neither at the time of the Will nor at the time of her death she had nothing of the said Manor of Tremington but the said Rent of one hundred thirty and six pounds Also it may be taken that she who devised was ignorant of the Law and conceived that it was a Manor when she had Rents and Services out thereof notwithstanding that those who are learned in the Law know that a Manor could not pass without there was two Suitors at the least 21 R. 2. Devise 27. Lands are devised to one for life the remainder Ecclesiae Sancti Andreae in Holborn there it is holden in an Ex gravi Querela that the Parson should recover for otherwise the Devise should be void if the Parson should not have the Lands and in Wills shall subserve and give place to the intent of the Party and therefore if a man deviseth that his Lands shall be sold for the payment of his debts his Executors shall sell them and to that intent the naming of them Executors is sufficient Plow Com. 523. in Weldens Case it is vouched to be adjudged that if one after the Statute of 27 H. 8. deviseth that his Feoffees shall be seized to the use of A. in Fee that it was a good Devise of the Lands to A. and yet then he had not nor could have any Feoffees c. But the Party was ignorant of the Statute and his intent to pass the Land was apparent in that Case the words were as much impertinent to the matter as in our Case for there he had not any Feoffees as here she hath not any Manor Br. recites That in 38 H. 8. it was holden by Baldwin Shelly and Morgan that if a man who had Feoffees to his use would after the Statute of 27 H. 8. that his Feoffees should make an Estate to J. S. that the Land should pass to J. S. 26 H. 8. Feoffments Faits 12. Land cannot pass by the Deed of an House for it cannot be parcel of an House but an Acre of Land may be given by the name of a Carve and a Carve of Land by the name of a Manor and yet a Carve can be no more a Manor than this rent yea Rents and Services more resemble a Manor than a Carve of Land. It cannot be intended that her Will was here to pass the Manor it self which was not in her but in another Also she by four years before had the rent and therefore it shall be intended that it was her meaning to pass the same which she her self received and no other thing and although in the Devise the rent be specially named and the Manor also yet the same shall not alter the Case for if a man grant the Reversion upon an Estate for life and by the said Deed grants the Land and the Tenant attorns and the Grantee deviseth all his Land the Reversion shall pass without all question If a man grant the Advowson of D. and in the same Deed the Church and Rectory of D. and the Grantee deviseth the Rectory of D. the Advowson shall pass In Adams Case Plow Com. 195. a man leaseth his Capital Messuage rendring rent there the question is If the Reversion or Rent shall pass It was adjudged That all which he had passed As to that that it cannot be levied out of the Rent for that no place is therein of Distress I say that she did not know whether a lesser rent might be paid out of a greater rent and 1 H 4. Multure was granted reserving rent and the Grant was good The words of the Will are All which Manors Lands and Tenements c. she devised to the Lord Mountjoy and these words expound her meaning for although the word Rent be not within the word Manor yet the words Lands and Tenements do comprehend it and words subsequent in Wills may express the Premisses As 16 Eliz. Dyer 333. Chapman seized in Fee of two Houses having three Brothers devised the House in which A. inhabited to his three Brethren and A. to dwell there and they not to raise the rent and devised the House in which B. his Brother dwelt to him and that he pay to C. his Brother 3 l. for to find him at School and otherwise to remain to the House Proviso that the Houses shall not be sold but shall go to the next of the Name and Blood which are Male and dyed B. his brother dyed without Issue the eldest of the two middle brothers entred and had Issue a Son and dyed It was a Question If the Son or the middle brother should have the House And it was holden that the Son of the eldest should have it in Tail which Exposition was by reason of the words in the Proviso that it should not be Sold and that it should go to the Heirs Males Shuttleworth The rent shall not pass by the Devise for the construction of a Will ought to be according to the words or according to the intent collected out of the words and not by a thing out of the Will for then a stranger shall be the maker of the Will of another And 19 H. 8. if a Will be doubtful it ought to be expounded for the Heir at the Common Law. And if the rent ought to pass it ought to have apt words and not the name of a Manor And thereupon he put the Case that where one deviseth certain Lands to one and afterwards his Goods Leases and other things to another All his Goods and Terms shall pass but not his Lands for that there wanteth apt words to pass them for the word other things shall not pass them and this set order ought to be observed for the avoiding of confusion And the Rent and Services shall not pass for the two parts admitting the words sufficient for they cannot be divided But Periam said That the rent might be divided Anderson said That it should be but a Rent-seck Periam said it was a Rent distrainable of Common Right but Anderson doubted of it but they all agreed that it might be divided but there should not be two Tenures Fenner The Rent should pass by the Devise of the Manor for there is do difference betwixt a Manor and a Seigniory in gross amongst Lay-men and then their intent shall be taken although it was not written by apt words for in Grants a Reversion shall be taken for a Remainder and à Fortiori a Devise And 7 E. 3. a Manor shall pass by the name of a Knights Fee and 19 H. 8. a Wood shall pass by the name of Land and 38 E. 3. by grant of totam terram which A. held in dower the Reversion shall pass Afterwards in Mich. Term the Plaintiff discontinued his Ation And Periam told me I being at his House that the Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff and if it had not been discontinued they would have given Iudgment accordingly Now this was the intent of the Lord Mountjoy The
Defendant And further found That as it appeared by an Exemplification out of the Exchequer That it was a Chauntry of H. G. and that Tho. was then a Chauntry Priest there and that the said Chauntry with all the Profits and Obits were 6 l. 13 s. 4 d. the tenth of which is a Mark which was payable to the King 26 H. 8 And that by another Exemplification in 2 E. 6. it appeared that the Dean and Chapter of Pauls certified to the Commissioners of the said King Cantaria H. G. A. B. Executores Testamenti H. Gilford by force of the said Will 7 E 2. granted and assigned to the Dean and Chapter aforesaid and their Successors the said Lands and Tenements to the intent that they should maintain for ever a Chaplain to pray for the Soul of the said H. G. and all Souls And the Incumbent of the said Chauntry is one G. and that the said Executors granted to the Mayor and Commonalty of London the Rent of 20 s. out of a Shop in Cheap with the Patronage of the said Chauntry to the intent that they should maintain the Chauntry accordingly and recited all the said Lands and Rents assigned and that the Rent of them was 14 l. 1 s. the Salary of the Priest 6 l. 13 s. 4 d. for Bread and Wine 3 s. 4 d. the Chamberlain of London 20 s. being deducted and so there remaineth 4 l. 3 s 4 d. And that the said Chaplain received above his Wages yearly by reason of the said Obit other Profits as Procession pence and Feeding days 33 s. 4 d. And found further the Act of 1 E. 6. and further said That the Church of St. Paul at the time of the said act was a Cathedral Church and the Fee of the Bishop of London and that the profits and rents devised and ordained to the said Dean and Chapter were in the said Certificate of 2 E. 6. and that the said Lands at the time of the making of the said Act and for five years before were not in the actual possession of the said King H. 8 nor E. 6. and that by force of the Statute of 1 E. 6. the said Lands came to the possession of the said King as Chauntry Land and that the said King granted it to Tho. Butcher in Fee who bargained and sold the same to Dobson who thereof enfeoffed Thoragill upon whom the said Nicholas Wilford entred claiming his Lease And further found That 45 s. parcel of the said rent of 9 l. due at the Feast of St. John Baptist 11 Eliz. for the said Capital Messuage was arrear by half a year after the said Feast and was lawfully demanded by the said Rich. Thoragill and for not payment he re-entred and let the same to Tho. Buttell c. Bell. The Executors by this Devise have not a bare authority but an interest for if one seized of Lands in Fee deviseth That his Executors grant a Rent-charge to one in Fee out of his said Lands by that Devise the Executors have a Fee-simple in the Land otherwise they could not make such a Grant So here in the Case in question and also by the same reason the Executors have a Fee-simple in the Land for otherwise they could not grant a Rent in Fee nor the Land to the Dean and Chapter in Fee by which the Chaplain in perpetuity ought to be found And although but one Chauntry was erected where three were intended but the Land devised was not sufficient for all three so that now by the erecting of one Chauntry only the Executors performed the trust as near to the intent of the Devisor as it could be and as the Land devised might extend unto it is not material if here be a Condition or a Confidence in the words of the Grant to the Dean and Chapter ad inveniendum c. for if it be a Condition and broken no advantage shall be taken of it for it is out of the Statute and if it be a Confidence then it is performed as near the intent of the Devisor as it might be and the Condition being performed although not exactly yet so near as it may be it is well enough performed As a Feoffment upon Condition that the Feoffee shall make a Gift in tail to Husband and Wife and the Heirs of the Body of the Husband the Husband dyeth now the Gift cannot be modo forma and therefore if it be it may be scil as near the intent of the parties as it may be it is good and therefore if the Land be given to the wife for life without impeachment of waste the remainder over it is sufficient in case of a Trust and Confidence 1. It was moved If here be any Chauntry in the Case And a Chauntry is nothing else but a Sustentation for a Priest that chaunts in a place certain for the Souls of the dead And Chauntries are in two sorts the one incorporated as by the King by his Letters Patents the other not incorporated as our case is And truly the greatest number of Chauntries were not corporal but were Chauntries but in reputation and not Revera but yet such Chauntries in reputation are within the Statute which see by the words of it accepted taken or reputed as Part or Member of any Chauntry It hath been Objected That nothing passeth to the King by that Statute but that which is parcel or belonging to the Chauntry but this Land is not parcel nor belonging to any Chauntry for all the Land is in the Dean and Chapter As to that we ought to have regard unto the intent of the Devisor which was to make the Land a Chauntry And so in the time of Hen. 8. it was retorned in the Exchequer for the First-fruits of the Chauntry of Hen. Gilford and we ought not to respect the Conveyance it self which was made by the Executors to the Dean and Chapter but also the disposition of the Devisor so as both ought to be put together if they be not contrary one to the other and if they be then the last shall be taken And when the intent of the Devisor may stand with the act of the Executors to construe That the Land shall make the Chauntry according to the intent of the Devisor for the Executors have given all the Land to the Dean and Chapter to find a Priest and things belonging to a Chauntry and the Executors have given the said Land to the said intent and the assignment of the special portion out of it is but a shewing how the profits of the Lands shall be bestowed For I conceive That the Land at the time of the disposition aforesaid was not of any better value than it was appointed to be imployed as aforesaid and if the Dean and Chapter by their industry have made and improved it to a greater value they shall take advantage thereof till it be given to the King by the Statute and it shall not be said properly a Rent but
she might disagree CCCXXXI Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. B. and C. three Brothers A. hath issue and dyeth the middle Brother Purchaseth Land and deviseth the same to his Son in Tail and if he die without Issue that the Land shall remain to the King and Lineage of the Father sc of the middle Brother and if the Son of the eldest Son or the youngest Brother should have the Land was the Question and it was the opinion of the Lord Dyer That the Son of the eldest Brother should have it CCCXXXII Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Lease for life was made to B the Remainder to C. and D. in Tail It was holden that in this case C. and D. cannot disagree to that Remainder without matter of Record for they are Tenants in Common but if the Remainder had been limited to them in Fee so as they took joyntly it had been otherwise for then by the disagreement of the one the other shall take the whole Land. Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXIII Waite and Coopers Case IN Ejectione firmae between Waite and Cooper It was found by Verdict That Cranmer late Archbishop of Canterbury was seized of the Manor and Borough of Southwark in the right of his Bishoprick and that the Prior of Morton was seized of the House in which the Ejectment is supposed and held the same of the said Archbishop as of his said Manor and Borough after which 30 H. 8. the said Archbishop gave to the King the said Manor and Borough with confirmation of the Dean and Chapter and that the same year the said Prior surrendred by which the said King was seized as well of the said Manor and Borough as of the said House and afterwards the King by his Letters Patents gave the said House and other Lands in Middlesex and Essex to Curson and Pope in Fee tenend in Libero Burgagio per fidelitatem tantum non in Capite pro omnibus serviciis demandis And afterwards King Edw. 6. gave the said Manor and Borough to the Mayor and Commonalty of London Curson and Pope covey the said House to Welsh in Fee who dyed without Heir All the Question was What Tenure is here reserved upon the Words and Grant made by King Hen. 8. to Curson and Pope It was said It could not be a Tenure in Burgage because here is not any Rent reserved which see by Littleton 162 163 164. And the Lord Anderson at the first very strongly insisted upon that Another matter was because here is reserved for all the Lands and Tenements but one Tenure so that if the Court should adjudge the Tenure reserved to be Burgage then Lands at the Common Law out of Boroughs should be holden in Burgage Also a Tenure in Burgage cannot be created without these words ut de Burgagio And to that purpose Shute Iustice agreed Vide Br. Tenures 94. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXIV Fullers Case NOte It is holden by the whole Court in Fullers case That if one give 300 l. to another to have an Annuity of 50 l. assured to him for 100 years if he his Wife and four of his Children so long shall live That this is not within the Statute of Vsury So if there had not been any Condition but care is to be taken that there be no Communication of borrowing of any Money before Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXV Goore and Winkfields Case 3 Leon. 223. DEbt upon an Obligation by Goore against Winkfield the Obligation was written in this Form Know all by these Presents That I H. Winkfield am bound to William Goore in the Sum of c. for the payment of which Sum I give full power and authority to the said Goore to keep the said Sum upon the Profits of the Bayliwick of Swinstall from year to year until the same be paid To which the Defendant pleaded That the Plaintiff had levied parcel of the said Sum c. and did not shew how much and therefore the pleading was holden not good And it was clearly agreed by the whole Court That the Plaintiff was at Liberty either to bring his Action upon the said Obligation or to levy the Debt according to the Clause aforesaid Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXVI Powley and Siers Case POwley brought Debt against Sier Executor of the Will of one A. The Defendant demanded Iudgment of the Writ For he said That one B. was Executor of the said A. and that the said B. constituted the said Defendant his Executor so as the Writ ought to have been brought against the Defendant as Executor of an Executor and not as immediate Executor of the said A. The Plaintiff replyed That the said B. before any probate of the Will or any Administration dyed and so maintained his Writ upon which the Defendant demurred Wray was for the Writ for although here be not any Probate of the Will of A. or any other Administration yet when B. makes his Will and the Defendant his Executor it is an acceptation in Law of the Administration and Execution of the first Will. Gawdy and Ayliff Iustices that the Writ was not good Vide 23 Eliz. Dyer 372. Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXVII Taylors Case TAylor was Outlawed in Debt where a Supersedeas upon Record was delivered to the Sheriff before the award of the Exigent It was holden that the Party should avoid the same by Plea Then it was moved If the Plea should be pleaded by Attorney or in Person To which it was said by the Iustices That where matter in fact is pleaded in avoiding of an Outlawry he ought to plead it in Person but matter of Record by Attorney And so Ford Prothonotary said it was agreed in the Case of Sir Thomas Chamberlain 7 Eliz. and so it ought to be in the principal Case here CCCXXXVIII Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was agreed for Law in the Kings Bench if Lessee for years grant all his Estate and Interest to A rendring rent by Indenture and for default of payment a re-entry And the Grantor demandeth the rent and A. demands an Acquittance but the Lessee for years refuseth in such case A. may refuse to pay such rent for the rent is to be paid in this nature without an Acquittance but contrary if Lessee for years had leased parcel of his Estate rendring Rent with Clause of Re-entry c. CCCXXXIX Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe King seized of a Manor to which an Advowson is appendant a Stranger presented and his Clerk in by 6 Months It was holden that in such case the Grantee may present for the Advowson was always appendant and the Inheritance thereof passed to the Grantee for it was not made disappendant by the usurpation as in the case of a common person for the King cannot be put out of possession But the Patentee shall not have Quare Impedit
King he granted the said Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench But 26 R. 2. both Offices were rejoyned by Parliament as they were in ancient time before and there was also shewed one Patent of 4 E. 4. and another of 19 H. 8. by which it appeared that the said inferiour Office had ever been part of the Grand Office Then it was moved That when the said Office is in the Kings hands and the King grants the said Vnder Office If the same was for ever severed from the Grand Office. Wray Chief Iustice It is a severance of it for the chief Office is an Office of Dignity which remains in the King but the under Office is an Office of Necessity and the King himself cannot execute it wherefore of necessity he ought to grant it Another matter was moved Recital in Grants of the King. If the Grant of the King to the Earl of Shrewsbury was good because in the Grant to Verney of the Vnder Office it is not recited according to the Statute of 6 H. 8. cap. 9. As 20 Ass 6. the King seized of the Honor of Pickering to which a Forrest was appendant The Bailywick of which Forrest he granted in Fee rendring Rent and afterwards he granted the Honor with the Appurtenances and afterwards the Baily committed a forfeiture and the same was found in Eyre for which the Office of Bailywick was forfeited the Grantee of the Honor seized it yet it was holden that the King should have the Rent And here in this Case the Earl of Shrewsbury shall have this Office in his power to grant it and so much the rather for that it was granted but for life Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXVI Conies Case Roll. Abrig 894. Sale of Goods by the Sheriff upon Execution where good where not IN Debt It was holden that if the Sheriff upon the Fieri facias makes sale of the Goods of the Party and afterwards doth not return his Writ yet the Sale is good The Case went further That upon the Fieri facias the Sheriff returned That he had seized Goods of the Party to such a value Sed non invenit Emptores and afterwards before sale of them he is discharged and afterwards a Distringas issued to the new Sheriff to cause the ancient Sheriff to sell the said Goods who did so It was holden that the said sale of them was void for the new Sheriff ought to have sold them Vide 34 H. 6. 36. A Distringas to the old Sheriff to sell and deliver the Goods to the new Sheriff Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXVII NOte by Dyer and Manwood A. leaseth to B for years Remainder where void the remainder to the right Heirs of the said B. and makes Livery That the remainder is void because there is not any person in esse who can take presently by the Livery and every Livery ought to have its operation presently But where a Lease is made to B. for life the remainder to his right Heirs there he hath a Fee executed and it shall not be in Abeyance for there he takes the Freehold by the Livery Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXVIII Hindes Case UPon an Habeas Corpus for one Hinde Habeas Corpus the Warden of the Fleet returned That Hinde was committed to the said Prison by the commandment of the Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiastical It was holden that the Warden in his return Cause of commitment where must be returned where not ought to certifie the cause for which he was committed and then upon the return the Court ought to examine the cause if it be sufficient or not But if one be committed to Prison by the commandment of the Queens Privy Council there the cause needs not to be shewed in the return because it may concern the state of the Realm which ought not to be published LXIX Hil. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Dower the Demandant recovered by default Whereupon a Writ issued to Enquire if the Husband died seised and of the damages and the Sheriff took an Enquest of Office by which it was found that the Baron did not die seised prout eis constare poterit and that Inquisition was returned by the Sheriff and filed It was moved Return of the Sheriff where void That the said Inquisition and Office was not good for the Office ought to find expresly that the Husband died seised or not and not doubtfully as it is here prout eis constare poterit and for that cause the Award of the Court was That the return should be taken off the File because it was insufficient and a new Writ was awarded Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXX The Lord St. John and Sir John Grays Case Grants of Omnia bona by an Executor what passeth NOte by Dyer and Manwood upon an Evidence unto a Iury in Debt brought against the Defendant as Executor of his own wrong That if an Executor gives omnia bona sua the Goods which he hath as Executor shall not pass which vide 10 E. 4. 1. by Danby But the contrary of that was holden by Wray Chief Iustice of the Kings Bench And Plowden in the Case of Bracebridge 18 Eliz. and they said that the said Case of 10 E. 4. was not Law for by such grant made by Executors the Goods of the Testator should pass Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXXI Taylors Case Outlawry how to be avoided TAylor was Outlawed in debt where a Supersedeas of Record was delivered to the Sheriff before the awarding of the Exigent It was holden that the Party should avoid the same by Plea Then it was moved if the Plea should be pleaded by Attorney or in Person to which it was said by Manwood Iustice that where Matter in Fact is pleaded in avoiding of an Outlawry it ought to be pleaded in person but a matter of Record might be by Attorney And so it was said by Ford Prothonotary it was agreed in Sir Tho. Chamberlains Case 7 Eliz. and so it was agreed in the Principal Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXII Bettuans Case IN Ejectione firmae The Case was A Fine was levied to Cook and three others and by an Indenture between the Parties to the Fine it was declared that the said Fine was levied ea intentione That the Conusees should make an Estate of the said Land to such a person which the Conusor should name and in the end of the said Indenture was a Proviso that the Conusees should not be seized to any other use but to that which was specified before and that the Conusees should not incumber the said Lands And the Opinion of all the Iustices of the Kings Bench was Fines levied to uses That upon the said Indenture the Conusees are seized to their own use until the Conusor hath made nomination and if he dieth without any nomination then the use
be made rendring rent with clause of re-entry The Lessor grants the Reversion for life such a Grantee is an Assignee within the said Statute Jefferies The Condition is gone A. leaseth two Acres for years rendring rent with clause of re-entry the Lessor accepts a surrender of one Acre the whole Condition is gone but the rent shall be apportioned A Parson leaseth land whereof he is seized in his own right and land whereof he is seized in the right of his Church for years rendring rent with clause of re-entry and dieth the rent shall go according to his respective capacity and the Condition divided Condition apâ—â—â—â—â—â—ned So if part of the land so demised be evicted the Rent shall be apportioned and the Condition also And he said that the Bargainee is not an Assignee within the Statute Barham If the Reservation doth not make the lease several yet it shall make the Reversion several c. Mead 6 Eliz The Court was moved in this Case A. leased for years rendring rent with clause of re-entry and afterwards became bound to another by Recognizance the Recognizee extended the moiety of the rent and Reversion in Execution Condition suspended and the clear Opinion of the Court was that the Condition was suspended If A. let lands for years rendring rent with clause of re-entry to a Man and to a Feme sole and afterwards the Lessor intermarries with the Feme the Condition is suspended Mounson Iustice The Demise is joynt although that the Reservation be several Cestuy que use is seized of an Acre in possession and of another in reversion and makes a Lease for years of both rendring rent Severance here are several rents 13 E. 3. A. seized of two Acres of lands before the Statute of Westminster 3. made a Feoffment thereof to hold the one Acre by Knight Service and the other in Socage the Tenancy in such case is several 9 Ass 24. a lease is made of a Mill. and of a Wood rendring for the Mill 10 s and for the Wood 20 s. these are several rents and so here they are several rents and several conditions Two Tenants in Common make a lease for years rendring rent upon clause of re-entry the condition is several according to the reversion for joynt words in the Letter have sometimes as the matter requires constructions in the severalty As A and B covenant by Indenture and are reciprocally bound the one to the other to perform all Covenants contained in the said Indenture the same is to be construed such Covenants which on the part of A. are to be performed and so of the other part B. And he conceived that by the distracting of the reversion the condition was gone a condition by an act in law may be divided but not by the act of the party Conditions by act in Law divided not by act of the Party As a man makes a lease for years rendring rent with clause of re-entry takes a Wife and dyeth The Wife recovers the third part of the land devised for her Dower now that third part is discharged of the condition during the estate in Dower but the residue is subject to the condition and vide F. N. B. 21 the Heir at Common Law shall have a writ of Error for his part and the Heir in Borough English for his part two Ioyntenants make a lease for life upon condition and one releaseth the condition Statute of 32 H. 8. of Conditions taken by Equity the same barred the condition And he conceived that the Bargainee is an Assignee for the Statute of 32 H. 8. shall be taken by Equity c. As if a man leaseth lands for years to begin at Michaelmas next and before Michaelmas he makes a Feoffment and at Mich. the Lessee enters the Feoffee is an Assignee within the Statute two Ioyntenants make a lease for years rendring rent with clause of re-entry and the one releaseth to his companion he is an Assignee within the Statute Manwood He is an Assignee and in by the Bargainor The words of the Statute of 32 H. 8. are Grantees or Assignees to or by any Person or Persons and here the Bargainee is an Assignee to the Bargainor as to the use and for the possession he is an Assignee by him He who is in by a common recovery is not an Assignee although the recovery was to his use for the Writ disaffirms his possession if Tenant for llfe be disseised and he in the reversion confirms the estate of the Disseisor and the Tenant for life re-enters the Disseisor is now an Assignee but otherwise it is if he in the reversion doth release to the Disseisor and he conceived that the Lessor should recover part of the land in an action of Waste or enter in part of the land for a forfeiture for an alienation in fee that the condition remains Harper Several reservations do not make several leases for the reservation is not of the essence of the lease for it is good without any reservation and whereas it hath been said that a Lease is a contract I say Difference between a Reservation and a Contract that there is a great diversity between a reservation and a contract for if I sell to you a Horse for 40 s. and afterwards I take this Horse out of your possession yet I shall have an action of Debt for the 40 s. But if I lease land to you reserving rent and afterwards enter into parcel of the land demised I shall not have the rent and if I lease two Acres for years with several reservations I shall have but one action of waste but several Avowries according to the several reservations And here if any part of any of the said rents be behind the party may re-enter into the whole therefore the lease is but una eadem And I conceive that the Assignee of the Assignee is by the Statute to take advantage of the condition even to the twentieth degree as a warranty to one of his Heirs and Assigns extendeth to the twentieth Assignee But here in our case he is not such an Assignee that shall take advantage c. for he is in by the Statute scil in the Post but not in the Per and here the Bargainee hath but an use by the act of the Party and the possession of the Statute of 27 H. 8. But admitting that he is an Assignee yet he is an Assignee but of part and therefore shall not have advantage Condition suspended in part is suspended in all c. When a condition is suspended in part it is suspended in all A. leaseth lands for years upon condition and afterwards the lessor confirms his Estate in part for life the condition is gone Dyer The Lease is one and entire although there be several reservations for here are not several capacities nor several interests 42 Ass Two Ioyntenants lease for life rendring rent to one of them yet the rent and
reversion shall be to both of them but if it be by Deed indented the rent shall go to one only according to the literal reservation Vide Litt. 80. 346. But if the Lease had been made by several Limitations as Habendum one Manor for 20 s. and the other Manor for 10 s. then the Lease and the Reversion had been several but here the rent shall not rule the reversion but the reversion the rent and the rent shall be of the same nature as the reversion Tenant for life makes a Feoffment in Fee upon condition and re-enters for the condition broken now by that re-entry the Freehold is reduced to the Lessee for life and the Fee unto the Lessor but the Forfeiture remains Two Ioyntenants one of them makes a Feoffment in Fee of his Moiety upon condition and for the breach of the condition re-enters the Ioynt Estate is revived And he conceived that the Grantee of part of the Estate or part of the Land should not take advantage of the condition and he said that the Bargainor is an Assignee within the Statute If Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for years and afterwards bargains and sells the reversion the Vendee hath a Fee simple determinable and may enter for the condition broken If a reversion be granted to two and to the Heirs of one of them they are Assignees within the Statute and if he who hath but an estate for life surviveth he also is an Assignee for the entire reversion passeth out of the Grantor and that is my Rule Iudgment was given against the Re-entry LXXXIII Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Surrender LEssee for 21 years took a Lease of the same Lands for 40 years to begin immediately after the death of J. S. It was holden in this case that the same was not any present Surrender of the first term but if J. S. dye within the term then it is a Surrender for it may be that J. S. shall survive the first term Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXXIV Anderson and Heywoods Case Copyholder A Copyholder of an Inheritance of a Manor which is in the hands of the King is ousted of his Copyhold It was holden that he hath not gained any Estate so as he may make a lease for years upon which the Lessee may maintain Ejectione firmae but he hath but a possession against all Strangers And it was holden in this case that if a Copyholder dyeth 1 Leon. 100. Rumny and Eves his heir within age he is not bound to come to any Court during his Nonage to pray admittance or to tender his Fine also if the death of his Ancestor be not presented nor proclamations made he is not at any mischief although he be at full age Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXXV Cook and Songates Case IN Assumpsit Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared whereas Lis controversia had been moved between the Plaintiff Lord of the Manor c. and the Defendant claiming certain Lands parcel of the said Manor to hold the same by Copy c. And both the said parties submitted themselves to the Iudgment and Arbitrement of Mr. Godfrey a man learned in the Law. concerning the said Land and the title of the Defendant to the same The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that if the said Mr. Godfrey should adjudge the said Copy to be good and sufficient for the title of the Defendant that then he would suffer the said Defendant to enjoy the said Land accordingly without molestation the Defendant reciprocally promised to the Plaintiff that if the said Mr. Godfrey should adjudge the said Copy not to be sufficient to maintain the title of the Defendant that then he would deliver and surrender the possession of the Land to the Plaintiff without any Suit. And shewed further that the said Mr. Godfrey did award the said Copy utterly to be insufficient c. Yet the Defendant continued the possession of the said Land It was moved that the same was not a good and sufficient consideration to ground an Assumpsit But Gawdy Iustice said it was a good and sufficient consideration because it was to avoid Controversies and Suits And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench LXXXVI Taylors Case IN Assumpsit the Case was Assumpsit That the Defendant promised to carry certain Apples for the Plaintiff by Boat from Greenwich in the County of Kent to London and the Apples being in the Boat the Boat in which they were by a great and violent Tempest was sunk in the River of Thames so as the said Apples perished c. It was holden to be no Plea in discharge of the Assumpsit by which the Plaintiff had subjected himself to all adventures LXXXVII Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Devise A. Seized of Lands in Fee and having Issue two Sons Richard and Gilbert by his Will willed That if his Son Richard dye before Issue so that the Land descend to my Son Gilbert then I will that my Overseers shall have the Government of my Lands and of my Son Gilbert Richard took a wife and dyed she being young with Child with a Daughter the Devisor died the Daughter was born It was adjudged in this Case that by this Devise the Daughter was excluded from the Inheritance and that Gilbert should have the Land. Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXXVIII Lukes Case LUke Esq of Tedcaster was Indicted upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap 8. for being a Broker in a Vsurious Contract for which he encurred a Praemunire Who pleaded Not Guilty upon which they were at Issue and at the day of the Return of the Distringas the Iurors appeared and the same day that the Iury was to be taken Popham Attorney General sent for the Distringas and for certain causes for the Queen would not proceed Note that the Attorney was informed that the Iury was partial It was moved by Cook that the Attorney could not stay the Proceedings the Writ being returned and the Iury appearing he could not stay the Tryal for no President is thereof Popham The Entry shall be in this case Vicecomes non misit breve Cook That is false and the Sheriff is sworn to make a true return but by consent of the Parties such a thing may be done for Consensus tollit Errorem Quaere 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer LXXXIX The Queen and Painters Case Accompt of the King against a Stranger SIr William Pelham was Surveyor of the Ordnance and delivered the money of the King to Painter Clerk of the Ordnance It was holden in this case That for the said money the Queen might have Accompt against Painter although he wanted a privity which cannot be so in case of a common person for if any Receiver make one his Deputy I shall not have an Accompt against him Popham Attorney General If one of
the Exchequer lend unto another 500 l. of the Queens money and takes a Bond for it in his own name yet the Queen shall have an Accompt against the Borrower Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer XC Pelhams Case IN the Exchequer Chamber before the Chancellor Treasurer Savile Rep 43. Grant of Office of Sheriff and Barons there in the Case of Pelham the Case was That the Queen had granted by her Letters Patents that Pelham should not be Bailiff Constable nor other Officer or Minister Licet eligatur yet it was holden that the Queen might make him Sheriff for that Grant doth not extend to Officers Royal as Grants of Amercements do not extend to Amercements Royal and also the Office of Sheriff doth not lye in Election but if the words had been Licet eligatur per nos then it should have been otherwise And such was the Opinion of Bromley then Lord Chancellor Trin. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench XCI Godbolts Case IN the Case of one Godbolt It was agreed Sales that the sale of a Bailywick of a Hundred was not within the Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 16. For such an Office doth not concern the Administration of Iustice nor is it an Office of Trust XCII In Temps Eliz. A. Granted to B. a Rent-charge out of his Lands to begin when J. S. died without Issue of his Body J. S. dyes having Issue which Issue dyes without Issue Dyer held that the Grant shall not take effect for J. S. at the time of his death had Issue and therefore from thence the Grant shall not begin and if not then then not at all And Manwood said that if the words had been to begin when J. S. is dead without Issue of his Body then such a Grant shall take effect when the Issue of J. S. dies without Issue c. If Donee in Tail hath Issue which dies without Issue the Formedon in the Reverter shall suppose that the Donee himself died without Issue for there is an Interest Difference between an Interest and a Limitation and there is a diversity between an Interest and a Limitation for if I give Land between A. and B. for term of their lives if any of them dye the Survivor shall hold the whole but if I give Lands to A. for the lives of B. and C. now if B. and C dye the whole Estate is determined because it is but a Limitation and B. and C. have not any Interest Vide to this purpose 34 Eliz. Brudnels Case in Cook 5. p. 9. XCIII Temps Roign Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seized of a Manor leased the same for years rendring rent with clause of re-entry and afterwards levied a Fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to the use of himself and his Heirs the rent being demanded is behind Dyer A. cannot re-enter for although the rent in right passeth without Attornment yet he is without remedy for the same without Attornment and it would be hard without Attornment to re-enter It was here moved further if the Conusor be an Assignee within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Manwood The reversion of a Termor is granted by Fine there wants Privity for an Action of Debt Waste and Re entries But if the Conusee dieth without Heir although that in right it was in the Conusee yet the Lord by Escheat shall make Avowry and yet the Conusee by whom he claims could not And in the Case at Bar the Conusee himself could not but the Conusor being Cestuy que use who is in by Act of Law shall Avow and re-enter without Attornment for the Conusor is in by the Statute of 20 H. 8. Harper The Heir of the Conusee shall Avow and re-enter before Attornment Dyer 13 H. 4. The Father leaseth for years rendring rent with clause of re-entry the Father demands the rent which is not paid the Father dyeth the Son cannot re-enter for the rent doth not belong unto him and therefore in the Case at Bar the Conusor cannot Avow for the rent before Attornment therefore not re-enter And in Case of Bargain and Sale the Bargainee is Assignee within the Statute but not the Conusor in this Case Temps Roign Eliz. XCIV 15 Eliz. Sir Francis Leak and Sir Walter Hollis Upon Attainder of Treason who shall seize the Goods for the Queen AT the Assizes the Opinion of Dyer and Stamford was demanded upon this matter One seized of Lands and Tenements and possessed of Goods within the Duchy of Lancaster was Attainted of High Treason and a great Question arose between Sir Francis Lake Kt. Bailiff of the Duchy and Sir Walter Hollis Sheriff which of them ought to seize for the Queen and their Opinion then was that the same did appertain to the Office of the Sheriff if in the Patent of the Sheriff there were not special words to the contrary XCV 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant at Will made a Lease from year to year Lease by Tenant at Will if a Disseisin Dyer conceived that it was not a Disseisin but the Lease was void and he said that the Book of 12 E. 4. 12. was not Law. For he who disseiseth a man ought to claim Inheritance in the land whereof the disseisin is done Harper conceived that the said Book of 12 E 4. 12. was good Law for a Lease at Will is a Lease at the will of both parties and therefore when the Lessee makes a Lease for years his will is determined and he will not hold at will. Manwood agreed with Dyer for if Tenant at Will lease for years rendring rent before that the Lessee for years entreth the Tenant at Will shall not have any rent for it was not a perfect contract otherwise it is where a man seized of Lands leaseth the same ut supra If one entreth into my land and occupieth the same of his own head claiming to hold the same at my will and afterwards I demand of him a certain rent for the occupation of my land he is now my Tenant at Will which all the Iustices granted Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XCVI Cutter and Dixwels Case ACtion upon the Case for that the Defendant exhibited a Bill to the Iustices of Peace against the Plaintiff containing and complaining That the Plaintiff is an enemy to all quietness seeking by all means to disquiet his neighbours and hath used himself as a lawless person and having Process to serve upon one in the Parish scil J. S. did keep the Process and would not serve it but on the Sunday in the time of divine Service not having regard to her Majesties laws or the quiet of his neighbors Vpon which Bill the Iustices to whom it was exhibited awarded Process against the Plaintiff to find Sureties for his good behaviour by virtue of which he was taken and imprisoned It was the Opinion of all the Iustices in this Case that upon this Matter an Action upon the Case would not
that Reversion shall descend to all the daughters notwithstanding the half blood for the Estate for years which is made by Indenture by license of the Lord is a demise and a Lease according to the order of the Common Law and according to the nature of the demise the Possession shall be adjudged which possession cannot be said possession of the Copyholder for his possession is customary and the other is meer contrary therefore the possession of the one shall not be the possession of the other therefore there shall be no Possessio Fratris in this case Possesso Fratris But if one had been the Guardian by custom or the Lease had been made by Surrender there the Sister of the half blood should not inherit And Mead said the Case of the Guardian had been adjudged Mounson agreed And it was said that if a Copyhold doth descend to the Son he is not a Copyholder before admittance but he may take the profits and punish a Trespass before admittance CIV Pasc 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Parson let his Rectory for three years and covenanted that the Lessee shall have and enjoy it during the said term without expulsion or any thing done or to be done by the Lessor and is also bound in an Obligation to the Lessee to perform the said Covenant Forfeiture Quaere Afterwards for not reading of the Articles he was deprived ipso facto by the Statute of 13 Eliz. The Patron presented another who being inducted ousted the Lessee wherefore an Action was brought upon the Obligation It was the Opinion of all the Iustices That this matter is not any cause of Action for the Lessee was not ousted by any Act done by the Lessor but rather for Non feasans and so out of the compass of the Covenant aforesaid as if a man be bound that he shall not do any waste permissive waste is not within the danger of it Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CV King and Cottons Case IN Ejectione firmae the Case was Lessee for years the Remainder for life the Remainder in Tail to Lessee for years Lessee for years made a Feoffment in Fee with warranty and dyed he in the Remainder for life dyed the Issue in Tail entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff It was clearly resolved by the Court in this Case Entre Congeable That the entry of the Issue in Tail was lawful notwithstanding that the disseisin was done to another Estate than that which was to be bound by the warranty scil to the Estate for life Vide 50 E. 3. 12 13 46 E. 3. 6. Fitz. Garr 28. Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CVI. Scot and Scots Case BArtholomew Scot brought a Writ of Accompt against Thomas Scot Accompt Thomas Scot sum ' fuit ad respondend Barth Scot quod reddat ei rationabilem computum suum de tempore quo fuit receptor denariorum c. And declared quod cum the said Thomas Scot fuit receptor denariorum c. recepisset so much by the hands of such a one c. Cumque idem Thomas habuisset recepiâ—â—et diversa bona and shewed what ad merchandizand c. Exception was taken to the Declaration because the Writ and Declaration is general against the Defendant as Receiver whereas for such goods as the Defendant had received ad merchandizand he ought to have been charged as Bayliff Quod Curia concessit Vide Book Entries 19. 46 E. 3. 9. and afterwards the Defendant traversed severally both the Charges whereupon several Issues were joyned and both found for the Plaintiff And as to the monies with the Receipt of which he was charged as Receiver the Plaintiff had Iudgment and as to the others Abatement of Writ which he received ad Merchandizandum the Writ abated And it was said by the Court That the Writ should have abated in the whole unless the several Issues had helped the matter because the Plaintiff might have had an Action for part in other manner Vide 9 H. 7. 4. by Brian 17 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber CVII Morgan and Coxes Case MOrgan exhibited a Bill of Perjury in the Star-Chamber against one Cox setting forth that whereas he was bound to his good behaviour by Recognizance acknowledged in the Kings bench and he in discharge of the said Recognizance had obtained a Writ De Fama gestu to enquire of his Conversation and therefore at the Sessions in the County of Devon where the said Morgan was dwelling the grand Iury charged with the said Matter the said Cox gave Evidence to the said grand Iury in maintenance and continuance of the said Recognizance and upon the Evidence given by Cox the said Bill was conceived It was moved by the Counsel of the Defendant That that Bill upon the matter did not lye for that the Evidence in the Bill for the Perjury was given for the Queen in maintenance of the Recognizance and that to the grand Iury which was charged for the Queen But as to that it was said by the Lord Chancellor and both the Chief Iustices that the Writ De fama gestu Brief de Fama gestu is an especial Writ at the Suit of the Party and not of the Queen and the Court cannot deny it to him who asketh it and the grand Iury as to that matter shall be accounted a special Iury c. Mich. 16 Eliz In the Common Pleas. CVIII Jackson and Darcys Case Tail barred by a Fine 3 Leon. 57. IN a Writ of Partition betwixt Jackson and Darcy the Case was Tenant in Tail the Remainder to the King levied a Fine had Issue and dyed it was adjudged that the Issue was barred and yet the Remainder to the Queen was not discontinued for by the Fine an Estate in Fee-simple determinable upon the Estate in Tail passed to the Conusee Trin. 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CIX Stroads Case Tenures IN a Replevin the Case was Lands holden of a Subject came to the possession of the King by the Statute of 1 E. 6. of Chauntries The King granted the Lands over unto another it was holden in this Case that the Patentee should hold of the King according to his Patent and not of the ancient Lord but the Patentee should pay the rent by which the said Land was before holden as a Rent-seck distrainable of Common right to the Lord and his Heirs of whom the Land was before holden CX Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seized of Lands in Fee devised them to his Wife for life and after her decease Estate she to give the same to whom she will He had Issue two daughters and died Devises Leon. 121â— the wife granted the Reversion to a Stranger and committed waste and the two daughters brought an Action of waste In this Case it was holden that by that Devise the wife had but an Estate for life but she had also an authority
on the other side That the Estate of the Alien is so weak that a confirmation cannot enure upon it for an Alien cannot take but to the use of the King and cannot be infeoffed to anothers use and if he be such use is void For there is not a sufficient seisin in an Alien to carry an use And it hath been adjudged on Forset Case Where an Alien and the said Forset were Ioynt-Purchasers and the Alien dyed that Forset should not have the whole by Survivour but that upon Office found the Queen should have the moiety Vide 11 Eliz. Dyer 283. Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXVI Jermine and Arscots Case THe Case between Jermine and Arscot was this A seized of Lands in Fee had Issue six Sons and one Daughter and devised the Manor of c. parcel of his said Lands to J. S. for ninety years if the said J. S. and G. his Wife or any of them should so long live the remainder to P. his eldest Son and the Heirs males of his Body the remainder to his other Sons in tail the remainder to his Daughter Provided That if the said P. his Son or any of the Sons of the Devisor or any of the heirs males of their bodies should endeavour by any Act or Thing to alien bargain or discontinue c. that then after such attempt or endeavour and before such Bargain and Sale c. were executed that the estate of such Person attempting should cease as if he were naturally dead and that then the premises should remain and come to such person to whom the same ought to come remain or be by the intent and meaning of his Will and died P. levied a Fine of the Manor he in the next remainder entred and claimed the Land by force of the Devise This Case was this Term argued by Walmesly Serjeant that an Estate tail cannot cease for it is an Estate of Inheritance and here is not any limitation for the Estate tail by the meaning of the Devisor shall remain revivable upon the death of the Offender but a Limitation determines the Estate utterly which is not here but here it appeareth as well by the meaning of the Devisor as by the words of the Devise that the Estate tail upon such act should be suspended and it cannot be resembled to the Case cited on the other side 22 E. 3. A Rent granted to one in Fee and that it shall cease during the Nonage of every Heir the Rent is but suspended between the Parties and Privies to the Gift as in the Case of Littleton of Re-entry and Retainer quousque but that a Stranger should re-enter and retain quousque that cannot be And in the Case of Scholastica reported by Plowden the Estate tail by such Offence is determined by the limitation But in our Case by the meaning of the Devisor only suspended so our Case is not like to that Case Shuttleworth to the contrary The purpose of the Devisor appeareth to be the continuance of the Land in the name and Family of the Caries and as to the difference of ceasing and suspending of an Estate tail the same is not to the purpose for the Tenant in tail himself may suspend his Estate tail therefore à fortiori the Donor upon the Creation of the Estate tail As by Littleton Tenant in Tail grants totum statum suum the Estate tail is thereby suspended and by Anderson if in such a Case after such a grant Tenant in tail levy a Fine in our Case If Tenant in tail offend and the party to whom the next interest is limited enters and after the Offender levies a Fine to a Stranger there although his Estate was determined by the offence yet the Estate tail is bound by the Fine Ad quod caeteri Justiciarii murmurabant Tenant in tail hath Issue two Sons the eldest in the life of his Father levieth a Fine and after the Father dieth the Estate tail is bound contrary if the Father had survived his eldest Son And afterwards in the end of this Term Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for by the Will here is a good limitation and an estate to cease upon an act and upon another contingent to be revived is good enough Vide 30 E. 3. 7. A Lease for life rendring rent and if the rent he behind that the Lessor shall return quousque agreement be made so as a Freehold may cease and rise again according as the same is limited And all this was agreed by Rhodes Periam and Windham and afterwards Walmsley for the Plaintiff took an Exception to the Bar for that the Defendant pleaded Quod Petrus Cary tempore levationis finis praedict non habet exitum and doth not say that tempore quo ipse Henricus clamabat reversionem praedict the said Peter had not Issue for he said if Peter had Issue when Henry claimed the Reversion nothing had vested on him by the said claim But all the Court besides Anderson said that needed not be but if the matter had been such the same should come on the part of the Plaintiff Also they said That the Estate was vested in Henry without claim and although after the Offence committed and before claim Peter have Issue yet Henry should retain the Land during the life of the Offender against such Issue born after the Fine levied for by the Fine levied the Reversion vested in Henry without any claim by force of the said limitation CLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Alien suffers a common Recovery 9 Co. 141. LAnd was given to an Alien in tail the Remainder over to another in Fee the Alien suffered a common Recovery and died without Issue All this matter was found by Office. It was moved That this Office should have return so as upon the matter the Alien was not Tenant of the Land at the time of the Recovery suffered But the whole Court held the contrary and that the Recovery was good and should bind him in the Remainder Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXVIII Seixtbark and Percies Case EJectione firmae of Lands in Knolton and Woodland the Parties were at Issue and the Venire facias was of Knolton only and it was found for the Plaintiff It was shewed in stay of Iudgment that the Venire facias was not well awarded for it ought to have been De vicineto de Knolton Woodland which was granted by the Court And that that defect was not relieved by any Statute for it is a Mis-trial and for that cause Iudgment was stayed and a Venire facias de novo granted 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXIX The Provost of Queens Colledge in Oxfords Case THe Provost Fellows and Scholars of Queens Colledge in Oxford are Guardians of the Hospital and Meason de Dieu in Southampton and they make a Lease of Lands parcel of the Possession of the said Hospital to one Hagel for term of years by the name of
the Husband dyed the Wife recovered and entred and surrendred to the Lord and by Wray the Stranger to whom the Lord granted it after the Surrender by the Husband should have the Land and not the Lord himself against his own Grant. Pasc 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXXVII Chomley and Conges Case CHomley brought Trespass of Assault and Battery made to his Wife against Cony and upon the general Issue it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Action was not well brought for the same being an Action of Trespass done to the person of the wife the Writ ought to be brought and prosecuted in both their Names for now if Iudgment be given for the Husband and he dye before Execution the Wife to whom the wrong was done should not have Execution but the Executors of the Husband and afterwards upon advice the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover Vide Cont. 9 E. 4. 51. 38 H. 6. 25. Pasc 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXXVIII Blithe and Colegates Case Vide this Case Reported by Cook 2 Part of his Reports REplevin by Blithe and Colegate who made Conusans as Bayliff to Roger Beckwith Son and Heir of Elizabeth Beckwith for damage feasant and upon a Special Verdict the Case was That the said Eliz. was seized and took to Husband Christopher Kenne and by an Indenture made by the said Eliz. without the assent of her said Husband by the name of Elizabeth Beckwith bearing date 14 March 14 Eliz. declareth the uses of a Fine to be levied c. 1. To the use of the said Elizabeth for life without impeachment of Waste and after to the use of the Conusees for their lives and after to the use of the said Elizabeth and her Heirs And that afterwards the said Christopher Kenne before any Fine levied in Feb. 20 Eliz. by Indenture between himself and the said Elizabeth his Wife of the one part and R. W. of the other part without the consent of the said Elizabeth declared that the uses of the said Fine so to be levied should be to the use of the said Christopher and Elizabeth for life c. And afterwards the said Fine was levied by the Husband and Wife and the only Question upon the matter was if the uses declared by the Wife or the uses declared by the Husband should stand It was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant that the uses declared by the Husband should stand and that the Declaration by the Wife should be rejected for a Feme Covert is not sui juris but is sub potestate vâ—ri And therefore â—7 Ass 17. a Feme Covert without her Husband acknowledgeth a Fine the Husband shall avoid it and as to the Declaration of the uses it is no other thing but the shewing of the meaning of the Parties to the Fine how and in what manner the Land of which the Fine is levied shall be disposed of by the Fine but such a power cannot be in a Feme Covert For if an Infant levy a Fine and declare the uses by Indenture the Declaration is void and the Fine shall be to his own use and that was adjudged in the Court of Wards The same Law in case of a man of Non sanae memoriae and if an Ideot levy a Fine and declare uses upon it the Declaration is void and the Fine shall be to his own use and that Case also hath been adjudged in the Court of Wards And by intendment of the Law every Wife is at the disposition of her Husband as in a Praecipe quod reddat against the Husband and Wife the Wife makes default it shall be accounted the default of the Husband for the Law intends that the Wife is ameanable by the Husband 21 Ass The Husband seized in the right of the Wife made a Feoffment in Fee and in making of Livery his Wife interrupts him it was not any interruption or impediment quo minus the Livery operetur for cui ipsa in vita contradicere non potuit c. So in a Praecipe quod reddat against the Husband and Wife the Husband pleads one plea and the Wife another the Plea of the Husband shall be admitted 33 H 6. 43. 89 Ass 1 And the Husband may in some case prejudice his Wife in point of Inheritance as by Cession Vide E. 4 2. Fitz. Cui in vita 22. And he argued much upon the ground where it shall be said the folly of the Wife to take such a Husband If the Husband be seized in the right of his Wife they sell the said Land and for Assurance levy a Fine to the Vendee now the Husband alone shall have an Action of Debt for the mony upon the Sale which proves that it is the Sale of the Husband alone which see 48 E. 3. 18. Fenner Serjeant contrary And first he confessed that the Declaration by the Wife is utterly void and also the Declaration by the Husband and therefore when the Husband and Wife levy a Fine the Conusee in judgment of Law is in by the Wife and not by the Husband so as the Husband as to the right is a Stranger to the Land and to the Estate which passeth by the Fine although he be Party to the Fine for that is not for any Interest which he hath in the Land but for the conformity of Law which disables a Wife to levy a Fine without her Husband and therefore it is not any reason that the husband alone shall be received to declare the uses for he is no Proprietor of the Land in right especially forasmuch as in account of the Law the whole passeth from the Wife And the Law in divers Cases frames its Iudgment according to the possession of the Wife and that in acts done by the Husband 14 H. 8. 6 where A seized of a Rent-charge in Fee issuing out of the Land of the Wife A releases the Rent to the Husband and his Heirs the same shall enure to the Wife Vide 38 E. 3. 10. From such Cases the Law respects the nature of the Seisin and the manner of the possession And as to the Case vouched out of Dyer 12 Eliz. where the Husband and Wife were seized of a Messuage to them and to the Heirs of the Husband they suffer a common Recovery and the Husband alone declareth the uses the same is good for in that Case the Fee was in the Husband and always he who hath the Fee ought and may declare the use if all who have interest will not joyn and therefore if Lands be given to two and to the Heirs of one of them if they both joyn in a Fine he which hath the Fee may by himself declare the uses But if there be two Ioyntenants in Fee they both ought to joyn in the Declaration of the uses or otherwise make several Declarations of their several Moieties So if Cestuy que use and his Feoffees joyn in a Fine and make
several Declarations the Declaration of the Feoffees shall stand for that the Land passeth from them So if Cestuy que use and his Feoffees make a Feoffment in Fee 21 H. 7. And to that purpose he put the Case reported by Plowden 15 Eliz. 464. Husband and Wife seized in right of the Wife they levy a Fine sur Conusans de droit come ceo c and the Conusee renders the Land to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Husband the Husband dieth the Wife discontinues the Land the same is not within the penalty of the Statute of 11 H. 7. For notwithstanding the Wife be now in by the purchase of her Husband yet that purchase is not within the meaning of that Statute because the Law respects the original Seisin which was in the Wife and so it was adjudged Vide Term. Mich. 30 Eliz. Pasc 25 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLXXXVIII The Earl of Northumberlands Case THe Earl of Northumberland brought Debt for Arrearages upon Account The Defendant shewed that before the said Account the Plaintiff of his own wrong imprisoned the Defendant and he so imprisoned assigned Auditors and so the Account was made by Duress It was holden a good Plea by the Iustices of both Benches Pasc 25 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXXIX Clark and Kemptons Case IN Ejectione firmae the Case was 1 Leon. 141. Smith and Burds Case Co. 10 Rep. 129. b. Payment of Rents The Defendant leased for years to the Plaintiff rendring rent payable at Michaelmas and the Annunciation or fourteen days after Et si contingat the said rent to be behind post aliquod terminorum vel festorum praedictorum in quo solvi debet by the space of 14 days post aliquod festum praedict that then c. It was adjudged in this Case that the Lessee had fourteen days after the said fourteen days mentioned in the Reservation without danger of the penalty of the condition and the last words post aliquod Festorum praedict for the contrariety shall be rejected Pasc 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXC Harris and Whitings Case DEbt upon an Obligation by Harris and his Wife as Executors of Giles Capel against Whiting the Condition was that if the Obligor before the Feast of Pentecost pay such a sum so as the Obligee be ready at the payment thereof to enter into a Bond of 200 l. with Sureties to purchase such Land c. that then c. The Defendant pleaded that he was ready to pay c. and that the Obligee was not ready to enter into such Bond ut supra The Plaintiff Replicando said that he was ready absque hoc that the Defendant was ready to pay It was moved that the Traverse was not good for the first Act here was to be done by the Obligee viz. to enter into the Bond ut supra for otherwise the Obligor had not any means to compel the Obligee to enter into it But by Wray Chief Iustice the first Act is to be done by the Obligor and at the Payment the other party is to do that which to him belongs to do Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXC Ralph Morris Case RAlph Morris and his wife libelled against one in the Ecclesiastical Court for that the Defendant called the Wife of the Plaintiff Veneficam Sortilegam Incantatricem Daemoniorum And now came the Defendant into the Kings Bench surmising that the matter of the Libel is determinable by the Law of the Land and thereupon prayed a Prohibition and it was holden that although the Offence of Witchcraft be in some cases punishable in our Law yet the same doth not take away the Iurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Law and to call one Witch generally an Action doth not lye in our Law as it hath been adjudged But to say He hath bewitched such a one an Action doth lye And by Wray Witchcraft which is made Felony by any Statute is not punishable by the Ecclesiastical Law but in case of Slander upon such a Witchcraft such slanderous words are of Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and for Witchcraft which is not Felony the Ecclesiastical Court shall punish the party and afterwards in the principal Case a Consultation was awarded Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCI. Tyrrels Case TYrrel Warden of the Fleet of an Estate of Inheritance let the said Office for years and afterwards is condemned in London in many Actions of Debt and is there detained in Execution for the sum of fourteen hundred pounds and now one Iden sued the said Tyrrel in the Common Pleas in an Action of debt for 50 l. and had Iudgment to recover and thereupon the said Tyrrel is brought to the Bar and Iden prays he be committed to the Fleet in Execution for his Debt It was first moved by the Court if there was not a practize between Iden and Tyrrel for to deliver him out of the Compter in London to a more easie Prison c. But it was moved by Fenner who was of counsel with the Creditors in London that it should be very dangerous to commit Tyrrel Prisoner to the Fleet because he had the Inheritance of Custody of the said Prison and if the Lessee under whose guard he shall be surrenders his Interest or if he doth not pay his Rent so as in default thereof Tyrrel re-enter or if that the Term expire before that the Creditors of Tyrrel be satisfied then here is an Escape and discharge of Execution and we are without remedy But as to that it was said by Rhodes Windham and Anderson That if the Lessee surrender it shall be an Escape in him and he shall answer for the same Afterwards by Order of the Court Tyrrel was committed to the Fleet in Execution and the Sheriffs of London discharged Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCII Owen and Morgans Case THe Case between Owen and Morgan which was agreed Trin. 29 Eliz. was this Richard Owen was seized of Ante 26. Post 222. c. and levied a Fine to Owen and Morgan and to the Heirs of Owen and they granted and rendred the said Land to the said Richard and Lettice his Wife not Party to the said Writ of Covenant nor to the Conusans and to the Heirs of the body of the said Richard the Remainder over to the said Owen now Demandant in Fee The Husband alone without the Wife suffered a Common Recovery the Wife died the Husband died without Issue If this Recovery by the Husband only should bind the Remainder was the Question And now the Lord Anderson declared openly in Court for himself and in the name of his Companions the other Iustices that the Demandant ought to have Iudgment that the said Recovery should not bind the Remainder But first he spake to the Fine it self for the Wife is not named in the Writ of Covenant nor the Conusans but in the Render the Land is rendred to the Husband and Wife and the Heirs
or his Servant had put the Horse to grass and afterward the Horse is stollen there an Action upon the Case doth lye Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCVII Neals Case IN a false Imprisonment by Neal against the Mayor Sheriffs Citizens and Commonalty of the City of Norwich the Original Writ was directed to the Coroners of the said City And Exception was taken to the Writ because it was not directed to the Sheriffs of the said City but to the Coroners Sed non allocatur for the Sheriffs are parcel of the Corporation as it is to see by the name by which they of Norwich are incorporated And also it hath been adjudged That a Sheriff cannot summon himself and therefore by the Award of the Court the Writ was allowed to be good Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCVIII. Sir John Bromes Case SIr John Brome 33 H. 8. acknowledged a Fine of certain Lands the Kings Silver was entred and the Conusans taken but the Fine was never engrossed and now he who claimed under the Fine came in Court and prayed that the Fine might be engrossed and the Court examined them upon their Oaths to what use the Fine was levied and in the Seisin and Possession of what persons the Lands whereof the Fine was levied had been after the Fine Vpon which Examination it appeared fully to the Court that the Party to whom the Fine was levied was seized after the Fine and suffered a Common Recovery of the Land and that the said Land had been enjoyed according to the said Fine at all such times since c. Whereupon the Court commanded that the Fine be ingrossed Vide Acc. 8 Eliz. Dyer 254. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXCIX The Lord Dacres and Philip Fines Case THe Case between the Lord Dacres and Fines was Tenant in Tail in remainder upon an Estate for Life of Lands holden in Capite levied a Fine thereof without Licence 3 Leon. 261. and Process issued against the Tenants for Life It was holden by all the Barons that by Plea he should be discharged it was holden That if the Conusor had any other Lands ubicunque in Anglia the Fine for Alienation should be levied upon them But it was moved If the Tenant should be driven to plead it because it appears upon Record that the Conusor was but Tenant in Tail in Remainder and that was in an Office containing such matter which was pleaded by another in another Cause before by which Office it appeared that the Lord Dacres was Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail to Philip Fines and now Fines had levied a Fine sur Conusans de droit c. and because the same appeared on Record Manwood awarded that the Process against the Tenants of the Lord Dacres should be stayed Trin. 29 Eliz. CC. Paston and Townsends Case IN Trespass by Paston against Townsend The Defendant pleaded that Tindal was seized in Fee by protestation and dyed seized and the Land descended To which the Plaintiff replyed and said c absque hoc that Tindal was seized in Fee upon which they were at Issue On the part of the Defendant to prove the Issue it was given in Evidence to prove the Issue in his right that the said Tindal long time before his death was seized and aliened and never after was seized It was said that that Evidence did not prove the Issue for the Defendant for the Seisin in Fee intended in the Issue is in the nature of a dying seized and so Periam conceived that the Defendants Plea did not intend any other Seisin a dying seized and the dying seized is taken by Protestation to avoid the doubleness So as the Seisin upon which the Issue is taken ought to be intended a Seisin continuing until the time of the death of Tindal and Seisin at large or a general Seisin at any time during the life of Tindal quod Anderson concessit Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCI. Griffith and Prices Case ERror by Griffith against Price upon a Iudgment in Chester in Ejectione firmae and the Error assigned was because the Original bore date 16 April 28 Eliz. and the Plaintiff declared of an Ejectment 17 April 28 Eliz. So as it appeareth that the Action was brought before there was any cause of Action and that was holden to be Error And also Ejectione firmae is not a personal Action and afterwards the Iudgment was Reversed Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCII. Harris and Caverleys Case A Iudgment was given in London between Harris and Caverley upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for buying of Woolls and upon that Error was brought in the Kings Bench quod nota For this Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given in London ought to be sued before the Maior Vide â— N. B. 22 23. And Wray asked Wherefore the Writ of Error was brought here To which it was answered by Dodding Clark that the Record was removed by Certiorari out of the Kings Bench at the Suit of the Defendant to the purpose to bring a Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet And the Error was assigned in this that by the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. it is enacted that upon every Information that shall be exhibited a special Note shall be made of the Day Month and Year of the exhibiting of the same into any Office or to any Officer who lawfully may receive the same And here upon this Information there is not any such Note according to the said Statute And in truth no Information may be exhibited for there is not any Officer there appointed for that matter for the entry in such Cases in that Court is Talis venit deliberavit hic in Curia Miloni Sands c. But in the Case at Bar the Entry is Talis venit deliberavit in Curia but without shewing to whom But note that the words of the said Statute of 18 Eliz. are in the disjunctive into any Office or to any Officer and that such Information shall not be of Record but from that time forwards and not before wherefore here this Information is not upon Record and then no Iudgment can be given upon it Cook This Information may be well sued in London for the words of the said Statute of 5 E. 6. give Suit in any Court of Record of the King And the Court in London is a Court of Record of the King and every Court of Record hath an Officer to receive Declarations and Pleas and if it be delivered into the Office it is good enough 2. The Offence is laid in the Parish of Bow in Warda de Cheap alibi in Civitate London and so there is not any place laid where the Offence shall be tryed Cook This Alibi is a Nugation Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCIII Peuson and Higbeds Case IN Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared that in consideration that he by his Servant had delivered to the Defendant two Bills
23 Eliz. is If any Person do any thing to move the People to Sedition the same is Felony but then it must be Sedition against the Queen and of that Opinion was the whole Court. Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLV Ratcliffe and Shirleys Case THe Lady Ratcliffe brought an Action upon the Case against Shirley for these words Words My Lady Ratcliffe is a beggerly Lady and giveth thread-bare Coats she bought Sheep and cosen'd men of their money and she is as very a Thief as he that robbeth by the High-way Vpon Not Guilty the Iury found that the Defendant spake these words She is a worse Thief than he that robbeth by the High-way It was holden that the words found by the Verdict were actionable as well as if the Defendant had called the Plaintiff Thief generally But it seemed to the Court that upon that Verdict the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment for it may be that the Defendant dixit utrumque at several times and so several Causes of Action And it is not like to the Case 3 Ma. 118. where part of the words is found quoad alia verba non dixit and so expresly acquit him of the remnant so it is not here for this Verdict doth not acquit him of the other words and for that Cause Iudgment was stayed Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLVI Herne and Crowes Case IN an Action upon the Case by Herne against Crowe and declared that whereas certain Irish Merchants had imported Furs here into England which were offered to be sold in London which Furs the Defendant desired to buy but because he was a Foreigner he could not buy them without peril of forfeiture and then the Plaintiff was in communication with the Merchants to have bought them that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that when he had bought the said Furs the Defendant should have such a quantity of the said Furs as he pleased upon equal price assumed and promised that he would speak no more with the said Merchants for the buying of the said Furs yet that notwithstanding he proceeded in the said bargain and offered to the said Merchants sixty pound more than any other by reason of which the Plaintiff could not have them for such reasonable price as he might have had them before It was holden by Wray Chief Iustice That the Declaration here was insufficient upon which the Defendant might have well demurred Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXLVII. Bakers Case A Writ of Partition by Baker Heir of Gertrudi Marquess of Exeter who devised all his Lands to Blunt by which the third part descend to the Plaintiff Estrepement and prayed a Writ of Estrepement and it was the Opinion of the Court that the Writ is not to be granted for the Plaintiff may have a more proper remedy upon the Statute Cum duo vel tres and in a Writ of Partition no Land is demanded CCXLVIII Mich. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Conditions A Man was bound in an Obligation that he should release all his right in Black Acre to the Obligor and in the performance of the said Condition he made such a Lease and delivered the same to C. to the use of the Obligor The Opinion of the whose Court was That the Condition was not performed because the Obligor had not the Lease in his own hands to plead but is put to his Writ of Derinue against C. which was not the intent of the Condition Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXLIX Seaman and Brownings Case SEaman brought Debt in an Obligation against Broshnin and others Executors of one Marshall The Condition was That whereas the said Marshall had sold certain Lands to the Plaintiff If the Plaintiff peaceably and quietly enjoyed the said Lands against the said Marshall c and assigned the breach That the said Marshall had entred upon them and cut down five Elms there upon which they were at Issue And it was found that a Servant of the said Marshall had entred and cut them and that in the presence of the said Marshall his Master and by his commandment It was the Opinion of the Court that the Condition was broken and that the Master was the principal Trespasser Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCL Babingtons Case HUmphrey Babington brought a Writ of Disceit and counted that T. S. was seized of Land and held the same of the Manor of Rodely which Manor is ancient Demeasn And that the said T. S. being so seized a Writ of Entre sur Disseisin was brought against him in which T. S. pleaded and lost and Iudgment was given against him Et quod ipse Humphridus extitit Dominus Manerii praedicti and concluded ad exhaeredationis ipsius Humphrâ—di periculum manifestum Exception was taken to the Count because the words are quod cum ipse existit Dominus Manerii praedicti where he ought to say further Amendment Et tempore Judicii praedicti existebat for if the Recovery was before he purchased the said Manor his Action doth not lye which Rhodes and Anderson concesserunt wherefore day was given to the Plaintiff to amend his Count. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer CCLI Sir William Pelhams Case THe Case was A. Tenant for life the remainder in tall to B. c. A by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the Messuage so conveyed to W. P. in fee who suffered a common recovery in which A. is vouched and so a common recovery had and executed and this was before the Statute of 14 Eliz. And if the recovery should bind B. and his remainder in tail was the question or if it be a forfeiture Altham argued that here is a forfeiture 1. It is to see if a common recovery suffered by Tenant for life which here is the Bargainee be a forfeiture or no by the common Law 1 Leon. 264. it s not forfeited 2 Leon. 60 65. if no Execution be sued upon the same Recovery 2. If it be executed then if he in the remainder may enter for the forfeiture When the Tenant for life bargains and sells the Messuage although upon it an estate in fee be limited yet nothing passeth from him but what he may lawfully pass and that was the estate for life of the Bargainor for such an estate only he might lawfully pass and here the Vendee is but Tenant for the life of another and when of his own assent he suffers a common recovery and that without right it is a forfeiture By matter in Fait a particular Tenant may commit a forfeiture as well as by matter of Record By matter in Fait he cannot commit a forfeiture if not thereby the reversion be not pulled out of him in the reversion As if a Lessee for 10 years make a Lease for 1000 years it is not a forfeiture for by that the reversion is not touched but if he by matter of Record do
as the Statute of 11 H. 8. hath ordained in case of a Lease for years where the Lessor his Heirs or Assigns have suffered the recovery and not otherwise And afterwards he argued very much upon the reputation and dignity of common Recoveries that they are the strongest and most effectual Assurances in the Law and therefore they ought to be countenanced rather by the Iudges than in any part diminished or disabled and we ought to consider of them Non ex rigore juris rigida disquisitione but according to the common use and practice what is the ground and foundation of these Recoveries And so Iudges have used heretofore to examine Matters which peradventure according to the strict Rules of the Common Law drew them away But they perceiving that a dangerous Consequence thereby would follow to an infinite number of the Kings Subjects the Law having been otherwise practised before have framed their Iudgments not according to the exact Rules of Law but to avoid the Inconvenience aforesaid according to the common and received practice c. Nam communis Error facit jus and to that purpose he cited a Case very lately adjudged in B.R. viz. A Writ of Error was brought in B. R. upon a Iudgment given in Wales and the Error was in this That the Writ was returnable coâ—am Justiciariis Domini Regis Comitatus c. where it should have been coram Justiciariis Magnae Sessionis Dominae Reginae c and such are the words of the Statute of 34 H. 8. cap 26. the which Sessions shall be called the Kings great Sessions in Wales and notwithstanding that the Iustices in strict consideration of the Law thought the same to be Error for the said Statute had given to the said Court such name yet because it was well known to the Iustices That that was the common course in the said Court ever after the erection thereof And also if the said Iudgment should be reversed for that cause many Iudgments should be also reversed which should be a great disquietness and vexation to the whole Country there they in their discretion thought it convenient to qualifie the Law in that point and so to avoid the said Inconvenience affirmed the said Iudgment So in the case at Bar If this Rent-charge should stand against the said recovery no inconvenience should be so firm but it should be impeached no Title so clear but should be incumbred therefore for the common repulse of many the strict rules of the Law ought to yield to common practice for the avoiding of a common inconvenience it hath been holden for Law when Tenant in tail maketh a feoffment in fee the Feoffee is impleaded voucheth the Tenant in tail now forasmuch as he cometh in as Vouchee it is now said that he cometh in of all his estates I do not see any reason for that but common allowance practice and experience c. It was adjourned c. Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLXIV Baxter and Bartlets Case IN Assise of Freshforce by Baxter against Bartlet upon Null tort Null Disseisin pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff who had Iudgment upon which the Tenant brought Error for that the Assize have generally found the Disseisin but have not enquired of the force And after many motions the Iudgment was affirmed CCLXV. Sir Henry Gilfords Case IT was found upon a Special Verdict That Henry Gilford Citizen and Freeman of London 7 Feb. 6 E. 2. seized of a Capital Messuage Devised the same by these words Lego volo Quod omnes Domus reddit ' quae habeo in Villa de London ordinentur assignentur per Executores meos ad sustentationem trium Capellanorum qui pro vita celebrabunt in Ecclesia Sancti Pauli London Et ad hoc faciend ' Do eis plenam potestatem and made his Executors William Staunton and others and dyed the Will was Proved and Inrolled according to the Custom Afterwards the Executors by their Deed bearing date 7 E. 2 granted and assigned the said Capital Messuage and his other Tenements in London to the Dean and Chapter of Pauls in London and their Successors Habend ' tenend ' in forma sequenti Haec est finalis Concordia c. That the Dean and Chapter shall have the said Lands for ever to find yearly a competent Sustenance of 10 Marks to a Priest to celebrate Mass for the said Henry Gilford and all Souls and that the said Priest at all hours of Divine obsequies should give his attendance in the said Church and faithfully do his Office to say Mass and Prayers according to the Degrees and Customs of the said Church and that the Dean and Chapter should find Bread and Wine and Massing-cloaths and Torch-light and granted the residue of the profits of the Lands to celebrate an yearly Obit and for the perpetual security of the said Chauntry the said Executors granted to the Mayor and Commonalty of London 20 s yearly rent for ever Ita quod the Mayor and Chamberlain for the time being presented a meet and convenient Chaplain to the said Chauntry to the said Dean and Chapter within 15 days after the Avoidance the which Chaplain the Dean and Chapâ—er are bound to admit And the form of the said Conveyance was such We the Executors H. G. do grant and assign to the Dean and Chapter of Pauls all the Lands Tenements and Rents aforesaid to have and to hold to them and their Successors for the sustentation of a Chaplain perpetual and his Clark for the said H. G. and all Souls receiving from the said Dean and Chapter 10 Marks for the celebrating of the said Obit of the said H. G. And that the Grant and Assignment of the said 20 s. to the Commonalty in the relief of the said Chauntry is such scil To have and receive of one Shop in Cheap maintenance of the said Chauntry aforesaid And that the said Dean and Chapter oblige themselves and their Successors and the Church to pay the same to the said Priest and Clark and that it shall be lawful for the Mayor and Commonalty aforesaid to distrain for the said Rents By virtue of which Will and Indenture the Dean and Chapter enter and were thereof seized in their demesne c. and that at all times after they had taken the profits thereof until 2 E. 6. and that the Dean and Chapter of the profits of the premises had yearly paid 10 Marks for the stipend of the said Priest And further the 27 July 16 H. 8. the Dean and Chapter demised the same to F. Cole for 40 years and that afterwards 15 Maij 36 H. 8. the said Dean and Chapter leased the same to Nicholas Wilford for 50 years rendring 9 l. Rent with Clause of Distress if the Rent was behind by half a year being demanded the Lease should be void which N. W. 1 E. 6. devised the same to his Wife who devised the same to Tho. Wilford the
he is not to have Damages because the Waste was not to his disinheresin and the Land he shall not recover against the Defendant for the Term is not determined and such was the Opinion of the Court. As to the matter in â—aw Shuttleworth said That the Action of Waste ought to be brought against the Lessee himself and not against the Assignee for when he grants over his Term excepting the Trees it is a good Exception for when the Land upon which the Trees grow is leased to another the Trees pass by the Lease as well as the Land and the property of them is in the Lessee during the Term by which when he grants his Land he may well except them as the first Lessor might have done and if the Lessee for years cutteth down the Trees the Lessor cannot take them for that he hath other sufficient remedy scil an Action of Waste Fenner and Walmsley contrary And they conceived that the Lessee had but a special Property in the Trees scil for Fire-bote Plough bote House-bote c. But if he demiseth the Land or granteth his Interest in it he cannot except the Trees nor his special Property in them no more than he who hath Common appendant may grant the Land excepting the Common And in such case the general Property in the Trees remains in the Lessor as parcel of his Inheritance And this appeareth by many cases 27 H. 8. 13. Lessee for life and he in the remainder joyn in a lease for life the Lessee commits Waste the Tenant for life and he in the remainder joyn in an Action of Waste the Tenant for life shall recover the place wasted and he in the reversion all the damages Vide 2 H. 7. 10 H. 7. cited before That the Lessor may licence the Lessee to cut the Trees which proves that the Property is in him And Vide 40 Ass 22. the Lessor shall have the Windfalls And as to that which hath been said That by the Exception of the Trees the Soil it self is also excepted that is true as to the Trees for nourishment and not otherwise for if the Lessor cutteth down the Trees or roots them up he shall not after meddle with the Land where c. but the Soil shall be entirely to the Lessee The Lessor during the Term may grant the Trees so cannot the Lessee therefore the greater and better Property in the Trees is in the Lessor and not in the Lessee and the Trees proprie loquendo are not parcel of the thing demised If this Exception of the Trees or Woods should hold place Inconvenience would follow for as it is holden in 15 H. 7. 11. If the Termor of Wood commits Waste in one corner of the Wood he should not lose all the Wood but that place only But if in the said Wood there are divers Plats of Land in divers places of the Wood if the Termor commits Waste in that Wood he shall lose all the said Plats although he hath not done waste in them for they are parcel of the Wood. Vide Temps E. 1. Fitz. Waste 127. and Vide ibidem Waste 112. 8 E. 2. Waste done in parcel of an House the whole House shall be recovered Vide also 30 E. 3. Fitz. Amendment 67. and 4 E. 3. Waste 10. Now if that be Law and the Exception be good how shall the place wasted be recovered here and against whom It seemed to the Lord Anderson That the Exception was void and that the Action was brought against the Assignee and he said it was a knavish and foolish Demise and if it should be effectual in Law some Mischiefs would follow which he would not remember Windham was of the same Opinion and that the Lessee could not assign his Estate with such Exception for he hath but a special Interest in the Trees scil for Fire-bote Plough-bote c. which should go with the Land. Periam conceived That as to such special Property that none could have it but he who hath the Land and therefore the Exception is void but as to the Fruit-trees such an Exception might be good and although that the Trees are not expresly demised yet quodam modo and after a sort they may be said demised as annexed to the Land and if waste be brought against him who made the Exception scil the Lessee he cannot say they were not let to him and therefore he doubted of the Exception And Rhodes doubted also of the Exception and Anderson said that he was clear of opinion that the Lessor should have the Windfalls and afterwards the Case was adjorned to be further argued c. Temps Roign Eliz. CCLXX. Audleys Case Uses THe Lord Audley 12 H. 7. enfeoffed Hoddy and others of certain Lands in the County of Somerset and afterwards by Indenture reciting the said Feoffment and the date of it and also that it was to the intent that his Feoffees should perform his Will as followeth in effect viz My Will is that my said Feoffees shall stand seized to the use that the said Hoddy shall receive of the said Lands â—00 l which he had lent to the said Lord Audley and also to stand seized to pay all his Debts upon Bills signed with his hand and after â—he Debts paid that the Feoffees shall make an Estate of the said Lands to him the said Lord Audley and Joan his wife and to the heirs of their Bodies c. with divers Remainders over The said Lord Audley had Issue by the said Joan and also having Issue by a former wife a daughter the Feoffees never made any Estate to the said Lord and his wife and by the opinion of divers Iustices and Sages of the Law upon this matter no use was changed for it is not a last Will but an Intent and although that the Feoffees shall be seized to the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs because no consideration was wherefore they should be seized to their own uses yet the same could not make a new use to the said Lord and his wife in tail without conveying an Estate c. for the wife is a stranger to the Land and the same cannot be a Will or Testament for the Estate mentioned in the said writing ought to be made to the said Lord and his wife who could not take by his own Will and this matter was depending in the Chancery And the advise of the Iustices being there required they delivered their Opinions That by that writing no use was changed nor any use vested in the said Lord and his wife and a Decree was made accordingly until proof was made that such an Estate was made c. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXI. Walgrave and Somersets Case IN Trespass by Walgrave against Somerset the Case was That tenant at will cut down Trees and the Lessor brought Trespass vi armis And the Court was clear of opinion that the Action was well maintainable modo forma and Iudgment
was given accordingly Vide Litt. 25. that Trespass lyeth but he doth not speak of vi armis See for that 12 E. 4. 8. by Fairfax and Genny 22 E. 4. 5. CCLXXII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant said that the Obligation was endorced with a Condition for the performance of Covenants contained in an Indenture c. The Plaintiff assigned the Breach in this that the Defendant himself by the same Indenture that the said House was discharged of all former Estates and Incumbrances c. And further shewed that the Defendant had made a former Lease of the said House to one A. B. in the County of Warwick to which the Defendant said that tempore dimissionis he was within age upon which they were at Issue and it was tryed in the County of Warwick where it ought to be tryed where the Writ was brought But the whole Court held the contrary Trial. that the tryal was well enough as if in an Assise the Tenant pleadeth a Release of the Plaintiff in a foreign County to which the Plaintiff pleads that at the time of the Release he was within age upon which they are at Issue the Issue shall be tryed in the County where the Release is pleaded to be made and not where the Writ is brought CCLXXIII Temps Roign Eliz. ACtion upon the Case was brought for stopping a way The Plaintiff declared that the Duke of Suffolk was seized of a House in D. and let the same to the Plaintiff for life and that the said Duke and all those whose Estate c. had used time out of mind c. to have a way over the Land of the Defendant to the Park of D. to carry and re-carry necessary wood for the said House from the said Park to the said House And further declared That the Defendant Obstupavit viam It was moved that upon the matter no Action upon the Case did lye but an Assise because that the Freehold of the House is in the Plaintiff and also the Freehold of the Land over which c. is in the Defendant But if the Plaintiff had had but an Estate for years then an Action upon the Case would lye and not an Assise And it is not material if the Plaintiff have but an Estate for years in the Park Qâ—od fuit concestum per totam Curiam It was holden also that this word Obstupavit was good enough without any more scil without shewing any special matter of disturbance Nusance Obstupavit as the erection of some Gate Hedge Ditch c. for Obstupavit implyeth a Nusance continued and not a personal disturbance as Forestaller or saying upon the Land c. that he shall not go over or use that way But as to a local and real Nusance the word Obstupavit amounts to Obstruxit And although in the Declaration is set down the day and year of the stopping yet it shall not be intended that it continued but the same day for the words of the Declaration are further That he was disturbed in the way and yet is and so the continuance of the disturbance is alledged and of that Opinion was the whole Court. Action upon the Câ—se Prescription Leonard Prothonotary He hath declared of a Prescription habere viam tam pedestrem quam equestrem pro omnibus omniâ—odis cariagiis and by that Prescription he cannot have a Cart-way for every Prescription is stricti juris Dyer That is well observed and I conceive that the Law is so and therefore it is good to prescribe habere viam pro omnibus cariagus without speaking of Horse or Foot-way 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXIV The Archbishop of Yorks Case Toll THe King granted to the Archbishop of York the Toll of Corn sold in the Market of Rippon And afterwards the King granted to the Mayor and Citizens of York to be discharged of Toll through all the Realm and afterwards the Archbishop exchanged his Manor of Rippon with the King for another Manor It was moved If now the Citizens of York should be discharged of Toll within the Mannor of Rippon Dyer said that they are not discharged of Toll for the Grant to the Archbishop was eigne to the Grant made to the Citizens and by the exchange the King had new Right And when the King grants over the Manor of Rippon the Grantee shall have the Toll notwithstanding the Grant made to the Citizens for the Grant made to them was void as to discharge them of Toll at Rippon and the Grant of the King to the Citizens shall not take effect after the exchange for the Grant was void ab initio But if the Grant of the King to the Archbishop had been made for life then the Grant of the King made to the Citizens should take effect after the Estate for life determined And the better Opinion was That Toll should be paid Hil. 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXV William Wallers Case WIlliam Waller seized in Fee 26 H. 8. made a Feoffment to the use of his last Will and by that devised his Manor of Russels to Rich. Waller his Son in Tail and dyed Rich. Waller entred and was seized by force of the Statute 27 H. 8. and afterwards 2 E. 6. by his Deed in consideration of a Marriage to be had between him and one Eliz. A. enfeoffed Worsley and others to the use of himself and the said Eliz. for their lives and after the use of the said Rich. Waller and his Heirs and dyed Eliz. took to Wife Clavell they both by Fine granted the said Mannor to Tho. Lamb Habend ' eidem Thomae haeredibus suis tota vita ipsius Eliz. Tho. Lamb entred and dyed seized Tho. his Son and Heir entred against whom Thomas Waller Son and Heir of Rich. brought a Formedon the said Eliz. being alive the Tenant said he is within age and prayed that the paroll might demur but Non allocatur for he was but as an Occupant during the life of Eliz. CCLXXVI Residuum of Sir Francis Englefields Case THe Case of Sir Francis Englefield was argued by Popham and he said That this Condition was not such a private Condition or so running in privity but that it might be transferred by 33 H. 8. or 29 Eliz. to the Queen for although that the consideration which moved and induced Sir Francis to create the Condition be private and particular yet that notwithstanding the Condition it self is general for the private cause of the Condition doth not make the Condition private but as in other Cases and he put the Cases before of Ransom But if the Condition had been conceived in these Terms scil If my Nephew shall be given to intollerable Vices then if I tender c. there it had been otherwise Vide the Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 20. by which it is enacted That if any Subject is attainted of High Treason by the course of the
Dyer that these Remainders were void for the term is determinable upon the death of William Cecill the Father and the residue of the said term cannot remain And by the Lord Anderson the Remainders of the term limited ut supra are utterly void for every Remainder ought to be certain but here is no certainty for it may be that the first possessioner of the term may live longer so as he in the Remainder cannot know what he shall have And such was also the Opinion of Rhodes And he put the Case between Gravenor and Parker 3 4 Phil. Ma. Dyer 150. A Lease was made to A. for life by Indenture Et provisum fuit by the same Indenture That if the Lessee dyed within the term of sixty years then next ensuing that then his Executors should have in right of the Lessee so many of the years as should amount to the number of sixty years to be accounted from the date of the Indenture and it was holden That that secondary Interest to the Executors was void and that the words concerning the same did sound in Covenant CCCIV. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A made B. and C. his Executors Executors Action they took upon them the charge of the Administration and afterwards B. dyed and now an Action of Debt was brought against the surviving Executor and the Executor of the other Executor and the Writ was abated because against the surviving Executor it ought only to be brought Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCV Smith and Babbs Case SMith brough an Action upon the Case against Babb for stopping of Water incessanter decurrent by his Land Action upon the Case Stopping of Water by which his Land was drowned and his Grass rotted Exception was taken to it because it is not alledged That the Water had so run time out of mind Gawdy Iustice If the Water hath run there but for one year if the Defendant hath diverted it so as he hath drowned the Plaintiffs Land the Action will lye well enough Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCVI Basil Johnsons Case BAsil Johnson one of the Clerks of the Chancery Priviledge of a Clerk in Court. was impleaded in the Common Pleas by Bill of Priviledge by an Attorney of the said Court and now Basil came into Court and shewed that he is one of the Clerks ut supra and prayed his Priviledge but the whole Court was against it because the Plaintiff is as well priviledged in this Court as the Defendant is in the Chancery and was first interessed in his Priviledge by the bringing of his Writ but the Defendant was not entituled to his Priviledge before the Arrest and afterwards by the award of the Court the said Basil was ousted of his Priviledge 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCVII Collier and Colliers Case Prohibition BEtween Collier and Collier the Case was That the Plaintiff was Sued for Incontinence in the Spiritual Court and there they would have him Answer upon his Oath if he ever had Carnall Knowledge of such a Woman upon which he prayed a Prohibition Vide inde F. N. B. 41. a. Register 36. Et nemo tenetur seipsum prodere But the Court would advise of it 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCVIII Mountney and Andrews Case Execution IN a Scire Facias by Mountney against Andrews of Grays-Inn upon a Iudgment in Debt the Defendant pleaded That heretofore a Fieri Facias at the Suit of the now Plaintiff issued to the Sheriff of Leicester by force of which the said Sheriff took divers Sheep of the Defendants and that as yet he doth detain and keep them It was holden by the whole Court to be a good Plea although he did not say That the Writ was retorned for the Execution is lawful notwithstanding that and the Plaintiff hath his remedy against the Sheriff Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCIX Dawbney and Gores Case BEtween Dawbney Plaintiff and Gore and Gon Defendants in a Writ of Disceit In Arrest of Iudgment it was moved That two are accountable to one and the one of them accounts without the other that that is not any account and then no account can be assigned in that As to that it was said by Popham Attorney-General That notwithstanding that one be not compellable to account without his Companion and by way of Action of Account the one shall not account without the other unless the Process be determined against him and then he who appeareth hath accounted and the other against whom the Process is determined hath purchased his Charter of Pardon the account made by his Companion shall bind him Vide inde 41 E. 3. 13. Yet if one of the Accomptants will account willingly the same is a good account And in account if one confesseth and the other pleadeth in bar the confession of the one shall bind the other and such was the Opinion of the Court. Another matter was moved in this case because that one Tedcastell and Swinnerton being accountable to the said Gores and Dawbney they have accounted to Dawbney only and he alone hath accepted of the account and that is not any account therefore no desceit but the Action of Account doth remain To which it was answered by Popham That the same was a good account being accepted by Dawbney and should bind the Gores for an Account is a personal thing as an Obligation which may be released by one of the Obligees Vide 14 E. 4. 2. Where one was accountable to two and the one of them did assign Auditors before whom the Accountant is found in Arrearages and thereupon both of them brought Debt upon Account and well And so none of the Exceptions were allowed by the Court. Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCX Trivilians Case THo Trivilian Tenant in tail of White Acre Black Acre and Green Acre leased White Acre for years to B. and Black Acre to C. and afterwards made a Feoffment of all three Acres to F. and others by Deed in which Deed was comprised a Letter of Attorney in which he ordained Harris and three others his Attorneys joyntly and severally to enter in the Premises and every part thereof in the name of the whole and possession in his name to receive and afterwards to make Livery c with other ordinary and usual words and it was expressed in the said Deed of Feoffment that the Feoffment should be to the intent to perform his last Will and afterwards one of the said Attorneys entred into the Land demised for life and expelled the Tenant for life and made Livery and Seisin to the Feoffees accordingly and afterwards the said Harris another of the Attorneys scil one of the Ioynt Lessees being one of the three Attorneys made Livery of the Land demised for years and after the Feoffor in the time of Queen Eliz. by his last Will devised That the Feoffees should be seized of the
of the first disturbance for that presentment did not pass to him being a thing in Action without mention thereof in his Grant. And if the Patentee brings a Quare Impedit of a second avoidance he shall make his presentment by the presentment of the King not making mention of the Vsurpation Yet if a Bishop present for Lops in the case of a common person he ought to make mention of it for that is a title to the Patron CCCXL Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench adjudged NOte In the Case of one Manning it was adjudged That where an Infant Executor sold the Goods of his Testator for a lesser price than they were worth and afterwards brought an Action of Detinue against the Vendee upon that Detinue in retardatione executionis Testamenti that the said Sale was good and should bind the Executor notwithstanding his Nonage 28 Eliz. In the Chancery CCCXLI The Lord Awdleys Case THe Lord Awdley 12 H. 7. enfeoffed Hoddy and others of certain Lands in the County of Somerset and afterwards by Indenture reciting the said Feoffment and the date of it and also that it was to the intent that his Feoffees should perform his Will as followeth in effect viz. My Will is That my said Feoffees shall stand seized to the use that the said Hoddy shall receive of the profits of the Lands 100 l. which he had sent to the said Lord Awdley and also stand seized to pay all his debts upon Bills signed with his hand and after the debts paid that the said Feoffees shall make Estate of the said Lands unto him the said Lord Awdley and Jone his Wife and to the Heirs of their two Bodies with divers Remainders over The said Lord had Issue by the said Jone and also had Issue by a former Wife a daughter the Feoffees never made any Estate to the said Lord and his Wife And by the Opinion of divers Iustices and Sages of the Laws that upon that matter no use was changed for it is not any last Will but an Intent And although that the Feoffees shall be seized to the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs because that no consideration was by which they should be seized to their own uses yet the same cannot make any Vse unto the said Lord and his Wife in tail without containing an Estate for the Wife is a Stranger to the Land And also it cannot be a Will for the Estate mentioned in the said writing ought to have been made to the said Lord and his Wife who cannot take the same by his Will. This matter depended in the Chancery And the advice of the Iustices being there required they delivered their Opinions That by the said Writing no Vse was changed nor any Estate vested in the said Lord and his Wife And a Decree was there made accordingly until proof be made that such an Estate was made CCCXLII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was in the Kings Bench in Debt It was found by Special Verdict That the Testator being possessed of divers Goods in London where he dyed and also at the time of his death the Queen being indebted unto him in the Sum of 4 l. 10 s. she then residing at Whitehall the Archbishop as Metropolitan granted licence of Administration to the Queen and the Bishop of London afterwards granted licence of Administration to J.S. The Court sent to the Civilians to appear in Court and to deliver their Opinions in this case And thereupon Lloyd Doctor of Law appeared and argued to this effect viz. That in ancient times in such cases the several Ordinaries committed several Administrations for the Goods in their Diocess respecive In which case the mischief was very great for the Creditor was driven to bring several Actions of the Administrators of the several Ordinaries Vide H. 7. 13 R. 2. Administrators 21. But afterwards upon a Decree upon a Composition in such cases the Metropolitan committed the Administration He further argued That debts cannot be said Bona Notabilia for they cannot be said within or without any County or Diocess and are things transitory and therefore called aes alienum And he said That the Administration granted by the Archbishop was void for as Archbishop he had not to intermeddle within the Diocess of another but as Legatus Papae And in the time of Hen. 2. Becket Archbishop of Canterbury was stiled Legatus Natus but now that power Legantine is determined and therefore the authority to commit Licences of Administration in another Diocess but in case of Bona Notabilia is determined And he said That by the Civil Law Jones Rep. 225. if a man deviseth all his Goods in such a County by that debts do not pass and yet by especial words a man may devise his debts Awbrey Doctor argued to the contrary and he confessed that in ancient times every Ordinary in such cases committed licences of Administration But he denied that the Prerogative which is now practised in such cases by the Metropolitan was given upon any Composition but that it began by Prescription If a man in his Iourney dyed in another Diocess notwithstanding that he had out with him but his necessary and ordinary Apparel in such case the Metropolitan committed the Administration and he said That as he conceived debts are Bona Notabilia secundum fictionem Legis they are local and he said to make Bona Notabilia it is sufficient if the Intestate have 3 l. in one Diocess and 2 l. in another Diocess But he said That posito that Bona Notabilia are not in the case yet the Administration granted by the Metropolitan is not void until it be revoked For although that the Metropolitan on the right of his Bishoprick hath not to intermeddle in another Diocess yet in this case because the Archbishop of Canterbury is a Patriarch For in Christendom there are four great Patriarchs and eight lesser Patriarchs whereof the Archbishop of Canterbury is one and by reason thereof he hath general Iurisdiction through all England Ireland c. But now by the Statute his Authority is restrained For he cannot cite any other out of other Diocess by any Process But notwithstanding he may do many great Acts by himself or his Chancellor in every Diocess and he argued very much upon the Prerogative of the Archbishop of Canterbury The Iustices did not then deliver any Opinion in this case Quaere If Letters of Administration of the Goods of a common person be committed to the Queen if good The case was adjourned Vide Cook 5 part Ucre and Jeffreys Case and Cook 8 part in Sir John Needhams Case for the Resolution of this Case CCCXLIII Pasc 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man made a Lease for life and afterwards made a Lease to another for years The Ordinary committed Licences of Administration to A. the Tenant for life and A. joyned in the purchase of the Fee-simple of the Land demised It was
Tenants and therefore ought not to joyn c. It was Adjourned Temps Roign Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCLVII The President of Corpus Christi Colledge Case NOte It was holden by Cholmley Serjeant Plowden and many others in the Case of the President of Corpus Christi Colledge in Oxford That if the said Master or President of any such Colledge by his Will deviseth any Land to his Colledge and dyeth such Devise is void For at the time when the Devise should take effect the Colledge is without a Head and so not capable of such Devise for it was then an imperfect Body And so it was holden by the Iustices upon good advice taken thereof CCCLVIII Temps Roign Eliz In the Kings Bench. IN a Warrantia Chartae the Defendant said that the Plaintiff had not any thing in parcel of the Land the day of the Writ brought If in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant aliens and afterwards vouches the Vouchee is not bound to enter into the Warranty But here in this Case it may be That at the time that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to warrant he was Tenant of the Land in which Case the warranty is attached and then if ever the Land be recovered against him he shall have this Writ and of this Opinion was Brown Iustice For the Land which the Defendant had at the time of the request is bound by the request but if he alieneth after the request he shall not have the Warranty CCCLIX Mich. 9 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Man seized of a Manor in which there are divers Copy-holds and the Custom there is That if any Copyholder leaseth his Land above the term of one year that he shall forfeit his Copyhold A Copyholder committed such a Forfeiture and afterwards the Lord leased the Manor for years and the Lessee entred for the Forfeiture and Weston said that his Entry was not lawful for although that the Heir may enter for a Condition broken in the time of his Ancestor because he is privy in blood yet the Lessee or Feoffee cannot do so for he is a Stranger such a one of whom an Estranger shall not take advantage Dyer If this forfeiture be preserved by Homage and enrolled in the Court Rolls the Lessee may well afterwards enter for by the forfeiture the Copyhold Estate is void and determined as if a Leafe for years be made rendring Rent upon Condition to cease if the Rent be not paid here presently by the not payment the Interest of the term is determined and of that the Grantee of the Reversion shall have advantage CCCLX Mich. 10 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case was brought for stopping of a way The Plaintiff declared that the Duke of Suffolk was seized of a House in D. and let the same to the Plaintiff for life and that the said Duke and all those whose Estate c. have used time out of mind c. to have a way over the Land of the Defendant to the Park of D. to carry and recarry Wood necessary for the said House from the said Park to the same House and further declared That the Defendant Obstupavit the way It was moved by Carus That upon that matter no Action upon the Case lay because the Freehold of the House is in the Plaintiff and also the Freehold of the Land over which c. is in the Defendant But if the Plaintiff or the Defendant had but an Estate for years then an Action upon the Case would lye and not an Assize and it is not material If the Plaintiff had but an Estate for years in the Park quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam It was also holden That this word Obstupavit is sufficient without any more without shewing any special matter of the stopping as the erecting of any Gate Hedge Ditch c. for Obstupavit implyes a Nusance continued and not a personal disturbance as forestalling or saying to the Plaintiff upon the Land where c. that he should not go over or use the said way for in such case upon such a disturbance an Action upon the Case lyeth But as to a local and real disturbance the word Obstupavit amounts to Obstruxit and although in the Declaration is set down the day and year of the stopping yet it shall not be intended that it continued but the same day for the words of the Declaration are further By which he was disturbed of his way and yet is and so the continuance of the disturbance is alledged and of that Opinion was the whole Court. Leonard Prothonotary He hath declared of a Prescription habere viam tam pedestrem quam equestrem pro omnibus omnimodis Carriagiis and upon that Prescription he cannot have a Cart-way for every Prescription est stricti juris Dyer That is well observed and I confess that the Law is so and therefore it is good to prescribe habere viam pro omnibus Carriagiis without speaking either of a Horse or a Foot-way CCCLXI. A. Enfeoffed B. to the intent that B. should convey the said Land to such person as A. should sell it A. sold it to C. to whom B. refused to convey the Land and thereupon he brought an Action upon the Case against B. And by Wray Chief Iustice and Gawdy Iustice here is a good consideration for here is a trust and that which is a good consideration in the Chancery is in this case sufficient Shute Iustice was of a contrary Opinion And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLXII Sir Richard Lewknors Case SIr Richard Lewknor seized of Wallingford Park Ante 162. made a lease thereof for years and dyed the Lessee granted over his term to another excepting the Wood the term expired and an Action of Waste was brought against the second Lessee by the Coparceners and the Husband of the third Coparcener being Tenant by the Courtesie Shuttlewood and Snag Serjeants did argue That the Action would not lye in the form it was brought and the first Exception which was taken by them was because the Action was general viz. Quod fecit vastum in terris quas Sir Roger Lewknor pater praedict ' of the Plaintiff cujus haeredes ipsae sunt praefat ' Defendent demisit And the Count was that the Reversion was entailed by Parliament unto the Heirs of the Body of Sir Richard Lewknor and so they conceived that the Writ ought to have been special cujus haeredes de Corpore ipsae sunt For they said that although there is not any such Writ in the Register yet in novo Casu novum est apponendum remedium And therefore they compared the Case to the Case in Fitz. N. B. 57. viz. If Land be given to Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Body of the Wife and the Wife hath Issue and dyeth and the Husband committeth waste the Writ in that case and the like
Common Pleas. LII Frice and Fosters Case IN Ejectione firmae the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease made 14 Jan. 30 Eliz. to have from the Feast of Christmas then last before for three years and upon the Evidence the Plaintiff shewed a Lease bearing date the 13 day of January the same year and it was found by Witnesses that the Lease was sealed and delivered upon the Land the 13 day of January Variance Whereupon Puckering and Cowper Serjeants moved on the part of the Defendant that for that variance between the Declaration and the Evidence of the Plaintiff that the Iury might be discharged Evidence good to maintain Issue But Anderson Chief Iustice said that the Evidence was good enough to maintain the Declaration for if the Lease was sealed and delivered the 13 of January it was then a Lease 14 January Quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt LIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield The Case was that A. seised of an Advowson in Fee Quare Impedit by Executors the Church voided the Bishop collated wrongfully A. dyed Collation it was holden that his Executors might have a Quare Impedit upon that disturbance and that by the equity of the Statute which gave an Action of Trespass to Executors of Goods carried away in the life of the Testator 4 E. 3. cap. 7. and that the Clerk should be removed at the suit of the Executors Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LIV. Harvey and Thomas Case THe Case was that the Husband seised of Land in the right of his Wife made a Lease of it for years Fine by the Husband where avoids a Lease ê contra 1 Roll. tit Charge in Marg. 389. Plow Quaer 31. 261. ib. plus and afterwards he and his Wife conveyed the Land to a stranger by Fine the Husband died Wray Chief Iustice was of opinion that the Conusee should hold the Land discharged of the Lease Gawdy contrary In case of a Rent granted or a Recognizance acknowledged by the Husband the Conusee of the Fine shall avoid any of them But in this Case the Conusee meddles with the Land it self and an Estate in the Land is conveyed by the Husband which none but the Wife or her Heirs shall avoid and if the Wife after the death of her Husband accept the Rent upon such a Lease by that the Lease is confirmed Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench LV. Blaby and Estwicks Case IN Assumpsit It was moved in stay of Iudgment Assumpsit that one of the Defendants was dead after verdict but notwithstanding that Allegation Iudgment was given Attornment for the Court cannot take Notice of it judicially nor any of the Parties hath day in Court to plead it and therefore the Court is not to have regard to such Informations Wray It is not honourable for us upon such surmises which cannot be tryed to delay Iudgment and also the Party is not without remedy for he may have a Writ of Error 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVI Hore and Briddleworths Case HOre brought Trespass against Briddlesworth Quare clausum Domum suam fregit the Defendant pleaded and put the Plaintiff to a new Assignment i. e. a House called a Stable a Barn and another House called a Carthouse and Garnier And that was assigned for Error for that Assignment is not warranted by the Declaration Gawdy said it was good enough for Domus in the Declaration contains all things contained in the new Assignment but if the Declaration had been of a Close and the new Assignment of a Barn it had not been good Wray Chief Iustice Domus est nomen collectivum and contains many Buildings as Barns Stables c. And such was the Opinion of the Court. Mich 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVII Mans Case Prohibition MAn was sued before the Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes for an Incestuous Marriage viz. for marrying his Wives Sisters Daughter and although it be not expresly within the Levitical degrees yet because more farther degrees are prohibited the Archbishop of Canterbury and other the Commissioners gave Sentence against him Consultation upon which he sued a Prohibition upon the Stat. of 32 H. 8. c. 38. The Prohibition was general where it ought to be special that it be not within the Levitical degrees and therefore a Consultation was granted Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVIII Doylies Case Appeals IN an Appeal de Roberie against Doyly It was agreed by the Iustices that the Party robbed shall have an Appeal of Robbery 20 years after the Robbery committed and shall not be bound to bring it within a year and a day as in the Case of an Appeal of Murder Vide contr 22 Ass 97. vide Stamford 62. Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LIX Ruishbrook and Pusanies Case THe Plaintiff brought Trespass for pulling down his Hurdles in his Close The Defendant justified by reason that one Beddingfield was Lord of the Mannor of D. and that the said Beddingfield and all those whose Estate he had in the said Mannor had had a free course for their sheep in the place where c. And that the Tenant of the said Close could not there erect Hurdles without the leave of the Lord of the Mannor and that the said Beddingfield let to the Defendant the said Mannor and because the Plaintiff erected Hurdles without leave c. in the said Close he cast them down as it was lawful for him to do The Plaintiff replyed of his own wrong without cause c. It was holden by the Iustices to be an ill Plea Traverse for the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the Prescription 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LX. Par Marquess of Northamptons Case PAr Marquess of Northampton took to Wife the Lady Bourchier Heir of the Earl of Essex Leases by a Baron contrary to Act of Parliament void 3 Leon. 71. who levied a Fine of the Lands of the Lady sur Conusans de Droit c. with a Grant and Render to them for Life the remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the said Lady And afterwards by Act of Parliament â—5 H. 8. It was enacted That the said Lady should retain part of her Inheritance and dispose thereof as a Feme sole and that the said Marquess should have the residue and that he might lease the same by himself without the Wife for 21 years or lesser term yielding the ancient Rent being Land which had been usually demised c. The Marquess leased the same for 21 years and afterwards durante termino praedict he let the same Land to another for 21 years to begin after the determination of the former Lease It was moved that the last Lease was void for three Causes 1. Because the Marquess had but for Life and then it cannot be intended that the Statute would enable
should vest in his Heir It was further given in Evidence that the Conusor named the said Cook one of the Conusees and willed that the other three Conusees should release to him Gawdy Iustice held That that by nomination the use did vest in Cook for he said it had been adjudged that where before the Statute of 27 H. 8. One infeoffed divers persons to his use Feoffment to Uses and the Feoffor willed that his Feoffees should make estate to such person as his Son and Heir should name and died the Son and Heir named one of the Feoffees that the same was a good nomination c. Wray and Jefferies to the contrary for after this release Cook is in the whole by the Conusor and not by his Co-Feoffees and by this limitation the Conusor ought to name such a person which ought to take the estate and so cannot one Ioyntenant from his Companion c. And also the words are so that they four shall take the estate 14 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXIII The Bishop of Rochesters Case IN Ejectione firmae the Case upon Evidence was Grant of a Reversion by a Bishop Attornment the Bishop of Rochester 4 E. 6. made a lease for years to B. rendring rent and afterwards granted the Reversion to C. for 99 years rendring the ancient rent Habend from the day of the Lease without impeachment of waste which Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter But B. the Lessee did not attorn and in default of Attornment it was holden by the whole Court that the Lease was void for it is made by way of Grant of the Reversion But by Catlin if the Bishop had granted the Reversion and also demised the Land for 99 years it should pass as a Lease to begin first after the former Lease determined And as to the Attornment it was given in Evidence that B. after the notice of the Grant to C. had speech with C. to have a new Lease from him because he had then in his Lease but 8 years to come but they could not agree upon the price And the Iustices conceived that that was an Attornment because he had admitted the said C to have power to make a new Lease Also the said B. being in company with one R. and seeing the said C. coming towards him said to the said R. See my Landlord meaning the said C. Bromely Solicitor Attornment the same is no Attornment being spoken to a stranger Barham contrary because he was present It was holden by the whole Court that it was a good Attornment But if the Attornment was not before the Bishop was translated to Winchester the Lease should be void and although the confirmation of the Dean Chapter was before the Attornment so as no estate was vested in C yet it was good enough for the assent of the Dean and Chapter is sufficient be it before or after by Catlin Southcoat and Whiddar Iustices but Wray held the contrary Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXIV Russels Case Execution where not good upon a Capias without a Scire Facias RUssel was condemned in an Action of Debt and after the year and day the Plaintiff sued a Capias ad Satisfaciend against him and by force thereof he was taken and committed to the Marshal as in Execution It was the Opinion of the Iustices that it was a void Execution and not only voidable by Error and therefore the Defendant was discharged for it is not any Execution at all and the Plaintiff may have a Scire facias when he pleaseth Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXV Bluet and Cooks Case Action for Words IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared for scandalous words viz. Lambert is a Thief and Bluèt innuendo the Plaintiff is his Partaker It was the Opinion of the whole Court that the words were not actionable because they were too general for it may be that the Plaintiff is his Partaker in other Matters But if the words had been That Bluet knowing Lambert to be a Thief was his Partaker there the Action would have lain Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXVI Hunt and Gonnels Case Bail. HUnt recovered in Debt against Gonnel and procured against him a Capias ad Satisfaciend upon which Non est inventus is returned Execution but the Writ is not filed Hunt sued a Capias against the Mainpernors who are taken in Execution It was the Opinion of the Iustices that they should avoid this Execution by Error and not by Plea or Surmise c. But if the Capias returned against Gonnel had been filed and after imbezelled Quaere of the Error for the Court conceived that the matter shall be examined but Quaere to what intent Wray said to punish the Deceit but not to maintain the Execution against the Mainpernors Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench LXXVII Saer and Blands Case SAer Parson of the Church of D. libelled in the Spiritual Court against Bland for Tythes Bland came to the Kings Bench and shewed that within the said Parish of D. there is a Hamlet in which the said Bland inhabited and the said Inhabitants within the said Hamlet time out of mind had had a Chappel of Ease within the said Hamlet because the said Hamlet was distant from the Church of the said Parish and with part of their Tythes have found a Clark to do Divine Service within the said Chappel and also had paid a certain sum of money to Saer Prohibition Prescription and his Predecessors for all manner of Tythes and prayed a Prohibition and had it and it was holden a good Prescription LXXVIII Pasc 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Copyholder with licence of the Lord made a Lease for years and afterwards surrendred the Reversion with the rent to the use of a Stranger who is admitted accordingly Attornment It was moved if there needed any Attornment It was the opinion of Rhodes and Windham Iustices that the Surrender and Admittance ut supra are in the nature of an Attornment and so amount to an Attornment or at least supply the want of it Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber LXXIX The Lady Newman and Shyriffes Case THe Lady Newman Sister of James Wingfield 3 Leon. 170. lately deceased exhibited a Bill of Complaint in the Star Chamber against one Shyriffe dwelling in Dublin in Ireland and two others complaining That the said Shyriffe had forged a Deed purporting that the said James had by that Deed given unto him all his Goods and also that the said James had by that Deed assigned to the said Shyriffe a Lease for years of Lands in Ireland and also the said Shyriffe had procured the two other Defendants to depose upon their Oaths before the Town-Clerk of London That the said Deed was Sealed and Delivered by the said James as his Deed. It was moved by the Counsel of the
Defendant that these Matters of Forgery were not within the Statute of 5 Eliz. nor also the Perjury or the procurement thereof upon which the Lords of the Council there Upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury referred the consideration of the said Statute to both the Chief Iustices who at the next day in Court declared their Opinions upon the said Matters i. e That the said Matters did not extend to the Forgery of a Deed containing a gift of Chattels personals which see clearly by the Statute which as to that purpose extends but to Obligations Bills Obligatorie Acquittances Releases or other Discharges and that also a Deed of Assignment of a Lease of Lands in Ireland is not within the said Statute and also they were of opinion that the said Perjury and the procurement of it was not punishable by the said Statute because the Oath was taken coram non Judice for the Town-Clerk of London could not take an Oath in such a case Note no more than a private person But because that the Bill in the perclose and conclusion of it was contrary to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm the two Chief Iustices were of Opinion That the said Court might punish these Offences as Misdemeanors at the Common Law but not according to the Statute and afterwards Shyriffe was fined and by Order of the Court to stand upon the Pillory Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber LXXX The Queen and Lord Vauxes Case Bills IN the Exchequer Chamber before the Chancellor c. the Lord Vaux brought a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given against him in the Court of Exchequer and assigned for Error that a Bill was exhibited against him that the Lord Vaux had taken certain goods of the Queen at Westminster in the County of Middlesex and also had intruded into the Rectory of Ethelborough in the County of Northampton whereas the Queen ought to have brought several Bills being for several causes arising within several Counties But it was resolved by the whole Court That the Bill of the Queen was good enough and here is no mischief for if the Defendant will plead Not Guilty two several Venire Facias shall be awarded one into Middlesex the other into the County of Northampton Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXXXI Owen and Morgans Case GEorge Owen brought a Scire Facias against Morgan to have Execution of a Fine levied 8 Eliz. by which Fine the land was given to the Conusee and his heirs the Conusee rendred the same to the husband and wife and to the heirs of the body of the husband Note that the husband was the Conusor the remainder in Fee to the now Demandant and note that the Writ of Covenant was between the Conusee Plaintiff and the husband Deforceant without naming the wife And afterwards the husband suffered a common Recovery without naming of the wife Common Recovery the hushand and wife died without Issue and now Owen to whom the remainder was limited by the Fine brought a Scire Facias in bar of which the Recovery was pleaded It was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant That the said Recovery had against the husband was a good bar Feme not party to the Writ of Covenant not bound by a Recovery and should bar the remainder and the wife ought not to be named in or party to the Recovery for that nothing accrued to her by the Fine because she was not party to the Writ of Covenant and to the Conusans vide 32 H. 8. Fines 108. None can take by the Fine but those who are named in the Writ of Covenant but every Stranger may take by way of Remainder Vide etiam 7 E. 3. Br. Fines 114. 6 E. 3. Fitz. Fines 117. 7 E. 3. Fitz. Scire Facias 136. It is said by Herle if such a Fine ut supra be taken it is good as long as it is in force LXXXII Sir Richard Lee and Arnolds Case Post 93. SIr Richard Lee Kt. seized of three Manors made a lease of them to Sir Nicholas Arnold for certain years reserving for the one Manor 5 l. and for the other Manor 10 l. and for the third Manor 10 l. upon condition that if the said rents or any of them or any part c. be behind a re-entry into all the Manors and afterwards he bargained and sold the reversion of one of the said Manors to William Winter in Fee and afterwards by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the two other Manors and for the rent of one of the said Manors the Vendee did re-enter into all the Manors Manwood Here are several reservations Reservation of Rents upon a joynt Lease several rents and several leases for although that the words are joynt yet by construction they are become several as Land given to an Abbot and a Secular man although here be joynt words yet they are Tenants in Common Litt. 296. And if I sell to you two Horses the one for 5 l. and the other for 5 l. here are two several contracts the Parties to whom these reversions are assured ut supra are Assignees within the Statute of 32 H. 8. by which it is enacted that Assignees may take advantage of Conditions for such an Assignee is not meerly in by act of law as the Lord by Escheat and he is not such an Assignee but is in by conveyance The Lessor enters upon his Lessee Assigns and makes his Feoffment and the Lessee re-enters now the Feoffee is an Assignee and this condition is destroyed in part and continued in part Condition destroyed in part good in part If one hath Common in the land of another for 20 beasts and releases his Common for 10 beasts the Common for the residue remains but if he purchaseth part of the land in which he hath Common the whole Common is destroyed A Feoffment to two with warranty and one of them releases the warranty all the warranty is gone As to the condition for as much as it is not collateral but incident to the reversion it may be severed and is of the same nature as the rent and reversion A man possessed of lands for 20 years and seized of other lands in Fee Conditions divided leaseth all the land for 10 years reserving rent with clause of re-entry and dieth now the Heir hath a reversion for the land in fee and the executor for the other land so the condition is divided according to the reversion so if lands were given to one in general tail and others in special tail he thereof makes a lease rendring rent and dieth having several Issues inheritable to each tail now the condition shall go according to the rent and he conceived that the Grantee of parcel of the reversion is an Assignee within the said Statute Grantee of parcel of the Reversion is an Assignee within 32 H. 8. Of Conditions as if a Lease for years
where the Suit is Tam pro Domina Regina quam pro seipso CXXII Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Debt IF Rent-corn be reserved upon a Lease for years and it is behind for two or three years the Lessor may have Debt for the Corn and shall declare of so much Corn and it shall be in the Detinet but yet he shall not have Iudgment to have Corn but so much mony as the Corn was worth every several year being accompted Clark Baron doubted if he shall recover the price of the Corn as it was at the time when it was payable or it was at the time of the Action brought Manwood The Law is clear that the Lessee shall pay according to the price it was at the time of the payment and delivery limited by the Lease Clark said A is bound to pay and deliver to the Obligee 10 Bushels of Wheat and no place is appointed where the payment shall be made the Obligor is not bound to seek the Obligee in what place soever as it is in Case of payment of mony for that the importableness therefore shall excuse him which Manwood granted CXXIII Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by the Barons Fine for Alienation without Licence that for Fines for Alienation without licence not only the Land aliened but the other Lands of the Alienor shall be chargeable Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXXIV Prowses Case IT was holden in the Case of one Prowse by Egerton Solicitor Tythes upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. where an Abbot had a Rectory impropriate and also Land within the same Parish c. and so paid no Tythes because he could not pay them to himself and for no other cause was discharged and after the Dissolution the Rectory is granted to one and the Land to another that in such Case the King nor his Patentees should not be discharged of Tythes for the Lands were not discharged in Right but if the Lands in the hands of the Abbot were discharged in Right as by composition or lawful means there the King and his Patentee should be discharged from payment of Tythes And it was said by Burliegh Lord Treasurer that if the Composition or Custom was that the Abbot and his Successors should be discharged without extending to Farmors or Lessees if the Abbot made a Lease and the Lessee paid Tythes as he ought and after the Reversion cometh to the King the Lessee should pay Tythes during his Lease but after the Lease determined the King and his Patentee should not pay but should be discharged by the said Statute and said the like matter was in the Chancery Trin. 30 Eliz. The Abbot of Tewkesbury having the Rectory impropriate of Tewkesbury 11 H. 7. purchased Lands within the said Parish to him and his Successors Unity no discharge of Tythes after the dissolution the King granted to G. the Rectory and to W. the Lands and if W. should pay Tythes was referred to Manwood and Periam who gave their Resolution that Tythes were payable Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXV Ropers Case ROper was robbed by Smith and within a week after the Robbery he preferred an Indictment against him and within a month after the Robbery he sued an Appeal against Smith and prosecuted it until he was out-lawed and thereupon Cook moved to have Restitution and they of the Crown Office said that the Fresh-suit was not enquired for upon an Appeal one shall not have Restitution without Fresh-suit Restitution Cook The Books are if the Defendant in the Appeal of Robbery be attainted by Verdict Fresh Suit. the Fresh-suit shall be enquired of But here he was attainted by Outlary and not by Verdict and so the Fresh-suit could not be enquired of and here the Indictment is within a week and the Appeal within a month after the Robbery is a Fresh-suit Wray Chief Iustice In our Law he is to pursue the Felon from Town to Town but the suing of the Appeal is no Fresh-suit vide 21 F. 4.16 Restitution grounded upon Outlawry and Appeal of Robbery without Fresh-suit enquired of 1 H. 4. 5. if he confess the Felony and so is 2 R. 3. 13. Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVI Piers and Leversuches Case IN Ejectione firmae by Piers against Leversuch It was found by Verdict that one Robert Leversuch Grandfather of the Defendant was Tenant in Tail of the Land whereof c. and made Lease for years to Purn who assigned it over to Piers the Plaintiffs Father Robert Leversuch died W. his Son entred upon Piers who re-entred W. demised the Lands without other words to P. for life the remainder to Joan his wife for life the remainder to the Son of P. for life with warranty and made a Letter of Attorney to re-enter and deliver seisin accordingly P. died before that the Livery was executed and afterwards the Attorney made Livery to Joan W. died Edward his Son and Heir entred upon his Wife she re-entred and let the Land to the Plaintiff who upon an Ouster brought the Action Heal Serjeant When P. entred upon W. Leversuch the Issue in Tail he was a Disseisor and by his death the Land descending to his Heir the entry was taken away of W. Leversuch Cook contrary P. by his entry was not a Disseisor but at the Election of W. for when P. accepted such a Deed of W. it appeared that his intent was not to enter as a Disseisor and it is not found that the said P. had any Son and Heir at the time of his death and if not then no descent and there is not any disseisin found that P. expulit Leversuch out of the Land and Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And Cook cited a Case which was adjudged in the Common Pleas it was Skipwiths Case Grandfather Tenant in Tail Father and Son the Grandfather died the Father entred and paid the rent to the Lessor and died in possession and it was adjudged the same was not any descent for the paying of the rent explained by what title he entred and so shall not be a Disseisor but at the Election of another Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVII Penhalls Case PEnhall was indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for drawing his Dagger in the Church against J. S. without saying that he drew it with intent to strike the Party and for that cause the Indictment was holden void as to the Statute It was moved if it should not bee a good Indictment for the Assault so as he should be fined for the same By Sands Clerk of the Crown and the whole Court the Indictment is void in all for the conclusion of the Indictment is contra formam Statuti and then the Iury cannot enquire at the Common Law. Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVIII Weshbourns Case WEshbourn and Brown were Indicted upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. and exception was
all the Iustices in the Case between Townsend and Pastor two Coparceners are in the use of a Manor after the Statute of 1 R. 3. the one of them enters and makes a Feoffment in Fee of the whole Manor that this Feoffment is not only of the moiety of the Manor whereof she might lawfully and by the said Statute make a Feoffment but also of another moiety by disseisin Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXXVII Bulwer and Smiths Case BUlwer brought an Action upon the Case against Smith and declared how that H. H. had recovered against the Plaintiff in the Common Pleas 20 l. and before Execution died and that the Defendant knowing that at D. in the County of Norfolk malitiose deceptive machinans to Outlaw the Plaintiff upon the said Iudgment in the name of the said H.H. c. in performance of his said purpose at W. in the County of Middlesex took out a Capias ad satisfaciend in the name of the said H.H. against the now Plaintiff upon the said Iudgment directed to the Sheriff of London and Non est inventus being returned upon that took out an Exigent in the name of the said H.H. which Writ by the procurement of the Defendant was retorned and then the Plaintiff was Outlawed and afterwards the Defendant in the name of the said H. H. took out a Capias utlagatum against the Plaintiff directed to the Sheriff of Norfolk by force of which the Plaintiff was arrested and imprisoned for two months until he had gotten his Charter of Pardon by reason of which Outlawries the Plaintiff had forfeited all his Goods and Chattels and upon the said Declaration the Defendant did demur in Law and the principal cause of the demurrer was because that the Action might have been laid in Middlesex where the wrong began scil the Capias ad satisfaciend the Outlawry for this imagination at D. in the County of Norfolk set forth in the Declaration cannot give to the Plaintiff this Action But if divers conspire in one County for to indite one and they put the same in Execution in another County the Party aggrieved may lay his Action in which of the said two Counties he pleaseth 22 E. 4. 14. for a Conspiracy is more notorious than an imagination imaginatio est unius conspiratio plurimorum And in this Case the Deliverance of the Capias at D. in Norfolk is but accessary and the suing of the Process aforesaid at Westminster is the principal upon the part of the Plaintiff it was said that such an action might be laid in the County where the Plaintiff was wronged and the Plaintiff is not tied to lay his Action in the County where the original matter which was but conveyance to the said wrong was done A imprisoned upon a Capias ad satisfaciend in Middlesex escapes into Surrey the Action upon the escape shall be laid in Surrey Reteiner of a Servant in one County who departs in another County the Master shall lay his Action in which of the said Counties he will 15 E. 4. 18 19. 41 E. 3. 1. A Writ of Disceit was brought in the County of York and the Case was that in a Praecipe quod reddat of Land the Tenant shewed forth a Protection at Westminster the which was allowed for a year and within the year the Tenant stayed in the County of York upon his own occasions the said Writ of Disceit was holden to be well laid for there the wrong began notwithstanding that the Original i. e. the casting of the Protection was in Middlesex for the disceit is that the Tenant contrary to the pretence of the Protection continued at York for the Protection was quia Moraturus And always where the cause of the Action consists of two things whereof the one is matter of Record and the other is matter of Fact there the Action shall be laid in such County where the matter in fact may be more properly tried Vide 11 R. 2. Fitz. Action sur le Case 36 Br. Lieu 84. in the principal Case at Bar the Court was of Opinion that the Action was well brought in the County of Norfolk Another Exception was taken to the Declaration because the Plaintiff hath there set forth whereas his true name is John Bulwer by which name he now sues he was sued and outlawed by the name of John Buller and then the now Plaintiff upon that matter was never sued nor outlawed and then is not grieved by the Defendant but John Buller for here in his Declaration there is not any averment that John Bulwer and John Buller are one and the same and not divers Persons But the Exception was disallowed for the whole Court held that for As much as the Plaintiff hath declared that he by the name of John Buller was sued and Outlawed the same is an averment in Law c. and amounts to so much Another matter was objected because it appeareth in the Declaration that H. H. was dead before this Process was sued and then the Outlawry was erronious and so the Plaintiff is not at any mischief but that he may reverse the Outlawry by Error as in Conspiracy the Defendant pleads that the Indictment upon which the Plaintiff is arraigned is vitious and erroneous and so his life was never in jeopardy But as to that it was said by the Court that the erronious proceedings of the Defendant shall not give advantage to himself but because the Plaintiff was vexed by colour and reason of the Outlawry and put to his Writ of Error which cannot recompence the loss and damage by him sustained by reason of the Outlawry aforesaid it is reason that the Plaintiff have his Action wherefore Wray Chief Iustice ex assensu Sociorum gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff CXXXVIII Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusancy CErtain Persons were indicted upon the Statute 23 Eliz. for refusing to come to the Church and upon the same were Outlawed and now they came to the Kings Bench ready to make their submission and to conform themselves according to the said Statute and thereupon they prayed to be discharged But the Court would not receive such Submission but advised them to purchase their Pardon for the Outlawry and then to tender their Submission which they did accordingly and at another day came again and shewed to the Court their Pardon whereupon the Clerk of the Court asked them if they would conform themselves according to the said Statute who said they would wherefore they were discharged Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXXIX Christian and Adams Case Action for words AN Action upon the Case was brought for speaking these scandalous words of the Plaintiff scil the Plaintiff did conspire the death of the Defendant it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Iudgment that upon the matter the Action did not lye for the bare conspiring of the death of a man
is not punishable by the Law of the Land no more than if many conspire to indict one but do not put it in Execution it is not punishable but if A. saith that B. lyeth in wait to kill him or rob him there an Action lyeth for insidiatores viarum are punishable But the Opinion of the whole Court was that because these words sound in great discredit of the Plaintiff it is reason he have his Action and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXL The Lord Stafford and Sir Rowland Heywoods Case THe Lord Stafford brought an Action upon the Case against Sir Rowland Heywood Kt. Abatement of Writ Exception was taken to the original Writ viz. ad respondend c. Quare colloquium quoddam habebatur inter Dominum Stafford Row. Heywood de assurando Castrum to the said Lord Stafford by the said Sir Rowland c. Dictus Rowlandus Castrum illud non assuravit c. where the said Writ said cum colloquium quoddam habebatur for the cause of the Action is not colloquium habitum but the not assurance of the Castle according to the promise made super colloquium praedictum and for that cause the Writ was abated CXLI Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte by the Court If one who is not a common Informer be barred in any Information or Action upon a penal Statute he shall pay costs notwithstanding the Preamble of the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. be for the redressing of divers Disorders in common Informers but if pars gravata be barred in such case he shall not pay costs Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXLII Robinsons Case GEorge Robinson Lessee for years of the Manor of Drayton Basset the Reversion to the King devised his term to his wife as long as she should keep her self a Widow with the Remainder over if she married or died and made his Wife and his Son William his Executors the said William being within age and therefore the administration was committed to the Wife alone and she only proved the Will and afterwards the Wife granted all her Interest to the said William and dyed And by Cook nothing passed by this Grant for William had the same before for every Executor hath the whole Interest Popham contrary for at the time of the Grant the Son was within age and had not administred nor proved the Will therefore in effect the wife was sole Executrix and by Egerton Solicitor if during the said Executorship by the wife one doth trespass upon the Lands the wife only shall have the Action of Trespass without naming her Co-Executor which Cook denied and he cited the Case 10 H. 7. 4 where two Executors are and the one only is possessed of goods of the Testator and a Stranger takes them our of his Possession to whom the other Executor releaseth and after the Executor out of whose possession the goods were taken brings an Action of Trespass against the Trespasser who pleads the Release of the other Executor and it was holden a good Plea for the possession of the Plaintiff was also the possession of his Companion The Case was further that Thomas Robinson in pleading shewing that G. Robinson was possessed and the same devised to his wife who granted to William Robinson who devised it to the Defendant And the other side shewed that the said Thomas granted the said term to Paramour and upon that grant they were at Issue if now against his own pleading Thomas might give in evidence that Thomas could not grant for that he had not any thing to grant for if the gift made by the wife to William was void and he had the term as Executor then he could not devise it but his devise to Thomas was void and then Thomas could not grant it and so Ne grant pas It was also shewed that the said Thomas granted the same to Paramour by Indenture if now against that Indenture he might give in evidence such special matter ut supra and if the Party shall be concluded if the Iury shall be concluded to give the Verdict Secundum veritatem facti for they are sworn to say the truth and by Popham and Egerton as well the Iurors as the Parties are bound and concluded by the confession of the Parties on the Record and here all confess that William devised to him virtute cujus he was possessed The Queens Attorney to that said That true it is that Thomas Robinson was possessed but further said that the said Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides Therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary And by Manwood Chief Baron if the Parties admit a thing by not gainsaying it Jurors where bound by confession of the parties where not the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed the Iury shall be bound thereby And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXLIII Applethwait and Nertleys Case IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant promised in consideration that the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant would marry his Daughter to give to the Plaintiff 40 l. and said he had married his Daughter and yet the Defendant Licet saepius requisitus would not pay it It was moved by Cook in stay of Iudgment that the Declaration is vitious because there is not set forth the place and time when the request was made for the Assumpsit being general it is by Law to be paid upon request Fenner If the promise was expresly to be paid upon request the Declaration was not good And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXLIV Wats and Kings Case SAmuel Wats Plaintiff in Ejectione firmae against W. King upon a Special Verdict it was found that W. Wallshot was seized in Fee and he with one Oliver Shuttleworth Octab. Mich. 3 4 Phil. Mary levied a Fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to John Hooper who granted and rendred by the same Fine to Oliver for a month the remainder to the said W. Wallshot and to one Anne Cook and the heirs of their bodies c. the remainder to the right heirs of the said W. Wallshot in Fee and that with Proclamation William and Anne intermarry have issue John now alive W. Wallshot 4 5 Phil. Mary levy a Fine with Proclamation to Edward Popham Esq to the use of the said Edward and his heirs W. Wallshot 18 Eliz. died Anne took to husband Richard Stephens and they in the right of the said Anne entred and by Indenture demised the said Land to Richard Hoose the Father Richard the Son and Mary his wife for the term of their lives rendring to the said Richard Stephens and Anne his wife and to the heirs of the body
Mildmay had a Commission to make leases for 21 years of the Lands of the Queen because the Queen should not be troubled with it They could not make leases but in possession only by virtue of their Commission but all others which exceed 21 years and in Reversion passed by the hands of the Attorney of the Queen and not by them only by their Commission 2. Because he cannot make a lease upon a lease for by the same reason that he might make one future lease he might also make 20 leases in ruturo and so make void the Act It was Marshals Case upon the Statute of 1 Eliz of leases to be made by Bishops The Bishop of Canterbury made a lease for one and twenty years and afterwards he made another Lease for 21 years to begin at the end of the first Lease It was holden that the second Lease was not good Leases by spiritual persons as Bishops c. But in the great Case upon that point in the Exchequer Chamber there the second Lease was in possession and to begin presently and ran with the other and therefore it was adjudged a good Lease because the Land was not charged with more than with 21 years in the whole and if it had been so done here it had been good Wray said that if the second lease had been made two or three years before the expiration of the first lease then clearly it had been void but because but one two or three days or a month before he doubted if it should be void or not The Statute of 32 H. 8. Leases made for one and twenty years to be good from the day of the date thereof and one makes a lease to begin at a day to come and by two of the Iustices of the Common Pleas it is good but the two other Iustices held the contrary Clench Iustice There is no difference if it be by one Deed or several Deeds and therefore he held that if the Earl had made a lease for one and twenty years and within a year another it is a void Lease whether it be by one Deed or two Deeds for he exceeds his Authority And so in the principal Case If there had been no Proviso he could not have made any lease therefore the Proviso which gave him Authority ought precisely to be performed At another day it was argued by Daniel for the Lessee in Reversion to begin at a day to come and by him words only are not to be taken or considered in a Statute but the meaning of them and they are not to be severed Also Statute Law is to be expounded by the Common Law and by the Common Law if one give Authority to another to make leases of his Lands he may make leases in Reversion because an Authority shall be taken most beneficially for them for whom it was given So if one grant an Authority to make Estates of his Lands by that general word he may make leases for years or life or gifts in tail Feoffments or other Estates whatsoever If one gives a Commission to another to make leases for One and twenty years of his lands he may make a lease in Reversion and that Case was in the Duchy between Alcock and Hicks Leases 2. It is good by Statute Law For the Statute of Richard 2. which gives Authority to Cestuy que use to make leases he may thereby make leases in Reversion The Statute of 27 H. 8. which gives Authority to the chief Officer of the Court of Surveyors to make leases if it had stayed there he might have made leases in Reversion but the said Statute goes further and says Proviso that he shall not make a lease in Reversion vide 19 H. 8. Dyer 357. The Statute of 32 H. 8. of leases to be made by Husbands of the lands of their Wives by the general words of the said Statute they might make Leases in Reversion But the Statute goes further Proviso that there shall not be any former Lease in being above 21 years before the making of the said Leases In all Cases of Statutes which are with Provisoes the Law upon them shall be taken generally if not in such particulars which are restrained by the Proviso as here the Proviso goes to the ancient Rent to be reserved that the Countess shall have remedy against the Lessees for the said Rent c. therefore it is at large in all other points but in these As if the Wife be within age and she and her Husband joyn in a Lease yet this Lease is good by the Statute of 32 H. 8. because the Law is general and doth not restrain these Imperfections expresly So a Feoffment in Fee with warranty Proviso that he shall not Vouch yet that is a restraint as to the Voucher only and he is at large to Rebutt or have warrantia Chartae A Lease for life Proviso he shall not do voluntary waste he is at large to do other waste but otherwise it were if there were no Proviso Therefore a Proviso makes the words precedent to be expounded more liberally The words of the Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 39. of Surveyors which gives authority to the chief Officer to devise set or let for 21 years he might have made a Lease for 21 years in Reversion if the Proviso had not been But the words of the Act in our Case are demise demises therefore shall be taken most liberally 3. As to the intent of the Act this Lease is within it for the intent is to be collected out of the words and shall not be drawn to any private intent against the words which should be done here for by such Exposition the Earl his Heirs Executors c. should be prejudiced and the Countess only should be benefited Also Remedy is given to the Countess by this Act against such Lessees that she should have the Rent by Debt or Distress as it she had been party or privy therefore it is reason via versa that they have remedy against her for their Leases Also he said that the same remedy should be for them as against the Earl himself if he had lived therefore they shall have remedy against her who might have had it against the Earl in his life Also the Statute is to be expounded according to the words where such Exposition is not rigorous nor mischievous Also private Laws are to be expounded by the Letter and strictly as the Deed of the party as 14 E. 4. 1. Br. Parliament 16. a particular Act was made that the Chancellor calling to him one of the Iustices might award a Subpoena between A. and B. and end the matter between them there by all the Iustices but Littleton he shall not award a Subpoena general but a Subpoena making mention of the Act for he shall pursue the particular Act strictly and a common Act for the common profit shall be construed largely Also a Statute shall not be construed largely by Equity to
Praepositus Socii Scholares Collegii Reginalis in Oxonia Gardianus Hospitalis c. And in an Ejectione firmae upon that Lease it was found for the Plaintiff It was objected in Arrest of Iudgment That this word Gardianus ought to be in the Plural Number Gardiani for the Colledge doth consist of many persons and every one of them capable and not like to Abbot and Covent The Court was all of Opinion that the Exception is not to be allowed but that as well the Lease as the Declaration were both good for the Colledge is a Body and as one Person and so it is as well Gardianus 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXX Greens Case AN Action upon the Statute of Huy and Cry was brought by Green The Case was Upon Statute of Hue and Cry. That the Plaintiff delivered to his Servant certain monies to carry the same from Bristol to London in which journey the Servant was robbed upon which matter the Master brought his Action It was moved That the Plaintiff by the Statute of 27 Eliz. c. 13. is not a person able to bring this Action because he was not examined twenty days before the Action was brought but the Exception was disallowed for the Court was clear of Opinion that the Master should not be examined but the Servant CLXXXI 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was moved upon the Statute of 1 and 2 Phil. and Mary cap. 12. The Town of Coventry was within the Hundred of Offley in the County of Stafford and Queen Mary by her Letters Patents made the said Town a County And now a Distress was taken in the residue of the said Hundred and brought into the Town of Coventry and if that be within the Statute was the question It was holden by the Court clearly That now the Town of Coventry is exempted out of the Hundred aforesaid and is a thing by it self and it is a good challenge for the Hundred of Offley that the Iuror challenged dwells in the Town of Coventry for now it is not parcel of Offley as to the King But as to the Lord of the Hundred the said Town remains parcel of it notwithstanding the Queens Grant. And the Citizens of Coventry shall do suit at the Court of the Hundred but in an Action upon the Statue of Hue and Cry of a Robbery committed in the residue of the Hundred the Citizens shall not be charged 25 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXXII Dolmans Case A. Seized of a Mannor to which two parts of the Advowson was appendant presented and afterwards aliened the Manor cum pertinentiis the Alienee presented and purchased the third part of the Advowson and presented again one J. S. Chaplain to the Earl of Rutland who had a dispensation and took another Benefice and was inducted 1 Eliz. and died 11 Eliz The Queen presented for Lapse and her Clerk was instituted and inducted the Alienee Lord of the Manor died seized inter alia this Manor was allotted to the Wife of Dolman for her part and he brought a Quare Impedit It was moved If Dolman should not joyn in this Quare impedit with her who had the third part and by Walmsley he need not Vide 22 E. 4. 8. By Brian If an Advowson descend to four Coparceners and they make Partition to present by turns and the third presents when the second ought for that time his presentment is gone but when it comes to his turn again he shall present which proves that they are several Tenants CLXXXIII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ONe recovered certain Copyhold Lands in the Court of the Lord of the Manor by Plaint in the nature of a Writ of Right It was moved in the Common Bench If a Precept may be made and awarded out of the said Court for the Execution of the said Recovery and to put him who recovered in possession with the Posse Manerii Posse Manerii Comitatus differ as in such Case at the Common Law with Posse Comitatus it was resolved clearly that force in such Cases is not justifiable but by Mandate out of the Kings Courts Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXXIV Anne Bedingfields Case DOwer was brought by Anne Bedingfield against Thomas Bedingfield the Tenant brought out of Chancery a Writ de Circumspecte agatis containing this matter that it was found by Office in the County of Norfolk that the Husband of the Demandant was seized of the Manor of D. in the County of Norfolk and held the same of the Queen in Chief by Knight Service and thereof died seized the Tenant being his Son and Heir apparent and of full age by reason of which the Queen seized as well the said Manor as other Manors and because the Queen was to restore the Tenements tam integre as they came to her hands it was commanded them to surcease Domina Regina inconsulta It was resolved that although the Queen be intituled to have Primer Seisin of all the Lands whereof the Husband died seized yet this writ cannot extend to any Manors not found in the Office for by the Law the Queen cannot seize more Lands than those which are found in the Office and therefore as to the Land found in the Office the Court gave day to the Tenant to plead in chief And it was argued by Gawdy Serjeant for the Tenant that the Demandant ought to sue in the Chancery because the Queen is seized to have her primer Seisin And cited the Case 11 H. 4. 193. And after many Motions the Court clearly agreed that the Tenant ought to answer over for the Statute of Bâ—gamis cap. 3. pretends that in such Case the Iustices shall proceed notwithstanding such Seisin of the King and where the King grants the Custody of the Land it self 1 H. 7 18 19. 4 H. 7. 1. Ã multo fortiori against the Heir himself where he is of full age notwithstanding the Possession of the King for his Primer Seisin by the Statute of Bigamâ—s where the Heir was of full age there the wife could not be endowed in the Chancery But now per Prerogativa Regis cap. 4. Such women may be there endowed si Viduae illae voluerint And after many Motions the Court Awarded that the Tenant should plead in Chief at his peril for the Demandant might sue at the Common Law if she pleased Vide Cook 9. Part Acc. CLXXXV Savages Case ONe Savage was presented to a Benefice and afterwards took another and then purchased a Dispensation which was too late and then was qualified and afterwards accepted of the Archdeaconry of Gloucester and Underhil who had the Archdeaconry libelled against the said Savage in the Spiritual Court. Vide the Case reported in the first Part of Leonards Reports Sect. 442. Ideo Quaere there CLXXXVI Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HVsband and wife Copyholders for Life the Husband surrendred to the Lord who granted the Land over by Copy to a Stranger
the Office. Vide Stanford Prerogat 54 55. and Vide 20 E. 4. 11. A. seized of a Mannor with an Advowson appendant is attainted of Treason the Church void the King without any Office shall have the presentment But admitting that it is not in the King without Office yet the Pardon of 23 Eliz. doth not extend to it For the words of the Pardon are Treasons Felonies Offences Contempts Trespasses Entries Wrongs Deceits Misdemeanors Forfeitures Penalties and Sums of Moneys and if by any of these words the matter be helped is to be considered and if any thing shall help it it is the word Forfeiture But I conceive that the same doth not extend to this matter for although it be an ample word yet it shall be construed to extend beyond the words accompanied with it which concern only personal things as Contempts Wrongs Trespasses as the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. which is penned by general words as Colledges Deans and Chapters Parsons Vicars and others having Spiritual Promotions that Statute doth not extend by construction to Bishops and they have Spiritual Promotion yet the Statute shall be construed to extend to the Parties named and other Inferiour Orders and Degrees and shall not be extended higher So in the Commission of the Peace ad diversas Felonias alia Malafacta c. those general words do not extend to Treason c. Vide for the Residue of this Case Venable and Harris's Case which was the same Case and is Reported in Leonard 2 Part fol. 122. Placito 169. Pasc 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXXIX Downhall and Catesoy's Case IN a Formedon by Downhall against Catesby 3 Leon. 267. the Parties were at Issue and it was tryed by Nisi prius It was moved in Bank because that some of the Iury did eat and drink before they gave their Verdict that the Court would not receive the Postea Curia that we cannot do for we not know whether your Information be true or not and this matter ought to be examined by the Iustices of Assize or Nisi prius before whom the Trial was and they are to certifie thereof and then we shall have good cause to stay the Entry of the Postea In that Case it was said If any of the Iurors eat and drink before their Verdict at their own Costs it doth not make the Verdict void but if at the Costs of the Plaintiff or Defendant it is otherwise CCXXX Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Sheriff took an Obligation of a Prisoner bailable upon condition that he should personally appear in the Kings Bench c. It was holden a good Condition not against the Statute of 23 H. 6. So if the Condition had been that he should appear for to answer contrary that he shall appear and answer for in the principal Case the word personally is not of substance for although he appears by Attorney yet the Condition is well performed and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Anderson reclamante Vide 27 Eliz. B. R. Sedford and Cutts Case 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXXXI Haselwoods Case THe Case of Haselwood A seized of Land is indebted to the King by Obligation and enfeoffed B. of his Land And the Case of Fleetwood 15 Eliz. was vouched where it was holden That in purchase the debtor of the King was lyable But by Pigot who was of Counsel with Haselwood the Obligation in this Case was made before the Statute of 33 H. 8. or otherwise he should be charged 32 Eliz. CCXXXII Sir William Pelhams Case SIr William Pelham was Surveyor of the Ordinances and delivered of the Kings money to Painter Clerk of the Ordnance It was holden That for that money the Queen might have Account against Painter See this Case before Sect. 81. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXIV. Ognell and Vnderhills Case IN Replevin the Case was as appeared upon the pleading That Rob. Bouchier was seized of a certain Farm called Cruchefield Grange and leased the same to Sir William Raynsford for thirty years who dyed thereof possessed by reason of which the Interest thereof came to Raynsford as Executor of the said Sir William Raynsford who assigned the said Farm except a parcel of it called Hobbes to Sir Henry Bear for parcel of the term and afterwards assigned the said parcel called Hobbes for part of the term to Frekington and others and afterwards granted the residue of the said term not expired to the said Bear and Frekington and afterwards the said Rob. Bouchier granted a Rent-charge of 40 l. per annum percipiendum de omnibus terris renementis quibuscunque vocat the Grange of Cruchefield in the Parish of Stoneleigh in the County of Warwick nuper in tenura occupatione William Raynsford milit nunc in tenura occupatione Hen. Bear. Bouchier granted the reversion of Hobbes to Lewknor in Fee to whom Scarre releaseth all his right estate and demand in the said Land called Hobbes the Lease expired the rent behind Lewknor leased at will to R. the first Question was If the said Rent-charge shall be said issuing out of the said Lands called Hobbes for if c. then by that Release the rent is gone But the whole Court was clear of Opinion That the rent was not issuing out of Hobbes but out of the Lands then in the possession of Bear and not out of the Lands in the possession of Frekington Although it was objected by Walmesley Serjeant That the words in the Grant of the rent in tenura occupatione Bear shall be construed in the disjuncive quasi sive and then the Close called Hobbes although it was not in the Occupation yet it was in tenura of Bear. The Matter was at another day argued by Fenner Serjeant for the Plaintiff and he much relyed upon the word quibuscunque in the Grant of the Rent de omnibus terris quibuscunque commonly called Cruchefield Grange As if I grant to you all my Trees my Apple-trees shall not pass but if the Grant was omnes arbores meas quascunque they pass and that by the Emphasis of this word Quibuscunque So if I grant you Common for your Cattel in such a place none shall have Common but those which are Commonable shall have Common there contrary where the Grant is pro averiis quibuscunque And it was adjudged in the Chancery in the Case of the Bishop of Ely That where the said Bishop leased all the Demeasns of a Manor for years that by the said Lease the Park within the said Manor should not pass But perhaps if such a Lease had been Omnes singulas terras dominicales quascunque the Park would have passed And afterwards the Counsel of the Plaintiff seeing that the Court was of Opinion with the Defendant took Exception to the pleading The Defendant made Conusans ut Ballivus Administratoris of the Grantee of the Rent and doth not shew the Letters of Administration And as to
that It was agreed by the Court that that had been a good Exception if the matter had not been relieved by the Statute of 27 Eliz. of Demurrers Another matter was objected upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 37. upon the words of the said Statute so long as the Lands remain in the possession of the Tenant in Demeasn who ought immediately to have paid the said Rent And it was said by Anderson and Rhodes that the Conusans was good enough and within the relief of that Statute For Lewknor was the immediate Purchaser and although he had let the Lands to another at will that did not make any thing for yet the Estate of the Land is within the words of the Statute for the Land remains in the Seisin of the first Purchaser And note that in this case Bouchier dyed before the Lease expired so as the Rent was not determined in his life And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Defendant Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXXXV Rawlins and Somerfords Case IN Ejectione firmae the Case was Cartwright possessed of a house for the term of 30 years demised a Stall parcel of it to Wartow for two years and afterwards assigned the whole house to Rawlins for all the years Rawlins redemised the same Stall to Cartwright for twenty years but Wartow did not attorn but before the said Redemise Cartwright by Deed indented demised the said Stall to Wartow for six years after the said two years ended and afterwards Rawlins redemised all the house to Cartwright for 21 years rendring rent with clause of re-entry and upon the Indenture of the said Redemise was endorsed that before the sealing and delivery c. it was agreed between the Parties that Wartow should have the said Stall according to the Lease for six years to him made And afterwards Cartwright redemised the said Stall to Rawlins for ten years and afterwards the Rent was behind And if the Rent reserved by Rawlins upon his demise to Cartwright was suspended or not was moved a question Cook argued it was not suspended for Rawlins had in the Estate but an Interest in futuro which cannot suspend the Rent before in possession And he put the Case 31 E. 1. Fitz. Discent 17. Lord and Tenant the Tenant is attainted of Felony and dyeth now the Seignory is not presently extinct For if the Lord takes Fealty of the Son the Seignory doth continue in Esse and Vide Acc. Fitz. N. B. 144. 26 E. 3. 72. Houghton the rent is suspended as if I lease Land and an Advowson rendrint rent and I take back an Estate in the Advowson now the rent is suspended But as to that it was answered That there the party hath a present interest in the Advowson but so it is not in the Case at Bar. And by Cook A. seized in Fee of three Acres makes a Lease of two of them for 21 years rendring rent and afterwards the Lessee leaseth one of the said Acres for years to the Lessor to begin two years after it is not a present suspension of the rent until the Lease come into possession c. And afterwards it was adjudged that by the Lease in futuro the rent was not suspended Pasch 28 Eliz. Rot. 255. Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer CCXXXVI The Guardians of the Monastery of Otleries Case IN the Exchequer it was found by Special Verdict 1 Leon. 4. That the Guardian and Chanons Regular of Otlery were seized of the Manor of O c. and that 22 H. 7. at a Court holden granted the Lands in question to W. and W. his Son for their lives by Copy according to the Custom of the said Manor and afterwards 30 H. 8. they leased the same Land by Indenture to H. rendring the ancient and accustomed rent and afterwards surrendred their Colledge c. and afterwards W. and W. dyed And if the said Lease so made during the Estate Customary notwithstanding the Statute of 31 H. 8. were good or not that was the Question being within a year before the Surrender c. And it was argued by Egerton Solicitor That the said Lease was void by the Statute the words of which are Whereof or in the which any Estate or Interest for term of Life year or years at the time of the making of any such Lease had his Being or Continuance and was not then determined finished or expired And therefore we are to see if this right or possession which W. and W. had at the time of the making of the said Lease was an Interest or Estate for Life And as to the word Estate est nihil aliud than measure of time for an Estate of Fee-simple is as much as to say an Interest in the Lands for ever and so of the rest and therefore W. and W. had at the time of the making of the Lease an Estate for the thing demised And although such Customary Tenants are termed in Law Tenants at will yet they are not simply so nor meer Tenants at will but Tenants at will secundum Consuetudinem Manerii which Custom warrants his possession here for life and therefore it is a more certain estate than an estate at will for the Copyholder may justifie against his Lord and so cannot a Tenant at will whose estate is determinable at the will and pleasure of his Lessor and although this estate is but by custom and by no conveyance yet it is such an estate which the said Statute intends non refert by what conveyance the estate is raised so it be an estate and this estate being supported by custom is acknowledged in Law to be an estate and so accounted in our Law and the Law hath notably distinguished Copyhold tenancies by the custom and tenancies at will at the Common Law for a Copyholder shall do fealty and have aid of his Lord in an Action of Trespass he shall have and maintain an Action of Trespass against his Lord his wife shall be endowed the husband shall be Tenant by the Curtesie without a new Admittance So customary Tenancies are within the Rules and Maxims of our Law As in the Case of Horewood There shall be a possest o fratris of it without admittance and it was adjudged 8 Eliz in the Kings Bench That if a Copyholder surrender to the use of another for years and the Lessee dyeth his Executors shall have the residue of the term without any admittance M. 14 15 Eliz. A Copyholder made a Lease for years by Indenture warranted by the custom the Lessee brought Ejectione firmae it was adjudged maintainable in the Common Pleas Although it was objected That if it be so then if the Plaintiff recover he should have an Habere facias possessionem and there Copyholds should be ordered by the Common Laws of the Land. 10 Eliz. Lord and Copyholder for Life the Lord grants a Rent-charge out of the Manor whereof the Copyhold is parcel the Copy-holder surrendreth to the use of
was That Francis Bunny was seized and 1 May 20 Eliz. by Deed indented enfeoffed N. H. to the use of the said Fr. Bunny for term of his life the Remainder to D. in tail the Remainder to E. in tail the Remainder over to F. in Fee In which Deed of Feoffment a Proviso was That if it should happen one P. P. to dye without Issue Male of his Body that then it should be lawful for the said Fr. Bunny at any time during his life by his Deed Indented to be Sealed and Delivered in the presence of three credible Witnesses to alter change diminish or amplifie any use or uses limited by the said Deed aliquem usum vel usus inde alicui personae c. Limitare post mortem ipsius Fr. to begin After which the said Fr. Bunny 1 Aprilis 23 Eliz by his Deed Indented did renounce relinquish and surrender to the said N. H. D. E. F. all such Liberty Power and Authority which he had after the death of the said P.P. without Issue ut supra And further remised released and quit-claimed to them the said Condition Promise Covenant and Agreement and all his said Power Liberty and Authority and further granted to them and their Heirs that at all times then after as well the said Condition Promise Covenant and Agreement as the said Power Liberty and Authority should cease and to all purposes should be void after which P. P. dyed without Issue 1 Maij 23 Eliz. after which 20 March 24 Eliz. the said Fr. Bunny by Indenture between him and the said D. Sealed and Delivered ut supra altered the former uses and covenanted and agreed with the said D. that from thenceforth the said N. H. and his Heirs should be seized to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs c. And note that in this Case Fr. Bunny being but Tenant for life enfeoffed one Tomson upon whom the said D. entred for a Forfeiture And it was argued by Altham That by the Feoffment by Fr. Bunny to Tomson the Liberty and Power aforesaid was not extinct or lost for this Liberty and Power was not then a thing in esse for then was P. P. alive and also the Liberty is meerly collateral to the Land whereof the Feoffment was made 39 E. 3. 43. Fitz The Son and Heir apparent disseised his Father and thereof made a Feoffment to a stranger the Father dyed now against his own Livery the Son shall not enter but if the Son dyeth then his Son shall enter which proves that the Livery is not so violent to determine a future right but that afterwards it may be revived à fortiori in our Case where the thing pretended to be extinct is meerly collateral 36 E. 3. Fitz. garr 69. In an Assise of Common the Release of the Father with Warranty is not a bar because it is of another thing 15 H. 7. 11. Cestuy que use wills by his Will that his Feoffees shall sell his Lands and dyes the Feoffees make a Feoffment to the same use yet they may well Sell so as against their Livery the authority to sell remains to them And he put Brents Case Dyer 340. A future use limited to a Wife which shall be shall not be prevented by a Fine or Feoffment and so by the Statute of fraudulent Conveyances 27 Eliz. cap. 4. where a Conveyance is made with clause of Revocation if afterwards the party who made such a Conveyance shall Bargain Sell or Grant the said Land to another for Money or other good Consideration paid or given the first Conveyance not being revoked that then such former Conveyance against the latter Purchasor shall be void c. The other matter was admitting that the said Power and Liberty be not extinct by the said Feoffment if by the Indenture of Renunciation Relinquishment Release c. it be destroyed and he said that a thing which is not in esse cannot be released Litt. 105. 4 H. 7. 10. A Lease for years to begin at a day to come cannot be released before it comes in esse 11 H. 6. 29. Br. Damages 138. In Detinue the Defendant would confess the Action if the Plaintiff would release the Damages and the Plaintiff would have so done but could not before Iudgment for before Iudgment the Plaintiff had not Interest in the Damages but he is intituled to them by the Iudgment So Lands in ancient Demesne are recovered at the Common Law and Execution had accordingly and afterwards the Tenant releases to him who recovers and afterwards the Lord reverseth the Iudgment the Tenant notwithstanding his release may enter for his Title which accrued to him by the reversal was not in esse at the time of the release Vide 98. contr And it was adjudged 23 Eliz. in the Case of one Falsor That where Lessee for years devised his term to his Wife if she should so long live and if she dyed within the term that then the residue of his term should go unto his Daughter which should be then unpreferred and dyed his Daughter unpreferred released to her mother all her right in the said Land the mother dyed within the said term the release shall not bind the daughter for that at the time of that release she had no title Cook to the contrary And he said That by the Feoffment the said Power and Liberty is extinct And he agreed the Case cited before 15 H. 7 for in such Case the Vendee of the Feoffees shall be in by the Devise and not by the Feoffees 9 H. 7. 1. The Husband makes Discontinuance of the Lands of his Wife and takes back an Estate to him and his Wife by which the Wife is remitted they have Issue the Wife dyeth the Husband shall not be Tenant by the Curtesie for he hath extinguished his future right by his Livery 12 Ass P. ultimo A Praecipe against A who loseth the Land by an erronious Iudgment and after Execution had enters upon the Demandant and makes a Feoffment his Writ of Error is gone 38 E. 3. 16. In a Scire Facias to execute a Fine the Plaintiff recovers and makes a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards the Tenant by Scire Facias by Writ of Disceit reverseth the Iudgment now the Plaintiff in the Scire Facias shall not have a new Scire Facias 34 H. 6. 44. A. recovers against B. by false Oath and after Execution had B. enters and makes a Feoffment to a stranger who Enfeoffs him who recovers it is a good Bar in an Attaint 27 H. 8. 29. The Feoffees to an use are disseised the Disseisor Enfeoffs Cestuy que use who Enfeoffs a stranger now by that Feoffment his right to the use is gone And as to the release the same is not properly a release but rather a defeasance to determine the Power and Authority aforesaid as if A enfeoffed B. with Warranty and afterwards B. covenants with A. that the said Warranty shall be void
of that which she her self hath done The Queen makes a Lease for years upon Condition that the Lessee surrender to her the Manor of B here for the not doing of it no Office is requisite Tenant of the King in Capite aliens by Fine that needs no Office for that appears upon Record so here And although the Condition be returned in the Exchequer after the Term yet it is well enough for the Exchequer is never shut as to take and receive Money Certificates made to be Inrolled although it be shut as to all Iudicial Acts. And although no tender at all be certified it is not to the purpose for the tender makes the Estate void without any other thing And it is not like to a Capias ad satisfaciendum for that is Ita quod Habeas Corpus c. therefore the Arrest is not sufficient by it self but the same ought to be remembred with an Ita. quod c. But as to that which hath been said That the Queen shall not avoid her own Lease the same is not so nor in case of a common Person As if Tenant in tail enfeoffeth his Heir within age who makes a Lease for years at his full age Tenant in tail dyes Now the Issue shall avoid his own Lease for he is remitted A Disseisor levies a Fine to a stranger the Disseisee enters upon the Conusee and enfeoffs the Disseisor now he shall avoid his own Fine à multo fortiori in the Case of the King. Now it is to see If the Grant of the Wood by the Queen being Tenant for the term of anothers life be good or not He conceived it was not for she was deceived in her Grant not knowing that she was but a particular Tenant It was Objected That the Queen hath property and right in the Trees and Woods forasmuch as no Waste or Trespass lyeth against her if she cast them down Certainly the Lessee if the Trees and Woods be not excepted hath the property in them but not the absolute property for the Writ of Waste shall say ad exhaered ' Qâ—erentis for he cannot cut them Id enim tantum possumus quod de jure possumus perhaps the Lessee shall have the Wind-falls because they are severed from the Inheritance by the act of God not of the Lessee himself and see 27 H. 6. Waste 8. and also in Statham titulo Waste A. leaseth to B. for life without impeachment of Waste a stranger cuts Trees and the Lessee brings Trespass he shall not recover damages for the value of the Trees for the property of the Body and the Tree is in him who hath the Reversion he may give it by which it appeareth that the Lessee is not to recover but only for the cropping and the breaking of his Close à fortiori in case where the Lease is made without the clause absque impetitione vasti as the Case at bar is And therefore when the Queen having so feeble an Estate makes such a Grant scil Grants all the Woods c. the Grant is void for she was deceived in her Grant by which if it should be good she should wrong her Subject A Grant to the Queen shall have a reasonable construction as the Grant of a common Person A. grants to the Queen Common in all his Lands the Queen by that Grant shall not have Common but in Lands commonable not in his Land where his Corn is growing or in his Orchard or Gardens Tenant for life grants all the Wood upon his Land nothing passeth but that which he may lawfully grant So in Cases of Grants of the King 22 Ass 49. the King grants to one bona catalla tenent ' suorum fugitivorum qualitercunque dampnorum the Grantee shall not have the Goods and Chattels of one who hath killed the Kings Messenger So in Grants of Amercements the Grantee shall not have a Special Amercement c. So here the Grant of all Woods ought to be intended of such Woods as Vnderwoods which the Queen might lawfully grant without wrong to another And he said That when the Queen hath granted the Land and the Woods for 40 years that Grant cannot be divided and the words of the Grant are That it shall be lawful to cut the Woods during the space of 43 years Now forasmuch as the Lease is surrendred ut supra the liberty of cutting the Woods is gon also A man bargains and sells his Manor with all Woods upon it growing the Deed is not Inrolled so as the Manor doth not pass the Woods shall not pass in gross for the Grant shall not be divided See more after Sect. 276. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLIV Brown and Peters Case PHilip Brown Executor of Eliz. Brown brought an Action upon the Case against John Peter as Executor of W. Brown and declared That the said William Brown was indebted to the said Eliz. in 80 l. Cumque ad specialem instantiam of the said William Brown It was agreed that the said William Brown should retain the said Sum in his hands until the said Eliz. should come of full age In consideration thereof he promised to give her 100 l. It was found for the Plaintiff who had Iudgment to recover and now the Defendant brought Error and assigned for Error because the place of the Agreement was not shewed Sed non allocatur for that is the Consideration which is not traversable also it is not shewed certain that Brown retained the 80 l. for so long time Sed non allocatur for he shews in his Declaration That the said Sum was in the hands of the said William Brown and it shall be intended that so it there continued Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLV. Higham and Cookes Case EJectione firmae by Higham against Cooke The Plaintiff declared upon a Lease for years to have and to hold to him from the Sealing and Delivery of it and declared that the Sealing and Delivery was 1 Maij and the Ejectment the same day And this matter was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Ejectment could not be supposed the same day for the Lease did not begin till the next day ensuing the Sealing Ejectment c. But the Exception was not allowed by the Court for where the Lease is to begin from the time of the Sealing and Delivery or by these words for 21 years next following the Ejectment may be well supposed to be the same day for the beginning of the Lease is presently upon the Sealing and Delivery and such a Lease shall end the same time and hour as it began CCLVI. Trin. 28. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit the Case was Land was devised to a Feme-sole for term of her life and she let the same to the Plaintiff for 5 years to begin after the death of the said Woman and afterwards by Deed bearing date 18 October leased the same Land to the same Plaintiff
for 21 years to begin at Michaelmas before and in pleading it was shewed That virtute cujus dimissionis posterioris the Plaintiff entred fuit possess crastino Michaelis which was before the making of the Lease and the Plaintiff in his Declaration declared That the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff had assigned to him the said Leases had promised to pay to him 630 l. It was found for the Plaintiff Cook For where the Plaintiff in an Action upon the Case declares upon two Considerations in such Case although the one be void yet if the other be good and sufficient the Action is maintainable but the Damages shall be given without respect had to the Consideration insufficient and the Plaintiff was to declare upon both Considerations for the Assumpsit upon which the Action is conceived was in consideration that both the Leases were assigned to the Defendant and our Declaration ought to be according to the Assumpsit and it was not material although that one of the Considerations was utterly void Another Exception was taken Because the Lease is set forth to be made 18 October and that by virtue thereof the Plaintiff entred Cro. Mich. Then the Plaintiff entring Cro. Mich. was a Disseisor and then being in by disseisin he could not assign his Interest to another and that appears clearly to the Court upon the whole matter But Cook said That shall not hurt us for it is but matter of surplusage to say Virtute cujus c. As 20 H. 6. 15. the Plaintiff in Trespass supposed by his Declaration that the Trespass for which the Action was brought commenced 10 H. 6. with a Continuando until the day of the Action brought viz. idem 14 Febr. 17 H. 6. where the Writ bore date 12 die Octobris Anno 17 H. 6. And Exception was taken to the Declaration because the continuance of the time was not put in certainty But the Exception was not allowed for it is certain enough before the viz. the day of Writ brought and so the viz is void and all that which follows upon it And so here this Clause Virtute cujus est totum sequitur est omnino void 7 H. 4.44 Br. Action upon the Case 37. The Writ was Quare Toloniam asportavit illud solvere recusavit Exception was taken to the repugnancy for it would not be carried away if it were not paid before yet the Writ was awarded good and the first word Toloniam asportavit holden void So here in the principal Case As to the other Exception it is clear That here is not any Disseisin upon this Entry of the Plaintiff before the making of the said Lease for there was a Communication betwixt the Parties of such a Lease to be made or of such an Assignment and peradventure the Entry was by assent of the other part and then no Disseisin And posito it should be a Disseisin yet the Plaintiff hath assigned all the Interest quod ipse tunc habuit according to the consideration and delivered to the Defendant both the Indentures of Demises and so he hath granted all that which he might grant And if it be a void Assignment or not is not material for quacunque via data the Consideration is good and then the Assumpsit good also Egerton Solicitor contrary In every Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit three things ought to concur Consideration Promise and breath of Promise and in this Case the Assignment of the Lease to begin after the death of the Lessor is void being but Tenant for life and no Consideration upon the confession of the Plaintiff himself And upon the second Consideration it appeareth the Lessor viz. the Wife who held for life had but a right to the Land demised for she was disseised for he to whom the Land was after let entred before the Lease was made for it doth not appear that he entred by force of any agreement made before the Lease therefore by his Entry he was a Disseisor It was also moved That here was not any sufficient consideration for by a bare or naked delivery Nihil operatur and here is not any word of Give or Grant. To which it was answered That the delivery of the Indenture was not a bare Bailment but a Delivery to the use in the Indenture and so it is pleaded and therefore thereby an Interest passed for such a delivery cannot be countermanded An Indenture with an Averment shall never make an Estoppel Clench Iustice If I deliver any thing to one for his proper use an Interest passeth but if it be to the use of another no Interest passeth The party may have usum but not proprietatem CCLVII Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Contract IF a Contract be made betwixt two here in England scil that one of them shall carry certain Goods of the others to Burdeux in France and sell them there and with the mony thereof coming shall buy other Goods for the use of him who was the owner of the first Goods and safely them deliver to him in London If now the party sell them in Burdeux and buyeth others with the monies thereof and brings them into England and there converts them to his own use upon this matter an Action lyeth at the Common Law for the Contract and the Conversion being the cause of the Action was made in England But if the Contract only was in England and the Conversion beyond the Seas the Party at his Election may sue at the Common Law or in the Court of Admiralty And if a Merchant here write to his Factor in France to receive certain Merchandizes which he hath sent to him and to Merchandize with them for his use if the Factor receiveth them and converts them to his own use the Father shall be sued in the Admiralty 25 Eliz. CCLVIII. The Earl of Huntington and the Lord Mountjoyes Case IT was agreed by the two Lord Chief Iustices 1 And. 308. upon conference had with the other Iustices in the Case between the Earl of Huntington and the Lord Mountjoy That where the Lord Mountjoy by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the Manor of Camford to Brown in Fee in which Indenture a Clause was Proviso semper and the said Brown covenants and grants cum and with them the Lord Mountjoy his Heirs and Assigns That the said Lord his Heirs and Assigns might dig for Ore in the Wasts of Camford And also to dig Turf there to make Allom and Copperice without any contradiction of Brown his Heirs and Assigns that now here is a new Grant of an Interest to dig to the said Lord and his Heirs in the Lands aforesaid and not a bare Covenant and it was holden also that the said Lord could not divide the Interest granted to him in form aforesaid viz. To grant to another to dig one part of the said Waste c. But they were of Opinion That Brown his Heirs and Assigns notwithstanding
intended to be continued till the contrary be shewed And the Authority which the Owner of a Remainder hath upon it is but conditional scil If the Tenant in tail in possession doth not countermand it by a recovery c. And also the possession upon which the Avowry is made is not the same possession which was charged but is a Foreign possession gained by the recovery and therefore before the proper possession be recontinued there can be no Distress nor Avowry for the Land is not reduced in the privity of Estate which was charged and if he in Reversion upon such Estate tail would grant his reversion rendring rent and afterwards the Tenant in tail in possession suffers a common recovery and dyeth without Issue Now the reversion being destroyed the rent is gone And he put this Case Tenant in tail grants a Rent-charge to begin after his death without Issue and afterwards suffers a common recovery and dyes without Issue it is a good rent and shall bind the Recoveror c. At another day in the Exchequer Chamber the Case was argued again by Snagg Serjeant for the Defendant and he was very long in proving that a remainder might be charged as in this case But the Court discharged him of that and directed him to argue to this Point If this recovery did discharge the rent c. wherefore he argued That these common recoveries are false and feigned things false in the Title and covenous in the Proceedings and all in prejudice of a third person And Vide 14 H. 8.3 such common recoveries are holden fraudulent and therefore by fraud and covin being so odious in our Law we ought not to give and allow unto them so much force as is due to unfeigned recoveries for these common recoveries do not go in disaffirmance of the former possession nor in any eviction of it but for the most part in affirmance and the Estate gained by this recovery is under the Estate of him against whom the recovery was had and he is in by him for common Recoveries are no other but common Assurances And in our Case the imagined Recompence cannot come to him who hath by the recovery lost his rent and therefore it is not reason that the recovery should bind as to this rent Vide 12 E. 4. 19 20. Tenant in tail discontinueth and takes back an Estate to him in Fee and afterwards a common recovery is had against him it shall not bind the tail for the presumed recompence shall go to the Estate which he hath lost scil the Estate in Fee and not to the Estate tail whereof at the time of the recovery he was seized So in our Case the Land which by Fiction of Law is to be yielded in value upon this Voucher shall not extend to the benefit or recompence of the Grantee of the Rent-charge but only to H. who hath lost his remainder and his new remainder which comes in lieu of the former shall not be charged with this rent And therefore the remainder which by this recovery is drawn out of H. transit cum suo onere cum acciderit shall answer and shall yield the rent according to the purport of the Grant. As 33 H. 6. 4 5. two Ioyntenants are The one grants a Rent-charge and afterwards releases to his Companion he shall hold the Land charged notwithstanding that he be now fully in by the Feoffor And if there be Lord and Tenant and the Tenant grants a Rent-charge in Fee and dyeth without Heir so as the Land goes to the Lord in point of Escheat yet the Lord shall hold the Land charged And as to the Statute of Fraudulent Conveyances 27 Eliz. cap. 4. the same cannot extend to this Grant for here this Grant is upon consideration of Nature made to his own Son for his advancement Popham Attorney General to the contrary And that neither the Grantee of this Rent nor he who makes Conusans in his right shall falsifie this recovery And he put a difference where the party who leaseth or chargeth a remainder is bound by the recovery voluntarily and where involuntarily for where the recovery is suffered voluntarily there the Grantee or Lessee shall not be bound by that recovery but they shall falsifie But where as our Case is there the Party who chargeth or leaseth is bound involuntarily by such recovery there all Interests are bound and the charge is subject to the same mischief as the remainder it self out of which it is issuing Vide 7 H. 7. 12. He in the remainder in Fee shall not satisfie a recovery had against the Tenant for life but he is put to his Writ of Entry ad terminum qui praeteriit in which he shall falsifie and not by Entry much less he in the remainder upon an Estate tail shall not falsifie and falsifier lyes properly where the Party who grants or leaseth against his Grant or Lease practiseth by such recovery to avoid or defeat his own Estate and by consequence the Interest of his Grantee or Lessee But in our Case there is not any such matter for the Grantor H. was not party or privy to this recovery nor Tenant nor Vouchee and therefore no Covin and then no Voucher and all the Cases in our Law of falsifying of recoveries are upon such matter And he put the Case of 19 E. 2. Fitz. Title Assise 82. where the Conusee of a Statute Merchant having sued Execution one who had no right impleaded the Conusor and by Covin recovered against him and by Execution upon that recovery ousted the Conusee it was holden he should have an Assise and falsifie for here he who party to the recovery Donee in tail the remainder over in Fee upon condition suffers a common recovery the Condition is gone And as to the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 15. Falsifying is not given in our Case by the said Statute the words of which are Where divers Men have leased their Land to Farm and afterwards after such Leases made the Lessors their Heirs and Assigns have suffered Recoveries Within which words our Case is not for he against whom the recovery was had was not our Grantor his Heir or Assign So if there be Tenant in tail the remainder over to another in Fee he in the remainder makes a Lease for years and afterwards Tenant in tail in possession suffers a common recovery the Lessee shall not falsifie for that Lease was not made by him against whom the recovery was had And it is clear that by the Common Law the Grantee of a Rent-charge cannot falsifie against the Grantor his Heirs or Assigns But it was a doubt as it appeareth 7 H. 7.11 If upon a faint pleader the Lessee for years might be received for the Statute of Gloucester extends but to default or re-disseisin but now by the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 11. in three Cases Default Reddition and Faint pleading such Resceipt lyes which proves that in case of rent
was 100 years since Quod mirum videbatur Curiae hic Audita Querela pleaded And afterwards the Court said to Walter Sue your Audita Querela and upon that you shall have a Supersedeas Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXIX Sir Richard Lewknors Case Post 225. SIr Richard Lewknor seized of Willingford Park leased the same for years and dyed the Lessee assigned over his term excepting the Woods and Vnderwoods standing growing and being in and upon the premises the Assignee committed Waste the term expired the daughters and heir of Sir Rich. and the husband of the third daughter Coparceners being dead as tenant by the Curtesie brought an Action of Waste against the Assignee and the opinion of the Court was that the husband ought not to joyn in that Action for he can recover nothing for damages he cannot have for the waste was not done to his disinheresin and the Land he cannot have because the term is expired Snag Serjeant I conceive that the exception in the Assignment is good for an Exception of Trees by the Lessor himself in his Lease is good and by reason thereof the Lessee shall not have Fire-bote Hey-bote c. which otherwise he should have and the property of the Trees is in the Lessor and also the Soil 14 H 8. 1 2. 28 H. 8. Dyer 19 vide 46 E. 3. 22 a Lease for years was made with such Exception and the Lessor brought an Action for the Trees cut Qâ—are clausum tregit and that proves that the Soil also is excepted and then the Action of Waste lyes against the Lessee who hath excepted to himself the Wood and the Soil and not against his Assignee Walmsley Serjeant to the contrary And he said where Land is demised the absolute property of the great Trees is in the Lessor and the Lessee hath in such case a qualified property And he cited 2 H. 7. 14. the Lessor commands the Lessee to dig gravel in the Land demised or licenseth him so to do such commandment or licence is not good for the lessor hath nothing to do with the Gravel nor hath any property in it but such licence to cut Trees had been good and Vide 10 H. 7.2 3. Waste is assigned in the breaking de uno muro lapideo the Defendant pleaded the licence of the Plaintiff to break it and upon that they were at Issue And he said If the lessor cutteth trees upon which the lessee brings an Action of Trespass he shall not recover damages according to the value of the trees cut down but for the Trespass to the Soil and for the loss of the Shadow and the Acorns c. and if the lessee cutteth down trees the lessor cannot take them because he hath other remedy Where a reversion is granted to A. and B. and to the Heirs of B. Waste is done A. and B bring an Action of Waste B. shall recover all the damages and A. nothing which proves that all the Interest in the Land demised is in B and not in A. therefore here in the principal Case the Exception is void for that which the Law allows to the former is only House-bote Hedge-bote Plough-bote Fire-bote And he said that the lessee fells the trees and the vendee cuts them down that waste lyeth against the lessee which proves that in that case the Soil doth not pass with the trees by the exception of the trees the Soil is also excepted as a servant to the trees viz. to nourish the trees and if he who excepts the trees cuts them down or roots them up the lessee shall have the Soil And he said that for the property that the lessor hath in the trees if he cuts them down the rent shall not be apportioned And if the lessor granteth the trees to one and his heirs there shall be no Attornment which had been requisite if the Soil had passed At another day it was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant and exception taken because it is too general scil Quod fecit vastum in terris quas Sir R. Lewknor pater duarum querentium cujus Haeredes ipsae sunt praefato Ford dimisit c. And the Plaintiffs counted the Reversion was entailed by Act of Parliament to the said Sir R. Lewknor and so the Writ ought to be special scil Cujus Haeredes de corpore ipsae sunt for although there be not any such form in the Register yet that is to no purpose for in novo casu novum est remedium apponendum And he compared it to the Case in F. N. B. 57. where Land is given to husband and wife and the heirs of the body of the wife the wife dyeth the husband commits waste the Writ shall be Idem A. de domibus in B. quas tenet ad vitam suam ex dimissione quam inde fecit praefato A. M. quondam uxori ejus haeredibus de corpore ipsius M. matris dicti R. cujus haeres ipse est exeuntibus And Vide 26 H. 8. 6. Cestuy que use leaseth for years the lessee commits waste the Feoffees bring an Action of waste the Writ containeth the special matter although there was not any such Writ in the Register Fenner and Walmsley contrary for there is not any such form in the Register Cujus haeredes de corpore c. and we are not to devise a new form in this case but it is sufficient to shew the special matter in the Count also the words in the Writ are true for the Plaintiffs are Heirs to Sir R. Lewknor and the Count is well pursuant and agreeing to the Writ for they are Heirs although they are but Heirs special of his Body And the Court awarded the Writ good and said that the case is not like the case in Fitz. N. B. 57. nor to 26 H 8. before cited for in the first case the Plaintiffs cannot shew of whose Demise the Tenant holdeth unless that he also shew the special Conveyance scil That the Land was given to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Body of the Wife for always the Demise to the Tenant ought to be shewed certain which cannot be in both these cases if not by disclosing also the Title to the Inheritance and the Estate in it Another Exception was taken to the Count That where the two Defendants were Tenants in Common of the said Lands demised the Writ is tenuerunt which is intended a Ioynt-tenure But this Exception was not allowed And Vide 44 E. 3. in Waste the Plaintiff counted upon divers Leases and Fitz. N. B. 60. F. and the Writ shall suppose one Tenet and not divers Tenets Another Exception was taken to the Writ because the two Coparceners and the Heir of the third joyned in the Writ whereas the Husband of the third Sister being Tenant by the Curtesie was alive Vide 22 H. 6 21 22. But that Exception for the Tenant by the Curtesie joyns to no purpose for
King and his Assigns have advantage of conditions annexed by Abbots to their Leases and that by 31 H. 8. and our condition is not so proper or peculiar to Sir Francis for by the words of it any other person might have tendred the King for Sir Francis so as it is not tyed to his person If the Proviâ—o had been Because it may be my Son will marry without my consent Or it may be I shall have more Children Provided therefore that if I tender c. that pretence of Marriage without assent or plurality of children is not any parcel of the condition And he vouched the case between Clovell and Moulton A. sold Lands to B. and it was covenanted betwixt them That A. upon request made unto him or his Heirs should make further assurance to B. of the said Land A. is attainted now the covenant is suspended for A. hath not any Heir afterwards the Heir of A. is restored by Parliament with a saving to others of all their rights c. B is not aided by that saving so as he can make request to the Heir of A. c. And he said That the tender of the King is well enough for time for although all the Terms were past yet the two years were not expired A. covenants with B. That if A. doth not levy a Fine to B. of the Manor of C. within two years that then A. shall be seized of the Manor of D. to the use of the said B. Now although that all the Terms be past so that no Fine can be levied according to the Covenant yet no use shall rise out of the said Mannor of D. before that the two years are fully expired And here needs not any Office by which the tender ought to be found the Commission authorizing the tender and the retorn of the Certificate by the Commissioners is sufficient for the whole matter in fait is become matter of Record as the Execution of a Writ once by the Sheriff being retorned and the party grieved by the Certificate shall have a traverse to it but where a Certificate is in lieu of a Tryal as of Bastardy by the Bishop in Case of Seddition or Diminution certified in a Writ of Error there no traverse lyeth to it but upon Certificate of not payment of Tythes the party grieved may have a Traverse In our Case here If the Subject continues possession after such Certificate made he is an Intruder The Queen when she made the Lease was Tenant for the life of another and afterwards by the tender of the King according to the Provilo all the Conveyance and the Estates limited by it are dissolved and the Fee-simple vested in Sir Francis Quasi ab initio and immediately also in the Queen by the Attainder whose Estate is paramount the Conveyance made by Sir Francis which is now as if it had never been made and so are all the Estates created by it and then the Lease made ut supra is void As to the Exception which hath been taken to the Information Indentura sua without saying Sigillo suo sigillat it is well enough for so much is said in effect for Non est Indentura sua if it be not sealed and all necessary circumstances are not to be pleaded as the delivery of the Deed or livery upon a Feoffment for a Feoffment includes livery and a Deed delivery Gent Baron to the same intent Here the words of the Proviso are Tender to Sir Francis his Executors or Assigns no words of Heirs and on the part of Sir Francis If he or any for him But in Dacres case If the said John Dacres himself and yet the Queen took advantage of such a Tender Manwood chief Baron to the same intent As to the Exception to the Information scil Per Indenturam suam without saying Sigillo suo sigillat ' for if the Indenture was not Sealed then it was not any Deed and then no Covenant and then no Vse and then no Condition c. But I conceive That the Information is good enough for Covenants by Indenture include Sealing and Delivery and other things which are of the Essence of an Indenture which need not to be pleaded because in Law presumed But for a clear Answer to it Sealing and Delivery are matters in pais therefore confessed by the Demurrer And here the Defendants have pleaded Quod bene verum est That the said Sir Francis by the said Indenture c. covenanted c. and if any imperfection be in the pleading it is now saved by the Demurrer An Exception hath been taken to the bar because the Defendants have pleaded three several Leases of several parcels of the Lands in question and concluded Virtute quarum quidem concessionum they were possessed and entred c. which cannot be good because several Interests and Estates but ought to have pleaded severally scil One Lease of such Land in which the Intrusion is supposed and so concluded Virtute cujus they were possessed sic de caeteris and so to each Interest one several Conclusion A. hath an Annual Rent of 10 l. out of Bl. Acre and another Rent of 20 l. out of c. and another Rent of 30 l out of the same Acre and takes a Distress in Bl. Acre aforesaid and avows for all the Rents together the Avowry is not good for how can the Avowant have a Retorn when Non constat Curiae how many of the Cattel he took for one Rent and how many for another As to the matter in Law first If this Condition doth extend to the Estate of Sir Francis Nihil habet quaestionis for by the performance of the Condition Sir Francis is in statu quo prius and so all the Estates limited by the said Indenture quite plucked up by the root As to the Condition I conceive that it is not knit in privity to Sir Francis and doth not depend upon his liking or disliking The Act it self in which is the performance of the Condition doth consist in the tender of the Ring the words preceding purporting the doubt of the proof of his Son and the bridle c. are his Motives by which he was induced to make the Condition not to perform the Condition nor any part or parcel of the Condition or word of Condition The words of the Condition are If he himself or any other by his appointment shall tender c. What privity is here who knows who shall be his Deputy to make the tender It may be any person in the World therefore no privity in the person who is to tender and as to the person to whom the tender is to be made there is no privity there for it may be made to the Nephew his Executors or Administrators Also no precise place is set down in the Condition where the tender shall be it may be in Ireland Scotland or in any other Country therefore the Condition in all points general and so free as an
to it because it ought to be Liberam Elemosinam without puram perpetuam Also it ought to be with a double ee and not Elemosinam sed non allocaturâ— for as to the first Exception it is but Surplusage and as to the other it is the common course Another Exception was taken to the Writ because that the words are Quod clamat este jus haereditat ' sua without saying in jure Collegij Anâ—erâ—on The Writ is good enough If a Parson pleads that he is seized he shall say in jure Ecclesiae for he hath two Capacities and without those words he shall be intended to be seized in his own right But if an Abbot plead that he was seized he needs not such words for that he hath not any other capacity And so of Dean and Chapter Mayor and Commonalty and afterwards the Writ was awarded good and that the Tenant should answer over Vide Liber Entries 236 237. It was also moved If the Colledge should count of his Seisin within 30 years because that the Corporation never dyes and then if he count upon his own possession And it was holden That if the Warden of the Colledge that now is was ever Seised he ought to count upon a Seisin within 30 years But upon the Seisin of his Predecessor he ought to count of a Seisin within 60 years as another common person For the change of the Head if such Seisin is as the dying seized and descent of a common person Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLXXVIII Wood and Chivers Case IN Ejectione firmae between Wood and Chivers the Case was That the Bishop of Salisbury let the same Chivers the Manor of Lanington for 80 years for 40 l. rent payable at four usual Feasts upon Condition that if the rent be behind by the space of three Months after any of the Feasts in which c then a re-entry The Bishop dyed after confirmation J. S. was created Bishop who granted to R. the Office of Receiver of all his Revenues c. exercend ' per se vel Deputat suum and afterwards the Bishop made a special Letter of Attorney to the said R. to demand the rent and if it were behind to re-enter R. at the last day of the three Months came to the Capital Messuage of the said Manor an hour before the setting of the Sun for to demand the rent due at Midsummer then last past but none was there on the part of Chivers the Lessee to pay the rent for which R. left his Servant in the Hall of the said Messuage commanding him to stay there and if any came to pay the said rent that he give to him Notice thereof and afterwards he went out of the same House and walked in a Lane which was within the Gate of the House and did not return into the House until the Sun was set and then he returned and because the rent had not been paid he digged a Clod of the Land in the Name of the Bishop and so re-entred And afterwards the Bishop let the said Manor to W. for three years by Deed signed and Sealed and because Câ—â—vers continued his possession notwithstanding the re-entry he made also a Letter of Attorney to M. to enter into the said Manor in the Name of the Bishop and to deliver the said Deed of the said Lease to the said W. upon the Land as his Deed and these two Deeds the Bishop in his Chamber delivered to the said W. but not as his Deed But he said unto him Here is the Lease and a Letter of Attorney to M. and he shall enter in my name and deliver to you the Deed of his upon the Land as my Deed upon the Land Whereupon he took the two Deeds and delivered them over to M. who by force thereof entred upon the Land c. An Exception was made because it doth not appear here that the Bishop delivered the Letter of Attorney to M. himself nor to the use of M. and then it may be taken that the Deed of Letter of Attorney was delivered to M. to keep only and not as his Deed. But that Exception was now allowed For it was holden that the Livery in the Manor was good enough and so the Letter of Attorney sufficient for in all Deeds of Feoffments in which Letters of Attorney are contained the Livery of the Deed is to the Feoffee only and no mention made of any delivery to the Attorney for by such Letter of Attorney no Interest is to pass but only an Authority And note It was resolved by all the Iustices That in the computation of these three Months there ought to be allowed to every Month 28 days And now we are to see if this Rent be well demanded because the demand was made an hour before Sun-setting and then the party went out and walked in the Lane till the setting of the Sun without any other demand And it was moved that this walking in the Lane which was not a common High-way but a private way and that the House of the said Farm was of the one side of the Lane and the farm-Farm-land on the other and so the Land parcel of the Farm and then his walking there is a continuance of the demand quod Catlin concessir was the Lane a High-way or not for the Manor is on both side And it was agreed by all the Iustices That if the Lessor cometh to the Land before the last hour viz. in the Morning or in the Afternoon and demands the Rent and afterwards goes off the Land and is not there at the last instant of the day the same is not a sufficient demand although that return be presently after the Sun is set And by Gerrard Attorney General If the Lessor cometh upon the Land at the last day before the last instant as in the morning c. and demands the Rent and continues there upon the Land till the Sun be set without making any other demand yet the demand for the Manor is good enough for his presence there is the continuance of the demand Quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam And by Catlin If the Lessor after his demand in the Morning departeth off the Land and before the last instant returneth and stays upon the Land till Sun-setting there is the continuance of a demand without any further demand which Wray Chief Iustice concessit And it was holden in this case That where R. left his Servant in the House to stay there and to signifie to him that if any person came to pay the Rent that that was not any continuance of the demand for R. himself was but a Servant and he in that business could not make a Servant And Catline said That the Bishop himself might by word command his Servant to demand a Rent and to make a Re-entry Quod fuit concessum but in our Case R. had not commanded his Servant to make any demand And so here upon
and a Writ de novo awarded CCXCVIII A. Is bound to B. upon Condition to stand to the Arbitrement of certain persons who award that B shall make a Release to A. of all Actions Debts Duties and Demands at the request of A. and afterwards A. comes to B. and requires him to make him a Release who said to him That he was unlearned and that he would go to one to make it and the next day after the request he seals and delivers it to A. who accepts of it It was holden by Windham and Mead That notwithstanding that Acceptance the Obligation was forfeited for they said That presently after request he ought to have done it in the speediest manner that might be Vide acc ' 15 E. 4. 31. Vide also Wottons Case 16 Eliz. Dyer 338. Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXCXI The Dean and Chapter of Christ Church and Parotts Case Grants of the King. NOte in the Common Pleas in a Case between the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church in Oxford and Parott It was holden by the Iustices that if the King grants Lands unto a Corporation by another name than that which they were named before yet the Land shall pass and the Letters Patents shall be to them as a new Incorporation c. Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCC Beechers Case Jurors BEecher being a Gentleman of the Middle-Temple was Retorned in an Attaint and before the Retorn of the Pannel he became a Minister of the Church and now at the day of the Retorn he appeared and prayed to be discharged according to the Priviledge of those of the Ministry But the Court would not allow of his prayer because that at the time of the Pannel made he was a Lay-man Wherefore he was sworn one of the Iury. Hil. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCI. Vernon and Sir Thomas Staveleys Case TEnant in Tail made a Lease for the life of the Lessee according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. Discontinuance and by Wray and Gawdy Iustices the same was not a Discontinuance But if Tenant in Tail levyeth a Fine which bindeth his Issue by the Statute of 4 H. 7. 32 H. 8. that same is a Discontinuance Look upon the Statute of Leases and of Fines the words in the former are scil Such Fines shall be good and effectual in the Law but in the other scil Such Fines shall be a bar against the Conusor and his Heirs And if Tenant in Tail after such a Fine dyeth without Issue the Donor cannot enter but is put to his Formedon And as to the principal Case Dyer agreed in opinion with Wray and Gawdy Trin. 28 Eliz. Rot. 1027. CCCII Milborne and the Inhabitants of Dunmowes Case MIlborne brought an Action upon the Statute of Winchester against the Inhabitants within the Hundred of Dunmow in the County of Essex It was found by Special Verdict Upon Statute of Hue and Cry. That the Plaintiff was robbed the 23 of April inter horam secundam Matutinam tempore Nocturno ante Lucem ejusdem diei and the Opinion of the Court was clear That the Plaintiff should be barred for the said Statute provides for ordinary Travel as in the case of Archpole who came to his Inn after Sun-set ante Noctem in tempore diurno which is an usual time for Travellers to come to their Inn but the Law doth not receive any in protection of this Statute which travel in extraordinary hours for it is the folly of the traveller to take his journey so out of season and the inhabitants are not bound to leave their houses and attend the high-ways tempore Nocturno And another reason was alledged by the Iustices because that the said Statute appoints Watch to be kept in the time of night à festo Assensionis usque festum Sancti Mich. and this Robbery was done the 23 of April so out of the said time And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCCIII. Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Devises SErjeant Fenner demanded the Opinion of the Court upon this Case A. devised Lands to his Wife for life and afterwards to B. his Son and his Heirs when he should come to the age of 24 years and if his Wife dyed before that his said Son should attain to the said age of 24 years that then J S. should have the said Lands until the said age of the said Son A dyed J. S. dyed the Wife dyed the Son being within the age of 24 years If the Executors of J. S. should have the Lands after the death of J. S. until the said age of the Son was the question Anderson and Periam conceived that he should not for this Interest limited by the Will to J. S. was but a possibility which was never vested in him and therefore could not by any means come to his Executors Rhodes and Windham doubted of it And Fenner put the Case 12 E. 2. Fitz. Condition 9. where Land is Mortgaged to J. S. upon payment of Money to the said J. S. or his Heirs such a day and before the said day J. S. by his Will deviseth That if the Mortgagor pay the Money that then A. B. shall have them that this Devise of that possibility is good which Case all the Iustices denied And Windham put the Case between Welden and Elkington 20 Eliz. Plowd 519. where Lessee for years devised his term to his Wife for so many of the years of the said term as she should live and if she dyed within the term that then his Son Francis should have the residue of the years not incurred Francis dyed intestate the Wife dyed within the term the Administrator of Francis had the residue of the term and yet nothing was in Francis the intestate but a possibility A Lease was made to one Hayward his Wife and one of his Children Habendum to Hayward for 99 years if he so long live and if he dye within the said term that then the said Wife should have the said term for so many of the years as should be to come at the time of the death of her Husband and if she dyed also within the said term that then the Child party to the Demise should have the same for so many of the years of the said term as should be not expired at the time of the death of the Wife And the case of Cicell was cited Dyer 8 Eliz. 253. A Lease was made to William Cecill pro termino 41 annorum si tam diu vixerit Et si obierit infra praedictum terminum extunc Eliz. uxor praedict Will Cicell habebit tenebit omnia singula praemissa pro residuo termini praedict incompleti si tam diu vixerit Et si praedict Eliz. obierit infra terminum praedict Tunc Willielmus Cicell the Son c. shall have and hold it pro residuo termini praedict completi And it was holden by Catlin and
Land Rents and Reversion until of the Issues and Profits thereof certain Sums of Mony should be paid to his younger Sons and dyed And Exception was taken to the pleading because it is not specially shewn that the Land devised was holden in Socage And that was holden a sufficient Exception And the Court was of Opinion That the Opinion of Dyer Devises Whiddon and Bendloes in 16 Eliz. was not Law for by the common Law no Land was devisable but by Custom which ought to be pleaded where Title is made by Devise Tenances And now by the Statute all Lands holden in Socage are devisable and but two parts of the Land holden by Knight Service and therefore he who would make Title to himself by a Devise ought to shew the Tenure of it and so it was lately adjudged in the Kings Bench in Thompsons Case And by Anderson and Periam This Feoffment was well executed for the manner of it Attorneys make Livery for the Letter of Attorney is Conjunctim divisim ad intrandum in omnia singula praemissa and upon these words one Attorney may make Livery in one parcel of the Land and the other Attorney in the other parcel and in this case if one of the said Attorneys make Livery in one part only without medling with the residue by himself or by any other the same shall pass for it is not necessary that all pass or nothing at all 7 Eliz. Dyer 79. CCCXI. The Dutchess of Suffolks Case ADrian Stokes and the Lady Francisca Dutchess of Suffolk his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Exeter and others The Bishop pleaded and demanded Iudgment of the Writ because he said It appeareth by the Writ Quod praedicta Francisca uxor praefati Adriani nominatur in dicto Brevi Domina Francisca Ducissa Suffolk ubi per Legem terrae eadem Francisca by her Marriage betwixt the aforesaid Adrian and her the said Frances had lost her name of Dignity and ought to be named Francisca uxor praefati Adriani Wherefore and because the said Frances is named Lady Dutchess of Suffolk in the said Writ therefore he demanded Iudgment of the Writ And afterwards the Plaintiffs did discontinue their Suit and durst not proceed Vide the Case 7 E. 6. Dyer 79. Mich. 4 5 Phil. Mary CCCXII The Queen Due and Kirbys Case THe King and Queen brought a Writ of Disceit against Due and Kirby and declared That Colley was seized of certain Lands in Fee and holden of the King and Queen as of their Manor of Westbury which Manor is ancient Demesne and so seized levied a Fine to the said Due for Conusans de droit c. Due rendred unto Colley for life the Remainder over to Kirby in Fee Colley dyed Kirby entred as in his Remainder Kirby pleaded That the Land is Frank-fee c. upon which they are at Issue which Issue depending not tryed Due dyed It was moved that the Writ should abate But it was allowed for this Action is but Trespass in its Nature for to punish the said Disceit And Due had nothing in the Land but is named only because he was party to the Disceit And no Land is to be recovered but only the Fine reversed Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXIII. Russels Case RUssel was condemned in an Action of Debt Execution and after the year and day the Plaintiff sued a Capias ad satisfaciend ' against him and he was taken by force of it and committed to the Marshal as in Execution It was holden by the Court That the same was a void Execution and not only avoidable by Error and therefore the Defendant was discharged for it is not at any Execution and the Plaintiff may have a Scire Facias when he will. Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXIV Wroth and Capells Case BEtween Wroth and Capell the Case was 3 Leon. 102. That A. was indicted upon the Statute of 8. H. 6. and Exception was taken to the Indictment because there were no words of Freehold in it or to prove that the party grieved had any Freehold whereof he might be disseised But because the words of the Indictment were Expulit disseisivit which could not be true if the party expelled and disseised had not Freehold therefore the Exception was not allowed c. Another Exception was taken to the Indictment for that the words were in unum Tenementum intravit and this word Tenementum is too general and an incertain word and therefore for that cause the party was discharged But the Indictment was further in unum Tenementum 10 Acras terrae eidem pertinent and as to those Acres he was put to answer CCCXV. Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Execution NOte It was agreed by the Court and affirmed by the Clarks That if an Action of Debt be brought upon an Obligation against two upon one Ioynt Praecipe and the Plaintiff hath Iudgment to recover that one Ioynt Execution ought to be sued against them both but if the Suit were by Original and several Praecipe's Execution might be sued forth against any of them Mich. 8 9 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCXVI. Belfield and Rous's Case IN Dower by Sibill Belfield who was the Wife of Anthony Rous against Thomas Rous they were at Issue upon Detinue of Charters and it was found for the Demandant and it was further found That the Husband of the Demandant of whose Seisin she demanded Dower dyed having Issue Charles Rous Quodque idem Carolus dict' Sibill perceperunt receperunt per spacium sex annorum proxime post mortem dict' Anthonij the Issues and Profits of the said Lands whereof the Demandant now demands Dower and that the said Charles afterwards dyed without Issue after whose death the said Thomas Rous entred c. And Iudgment was given for the Demandant and to recover damages after the death of her Husband CCCXVII Pasc 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Uses BEfore the Statute of Vses a Feoffment is made to the use of a Man sole and a Woman sole and their Heirs and afterwards they inter-marry and afterwards the Statute of Vses came It was the Opinion of the Iustices That they should hold the Land in such sort as they held the Vse scil by several and divided Moieties for by the said Statute the possession shall be executed to the Vse in such Nature Condition and Quality as it was before Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXVIII Sir Gervaise Clyftons Case A Quo Warranto was brought against Sir Gervaise Clyfton 3 Leon. 184. Quo Warranto and shewed That the said Sir Gervaise was seized of a Manor and a Messuage within which he claimed to have a Court with view of Frank-pledge and other Liberties and that without any Grant or Authority usurpavit Libertates praedictas That the Defendant pleaded Quod non usurpavit Libertates praedictas
one John Whettesley and Ann his Wife examinand ' Ann ' praedict ea intentione That the said John and Ann should take back an Estate thereof for their lives the Remainder to one John Buck in Fee. Note the Surrender ought to be de duobus Messuagiis Mariot Two several Surrenders of the said Husband and Wife of the said two Messuages and took an Estate for their lives the Remainder over to the said John Buck in Fee upon condition to pay certain Moneys c. It was moved That the Surrender is void and without warrant for the Warrant was ad Capiend ' unam sursam redditionem and here are two several Surrenders and so the Warrant is not pursued and then the Surrender is void Another matter was because the Remainder to John Buck by the words of the Letter of Deputation should be absolute and without condition and now in the Execution of it is conditional so as the conditional Estate is not warranted by the Deputation But the Court was clear of Opinion to the contrary in both the points That the proceedings here are sufficient and well warranted by the Deputation Another matter was objected because the Surrender and Regrant is entred into the Roll of a Court dated to be holden 2 Maij and the Letter of Deputation bears date the 3 of June after but as to that the Court was clear That the Mis-entry of the Date of the Court should not prejudice the party for that Entry is not any matter of Record but only an Escroll and if the parties had been at Issue upon the time of the Surrender made or of the Court holden the same should not be tryed by the Rolls of the Manor but by the Country And the party shall give in Evidence to the truth of the matter and shall not be bound by the Rolls and according to this Resolution Iudgment was given Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCXLIX Long and Hemmings Case GIles Long brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Gloucester Hemmings and Hadnell Hemmings pleaded That one Tho. Long seized of the Manor of F. to which the Advowson was appendant by his Deed granted the Advowson unto him 17 Eliz. The Incumbent pleaded the same Plea to which the Plaintiff Replicando said That before the said Grant viz. 6 Eliz. the said Tho. Long granted to him the said Manor c. and upon Issue joyned the Iury found this Special Matter That the said Feoffment was by word and Livery and Seisin was made and afterwards the said Tho. Long granted the said Advowson to the Defendant and afterwards Attornment was had and if without Attornment the Advowson passed with the Manor was the Question Shuttleworth argued That the Advowson passed as appendant to the Demesns for an Advowson shall be more properly appendant to the Demesns than to the Services for the Services may be determined many ways so cannot the Demesns for if the Services be determined by Escheat c. yet the Advowson remains appendant to the Demesns and an Advowson may be appendant to an acre parcel of the Manor but not to the Services and so an Advowson may well pass without Deed as upon a Feoffment of a Manor the Services pass without Deed. And if a man seized of a Manor with an advowson appendant makes a Feoffment of one acre parcel thereof with the advowson the advowson is appendant to that acre 33 H. 6. 5. although it be not by Deed. Vide contra Temps E. 1. Faits Feoffments 115. 17 E 3. 4. It ought to be by Deed 43 E. 3. 24. Walmsley argued to the contrary The Verdict is That Tho. Long give not the Manor but the Capital Messuage of F. and all other Lands and Tenements of the same which words of the same have relation to the Messuage and therefore neither the Manor of F. nor the advowson pass and admit that all the Demesns pass yet the advowson cannot pass as appendant for that advowson shall pass as appendant to the whole Manor and not to such or such part of it And by Littleton 7 E. 4. 27. if a man holds of me three acres by 12 d. and I grant the Services of the third acre the same is void so here there is no advowson appendant to the Demesns And he said That in this case the advowson is appendant to the Services and although Services are Inheritances incorporeal yet an advowson may be appendant to them as one Office may be appendant to another Office and one advowson to another advowson 33 H. 8. Dyer 48. A Man seized of a Manor to which an Advowson is appendant enfeoffeth one by Deed of one acre parcel thereof and also by the same Deed grants the Advowson the Advowson shall pass as in gross for they are several Grants although but one Deed. Another matter was That Thomas Long enfeoffed and here the Iury have found that Thomas Long gave in tail c. And he conceived that the Plaintiff upon that Verdict should have Iudgment As in Waste the Plaintiff assigns the Waste in cutting down of 20 Oaks and upon Not Guilty It was found that he cut down but 10 the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment upon that Verdict The Case was adjourned CCCL Trin. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe case was Lessee for life of another bargains and sells by Deed indented and enrolled and afterwards levies a Fine to the Conusee Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c It was holden by the whole Court That it was a forfeiture of his Estate for when the Bargainee being now Tenant for the life of another accepts a Fine of a Stranger sur Conusans de droit c. that he admit the Fee in him by matter of Record otherwise it is of a Fine sur Release And by Manwood If Lessee for life be disseised and levies a Fine to the Disseisor sur Conusans de droit c the Lessor shall re-enter Quod Dyer negavit Because that the Lessor at the time of the Fine levied had not any thing in the Reversion but only a Right Manwood put this Case Land is given to A. and B. and to the Heirs of B. they are disseized by two A releaseth to one of the Disseisors now they are Ioyntenants but for a moiety and the Estate in the other moiety is changed into an Estate for life Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLI The Queen and the Bishop of Norwich's Case IN a Quare Impedit the case was That the title to present to the Church was devolved to the Queen by Lapse The Patron himself presented and his Clerk was inducted and afterwards deprived It was the Opinion of the whole Court That if the Deprivation was without any covin that the title of the Queen by Lapse was gone Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLII. Ashpool and the Inhabitants of Everinghams Case IN an Action upon the Statute of Winchester of Huy and Cry by Ashpool
another thing 15 H. 7. 11. Cestuy que Use declares by his Will That his Feoffees shall sell his Lands and dyeth the Feoffees make a Feoffment to the same use yet they may sell so as against their Livery the Authority to sell remains to them And he cited Brents case Dyer 340. where a future Vse is limited to his Wife that shall be shall not be prevented by a Fine or Feoffment And vide the Statute of Fraudulent Conveyances 27 Eliz. where a Conveyance is made with Clause of Revocation if afterwards the party makes such a Conveyance bargain sell or grant the said Lands for money or other good consideration paid or given the first Conveyance not being revoked that then such former Conveyance against the last Purchasors shall be void Another matter was admitting that the said Power and Liberty be not extinct by the said Feoffment If by the said Indenture or Renunciation Relinquishment Release c. it be destroyed And he said that a thing in esse could not be released Litt. 105. 4 H. 7. 10. A Lease for years to begin at a day to come cannot be released before that it come in esse 11 H. 6. 29. Br. Damages 138. In Detinue The Defendant would have confessed the Action if the Plaintiff would have released the Damages and the Plaintiff would have so done but could not before Iudgment for before Iudgment the Plaintiff had not interest in the damages but he was intituled to them by the Iudgment so Lands in ancient Demesne are recovered at the Common Law and Execution had accordingly and afterwards the Lord reverseth the Iudgment the Tenant notwithstanding that Release may enter for his title which accrued to him by the reversal was not in esse at the time of the Release And it was adjudged 23 Eliz. that where Lessee for years devised his term to his Wife if she should so long live and if she dyed within the said term that then the residue of his term should go unto his daughter who then should be unpreferred and dyed the daughter released to her mother all her right in the said Land the mother dyed within the term That that Release did not bind the daughter for that at the time of the Release she had not any title Cook contrary And he said That by the Feoffment the said power and title was extinct and he well agreed the case cited before of 15 H. 7. for in such case the Vendee of the Feoffees shall be in by the Devise and not by the Feoffees 9 H. 7.1 The husband makes a discontinuance of the Land of his wife and takes back an Estate to him and his wife by which his wife is remitted they have Issue the wife dyeth the husband shall not be Tenant by the Courtesie for he hath extinguished his future right by the Livery 12 Ass ultimo A Praecipe brought against A. who loseth the Land by erronious Iudgment and after Execution had enters upon the demandant and makes a Feoffment his Writ of Error is gone 38 E. 3.16 In a Scire Facias to execute a Fine the Plaintiff recovers and makes a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards the Tenant in the Scire Facias by Writ of Error reverseth the Iudgment in the Scire Facias Now the Plaintiff in the Scire Facias shall not have a new Scire Facias 34 H. 6.44 A Recovery against B. by false Oath and after Execution had B. enters and makes a Feoffment to a Stranger who enfeoffs him who recovers it is a good bar in an Attaint 27 H. 8.29 The Feoffees to an Vse are disseised the Disseisor enfeoffeth Cestuy que Use who enfeoffs a Stranger now by that Feoffment his right to the Vse is extinct And as to the Release the same is not properly a Release but rather a Defeasance to determine the power and authority aforesaid as if A. enfeoffeth B. with warranty and afterwards B. covenants with A that the said Warranty shall be void that Covenant shall enure to defeat and determin the Warranty And afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff See more of this Case in Cook 1. part Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCLV. Owen and Morgans Case Ante 26. 93. GEorge Owen brought a Scire Facias against Morgan to have Execution of a Fine levied 8 Eliz. by which Fine the Land was given to the Conusee and his Heirs and the Conusee rendred the same to Husband and Wife Note that the Husband was the Conusor the remainder in Fee to the now demandant and Note that the Writ of Covenant was between the Conusee Plaintiff and the Husband Deforceant without naming of the Wife and afterwards the Husband suffered a common Recovery without naming of the Wife The Husband and Wife dyes without Issue and now Owen to whom the remainder in Fee was limited by the Fine brought the Scire Facias in bar of which the Recovery was pleaded It was argued by Serjeant Shuttleworth That the Recovery had against the Husband only was a good bar and should bind the remainder and he said That the Wife ought not to be named in or party to the Recovery for nothing accrued to her by the Fine because she was not party to the Writ of Covenant nor party to the Conusance and none can take by the render who was not party to the Writ of Covenant and to the Conusance Vide 30 H. 8. Fines 108. None can take the first Estate by the Fine but those who are named in the Writ of Covenant c. but every Stranger may take by Remainder Vide 3 E. 3. Er. Fines 114. 6 E. 2. Fines 117. 7 E. 3. Scire Facias 136. It is said by Horton If such a Fine is accepted it is good The Case was adjourned CCCLVI. A. Seized of a Manor to which two parts of the Advowson were appendant presents and afterwards aliens the Manor with the appurtenances the Alienee presents and purchaseth the third part of the Advowson and presents again one A. who was Chaplain to the Duke of Rutland and had a Dispensation from the Pope 1 Eliz. before the Statute was repealed and was instituted and inducted and afterwards accepted of a plurality viz. another Benefice and dyed 11 Eliz. The Queen presented for Lapse and her Clerk was instituted and inducted The said Lord of the Manor dyed seized inter alia and that Manor was allotted to the Wife of D. for her part and he brought a Quare Impedit It was moved if D. should not joyn in the Quare Impedit with him who had the third part and by Walmsley he is not to joyn in it 22 E. 4. by Brian If an Advowson descends to four Coparceners and they make partition to present by turns and the third doth present when the second ought for that time the presentment is gone but when it comes to his turn again he shall present which proves that they are as several
guilty pleaded it was given in Evidence That time out of mind a Custom had been used and that proved by Witnesses that the eldest Heir be it Male or Female should inherit the Land and that it appeared in the Court Rolls of the said Manor of which the Land in question was parcel two Presidents to prove that the eldest Sister ought to inherit and that the youngest Sister should have nothing in the Land the one President was 8 Eliz. and the other 18 Eliz. In the other side in disaffirmance of the custom it was given in Evidence divers Court-Rolls 6 H. 4. and especially one President That both Sisters should inherit as Coparceners did by the common Law notwithstanding which the Iury found for the custom in regard they upon their own knowledge knew the usage of the Country and that in divers places it had been so used in the Hundred within which this Manor was But in this case it was agreed by the Court That if the custom had been that the eldest Sister only should inherit yet by that custom the eldest Aunt or the eldest Neece should not inherit the Land And so it is in the case of Borough English where the custom is That the youngest Son shall have the Land it doth not give it to the youngest Vncle for customs shall be taken strictly and Foster Iustice said That so it was adjudged in one Totnams case And in the Argument of this case it was said by Cook Chief Iustice That there are two Pillars of Custom one the common usage the other that it be time out of mind and therefore upon the Evidence given to the Iury the Court enforced the parties which maintained the custom to shew Presidents in the Court-Rolls to prove the usage and he said that without such proof and that it had been put in ure although it had been deemed and reported to have been the true custom yet the Court could not give credit to the promise by Witnesses Pasc 8 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCXCVI Arden and Goads Case IN an Action of Trespass upon the Case for divers Goods the Declaration was of Trover and Conversion of them to the Defendants use Vpon Not Guilty pleaded they were at Issue and there an Inventory of the Goods was given in Evidence to the Iury as the Goods were apprised by Vpholsterers And in this Evidence another Point did arise These Goods were taken in Execution and delivered to the Defendant by the Sheriff and afterwards the Owner of the Goods against whom the Execution was awarded made a Deed of Gift of them to the Plaintiff by these words scil He granted all those Goods which were late put in Execution Cook Chief Iustice said That Quacunque via data that Deed could not entitle the Plaintiff to the Goods for it is a Dilemma for Posito that the Goods were put in Execution then they did not pass and admit that they were not put in Execution he did not grant but only those Goods which were in Execution and so there is an opposition and afterward Iudgment was given for the Defendant Pasc 8 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCXCVII The Earl of Rutland and Spencers Case THe case was 8 Co. 55. The late Queen Elizabeth granted to the Earl of Rutland the Office of Parkership and Constable of c. Habendum from the time of his full age for life and also by the same Patent she granted him the Stewardship of a Manor Habend ' praedict ' Officia pro termino vitae per Deputatum suum vel Deputatos suos c. eidem Officio pertinent ' in tam amplis modo forma c. Volentes quod subditi nostri sint auxiliantes assistentes to him And after that one as Steward to that Court came and made Proclamations and also did the Deputy of the Earl of Rutland And thereupon the Earl of Rutland brought an Action upon the Case against the other In this case three Points were moved by Nicholls Serjeant 1. If a Stewardship granted by the King might be exercised by a Deputy without such authority given him in his Patent And he took a Difference between an Office of Trust and other Offices as in 28 H. 8. of a Carver c. and 11 E. 4. 1. the Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and such Offices cannot without special Authority be assigned over 39 H. 6. 34. Of the Office of Marshal per se vel sufficient ' Deputatum c. Nevills Case in the Commentaries Offices of trust which are inheritances may be executed by Deputy 8 Eliz. Dy. 248. A Steward may be retained by word and he said There is a difference between a Deputy and an Assignee for an Assignee can forfeit but his own Estate but a Deputy shall forfeit the Estate of his Master and therefore if a Steward grant his Office for life who hath the Office in Fee the Grantee shall forfeit no more than his Estate for life 2 E. 6. Br. If the under Steward make Admittances it is good and yet he is but a Deputy but if it be out of Court then it ought to be by a special Custom Vide 2 Eliz. Dyer The Office of Chyrographer granted for life and exercisable by a Deputy And he said That in these Letters Patents the intent shall be taken beneficially for the Subject and that for the Honour of the King if the King be not deceived in his Grant. Vide 6 E. 6. Dyer 77. Dodderidge to the contrary and he took a difference between Offices of Trust granted for life and those which are granted in Fee for he who hath it but for life cannot assign them over for the Grantor did not intend that another person should have the Office unless express mention were made in the Grant of Assignees But when the Office is granted in Fee there is no such confidence put in the person of the Grantee for his heir shall have it who is a person not known to the Grantor But in all cases the Grantee is elected for his skill I agree 10 E. 4. 10. he may make a Deputy by special words but then that Deputy by those words cannot make a Deputy That a Steward is an Officer of trust is proved for he enters Plaints in the Court and Surrenders and although he hath not a Iudicial Place yet he hath a Ministerial Place and the Lord and Tenants repose their trusts in him And it is also an Office of Skill Vide 21 E. 4. 20. That the Office of the Keeper of a Park Steward c. cannot be assigned without special words of Assignees And as to the Case which was put by Nicholls 8 Eliz. That one may make a Steward by word and therefore an Assignee for life by word it is a Non sequitur And he said That for another cause in the Patent it self no Deputy in this case could be made for although the words are Habendum Gaudendum c.
and before the 13 Weeks past the Lessor dyed and the Plaintiff his Executor brought Debt for the Rent It was adjudged by Cook and the other Iustices That the Action did not lye forthe Rent For the Rent being to be paid at Mich. or within 13 Weeks after the Lessee hath Election to pay it at any of the days and before the last day it is not due and when the Lessor dyeth before that day his Executors have not any right to the Rent but after the death of the Lessor having but an Estate for life the Rent is gone But if the Lessor had had a Fee-simple in the Land and had dyed before the last day the Heir should have had the Rent as incident to the Reversion But if the Lessor had survived both days the Rent had been a thing vested in him and his Executors should have had it but if the Rent had been reserved at Mich. and if it be behind by 13 Weeks that then it should be lawful for the Lessor to enter if the Lessor survive Mich his Executors shall have Debt for the Rent for then the Rent is due and the 13 Weeks are but a Dispensation of the Entry of the Lessor until that time And in this case as well as where the Rent is reserved at two days in the disjunctive it is sufficient that the Rent be demanded at the latter day without demanding of it at the first day Mich. 10 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCCIV Sir Baptist Hix and Fleetwood and Gotts Case Roll. tit Condition THe Case was Fleetwood and Gotts bargained and sold Weston Park being 300 Acres of Land to Sir Baptist Hix for 11 l. for every Acre which did amount to 25 30 l. and in the premises of the Indenture of Bargain and Sale it was agreed by the parties That the said Park being wood-Wood-Land should be measured by a Pole of 18 Foot and a half And further it was covenanted That Fleetwood and Gotts should appoint one Surveyor and Hix another who should measure the said Park and if it by the measure should exceed the Number of Acres mentioned in the Indenture that then Hix should add to them according to the proportion of 11 l. for every Acre and if it wanted of the Measure then the said Fleetwood and Gotts should repay to Hix the Surplusage of that Mony according to the proportion of 11 l. the Acre And upon the Indenture Hix brought Covenant and Assigned a Breach because upon Measure it wanted 70 Acres and the Defendants did demur upon the Declaration because the Plaintiff had not therein shewed by what measure it was measured for they said by Shirley That although it was agreed in the first part of the Indenture that the measure should be by a Pole of 18 Foot and a half yet when they come to the Covenants there they do not speak of any Measure for which cause it shall be taken for such a Measure as the Statute speaks of scil a Measure of 16 Foot and a half the Pole and by such Measure there wants not any part of the Acres Dodderidge contr And he put this ground That if certainty once appeareth in a Deed and afterwards in the same Deed it is spoken indifferently Reference shall be unto the certainty which appeareth And therefore if by an Indenture Lands be given to a man Haeredibus masculis and afterwards in the same Deed it appears it is Haeredibus de Corpore suo It shall be an Estate-tail because the first words were indefinite and the last certain by which it appeared that he passed but an Estate in Tail And 4 E. 4. 9. b. the words of a Declaration was Noverint universi per praesentes nos J. S. teneri c. W. B. in 20 l. solvendum eidem J.S. It was holden by the Court the same did not make the Obligation void because it appeared by the first part of the Obligation that he should be bound to the Plaintiff and therefore the intent being so the Plaintiff might declare of a Solvendum to himself And the words J. S. should be Surplusage And 22 E. 3. 4. the Abbot of Selby granted quandam annuam pencionem 〈◊〉 ad rogatum J.E. illam scilicet quam idem J. E. habuit ad terminum vitae suae Et solvendam quousque sibi de beneficio Competo provisum fuerit It was holden by the Court in a Writ of Annuity brought That the word sibi should have reference to B. the Grantee and not to J. E. And Cook said That the original Contract did leave the Measure in this Case and for that he vouched Redwellys Case in Plowd Comment A Lease rendring Rent at Mich. at D. and if it be behind for a month after demand that the Lessor shall re-enter it shall be demanded at the first place Trin. 12 Jac. In the Star-Chamber CCCCV. Sir Richard Egertons Case IN this Case the Wife of Sir John Townsend being sentenced in 1000 l. and in Execution in the Fleet for the Costs of the Plaintiff these Points were resolved by the Court 1. If a man be Sentenced in the Star-Chamber to pay a Fine and to Imprisonment and the Delinquent renders his Body to Prison that notwithstanding the Body continues in Prison the King shall be satisfied the Fine out of the Profits of the Delinquents Lands 2. If a Feme Covert be sentenced there and she renders her Body to Prison and there abides That the Lands of her Husband shall be sequestred and the Profits thereof for the Fine of his Wife And that now upon the Statute of Recusancy the Lands of the Husband for the Recusancy of his Wife if he do not render her to Prison and discharge the same 3. If a man be Sentenced in the Star Chamber to pay a Fine and to have Imprisonment and he yield himself to Prison That before his Fine be also paid he shall not proceed in any Action at the Common Law against the Party in the same Suit. Pasc 12 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCCVI Crane and Parkins Case IN Trespass The Defendant pleaded that the Land in which was parcel of the Manor of Broughton Astley demisable by Custom and shewed That the Custom of the Manor was that if any Tenant for life dyed that the Lord for three years Fine ought to grant the same to his Heir and pleaded a Grant of the Manor to the Lord Grey of Grooby And also pleaded another Custom of the said Manor That if any Tenant for life of the said Manor had a Wife and dyed that the Wife shall have in the Land her Widows Estate And that after the death of the Wife that the Son for a Fine of three years paid to the Lord should have it for his life and that the Defendant claimed as Son according to that Custom The Plaintiff made Title as Lessee for years to the Lord Gray of the Manor and traverseth that there was not any such Custom
that the Son for a Fine of three years paid should have the Land for his life Hutton said That the Traverse was good for if there was not any such Custom that the Son should have it so for life then ex consequente sequitur that there is not any such Custom that the Son should have it after the death of the Wife or her Surrender and therefore he needed not to Traverse the last Custom alledged But the whole Court was against him and ruled That the Traverse was not good for he ought to have traversed the last Custom because there are several Customs and the one is immediately to him the other not and the Defendant claimed by the Second Custom and therefore the Court awarded That he should amend his Plea. Pasc 12 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCCVII Sir Henry Rolls and Osborns Case Hob. Rep. 20. More Rep. 859 2 Brownl 169. SIr Henry Rolls brought a Writ of Warrantia Chartae against Sir Robert Osborn and Katharine his Wife and shewed That the Defendant ought to warrant him a Messuage 40 Acres of Land 700 Acres of Pasture in Kelmarsh and shewed That Sir Robert Osborn and his Wife levied a Fine to him and his Heirs of a Manor and of the Lands aforesaid with warranty to him and his Heirs and further shewed That a Writ of Entre sur disseisin was brought against him of the said Messuage 40 Acres of Land 700 Acres of Pasture and that he had demanded the Warranty of the Defendant or that he would minister to him a Plea which the Defendant hath refused to do to his damage of 1000 l. the Defendant confessed the Fine and Warranty as aforesaid but further pleaded That in the same Term that the Fine was levied a Writ of Entry was brought against Sir Henry Rolls in which Writ he vouched to Warranty the said Defendant who alone entred into the Warranty and vouched over the common Vouchee and so a Recovery was had accordingly And averred That the said Recovery was to the use of Sir Henry Rolls for his life and if there was a Marriage between him and A. S. within 4 years then to the use of the said A. S. for her Ioynture with divers remainders over and averred the life of Sir H. Rolls Vpon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Shirley Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff That the Warranty was not destroyed but that the Plaintiff might well mantain his Warrantia Chartae and for the same he vouched 22 H. 6.22 Cliffords Case That there ought to be an alteration of the Estate to which the Warranty is annexed and here is no alteration of the Estate for although the Recovery was had the said Term and a Voucher upon it yet because the uses did not take effect presently but were contingent uses he remained Tenant in Fee-simple as he was before and so the first Warranty remained and was not destroyed Mountague Serjeant contrary and that the Warrantia Chartae was gone and that for four Causes 1. He who comes to an Estate in the Post shall not have a Warrantia Chartae but Sir Hen. Rolls cometh to the Estate in the Post ergo he shall not have Warrantia Chartae And for that vide 29 Ass 34. Lord by Escheat shall not have Warrantia Chartae 22 Ass 57. The Lord of a Villain shall not have a Warrantia Chartae 21 H. 6. Disseisor shall not have Warrantia Chartae and so 19 H 6.25 10 H. 7.10 Tenant by the Courtesie shall not have the Writ because all these come to the Lands in the Post But see Cook 3. part Lincoln Colledge Case they may have peradventure benefit of a Rent or of a Condition but not of a Warranty 27 E. 3. garr ' Statham acc ' 2. Every Warranty ought to have the same Estate continuing to which the Warranty is annexed but Sir Hen. Rolls had not the same Estate continuing ergo he shall not have the Warranty because the Fine was to him and his Heirs with Warranty but this Recovery which was but a further assurance was but to the use of himself for life with divers Remainders over so as the first Estate is altered And 42 E. 3.2 40 E. 3. 14. it is a good Plea in a Warrantia Chartae that the Demandant is not Tenant And 41 Eliz. in Bointon Chesters Case it was adjudged in this Court That if a man makes a Feoffment with Warranty who enfeoffs the first Feoffor upon Condition that that Warranty remains he shall vouch by reason of the first Warranty but if upon that Feoffment he had limited any new use there because the Estate was altered the Voucher was gone Vide F. N. B. 135. 19 E. 3. T. Voucher 12.2 48 E. 3. 18. acc ' And it was Resolved 34 Eliz in Banco Regis in Kempe Henninghams Case That in such Case he should not have several Warrantia Charta's And therefore because in the principal Case he hath once vouched upon this Recovery and upon that the Estate is altered he cannot now have Warrantia Chartae 3. Every Warranty is a Covenant real which consists in privity and therefore destroy the privity and the warranty is gone But now in this Case the first privity is destroyed therefore the warranty is gone And therefore 11 H. 4. 8. if two Ioyntenants be with warranty and one of them maketh a Feoffment in Fee the warranty is destroyed because the first privity is destroyed 21 H. 6. 51. acc ' But Vide 19 E. 3. Statham Garr ' 31. If two Ioyntenants are with warranty and the one Releases to the Feoffor there the warranty remains because the privity remains Vide 2 H. 6. 7. Cook 1 Part Chudleighs Case 125. acc ' And see M. 31 Eliz. in this Court King and Watts Case Land is given to Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Body of the Husband and Wife the Husband levies a Fine and dyes without Issue the Wife is impleaded and adjudged that she could not have Aid nor Warrantia Chartae because the Estate was bound by the Fine the Husband being Tenant in special Tail. 4. No warranty can have but one recompence and if there be recompence given the warranty is gone and extinct But here is a recompence made by the Voucher in this Recovery therefore the warranty is extinct 34 Ass pl. 15. 23 E. 3. garr ' 77. acc ' and 15 E. 4. 13. 12 E. 4. 12. If he will not take advantage of the warranty when he may he shall never have it after Vide F. N. B. 134. acc ' And 36 Eliz. it was adjudged in Owens Case That if Tenant in Tail bargains and sells his Lands and suffers a Recovery and afterwards Inrolls the Deed that that Recovery is a good bar to the Estate tail because there is a supposition of recompence and so he prayed Iudgment for the Defendants It was adjourned Vide this Case now Resolved in the Lord Hoberts Reports