but as referring to the provision subsequent in the Statute in which case this matter shall be used but as the Proviso it self shall be and according to this it hath been commonly put in practise by all the Iustices in all places after the Statute untill now And they agreed also that it need not be shewn whether he were made a Iesuit or Priest c. either beyond Sea or within the Realm because whersoever it was it is within the Law if he were made by the pretended authority of the See of Rome But they agreed that it ought to be comprised in the Indictment that he was born within this Realm or other Dominions of the Queen but need not to shew where but generally Et quod I. S. natus infra hoc Regnum Angliae c. And the Indictment ought to comprise that he was a Iesuite or Priest c. by authority challenged or pretended from to the See of Rome because that this is in the body of the Act without such reference as in the other point and according to this resolution the proceeding was against the said Southwell Easter Term 37 Eliz. Pigots Case 1. AFter the death of Valentine Pigot Esquire a Commission was awarded in nature of a Mandamus and after the death of Thomas Pigot Father of the said Valentine a Commission was awarded in nature of a Diem clausit extremum and the said Commissions were awarded to one and the same Commissioners who by one Inquest took but one Inquisition upon these severall Commissions in this form Inquisitio indentata captâ— apud c. virtute Commiss in natura brevis de diem clausit extremum eisdem Commiss direct c. ad inquirendum post mortem Thomae Pigot Ar. nuper defuncti patris predict Valentin per sacramentum c. Qui dâ—cunt c. After which all the points of the Câ—mmission after the death of the sâ—id Valentine are enquired of but for the Commissions after the death of the said Thomas Pigot it is imperfect in some points as who is his Heir c. is not found And by Popham and Anderson this Inquisition is void as to Valentine as well as for Thomas for their authorities which are the Commissions are by severall Warrants which cannot be simul semel by one and the same Inquisition executed and satisfied but ought to be divided and severall as the Warrant is severall and yet the same Inquest which found one Inquisition by one Warrant may also find another Inquisition by the other Warrant but divided and severall and not as one for as it is made it does not appear upon which of the Commissions the Inquisition as to Valentine is taken for as it is made it may be as well upon the one as upon the other for it is said to be by vertue of both the Commissions which cannot be and therfore is not good in any part and severall Warrants ought to be severally execused and therfore although the Escheator as appeareth by 9 H. 7. 8. may take â—â— Inquisition Virtue officii and at the same day another Inquisition Virtue brevis by one and the same Inquest yet this cannot be drawn into one Inquisition And that which is found Virtue officii contrary to that which before the same day Virtute libris as that it found more Land is good for the King And this their opinion was certified to the Court of Wards Sir Rowland Haywards Case 2. THis Case was also sent to the same chief Iustices out of the Court of See this case in Coke â— Report 35. Wards Sir Rowland Hayward being seised in his Demesne as of Fee of the Mannors of D. and A. in the County of Salop and of other Lands in the same County part wherof were in Lease for years by severall Indentures rendring certain rent part in the possessions of severall Copyholders and part in Demesne in possession out of Lease by Indenture dated 2. September 34. Eliz. made mention that this was for and in consideration of a certain sum of money to him paid by Richard Warren Esquire and others demised granted bargained and sold to the said Richard Warren and the others the said Mannors Lands and Tenements and the Reversion and Remainder of them and of every part of them and the Rents and Profits reserved upon any Demise therupon for 17. years next ensuing the death of the said Sir Rowland rendring a Rose at the Feast of S. John Baptist yearly if it be demanded which Deed was acknowledged to be enrolled and afterwards by another Indenture covenanted and granted for him and his Heirs hereafter to stand seised of the said Mannors Lands and Tenements to the use of the said Sir Rowland and of the Heirs Males of his body and afterwards and before any Attornment to the said Richard Warren and his Co-lessees or any of them the said Sir Rowland died seised of the said Mannors Lands and Tenements leaving a full third part of other Lands to descend to his Heir And it was moved on the Queens part that for part to wit for that which was in possession it past to the said Richard Warren and the other by way of Demise at Common Law and therfore it doth not passe afterwards by way of Bargain and Sale as to the Remainder and that therfore for the Services of the Mannors and for the Rents reserved upon the Demise these remain to the Heir who was in Ward to the Queen and within age and therfore to the Queen by reason of the Tenure which was in Capite by Knights-service But by Popham and Anderson it is at the Election of the said Richard Warren and his Co-lessees to take it by way of Demise or by way of Bargain and Sale untill that by some act done or other matter it may appear that their intent is to take it another way for the Vse in this case may well passe without the Inrolement of the Deed because the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Inrolements extends but to where a Free-hold is to passe and the Vse so passing this shall be executed by the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Vses and therfore if the said Richard Warren and his Co-lessees after the death of the said Sir Rowland Hayward would elect to take it by way of Bargain and Sale they shall have all the Reversions Remainders Rents and Services as well as the Land in possession executed to them by the Statute of Vses And of the same opinion were all the Iustices in Trinity Term following upon their meeting at Serjeants-Inne for another great cause Trinity Term 37 Eliz. 1. VPon an Assembly of all the Iustices and Barons of the Exchecquer at Where a Justâ—ce of Peace bails one who is not bailable he shall be sined and albeit he be committed but for sufficiâ—â—â— of Felony and haâ—h no notice of his offence Serjeants-Inne in Fleetstreet this Term it was resolved by them and so agreed to be hereafter put
Issue a Son which selleth this Remainder and afterwards I. S. dyed this Son being his Heir notwithstanding his Sale he shall have this Remainder not his Grantee because it was not in him at the time of his Grant but by a matter which cometh Ex post facto to wit the death of his Father and afterwards Iudgment was given in the first case that the Grantee shal have the term granted to him by the Husband and that the Wife shall not have the term during this Leese Hunt Versus Gateler Mich. 34. and 35 Eliz. in Commun Banco IN a Replevin between Hunt Plaintiff and Gateler Avowant in the Common Pleas which was adjorned for difficulty into the Exchequer Chamber the Case was thus Tenant in tail Remainder in Fee he in Remainder in Vide this case Cook lib. 1. 61. by the name of Capeâ—s case Fee grants a Rent-charge in Fee out of the same Land to begin after the Estate tail determined Tenant in Tail suffer a common Recovery with a Voucher over to the use of the sayd Hunt in Fee and dyed without Issue inheritable to the intail and whether Hunt shall now hold the Land charged with the Rent was the question and after that it had long depended and was many times argued in the Common Pleas and Exchequer Chamber at Hertford Term it was at last resolved by all the Iustices and Barons unanimously that the sayd Rent charge wss gone by the Recovery although the Estate tail was expired because that he which is in is in under this Intail And therefore Popham sayd suppose thâ—t the Tenant in tail himself before the Recovery had granted a Rent charge out of the same Land or had made a Lease for yeers or had acknowledged a Statute all those had been good and to be executed against him which cometh in under the Recovery notwithstanding that the Estate tayl had been determined for want of an heir inheritable to the intail for he which recovereth cannot lay that he against whom he recovered had but an Estate in tail and if his Lease remain yet good as all agreed it did how can the Lease a Rent granted by him in the Remainder be good also for the one and the other cannot stand together and therefore all the Leases Charges or Statutes acknowledged or made by him in the Remainder are gon and avoided by the Recovery had against Tenant in tail To which opinion all the other agreed and Popham sayd further That he in the Remainder upon an Estate tail cannot by any means plead to defend his Remainder unless the Tenant will as by vouching of him and therefore shall be bound by the Act of Tenant in Tail where the Estate it self is bound as here it is by the Voucher and then they which come in by him in the Remainder by way of Lease Charge or Statute which are not so much favoured in Law as Tenant in tail himself be in better condition then he in the Remainder himself is for he in the Remainder upon an Estate tail cannot put more into the Mouth of the Lessee or Grantee to defend their Estates then he himself could have to defend his Remainder and this is the reason that such a Termer or Grantee shall never falsifie the Recovery had against Tenant in tail as the Grantee or Termer shall do which cometh in under Tenant in tail against whom the Recovery was had for there as the Tenant in tail may plead to defend his Possession and Estate so may his Termer or Grantee of a Rentcharge do for by the Demise or Grant made the Tenant in tail hath put all the Pleas into their mouthes for their Interests which he himself had to defend his Right and Possession which they may plead for the time to defend their Possessions and Rights as well as the Tenant in tail himself may do and this is the reason that such may falsifie Recoveries against their Lessors or Grantors if they be not had upon the meer right Paramount which he that cometh in by such a Remainder as before cannot do for such a one in Remainder cannot be received to defend his Right but his mouth is meerly foreclosed to do it and by the same reason are all those which come in by such men foreclosed to defend their Interests or Estates and upon this Audgement was given in the same Tearm in the common Pleas. Gibbons versus Maltyard and Martin IN an Ejectione firmae brought in the Kings Bench by John Gibbons Vide this case in Cook lib. 8. 130 Thetford Scholies case Plaintiff upon a Demise made by Edward Peacock the Son of Lands in Croxton in the County of Norfolk against Thomas Maltyard and John Martin upon a speciall verdict the case appeared to be thus to wit that Sir Richard Fulmerston Knight was seised of the sayd Lands amongst others holden in soccage in his Demesne as of Fee and being so seised by his last Will in Writing made 9 Eliz. Ordained that a Devise shall be made by his Executors that a Preacher shall be found for ever to preach the Word of God in the Church of Saint Maries in Thetford four times in the year and to have for his Labour ten shillings for every Sermon And further he devised to his Executors and their heirs certaine Lands and Tenements in Thetford aforesaid to this intent and upon this condition that they or the Survivor of them within seven years after his decease should procure of the Queens Highness to erect a free Grammar School in Thetford for ever to be had and kept in a house by them to be erected upon part of the sayd Land that they shal assure three of the said ienements for the house and Chamber of the Schoolmaster and Vsher and their Successors for ever and for the other tonement that they shall make an assurance of it for the Habitation of font poor people two men and two women for ever And for the better maintenance of the sayd Preacher Schoolmaster Vsher and Poore people he devised amongst others his sayd tenements in Croxton to his Executors for ten years for the performance of his Will and after this he devised them to Sir Edward Cleer and Frances his Wife the Daughter and Heir of the sayd Sir Richard and to the Heirs of the sayd Sir Edward upon Condition that if the sayd Sir Edward his Heires or Assignes before the end of the sayd ten years shall assure Lands or Tenements in possession to the value of five and thirty pounds a year to the sayd Executors or the Survivor of them their Heirs and Assignes or to such persons their heirs or Successors as his sayd Executors or the Survivor of them shall name or assigne for and towards the maintenance of the sayd Preacher Schoolmaster and Vsher in the sayd School house c. and for the releif of the sayd poor people in the one of the sayd houses according to the Ordinance as he
Saint Michael next ensuing rendring the ancient Rent and 25. Octob. 21. Eliz they did let the same Messuage to the same Standish for twenty years from the Feast of Saint Michaeâ— then next ensuing rendring also the ancient Rent and 31 August 30. Eliz. The President and Schollers made a new Lease of the same Messuage to Sir George Carew Knight for twenty years from making of the Lease rendring the ancient Rent which Lease was conveyed by mean Assignments to the Plaintiff upon which the Action was brought against the sayd Trafford which had the Interest of the sayd Standish by mean Assignments Popham said that Ipso facto upon the last Lease made and annexed by Standish the first Leass was determined and gone for this last contract dissolves the first when the one and the other cannot stand together as they cannot here because the one intermix with the other and so was the opinion in the Common Bench about 1 Eliz. in the case of the Abby of Barking of which I have seen a Report And here Standish before Michaelmas next after the second Lease made to him could not grant over his first term to be good to the Grantee for if this should be the second term shall not be good to Standish but for the remnant of the years after the first term finished which cannot be because it standeth in the power of the Grantor with the assent and acceptance of the Grantee to make the second Grant good for the whole term to wit from Michaelmas and this cannot be but by a determination in Law of the first term immediatly which is made by his own acceptance and therefore a prejudice to none but himself and Volenti non fit injuria and the first Term cannot have his continuance untill Mich. but is gone presently by the acceptance of the second Lease in the whole for the first contract which was entyre cannot be so dissolved in part but in the whole as to that which the party hath and therefore the first Term as the case is here is gone in the whole to which Clench and Gaudy agreed And if so then this last Lease to Standish was but as a Lease made to begin at a time to come which is made good by the Stat. of 14 Eliz. if it do not exceed the time of 40 years from the making of the Lease for the purpose of this Act was that Colledges and the like shall not make Grants in Reversion albeit it be for a year and the reason was because that by such Grants in Reversion they shall be excluded to have their Rent of the particular Tenants for the time And therfore in the case of the Countesse of Sussex who had a Ioynture assured to her for her life by Act of Parliament with a Provise that the Earle her Husband might demise it for one and twenty yeares rendring the usuall Rent where the sayd Earle had made a Lease for one and twentie yeares according to the Statute within a yeare before the end of the same Lease the said Earle made a new Lease of the same Land to Wroth his Servant for one and twentie yeares to begin after the end of the former Lease rendring the usuall Rent and died the said Countesse avoided this last Lease by Iudgement given in this Court because it shall be intended to be a Lease in Possession which he ought to make by the Proviso from the time of the making of it otherwise by such perverse construction the true intent of the Statute shall be utterly defrauded But here to make a Lease for twentie yeares to one in Possession and to make another Lease to another for twentie yeares to begin after the end of the former Lease is good because that the one and the other do not exceed the fortie yeares comprised in the Statute And the Iustices of the Common Bench the same day at Sergeants Inn agreed to the opinion of Popham for the determination of the whole first Term by the taking of the second Term by Standish Ward versus Downing 2. IN an Ejectione firmae brought by Miles Word against Robert Downing the case was thus Oâ—e Robert Brown was seised of certain Lands in in the County of Norfolk in his Demesne as of Fee which were of the nature of Gavelkinâ— and had Issue George his eldest Son William his middlemost Son and Thomas his youngest Son and being so seised 6 Decem. 1559. made his Testament in writing by which he devised the sayd Tenements in these words Item I give unto Alice my wife the use and occupation of all my Houses and Lands as well free as copy-hold during her naturall life Item I will that George my Son shall have after the decease of his Mother all those my Houses and Lands wherof the use was given to his sayd Mother for the term of her life To have and to hold to him and his Heirs for ever and if the sayd George dye without Issue of his body lawfully begotten then I will my sayd Lands shall in like manner remain unto William my Son and his Heirs for ever And I will that all such money as shall be payd of any Legacy by the sayd George shall be allowed by the sayd William to whom the sayd George shall appoint Item I will that if the sayd George and William depart the world before they have Issue of their bodies lawfully Then I will that all my sayd Houses and Lands shall remain unto Thomas my Son and to his Heirs for ever Item That if the sayd George shall enjoy my sayd Houses and Lands then I will the sayd George shall pay out of the sayd Lands to William and Thomas his Brother 26 l. 13 s. 4 d. that is to say at his first entry into the sayd Lands to pay unto the sayd William his Brother 40 s. and so to pay yearly untill the summ of 13 l 6 s. 8 d. be fully answered and payd and then immediatly to pay unto Thomas his Brother 13 l 6 s. 8 d. to be payd unto the sayd Thomas when the sayd William shall be fully answered by 40 s. a year in like proportion as is aforesayd And if my sayd Son George shâ—ll refuse to pay unto William and Thomas his Brother the summs of 26 l 13 s. 4 d in manner and form as is before limitted Then I will that all my Houses Lands and Tenements with the Appurtenances remain to Willâ—am my Son and his Heirs for ever paying therfore 26 l. 13 s. 4 d. viz. 13 l. 6 s. 8 d. to George my Son and 13 l. 6 s. 8 d. to Thomas my Son in such manner and sort as the sayd George shall pay if he should enjoy the sayd Lands And if it fortune the sayd William to enjoy the sayd Lands then the sayd William shâ—ll pay unto Thomas his Brother the whole summ of 26 l. 13 s. 4 d. as is â—foresayd After which the sayd Robert dyed seised of the sâ—yd Tenements in
to the use of Dennis May his Son and Heir apparant and his Heirs upon condition that the said Dennis and his Heirs should pay to one Petronell Martin for his life an annuall Rent of 10 l. which the said Thomas had before granted to the said Petronell to begin upon the death of the said Thomas And upon condition also that the said Thomas upon the payment of 10 s. by him to the said Feoffees or any of them c. might re-enter After which the said Thomas May and Dennis by their Deed dated 30. May 19 Eliz. granted a Rent-charge out of the said Mannor of 20 l. a year to one Anne May for her life after which the said Thomas May paid the said 10 s. to the said Feoffees in performance of the Condition aforesaid and therupon re-entred into the Land and enfeoffed a stranger And whether by this the Rent were defeated was the question And it was mooved by Coke Attorney-generall that it was not but that in respect that he joyned in the part it shall enure against the said Thomas by way of confirmation which shall bind him as well against this matter of Condition as it shall do against any Right which the said Thomas otherwise had And therfoâ—e by Littleton If a Disseisor make a Lease for years or grant a Rent-charge and the Disseisor confirm them and afterwards re-enters albeit Lit. there makes a Quaere of it yet Cook said That the Disseisor should not avoid the Charge or Lease which was granted by the whole Court And by him the opinion is in P. 11. H. 7. 21. If Tenant in Tail makes a Feoffment to his own use upon Condition and afterwards is bound in a Statute upon which Execution is sued and afterwards he re-enter for the Condition broken he shall not avoid the Execution no more the Rent here Fennor agreed with Cook and said further That in as much as every one who hath Title and Interest have joyned in the Grant it remains perpetually good And therfore if a Parson at Common Law had granted a Rent-charge out of his Rectory being confirmed by the Patron and Ordinary it shall be good in perpetuity and yet the Parson alone could not have charged it and the Patron and Ordinary have no Interest to charge it but in as much as all who have to intermeddle therin are parties to it or have given their assent to it it sufficeth Gawdy was of the same opinion and said That there is no Land but by some means or other it might be charged and therfore if Tenant for life grant a Rent-charge in Fee and he in the Reversion confirm the Grant per Littleton the Grant is good in property so here To which Clench also assented but Popham said That by the entry for the Condition the Charge is defeated And therfore we are to consider upon the ground of Littleton in his Chapter of Confirmation to what effect a Confirmation shall enure and this is to bind the right of him who makes the Confirmation but not to alter the nature of the Estate of him to whom the Confirmation is made And therfore in the case of a grant of a Rent-charge by the Disseisor which is confirmed by the Demisee the reason why the Confirmation shall make this good is because that as the Disseisee hath right to defeat the right and the Estate of the Disseisor by his Regresse in the same manner hath he right therby to avoid a Charge or a Lease granted by the Disseisor which Right for the time may be bound by his confirmation But when a man hath an Estate upon condition although the Feoffor or his Heirs confirm this Estate yet by this the Estate is not altered as to the Condition but it alwaies remaineth and therfore Nihil operatur by such a confirmation to prejudice the Condition And so there is a great diversity when hewho confirmeth hath right to the Land and where but a Condition in the Land And by him if a Feoffee upon condition make a Feoffment over or a Lease for life or years every one of these have their Estates subject to the Condition and therfore by a Confirmation made to them none can be excluded from the Condition And the same reason is in case of a Rent granted by a Feoffor upon Condition it is also subject to the Condition and therfore not excluded from it by the Confirmation as it shall be in case of a Right And to prove this diversity suppose there be Grand-father Father and Son the Father disseise the Grand-father and makes a Feoffment upon Condition and dies after which the Grand-father dies now the Son confirms the Estate of the Feoffee by this he hath excluded himself from the Right which descended to him by his Grand-father but not to the Condition which descended to him from his Father And of this opinion were Anderson and other Iustices at Serjeants-Inn in Fleetstreet for the principall Case upon the Case moved there by Popham this Term And as the case is it would have made a good question upon the Statute of Fraudulent Conveyances if the Avowry had been made as by the grant of Thomas May in as much as the Estate made to the use of Dennis was defeasable at the pleasure of the said Thomas in as much as it was made by the Tenant of the Land as well as by him who made the Conveyance which is to be judged fraudulent upon the Statute But this as the pleading was cannot come in question in this case And afterwards by the opinion of other three Iudges Iudgment was given that the Grant should bind the said Thomas May and his Feoffees after him notwithstanding his regresse made by the Condition in as much as the Grant of the said Thomas shall enure to the Grantee by way of confirmation And by Gawdy If a Feoffee upon Condition make a Feoffment over and the first Feoffor confirm the Estate of the last Feoffee he shall hold the Land discharged of the Condition because his Feoffment was made absolutely without any Condition expressed in his Feoffment But Popham denied this as it appeareth by Littleton Tit. Descents because he hath his Estate subject to the same Condition and in the same manner as his Feoffor hath it into whomsoever hands it hapneth to come and therfore the Confirmation shall not discharge the Condition but is only to bind the right of him who made it in the possession of him to whom it is made but not upon Condition Morgans Case 7. RObert Morgan Esquire being seised in his Demesne as of Fee of certain Lands called Wanster Tenements in Socage having Issue John his eldest Son Christopher his second Son and William his youngest Son by his last Will in writing demised to the said Christopher and William thus viz. Ioyntly and severally for their lives so that neither of them stall alienate the Lands and if they do that they shall remain to his Heirs Robert the Father
Richard he made assurance by Fine of his Lands being 174 l. a year viz. Of part therof of the value of 123 l. a year of which part was holden of the Queen by Knights Service in Capite to the use of himself for his life and after his decease to the use of the said William and Margaret and the Heirs of the body of the said William begotten on the body of the said Margaret and for default of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said William And of the residue therof being also holden in Capite of the Queen to the use of himself for his life and after his decease to the use of the first Issue Male of the said Richard and to the Heirs Males of his body and then to other Issues of his body and for default of such Issue to the said William and Margaret and the Heirs of the body of the said William on the body of the said Margaret lawfully begotten and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of the said William with this Prouiso That it shall be lawfull for the said Richard to make a Joynture to his wife of the Lands limited to his Issue Males and for making of Leases for 21. years or three lives for any part of the said Land rendring the ancient Rent except of certain parcels and that William died without Issue and that Gilbert Littleton was his Brother and Heir and that the said Margaret married the said George Littleton youngest brother to the said William which are yet living And that the said Richard married Dorothy and made her a Joynture according to the Proviso And that the said Richard had Issue Iohn Smith and died the said Iohn being his Son and Heir and within age After which a Melius inquirendum issued by which it was found that the said Margaret was the Daughter of the said Richard and that the said Land was of the value of 12000 l. at the time of the assurance And how much of the Land shall be in ward and what Land and what the Melius inquirendum makes in the case was the question put to the two chief Iustices Popham and Anderson who agreed that the Queen now shall have the third part as well of that which was assured to William and Margaret immediatly after the death of the said Richard as of that which was limited to Dorothy for the life of the said Margaret for although money were paid yet this was not the only consideration why the Lands were assured but the advancement of the Daughter and now by the surviving of the said Margaret shee shall be said to be in the whole which was assured to her by her Father and for her advancement and the Land as it appears was of greater value then the money given and may as well be thought to be given for the Remainder of the Fee And agreeable to this was the case of Coffin of Devonshire about the beginning of the Raign of the now Queen which was that the said Coffin for moneys paid by one Coffin his Cosin having but Dâ—ughters himself conveyed his Land to the use of himself and his wife and to the Heirs Males of his body and for default of such Issue to the use of his said Cosin and his Heirs for which his said Cosin was to give a certain sum of money to the Daughters for their marriage Coffin dies his said Daughters being his Heirs and within age and were in ward to the Queen the Lands being holden by Knights Service in Capite And the third part of the Land was taken from the wife of Coffin for the life of the said wife if the Heirs continue so long in Ward And it was also agreed by them and the Councell of the Court that the Melius inquirendum was well awarded to certifie that the said Margaret was the Daughter of the said Richard of which the Court could not otherwise well take Conusance for they thought that it was not matter to come in by the averment of the Attorney-generall as Dyer hath reported it But now by the Statute it ought to be found by Inquisition and being a thing which stands with the former Inquisition it ought to be supplied by the Melius inquirendum for the same Statute which gives the Wardship in case where Land is conveyed for the advancement of the Wife or Infants or for the satisfaction of Debts and Legacies of the party by the implication of the same Statute this may be found by Inquisitton and if it be omitted in the Inquisition it ought to be found by a Melius inquirendum but not to come in by a bare surmise And therfore if in the Inquisition it be found that the Ancestor had conveyed his Land by the Melius inquirendum it may be found that it was for the payment of his Debts or Legacies or that the party to whom or to whose use it was made was the Son or Wife of the party that made it and that by the very purport of the Statutes 32. 34 H. 8. as by Fitzherbert if it be surmised that the Land is of greater value then it is found a Melius inquirendum shall issue and so shall it be if it be found that one is Heir of the part of the Mother but they know not who is Heir of the part of the Father so if it be not found what Estate the Tenant had or of whom the Land was holden so upon surmise made that he is seised of some other Estate or that he held it by other Services by Fitzherbert a Melius inquirendum shall Issue and upon this order given it was decreed accordingly this Term. Morgan versus Tedcastle 4. IN the same Term upon matter of Arbitrement between Morgan and Tedcastle touching certain Lands at Welburn in the County of Lâ—ncoln put to Popham Walmesley and Ewens Baron of the Exchequer Wheras Morgan had granted to Tedcastle a 100. acres of Land in such a field and 60 in such a field and 20. acres of Meadow in such a Meadow in Welburn and Hanstead in which the acres are known by estimations or limits there be shall take the acres as they are known in the same places be they more or lesse then the Statute for they passe as they are there known and not according to the measure by the Statute But if I have a great Close containing 20. acres of Land by estimation which is not 18. And I grant 10. acres of the same Close to another there he shall have them according to the measure by the Statute because the acres of such a Close are not known by parcels or by meets and bounds and so it differeth from the first case And upon the case then put to Anderson Brian and Fennor they were of the same opinion Quod nota Humble versus Oliver 5. IN Debt by Richard Humble against William Oliver for a Rent reserved upon a Lease for years the case was
And if this doth not passe nothing can passe which was in the Tenure of the said Brown because he had nothing in the places comprised in the Patent But it was agreed by all the Court that it shall not passe by the said Patent in this case for the word illa is to be restraind by that which follows in the Patent where it depends upon a generality as here and that it refers but to that in Wells as the liberty of that which was parcell of the possessions of the said Hospitall and in the Tenure of the said John Brown And if it were not of these possessions or not in Wells c. or not in the Tenure of the said John Brown it shall not passe for the intent of the King in this case shall not be wrested according to the particular or the value which are things collaterall to the Patent but according to his intent comprised in or to be collected by the Patent it self And Popham said that by Grant of omnia terras Tenementa Hereditamenta sua in case of the Queen nothing passe if it be not restraind to a certainty as in such a Town or late parcell of the Possessions of such a one or of such an Abbey or the like in which cases it passeth as appeareth by 32 H. 8. in case of the King But if it be Omnia terras tenementa sua vocat D. in the Tenure of such a one and in such a Town and late parcell of the possessions of such a one there albeit the Town or the Tenant of the Land be utterly mistaken or that it be mistaken of what possessions it was it is good for it sufficeth that the thing be well and fully named and the other mistakes shall not hurt the Patent And the word of Ex certa scientia c. will nof help the Patent in the principall case And the case of 29 E. 3. is not to be compared to this case for it was thus The King granted the Advowson of the Priory of Mountague the Prior being an Alien to the Earl of Salisbury and his Heirs for ever And also the keeping and Farm with all the Appurtenances and Profits of the said Priory which he himself had curing the War with the keeping of certain Cellâ— belonging to the said Priory the said Earl died William Earl of Salisbury being his Son and Heir and within age wherupon the King reciting that he had seised the Earls Lands into his hands after his death for the Nonage of the Heir he granted to the said Earl all his Advowsons of all the Churches which were his Fathers and all the Advowsons of the Churches which belong to the Prior of Mountague to hold untill the full age of the said Heir quas nuper concessit prefat Comiti patri c. In which case although the King had not granted the Advowsons to the said Earl the Father aforesaid by the former Patent because no mention was of the Advowsons therof yet they passe by this Patent notwithstanding that which follows after to wit and which he granted to the Father of the Grantee But there it is by a Sentence distinct and not fully depending upon the former words as here to wit Omnia illa Messuagia c in Wells in the Tenure of the party parcell of the Possessions of such an Hospitall or Priory Quod nota and the difference And because the Defendant claimed under the first Patent and the Plaintiff by the latter Patent it was agreed that the Plaintiff should recover Which you may see in the Kings Bench. Harrey versus Farcy 7. IN an Ejectione firmae brought by Richard Harrey Plaintiff for the Moyety of certain Tenements in North-petherton in the County of Somerset upon a Lease made by Robert Bret against Humfrey Farcy Defendant upon not guilty and a speciall Verdict found the case appeared to be this to wit That Robert Mallet Esquire was seised of the said Tenements in his Demesne as of Fee and so seised demised them to John Clark and Elianor Middleton for term of their lives and of the longer liver of them after which the said Tenements amongst others were assured by Fine to certain persons and their Heirs to the use of the said Robert Mallet for term of his life and after his decease to the use of John Mallet his Son and Heir of his body and for default of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the aid Robert Mallet After which the said Robert Mallet having Issue the said John Mallet Christian and Elianor Mallet died the said John Mallet then being within age and upon Office found in the County of Devon for other Lands holden of the Queen in Capite by Knights Service was for it in Ward to the Queen Afterwards the said John Mallet died without Issue during his Nonage and the Lands aforesaid therby descended to his said two Sisters to whom also descended other Lands in the County of Devon holden of the Queen in Capite by Knights Service conveyed also by the same Fine in like manner as the Lands in North Petherton the said Christian then being of the age of 22. years and the said Elianor of the age of 15. yeares upon which the said Christian and Elianor 12. Novemb. 31 Eliz. tendred their Livery before the Master of the Wards and before the Livery sued the said Christian took the said Robert Bret to husband and the said Elianor took to husband one Arthur Ackland after which in the Utas of the Purification of our Lady 32 Eliz. the said Robert Bret and Christian his wife levied a Fine of the said Tenements in North-petherton amongst others to George Bret and John Pecksey Sur conusance de droit come ceo que ils ont de lour done by the name of the Moyety of the Mannor of North petherton c. with warranty against them and the Heirs of the said Christian against all men who tendred it by the same Fine to the said Robert Bret and Christian and the Heirs Males of their bodies the remainder to the Heirs Males of the body of the said Christian the remainder over to the right Heirs of the said Robert Bret which Fine was engrossed the same Term of S. Hillary and the first Proclamation was made the 12th day of February in the same Term the second the first day of June in Easter Term 32 Eliz. The third the 8th day of July in Trinity Term next And the fourth Proclamation was made the 4th day of October in Michaelmas Term next after And the said Christian died without Issue of her body The 9th day of February 32 Eliz. between the hours of 3. 7. in the afternoon of the same day And the 22. of March 32 Eliz. the said Robert Bret by his writing indented dated the same day and year for a certain summ of money to him paid by the Queen bargained and sold gave and granted the said Teuements to the
it was not an immediate descent in Deed but upon the operation of Law which gave Wardship and the like but not to prejudice any third person And he said that although the Queen or other Lord upon eviction of the Land descended or the determination of the Estate therof may resort to Lands devised or assured and take a third part therof yet therby the Devise or Assurance remains effectuall against the Heir but this is by a speciall clause in the Statute of 34 H. 8. which gives it to them but no such remedy is given to the Devisee to help him if his part be abridged or evicted And the words are precise to wit If the part left or assigned to the King or to any Lord at any time during their Interest therin be evicted c. that they shall have so much oâ— the two parts residue as shall make a full third part of the remainder not evicted c. Wherby it appeareth that this is given only for the benefit of the Lords and not of the Heir nor of the Devisee fâ—r if after the Interest of the Queen or other Lord be determined this which was left he evicted from the Heir it shall not be helped against the devise but the Devise remains good to the Devisee against the Heir for the whole Land devised wherby it appeareth that it was the very purport and intent of the Statute that the Devise remain as it was at the time of the death of the Devisor without having regard to that which hapneth Ex post facto unlesse for this point helped by this speciall clause of the Statute and this is for the Lord and his Interest only and for no other And by him also cleerly the Statute which is an explanatory Law shall never be taken by equity in the precise point explained to impugne the point of explanation as here the Statute wills that the Estate of Inheritance comprised in the former Statute shall be explained to be Fee-simple it cannot now by any equity be as to the power to make a Devise which is meerly given by the authority of the Statute said to be of any other Estate then Fee-simple of which a Devise may be made And therfore if Land be given to another and his Heirs for the term of another mans life a Devise cannot be made of this because it is not an Inheritance in Fee-simple but only the limitation of a Free-hold And where the Statute saith having a sole Estate we cannot by any equity that it shall be taken of any joynt Estate as to make any disposition of that which she had in Ioynture and therupon the greater part resolved that Iudgment shall be given against the Plaintiff for the Defendants Southwell versus Ward 4. IN a second deliverance between Richard Southwell Esquire Plaintiff and Miles Ward Avowant by Demurrer upon the Avowry the Case appeared to be this That Iohn Prior of the Church of Saint Faiths in Horsham in the County of Norfolk was seised in his Demesne as of fee in the right of his said Priory of 8. Messuages 300. acres of Land 30. acres of Meadow 60. acres of Pasture and 200. acres of Wood with their Appurtenances in Horsham aforesaid And so seised the said Prior with the assent of his Covent by their Deed indented shewn forth bearing date the first day of Ianuary 13 E. 4. and by licence of the King aforesaid granted to William then the Master of the Hospitall of St. Giles in Norwich and to the Brothers of the same Hospitall and to their Successors 200. Fagots and 200. Focalls called Astle-wood yearly to be taken of all the Lands and Tenements of the said Prior and Covent in Horsham aforesaid by the Servants of the said Prior and Covent and their Successors yearly to be carried to the said Hospitall at the costs and expences of the said Prior and Covent and their Successors at the Feast of St. Michael or 20 s. of lawfull money for them at the election of the said Master and Brethren and their Successors to take yearly in the same Lands and Tenements in Horsham to the use of the poor and infirm persons there being or coming So that if it happen the said Fagots and Focalls or the said 20 â— for them to the said Master and Freres in form aforesaid to be arrear in alâ—o part c. then they may distrain in the said Lands and Tenements and the Distresse detain until they be fully satisfied of the said Fagots and Focals or of the said 20 s. for them as is aforesaid with this Proviso further That if at any one or more times the said Master and Brethren have chosen to have the Fagots and Focals yet at any other time they make the 20 s. for them and although they have taken the 20 s. for them once or oftner yet at any other time they may take the Fagots and Focals themselves and that they may so vary tâ—ties quâ—ties and dâ—strain for them accordingly reasonable notice being given of their Election in form aforesaid And the said Master and Brethren granted by the same Deed to the said Prior and Covent and their Successors that they or others sufficiently warranted by them would give sufficient notice of their election yearly the first Sunday of April in the Church of the said Hospital to some Officer of the said Prior and Covent and their Successors if they send any thither for this cause By force of which Grant the said Master and Brethren were seised of the said yearly rent of the said 200. Fagots and 200. Facals called Astlewood accordingly and so being seised they by their sufficient Writing enrolled of Record in the Chancery in the first year of the late King Ed. 6. gave and granted to the same King the said Hospitall all the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments of the said Hospitall To have and to hold to him and his Heirs and Successors for ever wherby the said King was therof and of the said annuall Rent seised accordingly and so seised the 7. day of May in the same year the said King Edw. by his Letters Patents bearing date the same day and year granted the said Hospitall and the rent of the said Fagots and Focals and other the Premisses to the Major Sheriff Citizens and Commons of the City of Norwich and to their Successors for ever and for 1600. Fagots and 1600. Focals of the said annuall rent of 200. Fagots and 200. Focals being arrear at the Feast of S. Michael the Arch-angel 23 Eliz. the said Ward took the Distresse and made Conusance as Bailiff to the said Major Sheriff c. And it was moved that the Avowry was not good first because it being matter of Election which was granted to the Master and Brethren and their Successors to wit the Fuell or the 20 s. it doth not appear that they ever made any election of the one or the other and untill it appeareth that they have
precedent to it which not being done the Estate of Edmund never hapned to be and therfore he who cometh in under a Discontinuance made by the said William Cocksey after the death of Martin and Giles without Issue notwithstanding the Remitter of the said Alice in the case is to have the Land against those who come in by the said Edmund and upon this point only Iudgment was given accordingly in the Kings Bench. Grenningham versus the Executors of Heydon 4. IN Debt upon an Obligation of 200. marks by Richard Grenningham Plaintiff against the Executors of one Ralph Heydon Defendants the case appeared to be this upon Demurrer The said Heydon was bound to the Plaintiff in 200. marks the Condition wherof recites that wheras the said Heydon had received of the said Grenningham 76 l. 6 s 8 d. before the date of the said Obligation of 200. marks in payment and satisfaction of certain Obligations and Bills of debt remaining in the hands of the said Heydon and specified in the Condition what they were in certain and the which said Bills Obligations the said Heydon is to deliver or cause to be delivered to the said Grenningham his heirs or assigns before the Feast of S. Michael next ensuing the date of the said Obligation or otherwise the said Heydon his Executors Administrators or Assigns or some of them before the same Feast shall make or cause to be made and delivered to the said Plaintiff his Heirs and Assigns such good and sufficient Acquittances for the payment of the said summs of money formerly mentioned as the said Plaintiff his Heirs Executors or Assigns shall devise or cause to be devised by the Counsel of the said Plaintiff his Heirs or Assigns before the Feast without fraud or deceit that then the said Obligation shall be void c. And before the Feast the said Plaintiff did not devise any acquittance Whether now the Obligation be saved by the Disjunctive without delivering the Obligations and Bills before named before the Feast of S. Michael Rot. 36 37. Eton and Monney versus Laughter 5. IN Debt upon an Obligation of 400 l. by Thomas Eton and Roger See this Case Coke lib. 5. 21. by the name of Laughters case Monney Plaintiff against Thomas Laughter Defendant who was bound together with one Richard Rainford to the said Plaintiffs the Condition of which Odligation was That if the said Richard Rainford after marriage had between him and Jane Gilman Widow together with the said Jane alienate in Fee or Fee-tail all that great Messuage of the said Jane in London in the Tenure of William Fitz Williams Esquire if then the said Richard Rainford in his life time purchase to the said Iane her Heirs and Assigns Lands and Tenements of good Right and Title and of as good value as the money raised upon the alienanation of the said Messuage amounts unto or leave to the said Iane after his decease as Executrix or by Legacy or other good assurance so much money as he shall receive or have upon the said Sale that then the Obligation shall be void after which the said Richard Rainford married with the said Jane and the said Richard and Jane sold the said Messuage in Fee by Fine for 320 l. received by the said Richard Rainford after which the said Iane died no Lands being purchased to the said Iane by the said Richard and the said Richard yet living Michaelmas Term 37 38. Eliz. Sawyer versus Hardy 1. IN an Ejectione firmae by Christopher Sawyer Plaintiff against Edmund Hardy Defendant for a Messuage in S. Martins upon a Demurrer the case was this A Lease was made of the said Messuage to one Margaret Sawyer for 40. years upon Condition that if the said Margaret should so long continue a Widow she should dwell and stay in the same Messuage the said Margaret continued a Widow and dwelt in the same house all her life and died during the said Term of 40. years making the Plaintiff her Executor and by award the Plaintiff had Judgment to recover For by Popham Gawdy and Clench this now was no Condition nor Limitation for it hath no certain conclusion upon the that if to wit that then the Term shall continue or that she shall pay so much or otherwise what the conclusion shall be none can imagine As if such a Lease be made upon condition that if the Lessee does such a thing without other conclusion it is a good Lease for 40. years for none can imagine what the conclusion shall be in such a case or that then the Lease shal be void or that he shall re-enter or that the Lessee shall forfeit so much or what shall happen upon it for which incertainty it shall be taken as a void Clause But by Popham if it had been Sub conditione si tamdiu vixerit it had been good to determine the Lease but it is otherwise of the word quod si for the incertainty as before And they all agreed that if the Lease had been for 40. years Si tamdiu sols viveret inhabitaret in eodem Messuagio that the Lease had been determined by her marriage or death In the same manner as if it had been Si tam diu vixerit And so in truth had been the case if it had been well pleaded but by pleading the advantage therof was lost and the truth not disclosed But by Popham If a Lease be made for 40. years if he shall dwell in the same for his life there it is good for 40. years upon performance of the Condition the diversity appeareth to wit where it is if he shall dwell there during the Term and where it is if he shall inhabit there during his life Goodale versus Wyat. 2. IN an Ejectione firmae by Cuthbert Goodale Plaintif against John Wyat See this Case Coke lib. 5. fol. 95 96. by the name of Goodales case Defendant for a Meadow in Aylesbury in the County of Buck. called Diggelmore upon a speciall Verdict the case was this Sir Iohn Packington Knight enfeoffed therof one Ralph Woodliff to have and to hold to him and his Heirs upon condition that if the said Sir Iohn within a year after the death of the said Ralph pay to the Heirs Executors or Administrators of the said Ralph the summ of a 100. marks of lawfull money that then the said Feoffment and Seisin made therupon shall be void Ralph Woodliff made a Feoment over to others therof and died intestate and Administration was committed to Anne his Wife and Drew Woodliff his Son and Heir who gave a Warrant of Attorney to Thomas Goodale then seised of the said Meadow by mean conveyances for the receit of the said 100. marks with Covenant that none of them shall do any act or thing that shall be preâ—udiciall or hurtfull to the said Thomas Goodale for the receiving and enjoying of the said summ after which it was certified to the said Sir Iohn Packington by
Sheriff of another County then where the occasion brought or by Warrant of a Iustice of Peace of another County for matter of the Peace and the like which are not like to the case of Partridge who was beâ—ten in the County of Glocester by Sir Henry Pole for which he brought his Action in London And Sir Hen. Pole would have justified by Assault of the Plaintiff in the County of Glocester with a trâ—verse that he was not guilty in London But it was then ruled in this Court that he could not do it to oust the Plaintiff to sue in London but in such a case he might have alledged that the Assault was done in London because it was also a thing transitory of which they shall take notice there and so help himself if the matter had been true But in the case at the Bar if the speciall matter alledged in the forraign County be false as here the Plaintiff may maintain his Action and traverse the special matter alledged by the Defendant And so a traverse in such a case may be upon a Traverse when falsity is used to oust the Plaintiff of that benefit which the Law gives him Hillary Term 38 Eliz. Wood versus Matthews 1. IN a writ of Error brought by Owen Wood against Griffeth Matthews upon a judgment given in the common Pleas the case was briefly thus The Issue in the Common Pleas was whether one were taken by a Cap. ad satisfaciendum or not and upon the triall therof at the Nisi prius the Jury found for the Plaintiff in this Action to wit that the party was not taken by the said Capias and upon the back of the Pannell entred dicunt per Quer. but on the back of the Postea the Clark of the Assises certified the Pannell thus to wit That the Jury say that no Capias was awarded which was otherwise then was put in Issue or found by the Jury and the Roll of the Record was according to the Postea and upon this Judgment given for the said Matthew then Plaintiff upon which amongst other Errors this variance between the Issue and Verdict was assigned for Error and after deliberation had upon this point and this matter alledged by the Defendant in the Writ of Error and certified out of the Common Pleas the Court awarded as to this point that the Record sent up out of the Common Pleas by the Writ of Error shall be amended according to that which was endorsed on the back of the Pannell for the endorsement upon the Pannell is the Warrant for the certifying of the Postea aâ—d so this Warrant over to him that makes the Entry in the Roll And therfore wheras it was alledged that the Postea was amended in the Common Pleas aftâ—r the Record removed it was holden to be well done there for although the Record were removed by the Writ of Error yet the Nisi prius the Postea and the like remain still there as it is of the Warrant of Attorney and the like And if the Postea had not been amended there but sent up with that which was endorsed upon the Pannel all shal be amended here according to that which was indorsed upon the Pannel and according to this there was a Presidâ—nt shewn Tr. 35. H. 8. between Whitfeild and Wright where the Issue was whether a quantity of Grain were delivered between two Feasts and endorsed upon the Pannel Dicunt pro quaer and yet the Postea certified and the Rolls also made that the delivery was made ad festa and upon this matter alledged in Banco Regis and the Error in this point assigned and certified out of the Common Pleas the Record removed by the Writ of Error was by award of the Court amended and the word Ad razed out and the word Inter written in lieu of it according as it appeareth it ought to have been by the Note upon the back of the Pannel And the like amendment was made lately in the Checquer Chamber upon Error brought there upon a Iudgment given in Banco Regis where the Iudorsment upon the back of the Writ was pro Quer. and the Postea and Roll was that the Plaintiff was guilty and there amended the last Term. Slanings Case 2. NIcholas Slaning of Bickley was seised in his Demesn as of Fee of the Mannor of Bickley and of a Mill in Walkhampton in the County of Devon called a blowing Mill and of another Mill there called a knocking Mill and of an acre of Land there also and of divers other Mannors and Lands in the said County of Devon the said Mills and acres of Land in Walkhampton then being in the possession of one Peterfeild and Atwill of an Estate for divers years then to come and being so seised he with Margaret his Wife levied a Fine of the said Mannor of Bickley and of other Lands omitting the said Lands in Walkhampton to certain Câ—nuzees who rendred the same back again to the said Margaret Slaning for her life with the remainder over to the said Nicholas and his Heirs After which the said Nicholas by Indenture daied 30. Octob. 21 Eliz. gave and enfeoffed all the said Mannors and Premisses to John Fits and others and the Heirs of the said Fits to the Vses Provisoes and Limitations mentioned in the said Indenture which was to the use of himself and the Heirs Males of his body by any other Wife the remainder to Nicholas Slaning of Newton Ferries and the Heirs Males of his body with divers remainders over with this Proviso to wit Provided and it is the intent of these presents and of the parties therunto that the said John Slaning and the Heirs Males of his body or the said Nicholas Slaning of Newton-ferries and the Heirs Males of his body in whomsoever of them the Inheritance in tail of all the Premisses shall happen to be by force of these presents shall pay to Agnes the Daughter of the said Nicholas Slaning of Bickly 200 l. or so much therof as shall be unpaid at the time of the death of her said Father according to the intent of his last Will with a Letter of Attorney to it by which he ordains John Hart and Robert Fort joyntly and severally his Attorney to enter into the said Mannor of Bickley Walkhampton c. and all other the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in the said Indenture mentioned and possession for him to take and after such possossion taken for him and in his name to deliver full possession and seisin of the Premisses to the said John Fits c. according to the form and effect of the said Indenture wherupon possession and seisin was given of all but that which was in possession of the said Peterfield and Atwill And the said Pererfield and Atwill nor either of them never attorned to the said Grant After which Nicholas Slaning of Bickly made his last Will by which devised to the said Agnes his Daughter 200 l. to be paid in form following
it shall not be taken by intendment that the Messuages had such a Curtilage to it if it be not specially named Fennors Case 5. IN Trespasse brought by Fennor in the common Bench against for breaking his Close in c. the Defendant pleads a Bar at large to make the Plaintiff assign the place in certain where he supposeth the Trespasse to be done the Plaintiff therupon alledgeth that the place where he complaineth is such c. and sheweth in certain another then that in which the Defendant justifies the Defendant avers that the one and the other are all one and known by the one name and the other and therupon the Plaintiff demurs and adjudged there for the Plaintiff because that in such a case upon such a speciall assignment it shall be taken meerly another then that in which the Defendant justifies in as much as the Plaintiff in such a case cannot maintain it upon his evidence given if the Defendant had pleaded not guilty to this new Assignment that the Trespasse was done in the place in which the Defendant justifies although it be known by the one and the other name and that the Plaintiff hath good Title to it because that by his speciall Assignment saying that it is another then that in which the Defendant justifies he shall never after say that it is the same in this Plea for it is meer contrary to his speciall Assignment And upon this a Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench and the Iudgment was there affirmed this Term for the same reason Quod nota Scot versus Sir Anthony Mainy 6. IN Debt upon an Obligation of 200 l. brought by John Scot Gent. against Sir Anthony Mainy Knight the Condition wherof being to perform the Covenant comprised in an Indenture of Demise made by the said Sir Anthony to the said Plaintiff of his Capitall Messuage in Holden with the Lands to it belonging c. amongst which Covenants one was that wheras by the same Indenture he had demised it to him for 21. years that the said Sir Anthony covenanted with the said John Scot that the said Sir Anthony from time to time during the life of the said Sir Anthony upon the surrender of this Demise or any other Demise hereafter to be made by the said Sir Anthony of the said Messuages and Lands and to be made by the said John Scot his Executors or Administrators and upon a new Lease to be made ready ingrossed to be sealed and offered by the said John Scot his Executors or Administrators to the said Sir Anthony for the like tearm and number of years in the aforesaid Indenture comprised for the same Rent c. to seal and deliver to the said John Scot his Executors and Administrators And the said Sir Anthony as to this Covenant pleaded did not surrender nor offer to surrender to him the said Demise nor offer to him any new Demise of the Premisses ready engrossed for to seal it for the like Term c. as it is in this Covenant And for the other Covenants he pleads performance of all To which the Plaintiff replies that the said Sir Anthony after the Obligation and before the Action brought had rendred the said Messuages and Lands by Fine to one Walter Savage and William Sheldon their Executors and Assigns for eighty years from the Feast of Easter next before the Fine which was Pasch 36 Eliz. wherby he said that the said Sir Anthony had disabled himself to renew his Lease according to the Covenant upon which it was demurred in the Commen Bench and the Iudgment given for the Plaintiff as appeareth Trin. 37. Eliz. Rot. 2573. And upon this Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench and agreed this Term. And it was moved that the Iudgment given was erroneous in as much as the first act was to be done by John Scot before the new Lease was to be made to wit the surrender of the former Lease and the drawing of the new one ought to have been done by the Plaintiff which not being done on his part the said Sir Anthony is not bound to make the new Lease And also it was moved that as the case is here the said John Scot might surrender to the Defendant notwithstanding the intervening of this Lease between the Lease of the Plaintiff and the Inheritance of the Defendant as if a man make a Lease for years in possession and afterwards make another Lease to a stranger to begin after the end of the former Lease this shall not hinder but that the first Lease may be surrendred to him who was the Lessor notwithstanding the said Term intervening To which it was answered by the Court that the Plaintiff here need not to make any offer of the surrender of his Term to the said Sir Anthony in as much as the said Sir Anthony hath disabled himself to take the Surrender or to take the Lease according to the purport of the Condition and by this disabling of himself the Obligation is forfeited Come per 44 E. 3. 8. and by Littleton also If a man make a Feoffment upon condition to re-enfeoff him this is not to be done untill request therof be made by the Feoffor yet if in the mean time the Feoffee suffer a fained recovery of the Land grant a Rent charge acknowledgeth a Statute taketh a Wife or the like the Feoffor may re-enter without request made to re-enfeoff him and the reason is because that by any of these the Feoffee hath disabled himself to perform the Condition in the same plight as he might have done at the time of the Feoffment in the same manner here for by this render by the Fine the Reversion passe in right so that the Termor in possession attorning to it they shall have the Rent reserved upon the first Lease and therfore the Plaintiff cannot now surrender to the said Sir Anthony but to the Grantees of the Reversion and therfore there shall be no prejudice to the Plaintiff because the Defendant was the cause of disabling the Plaintiff to make the Surrender to him And suppose it be but a Term to begin at a day to come yet by this the Obligation is forfeited because the Obligor hath therby disabled himself to perform the Condition in such a plight as he might have done it when the Obligation was made wherby the Obligation is presently forfeited albeit the Plaintiff never surrender nor offer to do it And therfore the Iudgment there was affirmed Mounson versus West 7. IN an Assise brought in the County of Lincoln before Gawdy and Owen by Thomas Mounson Esquire Demandant against Robert West Tenant for Lands in Sturton Juxta Stu. The Defendant West pleaded Nul Tenant del Frank-tenant named in the Writ and if that be not found then Nul tort nul Disseisin And the Assise found that the said Defendant was Tenant of the Tenements now in Plaint and put in view to the Recognitors of
guided according to that which may be collected to be the purpose and intent of the parties And therefore if a man make an Estate of his Land without limitation of any Vse or confidence the Law shall say that it is to his own use but if it be upon confidence then it shall be to the Vse of the party to whom it is made or according to the confidence which shâ—ll be absolute or according to that which is limitted which may alter that which otherwise shall be taken upon the generall confidence as 30 H. 6. Fitz. Devise If a man devise Lands to another in Fee he hath the use and Title of it but if it be limitted to his use for his life only the use of the Fee shall be to the Heir of the Devisor for by the limitation his intent shall be taken to be otherwise then it should be taken if this limitation had not been and in as much as in this case the Earl reserves to himself but the use for years it is evident that his intent never was to have the Fee to surrender this Term which perhaps he intended to be for the benefit of his will which shall be defeated contrary to his purpose if the Fee shall be also in him by the death of the sayd Iohn without Issue Male and therefore the sayd Daughters ought to have the Land And on the other part it was argued by Glanvil Serjeant and Egerton the Attorney Generall that this limitation made to the right Heirs is void in the same manner as if a man give Lands to another for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor in this case the Heir shall take by descent as a Reversion remaining to the Feoffor and not as a Remainder devested out of him for the ancient right priviledge the Estate which he may take and therfore he shall take it by descent and not by purchase for the name of right Heir is not a name of purchase betwixt the Ancestor and his heir because that doth instance that he happeneth to be heir he takes it by descent and then it comes too late to take by purchase And another reason that the Daughters shall not have it is because that when Sir Iohn Russell dies without Issue Male which Estate might have preserved the Remainder if it shall be a Remainder there was not any right heir of the sayd Francis Earl of Bedford to take this Remainder because that the sayd Earl survived him And therefore it is to bee resembled to this Case Land is given in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of I. G. the Donee dyes without Issue in the life of I. G. in this case albeit I. G. dyes afterwards having an heir yet this heir shall never have the Loud because he was not heir in Esse to take it when the Remainder fell and for the mean Estate for years this cannot preserve a Remainder no more then when Land is given for years the Remainder to the right heirs of I. G. this Remainder can never be good if I. G. be then living because such a Remainder cannot depend but upon a Free-hold precedent at least and therefore the Inheritance here shall go to the now Earl of Bedford by the second assurance And upon consideration of the Case and severall Confirmes had upon this amongst the Iudges and Barens it was at last resolved by all but Baron Clarke that the Daughters shall not have the Mannors in the County of Doâ—set but the now Earl of Bedford and principally upon this reason because there was nor right Heir to take as Purchasor where the mean Estate Taile was determined which was by the Lord Iohn without Issue Male for they agreed that the Remainder to the right Heirs if it be a Remainder cannot be preserved by the mean Estate for years for it ought to be a Free-hold at least which ought to preserve such a Remainder untill there be one to take it by name of Purchasor as right Heir And at this day they did not think there was any diversity between the Case of a Remainder in Possession limitted to the right heir of one and of a Remainder in use so limited over to another Mich. 34. and 35. Eliz In the Kings Bench. 3. IN Ejectione firmae upon speciall verdict the case was thus A man possessed of a Term of years in right of his wife made a Lease for years of the same Land to begin after his death which was the Lessor and afterwards he dyed and his wife survived him and the question was whether the wife shall have the Land after the death of the husband or the Lessee for if the husband had devised the same Land to an estranger yet the Wife shall have it and not the Devisee as it happened in the Case of Matthew Smith who made first such a Devise of a Term of his Wife and yet the Wife had it because that by the death of the husband before which the Devise did not take effect the wife had it in her first Right not altered in the life of her Husband but it was agreed in this case by all the Court that the Lessee shall have it during his Term for as the husband during his life might contract for the Land for the whole term which the wife had in it so might he do for any part of the term at his pleasure for if he may devise the Land for one and twenty years to begin presently he also may make it to begin at any time to come after his Death if the term of the Wife be not expired but for the Remainder of the term of the husband made no disposition during his life the Wife shall have it which by Popham this Case happened upon a specialll Verdict in the County of Somerset about 20 Eli. Where he and Sergeant Baber were Practisers in the Circuit there to wit the Lands were demised to husband and wife for their lives the Remainder to the Survivor of them for years the Husband granted over this term of years and dyed and the question was whether the Wife shall have the term of years or the Grantee and adjudged that the Wife shall have it and it was upon this reason because there was nothing in the one or the other to grant over untill there was a Survivor And the same Law had been if the Wife bad dyed after the Grant and the Husband had survived yet he shall have the term against his own Grant as if a Lease were made for Life the Remainder for years to him which first cometh to Pauls if A. grant this Term for years to another and afterwards A. is the first which commeth to Pauls yet the Grantee shall not have this Term because it was not in A. by any means neither in Interest nor otherwise untill he came to Pauls As if a man make a Lease for life the Remainder to the Right heirs of J. S. J. S. hath
himself in the sayd Will had declared or otherwise as by his Executors or the Survivor of them shall be prescribed And if the sayd Sir Edward and his Heirs shall make default in the assurance of the sayd Land by him to be assured as aforesayd then hee will that immediatly upon such default his Estate and the Estate of the sayd Frances shall cease in the sayd Lands in Croxton c. and then he devise the same Lands to his Executors and their Heirs for ever to the use of them and their heirs upon trust and confidence that they or the Survivor of them and their Heirs shall assure the same or otherwise yearly dispose the profits of them in finding the sayd Preacher and other charitable works as aforesayd and made Edward Peacock Father to the Lessor whose Heir the Lessor is and others his Executors and dyed 9. of the Queen after whose Death all the Executors refuse to be Executors The seven years passe without the establishing of the School and other things according to the Will for the first part of it whereby the Land in Thetford was forfeited to the heir for the Condition broken and within the ten years Sir Edward Cleer made a Feoffment of Land to the value of 35. l. a year to the surviving Executor for the use of the School but with acondition contrary to the Will and no Livery waâ— made upon the sayd Feoffment but it was inrolled of Record in the Chancery whereby the sayd Sir Edward had broken the Condition annexed to his Estate and also during all this time neither the Executors nor their Heirs had done any thing in finding the Preacher or the other works of charity with the profits of the sayd Lands in Croxton or in assuring of it according to the Will and yet the sayd Edward Peacock the Son in September 32. Eliz. being Heir to the surviving Executor entred into the Land in Croxton and demised it to the Plaintiff for seven years upon which the Defendant as Servant and by the commandement of Sir Edward Cleer and of Edmund the Son and Heir of the sayd Frances who was then dead entred upon which entry and Efectment the Action was brought and it was mooved by Godfrey and others that the entry of the Defendants was lawfull first in the right of the sayd Sir Edward because that his Estate by the Statute of 23. H. 8. cap. was without condition or determined because that by this Statute all the uses limited in such a manner are made void because they are in the nature of a Mortmain as may appear by a Proviso at the end of the same Statute for a certain person of Norwich who had Devised Lands for the case of the poor Inhabitants of the same Citty in Taxes and Tallages and for cleansing of streets there and for discharge of toll and Custome within the City all which were good uses and not tending to Superstition and yet if it had not been for the Proviso they had been gon by the body of the Statute And the Statute ordained also that every penalty and thing which shall be devised to defraud this Statute shall be void and if this do not help them yet the Entry made in the right of the sayd Heir of Sir Richard Fulmerston is good for the estates of the sayd Executors are also bound as with a tacite condition that these things shall be performed which are not done and therefore the entry in right of the heir is lawfull for the words Ad propositum ea intentione and the like in a Will are good Conditions which Gaudey agreed vouched the case 28. Sess Pl. but it was after often argument agreed by all the Court that the first exception was to no purpose for they conceived that this Statute was to be taken to extend only to the uses which tend to Superstition as might be collected as well by the words of it in the very body of the Act at the beginning as by the time in which it was made for at this time they began to have respect to the ruine of the authority of the Pope and to the dissolution of the Abbies Chantries and the like And by Popham the Proviso was put in the Statute but for satisfaction of the Burgesses of the same City at this time and not for any necessity as oftentimes it happens And for the other point he sayd that it appeareth fully by the Will that it was not the intent of the sayd Sir Richard to have the Land in Croxton bound with any condition in the possession of his Executors or with any other matter which determine their Estate for the Words that they shall have it upon trust and confidence exclude all constraint which is in every condition and the Will is that they shall have it to the use of themselves and their Heirs for ever which câ—nnot be if it shall be abridged by any Limitation or Determination And he sayd that the Lord Anderson demanded of him a Case which was adiudged in the Common Pleas 29. Eliz. Rot. 639. which was thus One Michel made a Lease for years rendring Rent and for default of payment a re-entry with Covenants on the part of the Lessee to repair the Messuages c. and the term continuing the sayd Michel by his Will in Writing devised the same Land to the sayd Lessee for more years then hee had to come in it rendring yearly the like Rent and under the same Covenants which he now holds it and dyed and afterwards the first term expired the Lessee does not repaire the Houses and the question was whether by this he hath forfeited his term and adjudged that as to this it was not any condition and a Covenant it could not be for a Covenant ought alwaies to come on the part of the Lessee himself which cannot be this case for he doth not speak any thing in the Will to bind him but they are all the words of the Devisor himself which comprised in a Will and it never was his intent to have it to be a condition and therefore void as to the Lessee to bind him either by way of Covenant or Condition so here c. And for the sayd Feoffment enrolled without Livery it was agreed by all that it was not of any force to make the Land to passe to the Executors but the enrolment conclude him to say not his Deed And also that the Executors refuse to be Executors this shall not hinder them to take by Devise as to the Inheritance whereupon it was adjudged that the Plaintiff shall recover as appears Thomson Versus Trafford Hillary Term 35 of Queen Eâ—izabeth IN an Ejectione firmae between John Thomson Plaintiff and Thomaâ— Trafford Defendant the case was thus The President and Schollers of Magdelen Colledge in Oxford 20 Decemb. 8. Eliz Did let a Messuage uâ— the Burrough of Southwark to which no Land appertained to William Staâ—dish for twenty years from the Feast of
question and his sayd wife entred into them for her life by virtue of the sayd Will in whose life time the sayd George dyed without Issue after which the sayd Thomas also to wit 9 Dec. 1576. made his Testament in writing and of this made Mary his wife his Executrix and dyed having Issue Martha by the sâ—yd Mary Afterwards the sayd Alice the wife of the Dâ—visor tâ—e lâ—st of March. â—2 Eliz. dyed and after her death to wit the first of May 32 Eliz. the sayd William entred into the sayd Tenements and was therof seised in his Demesne as of Fee-tail and the sayd Mary in the life-time of the sayd Alice proved the Testament of the sayd Thomas Brown and the sayd William did not pay the sayd 26 l 13 s. 4 d. to the sayd Mary nor any part therof according to the Will and the sayd Martha being Daughter and Heir of the said Thomas therupon entred into the sayd Tenements and did let the sayd Moyety of which the sayd Action was brought to the sayd Ward for two years upon which the sayd Downing in the right and by the commandment of the sayd William re-entred and expelled the sayd Plaintiff buâ— the conclusion of the Verdict was not upon the expulsion but only if the entry of the sayd Downing shall be adjudged lawfull then they find the Defendant not guilty and if it were not lawfull then they find him guilty Fennor the Estate of the sayd William is conditional by the Will to wit that he shall pay to Thomas the 40 Marks according to the Will because the Will is that the sayd money shall be payd as is aforesaid or before the sayd moneys which were to be payd was expresly limitted to be payd upon the forfeiture of his Estate And further if it shall not be taken for a Condition then Thomas hath no remedy for the money to be payd to him and although it be limitted to be payd but to Thomas who was dead before the day of payment of it yet it shall be taken as a duty limited to him which shall be paid to his Executors because that a time certain is limited for the payment of it to wit when the Land is come to the sayd William which is by the death of the sayd Alice but if no time had been limitted for the payment of it and they had died before the payment of it it had been otherwise And it being a condition in William albeit it descend upon him as well upon him as upon the Heir of the sayd Thomas yet it remains a good Condition for the part of the Heir of the sayd Thomas not determined by the descent of the other part upon the Heir of the sayd William And further he sayd that here the Condition shall not be sayd to be broken but upon refusall of payment by the sayd William as in the case of George to whom it refers by the words as is aforesaid which refusall is not found and therfore the Plaintiff shall be barred Clench The Executors of the said Thomas know not when nor at what place to demand it and therfore he thinks that the said William ought to have tendred the money to the said Executrix at his perill Popham The payment limited to be made by the said George is at his first entry after the death of Alice and then to pay 40 s. and so yearly untill 40 Marks are paid to the sayd William and therupon 40 s. yearly to the sayd Thomas untill other twenty Marks are paid to him so that this is the form of the payment to wit at his entry as well for the place as the time for it cannot be made at his entry unless upon the Land it self and therfore by the purport of the Wil the Land shall be taken for the place where the payment ought to be made for avoiding the inconvenience which otherwise will ensue As if I am bound to pay to you 20 l. upon your first coming to such a place this place shall be taken for the place where the payment shall be made And wheras it is said further in the Will and so to pay yearly 40 s. untill the twenty Marks are paid to William this payment also by the words and so to pay yearly c. shall be at the same place at the end of every year upon the next day after the end of it or otherwise there will be no certainty when it shall be paid and therfore the first day of every year shall be the very day of payment and this also by virtue of the said words and so yearly And at the last day of payment by George to William or Thomas there ought to be paid but 26 s. 8 d. because that then there remains no more to be paid of the summs limited to be paid to them And when the Will here hath finished with George for that which he is to pay it goes further and if he refuseth to pay the said summs to William and Thomas in manner and form aforesaid then he wils that all the said Lands shall remain to the said William and his Heirs for ever paying yearly c. and so there is an express penalty to George if he refuse to make payment to wit that he shall loose the Land for default of payment made by George by the word paying annexed to the Estate which is a Condition but he conceived that this last payment to be made to Thomas is not to be made upon any penalty nor that a Condition is to be implyed in it although Thomas hath no remedy for it but in conscience because it is a meer confidence put in William to pay it And he said that he was the rather moved to be of this opinion because every one of the precedent Limitations was with an expresse Condition annexed to them as to George if he refuse c. But when William is to have but an Estate-tail upon the determination of the Estate made to George for default of Issue there he saith nothing but that the said William shall pay to the said Thomas fortie Marks as is aforesaid which is but a declaration of his intent that he put confidence in him for the payment of it and did not bind himself upon condition as in the other cases which he might have done by expresse words of condition if his intent had been so as well as he did in the other cases if his purpose had been so and the words that he shall pay as is aforesaid is to be understood for the place and time when it shall be paid according as George ought to pay it And it doth not seem to stand with reason to expound it for a Condition to destroy the Remainder limited to the said Thomas but if it shall be a Condition upon a relation because of the words that he shall pay it as aforesaid mentioned that the payment ought to be paid to the Executor of the said Thomas
albeit he died before the day of payment because this was a summ in grosse limited to be paid to the said Thomas at a certain time But if it shall be taken for a Condition in William he thinks cleerly that the said William ought to have given notice to the Executrix of the said Thomas before he had made his first entry into the Land of the Ten. when he intended to make his entry so that the Executrix might be there at the same time to have made demand of the money which ought to have been done or otherwise there cannot be a refusall in the said William and without his refusall or other default in him the Condition cannot be broken if it had such a relation as to make the payment as George ought to do it And so the Executor of Thomas cannot have notice when William will make his first entry into the Land if he do not give him notice of it and therfore if it shall be a Condition it had been broken on the part of William for want of giving notice to the Executor of the time of his first entry wherby the Executor might have notice of the time to make his demand because without a demand refusall cannot be and the Executor is excused to make demand when he had no notice of the time and therfore the default of William in not giving notice of it shall be taken against him as strongly as if he had made a refusall to pay upon demand for if notice had been given to the Executor and he had demanded the money and William had said nothing to it but omitted to pay it yet this shall be a refusall in Law But of this nothing appeareth in the Verdict whether the Executor had notice given to him or not nor nothing mentioned in the Verdict whether any demand or refusall was made of the money or not and therfore the Verdict as to these points is incertain to judge upon whether it shall be taken to be a Condition in William But it seems as the Verdict is that Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff for the conclusion of the Verdict is upon the entry of the Defendant whether this be lawfull or not and not upon the expulsion or whether upon the other Moyetie his entry was lawfull in right of the said William because they were Tenants in Common 3. IN Trespasse of Assault Battery and Imprisonment made such a day at in the Countie of Cornwall brought by against The Defendant saith that he was Constable of the same Town and that the Plaintiff the said day year and place brought an Infant not above the age of ten daies in his armes and left him upon the ground to the great disturuance of the people there being and that he commanded the Plaintiff to take up the said Infant and to carry it from them with him which the Plaintiff refused to do for which cause he quietly laid his hands upon the Plaintiff and committed him to the Stocks in the same Town where he continued for such a time untill he agreed to take up the Infant again which is the same Assault Battery and Imprisonment of which the Plaintiff complains upon which the Plaintiff demurred Fennor was of opinion that that which the Constable did was lawfull and that it is hard that an Officer shall be so drawn in question for it for this shall be an utter discouragement to good Officers to execute their Offices as they ought to do Popham A Constable is one of the most ancient Officers in the Realm for the conservation of the Peace and by his Office he is a Conservator of the Peace and if he sees any breaking of the Peace he may take and imprisen him untill he find surety by obligation to keep the Peace And if a man in fury be purposed to kill maime or beat another the Constable seeing it may arrest and imprison him untill his rage be passed for the conservation of the Peace And if a man layes an Infant which cannot help it self upon a Dunghill or openly in the field so that the Beasts or Fouls may destroy it the Constable seeing it may commit the party so doing to Prison for what greater breach of the Peace can there be then to put such an Infant by such means in danger of its life And what diversity is there between this case and the case in question for no body was bound by the Law to take up the Infant but he which brought it thither and by such means the Infant might perish the default therof was in the Plaintiff and therfore the Action will not lye And therupon it was agreed that the Plaintiff take nothing by his Writ Hayes versus Allen. 4. TErm Pasch 33 Eliz. Rot. 1308. A Cui in vita was brought in the Common Pleas by Ralph Hayes against William Allen of a Messuage with the Appurtenances in St. Dunstans in the East London in which it was supposed that the said Wil. had no entry but after the demise which John Bradley late husband to Anne Bradley Aunt of the said Ralph whose heir the said Ral was made to Tho. Allen and Jo. Allen and counts accordingly shews how Cosin and Heir to wit Son of Wil. brother of the said Anne Wil. Allen traverse the Demise made to the said Tho. and Jo. Allen and at Nisi prius it was found that the said Jo. Bradley and Anne his wife was seised in their demesn as of fee in right of the said Ann of a Messuage in S. Dunstans aforesaid containing from the North to the South 18 foot and from East to West 12 foot and a half and being so seised during their Marriage by their Deed sealed with their Seals enfeoffed the said Tho. Allen and Jo. Allen therof to hold to them and their heirs to the use of the said Jo. Bradley and Anne his wife for their lives and afterwards to the use of the Church-wardens of S. Dunstans Lond. and of their successors for ever to the use of the poor of the same place and that Livery was made accordingly and that the said Deed was inrolled in the Chancery at Westm and that afterwards the said Anne died and that Jo. Bradley survived her died and that the right of the said Mess descended to the said Ra. as cosin and heir of the said A. And that Sir W. Allen K. was seised of a peece of land in S. Dunst aforesaid containing 6 foot 4 inches contigious and adjacent to the said Mess late the said Jo. Bradleys and A. his wife in his demesn as of fee And that the said Sir Wil. after the said feoffment and before this Writ purchased utterly drew away the said Messuage late the said John Bradleys and Ann his wife and drected a new house upon the Land of the said Sir William and upon part of the Land upon which the other house stood containing from the North to the South thirteen foot from the East
to the West eighteen foot ten inches which Messuage so newly built stood the day of the Writ purchased and yet stands c. And if upon the whole matter the said Demise of the said John Bradley and Anne be and in Law ought to be adjudged the Demise of the said Messuage newly built upon the said part of land where the Messuage of the said John Bradley and Anne stood then the Iury find that the said John Bradley demised to the said Thomas and Iohn Allen the said house newly erected as aforesaid as the Plaintiff hath alledged and if not then they find that he did not demise And upon this Verdict Iudgment was given there and an especiall Writ of Habere facias seisinam awarded of the said Messuage with the Appurtenances viz. 18 foot of it from the North to the South and 12 foot and an half of it from the East to the West upon which a Writ of Error being brought in the Kings Bench it was alledged for Eror by Coke Sollicitor that upon this Verdict Iudgment ought to have been given for the Tenant and not for the Demandant for what was remaining of that which was of the house is not a house but only a peece of a house and therfore it ought to have been demanded by the name of a peece of Land containing so much one way and so much another for a house wasted and utterly drawn away cannot be demanded by a Messuage but by the name of a Curtilage or so much Land of such contents for a Praecipe lies of a peece of Land containing so many feet in length and so many in breadth And also Land built during the possession of him which hath it by Tort cannot be demanded by the name of Land by him which hath right but by the name of a house nor e contra for every demand of Land ought to be made according to the nature of which it is at the time of the Action brought be it a Messuage Land Meadow Pasture Wood c. And if the Walls of a house be made upon the Land without any covering yet it shall be demanded but by the name of Land for he said that it cannot be a house without its perfection to be habitable which he said is not here because it stands upon the Land of the said Anne which hath not the perfection of a house habitable without the remnant But this notwithstanding the first Iudgment was affirmed for it was said by Popham and other Iustices that that which is erected upon the Land of the said Anne shal be said a house as to the right of the Heir of the said Anne for a house may be such to be demanded by the name of a house albeit it hath not all the perfection of a house as if it hath no doors so if it hath part of the side wals not made drawn away or fallen yet the remainder continues to be demanded by the name of an house so if part of the covering be decayed yet it shall be demanded by the name of an house and the rather here because with that which is upon the other Land it is a perfect house And I may have a perfect house although the side Walls belong to another as in London where a man joynes his house to the side walls of his Neighbours he hath a perfect house and yet the side walls belong to another and this commonly happens in London but it is otherwise if it were never covered or if the covering be utterly fallen or drawn away for without a covering a house cannot be said to be a house for the covering to keep a man from the Storms and Tempests over head is the principall thing belonging to a house And further suppose that a man hath a Kitchin or a Hall upon Land to which another hath right he which hath right ought to demand it by the name of a house suppose then that there is adjoyning to this upon other land a Parlor a Buttery a Shop a Closet and the like with Chambers over them this doth not change the form of the Writ that he is to have which hath right although before it was built by the name of a house and yet as to the rent both the one and the other was but a house but as to the demandant it is otherwise for they are severall so here And the Demise which before was made of the house drawn away shall be now upon the matter a Demise as to this part of it a new Messuage for if a man make a Lease for years of a house and the Tetmor pull it down and erect there a new house or if land be demised and the Lessee build a house upon it in an Action of Wast for Wast done in this new house the Writ shall suppose that he did wast in the Houses c. which were demised to him and yet in the one case it is not the Messuage which was demised to him and in the other the house was not demised but the Land only But he hath no term in the house but by the Demise before made And it seems to Popham that Allen the Defendant cannot pull down this part of the house erect upon his own land to the prejudice of the house which Hayes demands if this which is erected upon the land of Allen be of such a necessity that without it the house of Hayes cannot stand for a house but if he dies after that Hayes hath built it then Hayes shall have an Action upon the case against him for the damages which he sustained by it As if a man agree with me that I shall set the outer wall of my house upon his land and I do it accordingly and afterwards the party which grants me this licence breaketh it down if the Grant were by Deed I shall have an Action of Covenant for it and if but by Paroll yet I shall have an Action upon the case against him And here this being done by him which was then Owner and Possessor of the one and the other land it shall be taken as a licence in Law to the benefit of him which hath right which he cannot pull down after it is once made but he shall be subject to Hayes his Action for it or otherwise Hayes shall be at great mischief and prejudice by the Act of him which did the wrong which the Law will not suffer but rather shall turn this to the prejudice of him which did the wrong then to the prejudice of the other which shall have wrong by the doing of it for Volenti non fit injuria As if I am to inclose between my Neighbour and my self and my Neighbour pull down this inclosure or part of it wherby my Cattell escape into the land adjoyning and depasture there I shall be excused of this Trespasse in the same manner as if he had licenced me to have occupied it and whatsoever hapneth to this Land adjoyning
years are past but in this case it ought to be shewn a Term within the two years which is as much as to say that if the Terms be all past so as it cannot be done after it within the two years the Assurance eo instanti upon the finishing of the last Term is become void as if an Assurance be upon condition that if in the Term time within two years he do not levy a Fine to I. S. and his Heirs c. now if the last Term passe without the Fine the Vse change albeit the two years be not expired si Parolls fort Plea And there is great diversity where an Estate is to be defeated or an Vse is to be raised upon an Act to be done or not done within a time certain within two years and where within two years generally for in the first case the Vse change upon the Act done or not done immediatly and in the other not untill the two years are finished because that by presumption alwaies within two years the Act may be done for any thing of which the Law takes conusance But if the Act to be done or not done refer to any time certain within the two years as if he do not pay 10 l. to one before the Feast of S. Michael the Arch-angel within the two years that then the Vse shall change or the Estate shall be void in these cases immediatly upon the last Feast of S. Michael the Arch-angel within the two years the Vse change or the Estate shall be void as the case is and shall not tarry untill the full end of the two years to do it for in the words themselves the diversity appeareth 8. AT the same time there was another Indenture shewn to the said Iudges bearing date the 4. day of May 1 Eliz. made between the said Sir Francis Englefiâ—ld of the one part And Sir Edward Fitton and Sir Ralph Egerton Knights of the other part and inrolled in the Exchequer according to the Statute of the 30. day of October 30 Eliz by which the said Francis for him and his Heirs covenanted with them that as well in consideration of a Marriage had and solemnised between John Englefield brother of the said Sir Francis and Margaret Fitton Sister to the said Sir Edward and for the augmentation and interest of the Ioynture of the said Margaret as for other good causes and reasonable considerations the said Sir Francis especially moving the said Sir Francis before the Feast of S. John Baptist then next ensuing would assure Lands within the County of Warwick of the value of 60 l. a year to the said Sir Edward and Sir Ralph and their Heirs to the use of the said Margaret for her life and for her Ioynture for part of it and for the remainder that it shall also be to the use of the said Margaret for her life in case that the Lady Anne then the wife of the said Sir Francis should recover her Dower of the said 60 l. a year And the said Sir Francis for him and his Heirs did further covenant with the said Sir Edward and Sir Ralph that if it should happen that the said Sir Francis shall die without Issue Male of his body the said Iohn or any Issue of his body upon the body of the said Margaret begotten then living that then after the death of the said Sir Francis as well the Mannor of Englefield as all his other Lands making especiall mention of them should be and might descend remain revert continue or be in possession or rebersion to the said Iohn Englefield and to the Heirs Males of his body upon the body of the said Margaret lawfully begotten if the sayd Iohn were then living or to the Heirs Males of the body of the sayd Iohn upon the body of the sayd Margaret lawfully begotten without any Act or Acts Thing or Things made or to be made by the sayd Sir Francis to the contrary therof And upon this it was moved that there was a variance between this Deed now shewn and this Inrolement and that therfore it doth not appeare whether this Deed was shewn in the Court or delivered there according to the Statute therof made 28 Eliz. for in the Deed it is for other good causes and this word good is not comprised within the Inrolement But as to it all the Iudges and Barons agreed that albeit these defeats hapned by the negligence of the Clerk in writing and examining this Inrollement remaines good in as much as the omissions are in matters and words which are of abundance and not in that which is any substance of the Deed. But the Lords of Parliament which were Committees of this case in the Parliament sent for the Record of the sayd Inrolement and would have had this to have been amended in the Chamber next to the Parliament but as the Officer was in doing of it the Iudges advised that it should not be done as well because this was not the place where it ought to be amended but the Court of Exchequer if it were or needed to be amended And also because that the two years after the Session of Parliament of 28 Eliz. was then past Then it was moved whether by the Covenant and considerations aforesaid the use shall passe or were raised to John Englefield or now to his Son Francis Nephew to the said Sir Francis and begotten upon the body of the sayd Margaret And all agreed that it is not for divers reasons 1. Because it is that if it happen that Sir Francis die without Issue Male that then it shall be to John as before if he be then living or to the Heirs Males of his body as before which is in the disjunctive to wit that it shall remain to John or to his Heirs Male of his body which cannot raise any use but found only in Covenant for the incertainty and also it is upon a future contingent to wit if the said John be then living 2. Because the Covenant is that it shall come or descend c. in the disjunctive and if he had covenanted that it shall descend to Iohn after his death without Issue Male it had been cleer that no use had been raised by it for it shall be but a meer Covenant to wit that he shall leave it to descend to him and here it being in the disjunctive it cannot be any other then a bare Covenant to wit that he shall suffer it to descend or otherwise by conveyance to come to John after his death without Issue Male the one or the other at his pleasure And yet further that it shall descend come or remain to John in possession or reversion so that he may make the one or the other void at his pleasure which cannot be if an Vse shall be raised by it and therfore also it enures but as a bare Covenant which he may perform either the one or the other way at his pleasure Also it is that it
shall so descend or come to John without any act or thing done or to be done by him to the contrary wherby also it fully appeareth that the assurance of the said John shall stand for all this Land upon the Covenant and not upon any use which was to be altered or changed by it But if an Vse may change by the Mannor upon the consideration yet it shall not change to the said John or his Issues untill the death of the said Sir Francis without Issue Male because that untill that happen if the said John had been living he had not had any Vse because it is that he shall have the Land then if he be then living and if it shall not be in him untill this time it shall not be in his Son untill Sir Francis be dead without Issue for it is if the said John or any Issue Male of his body c. be then living then it shall descend come or remain c. so that it doth not come to them untill it may appear whether the said John or any Issue Male of his body upon the body of the said Margaret be in rerum natura when Sir Francis shall be dead without Issue Male and therfore it yet remains upon a contingent whether the use shall be to the Heirs Males of the body of the said John if it shall be said that it is an Vse and therfore in the mean time the entire Fee-simple remains in Sir Francis not yet changed but for the Estate tail it self in himself if any change shall be as appeareth before that it shall not be and therfore by the attainder of the said Sir Francis the whole Fee-simple is now all forfeited to the Queen before that the use may be to the Heirs Males of the body of the said John And the Queen shall not come to this Land in any privity by the said Sir Francis but in the Post by the Escheat and therfore the possession of the Queen now or of her Patentee shall never be changed with this Vse which shall never be carried out of any other possession but such which remaineth in privity untill the use is to come in Esse no more now then as it might at common Law before the Statute of Vses 27 H. 8. And this as to the future Vse was the opinion of Popham and some other of the Iustices And nota 21 H. 7. plito 30. If a man covenant in consideration of the Marriage of his Son that immediatly after his death his Land shall evert remain or descend to his Son to him and the Heirs of his body or to him and his Heirs for ever that this is but a bare Covenant and doth not change any Vse And what diversity then is there in the case of Sir Francis Englefield who covenants that it shall descend or remain in possession or revert And as it seems the great difficulty which was in the case of Sir Robert Constable which was put by Gerard Attorney-generall 6 Eliz. and it appeareth in Dyer 1. Mar. was because that the Covenant was that it shall be to the Son in possession or use which for the incertainty in as much as it was in them to leave the one or the other or perhaps the Estate of their Land was such that part was in possession and part in use and therfore according to the intent taken rather for a Covenant then for matter sufficient to change the use But it was so that it was never helped by any right which he had but by the grace of the Queen he enjoyed it Easter Term 35 Eliz. Crocker and York versus Dormer 1. UPon a Recovery had by John Crocker and George York against Geffrey Dormer in a Writ of Entry in the Post of the Mannor of Farningho with the Appurtenances and of 6 Messuages 6 Cottages c. in Farningho and of a yearly Rent or pension of 4 Marks issuing out of the Church or Rectory of Farningho and of the Advowson of the Church of Farningho in the County of Northampton William Dormer Son and Heir of the said Geffrey brought a Writ of Error and assigned diverse Errors 1. Because that â—uch a form of Writ doth not lye of an Advowson but only a Right of Advowson Darrein presentment and Quare impedit 2. Because he demands the Advowson of the Rectory and also a Rent issuing out of the same Rectory 3. Because the Demand for the Rent is in the Disjunctive to wit a Rent or a Pension 4. Because it is a pension wheras a Pension is not sutable in our Law but in the Spirituall Court To which Gawdy said that there is a great diversity between a common Recovery which is an assurance between parties and a Recovery which is upon Title for a common Recovery is to an Vse to wit to the use of him against whom it is had if no other use can be averred and therfore as to the Vse it is to be guided according to the intent of the parties and by a common Recovery had against Tenant for life he in the Reversion if he be not party or privy to it may enter for a forfeiture as it was adjudged very lately in the Exchequer by the advice of all the Iustices in the case of a Recovery had against Sir William Petham Knight and in all these things it is otherwise in case of a Recovery upon Title and therfore in as much as this common Recovery is but a common Assurance between parties and is alwaies by assent between parties to the end that they may make assurance from one to another there shall be and alwaies hath been a contrary exposition to a Recovery which is by pretence of Title and it hath been common to put in such Recoveries Advowsons Commons Warrens and the like and yet alwaies allowed And if this shall be now drawn in question infinite Assurances shall by this be indangered which the Law will not suffer and therfore the demand of an Advowson and Pension in the Writ of Entry makes not the Writ vitious as it shall do in another Writ of Entry founded upon a Title and not upon an Assurance And as to that that the Rent and the Advowson also is demanded this is good because the Advowson is another thing then the Rectory it self out of which the Rent is demanded to be issuing And for the disjunctive demand of the Rent or Pension it makes no matter in this case because it is a common Recovery in which such a precise form is not necessary to be used as in other Writs and also a Pension issuing out of a Rectory is the same with the rent To which Clench and Fennor agreed in all but Popham moved that the greatest difficulty in this case is the demand made to the disjunctive to wit of the annuall Rent or Pension for if a Pension issuing out of a Rectory shall be said to be a thing meerly spirituall and not to be demanded by our
that it shall be then holden as if no Adjournment had been the Essâ—ines had been the first day of Tres Trin. and the full Term had not been untill the fourth day which was the last day of the Term quod nota and so it was of the Adjournment which hapned first at Westminster and afterwards at Hertford from Michaelmas Term now last past Michaelmas Term 35 and 36 Eliz. Gravenor versus Brook and others 1. IN an Ejectione firmae by Edward Gravenor Plaintiff against Richard Brook and others Defendants the case appeared to be this Henry Hall was seised in his Demesne as of Fee according to the custom of the Mannor of A. in the County of D. of certain customary Tenements holden of the said Mannor called Fairchildes and Preachers c. In the third year of Henry the 8th before which time the customary Tenements of the said Mannor had alwaies been used to be granted by Copy of Court Roll of the said Mannor in Fee-simple or for life or years but never in Fee-tail but then the said Henry Hall surrendred his said Copy-hold Land to the use of Joane his eldest Daughter for her life the remainder to John Gravenor the eldest Son of the said Joane and to the Heirs of his body the Remainder to Henry Gravenor her other Son and the Heirs of his body the Remainder to the right Heirs of the said Henry Hall for ever wherupon in 3 H. 8. at the Court then there holden a grant was made by Copy of Court Roll accordingly and Seisin given to the said Joane by the Lord accordingly Henry Hall died having Issue the said Joane and one Elizabeth and at the Court holden within the said Mannor 4 H. 8. the death of the said Henry Hall was presented by the Homage and that the said Daughters were his Heirs and that the Surrender made as before was void because it was not used within the said Mannor to make Surrenders of Estates tails and therupon the said Homage made division of the said Land and limited Fairchilds for the purparty of the said Joane and Preachers for the purparty of the said Elizabeth and Seisin was granted to them accordingly Elizabeth died seised of her said part after which 33 H. 8. Margaret her Daughter was found Heir to her and admitted Tenant to this part after which Joane dyed seised of the said Tenements as the Law will And after the said Margaret takes to Husband one John Adye who with his said wife surrendred his said part to the use of the said John Adye and of his said wife and of their Heirs and afterwards the said Margaret died without Issue and the said John Adye held the part of his said wife and surrendred it to the use of the said Richard Brook and of one John North and their Heirs who were admitted accordingly after which the said John Gravenor died without Issue and now the said Henry Gravenor was sole Heirs to him and also to the said Henry Hall who had Issue Edward Gravenor and dyed the said Edward entred into the said Lands called Preachers and did let it to the Plaintiff upon whom the said Richard Brook and the other Defendants did re-enter and eject him And all this appeareth upon a speciall Verdict And by Clench and Gawdy an Estate tail cannot be of Copyhold Land unlesse it be in case where it hath been used for the Statute of Donis conditionalibus shall not enure to such customary Lands but to Lands which are at common Law and therfore an Estate tail cannot be of these customary Lands but in case where it hath been used time out of mind and they said that so it hath been lately taken in the Common Bench But they said that the first remainder limited to the said John Gravenor here upon the death of the said John was a good Fee-simple conditional which is well warrantes by the custom to demise in Fee for that which by custom may be demised of an Estate in Fee absolute may also be demised of a Fee-simple conditionall or upon any other limitation as if I. S. hath so long Issue of his body and the like but in such a case no Remainder can be limited over for one Fee cannot remain over upon another and therfore the Remainder to the said Henry was void But they said that for all the life of the said John Gravenor nothing was in the said Elizabeth which could descend from her to the said Margaret her Daughter or that might be surrendred by the said Margaret and her Husband and therfore the said Margaret dying without Issue in the life time of the said John Gravenor who had the Fee-simple conditionall nothing was done which might hinder the said Edward Son to the said Henry Gravenor of his Entry and therfore the said Plaintiff ought to have his Iudgment to recover for they took no regard to that which the Homage did 4th year of Hen. 8. But Fennor and Popham held that an Estate tail is wrought out of Copy-hold Land by the equity of the Statute of Donis conditionalibus for otherwise it cannot be that there can be any Estate tail of Copyhold Land for by usage it cannot be maintained because that no Estate tail was known in Law before this Statute but all were Fee-simple and after this Statute it cannot be by usage because this is within the time of limitation after which an usage cannot make a prescription as appeareth 22 23 Eliz. in Dyer And by 8 Eliz. a Custom cannot be made after Westm 2. And what Estates are of Copyhold land appeareth expresly by Littleton in his Chapter of Tenant by Copyhold c. And in Brook Title Tenant by Copyhold c. 15 H. 8. In both which it appeareth that a Plaint lyeth in Copyhold Land in the nature of a Formedon in the Descender at common Law and this could not be before the Statute of Donis conditionalibus for such Land because that before that Statute there was not any Formedon in the Descender at common Law and therfore the Statute helps them for their remedy for intailed Land which is customary by equity Add if the Action shall be given by equity for this Land why shall not the Statute by the same equity work to make an Estate intail also of this nature of the Land We see no reason to the contrary and if a man will well mark the words of the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 1. he shall well perceive that the Formedon in Descender was not before this Statute which wills that in a new case a new remedy may be given and therupon sets the form of a Formedon in Descender But as to the Formedon in the Reverter it is then said that it is used enough in Chancery and by Fitzherbert in his Natura brevium the Formedon in the Descender is founded upon this Statute and was not at Common Law before And the reason is because these Copyholds are now become by usage to be
and paid duly the said Annuity and then he surrendred his Estate in the said Scite to the said Dr. Drewry and after this did not pay the Annuity over and yet continued the possession of the said Scite And by all the Iustices the Defendant notwithstanding the Surrender made to the Obligee himself ought to have continued the payment of the Annuity to the said Dorothy for albeit the Term be drowned and merged in the Reversion and so hath no continuance as to him in the Reversion yet as to any thing heretofore done by the Defendant who was the Termor in Iudgment of Law it is to be said to have continuance As if he had granted a Rent-charge out of it to have continuance during the said Term although he surrender his Term to him in the Reversion yet the charge continues and as to it the Reversion shall be said to be in the Termor and albeit the Obligee himself shall not take advantage of his own or to have the advantage of the forfeiture of an Obligation there where his own act is the cause of his breach And if it had been that the said Dorothy during the said Term shall have the use of a Chamber within the Scite without the interruption of him or his Assigns there if after the Surrender the said Dorothy Drewry had interrupted him of the use of the said Chamber the forfeiture of the Obligation shall not be taken against the Defendant for it But here the Condition is of a collaterall thing to be done to wit the payment of the Annuity to a stranger with which the Land is not bound and therfore the breach comes meerly in default of the Obligor and of the Obligee in no part to wit and therfore the Obligation here is forfeited And by Popham the case here is more cleer upon consideration of the words of the Condition for the words are I the Defendant shall or may enjoy c. and this word may enjoy shall be alwaies intended reasonably to wit if it may without any thing to be done by him to the contrary and here if he had not made the Surrender he might have enjoyed the Scite untill the end of his Term and therfore because it cometh of his own act wherby he or his Assigns shall not enjoy it for the Term if it shall be said that he in the Reversion shall not be said in by the Termor of which he himself shall not take any advantage in as much as if this had not been he might have enjoyed for the whole Term. To which all the other Iustices also agreed and upon this Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff But if any had defeated the said Term by a lawfull entry by a Title Paramount the Obligation had not been forfeited for any default of payment after this Entry but if Rent had been reserved upon the Lease and for default of payment a Re-entry had been made yet by Popham the payment ought to be continued upon the perill of the forfeiture of the Obligation for the words may enjoy in as much as there it is the meer default of the Defendant himself there the Lease does not continue of which he shall not take advantage to save his Obligation But note the form of the Demurrer and that it might have been been better ioyned which is to be seen in the Record where it is entred Easter Term 36 Eliz. Geilles versus Rigeway IN debt for 306. l 6. s. 8 d. by William Geillies against Thomas Rigeway Esq late Sheriff of Devon For that wheras John Chaunder alias Chaundeler was in execution with the said Sheriff for the said summ the said Sheriff afterwards to wit the tenth day of December 34 Eliz. at London in such a Parish and Ward suffered him to escape the said Rigeway then being Sheriff of Devon and having him then in execution c. To which the Defendant pleaded how that he took him in Execution by the Proces at Stockram in the County of Devon as the Plaintiff hath alledged and there detained him in safe custody untill the 8th day of December 34 Eliz. at which day the said Chaundeler broke the Prison and escaped out of it contrary to the will of the said Defendant and that the Defendant did freshly pursue him and in this fresh pursuit did re-take him the 11th day of December then next ensuing at Stockram aforesaid and detained him in execution for the said 306 l. 6 s. 8 d. during the time of his Office and delivered him ever to the new Sheriff c. To which the Plaintiff replyed by protestation that he did not make fresh pursuit And for plea saith That after the going away of the said Chaundeler and before his re-taking by the said Defendant as aforesaid the said Chaundeler for a whole day and night to wit at London in the Parish and Ward aforesaid was out of the view of the said Defendant c. Vpon which it was demurred in Law And it was moved by Cook Attorney-generall that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for in as much as it was alledged that he was out of the view of the Sheriff for a day and a night together there it shall be intended to be a default in the Defendant in the making of his pursuit and therfore chargable to the Plaintiff and yet he agreed that if the Sheriff had made his pursuit freshly although that at the turning of a Lane end of a house or the like the Prisoner had been out of the view of the Sheriff for a small time as untill the Sheriff commeth to this turning end of the house or the like yet the Sheriff may re-take the Prisoner and he shall be yet said to be in execution to the party against his will yet when he is for so long a time out of his view it shall be otherwise for the default which the Law presumes to be in him and therfore in this case the action lies To which it was answered by Popham Gawdy and Clench That if he makes fresh pursuit so that it doth not appear fully that there was a default in the Sheriff in his pursuit although he were so long out of his view yet he shall be said to be in execution for the party against his will upon the retaking of him As if be be pursued to a house where he is kept for a long time and the Sheriff set a guard upon the house and after this re-take him the next or any other day without departing from thence the Sheriff in such a case may re-take him upon his coming out of the house and he shall be in execution to the party against his own will And so in all like Cases As if he pursues him in the night so as he cannot see him and yet by the tract of the horse or enquiry he makes diligent pursuit to re-take him so that it cannot appear that there was any negligence or default in him
Defendant had nothing to do there the Defendant shall be excused But here it is expresly alledged that it fell by the weight put upon it which ought to be answered As if a man take an Estate for life or years in a ruinous house if he pull it down he shall be charged in Wast but if it fall of it self he shall be excused in Wast so there is a diversity where default is in the party and where not so here the Defendant ought to have taken good care that he did not put upon such a ruinous floor more then it might well bear if it would not bear any thing he ought not to put any thing into it to the prejudice of a third person and if he does he shall answer to the party his damages Collard versus Collard 5. IN an Ejectione firmae brought by Constantine Collard against Richard Collard the case appeared to be this Thomas Collard was seised in his Demesne as of Fee of Lands in Winkle in the County of Devon called the Barton of Southcote And having two Sons to wit Eustace the eldest and Richard the now Defendant the youngest and the eldest being to be married the said Thomas in consideration of this marriage being upon the said Barton said these words Eustace stand forth I do here reserving an Estate for my own life and my wives life give unto thee and thy Heirs for ever these my Lands and Barton of Southcote after which the said Thomas enfeoffed his youngest Son of Barton with warranty from him and his Heirs the eldest Son enter and let it to the Plaintiff upon whom the Defendant re-enter upon which re-entry the Action was brought and upon a speciall Verdict all this matter appeared But it was not found by the Verdict that the said Thomas Collard the Father was dead and therfore the Warranty was not any thing in the Case And it was moved by Heale that the Plaintiff ought to be barred because it did not passe by way of Estate in as much as a man cannot passe a Freehold of a Land from himself to begin at a time to come and by it to create a particular Estate to himself and in use it cannot passe because that by a bare parole and Vse cannot be raised and by giving my Land to my Son Cosin and the like nothing will passe without Livery for there is not consideration to raise an Vse Fennor The words shall be taken as if he had said here I give you this Barton reserving an Estate for my life although the words of reservation have priority in their time from the speaking of them because a reservation cannot be but out of a thing granted and therfore the reservation shall be utterly void or otherwise ought to be taken according to their proper nature to wit to be in their operation subsequent and so shall not hurt the Grant and therfore are not to be compared to the case where a man grant that after the death of I. S. or after his own death a stranger shall have his Land which Popham granted And Fennor said further that these words being spoken upon the Land as before amount to a Livery Gawdy said That the words as they are spoken amount to a Livery if the words are sufficient to passe the Estate but he conceived that the words are not sufficient to make the Estate to passe to the said Eustace because his intent appeareth that Eustace was not to have the Land untill after the death of him and his wife and therfore of the same effect as if he had granted the Land to the said Eustace after his death and as an Vse it cannot passe because by a bare word an Vse cannot be raised as appeareth in divers Reports Mich. 12 13 Eliz. which is a good case to this purpose But to say generally that an Vse cannot be raised or charged upon a perfect Contract by words upon good consideration cannot be Law and therfore it is to be considered what the Law was before the Statute of 27 H. 8. And I thinke that none will deny but that by grant of Land for money before this Statute an Vse was raised out of the same Land for a bargain and sale of Land for money and a grant of Land for money is all one and no difference between them And is not a grant of Land made in consideration of marriage of my Son and Daughter as valuable as a grant of it for money It is cleer that it is and much more valuable as my blood is more valuable to me then my money and therfore it is absurd to say that the consideration of money raise or change an Vse at Common Law and not such a consideration of marriage And in such a case at Common Law there was not any diversity that the party who so grant or hargain for the one or the other considerations was fâ—ised of the Land granted or bargained in use or possession but that the Vse by the Contract was transferred according to the bargain in both cases where there is a consideration And where through all the Law shall it be seen that of any thing which might passe by contract there need any other thing then the words which make the contract as writing or the like testifying it And that the Law was so it appeareth by the Statute of Inrolements of bargains and sales of Land made 27 H. 8. which enacts that no Freehold nor Vse therof shall passe by bargain and sale only unlesse it be by deed indented and enrolled according to the Statute Ergo if this Statute had not been it had passed by the bargain and sale by bare words and in as much as the Statute enacts this in case of bargain and sale only the other cases as this case here are as it was before at Common Law And by an exception at the end of the same Statute London is as it was at Common Law and therfore now Lands may passe there at this day by bargain and sale by word without deed for it is out of the Statute And how can we say that the Statute of Vses does any thing to alter the Common Law in this point by any intent of the makers therof wheras at the same Parliament they made an especiall Law in the case of bargain and sale of Lands And at this day for the Lands in London notwithstanding the Statute of Vses the Law hath been put in practice and alwaies holden as to the Lands there to be good if sold by bare Parole as it were at Common Law And I have heard it reported by Manwood late chief Baron of the Exchequer that it was in question in the time of King Edw. the 6th whether the use of a Freehold of Land will passe upon a Contract by Parole without Deed in consideration of marriage upon which all the then Iustices were assembled upon a doubt rising in a case hapning in the Star-chamber and then
resolved by all the Iustices as he said that it shall passe and he said that himself was of this opinion also And to say that by grant of Land at Common Law the use had been raised out of the possessions of the Land which the Grantor then had and by it passe to the Bargainee and that it shall not be raised and passed to another by grant of Land in consideration of marriage which is a more valuable consideration then money is absurd and against all reason And for the solemnity Vses in such cases in respect of marriage were the cause that they alwaies were left as they were at Common Law and not restrained as the case of bargain and sale is which by Common intendment may be made more easily and secretly then that which is done in consideration of marriage which is alwaies a thing publike and notorious but it is not reasonable that every slight or accidentall speech shall make an alteration of any Vse As if a man ask of any one what he will give or leave to any of his Sons or Daughters for their advancement in marriage or otherwise for their advancement this shall be but as a bare speech or communication which shall not alter or change any Vse But where there is upon the Speech a conclusion of a Marriage between the friends of the parties themselves and that in consideration therof they shall have such Lands and for such an Estate there the Vse shall be raised by it and shall passe accordingly to the parties according to the conclusion which Fennor granted But by Popham If it may be taken upon the words spoken that the purpose was to have the Estate passe by way of making of an Estate as by way of Feoffment c. then notwithstanding the consideration expressed the use shall not change nor no Estate by it but at will untill the Livery made therupon And therfore if a man make a Deed of Feoffment with expresse consideration of marriage although the Deed hath words in it of Dedi Concessi with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery therupon there untill Livery made nothing passe but at will because that by the Warrant of Attorney it appeareth the full intent of the parties was that it shall passe by way of Feoffment and not otherwise if it be of Land in possession And if it be of Land in Lease not untill Attornment of Tenants which was granted by all the Iustices But if a man in consideration of money makes a Deed of Gift Grant Bargain and Sale of his Lands to another and his Heirs by Deed indented with a Letter of Attorny to make Livery if Livery be therupon made before Inrolement there it hath been adjudged to passe by the Livery and not by the Inrolement But by Popham where Land is to passe in possession by Estate executed two things are requisite The one the grant of the said Land the other the Livery to be made therupon for by the bare Grant without Livery it doth not passe as by way of making of an Estate And this is the cause that such solemnity hath been used in Liveries to wit if it were of a Messuage to have the people out of it and then to give Seisin to the party by the Ring of the door of the House and of Land by a Turff and a Twig and the like which may be notorious Yet I agree it shall be a good Livery to say to the party Here is the Land enter into it and take it to you and your Heirs for ever or for life or in tail as the case is And albeit Livery by the View may be made in such manner yet by the sealing of the Deed of Grant upon the Land or by grant of it upon the Land without Livery nothing passe but at will But if therupon one party saith to the other after the Grant or upon it Here is the Land enter upon it and take it according to the Grant this is a good Livery But he ought to say this or somthing which amounts to so much or otherwise it shall not passe by the bare Grant of the Land although it be made upon the Land Clench said That when Thomas said to Eustace Stand forth here I do give to thee and thine Heirs these Lands this amounts to a Grant and a Livery also and by the words of the Reservation of the Estate to himself and his wife for their lives in this the Law shall make an use in the said Thomas and his wife for their lives so that by such means it shal enure as if he had reserved the use therof to him and his wife and so it shall enure to them as it may by the Law according to his intent without doing prejudice to the Estate passed to the said Eustace And afterwards Term Mich. 36 37 Eliz. the Case was again disputed amongst the Iustices and then Popham said That the Case of Baâ—gains and Sales of Lands in Cities as London c. as appeareth in Dyer 6. Eliz. are as they were at Common Law To which all the Iustices agreed and therfore shall passe by Bargain by parole without writing And by Bayntons Case in 6 7 Eliz. it is admitted of every side that an Vse was raised out of a Possession at Common Law by Bargain and Sale by parole and otherwise to what purpose was the Statute of Inrolements and by the same case it is also admitted now to passe by parole upon a full agreement by words in consideration of Marriage or the continuance of Name or Blood For it is agreed there that the consideration of nature is the most forceable consideration which can be and agreed also that a bare Covenant by writing without consideration will not change an Vse therfore the force therof is in the consideration of which the Law hath great respect And therfore the Son and Heir apparant ex assensu patris onely may at the door of the Church endow his wife of his Fathers Land which he hath in Fee and this is good by Littleton although the Son hath nothing in it wherby an Estate passe to the wife which is more then an Vse Nature is of so strong consideration in the Law And therupon after advice Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff the Roll of this appeareth in Banco Regis 1 Hill 35. Eliz. Rot. 355. And upon this Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought and the Iudgment aforesaid reversed in the point of Iudgment in the Exchequer by the Statute of 27 Eliz. Kettle versus Mason and Esterby 6. IN a second deliverance between Joh. Kettle Plaintiff and George Mason Vide this case Coke lib. 1. 146 c. and Francis Esterby Avowants the case appeared to be this Thomas May was seised of the Mannor of Sawters and Hawlin in the County of Kent in his Demesne as of Fee and being so therof seised enfeoffed Thomas Scot and John Fremling and their Heirs
dies and afterwards John his Son and Heir dies without Issue the reversion by this descends to the said Christopher who dies leaving Issue And upon this Case made in the Court of Wards the two chief Iustices Popham and Anderson agreed first That upon the devise and death of the Father the said Christopher and William were Joynt-tenants of the Land and not Tenants in Common notwithstanding the word severally because it is coupled with the said word joyntly But yet they agreed also that by the descent from John to Christopher the Fee-simple was executed in the said Christopher for the Moyety in the same Mannor as if he had purchased the Reversion of the whole or of this Moyety and that it is not like to the Case where Land is given and to the Heirs of one of them in which case for the benefit of the Survivorship it is not executed to divide the Ioynture because the Estates are made at one and the same time together and therfore not like to the case where the Inheritance cometh to the particular Estate by severall and divided means And a Decree was made accordingly Trin. 36. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1. IT was agreed by all the Iustices and Barons of the Exchequer upon an Assembly made at Serjeants-Inn after search made for the ancient Presidents and upon good deliberation taken If a man have two houses and inhabit somtimes in one and somtimes in the other if that House in which he doth not then inhabity be broken in the night to the intent to steal the Goods then being in his house that this is Burglary although no person bee then in the House and that now by the new Statute made such an Offender shall not have his Clergy for before the Statutes were made which take away Clergy in case of Burglary where any person was put in fear no mention was made in the Inditements of Burglary that any person was in the House But it was generall that the house of such a one Noctanter fregit and such Goods then there Felonice cepit And the breaking of a Church in the night to steal the Goods there is Burglary although no person be in it because this is the place to keep the Goods of the Parish And in the same manner the house of every one is the proper place to preserve his Goods although no person be there And that the Law was alwaies so it is to be collected by the course of the Statutes therof made for first the Statute of 23 H. 8. doth not take Clergy from any in case of Burglary unlesse some of the same Family be in the house and put in fear And in 5 Eliz. 6. The Offendor shall be ousted of his Clergy if any of the Family be in the house be they sleeping or waking And these Statutes were the cause that it was used of late time to put in the Inditements of Burglary that some person of the Family was then in the house to put them from their Clergy But this doth not prove that it shall not be Burglary but where some person was in the house and by 18 Eliz. Clergy is taken away in all cases of Burglary generally without making mention of any person to be there which enforce the resolution aforesaid and according to it they all agreed hereafter to put it in Execution Finch versus Riseley 2. IN this Term the case betweeen Finch and Riseley was in question before all the Iustices and Barons for this assembled at Serjeants-Inn in Fleetstreet where after Arguments heard by the Councell of the parties upon this point only If the Queen make a Lease for years rendring Rent with a Proviso that the Rent be not paid at the day limited that the Lease shall cease without making mention that it was to be paid at the receit whether the Lease shall cease upon the default of payment before Office found therof And by Periam and some of the Iustices the Lease stall not cease untill an Office be found of the default because it is a matter in Fait which determines it to wit the not-payment And by Gawdy it shall be taken as if it had been for the not-payment that the Proviso had been that the Lease shall be forfeited In which case it is not detennined untill Re-entry made for the forfeiture which in the Queens case ought alwaies to be by Office which countervails the re-entry of a common person As where the Queen makes a Lease rendring Rent and for default of payment a Re-entry albeit the Rent be not paid yet untill Office found therof the Rent continues Popham Anderson and the greater part of the Iustices and Barons resolved that it was cleer in this case that Ipso facto upon the default of payment the Lease was determined according to the very purport of the contract beyond which it cannot have any beeing and therfore there needs no Office in the case But where it is that it shall be forfeited or that he shall re-enter there untill advantage taken of the forfeiture in the one case or untill re-entry made in the other case the Term alwaies continues by the contract And where in the case of a common person there is need of a re-entry to undo the Estate there in the case of the King there needs an Office to determine the Estate for an Office in the Kings case countervails an entry for the King in person cannot make the entry And upon this resolution of the greater part of the Iustices in Mich. Term 31 32 Eliz. the same case was in question in the Office of Pleas in the Exchequer between the said Moil Finch Plaintiff and Thomas Throgmorton and others Defendants and there adjudged by Manwood late chief Baron and all the other Barons unanimously after long argument at the Bar and Bench that the Lease was void upon default of payment of the Rent according to the Proviso of the Lease and this immediatly without Office for the reasens before remembred upon which Iudgment was given a Writ of Error was brought before the Lord Keeper of the great Seal and the Lord Treasurer of England where it long depended and after many arguments the Iudgment given in the Exchequer by the advice of Popham and Anderson was affirmed and that upon this reason for the Proviso shall be taken to be a limitation to determine the Estate and not a Condition to undo the Estate which cannot be defeated in case of a Condition but by entry in case of a common person and but by Office which countervails an entry in the case of the Queen And this Iudgment was so affirmed in Mich. Term 36 37 Eliz. Smiths Case 3 IT was found by Diem clausit extremum after the death of Richard Smith that in consideration of a marriage to be had between Margaret Smith and William Littleton a younger Son to Sir John Littleton Knight and of 1300. marks paid by the said Sir John to the said
this Thomas Plain was seised in his Demesne as of Fee of a Messuage in S. and so seised did let it to the Defendant for divers years yet to come rendring Rent payable at four usuall Feasts of the year the Lessee entred accordingly after which the said Plain by Bargain and Sale enrolled conveyed the Reversion therof to the said Humble and his Heirs and before the Feast of the Annunciation of our Lady 35 Eliz. to wit the 1. day of February in the same year the said Oliver assigned over his whole Term to one Southmead who before the same Feast entred accordingly and for the Rent due at the Feast the Annunciation of our Lady the Plaintiff brought this Action And it was agreed by the whole Court that the Action would not lie against him for although Plain if he had not aliened the Reversion over might have had this Action against the said Oliver notwithstanding that he had assigned over his Term before for the privity of contract which was between them in as much as they were parties to it of either part yet the Grantee of the Reversion shall not have advantage of the privity he being a meer stranger to the Contract and now was but privy in Law by the Bargain and therfore now he hath no remedy but against him who had the Estate at the time when the Rent hapned to be due and this is Southmead and not Oliver The Roll of this case is in the Kings Bench Hill 36. Eliz. Rot. 420. Mich. 36 37 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Button versus Wrightman 1. IN an Ejectione firmae between John Buâ—ton Plaintiff and Etheldred Wrightman Widow and other Defendants for a House and certain Lands in Harrow The Case upon a speciall Verdict was this The Dean and Chapter of Christs Church in Oxford were incorporated by K. H. 8 by his Letters Patents dated 4. Novemb. 38 H. 8. by the name of the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedrall Church of Christ c. Oxford of the Foundation of King Henry the 8th and so to be called for ever after which the said Dean and Chapter was seised in their Demesne as of Fee of the said House and Land and so being seised by the name of the Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Christi in Accademia Oxon. ex fundatione Reg. H. 8. enfeoffed Edward late Lord North therof by their Deed hearing date the 21. day of April 1. E. 6. who afterwards dyed and the now Lord North entred and did let it to the Plaintiff who was ousted by the Defendant claiming the said House by a Lease made by the said Dean and Chapter in the time of Queen Elizabeth for divers years yet to come and whether his entry were lawfull or not was the question and all depends upon the mis-naming of the Corporation But it was found that the City of Oxford and the Vniversity of Oxford were all one and that the Town of Oxford was made a City by the Charter of King H. 8. And by Fennor the Feoffment made to Edward Lord North for the misnaming of the Corporation was void for he said that Accademia villa de Oxford are divers in name and divers in nature for the Vniversity is to the Schollars and learned men there and the Town for the Inhabitants and the name of a place is a principal thing in a Corporation which in a new Corporation ought to be precise according to the very Letter of the Charter therof And therfore in the case of Chester it was agreed that Cestria being omitted the Charter for the Dean and Chapter there had been void But by Popham Gawdy and Clench this is not such a mis-naming as to the place which shall make the Feoffment void for suppose it had been Decanus Capitalis Ecclesiae Cathedralis Christi in Civitate Oxon. it had been good for Oxon. Civitas Oxon. are one and the same So it is if an Hospitall be erected by the name of the Hospitall of S. Johns in S. Clements and they make a Grant by the name of the Hospitall of S. Johns in the Parish of S. Clements it is good for it appeareth to be the same And here if a man will say that it shall go to the Vniversity of Oxford this every one conceives to be the Town of Oxford and so of Cambridge and therfore in 8 H. 6. it was agreed to be a good addition for the place in an Action personall against such a one Chancellor of the Vniversity of Oxford and so it is against J. Rector of the Parish Church of Dale without any other addition for the place yet the Statute is that it ought to be named of what Town Hamlet or place the party is And by Popham the place in a Corporation may well be resembled to the Sur-name of a man and as a Grant made by any persons Christian name as John Thomas c is not good so in a Corporation it is not good to say Dean and Chapter Mayor and Comminalty and the like without saying of what place And anciently men took most commonly their Surnames from their places of habitation especially men of Estate and Artizans often took their names from their Arts but yet the Law is not so precise in the case of Sur-names and therfore a Grant made by or to John Son and Heir of I. C. or Filio juniori I. S. is good But for the Christian name this alwaies ought to be perfect So in the case of a Corporation it sufficeth to have a sufficient demonstration of the place where the Corporation is albeit it be not by the precise words comprised in the Charter as in naming Accademia Oxon. pro Villa Oxon and it is common of which I have seen divers Charters where a Town was incorporated by the name of Mayor and Comminalty of such a Town as Bristoll Exeter and others which afterwards have been made Cities and yet Charters made to them and Grants made by them by the name of Mayor and Comminalty of the City is good but more precisenesse is vsed in the body of the name of a Corporation before the place to which they are annexed and yet in them that which is but an ornament to the name comprehended in the Charter shall not hurt the Grant as of Chapiter of S. George of Windsor if it be of S. George the Martyr and the like the Grant by such a name is good because the Martyr is but an addition of Ornament to the name comprised in the Charter and it is no other but the same in re vera So here if it had been Domini nostri Jesu Christi because it is the same and is but an ornament to the word Christ comprised in the Charter and so should it be also if it had been Christi filii Dei Salvatoris nostri because it is but a true addition to the same wherupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff as appeareth in the Kings Bench Pas
35 E. Rot. 258. And Popham said further in this case that to erect an Hospitall by the name of an Hospitall in the County of S. or in the Bishopprick of B. and the like is not good because he is bound to a place too large and incertain But a Colledge erected in Accademia Cantabrig or Oxon. is good and sâ—me are so founded because it tends but to a particular place as a City Town c. King versus Bery and Palmer 2. IN an Ejectione firmae brought by William King against John Bery and William Palmer Defendants for two Messuages and certain Lands in Halstead in the County of Leicester upon a Demise alledged to be made by Dorothy Pool and Robert Smith the case upon a speciall Verdict was this The said Dorothy was Tenant for life of the said Tenants the Remainder over to the said Robert Smith and his Heirs and they being so seised made the Lease in the Declaration upon which the Action was brought And per curiam the Lease found by the Verdict doth not warrant the Lease alledged in the Declaration for although they joyned in the Demise yet during the life of the said Dorothy it is her Demise and not the Demise of the said Robert Smith but as his confirmation for that time for he hath nothing to do to meddle with the Land during the life of the said Dorothy but after the death of the said Dorothy then it shall be said to be the Domise of the said Robert Smith and not before because untill this time Smith hath nothing to do to meddle with the Land And in a more strong case If Tenant for life and he in the Reversion in Fee make a Gift in tail for the life of Tenant for life it shall be said to be his Gift but after his death it shall be said the Gift of him in the Reversion and if the Estate tail had expired during the life of the said Tenant for life he shall have the Land again in his former Estate and there shal be no forfeiture in the case because he in the Reversion of the immediate Estate of Inheritance had joyned in it and therfore hath dispensed with that which otherwise had been a meer forfeiture of the Estate for life wherby it was awarded by the Court that the Plaintif take nothing by his Bill in 33 34 Eliz. Rot. And the Judgment is entred Hill 34. Eliz. Ret. 72. 3. In this Term I hapned to see a Case agreed by the Iustices in 3. 4. Eliz. which was this If a man make a Lease of two Barns rendring Rent and for default of payment a Re-entry if the Tenant be at one of the Barns to pay the Rent and the Lessor at the other to demand the Rent and none be there to pay it that yet the Lessor cannot enter for the Condition broken because there was no default in the Tenant he being at one for it was not possible for him to be at both places together And upon this Case now remembred to the Iustices Popham Walmesley and Fennor said That perhaps also the Tenant had not money sufficient to have been ready to have paid it at either of the said places but it is sufficient for him to have and provide one Rent which cannot be at two places together And by the Case reported here also If Lands and Woods are demised together the Rent ought to be demanded at the Land and not the Woood because the Land is the more worthy thing and also more open then the Wood And therfore by the three Iustices aforesaid Rent ought not to be demanded in any private place of a Close as amongst Bushes in a Pit or the like nor in the open and most usuall passage therof as at a Stile Gate and the like 4. Vpon a Prohibition sued out of the Kings Bench the Case appeared to be this The late Lord Rich Father to the now Lord Rich devised to his Daughter for her advancement in marriage 1500. upon condition that she marry with the consent of certain friends and deviseth further that if his Goods and Chattels are not sufficient to pay his Debts and Legacies that then there shall be 200 l. a year of his Lands sold to supply it and dies making the now Lord Rich his Executor his Goods and Chattels not being sufficient to pay the Debts of the Testator as was averred the said Daughter married with a Husband against the will of those who were put in trust to give their assents and the Husband and the Wife sued in the Spirituall Court for the Legacy And it was surmised that they would not allow the proofs of the said now Lord Rich exhihited to prove the payment of the Debts of his Testator and further that they would charge him for the sale of the Land upon which matter the Prohibition was granted to the Delegates before whom the matter depended and now consultation was prayed in the case Vpon which it was affirmed by a Doctor of the Civill Law that they will allow the proofs for the payment of the Debts according to our Law and that the Legacy shall not be paid untill the Debs are satisfied But he said that by the Law if the Executor do not exhibit his Inventory but neglect it for a year or more that then if any omission or default be in the true value of the Inventory exhibited that then such on Executor for this default shall pay all the Legacies of his Testator of what value soever they are not respecting the Debts or the value of the Goods or Chattels how small soever the omission or default be in the Inventory And so he said was the case of the now Sir Richard S. who did not bring in the Inventory for four years after the death of the Testator and that in the Inventory exhibited the values of every thing were found to be too small and therfore to be charged by their Law albeit he hath not Goods and Chattels sufficient of the Testators To which it was answered that this was quite without reason for by such means every Subject of the Realm may be utterly defeated if he take upon him the charge of an Executorship And if this shall be admitted no man will take upon him the Execution of the Will of any and by such a means none will have their Wills performed which shall be too inconvenient And they said further that in as much as Debts are to be proved by the Common Law of the Realm those of the Ecclesiasticall Courts ought to admit in the proof therof such proofs as our Law allows and not according to the precisenesse of their Law And although by their Law such a Condition as before being annexed to a Legacy is void because that marriage oughr to be free without Coercion yet where we are to judge upon the point as we are here if the Execution happen to be charged because of the sale of Land and for
the money coming therof a prohibition shall be granted to the Ecclesiasticall Iudge in such a case wherby the Court granted a speciall consultation in the Case to wit that they proceed for the Legacy provided that they charge the Executor no further then he hath in Goods and Chattels of the Testator after his true and due Debts are satisfied And that in the case of the proof of these Debts they allow such proofs as by the Law of the Land are holden to be sufficient in such a case Quod nota benâ— as to the restraining of Ecclesiasticall Courts in their proceedings to bind any subject touching his private temporall Estate against all reason And as to it that they do not intermeddle in any thing belonging to the Common Law of the Realm as Debts and the like against the due course of the Common Law Cawdry versus Atton 5. IN Trespasse brought by Robert Cawdry Clerk against George Atton Vide this Case Coke lib. 5. 1. pa. for breaking his Close at North Luffenham in the County of Rutland upon not guilty and a speciall Verdict the Case appeared to be this to wit that the Plaintiff was Rector Ecclesiae de North Luffenham aforesaid of which the place was parcell and being so seised was deprived of his Rectory by the late Bishop of London and his Colleagues by virtue of the high Commission to them and others diverted because he had pronounced and uttered slanderous and contumelious words against and in depravation of the Book of Common-prayer But the form of the sentence was that the said Bishop by and with the assent and consent of five others of the said Commissioners his Companions and namely which deprived him And further it was not found that the Commissioners named were the naturall Subjects born of the Queen as the Statute enacts that they should be And if the deprivation be void then they find the Defendant guilty and if it were good then they find him not guilty And it was moved that the deprivation was void First Because that wheras the Commission is to them or any three of them of which the said Bishop to be one amongst others it ought to have been the sentence of them all according to the authority given to them which is equall and not that it was done by one with assent of the other Then because it is not found that the Commissioners are the naturall Subjects of the Queen born as by the words of the Statute they should be Another is because the punishment which the Statute provides for those of the Ministry which deprave this Book is to loose the profits of all their Spirituall Promotions but for a year and to be imprisoned by the space of six months and not to be deprived untill the second Offence after that he had been once committed and therfore to deprive him for the first offence was wrongfull and contrary to the Statute But by the whole Court for the form of the deprivation it is that which is used in the Ecclesiasticall Courts which alway names the chief in Commission that are present at the beginning of the Sentence and for the other they mention them only as here but of their assent and consent to it and in such cases we ought to give credit to their form and therfore t is not to be compared to an authority given at Commen Law by Commission And for the matter that is not found that the Commissioners were the naturall Subjects of the Queen born it is to be intended that they were such unlesse the contrary appear But here at the beginning it is found that the Queen secundum tenorem effectum actus predict had granted her Commission to them in causis Ecclesiasticis and therfore it appeareth sufficiently that they were such as the Statute wills them to be And for the deprivation they all agreed that it was good being done by the authority of the Commission for the Statute is to be understood where they prosecute upon the Statute by way of Inditement and not to restrain the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction being also but in the Affirmative And further by the Act and their Commission they may proceed according to their discretion to punish the offence proved or confessed before them and so are the words of their Commission warranted by the clause of the Act. And further the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is saved in the Act. And further all the Bishops and Popish Priests were deprived by virtue of a Commission warranted by this clause in the Act And now lately it was agreed by all the Iustices that a Fine of 200. marks set upon one for a vitious liver by the high commission was warranted by virtue of the Commission and Act And therfore if the Act with the Commission are to be consdered in this case wherupon it was agreed that the Plaintiff should take nothing by his Writ Which you may see Hill 33. Eliz. Rot. 315. Hall versus Peart 6. IN an Ejectione firmae brought by William Hall Plaintiff for Land in D. in the County of Somerset upon a Lease made by William Dodington against John Peart and other Defendants upon a speciall Verdict the case appeared to be this That one Iohn Brown was in possession of certain Lands in D. aforesaid Vide this case in Cook lib. 2 32 33. by the name of Dodingâ—ons case which before were parcel of the possessions of the Hospitall or Priory of S. Iohns in Wells the Inheritance therof then being in the late King H. 8. by the Act of dissolutions And the King being so seised by his Letters Patents dated 26. of March 30 H. 8. ex gratia speciali certa scientia mero motu suo granted to Iohn Ayleworth and Ralph Duckenfield omnia illa Messuagia Ter. Tenemt gardina sua quaecunque tune in separabilibus tenuris diversarum personarum which he named particularly amongst which the said Iohn Brown was one in Civitate Wellen. ac in suburbiis ejusdem Civitat exira eandem civitat within the Jurisdictions and Liberties of the said City late parcell of the possessions of the said Hospitall and that the said Iohn Brown had not then any other Lands late parcel of the possessions of the said Hospitall but this in D. and that this Land was quite out of the said City of Wells and of the Suburbs therof and also out of the Liberties and Jurisdiction of the said City and yet it was found that it was in the particular and parcell of the value and valued in it in the Tenure of the said Iohn Brown at 6 s. 8 d. a year and the grant was to the said Iohn Ayleworth and Ralph Duckenfield and to the Heirs of the said Iohn Ayleworth forever And it was moved that the Grant was good to the said Ayleworth and Duckenfield because of the Statute of non-recitall and mis-recitall because it appeareth by the particular and value that it was intended to be passed
said Queen her Heirs and Successors for ever which Deed was acknowledged the 25th day of March 32 Eliz. and enrolled in the Chancery the 12th day of May in thâ— same year And there was a Proviso in the same Deed that if the said Robert Bret shall pay to the Queen at the receipt of the Exchequer 5 s. of lawfull money that then the said Gift Grant Bargain and Sale shall be void and that from thence-forward it shall be lawfull for the said Robert Bret and his Heirs to re-enter into the said Tenements and in the mean time between the Inrolement of this Deed And the said 14th day of Octob. to wit the 15th day of September 32 Eliz. the said Arthur upon the said Tenements in North-petherton entred and claimed the Reversion therof in the right of the said Elianor his wife by reason of the death of the said Christian And that afterwards to wit the 30th day of February 33 Eliz. the said Robert Bret to redeem the said Tenements out of the Queen paid the said 5 s. at the receipt of the Exchequer which payment is there recorded and enrolled accordingly after which in September 34 Eliz. the said Arthur and Elianor sued out a speciall Livery of the said Elianor out of the hands of the Queen of all the Lands seised into the hands of the Queen by reason of the Nonage of the said John Mallet And afterwards in the same meneth of September 34 Eliz. the said Arthur and Elianor sued out another speciall Livery as Heir to the said Christian of all the Lands which were in the Queens hands by the death of the said Christian And it was further found that the said John Clark and Elianor Middleton died after the 5 s. paid as before and that the said Robert Bret entred the 8th day of October 34 Eliz. and then made the Lease to the Plaintiff upon which the Defendant by commandment of the said Arthur and with him entred upon the Plaintiff and the generall question was Whether the entry of the Defendant were lawfull But no ouster of the Plaintiff was found And by Clench and Fennor a Fee-simple passe at Common Law by a Fine levied by him in Reversion or Remainder in Tail because a Fine is said to be a Feoffment of Record and by their entry and Feoffment a Fee-simple passe in such a case at Common Law But by Popham and Gaudy a Fee-simple doth not passe nor nothing but that which Tenant in Tail may lawfully grant over which is for his life in which he said that Littleton was plain in all cases of Grant although it be by Fine and a Fee-simple does not passe at Common Law but where the Fee may be drawn out of him who had the Reversion or Remainder in Fee therupon if such a Reversion or Remainder had been in a stranger which had not been in this case if the Reversion or Remainder had been in a stranger and therfore a Discontinuance cannot be of an Intail where the Reversion or Remainder is in the King But by them all however it was at Common Law it is cleer upon the Statute of Fines that a Fee-simple determinable passe by such a Fine as soon as the Fine is levied because every Fine by presumption of Law shall be taken to be such wherupon proclamation is made untill the contrary therof appeareth to the Court. And this is the reason why a Quid juris clamat is at this day maintained upon such a Fine which was not at Common Law before this Statute or otherwise it will never lye And so it was holden lately in the Common Bench in the case of Iustice Wimondham and yet we may see that the Quid juris clamat ought to be brought before that the Fine be engrossed wherby it is manifest that now a Fee-simple shall passe by the Fine levied for the possibility of the Proclamations to wit that the Proclamations shall not be made and to this Fee-simple the Proclamations shall enure to make a bar to the Estate-tail But such a Fine by Popham and Gawdy was not any wrong to him who had the Reversion or Remainder in Fee being levied by him who had a mean Reversion or Remainder in Tail depending upon an Estate for life or in Tail precedent And it is cleer that the Proclamations do not make the Estate but enure to the Estate made by the Fine for if an Estate be granted in Reversion for life or in Tail by Fine with Proclamations by such a Tenant in Tail in Reversion or Remainder the Proclamations work to this Estate and no further for alwaies the Estate passe by the Fine and the Proclamations make the Bar according to the Estate which passe by the Fine before But by Clench Gawdy and Fennor the Fee-simple which was in the Queen after the Fine levied as before was divested by means of this claim made upon the possession of the Queen lo that the Proclamations following are of no force to hurt the Estate tail for they said in divers cases a possession may be invested out of the Queen without Office Petition or Monstrans de droit as the case is where a man devise that his Land shall be sold and in the mean time before the sale the possession of the Land cometh to the Queen and afterwards the Land is sold according to the Will the Vendee enter there the Land passe from the Queen therby and is divested and so in many other cases And in all cases where the Queens Estate is determined the Subject may enter into the Land without Office or Ouster le main c. And they said if it had been in the possession of a common person that by such a claim the force of the Fine had been defeated and this appeareth by the case between Smith and Stapleton in the Commentaries where it is holden that where a Fine is levied with Proclamations by Tenant in Tail of an Advowson Rent or Tithes by claim made by the Issue in Tail before the Proclamations are passed where the Tenant in Tail is dead the same is defeated and that the Proclamations passing afterwards shall not be of force to bar the Intail And they said that the conveyance therof to the Queen after the Fine levied doth not make it to be in worse case And admit it will not serve against the Queen yet the claim will serve against Bret when he had entred by the performance of the Condition And Clench and Gawdy said that Bret shall not take advantage of this covenous Deed made by himself of very purpose to bar the party who had right and to put him without remedy no more then where the Disseisor enfeoff his Father who dies seised he shall not take advantage of this descent or if he who hath cause of Action to recover Lands by Covin causeth another to enter into the Lands to the intent to recover against him and does it accordingly for the Covin the Recovery shall
to Charles late Lord Sturton Father to the said Iohn Lord Sturton and the said Charles Lord Sturton disseised the said Lady Sturton and levied a Fine of the said Land to Cottington and his Heirs with Proclamations according to the Statute and warranted it against him and his Heirs And the said Lord Charles dyed before the Proclamations past and the Warranty descended upon the said John Lord Sturton after which and before the Proclamations past the said Lady Sturton entred upon the said Cottington after which the said Lady died and after her death and all the Proclamations past the said John Lord Sturton as Heir in Tail entred and made the Lease to the said Okes upon whom Cottington the Defendant entred as under the right of the said Cottington the Conusee And I perceiving the Court strongly to incline upon the matter of Warranty that it shall bar the entry of the Heir and make a discontinuance against him according to the inference which is taken by Littleton in his Chapter of Discontinuance because the truth was and so acknowledged to the Court although it were omitted in the Verdict that the said Charles Lord Sturton was attained of Felony and Murther and so the blood corrupted between the said Charles and John Lord Sturton wherby in a new Action the Garranty had not hurt the Title of the said Lord John I then moved the Court upon the other point of the Fine with Proclamations and the Court also agreed in this point if the Warranty had not been that yet the Fine with Proclamations shall bar the said John Lord Sturton notwithstanding the entry made by the Lady Sturton were before the Proclamations past because that notwithstanding his regresse made the Reversion remains in Cottington not defeated by his regresse in respect of the Statute whch makes that the Fine remains effectuall against the Heir in Tail if nothing be done by him to undo it before the Proclamations past as by claim regresse and the like but the Act of a stranger shall not help him wherby Iudgment being therupon given against the said Okes the said John Lord Sturton stood satisfied and the Cottingtons enjoy the Land to this day wheras if this opinion of the Court had not been on a new Action the said Sir John might have been relieved against the Warranty And Gaudy said that this was a very good Case for the point upon the Statute in this case Earl of Shrewsbury versus Sir Thomas Stanhop 8. GIlbert Earl of Shrewsbury brought a Scandalum Magnatum against Gilbert Earle of Shrewsbury against Sir Thomas Stanhop in a Scandalum Magnatum Sir Thomas Stanhop Knight and it was upon the Statute Tam pro Domina Regina quam pro seipso c. For that communication was had between the said Sir Thomas and one Francis Fletcher of divers things touching the said Earl the said Francis at such a day and place said to the said Thomas My Lord the said Earl meaning is a Subject innuendo that the said Earl was a Subject of the now Queen the said Sir Thomas then and there said of the said Earl these slanderous words to wit he intending the said Earl is sorry for that meaning that the said Earl was sorry that he was then a Subject to our said Soveraign Lady the Queen that is his grief meaning that it was grief to the said Earl that the said Earl was Subjâ—ct to the Queen to the damage of the said Earl of 20000 l. To which the said Sir Thomas Stanhop said that a question was formerly moved between the said Earl and the Defendant touching the subversion and drawing away of certain Weares heretofore erected by the said Sir Thomas at Shelâ—ord in the said County of Nott. where the Action was brought to oust the River of Trent there that for the subversion therof a Petition was exhibited to the privy Councell of the Queen before the speaking of the said words by certain Inhabitants of the County of Lincoln and divers other places not known to the Defendant with the privity allowance and knowledge of the said Earl which Petition at the time of the speaking of the said words depended before the said Councell not determined wherupon at the day and place comprised in the Declaration there was Communication between the said Defendant and the said Francis Fletcher concerning their purpose to have the said Wears subverted and touching the said Petition upon which the said Francis said to the said Defendant the matter meaning the Petition aforesaid hanging undetermined before the Councell aforesaid is to be heard before the privy Councel meaning the aforesaid Councell of the Queen and what their Honours meaning the Councell aforesaid determine my Lord the aforesaid Earl meaning will willingly obey To which the said Francis then there answered saying My Lord the aforesaid Earl meaning is a Subject upon which the said Defendant they then having speech as well of the said Petition as of the order therupon to be taken by the said Councell answered saying the words comprised in the Declaration meaning that he was sorry and grieved that he was subject to the order to be made upon the Petition aforesaid by the said Councell and averred that this was the same speech upon which the Action was grounded upon which it was demurred in Law and for cause shewn according to the Statute it was alledged that the bar was defective because it is not alledged at what place nor by whom nor against whom the Petition was exhibited and also because that by the Bar the matter of the Declaration is not confessed avoided or traversed and also that the Bar was insufficient And it seemed to Fennor that the matter of the Bar had been sufficient if it had been well pleaded but the Plaintiff alledgeth the words to be spoken in one sence in the Affirmative and the Defendant shews matter also in the Affirmative which proves the words to be spoken in another sence then the Declaration imporrs and two Affirmatives can never make a good Issue and therfore the Defendant ought to have taken a traverse to that which is comprised in the Declaration and for want of this traverse the plea in Bar is not good Gawdy said that the Bar is not sufficient neither in matter nor form not in matter because that wheras Fletcher said that the said Earl was a Subject this can have no other sence but that he was a Subject to the Queen in his Allegiance and her Soveraignty and so much is drawn out of the course of their former speech and therfore the answer which the Defendant made to it refers to his subjection of alleagiance and not to the matter of obedience which he owed to the order of the said Councell and if it cannot have any other sence in good understanding he cannot help himself now by an Innuendo which is in it selfe according to common intendment contrary to that which the nature of the words
wit the 6th day of July in the same 6th year by his Deed of the same date the said Christopher enfeoffed the said Sir John Chichester and his Heirs of the said Mannor and by the same Deed warranted it for him and his Heirs to the said Sir John Chichester and his Heirs wherupon the said Sir John Chichester entred into the said Mannor after which to wit the first day of October 12 Eliz. the said Christopher died after which the 7th day of November 13 Eliz. the said Stretchley Chudleigh died without Issue of his body And after the death of the said Sir Richard Chudleigh to wit the 6th day of September 7 Eliz. the said Sir John Chichester enfeoffed one Philip Chichester and his Heirs of the said Mannor to the use of the said Philip and his Heirs And the said Close being Copyhold and Customary Land of the said Mannor demisable by the Lord of the same Mannor or his Steward for the time being for life or lives by Copy of Court-roll according to the custom of the said Mannor The said Philip at a Court holden at the said Mannor for the said Mannor the 8th day of December 15 Eliz. by Copy of Court-roll granted the said Close to the said John Frain for Term of his life according to the custom of the said Mannor after which to wit the 11th day of March 28 Eliz. the said John Chudleigh being now Heir to the said Christopher enfeoffed the said William Dillon of the said Mannor to have and to hold to him and his Heirs to the use of the said William and his Heirs for ever wherby he entred and was seised untill the said John Fraine entred into the said Close upon him the 8th day of February 30 Eliz. upon which entry of the said Fraine this Action is brought And for difficulty of the case it was adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber before all the Iustices and Barons of the Exchequer And there it was agreed by all that a Warranty descending upon an Infant shall not bind him in case that the entry of the Infant be lawfull into the Land to which the Warranty is united But the Infant ought in such a case to look well that he do not suffer a descent of the Land after his full age before he hath made his re-entry for then the Warranty when he is to have an Action for the Land shall bind him And they agreed also that a Copyhold granted by a Disseisor or any other who hath the Mannor of which it is parcel by wrong shall be avoided by the Disseisee or any other who hath right to the Mannor by his entry or recovery of the Mannor And so by Popham it was agreed by the Iustices in the case of the Manner of Hasselbury Brian in the County of Dorset between Henry late Earl of Arundell and Henry late Earl of Northumberland but then he said that it was agreed that admittance upon surrenders of Copyholders in Fee to the use of another or if an Heir in case of a Descent of a Copyhold were good being made by a Disseisor of a Mannor or any other who hath it by Tort because these are acts of necessity and for the benefit of a stranger to wit of him who is to have the Land by the surrender or of the Heir And also Grants made by Copy by the Feoffee upon condition of a Mannor before the Condition broken are good because he was lawfull Dominus pro tempore And for the matter upon the Statute of 27 H. 8. what shall become of this future use â—imited to the first second and other Issues Males not in Esse at the time of the Feoffment Ewens Owen Bateman and Fennor said That an Use at Common Law is Use what it is no other then a confidence which one person puts in another for a confidence cannot be in Land or other dead thing but ought alwaies to be in such a thing which hath understanding of the trust put in him which cannot be no other then such a one who hâ—th reason and understanding to perform what the other hath committed to him which confidence shall bind but in privity and yet the confidence is in respect of the Land but every one who hath the Land is not bound to the confidence but in privity shall be said to be in the Heir and the Feoffee who hath knowledge of the confidence and in him who cometh to the Land by Feoffâ—ent without consideration albeit he hath no knowledge therof and yet every Feoffee is not bound although he hath knowledge of the confidence as an Alien Person Attaint and the like not the King he shall not be seised to anothers use because he is not compellable to perform the confidence nor a Corporation because it is a dead body although it consist of naturall persons and in this dead body a confidence cannot be put but in bodies naturall And this was the Common Law before the Statute of 27 H. 8. Then the Letter of the Statute is not to execute any Vse before that it hapneth to be an Vse in Esse for the words are Where any person is seised to the use of any other person that in such a case he who hath the Vse shall have the same Estate in the Land which he had before in the Vse Ergo by the very letter of the Law he ought to have an Estate in the Vse and there ought to be a person to have the Vse before the Statute intends to execute any possession to the Vse for the words are expresse that in every such case he shall have it therfore not another And therfore the Statute had purpose to execute the Vses in possession Reversion or Remainder presently upon the conveyance made to the Vses But for the future Vses which were to be raised at a time to come upon any contingent as to the Infants here not being then born the Statute never intended to execute such Vses untill they happen to have their beeing and in the mean time to leave them as they were at Common Law without medling with or altering of them in any manner untill this time and if before this time the root out of which these contingent Vses ought to spring be defeated the Vse for this is utterly destroyed and shall never afterwards have his being as here by the Feoffment made by the said Sir John Saintleger and his Co-feoffees who then were but as Tenements pur auter vie to wit for the life of Christopher and which was a forfeiture of their Estate and for which Oliver Chudleigh might have entred it being before that the said Strechley or John Chudleigh were born the privity of them from Estate being the root out of which this future use ought to have risen is gone and destroyed and therfore the Contingent Vses utterly therby overthrown As if before the Statute of 27 H. 8. Tenant for life had been the remainder over in Fee to an Vse
of his Executors for years this Estate for years is not now vested in any because a man cannot have an Executor during his life and yet it remains as in the custody of the Law untill there are Executors to take it And he said that the case of the Lady Bray was as strong to prove the case in question to be at he takes it which cannot be answered for if she had married with the Lord Bray by the assent of the Councell assigned for it according to the agreement she had taken an Estate by the Contingency but in as much as she did not do it it was otherwise And we are to consider well what we do in this case it is a Tree the branches wherof over-shadow all the Possessions of the Realm in effect for the Estates and Leases in manner of all stand upon those assurances to Uses and to pull up such a Tree by the roots is to put all the Realm in a confusion and therfore if there be any mischief therin it is better to help it by Parliament then to alter it by Judgment And so upon the whole matter I conceive that Judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff Anderson That an Use was not at Common Law for the Common Law had no respect to it but to the Feoffee and it was the person who by the Law had any thing to do in the Land and not Cestay que Vse for he might punish Cestay que Vse for his medling with the Land and Cestay que Vse had no remedy against him by no means But by Suboepna in the Court of Conscience And further an Vse being limited to another in Fee no Vse can be limited further therupon for any Estate And it hath been well sayd that the letter of the Statute of 27 H. 8. did not tend to execute this Vse which was not in Esse and for the intent therof that it did not tend to execute any contingent Vse untill that it happen which is proved by the case that an Estate for years being assigned over or granted to an Vse the Vse of this is not executed by the Statute of 27 H. 8. as it was agreed about 27 Eliz. and what was the reason in the case but because there was not any Seisin in the Vse but only a possession to the Vse wherby the words of the Statute are much to be regarded And here how can there be a Seissin to the Vse which is not it cannot be and therfore for the like reason as in the other case it is never executed nor shall be removed by means of such an Vse untill it hapneth to be an Vse in Esse And for Brents Case I have alwaies taken the better opinion to be that the Wife cannot take in the case for the mean disturbance notwithstanding the Iudgment which is entred therupon which was by assent of the parties and given only upon a default made after an Adjournment upon the Demurrer for he said that he had viewed the Roll therof on purpose and if it be that such a Contingent Vse be not executed untill it hapneth to be in Esse here it appeareth that by the Feoffment Christopher is in of another Estate which was not subject to the Vse because he is in by forfeiture and wrong made to this Estate and therfore not bound to the Vse in Contingency although he made it without consideration and although he had notice of this contingent Vse and therfore this contingent Vse utterly defeated before it had any being But in all the Cases put on the other side it doth not appear that there was any thing done in disturbance of these mediate uses before they hapned and therfore not to be compared to this case wherby he conceived that the Plaintiff ought to be barred Popham said That in as much as the manner of assurance made by Sir Richard Chudleigh may seem strange and in some manner to touch the reputation of the said Sir Richard who was a grave and honest Gentleman to those who heare it and do not know the reason why he did it which I remember to be this as I have heard to wit That the said Christopher had killed one Buller a Gentleman of good reputation wherupon he fled into France and the said Sir Richard doubting what would become of his Estate if he should dye before he had setled his Land and yet having a desire to have power to undo the assurance which he purposed to make if he pleased his Councell then thought the best way to make and devise the assurance so that such an Estate of Inheritance might therby be in him which could not descend to the said Christopher and yet such that he might therby undo the assurance made by the Recovery when he pleased and yet such also as should never take effect in any of the Issues of his other Wives to the prejudice of his right Wives because he never had a purpose to marry with any of these Wives And to that which hath been touched by Periam That this Limitation first made is a Fee-simple in Sir Richard I conceive cleerly the contrary For if it should be so then no Vse could be limited over upon this Fee-simple as hath been said before and therfore all the remainder of the Case had been to no end but he said that it was an Estate-tail speciall in Sir Richard and denied the opinion of Ay scough taken so in 20 H. 6. and this by reason of the Statute of Donis conditionalibus which wills Quod voluntas donatoris secundum formam doni in charta doni manifeste expressam de caetero observetur And here it is expresse that the Heirs of Sir Richard begotten upon any of the said Wives shall have the Land and therby it shall be understood that his Heirs shall be intended by common intendment the Heirs by him To which opinion Anderson agreed And for the matter Popham conceived cleerly that there was not any such use at Common Law as we commonly call an use and yet he acknowledged there were alwaies trusts at Common Law but every trust is not to be said an use for none will doubt but that a tâ—ust may be and is many times put in others at this day as upon puâ—chaseâ— made in other mens names and assurances also upon trust and yet we will not say that this is an use and without doubt such trusts were at Common Law but not the uses aforesaid and the reason that moved him to take the Law to be so was that he had not seen any ancient record Statute or Book of Law nor any writing before the time of Ed. 3. which made any mention of this word use and if it had been at Common Law without doubt as they said some mention would have been made therof The reasons which are alledged in 27. H. 8. and in the case vouched 24. H. 8. that a trust was at Common Law is by the one of them
the Causa Matrimonii prolocuti which as they pretend ought to prove that there was a trust at Common Law And the other the Statute of Marlbridge that the Lord in case of Wards against Feoffments made by Collusion which Feoffments they alledge prove that a trust then was To which it was said that the gift made by a woman to another to the intent that he shal marry her hath in it a Condition more properly implied to wit that if he doe not marry her that she shall have her land back againe for which the Common Law gives her remedy by the Action aforesaid for if it had been but a trust no remedy had been by the Common Law And for the Statute of Marlbridge the contrary therunto is manifestly proved for the Statute speaks but of Feoffments made to Heirs apparants or upon Condition or to the intent to enffeoff the Heir at his full age or the like in which cases the use alwayes goes with the Possessions and is not to the Feffor And the Statute of 4. H. 7. was made in vaine which gives the Wardship of Cestuy que use where no Will is declared which had not been needfull if Feoffments within the Statute of Marlbridge had been said to have been to Uses And without doubt if those who made the Statute of Marlbridge had then had knowledge of these Feoffments to Uses which were so mischievous and more then the other Feoffments by Collusion they then would have provided remedy for these cases of Uses Also the Statute de Religiosis ordains that Nec arte nec ingenio Lands shal not be conveyed in Mortmain and therby it was conceived that a full provision had been made against these Mortmains and yet in 15 Rich. 2. Provision was made against Uses conveyed in Mortmain to Religious or other Corporations of which they took the Profits And without doubt those who were so precise in the making of the Statute of Religiosis against Mortmains would also have made provision for the uses if they had then been known But to cleer this point without all controversie the Statute it self of uses 27 H. 8. makes it plain which saith expresly that by the Common Law of the Realm Lands or Tenements ought not to passe from one to another without solemn Livery matter of Record or writing and that these Feoffments to uses were Errors used and accustomed within the Realm to the Subversion of the ancient Laws therfore it stands not with the ancient Common Law of the Realm as all the Parliment took it which is more to be regarded then any Book vouched But see how and when they began and crept in at Common Law and it shall be easily perceived as it hath been well said by some of those who argued to this point at the beginning that they began by two means to wit by fraud and by fear And he said that the first Book which he had seen in all the Books of the Law which tend to an use is the case of 8. Assise which makes mention that the Counsee of a Fine entred into the Land in the right of another which is to be taken to anothers use And in the Quadragessimâ—s of Edw. 3. mention is made of the Feoffees of the Lord Burglash who sued to the King by petition and by the Statute of 50 Ed. 3. cap. 6. mention is made that divers gave their Lands to their Friends to have the profits and afterwards fled to priviledged places and lived there to the hinderance of their Creditors And therfore it was provided that in such a case execution shall be made as if no such assurance had been made And by 2 Rich. 2. these are called Feoffments to uses and made by craft to deceive Creditors and there is the first mention which is made in any Statute of the word Use So fraud hath been alwaies the chief foundation of these Vses yet in time they began to have some credit in the Law And this was when men saw that the Court of Conscience gave remedy in these cases against such who had not the conscience themselves to perform the trust put in them and to take away the danger which hapned to an infinite number of good Subjects upon the Garboyls which hapned between the time of E. 3. and that of King H. 7. caused that in effect all the Possessions of the Realm were put in Feoffments to uses And the first case in the Law which speaks of this word Use which he ever saw was as he said in 5 H. 4. And in the like case by Gascoign 7 H. 4. no remedy is given by the Law for Cestay que use and afterwards it crept into the Law as appeareth yet as an Error of long time used And if before the Statute of 27 H 8. a Lease had been made for life the remainder in Fee to the use of B. for life the remainder to the use of the first Son of the said B. and so further as here If the Tenant for life had made a Feoffment in Fee to a stranger and had not given the stranger notice of the Use and all this were without consideration and afterwards he in the Remainder in Fee to the Use had released all his Right to the said stranger every one of them had been hereby without remedy for their Uses Were the Son of B. born before or after this wrong done So if it were at Common Law before this Statute as hath been weâ—l said and the Law being so before this Statute then he said it was to be seen what was to be done in the case after the Statute which will stand altogether upon this what will become of these contingent Vses to the Sons not born at the time of the said Feoffment made by Sir John Saintleger and his Co-feoffees by this Statute of 27 H. 8. and it seems to him cleerly that no possession is executed to any contingent use by this Statute untill it comes in being and that as the case is here and in some other speciall cases it shall never be executed And one cause why such a contingent Vse shall not be executed is because it doth not stand with the letter of the Law but rather is against the letter Another cause is because it is utterly against the intent of the Law to execute it as the case is here It doth not stand with the Letter of the Statute for this is Where any person or persons stand seised to the use of any other person or persons c. And it is cleer that none can stand seised to the use of him who is not neither can he who is not in rerum natura have any use therfore the case here doth not stand with the letter of the Statute to be now executed And further the words following are that in every such case every person who hath such an Use in Fee-simples Fee-tail for life for years c. or otherwise in Remainder or
Reversion shall stand hereafter seised and adjudged in lawfull Estate and Possessions of the Lands c. of such an Estate as he had in the Use The words then in the Statute being so precise as they stand to wit that in such case he who hath such an Vse shall have the possession executed of such an Estate as he had in the Vse excludes all other who are not in it to have it to be executed untill that they happen to be in the same case as of that which the Statute speaks And if they had intended to have the Possession to be executed and transferd from the Feoffees to these contingent Vses they would have made some mention therof as well as they did of Reversions and Remainders and they did not leave there but mention this again to wit that the Estate Right Title and Possessions which was in such person or persons which were seised to the use of any such person or persons shall be hereafter cleerly adjudged in him or those who had or have such Vse according to such quality manner form and condition as he had before the use which was in them by which it appeareth plainly that the Right and Possession of the Feoffee shall not be vested in or to any untill that he hath the use it self for it is said that it shall be in him therfore they ought to have somthing in the Vse by the very expresse letter of the Statute before any thing of the Possession shall be executed or transferred by this Statute from the Feoffee to Cestay que use And how can this be said to be within the letter of the Statute which hath so many and so precise words and branches against it And therfore it is cleer that if the Feoffee to use were seised at the time of making of this Statute that the use shall not be executed by this Statute untill there be a regresse made by the Feoffee or in his right to revive the former use and it had been out of the letter of the Statute But to this I say that how precise soever the letter is against the execution of these contingent uses the intent therof is yet more strong precise against them which I will prove cleerly by the Statute it self which is of greater authority then the particular opinion or conceit of any Iudge whomsoever for it is the Iudgment of all the Iudges and all the Realm also which ought to bind all and to which all ought to give credit And to take the intent the Statute was full that it was made as is rehersed for the Disinherison which before was to true Heirs for the defect which before was in the assurance of Purchases for the mischiefs in regard before men did not know by reason of these Vses against whom to bring their Actions to recover their Rights To avoid perjury that it should not be so common as it was by reason of the maintenance and support of these secret Vses for the releif of the King other Lords as to their Escheats Forfeitures Wardships Releases and the like for the mischief which before hapned to Tenants by the Curtesie and in Dower by reason of these Estates in Vse and finally for the great Incoveniencies which hapned by reason of them to the great trouble and unquiet of the People These were the great mischiefs that were before the making of the Statute and these were the things for which the Statute intended to provide remedy and if the exposition shall be as hath been on the other side these mischiefs shall be on every part more mischievous by much then it was before the making of the Statute and that in such a a manner that it shall be impossible to help any of them but by Parliament wheras alwaies the good and true construction of a Statute is to constrain it so that it shall give remedy to the mischief which was before and not to make it more mischievous and therfore examine it by parts And as to the disinherison of two Heirs it appears now that by such exposition more incoveniences will arise and that in a more dangerous degree then before the Statute for before for the Vse the Heir had his remedy in conscience according to the trust and he might have made a disposition of the Land it self by the Statute of Rich. 3. as an Owner for the advancement of his Wife and his Children and for payment of his debts and the like But as the case is now used by means of these perpetuities as they are called if the exposition of the other side shall hold place the true Heir shall not only be continually in danger to loose his Inheritance but by them the very bowels of nature it self shall come to be divided and as rent in peeces for by reason of these the Inheritants themselves cannot make any competent provision for the advancement of their Wives Daughters or youngest Sons as every one according to the course of nature ought to do nor by reason of this can he redeem himself if he were taken Prisoner And this will make disobedience in Children to their Parents when they see that they shall have their Patrimony against their will wherby such Children oftentimes become unnaturall and dissoluts of which I in my time have seen many unnaturall dangerous and fearfull consequences not convenient to be spoken of And it staies not there but it causeth mortall debate as to blood between Cosin and Cosin Brother and Brother and not so only but between the Father himself and his Children of which every one of us have seen the experience for the one ought to be as a watch upon the other to see when any thing happen to be done to give him advantage to disinherit the very true Owner And I say that it is impossible that any can keep his Possessions which hath them tyed with these perpetuities if the exposition of the Statute should hold place which the other side hath made And I affirm precisely that there is not any one in England who hath had such Possessions so bound by descent of Inheritance by five years of any value but that he hath lost all or part of his said Land at this time let him be never so precise in making his Assurances and yet he is not sure to have one skilfull in the Law alwaies at his elbow when he is to meddle with his Land And therfore I put but this Case One who hath such a perpetuity with power to make Leases rendring the ancient Rent or more hath two Farms either of them of the ancient Rent of 20 s. a year but the one is worth 60 l. a year and the other but 20 l. these are in hand to be better together rendring 53 s. 4 d. for both together therfore he hath lost all or part of his Land according to that of which the perpetuity is so it is evident that it will happen to be more mischievous in
not properly said an Use untill that it be said in Esse to take the Profits themselves But I am to turn this Argument against him who made it for if it be so the Use can never be in suspence and iâ— so it follows that no Possession by means of any such Use can be in suspence but staies where it was before to be executed when the Use happens to be in beeing But as to that that a Reversion or Remainder may be of that which we call an Use so also may such a Use be in suspence in the same manner as the Possession it self but not otherwise And as to Cramners Case formerly put the Law is so because nothing appeareth in the case to be done to the disturbance of this contingent Vse in the interim before it happen But upon the Case put of the Lady Bray upon which it hath been so strongly relied it was thus The Lord Bray made an assurance of certain Lands to the use of certain of his Councell untill the Son of the said Lord Bray should come to the age of 21. years for the livelyhood of the said Son and of such a Wife as he shall marry with the assent of the said Councell and then to the use of the said Son and of the said Wife and of the Heirs of the body of the said Son The Father dies the Son was become in Ward to the King after which one of the said Councellors dies the King grants over the Wardship of the said Son after which the said Lord Bray by the assent of his Guardian and of the surviving Councellors marries the Daughter of the then Earl of Shrewsbury after which the Husband aliens the same Land to one Butler and dies and upon Action brought by the said Lady against the said Butler for the same land she was barred by Judgment and upon what reason because she was not a person known when the Statute was made which must be in every case of a Freehold in Demesne as well in case of an Use as in case of a Possession And therfore a Lease for years the Remainder to the Heirs of I. S. then living is not good and the same Law of an Vse And so it was agreed by all the Iustices very lately in the case of the Earl of Bedford but in these Cases it remaineth to the Feoffor and because it doth not appear at the time of the assurance who shall be the Wife of the said Son so that there was not any to take the present Free-hold by name of the Wife of the Son she takes nothing by the assurance but this reason makes for our side to wit That if there were none to take the Free-hold in Demesne from the Use when it falleth he shall never take it The other reason in this Case was because she was not married by the consent of all the Counsellors for that one was dead nor according to the power given by the agreement but by the authority of the Guardian that the power which the Father had upon his Son was ceased And Nota That by a Disseisin the contingent Use may be disturbed of his Execution but there by the regresse of the Feoffee oâ— his Heirs when the Contingent happen it may be revived to be executed But by the release of the Feoffee or his Heirs the Contingent in such a case by Popham iâ—â—â—â—red oâ— all possibility at any time to be executed And to that which hath been said that the generall and universall Assurances of men throughout all the Realm at this â—ay arâ— by means of Vses and that it shall be a great deal of danger and inconvenience to draw them now in question or doubt and that it now trembleth upon all the Possessions of the Realm and therfore it shall be too dangerous to pull up such Trees by the roots the Branches wherof are such and so long spread that they overshadow the whole Realm Popham said That they were not utterly against Uses but only against those and this part of them which will not stand with the publike Weal of of the Realm and which being executed shall make such an Estate which cannot stand with Common Law of the Realm or the true purport of the Statute and therfore he said that it was but to prune and cut off the rotten and corrupt branches of this Tree to wit that those which had not their substance from the true Sap nor from the ancient Law of the Realm nor from the meaning of the Statute and so to reduce the Tree to its beauty and perfection The same reason he said might have been made in the time of Edw. 4. against those Arguments which were made to maintain the common Recoveries to bar Estates-tail But if such a reason had been then made it would have been taken for a bare conceit and meer trifle and yet Vses were never more common then Estates-tail were between the Statute of Donis conditionalibus and the said time of Edw 4. But the grave Iudges then saw what great trouble hapned amongst the people by means of Intails and what insecurity happened by means therof to true Purchasors for whose security nothing was before found as we may see by our Books but collaterall Warranty or infinite delay by Voucher and thus did the Iudges of this time look most deeply into it wherupon upon the very rules of Law it was found that by common Recovery with Vouchers these Estates-tail might be barred which hath been great cause of much quiet in the Land untill this day that now it begins to be so much troubled with the cases of Vses for which it is also necessary to provide a lawfull remedy But he said plainly That if the Exposition made on the other side shall take place it will bring in with it so many mischiefs and inconveniencies to the universall disquiet of the Realm that it will cast the whole Common-wealth into a Sea of troubles and endanger it with utter confusion and drowning And to that which was said That a Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. or to the Heirs of the body of I S. or to the first Son as here are so in the custody of the Law that they cannot be drawn out that therfore no forfeiture can be made by the Feoffment made by him who hath the particular Estate To that he said That a Disseisin made to the particular Estate for life draws out such Remainders to the right Heirs as is proved expresly by 3 H. 6 where it is holden that a collaterall Warranty bars such a Remainder in obeyance after a disseisin And by Gascoigne 7 H. 4. If such a Tenant for life makes a Feoffment in Fee it is a Forfeiture but he conceived that in the life time of I. S. none can enter for it but this is not Law and when by the Feoffment the particular Estate is quite gone in possession and in right also the remainder shall never take
effect by the very rules of Littleton And by 27 H. 7. which is That a Remainder cannot be unlesse there be an Estate upon which it may have dependency which there it cannot but in the case of a Disseisin made to a particular Estate it is otherwise because there the Estate remains in right And to say that it shall not be a Forfeiture because the Feoffment was made to Christopher who then had the Fee-simple which was limited to the right Heirs of Sir Richard Chudleigh this is not so for by 41 E. 3. The Tenant for life himself who also had a Remainder in Fee-simple in himself depending upon a mean Estate-tail in another made a Feoffment and by it committed a Forfeiture to him in the Remainder in tail But if Tenant for life Remainder in tail Remainder in Fee enfeoff him in the Remainder in tail this is a Surrender of his Estate for the immediate Estate which was in him wherupon this Term Judgment was given in the Kings Bench for Fraine the Defendant against Dillon who was Plaintiff And it is entred Hill 31 Eliz. Rot. 65. Baynes Case 10. AT the Sessions holden at Newgate presently after this Term the case was this one Baines with another came in the night time to a Tavern in London to drink and after they had drunk the said Baynes stole a cup in which they drunk in a Chamber of the same House the Owner of the said House his Wife and servants then being also in the House and the cup being the Owners of the said Tavern wherupon he was indited and committed Burglary this matter appeared in the Inditement and agreed by Popham Anderson and Periam with the Recorder and Serjants at Law then being there that this was not Burglary and yet it was such a Robbery whereby he was ousted of the benefit of his Clergy by the Statute of 5. E. 6. Cap. 9. and was â—anged 11. ANd at the Sessions then next ensuing 〈◊〉 holden upon one who had stolen a silver Bason Ewer of the then Bishop of Worcester the sale made openly in the day in a Scriveners shop in London to a stranger the question was demanded of the Court whether the property were changed by this Sale so that the Bishop shall not have his Plate againe because it was alledged that they prescribed that every one of their shops in London are good Markets overt through all London every day in the week but Sunday But agreed by Popham Egerton Anderson Brian and others skilfull in the Law then being there that such a generall custome is not good and that this Sale made there albeit it were openly in the shop so that every one passing by In which case Shops in London are Markets Overt what not might see it shall not bind the property as it shall doe in Market overt for a Scriveners Cutlers Shop or the like is not proper for the Sale of I late nor a place to which men will go to seek for such a thing lost or stole But a Goldsmiths Shop is the proper Shop for it as the Drapers Shop is for Woollen cloath or the Mercers Shop for Silk and the like and to such men will go to seek for things of the like nature that are lost or stolen and not to a Scriveners Shop or the like And they agreed also that a private Sale made in the Shops which are proper to the nature of the thing sold so that the Passers by cannot in reason see it in their passage cannot bind for reason upon which the Law is founded will not admit any such custome Hillary Term 37 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Westby versus Skinner and Catcher 1. IN Debt by Titus Westby Plaintiff against Thomas Skinner and John Chatcher late Sheriffs of London Defendants for 440 l. upon Nihil debet pleaded and a special Verdict found the Case appeared to be this See this case in Coke 3. Report fol 71. 6. to wit One Anthony Bustard with others were bound in a Recognizance in the nature of a Statute-staple of 440 l. to the Plaintif wherupon the Plaintif sued Execution out of the Chancery against the said Anthony and the other that were bound with him for the Bodies Goods and Lands of the said Obligers which writ of Execution was delivered to the said Defendants the 8th day of Prisoners in execution to be delivered over to the new Sheriff by Indenture and all the executions to be therin moved September 30. Eliz. the Defendants then being Sheriffes of London and the said Anthony being then in Newgate in Execution in the custody of the said Defendants for 240 l. at the suit of one Robert Deighton and that afterwards to wit the 20 th day of October in the same yeer the said Defendants were discharged and removed from their said Offices and Hugh Offeley Richard Saltonstall were then made Sheriffes of London and that the said Anthony being in Execution for the one and the other debt the said Defendant the said 20th day of October by Indenture delivered the said Anthony to the said new Sheriffes in Execution for the said debt of the said Robert Deighton not giving them any noâ—ice of the said Execution made for the Plaintiff and suffered the said Anthony to goe at large And whether the Defendants shall be charged for this escape was the question And the escape was alledged by the Declaration to be suffered by the said Defendants the said 20. day of October 30 Eliz. and it was moved by Tanfield that the new Sheriffs ought to take notice of their Prisoners remaining in the Goal at their coming into their Office at their perill and ought to enquire and search for the causes that then were in custody and not to deliver them of their own head without due course of Law And he put the case That if the old Sheriff had been dead in the mean time before the new Sheriffs had been made shal this be an excuse to the new Sheriffs that they had no notice for what cause this Anthony had been in Prison if they suffer him to escape And he said that it shall not no more here but per Curiam the new Sheriff shall not be charged with this Escape as to the 440 l. of which they had no notice for if this case which was private in the knowledge of the ancient Sheriff only upon a Writ directed to them at the suite of any party the new Sheriffs cannot by intendment have any knowledge unlesse it be given to them by the old Sheriffs to whom the Writ of Execution was directed and delivered And the case of one Dabridgecourt who was Sheriff of Warwick and had one in Execution whom he kept in a private Prison by himself for all his Executions in the Town of Warwick and when he was discharged of his Office and a new Sheriff made Dabridgecourt said to the new Sheriff That he had such a one in Execution
Grantor at his Election provided then afterwards that he shall charge his person is not good Causa patet And all agreed that upon a Rent granted upon equality of partition or for allowance of Dower or for recompence of a Title an Annuity doth not lye because it is in satisfaction of a thing reall and therfore shall not fall to a matter personall but alwaies remains of the same nature as the thing for which it is given And afterwards the same Term Iudgment was given in the Common Bench that the Plaintiff shall recover which is entred c. And in the same case Clark vouched that it was reported by Benloes in his Book of Reports where a Rent was granted out of a Rectory by the Parson who after wards resigned the Parsonage that it was agreed in the Common Pleas in his time that yet a Writ of Annuity lies against the Grantor upon the same Grant to which all who agreed on this part agreed that it was Law Butler versus Baker and Delves 3. IN Trespasse brought by John Butler against Thomas Baker and Thomas See this case in Cookes 3. Report foâ— 25 Delves for breaking his Close parcell of the Mannor of Thoby in the County of Essex upon a speciall Verdict the Case was thus William Barners the Father was seised in his Demesne as of fee of the Mannor of Hinton in the County of Glocester holden of the King by Knights-service in Capite and being so seised after the Marriage had between William his Son and heir apparant and Elizabeth the Daughter of Thomas Eden Esquire in consideration of the same Marriage and for the Joynture of the said Elizabeth assured the said Mannor of Hinton to the use of the said William the Son and Elizabeth his Wife and the Heirs of their two bodies lawfully begotten and died by whose death the Reversion also of the said Mannors descended to the said William the Son whâ—rby he was seised therof accordingly and being so seised and also seised of the Mannor of Thoby in his Demesne as of Fee holden also of the Queen by Knights-servivice in chief and of certain Lands in Fobbing in the said County of Essex which Land in Fobbing with the Mannor of Hinton were the full third part of the value of all the Land of the said William the Son and he made his Will in writing wherby he devised to his said Wife Elizabeth his said Mannor of Thoby for her life in satisfaction of all her Joynture and Dower upon condition that if she take to any other Joynture that then the Devise to her shall be void and after her decease he devised that the said Mannor shall remain to Thomas his Son and the Heirs Males of his body and for default of such Issue the remainder to Thomas brother of the said William for his life the remainder to hir first second and third Son and to the Heirs Males of their bodies and so to every other Issue Male of his body and for default of such Issue the remainder to Leonard Barners his brother and to the Heirs Males of his body the remainder to Richard Barners and the Heirs Males of his body the remainder to the right Heirs of the Devisor William the Son dies having Issue Thomas his Son and Grisell his Daughter Wife to the said Thomas Baker the said Elizabeth by Paroll in pais moved her Estate in the said Mannor of Hinton and after this entred into the said Mannor of Thoby after which the said Elizabeth died and Thomas the Son and Thomas the Uncle died also without Issue Male after which the said Leonard took one Mary to Wife and died having Issue Anthony Barners after which the said Mary took the said John Butler to Husband and after this the said Anthony assigned to the said Mary the said Mannors of Thoby in allowance for all her Dower wherby the said John Butler as in the right of his Wife entred into the said Mannor of Thoby wherby the said Thomas Delves by the commandment of the said Baker entred into the said Close of which the Action is brought as in right oâ— the said Grisell And whether this entry were lawful or not was the question which was argued in the Court in the time of the late Lord Wray and he and Gawdy held strongly that the entry of the said Delves was lawfull but Clench and Fennor held alwaies the contrary wherupon it was adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber But they all agreed that the Waiver made by the said Elizabeth by parole in pais was a sufficient Waiver of her Estate in Hinton and the rather because of the Statute of 27 H 8. cap. 10. the words of which are That if the Joynture be made after the Marriage that then the Wife surviving her Husband may after his death refuse to take such Joynture And now it was moved by Tanfield that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for by the Waiver of the Wife the Inheritance of Hinton is now to be said wholly in the Husband ab initio and therfore that with Fobbing being a whole third part of the whole Land which now is to be said to be left to discend to the Heir of the Devisor as to Thoby is good for the whole and if so then no part therof descends to Grisell and therfore the entry of the said Delves in her right is wrongfull Coke Attorney-general to the contrary for he said That it is to no purpose to consider what Estate the Devisor had in the Mannor of Hinton by reason of this Waiver made by his Wife Ex post facto after his death But we are to see what Estate the Devisor had in it in the view of the Law at the time of his death before the Waiver and according to it the Law shall adjudge that he had power to make his Devise by means of the Statute and at this time none can adjudge another Estate in him but joyntly with his wife of which Estate he had no power to make any disposition or to devise it or to leave it for the third part to his Heir for the Statute which is an explanatory Law in this point saies that he ought to be sole seised in such a case And further the Statute of 34 H. 8. at the end is that the Land which descends immediatly from the Devisor shall be taken for the third part and this Land did not descend immediatly for it survived to the Wife untill she waived it and therfore this Land is not to be taken for any third part which the Statute purposed to have been left to the Heir and therfore so much shall be taken from Thoby as with Fobbin shall be a third part to descend wherbâ— Grisell the Heir hath good right yet to part of Thoby and therfore the entry of the said Delves in her right by commandment of her husband not wronfull Periam chief Baron Clench Clark Walmsley and Fennor That now
the said Goodale that this Warrant was made to him After which it was agreed between the said Sir Ioh Packington Drew Woodale that the said Tho. Drew shall have but 32 l. of the said 100. marks wherupon the said Sir Iohn Packington within a year after the death of the said Ralph Woodliff paid to the said Drew Woodliff the 100. marks and presently the said Drew delivered to the said Sir John all the 100. marks but 32 l. And the Verdict stands upon this point whether the 100. marks were well paid or not And by Popham and Gawdy this was meerly a fraud which shall never prejudice a third person for if it be agreed between the Disseisee and I. S. that a stranger shall disseise the Tenant of the Land and enfeoff the said I. S. to the intent that the Disseisee shall recover against him this Recovery shall bind the said I. S. but not him who was disseised and yet he who recovered had a good Title and paramount the other but he shall not come to that to which he had good cause of Action and Title by fraudulent means to the prejudice of a third person not party to this fraud And it was said further that to pay money and take it away again presently before that it is pursed up by re-delivery is not properly a payment but rather a colour of payment And by Fennor and Popham the force of a Deed of Feoffment once effectuall cannot become void or of no effect nor the Livery therupon by such manner of words And it is not like a Bargain of Goods or an Obligation or a Lease for years which by such words may be dissolved and made to be of no force or effect because that as by the sealing a bare Contract it may be made perfect and effectuall without other circumstances so may it be defeated by such bare means without other circumstance But so it is not in case of an Inheritance or Free-hold which cannot be effectual by the bare delivery of a Deed unlesse that Livery be made therupon And all agreed that as this case is notwithstanding the Feoffment made over by the Father the money might have been paid to the Heir to perform the Condition if they had been duly paid and without Covin and that the words had been apt to have defeated the Estate But by Popham and Clench If a Feoffment be made to one upon condition In which case a Condition shall be performed to an Assignee and not to the Heir of payment of money to the Feoffee his Heirs or Assignes and the Feoffee makes a Feoffment over and dies the money ought to be paid to the Feoffee who is the Assignee and not to the Heir for there Heir is not named but in respect of the Inheritance which might be in him but here he is named as a meer stranger to it Bartons Case 3. IN a Writ of Error sued in the Kings Bench by Randall Barton upon a Fine levied at Lancaster 7 Eliz. of Land in Smithall and else where in the County of Lancaster by Robert Barton Esquire to Leven and Browndo where this Writ was brought by the said Randall as Heir in tail to the said Robert to wit Son of Ralph Brother of the said Robert The Defendant plead a Recovery in Bar therof had after the Fine in which the said Robert was vouched who vouched over the common Vouchee And by all the Court this common Recovery with such double Voucher which is the common assurance of Lands is a Bar by reason of the Voucher to every manner of right which the Vouchee or his Heir by means of him is to have to this land which is paramount the Recovery And so it is of every manner of way wherby they are otherwise to come to the Land before the Recovery And if the recovery be erroneous it remains a good Bar untill it be avoided by error But if the Recovery be void or the Voucher not warranted to be pursuing the appearance of the Tenant but precedent to it as was pretended and so no Tenant to warrant the Voucher when the Voucher was made the Recovery shall be no bar in such a case and the case here was informed to be this for the Writ of Entry bears date 1. Mart. 7 Eliz. returnable Die Lunae in 4. septimana quadragessimae propter futur and the Voucher was made in 4. septimana quadragessimae 7 Eliz. the said first day of March being the first week of this Lent 7 Eliz. And upon this it was inferred that the Tenant was not to appear untill Munday in the fourth week of Lent 8 Eliz. which is a long time after that the Voucher appeared and vouched over But by the whole Court the Original Writ shall be taken as it is written to be returnable on Munday in the fourth week of the same Lent 7 Eliz for it shall be taken as it is written shortly most beneficially that it can be to make the Recovery good And if it had been written Proxâ—me it should refer to the week before and so good And if the word Futur had been written at large Futura it also shall refer to Septimana and therfore being written briefly it shall refer as it may best do to make the Recovery good But if it had been in Quarta septimana proximae quadragessimae at large then the word Proxime shall refer to Quadragessimae because of the case But if it had been Proxima it shall refer to Septimana because also of the case But here as the case is it shall be a good reference to make the words Tunc proxima futur to shew what fourth week of Lent to wit that next ensuing the first day of March. As if a man be bound by Obligation bearing date the first day of March to pay the 10. day of March then next ensuing this shall be taken the 10. day of this March because this is next ensuing the first day Paramor versus Verrald 4. IN Trespasse of Assault and false Imprisonment by Robert Paramor against John Verrold and others supposed to be done at such a Parish and Ward in London the 20. day of May 35 Eliz The Defendants justifie by reason of an Erecution upon a Recovery in the Court of Sandwich within the Cinque-Ports Debt and traverse Absque hoc in that they were guilty in London c. The Plaintiff reply and maintain the Assault and Imprisonment as it is said and traverses Absque hoc quod habetur aliquod tale Recordum loqueâ—ae prout the Defendants have alledged Et hoc paratus est verificare per Recordum illud and upon this the Defendants demurred in Iudgment And per Curiam the Defendants plea Prima fâ—cie was good because it was a speciall manner of Iustification which cannot be pleaded and alledged to be in any other place then where it was done in the same manner as if they had justified by force of a Capias directed to the
Vse may be averred without Deed upon a Fine sur Render And all agreed that if there had been a Deed to have declared the purport of the Fine that the Fine shall not be taken to extend further then is comprised in the Deed. And what is the cause therof the Deed or the intent of the parties and none can say but that it is the intent of the parties and not the Deed and the intent may as well appear without the Deed as with it albeit it be not so conclusive by Parole as by Deed. And therfore suppose I have 100. acres of Land in a Close in D. and I. S. hath another 100. acres in the same Close and Town and I. S. hath a 100. acres of Land in the same Town out of this Close and my intent is to levy a Fine to I. S. of the whole Close by the name of 200. acres of Land with a Render as before and I levy it accordingly shall the Render enure to the Land which I. S. had in the same Town It is cleer that it shall not although it be without Deed why then shall the Fine here be taken to work rather to the Land called Karkian then to any other Lands which any other had in the same Towns when it appeareth plainly that it never was the intent of the parties that the Fine should extend to these Lands called Karkian and it was decreed in Chancery accordingly Hall versus Arrowsmith 4. IN the case between Hall and Arrowsmith it was agreed by the whole Court in the Kings Bench That if a Copyholder for life hath licence to make a Lease for three years if he shall live so long and he makes a Lease for three years without such a Limitation that yet this is no forfeiture of his Estate because the operation of Law makes such a Limitation to the Estate which he made to wit that it shall not continue but for his life and then such an express Limitation in the case where the Law it self makes it is but a meer trifle and yet if a Lessee for life makes a Lease for years and he in the Reversion confirm it it remains good after the death of the Tenant for life but this then shall be as if it had been made by him in the Reversion himself and shall be his Lease But if the Lease there had been made determinâ—ble upon the life of Tenant for life the confirmation therof by him in the Reversion will not help him after the death of him who was Tenant for life Causa patet But in the principall case if the Copyholder had had an Estate in Fee by Copy it had been a forfeiture of his Estate to make an absolute Lease because in that case he does more then he was licensed to do And they agreed that such a licence cannot be made to be void by a Condition subsequent to the execution therof to undo that which was once well executed But there may be a Condition precedent united to it because in such a case it is no licence untill the Condition performed but the licence before mentioned is not a condition all Licence but a Licence with a Limitation and therfore hath not been of force if the Limitation which the Law makes in this case had not been and the Limitation in Law shall be preferred before the Limitation in Deed where they work to one and the same effect and not different Arthur Johnsons Case 5. ARthur Johnson was possessed of a Term for years and so possessed assigned this over to Robert Waterhouse and John Waterhouse being Brothers to the Wife of the said Johnson to the use of the said Wife the said Johnson dies and makes his Wife his Executrix after which the said Wife takes Robert Witham to Husband who takes the Profits of the Land during the life of his said Wife the Wife dies Intestate her said Brothers being next of kin to the said Wife took administration as well of the Goods of the said Wife as of her first Husband And whether the said Waterhouses or the said Witham shall have this Lease or the use therof was the question in the Chancery and therupon put to the two chief Iustices upon which they and the chief Baron and all the other Iustices of Serjeants-Inne in Fleetstreet and Beamont also were cleer in opinion that the said Administrators had now as well the Interest as the Vse also of the said Term as well in Conscience as in Law and that they had the use as Administrators to the said Wife and that the said Witham shall not have it because it is as a thing in Action which the Administrators of the Wife alwaies shall have and not the Husband As if an Obligation had been made to the use of the Wife And this opinion was certified accordingly to the Lord Keeper of the great Seal of England and it was so decreed Taunton versus Barrey 6. IN an Ejectione firmae brought by Giles Taunton Plaintiff in the King Bench against Giles Barrey Defendant the Case was thus Iohn Coles Esquire made a Lease of the Lands in question to the Father of the said Barrey for divers years depending upon the life of the Lessee and of the said Defendant and of the Survivor of them upon condition that the said Father should not alien without the consent of the said Coles his heirs after which the said Father devised the Term to the said Defendant and died making his Executor who assented And the question upon this point found upon a speciall Verdict was whether upon the matter the Condition were broken and by the opinion of the whole Court adjudged that it was for in such a case he ought to have left it to his Executor without making any Devise of it for the Devise is an Alienation against him and therfore it was agreed that the Plaintiff shall recover Term 37 Eliz. Rot. between Roper and Roper Michaelmas Term 38 39. Eliz. Everets Case 1. THis Case was moved by the chief Iustice to the other chief Iustices at Serjeants-Inne in Fleetstreet concerning one Everet who before was attaint for stealing of a Horse reprieved after Iudgment and Indited again for stealing another Horse before this Attainder And the Vicar of Pelton in the County of Somerset was Indited as accessary before this Felony for the procurement of it And Everet being again Indited upon this last Inditement did not plead that he was formerly Indited of another Felony c. but acknowledged the Inditement wherby the Accessary was Arrained tried and found guilty and had his Iudgment also as the principall but the Execution of the Accessary was respited And now moved whether upon this matter it shall be fit to execute the Accessary the principall being executed And it seemed convenient to all the Iustices and Barons that he shall be executed and that the matter was cleer in this case because the principall did not take advantage of his
first Attainder by way of Plea but acknowledged the Deed in which case the Accessary may well be Arraigned But if the principall had pleaded his former Attainder whether now he shall be put to answer for the benefit of the Queen having regard to this Accessary who otherwise shall go quit because there was not any principall but he who was formerly attainted And it seemed to Popham and some others that it shall be in the same manner as if the same person so formerly attainted should be tried now for Treason made before his Attainder as appeareth by 1 H. 6. 5. because it is for the advantage of the King in his Escheat of the Land and notwithstanding that it is moved by Stamford in his Pleas of the Crown it seemed to Popham that there was no diversity where the Treason was made before the Felony of which he is attainted and where after and before the Attainder And by the same reason that he shall be again tried for the benefit of the King in this case because of the Escheat by the same reason in this case here because of the forfeiture which accrueth to the Queen by the Attainder of the accessary and for the Iustice which is to be done to a third person who otherwise by this means shall escape unpunished But he agreed that the party Attaint shall not be again Arraigned for any other Felony done before the Attainder in case where no Accessary was touched before the Statute of 8 Eliz. cap. 4. he who is convict of Felony and hath his Clergy after his purgation made shall be Arraigned for another Felony done before the conviction if it be such for which he cannot have his Clergy and was not convicted or acquitted of the same Felony before the Attainder But upon this Statute it appeareth that he who shall have his Clergy in such manner shall not be drawn in question for any other Felony done before his Attainder for which he might have his Clergy And of this opinion as Clark and others of the Iustices said were all the Iustices in the time of Wray And as to the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap 7. It is not to be understood but that he who hath his Clergy and delivered according to this Statute shall be yet arraigned for any other Felony done before his former Conviction or Attainder if it be such for which he cannot have his Clergy for the words are That he shall be put now to answer c. in the same manner as if he had been delivered to the Ordinary and had made his Purgation any thing in this act to the contrary notwithstanding Pollard versus Luttrell 2. IN an Ejectione firmae between Pollard and Luttrell for Lands in Hubury and Listock upon the Title between the Lord Audeley and Richard Audeley it was agreed by the chief Iustices that if the Disseisor levy a Fine with Proclamations according to the Statute of 4 H. 7. and a stranger within five years after the Proclamations enter in the right of the Disseisee without the privity or consent of the Disseisee that this shall not avoid the Bar of the Fine unlesse that he assent to it within the five years for the words of the Statute are so that they pursue their Title Claim or Interest by way of Action or lawfull Entry within five years c. and that which is done by another without their assent is not a pursuing by them according to the intent of the Statute for otherwise by such means against the will of the Disseisee every stranger may avoid such a Fine which was not the intent of the Statute Mountague versus Jeoffreys and others 3. IN Trespasse by Edward Mountague Plaintiff against Richard Jeoffreys and others Defendants for a Trespasse done in certain Lands called Graveland in Hailsham in the County of Sussex the Case upon a special Verdict was thus Sir John Jeoffreys late chief Baron bing seised in his Demesn as of Fee amongst others of the said Land called Graveland having Issue but one only Daughter by his Will in writing devised all his Land of which he was seised in fee except the said Graveland to his said Daughter for 21. years c. and the said Land called Graveland which was then in Lease for divers years to one Nicholas Cobb which years at the time of the death of the said Sir John Geoffreys continued he devised to the said Richard Jeoffreys his Brother and his Heirs and by the same Will he disposed divers Legacies of his Chattels and the Remainder he gave to his said Daughter and made her Executrix of his said Will after which the first Wife of the said Sir John Jeoffreys being dead he covenanted with Mr. George Goring to take the Daughter of the said George to Wife and covenanted with the said George amongst other Lands to assure the said Land called Graveland to the said George Goring and Richard Jeoffreys and their Heirs to the use of the said Sir John Jeoffreys and Mary Goring Daughter of the said George and the Heirs of the said Sir John Jeoffreys by a certain day before which day the marriage being had the said Sir Io Ieoffreys made a Deed and sealed it and delivered it containing a Feoffment of the said Land called Graveland amongst others to the said George Goring and Richard Ieoffreys and their Heirs to the Uses aforesaid in performance of the said Covenants with a Warrant of Attorney to make Livery accordingly and the Attorney made Livery in other parts of the Land and not in Graveland and this was in the name of all the Lands compriâ—â—d in the Deed and the said Nicholas Cobb never attorned to this Deed After which Sir Iohn Ieoffreys interlined in the said Will that the said Mary then his Wife should be joynt Executrix with his Daughter And in the Legacy of the rest of his Goods c. he interlin'd the said Mary his Wife to be Joynt-tenant with his said Daughter without other publication therof and afterward the saâ—d Sir Iohn died the said Daughter being his Heir who took to Husband the said Edward Mountague 4. IN Trespasse the Plaintiff supposeth the Trespasse to be done in the breaking of his House and Close in such a Town the Defendant justifies in a House and Close in the same Town and shews which to put the Plaintiff to his new Assignment to which the Plaintiff replied that the House and Close of which he complains is such a House and gives it a speciall name upon which the Defendant demurs and adjudged that the Plaintiff take nothing by his Writ for albeit a House may have a Curtilage which passeth by the name of a Messuage with the Appurtenances yet this shall not be in this case for by the Bar the Plaintiff is bound to make a speciall demonstration in what Messuage and what Close he supposeth the Trespasse to be done as to say that the House hath a Curtilage the which he broke and
Co. lib. 8. Baspoles case and 7 H. 6. 40. accordingly The same Term in the same Court Vaughans Case THomas Dedham had to Apprentice one Holland who got his Main with Child and afterwards departed from his Masters Service and staid a whole night with Vaughan his Kinsman and Dedham procured a Warrant from S. Stephen Soame a Iustice of Peace that the Constable should bring the said Apprentice to order according to Law and because that Vaughan perswaded him to withdraw himself so that he should not be taken by virtue of the Warrant he was indited And it was agreed that it was lawfull for Vaughan to lodge and relieve him albeit he knew his misdeeds they being no Treason or Felony But Haughton Iustice took exception to the Inditement because no place appeared where he perswaded him to withdraw himself from the Warrant or in truth that he did hide himself from the Warrant for if he did not so the perswasion was nothing And Doderidge took another exception to the Warrant because the Statute saith that two Iustices of which one of them shall be of the Quorum shall proceed in such cases against the Malefactor and that they shall compell the party to allow means for the education of the Infant or otherwise the Offendor shall suffer corporall punishment and so this Warrant not being speciall according Pasch 16. Jac. In the Star Chamber Wrennums Case SIr Henry Yelverton Attorney-generall exhibited an Information in the Star Chamber against one Wrennum Ore tenus because he had divers times petitioned the King against Sir Francis Bacon Lord Chancellor pretending that the said Lord Bacon had done great Injustice to him in granting an Injunction and awarding Possession of Land against him for which he had two decrees in the time of the former Chancellor And also he made a Book of all the proceedings in the said cause between him and one Fisher and dedicated and delivered it to the King in which he notoriously traduced and scandalised the said Chancellor saying that for this unjust decree he his Wife and Children were murthered and by the worst kind of death by starving And that now he having done unjustly he must maintain it by speaking untruths and that he must use his authority Wit Art and Eloquence for the better maintenance therof with other such like scandalous words And the Attorney cited a president 2 Jac. Where one Ford for an offence in the like manner against the late Chancellor was censured in this Court that he should be perpetnally imprisoned and pay the fine of 1000 l. and that he should ride upon a Horse with his face to the tail from the Fleet to Westminster with his fault written upon his head and that he should acknowledge his offence in all the Courts at Westminster and that he should stand there a reasonable time upon the Pillory and that one of his ears shall be cut off and from thence shall be carried to Prison again and in the like manner should go to Cheapside and should have his other ear cut off c. And because they conceived that the said Wrennum had wronged the said Lord Chancellor in the said suggestion they all agreed in his censure according to the said President See for such matter 19. Ass 5. 9 H. 8. Sir Rowland Heywards case and 21 H. 8. Cardinall Wolseys case The same Term in the Kings Bench. Mingies Case AWrit of Annuity was brought by Mingy which was granted Pro Consilio impenso impendendo the Defendant pleaded in Bar that he carried a Bill to the Plaintiff to have him set his hand to it and because he refused Annuity pro Consil impenso c. he detained the said Annuity And per Curiam this is no plea for he is bound to give advice but not to set his hand to every Bill for this may be inconventent to him The same Term in the same Court THe Case was this A Lessee for years was bound in a Bond to give up the possession of the Land demised to the Lessor or his Assigns at the end of the Term the Lessor assigns over his Interest and the Assignee requires the Lessee to perform the Condition who answers that he knew not Notice where requisite whether he were the Assignee and therupon refuseth And the question was whether he had broken the Condition and it was adjudged that he had for he hath taken upon him so to do and it is not like a Condition annexed to an Estate as Co. lib. 5. Mallories case or Co. lib. 6. Greens case where the Patron presented his Clark to a deprivation yet the Ordinary ought to give the Patron notice of the deprivation for it is a thing Spirituall of which a Lay-man shall not be bound to take notice It was moved that a man riding upon a Horse through the water was Dead and. drowned and by the Coroners Inquest it was found that his death was caused Per cursum aquae and the Horse was not found a Deodand and per Curiam they did well for the water and not the Horse was the cause of his death The same Terme in the same Court. Wooton versus Bye THe case was this A man made a Lease for years rendring Rent and upon payment of the Rent the Lessor made an Acquittance by a release of all Actions Duties and Demands from the beginning of the World to Release of all Demands bars a future Rent the day of the date And whether the Rent to come were released by it was the question And it was moved by Crook at the Bar that it was not for a Covenant in future shall not be released by such words yet a release of all Covenants will be good in such a case as the Book is in Dyer 57. so Hoes case Co. lib. 5. 70. b. such a release will not discharge a Bail before Iudgment But it was answered and resolved by the Court that such a Release will discharge the Rent to come for this word Demand is the most large and ample word in a Release that may be as Littleton saith and in Co. lib. 8. Althams case and in Hoes case Co. lib. 5. one was Bail for the Defendant the words wherof are conditionable Scil. Si contigerit predict defendent debit damna illa prefat Quer. minime solvere c. So that before Iudment it is altogether incertain and therfore cannot be released but in the case at the Bar he hath Jus ad rem though not in re as Crook Iustice said The same Term in the same Court. Bret versus Cumberland IN a Writ of Covenant the case was thus Queen Elizabeth by her Letters Patents made a Lease of certain Mills rendring Rent in which Lease were these words to wit That the said Lessee his Executors Administrators and Assigns should from time to time repair the Mills and so leave them at the end of the Term the Lessee assigns over his Term the Queen also
est rerum omnium vendendarum mensura Bracton 117. 18 E. 3. Hollinghead 109. 50 E. 3. Rot. Pat. Memb. 7. And for transportation 17 E. 3. 19 E. 3. Rot. Pat. 24. De monetis non transportandis 19 R. 2. Rot. Pat. The Dutches of obtained licence to melt Coin to make Plate And divers of the Defendants were within the Kings generall pardon but in as much as they pleaded it in their Rejoynder and not in their answer as it ought to be the Court over-ruled their Plea so that they could have no advantage therby But in as much as they were strangers and not coâ—usant of our Laws and relyed only upon their Counsell the Court had consideration therof in their censure Hillary 17 Jac. In the Kings Bench. Serle versus Mander SErle brought an action upon the case against Mahder for these words to Words I arrest you upon Felony wit I arrest you upon Felony and after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Richardson that the words were not actionable for he doth not say that the Plaintiff had committed Felony But it was rescived by the Court and so adjudged that the action lieth The same Term in the same Court A Iudgment was obtained against one of the Servants of the Lord Hay Iudgment against a Defendant when beyond Sea with an Ambassador reversed Viscount Doncaster when he was Ambassador in Bohemia and attending upon him there And this matter being disclosed to the Court by the Counsell of the Defendant they would not suffer the Plaintiff to have execution upon the said Iudgment but ordered the Plaintiff to declare De novo to which the Defendant should presently answer Memorand It was said to be against the course of the Court to have an Imparlance Imparlance before the Declaration entred The same Term in the same Court The King against Briggs A Quo warranto was brought by the King against Briggs for exercising A Subject cannot have a Forest of certain Priviledges who justified by virtue of a Forest granted to him And by Bridgeman this is the first Quo warranto which he knew that had been brought against any Subject for a Forest for a Subject cannot have a Forest but he may have a Chase which peradventure may passe under the name of a Forest And there are divers incidents to a Forest which a Subject cannot use nor have there ought to be a Iustice of a Forest which a Subject cannot have and such a Iustice ought to be a man of great Dignity 2. There ought to be Verderors who are Iudges also and by 34 E. 1. Ordinatio Forrestae ought to be by Wait but a Subject cannot award a Writ Also there are three Courts incident to a Forest 1. A Court of Attachments which may be without Verderors 2. The Swanimate Court 3. The Iustice seat and this appeareth in 1. E. 3. cap. 8. 21 E. 4. cap. 8 But by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 7. There are some other incidents to a Forest 2. Admits that a Subject may have a Forest yet it fails in this case because he hath shown the exemplification and not the Letters Patents and see Co. lib. 5. Pains case that neither an exemplification or constat are pleadable at Common Law and Co. lib. 10. Dr. Leyfeilds case The same Term in the same Court Sir William Webb versus Paternoster THe case was this Sir William Plummer licensed Sir William Webb to lay his Hay upon the Land of the said Sir William Plummer untill he could conveniently sell it and then Sir William Plummer did make a Lease of the Land to Paternoster who put in his Cattell and they eat up the Hay And it was two years between the license and the putting in of the Cattell and yet Sir William Webb brought an action of Trespasse against Paternester for this Mountague chief Iustice 1. This is an Interest which chargeth the Land into whosoever hands it comes and Webb shall have a reasonable and convenient time to sell his Hay 2. The Lessee ought to give notice to Notice Sir William Webb of the Lease before he ought to put in his Cattell to which Haughton Iustice agreed in both points But Doderidge Iustice said that Sir William Webb had no certain time by this license yet he conceived that he ought to have notice But it was resolved that the Plaintiff had Convenient time a convenient time to wit two years for the removing of his Hay and therfore Iudgment was given against him But admit that there had not been a convenient time yet the Court was of opinion that the Plaintiff ought to have inclosed the Land at his perill for the preservation of his Hay And it was agreed that a license is countermandable although it be concerning A license whether for profit or pleasure countermandable profit or pleasure unlesse there be a certain time in the license as if I license one to dig Clay in my Land this is evocable and may be countermanded although it be in point of profit which is a stronger case then a license of pleasure see 13 H. 7. The Dutches of Suffolks case for a license The same Term in the same Court SIbill Westerman brought an action upon the case against Eversall and had Error Sibell for Isabell Iudgment and in the entry of the Iudgment she was named Isabell 1 Ass and 3. Ass A Fine was levied by Sibill when her name was Isabell and it was not good for it doth not appear to be the same party so in the case at the Bar And for this the Iudgment was reversed The same Term in the same Court JEne as Executor of brought an action upon the case against Chester An Infant chargable for necessary Apparrell because the Defendant made request to the Testator of the Plaintiff to buy for him certain silk Stuffs for Apparrel and to make him a Cloak the Defendant pleaded that he was within age and George Crook said that the Defendant should not be charged because it is not shewn that the Apparrell was for the Infant himself but he was over-ruled in this for it is sufficiently expressed to be for him And it was agreed by the Court that it ought to be shewn that it was Pro necessario vestitu and it ought to be suitable to his calling and as Doderidge said that there was a case adjudged in this Court between Stone Withipole that where Withipole had taken of Stone certain Stuffs for Apparrel being within age and afterwards he promised payment if he would forbeare him some time and the Assumpsit adjudged not good because he was not liable for the Debt at first for the reason aforesaid Trin. 17. Jac. In the Common Bench. Gilbert de Hoptons Case AN action upon the case was brought for those words viz. Thou art a Words Thou art a Theef and hast stoln my Furze Theef and hast stoln
my Furze And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment thâ—t these words were not actionable But it wâ—s said on the other side that to say thou art a Theef is actionable and the subsequent words are in the Copulative and enure as a confirmation of the precedent words But if it had been for Thou hast stoln my Furze this had been â—n explanation of the precedent words and therfore in that case the action would not have been And it was answered and resolved by the Court that the word and in some cases shall be taken as the word for and so it shall be in this case and therfore adjudged that the action lies Mich. 22. Jac. In the Star Chamber TWo men came Ore tenus into the Star Chamber for stealing of the Kings Deer and were fined a 100 l. a peece and three years Imprisonment unlesse it would please he King to release them sooner and before Fines in the Star Chamber for killing the Kings Deer they should be released of their Imprisonment to be bound to their good behaviour And it was observed by the Attorney-generall that the offence was the greater in regard that the King had but one darling pleasure and yet they would offend him in that And it was said by some of the Court that it was a great folly and madnesse in the Defendants to hazard themselves in such a manner for a thing of so small value as a Deer was The Lord President said that Mr. Attorney was the best Keeper the King had of his Parks in regard he brings the Offenders into this Court to be punished The Lord Keeper said that the Defendants in such a case being brought Ore tenus â—re not allowed to speak by their Counsell and yet these men have had their Counsell but it was Peters Counsellors meaning their sorrow and contrition at the Bar which much moved him so that if his vete might prevail he would set but 20 l. fine upon them In the same Term in the same Court THe Lord Morley and Sir Richard Mollineax being beyond Sea their Sollicitor in their names exhibited a scandalous Bill in the Star Chamber against the Bishop of Chichister and after their return this continued so for three years without any disclaiming therof by them and now the matter being questioned they said that it was not done with their privity But because they had not disclaimed the Fact before they were fined a 100 l. to the King and a 100 l. to the Bishop for Damages and the Bill was to be taken of the File The same Term in the same Court. Lewes Plaintiff versus Jeoffreys and others Defendants THe Plaintiffs Brother had been a Suitor to a woman which matter proceeded to a Contract and afterwards the Defendant Jeoffreys hapned to be a Suitor to her also wherupon being Rivalls they fell out and the Plaintiffs Brother called the Defendant Jackanapes which was taken very ill by the Defendant being a Iustice of Peace in the County of Worcester and the other being but a mean man in respect of him so that he told him that if he would meet him on Horse-back he would fight with him afterwards one of the Sons of the Defendant went to the said Brother being upon his own Land and gave him a mortall wound wherupon a friend on the behalf of the party wounded came to the Defendant being a Iustice of Peace and brought him a peece of his Skull to the end that his Son should be forth coming at the next Assises declaring to him the danger of death the man was in wherupon the Defendant took a Recognisance of 10 l. of his Son and of his sureties of 5 l. a peece to answer this at the next Assise And in the mean time the party died of the said wound and the Son did not appear at the Assises and the Iudges of Assise fined the Defendant 100 l. for taking such slender security for the appearance of his Son which was paid and yet notwithstanding the Defendant was fined 200 l. more for this offence and also 200 l. for his misdemeanor in his challenge albeit the Defendant A Challenge fined in the Star Chamber was of the age of 63 years and so it seems that he intended to fight with him But he being a Iustice of Peace who is Conservator pacis he did against his oath to do any thing which may tend to the breach of the Peace And for the other matter it was said by the Court that the Defendant being Father to the offendor it had been better for him to have referred this matter to another Iustice of Peace or at least to have had the assistance of another And the party being in such great danger of death his son was not bailable Hillary 1. Car. In the Kings Bench. Bowyer versus Rivet THe case was thus Sir William Bowyer 12. Jac. recovered against Sir Thomas Rivet in an Action of debt Sir William made his wife his Exceutrix and died the wife made Bowyer her Executor and died then Sir Thomas Rivet died Bowyer brought a Scire facias to have execution upon the Iugment against Sir Thomas Rivet the younger as Heir apparant to the Land to him descended from Sir Thomas Rivet who pleaded Riens per descent from Sir Thomas Rivet and it was found that he had two acres and a half of Land by discent and it was prayed by Goldsmith that Iudgment might be given against Sir Thomas Rivet generally for he said that this false Plea shall charge him and his own Lands and cited Plowden 440. where in debt against an Heir upon his false Plea his own Lands shall become liable to the debt and Co. lib. 3. 11. b. Sir William Herberts case where the case was upon a Scire facias against the Heir as it is in this case But on the other part it was argued by Richardson the Kings Serjeant Banks and all the Iustices that Execution shall be awarded in no other manner against the Heir then it should be against his Ancestor or other Purchasor to wit of a Moyety of that which he had by discent for as much as in this case he cannot be to this purpose charged as Heir but he ought to be charged as Ter-tenant and as a Purchasor and a Purchasor shall never hurt himself but his false Plea And Banks argued that the Heir in this case is charged as a Purchasor and the false Plea of a Purchasor shall never charge himself 33 E. 3. Fitz. Execution 162. and 6 E 3. 15. and that in this case he is charged as Ter-tenant appears by three reasons 1. Debt will not lye against an Heir but where he is bound as Heir but in this case Execution is to be sued against him as another Ter-tenant Dyer 271. 11 E. 3. 15. and in 27 H. 6. Execution 135. and Co. lib. 3. 12. b. That in Iudgment upon Debt or Recognisance the Heir is charged and
Execution shall be sued against him as Ter-tenant 2. There is not any lien as Heir for the Iudgment doth not mention the Heir and therfore he cannot be charged unlesse he be expresly bound and in the Record of the Recovery it doth not appear that the first lien shall bind the Heir for he declares that he bound himself and not that he bound himself and his Heirs 3. If the Heir were bound in the Obligation so that he were once bound as Heir yet the Iudgment determines the specialty so that now he is not bound and in the Iudgment the Heir is not mentioned as in 10 H. 4. 21. 24. If an Abbot contract to the use of the house without consent of the Covent this shall bind if he dies but if he takes an Obligation of the Abbot and then he dies this shall not bind the house for the Contract is determined by the Obligation and this is the reason that in the time of E. 3. in a recovery upon debt the Obligation was cancelled 4. Here he cannot be charged as Heir for it appeareth by the Record Where a debt is recorded upon bond the Obligation was cancelled that his Father is living for it is brought against him as Heir apparant which he cannot be but during the life of his Father And as to the objection that in this case he shall have his age and therfore shall be charged as Heir Non sequitur for if execution be sued against the Heir of a Purchasor he shall have his age and yet he is not Heir neither can charged as Heir to the Conusor But because it is a rule in Law that the Heir which hath by discent shall not answer where his Inheritance may be charged during his Nonage Whitlock to the same intent because the Heir is not charged here as Heir but as Ter-tenant wherby his false Plea shall not hurt him with which Jones also agreed and said that he here considered three things 1. That the lien of the Ancestor binds the Heir 2. How the Heir shall behave himself in pleading 3. Our point in question For the first there are two things requisite to bind one as Heir 1. A lien expresse for if one bind himself and not his Heir this shall not bind his Heir in any case 2. A discent of Inheritance for without this he shall not be bound by the act of his Ancestor and he is bound no longer then Assets discend for he alien before the Writ purchased the lien is gone 2. He ought to behave himself truly and plead truly and confesse the assets discended to him when debt is brought against him as heir otherwise his own Lands shall be charged with the debt as it is in Pepys case in Plow Com. But where it is said in Pepys case that upon a Nihil dicit or Non sum informatum c. If the Iudgment passe upon them that it shall be generall I am not of that opinion for the common experience of the Courts is that such a generall Iudgment shall not be given against the Heir unlesse it be upon a false plea pleaded with which agrees Lawsons case Dyer 81. and Henninghams case Dyer 344. where the Iudgment passed by Nihil dicit so that the saying in Plow 440. a. that what way soever the Heir be condemned in debt if he do not confesse the Assets c. that it shall be his proper debt is not now taken for Law And I also hâ—ld that if the Heir plead falsly and there is found more Assets Where upon a false plea by an Heir the Plaintiff may elect to take the Assets in execution or an Elegit of all his Land that yet it is in the election of the Plaintiff to charge him and to take execution of the Assets only or to take an Elegit of all his Land and he is not bound to take an Elegit of all his Land in this case for otherwise this inconvenience may arise If the Heir hath a 100. acres by discent and two by purchâ—se if upon the false Plea of the Heir the Plaintiff cannot have any other execution but an Eligit of the Moyety of his Lands then he by this is prejudiced for otherwise he might have all he Assets in execution and so the Heir by this way shall take advantage of his false plea. 3. He held as Whitlock before and for the same reason Doderidge Iustice How the Heir shall be bâ—und by the act of his Father is worthy of consideration upon which Prima facie the Books seem to disagree but being well considered accord with excellent harmony I have considered this case it was moved at Reading Term and because my Notes are not here I will speak more briefly and will consider 1. Hâ—w an Heir shall be charged upon the Obligation of his Father and as to that in debt against an Heir he is charged as Heir so that at this day it is taken as his proper debt wherby the Writ is in the Debet and Detinet How an Heir shall be charged upon the Obligation of his Father but in the Detinet only against Executors But in former time from the 18. of Ed. 2. till 7 H. 4. if an Executor had Assets the Heir was not chargable but in 7 H. 4. the Law changed in this point for now it is accounted his own debt and debt will lye against his Executor as it is said in Plow Com and so against the Heirs of the Heir to many generations albeit of this Plowden makes a doubt and his plea that he had nothing at the day of the Writ purchased nor ever after is good for if he alien the Assets he is discharged of the debt in regard he is not to wait the action of the Obligee 2. The Heir shall be châ—â—ged upon or Recognisance not as Heir but as Ter-tenant for he is not bound in the Recognisance but only the Conusor grant that the debt shall be levied of all his Lands and Tenements but not against his Heirs And here he is not meerly as Ter-tenant for he shall not have contribution agâ—â—st â—her Ter-tenants but only against those who are Heirs as himself is but to all other intents he is Ter-tenant and so charged Why an Heir is not chargable for debt after he hath fold the assets as 32 E. 3. and 27 H. 6. aâ—â— 3. That upon a Iudgment as our case is the Heir shall be charged as Ter-tenant and not otherwise The Book which hath been cited viz 33 E. 3. Execution 162. is expresse in the point the broken years of Fitzherbert are obsâ—urely reported but by comparing of cases it will appear to be our case exâ—resly 4. That albeit an Heir shall be charged upon the Obligation of his Ancestor where he is particularly bound yet upon his false plea no execution shall be but upon the assets So it seems to me that in the principall case the Iudgment shall be speciall and it seems to be a
very plain case Crew chief Iustice agreed and in his argument he affirmed what Jones said that a generall Iudgment shall not be given against the Heir if he do not plead falsly that he hath no Assets and not upon Nihil dicit And so Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff shall have Execution of the Moyety of the Lands discended to the Defendant and so note the diversity of debt against the Heir and Scire facias against the Heir Dickenson versus Greenhow Hill 1. Car. In the Kings Bench Intr. Hill 18. Jac. Rot. 189. IN an Attachment upon a Prohibition the Plaintiff declared that where Robert the last Abbot of Cokersham in Lancashire was seised in Fee of three acres of Land parcel of his Monastery and that the Abbot and his Com-monks and all the Predecessors of the Abbot were time out of mind of the order and rule of Praemonstratenses and that the order of Praemonstratenses and all Monks therof were time out of mind discharged of payment of tithes for their Lands and Tenements Quamdiu manibus propriis aut sumptubus excolâ—bant And that the said Abbot and all his Predecessors time out of mind had holden the said three acres discharged of payment of Tithes Quamdiu c. and so held them untill the dissolution of the Monastery and shew the surrender to H. 8. and the Statute of 31 H. 8 by force wherof H. 8. was seised and held them discharged and from him derive them to E. 6. and from E. 6. to Queen Mary and from her to Queen Elizabeth and from her in the 42. year of her Raign to Wagstaff and from him by mean conveyances to Dickenson the Plaintiff Quorum pretextu he was seised and enjoyed them in Propria manurantia and shew the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 15. wherby it is enacted that Tithes shall be paid as usually they were c. Quorum pretextu the Plaintiff held the three acres discharged of Tithes and that notwithstanding and against the Prohibition the Defendant did draw him into Plea for them in Court Christian and the Iudge therof held plea and the Defendant did there prosecute him to the disinherison of the Crown And upon this the Defendant demurred and prayed a consultation And Sir John Davies the Kings Serjeant argued for the Defendant that a Consultation should be granted because that his matter of discharge is double 1. His Priviledge 2. The prescription and if either of them will not help him then he ought to be charged For the Priviledge he took it that the Praemonstratenses never had such a priviledge It is a Maxime in Law All Lands chargable with Tithes that all persons ought to pay Tithes and all Lands shall be charged with them of common right but also there are divers discharges of them and allowed by our Law as is manifest by the orders of Templers Hospitalers and Cistertians which discharges our Law allows and these are 1. By prescription 2. By reall composition 3. By priviledge obtained and that by two wais 1. Either by the Bull of the Pope for he taking upon himself to be the great Dispensâ—r and Steward of the Church took upon him to discharge them but this as it is holden by the Canon he could not absolutely do but might divert them to a Clergy-man or grant to another to hold them by way of retainer and this ought to be to a Clergy-man also Or 2. By a generall Counsell for some orders were discharged by generall Counsels So some obtained Priviledges by the Popes Bulls which are his Patents some by Counsels which are as his Statutes and Decrees were as Iudgments but yet none of them had ever any force in our Law nor did bind us in England more then voluntarily retained and approved by usage and custom for as it is said in 11 H 4. the Pope cannot alter the Law of England and this is evident for in all cases where the Bulls or Constitutions of the Pope crosse the Law of the Land they have alwaies been rejected The Popes Bulls of four sorts as for instance 1 In the Bulls which are of four sorts 1. Of Provision 2. Of Citation 3. Of Exemption And 4. Of Excommunication And as for those of Excommunication it appeareth that it was Treason at Common Law and that the Treasurer did kneel to E. 2. for one who brought them in and in the perpetuall course of the Books afterwards they have alwaies been disallowed in Pleas. So his Bulls of Citation before the Statute of Provision was a hainous offence and so are Bulls of Provision and Exemption For his Canons where they were against the Law they were neglected It appeareth by the Canon Quod nullus capiat beneficium a Laico and yet notwithstanding continued long after for Benefices and does yet for Bishopricks that the Clergy shall take them from the King and a lay-hand And also there is a Canon for exemption of Clarks out of temporall Iurisdiction but yet as Brain saith 10 H. 7. 18. it was never observed here So the Canon saith that the time of the Laps shall be accounted Per septimanas but our Law not regarding this saith that it shall be accounted Per menses in the Calender as it is expresly adjudged in 5 E. 3. Rot. 100. Rot. claus in turri And there is a great reason for it as it is in 29 H. 3. memb 5. in turri It is not necessary for Bishops of England to go to generall Councells so as in Parliament those that do not â—end Knights or Burgesses shall not be bound by Statutes And the Counsels of Lyons of Bigamis c. are expounded by Statutes how they shal be taken so that it they have a Priviledge as in truth they have by the Popes Bulls if it were not allowed in England they are not of force to priviledge them against the Common Law of the Land for payment of Tithes but this was never here allowed And now for the Prescription this cannot help them for Monks are not of Evangelicall Priesthood to wit capable of Tithes in the Pernamy but meerly Lay-men and then as the Bishop of Winchesters case is they cannot prescribe in non decimando And Bede saith of them that they are Merè laici so that if their Priviledge were allowed their Prescription will not help them The priviledge of Praemonstratenses was by the Counsell generall of for their discharge which denies that all religious persons should be discharged of Tithes of Lands in their own hands Quamdiu c. But afterwards Adrian restrained it to Templars Hospitalars and Cistertians omitting the Praemonstratenses and the decree of Adrian was received also wherby the Law took notice of the discharge of the said three Orders True it is that the Praemonstratenses have a Bull of Pope Innocent the third of discharge and as large liberties as the Cistertians but they never put this in ure And it seems 1. That there were of them 29. Abbots
provided that if the Rent upon the second Lease be arrear that the Lessor may enter the first Lessee surrender a Rent-day incur the second Lessee doth not pay the Rent the Lessor shall not enter for a Forfeiture because the first Lease determined by an act which lies properly in the Conusance of the Lessor and because he was to take advantage by it he ought to have given notice therof to the Lessee and here he might have well given notice to the Defendant for it lies properly in the Conusance of the Plaintiff The second Objection was that here was an implied notice because the Marriage was at the instance of the Defendant which implies a notice Vnder favour this is no notice for this is before the marriage but if no notice be given after the marriage then there is no notice But by Serjeant Davies there is a sufficient implication and there is no need of notice in our case and see Co. lib. 8. Francis his case where they ought to take notice at their perill and a marriage is an Ecclesiasticall Iudgment of which he ought to take notice and he was interrupted for all the Iustices went to the Parliament And divers Presidents were cited that there need no notice to be given in this case And it was agreed that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff And in Trinity Term next following Iudgment was accordingly given for the Plaintiff The same Term in the same Court Sir George Reynolls Case SIr George Reynoll Marshall of the Marshalsey of the Kings Bench What Bonds a Sheriff or Marshall maâ— take â—rought Debt upon a Bond the Condition wherof was that the Defendant shall be a true Prisoner and it was doubted whether the Bond were within the Statute of 23 H. 6 cap. 10. Doderidge It is not to be understood by this Statute that a Sheriff Gaâ—ler or Marshall shall take no Bond for if the Marshall hath a man in execucution and fear that he will escape and he takes Bond of him this Bond is good Jones The intent of the Statute that the Sheriff or Marshall shall not suffer Prisoners to go at large for that is within the Statute And it was ruled in the Kings Bench that the Marshalsey should be enlarged Within the Rules of Bâ— what it is and this shall be called within the Rule and if the Marshall take a Band to tarry there it is good but if he suffer him to go at large it is not good The same Term in the same Court Sury versus Albon Pigot and three other Defendants Intr. Hill 1. Car. Rot. 1. 24. IN an action upon the case for stopping his Water-course the Plaintiff declares that 14. Octob. 22. Jac. he was possessed of the Rectory of M. in Barkshire of which a Curtilage was parcell and that in this Curtilage is and hath been time out of mind a watering place for the watering of the Cattell of the Plaintiff and others and for other necessary uses and that a certain Watercourse had time out of mind flowed from Mildford stream to this Curtilage and that this water filled the said Pond and further that the Defendant well knowing this and intending to dam up the said Watering-course built a stone Wall therupon wherby the Water-course was stopt up to the Plaintiffs damage of 20 l. and this was laid with a Continuando The Defendant plead that 3 H. 8. the said H. 8. was seised of the Mannor of c. and of the said Rectory in his Demesne as of Fee and of a certain peece of Land called the Hopyard lying between the said watering-place and the said stream and by his Letters Patents granted this to Wiliam Box and his Heirs by virtue wherof he was seised Francis Searles entred upon him and was seised and enfeoffed Pigot 20 Jac. by virtue wherof of he was seised c. and the three others justifie as Servants to Pigot that they the said day and year filled up the said Water-course as it was lawfull for them to do and Whether unity of possession in severall lands shal destroy a Water course that this is the same Trespasse c. The Plaintiff demurs And the question is whether the unity of possession of all in H. 8. hath extinguished the Water-course And by Dorrell for the Plaintiff if it were of a Common it is cleer that it is destroyed because Common ought to be in another mans Land but not in our case for if one prescribe to have Warren if he purchase the Land yet he shall have Warren 11 H. 7. 25. there are two houses and the one prescribe that the other shall mend the Gutter and afterwards they come to the hands of one man and then he alien one of them this unity shall destroy the mending of the Gutter Berd for the Defendant that the unity hath destroyed the custom 21 E. 3. 2. A way is but an easement yet by the purchase of the Land the way is extinguished and also the watering-course is not only an casement but a profit or Prender and he cited Dyer 295. in case of an Inclosure that the Inclosure is extinguished but there is made a quaere and he cited 38 Eliz. in C. B. an opinion that by purchase of a Close the Inclosure is extinguished a fortiori here because it is a profit And for the case of 11 H. 7. it is by the custom of London but there is no custom in our case and the case of a Warren is not like to our case because a man may have Warren in his own Soil And in Michaelmas Term next the case was argued again by Barkesdale for the Plaintiff that the unity of possession in H. 8. had not extinguished the Water-course and that the Terminus ad quem and the Medium also being in one had not distinguished nor destroyed it And 1 Col lib. 4. 26. Benedicta est expositio quando res redimitur a distructione The Law will not destroy things but the Law will somtimes suffer a fiction which is nothing in rerum natura ut res magis valeat I confesse that profit apprender as Common or Rent is extinguished by unity of possession for Common it appeareth in 4 E. 3. and Co. lib. 4. Terringhams case And for Rent it appeareth in 4 H. 4. 7. and in 21 E. 3. 2. it appeareth that a way is extinguished by unity of possession 3 H. 6. 31. Brook Nusance 11. for it is repugnant for a man to have a way upon his own Land But I conceive that our case differs from the case of a way and that for this reason where the thing hath a being and existence notwithstanding the unity there it is not destroyed by the unity but the Water-course hath a being notwithstanding the unity ergo c. I will prove the major proposition by these cases 35 H. 6. 55 56. Where a Warren is not extinct by a Feoffment of the Land for I may hawk and hunt in my
own land as in another mans so the Warren hath existence notwithstanding the unity Dyer 326. Where the Queen was seised of Whaddon Chase and the Lord Gray was Lievtenant there in Fee and he and his Ancestors and their Keepers had by prescription used to hunt wandring Deer in the Demesns of the Mannor of S. adjoyning as in Purlieues the Mannor of S. comes into the Queens hands who grants this to Fortescue in Fee with free Warren within the Demesns c. it was holden that the unity doth not extinguish the Purlieu Dyer 295. Two Closes adjoyn the one by prescription is bound to a Fence the Owner of one purchase the other and suffer the Hedges to decay and dies leaving two Daughters his Heirs who make partition Quaere whether the prescription for the Inclosure be revived true it is that it is made a quaere but he saith see the like case 11 H. 7. 27. of a Gutter which proves our case as I will shew afterwards For the Minor proposition that the watering hath being notwithstanding the said unity I will prove it by 12 H. 7. 4. A Precipe quod reddat of Land Aqua Co-opert Mich. 6. Jac. Challenor and Moores case An Ejectione firmae was brought of a Watering-course and there resolved that it does not lye of it because it is not firma sed currit but of Terra aqua co-operta it doth lye Also I will take some exceptions to the Bar there is no Title in the Bar for the Defendant Pigot and so we being in possession albeit in truth we have no Title yet he who hath no Title cannot oust us neither can stop the said Water-course and it is only shewn in the Bar that Searles entred and enfeoffed Pigot but for any thing as yet appears the true Owner continued in possession 21 Jac. C. B. Cook against Cook in a Writ of Dower the Defendant pleads an Entry after the Darrein continuance and doth not plead that he ousted him and upon this the Plaintiff Demurs and there adjudged that it is no plea in Bar because he doth not say that the Defendant entred and ousted the Tenant 2. Exception the action is brought against four Scil. Pigot Cole Branch and Elyman and Pigot hath conveyed a Title from Searles the three other Defendants justifie but Pigot doth not say any thing but that Searles enfeoffed him 7 H. 6. an action of Wast is brought against many one answers and the other not this is a discontinuance And for the principall matter I will conclude with 11 H. 7. 25. Broo. Extinguishment 60. Two have Tenements adjoyning and the one hath a Gutter in the others Land and afterwards one purchase both and then he alien one to one and another to another the Gutter is revived notwithstanding the unity because it is very necessary and so he prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff Bear for the Defendant I in a manner agree all the cases which have been put on the other side and I conceive that the Water-course is not Stagnum but Servitium which is due from the one land to the other It is but a liberty and therfore I agree Challenors case which is but a liberty that an Ejectione firmae doth not lye of it but Ejectione firmae lies De stagno For the first exception I answer and confesse that to alledge an Entry after the Darrain continuance without alledging an Ouster of the Tenant cannot abate the Writ for the Defendant may enter to another intent as appeareth in the Commentaries and with the assent of the Tenant But here it was alledged that a Feoffment was made and a Livery which implies another For the matter in Law I conceive that the Water-course is extinguished and it may be compared to 21 E. 3. 2. The case of a way which is extinguished by unity of possession Hill 36. Eliz. Rot. 1332. Hemdon and Crouches case Two were seised of two severall acres of Land of which the one ought to inclose against the other one purchase them both and lets them to severall men and there the opinion was and adjudged accordingly that the Inclosure is not revived but remains extinguished 39 Eliz. Harringtons case the same thing resolved and albeit in Dyer 295. is a quaere yet the better opinion hath been taken according to these resolutions H. 4. Jac. Jordan and Ayliffes Case when one had a way from one acre to another and afterwards he purchased the acre upon which he had the way and afterwards sold it and in that Case the opinion of 3. Iustices was that the way was extinguished also 11 H. 4. 50. and 11 H. 7. 25. prove this case for the said case is compared to the custome of Gavelkind and Burrough English and there the quaere is made whether by the custome it be revived and if it be a custome which runs with the Land the unity of possession doth not extinguish it Co. lib. 4. Terringhams case and 24 E. 3. 2. common appendant is destroyed by unity of possession and yet it is a thing of common right but a Water-course being a thing against common right a fortiori it shall be extinguished Now I will take some exceptions to the Declaration 1. Because he hath laid a prescription for a Water-course as to say that it was belonging to a Rectory to which c. and this is a good exception as appears by 6 E 6 Dyer 70. Ishoms case where exception was taken that before his prescription he doth not say that it was Antiquum parcum which exception as it is there said was the principall cause that Iudgment was given against him and also as the case is here it ought to be a Rectory impropriate and this cannot be before the time of H. 8. which is within time of memory for before the said time no lay person could have a Rectory impropriate and therfore I pray Iudgment for the Defendant Barksedale said that the prescription is well laid and that he would prove by 39 H 6. 32. and 33 H. 6. 26. and per curiam the prescription is good enough and albeit it is not said that it is Antiquae Rectoria yet it is well enough Mich. 1 Car. at Reading Term in Broek and Harris case he doth not say that it was Antiquum Messuage and yet resolved good Doderidge the case of 6 E. 6. differs in this point from this case for a Rectory shall alwaies be intended ancient and so is not a Park for this may be newly created and he put this case suppose I have a Mill and I have a Water-course to this in my own land and I sell the Land I cannot stop the Water-course Crew chief Iustice seemed of opinion that the prescription is gone and that the better opinion in Dyer 13 Eliz. hath alwaies been that the Inclosure is gone by unity of possession but yet the Water-course is matter of necessity Doderidge and Whitlock the way is matter of election but the course of water is