said Goe not to such a one c. it is actionable without question Slander of one in his Trade will bear an action And so all being connexed alike it ought to be intended that he killed him in respect of his skill In Cases of Defamation Sir George Hasting's Case Thou didst lye in wait to kill me with a Pistoll were actionable So if one touch another in respect of his skill in that that he professes it will maintain an action c. And Yelverton to the same purpose for there is a difference between a Profession and a particular Calling As if words are spoken of one that is a Iustice of Peace he ought to shew that he was then a Iustice of Peace for he is removable and may be changed every Quarter Sessions But as to a Calling the Calling of every man is his Free hold 43 E. 3. Grant of an Annuity to one pro consilio and he professes Divinity Physick and Law there the grant is pro consilio generally for Physick if that be his usuall Profession And it is intended that a man alwayes dyes in his Calling If he said to I. S. Thou art a murtherer it shall not be intended of Hares for the Iudges are not to search so far for construction Loquendum ut vulgus intelligendum et sapiens If one sayes of a Merchant Put not your Son to him for hee 'l starve him to death These words are actionable for that that it comes within the compasse of the disgrace of his Profession And so of a School-master Put not your Son to him for hee 'l come away as very a dunce as he went Harvey If one sayes of a Iudge He is a corrupt Iudge it cannot be meant of his body to be corrupt but it shall be intended of his Profession Peitoes Case before HEnden for the Defendant the Case is thus A Rent is granted for life out of Lands which descend to the Heir and he makes a Lease of parcell of the Land to the Grantee for years who surrenders the term Whether the Rent shall revive or suspend during the term And it was said by him it shall revive First For that that it is the act of him who is lyable to the Rent to accept the surrender And there is a difference where there is a determination barely by the act of the party there it shall not be revived For the first 21 H. 7. 9. Tenant in Tayl of a Rent is infeoffed of Land and he makes a Feoffment of Land with a warranty to B. with Voucher as of land discharged of that Rent And so it is 19 H. 6. 55. Ascue put this Case Grantee of a rent in Fee and Donee in Tayl of Land infeoffs the Grantee who grants that over and afterwards the issue in Tayl recovers in a Formedon yet the rent shall not be revived But if it had been the joynt act of the parties as so by surrender it should have been revived First It is clear that if a Chattell personall be suspended by Sute it shall be gone for ever As if a Feme marries the Obligor 11 H. 7. 25. unless suspension be in anothers right if it be by the act of the party there it shall be revived As if a Feme Executrix marry with the Obligor and he dyes the suspension is determined and they are revived against the Executors 7 H. 6. 2. In one Gascoines Case Lessee surrenders to the Lessor upon condition the rent be suspended but if the Lessor enter for conditions broken the Rent is revived Which in effect is our case A rent is granted to the Daughter and the land descends to her and her other Sister who make partition The Rent is revived for it is the joynt act of both parties Plow 15. If a man had a Rent and disseises the Tenant of the land and after the Disseisee re-enters Where there is a revivor of the land there is a revivor of the Rent for the disseisin was the cause of the suspension and that now is gone Secondly Because that when the Lessee for years surrenders the term is determined to all purposes and the Lessor is in of his Estate is Fee and there is a diversity of surrender in respect of a stranger for to a stranger it may have Essence after surrender But as to himself it is otherwise extinct And he cannot say that it had any Essence 5 H. 5. 12. But in respect of a stranger it ha's continuance as if an Executor surrenders yet it shall be assets And all acts done upon Lessee for ltfe before surrender shall have a continuance after And so he prayed Iudgement for the Avowant But more after Wakeman against Hawkins IT was said That if an Executor was sued in this Court by Originall he shall not put in Bayl. But if he be arrested in an inferiour Court and removed by Habeas corpus he ought to put in Bayl. Stamford and Coopers Case STamford and Coopers Case was thus I. S. acknowledges a Statute to Cooper the 22 January and afterwards he confesses a Iudgement to Stamford the 23 of January next ensuing the Statute And it is extended And Stamford brought a Scire fac against Cooper to wit now because he ought not to have the land by Elegit And the Question was whether the Iudgement by relation shall defeat the Statute And it was resolved That the Iudgement shall have relation to the Essoin day which is the 20 day of Ianuary for that is the first day of the term legally and the fourth day after is the first day of the Term open Dyer 361. Pla. 10. A Release was pleaded after the last continuance and it bore date the 21 of Ianuary which was after the day of Essoin de Octab. Hil. And for that nought because that it came late for it ought to have been after the last continuance and before the last day c. 33 H 6. 45. Nisi prius was taken after the day of the return and before the fourth day after and adjudged nought because that the day of the return which is the Utas is the first day of the term and the fourth day after but a day of Grace and that is the difference If a man be obliged to pay money the first day of the Term he shall not pay it but upon the fourth day after for that is the first day in all common acceptance But in all legall proceedings the first day is the Essoin day And so it was adjudged 16 Eliz. And in the Kings Bench it was in one Williams Case A Iudgement was given the 20 of Ianuary and a Release of all Errours the 21 Ianuary and adjudged that that bars the Iudgement given the 20 Ianuary although it was not entred the fourth day after A Iustice in the Kings Bench examined an Infant upon inspection the Essoin day and found him to be under age and would not permit him to confess a Iudgement although that he would
Rent 5 R. 2. Annuity 21. Debitum Judex non leperat Then when it does not appear that the Action lyes for the 15. s. for the half year and the Iury assessed Damages intirely it is voyd as 10 Rep. 130. Osborns Case And it appears that by his computation of time it is not a year and an half from the time of the Assumpsit made Richardson said That it is not secundum ratum for then he might divide the Rent and no day is limited for the payment of it for if a Lease be made for two years or at will paying annually at Michaelmas 30. s. and the Lease is determined after half of the year although that it be by the Lessee himself he cannot make any Rent But Yelverton said that that is not a Rent but a collaterall sum And debt does not lye for that And in the Declaration it is said Quod permisit ipsum reentrare and does not say what time which was nought by all but Hutton And it ought to be also that he did de facto re-enter Hutton said There being it is said So long as you shall occupy the Land you shall pay annually c. That he may demand half of the year But the whole Court against him and so Pro hoc tempore judgement was stayed Grange and his Wife against Dixon A Lease was made by Baron and Feme and another Feme and the Lessee Covenants by the same Indenture to find sufficient mans meat and horse meat to the Baron and Feme and to the other Feme or to their Servants at their coming to London at his house in Southwark The Baron and Feme dye and the other Feme takes an husband The Opinion of the Iustices was that he was not bound to find sustenance for the husband but only for the wife or for her servants and not for both at one and the same time because the Covenant was in the disjunctive But it was doubted if he shall find them Victualls for one meal only at their coming or for all the time of their staying there Johnson against Williams and Uxor IT wad said If an Obligation be made by a Feme sole and afterwards she takes an husband and an Action of debt be brought upon that Obligation against the Baron and Feme and they deny the Deed the Baron shall be taken for the Fine as well as the wife for the wife had nothing whereof to pay the Fine And so in Trespasse against Baron and Feme dum sola fuit and they are both found guilty both shall be taken for the Fine which the Prothonotaryes agreed Jeakill against Linne IN a Writ of Covenant the Plaintiff counts upon an Indenture of Lease of the Parsonage of Dale by which the Defendant Covenanted to pay him the Rent the which he had not payed And the Defendant said that before any day of payment of the said Rent incurred one A. Ordinary of the same place sequestred the said Parsonage for non payment of the first fruits Iudgement If an Action c. And by the Court that is not a Plea for he does not shew that any Act was done by the Plaintiff himself in his default Nor he does not confesse and avoid the interest of the Lessor as to say that the Lessor was a disseisor and made a Lease to him after that the disseisee re-entred and so he might confesse and avoid the Lease notwithstanding the Deed indented But he cannot say that the Lessor had nothing at the time of the Lease made And if the Defendant had been bound in an Obligation for the payment of the said Rent in debt brought upon that that should not have been a Plea for he had bound himself to pay the said Rent And the occupation is not materiall where the Lease is for years or for life But otherwise of a Lease at will Davies against Fortescue IF a man it was said be seised of a Mannor whereof there are divers Copy-holders admittable for life or for years and he Leases the Mannor to another for term of life the Lessor may make a Demise by Copy in reversion to commence after the death of the first Copy-holders and that is good enough But the custome of some Mannors is to the contrary and that is allowed Doyly an Infants Case A Man seised of Lands makes a Feoffment in Fee by Deed indented rendring a Rent with a clause of Distresse and afterwards he is bound in a Statute and the day is incurred Vpon which an Execution is awarded to the Conusee and upon the Extent the Sheriff returns that the party was dead and that he had extended the said Rent And the heir of the Conusor being within age because the Rent was extended during his nonage brought an Audita querela and Hutton said That it is maintainable enough because there is an Exception in the Writ of Extent That if Land be descended to any Infant that the Sheriff shall surcease to extend And although that Writ issued against the party himself who made the Conisance yet when it appears by the return of the Sheriff that he is dead the Infant shall be aided by an Audita querela or otherwise the Extent shall be void which is made upon the possession of the Infant Jeffryes Case IN a Formedon the Plaintiff counts of a gift to his Father and to his heirs of his body ingendred during the life of I. S. and makes the descent to him during the life of I. S. And Yelverton seemed that the Writ is good enough for a Tayle may be made so determinable as well as a Fee simple And if a man Warrant Lands to the Feoffee and his heirs against him and his heirs during the life of I. S. That he had a Fee simple in the Warranty determinable upon the life of I. S. So here Warberlyes Case IN a Writ De valore maritagii it was moved by Henden If the Lord shall recover his Damages according to the value of the Land held of him only or according to all his Lands held also of others And Hutton and Crook said that the value of the Marriage shall be accounted as well in respect of the lands held of him as of other lands held of other Lords by Posteriority or in Soccage for there the woman by the Marriage to him shall be more advanced And the better the advancement is the better is the Marriage of the heir and the person more to be esteemed Norbery against Watkins ONe Devises the Mannor of S. to two and their heirs betwéen them to be equally divided so that they shall have part and portion alike If by that they have a Ioynt-tenancy or a Tenancy in common was the Question because there was an Act to be done for making the division And if the words had béen equally to be divided by I. S. it had béen clear that they had béen Ioynt-Tenants But Harvey said That upon such a gift made to them if the
ought to be no remitter in this Case to the old Entayl and thereby I adde more that if there be a remitter it is but for a time By the Office following it is remitted and ended I must profess that whatsoever I have thought upon this Case and advised upon it with my self I have met with two strong affections Zeal and Indignation Zeal in the behalf of the King to preserve the antient Rights of the Crown and against the invasion of Rebells and Traytors Bigod that sometimes brought a puissant Army into the field to depose the King failing in that enterprize now to rise in Question against him that what he could not gain by the sword he might supplant by the Law for though Ratcliff bear the name of this Case yet I see nothing but the hand of Francis Bigod his Estate his Right his Title Land per descent that maintains it therefore let it not seem strange that I am warm in this Case for Zeal and Indignation are fervent passion and I do profess to give Prerogative to the rights of the Crown in my care and vigilancy and it is nobile Officium judicis debitum due by Oath of Office to watch for him who works for us ne quid detrimenti capit respublica and if Charity begins at it self so ought Iustice to do that the King who grants Iustice to all should not be wanting to himself Because I desire to be plain and clear in my Arguments I will make the Questions as single as is possible for multiplex judicii nunc parit consusionem et quaestiones quo sinpliciores eo laudiores ergo will I make this first point a single Question Tenant in tayl of Land in possession makes a Feoffment in fée Question whether any right of the Entayl remaineth in him still against his own Feoffment and to what ends and uses and what he may do or suffer by force of this right in this Question I take no exception at the validity of the Feoffment made by Francis Bigod at cestui que use in tayl by the Statute of R. 3. and not the then Tenant in tayl in possession yet notwithstanding taking the Case at the worst I am of opinion that this Feoffment gives away all the Estate of the Tenant in tayl and as concerning the Issue in tayl inheritable to that Entayl and to him in the reversion there remains still in the Issue a right to that Entayl by force of the Statute de bonis condi and it is confessed on both sides that there remains a right of that Entayl by force of the Statute for their use and good and whether it be for the Lessor himself sleeping till there be an Heir to claim it or in the preservation of the Law which is termed an abeyance or in nubibus is the Question by which it appears that the exact enumerations of Rights as jus habendi redimendi percipiendi possidendi recuperandi finendi inferreth that there was no right because it was none of these rights makes but a noyse for there is jus recuperandi when the time commeth but it is in the mean time till the person inheritable appear which may put this right in execution which the Lessor cannot do against his own Feoffment it is the only Question and upon this exact division of Rights they have left out one whole member of Rights such are the Rights to depart with an Estate and not to get or keep are omitted such are the Rights to give or release or jus extinguendi or jus renunciandi to renounce or disclaim of which kind this very right is That Tenant in tayl hath after the Feoffment which had not discontinued finally to Bar the whole Entayl for by that Right which is left after the Feoffment the Estate tayl may be recontinued again for the root of the Entayl is left alive still Now see the reason of this and let the Statute of West of Estates tayl and the pleading and practice upon that Statutes which are the expositions of Law judge the Statute recites the form of Fee-simple conditional which now are intayls and then sheweth 2 mischiefs that the Donces after issue had power to alien and disinherit their Issues and that the Donors were defeated of their reversions both being against the minds of the Givers and the remedy provided in these words It is ordained that the Will of the Giver according to the force of his Gift expressed in his Deed shall be from henceforth observed so that they to whom the Land was given under such Conditions shall have no power to alien but that it shall remain to their Issue after death and shall revert to the Donor after death and if a Fine be levyed of such Lands finis ipsi jure sit nuilus but if neither Fine or Feoffment be void for they are but voidable not as before when they bound both Heirs and Donors absolutely so that it appears whereas before the Statute the Donee had power absolute post prolem suscitatam and so totally and in a sort rightfully to disinherite their Heirs the Act being not against the rules of positive Law to bar to all purposes aswell his Issue as the Giver as also himself Now since the Statute that very power of Alienation remaining against himself not restrained by the Statute though he may still disturb and discontinue it against them by exposition which the Statute hath received which as Littleton saith Discountenance cap. 171. is a wrong to the Issue and the Giver So that upon this Statute I reason thus that the Tenant in tayl hath the whole Estate in tayl and all the right of it in himself and may finally and totally bar it as well against his Issue as against himself by Common recovery but by Feoffment or Fine he could not by reason of this Statute And that ergo summum jus or verum jus intayl though it be discountenanced is not barred by the Feoffment for it is not in his power by that kind of conveiance and a non posse ad non esse valet argumentum necessario negative so that the Argument stands thus What the Tenant in tayl had and hath not parted withall remaineth in him still but the main right in tayl he had and hath not parted ergo it remaineth in him still for qui non habet potestatem alienandi habet necessitatem retinendi If you say that he hath parted with it I deny it for the Statute hath taken from him that power by Fine or Feoffment only finis ipse jure sit nullus which before he could have done and the practice of the Law is answerable to this both towards the Donor and towards the Issue The Donor hath two things whereby he may be benefitted and prejudiced the one in his Rent reserved the other in his reverter but the Issue prejudiced only in his Descender Now for the Donor when the Donee hath made a Feoffment and hath excluded
himself from all rights as concerning himself yet the Donor shall by force of this Statute which at the Common law he could not And if the Donor will release all his right in the Land to the Donee after a discontinuance by Feoffment his release though it will extinguish no right to the very Land yet it will extinguish Rents which proves that the Donee by his Feoffment cannot dismiss himself of all his right but that by the Statute of West his alienation is disabled as to that but that the Donor may avow for the Rent But wheresoever Tenant in tayl suffers a Recovery or levies a Fine the Rents together with the entayl ceases And the answer as to that is imperfect to resemble it to the Case of tenant in see simple doth alien and yet the Lord may avow upon him for the Cases have no resemblance for as Littleton well distinguisheth when Tenant in fee hath departed with his whole Estate he is no more Tenant to the Lord to avow upon though the Lord if he Will may avow upon him for the arrerages and if the Lord after future alienation release to him all his rights in the Land the Release is void to release the Rents and Services in all which it differs materially from the other Case and it is an equall proportion of the Law That when the Lord aliens his signory the Tenant is to he acquainted that all Arrearages may be paid that he may have no after-reckonings for after notice and the Arrerages paid the avowrie vanisheth Now for the Heir in tayl claiming from his Ancestor after his Feoffment by descent from him thereby allowing a right to remain in him against his Feoffment The Case is more difficult because during the Feoffor there can be no motion of that right neither by the Feoffor who hath hard himself nor his Issue because his Right is not yet come yet let me put this Case upon the Statute 11 H. 7. upon the opinion of Mountague Chief Iustice If Tenant in tayl Iointress make a Feoffment the person to whom the land doth belong after her death may enter and hold it according to his right Now till such Entry there is a discontinuance but when the Issue enters he is an Heir intayl et quasi eins per discent But now generally when Tenant in tayl hath made a Feoffment and dies the Heir shall bring a Formedon in the Discender and shall count that descendere debet from that Ancestor that made the discontinuance performam doni and therefore the Writ saith discendit jus it is as much devenit jus It is true that regularly a Feoffment bars all former rights and future rights yet respect to be had to Estrangers Albanies Case 2 Rep. Archers Case 1 Rep. 66. 9 H. 7. And therefore in Archers Case Lands were demised to one fore life remainder to his first Heir male Tenant for life made a Feoffment in fee and died his next Heir was barred of his right for ever by the Feoffment A man seised of Land by right of his Wife makes a feoffment in fee and then the Estate is made back to the Wife she is thereby remitted and her Husband shall never be Tenant by the Courtesie and therefore well resolved if Tenant in tayl discontinue and levy fine with Proclamations is no bar to the Estate tayl Now this Case is irregular because it standeth by Act of Parliament which is able to make the same Act good to one purpose or person and void or voidable to another as the Statute of Ecclesiastical persons and binds the party but is void or voidable against the Successors and shall nevertheless when they enter be in by succession And that there is still a right remaining in the Tenant in tayl appears in that he hath still in him a power to bind it more finally and totally by fine and recovery if he pursue them rightly and therefore note Cuppledikes Case If Tenant in tayl with divers remainders over make a Feoffment and Feoffee vouch not the Feoffee Tenant in tayl in possession but the first in Remainder by the Statute the Feoffees are not bound but are remitted and Maunsells Case there is cited where one recovery is a bar to 3 several Intayls with double voucher And this is called jus extinguendi which he could not extinguish and discharge if not in him and in his power and therefore there is no cause to frame Abeyances needless and in vain but the Law allows not nor admits not but in Cases of necessity as in the vacancy of Bishops Parsons and other Ecclesiastical persons or the like Remainders to right Heirs upon Freehold abeyances are not allowed but where the original Estate required them or where the consequences of Estates and Cases do require them As for the first in Case of single Corporations Bishops Deans and Parsons which must dye and a vacancy of freehold or a Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. yet living Or Secondly in Case of congruity as if a man gives a Warranty and die his Heir in ventre sa mere may not be vouched but if there be Heir he may be vouched and a Vouchee may take and plead a Release quasi tenens or may lease a Fine to the Defendant of the Land in Question But for Estates that of their own nature and origination creation are perfect and intire as this Estate entayl is the Law permits not vain affected abeyance or fictions by the voluntary Act of the party as this to no good which should preserve a right to serve the Heir and to defraud the King which was one of the principal reasons for the making the Statute 27 of H. 8. for the transferring of uses into possession Vses being but a kind of abeyance and shift to kéep the profits to the use and defraud the King and Lords of their Escheats and them that had a right to know against whom to bring their Actions Littleton was confounded in himself when he made an abeyance of totum statum suum and yet made an Estate for life which is condemned in Walsinghams Case by the Iudges Again though fictions take place amongst common person the King is not bound by fictions and therefore the King is not bound by his remainders by recompence feigned upon a common recovery warrant collateral binds not the King but warranty with real and actual Assets nor the King is not bound by Estoppels of his own recitall certa scientia as it is in Altenwoods Case And I hold plainly that as the Land in possession is distinctly and literally given to the King so the right is as literally directly and plainly given to the King by discharge of that ancient right whereof formerly it was bound for when the Statute saith that the King should have the Lands saving the right of all persons other than the Offenders and their Heirs and such as claim to their use it is plain that the eye of the Statute was not
good and it shall be intended that the Parson is alwaies resident in his Parsonage as a Surrender or an Attournment shall be intended upon the Land and it is not requisite to name any place And it seemed to Harvey that the Arbitrement was good although that all the Parishioners had not submitted to it Because that these were bound for them 18 E. 4. 22. 1â—… 1. And Iudgement was afterwards in the next Term given for the Plaintiff Iohn Paston against William Manne IOhn Paston brought an Ejectione firm against Manne and a special verdict was given to this effect scilicet Edward Paston was seised of the Mannor of Bingham parcel whereof was the Land in question grantable by Copy And he by his Deed indented in consideration of a Mariage to be had between Tho. Paston his Son and the Daughter of I. S. covenanted with I.S. to stand seis'd of the Mannor to the use of his Son for life and after to Mary the wife for life the remainder to the first Son between them in tail with divers remainders over The Mariage was solemnised and they found moreover that there was a Custome that the Lord might have liberty of fould course for 100 Sheep throughout all the Copiholdland lying in the East and North field the Customary places and Lands in these Fields not being inclosed from the Feast of St. Michael to the Feast of the Annunciation if the grain was carried in by that time Or otherwise from the time of the carrying in to the Annunciation if it be not sowed with seed again and that those 15 acres in question be in the Corn-field And that Thomas Paston granted that Copihold to the Defendant in Fee and that in 14 Iacobi the Defendant enclosed the Land without Licence of the Lord and if Licence was obtained then he ought to have paid a Fine which the Lord would have assest And if any of the Tenents inclose without Licence they find that they have used to be punisht and pay those penalties which the Lord would assess And they also found that that incloser by the Copiholder was with a Ditch of six foot in breadth and 3 foot in depth and that the land which he digged out was but to make a Bank upon the Land upon which a hedge of quick thorn was set and that four gaps were left in the inclosure of nine feet in breadth And they found that the Defendant did not at any time compound for a Fine And then they find that the Copiholders which before this inclosed without Licence were amerced and commanded upon a pain before a certain day to throw up their inclosures And now for this inclosure Thomas enters for a forfeiture and dies his Wife makes a Lease of it and the Defendant ejects the Lessee Atthowe held that he had forfeited his Copihold for that inclosure is against the Custome of the Mannor which is found For the Custome is the life and soul of a Copihold as it is in the 4 Rep. 31. Brownes Case The breaking of that is a forfeiture and make the Copiholder have an Estate at will meerly whereas before he had an Estate not meerly at the will of the said Lord but secundum volunt domini And so by the inclosure the Lord cannot have his fould course and so the custome is broken 42 Ed. 3. 25. For not doing the services the Lord may enter and have the Emblements If a Copiholder makes a feoffment it is a disseisin for which there may be an Assise of novel disseisin de libero tenement of Lands whereof the profits or of the Rent issuing out of the Land there is a forfeiture And Littleton said that a rescous Replevin Enclosure and denying the Rent is a Disseisin And what is a Disseisin of a Freehold is a forfeiture of the Copihold Rescous by a Copiholder is a forfeiture for all the books say that a denial of a rent is a forfeiture And it is held that if a Copiholder brings a replevin it is a forfeiture and the Lord may enter presently But if he avow then perchance he hath dispensed with it And an inclosure is more strong than a denial 11 E. 3. Assise 88. cited in Taverners Case 4 Rep. The heir cannot have an Assise before entry but if the Defendant menaces him or stops up the way it is a Disseisin 14 Ass plac 19. 8 E. 2. As 374. A stopping up of the way is a disseisin but if he can go another way he can have nusance 29 Ass 49. But it will be objected that the Lord had another remedy for he might have an Action of the Case And for that not enter for a forfeiture But an Action of the Case does not restore him to the Freehold but give dammages only And if an Assise be brought it affirms the Disseisin and makes forfeiture and that agrees Taverners Case That where several Copiholds were granted by one Copy a rent denied of one forfeits that and not the others But admit it is a forfeiture if the leaving the Gaps dispence with it And it seem'd that not for he loses the profit of the Fould-course for 500 Sheep would tear their fleeces by such a narrow passage and the inclosure is an impediment to hinder their spreading in their feeding And so every one also may inclose and leave gaps and the Lord perhaps compell'd to put and remove the Shéep ten times in one day and so the Sheep worse at night than in the morning c. Secondly if the Lord had given Licence then he would have had a Fine but he would so be his own Carver And the Lord had no remedy for a Fine upon admittance after Surrender 4 Rep. 46. He had no remedy there by Action of debt nor by Action of the Case without promise to the Admittance c. Lord grants a Copihold Escheat he ought to improve his Fine before or he hath no remedy for he is not compelled to grant the Copihold again and therefore he shall have what Fine he will And it is not found also who may inclose paying his Fine A Lord admits a Copiholder for life with remainders the admittance of Tenent for life was the admittance of the remainder but he shall have his Antefine 4 Rep 23. And if they may inclose paying a Fine then the Lord had an Estate at the will of the Tenents Thirdly when it is found that the Lord amerced and commanded upon pain c. that is no mitigation or dispensation of the forfeiture For ruinous Houses pull'd down is a forfeiture without Custome to the contrary Because no waste lies against a Copiholder as against Lessee for years And yet the Lord in favour may amerce such a Copiholder if he will and that is no dispensaition but an affirmation of the forfeiture And so because the Lords were conscionable and would not take the forfeiture that does not prove that it is a Dispensation Fourthly the making of the gap and hedge of
one of them dyed before partition yet their heirs should hold severally according to the intent of the Will for otherwise the Surviver should hold place which against the will of the Devisor Northens Case A Man seised of a Mannor having all the Goods of Felons de se within the same Mannor and makes a Lease for years of parcell of the same Mannor to a man and afterwards makes another Lease of the same Lands to commence after the determination surrender or forfeiture of the first Lease The first Lessée was a Felo de se the Lord Lessor of the Mannor enters into the lands Leased as forfeit and the second Lessée ousts him and it séemed to Crook that the Entry was lawfull enough Harvey said That the Lessor to whom the Frank-Tenement belonged entring into the land the Frank-Tenement drowned the lesser Estate and the Lease for years is extinct in the Frank-Tenement And it was said That therefore the first Lease extinguisht But if before that the Lord had aliened the Mannor saving to him the liberty and after had entred for the Forfeiture the second Lessée could not enter for it is not any determination of the first Lease Crook said That if the Lessor infeoffed the first Lessée of the Mannor that is a determination of the first Lease and the second Lessée may enter The Bishop of Winchester against Markham THomas Bishop of Winchester brought an Action upon the Statute of West 1 cap. 4. de scandalis magnatum against Markham for that he preferred a slanderous Bill against him before the President of the Councel surmising that he was a covetous and malicious Bishop And the Opinion of the Court was That the words were sufficient to maintain the Action A man seised of a Mannor held in Chivalry devises two parts of it to two men in severalty and all the Remnant he devises to his heirs in Tayle the remainder over in Fée Hutton said It seems to me that the devise is voyd for the third part to the heir for he might devise the two parts by his Testament and he had done all that he could doe by the Statute and then the devise of the third part is out of the warranty of the Statute for it is not reason that by the limitation of the third part the which he could not doe that the devise of the residue which was one time good shall be defeated which Harvey granted but Crook to the contrary for although the two parts were devised by the premisses of the Testament and the third part in the end of it yet in operation of Law the one part is not before the other but the will is intire and took effect in all its parts at one and the same time by the death of the Devisor By which it seemed for the benefit of him in the remainder that he shall take the third part devised to him for if a man seised of three Acres of land held in Chivalry and devises them severally to three severall persons in Fee the heir shall have the third part of every of the three Acres and not the Acre last devised which Hutton granted So also for the benefit of a third person he ought to be judged in the third part as a Purchaser and not of an Estate by descent and so is the better Opinion in 3 H. 6. But if he had devised the Tenements to his Son in Taile without limitation over of the remainder there he might choose to be in of the Estate limited by the Devise or as heir Hutton I doubt of that for the Book is not agreed 3 H. 6. Wilkinsons Case THe Baron seised of lands makes a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff him and his wife for life the remainder over to a stranger in Fee Atthow demanded if the Feoffee shall be bound to make the Feoffment before request made by the Baron Hutton and Crook thought that a request ought to be made by the husband And because the particular Estate which is the foundation of the remainder limited to the stranger ought to be made to the husband who is party to the condition and it is his will to take the Estate for life or refuse it and the Feme is at his will But if the Baron dyes then it behooves him to make the Feoffment to the wife without request because she is a stranger to the condition by Act in Law And so where she dyes also before the Feoffment the Estate ought to be made to him to whom the remainder is limited without any request Yelverton But if the condition was to re-enfeoffe the Feoffor and a stranger there it behoves the Feoffee to tender the Feoffment to the stranger for he had not notice of the condition and he ought to be party to all the Estate And by the Livery made to him the Feoffor shall take well enough Waterton against Loadman VVaterton makes a Feoffee to the use of Loadman in Fee to the use of another in Tayle the remainder to his right heirs in Fee Cestui que use in Tayle dyes the first Feoffees enter for to recontinue the use Crook said That when Tenant in Tayle in use makes a Feoffment nothing passes but for his own life For it had been agreed where cestui que use pur vie makes a Feoffment in Fee for it was not a Forfeiture of his Estate because nothing passed but for his life then when the Feoffee dyes during the life of cestui que use in Tayle that cannot be any descent of the Fee but as an Estate for life the which determines by the death of cestui que use in Tayle And all the Iustices were of the same Opinion for the descent was when he had not any Title of entry for by the Feoffment he had a Title during the life of cestui que use in Tayle Wherefore during his life they could not enter nor make continuall claim But if the descent had been after the death of cestui que use in Tayl then otherwise it shall be for they had a Title to enter before the descent and by their laches they are told of that Hutton seemed That the Feoffees cannot enter in that case for they cannot have the same Estate that they had before the alienation of cestui que use in Tayl for by the Feoffment the Estate of the Fee simple which was to their right heirs passes clearly and it is lawfully in the Feoffee Wherefore if they enter to re-continue the use in Tayl where they shall he seised of another Estate where they shall be seised of a Fee simple also and so there shall be two Estate of Fee simple of the same land which is inconvenient But the Iustices said That cestui que use in Tayl had no other remedy unless by the Entry of the Feoffees Harris against Marre A Man seised of certain lands in Fee makes a Feoffment in Fee to his use and afterwards makes his will by which he devises That
appear gratis if he will Warner against Barret ELizabeth Warner libells for a Legacy in the Spiritual Court against one Barret who moves for a Prohibition Because he had there pleaded plene administ and proved that by one Witness and they would not allow it Richardson before the Statute of E. 6. The proper Sute for Tithes was there and they allow one Witness to prove payment a Prohibition shall be granted And he put Morris Eatons Case in the Bishop of Winchesters Case Where it was ruled if the Spiritual Court will not allow that plea which is good in our Law a Prohibition shall be granted as in Case of Tithes And he said that the Case of a Legacy is all one Crook When one comes to discharge a thing by due matter of Law and proves it by one Witness If it be not allowed no Prohibition shall be granted there Richardson Our Case is proof of plene Administ pleaded which goes in discharge But if there be enough pleaded which goes in discharge and proves that by one Witness and not allowed A Prohibition shall be granted Hutton said that properly for a Legacy the sute is in the Ecclesiastical Court although they may sue in the Chancery for it yet the proper Court is the Ecclesiastical Court And they said they used to allow one Witness with other good circumstantial proofs If they be not in some criminal Causes where of necessity there must be two Witnesses In one Hawkins Case Farm or of a Propriation libells for Tithes of Lambs for seven years And there he proved payment by one Witness and a Prohibition was granted for not allowance Yelverton There may be a difference where the Sute is meerly Ecclesiasticall for a sum of mony as for a Legacy there the payment of the legacy is of the nature of the thing And the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Iurisdiction of the proof and matter But if one gives a legacy of 20 Oxen And the other pleads payment of as much mony in satisfaction there they cannot proceed but upon Common law For that that the legacy is altered And if a proof of one Witness is not accepted a Prohibition shall be granted For now it is a legal Tryall 35 H. 6 If the principal is proper for their Court the accessory is of the same nature Also the Sute is commenced for a Legacy and the other pleads plene administ There they proceed upon the Common law For they sometimes take that for Assets which our Law does not take It was adjudged in the Kings Bench that a proof by one Witness of a Release of a Legacy was disallowed a Prohibition shall be granted Crook In this Case a proof of setting out of Tithes by one Witness a Prohibition shall be granted Hawkeridge's Case IT was agréed by all in Hawkeridge's Case That in a forcible entry or Trespass brought against one If the Defendant is found guilty by verdict and before Iudgement the Plaintiff releases to him Because that by that the Plaintiff is barred The King is also barred of his Fine Falkners Case ATthow Sergeant said That if these words were wanting in a Déed In cujus rei Testimon That the Déed is not good And he said that all Covenants Grants and Agréements which came after those words in a Déed are not of force nor shall be pleaded as parcell of the Déed It was observed by the Court That the Wife of a Duke Earl or Baron in all writings they shall be named Ladies But the Wives of Knights shall be named Dames And it was likewise observed that if a Wife of a Duke Earl or Baron takes a new Husband of a more base degrée That she loses her name of Dame or Lady and shall be named in every Writ according to the degrée of her Husband As it happened in the Case of the Lady Johnsons Case IT was said if a Parson leases his Rectory for years or parcel of his Glebe reserving a Rent and dies his Successor accepts she Rent That acceptance does not make the Lease good Because by his death the Franktenement is in abeyance and in no Man And also a Parson cannot discontinue And by consequence That that he did without Livery is determined by his death And it is not like to the Case of an Abbot Prior or Tenent in tayl Joyce Norton and Thomas Ducket against Harmer IOyce Norton and Thomas Ducket Plaintiffs against George Harmer the Vicar of c. In a Prohibition the Libel was for Wood imployed in Hedging and for Fire-wood Issue was joyned that there was in the Parish a great quantity of Land inclosed And that they used to take Wood for Hedge-boot and Fire-boot and they were discharged of Tithes in consideration that he payed Tithes in kind of Hay and Corn c. And it was found for the Defendant Crowley moved That a Consultation cannot be granted for that that they ought to be acquitted of Tithes for those of Common right And for that although prescription was alleged it is nothing to the purpose Atthowe For Fire-wood it was proved that Tithes alwaies were paid Richardson There is no doubt but the discharge also ought to be by Custome and to be grounded upon modus decimandi Yelverton and Crook otherwise that it is not upon modus decimandi But by the Common law And the reason is for that that when a man is Owner of arable Land and he pay tithe-milk and Corn And for that they are discharged of things consumed in the House Which are to make Masters and Servants fit to manure the Land c. Richardson said It is seen that it shall alwaies be discharged in consideration it is alleged how a small consideration will serve Crook It is not modus decimandi but the discharge is for that that the Parson for them had a benefit for he had by them better means of Tithes Hutton If a man had an House of Husbandry and demises all the Lands but the House He shall pay tithes for them absumpt in the House Crook not No profit is made by them to the party but the Parson had a benefit by him And a day was given to search Presidents Bibble against Cunningham BIbble brought an Action upon the Case against Cunningham and declares That there was a Communication between him and the Defendant of the sale of a Banck and an acre of Land And that in consideration thereof and that the Plaintiff would assure and deliver to the Defendant possession of all the Banck assoon as he could and that at all times upon request to be made to the Plaintiff by the Defendant the Plaintiff would become bound in a Statute Merchant to make the Assurance to the Defendant The Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff 72 l. at the end of 3 years from Michaelmas next ensuing And that in the mean time for the forbearance he would give after 8 l. in the 100 l. and that he became bound in a Statute Merchant for the