Profit it was answered That the Act took care that Men should not stop up their Chimnies when once made and that this Duty was paid for many Chimnies which were never used and what Profit can a Man have of a Chimny he never useth If there had been an Act that so much should be paid for every Window 't is all one whether it had been for profit or pleasure or whether the Window had been used or not and there is as much reason that a Man should pay for Houses never Inhabited as for such as have been Inhabited and are afterwards without Tenants This Act ought therefore to receive a favourable Construction the Preamble whereof mentions that it was for the encreasing of the Kings Revenue which is pro bono publico and which is for the Peace and Prosperity of the Nation and the protection of every single person therein and though a particular Inconvenience may follow the Party ought to submit When a Man builds a House he proposes a Profit and 't is not fit the Kings Duty should be contingent and depend till he has provided himself of a Tenant Object As to the other Objection that was much relied on viz. where the Act speaks of an Accompt to be given it mentions both Owner and Occupier but where it directs the Payment of the Duty the Occupier only is named by which it was inferred that he alone was chargeable Answ In 16 Car. 2. cap. 3. Owner Proprietor and Occupier are used promiscuously wherein it is provided that they shall not be charged unless within two years after the Duty accrued now if the Owner was not chargeable why is he mentioned there As to the second Point they conceived that the Duty being payeable to the King he had a remedy by distress before the Accompt was certified into the Exchequer for the Return was to inform the King what advantage he maketh of his Revenue and no Process issued upon it besides the Act vests the Duty in him from Lady-day 1662. And by reason of that he may distrain The King hath no benefit by returning of the Account that being only intended to prevent his being cheated so that 't is not to entitle but to inform him 't is only to return a just and true account not but that it may be levied and the King entitled before and 't is no inconvenience to the Subject if there be no such Account returned for if the Officer distrain for more Hearths than in truth there are the Subject has a proper remedy against him The King suffers when Returns are not made of such Duties as he ought to have for the support of his Dignity and because he is lyable to be defrauded in the managing of his Duty is it reasonable that he should lose all As to what was said of the Kings taking by matter of Record 't is true if he divest an Inheritance as in case of Attainder it must be by Record but here the very Duty is given to him by the Act it self which makes it a different Case If the King should be seised in Fee of a great Wast which happens to be improved by his Tenants and thereby Tythes become due it may be as well said that he shall have no Tythes without Record as to say he shall have no Hearth-Mony for Houses newly erected whereby his Revenue is increased For which Reasons Iudgment was prayed for the Defendant and upon the second Argument Iudgment was given accordingly for him Curia That empty Houses are subject and lyable to this Duty Astry versus Ballard IN an Action of Trover and Conversion for the taking of Coals upon Not-Guilty pleaded Grants must be taken according to common intendment Jones 71. the Iury found a special Verdict The Case was thus Viz. That one J. R. was seised in Fee of the Manor of Westerly and being so seised did demise all the Mesuages Lands Tenements and Hereditaments that he had in the said Manor for a Term of years to N. R. in which demise there was a recital of a Grant of the said Mannor Mesuages Lands Tenements Commons and Mines but in the Lease it self to R. the Word Mines was left out Afterwards the Reversion was sold to the Plaintiff Astry and his Heirs by Deed enrolled and at the time of this demise there were certain Mines of Coals open and others which were not then open and the Coals for which this Action of Trover was brought were digged by the Lessee in those Mines which were not open at the time of the Lease and whether he had power so to do was the Question It was said That when a Man is seised of Lands wherein there are Mines open and others not open and a Lease is made of these Lands in which the Mines are mentioned Antea 'T is no new Doctrine to say that the close Mines shall not pass Mens Grants must be taken according to usual and common intendment and when Words may be satisfied they shall not be strained farther than they are generally used for no violent Construction shall be made to prejudice a Mans Inheritance contrary to the plain meaning of the Words A Mine is not properly so called 'till it is opened 't is but a Vein of Coals before and this was the Opinion of my Lord Coke in point in his first Inst 54. b. Where he tells us 5 Co. 12. Sanders Case Roll. Abr. 2 part 816. that if a Man demises Lands and Mines some being opened and others not the Lessee may use the Mines opened but hath no power to dig the unopened Mines and of this Opinion was the whole Court and Iustice Twisden said That he knew no reason why my Lord Coke's single Opinion should not be as good an Authority as Fitzherbert in his Nat. Br. or the Doctor and Student Ipsley versus Turk IN a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment in an Inferiour Court What is admitted in pleading shall not be assigned for Error Jones 81. the Error assigned was That the Mayor who was Iudge of the Court did not receive the Sacrament at any Parish Church nor file any Certificate so that he was not Mayor and Iudgment being given against the Defendant before him it was therefore Coram non Judice like the Case of Hatch and Nichols Roll. Abr. 1 part tit Error 761. Where upon a Writ of Error brought upon a Iudgment in an Inferiour Court the Error assigned was that the Stile of the Court was Curia tent̄ coram J. S. Seneschallo who was not Steward and that was held to be an Error in fact But on the other side it was insisted that this was not Error because the Acts of the Mayor should not be void as to Strangers The Statute of 25 Car. 2. cap. 2. for preventing of dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants disables the Party who is not qualified according to the Act to hold an Office and if he execute the same afterwards
and so North Chief Iustice said that it had been lately ruled in the Common Pleas. Afterwards the Court of Kings-Bench was moved for a Prohibition in this Case and it was denied so that in this Case there was the Opinion of all the three Courts This matter was so much laboured because twenty four Quakers were reported to be concerned in the Rate and they were unwilling to pay towards the Building of a Church Paget versus Vossius In B. R. A Trial at the Bar in Ejectione Firmae Judgment given upon the Construction of words in a Will Jones 73. 1 Ventris 325. in which the Iury found a special Verdict The Case was Viz. That Dr. Vossius the Defendant being an Alien and a Subject of the States of Holland falling into Disgrace there had his Pension taken from him by Publick Authority Afterwards he came into England and contracted a great Friendship with one Dr. Brown a Prebendary of Windsor Then a War broke out between England and Holland and the King issued forth his Proclamation declaring the said War and the Hollanders to be Alien Enemies Dr. Brown being seised of the Lands now in question being of the value of 200 l. per Ann. and upwards made his Will in these words in Writing Inter alia Viz. Item I give all my Mannour of S. with all my Freehold and Copyhold Lands c. to my dear Friend Dr. Isaac Vossius during his Exile from his own Native Country but if it please God to restore him to his Country or take him out of this Life then I give the same immediately after such restoration or death to Mrs. Abigal Hevenigham for ever A Peace was afterwards concluded between England and Holland whereby all Intercourses of Trade between the two Nations became lawful but Dr. Vossius was not sent for over by the States nor was there any offer of kindness to him but his Pension was disposed of and given to another That the Doctor might return into his own Country when he pleased but that he still continued in England And whether he or the Lessor of the Plaintiff Mrs. Heveningham had the better Title was the question Nota Dr. Vossius was enabled to take by Grant from the King Ex parte Quer. Pemberton Serjeant for the Lessor of the Plaintiff argued that the Estate limited to the Defendant is determined which depended upon the construction of this Devise He did agree that the Will was obscure and the intent of the Devisor must be collected from the circumstances of the Case and it is a Rule That according to the * 2 Cro. 62 371 416. intent of the Parties a Will is to be interpreted 'T is plain then that the Devisor never intended the Defendant an Estate for Life absolutely because it was to depend upon a Limitation and the Words are express to that purpose for he devises to him during his Exile c. Now the Question is not so much what is the genuine and proper sence and signification of those Words as what the Testator intended they should signifie 1. Therefore the most proper signification of the Word Exile is a penal Prohibiting a person from his Native Country and that is sometimes by Iudgment or Edict as in the case of an Act of Parliament and sometimes 't is chosen to escape a greater Punishment as in cases of Abjuration and Transportation c. But he did not think that the Testator took the Word Exile in this restrained sense for Dr. Vossius was never formally or solemnly Banished if that should be the sense of the Word then nothing would pass to the Doctor by this Will because the Limitation would be void and like to the Case of a Devise to a Married Woman durante viduitate and she dies in the life-time of her Husband or to a Woman Sole during her Coverture or of a Devise to A. the Remainder to the right Heis of B. and A. dies living B so that this could not be his meaning 2. The Word Exile in common parlance is taken only for absence from ones Native Country but this is a very improper signification of the Word and nothing but a Catachresis can justifie it and therefore the Testator could not intend it in this sense 't is too loose and inconsiderable an Interpretation of the Word for the Iudgment of the Court to depend on unless there were circumstantial Proofs amounting almost to a Demonstration that it was thus meant But it plainly appears by the following Words this was not the meaning of the Testator for 't is said If it please God to restore him to his Country which shews that there was some Providence or other which obstructed his return thither and so could not barely intend a voluntary absence for if so he might have expressed it viz. during his absence from his Country or till his return thither or whilst he should stay in England and not in such doubtful Words 3. By the Word Exile is meant a persons lying under the displeasure of the Government where he was born or of some great persons who have an Influence upon the Government or have an Authority over him which makes him think convenient considering such circumstances to withdraw himself and retire to some other place and this is a sense of the Word between both the former and even in the Common Law we are not strangers to the acceptation of the Word in that sense There is a Case omni exceptione major in the Writ of Waste which is fecit vastum de domibus venditionem de boscis exilium de hominibus 't is in the Register and in the Writ on the Statute of Marlebridge cap. 24. where by the exilium de hominibus is meant the hard usage of Tenants or the menacing of them whereby they flie from their Habitations 2 H. 6. 11. 'T is found in this Case that the Defendant was under the displeasure of his Governours the War broke out and therefore it might not then be safe for him to return and for that reason he might think it safe for himself to abide here and this Dr. Brown the Testator might know which might also be the reason of making the Will But now all acts of Hostility are past and so the Defendants recess is open and it hath pleased God to restore the Doctor but he is not pleased to restore himself for the Iury find he is not returned now if a Man hath an Estate under such a Limitation to do a thing which may be done when it pleaseth the party in such case if he neglect or refuse to do the thing the Estate is determined 15 H. 7. 1. If I grant a Man an Annuity till he be promoted to a Benefice and I provide a Presentation for him and he will not be Instituted and Inducted the Annuity ceases so shall the Estate in this Case because the Devisor seems to appoint it to the Defendant till he may return
Heirs and Assigns that he and they from time to time during the said Lease should have liberty and full power to Fell the said Trees and root them up repairing the Hedges where they did grow That the said Martin granted some of the Trees to the Defendant by virtue whereof he and the rest of his Servants did cut them down which is the same breaking of the Close of which the Plaintiff complains To which Plea Mr. Pollexfen did demurr for the Insufficiency because the Defendant did not shew that upon cutting down the Trees he did repair the Hedges as by the Agreement ought to have been done for this being a limited and qualified power ought to be set forth at large and that it was a power only annexed to the Reversion and not assignable to any one else and so the Defendant hath wholly failed in his Plea he might have justified under Martin but not in any of their own Rights But the Court were of Opinion That an Action doth lie in this Case both against the Lessor and his Assignee acting under his Power and they agreed that a bare power was not assignable but where 't is coupled with an Interest it may be assigned and here was an Interest annexed to the power for the Lessor might sever the Trees from the Reversion Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Scoble versus Skelton Presciption must be alledged with a Seisin in Fee THE Plaintiff declared That he was seised of a Tenement called East and the Defendant of another Tenement called West Travallock and that he and all those whose Estate he had did use to fetch Pot Water from the Defendants Close c. Issue was taken upon this Prescription and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Mr. Pollexfen moved in Arrest of Iudgment That the Declaration did set forth generally that he was seised and it did not appear it was in Fee for if it be for Life only then the Action doth not lie because a Prescription cannot be annexed to an Estate for Life Tremain insisted that the Declaration was sufficient and certain enough for when the Plaintiff doth alledge that he was seised generally it shall be intended a seisin in Fee especially after Verdict But the Court held the Declaration to be defective in Substance because a Prescription cannot be annexed to any thing but an Estate in Fee and therefore 't is not helped after Verdict The Iudgment was reversed Putt versus Roster A Recovery in Trespass good Plea in bar to an Action of Trover TRespass for taking of his Cattle The Defendant justifies for a Herriot and upon a Demurrer had Iudgment The Plaintiff did afterwards bring an Action of Trover and Conversion for the same Cattle and the Defendant pleaded the former Iudgment in Trespass in barr to this Action of Trover and the Plaintiff demurred Serjeant Maynard argued That the Plea was not good because Trespass and Trover are distinct Actions and one may be where the other is not as if an Infant give Goods to one an Action of Trover doth lie to recover them but Trespass will not So if Goods be delivered to another and he refuse to deliver them upon demand Trover but not Trespass will lie and therefore these being different Actions a Recovery in one shall be no barr to the other A Formedon brought in the Descender and Iudgment thereon is not pleadable in barr to a Formedon in Remainder There is a great difference between a barr to the Action 5 Co. 33.6 Co. 37. a. Cro. El. 667. Eo Entr. 38. b. 2 Cro. 15. pl. 20. Antea and to the Right as where an Administrator sues not knowing that he was made Executor and Iudgment against him and he afterwards proved the Will and brought an Action as Executor the former Iudgment had against him as Administrator shall not be a barr to this new Action because 't is not a barr to the Right for by misconceiving his Action the former abated But Mr. Holt argued That these were Actions of the same nature and therfore a Iudgment in one was a good Plea in barr to the other Trespass or Trover lies for taking or carrying away the Goods of another and when he hath made his Election which to bring a Recovery there shall be a perpetual barr to the other In an Appeal of Mayhem 4 Co. 39. the Defendant pleaded a former Recovery in an Action of Assault and Battery and held good though one is of a higher nature than the other But the Court were of Opinion Curia Rose and Standen Antea That an Action of Trover doth lie where a Trespass doth not and if the Plaintiff hath mistaken his Action that shall be no barr to him As to the Case put of the Mayhem Rozal and Lampen Antea that doth not agree with this because there can be no Mayhem without an Assault but there may by a Trover without a Trespass and though the Appeal of Mayhem be of a higher nature than the Assault because it doth suppose quod felonice Mayhemiavit yet the Plaintiff can only recover damages in both If a Man bring Trespass for the taking of a Horse and is barred in that Action yet if he can get the Horse in his possession the Defendant in the Trespass can have no Remedy because notwithstanding such Recovery the Property is still in the Plaintiff The Defendant in this Case hath justified the taking of the Cattle for a Herriot and by the Demurrer the justification is confessed to be true in fact now by the taking for a Herriot the property of the Goods was altered and wherever the Property is determined in Trespass an Action of Trover will never lie for the same but 't is a good Plea in barr and so it was adjudged here James versus Trollop Prescription for a Modus good ERror of a Iudgment in the Common-Pleas on an Action upon a Prohibition where the Plaintiff did suggest That William late Prior of Norbury in Staffordshire was seised of the said Mannor and of the Tythes thereof simul semel as of a portion of Tythes c. That the said Prior 25 H. 1. granted the said Mannor and Tythes to William Fitzherbert and his Heirs rendring Rent That the said Fitzherbert did Enter and was seised and held it discharged of Tythes that his Heirs afterwards granted two Hides of Land part of the said Mannor to S. with the Tythes at 5 s. Rent and so draws down a Title by Descent for 300 years to F. who being seised devised the same to Dorothy James under whom the Plaintiff in the Prohibition claimed and then concludes That Fitzherbert and all those whose Estate c. did pay the said Rent to the said Prior which since the Dissolution was paid to the King and his Assigns in discharge of all Tythes c. The Defendant having craved Oyer of the Deed demurred to the Suggestion and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff
de se by Inquisition and then comes an Act of Indempnity that shall not divest the King of his Right But where nothing Vests before the Office found a Pardon before the Inquisition extinguishes all Forfeitures as it was resolved in Tomb's Case So if the Pardon in this Case had come before the Presentation the Party had been restored Statu quo c. The King can do no more the Bishop is to do the rest neither is the Presentation revoked by this Act it might have been revoked by implication in some Cases as where there is a second Presentation but such a general revocation will not do it and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Writ of Error brought but the Cause was ended by Agreement Hill versus Pheasant Gaming at several meetings whether within the Statute AN Action of Debt was brought upon the Statute of 16 Car. 2. cap. 7. made against deceitful and disorderly Gaming which Enacts That if any person shall play at any Game other than for ready Mony and shall lose any Sum or other thing played for above the Sum of 100 l. at any one time or meeting upon Tick and shall not then pay the same that all Contracts and Securities made for the payment thereof shall be void and the person winning shall pay treble the Mony lost It happened that the Defendant won 80 l. at one meeting for whcih the Plaintiff gave Security and another meeting was appointed and the Defendant won 70 l. more of the Plaintiff being in all above 100 l. And if this was within the Statute was the Question The like Case was in the Kings-Bench Trin. 25 Car. 2. Rot. 1230. between Edgberry and Roseberry and in Michaelmas Term following this Case was argued and the Court was divided which the Plaintiff perceiving Anonymus Postea desired to discontinue his Action but the better Opinion was that it was not within the Statute though if it had been pleaded That the several meetings were purposely appointed to elude the Statute Sid. 394. in might be otherwise Calthorp versus Heyton Traverse not good viz. Absque hoc quod legitimo modo oneratus IN Replevin The Defendant avowed for that the King being seised in Fee of a Mannor and of a Grange which was parcel of the Mannor granted the Inheritance to a Bishop reserving 33 l. Rent to be yearly issuing out of the whole and alledges a Grant of the Grange from Sir W. W. who claimed under the Bishop to his Ancestors in Fee in which Grant there was this Clause Viz. If the Grantee or his Heirs shall be legally charged by Distress or with any Rent due to the King or his Successors upon account of the said Grange that then it should be lawful for them to enter into Blackacre and distrein till he or they be satisfied And afterwards the Grantee and his Heirs were upon a Bill Exhibited against them in the Exchequer decreed to pay the King 4 l. per Annum as their proportion out of the Grange for which he distreined and so justified the taking The Plaintiff pleads in barr to the Avowry and traverseth that the Defendant was lawfully charged with the said Rent and the Defendant demurred Baldwyn Serjeant maintained the Avowry to be good Ex parte Def. having alledged a legal charge and that the Barr was not good for the Plaintiff traverseth quod Defendens est ligitimo modo oneratus which being part matter of Law and part likewise matter of Fact is not good and therefore if the Decree be not a legal charge the Plaintiff should have demurred But on the other side it was argued by Seys Serjeant Ex parte Quer. That the Avowry is not good because the Defendant hath not set forth a legal charge according to the Grant which must be by Distress or some other lawful way and that must be intended by some execution at Common Law for the coactus fuit to pay is not enough a Suit in Equity is no legal disturbance Moor 559. The same Case is Reported in 1 Brownl 23. Selby versus Chute Besides the Defendant doth not shew any Process taken out or who were Parties to the Decree and a Que estate in the Case of a Bishop is not good for he must pass it by Deed. North and the whole Court A Rent in the Kings Case lies in Render and not in Demand and after the Rent day is past he is oneratus and the Decree is not material in this Case for the charge is not made thereby but by the Reservation for payment whereof the whole Grange is chargeable The King may distrain in any part of the Land he is not bound by the Decree to a particular place that is in favour only to the Purchasor that he should pay no more than his proportion As to the Que estate the Defendant hath admitted that by saying bene verum est that Sir W. W. was seised The Traverse is ill and Iudgment was given for the Avowant Vaughan versus Wood. Trespass justified for taking corrupt Victualls Mod. Rep. 202. TRespass for taking Beef The Defendant pleads a Custom to choose Supervisors of Victuals at a Court Leet That he was there chosen and having viewed the Plaintiffs Goods found the Beef to be corrupt which he took and burned The Plaintiff demurrs for that the Custom is unreasonable and when Meat is corrupt and sold there are proper remedies at Law by Action on the Case or presentment at a Leet 9 H. 6. 53. 11 Ed. 3. 4. 6. Vide Stat. 18 Eliz. cap. 3. But the Court held it a good Custom and Iudgment was given for the Defendant the Chief Iustice being not clear in it Chapter of Southwel versus Bishop of Lincoln Grant of next Avoidance not bind the Successor Mod. Rep. 204. IN a Quare Impedit the Question upon pleading was Whether the Grant of the next Avoidance by the Chapter was good or not to bind the Successor The doubt did arise upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. which was objected not to be a publick * Yelv. 106. Act because it extends only to those who are Ecclesiastical persons or if it should be adjudged a publick Law yet this is not a good Grant to bind the Successor for though the Grant of an Avoidance is not a thing of which any profit can be made yet it is an * Cro. Eliz. 441. Hereditament within the meaning of that Statute by which among other things 't is Enacted That all Grants c. made by Dean and Chapter c. of any Lands Tythes Tenements or Hereditaments being parcel of the Possessions of the Chapter other than for the Term of 21 Years or 3 Lives from the time of the making the said Grant shall be void But it was agreed by the Court to be a general Law like the Statute of Non Residency which hath been so ruled and that this Presentment or Grant
this Action they would have named it he said he was for restoring the Common Law as much as he could but doubted much whether this Proviso did help the Plaintiff But Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Doctor Samways versus Eldsly COvenant The Plaintiff declares Where Covenants are mutual and where not That by Indenture made between him and the Defendant reciting that there were divers Controversies between them as well concerning the right title and occupation of Tythes arising and renewing upon the Fréehold of the Defendant in T. and upon other Lands held by the Defendant by a Lease for years from the Plaintiff under the annual Rent of c. and concerning the arrearages of Rent due upon that demise as concerning other matters for the determination thereof the said Parties did by the said Indenture bind themselves in consideration of 12 d. given to each other to observe the Arbitration of an Arbitrator indifferently to be chosen between them to arbitrate order and judge between them de super praemissis and the Plaintiff and Defendant mutually covenanted to do several other matters That the Arbitrator did thereupon afterwards Award and the Defendant did Covenant with the Plaintiff that in consideration of the Plaintiffs sealing and delivering at the Defendants request one part of a Lease for years to the Award annexed for the Rent therein reserved that the Defendant should pay so much Mony for the Tythes That it was also Awarded by the said Arbitrator and the Defendant did covenant that he would be accomptable to the Plaintiff for all such arrearages of Rent Tythes and Composition-Mony for Tythes as should be arising and renewing upon the said Land c. according to such a value per Annum whereof the Defendant could not lawfully discharge himself And the Plaintiff avers That he hath observed all the Covenants on his part and that the Defendant hath not observed all the Covenants on his part and assigns for breach that he hath not accounted with him for all arrears of Tythes and Composition-Mony for Tythes arising upon the Lands in c. and that he hath requested him to accompt which he hath refused The Defendant pleads Actio non For he says that 't is true there was such an Indenture as in the Declaration is set forth and such a Covenant to be accountable as the Plaintiff hath declared But saith in eadem Indentura agreatum fuit ulterius provisum that the Plaintiff should allow and discount upon the Account all Sums of Mony for Parsons Dinners at the request of the Plaintiff and for his concerns laid out and disbursed by the Defendant and such other Sums which he had direction to lay out and that such a day paratus fuit obtulit se adhuc paratus est to account for all arrears of Rent c. if the Plaintiff would discount c. That such a day the Plaintiff would not and often after refused and yet doth refuse to allow upon such accompt all such Sums of Mony as the Defendant at the request and for the concerns of the Plaintiff had laid out and this he is ready to aver and then he avers that after c. on such a day he did expend several Sums of Money for the Plaintiff which were just and reasonable to be allowed by the Plaintiff upon accompt made by him To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Defendant joyned in Demurrer which was argued by Turner Serjeant for the Plaintiff and by Serjeant Seys for the Defendant This was a bad Plea for 't is a Rule in all Law Books that every Plea ought to answer the matter which is charged upon the Defendant Ex parte Quer. in the Declaration which is not done here because the Defendant doth neither aver that he did accompt or confess or avoid or traverse it which he ought to do after the Plaintiff had alledged a request to accompt and a refusal 'T is an absolute Covenant which charges him to be accomptable and not if the Plaintiff would allow Parsons Dinners c. for 't is impossible that the Plainntiff can make any such allowance till the Defendant hath accompted for how can there be a discounting without an Accompt If the Plaintiff had told him before the Accompt that he would not allow any thing upon the Accompt this would not have been prejudicial to bart him of his Action so as it had been before the request For if a Man makes a Feoffment in Fee upon condition that if the Feoffor pay 100 l. at Michaelmas the Feoffment shall be void and before Michaelmas the Feoffee tells him that he will not receive the Money at that time this shall not prejudice him because t is no refusal in Law The Defendant in this Case is to do the first act viz. to Accompt and when that is neglected by him it shall never prejudice him who is to do a subsequent act 5 Co. 19 20. Higginbottoms Case 22 23 Hallin and Lambs Case One Covenants to make an Estate in fee at the Costs of the Covenantee the Covenantor is to do the first act viz. to let him know what Conveyance he will make The like Case was in this Court between Twiford and Buckly upon an Indenture of Covenants wherein one of the parties did Covenant to make a Lease for the Life of the Covenantee and for two other Lives as he should name and the Covenantor was to give possession The breach assigned was that the Defendant had not made Livery and Seisin and upon performance pleaded the Plaintiff did demux and upon great debate it was resolved that the Covenant was not broken because the Plaintiff had not performed that which was first to be done on his part viz. to name the Lives It may be objected that these Covenants have a relation one to the other and so non-performance of the one may be pleaded in bar to the other But to that he answered they are distinct and mutual Covenants and there may be several Actions brought against each other The Case of * Stiles 186. 187. Ware and Chappel comes up to this point Ware was to raise 500 Soldiers and bring them to such a Port and Chappel was to find Shipping for which he sued upon the Covenant though the other had not raised the Soldiers for that can be only alledged in mitigation of Damages and is no excuse for the Defendant and it was adjudged that this was not a condition precedent but distinct and mutual Covenants upon which several Actions might be brought This cannot be a Condition precedent for the Defendant pleads ulterius agreat̄ provisum est that the Plaintiff shall discompt and reimburse the Defendant and here the word provisum est doth not make a Condition but a Covenant 27 H. 8. 14 15. Bro. Condition 7. There is another fault in the Plea for the Defendant averrs that the Plaintiff hath not reimbursed him several Sums of Mony which
Authorities with great exactness and nicety yet this Matter of Livery upon Endorsements of Writing was always favourably expounded of later times unless where it plainly appeared that the Authority was not pursued at all Sid. 428. as if a Letter of Attorney be made to thrée joyntly and severally two cannot execute it because they are not the Parties delegated they do not agreé with the Authority And Iudgment was given accordingly Richards versus Sely. THIS was a Special Verdict in Ejectione firmae for Lands in the County of Cornwal The Case was this viz. Covenant made to enjoy a Copy-hold de anno in annum 't is a Lease and so a Forfeiture Thomas Sely was seised of the Lands in question for life according the Custom of the Mannor of P. and he together with one Peter Sely were bound in a Bond to a third person for the payment of 100 l. being the proper Debt of the said Thomas who gave Peter a Counter-bond to save himself harmless And that Thomas being so seised did execute a Déed to Peter as a Collateral Security to indempnifie him for the payment of this 100 l. by which Deéd after a recital of the Counterbond given to Peter and the Estate which Thomas had in the Lands he did covenant grant and agree for himself his Executors Administrators and Assigns with the said Peter that he his Executors and Administrators should hold and enjoy these Lands from the time of the making of the said Déed for seven years and so from the end of seven years to seven years for and during the term of 49 years if Thomas should so long live 2 Cro. 301. In which Déed there was a Covenant that if the said 100 l. should be paid and Peter saved harmless according to the Condition of the said Counterbond then the said Déed to be void The Question was whether this being in the Case of Copyhold Lands will amount to a Lease thereof and so make a Forfeiture of the Copyhold Estate there being no Custom to warrant it Ex parte Quer. This Case was argued this Term by Serjeant Pemberton for the Plaintiff and in Trinity Term following by Serjeant Maynard on the same side who said that this was not a good Lease to entitle the Lord to a Forfeiture It hath béen a general Rule that the Word Covenant will make a Lease though the Word Grant be omitted nay a Licence to hold Land for a time without either of those Words will amount to a Lease much more when the Words are to * 2 Cro. 92 398. Noy 14. 1 Roll. Abr. 848 849. Cro. Car. 207. have hold and enjoy his Land for a Term certain for those are Words which give an Interest and so it hath béen ruled in Tisdale and Sir William Essex's Case which is reported by several and is in Hob. 35. and 't is now setled that an Action of Debt may be brought upon such a Covenant And all this is regularly true in the Case of a Fréehold But if the construing of it to be a Lease will work a Wrong then 't is only a Covenant or Agreément and no Interest vests and therefore it shall never be intended a Lease in this Case because 't is in the Case of a Copyhold Estate for if it should there would be a Wrong done both to the Lessor and Lessée for it would be a Forfeiture of the Estate of the one and a defeating of the Security of the other It has beén generally used in such Cases to consider what was the intention of the Parties and not to intend it a Lease against their meaning for which there is an express Authority 2 Cro. 172. in the Case of Evans and Thomas Noy 128. in which Howel covenants with Morgan to make a Conveyance to him of Land by Fine provided that if he pay Morgan 100 l. at the end of thirtéen years that then the use of the Fine shall be to the Congnisor and covenants that Morgan shall enjoy the said Lands for thirtéen years and for ever after if the 100 l. be not paid The Assurance was not made and this was adjuged no Lease for thirtéen years because it was the intent of the Parties to make an Assurance only in the nature of a Mortgage which is but a Covenant And this appears likewise to be the intention of the Parties here because in the very Deed 't is recited that the Lands are Copihold It also sounds directly in Covenant for 't is that Peter shall or may enjoy without the lawful let or interruption of the Lessor All Agreements must be construed secundum subjectam materiam if the Matter will bear it and in most Cases are governed by the intention of the Parties and not to work a Wrong and therefore if Tenant in Tail makes a Lease for Life it shall be taken for his own Life and yet if before the Statute of Entails he made such Lease he being then Tenant in Fée-simple it had been an Estate during the Life of the Lessée but when the Statute had made it unlawful for him to bind his Heir then the Law construes it to be for his own Life because otherwise it would work a Wrong Hob. 276. Co. Lit. 42. So in this case it shall not amount to a Lease for the manifest inconveniency which would follow but it shall be construed as a Covenant and then no injury is done On the Defendants part it was argued by Serjeant Newdigate that though this was in the Case of a Copyhold Ex parte Def. that did not make any difference for the plain meaning of the Parties was to make a Lease But where the Words are doubtful and such as may admit of diverse constructions whether they will amount to a Lease or not there they shall be taken as a Covenant to prevent a Forfeiture So also if they are only Instructions as if a Man by Articles sealed and delivered is contented to demise such Lands and a Rent is reserved and Covenants to repair c. Or if one covenants with another to permit and suffer him to have and enjoy such Lands 1 Rol. Abr. 848. these and such like Words will not amount to a Lease because as hath béen said the intention of the Parties is only to make it a Covenant but here the Words are plain and can admit of no doubt But for an Authority in the Point the Lady * 2 Cro. 301. Mountagues Case was cited where it was adjudged that if a Copyholder make a Lease for a year warranted by the Custom sic de anno in annum during ten years 't is a good Lease for ten years and a Forfeiture of the Copyhold Estate Vide Hill 15 16 Car. 2. Rot. 233. the Case of Holt and Thomas in this Court The Court inclined that it was a good Lease Curia and by consequence a Forfeiture of the Copihold and that a Licence in this
truth there is no Return made or if any 't is a very imperfect Return till the Body be in Court and this is the reason why the Court will not allow it but amerce the Sheriff till he make the Party appear 't is not like a compleat Return as a Non est inventus or the Return of Nulla Bona upon a Fi. Fa. The Case of * ◠Roll Abr. 93 pl. 17. Postea Bowls and Lassels is full in the Point where it was adjudged that this Action would not lie because the Sheriff had not done any thing unjustly but what he was commanded to do by the Statute and therefore he is to be amerced if the Defendant doth not appear Ex parte Quer. But for the Plaintiff it was said that unless this Action lye he is remediless and that for two Reasons 1. Because the Assignment of the Bail Bond is at the discretion of the Court and not demandable by the Plaintiff in foro 2. The Plaintiff hath no benefit by the Amerciaments because they go to the King and in some places are granted to Patenteés now 't is agreéd that the Sheriff may be amerced and certainly if an Action be brought against him he is but in the same Case for still he is to pay And if it be objected that the Amerciaments may be compounded cheaper then the Plaintiff hath not so good remedy nor is so likely to recover his Debt as if the Action would lie which would be a greater penalty upon him than the Amerciaments on the Sheriff Neither will it follow that because the Sheriff may be amerced therefore no Action will lie against him for in many Cases he may be amerced and yet an Action on the Case will lie against him at the Suit of the Party 41 Ass pl. 12. fol. 254. Latch 187. That this Action will not lie is against the very end of the Statute and the reasonable construction thereof in the last Clause which Enacts That if the Sheriff return a Cepi Corpus he shall be charged to have the Body at the Return as before the making of the Statute now before this Law he was lyable to an Action if after such a Return made the Party did not appear and therefore this Action being grounded upon the Common Law is still preserved since no alteration hereof hath beén made by this Statute 'T is true an Action of Escape is taken away but not an Action on the Case for a false Return and upon this difference are all the Authorities cited on the other side as Cro. Eliz. 416 621. Cro. Jac. 286. Moor 428. and the Case of Bowls and Lassels And for an Authority in Point is the Case of Franklin and Andrews 24 Car. 1. where Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff in an Action brought for a false Return of Cepi Corpus and the Statute pleaded as in this Case It has béen objected that Iudgment was there given upon the defect of Pleading because the Traverse was naught 't is true there was a Traverse absque hoc quod the Defendant retornavit aliter vel alio modo but that was held good because it answered the falso alledged in the Plaintiffs Declaration In this Case there is no Traverse but 't is confessed by the Demurrer that he did falsly and deceitfully return Cepi Corpus and so the Plaintiff is at apparent damage and hath no remedy without this Action and the Defendant is at no prejudice but hath his remedy over on the Bail Bond. North Chief Iustice Wyndham and Atkins Iustices Judgment held that the Action would not lie for when the Sheriff returns Cepi Corpus paratum habeo though he have him not in Court 't is no false Return for if he hath taken Bail he hath done what by Law he ought to do if he Arrest a Man in Yorkshire the Law will not compel him to bring the Party hither to the Bar because of the charge if he make an insufficient Return neither the Party or the Court are deluded because the common method in such cases must be pursued by which the Party will have remedy This Return is true and Iustice Atkyns held that the Sheriff was not obliged by the Statute to return only a Cepi Corpus paratum habeo but might return that he took Bail for the Statute provides that if he return a Cepi Corpus he shall be chargable as before but doth not enjoyn him to make such return the Case of Bowles and Lassels is full in this point and therefore Iudgment was given for the Defendant But Iustice Scroggs was of another Opinion says he this Action being brought because the Defendant said he had the Body ready when in truth he had not was an apparent injury to the Plaintiff of whom the Statute must have some consideration for it doth not require the Sheriff to say Cepi corpus paratum habeo but he must make his Return good or otherwise those words are very insignificant and if the Statute obliges him to let the party to Bail and nothing more is thereby intended for the benefit of the Plaintiff why doth the Court amerce the Sheriff and punish him for doing what the Statute directs Therefore if the Plaintiff brings a Habeas Corpus upon the Cepi and the Defendant doth not appear the Plaintiff is then well entituled to this Action Hollis versus Carre in Cancellaria Decree of the Execution of a Fine in specie THE Lord Chancellor Finch having called to his assistance Iustice Wild and Iustice Windham to give their Opinions what relief the Plaintiff was to have for the recovering of 6000 l. which was his Ladys Portion After those Iudges had spoken shortly to the matter he put the Case Viz. The Plaintiff by his Bill demands 6000 l. due to him for his Wives Portion with Interest for non-payment according to the purport of certain Articles of Agreement dated in August 1661. and mentioned to be made between old Sir Robert Carr the Defendants Father his Lady and Son the now Defendant and Lucy Carr his Daughter on the one part and my Lord Hollis and Sir Francis his Son the now Plaintiff on the other part The Articles mention an Agreement of a Marriage to be had between the said Sir Francis Hollis and Lucy Carr with Covenants on the Plaintiffs side to settle a Ioynture c. and on the other side to pay 6000 l. and 't is agreed in the Articles that a Fine was intended to be levied of such Lands c. for securing the payment of 6000 l. c. The Marriage takes effect but old Sir Robert Carr did never Seal these Articles the Lady Carr Seals before and the Defendant after Marriage Sir Francis had Issue on his Lady Lucy one Child since dead the Lady is likewise dead the Ioynture was not made nor the Portion paid Afterward viz. Anno 1664. an Act of Parliament was made for setling old Sir Robert Carr's Estate whereby the
Statuti if there be any other Statute which prohibits and punishes a Riot this Information is as well grounded upon such as upon this Statute of Philip and Mary for 't is expresly said that the Defendant and others did unlawfully assemble themselves together and riotose routose made an Assault upon her so that it shall be intended to be grounded upon such a Law as shall be best for punishing the Offence The Court were of Opinion Curia That notwithstanding these Exceptions the Information was good and was not like the Case of an Indictment upon the Statute for a forceable Entry That such a day by force and arms the Defendant did Enter into such a House 2 Cro. 14610 639. existen ' liberum tenementum of J. N. and if he doth not say tunc existen ' the Indictment is naught because the Iury may enquire of a thing before it is done but here the existen being added to the person carries the sense to the time of the Offence committed The Statute of 1 R. 3. saith that all Grants made by Cestui que use being of full Age shall be good against him and his Heirs and 't is adjudged 16 H. 7. that he need not shew when and where but generally existen ' of full Age and upon the Evidence it must be so proved Where a thing relates to the Condition of a Man it shall be tryed in the County where the Action is laid and 't is not necessary to say in what County he is a Knight or an Esquire any Citizen and Freeman may devise his Land in Mortmain by the Custom of London 't is enough to say in Pleading existen ' a Citizen and Freeman without setting forth when and where If a Man be Indicted for not coming to Church 't is enough to say existen ' of the Age of 16 years he did not come to Church This is an Offence punishable at Common Law 't is malum in se But admitting 't was an Offence created by the Statute there being no Negative words to prohibit this Court hath a Iurisdiction to punish this Offence if the Star Chamber had not been taken away for the Party had his election to proceed in this Court upon the prohibitory Clause and the Iustices of Assise must be intended the Iustices of Oyer and Terminer Moor 564. Whereupon the Defendant was Fined 500 l. and bound to his good Behaviour for a Year Brown versus Waite Entailed Lands forfeited for Treason Jones 57. 1 Ventr 299. UPon a Special Verdict in Ejectment The Case was viz. Sir John Danvers the Father of the Lessor of the Plaintiff was in Anno Domini 1646. Tenant in Tail of the Lands now in Question and was afterwards instrumental in bringing the late King Charles to death and so was guilty of High Treason and dyed Afterwards the Act of Pains and Penalties made 13 Car. 2. cap. 15. Enacts That all the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments which Sir John Danvers had the 25th day of March in the year 1646. or at any time since shall be forfeited to the King And whether these entailed Lands shall be forfeited to the King by force of this Act was the Question Wallop who argued for the Plaintiff said that the entailed Lands were not forfeited his Reasons were 1. These Lands entailed are not expressly named in that Act. 2. Tenant in Tail hath but an Estate for Life in his Lands and therefore by these words All his Lands those which are entailed cannot be intended for if he grant totum statum suum only an Estate for Life passeth 3. These Lands are not forfeited by the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. which gives the forfeiture of entailed Lands in case of Treason hecause Sir John Danvers was not convicted of it by Process Presentment Confession Verdict or Outlawry which that Statute doth require for he dyed before any such Conviction Sir Francis Winnington the Kings Solicitor argued contra that entailed Lands are forfeited by the Act of Pains and Penalties and in speaking to this matter he considered 1. The words of that Act. 2. How Estates Tail were created and how forfeitable for Treason 1. This Act recites the Act of general Pardon which did not intend to discharge the Lands of Sir John Danvers and others from a Forfeiture 2. It recites that he was Guilty of High Treason 3. Then comes the enacting Clause Viz. That all the Lands Tenements Rights Interests Offices Annuities and all other Hereditaments Leases Chattels and other things of what nature soever of him the said Sir John Danvers and others which they had on the 25th of March 1646. or at any time since shall be forfeited to the King his Heirs and Successors 2. As to the creation of Intails there were no such Estates at the Common Law they were all Fee-simple Conditional and post prolem suscitatam the Condition was performed for three purposes Viz. To Alien Co. Lit. 19. a. 2 Inst 334. To Forfeit Or to charge with a Rent and thus the Law continued till 13 E. 1. and there having been frequent Warrs between King John and the Barons the great Men then obtained the Statute De donis to preserve their Estates lest the like occasion should happen again in which 't is only mentioned that the Tenant in Tail should not have power to alien but it was well known that if he could not alien he could not forfeit for before that Statute as he might alien post prolem suscitatam so the Iudges always construed that he might forfeit 5 Edw. 3.14 for forfeiture and alienation did always go hand in hand 1 Co. 175. Mildmay's Case And from the making of that Statute it always continued a setled and received Opinion That Tenant in Tail could not alien until by the 12th of Ed. 4. a Recovery came in by which the Estate Tail may be docked and which is now become a Common Assurance Then by the Statute of 4 H. 7. cap. 24. Tenant in Tail might bar his Issue by Fine and Proclamation and all this while it was not thought that such Lands could be forfeited for Treason which Opinion continued during all the Reign of H. 7. for though by his Marriage the Houses of York and Lancaster were united yet the Great Men in those days thought there might be some doubt about the Succession after the death of H. 7. if he should dye without Issue and thereby those differences might be again revived and therefore no endeavours were used to make any alteration in the Law till after the death of H. 7. And after his Son H. 8. had Issue those doubts were removed and being never likely to arise again then the Act of 26 H. 8. was made which gives a Forfeiture of entailed Lands in cases of Treason The inference from this will be that all the Cases put before the 26th year of H. 8. and so before entailed Lands were made forfeitable for Treason and where by the general Words
of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments 't was adjudged entailed Lands did not pass do not concern this Case but now since they are made forfeitable by that Statute such general words are sufficient to serve the turn By the Statute of 16 R. 2. cap. 5. entailed Lands are not forfeited in a Praemunire but during the Life of Tenant in Tail because they were not then to be forfeited for Treason 2 Inst 334. 1 Inst 3. Co. Lit. 130. If then it appears that the Crime of which Sir John Danvers was guilty was Treason and if entailed Lands are forfeited for Treason then when the Act saith That he shall forfeit all his Lands by those general Words his entailed Lands shall be forfeited And though by the Common Law there can be no Attainder in this Case the Party being dead yet by Act of Parliament that may be done and the words in this Act amount to an Attainder The intent of it was to forfeit Estates Tail which may be collected from the general Words for if a Fee-simple is forfeited though not named why not an Estate Tail especially since the word Hereditaments is very comprehensive and may take in both those Estates Spelman's Glossary 227. 2 Roll. Rep. 503. In the very Act of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. Estates Tail are not named for the Words are Every Offender convict of Treason c. shall forfeit all such Lands Tenements and Hereditaments which he shall have of any Estate of Inheritance in use possession or by any Right Title or Means c. and yet a Construction hath been made thereupon in favour of the Crown so a Dignity of an Earldom intailed is forfeitable by this Statute by the Word Hereditament 7 Co. 34. Afterwards in Hillary Term Rainsford Chief Iustice delivered the Opinion of the Court Judgment That upon Construction of the Act of Pains and Penalties this Estate Tail was forfeited to the King He agreed the Series and progress of Estates Tail to have been as argued by the Solicitor and that the Question now was whether by the Act of Pains c. Estates Tail can be forfeited unless there are express Words to take away the force of the Statute de donis conditionalibus Preface to 3 Co. for by that Statute there was a settled perpetuity Tenant in Tail could neither forfeit or alien his Estate no not in Case of Treason and Forfeiture is a kind of Alienation but afterwards by the Resolution in Ed. 4. an Alienation by a Common Recovery was construed to be out of the said Statute and by the Statute of Fines 4 H. 7. which is expounded by a subsequent Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 36. Tenant in Tail notwithstanding his former restraint had power to alien the Estate Tail and barr his Issue but all this while his Estate was not to be forfeited for Treason till the Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 20. which gives Uses Rights Entries Conditions as well as Possessions Reversions Remainders and all other things of a person attainted of Treason by the Common or Statute Law of the Realm to the King as if such Attainder had been by Act of Parliament Then by the Statute of 5 6 Ed. cap. 11. 't is Enacted That an Offender being guilty of High Treason and lawfully convict shall forfeit to the King all such Lands Tenements and Hereditaments which he shall have of any Estate of Inheritance in his own Right in Use or Possession by which Statutes that de donis conditionalibus was taken off in Cases of Treason as it had been before by the resolution in 12 E. 4. and by the Statute of Fines as to the Alienation of an Estate Tail by Fine and Recovery If therefore this Act of Pains c. will admit of such a construction as to make Estates Tail forfeit here is a Crime great enough to deserve such a great punishment a Crime for which the Parliament hath ordered an Anniversary to be kept for ever with Fasting and Humiliation to implore that the Guilt of that innocent Blood then shed may not be required of our Posterity this they esteemed as another kind of Original Sin which unless thus expiated might extend not only ad Natos sed qui nascantur ab illis And that this Act will admit of such a Construction these Reasons were given 1. From the general comprehensive Words mentioning those things which are to be forfeited viz. Messuages Lands Tenements Reversions and Interests which last Word signifies the Estate in the Land as well as the Land it self or otherwise the Word must be construed to have no effect 2. Estates Tail are not now protected by the Clause in the Statute de donis * Inst 334. Non habet potestatem alienandi but are subject to the forfeiture by the Act of H. 8. which though it extends to Attainders only yet 't is a good Rule for the Iudges to make a Construction of an Act of Parliament by especially in such a Case as this wherein 't is plain that the Law did look upon these Offenders if not attainted yet in pari gradu with such persons and therefore may be a good Warrant to make the like Construction as in Cases of Attainder 3. Because the Offenders are dead for had they béen living there might have been better reason to have construed this Act not to extend to Estates Tail because then something might be forfeited viz. an Estate for Life and therefore the Act would signifie very little if such Construction could not be made of it to reach Estates Tail of such persons who were dead at the time of the making the Law especially since 't is well known that when Men engage in such Crimes they give what Protection they can to their Estates and place them as far as they can out of danger 4. It appears by the Act that the Law-makers did not intend that the Children of such Offenders should have any benefit of their Estates because in the Proviso there is a saving of all Estates of Purchasers for Mony bona fide paid and therein also a particular Exception of the Wife and Children and Heirs of the Offenders and if the Act would not protect the Estate of the Children though they should be Purchasers for a valuable consideration it will never protect their Estate under a voluntary Conveyance made by the Ancestor especially in this Case because the Entail carries a suspicion with it that it was designed with a prospect to commit this Crime for Sir John Danvers was Tenant in Tail before and in the year 1647. levies a Fine to barr that Entail and then limits a new Estate Tail to himself in which there is a Provision to make Leases for any number of years upon what Lives soever in Possession or Reversion with Rent or without it and this was but the year before the Crime committed 5. The Proviso in the Act for saving the Estates of Purchasers doth protect all Conveyances and
Assurances c. of Land not being the Lands of the late King Queen Prince c. and not being Land sold for any pretended Delinquency since the first of June 1641. and all Statutes and Judgments suffered by the Offenders from being impeached from which it appears that the Parliament lookt upon entailed Lands as forfeited for if Estates made to others upon a valuable consideration had need of a Proviso to save them from Forfeiture à fortiori the Estates out of which those are derived have need of such a saving and therefore must be forfeit by the Act for which Reasons these Lands are forfeited As to the great Objection which hath been made and insisted on the other side and which is Trudgeons Case 22 Eliz. 1 Inst 130. Where Tenant in Tail was attainted in a Praemunire and it was adjudged that he should forfeit his Land but during his Life for though the Statue of 16 R. 2. cap. cap. 5. Enacts That in such Case their Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels shall be forfeited to the King yet that must be understood of such an Estate as he may lawfully forfeit and that is during his own life and therefore being general Words they do not take away the force of the Statute de donis so that his Lands in Fee-simple for life c. shall be forfeited but the Land entailed shall not during his life But the Answer is plain For in the Reign of R. 2. when the Statute of Praemunire was made Estates Tail were under a Perpetuity by the said Statute de donis which Statute is now much weakened in the Point of Alienation and the Law is quite altered since that time and 't is apparent by multitude of Presidents that such strict Constructions have not been made since that time to preserve Estates Tail from Forfeitures without special and particular Words 4 Co. 164. and therefore in the Case of Adams and Lambert which is a Case in Point the Iudges there construed Estates Tail to be forfeit for want of special Words in the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 14. to save it and that was only a Law made for suppressing of superstitious Vses upon a politick consideration but this is a much greater Offence intended to be punished by this Act in which there are demonstrations both from the Words and intent of the Law-makers to make this Estate forfeited to the Crown than in that Case so much relied on And Iudgment was given accordingly Wyld died before Iudgment was given but Iustice Twisden said he was of that Opinion and Jones Iustice concurred Basset versus Salter After an Escape the Plaintiff may have a Ca. Sa. or Sci. Fa. against the Sheriff IN an Action for an Escape the Question was whether the Plaintiff may take out a Ca. Sa. or have a Fi. Fa. against the Defendant after the Sheriff or Gaoler voluntarily suffer him to escape but the Court would not suffer it to be argued because it had been lately settled that it was at the Election of the Plaintiff to do either and upon a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer-Chamber the Iudges there were of the same Opinion But in the Lord Chief Iustice Vaughan's time the Court of Common Pleas were divided but 't is since settled 1 Roll. Abridg. 901 902. If there be an Escape by the Plaintiffs consent though he did not intend it the Law is hard that the Debt should be thereby discharged as where one was in execution in the Kings Bench and some Proposals were made to the Plaintiff in behalf of the Prisoner who seeing there was some likelyhood of an Accomodation consented to a Meeting in London and desired the Prisoner might be there who came accordingly and this was held to be an Escape with the * If it had been by the consent of the Sheriff he could never take him again but the Plaintiff might Sid. 330. consent of the Plaintiff and he could never after be in Execution at his Suit for the same Matter Peck versus Hill In Communi Banco Bond good given in discharge of another Mod. Rep. 221. DEBT upon a Bond brought against the Defendant as Administrator who pleads that he gave another Bond in his own Name in discharge of the first Bond and upon Issue joined it was found for the Defendant and it was moved that Iudgment might not be entred hereupon because it was a bad Plea But North Chief Iustice and Wyndham and Scroggs Iustices were of Opinion that it was a good Plea because there was other Security given than what the Plaintiff had before for upon the first Bond he was only lyable de bonis Intestatoris but now he might be charged in his own Right Co. Lit. 122. b. which may be well said to be in full satisfaction of the first Obligation for where the Condition is for payment of Mony to the Party himself there if he accept any collateral thing in satisfaction 't is good If a Security be given by a Stranger it may discharge a former Bond and this in effect is given by such And 't is not like the Case in Hobert where a Bond was given by the same Party upon that very day a former Bond was payable and adjudged not a good discharge for the Obligee was in no better condition than he was before Iustice Atkins doubted but inclined that one Bond cannot be discharged by giving another though the Discharge be applied to the Condition of the Bond and for this he cited Cro. Car. 85. Cro. Eliz. 716 727. which was a Case adjudged so in Point and therefore this Plea upon Demurrer should have been over-ruled yet since Issue was taken upon it and a Verdict for the Defendant the Plea is helped by the Statute of Jeofails 32 H. 8. here being a direct Affirmative and Negative But as to that the Chief Iustice and Scroggs Iustice replied that an immaterial Issue no ways arising from the Matter is not helped as an Action of Debt upon a Bond laid to be made in London and the Defendant saith that it was made in Middlesex and this is tried 't is not aided by the Statute but there must be a Repleader But because it was sworn that the Obligor who was the intestate was alive four years after the time that the second Bond was given and for that reason it could not be given upon the accompt of the Defendants being liable as Administrator but must be intended a Bond to secure a Debt of his own therefore a new Trial was granted Cook and others versus Herle Covenant will lie in the personalty tho' the Grant be executed by the Statute of Uses which makes a Distress the proper remedy Mod. Rep. 223. IN Covenant the Case was this Charles Cook made a Iointure to Mary his Wife for life and died without Issue the Land descended to Thomas Cook his Brother and Heir who grants an Annuity or Rent Charge of 200 l. per
Toll c. which were first created by the King 9 Co. Abbot de Strata Marcella's Case So that this Toll is not become in gross by the dissolution whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Sir William Turner's Case Amendment not after issue joyned DEbt qui tam c. for 100 l. against Sir William Turner being a Iustice of Peace in London for denying his Warrant to suppress a seditious Conventicle of one Mr. Turner in New-street This Cause was to be tried by Nisi prius this Term before the Chief Iustice And now the Plaintiff moved to amend one Word in the Declaration wherein he was mistaken for he had laid the Meeting to be at Turner's Mansion House and upon Enquiry he understood the place of Meeting was not at his Mansion House but at a little distance from it and so prayed the word Mansion might be struck out But the Chief Iustice said that after Issue joyned Curia and the Cause set down to be tried and this being a penal Statute no President could be shewn of an Amendment in such case and therefore would not make this the first and so Leave was given to the Plaintiff to discontinue upon payment of Costs Brown versus Johnson IN Accompt The Plaintiff declares against the Defendant Time where 't is made parcel of the issue not good for that upon the first of March 22 Car. 2. abinde to the first of May 27 Car. 2. he was his Bayliff and Receiver of 80 Piggs of Lead The Defendant pleads that from the said first day of March 22 Car. 2. to the first day of May 27 Car. 2. he was not the Plaintiffs Bayliff or Receiver of the said 80 Piggs of Lead hoc paratus est verificare To this the Plaintiff demurred and assigned specially for cause that the times from the first of March to the first of May are made parcel of the Issue which ought not to be because the Plaintiff in his Declaration must alledge a time for Form sake but the Defendant ought not to tye him up to such time alledged for he might have said he was not Bayliff modo forma And for this the Case of Lane and Alexander was cited where the Defendant by Ejectment makes a Title by Copy of Court Roll granted to him 44 Eliz. and the Plaintiff replies his Title by the like Grant 1 Junii 43 Eliz. The Defendant maintains his Barr and traverseth that the Queen 1 Junii 43 year of her Reign granted the said Land by Copy and upon Demurrer it was adjudged that the traversing of the day is matter of substance which being made part of the Issue is naught But on the other side it was objected that time is material and that in Actions of Accompt 't is proper to make it parcel of the Issue for a Man may be Bayliff for two but not for three years and a Release may be pleaded from such a time to such a time Fitz. Accompt 30. Rast Entry f. 8. 19 pl. 1. f. 20. pl. 6. f. 22. pl. 2. 1. Then Exceptions were taken to the Plea first for that the Plaintiff having charged the Defendant as Receiver of 80 Piggs of Lead the Defendant pleads and that he was not Receiver thereof but doth not say of any part thereof for which reason the Court held the Plea ill because he might retain 79 and yet not 80 Piggs but to plead generally ne unques Receptor is well enough though it was urged that if it had been found against him upon such an Issue that he had received any parcel of the Lead he should have accompted 24 H. 4. 21. 2 Roll. 3. 14. 32 H. 6. 33. Fitz. Accompt 16. Cro. Eliz. 850. Fitz. Accompt 14. Rast Entry 18 19 20. 2. The Defendant concludes hoc paratus est verificare whereas it should be de hoc ponit se super patriam but the Court doubted of this because it was not specially assigned Postea 3. The Plaintiff charged the Defendant as his Bayliff upon the first of March and the Defendant pleads that he was not his Bayliff from the first of March so he excludes that day and this the Court held to be incurable and likewise that the time ought not to be made parcel of the Issue 2 Sand. 317 318. and so Iudgment was given quod computer Abraham versus Cunningham Administrator sells a Term afterwards an Executor appears and renounces yet the Sale was adjudged void Jones 72. 1 Vent 303. IN a special Verdict in Ejectment the Case upon the Pleadings was Viz. Sir David Cunningham being possessed of a Term for years made his Will and therein appointed his Son Sir David Cunningham to be his Executor and dyed Sir David the Executor in the year 1663. made his Will also and therein appointed David Cunningham his Son and two others to be his Executors and dyed those two Executors dye and B. a Stranger takes out Administration cum Testamento annexo and continues this Administration from the year 1665. to the year 1671. in which time he made an Assignment of this Term to the Lessor of the Plaintiff for which he had received a thousand Pounds And in the year 1671. the surviving Executor of Sir David the Executor made Oath in the Archbishops Court that he never heard of his Testators Will 'till then nor ever saw it before and that he had not medled with the Estate nor renounced the Executorship 6 Co. Packmans Case Then a Citation goes to shew cause why the Administration should not be repealed and Sentence was given that it should be revoked upon which the Executor enters and the Lessor of the Plaintiff entred upon him This Case was argued by Saunders for the Plaintiff Ex parte Quer. and Levints for the Defendant And first it was said in behalf of the Plaintiff that the Authorities in the Books were strong on his side that the first Administration was well granted 'T is true if a Man make a Will and Administration is granted and that Will is afterwards proved such Administration is void as in Greysbrook and Foxes Case Pl. Com. But in this Case after the death of Sir David Cunningham the Executor his Testator is dead Intestate for to make an Executor there must be first the naming of him then there must be some concurring act of his own to declare his assent that he will take onus executionis upon him for no man can make another Executor against his will so that if after the death of the first Executor those other Executors appointed by him had made such a Declaration as this surviving Executor hath since done their Testator had dyed Intestate 7 E. 4. 12 13. The Executor is made by the Testator and the Ordinary is empowered by the Statute to make the Administrator where the person dies Intestate so that 't is plain there cannot be an Executor and Administrator both together If he who is
according to the computed or improved value and therefore he inclined that the Action would not lie The Exemplification of the Decree was offered to be read which being opposed Serjeant Maynard informed the Court that nothing was more usual than to read a Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court or a Decree in Chancery as Evidence of the Fact It being allowed to be read the Council for the Defendant took notice that the Commission was therein mentioned which was returned into Chancery and burned when the Six Clerks Office was on fire in the year 1618. but a Duplicate thereof was produced which the Defendant had from the Heir of the Harveys and so the Survey was praied to be read which was opopsed by Sir William Jones for he said that it was no Duplicate the Commissioners Names being all written with one Hand and no proof being made that it was a true Copy of that which was returned he likewise observed upon the reading of the Decree that it was an Evidence for the Plaintiff because if there had been a setled Rule for payment of the Fines there had been no occasion to seek relief in Equity and that there was no reason that the Defendant should come into a Court of Law to prove such Settlement by a Decree in Chancery for if there be such a Decree his Remedy is proper there besides the Decree it self only mentions the years value which was to be setled by the Commissioners and which he said was never done so that the Decree which appointed the Commission was not compleated and therefore being but executory is of no force even in Equity The Court were doubtful in the matter and Baron Thurland said That no Action of Debt would lie for this Fine because it was neither upon the Contract nor as ex quasi contractu But as to that Serjeant Maynard answered That many Resolutions had been made in his time of Cases wherein the Old Books were silent Vpon the whole the Court thought this to be a proper Case for Equity and so directed a Iurour to be withdrawn which was accordingly done DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 29 Car. II. in Communi Banco Addison versus Sir John Otway IN a special Verdict in Ejectione firmae A Parish and a Vill within the Parish of the same Name a Recovery is suffered of Lands in the Vill and in the Deed to lead the Uses the Parish is named they make but one Conveyance and the Lands in the Parish do pass Mod. Rep. 250. the Case was thus Viz. There was the Vill of Rippon and the Parish of the same Name and likewise the Vill of Kirkby and the Parish of the same Name in the County of York And Thomas Brathwaite being Tenant in Tail of the Lands in question lying in the said Parishes of Rippon and Kirkby did by Bargain and Sale convey the same lying as in truth they did in the Parishes of Rippon and Kirkby to the intent to make a Tenant to the Praecipe in order to suffer a Common Recovery and thereby he did Covenant to suffer the same which Recovery was afterwards suffered of Lands in Rippon and Kirkby but doth not say as he ought in the Parishes of Rippon and Kirkby and the Verdict in effect found That he had no Lands in the Vills but farther that it was the intent of the Parties that the Lands in the Parishes should pass and whether they should or not was the Question It was said for the Defendant That by this Indenture and Common Recovery the Lands which lie in the said Parishes shall pass 1. Supposing this to be in the Case of a Grant there if the Vill is only named yet the Lands in the Parish of the same Name shall pass because the Grant of every Man shall be taken strongest against himself Owen Rep. 61. So where part of the Lands lie in B. and the Grant is of all the Lands in D. all the Lands in the Parish of D. shall pass because in that Case the Parish shall be intended and if the Law be thus in a Grant a fortiori in the Case of a Common Recovery Postea Barker and Keat which is the Common Assurance of the Land 2. The Verdict hath found that the Defendant had no Lands in the Vills of Rippon and Kirkby and the Court will not intend that he had any there if not found so that nothing passes by the Recovery if the Lands in the Parishes do not pass which is contrary to the intention of the Parties and to the Rules of Law in the like Cases for if a Man deviseth all his Lands in Dale and hath both Free-hold and Lease-hold there by this Devise the Freehold only passes but if no Free-hold the Leases shall pass Cro. Car. 293. So adjudged in the Case of Rose and Bartlet for otherwise the Will would be void 3. The Parish and Vill shall be both intended to support a Trial already had as where a Venire facias ought to issue from the Parish of Dale and it was awarded from Dale generally 't is well enough * 1 Roll. Rep. 21 27 293. Hob. 6. 2 Cro. 263. 1 Roll. Rep. 27. A fortiori to support a Common Recovery which has always been favourably interpreted and yet a new Tryal will help in the one case but a Man cannot command a new Recovery when he will and therefore the Iudges usually give Iudgments to support and maintain Common Recoveries that the Inheritances of the Subject might be preserved for if there be Tenant in Tail the Reversion in Fee or if Baron and Feme suffer a Recovery this is a bar of the Reversion and the Dower and yet the intended Recompence could not go to either Pl. Com. 515. 2 Roll. Rep. 67. 5 Co. Dormer's Case Antea 4. The Iury have found that the intention of the Parties was to pass the Lands in the Parishes which Intention shall be equivalent to the Words Omitted And for that there is a notable Case in 2 Roll. Rep. f. 245. where the intent of the Parties saved an Extinguishment of a Rent The Case was A. makes a Lease for years rendring Rent and then grants the Reversion for 40 years to B. and C. which he afterwards conveyed to them and their Heirs by Bargain and Sale and covenanted to levy a Fine accordingly to make them Tenants to the Praecipe to suffer a Common Recovery to another Vse the Bargain Fine and Recovery were all executed and it was adjudged that they made all but one Conveyance and that the Reversion was not destroyed and by consequence the Rent not extinguished for though the Bargainor might intend to destroy the Reversion by making this Grant to them and their Heirs yet the Bargainees could never have such Intention and though they were now seised to another Vse yet by the Statute of Wills their former Right is saved which they had to their proper Vse and their intention being only to make a
Tenant to the Praecipe the Statute shall be so construed that the intent of the Parties shall stand 5. The Lands in the Parishes pass 1 Anders 83. because the Deed and Common Recovery make but one Conveyance and Assurance in the Law and therefore as a Construction is not to be made upon part but upon the whole Deed so not upon the Deed or Recovery alone but upon both together 2 Co. 75. Lord Cromwel's Case 6. Antea 'T is the Agreement of the Parties which governs Fines and Recoveries and Lands shall pass by such Names as are agreed between them though such Names are not proper and therefore a Fine of a lieu conus is good though neither Vill or Parish is named therein Poph. 22. 1 Cro. 270 276 693. 2 Cro. 574. So if a Fine be levied of a Common of Pasture in Dale Cro. Car. 308. Winch 122. Sid. 190 191. Antea 't is good though Dale be neither Vill or Hamlet or lieu conus out of a Vill 2 Roll. Abr. f. 19. So in Sir George Symonds his Case Lands as parcel of a Mannor were adjudged to pass though in truth they were used with the Manor but two years and the reason of all these Cases is because it was the Agreement of the Parties that they should pass Object If it be objected That all these Authorities are in Cases of Fines but the Case at Bar is in a Common Recovery which makes a great difference Answ The proceedings in both are amicable and not adversary and therefore as to this purpose there is no difference between them and for an Authority in the point the Case of Lever and Hosier was cited which was adjudged in this Court Trin. 27 Car. 2 Where the Question was Antea whether upon a Common Recovery suffered of Lands in the Town of Sale or the Liberty thereof Lands lying in Dale being a distinct Vill in the Parish of Sale should pass or not and after divers Arguments it was allowed to be well enough being in the Case of a Common Recovery And so was the Case Pasch 16 Car. 2. in B. R. In a special Verdict the Case was That Sir Thomas Thinn being seised of the Mannor of Buckland in Tail and of twenty Acres of Land called and known by a particular name which twenty Acres of Land were in Ed. the 6th's time reputed parcel of the said Mannor and always used with it Sid. 190. sold the said Mannor and all the Lands reputed parcel thereof with the Appurtenances of which he did suffer a Common Recovery and it was adjudged upon great consideration that though the Recovery did not mention the twenty Acres particularly yet it did dock the Entail thereof because the Indenture which leads the Vses of the Recovery was of the Lands reputed parcel thereof or enjoyed with it and that the shortness in the Recovery was well supplied by the Deed in which Case the Court were guided by the resolution in Sir George Symond's Case Vide 6 Co. Sir Moyle Finch's Case The Authorities against this Opinion are two Antea Lever and Hosieâ— 1. That of Stock versus Fox Cro. Jac. 120. There were two Vills Walton and Street in the Parish of Street and a Fine was levied of Lands in Street it was adjudged that the Lands in Walton did not pass by this Fine But there is another Report of this very Case by my Lord Chief Iustice Roll in his Abr. tit Grants 54. where 't is said if there be in the County of Somerset the Vill of Street and the Vill of Waltham within the Parish of Street and a Man being seised of Lands in the Vill of Street and of other Lands in the Vill of Waltham all within the Parish of Street and he Bargains and Sells all his Lands in Street and having Covenanted to levie a Fine doth accordingly levie it of Lands in Street and doth not mention either in the Indenture or in the Fine any Lands in Waltham the Lands lying there shall not pass from which Report there may be a fair Inference made That it was the Lord Rolls his Opinion that if Waltham had been named in the Indenture though not in the Fine the Lands would have passed and in this Case the Parishes are named in the Indenture of Bargain and Sale but besides in that Case the Party had Lands both in Street and Waltham and so the Conveyances were not in vain as they must be here if the Lands in the Parishes do not pass Antea 2. The other Case is that of Baker and Johnson in Hutton 106. But this Case is quite different from that because there was neither Vill or Parish named in the Indenture but here the Indenture was right for the Lands are mentioned therein to lie in the Parishes c. And for these Reasons Iudgment was prayed for the Defendant This Case was afterwards argued in Michaelmas-Term following by Serjeant Pemberton and Maynard for the Plaintiff who said Ex parte Quer. That the Government of this Nation was Ecclesiastical and Civil the Ecclesiastical runs by Parishes and the Civil by Vills That a Parish is constituted by the Ecclesiastical Power and may be altered by the King and Ordinary of the place that the Parson was superintendent of the Parish and the Constable of the Vill which was also constituted by the Civil Magistrate and from hence it is that in real Actions which are adversary Lands ought not to be demanded as lying in a Parish but within a Vill that being the place known to the Civil Iurisdiction and if a Trespass which is local be laid at Dale generally there being both the Parish and Vill of Dale the proof of the Trespass done in the Parish is not good for it must be at the Vil. They agreed that in conveying of Lands a Fine or Common Recovery of Lands in a Parish or Lieu conus was good 2 Cro. 574. But if there be both a Vill and a Parish of the same Name and severally bounded if the Vill be only named without the Parish nothing doth pass but what is in the Vill because where a place is alledged in Pleading it must be of a Vill Moor 710. 1 Inst 125. b. 2 Cro. 121. And this was the ancient way of demanding Lands in a Praecipe quod reddat because of the Notoriety of Vills from whence Visnes do arise and because the Vill is more particular and of more certainty than a Parish and therefore 't is requisite that the Demandant should be very particular in his Demand that the Tenant may know how to make his defence and the Sheriff of what to deliver possession Besides a Vill is more ancient than a Parish and Lands have been demanded within them time out of mind so that the Demand when 't is doubtful of what 't is made shall be supposed of that which is most ancient and such Construction is most conformable to the like Cases