings therein 60 Whether a Suit for Dower may be commenced by Plaint in an Inferiour Court without special Custom 267 E. Ecclesiastical Persons PRivilidges from Offices 105 Death of a Parson c. doth not make such a Non-residence as shall avoid a Lease 245 What Leases they may make and what not 245 246 Clergy Men are liable to all publick charges imposed by Act of Parliament in particular for reparation of the Highways 273 Of the Induction of Clerks by whom to be made 309 319 Election Where a thing depends upon Election what course is to be observed 271 Entry Where in Ejectment actual Entry is necessary 332 Error See Executors To reverse a Judgment
Demurrer to the Replication Joynder in Demurrer 241 7. Debt upon a By-Law made by a Corporation by Prescription 243 The Declaration sets forth That the Town of G. is Antiqua Villa a Corporation time out of mind Power to implead and be impleaded A Custom to make By-Laws for good Government of the Corporation and to impose Penalties Custom to elect a Bayliff annually 243 The By Law sets forth Forfeiture for the Breach The Defendant elected Bayliff for the year then next following who refused to execute the Office per quod Actio accrevit The Defendant pleads the Act of 13 Car. 2. 244 The Act set forth 245 And alledges that he is and at the time aforesaid was a Protestant Dissenter and had not received the Sacrament according to the Rites of the Church of England with a year before his Election and that the said Election by virtue of the said Act was void The Plaintiff demurs The Defendant joyns 246 8. Debt for Rent upon two several Demises by Lease Parol 249 The first Demise Exception Habendum Reddendum Entry Rent arrear Actio accrevit 250 The second Demise Exception Habendum Reddendum Rent arrear Actio accrevit 251 The Defendant pleads That the Plaintiff Nihil habuit in tenementis tempore dimissionis it should have been temporibus demissionis ibid. The Plaintiff replies That before the several Demises one J. S. demised to him for 41 years the said J. S. having then full Power Right and Title to make such Demise by virtue of which he entred and was possest and demised to the Defendant 252 The Defendan demurs The Plaintiff joyns in demurrer 253 Distress and Avowry Vide Replevin E Error 1. ERror in the Exchequer Chamber The Style of the Court 286 The Writ of Error 287 The Return of the Writ The Memorandum and Declaration in a special Action of the Case for not grinding at an Ancient Mill. Seisin of the Mannor and Mill. The Plaintiff Farmer of the Mill habuit habere debuit the Toll 288 The Defendant Occupier of an Ancient Messuage which ought to grind at his Mill. That the Defendant erected a Hand-Mill and ground therewith ratione cujus the Plaintiff lost his Toll The Defendant imparles and pleads Not guilty 289 Postea Tales Verdict for the Plaintiff The Judgment The Placita in the Exchequer Chamber 190 The General Errors assigned A Scire facias ad audiendum Errores prayed and awarded The Defendant in the Writ of Error appears and pleads in nullo est Erratum 291 2. The Placita in the Exchequer Chamber The Writ of Error 296 The Return of the Writ The Placita 297 The Memorandum and Declaration upon an Inland Bill of Exchange The Custom set forth That any Merchant or other person vel Ordini suo super visum acceptavit sic per Indorsamentum appunctuaret pro valore recept ' c. Upon Refusal to pay the Merchant or other person to become chargable 298 Avers That the Defendant being a Merchant at N. drew a Bill upon one J. S. in London payable to one P. or Order for Value received The Bill presented to J. S. and accepted by him P. orders payment to the Plaintiff J. S. had Notice and the Money demanded of him but refused payment of which the Defendant had Notice 299 And became chargable and thereupon promised payment but tho' after requested non solvit 300 The Defendant Protestando that there is no such Custom for Plea says That one C. an Excise-man paid the Defendant the Money in question being the Kings Money to the intent that it should be paid to the King and the Defendant at C's request drew the Bill That C. was then indebted to the King prout per Record ' Scaccarij 301 That an Extent issued out thereupon ad inquirendum The Writ delivered to the Sheriffs of London An Inquisition taken by them 302 The Money and Bill of Exchange seised and returned into the Exchequer The King became Entituled An Extent issued out to the Sheriff of N. for the levying the Money and the Money paid thereupon Averment of una eadem persona 304 Et una eadem Billa Et una eadem Summa The Plaintiff demurs to the Plea especially Causes of demurrer The Defendant joyns in demurrer 304 Eleven Continuances 304 305 306 The Loquela and Proceedings revived by Act of Parliament 1 W. M. Judgment for the Plaintiff upon the demurrer A Writ of Enquiry awarded 306 The Inquisition return'd Damages found Judgment for the Plaintiff 307 Mill and Toll Vid. Error 1. Outlawry pleaded Vid. Action on the Case 8. Prerogative Process Vid. Action on the Case 3. Error 2. Trover 2. Quantum meruit Vid. Action on the Case 8. R Rent Vid. Debt 3. 8. Replevin 1. THe Plaintiff Declares for taking and detaining 8 Cows c. The Defendant acknowledges the taking as Bayliff to the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury 131 Sets forth that they are Lords of the Mannor of M. That J. S. was seized of the Locus in quo parcel of the said Mannor and held it of the Dean and Chapter by Fealty Rent and Suit of Court Sets forth a Custom for the Lord to have a year and an halfs Rent upon every Alienation and power to distrain for it Shews the Alienation and the Purchasers Entry and that there was so much due for a Fine by Custom and because the same was unpaid the Defendant distrained infra feodum c. 132 133 The Plaintiff demurs to the Conizance The Defendant joyns in demurrer 134 2. Against two Defendants One of which avows the other acknowledges the taking as Baily to the former 145 They set forth that long before the taking R.L. and L.L. were seized in Fee of the Locus in quo and by Deed granted an Annuity to the Ancestor of the Avowant and his Heirs issuing out of certain Lands of which the Locus in quo was parcel with power of Distress Conditionally to be void upon payment of 100 l on a certain day then to come which was not paid c. 146 147 And for six years Rent Arrear the Distress was made which the one Defendant bene advocat and the other bene cognoscit as in the Lands charged with the Distress The Plaintiff demurs to the Avowry and Conizance The Defendants joyn 148 3. The Plaintiff declares for taking his Colt c. 210 The Defendant avows for Damage fesant and sets forth that E. M. being seized in Fee demised the Locus in quo to the Avowant to hold at Will That he entred and was possest and took the Cold Damage fesant prays Judgment and a Return and Costs and Damages according to the Statute The Plaintiff pleads in Bar to the Avowry That E. M. demised the Locus in quo to him before the pretended Demise to the Defendant to hold for 6 years That he entred and was possest and that the Defendant took his Colt there absque hoc that E. M. demised to
the Avowant mode forma as he hath set forth 211 The Avowant demurs generally The Plaintiff joyns 212 4. The Plaintiffs declare against three Defendants for taking and detaining their Cattel 224 One of the Defendants avows the other two make Conizance as his Bayliffs The Avowant says That the Father being seized in Fee of the third part of a certain Messuage c. of which the Locus in quo was parcel demised the same for 99 years if A. B. and C. or either of them should so long live reserving Rent That the Lessee entred That the Father being seized of the Reversion died seized and a discent to the Avowant as Heir at Law who distrained for Rent arrear 225 Super praedictam tertiam partem c. And avers That C. is still living In Bar to the Avowry the Plaintiffs Confess the seisin of the Father of one third and that J. S. was seized of the other two parts who licensed the Plaintiffs to put in their Cattel upon the Locus in quo which they did 226 The Defendants demur to the Bar. The Plaintiffs joyn in Demurrer 227 S. Scire facias 1. AGainst a Ter-tenant 101 The Judgment recited in the Writ to the Sheriffs of London The Plaintiff obtulit se at the Return The Sheriffs Return That there were no Tenants of any of the Defendants Lands at the time of the Judgment or at any time since quibus Scire fac ' possunt 101 A Testatum Scire fac ' to the Sheriff of Norfolk The Plaintiff and a Ter-tenant appear at the Return The Sheriff Returns That he had summon'd P. S. who was then Tenant of Lands which were the Defendants at the time of the Judgment and that there are no other Tenants to whom c. The Ter-tenant salvis sibi omnibus exceptionibus c. Imparls The Plaint revived continued and adjourn'd by Act of Parliament 3 Febr. 1. W. M. A further Imparlance The Plaintiff prays Execution 102 The Ter-tenant pleads in Abatement of the Writ and alledges that there are other Tenants of other Lands in Surrey belonging to the Defendant at the time of the Judgment and prays Judgment and that the Writ may be quasht The Plaintiff demurs to the Plea The Ter tenant joyns in demurrer 103 Sheriff Action against him Vid. Actions on the Case 3. Plea to his Bail Bond. Vid. Debt 5. Slander Vide Action on the Case 7. Special Verdict Vid. Trover 2. T Trespass 1. TRespass against the Defendant simûl-cum G. F. for taking Vi armis and Impounding his Cattel quousque finem fecit of 11 l c. contra pacem c. 90 The Defendant as to the Vi armis and contra pacem pleads Not guilty And as to the residue of the Trespass he pleads a Seizure by virtue of a Fieri facias out of the Common Pleas and the Sheriffs Warrant thereupon and that the Cattel were appraised at 11 l being the true Value and detain'd until the said Sum was paid to the Sheriffs Baily for the use of the said Sheriff pro deliberatione averiorum prout bene licuit which was the residue of the said Trespass absque hoc that he is guilty before or after the said taking 91 92 The Plaintiff demurs and assigns for Cause that the Traverse is ill as to Time and that the 11 l ought not to have been paid to the use of the Sheriff by the Law of the Land The Defendant joyns in Demurrer 93 2. Trespass for Assault Battery Wounding and Imprisonment 189 As to the Vi armis vulnerationem the Defendant pleads Not guilty and Issue thereupon At to the residue of the Trespass he pleads that he obtained Judgment against the Plaintiff in the Common Pleas in an Action of Indebitatus Assumpsit which Judgment was afterwards set aside and vacated but before it was vacated a Ca. sa was sued out thereupon directed to the Sheriff who made his Warrant to the Bayliff of the Liberty 190 The Bayliff takes the now Plaintiff thereupon and had him in Custody until he paid the Money quae sunt idem Resid ' Transgr ' Insult ' Imprisonat ' and Traverses that he is not guilty of any other Trespass c. The Plaintiff replies That the now Defendant then Plaintiff in the Judgment was an Attorney whose Duty is to enter Judgments fairly and honestly and that he in deceit of the Court entred the Judgment when he ought not to have done it 191 And that afterwards on the Examination and Consideration of the said Entry the said Judgment was by the said Court adjudged void ab initio 192 The now Defendant Plaintiff in the Judgment confesseth the Matter and saith that he appointed the Judgment to be duly Entred but by default of the Clerk it was entred irregularly Absque hoc that it was Entred by the said now Defendant falso fraudulenter in deceptionem Curiae ibid. The Plaintiff demurs The Defendant joyns 193 Trover 1. TRover brought by an Assignee of Commissioners of Bankrupts 63 The Declaration sets forth the Bankrupt to be possest of such and such Goods which came to the hands of the Defendant 63 That the Bankrupt exercised the Trade of a Vintner and became Indebted to several Persons That he departed from his Dwelling-House and became a Bankrupt That the Creditors Petition'd the Lord Chancellor The Commission sued out 64 The Commissioners find him a Bankrupt and make Assignment to the Plaintiff 65 A Conversion of the said Goods by the Defendant 66 The Defendant demurs to the Declaration The Plaintiff joyns in Demurrer 66 2. Against the Sheriffs of London and others for 225 l in Money numbred and divers Goods 156 The Defendants as to part of the Goods which they set forth in particular plead That the Plaintiffs formerly brought an Action of Trespass upon the Case in the Kings-Bench against the now Defendants for taking and carrying away the Goods now sued for 159 That upon Not guilty pleaded the Issue came to a Trial and the Jury found a Special Verdict 160 Which they recite at large That the Owner of the Goods became a Bankrupt That a Judgment was recovered against him for 1000 l and a Fieri facias issued out which being delivered to the Sheriffs of London they seized the Goods in Execution That after Seizure and before Sale a Prerogatie Process issued out against the Goods which is recited in haec verba 161 The Return of the said Process 163 The Goods taken by Inquisition inventoried appraised and sold and the Money delivered to the King's Debtor 164 A Commission of Bankrupts sued out The Commissioners assign to the Plaintiffs The Assignees possest And then they Conclude Si utrum super tota Materia the Defendants are guilty the Jurors know not if the Court shall adjudge them guilty they find for the Plaintiffs if not for the Defendants 165 After several Continuances the Loquela remaining sine die was revived and continued by Act of Parliament
ad eam aliqualit ' respond sed verificationem ill admittere omnino recusat pet judicium dampna sua occasione praemisso sibi adjudicari c. Et quia Justic hic se advisare volunt de super praemissis praedictis priusquam Judicium inde reddant dies dat est partibus praedictis hicusque in crastino Sanctae Trinitatis de audiend inde judicio suo eo qd iidem Justic hic inde nondum c. Blesse versus Frost IN a Trover and Conversion brought by the Plaintiff as Assignee of Commissioners of Bankrupts amongst other things he declared that he was possessed de uno Vase Anglicè Vessel Vini Hispanici and it was objected upon a Demurrer to the Declaration that it was not said what the Vessel was made of and so no measure for the Damages sed non allocatur for it is intended to be made of Wood and is used for Casks of Wine Bynton versus Bobbett IN an Action of Covenant brought in this manner viz. by Henry Baynton and the Lady Anne his Wife the Lady Elizabeth Wilmot and the Lady Mallet Wilmot against Robert Bobbet The Plaintiffs declared that whilst the Lady Anne was sole by a certain Writing bearing Date the 20th day of March in the year of our Lord 1684. sealed by the said Robert and produced in Court it was agreed with the said Robert for and on the behalf of the said Ann Elizabeth and Mallett Daughters and Coheirs of the Right Honourable John late Earl of Rochester for the passages of all Boats and other advantages of Navigation upon the River made navigable by John Mallett Esq deceased Grandfather of the Right Honourable Elizabeth late Countess of Rochester from the Bridge of Bridgwater to a certain place upon the River aforesaid called Ham Mills the benefit of which River aforesaid was granted to the said Ann Elizabeth and Mallett by the Leters Patents of the Late King bearing date by the last year of his Reign with power to chain up a Bridge made by the said John Mallett near the place in the said River called Knapps Bridge or any other place of the River aforesaid granted to the said Ladies as foresaid with power also to sue or implead in the name of the said Ladys any Person passing with Boats upon the said River without the licence of the said Robert first had and obtained he taking for every Boat that should pass below the said Knapp Bridge one shilling To have and to hold the benefit of the Passage aforesaid to him his Executors and Assigns from the 25th of March next after the date of the said Writing for three years yielding and paying for the same yearly during the Term to the said Ann Elizabeth and Mallett Wilmot the Rent of 45 l at Michaelmas and our Lady Day by equal portions The Plaintiffs further say That altho' he the said Robert had occupied and enjoyed the Passage and Premisses aforesaid the said Robert did not pay to the said Ann Elizabeth and Mallett whilest the said Ann was sole nor to the said Henry Ann Elizabeth and Mallett after the Marriage of the said Ann or to any of them the said Rent of 45 l or any part thereof and so the said Robert did not perform his Covenant but broke the same ad dampnum c. The Defendant pleaded protestando That there was no such Grant made by the King and protestando that the said River was not made Navigable by the said John Mallett Pro placito That the said River from the said place called Bridgewater-Bridge to the said place called Ham Mills supposed and pretended to have been made Navigable as aforesaid is and for time out of mind hath been an ancient and Navigable River free and common for all the Kings Subjects to pass with Boats And further saith That the aforesaid Ann Elizabeth and Mallett Wilmott at the time of the making of the said Writing or at any other time had nothing of passage of Toll in the River aforesaid whereof they could make any Demise or Grant to the said Robert per quod the said Robert could not have take or receive the advantage and profit aforesaid according to the purport of the said Writing but was wholly deprived thereof during all the time aforesaid hoc paratus est verficare and so demands Iudgment Si Actio To this the Plaintiffs demurred for that the Plea was double and that no Traverse was to the enjoyment which were the Causes specially assigned for Demurrer Pollexfen Chief Justice Powell and Rokeby held the Plea to be double Ventris contra For it is all but one matter for if the River were free for all the Kings Subjects to pass then the Plaintiffs could have no Toll or make any obstruction thereupon so that one matter depended upon the other and in such case a Plea shall not be said to be double Calf and Nevill Poph. 186. In a Scire facias against the Bail the Defendant pleaded That the Principal tendred himself to Prison before the Scire facias and died in Prison either of these matters would have served and yet the Plea not held double But all the Court resolved that the Plea was insufficient to bar the Plaintiffs First Because it was set forth in the Declaration that the Defendant had enjoyed the Passage and Profit granted and then the Rent must be paid so long if an eviction be pleaded in bar to Rent it must be Rent grown due after the eviction 20 H. 6. 22. if a Disseissor lets rendring Rent and the Disseisee enters after the Rent-day yet an Action of Debt lies for the Rent accrued before therefore the Defendant should have traversed the enjoyment Again This is not a Rent for 't is reserved out of a thing Incorporeal and an express Covenant to pay it The Mayor and Commonalty of London against Hatton Sty 357. upon a Lease of the Garblers Office and Covenant was brought for the Rent and pleaded that it could not be let but it does not appear by the Book that Iudgment was given Vid. Newton Weeks Allens Rep. 79. One reciting that he was seised of such Land granted a Rent out of it and covenanted to pay the Rent he could not plead to his Covenant that he had nothing in the Land Iudgment pro Quer ' Bockenham versus Thacker ALIAS prout patet Termino Paschae ult ' praeterit ' A Special Indebitatus Assumpsit against an Attorney Rotulo Sexcentesimo octagesimo continetur sic Memorandum quod Vicesimo octavo die Maij isto eod ' Termino venit hic in Cur ' Hugo Bockenham per Robert ' Snell Attorn ' suum exhibuit Justic ' Domini Regis hic quandam billam suam versus Pet ' Thacker sen ' un ' Attorn ' Cur ' Domini Regis de Banco hic praefentem hic in Cur ' in propria persona sua de placito Transgr ' super Casum cujus quidem Billae tenor sequitur in haec
ann ' For 21 years extunc ê“x ' sequen ' plenar ' complend ' finiend ' Virtute cujus dimissionis praedictus Johan ' in TenÌ„ta praed ' cum pertinen ' Lessee enters intravit fuit inde possessionat ' Et sic inde possessionat ' existen ' idem Johannes postea scilicet decimo die Augusti Anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo octogesimo secundo apud Grancester praedictam dimisit ad firmam tradidit eidem Roberto Dickman Tenementa praedicta cum pertinen ' habend ' occupand ' And Demised to the Plaintiff eidem Roberto Assign ' suis a Festo Sancti Michaelis ArcÌ„hi tunc ê“x ' sequen ' usque plenum finem terminum sex annorum extunc ê“px ' sequen ' plenar ' For six years complend ' finiend ' virtute cujus dimissionis idem Robertus in crastino dicti Festi Sancti Michaelis Arch ' Anno Domini milesimo sexcentesimo octogesimo secundo supradicto in Tenementa praedicta cum pertinen ' intravit fuit inde possessionat ' The Lessee Enters usque finem expirationem ejusdem termini praedictus tamen Abrahamus praemissorum non ignarus sed machinans fraudulenter intendens ipsum Robertum minus rite praegravare ac eum de faldagio praedicto ut praefertur habend ' impedire ac de prosicuo commoditate inde totaliter deprivare diu ante finem termini praedicti ult ' mentionat ' scilicet primo die Maii Anno Regni Domini Jacobi secundi nuper Regis Angliae tertio Oves videlicet ducent ' Oves ipsius Abrahami in Communes Campos de Grancester praed ' ibidem depasturand ' The Cause of Action posuit Oves ibidem eun ' depascend ' extunc usque decimum diem Septembris tunc ê“x ' sequen ' existen ' ante finem termini praedicti ult ' mentionat ' custodivit continuavit sed Oves ill ' in aut super praedictas centum sexaginta acras terrae arrabilis ipsius Roberti vel in aut super aliquam inde parcellam minime faldavit sicut ipse debuisset nec permisit ipsum Robertum habere beneficium faldagii earun-praedicto Abrahamo duran ' eodem termino non existen ' tenen ' For not Folding his Sheep according to Custom sive occupatore aliquorum messuag ' sive terrarum in Villa de Coton praed ' de quibus tenen ' sive occupator ' inde ê“ tempore existen ' a tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit usi fuer ' intercoicÌ„are Causa vicinagii in praedictis Communibus Campis de Grancester praedict ' cum Ovibus suis praedict ' ut praefertur per quod idem Robertus ê“ficuum advantagium faldagii Ovium praedictorum super praedictas centum sexaginta acras terrae arabil ' quibus ipse gaudere debuisset ê‘ tempus illud omnino ê‘didit amisit ad dampnum ipsius Roberti quadraginta librarum inde ê“duc ' Sectam c. Per quod the Plaintiff lost the benefit of Foldage Et praedictus Abrahamus per Richardum Pyke Attorn ' suum ven ' defend ' vim injur ' quando c. Not Guilty pleaded Et dic ' qd ' ipse in nullo est culpabilis de pÌ„missis praedictis suê‘ius ei imposit ' ê“ut praedictus Robertus su ê‘ius versus eum queritur Et de hic pon ' se suê‘ Patriam Et praedictus Robertus similiter Ideo praecept ' est Vic' qd ' venire fac ' hic a die Sanct ' Trin ' in tres septimanas duodecim c. ê‘ quos c. Et qui nec c. ad recogn ' c. quia tam c. Dickman versus Allen. IN an Action upon the Case the Defendant declared That the Provost and Scholars of Kings College in Cambridge were seised in Fee in jure Collegii of a Messuage in Grancester in Cambridge and 160 Acres of Arable Land lying in the Common Fields of Grancester aforesaid and the said Provost c. and all those whose Estate they have in the Tenements aforesaid have time whereof c. for themselves their Farmers and Tenants of the said Tenements libertatem Foldagii Anglicè Foldage omnium Ovium except c. euntium depascentium infra Communes Campos Territoria de Grancester praed ' super praed ' centum sexaginta Acras Terrae ê‘cipiend ' foldand ' tanquam ad praed ' Tenement ' ê‘ertinent ' and then sets forth a Lease made by the Provost and Scholars to Sir John Witwrong of the said Messuage and 160 Acres for 20 years which said Sir John let them to the Plaintiff for six years by virtue whereof the Plaintiff entred and was possessed and the said Defendant Praemissorum non ignarus did put 200 Sheep into the Common Fields of Grancester aforesaid and there kept and depastured them for a certain time sed Oves illas in aut super praed ' centum sexaginta Acras Terrae Arab ' ipsius Quer ' vel in aut super aliquam inde parcell ' minime foldavit sicut ipse debuisset nec permisit ipsum Querentem habere beneficium faldagii earundem and shews how the Defendant was not within exception by which the Plaintiff lost the profit of the Foldage c. and laid it to his damage of 40 l The Defendant pleaded not guilty and a Verdict was for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had not in his Declaration set forth a sufficient Cause of Action for he saith that the Defendant had not folded his Sheep upon the 160 Acres as he ought and it is not set forth that the Custom was for the Owner of the Sheep to bring his Sheep to fold them upon the said Lands But it was objected on the Plaintiffs part that the word Foldagium did imply as much and it was the usage in Norfolk and Suffolk for the Owner of the Sheep to put his Sheep into the Lords Land and fold them there for which the Lord provided Hurdles and prepared the Fold to receive them and of this Faldagium a Fine was levied of inter al' as is reported in 1 Ed. 3. fo 2. and the usage in Norfolk and Suffolk is there mentioned And it was said in a Possessory Action 't is enough to say sicut debuit without setting forth any particular Custom or Prescription And Dent and Olivers Case was cited 2 Cro. 122. where an Action was brought for disturbing of him in taking of Toll ad Feriam ipsius le Plaintiff spectan ' and it was moved after Verdict that he made no Title by Prescription or Custom to the Toll and it was held by the Court to be sufficient in a possessory Action to say ad Feriam suam spectant ' So also in an Action for stopping of a way belonging to his House without setting forth any Prescription between St. John and Moody a
c. Quibus lectis auditis idem Querens dicit quod cognitio praed ' in forma praed ' fact ' materia in eadem content ' ac factum indentat ' praed ' in forma praed ' fact ' minus sufficien ' in lege existunt c. and the Defendant joyned in Demurrer It was argued for the Plaintiff that there is no sufficient Grant by this Indenture for it is said to be made between Nicholas of the one part and Elizabeth and Nicholas Cossen junior of the other part and then recited the Surrender of a former Grant after which came the words hath Given and Granted and by these Presents doth Give and Grant c. and no Grantor names but if it should be taken for a Grant from Nicholas Cossen 't is a Grant to Elizabeth an her Heirs and the habend ' cannot alter the Premisses in the limitation of the Estate in the Grant of a Rent and the Defendants in their Plea set forth that the said Elizabeth was seised of the said Rent for her Life ut de libero Tenemento so there is a material variance between the Indenture and the Plea The Court were of Opinion as to the first matter that it was a good Grant the Indenture being between Nicholas Cossen of the one part and Elizabeth of the other part and then after a recital saith hath Given and Granted to Elizabeth c. That must be taken that Nicholas Cossen hath Given and Granted and that the Conisans setting her forth to be seised for Life whereas there passed an Estate in Fee was a material variance The Cheif Justice Pollexfen seemed to incline that it was a Rent-charge for Life for the power of Distress was given to her only for Life and a Rent-seck in Fee and that it was as a Grant of two several Rents and then the Pleading was good But the other Justices held it was one entire Rent and that she had it with a Priviledge of Distress during her Life only but leave was given to amend the Conisans upon payment of Costs Dod versus Dawson SCire Facias upon a Recognizance of Bail in this Court upon condition That if Iudgement should be had against the Principal in an Action of Debt for 2000 l in this Court that he should pay the Debt and Damages recovered or render his Body in Execution to the Prison of the Fleet and sets forth that he recovered the said Debt of 2000 l and 12 l pro damnis Termino Pschae 4 Jacobi Secundi nuper Regis and that the Defendant did not pay the said Mony nor render himself in Execution c. The Defendants plead to this Scire fac ' that the Mony praetextu cognitionis praed ' in praed ' brevi de Scire fac ' mentionat ' de Terris Catallis c. praed ' Defendentis fieri ad usum praed ' Timothei Dod levari non debet quia dicunt quod Narratio super qua Judicium praed ' in praed ' Brevi de Scire fac ' mentionat ' obtent ' fuit versus ipsum Willielmum Dawson seu aliqua alia narratio in placito debiti non fuit exhibit ' in Curia hic in Termino Paschae Anno Regni dicti nuper Regis primo quo Termino recognitio praed ' facta fuit nec ad aliquod tempus infra duos terminos post praed ' Terminum Paschae proxime sequen ' unde pro defectu Narr ' per praefatum Timotheum Dod versus praefat ' Willielmum Dawson in eadem Cur ' ante finem praed ' duorum terminorum praed ' summa duarum mille librarum per cursum legis de Terris Catallis praed ' Defend ' vel eorum alicujus fieri levari non debent hoc parat ' sunt verificare unde pet ' Judicium c. To this the Plaintiff demurs and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for altho' by course of the Court if the Defendant lie in Prison two whole Terms without any Declaration put in he may get a Rule to be discharged yet if a Declaration be afterwards delivered and Iudgment thereupon 't is a good Iudgment and the Bail will be liable in such case Rogers versus Bradly IN a Replevin for taking of a Cow apud Liscard in Cornwall in a certain place there called the Underway The Defendant made Conusans as Bayliff to William Trewman and Thomas Coll and sets forth that Joseph Mark diu ante c. was seised in Fee of a Close called Underway parcel of the Mannor of Liscard of which the place where was and is parcel according to the Custom of the said Mannor and being so seised the 9th day of January Anno Domini 1663. demised to Sampson Rogers the Premisses for 99 years from the Date of the Indenture if A. B. c. should so long live tendring 10 l yearly Rent by virtue whereof the said Rogers entred and the said Joseph Mark being seised of the Revertion in Fee secundum consuetudinem Manerii praed ' upon the first day of February Anno 1663. supradict ' at a Court of the said Mannor then held did surrender in Manus Domini Caroli Secundi nuper Regis Angliae c. adtunc Domini Manerii praed ' secundum consuetudinem Manerii praedict ' the aforesaid Revertion and Rent to the use of the said Trewman and Coll and their Heirs to which said T. and C. at the Court praed ' Dominus Rex per quendam Thomam Moulton adtunc Seneschal ' suum Manerii praed ' did grant the said Revertion and Rent to hold to them and their Heirs according to the Custom of the said Mannor and by virtue thereof the said T. and C. became seised of the said Revertion and Rent in their Demesn as of Fee according to the Custom of the said Mannor and for five years Rent ending at Michaelmass c. bene cognoscunt captionem c. To this the Plaintiff replied and the matter in the Replication was frivolous and Demurrer thereupon But the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff because the Conusans was insufficient for the Lands whereupon the Distress was taken being Freehold for so they must be taken to be tho' it is shewn that Mark was seised according to the Mannor because it is not said at the Will of the Lord could not be conveyed by Surrender in Court and an admittance without an Especial Custom to pass them in that Form and 't is not enough to say that he surrendred them secundum consuetudinem Manerii but the Custom should have been fully set forth viz. quod infra Manerium praed ' de tempore c. talis habebatur consuetudo c. but here the Custom is by Implication 1 Cro. 185 Vaughan 253. 2 Leon. 29. Lade versus Baker and Marsh Kanc ' ss THOMAS BAKER Nicholaus Marsh sum̄ fuer ' ad respondend ' Philippo Lade Gen ' de placito quare ceper ' averia
loco in quo c. pro eisdem quadraginta octo libr ' de reddit ' praed ' sic aretro existen ' juste c. ut in terris distriction ' praedict ' Nich. As in Lands charged with the Distress Marsh modo defend ' in forma praedict ' onerat ' obligat ' c. Demurrer Et praedictus Philippus Lade dic ' qd ' per aliqua per praed ' Thomam Baker Nicholaum Marsh superius in advocatione praed ' alleg ' iidem Thomas Baker Nicholaus Marsh captionem averiorum praedictorum in praedicto loco in quo c. justam cognoscere non debent quia dicit qd ' placitum praed ' per eosdem Thomam Baker Nicholaum Marsh modo forma praed ' superius placitat ' materiaque in eodem content ' minus sufficien ' in lege exist ' ad captionem averiorum praedictorum in praedicto loco in quo c. justam cognoscend ' ad quod idem Philippus Lade necesse non habet nec per Legem Terrae tenetur aliquo modo respondere Et hoc parat ' est verificare Unde pro defectu sufficien ' placit ' in hac parte idem Philippus Lade pet ' judic ' dampna sua praed ' occatione captionis injuste detentionis averiorum praedictorum sibi adjudicari c. Joynder Et praedict Thomas Nicholaus ex quo ipsi sufficien ' materiam in Lege ad ipsum Nicholaum captionem averiorum praedictorum in praedicto loco in quo c. justam advocand ' Et ad ipsum Thomam ut Ballivum ipsius Nicholai eandem captionem in eodem loco justam cognoscend ' in advocare cognitione suis praedictis superius allegaver ' quam ipsi parat ' sunt verificare quam quidem materiam praedictus Philippus non dedic ' nec ad eam aliqualit ' respond ' pet ' judicium retorn ' averiorum praedictorum unacum dampnis c. sibi adjudicari c. Et quia Justic ' hic se advisare volunt de super praemissis priusquam Judicium inde reddant dies dat' est partibus praedictis hic usque à die Sancti Michaelis in tres septimanas de audiend ' inde Judicio suo eo qd ' iidem Justic ' hic inde nondum c. Lade versus Baker Marsh REplevin for taking his Cattle at Barrham in Kent in a place there called the Fourteen Acrees The Defendant Baker made Conusans and Bailiff of Nicholas Marsh and saith that diu ante praed ' tempus quo c. one Robert Lade was seised in fee of the said 14 Acres and by his Deed indented dated 1 Octob. 24 Car. 1. between him of the one part and Nicholas Marsh Grandfather of the said Nicholas Marsh of the other part and produceth the said Deed in Court in consideration of 100 l paid to him by the said Nicholas Marsh the Grandfather did grant to the said Nicholas Marsh and his Heirs an annual Rent of 8 l to be issuing out of all that Capital Messuage with the appurtenances in Barham aforesaid and out of all Lands and Hereditaments in Barham aforesaid to the said Messuage belonging and then in the occupation of the said Robert Lade unde praedict ' locus in quo est praed ' tempore quo c. fuit parcell ' to be paid at our Lady Day and Michaelmas by equal portions with power to distrain if the said Rent or any part thereof were behind And the Defendant further saith that by virtue of the said Grant the said Nicholas Marsh the Grandfather became seised in Fee of the said Rent and being so seised by his Will in Writing dated the 28th of November 1654 devised the said Rent to Richard Marsh and his Heirs and died by virtue whereof the said Richard Marsh became seised in Fee of the said Rent and being so seised diu ante praedict ' Tempus quo c. viz. 10 Aug. 32 Car. 2. nuper Regis by his Deed indented between him of the one part and the said Nicholas Marsh the Defendant Son of the said Richard of the other part cujus Scripti alteram partem Sigillo praedict ' Richard Marsh omitting sigillat ' idem Thomas Baker the Defendant hic in Cur ' profert for and in consideration of Natural Love and affection which he bore to the said Nicholas now Defendant his Son and the sum of 5 l yearly by him the said Nicholas to the said Richard Marsh during the Life of the said Richard secured to be paid and for divers other good causes and considerations concessit assignavit transposuit to the said Defendant Nich. Marsh and his Heirs the said Annuity or yearly Rent of 8 l to the use of the said Nicholas Marsh the Defendant and his Heirs prout per idem Scriptum Indentat plenius apparet Virtute cujus quidem concessionis assignationis ulterius mentionat vigore Statuti Anno Regni Hen. 8. nuper Regis Angliae vicesimo septimo de usibus in possessionem transferend praedict Nich. Defend ' fuit adhuc est seisit de praedict annual reddit c. and for 48 l for six years arrear at Michaelmas next-before the taking of the Cattle to the said Nicholas the Defendant bene cognoscit ut Ballivus ipsius Nicholai c. To this the Defendant demurs First It is not sufficiently shewn that the Place where c. was charged with the Rent for the Rent is granted out of a Messuage with the appurtenances in Barham and out of all the Lands in Barham aforesaid to the said Massuage belonging and then in the occupation of the said Robert Lade unde praedict locus in quo est tempore quo c. fuit parcell and tho' it were parcel at the time of the Distress taking it might not be belonging to the said House or in the tenure of Lade at the time of the Rent granted which should have been shewn and of that Opinion were the Court. Secondly In the Deed by which the Defendant Nicholas Marsh claims it is said sigillo praedict Rich. Marsh omitting sigillat Sed non allocatur for it is said before that per Scriptum indentat factum inter c. he granted and that is enough Thirdly Here is a grant of the Rent from Richard Marsh pleaded without any Attornment or Enrollment To which it was answered by the Counsel for the Defendant that it appeareth that the Grant was made in Consideration of Natural Affection as well as Mony and so it shall enure as a Covenant to stand seised and for this the Case of Crossing and Scudamore was cited Pas 23 Car. 2. Rot. 871. where in Ejectment it was found by Special Verdict that Nicholas Hele was seised of Lands in Fee and that he made a Deed to Jane Hele enrolled within six Months by which he did for and in consideration of Natural Love Augmentation of her Portion
the putting them to Sue severally as they must do at Law But here there is but part of them that Sue and then they appear to be Officers in the Ship that Sue and so not to have this Priviledge of the Common Seamen to Sue for it was alledged that this practice had been obtained but of late and in favour to them and here it appears that the Contract for the Wages was joynt with the Owners and they have sued but two of them and so they shall be charged with the whole But the Court denied the Prohibition for they have been ever alowed to proceed for Marriners Wages and tho' the Plaintiffs have an employment in the Ship as Purfer Boatswain or the like they are Marriners as well as others and may sue in the Admiral Court for their Wages and they having Iurisdiction shall proceed in their own way tho' different from our Law as to the joyning of all the Plaintiffs or Defendants and if the Proceeding be not according to their Law the Remedy lies there Note It was said by one of the Admiralty that tho' the Suit be against some of the Owners the course there is not to charge them with the whole but according to their proportionable parts Adams versus Cross IN a Replevin against Cross and two others for taking of divers Goods at Ware in quodam loco vocat ' a Messuage there The Defendants made Conusance as Bayliffs of Jane Cross and they say that before the Caption she was seised in her Demesn as a Fee at the Will of the Lord of the Mannor according to the Custom of the Mannor of and in the aforesaid Messuage which said Messuage is and time out of mind hath been parcel of the said Mannor and demised and demisable by Copy of Court Roll c. and being so seised 24 June 1687. she demised the said Messuage to the said Adams from thenceforth at Will reserving for so long time as the said Adams should hold it the yearly Rent of 8 l by equal Quarterly payments By virtue of which Demise the said Adams entred and was and yet is possessed and for 14 l being a Year and three Quarters Rent ending at the Feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist last past they as Bayliffs to the said Jane distrained the said Goods being in the House c. To this Avowry the Plaintiff pleaded an insufficient and frivolous Bar and now took Exceptions to the Avowry for that the said Jane Cross is therein set forth to have been seised in Fee of the said Messuage at the Will of the Lord according to the Custom of the Mannor and sheweth no admission from the Lord whereas a Copyholder cannot plead his Estate without setting forth an Admission or Grant from the Lord 4 Co. 22. b. But the Court resolved in this Case there need not be shewn any Admittance for the Title did not come in question If one pleads a particular Estate for life or years generally the commencement of it is to be shewn but if a Lessee for years Let for a lesser Term reserving a Rent in an Action of Debt for the Rent he may set forth that at the time of the Lease he was possessed of the Land ê“ termino diversorum annorum adtunc adhuc ventur ' and being so possessed demised to the Defendant c. without shewing the beginning of his Term and how derived for 't is but an inducement to the Action And Judgment was given for the Avowant Clarke versus Tucket IN an Action of Trespass for entring of his House and taking of four Pewter Dishes of the Plaintiffs The Defendant pleaded the Letters Patents of Edward the 4th whereby the Company of Taylors in the City of Exeter were Incorporated and by the said Letters Patents they were to keep a Feast every year upon the Feast-day of St. John the Baptist in some place of the City belonging to them and there to make Orders and By-Laws c. And that the said Corporation at a Meeting held the 20th of March in the 21st year of the Reign of the late King Charles the Second did make an Ordinance or By-Law That if any person being Master or one of the Chief Wardens of the Corporation aforesaid at any of their Assemblies should reproach or revile the Master or any of his Brethren or any of the Common Council of the Corporation he should forfeit 6 s and 8 d And if any other person or persons of the said Bodies should revile or use any unhandsom Speech of the Master Wardens or any of the said Council he should forfeit 3 s and 4 d the said Fines to be levied by Distress upon a Warrant under the Corporation Seal and by sale of the Offenders Goods after Four days Notice given to the Fine so set forth and an Allowance of the By-Law by the Justices of Assize according to the Statute of Henry the 7th And further saith That the Plaintiff being a Member of the said Corporation and having Notice of the said By-Law did at an Assembly of the said Master and Wardens in the Common Hall say of the said Master and Wardens in the said Corporation these words viz. The Masters ipsos Magistrum Custod ' innuendo are all a Company of Pickpocket Rogues and divers other very scurrilous and reproachful Words were set forth to have been there spoken of the said Master and Wardens by the Plaintiff whereby the Plaintiff forfeited 3 s and 4 d by the said By-Law which was demanded of him and by him neglected to be paid by the space of six Days Whereupon the said Master made his Warrant directed to the Defendant commanding him to Levy the said 3 s and 4 d by distress and sale of the Goods of the Plaintiff And the Defendant by virtue of the said Warrant did enter into the Plaintiffs House being then open and took the Goods in the Declaration mentioned Nomine districtionis prout ei bene licuit And to this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff For a Corporation cannot make a By-Law to have a Forfeiture levied by the sale of Goods 8 Co. 127. nor for Forfeiture of Goods And here tho' the Defendant only Distrained neither is the Defendant charged with selling the Goods in the Declaration yet the By-Law being void as to the selling is void in toto and no Justification can be upon it It was also said at the Bar That the Distress was excessive to distrain so many Dishes for 3 s and 4 d Indeed a man cannot sever a Distress and therefore in some cases a Distress of great value as a Cart and Horses may be taken for a small matter because not severable but here he might have taken some of the Dishes But the Court did not regard that Exception because it did not appear of what value the Dishes were Again it was said That they ought to have made the By-Law upon St. John Baptists Day To
forma as he hath set forth in his Avowry Petit Judicium dampna c. loc ' in quo c. modo forma prout praed ' Simo per advocar ' suum praed ' superius supponit Et hoc parat ' est verificare unde ex quo praed ' Simo capc̄onem Equuli praedicti in praedicto Clauso in quo c. superius cogn ' idem Samuel pet ' Judicium dampna sua occ̄one capconis injuste detenconis Equuli illius sibi adjudicari c. Demurrer to the Plea Et praedict ' Simo dic ' quod praed ' placitum praedict ' Samuel ' superius replicand ' placitat ' materiaque in eodem content ' minus sufficien ' in lege existunt ad ipm̄ Samuel ' acconem praed ' versus eum habend ' manutenend ' quodque ipse ad placitum illud modo forma p̄d ' replicand ' placitat ' necesse non habet nec per legem terrae tenetur aliquo modo respondere Et hoc parat ' est verificare unde pet ' Judicium si praed ' Samuel acconem suam praed ' inde versus eum habere debeat c. Joynder in Demurrer Et praedict ' Samuel ex quo ipse sufficien ' materiam in lege in replicacone in sua praedicta ad acconem suam praed ' versus praefat ' Simonem habend ' manutenend ' superius allegavit quam ipse parat ' est verificare Quam quidem materiam idem Simo non dedic ' nec ad ill ' aliqualit ' respondet set verificacon ' ill ' admittere omnino recusat Idem Samuel ut prius pet ' Judicium dampna sua occone capconis injuste detenconis Equuli illius sibi adjudicari c. Et quia Justic ' hic se advisare volunt de super praemissis priusquam Judicium inde reddant dies dat' est partibus praedictis hic usque ad audiend ' inde Judicio suo eo quod iidem Justic ' hic inde nondum c. Denney versus Mazey IN a Replevin the Plaintiff Declared of taking of his Horse Colt at S. in quodam loco vocat ' Townfield The Defendant saith that before the Taking one Elizabeth Mann was seised in Fee de praedicto loco in quo c. and 20 Septemb. Anno primo Willielmi Mariae demised the Premisses to him for a year then next ensuing and that he entred and avowed the taking of the Plaintiffs Horse damage feasant The Plaintiff Replied that the said Elizabeth Mann was seised of the Premisses in Fee and before the Lease to the Avowant viz. the 5th of June in the said first year of the King and Queen she demised to the Plaintiff the Premisses habend ' from the second day of March then last past for the Term of six years by virtue of which he entred and put his Horse into the Premisses and traverseth the Lease made to the Avowant To this the Avowant Demurred generally Pollexfen Chief Justice inclined that the Traverse was no cause of Demurrer tho' it might have been omitted He said there were divers Authorities against Heylars ' Case in the 6 Co. which is Reported to the same effect in Mo. 551. 1 Cro. 658. as 1 Cro. 754. Covert's Case Hob. 81.103 Traverse where the Matter in confessed and avoided and the Books generally are only that there need be no Traverse as the Bishop of Salisbury and Hunt in 3 Cro. 581. and Kellend and White 3 Cro. 494. the other Justices doubted relying upon the Authority of Heylar's Case and Rice and Harveston's Case 2 Cro 299. and Yelv. 221. where 't is said that such a Traverse makes the Plea vitious Vid. Mo. 557. But here the Demurrer being General 't is but matter of Form and clearly aided by the Statute of 27 Eliz. where if one Confess and Avoid and Traverse 't is in nature of a Double Plea Vid. That it is good upon a General Demurrer Edwards and Woodden 3 Cro. 323. So Judgment was by the whole Court given for the Plaintiff Woodward versus Fox Quod vide ante ultimo Termino THe Case was this Term Argued again by Serjeant Pemberton for the Defendant and by Serjeant Powell for the Plaintiff upon the Point Whether the Nomination to the Office being forfeited by the Statute of Ed. 6. it did belong to the King or the Bishop in whose Diocess the Archdeaconry was to make the Register But Pollexfen Chief Justice desired them to Consider Whether the King admitting he had a right by the Statute could grant this Office of the Register before Office found of the Forfeiture Note In case of Simony the Presentation vests in the King without Office Adjornatur Morgan versus Hunt IN Covenant the Plaintiff Declared that the Defendant Let to him a certain House and Lands and Covenanted that he should quietly and peaceably enjoy it without any manner of interruption molestation or disturbance and that by virtue of the said Demise he ented and sometime after the Defendant exhibited a Bill against the Plaintiff in the Court of Chancery wherein he charged the Plaintiff with ploughing up Meadows and the committing of divers Wastes and did obtain an Injunction out of the said Court against the Plaintiff whereby he was interrupted in his Ploughing c. and that afterwards the said Bill was dismissed with 20 l Cofts and so the Defendant had broken his Covenant After a Verdict for the Plaintiff I know not upon what Issue it was moved in Arrest of Judgment First That here was no sufficient Breach set forth It was said that the Law does not take notice of Proceedings in Chancery Poph. 205. it is said If one be possessed of Lands by Extent and by a Decree in a Court of Equity he is forced to pay a Rent out of the Lands this shall not be a legal Eviction or Recovery for so much Secondly The Suit in Chancery here is not touching the Lessees Estate or Title but for Waste which he ought not to do and tho' the Suit might be groundless yet it not relating to his Title or Possession was no breach of Covenant The Judgment was stayed by the Opinion of the whole Court for the last Reason for this was interruption or disturbance within the Covenant the Subject matter of the Suit being for Waste But the Court will take notice of a Suit in Chancery and 1 Cro. 768. an Assumpsit in Consideration of desisting from exhibiting a Bill in Chancery was held a good Consideration Anonymus IN a Covenant That the Defendant should keep in good Repair the House Outhouses and Stables and the Breach assigned was that the Defendant had permitted the Racks in the Stable to be in decay After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff had not set forth that the Racks were fixed in the Stable and so part of the Freehold for they might be in the Stable and lye loose
c. To this the Plaintiff Demurred First This is a Grant by Richard to Nicholas and so void without Attornment or Enrollment and being intended to Enure as a Grant shall not work as a Covenant to stand seised Secondly The Defendant hath pleaded it as a Grant and what he saith after in the Avowry to set forth how the Deed should work is vain and idle As to the first Point the Court held this Deed having no Execution to make it work as a Grant it shall operate as a Covenant to stand seised Mod. Rep. 178. Sanders and Savins Case A Grant of a Rent to his Kinsman for Life there being no atturnment it raised an use by way of Covenant but the pleading the Court held impertinent for instead of pleading of this Grant according to the effect of it in Law viz As a Covenant to stand seised He sets forth the matter in Law and haw it ought to be construed and because they would not countenance such vain and improper pleading the Case was adjourned Biddulph versus Dashwood IN an Action of Debt for 90 l The Plaintiff declared quod cum recuperasset coram Justiciariis de Banco apud Westm ' 90 l ê“ dam ' against the Defendant prout ê‘ Record process ' quae Dom ' Rex Regina coram eis causa Erroris in eisd ' corrigend ' Venire fac ' quae in Cur ' dicti Domini Regis Dom ' Reginae in pleno robore vigore remanent minime revocat ' plen ' apparet per quod actio accrevit c. To this the Defendant Demurred supposing that the Iudgment was suspended so far that an Action of Debt could not be brought upon it pending the Writ of Error But the Court held if the Defendant could insist upon this he ought not to have Demurred but to have pleaded Specially and demanded Iudgment if the Plaintiff should be answered pending the Writ of Error So Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 2 3 W. M. In Communi Banco Anonymus TRespass quare clausum fregit diversas petias Maheremij cepit c. Iudgment by default upon the Writ of Enquiry returned The Iudgment was stayed for the incertainty of the Declaration James Tregonwell Vid. Executrix of John Tregonwell against Sherwin IN an Action of Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declared in this manner That Frances Fen and John Tregonwell the 23 of Jan. 24. Car. 2. did Demise to the Defendant certain Lands for 21 years reserving 20 l per Annum to the said Frances during her Life and after her Decease to the said Tregonwell his Executors and Administrators and set forth Frances to be Dead and that the said Tregonwell being possessed of the Reversion of the Premisses pro Termino Annor ' adtunc adhuc ventur ' the 4 of May 30 Car. 2. made his Will and thereof made the Plaintiff his Executrix and died and that she took the Executrixship upon her and by vertue thereof became possessed of the said Reversion and for 30 l for a year and halfs Rent accruing after she brought the Action The Defendant pleaded an insufficient Plea and the Plaintiff Demurred And Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff upon the insufficiency of the Declaration for there is no good Title set forth to the Plaintiff for the Rent for t is not said that Tregonwell was at the time of the Lease possessed of the Lands pro Termino Annorum c. but that at the time of making his Will and that might be upon the creating of such Estate since and the Rent might not belong to the Reversion And tho' it was said his reserving the Rent to his Executors carried an intendment that he had a Term for years only yet that was held not to be sufficient and Iudgment was given for the Defendant Sir Lionel Walden versus Mitchell Hunt ' ss JOHANNES MITCHELL nuper de Huntington in Com' praed ' Maulster Attach ' fuit ad respondend ' Action for Words viz. Papist and Pensioner spoken of one who had been a Member of Parliament â—n the time of King Charles the Second Lionello Walden Mil ' de placito Transgr ' super Casum Et unde idem Lionellus per Robertum Clarke Attorn ' suum queritur quare cum praed ' Lionellus bonus verus pius fidelis honestus subditus ligeus domini Regis dominae Reginae nunc existit ac ut bonus verus pius fidelis honestus subditus ligeus eorundem domini Regis dominae Reginae nunc ê“genitorum suorum à tempore Nativitat ' suae hucusque se habuit gessit gubernavit bonorumque nominis famae conversaconis gesture tam in t ' quamplurimos venerabiles fideles subdit ' dictorum domini Regis dominae Reginae nunc ê“genitorum suorum quam omnes vicinos suos per tot ' tempus praed ' habit ' not ' reputat ' fuerat per tot ' tempus praed ' The Plaintiff a Protestant fuit adhuc existit verus professor Religionis Protestan ' Reformat ' per leges hujus regni Angliae stabilit ' ill ' sincere proficiend ' exercen ' Divina Servitia in Ecclesia in paroch ' sua seu aliqua Ecclesia capello aut alio usuali loco Communis precacon ' secundum usum Ecclesaie Anglicanae lect ' semper frequentans audiens Ecclesiae Romanae nunquam reconciliat ' And never a Professor of the Romish Religion fuit neque Religionem Romanam unquam profeffus fuit neque ad Missam unquam ivit Cumque praed ' Lionellus fuit extit un ' Burgens ' That he hath been a Member of Parliament sive Membr ' Parliamenti pro Villa de Huntingdon ' in Com' Hunt ' in Parliamento domini Caroli secundi nuper Regis Angi ' inchoat ' tent ' apud Westm ' in Com' Midd ' octavo die Maijanno regni sui decimo tertio ut hujusmodi Burgens ' sive Membr ' Parliamenti per tot ' idem Parliament ' usque dissolucon ' inde juste fidelit ' And did his Duty therein justly deservivit debitum fiduciae officij sui Burgens ' Membr ' ejusdem Parliamenti per tot ' idem tempus performavit Idemque Lionellus pro performacone fiduciae officij sui praedict ' Burgens ' sive Membr ' Parliamenti praedict ' alijs Causis diversa itenera ad Civitat ' London ' Westm ' à Villa Hunt ' praedict ' fecit performavit praed ' tamen Johan ' praemissorum non ignarus set machinans malitiose intendens eundem Lionellum non solum in bonis nomine fama credenc ' reputacone ' suis praedict ' multiplicit ' laedere detrahere penitus distruere verum etiam ipsum Lionellum infra poenas poenalitat ' contra Papistas subdit '
the case of Proxies Davis Rep. 4. It is said the King has power and that by the Antient Law of the Realm to Visit Reform and correct all Abuses and Enormities in the Iurisdiction Spiritual so that an Offence of this nature is a Violation of the Kings Justice and a Transgression of the Rules of his Administration This is indeed the case of all Crimes of a publick nature the King is most evidently injured by them the Indictments run contra coronam dignitatem c. Now who should have the Forfeiture but he that hath the greatest share in the Injury Again by giving of this Forfeiture to the King the end and design of the Statute is like to be best answered By the Preamble the Statute appeareth to be made that worthy persons might be advanced to places where Iustice was to be administred and who is best to be entrusted with this but the King The Court having given these Reasons they came to consider what had been insisted on at the Bar in the behalf of the Bishop It was said that all the Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in the Diocess was originally placed in the Bishop and the case of Gastrill and Jones 2 Ro. Rep. 646 647. was cited where it is said That the Iudicial power of the Archdeacon was derived from the Bishop he is called Vicarius Episcopi and Oculus Episcopi T is true there are some Archdeacons that have Iurisdictions peculiar and exempt but that is by Prescription or Custom these are taken notice of by Godolphin But there is nothing found of that in the Verdict and so must be taken to be the common case of an Archdeacon and that was agreed It was said this offence was reckoned Simony in the Canon Law And the Bishop had the correction of it as in Smithes Case Owens Rep. 87. This was compared to the Cases of inferiour and subordinate Officers which when they are forfeited the superiour takes advantage as in the Earl of Pembrooks Case and Sir H. Bickly Popham 119. The Keeper of a Walke in a Forest forfeited this went to him that had the custody of the Forest so in Bridgman's Rep. 27. He that hath Liberty of a Park in a Forest when forfeited it goeth to the Lord of the Forest 39 H. 6. 32. The Keeper of the Marshalsey of the Kings Bench forfeited his Office the Duke of Norfolk Great Marshal of England took advantage of it To these Cases it was said by the Court That they differed much from the Case at the Bar. First In the Cases cited the Inferior Officer is put in by the Superior and in some Cases to answer for his miscarriage ubi respondeat Superior they are Offices incident as the County Clark to the Sheriff Mittons Case 4 Co. and Scroggs Case of the Exigenter to the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Dyer 175. But here the Bishop doth not put in the Register of the Archdeacons Court He may make one to supply that place if it falls void when the Archdeaconry is vacant but then the next Archdeacon removeth him and puts in another Secondly The Forfeitures in the Cases cited were upon Breaches of Conditions in Law annexed to the Offices and t is a Rule in Law that the Grantor is to take advantage of the Breach of all Conditions but we are in case of a Forfeiture for offending against an Act of Parliament And the Court said tho' it might be supposed originally the Jurisdiction within the Diocess was lodged in the Bishop yet the Archdeacons Court hath time out of mind been settled as a distinct Court 4 Inst 339. and the Statute of 24 H. 8. cap. 12. takes notice of the Consistory Court which is the Bishops Court and the Archdeacons Court from which there lies an Appeal to the Bishops Court in 2 Ro. Rep. 150. Chivertons Case The Archdeacon is said to have a Court of himself and that the Courts of Westminster take notice thereof Thâ—s may be resembled to the Case of the Torn and Leet in the County the Leet is supposed to have been derived out of the Torn and yet upon the Forfeiture of a Leet it shall not go to the Sheriff As to the second Point it was resolved by the Court That the King might in this Case make a Register before Office found It was agreed That where an Estate of Freehold was forfeited to the King by Act of Parliament that an Office would be requisite to vest it in the King and that by the Statute of 5 Edw. 6. against the sale of Offices all the Estate and Interest c. of the Offender is forfeited But Pollexfen Chief Justice conceived this was not an Estate in the Archdeacon but only a Power to appoint a Register and in the nature of a chose en Action like the case of Offices in the King where the King may grant or nominate to the Office but hath not the Office in him to use or execute But he conceived and with that the rest of the Court agreed that however as to the present vacancy the right to supply that was a Chattel separate from the Inheritance and the King might supply the present avoidance before any Office found tho' it be admitted that the right of nomination in point of Estate should not vest in the King before Office found Where the Kings Tenant dies seised of an Advowson or in case of an Outlawry tho' the Estate is not in the King before Office yet if the Church becomes void the King shall present before Office 20 Edw. 4. 11. The case so put of an Advowson appendant Stamf. Prerog 54. B. T is a Transitory Chattel the present avoidance Lanes Rep. 43 64. 1 Ro. Rep. 326. and Jones Rep. 425. So the Body of the Ward is in the King before Office In Case of Simony the King shall present without Office Sed nota 31 Eliz. giveth the Presentation pro hac vice only And the Court said that the Verdict found that the Plaintiffs had a Grant from the Archdeacon also so that if nothing be in the King till Office it must remain in the Archdeacon so his Grant will be good till Office found There are no disabling words in the Statute but only shall Lose and Forfeite so quacunque via data the Plaintiffs ought to have Iudgment Harris versus Parker Ante ult ' Term. IN an Action of Debt for 99 l Rent the Plaintiff Declared upon two Demises which he laid at the Parish of St. Martin in the Fields in Middlesex of a Messuage and divers Lands quae praemissa sunt struat ' jacent ' existent in super acclivitatem de Hampstead Anglicè the rise of Hampstead Hill to hold for seven years reserving upon each Demise eighteen pounds yearly Rent The Defendant pleaded Actio non quia dicit quod praed ' Johannes Harris tempore dimiss ' praed ' nihil habuit in Tenementis praedict ' unde c. The Plaintiff Replied That long before the
praedict ' that upon the 24th of November aforesaid a Writ of Extendi facias was awarded to the Sheriffs of London against the said Calvert for the said Debt of 5000 l commanding him to Enquire per Sacramentum proborum legalium hominum c. what Goods Chattels Debts Specialties Sums of Money c. the said Calvert then had and to extend and seise them into the Kings hands in whole hands soever they then were that the King might be thereout satisfied of the said Debt juxta formam Statuti pro hujusmodi deb ' dicti domini Regis recuperand ' Which Writ was Returnable the 26th of the said November and upon the 24th was delivered to the then Sheriffs of London who upon the 25th day of the said November by virtue of the said Writ took an Inquisition per Sacramentum c. by which it was found that the said Defendant Cramlington upon the 24th of the said November was indebted to the said Calvert in 500 l for Money received by him to the use of the said Calvert and that the Defendant made a Bill of Exchange dated the 10th of the said November directed to the said Ryder to pay to the said Price to the use of the said Calvert the Sum of 500 l and that the same was due to the said Calvert at the time of the Inquisition taken and that the said Sheriffs did thereupon seise the Debt and Bill of Exchange into the Kings hands secundum exigentiam brevis praedict ' and Returned the said Writ and Inquisition c. into the Exchequer prout per Recordum c. plenius apparet by virtue of which the King became lawfully entituled to the said 500 l and Bill of Exchange aforesaid And the Defendant further saith That afterwards scilicet the 9th of December Anno primo c. a Writ of Extendi facias was awarded out of the said Court of Exchequer against the said Defendant Cramlington for the said 500 l and thereupon be paid the said 500 l upon the 15th day of January Anno primo supradictio to the use of the King in plena exoneratione satisfactione praedict ' ult ' mentionat ' brevis de extendi fac ' praedict ' Billae excambij summae quingent ' librarum per Inquisitionem praed ' sic ut praefertur compertum c. and concludes with Averments viz. That he the Defendant Cramlington is the same so named with him in the Extent and that the 500 l the Bill of Exchange c. in the Inquisition found are the same with them mentioned in the Declaration c. and so demands Iudgment of the Action To this Plea the Plaintiffs Demurred And after divers Arguments Judgment was given in the Kings-Bench for the Plaintiffs in Easter Term in the first year of King William and Queen Mary And now it came to be Argued upon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber First It was alledged for Error that the Custom is laid so general viz. not only to extend to Merchants but all others so that it must be at the Common Law if to be allowed at all Sed non allocatur For in the Case of Sarsfield and Witherly lately Adjudged it was Resolved That a person not being a Merchant drawing a Bill of Exchange was bound according to the Vsage of it amongst Merchants and in Declarations upon Bills of Exchange the whole Matter is to be set forth specially Secondly There was as appears by the Bill of Exchange 25 Day given for the payment of it after the Date of the Bill whereas here the Request and Refusal is upon the 25th day after the Date Sed non allocatur For as the Bill is set forth it is to pay the Money ad viginti quinque dies post datum and this can't be if not paid at the Five and twentieth day Thirdly The Matter chiefly insisted upon for Error was That the 500 l was appointed to be paid to Price for the use of the Calvert so the right and interest of the Money was in Calvert by whomsoever it should be received and then it might well be seised for the Debt which Calvert did owe to the King But the Court held that the Seisure for the King ought not to have been in this case 1. For that tho' it were to be paid for Calvert's use yet this was but a Trust and the Right of the Money was in Price As if Goods be given to A. to the use of B. the property of the Goods is in A. Otherwise if Money be delivered to A. to pay to B. there the Right of the Money is in B. and he may bring an Action of Debt 2. Here the Bill is Endorsed over to be paid to the Plaintiffs before any Seisure or the Writ of Extent was issued forth and the Custom is expresly laid that an Endorsment might be as in the Case here which Custom is confessed and that determines the Right and Interest in the Money of him that makes the Endorsment and puts it in the Plaintiffs Wherefore the Judgment was affirmed Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 2 W. M. In Scaccario Burchett versus Durdant IN a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment in an Ejectment in the Kings-Bench where the Plaintiff Mary Durdant declared upon the Demise of William Durdant of two Messuages 100 Acres of Land c. in Chobham in the County of Surrey Vpon Not guilty the Jury gave a Special Verdict That Henry Wicks was seised in Fee of the Premisses and by his Will in writing dated the 6th of June 1657. be Devised in the words following Viz. I give to my Cousin John Higden and his Heirs during the Life only of Robert Durdant my Kinsman all those my Messuages c. in Chobham in the County of Surrey upon this Trust and Confidence That he the said John Higden and his Heirs shall permit and suffer the said Robert Durdant during his Life to have and receive the Rents and Profits thereof which shall yearly grow due and payable he the said Robert committing no Waste And from and after the Decease of Robert Durdant then do I give the said Lands and Premisses in Chobham unto the Heirs Males of the Body of him the said Robert Durdant now living and to such other Heirs Male and Female as he shall hereafter happen to have of his Body and for want of such Heirs then to the use and behoof of my Cousin Gideon Durdant and the Heirs of his Body and for want of such Heirs the same to be and remain to the right Heirs of me the said Henry Wicks They find that Wicks died the 2d of December 14 Car. 2. seised as aforesaid and that John Higden entred and was seised prout lex postulat and by Deed bearing date the 1st of Jan. 14 Car. 2. reciting the said Will and that the said Robert Durdant and Gideon Durdant had Contracted with the said John Higden for the sale of the said
to be done where there has been only a right of Action as in Sawle and Clerke's Case in Jones 211. and Cro. Car. where the Case as to this Point is to this effect A Remainder upon an Estate Tail was divested by the Fine of Tenant in Tail who had made an Estate for Life warranted by the Statute and died without Issue He in the Remainder was barred from bringing a Formedon in the life of the Tenant for Life within Five years after the Fine and had not a new Five years after the death of Tenant for Life tho' he could not Enter in the life of the Tenant for Life And the Reason given in Crook's Reports is because he had no other Right after the Death of the Tenant for Life than he had before and this plainly distinguisheth that and the Case at the Bar from the Cases that have been cited of June and Smye's Case in the 1 Cro. 219. and Laund and Tucker 254. for there the Fine was Levied by the particular Tenant which was a Forfeiture which he in Reversion might choose whether he would take advantage of and as the case might be it would be to his prejudice to take advantage of it where the particular Tenant has charged the Land and therefore if he would he should have Five years after the Estate determined to claim as of his Reversion which is another distinct Right from that of the Forfeiture And this was the standing difference that made the distinction where there should be a new Five years given to him in Reversion after the particular Estate determined and where not as we see in Margaret Podgers Case in the 9 Co. 106. If the Tenant for years were ousted and a Fine levied by the Disseisor he in the Reversion was bound by the first Five years Non-claim because tho' he could not enter as if the Estate for years had been determined or as in the Cases before of the Forfeiture yet he might have immediately brought an Assize with which Sawl and Clarke's Case exactly agrees and goes upon the same Reason As for Freeman's Case the Resolution goes wholly upon the Circumstances of Fraud appearing in the Case the principal of which was That the Lessee continued in possession and paid the Rent I confess they have gone a little further of late and now it is taken That he in Reversion shall have Five years after the Term is ended by effluction of Time tho' there were no Forfeiture incurred at the Levying of the Fine Nor no such plain Circumstances of Fraud as appears in Fermer's Case and the Case put before and cited out of Margaret Podgers Case is not held to be Law The contrary whereof is taken to have been Resolved in Folley and Tancred's Case in the 24 Car. 2. and I do not intend to shake the Authority of that Case but admit it to be good in Law yet I crave leave to observe That it is a Resolution carried beyond the words of the Statute for the Right is not pursued within Five years next after it first came For it is agreed in Fermer's Case fo 79. that there the Construction was against the Letter of the Statute and I must say it is a Construction by Equity which is a little extraordinary to weaken the force of a Statute which was made for the quieting of mens Possessions and to add force to Fines which were of so great regard in Law and especially to make a Construction by Equity contrary to the Reason of the Common Law which took no care of a future Right at all for he in the Reversion in case of a Fine Levied at the Common Law depended wholly upon the Entry or Claim of the particular Tenant and in default of that lost his Estate as in the 1 Inst 262. b. and in Plowden's Commentaries in Stowell's Case I say again I do not design by this to oppose any Case that hath been setled But I confess I should not have gone so far if I had not been led by Authority and am not willing to go a step further And now I shall endeavor to shew that this Case goes a great deal further and would be a greater strain upon the Statute than yet has been And First I Observe that upon all or most of the Cases of a Fine where there has been an Estate for Life or Years in being at the time of the Fine that the Possession has held still in the particular Tenant so that he in Reversion had no reason to suspect any Fine or other thing done upon the Estate there being no alteration of the Possession And this agrees somewhat with the Reason of the Common Law in case of a Fine Executory he that had Right was not bound to claim till there were an Execution of the Fine and Transmutation of the Possession thereupon as in Plowden's Commentaries 257. b. in Stowell's Case But here it is found that the Conusor and not the Conusees or the Tenants by Extent or either of them were in possession so that the Land being in the possession of a Wrong-doer they which had Right ought to have watched and might well suspect that Fines should be Levied to the prejudice of their respective Rights It is said in Fermer's Case If a meer Wrong-doer having got the Possession levieth a Fine on purpose to bind the Right this shall bind notwithstanding his unjust Design But the Differences that I chiefly rely upon to distinguish the Case before us from the Cases of Reversions upon Estates for Life and Years or the like particular Estates are these 1. That in those Estates there is either by an express Limitation of the Parties or an operation of Law a certain and particular Term or End of the Estate which until it happens it has not its proper determination which an Estate by Extent has not I know it is has been much insisted on that the natural and proper determination of an Extent is satisfaction by a perception of Profits according to the extended Value whereas I cannot see but a release of the Debt or satisfaction by a sudden Accident is as properly a determination of the Extent as if it were run out by perception of Profits according to the extended Value For when the first Extent is out of the way the second is immediately to take place or why this acknowledging Satisfactoin on Record should be the natural and proper determination of the Extent more than a Release of the Debt by the Conusee or destroying of it by a Fine which is an higher Record than the Statute or the Entry of Satisfaction acknowledged thereupon 2. To let him that has the Reversion upon an Estate by Extent have Five years to claim after the first Extent run out by perception of Profits or Satisfaction acknowledged is to let in a Claim after an Estate that no man can see to the end of For when it shall be satisfied by the Profits no man can tell and can
his Bill to have the Land Conveyed according to the Agreement above But for the Defendants it was much insisted upon that this being to settle the Lands in case Thomas should dye without Issue it should not be regarded in this Court for the Execution of a Trust of a Remainder or Reversion in Fee upon an Estate Tail shall not be compelled because it is subject to be destroyed by the Tenant in Tail as here Thomas might have done in case he had made a Settlement according to the import of that Writing who therefore could not have been compelled himself to have executed this Agreement But the Lord Chancellor Fynch Decreed the Land for the Plaintiff because it was proved that the Marriage with the Plaintiffs Wife was in expectation of the performance of this Agreement and he was obliged to have left the Land to the Plaintiff if he had had no Issue Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 34 Car. II. In Cancellaria Collet versus Collet WIlliam Fox having three Daughters Mary Elizabeth and Martha the two latter being Married and the first a Widow by his Will devised in these Words Viz. I give unto Martha my Daughter the Sum of 400 l to be paid unto her by my Executors within one year next after my decease But I will and my desire is that Cornelius Collet the Husband of Martha upon the payment of the said 400 l shall give such Security as my Executors shall approve of that the said 400 l shall be laid out within 18 Months next after my decease and purchase an Estate of that value to be setled and assured upon her the said Martha and the Heirs of her Body lawfully begotten And in the Close of his Will were these words following Viz. I Will That after my Debts which I shall owe at the time of my Decease and my Funeral Expences and the Probat of this my Will be discharged then I do give all the rest of my Personal Estate Unbequeathed to purchase an Estate near of as good value as the same Personal Estate shall amount unto within one year next after my my decease Which said Estate so to be purchased I Will shall be setled and assured unto and upon my said three Daughters Mary Elizabeth and Martha and the Heirs of their respective Bodies lawfully begotten for ever or otherwise my said Daughter Mary and the Husbands of my said two other Daughters Elizabeth and Martha shall for such Moneys as they shall receive of my said Executors for the Overplus of my Personal Estate enter into one or more Bonds in the double Sum of Money as each part shall amount unto the same being to be divided into three parts unto my said Executors within 18 Months next after my decease to settle and assure such part or Sum of Money as each of them shall receive and have by this my Will for the Overplus of my Personal Estate unto and upon the Child and Children of my said Daughters Mary Elizabeth and Martha part and part alike Martha the Wife of Cornelius Collet died within six Months after the Testator leaving Issue only a Daughter who died within four Months after the Mother the other two Sisters surviving Cornelius Collet took out Letters of Administration both to Martha his Wife and likewise to his Daughter the Four hundred Pounds and likewise the Overplus of the Personal Estate being unpaid or disposed of Cornelius Collet preferred his Bill against the Executors and the surviving Sisters and thereby demanded the 400 l and likewise a third part of the Overplus which amounted unto 700 l And the Cause came to be heard before the Lord Chancellor upon Bill and Answer who Decreed the 400 l to the Plaintiff but as to the Surplus of the Estate the Bill was dismissed altho ' it was much insisted upon for the Plaintiff that he might have given Bond to secure the Surplus for his Child and so from the Child it would have come to him as Administrator But seeing that no Interest could vest in the Child till the Election were determined it not being material as to this Point whether the Executors or the Husband aâ— the Election the Father could not claim it as Administrator to the Child And then if the Money had been laid out in Land and the Settlement according to the direction of the Will the Husband would have had no benefit for there would have been a Ioynt Estate for Life in the Daughters with several Inheritances and no severance of the Ioynture by the Marriage and having Issue Co. Inst and so no Tenant by the Courtesie Therefore as to the Surplusage the Bill was Decreed to be dismissed Note As to the 400 l the Order of my Lord Chancellor was That Interest should be paid for it from the time of bringing the Bill Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 34 Car. II. In Cancellaria West versus The Lord Delaware WEST Heir apparent of the Lord Delaware Exhibited his Bill against the said Lord setting forth That upon a Marriage agreed to be had between him and the Daughter of one Mr. Huddleston with whom he was to have 10000 l Portion The Lord his Father Articled to settle Lands of such yearly value for the Wives Ioynture for their maintenance and the Heirs of their Bodies c. That the Wife being now dead and without Issue and no Settlement made the Bill prayed an Execution of the Articles and a discovery of what Incumbrances there were upon the Lands to be setled To this the Lord Delaware Answered That he never intended to settle Lands but for the Wives Ioynture only and that the Plaintiff her Husband was not named in the Articles and so was Advised He need make no Settlement and upon that Reason the Plaintiff could not require him to discover Incumbrances An Exception being taken to the Answer for that it did not discover any thing touching Incumbrances it was Argued before my Lord and for the Defendant it was alledged That by the Course of the Court the time of the Discovery should be when the other Point was determined for if that be for the Defendant then no Discovery can be required but if otherwise that then the Defendant shall be put to answer Interrogatories as is usual in Cases of like nature And it cannot be Objected That the Estate may be charged with Incumbrances since the Bill because they will be of no avail On the other side it was said That this would create great delay for upon the discovery of Incumbrances other parties must be made to the Bill and therefore this Case differed from the Case of Account which concerns the Defendant himself only but the Question now is only for the making proper Parties The Court Ordered That a further Answer should be made Nota If a man deviseth that such a Sum of Money shall be paid out of the Profits of his Lands and the Profits will not amount to the Sum in such case the Land
Hazard a general Declaration good without setting forth Cross Considerations 175 A Promise to one Part being void cannot stand good as to the other 224 Attorney An Attorney has Priviledge to lay his Action in Middlesex because of his Attendance 47 Averment Whether an Agreement may be pleaded and averr'd to shew the meaning of the Parties and that the Condition of a Bond may be taken accordingly 108 Quarter-days may be averr'd upon these General Words The usual Feasts 141 Authority See Vmpire Where an Authority is once fully Executed the Power is determined Not so where there is a compleat Execution 115 Where a man is vested with a bare Authority his denial or refusal to execute it does not conclude him but that he may execute it afterwards 116 Secus where he is vested with an Interest 117 Award See Arbitrament B Bail See Pleading THe Plaintiff may release his Action after the Sheriff hath taken a Bail-Bond 131 Attachments out of Chancery within the Statute that enables the Sheriff to take Bail-Bonds 238 How far a Bail-Bond may vary from the Writ 238 Bankrupt Trover and Conversion brought by an Assignee of Commissioners of Bankrupts against one possest of Bankrupt's Goods 63 The Commissioners cannot assign Money levied at the Bankrupt's Suit in Execution remaining in the Sheriffs hands or in Court 95 A Bankrupt's Servant shall set forth an Account of the Bankrupts Estate in his Answer to a Bill in Chancery tho' he hath been already Examined before the Commissioners 358 Baron and Feme If a Woman be Warden of the Fleet and one in Prison there marry her he is thereby out of Prison and in the Eye of the Law at large being a Husband cannot be in Custody to his Wife 19 Battery brought for both and found only as to the Wife tho' they cannot joyn for beating both yet good after Verdict 29 That Baron and Feme Executrix devastaverunt converterunt ad usum iplorum good 45 In an Action brought against the Husband for Lodging and Goods had by the Wife after Elopement what Plea shall be good what not 155 Whether the Wife may joyn with her Husband in bringing Trespass Quare Clausum fregit where the Land is the Wives 195 A Supplicavit de bono gestu granted in Chancery against the Husband for ill Usage to his Wife 345 Bond or Bill Penal See Obligation By Law A Corporation cannot make a By-Law to bind those which are not of its Body without Act of Parliament or express Prescription 33 Whether a By-Law of the University of Oxford shall oblige the Townsmen 33 34 A Corporation cannot make a By-Law to have a Forfeiture levied by sale of Goods nor for Forfeiture of Goods 183 C Canons THose of 3 Jac. 1. of force tho' never confirm'd by Act of Parliament 44 What Canons of force what not ibid. Challenge To the Array because the Sheriff in 1687. had not taken the Test the Challenge disallow'd 58 Chancery See Covenant Mortgage Trial Limitations Executor An Infants Answer in Chancery by Guardian no Evidence at Law to affect the Infant 72 There can be no Process of Contempt in Chancery against a Peer 342 Purchaser without Notice of Incumbrance favour'd in Chancery 339. 343 Words of Conveyance passing more than was intended how relievable in Chancery 345 A Trust and Equitable Interest is a Creature of the Chancery and therefore disposable by the Rules of that Court 350 Where a man leaves his Estate under several Incumbrances if the Heir buys in any of the first they shall not by the Course of this Court stand in the Way of Creditors for more than the Heir really paid for them 353 Relieves an Heir against Extortion 359 What shall be admitted to be read in Chancery what not 361 Distribution of Intestates Estate upon the Statute of 22 23 Car. 2. cap. 10. may be sued for in Chancery 362 Where a Bill is Exhibited to examine in prepetuam rei memoriam the Plaintiff must not pray Relief 366 Commitment What Commitment of Justices of the Peace for refusing to find Sureties of Good Behaviour good what not 22 23 24 Condition Condition of a Bond not to give Evidence at the Assizes against Law and the Obligee ought to be prosecuted for taking such a Bond 109 Consideration See Vse Notice Grant Enrolment Marriage Mortgage Conveyance Conveyances at the Common Law not such as work by the Statute of Vses or Surrenders of Copy-holds divest the Estate out of him that makes them immediately and put it in the Party to whom such Conveyance is made tho' in his Absence or without his Notice till he shews his disagreement 201 What Acts are requisite in Conveyances at Common Law 201 202 Atricles to Settle decreed to be executed by the Heir at Law 343 A Voluntary Conveyance defective at Common Law rarely relieved in Chancery 365 Copyhold See Action on the Case In what Cases and when the Lord shall seize the Copyhold Estate of his Tenant for Felony or Treason 38 Lands do not appear to be Copy-hold by saying they were held according to Custom unless it be said at the Will of the Lord 144 A Copyholder in Pleading need not shew admittance where the Title does not come in question as in Avowry for Rent reserved from his Under Tenant 182 Corporation See By-Law A Corporation cannot prescribe in a Que Estate â— sed quere 186 Costs See Nonsuit The Court cannot allow double Costs unless the Judge of Assizes caused the Postea to be mark'd 45 Divers Trespasses assigned the Defendant pleads Not Guilty for some and Justifies for others and the Jury find for the Plaintiff in one Issue and for the Defendant on the other no more Costs than Damages 180 195 What Costs discharged by the General Pardon and what not 210 No Costs to either Party upon a Repleader 196 Full Costs in Trespass given where the Damage was under 40 s 215 Covenant See Grant Trespass An Attorney Covenants on behalf of another Person that the Plaintiff shall quietly Enjoy an Action of Trespass is brought against the Plaintiff Whether this is a Breach of the Covenant 46 61 62 In an Action of Covenant the Defendant cannot plead that the Plaintiff tempore quo nihil habuit in tenementis tho' such Plea in an Action of Debt for Rent is good 99 Where Lessee Covenants to build three Houses upon the Premisses and keep them in Repair he builds four and lets one fall to decay Whether the Covenant extends to the fourth 128 A Covenant which does not consist with the Recital that leads and occasions it shall not oblige 140 A Suit in Chancery to stay Waste no Breach of Covenant for quiet Enjoyment tho' the Bill be dismist with Costs 213 214 A Latter Covenant by a second Indenture cannot be pleaded in Bar to the former but the Defendant must bring his Action on the last Indenture if he will help himself 218 Custom See Fine D Damages See Costs Debt
of Priviledge fitting the Parliament 154 Prohibition A second Prohibition not grantable after a Consultation 47 Q Quantum meruit See Outlawry Que Estate See Corporation R Recovery A Deed Fine and Recovery do all make but one Assurance but each hath its several effect 31 Common Recoveries are Common Assurances and are not to be overthrown by nice Constructions 32 A Common Recovery stopt what shall be good Cause to stop it 90 Relation Of Relation its force and where it shall Operate 200 Remainder What shall be accounted a Contingent Remainder and what a Remainder vested 313 Rent Rent due if the thing let hath been really enjoy'd 68 A Rent cannot be reserved out of a thing Incorporeal 69 Every Quarters Rent is a several Debt and distinct Actions may be brought for each Quarters Rent Not so for part of the Money due upon Bond or Contract unless the Plaintiff shews that the rest is satisfied 129 A Debt for Rent payable by an Executor before Bonds because it savours of the Realty and is maintain'd in regard of the Profits of the Land received 184 Request Request where necessary to be set forth and where not 75 Rescous See Return Return If a Sheriff Return a Rescous it is not now Traversable tho' formerly it was 175 Reversion A Reversion is a present Interest tho' to take effect in possession after another Estate determined 328 Revocation What shall be a good Revocation in Equity 350 S Scire facias WHere one Ter-tenant is Return'd summon'd he may plead That there are other Ter-tenants tho' in another County 104. But he must not plead this by way of Abatement but demand Judgment si ipse ad breve praed in forma praed retorn ' respondere compelli debeat 105 The Record of a Scire facias naught in the Titleing not permitted to be amended 105 Scire facias in Chancery to Repeal a Patent 344 Settlement See Conveyance Marriage Mortgage A Voluntary Settlement avoided by a following Settlement in Joynture 363 Sheriff If a Sheriff of a City be in Contempt the Attachment shall go to the Coroners and not to the Mayor but if he be out of Office then it shall go to the succeeding Sheriff 216 Simony To sell an Advowson ea intentione that J.S. shall be presented Simony 39 In case of Simony the Presentation vests in the King without Office Quaere in other Cases 213 Statutes 13 E. 1. Stat. of Winton In an Action upon this Statute not necessary to set forth more in the Declaration than is pertinent to the Action 215 4. H. 7. cap. 24. Of Fines Of Claims after the coming in of Future Interests in the second Saving in this Act 333 21 Jac. 1. cap. 16. See Limitations 22 23 Car. 2. cap. 9. No more Costs than Damage explain'd 36 What Trespass within this Statute What not 48 29 Car. 2. cap. 3. A Promise by Letter a sufficient Promise in Writing within this Statute 361. This Statute does not extend to Trusts raised by Operation of Law 361 31 Car. 2. cap. 2. Where a Man commits a Capital Crime in Ireland he may be sent thither to be Tried thereupon notwithstanding that by this Act No Subject of this Realm shall be sent Prisoner to any Foreign parts 314 1 W. M. cap. 4. That Statute which saves time of Limitation does not alter the Form of Pleading but that shall be as it was before 185 197 Statute Recognizance See Fine What shall be esteemed a regular Extending of a Statute Merchant 326 Where the Interest of a former Statute shall drown'd in that of a latter being both Extended and assigned to the same person 326 327 328 The Extent of a Statute what it is and the Effect thereof 326 338 An Extent upon a Puisne Statute where Extended after a Prior Statute is in the nature of a Reversional Interest 328 When a former Statute is determin'd whether it be by release of the Debt by purchase of part of the Lands by being barr'd by Non-Claim upon a Fine Satisfaction acknowledged or any other means this lets in the Puisne Statute 332 An Extent begins by Record but it may end without Record for a Release by the Conizee after Extent determines it and he that hath a Puisne Statute may Enter 336 Cannot be assigned before Extent in Law 362 Surrender No Surrender of an Estate without Acceptance by the Surrenderee 199 Yet quaere for the Judgment was reverst in Parliament 208 That a Surrender divesteth the Estate immediately before express Assent of the Surrenderee 203 infr T Tail A Devise to one for Life Remainder to the Heir Males of his Body for ever this is an Estate-Tail in the Devisee 313 A Sum of Money cannot be Entailed 349 Tender Plea of a Tender without setting forth a Refusal not good otherwise if a place of Payment was appointed and the Party to Receive was not there 109 Tythes Whether Notice be necessary to be given to the Parson upon setting forth of Tythes 48 Traverse See Pleading Treason Whether Listing of Men to send beyond Seas to joyn the King's Enemies be Treason within the Clause of Levying War in the Stat. 25 Ed. 3. 316 Whether the indictment should not express in particular who those Enemies are or whether the General Words be not sufficient ibid. To List c. and an Intent to Depose the King is Treason within the Clause of Compassing the Death of the King 317 Trespass See Assent Whether a Suit in an Action of Trespass be a Breach of Covenant to hold and enjoy quietly 46 61 62 Where an Action of Trover will lye for Goods tho' an Action of Trespass would not for taking them 169 170 Trust See Chancery Limitation The force of the Word Trust in the Limitation of a Use 312 Where a Man buys Land in anothers Name and pays Money it will be a Trust for him who pays the Money tho' there be no Deed declaring the Trust 361 Trust executed in Chancery according to the Parties meaning 363 364 Tryal A New Tryal directed by the Lord Chancellor where the former Verdict has been complain'd of in a Bill before him the Complainant paying the Costs of the first Tryal 351 352 V Variance See Pleading Verdict See Baron and Feme A Mistake in an Indebitatus Assumpsit where good after Verdict 36 A Declaration tho' Inartificial is notwithstanding good after Verdict 174 Vill. Vill and Parish the Diversity and where Lands in One shall pass in the Other of the same Name 31 Vmpire Arbitrators and Umpire cannot lawfully have concurrent Authorities at the same time 115 Vse Where Money is paid to A. for the Use of B. in whom the Right and Interest vests 310 Lands may be Devised to the Use of another but if no Use be limited they will lodge in the Devisee for a Devise implies a Consideration 312 Vsury No Unlawful Usury if the Agreement be not Corrupt tho' the Wording of the Condition may be otherwise by Mistake
Ejectment the Case upon a Special Verdict was to this effect Sir John Danvers being seized of the Lands c. in Tail with the Fee expectant Anno 1646 and in 1647 levied a Fine to the same uses as he was before seized save that a power was reserved to make Leases for any number of years and without reserving any Rent Sir John Danvers did after become Guilty of Treason in Murdring of King Charles the first in 1648 and died in 1655. In 13 Car. 2. cap. 15. the Statute commonly called the Statute of Pains and Penalties Enacts That sundry of the Offenders in that execrable Treason of which Sir J. D. was one should amongst other Penalties there inflicted forfeit all their Lands Tenements and Hereditaments Leases for years Chattels real and interest of what nature or quality soever See the Act of 14 of this King The Lands were by Patent granted to the Duke of York who let them to the Defendant And John Danvers Heir of Sir John Danvers entred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff It had been several times argued at the Bar and this Term Iudgment was given by the Court for the Defendant And Rainsford Chief Justice delivered the Opinion of the Court and the Reasons for himself Twisden Wild and Jones as followeth The question being Whether an Estate Tail were forfeited by the words of the Act of 13 Car. 2. It was observed that all Estates were Fee simple at the Common Law and forfeitable W. the 2. de donis was the first Statute that protected Estates Tail from Alienations and from all Forfeitures of all kinds and so continued until the 12 E. 4. Taltarums Case from which time common Recoveries have been held not to be restrained by the Statute de donis and by the way it must be considered that Perpetuities were never favoured Then came the Statute of 4. H. 7. of Fines which with the explanation of the 32 H. 8. have been always resolved to bar the Issues in Tail so as to Alienations Estates Tail were set free but were not forfeitable no not for Treason until the 26 H. 8. by which they became subjected to Forfeitures in case of Treason and so by 5 E. 6. But 't is true these Statutes extend only to Attainders and 33 H. 8. Vests the Lands c. in the Kings possession without Office Thus having considered the History and Progress of Estates Tail the reasons why such an Estate should be construed to be forfeited upon this Act of 13 Car. 2. are these First The Crime mentioned is of the same nature and with the same aggravations as in 12 Car. 2. by which the Offenders are attainted of Treason c. for they are called Perpetrators of that execrable Treason with many Expressions to the like effect which was looked upon as an offence of that hainous nature that the same Parliament Enacted An Anniversary Humiliation throughout the whole Kingdom to be perpetually observed upon the account of it as if not only they that acted it but the whole Kingdom and their Posterity like to another Original sin were involved in the Guilt of it Nati natorum qui nascuntur ab illis And therefore the Punishment shall not be mitigated in any other manner than is expresly provided by that Act. Secondly It is proved by the generally and comprehensions of the words which are made use of viz. Possessions Rights Hereditaments of what nature soever Interests which does as well signifie the Estate in the ting as that wherein the Estate is which can have no effect if not extended to Estates Tail We must observe also that at the making of this Act entailed Lands were not protected from Forfeitures and tho' 26 H. 8. extends only to Cases where the Offender is attainted yet 't is of good direction to the Judges in Cases of like nature and 't is plain that by this Act of 13 Car. 2. the Offenders were looked upon in pari gradu with these attainted for when the Proviso comes to save the Estates of Strangers c. in trust for whom the Offenders were seized It is said notwithstanding any of the Convictions or Attainders aforesaid Thirdly It is to be observed that the Act takes notice that divers of the Offenders included in this Act were dead now in regard most Lands are known to be entailed if the Act had not intended such Estates to be forfeited it would signifie nothing indeed if the Offenders had been alive it might have been somewhat satisfied with the Forfeiture during their Lives But as the case was it should be of no effect at all after making a great noise of Forfeitures and Confiscations the Act would have been but a Gun charged only with Powder or as in the Fable Parturiunt Montes c. Fourthly It is manifest that the Parliament did not intend that the Children or Heirs of the Persons within the Penalties of the Act should have any benefit of their Estates for in the saving which is made for Purchasers upon valuable Considerations the Wives Children and Heirs of the Offenders are excepted then surely if they would bar them of the benefit of their Purchases à fortiori from inheriting to an Estate Tail especially of a voluntary Entail that seems to be made with a prospect of this Treason which was perpetrated a year after and such an Entail as scarce the like was ever seen before that a power should be reserved to make Leases for any number of years and without Reservation of any Rent By which it is manifest that Sir John Danvers that committed the Treason was fully Master of the Estate Again all Conveyances are avoided by the Act unless such as were upon valuable Consideration which this Fine was not The great case which has been insisted upon by way of objection is Trudgeons Case Co. Litt. 130. Estates Tail were not forfeited upon the Statute of Praemunire but during the Offenders Life For answer to that it must be observed that that Forfeiture is upon the Statute of 16 R. 2. at which times Estates Tail were under thè protection of the Statute de donis but since that time the Judges have not been so strict in expounding Statutes concerning Estates Tail as appears by Adams and Lamberts Case 4 Co. That an Estate Tail given for a superstitious use was within the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 4. where the words are generally and not so large as in our case nor so much to demonstrate the intent as is in our Act to extend to Estates Tail wherefore Iudgment was given for the Defendant Note They that argued for the Defendant endeavoured to maintain that if it should be admitted that Entails were not forfeited by the Act yet the Estate of Sir John Danvers in those Lands would be forfeited in regard he levied a Fine in 1647 and the Act of 13 Car. 2. extends to all Lands c. whereof the Persons therein mentioned were seized c. since 1646 and he being
Tenant in Tail and levying of a Fine there is an Instantaneous Fee in him out of which the new Estate Tail is supposed to be created and that cannot hold bring derived out of a Fee subject to the Forfeiture by Relation but this Point was not touched by the Judges for that they were fully agreed upon the other Point Beasly's Case HE was taken in Execution taken a Recognizance of Bail and he made it appear to the Court that he never acknowledged the Recognizance but was personated by another and thereupon it was moved that the Bail might be vacated and he discharged as was done in Cottons Case 2 Cro. 256. But the Court said since 21 Jac. cap. 26. by which this Offence is made Felony without Clergy it is not convenient to vacate it until the Offender is convicted and so it was done 22 Car. 2. in Spicers Case Wherefore it was ordered that Beasly should bring the Money into Court an be let at large to prosecute the Offender Twisden said it must be tried in Middlesex tho' the Bayl was taken at a Judges Chamber in London because filed here and the Entry is venit coram Domingo Rege c. So it differs from a Recognizance acknowledged before my Lord Hobart upon 23 H. 8. at his Chamber and Recorded in Middlesex there Scire facias may be either in London or Middlesex Hob. rep If a false Bayl be acknowledged it is not Felony unless it be Filed and so held in Timberly's Case The King versus Humphrey's al. AN Indictment upon the Statute of Maintenance and one only found Guilty and it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that seeing but one was found Guilty it did not maintain the Indictment 2 Rolls 81. several were indicted for using of a Trade and said uterque eor ' usus fuit and held not good Sed non allocatur for that in that case in Rolls the using of the Trade by one cannot be an using by the other But this is an Offence that two may joyn in or it may be several as in a Trespass But then it was alledged that the Maintenance was in quodam placito in Cur ' coram Domino Rege pendent ' and not said where the Kings Bench Sate and this was held fatal Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 28 29 Car. II. In Banco Regis Jay's Case A Mandamus to restore to his place of a Common Council Man in the Corporation of Eye in Suffolk The Return was that he was amoved for speaking of approbious words of one of the Aldermen viz. That he was a Knave and deserved to be posted for a Knave all over England And it was moved that the Return was insufficient for words are not good cause to remove a Man from his place in the Corporation To which it was said that this not a difranchising of him but only removing him from the Common Council as a person not fit to sit there To which Twisden said that his place there could no more be forfeited than his Freedom for he was chosen thereunto by the Custom of the place And Magna Charta is that a Man shall not be disseised de liberis consuetudinibus But he held that words might be a cause to turn out a Freeman as if they were that the Mayor or the like did burn the Charters of the Town or other words that related to the Duty of his place But in the Case at Bar the words do not appear to have any reference to the Corporation wherefore it was ordered that he should be restored The Court said that my Lord Hale held That Returns of this nature should be sworn tho' of late days it has not been used and that it was so done in Medlecot's Case in Cro. Abram versus Cunningham UPon a Special Verdict the Case appeared to be to this effect A. possessed of a Term makes B. Executor who makes three Executors and dies two of them dies and the Will of B. the Executor not being discovered Administration is granted cum Testamento annexo to D. who grants over the Term. The surviving Execcutor never intermeddles but so soon as he had Notice of the Will Refused before the Ordinary and the Point was Whether the grant of the Term in the mean time was good Saunders to maintain it Argued That to the making of an Executor besides the Will there was requisite that the Executor should assent and if the Executor refuses 't is as much as if there never had been any There is no Book which proves the Acts of an Administrator void where there is a Will and the Executor renounces Greysbrook and Foxe's Case in Plowden's Com. is that after Administration granted the Executor proved the Will And so in 7 E. 4. 14. in Dormer and Clerke's Case it was held that where there was an Executor who after refused and Administration committed the Administrator should have all the Rent belonging to the Term in Reversion which accrued after the death of the Testator If an Executor be a Debtor and refuses the Administrator may Sue him Which was denied by Twisden because a Personal Action once suspended is ever so Dyer 372. If one makes an Executor who dies and never proves the Will Administration shall be granted as upon a dying Intestate suppose an Executor de son tort had Judgment against him Shall not there be Execution upon a Term as Assets in his hands Twisden It hath been Doubted whether there could be an Executor de son tort of a Term or whether he were not a Disseisor And by the same Reason it may be granted in the present Case for at least the Administrator here is an Executor de son tort before the Refusal Levins contra Anciently Bona Intestati capi solebant in manus Regis as appears in Hensloe's Case in the 9 Co. And since the Power of the Ordinary hath been introduced it was only to grant Administration upon a dying Intestate 4 H. 7. Pl. 10. If the Ordinary cites the Executor to prove the Will and he Renounces 't is said he may grant Administration which implies that it cannot be before So 21 H. 8. cap. 5. is to grant Administration c. upon a dying Intestate or refusal of the Executor the Interest of the Executor commences before the Probat In 36 H. 6. 8. an Executor commanded one to take the Goods and after the Executor refused before the Ordinary who committed Administration and the Administrator Sued the person that took the Goods who Iustified by the Executor's Command and it was held good And a Relation shall never make an Act good which was void for defect of Power And the Court seemed strongly of that Opinion But Serjeant Pemberton desiring to Argue it the Court permitted him to speak to it the next Term. Et sic Adjornatur And afterwards it was Argued again and Judgment was given for the Defendant per totam Curiam Dunwell versus Bullocke IN an Action of