the Enfant Hob. Rep. 281. for the Wife had her said Estate to her own use and then her Husband surviving her should have it and that without any admittance for that he is not in of any new Estate but in the Estate of his Wife as Assignee And it was said by them That if a Copyholder be for years and maketh his Executors and dieth that the Executors should have the Term Co. Case of Copyholders and that without any Admittance Weston contrary in that case as to the Executors XXIII Tindall and Cobbs Case 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WAste was brought by Tindall Knight against Jeoffery Cobbe Esquire and the Plaintiff declared of a Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton and of the moyety of a Wood called Wolverton-Wood The Defendant pleaded That Robert Winckfield before the Waste supposed was seised of and in tertia parte alterius Medietatis of the said Mannor and of and in tertia parte alterius Medietatis of the aforesaid Wood and held the same insimul pro indiviso with the Plaintiff and that the said Robert Winckfield by his Deed sold to the Defendant omnes omnimodas arbores subboscos suos crescent in praedict tertia parte alterius medietatis praedicti bosci ad libitum ipsius Galfridi succidend and so justified the cutting down of 300 Oaks in which the Waste is assigned with this that he will aver That the aforesaid 300 Oaks were the third part only in numero precio medietatis omnium arbor subboscorum at the said time when the Waste is supposed to be done and demanded Iudgment if Action And divers Exceptions were taken to the Count 1. He sheweth Vaugh. Rep. 175. that the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor was per nomen c. and doth not shew that the demise was by writing and if not then he cannot plead it by a per Nomen 2. The Waste is assigned in digging of Clay in 100 Acres of Lands parcel Medietatis Maner de Wolverton and hath not shewed in what Town the Land is For he hath shewed before the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton in Wolverton 3. He shews the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton and of other Lands and assigns the Waste in cutting down Oaks in quodam bosco vocat Wolverton Wood parcel praemissorum and that cannot be for this Wood cannot be parcel of the Mannor of Wolverton and of the other Lands also And for these Causes the Count by the whole Court was holden to be insufficient XXIV Stamfords Case 7 Eliz. Dyer In the Common Pleas HUgh Stamford seised in Fee had Issue A. his eldest Son and B. his younger Son A. had Issue George and Elizabeth by divers Women Hugh made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of George in tail and afterwards to the use of A. in tail and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of Hugh Hugh dieth A. dieth George levieth a Fine to the use of himself in tail the remainder over to B. in Fee and dyeth without Issue It was holden by Bendloes Carell Kelloway both the Bromleys and Kingsmill That Elizabeth is barred by this Fine by the Statute of 4 H. 7. 32 H. 8. XXV 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this Grandfather Father and Son Lands are given to the Grandfather for life the remainder to the Son in tail The Grandfather and Father joyn in a Feoffment with warranty The Feoffee makes a Lease for years and afterwards conveys the Land to the Grandfather for life the remainder to the Father in Fee The Grandfather and Father die The Son entreth and puts out the Lessee Weston was of Opinion That the Entry of the Son was lawful for it was the Feoffment of the Grandfather and the Confirmation of the Father and the Warranty of the Grandfather collateral to the Father and his Estate but when the Land is re-assured as above is said and afterwards the Son entreth after the death of the Grandfather and Father now he is remitted and the warranty gone by taking back the Estate and the Son is now seised of as high an Estate as his Ancestor was at the time that he departed with the Land by which the warranty is determined Dyer contrary Here had not been any discontinuance if the warranty had not been for the Father was never seised by force of the entail And I conceive that against a warranty collateral one cannot be remitted for it binds the Right as a Fine with Proclamation after the Statute of 4 H. 7. And I conceive that during the possession of the Grandfather the Warranty is but suspended and not determined and although that by the death of the Grandfather it be determined yet having respect to the Lessee it is in being for his Estate is derived out of the Estate which was warranted and which descends with the Warranty Bendloes One cannot make Title by a Collateral Warranty only c. XXVI Simonds Case 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedom the Tenant vouched Rose Simonds as Daughter and Heir of Henry Simonds Clerk and because she was within age he prayed that the Parol might demur Bendloes recited the Case to be this A Fine was levied of the Lands to Henry Simonds upon Condition c. who rendred back the Land to the Conusor by the same Fine and that the said Henry Simonds never had any possession or seisin but that which he had mean between the Conusans and the Rendee of which possession the Wife should not be endowed And therefore it is a good Counter-plea to say That the said Rose nor any of her Ancestors c. for that was not such a Seisin upon which Warranty might rise and so if a Feoffment in Fee had been made to the said Henry Simonds to the use of another And of that Opinion was Dyer Iustice for Henry Simonds had not any possession by force of which he might be vouched Welsh contrary For the Fine imports in it self that he hath a Fee and that he hath granted and rendred the same Fee and this Fine amounts to a Feoffment Dyer said to Bendloes The best way for you is to plead the Counter-plea generally and if he estop you by the Fine to demur upon it Afterwards Bendloes moved another matter viz. Henry Simonds was a Priest and therefore Rose is a Bastard and if so then she cannot be vouched as Heir But I would not trust the Bishop to Certifie the Bastardy if I should plead it generally and therefore I will plead the special matter and so it shall be tryed by the Country Dyer and Welsh So you may do if you please and yet if you plead general Bastardy it shall be tryed by the Country for Rose is not a party to the Writ and in such case Bastardy shall be tryed by the Country XXVII Mich. 8
Pawnage of the Park of H. grants all his Goods and Chattels moveables and immoveables within the said Park It was holden by Weston and Dyer Iustices That the Lease of the Pawnage passeth by these words And it was said by Dyer If a Man hath a Lease for years of a House and grants all his Goods and Chattels being in the same House that as well the Lease of the House as the Goods within it pass by such a Grant. XLVII Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was said by Weston and Bendloes That a Retraxit cannot be before a Declaration which Leonard and Filmer Prothonotaries granted And Dyer said That it being before a Declaration it is but a Nonsuit and Wheatley and Filmer affirmed the same and therefore it was adjudged That such a Retraxit in the Court of Hustings before the Sheriff is no Plea in Bar. XLVIII Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt brought against Christmas who shewed forth a Protection Quia Profecturus with the Lord Hunsdon to Barwick Dyer doubted If the Protection did lie But said It should be rather Moraturus then Profecturus For a Protection Quia Profecturus to Calleis was never good but super victitation Calicii Harper contrary For Barwick is out of the Realm And he said That he was once of Counsel Where a Bill was exhibited in Parliament to make Hexham part of England and he said That in the time of the Queen that now is One Carre struck a Man who thereof died at Barwick and in an Appeal thereof brought here by the Wife Carre was dismissed XLIX Cranmers Case Hill. 14 Eliz. Rott 938. In the Common Pleas. Dyer 309 310. 2 Len. 5. 1 Len. 196. 1 And. 19. More Rep. 100. Office of Executors 118. 119. TThomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury having a Reversion in Fee of certain Lands upon a Lease for years granted the Reversion to the use of the Grantor himself for his life and after his decease to the use of the Executors and Assignees of the Grantor for 20 years next after the death of the Grantor and after to the use of Thomas his Son in tail and afterwards to the use of the Grantor in Fee The Grantor is attainted of Treason and the Queen gave the said Term of 20 years to the Wife of the Grantor who took to Husband Ed. White-Church who let the Land to A. Thomas the Son entred and leased the same Land to one Kirk who upon an Ouster brought Ejectione Firmae This Case was Argued by the Iustices Manwood the puisne Iustice conceived That the Plaintiff ought to be barred and that the Lessee of White-Church who claimed by the grant of the Queen the said Term of 20 years ought to hold the Land against the Son of the Grantor For the remainder limited to the Son is not yet begun in possession And he insisted much in his Argument upon this point That Vses limited upon any Conveyance are governed and directed according to the Rules of the Common Law As if a Feoffment in Fee be made unto the use of another for life the remainder to the use of the Lessee for life and the Heirs of his body c. now the party hath an estate tail executed in possession and that is according to the Rule of the Common Law. And he cited the Case of 40 E. 3. 20. Where Land was given by Fine to A.B. and C. and to the Heirs of the body of C. and for default of such Issue the remainder to the right Heirs of A. C. died without Issue B. dyed and afterwards A. died his Heir brought a Scire facias out of the said Fine And by Iudgment of the Court the Scire facias did not lie for the Fee was vested in the Father of the Demandant although that ex vi verbi the remainder was limited not to the Father but to his Heirs But where Vses are limited in other manner than according to the Rules of the Common Law there they shall not be ruled and governed by the Rules of the Common Law As if Lands be given to the use of one for life and to the use of such Lessees to whom the Tenant for life shall demise the same for years or life rendring Rent the remainder over to a stranger in tail and afterwards the Tenant for life makes a Lease for years or life and dieth such a Lease shall bind him in the remainder although that the Lessor had not but for life and be now dead for the Vse limited here to the Lessees which would be was limited contrary to the Rules of the Common Law. For by the Common Law such Leases made by Tenant for life are determined by his death And in this Case This Lease for 20 years after the death of the Grantor was limited according to the Rules of the Common Law and therefore it shall take effect accordingly as if it had passed in possession and not in use as if the Conveyance had been of the Land it self and that Land had been granted to the Grantor for 20 years after his death that Interest had been vested in him to sell forfeit or otherwise to dispose at his pleasure and shall not accrue to the Executors as a purchase 19 E. 2. Fitz. Covenant 25. Land was Leased to one for life and after his decease to his Executors and Assigns for 10 years the Lessee assigned the Term And by Herle it is a good Assignment For it is in the Election of the Lessee to Devise that Interest or to assign it in his life-time And see 39 E. 3. 25. A Lease was made to one for life and a year over 17 E. 3. 29. Lessee for life so as after his death the Land remain to his Executors for 8 years Lessee for life died He who had the Freehold of the Land was impleaded who rendred the Land and the Executors of the Lessee for life prayed to be received scil where as Executors do hold the Term which proves that they had the Term as Executors to the use of the Testator and so Assets therefore the same was before in the Lessee for life But by Dyer in his Argument That Case doth not prove it and certainâ—y it is not Assets For although the Executor have the same Term by purchase yet they have it as Executors for that is a good name of purchase which Harper concessit And Manwood argued further and he Cited 19 E. 3. Fitz. Covenant 24. Land was let for life and if the Lessee died within 12 years that his Executors should hold the same until the end of the 12 years The Lessee for life died and the Executors entred and the Executors of the Lessee for life brought Actions of Covenant which proved that the Executors had the Term as a Chatel vested in the Testator and not in their own Rights as Purchasors by the name of Executors See 22 Ass 37. Land demised to A. ad totam vitam suam
See the Case 14 Eliz. in Dyer L. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Tottenham and Bedingfields Case Owen Rep. 35 83. IN an Accompt by Tottenham against Bedingfield who pleaded That he never was his Bailiff to render accompt the Case was That the Plaintiff was possessed of a Parsonage for Term of years and the Defendant not having any Interest nor claiming any Title in them took the Tythes being set forth and severed from the 9 parts and carried them away and sold them Vpon which the Plaintiff brought an Action of Accompt And by Manwood Iustice the Action doth not lie for here is not any privity for wrongs are always done without privity And yet I do agree That if one doth receive my Rents I may implead him in a Writ of Accompt and then by the bringing of my Action there is privity and although he hath received my Rent yet he hath not done any wrong to me for that it is not my Mony until it be paid unto me or unto another for my use and by my Commandment and therefore notwithstanding such his Receipt I may resort to the Tenant of the Land who ought to pay unto me the said Rent and compel him to pay it to me again and so in such case where no wrong is done unto me Hob. 32â— I may make a privity by my consent to have a Writ of Accompt But if one disseiseth me of my Land and taketh the profits thereof upon that no Action of Accompt lieth for it is meerly a wrong And in the principal case so soon as the Tythes were severed by the Parishioners there they were presently in the Plaintiff and therefore the Defendant by the taking of them was a wrong doer and no Action of Accompt for the same lieth against him And upon the like reason was the Case of Monox of London lately adjudged which was That one devised Land to another 1 Len. 266. and died and the Devisee entred and held the Land devised for the space of 20 years and afterwards for a certain cause the Devise was adjudged void and for that he to whom the Land descended brought an Action of Accompt against the Devisee And it was adjudged That the Action did not lie Harper contrary For here the Plaintiff may charge the Defendant as his Proctor and it shall be no Plea for the Defendant to say That he was not his Proctor no more than in an Accompt against one who holdeth as Gardian in Socage it is no plea for him to say that he is not Prochein Amy to the Plaintiff Dyer The Action doth not lie If an Accompt be brought against one as Receiver he ought to be charged with the Receipt of the Mony and an Accompt doth not lie where the party pretends to be Owner as against an Abater or Disseisor but if one claimeth as Bailiff he shall be charged and so it is of Gardian in Socage Latch 8. And it was agreed That if a Disseisor assign another to receive the Rents that the Disseisee cannot have an Accompt against such a Receivor LI. 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards NOte That this Case was ruled in the Court of Wards That where Tenant of the King of Lands holden by Knights Service in chief made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his younger Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor and died his eldest Son within age That the Queen should have the Wardship of his body and of the third part of the Land and when the eldest Son comes of full age that the younger Son should sue Livery and pay Primer Seisin according to the rate and value of the whole Land viz. of the third part as in possession and of the two parts as a Reversioner For the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffee is in truth a Reversion for the Fee simple was never out of him because there is not any consideration as to that nor any Vse expressed And because Livery shall not be sued by parcels the younger Son shall not be suffered to sue Livery of the third part presently and respite the residue as to the two parts in Reversion until the Reversion fall but he shall sue Livery presently as well of the two parts in reversion as of the third part in possession and if the eldest Son had been of full age at the time of the death of his Father the younger Son should pay Primer Seisin as to the third part the whole value of it for one year as in possession and as to the two parts the moiety of the value of a year as of a Reversion LII Oliver Breers Case 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards OLiver Breer who was Tenant in Chief by Knights Service made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of A. his eldest Son and Heir for life and after to the use of the first begotten Son of the said A. in tail and afterwards to the use of the second Son of the said A. c. and for default of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Oliver died the said A. his Son being of full age It was holden by the Council of the Court of Wards That he should pay for his first Primer Seisin a third part as in possession and two parts as a reversion See the Case before LIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte 1 Roll. 626 This Case was moved to the Iustices in the Court of the Kings Bench A Man had Issue two Daughters by divers Women and being seised of Lands in Fee he made his Will and by the same Devised That his Wife should have the moyety of his Lands for years and that his eldest Daughter at the day of her Marriage should enter into the other moyety his eldest Daughter married and died without Issue And the Question was Whether her Vncle should have that moyety or the fourth part of the whole Land. Catline conceived and said That when the Devise which was made to the eldest Daughter that she might enter after certain years is not the Inheritance in her presently and the other words void So he said here That it is not a purchase in the eldest Daughter but both the Daughters should enter in Common as one Heir to their Father until the Marriage and then the Inheritance which was once settled in them should not be removed Southcote Iustice said There are no words of Limitation of any Estate that the Daughter should have after the Marriage and therefore the Devise was void and if he had limited that the Daughter after Marriage should have it for life the Fee-simple is vested in her before and then she cannot have it for life And he said That if a Lease be made to the eldest Daughter for years by the Father and afterwards
shall be taken in Iudgment of Law That the Executors have Assets to the value of the whole 100 l. And although the Executors were compelled by the Award to make the release yet it was their own act to submit themselves to the Arbitrament LXXVIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards NOte It was Ruled by Kellaway and Wilbraham in the Court of Wards That where the Kings Tenant of Lands holden by Knight service in Capite made a Feoffment of the same Land to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his younger Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor and died the eldest Son within age That the Queen should have the Wardship of his body and of the third part of the Land and when the eldest cometh at full age the younger shall sue Livery and pay Primer Seisin according to the rate of the value of the whole Land viz. of the third part as in possession and of the two parts as a Reversion For the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor is in truth a Reversion For the Feesimple was never out of him because there was not any Consideration as to that nor any use expressed And also because that Livery shall not be by parcels the younger Son shall not be suffered to sue Livery of the third part presently and respite the residue as to the two parts in Reversion until the Reversion fall but shall sue Livery presently as well of the two parts in reversion as of the third part in possession And if the eldest Son had been of full age at the time of the death of his Father the younger Son should pay Primer Seisin as to the third part of the full value of it for one year as in possession and as to the two other parts the moyety of the value of a year as a Reversion And at that time Breers Case was vouched which was Oliver Breers Tenant in Chief by Knights Service made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and after to the use of A. his Son and Heir for life and after to the use of the first begotten Son of A. in tail and after to the use of the second Son of A. c. and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of the Feoffor Oliver died the said A. his Son being of full age It was ruled by the said Council of the said Court of Wards That he should pay for his Primer Seisin a third part of the Land in possession and two parts as a Reversion LXXIX Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Post 56. THe Case was A Man was seised of a Pasture in which was two great Groves and a Wood known by the name of a Wood And also in the same Pasture were certain Hedge-Rowes and Trees there growing Sparsim Leased the same by Indenture for years And by the same Indenture bargained and sold to the Lessee all Woods and Vnderwoods in and upon the Premisses And further That it should and might be lawful to the Lessee to cut down and carry away the same at all times during the Term. Harper Iustice The Hedge-Rowes did not pass by these words Hedge-Rowes sparsim Dyer The Hedge-Rowes shall pass for the Grant is general All Woods Mounson contrary For the words of the Grant may be supplyed by other words It was moved further If by these words the Lessee may cut them oftner than once And by Harper Manwood and Mounson He can cut them but once Dyer contrary And so it should be if the words had been Growing upon the Premisses And this word Growing although it sounds in the present Tense yet it shall be also taken in the future Tense if the word tunc had not been alledged for it is a word of restraint The Case which was argued in the Chancery 27 H. 8. where I was present was such The Prior of St. John of Jerusalem Leased a Commandry Provided That if the said Prior or any of his Brethren there being Commanders will dwell thereupon then the said Lease to be void It was doubted If that did extend to the Successors for the word Being is in the present Tense And yet it was holden by Fitzherbert That it should be taken in the future Tense and so extend to the Successors Otherwise if the words had been Nunc Being LXXX Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man seised of Lands in Fee devised 1 Len. 101. That his Wife should take the profits of his Lands until Mary his Daughter and Heir came to the age of 16 years And if the said Mary died That J.S. should be her Heir Manwood The Daughter after she hath attained the age of 16 years shall have the Land in tail For Devises ought to be construed according to the intent of the Devisor so far forth as any certainty with reason may be collected but no intent shall be taken against all reason and certainty It is certain That the Daughter shall not have the Land in Fee for that shall descend to her without any Devise And these words If she dieth cannot be intended a Condition for it is certain she shall die But if the words had been That after the death of Mary J.S. should be his Heir in such case Mary had had but an Estate for life for there it is limited what Estate she should have And when it is said J.S. shall be his Heir it shall be meant his Collateral Heir so as the Estate tail remains in the Daughter Mounson and Harper to the contrary and that she shall have but for life And by Mounson If Mary had been a stranger to the Devise she should take nothing And this Case was put by Barham Serjeant A Man deviseth 100 l. to his youngest Daughter 100 l. to his middle Daughter and another 100 l. to his eldest Daughter and that all these sums shall be levied of the profits of his Lands It was holden by the better Opinion of the Court in this Case That the youngest Daughter should be first paid and then the middle and then the eldest Daughter and that was said to be Coniers Case LXXXI Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The King granted to the Bishop of Salisbury That he should have Catalla felonum fugitivor ' and Fines and Amercements of all Tenants and Resiants within the Mannor of D. which Mannor the Bishop Leased for years and that the Lessee should have all profits and hereditaments within the same Mannor Manwood Iustice conceived That the Lessee should have the Post Fines For all things have a being somewhere although they be not visible As Rents Fines have their being in the Lands out of which they are issuing and that is in the Son of a Fine levied of the Land within the Mannor which is due by Land of him who ought to pay the Fine And this Fine is due be reason of the
the Mannor descended to Sir John Clifton who granted a Copy-hold to Hempston The Executors of Sir William Cordell distrain for the Rent And it was agreed by the whole Court That the Copyholder should hold his Copy-hold charged Vide inde 10 Eliz. Dyer 270. Windham It hath been adjudged That the Wife of the Lord shall not be endowed against the Copyholder which Periam granted and shewed a reason thereof For the Title of Dower is not consummated before the death of the Husband so as the Title of the Copyholder was compleated before the Title of Dower But the Title of the Grantee of the Rent is consummated before the Dower Fenner conceived That the Executors could not distrain upon the Possession of the Copyholder and he argued That this Case is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. For by the Preface of the said Statute he conceived That the Statute extended but to those Cases for which by the Common Law no remedy was provided but in this Case the Executors by the Common Law might have had an Action of Debt Ergo. But Periam and Windham held the contrary For this Statute intends a further remedy for that mischief viz. not only an Action of Debt but also Dissress and Avowry See the words of the Statute viz. distrain for the Arrearages c. Vpon the Lands c. which were charged with the payment of such Rents and chargeable to the distress of the Testator so long as the said Lands continue remain and be in the seisin or possession of the said Tenant in Demesne who ought immediately to have paid the said Rent so being behind to the said Testator or in the seisin or possession of any other person or persons claiming the said Lands only by and from the said Tenant by purchase gift or descent in like manner and form as their Testator might or ought to have done in his life time It was moved by Fenner That here the Land charged doth not continue in the seisin or possession of the Tenant And here Sir J. Clifton was issue in tail and therefore he doth not claim only by the Father but per formam Doni and therefore he is not lyable Ergo nor his Heir Shuttleworth contrary Sir J. Clifton was chargeable and he claims only from them who immediately ought to have paid the Rent And the Copyholder claims by purchase from Sir J. Clifton so he claims from Sir William Clifton the Tenant although he doth not claim immediately For if the Tenant ought to have paid it and he dieth and the Land descendeth to his Heir and the Heir maketh a Feoffment the Feoffee shall be charged within this Statute although he doth not claim immediately So where Land discharged descends from the Tenant who ought to have paid it and so from Heir to Heir The Statute of 1 R. 2. is That all Grants c. shall be good against the Donor c. his Heirs c. claiming the same only as Heirs to Cestuy que Use Yet if Cestuy que Use grants a Rent-charge and his Feoffees are disseised the Grant shall be good against the Disseisor and yet he doth not claim only by Cestuy que Use And although Sir J. Clifton be Tenant in tail and so claims per formam Doni yet forasmuch as the Estate tail comes under the Estate of him who grants the Rent he shall be subject to the charge And this Statute extends not only to him who claims by the Tenant but also to the Heir of him c. And by Windham and Rhodes The Copyholder doth not claim only by the Lord but he claims in also by the Custom but the Custom is not any part of his Title but only appoints the manner how he shall hold The possession here is continued in Sir J. Clifton for the possession of his Copyholder is his possession so as if the Copyholder be ousted Sir J. Clifton shall have an Assise And so the strict words of the Statute are observed for the seisin and possession continue in Sir J. Clifton who claims only by Sir William Clifton who was the Tenant in Demesne who ought to pay the Rent But Fenner said to that That the seisin and possession intended in the Statute was the very actual possession i. e. pedis dispositio and such a possession in which a distress might be taken and that could not be taken in a Freehold without actual possession LXXXVIII Owen and Sadlers Case Hill. 18 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 10 Co. 96. A Lease was made to A. for life the remainder to B. in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of B. who bargains and sells all his Estate or levies a Fine with Proclamations of it to D. A. commits Waste It was holden by the Court That D. shall not punish him in an Action of Waste for nothing passeth to him but during the life of the Grantor scil as to the remainder in tail in respect of which Estate the Action of Waste is only maintainable for although that the Feesimple passeth to the Grantee or Conusee yet in respect of that an Action of Waste is not maintainable until the Estate tail be spent LXXXIX Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe King seised of a Mannor 2 Cro. 53 123. Yel 90 91. 1 Cro. 240. 2 Roll. 371. Hob. Rep. 242. to which an Advowson is appendant A stranger presents and his Clerk is in by 6 months The King grants the Mannor with all Advowsons appendant to it to B. The Incumbent dieth In this case It was holden by the Court That the Grantee might present For the Advowson was always appendant and the Inheritance of the same passed to the Grantee for it was not made disappendant by the Vsurpation But the Patentee shall not have a Quare Impedit of the first disturbance for that presentment did not pass unto him being a thing in Action without mention of it in his Grant And if the Plaintiff brings a Quare Impedit of the second Avoydance he shall make his Title by the presentment of the King not making mention of the Vsurpation Yet if the Bishop present by Lapse in the case of a common person he ought to make mention of it XC Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae upon an Evidence the Case was this The Bishop of Rochester 4 E. 6. Leased to B. for years rendring Rent and afterwards granted the Reversion to C. for 99 years rendring the ancient Rent Habendum from the day of the Lease without impeachment of Waste which Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter but B. did not attorn And in default of Attornment It was holden by the whole Court That the Lease was void For it was made by way of grant of the Reversion and to pass as a Reversion But by Catline If the Bishop had granted the Reversion and also demised the Land for 99 years It should pass as a Lease to begin first after the
Parliament 35 H. 8. it was Enacted That the said Lady should hold part of her Inheritance and dispose of the same as a Feme sole and that the Marquess should have the Residue and that he might Lease the same by himself without his Wife for 21 years or less rendring the ancient Rent being Land which had been usually demised c. The Marquess Leased for 21 years and afterwards durante Termino praedict Leased the same Land to another for 21 years to begin after the determination of the first Lease It was moved in this Case That this last Lease was void and that for 3 Causes 1. Because the Marquess had but an Estate for life and then it could not be intended that the Statute did enable one who had but such an Estate determinable to make such a Lease which peradventure might not commence in his life-time 2. The Letter of the Statute is 21 years or under and the word Under strongly expounded the meaning of the Statute to be not to extend to such an Estate For here upon the matter is a Lease for 40 years 3. Because the Land demised is the Inheritance of the Wife And in this Case it was said That in the Case of one Heydon such a private Act was strictly construed which was That it was Enacted That all Copies for 3 Lives granted by the Lord Admiral of the Lands of his Wife should be good The Admiral granted Leases in Reversion for 3 Lives And it was holden That that Grant was not warranted by the Statute Dyer said The words are general Omnes dimissiones and therefore not to be restrained unto special Leases scil to Leases in possession Manwood said A Feme Covert by duresse joyns in a Lease with her Husband the same shall bind her CXI The Queen and Sir John Constables Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 5 Co. Constables Case A Quo Warranto was brought by the Queen against Sir John Constable who claimed certain Wreck in the County of York The Defendant pleaded That Edward Duke of Buck. was seised of such a Mannor to which he had Wreck appendant and that he was de alta proditione debito modo attinctus and that found before the Escheator And shewed further That the said Mannor descended to Queen Mary who granted the same to the Earl of Westmerland who granted the same to the Defendant Vpon which It was demurred And Exception was taken to the Plea because the Attainder is not fully and certainly pleaded It was argued by Plowden That the Attainder was certainly pleaded scil debito modo attinctus And it is shewed That the Wreck is appendant to the Mannor and then if the Defendant hath the Mannor he hath the Wreck also and if he hath the Mannor it is not material as to the Queen how he hath it for the Queen doth not claim the same but impeacheth the Defendant for using there such a Liberty But if the Heir of the said Duke had demanded the Mannor there against him the Attainder ought to have been pleaded certainly And it was said by him That the Interest of the Queen in the Sea extends unto the midst of the Sea betwixt England and Spain But the Queen hath the whole Iurisdiction of the Sea between England and France because she is Queen of England France c. And so it is of Ireland CXII Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant for life made a Feoffment of White-Acre of which he was seised for life and made a Letter of Attorny to deliver Livery and Seisin secundum formam Chartae before Livery the Tenant purchased the Fee and afterwards Livery was made It was resolved by the Court in this Case That all passed But if the Feoffment had been of all his Lands in D. and the Letter of Attorny accordingly and before Livery made the Feoffee had many Lands there If he purchased one Acre after the Livery should not extend to that Acre because the Authority was satisfied by the other Acre CXIII Banks and Thwaits Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Case was That A. had pawned an Indenture of Lease for years of a Messuage and Lands to Banks Thwaits intending to purchase the same required Banks to deliver him the said Lease and he would give Banks 10 l. whether he bought it or no at what time he would request the 10 l. Post 200. And Banks delivered the same to Thwaits accordingly Post 200. And afterwards brought an Action upon the Case and declared upon the whole matter and concluded Licet saepius requisitus c. without alledging a request express in certain and the day and place of it It was said by Cook That here the monies did not grow due before Request nor is payable before Request and therefore a Request ought to be made in facto And so he said It was ruled in this Court in an Action upon the Case betwixt Palmer and Burroughs and he said that the Mony was not due by the Promise but by the Request And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That although it be a duty Yet it is not a duty payable before Request And the Request makes a Title to the Action But if A. selleth to B. a Horse for 10 l. there is a Contract and a Request in facto need not be layed And the Opinion of the Court was also That upon this matter the Plaintiff could not have an Action of Debt for there is not any Contract for the thing is not sold but it is a Collateral promise grounded upon the delivery And by Clench Here the Request is traversable And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And it was said It was so ruled in Alderman Pullisons Case in the Exchequer Post 201. CXIV Segar and Boyntons Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 156. IN Trespass the Case was this King Henry the 8th Anno 27 of his Reign gave the Mannor of D. to Sir Edward Boynton Knight and to the Heirs Males of his body Sir Edward Boynton had Issue Andrew his eldest Son and C. the Defendant his younger Son and died Andrew Boynton Covenanted by Indenture with the Lord Seymore that the said Andrew Boynton would assure the said Mannor to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the said Lord and his Heirs The said Lord Seymore in recompence thereof should assure other Lands to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the said Andrew Boynton in tail who 37 H. 8. levyed a Fine of the said Mannor without proclamations to two strangers to the uses according to the said Agreement and before any Assurance made by the said Lord The said Lord was Attainted of Treason and all his Lands were forfeited to the King And afterwards the said Andrew Boynton made a Suggestion to Queen Mary of the whole matter and upon his humble Petition the said
Bench. WIlliam Absolon Master of the Savoy and the Chaplains there brought Debt against Anderton The Case was That the said Master and Chaplains leased Lands to the Defendant for certain years and afterwards he accepted of them an Indenture of Bargain and Sale to him and his Heirs by express words of Bargain and Sale without other words And one of the Masters of the Chancery within the 6 months came unto them into their Chapter-house and before him they acknowledged the said Indenture to be their Deed and prayed that it be enrolled which was done accordingly It was moved If that acknowledgment and Enrollment were good or not or if the Master and the Chaplains ought to have appointed one by their Warrant to be their Attorny to acknowledge the said Deed And it was also moved 1 Len. 184. If there needed any Enrollment at all of it because Anderton had then an Interest in the Land for years in which case it is to be considered If the words Barganizavi Vendidi shall be of such effect as the words Dedi Concessi And it was said by the Court That a Warrant of Attorny to acknowledge a Deed were a strange thing And it was agreed That the Indenture being once Inrolled it was not material by what means it was Inrolled but was good being done CXXV Savell and Badcocks Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SAvell brought an Action of Trespass against Badcock and declared That Edw. Savell was seised of the Mannor of D. and leased the same for years to Henry Savell who died having made the Plaintiff his Executor who entred and was possessed until the first day of January at which time the Trespass was done The Defendant pleaded Not guilty And it was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part That the said Ed. Savell was seised and leased to the said Henry Savell for years who so possessed reciting the said Lease Demised the said Mannor to Sir William Cordell Master of the Rolls to have to him immediately after the decease of the said Henry for so many years of the said Term which at the time of his death should be unexpired if Dorothy the Wife of the said Henry should so long live Henry died Sir William Cordell entred Dorothy died within the Term the Plaintiff the Executor of Henry entred and was possessed until the first day of Januarii 23 Eliz. at which day the Trespass was done On the Defendants part it was given in Evidence That after the Grant to Sir William Cordell the said Henry and Edward joyned in a fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to a stranger who granted and rendred the Land to the said Henry and his Heirs who devised the same to the said Dorothy his Wife for life the remainder to Cordell Savell in tail the remainder over and died Dorothy entred and died Cordell Savell 22 Eliz. conveyed the Mannor by Fine to one Williamson who entred and afterwards and before the Trespass aforesaid viz. 14 January 23 Eliz. leased to the Defendant for years by force of which the Defendant entred And upon this Evidence there was a Demurrer in Law. And it was argued by Shuttleworth who was made Serjeant the last Term. And he said That the Demise made by Henry Savell is not in the inconveniency of the maxim that Henry by the said Grant should reserve a lesser Estate to himself than he had before For here by this Grant no present interest passeth by Sir William Cordell but the effect of the Grant rests upon a Contingency scil if he himself dieth within the Term c. until which time the whole interest of the Term doth remain in the said Henry Savell subject to the Contingency aforesaid and amounts to so much as if the said Henry had granted the same to Sir William Cordell if he himself should die within the Term in which Case it is a limitation when the said Grant shall take effect As if I grant unto you my Lease for so many years as J.S. shall name the same is a good Grant to take effect upon the naming of J.S. Then the Case being so When Henry Savell the Lessee and Edward Savell the Lessor joyn in a Fine ut supra now the possibility of the remnant of the Term which upon the death of Henry Savell and Dorothy his Wife within the Term might accrue to the Executors of the said Henry Savell is not extinct by the Fine but doth remain Quodam modo in Henry Savell to vest in his Executors if it should happen And here is not any conclusion by the Fine in this Case for Henry at the time of the Fine had not in him any Interest which is now claimed and so cannot be bound by the Fine For the Interest in respect of which the Plaintiff hath cause of Action begineth after the death of Henry who levied the Fine and first accrueth to his Executors and so shall not be touched by the Fine and therefore if such a Lessee for years granteth his Term to J.S. Proviso That if J.S. dieth within the Term that he himself shall have it again and afterwards the Grantor joyns with his Lessor in a Fine and afterwards within the Term J.S. dieth now the Grantor notwithstanding the Fine shall have the residue of the Term Then when the Conusee by the Fine regrants the Land to Henry in Fee that possibility to have after the death of the Donor cannot be drowned in the Fee simple for the reason aforesaid And then when Henry deviseth the same to his Wife that possibility doth pass to Dorothy because it was never in the Devisor and then when Dorothy dieth within the Term the Residue of the said Term shall accrue to the Plaintiff as Executor of Henry Cook contrary And he held The Grant to Sir William Cordell is utterly void And he agreed That Grants although in themselves they be uncertain yet if they may be reduced to certain they are good but here is no expectance of any certainty in the life of Henry for the Term limited to Sir William Cordell is not to begin till the death of Henry and is to end upon the death of Dorothy so as here is not any certain beginning nor certain end and here this Grant cannot be reduced to any Certainty during the life of the Grantor and so for that cause is void See Plow Com. 6 Eliz. Say and Fullers Case 273. by Weston Iustice If A. makes a Lease for so many years as J.S. shall name if J.S. in the life of A. name a certain number of years then the Lease is good but if the Lease had been for so many years as my Executors shall name that can never be made good in my life And upon that reason it is That an Attornment ought to be made in the life of the Grantor or else no Reversion shall pass So 33 E. 3. Entry 79. A Bishop aliens and after his death the Dean Chapter
no case where the party useth but the means of the Law by the Kings Writ without any Corruption or Covin of the party he shall be amerced only pro falso clamore and no Action lieth against him because he hath not used but the means of the Law. Which see 2 R. 3. 9. by all the Iustices But yet in an Appeal because it toucheth the life of a Man the Defendant shall have his damages against the Plaintiff but not in any other Action which is a vexation by suit if no Corporation or Covin be in the party who prosecutes such suit See such matter justifiable in Conspiracy 35 H. 6. 13 14. Afterwards the principal Case was adjourned CXCI. Parker and Howard's Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 102. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Condition was That whereas the Plaintiff and Defendant be now joyntly seised of the Office of the Register of the Court of Admiralty If the Defendant shall permit the Plaintiff to exercise the said Office and take the profits of it wholly to his own use during his life without let or interruption done by him That then c. The Defendant pleaded That the Custom of the Realm of England is That the Lord Admiral for the time being might grant the said Office and that such Grant should be good but for the life of the Grantor And further shewed 1 Len. 103. That the Lord Clynton Lord Admiral granted the said Office to the Plaintiff and the Defendant and died And that the Lord Howard was appointed Lord Admiral And that he 27 Eliz. granted the said Office to one Wade who put him out and interrupted him before which time the Defendant suffered the Plaintiff to enjoy the said Office and to take the profits of it Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law. Cook argued for the Plaintiff That the Defendant's Plea was not good for he hath not entituled the Lord Admiral to grant the Office For he saith That the Custom of the Realm of England is which he hath pleaded in such manner as no Issue can be taken upon it for it is pleaded Quod usitatum est quod Admirals pro tempore existens Non potest Concedere Officium praedict nisi pro termino vitae suae and that cannot be for it cannot be tryed for the Venire facias cannot be Of the Realm of England Also if it be Through the whole Realm of England then the same is the Common Law and not Consuetudo Which see Br. Custom 39. And see 4 5 Mar. Dyer 152 153. An express case of this Office And there he prescribes in Consuetudine in Anglia c. And also that such Grant is good but during the life of the Admiral who granted it Also he doth not answer to any time of the Grant of the Admiral Howard For if he were lawfully put out by Wade yet the Defendant against his own Obligation cannot put us out or interrupt us As L. 5 E. 4. 115. In a Quare Impedit against an Abbot and the Incumbent who make default upon the distress upon which a Writ to the Bishop was awarded for the Plaintiff Vpon which the Bishop retorned That the Incumbent resigned of which the Bishop gave notice And afterwards Lapse encurred and the Bishop collated the said former Incumbent and then that Writ came to him Now although the Incumbent be in by a new title yet he is bound by the Iudgment So here although the Defendant had another title and the former title of the Plaintiff be determined yet against his own Deed and Obligation he shall not put out the Plaintiff And the Court was clear That the Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff But afterwards the Cause was Compounded by the Order of the Lord Chancellor CXCII Mannings Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was agreed by the Iustices in this Case That where an Enfant Executor sold the Goods of his Testator at less undervalue than they were worth And afterwards brought an Action of Detinue against the Vendee upon it in retardatione executionis Testamenti That this sale of the Enfant Executor was good and should bind him notwithstanding his Nonage CXCIII Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest Son in tail and afterwards to the use of his right Heirs not having at the time of the Feoffment any Son Afterwards he suffered a Common Recovery had Issue a Son who died in the life of his Father having Issue a Son and afterwards he himself dieth It was holden in this Case That the Son and Heir of the Son should not avoid this Recovery by the Statute of 32 H. 8. For there was not any remainder in him at the time of the Recovery had but the remainder then was in abeyance for then the Son was not born And the words of the said Statute are That such Recovery shall be void against such person to whom the Reversion or Remainder shall then appertain i. e. at the time of the Recovery And it was said That if Lands be given to E. for life the Remainder to B. in tail the Remainder to C. in fee B. dieth his Wife with Child with a Son A Recovery is had against E. with the assent of C. and afterwards the Son is born he shall not be helped by this Statute for that the Remainder was not in esse at the time of the Recovery But it was holden in the principal Case That the Heir might avoid this Recovery by the Common Law For the Recompence could not extend to such a Remainder which was not in esse CXCIV The Countess of Sussex and Wroth's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was moved in this Case by Gawdy Serjeant If the Disseisee Licence J.S. to put his Cattle into the Land whereof he was disseised If it were a good Licence And If by the Execution of the said Licence the Freehold should be revested in the Disseisee so as if the Disseisor distrain the Cattel of J.S. for Damage-feasant and in a Replevin avow the Plaintiff may plead That the Freehold was in the Disseisee who so Licensed him Periam Iustice The Licence is void For at the time of the grant of it the Disseisee had but a Right before he had recontinued the Land by re-entry Windham If the Disseisee make a Lease for years of the Land whereof he is Disseised it is a void Lease Anderson If the Disseisee command one to enter into the Land and he doth accordingly the same is good The Case was adjourned CXCV. Payn 's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Len. 205. A Writ of Error was brought by Payn Treasurer of the Records in the Kings-Bench in the Exchequer-Chamber upon a Iudgment given in the Court of the Exchequer for the Queen upon an Assignment of a
shall plead That he had not bought modo forma For if he hath bought of A.B. or J.S. the same is not material nor traversable Which Case Cook denyed to be Law. And he also conceived That the Information upon the Quo Warranto is not sufficient For by the same the Defendant is charged to hold a Court and it is not shewed what Court For it may be a Court of Pipowders Turn c. See 10 E. 4. 15 16. acc Shute Iustice The Quo Warranto contains two things in it self 1. A Claim And 2. An usurpation and here the Defendant hath answered but to the Vsurpation but saith nothing to the Claim And it hath been holden in this Court heretofore That he ought to answer to both And he said That it hath been holden in a Reading upon the Statute of Quo Warranto which is supposed to be the Reading of Iustice Frowick That a Quo Warranto doth not lie upon such Liberties which do not lie in Claim as Felons goods c. which lieth only in point of Charter CCXXXVI Venable's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was 1 Inst 351. a. Hughs Queries 13. A Lease was made to A. and B. for their lives the remainder to Tho. Venables in tail who 3 Eliz. was attainted of Felony 23 Eliz. there was a General Pardon Tho. Venables 24 Eliz. levied a Fine and suffered a Recovery to the use of Harris Serjeant Office is found Harris traversed the Office and thereupon was a Demurrer It was argued by Leake That Traverse did not lie in this Case 4 H. 7. 7 Where the King is entituled by double matter of Record the party shall not be admitted to his Traverse nor to his Monstrans de Droit but is put to his Petition Which see 3 E. 4. 23. in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland Where Tenant of the King is Attainted of Treason and the same is found by Office. See also 11 H. 4. in the Case of the Duke of Norfolk And the same is not helped by the Statute of 2 E. 6. Cap. 8. for the words are Untruly found by Office but here the Office is true By this Attainder Tho. Venables is utterly disabled to do any Act For by Bracton a Person attainted forisfacit Patriam Regnum Haereditatem suam 13 E. 4. One was attainted of Felony And before Office found the King granted over his Lands Also he is not helped by the General Pardon For before the General Pardon he had a special Pardon therefore the General Pardon nihil operatur as to him But by the Iustices the forfeiture doth remain until the General Pardon Harris to the contrary And he put the Case of Sir James Ormond 4 H. 7. 7. Where the King is entituled by matter of Record and the subject confesseth the title of the King and avoids it by as high matter as that is for the King Traverse in that case lieth and if the King be entituled by double matter of Record if the party avoids one of the said Records by another Record he shall be admitted to his Traverse And so here we have the Pardon which is a Record and that shall avoid the Record for the King And here the Pardon hath purged the forfeiture in respect of the Offence And he said That Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall not lose his Lands but the profits only for he hath his Interest by the Will of the Donor and it is a Confidence reposed in him and as Walsingham's Case is he cannot grant over his Estate And see in Wroth's Case Annuity granted pro Consilio impendendo cannot be granted over or forfeited for there is a Confidence See Empson's Case Dyer 2. and 29 Ass 60. If the Issue in tail be Outlawed of Felony in the life of his Father and gets his Pardon in the life of his Father after the death of his Father he may enter But by Thorp If the Issue in tail gets his Pardon after the death of his Father then the King shall have the profits of the Lands during the life of the Issue And the Case of Cardinal Pool was debated in the Parliament 27 Eliz. That he being Dean of Exeter was seised of Lands in the right of his Church and was attainted of Treason It was holden he should forfeit the profits of such Lands But admit That by this Attainder the Land be forfeited yet the party hath the Freehold until Office found See Nicholls Case Plow Com. And also the Case of the Dutchy in Plow Com. acc And here the Pardon hath dispensed with the forfeiture A Tenant of the King aliens in Mortmain before Office found the King pardons it it is good The Lord Poynings conveyed all his Lands to Sir Adrian Poynings who was an Alien and after made a Denizen and the King pardoned and released to him all his right in the said Lands without any words of grant and adjudged the same did bind the King And he said he had a good president 14 H. 7. Where a General Pardon before seisure into the hands of the King was allowed good contrary after a seisure without words of Grant. See Br. 29 H. 8. Br. Charter of Pardon 52. If a Man be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all Felonies executiones eorundem and Outlawries c. and releases all forfeitures of Lands and Tenements and of Goods and Chattels the same will not serve but for life of Lands if no Office be found but it will not serve for the goods without words of restitution and grant for the King is entituled to them by the Outlawry without office But the King is not entituled to Land until Office be found See Ibid. 33 H. 8. 71. The Heir intrudes and before Office found the King pardons now the Heir is discharged as well of the Issues and profits as of the Intrusion it self But a Pardon given after the Office found is available for the Offence but not for the Issues and profits And he cited the Case of Cole in Plowden where a Pardon was granted mean between the stroak and the death See 35 H. 6. 1. 16 E. 4. 1. 8 Eliz. Dyer 249. Brereton's Case 11 Eliz. Dyer 284 285. Egerton Sollicitor contrary This Traverse is not good for he who traverseth hath not made title to himself as he ought upon which the Queen may take Issue for it is in the Election of the Queen to maintain her own title or to traverse the title of the party At the Common Law no Traverse lay but where Livery might be sued but that is helped by the Statute of 34 E. 3. but where the King is entituled by double matter of Record as in our Case he is no Traverse was allowed until 2 E. 6. Cap. 8. And in such Case two things are requisite 1. That the Office be untruly found 2. That the party who is to be admitted to his Traverse have just title or Interest
of Estate of Freehold c. But in our Case the Office is confessed by the Traverse to be true although that the conveyance be not truly found And also Harris at the time of the Office found had not just title but his Interest came to him long time after the Office found Also the traverse is not good for he traverseth the matter of the Conveyance which is not traversable For if the Queen hath title non refert quo modo or by what Conveyance she hath it As to the matter in Law Tenant in tail in remainder is Attainted of Felony If the King during the life of the Tenant in tail shall have the Freehold And he conceived she should For it shall not be in abeyance and it cannot be in any other for when he is attainted he is dead as unto the King The chief Lord cannot have it For the Tenant for life is alive and also he in the remainder in Fee c. The Donor shall not have it for the Tenant is not naturally dead but civilly and the Land cannot revert before the Tenant in tail be naturally dead without Issue But if there were any other in whom the Freehold could vest then the King should not have the Freehold but only the profits So if the Tenant be attainted the Lord shall have the Land presently 3 E. 3. 4 E. 3. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have but the profits because that the Freehold rests in the Wife and if the Lord entreth the Wife shall have an Assise And Tenant in tail may forfeit for his life as he may grant during his life See Old N.B. 99. If Tenant in tail for Life Dower or by the Curtesie be attaint of Felony the King shall have the Land during their lives and after their decease he in the Reversion shall sue to the King by Petition and shall have the Lands out of the Kings hands And there it is further said That the Lord by Escheat cannot have it for the party attainted was not his very Tenant but he in the Reversion for the term yet endures But now is to see If the Freehold be in the King without Office And I conceive that it is Where the King is entituled to an Action there the King ought to have an Office and a Scire facias upon it As where the King is entituled to a Cessavit Action of Waste c. 14 H. 7. 12. Where entry in the Case of a Common person is necessary there behoves to be an Office for the King. As where the Kings Villain purchaseth Lands or an Alien born c. so is it for a Condition broken Mortmain c. In some Cases an Office is only necessary to instruct the King how he shall charge the Officer for the profits which may be supplyed as well by Survey as by Office As if the King be to take by descent or as the Case is here And it is true That a person attainted of Felony may during his Attainder purchase Lands and yet he cannot keep it against the King. And it is clear That by the Common Law in such Cases the Land was in the King but not to grant For the Statute of 18 H. 6. was an Impediment to that But now that defect is supplyed by the Statute of 33 H. 8. So as now the King may grant without Office. See 26 Eliz. Cook 3 Part Dowty's Case And in our Case Office is not necessary to entitle the King but to explain his Title See 9 H 7. 2. The Lands of a Man attainted of High Treason are in the King without Office so where the Kings Tenant dieth without Heir or Tenant in tail of the gift of the King dieth without Issue See Br. Office before the Escheator 34. See 13 H. 4. 278. A Man Attainted of Treason the King before Office grants his Lands and Goods Things which lie in Grant as Advowsons Rents c. such things upon Attainder are in the King without Office. As to the General Pardon of 23 Eliz. He conceived That the same did not extend to this Case and that this Interest of the Queen by this Attainder did not pass by the Pardon out of the Queen So if the Queen had but a Right and title only Popham Attorny General By this Attainder the Estate of him in the Remainder in tail accrued to the Queen for the life of him in the Remainder For by our Law Felony is punished by the death of the Offendor and the loss of his Goods and Lands for the example of others therefore nothing is left in him Tenant for life is attainted of Felony The King pardons to him his life yet he shall have his Lands during his life for he himself cannot dispose of them for his life And so it is of Tenant in tail c. for he may forfeit all that which he hath and that is an Estate for his life which is the Freehold If Lands be given to one and his Heirs for the life of another and the Donee be attainted of Felony the King shall have the Land during the life of Cestuy que vie for the Heir cannot have it because the blood is corrupt and there is not any Occupancy in the Case For 17 E. 3. the Iustices would not accept a Fine of Lands for the life of another because an Occupant might be in the Case But for a Fine of Lands to one and his He is for the life of another they accepted a Fine for there is no mischief of Occupancy Land is given to A. for life the remainder to B. for life the remainder to the right Heirs of A. who is attainted of Felony A. dieth now the King hath a Fee executed And here in our Case If this Tenant for life had been dead no Praecipe would lie against him in the remainder being in possession but the party who had right was to sue to the King by Petition 4 E. 3. If one seised in the right of his Wife of Lands for life be attainted the King shall have exitus proficua But I conceive that Case is not Law For see F.N.B. 254. D. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife in Fee is Outlawed of Felony the King seiseth the Husband dieth Now shall issue forth a Diem Clausit extremum the words of which Writ are in such case Quia A. cujus terra Tenement quae ipse tenuit de jure haereditate N. uxoris suae adhuc superstites occasione cujusdam utlagariae in ipsum pro quadam felonia inde indictatus fuit c. in manu Domini H. Patris nostri extiterunt c. therefore the King hath not exitus tantum but also the Land it self See to the same purpose the Register 292. b. And see also now in the Book of Pleas of the Crown 186 187. which affirmeth That Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall forfeit the
that the Queens Attorny said That it is true that Thomas Robinson was possessed but it is further said That Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides and therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary But the Opinion of Manwood Chief Baron was That if the parties do admit a thing per nient dedire the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed there the Iury shall be bound by it And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant CCLXXIII Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Debt by A. against B. upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded tender of the Mony according to the Condition upon which the parties were at Issue And after the Defendant pleaded That after the Darrein Continuance the Debt now in demand was Attached in the Defendants hands according to the Custom of London for the debt of C. to whom the Plaintiff was endebted It was the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was insufficient for it is altogether contrary to the first Plea. And also the Court held That in an Action for the debt depending here in this Court the debt cannot be attached and the Court would not suffer a Demurrer to be joyned upon it but over-ruled the Case without any Argument For it was said by Wray Chief Iustice That it was against the Iurisdiction of the Court and the Priviledge of it CCLXXIV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden by the Court That if a Copyholder in Fee dieth seised and the Lord admits a stranger to the Land who entreth that he is but a Tenant at Will and not a Disseisor to the Copyholder who hath the Land by descent because he cometh in by the assent of the Lord c. CCLXXV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought de uno Cubiculo and Exception was taken to it But the Exception was disallowed The Declaration was special viz Leas unius Cubiculi per nomen unius Cubiculi being in such a House in the middle story of the said House And the Declaration was holden good enough and the word Cubiculum is a more apt word than the word Camera And such was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice And it was said That Ejectione firmae brought de una rooma had been adjudged good in this Court. CCLXXVI Johnson and Bellamy's Case Rot. 824. Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae It was holden by Special Verdict 1 Cro. 122. That W. Graunt was seised of certain Lands and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life And further he willed That when Rich. his Brother should come to the age of 25 years that he should have the Land to him and the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten W. Graunt died having Issue of his body who was his Heir Rich. before he attained the age of 25 years levied a Fine of the said Lands with proclamations in the life and during the seisin of Joan to A. sic ut partes finis nihil habuerunt And If this Fine should bar the Estate in tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the Case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged Mich. 29 Eliz. Where the Case was Tenant in tail discontinued to E. and afterwards levied a Fine to B. That although that partes finis nihil habuerunt yet the said Fine did bind the Estate tail But the Serjeants at the Bar argued That there was a difference between the Case cited and the Case at Bar For in the Case cited the Fine was pleaded in Bar but here it was not pleaded but found by Special Verdict To which it was said by the Court That the same is not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or Conclusion but by the Statute binds and extincts the entail and the right of it And Fines are as sufficient to bind the right of the entail when they are found by Special Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar. And Periam Iustice said A Collateral Warranty found by Special Verdict is of as great force as pleaded in Bar. And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate tail by that Fine was utterly barred and extinct CCLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for life rendring Rent at Michaelmas and further Leased the same to the Executors of the Lessee until Michaelmas after the death of the Lessee It was affirmed by Cook That in that Case it was adjudged That the word Until shall be construed to extend to the Term unto the end of the Feast of St. Michael and so the Rent then due payable by the Executors for without such Construction no Rent should be then due because the Term ended before Michaelmas CCLXXVIII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe was bounden to stand to the Award of two Arbitrators who awarded That the party should pay to a stranger or his Assigns 200 l. before such a day The stranger before the day died B. took Letters of Administration The Question was If the Obligee should pay the Mony to the Administrator or if the Obligation was discharged It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Mony should be paid to the Administrator for he is an Assignee And by Gawdy If the word Assigns had been left out yet the payment ought to be made to the Administrator Which Cook granted CCLXXIX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Defendant in Debt being ready at the Bar to wage his Law was examined by the Court upon the points of the Declaration and the cause of the Debt upon which it appeared that the Plaintiff and Defendant were reciprocally endebted the one to the other And accompting together they were agreed That each of them should be quit of the other It was the Opinion of Periam and Anderson Iustices That upon that matter the Defendant could not safely wage his Law For it is but an agreement which cannot be executed but by Release or Acquittance CCLXXX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail Covenanted with his Son to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Father The Father levied a Fine with proclamations and died It was moved by Fenner If any Estate passed to the Son by that Covenant for it is not any discontinuance and so nothing passed but during his life and all the Estates which are to begin after his death are void Anderson Iustice The Estate passeth until c. And he cited the Case of one Pitts where it was adjudged That if Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee and a Collateral Ancestor releaseth with warranty and dieth
the Rent by the Father to the Son is fraudulent and so shall be intended if the contrary be not shewed and averred And so it was of late adjudged in the Court of Wards Where a Man alieneth to his Son and Heir for Mony and Mony in truth is paid yet notwithstanding it shall be intended fraudulent unless the contrary be shewed and averred Hanham Serjeant This Grant shall enure first as the Grant of Tenant in tail and after the death of the Tenant in tail without Issue it shall be the Grant of him in the Remainder And to this purpose he put Newdegate's Case 7 Eliz. Dyer 234. Lessee for life and he in the Reversion Lease for years by Indenture That during the life of Lessee for life is his Demise only and the Confirmation of him in the Reversion but after the death of the Lessee for life it is the Lease and Demise of him in the Reversion and he shall have an Action of Waste ex dimissione sua propria without shewing the special matter in the Count. And if Tenant in tail granteth a Rent in Fee and he in the Reversion confirm the Grant it is good See Litt. 121. And he said That the Recoveror is in the Per for it was holden in Winter's Case That if a Man makes a Lease for years rendring Rent with clause of Re-entry and afterwards suffereth a Common Recovery That such a Recoveror is an Assignee within the Statute of 32 H. 8. to take benefit of a Condition and Recoveries are now common Conveyances And if Tenant for life be the Remainder over in Fee and Tenant for life grants a Rent-Charge and afterwards ceaseth and the Lord recovereth in a Cessavit he shall hold the Land charged And as to the Collusion it is not shewed in the pleading That the Grant was made by Collusion for if the Collusion be not apparent the Iustices without averment of it are not bounden to take Notice of it Cowper Serjeant Here are two several Grants and one Grant intire in the Letter may enure as several Grants as if two Tenants in Common grant a Rent of 10 s. here are several Grants and he shall have several Rents of 10 s. And if A. disseiseth B. of Black-Acre and C. disseiseth B. of White-Acre and afterwards by one Deed releaseth to A. and C. the same shall enure as several releases upon their several possessions And he in his Argument relied much upon the Collusion and this Grant shall be taken by the Iustices to be fraudulent for it was made 20 Eliz. and the Recovery was 21 Eliz. and in 27 Eliz. came the Statute Beamount Serjeant This Grant shall enure as several Grants i.e. as a Grant of Tenant in tail and afterwards as of him in the Reversion Two Ioynt-Tenants Enfants make a Feoffment They shall have several Writs of Dum fuit infra aetatem as upon several Feoffments 19 H. 6. 43. Two Coparceners take Husbands who discontinue and die their Wives shall have several Writs of Cui in vita and yet the Discontinuance was joynt And 15 H. 7. 14. If 3 Coparceners be and upon partition one of them granteth to the two others Rent of 20 s. per annum for equality of partition that Rent shall be in the nature of Coparceners and so shall descend and shall not go to the Survivour but by descent See 21 E. 3. 50. Also admit that it is the Confirmation of him in the Remainder yet after the death of the Tenant in tail without Issue now it is become the Grant of him in the Remainder And to that purpose he cited Newdegate's Case 7 Eliz. Dyer before cited But posito that it be the sole Grant of the Tenant in tail yet here is not any Covin apparent for Covin apparent ought to be averred and proved otherwise the Iudges of our Law cannot adjudge upon it for they cannot judge upon probabilities as the Iudges of the Civil Law do for so they should many times minister Injustice in the place of Iustice And that the same is not Covin apparent although it be made to his Son he vouched 19 H. 6. 30. and 47 E. 3. 16. Where such a Feoffment to re-enfeoff the Heir of the Feoffor when he cometh of full age is not in it self Covin apparent but it ought to be expresly averred And he cited also Warnford's Case 3 Eliz. Dyer 193. And also he cited 17 Eliz. Dyer 341. upon the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Monasteries Where there is a Proviso Forasmuch as some of the Chief Governours of such Religious Houses have lately fraudulently and craftily made Leases c. to the great decay and diminution of their Houses That all such Leases c. made within one year before the making of this Act shall be void c. And also there is a Proviso That such persons as have Leases whereupon the old Rent is reserved shall enjoy their Leases c. The Case was That an Abbot made a Lease for 60 years 47 days before the making of the said Act upon which the ancient Rent was not reserved It was holden there That although the Lease was within the words of the Statute because made within a year yet it shall not be intended Covinous without an express averment of it for it may be it was made bona fide See Librum Yelverton Serjeant This is a joynt Grant but yet it shall charge the several Estates when they come into possession Also he put this Case Cestuy que Use and the Feoffees after the Statute of 1 R. 3. and before 27 H. 8. joyn in a grant of a Rent It shall enure as several Grants in respect of their several authorities scil one by the Statute of 1 R. 3. and the other by the Common-Law And as to the Covin he conceived Tat it is Covin apparent and needed not to be averred and that appeareth by the suffering of the Common Recovery CCCXL Brokesby and Wickham's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Len. 167. 3 Cro. 173. Owen Rep. 85 86. A Quare Impedit was brought by Bartholomew Brokesby against the Bishop of Lincoln and Wickham Pasch 30 Eliz. Rot. 1815. The Case was That Robert Brokesby was seised of the Mannor of Sholby in Fee to which the Advowson was appendant and the Church being full granted to Humphrey Brokesby and the Plaintiff his two Sons the next Avoidance of the said Church Afterwards the Church became void Humphrey by Deed released all his right estate and interest which then he had of and in the Advowson of the Church aforesaid for the said Avoidance Bartholomew sole presented and the Defendants did disturb him The Bishop pleaded That he claimed nothing but as Ordinary Wickham pleaded a Lease made of the Mannor with the appurtenances by the said Bartholomew to one Starkey for years before the Grant made ut supra to Humphrey and Bartholomew which Starkey presented him Vpon which they were at Issue and found for
to prevent all acts and charges made mean by the Vendor yet it shall not relate to vest the Estate from the time of the delivery of the Deed For the Vendee cannot punish a Trespass Mean And if the Vendee hath a Wife and the Vendee dieth before Enrollment and afterwards the Deed is enrolled she shall not be endowed but here shall be some descent to take away an Entry yet the Heir shall have his age But in our Case it is otherwise for by the Waiver the Ioynture was waived ab initio And he cited Carrs Case 29 Eliz. in the Court of Wards The King granted the Mannor of C. to George Owen in Fee tenend in Socage and rendring 94 l. per annum And afterwards granted 54 l. parcel of the said Rent to the Earl of Huntington in Fee to be holden by Knight-service in Capite and afterwards purchased the said Rent in Fee And afterwards of the same Mannor enfeoffed William Carr who devised the same for the payment of his Debts And it was holden That the devise was good against the Heir And the King was not entituled to Livery or Primer Seisin And therefore the Defendant was dismissed But peradventure the Queen shall have benefit of the Act. See Cook 3 Part 30 31. Butler and Baker's Case The King gives Lands unto A. in Fee to hold by Knights-service during his life and afterwards to hold in Socage He may devise the whole For at the time when the devise took effect he was Tenant in Socage Lands holden in Knight-service are given to J.S. in tail scil to the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to the right Heirs of J.S. J.S. deviseth these Lands and afterwards dieth without Issue Male the same is good for two parts yet during his life he had not an Estate in Fee in possession The Father disseiseth his Son and Heir apparent of an Acre of Land holden in Chief by Knight-service in Capite and afterwards purchaseth a Mannor holden in Socage and deviseth the said Mannor and dieth his Heir within age the Devise is good for the whole and the King shall not have Wardship of any part and that in respect of the Remitter and yet it is within the words Having sole Estate in Fee of Lands holden and within the Saving Tenant in tail of an Acre of Land holden of the King in Chief by Knight-service seised of two Acres in Fee holden ut supra makes a Lease for three Lives of the Acre entailed reserving the accustomed Rent and afterwards deviseth the other two Acres in Fee and afterwards dieth seised of the Reversion and Rent The same is a good devise of all the two Acres And here is an immediate descent of the third part for the same is within the words In Possession Reversion or Remainder or any Rent or Service incident to any Reversion or any Remainder See the Statute of 34 H. 8. A Man seised of three Acres of equal value holden by Knight-service in Capite assureth one to his Wife for her Ioynture by Act executed and deviseth another to a stranger And the third to his Wife also The King in this case shall have the third part of every Acre But if the stranger waiveth the devise the King shall have the Acre to him devised and the Wife shall retain the other two Acres and it shall not go in advantage of the Heir So if he deviseth the said three Arces severally to three several persons to each of them one Acre and the one Waives the devise in one Acre The devise of the other two is good Or otherwise the King shall have the third part of every Acre c. CCCLXVII Mich. 35 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 29. THe Case was An Enfant was made Executor And Admimistration was committed to another viz. A. durante minori aetate who brought an Action of Debt against the Debtor and recovered and had him in Execution and now the Executor came of full age It was moved What should be done in this Case and how the party should be discharged of the Execution for the authority of the Administrator is now determined and he cannot acknowledge satisfaction or make an acquittance Windham Although the authority of the Administrator be determined yet the Record and the Iudgment remain in force But peradventure you may have an Audita Querela But he conceived That an Administrator could not have such Action for that he is rather a Bailiff to the Enfant than an Administrator See Prince's Case 42 Eliz. Cook 5 Part 29. Which Rhodes concessit A. was bounden unto B. in an Obligation of 100 l. upon Condition to pay a lesser sum The Obligee made an Enfant his Executor and died Administration was committed durante minori aetate to C. to whom A. paid the Mony It was doubted If that payment was rightful or If the Mony ought to have been paid to both Windham Doth it appear within the Record That the Enfant was made Executor and that Administration was committed ut supra To which it was answered No. Then Windham said You may upon this matter have an Audita Querela In this Case It was said to be the Case of one Gore 33 Eliz. in the Exchequer in a Scire facias by an Assignee of a Bond against an Enfant Executor He pleaded That the Administration was committed to A. and his Wife during her minority And it was adjudged no Plea. CCCLXVIII Mich. 35 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was the Opinion of all the Iustices Jones Rep. 243. That if Lessee for 20 years makes a Lease for 10 years that he may grant the Reversion without Deed but in such case if there be a Rent reserved there ought to be a Deed and also an Attornment if the Rent will be had And it was agreed by them all That if there be Lessee for years and the Lessor granteth the Land to the Lessee and a stranger that the Reversion shall pass without Livery or Attornment and that by the Acceptance of the Deed by him who ought to Attorn But whether he shall take joyntly or in Common or whether in a moyety or in the whole the Iustices were of divers Opinions Ideo Quaere for it was not Resolved FINIS A TABLE of the principal Matters contained in the Third Part of LEONARD'S Reports A. ABatement of Writ Page 2 4 77 92 Ex Officio Curiae p. 93 Accompt p. 38 61 63 Damages given in it p. 150 Damages given in it not expresly but the Court shall give Quoddam Incrementum p. 192 Brought by the Grantee of the King against an Executor where maintainable where not p. 197 Generally brought where good p. 230 Acquittance Must be shewed upon payment of Debts by Executors p. 3 Action upon the Case For stopping of a way p. 13 Against one for proceeding to Judgment and awarding of Execution in an inferiour Court after an Habeas Corpus awarded p. 99 Where lieth
Appendant or in gross A. 323. A Curtilage and Garden are Appurtenant to a House and pass by or without the word Appurtenant C. 214. Apportionment If the Lessor grant part of the Land the Grantee shall have no Rent A. 252. C. 1. Upon devise of Lands rendring Rent part being Capite Lands A. 310. If a Rent reserved upon a Lease of a Warren may be apportioned C. 1. None of a relief because intire C. 13. If a condition of Re-entry upon several Reddend may be apportioned C. 124 to 127. Rent may be apportioned in the Kings Case which cannot in the Case of a common person C. 124 to 127. Arbitrement Debt lieth upon it although void until it so appear A. 73 170. In such Action the Plaintiff needs shew no more than makes for him A. 73. To find sufficient Sureties to pay c. void A. 140. Without Deed cannot dispose of a Free-hold A. 228. To do one thing or another one being void yet the award is good A. 304 305. C. 62. To pay Mony to a Stranger is good A. 316. C. 62. That one Party shall have a Term for years gives the interest of the Term contra where it is that the one shall permit the other c. B. 104. Award to become bound it is a good performance if the Bond be delivered to a Stranger and after tendred to the Plaintiff B. 111 181. To do an Act to a Stranger who will not accept thereof the Bond is not forfeit C. 62. To do an Act to a Stranger not void C. 62. 212. Award that the Defendant and a Stranger become bound is good as to the Defendant though void in part C. 226. Ayd Copy-holder shall have Ayd of his Lord in Trespass A. 4. Grantee of Tenant in tail after possibility shall have Ayd yet the Grantor should not A. 291. Tenant at Will shall have it but not Tenant at Sufferance B. 47. Verdict upon an Issue upon a Counter-plea of Ayd is peremptory to the Defendant B. 52. Alien If the Kings Confirmation of a Feoffment to an Alien do avail A. 47. If the Grant of an Office to him by the King be a denization C. 243. Assent and Consent If the Conuzee of a Statute c. taken by Capias be discharged by Assent of the Conusee his Lands are also discharged A. 230 231. Assets Mony received by Executors for Lands devised to be sold to pay Portions if it be Assets A. 87 224 225. B. 119. What other things shall be Assets A. 225. B. 7. Lease for life and after his death to his Executors for 10 years if this Term be Assets C. 21 22. If Mony received by the Heir for Redemption of a Mortgage be Assets to pay Debts C. 32. Executors by Award receive 50 l. and release a Bond of 100 l. the whole 100 l. is Assets C. 53. Assignee If Assignee of parcel may have covenant against Lessee for years A. 251 252. Who is a sufficient Assignee A. 252. Executors or Administrators A. 316. Assize Of a Rent rendred in Fee by Fine A. 254. The manner of adjorning and giving Judgment where the Disseisor pleads Foreign Pleas B. 41. Of fresh-force in London C. 169 170. Attachment Of Goods in a Carriers hands 189. A Debt by Judgment Stat. Recogn c. cannot be attached A. 29 30. No Mony taken in Execution A. 264. What is a good Plea for him in whose hands Mony is attached A. 321. If the Plaintiff shall recover costs against him in whose hands c. A. 321. Mony for which an Action is depending cannot be attached C. 210. One cannot attach Mony for a Debt before the Debt be due C. 236. Corn is not attachable C. 236. A Debt upon Record cannot be attached C. 240. Attainder A person attainted cannot be charged with Actions A. 326 327. If a person attainted may be put to answer in personal Actions A. 330. What is forfeited to the King by Attainder of Tenant for life or in Tail in Remainder B. 122 123 to 126. Differences of Attainder and Conviction B. 161. If one attainted of Robbery shall answer in criminal Cases C. 220. Attaint What Heir shall have it A. 261. Upon the Statute of 23. H. 8. 3. A. 279. If it lie where the Plaintiff might avoid the Judgment by Error A. 278. Attornment To whom and how it must be made A. 58. Quoad part is good for all A. 129 130 234. Upon a Lease for years in Reversion A. 171. C. 17. An Abator may Attorn A. 234. The definition thereof A. 234. By the first Lessee binds the Tenant in remainder for years or life A. 265. Good by the Tenants of the Land to him in remainder after the death of Tenant for life A. 265 To the surviving Grantee of a Reversion good A. 265. To the Grantee of the Reversion of a Mannor by Lessee for year of the Mannor passes the Mannor and binds the Tenants A. 265. After condition broken is good to vest the Estate by the breach of the Condition A 265. The Relation of an Attornment A. 265. B 222. Who is compellable by a Quid Juris clamat to attorn A. 290 291 B. 40. C. 241 242. No Attornment is necessary upon selling a Reversion of Copyhold A. 297. C. 197. In what cases necessary A. 318. C. 103. Lease of Demesnes by Grant of the Mannor the Reversion passeth not without Attorment B. 221 222. An Advowson appendant to a Mannor shall vest without Attornment of the Tenants B. 222. What Words or Consent amount to an Attornment C. 17. Lessor levies a Fine to the use of himself and his Heirs Lessee must Attorn C. 103 104. If it be necessary where the Grantee is in by Statute of Uses C. 104. It is necessary to pass Services of a Mannor C. 193. Tenant of the Land must attorn upon granting over a Rent-charge C. 252. Reversion of a Term a Lease of part of the Term being first made cannot pass the Term and Rent reserved upon the first Lease without Attornment but a Term without Rent reserved he may C. 279. Lessor grants the Reversion to Lessee and A. B. no other Attornment necessary C. 279. Attorny J.S. Praesens hic in Cur. in propria persona sua per A.B. Attorn suum how construed A. 9. Lessee for years cannot surrender by Attorny A. 36. How to make a Deed by Attorny Ibid. B. 192 200. May essoign for a Copyholder but not do services A. 104. To three conjunctim divisim to deliver Seisin A. 192 193. How Attorny must make Livery where the Lands lie in several Counties A. 306 307. In an Indenture C. 16. Audita Querela Upon a Statute Merchant the Suit shall be in the Kings Bench But upon Statute-staple in the Chancery A. 140 141 228. contr 303 304. Process therein is either Venire facias or Scire facias A. 140 141. Upon a Statute Staple upon payment of the Mony in the Court of C. B. quod nota the party is bailed A.
Et ulterius concessiâ— that if the Lessee obierit infra 20 annos proxime sequent the said Lessee potuit legare dare praedict tenementa alicui personae usque ad terminum praedict 20 annorum c. and Dyer cited the Case 16 E. 3. Quid juris clamat 22. Land was leased to one for life and if the Lessee died within the Term of 20 years that his Executors or Assigns should have it until the end of the said 20 years and a Quid juris clamat was brought against the Lessee for life without any mention of any other Estate To which the Defendant pleaded the special matter and demanded Iudgment upon that Fine if he should be driven to Attorn where he is supposed Tenant for life only And it is there said That that special matter is but a Protestation to save the Term to his Executors And upon such a Fine such Tenant hath been driven to Attorn And by Dyer If the Lessee doth not make such protestation yet his special interest is not impaired by it yet it is but reason that it be entred for the more manifestation of it 32 E. 3. Quid juris clamat 5. A Lease to W. for life and 20 years over he may grant the same Term or any part of it And he cited the Case between Parker and Gravenor 3. 4 Mar. Dyer 150. Where a Lease for life was made and by the Indenture of Lease Provisum fuit That if the Lessee died within the Term of 60 years that then his Executors and Assigns should have and enjoy the said Lands pro termino totidem annorum which did amount to the number of 60 years to be accompted from the date of the Indenture And it was the Opinion of the Court That that was not any Lease But they all agreed That a Lease for years in remainder might be upon a Lease for life in the same person See 40 E. 3. A Lease was made for life and half a year after the Lessee died and Waste is brought against the Executors supposing that the Testator held for years and the Writ was holden good And there it is said by Kirton That the Executors could not have that Term unless it were in the Testator and there the Term is not limited to any person And see 11 H. 4. 187. Annuity granted to one for life and 20 years after And 50 E. Ass 1. A Lease for life and 3 years over to his Executors And then here in our Case This Vse being limited in Order according to the Rules of the Common Law shall vest in the Grantor to give or forfeit and then by the Attainder it was forfeited to Queen Mary and if so then the Plaintiff shall be barred Harper Iustice to the contrary And that the Interest in the Remainder for years limited to the Executors and Assigns of the Grantor is in abeyance and not in the Grantor and then it cannot be forfeited But if this Vse had been limited to the Grantor himself then all had been in him to give c. But here in our Case the Remainder for years is limited and appointed to the Executors c. Also Vses shall not be ruled in such manner as Lands but the Law shall rule the possession obtained by use in another manner than the possession obtained by the Order of the Common Law As in the Case of Amy Townsend Plow Com. 111 112. Where the Husband seised in the right of his Wife made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife for life with divers remainders over Now is not the Wife remitted as she should be by Conveyance at Common La as if the Husband discontinueth the Land in the right of his Wife and the Discontinuee giveth the Lands to the Husband and Wife and to a third person she is remitted to the whole and the third person hath not any thing Dyer to the same intent And here we ought to intend and consider That it was the purpose of Cranmer to advance his Executors with this Term unto their own use and benefit and not to leave the same in himself And I do conceive That the use is in abeyance until the Executors are made or an Assignee appointed for he may make an Assignee who shall have the Term For Assignee may be made two ways 1 By grant of an Estate which is in the Grantor before 2 A person nominated and appointed by another to take any thing c. And it shall be also intended That Cranmer was purposed to make other Provision to leave to his Executors Assets to perform his Will and not that that Term should be applyed to that purpose for then he would have shewed it in the Conveyance by words scil as to pay his Legacies and perform his last Will And the Cases put by my Brother Manwood do not go to the Point For I agree Where Lands are given to one for life the remainder for years and doth not say to whom it cannot be intended to any other but to the Lessee for life or otherwise it shall be void And also where Land is given to one for life and for two years after to his Executors or Assigns or Heirs all is in the Lessee for all is as one gift But where it is given to one for life and after his death the remainder to his Executors I do not see any reason that that remainder should be any Assets in the hands of the Executors Or that if the Lessee dieth Intestate that his Administrator should have it and therefore the Executors shall have the same as a purchase But Cranmer might have given the same or appointed one in the mean time to receive it and in the mean time it shall be in abeyance Also if Lands be Leased to B. for life the remainder for years to his Heirs the same remainder for years is in abeyance until the death of the Lessee and then it shall vest in the Heir as a Purchasor and as a Chattel and shall go to the Executor of the Heir c. and the Tenant for life cannot meddle with it for it is not in him Also Vses shall not be raised as Lands i. e at the Common Law but shall be raised by the Statute and as Vses were raised in the Chancery before the Statute And therefore if this Conveyance had been before the Statute he could not have compelled the Feoffees to dispose of that Interest at his pleasure c. And then Cranmer the Son shall have the Land by force of the entail limited unto him For the Estate for years is gone because no assignment of it is made nor any Executors who can take it and the Estate for life is determined by the death of Cranmer and the Feoffee to an Vse cannot have it for there is not any Consideration whereof he should have any Vse for by the Limitation nothing was left in the Feoffee And so I conceive that the Plaintiff shall recover
Wife the Executrix should be charged for the not Reparations as well in the time of her Husband as in her own time And if she do make the Reparation depending the Suit yet thereby the Suit shall not abate but it shall be a good cause to qualifie the damages according to that which may be supposed that the party is damnified for the not repairing from the time of the purchase of the Reversion unto the time of the bringing of the Action And it was said by Manwood That by the Recovery of the damages that the Lessee should be excused for ever after for making of Reparations so as if he suffer the Houses for want of Reparations to decay that no Action shall thereupon after be brought for the same but that the Covenant is extinct LXXIII Easter Term. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LOvelace moved the Court that in the Kings Bench this case was argued upon a Demurrer there A Feoffment was made by one Coxley who took back an Estate for life the remainder to him who should be his Heir at the time of his death and to the Heirs males of his body begotten And afterwards the Tenant for life after the Statute of 32 H. 8. suffered a Recovery to be had against him that that Recovery was good as it was at the Common Law Because the Statute doth not speak but that it shall not be a bar to him who hath the Reversion at the time of the Recovery but this remainder was in Abeyance until the death of the Tenant for life and that in the same Court it was adjudged accordingly in an Ejectione firmae and because the same was a discontinuance the Plaintiff had here brought his Formedon in the Remainder and therefore Lovelace prayed That they might proceed without delays because the Plaintiffs Title appeareth without Essoigns and feigned delays Which Dyer Iustice conceived to be a reasonable request and that it should be well so to do because as he said This Court is debased and lessened and the Kings Bench doth encrease with such Actions which should be sued here for the speed which is there And he said That the delays here were a discredit to the Court so as all Actions almost which do concern the Realty are determined in the Kings Bench in Writs of Ejectione firmae where the Iudgment is Quod recuperet terminum and by that they are put into possession and by such means no Action is in effect brought here but such Actions as cannot be brought there as Formedons Writs of Dower c. to the Slander of the Court and to the Detriment and Loss of the Serjeants at the Bar. And Lovelace shewed That divers mean Feoffments were made c. LXXIV Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte This Case was in Court An Heir Female was in Ward of a common person who tendred to her a marriage viz. his younger Son and she agreed to the Tender and the Guardian died The Heir married the younger Son according to the Tender The Executors of the Guardian brought a Writ de Valore Maritagii supposing the Tender by the Lord to be void by his death But the Court was of a contrary Opinion because the Tender of their Testator was executed LXXV Riches Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ELizabeth Rich brought a Writ of Dower against J.S. who pleaded and Iudgment given for the Defendant and afterwards the Iudgment was reversed And she brought a new Writ of Dower and the Tenant pleaded That he always was ready and yet is c. Against which the Demandant pleaded the first Record to estop the Tenant To which the Tenant pleaded Nul tiel Record It was the Opinion of the Court That here the Demandant cannot conclude the Tenant by that Replication to plead Nul tiel Record For the Iudgment is reversed and so no Record and it cannot be certified a Record But if the Tenant had taken Issue upon the plea of the Tenant absque hoc that he was ready the same might well have been given in Evidence against the Tenant Note That the Case was That the Demandant after the death of her Husband entred into the Land in Demand and continued the possession of it 5 years and afterwards the Heir entred upon which she brought Dower It was agreed in that Case That the Tenant needed not to plead Tout temps prist after his re-entry for the time the Demandant had occupied the same is a sufficient recompence for the Damages LXXVI Vavasors Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NIcholas Ellis seised in Fee of the Mannor of Woodhall Leased the same to William Vavasor and E. his Wife for the life of the Wife the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband The Husband made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives the remainder to his right Heirs The Husband died the Wife held the Land and did Waste in a Park parcel of the Mannor It was moved to the Court If the Writ of Waste should suppose that the Wife held ex dimissione Nicholai Ellis or ex dimissione of her Husband It was the Opinion of the Court That upon this matter the Writ should be general viz. that she held de haereditate J.S. haeredis c. without saying any more either ex dimissione hujus vel illius For she is not in by the Lessor nor by the Feoffees but by the Statute of Vses and therefore the Writ shall be ex haereditate It was also the Opinion of the Iustices That the Wife here is not remitted but that she should be in according to the Term of the Feoffment Note in this Case The Waste was assigned in destroying the Deer in the Park And Meade Serjeant conceived That Waste could not be assigned in the Deer unless the Defendant had destroyed all the Deer And of that Opinion also was Dyer Manwood said If the Lessee of a Dove-house destroyed all the old Pigeons but one or two couple the same is Waste And if a Keeper destroy so many of the Deer so as the ground is become not Parkable the same is Waste although he doth not destroy them all See 8 R. 2. Fitz. Waste 97. If there be sufficient left in a Park Pond c. it is enough LXXVII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case was brought against Executors They were at Issue Vpon nothing in their hands It was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part That a stranger was bound to the Testator in 100 l. for performance of covenants which were broken For which the Executors brought Debt upon the Obligation depending which Suit both parties submitted themselves to the Arbitrament of A. and B. who awarded That the Obligor should pay to the Executors 70 l. in full satisfaction c. and that the Executors should release c. which was done accordingly And it was agreed by the Court That by the Release it
Land therefore it is in the Land or within the Land i. e. the Mannor For the King may distrain for the Fine as well in the same Land as in the Land of him who ought to pay it Dyer doubted of it and said That the Bishop could not distrain in the Land for this Fine but should have it by allowance in the Exchequer upon the Estretes and if the party would not pay it the Lessee should have a Subpoena against him out of the Exchequer And some were of Opinion That the Lessee could not have this Fine 2 Len. 179. 4 Len. 234. for that they were not Hereditaments within the Mannor but rather in the Exchequer or Court where the Record is LXXXII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man seised of a Pasture in which are two great Groves and a Wood known by the name of a Wood And also in the same Pasture there are certain Hedge-Rowes and Trees there growing Sparsim Leased the same by Indenture for years And by the same Indenture bargained and sold to the Lessee all Woods and Vnderwoods in and upon the Premisses And further That it shall and may be lawful to the Lessee to cut down and carry away all the same at all times during the Term. Harper The Hedge-Rowes do not pass by these words for they are not known by the name of Woods 14 H. 8. 2. contrary by Manwood For by such words Hedge-Rowes pass Mounson contrary For the words of the Grant may be supplyed by other Words Dyer The Hedge-Rowes shall pass for the Grant is general All Woods It was moved further If by those words the Lessee might cut them a second time or but once Harper Manwood and Mounson He may cut them but once Dyer contrary And so it should be if the words had been Growing upon the Premisses And this word Growing although it sounds in the present Tense yet it shall be also taken in the future Tense if not that the word tunc had been there for that is a word of Restraint The Case was argued in the Exchequer Chamber where I was present which was The Prior of St. John's Leased a Commandry Provided That if the said Prior or any of his Brethren there being Commanders will dwell thereupon then the said Lease to be void It was doubted If that Proviso did extend to the Successors for the word Being is in the present Tense And yet by the Opinion of Fitzherbert it shall be taken in the future Tense and so extend to the Successors Otherwise if the words had been Now being LXXXIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Made B. his Executor and died Vid. le stat 43 Eliz. cap. 8. Office of Executors 261. B. to the intent to defraud the Creditors refused to take upon him the Executorship but caused a stranger to take upon him Letters of Administration which stranger fraudulently gave the Goods of the Testator to B. Dyer If the gift be fraudulent then by the Statute of 13 Eliz. the gift is void and then B. by the Occupation of the Goods shall be charged as Executor of his own wrong Manwood I conceive there is a difference If one makes an Executor and another takes the Goods but doth no Act which concerns the Office of an Executor as paying of Debts he is not Executor of his own wrong but a Trespassor to him who is Executor in right but if he doth any Act which belongs to the Office of an Executor then he is Executor of his own wrong Dyer That Case hath been adjudged against you and although the Books of 9 E. 4. 22 H. 6. were vouched Yet Iudgment was given against the Opinion of Manwood It was the Case of one Stoke LXXXIV Jackson and Darcyes Case Mich. 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ de Partitione facienda between Jackson and Darcy the Case was Tenant in tail the remainder to the King levied a Fine had Issue and died In that case It was adjudged That the Issue was barred and yet the remainder which was in the King was not discontinued For by that Fine an Estate in Feesimple determinable upon the Estate tail did pass unto the Conusee LXXXV Strowds Case Hill. 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin the Case was That Lands holden of a Subject came to the possession of the King by the Statute of 1 E. 6. of Chauntries and the King granted the Lands over In that case It was holden That the Grantee shall hold the Lands of the King according to the Patent and not of the Ancient Lord But the Patentee shall pay the Rent by which the said Land was before holden as a Rent seck distrainable of Common Right to the Lord only and his Heirs scil to him of whom the said Lands were before holden LXXXVI Tresham and Robins Case Mich. 17 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TResham brought an Action of Debt upon a Recognizance against Robins The Condition of which Recognizance was To stand to the Arbitrament of A. and B. who made Award That Robins should have the Land Yielding and paying 10 l. per annum And that Tresham in further assurance should levy a Fine to Robins of the same Land and upon that Robins should grant and render to Tresham which is done accordingly the Rent is behind Tresham brought Debt upon the Recognizance The Defendant pleaded the special matter with this per close Unde petit Judicium if the Plaintiff should have Execution against him And by the Opinion of the whole Court the Conclusion of the Plea is not good For here is not any Execution of the same Debt but an Original Action of Debt brought in which case he ought to have concluded Iudgment Si actio It was further moved If these words Yielding and paying make a Condition And it was agreed That the words do amount to as much as So as he pay the Rent And if a Man makes a Feoffment in Fee Reddendo salvendo 10 l. for years the same is a Condition But in the principal Case It is not a Condition For it is not knit to the Land by the Owner it self but by a stranger i. e. Arbitrator but it is a good Clause to make the same an Article of the Arbitrament which the parties are bound to perform upon pain of forfeiture of the Recognizance Which Wray concessit And that this Rent should not cease by Eviction of the Land. LXXXVII The Earl of Westmerlands Case Hill. 18. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Earl of Westmerland seised of a Mannor whereof the Demesnes were usually let for three Lives by Copy 2 Len. 152. 2 Brownl 208. according to the Custom of the Mannor granted a Rent-charge to Sir William Cordell pro consilio impendendo for the term of his Life and afterwards conveyed the Mannor to Sir William Clifton in tail The Rent is behind Sir William Cordell dieth Sir William Clifton dieth
Plaintiff ad requisitionem dicti Davidis repararet And the Plaintiff declares That reparavit generally without saying 2 Cro. 404. That ad requisitionem Davidis reparavit And that is not the Reparation intended in the Consideration i. e. reparatio ad requisitionem c. but a Reparation of his own head and at his pleasure And for this Cause the Iudgment was stayed CXXXII Wrennam and Bullman's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 52. 1 Len. 282. WRennam brought an Action upon the Statute of 1 2 Phil. Mar. against Bullman for unlawful impounding of Distresses and was Nonsuit It was moved by Shuttleworth Serjeant If the Defendant should have Costs upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. And it was Adjudged That he should not And that appears clearly upon the words of the Statute c. for this Action is not conceived upon any matter which is comprised within the said Statute and also the Statute upon which this Action is grounded was made after the said Statute of 23 H. 8. which gives Costs and therefore the said Statute of 23 H. 8. and the remedy of it cannot extend to any action done by 1 2 Phil. Mary And Rhodes Iustice said It was so adjudged in 8 Eliz. CXXXIII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 161. Dyer 291. IN a Formedon of a Mannor The Tenant pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy by Fine with J.S. The Demandant averred the Tenant sole Tenant as the Writ supposed and upon that it was found and tryed for the Demandant Vpon which a Writ of Error was brought and Error assigned in this Because where Ioynt-Tenancy is pleaded by Fine the Writ ought to have abated without any Averment by the Demandant against it and the Averment had been received against Law c. Shuttleworth At the Common-Law If the Tenant had pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy by Deed the Writ should have abated without any Averment but that was remedied by the Statute of 34 E. 1. But Ioynt-Tenancy by Fine doth remain as it was at the Common Law For he hath satis supplicii because by his Plea if it be false he hath by way of Conclusion given the moyety of the Land in demand to him with whom he hath pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy And the Law shall never intend that he would so sleightly depart with his Land for the abatement of a Writ As in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant confesseth himself to be a Villein of a stranger the Writ shall abate without any Averment Free and of Free estate for the Law intends that the Tenant will not inthral himself without cause Wray to the same purpose But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he who levied the Fine was his Disseisor upon whom he hath before entred And if Tenant in Feesimple be impleaded and he saith That he is Tenant for life the remainder over to A. in Fee and prayeth in Aid of A. the Demandant shall not take Averment That the Tenant at the time of the Writ brought was seised in Fee. Note In this Formedon Ioynt-Tenancy was pleaded but as to parcel And it was holden by Wray and Southcote That the whole Writ should abate the whole Writ against all the Defendants And so where the Demandant enters into parcel of the Land in demand if the thing in demand be an entire thing the Writ shall abate in all In this Writ the Demandant ought to have averred in his Writ an especial foreprise of the Land parcel of the Land in demand whereof the Ioynt-Tenancy by the Fine is pleaded For this dismembring of the Mannor and distraction of the Land of which the Ioynt-Tenancy is pleaded is paravail and under the gift whereof the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Mannor and therefore ought to be demanded accordingly with a foreprise But if A. giveth unto B. a Mannor except 10 Acres in tail there if after upon any Discontinuance the issue in tail is to have a Formedon in such case there needs not any foreprise for the said 10 Acres for they were severed from the Mannor upon the gift But if Lands in demand be several as 20 Acres except 2 Acres this foreprise is not good See Temps E. 1. Fitz. Brief 866. Praecipe c. unam bovatam terrae forprise one Sellion and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Sellion is but a parcel of Land uncertain as to the quantity in some places an Acre in some more in some less Another Point was Because the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this Averment scil sole Tenant as the Writ supposeth And the Question was If the Court notwithstanding the Admittance of the Tenant ought without Exception of the party Ex Officio to abate the Writ And it was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice That it should For it is a positive Law As if a Woman bring an Appeal of Murder upon the death of her Brother and the Defendant doth admit it without a Challenge or Exception yet the Court ought to abate the Appeal 10 E. 4. 7. See the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus c. And if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the Common Custom of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named Common Hostler yet the Court shall abate the Writ Ex Officio See 11 H. 4. and 38 H. 6. 42. CXXXIV Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of Lands in the right of his Wife for the Term of the life of the Wife made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his said Wife for her life It was holden in that Case That the Wife was remitted And it is not like Amy Townsends Case Plow Com. 1 2 Phil. and Mar. 111. For in the said Case the Entry of the Wife was not lawful for she was Tenant in tail which Estate was discontinued by the Feoffment of her Husband And Periam Iustice cited a Case Sidenham's Case Bacon seised in the right of his Wife for the Term of the life of the Wife They both surrendred and took back the Lands to them and a third person And it was holden That the Wife was not presently remitted but after the death of her Husband she might disagree to the Estate CXXXV Harper and Berrisford's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Partition The Defendant demanded Iudgment of the Writ because the Writ is Quare-cum A. teneat c. pro indiviso c 4 mille acras whereas it should be Quatuor Mille acrarum And many Grammarians were cited all which agreed That it was good both ways viz. Mille Acras or Mille Acrarum And Rhodes Iustice said That Cowper in Thesauro suo Linguae Latinae saith Quod Mille fere jungitur Genitivo Ergo non semper Wherefore Anderson with the assent of the other Iustices Ruled
said Accompt the said Robston demanded allowance of 20 Marks by the year for the said 8 years for the Education of the said Arthur which was allowed to him so as now he shall not be received to demand allowance for the said 8 years for the Education of the said Arthur out of the Accompt of the said 100l and that was fully proved to the Iury. It was moved How the Iury should demean themselves in their Verdict For the Issue is That the Defendant had expended the whole 100l in the Education of the said Arthur and Anne And some were of Opinion If the Defendant had expended part in the Education of the said Anne only yet the Iury ought to find for the Plaintiffs For the Issue is entire upon the expending of the said 100l in the Education of the said Arthur and Anne without saying how much for the said Arthur and how much for the said Anne But Periam and Anderson Iustices were clear to the contrary Wherefore they advised the Iury to find specially if they conceived that the Defendant had expended any part of the 100l and to find it and how much And after the Iury found against the Defendant That nothing was expended c. And gave damages 20l. And the Iustices at the first doubted If damages should be given in an Accompt But at length they received the Verdict by the manner de bene esse See 2 R. 2. Fitz. Accompt 45. 2 H. 7. 13. 10 H. 6. 18. 21 H. 6. 26. And the Book of Entries 17. in such case damages were given CC. Tooley and Preston's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Len. 397. 1 Cro. 206. 2 Len. 105. IN an Action upon the Case by Tooley against Preston which see Mich. 29 Eliz. Reported in Leon. 1. Part fol. 297. Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And now upon the Retorn of the Writ of Enquiry of Damages It was moved That for as much as the Damages are excessive viz. 200l that the Court de Gratia would abridge the Damages But the whole Court was against it For that they as Iudges cannot know what prejudice and damage the Plaintiff hath sustained by the wrongful detaining of the said Recognizance but the Iury may well have notice of such matter And as the Case is here the damages are but incertain upon the Assumpsit For the Defendant assumed That if he did not redeliver the said Recognizance to the Plaintiff to pay him 1000 l. so as the damages are reduced to certainty by the promise of the Defendant himself And by Anderson If I bail to you an Obligation to rebail the same to me before such a day one 10l now upon not delivery at such a day I shall have an Action of Debt for the 10l contrary by Windham And by Anderson in the principal Case If the Defendant had pleaded Non Assumpsit and the Iury had found the promise they might have given 1000l damages without danger of an Attaint notwithstanding that the Plaintiff could not prove that he was damnified one penny and that by reason of the express Assumpsit of the Defendant CCI. Bingham and Squire 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BIngham brought Debt upon an Obligation against Squire 4 Len. 61 The Condition was That if the said Squire procure a Grant of the next Avoidance of the Arch-Deaconry of Stafford to be made to the said Bingham so that the said Bingham at such next Avoidance may present That then c. And the Case was That afterwards by the means and endeavour of Squire the Grant of the said next Avoidance was made to Bingham But before the next Avoidance the present Arch-Deacon was created a Bishop so as the presentment to that Avoidance appertained to the Queen It was adjudged in this Case That the Condition was not performed and that by reason of these words So that Bingham may Present And afterwards the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CCII. Rolt's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Lease is made to two durante vita ipsorum alterius eorum diutius vivent absque impetitione Vasti durante vita ipsorum The one of them dieth Now although some conceived there was a difference between the Limitation of the Estate and of the Liberty c. for the Limitation of the estate seems to be more liberal Yet it was agreed by the whole Court That the Liberty runneth with the Estate and shall endure as long CCIII Farmer and Dorington's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case for these words I will prove Farmer to be a perjured Knave It was moved The words are not Actionable for it is not a meer affirmation But after many motions It was holden by the whole Court That upon those words an Action did well lie CCIV. Allen and Hill's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 238. IN an Ejection Firme by Allen against Hill of a House in Cornhill in London Vpon Not guilty pleaded The Iury found this special matter viz. That one Francis Beneson was seised of the said House in Fee and 4 Eliz. devised the same to Anne his Wife for life in full satisfaction of all her Thirds in London and after her death to Tho. Beneson his Brother in Fee Proviso That if Anne clearly the words of the Verdict are totaliter depart out of London and dwell in the Country that then she shall have a Rent out of the said House And the Iury found further That Francis died without Issue and that afterwards Thomas died Robert being his next Heir And that 14 Eliz. Anne clearly departed out of London and went to Melton in the County of Suffolk And that afterwards Robert before any Entry released unto Anne and afterwards against his Release entred It was argued for the Defendant That by this Proviso and the departure of Anne out of London the Freehold was not out of her and vested in Robert before the entry of Robert For if it were out of Anne then is she but Tenant at sufferance to whom a Release made cannot enure And the words of the Will are not That her Estate shall cease And here as the case is Anne cannot be Tenant at sufferance to him in the Remainder betwixt whom and her there is not any privity See 18 E. 4. 25 26. Tenant for the term of the life of another the Remainder over in Fee Cestuy que vie dieth The Tenant remained Tenant until he in the Remainder entred upon him And so in our Case although Anne hath clearly departed out of London c. yet the Freehold of the House doth continue in her until the Entry of Robert and then the Release made to her is good Also the Breach of the Condition is not fully found For the Proviso is If she clearly departs out of London but it doth not stay there and dwell in the Country c. And
Land during his life And he conceived That this Estate of Tho. Venables was in the King without Office not to grant for he is restrained by the Statute of 18 H. 8. but it is in him so before Office that he who hath right ought to sue to the King by Petition if he will have the same Yet he conceived That before the said Statute of 18 H. 6. the King might grant it before Office as it appeareth by Thirning 13 H. 4. 278. which was before the Statute So if the Kings Tenant makes a Lease for years the remainder over to another in Fee who dyeth without Heir the said remainder is in the King without Office because a common person in such case cannot enter but a Claim is sufficient and therefore it shall be in the King without Office. As to the Pardon He conceived That it did not extend to this Estate For the same is a Freehold therefore not within the Pardon As if the Kings Tenant be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all Offences and all which he may pardon these words will not go or extend to Freehold but only to personal matters and such punishments and pains which do concern Chattels But it may be Objected That in this Pardon title of Quare Impedit and Re-entries for Conditions are excepted and therefore if they had not been excepted they had been released by the Pardon And therefore this Pardon doth extend to Inheritances and Freeholds As to that I say That such Exceptions were not in use in the time of King Ed. 4. and such Inheritances and Freeholds were not taken to be within such Pardons And such Exceptions began 5 Eliz. And he said he had been of Counsel in such Cases where it had been taken That such Pardons did not extend to Freeholds As an Abbot was disseised and during the Disseisin the Abby was dissolved the King made such a Pardon the same did not transfer the Kings right And in this Case there are divers Exceptions of Goods and Chattels in many cases and therefore it cannot be intended that this Pardon doth extend to Freeholds And see the said Act of Pardon There the Queen gave and granted all Goods Chattels Debts Fines Issues Profits Amercements Forfeitures and Sums of Mony which word Forfeiture shall be intended personal forfeiture and not otherwise for it is coupled with things of such nature And as to the Traverse he conceived That it did not lie in this Case For the Office is not untrue in substance although it be void in Circumstances And also the King here is entituled by double matter of Record i. e. the Attainder and the Office. And he said That the Statutes of 34 36 E. 3. which gave Traverse are to be meant of Offices found virtute Officii and not virtute Brevis for then Escheators were very troublesome And 2 E. 6. doth not give traverse but where the Office is untruly found As if the Kings Tenant be disseised and the Disseisor be Attainted The Queen seiseth the Land Now the Disseisee hath no remedy by traverse upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. but is put to his Monstrans de Droit for that the Office is true But if I be the Kings Tenant and seised of Lands accordingly and it is found that J.S. was seised of my Land and attainted c. whereas in truth he had not any thing in my Land there Traverse lieth For the Office is false And so our Case for the Traverse is at the Common Law. And it is true that Venables was seised c. Cook to the contrary And he conceived That by the Attainder the Queen had gained but a Chattel And that notwithstanding this Forfeiture If Venables had been in possession a Praecipe should be brought against him And whereas it hath been said by Mr. Attorny That the Writs set down in the Register are the best Expositors of our Law the same is not so For the Register saith That Waste lieth notwithstanding a mean Remainder which is not now Law but it hath been clearly ruled to the contrary See acc 50 E. 3. The Register therefore and the Writs are subject to the Iudgments of our Law. And the Writ of Diem clausit extremum is not to the contrary For I confess that in such case Hob. Rep. 342. the Land shall be seised into the Kings hands but the King shall have but a Chattel in it It hath been argued He may grant therefore he may forfeit Nego Consequentiam For a Man seised in the right of his Wife may grant but not forfeit Gardian in Socage may grant but not forfeit The Husband may grant a Term for years which he hath in the right of his Wife but he cannot forfeit it A Woman enheritrix taketh Husband and afterwards is attainted of Felony the King pardons him they have Issue the Woman dieth the Husband shall be Tenant by the Curtesie which proveth that the King hath no Freehold by this Attainder Before the Statute of West 2. Tenant in tail post prolem suscitatam might forfeit the Land but now the Statute hath so incorporated the Estate tail to the Tenant in tail that it cannot be devested yea a Fine levied ipso jure est nullus although as to the possession it be a discontinuance And that is the reason wherefore Tenant in tail shall not be seised to another's use See Stamford 190. b. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have the Issues of the Land of the Wife during the life of the Husband c. So if Tenant in tail be Attainted of Felony that is but a Chattel in the Lands of the Wife and also in the Lands of the Tenant in tail and if the possessions of a Bishop be seised into the Kings hands for a Contempt In such case the King hath possession and not only the profits The same Law of Lands of Tenant in tail or for life being attainted of Felony So seisure for alienation without Licence or of the possessions of Poor Aliens See Br. Reseisure 10. So where the seisure is for Idiocy And he conceived That nothing is in the King without Office. And as to the Case of 13 H. 4. 6. I confess it For all that time many and amongst them Lawyers and Iustices were attainted by Parliament And so was Sir John Salisbury whose Case it was and their Lands by Act of Parliament given expresly to the King and therefore I grant that their Lands were in the King without Office. Tenant in Fee of a Common Lord is attainted of Felony his Lands remain in him during his life till the entry of the Lord and where the King is Lord until Office be found but in the case of a Common person after the death of the person attainted it is in the Lord before Entry and in the Case of the King before Office for the Mischief of Abeyance And see the Lord Lovell's
hic in Curia prolat is but form And afterwards the Iudgment was reversed for default of the said matter Magno sigillo Angliae sigillat And by Anderson Iustice Patents are good without Inrollment and that was adjudged in Hungate's Case CCXLI. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber DEbt brought upon an Obligation Post 266. The Defendant pleaded payment apud Lockington in the Parish of Killmerston And the Venire facias was awarded de Lockington And that was assigned for Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Iudgment given in the Kings Bench That the Venire ought to be de Killmerston See 6 H. 7. 3. 11 H. 7. 23 24. 9 E. 4. 3. Trespass for Entry in the Mannor of D. in S. the Visne shall come de Vicineto de S. and not from the Mannor Contrary if it be for the entry into the Mannor of D. only for there it shall be de Vicineto Manerii Cook said There was a Case very late adjudged in the Kings Bench A Lease was pleaded to be made at Ramridge End in Luton and that he himself was of Opinion That the Venire ought to have been of Ramridge End and not of Luton But the Court Over-Ruled the same against him It was said in the principal Case That Lockington shall be intended a Town as this Case is For a Parish may contain many Towns. And afterwards the Iudgment was affirmed CCXLII. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass for breaking his Close The Defendant pleaded That heretofore he himself brought an Ejectione Firmae against the now Plaintiff of the same Land in which the Trespass is supposed to be done and had Iudgment to recover c. and demanded Iudgment if against c. It was moved That the Bar was not good 1 Len. 313. because that the Defendant had not averred his title And the Recovery in one Action of Trespass is no Bar in another c. Quod Curia concessit But as to the matter the Court was clear That the Bar was good And by Periam Who ever pleaded it it was well pleaded For as by Recovery in an Assise the Freehold is bound so by Recovery in an Ejectione firmae the possession is bound And by Anderson A Recovery in one Ejectione Firmae is a Bar in another Especially as Periam said if the party relyeth upon the Estoppel And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Plaintiff should be barred CCXLIII Peter's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WIlliam Peters being Plaintiff in an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas came to London this Term to prosecute his Action And afterwards he was committed to the Marshalsey by the Lord Hunsdon Chamberlain of the Queens houshold and one of her Privy Council And now an Habeas Corpus issued out to the Keeper of the Marshalsey to have the body of the said Peters in Court And at the day the Keeper retorned the said Writ That the said Peters was committed to the said Prison by the said Lord and shewed the Warrant for it there to remain and to Answer before the Lords of her Majesties Council to such matters c. Causa vero detentionis mihi omnino incognita est The Court examined the said Peters upon his Oath If he came to London to prosecute his said Cause Who answered That he did And the Court also examined the said Keeper If he had acquainted the said Lord with the said Writ Who said That he had so done but he shewed him not any Cause Wherefore by the Award of the Court Peters was discharged of his Imprisonment CCXLIV Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleass SErjeant Fenner demanded the Opinion of the Court in this Case A. Devised Lands to his Wife for life 1 Co. 155. and afterwards to B. his Son and his Heirs when he should come to the age of 24 years and if his Wife died before his said Son should attain his said age of 24 years that then J.S. should have the said Land until the said age of the said Son A. died J.S. died the Wife died the Son being within the age of 24 years If the Executors of J.S. should have the Land after the death of J.S. until the said age of the Son was the Question Anderson and Periam conceived That he should not For this Interest limited to J.S. by the Will was but a possibility which was never vested in him and therefore could not by any means come to his Executor Rhodes and Windham doubted of it Fenner put the Case in 12 E. 2. Fitz. Condition 9. Where Land is mortgaged to J.S. upon payment of Mony to J.S. such a day or his Heirs and before the said day J.S. by his Will deviseth That if the Mortgagor pay the Mony that then A. B. should have them That this Devise of this possibility is good Quod omnes Justiciarii negaverunt And Windham put the Case between Weldon and Elkington Plow Com. 20 Eliz. 519. Where Lessee for years devised his Term to his Wife for so many years of the said Term as she should live And if she died within the Term that then his Son Francis should have the Residue of the Term not encurred Francis died Intestate the Wife died within the Term The Administrator of Francis had the residue of the Term and yet nothing was in Francis the Intestate but a Possibility A Lease was made to one Hayward his Wife and one of his Children Habendum to Hayward for 99 years if he should so long live and if he die within the said Term that then his said Wife should have the said Term for so many years which should be to come at the time of the death of her Husband And if she died also before the said Term That then the Child party to the Devise should have it for so many years of the said Term as should not be expired at the time of the death of the Wife And the Case of Cicill was vouched 8 Eliz. Dyer 253. A Lease was made to William Cicill pro termino 41 annorum si tam diu vixerit Et si obierit infra praedictum terminum extunc Uxor praedicti William Cicill habebit tenebit omnia singula praemissa pro residuo termini praed incompleto si tam diu vixerit Et si the said Eliz. obierit infra praedict terminum tunc William Cicill filius c. And it was holden by Catlyn and Dyer That these remainders were void For the Term is determinable upon the death of William Cicill the Father and the Residue of the said Term cannot remain And by Anderson The remainders of the Term limited ut supra are void For every remainder ought to be certain but here is no certainty for it may be that the first possessor of the Term may live longer or die sooner so as he in the remainder doth not know what thing he shall have And so also conceived Rhodes Iustice And he put the Case between
ad Beneficium Ecclesiasticum pertinet Examinatio ad Judicium Ecclesiasticum 40 E. 3. 25. And see the Statute of 18 Eliz. that Pars gravata in the Case of Maintenance is not tyed to a year And this suit is conceived to be in such Quality being a private grievance to the party himself the King not being party but only the party grieved But where the penalty is expresly given to the King and him that shall sue there all the proceedings ought to be in both their names And Manwood Chief Baron said That this Issue shall be tryed by the Country Which see in the Book of Entries 396. CCCXXVII Owen Morgan's Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer OWen Morgan Exhibited an Information upon the Statute of Usury for an usurious Mortgage made and charged the Defendant That Cepit ultra 10 l. in Cl. for the forbearance for one year and that was out of the Issues Rents and Profits which he took in Middlesex of Lands in Glamorganshire in Wales Mortgaged to the Defendant Manwood Chief Baron said That one might take the Rents of Lands in Wales in the County of Middlesex but a Man cannot take the Issues and Profits of the Lands but where the Lands are And Leak 's Case was cited Where an Information was brought for cutting down of Wood and converting it into Coals And Leak the Informer laid the cutting to be in the County where the Wood grew but the Conversion of it into Coals in the County of Middlesex And Manwood said in the principal case That the taking of the Issues and Profits ought to have been layed where the Land was And such was the Opinion of the whole Court. CCCXXVIII Curson's Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer CUrson acknowledged a Statute to Starkey 4 Len. 10. Ante 239. Alderman of London and afterwards he acknowledged another Statute to one Hampden who assigned the same to Fitton who assigned the same to the Queen Starkey sued forth Execution upon his Statute and thereupon the Land is extended of Curson and he hath a Liberate of it It was agreed by all the Barons That if Starkey had execution upon the Statute before the Queen his Execution should stand against the Queen and the Queen should not put him out And it was further agreed by them That if A. recovers a Debt in the Common Pleas so as he hath title to sue forth Execution by Elegit and the Defendant sells his Lands and afterwards A. assigns his Execution to the Queen That the Queen should not have prerogative against the Feoffee to have execution of the whole Land. And it was also holden by Manwood Chief Baron That if Execution be had upon a puisne Statute and the same is afterwards avoided by more ancient Statute and afterwards the ancient Statute is satisfied That now the puisne Recognisee may re-enter without suing forth any new Execution CCCXXIX Butler and Lightfoot's Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Exchquer IN this Case It was holden by the Barons 4 Len. 9. That if Tenant for life be of a Copyhold the Remainder over in Fee to another he in the Remainder may surrender his Estate if there be not any particular Custom to the contrary for the Estate of Tenant for life and him in the remainder are but one Estate and the admittance of the particular Tenant is the admittance also of him in the Remainder CCCXXX Knight and Norton's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was holden in this Case That duress of Imprisonment is not intended but where the party is wrongfully imprisoned until he make the Bond and not where a Man is lawfully imprisoned for another cause and for his delivery he makes a Bond for that is not per duritiam imprisonamenti And if in such Case duresse be pleaded the other may say of his own accord sine duritia imprisonamenti without saying absque hoc that it was per duritiam imprisonamenti And so it was also holden in the Kings Bench. See 4 E. 4. 17. 12 E. 4. 7. CCCXXXI Hungate and Hall's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Ante 239. 4 Len. 10. THe Case was Curson acknowledged a Statute to Alderman Starkey and afterwards acknowledged another to Hampdem which was assigned to the Queen Afterwards the Lands of Curson were extended for Starkey and a Liberate thereof It was holden by the Court That the same was a good Execution and that the Queen should not avoid it But if the Land had been extended at the suit of the Queen then the Execution of the Queen should hold place although it were a Statute of a puisne date And by Clark Baron If a Recognizance acknowledged by a Subject be assigned to the Queen It hath been a Question If all the Lands of the Conusor shall be extended or but the moyety as it shall be at the suit of the Conusee himself It was holden That all the Lands should be extended CCCXXXII The Lord Gray's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe Lord Gray Tenant of the King of Lands holden in Capite by Licence of the King made a Feoffment of the Lands in Fee and afterwards levied a Fine for further assurance And upon Process the party came into the Court and shewed this matter And the party was advised by the Court to aver That the said Fine was for further assurance And then upon such averment he should be discharged without any Pardon sued forth for the Fine c. CCCXXXIII Sir Walter Waller's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN Sir Walter Waller's Case It was holden in the Court of Exchequer That a Debt of Record as upon a Iudgment c. could not be attached by the Custom of London 1 Len. 29. And so it was holden in the Case of Sir John Perrot in the Common Pleas. 4 Len. 44. And it was said by Cook That such a debt could not be assigned upon the Statute of Bankrupts CCCXXXIV Sir Brian Tucke's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN this Case It was holden by all the Barons clearly Office of Executors 232. Roll. 920. Savile 40. That the Executor of an Executor should not be charged with a Devastavit made by the Executor of the first Testator no not in the Case of the King because it is a personal wrong only CCCXXXV Fines and the Lord Dacre's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe Case was Tenant in tail Post 261. 4 Len. 97. the Remainder of Lands in chief levyed a Fine of them without Licence of the King and if the Tenants of the Lord Dacres should be charged for the Fine was argued For the Case was That the Lord Dacres was Tenant in tail the Remainder in tail to Philip Fines And it was holden by all the Barons That the Tenants Lands should be discharged But it was holden That if the Conusor had any other Lands within England the Fine might be levyed
use created before the Statute and a use created afterwards for in the first Case they ought to enter and if they be disabled by any Act as in the Case between Gascoign and the Earl of Kent it shall never rise but in the later Case the whole authority and confidence is by the Statute taken out of the Feoffee and the contingent use shall rise without aid of the Feoffees by the operation of the Law for there the Land is bound to the Vses and charged with them As upon a Iudgment in a Warrantia Chartae the Land of the Defendant is bounden pro loco tempore and according to the Common experience in Conveyances for payment of the Kings Debts as in the Case between Proctor and Dennis The Debtor of the King makes a Feoffment in Fee unto the use of himself and his Heirs until he makes default of such a payment to the Queen at such a day and upon default to the use of the Queen and her Heirs Cowper There needs no Entry of the Feoffees and he put the difference put before by Harris betwixt a Vse created before and a Vse created after the Statute and now the Feoffees have not any power to revive or to stand seised to such Vses but are only as Instruments to convey the Vses For the Vse is created upon the Livery and is transferred by the Statute if the person to whom the Vse is limited be capable of it at the time of the limitation but if not the Law preserves it until and it cannot be by any means prevented and he cited the Case 30 H. 8. Br. Feoffments to Vses 50 and there is a great difference betwixt a Vse limited before and after the Statute For now after the Statute the Feoffees by reason of their seisin cannot be vouched for they have not such a Seisin whereof they may make a Feoffment and he put the Case between Cheny and Oxenbridge Cheny leased to Oxenbridge for 50 years and afterwards enfeoffed Oxenbridge to the use of Cheny himself and his Wife for their lives with divers remainders over And it was adjudged in the Court of Wards That by the Feoffment the Term is not extinct and he put the Case of the Lord Pagett adjudged in the Kings Bench. A Feoffment was made to the use of the Feoffee for life the Remainder to him whom the Feoffor should name at his death in Fee and the Feoffor and Feoffees for good Consideration levy a Fine to a Stranger and afterwards the Feoffor nameth and dieth The party named by the Feoffor shall have the Land notwithstanding the Fine c. Beamount the contingent use is here utterly destroyed by the Feoffment aforesaid and it appeareth by the preamble of the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Vses That the motives of that Act did not favour Vses but it was their meaning utterly to root them out And if contingent Vses which are not nor can be executed by the Statute should stand in force the mischief should be that no Purchasor should be secure of his Purchase but should be in danger of a new born Vse not known before And he grounded his further Argument upon the reason of Manwood and Dyer Where a Man makes a Feoffment in Fee to the Vse of himself and his Wife which shall be and afterwards he and his Feoffees and those in Remainder make a Feoffment to divers other new Feoffees and to new Vses and afterwards he takes another Wife and dieth The said Iustices were of Opinion That by the said Feoffment the contingent Vses were destroyed For when the Estates which the Feoffees take is taken away which was the root and foundation of the Vses and the branch and fruit of the said Tree it necessarily followeth that they also be taken away and also because the Feoffees by their Livery are barred for to enter for to re-continue the Estate would continue these Vses they also are gone and extinguished Yelverton I conceive that notwithstanding the Feoffment that the Vse shall rise in his due time according to the limitation of it c. CCCXXXIX The Serjeant's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail and he in the Remainder in Fee joyn in a Grant of a Rent-charge in Fee to the issue of Tenant in tail a year before the Statute of 27 Eliz. of fraudulent Conveyances and afterwards the Tenant in tail and he in the Remainder sell the Land and afterwards a Praecipe is brought against Tenant in tail who voucheth him in the Remainder who voucheth the Common Vouchee and so a Recovery is had and seisin accordingly The issue in tail dieth without issue Tenant in tail dieth the Vncle distraineth for the Rent Glanvil Serjeant argued That this grant of the Rent is altogether the grant of the Tenant in tail and that nothing passed from him in the Remainder and that it doth enure as one entire Grant and not as several Grants As where Tenant for life and he in the Reversion joyn in a Lease it is one entire Lease and the Lease of them both and they shall both joyn in an Action of Waste But admit that here are several Grants yet the Estate out of which the Rent was granted continuing the Rent shall continue also And now the Recoveror comes in the Post and in the affirmation of the Estate of Tenant in tail and the Remainder is utterly defeated and destroyed by the Recovery and the Rent always issueth out of the particular Estate and he cited Littl. 125. If a Rent-Charge be issuing out of Land and the Tenant of the Land leaseth the same for life and afterwards the Rent is granted over now he who hath the Freehold ought to attorn scil the Tenant for life for a Rent-Charge lieth always upon the possession and if Tenant for life granteth a Rent-Charge and afterwards makes a Feoffment in Fee the Rent shall continue until the possession be recontinued c. Harris Serjeant contrary This Grant is the Grant of them both scil of the Tenant as long he hath issue of his Body and afterwards it is the grant of him in the Remainder Where a Man derives his Interest from two the one being a particular Tenant the other a Recoveror or a Remainder in Fee the Donee takes of each of them that which he may lawfully give and no more and the particular Estate being then ended the Donee shall be then accompted in by him in the Reversion c. See 2 E. 4. 1. And he vouched the Case of the Lord Mountjoy The Lord Mountjoy took to Wife a Woman Enheretrix she had issue and so he was intituled to be Tenant by the Curtesie and acknowledged a Statute and afterwards he and his Wife levyed a Fine and died Now the Conusee shall hold the Land discharged of the Statute for after the death of the Husband the Conusee is in by the Wife only and so paramount the charge Also he said That this Grant of
where shall be good where not p. 147 Of intrusion where there is no Record to prove it if the error lieth upon it p. 147 Issues joyned A not joyning in it is helped by the Statute of Jeofails not a mis-joyning in it p. 66 Upon a Plea which is tryed in a foreign County and found for the Plaintiff in what Court the Judgment shall be p. 137 Jure Patronatus Where the awarding of it is necessary where not p. 98 Jurors Where upon pain of Attaint they are to take notice of a transient thing done in another County p. 77 K. KING Not bound to take notice of a Condition made by a common person p. 126 Cannot take an interest in Land without matter of Record p. 155 L. LAchess In pleading where it shall turn to the prejudice of the Parties p. 63 Leases For certain years habendum to his Executors if good and what interest passeth and to whom it passeth p. 32 Power to make Leases not to extend to Leases to be made in reversion p. 132 Where Leases are void by the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries p. 164 Made by Dean and Chapter where void by the misrecital of their name of Corporation p. 220 Livery Of Lands in Ward not to be sued by parcels p. 25 M. MAintenance Where a Grant made shall be said to be for maintenance within the Statute of 32 H. 8. p. 79 Misnosmer Where shall not prejudice a Devise p. 19 N. NOnsuit If after a Demurrer p. 28 O. OBligation By what words good by what not p. 19 Where the word Quemlibet in an Obligation shall make it joynt and not several p. 206 Taken by one Blacksmith of another Blacksmith that he shall not exercise his Trade in such a Town void p. 207 To be good although not made after the usual form p. 223 May be assigned to the King without Deed enrolled p. 234 Office Trove Personal things are in the King without Office found p. 145 Where an Estate shall be setled in the King without Office found where not p. 186 187 188 Outlawry Where a Man is to annul an Outlawry his person shall not be disabled by another Outlawry p. 232 P. PArtition The Writ was Quare teneant Quatuor mille acras where it ought to be 4 Mille acrarum yet good p. 94 Where it is not necessary to shew and settle forth the Estate particularly in the Writ p. 231 Petition Where an Entry is not lawful upon the King without suing a Petition p. 15 Plenarty Returned by the Bishop where not good p. 138 Pleadings and Pleas Where not good for incertainty p. 8 A Conveyance cannot be pleaded unless it be sealed p. 94 Of Non Damnificatus generally where good p. 118 In a Writ of Right upon a Custom to hold a Court of the Plea must be shewed before whom the Plea is to be holden by the Customs p. 148 Of Letters Patents and not saying Sigillo Angliae sigillat not good p. 193 Of the general Issue in Wast viz. Null wast fait where dangerous p. 203 Of Outlawry in the Plaintiff after Imparlance in Trover and Conversion good p. 215 Praemunire Where the not prosecuting of it by the Attorny-General shall take away the suit of the Informer p. 139 Prescription Of every Inhabitant to have Common if good p. 202 Of what good and where and of what not p. 202 To have Estovers at liberty in cutting down Wood in a Forest unless in Fawning-time where good p. 218 Priviledge Of the Exchequer not granted to him who pays First-fruits and Tenths p. 258 Possibility Not allowed to the Kings servants in the Exchequer who is sued in B.R. p. 22 Not grantable or demiseable p. 157 Prohibition Not grantable upon a suggestion that Tythe had been paid to the Vicar c. and time out c. p. 203 Proviso Where a Condition where a Covenant where a Limitation p. 225 Q. QVo Warranto Of Liberty Plea in it what good what not p. 73 184 R. REcital The not recital of the names of the Occupiers of a Lease of Lands do not avoid the Demise thereof p. 235 Records A Deed acknowledged to the King and delivered to the Barons of the Exchequer is a Record though not mentioned p. 146 Of a Fine remaining with the Custos Brevium amended and made according to the Record made and remaining with the Chyrographers p. 183 Recusants Where Lands conveyed by a Recusant shall be subject to the Statute of 23 Eliz. concerning Recusants and the penalties thereof p. 148 Release To a Tenant at sufferance where not good p. 152 By the Feoffees of Cestuy que use to his Lessee for years how it shall enure p. 196 Receit By a Termor for years to save his Term Remitter p. 2 10 93 Rents Where upon a Fine levied of the Land the Rent passeth without Attornment p. 103 Payment of it upon an extent of it and of the reversion saves the danger of a Condition supposed to be broken p. 113 Where apportioned where not p. 125 126 Granted by Fine varyeth from the Indenture yet shall pass p. 136 Suspended yet grantable p. 154 Where it passeth by the name of a Mannor p 168 Reserved to be paid at two Feasts and not said by what portions the Lessee hath the liberty to pay it in what portions he pleaseth p 235 Repleader After Issue joyned where granted p. 90 Request Licet saepius requisitus good and where it must be special p. 73 206 S. SAle By an Enfant Executor of goods where binds him p. 144 Scire Facias Where it lyeth upon an Extent supposed to be satisfied p. 155 Where upon an Alienation of an Advowson without Licence by matter of Record not by matter of Fact p. 175 Statute Merchant and Staple Acknowledged when void by the death of the party p. 157 Surrender Of a Copyhold to uses p. 4 Cannot be of a Lease for years to begin at a day to come p. 95 Tenant for life remainder in Fee of a Copyhold he in the remainder may surrender in the life of the Tenant for life if there be no Custom to the contrary p. 259 T. TAil p. 87 Tender Of Rent how and where to be made p. 4 Tenancy In Common where must be pretended and not given in evidence p. 94 Traverse Where good where not p. 97 Trespass Quare clausum fregit not maintainable by him that hath but the Ear-grass after the first mowing p. 213 Tryal If Tythes lie in such a Parish or in such a Parish tryable at the Common Law p. 128 V. VAlue Of Lands what value shall be intended p. 114 Venire facias Where the place must be mentioned in it p. 171 172 Where from the place where from the Mannor p. 193 Upon every Original must contain the issue in it p. 269 Verdict Not good because too general p. 64 Not Good because it doth not extend to all the points of the Declaration p. 95 Given and found after a Supersedeas
awarded not good p. 100 Two Matters are in Issue the Jury find the one and says nothing to the other if a good Verdict p. 149 Where eating and drinking of the Jurors at their own charges doth not make the Verdict void otherwise if at the charges of any of the parties p. 267 Unity Of possession where shall extinct a Common p. 127 Usurpation Where puts the King out of possession where not p. 17 W. WAger of Law Where cannot be upon an Agreement that one Creditor be acquitted against the other for Debt p. 212 258 Warrants Of Attorny to acknowledge a Deed not good p. 84 Warranty Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee a collateral Ancestor releaseth with Warranty a bar to the Issue p. 212 Wasts p. 7 60 What a sufficient Plea in it what not p. 9 Wills General words in a Will where not enlarge special words before in it p. 18 Words in a Will or Testament conditional where construed not to give tail by Implication Upon a Devise for three where the words of the Will shall be taken distributively and not jointly p. 117 Not to be taken by Implication p. 131 In a Will a thing implyed shall not control a thing expressed p. 167 Withernam Upon return of a Withernam if the Plaintiff tendereth the Damages he shall have a special Writ to restore his Chattel p. 236 Writs In a recovery upon a Writ in the Court of a Mannor the party who recovered in it cannot be put in possession with the Posse Comitatus p. 99 In the nature of a Scire Facias out of the Court of Admiralty to repeal Letters Patents of an Office is good p. 192 FINIS An Exact TABLE to the Three Parts of Reports of Mr. William Leonard And a Correction of divers Mistakes in Printing of Cases and other Matters in all the Three BOOKS A Denotes the first B the second and C the third Book A Abatement of Writs IF one of three Executors die pend brevi the Writ abates A. 44. Administrator sued as Executor may abate the Writ if the Administrat was committed before Action brought A. 69. A Feme sole Plaintiff takes Baron the Writ is not abated but abateable A. 168 169. If matter of Abatement appear in any part of the Record the Court after Judgment will reverse the Judgment A. 255. Action does not abate if the Defendant die after the first Judgment in Trespass and before the Return of the Writ of Enquiry A. 263. Death after Issue joyned no cause of Abatement in the Civil-Law A. 278. The Writ shall abate if it appear the Plaintiff cannot recover the thing in demand A. 333 334. In what Real Actions two Tenants may plead several Tenancy B. 8. It an Action shall abate after the Verdict if it appear to be brought before time A. 186 187. B. 20. Writ shall abate if the Feme be put before the Baron B. 59. Where upon pleading Joyntenancy or Villenage the Writ shall abate without any answer to the Pleas B. 161 162. Where a Writ shall abate Ex Officio Curiae B. 162. A Writ of Deceit not abated by the death of one Defendant C. 3. Abeyance In what Cases a Use may be in Abeyance B. 18. C. 21 22 23. The like of a Remainder B. 73. Acceptance Where the Issue of him in Remainder accepts the Rent of Tenant for life it is a good affirmance of his Estate A. 243. What Acceptance of Rent by Lessor shall bar him of his Re-entry for non-payment A. 262. The Acceptance of Rent by the Feme confirms the Lease of the Husband C. 271. The like by Issue in Tail of a Lease not warranted by the Statute C. 271. The like by an Infant at his full Age C. 271. The like of a Lease by a Predecessor and the Successor accepts the Rent C. 271. By the Wives Acceptance of Dower out of Lands exchanged she agrees to the Exchange C. 271. One disclaims and after the Lord accepts the Rent of the Tenant the Lord is barred of his right Sur Disclaimer C. 272. Pending a Cessavit Tenant aliened the Lord accepts Services from the Alienee he is barred C. 272. Accord and Concord No Bar if not executed A. 19. C. 212. Account Duresse a good Bar to it A. 13. Capias ad Comp. after a former executed A. 87. The power of Auditors A. 219. Of what things an Auditor by Deed may make Allowance A. 219. The power of an Auditor deputed by a private person A. 219. The difference of an Auditor deputed by Parol and by Deed A. 219. After Account and the Defendant found in Arrear and then the Defendant dies yet the Plaintiff shall recover A. 263. Lies not for the profits of Lands if the Defendant were in by Title A. 226. C. 24. If the Jury ought to assess Damages A. 302. B. 118 196. C. 150 192 230. What may be pleaded in Ear or must be pleaded in discharge before the Auditors B. 30 31 195. If a Factor account to one of many joynt Traders it is sufficient B. 75 76. If the Defendant plead that the Plaintiff gave him the Goods he must traverse that he was Bailiff to render account B. 195. If it lies against a meer Trespasser or wrongdoer C. 24. Where Account or an Action upon the Case lies against one who receives Mony to buy Cattle and does not buy them C. 38. In some Cases it lies against an Apprentice C. 62. Action upon the Case for Tort See Nusance Trover Slander For Erecting a Fould-course in disturbance of the Lord who had one by Prescription A. 11. By a Father against the Master of his Son for beating and laming his Son whereby he was disparaged in Marriage A. 50. Where it lies for malitiously indicting of Felony A. 107 108. Lies and not Trespass for pulling down Hurdles in a Market A. 108 109. Lies against an Under-Sheriff who took Mony to return but did not return a Summons A. 146. Against a Justice of Peace for Arresting one for Felony without accusation A. 187. Against a Mayor for not taking Bail to an Action A. 189. By Tenant in ancient Demesne for taking Goods for Toll A. 231 232. B. 190. By a Sheriff against a Prisoner who escaped out of Execution satisfaction being acknowledged A. 237. If it lies for retaining anothers hired Servant A. 240. Lies for a Tenant in Fee for a Nusance though he may have an Assise A. 247 273. Con. C. 13. If it lies for diverting a Mill-stream without Prescription A. 273. If it lies against a Justice of Peace for refusing to examine one who is Robbed A. 323 324. For conspiring with a Factor to cheat the Plaintiff who was a Joynt Trader with the Defendants in Account B. 75 76. For laying too much weight on a Floor which fell into the Plaintiffs Wares B. 93. An over-loading a borrowed Horse B. 104. By a Commoner for over-charging the Common with Conies B. 203. Against
Middlesex may inquire by inquest of Office of the Customs in London C. 127. Inrollments If a Lease enrolled be lost the Jur. is not of any effect A. 329. Where a Deed may operate both by the Statute of Inrollment and of Uses C. 16. What is a good Plea against a Deed enrolled A. 183 184 B. 121. How the time is accompted for the six Months A. 183 184. If it be enrolled non refert if it were acknowledged C. 84. How a Corporation must acknowledge a Deed C. 84. Intendment Where two several quantities of Acres shall not be intended all one A. 44. Where the intent of a Man is traversable ib. 50. Where issuable B. 215. Where and how the Law construes the Intent of one who enters in Land A. 127. Where mentioning a Rent of 8 l. and after saying 8 l. Rent is intended the same Rent without the word praedict ' A. 173. How far the Law takes matters by Intendment in Wills Deeds c. A. 204 210 211. St. Martins and St. Michaels day what Feasts by Intendment A. 241. Where want of an Averment is aided by Intendment A. 281. C. 42 43. Where Baron and Feme are vouched it is intended to be in right of the Feme A. 291. If a Service be reserved according to the value of the Land it is intended the then present value B. 117. C. 114. Seisin in Fee is intended to continue until the contrary appear C. 42 43 96. Intrusion Bar therein by Grant of the King A. 9. Into the Rectory and receiving the Tithes A. 48. Disceit is no Bar therein for nullum tempus occurrit Regi B. 31 32. The Information is prout patet per recorda If the Defendant plead a Title If he need to traverse nul tiel record B. 30 31. If every continuance is a new Intrusion where the first Entry was lawful B. 206 207. Joynt-Tenants and Tenants in Common One Joynt-Tenant of the next avoidance to a Church Ecclesia vacante releases to his Companion nihil operatur A. 167. Cannot sue one the other in Trespass for their Lands A. 174. C. 228 229. Where two shall be Joynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common of an Estate tail A. 213 214. Two Joynt-Tenants are disleised by two to one of whom one Joynt-Tenant releaseth the other enters he is Tenant in Common to the Relessee A. 264. One Joynt-Tenant cannot grant to or enfeoff his Companion A. 283. If a Joynt-Tenant and a Tenant in Common may joyn in debt for Rent and make a general Count where one is to have a greater share B. 112. Devise to two to be equally divided if it be an Estate in Common or a Joynt B. 129. C. 9. If one Joynt-Tenant accept a Lease of the Land from his Companion he is estopt to claim by Survivor B. 159. Pleading of Joynt-Tenancy in abatement by Fine or Deed Stat. 34 E. 1. 8. B. 161 162. Joynder en Action Action Plea. Three Tenants in a Praecipe cannot vouch severally A. 116. Two Defendants justifie severally and the Plaintiff says joyntly de injuriis suis propr ' c. and good A. 124. Tenant for life and he in remainder in tail joyn in prescription A. 177. Where two Joynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common shall joyn in one Formedon A. 213 214. In what real Actions who shall joyn or sever A. 293 294 317. In a Writ of Error the like A. 293 294. Who shall joyn in a Writ of Error or in Conspiracy or Attaint A. 317. Three joyn in Action upon the Statute of Hue-and-Cry and adjudged good Quod est mirum A. 12. Covenant to two quolibet eorum both must joyn B. 47. C. 161. If one is obliged to account to three he may do it to any one B. 75 76. Debt upon a Judgment against three cannot be brought against one only B. 220. Two Infants Joynt-Tenants cannot joyn in a Dum fuit infra aetatem C. 255. Ioynture What alienation of a Feme of her Joynture is within the Statute 11 H. 7. 20. A. 261 262. Iourneys Accompts If Error lies for the Heir upon death of his Ancestor by Journeys Accounts Quaere A. 22. Issues joyn One joynt replication de injuriis suis propriis to two justifications adjudged good A. 124. Is called in the Civil Law Lis contestata A. 278. If an Advowson be appendant or in gross A. 323. How it shall be joyned upon pleading Ancient Demesne A. 333. Upon special Bastardy A. 335. Issue in an Inferior Court triable out of their Jurisdiction not triable in the Courts at Westm B. 37. Mis-joyn for that the Plaintiff in Covenant altered a word from the Covenant B. 116. In Replevin upon absque hoc that he took them as Bailiff B. 215. Iudgment Upon the Defendant rendring himself in discharge of his Bail A. 58. The Defendant pleads a frivolous Plea which is found for the Plaintiff Judgment shall be entred as by Nihil dicit Nullo habito respectu c. A. 68. In a Sur cui in vita for part of the Messuage demanded A. 152. In Ejectment Quod quer recuperet possessionem is as good as Termin A. 175. Quod Capiatur well enough although pardoned by Act of Oblivion A. 167 300. Shall not be for the Plaintiff if by the Record it appears the Plaintiff hath no cause of Action or that the Action is brought before the Debt due A. 186 187. B. 99 100. C. 86 87. Entred as of a day past where the Defendant dies while after Verdict the Court takes time to consult of the Law A. 187. In what cases the Judges may give Judgment by sight of an Almanack A. 242. Judgment for the Plaintiff in Trespass although the Defendant died before the Writ of Inquiry returned A. 236. In Forcible Entry for treble Costs and Damages A. 282. Nihil de fine qui a pardonatur not good because the Defendant does not plead the Pardon A. 300 301. In Trespass or Case may be arrested after the first Judgment A. 309. Arrest of Judgment shewed in writing in the Exchequer B. 40. Judgment final upon a Verdict in a Counter-plea in Aid B. 52. Where it shall be reversed in part or in all B. 177 178. Against the Heir where his Plea is found against him is general against all Lands C. 3. Iurisdiction The Spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction where right of Tithes comes in question between two Parsons A. 59. In what Cases the Spiritual Court may have Jurisdiction for Slanders B. 53. If the Court hath not Jurisdiction of the Action all is void but other faults make the proceedings only voidable B. 89. One cannot plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court after Imparlance C. 214 215. Iour in Court dies Iuridicus What things may be done upon day extrajudicial B. 206 207. Iustices and Iudges Whether Justice of Peace in a Vill may be by Prescription A. 106. In what Inferior Courts who are Judges A. 217 228 242 316. B. 34. If a Judge may take
Tenant of Freehold Contra in an Assise A. 193. Of Nient comprise in a Recovery A. 184 185. Avowry for Damage Feasant in Copyhold Lands leased to the Avowant The Plaintiff pleads a prior Title to the Mannor in Fee and Ill for he ought to have said he was seised until the avowant entred praetextu of the Lease A. 288. B 80. In what case one may plead Not Guilty in Trespass A. 301. Of a Feoffment by two or a Bond made to two where one is dead A. 322. B. 220. Where one may plead nil debet or the special matter B. 10. To let for Rent of an Eviction by Title B. 10. Where one must plead non concessit or that nothing passed by the Deed B. 13 Where in pleading a place certain must be alledged Vide Lieu County Where to an Information for the King the Defendant cannot plead Not Guilty but must answer specially to the Tort B. 34. Of performance of Conditions to make a good Estate repair a House c. B. 39. Where de injuria sua propria is good Replication with and without a Traverse B. 81 102 103. If a Stranger be bound that the Lessee pay his Rent he may plead entry and expulsion B. 115. Where a Plea must conclude Judgment if Action or If he ought to answer B. 160. That he paid all Debts owing by him to J.S. he ought to shew what Debts C. 3. No pleading of a thing conveyed per nomen c. but by Deed C. 9 10. Plea vicious in Debt upon a Recognizance concluding Judicium si Executio c. C. 58. Of Entry into Religion Resignation and Divorce C. 199. No pleading to the Jurisdiction of the Court after a general Imparlance C. 214 215. One cannot plead an Attachment after Imparlance C. 232. Pledges The King and an Infant need find none B. 4 185 186. Pluralities If an Arch-deaconry make it A. 316. Posse Comitatus Cannot be but out of the Chief Court at Westui C 99. Possession Unity of Possession of 3 purparts of a Mannor does not make the whole liable to a charge granted out of two parts A. 85 86. Unity of Possession of Land and Tithes out of which c. does not extinguish the Tithes A. 248 331 332. Entry of the Brother in one County into the Demesnes of a Mannor extending into two Counties does not make a possessio fratris A. 265. If the possession of a Reversion after a Lease for years make a possessio fratris of Copyhold Lands C. 70. Whether Unity of possession of Lands and Common in the King of Abbey Lands extinguish the Common C. 128. If recovery of Dower against the Brother take away a possessio fratris C. 155 156. What possession makes a possessio fratris C. 273. Power to make Lease by Act of Parliament not pursued C. 72. Premunire Lies not for the party If the Kings Attorny release A. 292. For trying a Freehold without Jurisdiction Ibid. For proceeding in the Admiralty for a matter done upon the Land it must appear in the Libel to be done on the Lands else this Action lies not B. 183. Prerogative See King. That the King shall have a Fine upon alienation of his Tenant in Capite A. 8. The Court ex officio must preserve it A. 63 322. Where the King shall have Primer Seisin A. 65 66. Lands come to the King which are charged with a Rent no distress lies but a Petition of Right A. 191. One cannot cross the King his Title but he must intitle himself A. 202 294. To present a Clerk upon a Lapse vested in the Bishop whose See is after void A. 235. Where the King shall have Primer Seisin and Ward A. 253 284 285. To charge Executors Ad. Computand ' B. 34. The King needs not demand a Rent to entitle himself to a Re-entry A. 12. B. 134. C. 125. May distrain for a Rent-Seek C. 125. May reserve a Rent to a Stranger C. 127. Shall have account against Executors C. 198. The King shall not have his Prerogative to be first satisfied of a Debt which comes to him by Assignment if a Prior Extent be executed C. 239. Upon such Extent the King shall have the whole Land though the Conusee could have but a moiety C. 240. Prescription For Estovers within a Forest A. 2. Cannot be to take all the profits c. but may be to have Fold-course or the like A. 11 142. For Common when the Land is not sowed A. â—3 No Prescription though no memory to the contrary if the commencement be known A. 10â— B. 28. That none shall exercise the Trade of a Baker in a Market Town without the Plaintiffs Licence A. 142 143. Laid in Tenant for life and him in Remainder in tail and yet good A. 177. Where good to have Suitors to a Court and to take Toll c. A. 217 218. Void because unreasonable A. 232 314. C. 41 42 81 82. Good and reasonable A. 232 233 314. C. 41 42. Spiritual Persons may prescribe in non decimando A. 241 248. Though such Prescription be interrupted by the Land coming to Lay-hands yet it is not destroyed A. 248. What words apt to make a Prescription what not A. 273. None against a Statute B. 28. Not a good Prescription That every Inhabitant in a Town shall have Common B. 44 45. C. 200. In pleading a Prescription in a Vill it must be pleaded that the Vill is Antiqua c. B. 98. How to prescribe for a Way with Horses and Carriages C. 13. In pleading it it must be said that the Prescription was once executed not only quod potest c. C. 83. Presentment to a Church Before Induction the King may repeal his Presentation A. 156. B. 164. Presentee of the King by Lapse dies before Induction Videtur that the King may present again A. 156. Grant of the next Presentment made when the Church is void is also void A. 167. The difference between it and a Collation and the definition of them A. 226. If the Bishop die after Lapse devolved to him the King shall Present A. 235. What kind of Interest it is Ibid. If an Archdeaconry become void by the Deacon being made Bishop the King shall present and not the Patron C. 151. The King cannot revoke his Presentment but by express words and reciting the first C. 243. Primer Seisin The Heir shall pay a third part of the profits for Primer Seisin C. 25 54. Principal and Accessary If the Attainder against the Principal be reversed the Accessary is discharged A. 325. Priviledge A person who is priviledged by reason of an Action depending in the Common Bench is priviledged for the Goods of Strangers in his hands so that they cannot be attached A. 169 189. What duty to the King gives a Subject the priviledge to sue in the Exchequer B. 21. If both parties are previledged in the Courts at Westminster allocatur querenti B. 41. One priviledged after Judgment quod computet B.
Commission Court A. 176 177. 1 El. Of Leases in reversion by Bishops c. A. 148 159. 1 El. Of administring the Sacrament A. 295. 5 El. cap. 2. Of Tillage A. 274. 5 El. cap. 8. If the Defendant cut down Timber and make Laths to sell C. 104. 5 El. 9. To force Witnesses to appear by Subpoena A. 122. 5 El. Of Perjury lies only for the party grieved B. 12. C. 68 78. An Action lies though the Defendant do not depose directly to the Issue but to encrease Damages B. 198. No Action lies for a false Presentment in a Leet C. 201. 8 El. 2. Of Costs A. 105. 13 El. 5. Of Fraudulent Gifts A. 47 308. B 9 223. 13 El. 12. Of making Ministers A. 230. 13 El. 20 Of Leases by Parsons c. C. 102. 13 El. 4. Of Debts due by Accomptants c. to the King extends not to Copyholds A. 98. 13 El. 10. Of Leases by Colledges c. A 307 330. 18 El. 10. Of the same matter A. 307 333. 14 El. 8. Of Recoveries by Tenant for life B. 60 61 62 63. 18 El. 14. Of Jeofails A. 30 31 175 329. Doth not remedy want of an Original in some cases A. 30 31. If it aideth the want of an Attornies Christian Name A. 75. 14 El. 11. Of Leases made by Curates A. 100. It aideth the want of 15 days between the Teste and retorn of the Venire facias A. 329. If it aideth the want of producing a Deed in Court B 74. 18 El. Which gives Costs against an Informer in popular Actions extends not to the party grieved if he sue B. 116. 23 El. c. 1. Of Recusants who perswade others to Popery A. 239. Upon the branch of it for not coming to Church A. 241. B. 5. 27 El. 5. Of Jeosails A. 44 80 193 238. 27 El. 6. Of Challenges A. 55. 27 El. 5. Of special Demurrers A. 311. 23 El. c. 1. Of Recusants what Fraudulent Conveyances shall not evade that Law B. 132. 18 14 El. 11. What Leases are within that Statute B. 188. Statutes How far a Statute in the affirmative shall alter a former or change the Common Law A 76. B. 160 161. C. 215. The like of a negative Statute A. 323. What Statute must be pleaded what not A. 307 308 309 333. Who may avoid Conveyances made voidable by Statute A. 308. A Statute which concerns the King his Revenue is always held no private Statute A. 333. Statutes bind the King he being party to them B. 51. Where Statutes shall be taken by Equity and not by the express words B. 90 91 160 161. Where very strictly and literally B. 148 149 161. A Statute gives power to one to make Leases for 21 years If he may make Leases in reversion C. 131 to 135. Private Statute shall be construed strictly C. 133. Where an Action is given by a Statute which was before at Common Law the Plaintiff may choose which way to proceed C. 140 141 170. Steward If the Steward of a Court-Baron deputed by Parol may make surrenders out of Court A 228. If he may be made without Deed Ibid. If an Assise lie of his Office Ibid. If he may make a Deputy and that Deputy depute another A. 288 289 290. If he may be discharged by Parol and lose thereby his Fee B. 76. Subpena In the Common Pleas upon an Information C. 48. Surety of the Peace If a voluntary Escape from a Constable be a breach of the Recognizance B. 166. Suggestion See Proof Supersedeas In Dower Rege inconsulto A. 284 285. To stay a Tryal by Nisi prius quia erronice c. B. 167. Surplusage Where it shall make void a Writ where not A. 73 153. Where it shall not hurt in a Verdict See Verdict B. 100. C. 86. Where in pleading B. 102. C. 86. Where all after a Videlicet is void and Surplusage and doth no hurt B. 102. Surrender What words amount to a Surrender A. 178 280 B. 50. C. 224. One Tenant for years cannot Surrender to anothere Tenant for years A. 303. If a second Lease made to the same Lessee by Gardian in Soccage be a Surrender A. 323. The like of the Lessors Lease B. 188. What Acts which are no Surrender may determine a Lease A. 322 323. Pleading thereof C. 96. Acceptance of what second Leases is a Surrender in Law of the first C. 244. Survivor Where the surviving Obligee brings an Action he must declare specially A. 322. Where a Gift in tail was made to two the Heir of the Survivor must bring a Formedon solely C. 14. Does not hold place betwixt joynt Merchants C. 264. Suspension See Extinguishment T. Tail. TEâ—ant in tail Covenants to stand seised to the use of himself for life remainder to his Son in tail quid operatur A. 212. If a Gift to J.S. primogenito filio haeredi be a good Estate tail A. 212 213 214. What are good words to make such Estate Ibid. B. 11 25. C. 5. In a Will B. 35. C. 55. After possibility of Issue extinct the priviledges thereof A. 290 291. B. 40. C. 241 242. Cannot begin in futuro B. 11. Tenant in tall post prolem suscitatam is dispunish for Wast B. 66. And after Common Recovery suffered may alien B. 66 67. The Issue of Tenant in tail barred by a Fine though the Reversion be in the King C. 57. Lessee of Tenant in tail shall hold his Lease free from a Statute acknowledged by the Lessor before the Lease C. 156. Tenant for Life See. Forfeiture Tenant at Will and at Sufferance Who is accounted Tenant at Will and who Tenant at Sufferance B. 45 46. C. 233. Who Tenant at Sufferance or a Disseisor C. 152 153. Tenant at Will shall have aid and a release to him is good Secus of a Tenant at Sufferance B. 47. C. 152 153. No Tenant at Sufferance to the King B. 141 143. If the Lord admits a Stranger he is but Tenant at Will of the Copyhold C. 210. Tender uncore prist Where a Condition is to pay 20 l. or to deliver Cows at the choice of the Obligee the Obligor must tender both A. 68. Where a Touts temps prist c. may be pleaded without a Tender and where a Tender without a uncore prist c. A. 71. What is a good Tender of a Rent to prevent a Re-entry B. 130 131. C. 4. What is good upon a Mortgage what not B. 213. Tenure What shall be a Tenure la Capite what not A. 66. By Knight-Service of the King A. 157. Testament What is a good Will in writing A. 113. B. 35. C. 79. Who may make a Will who not A. 326. Shall be construed favourably that all parts if possible of the words may be satisfied B. 42 43. Time. How six Months shall be accounted as to a Lapse A. 31. C. 46 47. Condition to pay the 29 Feb. not payable until a Leap year happen A. 101. The time in trespass
THE THIRD PART OF THE REPORTS Of Several Excellent CASES OF LAW Argued and Adjudged in the COURTS of LAW AT WESTMINSTER In the Time of the late QUEEN ELIZABETH From the First to the Five and Thirtieth Year of her Reign Collected by a Learned Professor of the LAW WILLIAM LEONARD Esquire Then of the Honourable Society of GRAYS-INN Not before Imprinted And now Published By William Hughes of Grays-Inn Esq With Alphabetical TABLES of the Names of the CASES and of the Matters contained in the BOOK LONDON Printed by the Assigns of Richard and Edward Atkins Esquires For Henry Twyford Thomas Basset William Rawlins and John Place 1686. TO THE READER Courteous Reader I Can do no less than acquaint thee That the First and Second Part of the REPORTS of that Learned Lawyer William Leonard of Grays-Inn Esquire were obtained from me and Printed by the over-forwardness of those persons that received it from my hand who published it with a Design to prejudice the Learned Author and my self by false Intimating in the Epistle to the Reader prefixed before the Second Part That the First and Second Part was All of our Learned Authors Works that I thought fit to publish That I may Extricate my self out of their intended Abuse and undeceive thee I do hereby assure thee That although I do Collect the First and Second Part yet do I wholly disown the Epistle aforementioned and also aver it to be a false and scandalous Assertion That it is so I refer thee to the View of this Third Part The which is in no wise Inferior to the First and Second Part But on the contrary I may with Modesty say as to the Worth and Usefulness of it That it may Challenge the Precedence of the Other Two the which I intended as one that Feasteth his Guests preserveth the Daintiest Dishes until the last My Intention ever was if my other occasions would give me leave To publish such further CASES as were Collected by him not before Imprinted that might add something to the Study and Benefit of the Ingenuous Reader Wherefore I having lately Collected out of his Manuscript which only is in my hands some other Cases out of many which lay scattering therein not before made Publick I have reduced them into this Third Part which I commend to thy Reading and leave to thy favourable Construction And if these Cases now Printed off in this Third Part as the former Cases have done shall find good Acceptance of thee and be useful to thee I shall willingly if God give me life and it be desired put an End to this Work. In the prosecution of the which I shall have due regard as I hitherto have had in this Third Part as well as in the Two former Parts that thou shalt be presented with nothihg but what is Really useful and not to be had in other Works of the like nature Now for as much as no Action or Thing done under Heaven can be free from Error in a greater or lesser proportion The which as well as other Arts Printing too too frequently demonstrateth yet the Errors of this Third Part are so few and Inconsiderable that it maketh me the more Confident to desire thy favourable Corection Therefore I leave it to thee From my Study in Grays-Inn 24 of October 1662. William Huhges The Names of the Learned Lawyers Serjeants at Law and Judges of the several Courts at Westminster who Argued the Cases and were Judges of the said several Courts where the Cases were Argued Viz. A. ANderson Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Anger Altham afterwards one of the Barons of the Exchequer Atkinson Ayliffe Justice of the Kings Bench. B. Beaumount Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Bromley Lord Chancellor of England Barkley C. Cook after Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Clench one of the Judges of the Kings Bench. Cooper Serjeant at Law. Clark Baron of the Exchequer D. Daniel Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Drew Serjeant at Law. Dyer Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. E. Egerton Solicitor of the Queen after Lord Chancellor F. Fleetwood Serjeant at Law Recorder of London Fuller Fennor Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Kings Bench. G. Gawdy Judge of the Kings Bench. Golding Serjeant at Law. Glanvile Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Gent Baron of the Exchequer Godfrey H. Haughton Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Hammon Serjeant at Law. Harris Serjeant at Law. Heal Serjeant at Law. Hobart K. Kingsmil Judge of the Kings Bench. L. Laiton M. Mead Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Morgan Manwood Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer Mounson Justice of the Common Pleas. O. Owen Serjeant at Law after Baron of the Exchequer P. Popham Attorny-General of the Queen after Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. Periam Judge of the Common Pleas. Pepper Attorny of the Court of Wards Plowden Puckering the Queens Serjeant at Law. R. Rhodes Judge of the Common Pleas. S. Snag Serjeant at Law. Shute Judge of the Kings Bench. Shuttleworth Serjeant at Law. T. Tanfield Serjeant at Law after Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer Topham W. Wray Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. Windham Judge of the Common Pleas. Walmesley Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Y. Yelverton Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Kings Bench. A Table of the Names of the CASES in the Thrid Part of LEONARD'S Reports P. stands for Page C. for Case A. ANdrews and Glovers Case Trin. 4 Eliz. Page 7. Case 19 Abrahal and Nurses Case Hill. 19 Eliz. C. B. p. 63. C. 94 Absolon and Andertons Case Mich. 26 Eliz. B. R. p. 84. C. 124 Amner and Luddingtons Case Mich. 26 Eliz. B. R. p. 89. C. 128 Annisley and Johnsons Case Mich. 27 Eliz. C.B. p. 114. C. 164 Archbold and Borrells Case Mich. 28 Eliz. B. R. p. 139. C. 190 Lord Andersons Case Mich. 29 Eliz. C. B. p. 149. C. 198 Allen and Hills Case Mich. 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 152. C. 204 Abbots Case Pasch 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 206. C. 266 Anderson and Heywards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 221. C. 294 George Ap-Rices Case Trin. 32 Eliz. Exchequer p. 241. C. 336. B. BArrentines Case Mich. 8 Eliz. C. B. Page 12. C 28 Oliver Breers Case 11 Eliz. Cur. Ward p. 25. C. 52 Banks and Thwaites Case Mich. 21 Eliz. B. R. p. 73. C. 113 Barker and Taylors Case Mich. 21 Eliz. C. B. p. 78. C. 117 Bunny and Bunny's Case Hill. 26 Eliz. C. B. p. 90. C. 129 Brett and Peregrines Case Pasch 26 El. p. 105. C. 155 Brian and Cawsens Case Trin. 27 Eliz. C. B. p. 115. C. 165 Baspoles Case Mich. 27 Eliz. B. R. p. 118. C. 167 Branthwaits Case Mich. 27 Eliz. B R. p. 118. C. 168 Bingham and Squires Case Hill. 29 Eliz. C. B. p. 151. C. 201 Beadles Case Mich. 30 Eliz. B.
of his Body after the decease of the said J.N. It was the clear Opinion of all the Iustices in this Case That by the said Indenture No use is changed in J N. nor any use raised to the said Son and Heir but that it is only a bare Covenant XIX Andrews and Glovers Case Trin. 4 Eliz. Rott 1622. IN Trespass by Andrews against Glover The Lady Mary Dacres being seised of the Mannor of Cowdam by her Indenture bargained and sold to the said Andrews all those her Woods More Rep. 15. Post 29. Winch. Rep. 5. Vnderwoods and Hedge-Rowes as have been accustomably used to be felled and sold standing growing being in upon and within the Mannor of Cowdam c. To have and to hold c. from the Feast of S. Michael last past during the natural life of the said Lady Mary And the said Andrews for himself his Heirs and Assigns doth Covenant and Grant to and with the said Lady her Executors c. to content and pay or cause to be contented and paid to the said Lady her Executors c. yearly during the said Term 10 l. By force of which Grant he cuts down all and singular the Trees Woods and Vnderwoods in the aforesaid Mannor growing at the time of the making of the Indenture aforesaid And afterwards the said Lady by her servants felled all the other Woods and Vnderwoods growing in the same Mannor after the said felling made by the said Andrews Whereupon Andrews bringeth Trespass And the Opinion of the Court was clear That after the Bargainee had once felled that he should never after fell in the same place where the first felling was made by force of the said Grant notwithstanding the Rent yearly reserved and notwithstanding the words of the Grant viz. To have and to hold during the life of the said Dame Mary Wherefore the said Andrews durst not Demur c. XX. 6 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A. is bounden to B. in an Obligation to pay to B. 20 l. at the Feast of our Lady without limiting in Certain what Lady-Day viz. the Conception Nativity or Annunciation And the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Deed should be construed to intend such Lady-Day which should next happen and follow the date of the said Obligation XXI Scarning and Cryers Case Mich. 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rott 1851. IN a Second Deliverance by Scarning against Cryer the Defendant makes Conusans as Bailiff to J.S. and sheweth More Rep. 75 That the said J.S. and at the time of the taking c. was Lord of the Mannor of A. Within which Mannor there was this Custom time out of mind c. That the Tenants of that Mannor and other Resiants and Inhabitants within the said Mannor or the greater part of them at the Court-Baron of the said Mannor at the Mannor aforesaid holden were used and accustomed to make Laws and impose Pains as well upon the Resiants and Inhabitants within that Mannor and the Tenants of the said Mannor there being as upon every Occupier of any Tenements within the said Mannor for good government there to be had and kept and for the preservation of the Corn and Grass there growing And that the said J.S. and all those whose Estate c. distringere consueverunt pro omnibus poenis sic forisfact per Juratores Curiae praed ex assensu dictor Tenent Inhabitant residentium ibid. in forma praedict assessis impositis tam super quibuscunque tenent Maner praedict aut inhabitantibus aut residentibus infra Maner illud quam super occupatoribus aliquor Tenementor infra idem Maner ' And further said That at a Court-Baron there holden That Coram Sectatoribus ejusdem Curiae by the Homage of the said Court then charged to present with the assent of other Tenants and Inhabitants of the said Mannor it was Ordained and Established That no Tenant of the Mannor aforesaid nor any of the Resiants or Inhabitants within the said Mannor nor any Occupier of any Tenements within the said Mannor from thenceforth should keep his Cattel within the several Fields of that Mannor by By-herds nor should put any of their Oxen called Draught-Oxen there before the Feast of St. Peter upon pain Quod quilibet tenens residens c. should forfeit 20 s. And further said That the Plaintiff at the time c. Occupied and had such a Tenement within the said Mannor And that at such a Court afterwards holden viz. such a day It was presented that the Plaintiff Custodivit boves suos called Draught-Oxen within the several Fields by By-herds contrary to the Order aforesaid by which the penalty of 20 s. aforesaid was forfeited Notwithstanding the said pain de gratia Curiae illius per quosd A. E. afferratores Curiae illius ad hoc jurat assess afferrat fuit ad 6 s. 8 d. And further he said That the place in which the taking c. is within the Mannor aforesaid And that A. B. Steward of the said Mannor extraxit in scriptis extra Rotulis Curiae praed the said pain of 6 s. 8 d. and delivered the same to the Defendant Bailiff of the said Mannor to Collect and Receive by force of which he required the said 6 s. 8 d. of the Plaintiff and he refused to pay it and so avoweth the taking c. And upon this Conusans of the Defendant the Plaintiff did Demur in Law And Iudgment was given against the Conusans 1. Because he pleaded That it was presented Coram Sectatoribus and doth not shew their Names 2. The penalty appointed by the By-Law was 20 s. and he sheweth it was abridged to 6 s. 8 d. and so the penalty demanded and for which the Distress was taken is not maintained by the By-Law and a pain certain ought not to be altered 3. He sheweth that it was presented that the Plaintiff had kept his Draught-Oxen and he ought to have alledged the same in matter in fact that he did keep c. XXII Dedicots Case 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. DEdicot seised of certain Customary Lands Dyer 210 251. Hob. 285. surrendred the same into the hands of the Lord to the intent that the Lord should grant the same de Novo to the same Dedicot for life and afterwards to Jane his Wife during the Nonage of the Son and Heir of Dedicot and afterwards to the said Son and Heir in tail c. Dedicot died before any new Grant Afterwards the Lord granted the said Land to the Wife during the Nonage of the said Heir the remainder to the Heir in tail the Heir at that time being but of the age of 5 years so as the said Wife by force of the said Surrender and Admittance was to have the said Lands for 16 years The Wife took another Husband and died And it was the Opinion of Brown and Dyer Iustices That the Husband should have the Lands during the Nonage of
Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was said by Dyer and Brown Iustices That if a Man deviseth by his Will to his Son a Mannor in tail 2 Cro. 49. Yelv. 210. and afterwards by the same Will he deviseth a third part of the same Lands to another of his Sons they by this are Ioynt-Tenants And if a Man in one part of his Will deviseth his Lands to A. in Fee and afterwards by another Clause in the same Will deviseth the same to another in Fee they are Ioynt-Tenants XXVIII Drew Barrentines Case Mich. 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Drew Barrentine and Winifred his Wife were seised of the Mannor of Barrentine which is Ancient Demesne and holden of the Lord Rich as of his Mannor of Hatfield levy a Fine thereof Sur Conusans de droit c. by which Fine the Conusee rendreth the said Mannor to the said Drew and Winifred in special tail the Remainder to Winifred in tail the remainder to the Countess of Huntington in tail the remainder to the Heirs of the body of Margaret late Countess of Salisbury the remainder to the Queen in Fee It was moved by Bendloes Serjeant If the Lord Rich being Lord of the Mannor might reverse this Fine by a Writ of Disceit and so Recontinue his Seignory and he said That he might and thereby all the Estates which passed by the Fine should be defeated even the remainder which was limited to the Queen for by it the Fine shall be avoided to all intents Welsh Iustice Such a Writ doth not lie For by the remainder limited to the Queen by the Fine all mean Signories are extinct Then if it be so Disceit doth not lie If the Tenant in Ancient Demesne levieth a Fine and afterwards the Lord Paramount who is Lord of the Mannor doth release to the Conusee and afterwards the Lord of the Mannor brings a Writ of Disceit he gains nothing by it And if the Tenant in Ancient Demesne levieth a Fine of it and dieth and the Heir confirmeth the Estate of the Conusee and afterwards the Lord by a Writ of Disceit reverseth the Fine yet the Estate of the Conusee shall stand But all these cases differ from our case For in all those cases another act is done after the Action given to the Lord but in our case the whole matter begins in an instant quasi uno flatu and then if the principal be reversed the whole is avoided For the whole Estate is bound with the Condition in Law and that condition shall extend as well to the Queen and her Estate as to another And if Lands is Ancient Demesne be assured to the King in Fee upon Condition Now during the possession of the King the nature of the Ancient Demesne is gone but if the Condition be broken so as he hath his Land again it is Ancient Demesne as it was before and so the Estate of the Queen is bounden by a Condition in Law. XXIX Mich. 8 Eliz. In the Dutchy-Chamber NOte It was holden by Welsh in the Dutchy Chamber That whereas King Edw. the 6th under the Seal of the Dutchy had demised Firmam omnium tenentium at Will Manerii sui de S. That nothing but the Rent passed and not the Land for Firma signifies Rent as in a Cessavit de feodo firmae But the Clerks of the Court said That their course had always been to make Leases in such manner But Welsh continued in his Opinion as aforesaid And further he said That this was not helped by the Statute of Non-recital or Mis-recital c. for that here is not any certainty For sometimes Firma signifies Land sometimes Rent XXX Mich. 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was holden for Law by the whole Court Two Coparceners are and one of them dieth her Heir of full age she shall not pay a Relief for if she should pay any at all she should pay but the moyety and that she cannot do for a Relief cannot be apportioned for Coparceners are but one Tenant to the Lord. XXXI 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case was brought for stopping of a Way The Plaintiff declared That the Duke of Suffolk was seised of a House in D. and Leased the same to the Plaintiff for life And that the said Duke and all those whose Estate c. have used time out of mind c. to have a Way over the Lands of the Defendant unto the Park of D. to carry and recarry Wood necessary for the same House from the said Park to the same House and further declared That the Defendant Obstupavit the Way It was moved by Carns That upon this matter no Action upon the Case lieth but an Assise because that the Freehold of the House is in the Plaintiff and also the Freehold of the Land over which c. is in the Defendant But if the Plaintiff or Defendant had but an Estate for years c. then an Action upon the Case would lie and not an Assise All which was granted by the Court. Post 263. It was also holden That this word Obstupavit was sufficient in it self scil without shewing the special matter how as by setting up any Gate Hedge or Ditch c. for Obstupavit implyes a Nusans continued and not a personal disturbance as a Forestaller or in saying to the Plaintiff upon the Land c. that he should not go there or use that Way for in such cases an Action upon the Case lieth But as to any local or real disturbance Obstupavit amounts to Obstruxit And although in the Declaration is set down the day and the year of the Obstruction yet it shall not be intended that it continued but the same day for the words of the Declaration are further by which he was disturbed of his Way and yet is and so the continuance of the disturbance is alledged And of such Opinion also was the whole Court. Leonard Prothonotary said to the Court That he had declared of a Prescription habere viam tam pedestrem quam equestrem pro omnibus omnimodis Cariagiis and by that Prescription he could not have a Cart-way for every Prescription is stricti juris Dyer That is well Observed and I conceive that the Law is so and therefore it is good to prescribe habere viam pro omnibus Cariagiis generally without speaking of Horse-way or Cart-way or other Way c. XXXII Stowell and the Earl of Hertfords Case Mich. 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedom in the Remainder by John Stowel and R.R. against the Earl of Hertford the Case was That Lands were given to Giles Lord Daubeney in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of J.S. who had Issue two Daughters Agnes and Margaret and died The Donee died without Issue and the Demandants as Heirs of the said Agnes and Margaret brought a Formedom in the Remainder And it was awarded by the Court That the Writ should
abate For the Writ shall be brought by the Heir of the Survivor of the said two Daughters because they have that remainder as purchasors XXXIII Stuckly and Sir John Thynns Case Mich 9 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THo Stuckly Administrator of the Goods and Chattels of one Tho. Curties Alderman of London brought Debt upon an Obligation against Sir John Thynn and demanded of him 1000 l. Et modo ad hunc diem venerunt Tam praefatus Tho. Stucklie quam praedict Johannes Thynn Et super hoc dies datus est usque Oct. c. in statu quonunc c. salvis c. At which day the Defendant made default and thereupon the Plaintiff prayed his Iudgment against the Defendant But the Opinion of the Court was That he could not have it but was put to process over because Dies Datus is not so strong as a Continuance XXXIV Luke and Eves Case Pasch 10 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin by Luke against Eve The Defendant Avowed because that the Iury at such a Leet did present That the Plaintiff was a Resiant within the Precinct of the said Leet c. and that the Plaintiff was warned to appear there and notwithstanding that made default For which he was Amerced by the Steward there to 5 s. And so for that Amercement he avowed the taking c. The Plaintiff in bar of the Avowry pleaded That at the time of the said Leet holden he was not a Resiant within the Precinct of the said Leet Vpon which they were at Issue And it was found for the Avowant Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Avowant to have a Retorn XXXV Mich. 14 Eliz. Rott 1120. In the Common Pleas. THe Abbot and Covent of York Leased to J.S. certain Lands at Will and afterwards by Deed Indented under their Covent Seal reciting That whereas J.S. held of them certain Lands at Will they granted and demised that Land to the said J.S. to hold for life rendring the ancient Rent And by the same Indenture granted the Reversion of the same Land to a stranger for life It was holden by the Court clear That an Estate for life accrueth unto J.S. by way of Confirmation and the remainder unto the stranger depending upon the Estate created by the Confirmation XXXVI Sir Francis Carews Case Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SIr Nicholas Carew seised of the Mannor of A. of which Mannor B. held certain Lands B. is disseissed by C. C. assures the same to Sir Nicholas Carew who is attainted of Treason by which Attainder the Mannor and Land cometh to King Henry 8th who thereof dieth seised and the same descends to King Edward the 6th who grants the same Mannor to the Lord Darcy who grants the same to Queen Mary who grants the same to Francis Carew Son of Nicholas Carew who by Fine assures the same to the Lord Darcy the Proclamations pass and the 5 years pass she who hath right to the Lands whereof the Desseisin was made being for all that time a Feme Covert And therefore the Fine did not bar her But because that the King was entituled to the Land by a double matter of Record and by the descent from Hen. the 8th to Ed. the 6th And also because a Seignory is reserved to the King upon the Grant made by King Edward the 6th to the Lord Darcy The Iustices were all of Opinion That the Entry of the Heir of the Disseisee was not lawful upon the Patentee of the Queen 2 Len. 122. but that she ought to be Relieved by way of Petition XXXVII Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man brought an Action of Trespass against another for chasing of his Ewes being great with Lambs so as by such driving of them he lost his Lambs The Defendant justified because they were in his several Damage-feasans wherefore he took them and drove them to the Pound And it was holden by the whole Court to be no Plea for although that he might take yet he cannot drive them with peril c. XXXVIII Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. More Rep. 16 23. THe Case was A. made a Lease to B. for life and further grants unto him That it shall be lawful for him to take Fewel upon the premisses Proviso That he do not cut any great Trees It was holden by the Court That if the Lessee cutteth any great Trees that he shall be punished in Waste but in such case 1 Len. 117. the Lessor shall not re-enter because that Proviso is not a Condition but only a Declaration and Exposition of the Extent of the Grant of the Lessor in that behalf And it was holden also by the Court That Lessee for life or for years by the Common Law cannot take Fewel but of Bushes and small wood and not of Timber-Trees But if the Lessor in his Lease granteth Fireboot expresly if the Lessee cannot have sufficient Fewel as above c. he may take great Trees XXXIX Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Roll. 787. IN Trespass upon an Evidence given to the Iury at the Bar the Case appeared to be thus Land was given to A. in tail the remainder in Fee to his Sisters being his Heirs at the Common Law A. made a Deed in this manner viz. I the said A. have given granted and confirmed for a certain piece of Mony c. without the words of Bargained Sold And the Habendum was to the Feoffee with warranty against A. and his Heirs And a Letter of Attorny was to make Livery and Seisin And the Deed was in this manner To all Christian People c. And the Deed was enrolled within one month after the making of it And the Deed was Indented although that the words of the Deed were in the form of a Deed Poll And after 4 months after the delivery of the Deed the Attorny made Livery of Seisin A. died without Issue and the Sisters entred and the Feoffee ousted them of the Land and thereupon they brought an Action of Trespass And the Opinion of the whole Court was for the Plaintiff for here is not any Discontinuance for the Conveyance is by Bargain and Sale and not by Feoffment because the Livery comes too late after the Inrollment and then the Warranty shall not hurt them And although that in the Deed there be not any word of Indenture and also that the words are in the first person Yet in as much as the Parchment is Indented 2 Roll. 787. and both the parties have put their Seals to it it is sufficient Also It was clearly agreed by the Court That the words Give for Mony Grant for Mony Confirm for Mony Agree for Mony Covenant for Mony If the Deed be duly Inrolled that the Lands pass both by the Statute of Vses and by the Statute of Inrollments as well as upon the words of Bargain and Sale. And by Catline Wray and Whiddon the party ought to take by way
of Bargain and Sale and he hath not election to take the Land by way of Livery But when all is in one Deed and takes effect equally together in such case the Grantee hath Election but here in this Case the Bargain and Sale the Deed being Inrolled doth prevent the Livery and taketh his full effect before And by Wray and Catline If he in the Reversion upon a Lease for years grants his Reversion to his Lessee for years by words of Dedi Concessi Feoffavi and a Letter of Attorny is made to make Livery and Seisin the Donee cannot take by the Livery for that the Lessee hath the Reversion presently XL. Mich. 14 Eliz. IN an Ejectione Firmae the Case upon Evidence appeared to be thus The Bishop of Rochester Anno 4 E. 6. Leased to B. for years rendring Rent and afterwards granted the Reversion to C. for 99 years rendring the ancient Rent To have from the day of the Lease without impeachment of Waste which Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter But B. did not Attorn And for default of Attornment It was holden by the whole Court That the Lease was void for it is made by way of grant of a Reversion and to pass as a Reversion But by Catline If the Bishop had granted the Reversion and also demised the Land for 99 years it should pass as a Lease to begin first after the former Lease determined And as to the Attornment it was given in Evidence That B. after the notice of the Grant to C. spake with C. to have a new Lease from him because he had in his Farm but 8 years to come but they could not agree upon the price And the Iustices were of Opinion That that was an Attornment because he had admitted the said C. to have power to make a new Lease unto him Also the said B. being in Company with one R. seeing the said C. coming towards him said to the said R. See my Landlord meaning the said C. Bromley Sollicitor That is no Attornment being spoken to a stranger Barham contrary because he was present And it was held by the whole Court to be a good Attornment But it was holden That if the Attornment was not before that the Bishop was translated to Winchester That the Lease should be void and although that the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter was before the Attornment so as no Estate had vested in C. yet it is good enough for the assent of the Dean and Chapter is sufficient whether it be before or after by Catline Southcote and Whiddon Wray contrary XLI Mich. 14 Eliz. THe King seised of a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant a Stranger presents and his Clerk is in by 6 months The King grants the Mannor with all Advowsons appendant to it to B. The Incumbent dieth The Grantee may present For the Advowson was always appendant and the Inheritance thereof passeth to the Grantee and is not made disappendant by the usurpation as in the case of a common person for the King cannot be put out of possession But the Patentee shall not have a Quare Imped of the first disturbance for that presentment doth not pass to him being a thing in Action without mention of it in his Grant. And if the Patentee bringeth a Quare Impedit of the second Avoydance he shall make his Title by the presentment of the King not making mention of the usurpation yet if the Bishop presenteth for Lapse in the case of a common person he ought to make mention of it for that is his Title to the Presentment c. XLII Humfrey and Humfrey's Case Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BEtween Humfrey and Humfrey the Case was That the Defendant in Debt after Iudgment aliened his Land and the Plaintiff sued forth Execution upon the new Statute And the Court of the Request awarded him to the Fleet because that he sued forth Execution Whereupon the Iustices of the Common Pleas awarded a Habeas Corpus and discharged the Plaintiff It was said by Bendloes Serjeant That the Chancery after Iudgment could not enjoyn the party that he shall not sue forth Execution for if they do the party shall have his remedy as above XLIII Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Man seised of Copyhold Lands Deviseth a certain parcel of them to his Wife for life the remainder to his Brother and his Heirs And afterwards in the presence of 3 persons of the Court said to them I have made my Will and I have appointed all things in my Will as I will have it And afterwards he said And here I surrender all my Copyhold Lands into your hands accordingly And it was moved If all his Copyhold Lands should be to his Wife or by those which were specified in the Will. And the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Surrender is restrained by the Will so as no more passeth to the Wife upon the whole matter but that which is mentioned in the Will and the general words shall not enlarge the matter XLIV Hill. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LAnds were devised to the Mayor Chamberlain and Governors of the Hospital of St. Bartholomew in London whereas in truth they are Incorporated by another name yet the Devise is good by Weston and Dyer which Manwood also granted because it shall be taken according to the intent of the Devisor And it was said by Weston If Lands be devised to A. eldest Son of B. although that his name be W. yet the Devise to him is good because there is sufficient certainty c. XLV Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A. seised of Lands deviseth the same to his Wife for life the remainder to his three younger Sons and to the Heirs of their bodies begotten equally to be divided amongst them by even portions and if one of them die then the other two which survive shall be next Heirs The Devisor dieth One of the Sons dieth and by Dyer and Weston Iustices The 3 Brothers were Tenants in Common in remainder But contrary it is where such a Devise is made between them To be divided by my Executors c. there they are Ioynt-Tenants until the division is made but here although the words are Equally to be divided the same is not intended of a Division in fact and possession but of the Interest and Title For if a Man bringeth a Praecipe quod reddat de una parte Manerii de D. in 7 parts to be divided it is not intended divided in Possession but divided in Interest and Title And it was said by the said Iustices That although one of the Brothers dieth the two surviving Brothers have his part by purchase and not by descent and they are Ioynt-Tenants of it And this was the Case of one Webster and Katherine his Wife the late Wife of John Bradbury XLVI Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Lessee for years of the
the Land descends to her and her Sister as unto one moyety of the Land the Lease is determined but not as to the other moyety Whiddon Iustice Where a Devise is for the benefit of a stranger there the Heir shall take by the Devise and not by descent As if a Lease be made for years the remainder to the Heir there the Heir shall take the Land by the Devise Catline She hath it be Descent and not by the Devise But if he deviseth the Land to the Heir in tail with this That he shall pay a certain sum of Mony unto another there the Heir shall take by the Devise for the benefit which may accrue to the stranger and not by descent for otherwise the Will should not be performed But where the Estate of the Heir is altered by the Will nor any benefit doth accrue unto another after that the Lands come to the hands of the Heir in that case he shall have the Land by descent And so here in this case for as much as the Devise is That the Daughter shall enter they both being but one Heir to their Father shall have the Land by descent and the words of the Will That he shall enter into the moiety shall be void as if the Devise had been to the Heir for life there the same is void because the Fee-simple which descendeth to her doth drown the particular estate for life And therefore in the principal case here the Vncle shall have but the moyety of the moyety which is so devised and the other Sister shall have the other moyety of the Land and as to that moyety which is devised to the Wife for years the same shall enure according to the Common Law that the Vncle shall have the moyety of that and the other Sister the other moyety LIV. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was moved to the Court by Lovelace Serjeant A Man Covenants with another to make and execute an estate of such Lands as should descend to him from his Father and Grandfather by a certain day the same Lands to be of the clear yearly value of 40 Marks And the Question which he moved to the Iustices was That if the party had more Lands which came to him from his Grandfather and Father than did amount to the yearly value of 40 Marks If he was to make assurance of all the Lands or of so much thereof only as amounted to the value of 40 Marks And Manwood Iustice conceived That he should make assurance of Lands only which were of the value of 40 Marks per annum For the words such which do not go so largely as if he had said All my Lands which shall descend or to me be descended for then the yearly value were but a demonstration and all his Lands ought to be assured But here the Intent of the Indenture cannot be taken otherwise than to have but an Assurance of so much Land as if he had said Of such Lands and Tenements as were my Grandfathers and Fathers amounting to 40 Marks by the year for there by those words he shall have but 40 Marks by the year Lovelace It hath been taken That where the Queen made a Lease of all her Lands in such a Town amounting to the yearly value of 40 l. that that valuation is not a demonstration and shall not abridge the Grant precedent to have all in the Town which should be of the value of 40 l. but her Grant shall be taken and construed according to the words precedent Manwood The Common case of assurance upon a settlement of Marriage is That he shall stand seised of so much of his Land as shall be of the clear yearly value of 40 Marks If the marriage take effect The Question hath been If they to whom the assurance is made may enter into any part of the Land at their election and take that which is the best Land to the value of 40 Marks per annum and hold the same in severalty or if they shall be only Tenants in Common with the other And also it hath been a Question Whether they may choose one Acre in one place and another Acre in another place and so through the whole Land where they please because the Grant shall be taken strong against him that granteth But I conceive that it should be a hard case to make such Election of Acres But it was said by some Serjeant at the Bar That if a Man granteth to another to take 20 Trees in his Lands that the Grantee may cut down one Tree in one place and another in another place Manwood agreed that Case but of the other Case the Court doubted of it The principal case was adjourned LV. Vernon and Vernons Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte That in the Case of Dower between Vernon and Vernon and the Argument of it the Plaintiff would have been Nonsuit Dyer Iustice said It should be an ill President if a Nonsuit should be after Demurrer And therefore he said That for his part he would not agree that any Nonsuit should be upon it but he said he would be advised and take better Consideration of it If the Nonsuit should be awarded or not And afterwards at another day Manwood and Dyer took a difference where the Nonsuit is the same Term and where in another Term and said It is like unto the Case where a Man would Wage his Law and is present ready to do it that there the Plaintiff cannot be Nonsuit because it is in the same Term but he shall be barred But in another Term afterwards he might be Nonsuit if the Defendant take day over to wage his Law until another Term and so they said it should be in this case LVI Sir Peter Philpots Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was moved by Meade Serjeant to the Iustices of the Court of Common Pleas viz. That Sir Peter Philpot Knight seised in Fee of divers Mannors and Lands suffered a Recovery and made a Feoffment thereof unto divers persons To the use of himself for life the remainder to his right Heirs And after the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Wills He devised all his said Mannors and Land to his Wife for life and it was expressed in his Will That he could not devise all his Lands by reason of the Statute of 32 H. 8. that his Will was That his Wife should have so much which might be devised by the Laws of the Land And there was another Clause in the said Will That his Feoffees should stand seised of the same Mannors and Lands after the death of his Wife To the use of one Hurlock and others for years for the payment of his Debts and for the raising of Portions for the preferment of his Daughters in Marriage And further by his said Will he willed That if the Law would not bear it That Hurlock and the others should have the Interest Then he
are to have advantage of it yet the Lord shall not avow for not repairing of it without alledging that the Bridge was in decay And so when the Tenure is to Cover his Hall he shall not Avow without alledging that his Hall needed Reparations And so in the principal Case here he ought to alledge that there was a present necessity for making of the By-Law for it may be that there was not any Sheep within the Mannor when the By-Law was made and then there was no cause that it should be made And in the like manner as it hath been said of the Common Law That certainty ought to be shewed so shall it be by the Statute Laws As if Tenant for life makes default if one prayeth to be received for the default of the Tenant for life he ought to shew that he hath the Reversion and that he bringeth his Action by reason thereof And as it hath been said of the Common Law and Statute Law so it shall be said of Custom As in 44 E. 3 where the Parishioners prescribe to make By-Laws and that they made such an Ordinance That for every Acre of Land or for every Beast every one should pay for the Reparations of the Church c. there it may be said in Avowry that the Church wanted Reparation And so where a Tax and Levy is to make a Wall against the See there if the party will justifie the levying of the Tax or Levy he must say That there was need of it otherwise the same cannot be levied But as to the ability of a person he shall be enabled by Intendment As if an Obligation be made by a Man or a Woman in an Action brought upon the Bond he shall not be compelled to say That the Man was of full age or that the Woman was a single Woman for that shall be intended until the contrary be shewed But by Statute Law if a Man pleads a Grant it shall be otherwise As upon the Statute of 1 R. 3. If he plead a Feoffment or a Grant of Cestuy que Use he must plead That he was of full age out of prison of sound memory and within the 4 Seas And so where a Pardon was made in the time of King Ed. the 14th to all but to those who were with Queen Margaret there if he will take advantage of the Pardon he must plead That he was not with the said Queen And if a Man plead a Feoffment of J.S. at the Common Law it shall be good and if he were within age it shall be shewed on the other side But if a Man pleadeth a Feoffment by Custom and the other saith that the Feoffor was within age and the Plaintiff replyeth That an Enfant by the Custom may make a Feoffment the same is not good but a Departure for he ought to have shewed that at the beginning in his Declaration And in 37 H. 6. Where a Man pleaded a Devise and it was shewed that the Devisor was within age there the Plaintiff need not say that the Custom is That an Enfant may devise for that is a Departure Another matter of the Custom which they have alledged is That they may make By-Laws for the better Ordering and they have not taken averment that this Ordinance was either better or worse and if it be not better then they have no cause to make the By-Law If a Feoffment be made causa Matrimonii praeloquuti it shall not be intended that the Feoffment was for any other cause than Marriage And if a Woman brings a Writ of Dower and the Defendant pleads a Lease for life made by the Husband it shall not be intended that that Lease was in allowance of her Dower according to the Statute if it be not expresly shewed And so If Cestuy que Use in tail makes a Lease for life it shall not be intended that Cestuy que Vie is alive unless a special Averment be taken That he is yet alive And so here it doth not appear that this is the better Order nor that the Lands are several or lie in Common so as by no means or Circumstance it can appear if it be the better or not Another cause wherefore the pleading is not sufficient is Because he saith Vpon a pain of Forfeiture to the Lord for the time being and he hath not alledged in fact that the Lord Cromwell who was Lord of the Mannor in Anno 6 E. 6. was Lord in the 13th year of the Reign of the Queen that now is and without shewing that shall not be intended As in 7 H. 7. A Man pleads a Feoffment and that J.S. was seised and did enfeoffe him that is not good but he ought to plead that he being so seised made the Feoffment for it shall not be intended that his seisin continued until the time of the Feoffment without shewing of it And so where a Man pleads That J.S. was seised of a Reversion granted it he ought to plead And that he being so seised granted it And so where an Attornment is pleaded for if he was not seised at the time of the Attornment the Attornment was not good And so where a Man will plead a Surrender he shall shew that he who Surrendreth and he to whom a Surrender is made were seised Quaere If the one or the other were not seised one of the Term and the other of the Reversion whether the Surrender be not good And 31 H. 6. If a Man will plead a Lease by Feoffees to use he shall say And that so seised they made the Lease And see 6 7 10 11 H. 7. Where Cestuy que Use makes a Feoffment averment shall be taken that at the time of the Lease that the Feoffees were seised to the use of the Lessor And because that here it is not shewed nor alledged that the Lord Cromwell is now Lord of the Mannor it shall not be so intended Also for divers other causes I conceive that the Avowry is insufficient For he hath shewed that a By-Law was made but doth not shew when it was made nor for what time it was to continue And it is not shewed Whether the same were made for the better ordering of the Lands which the Lord held joyntly or in common with others or which he held in his own Right alone And as to the Prescription I conceive that the same is not good because it is against reason and not ex rationabili causa For if one Man keeps the Law and another Man breaks the Law yet according as they have alledged this Custom to be he may be distrained who hath not offended and his Cattel taken for the Offence done by the Cattel of another Man and it is against reason that any one should be punished for the default or offence of another But the Custom of Borough English is good and so is the Custom of Gavelkind because that every Son is as good a Gentleman as the eldest and therefore those
months given to the Patron that he provide another Clerk in the mean time And there is a good Case in 14 H. 7. which was long debated Where the Ordinary commanded the Clerk to come to him afterwards to be examined because the Ordinary had then other business And there the better Opinion of the Book is That it was a good Plea for the Ordinary That he did not refuse the Clerk but that the Clerk did not return to him again and that the 6 months passed so as he made the Collation and that the Patron made his presentation too late so as he had not convenient time to examine him Then in the Case at Bar It was moved That when the Ability and Disability of the Clerk came in Question by whom the same should be tryed because in the Case here the Bishop of York was a party to the Suit Whether by the Metropolitan of York or by the Metropolitan of Canterbury And he said That as he conceived the Tryal of the Ability should be by the Metropolitan of York and not of Canterbury But he said That if the party in whom the disability was alledged was dead so as he could not be examined the Tryal of his Ability or Disability should be by the Country as it appeareth in the Book of 39 E. 3. Manwood Iustice The Cure of Souls is to be regarded and therefore if an Enfant be to make a Presentation the same shall not be stayed for his Nonage and therefore if in such case he doth surcease and shall not present his Clerk the Law which regardeth more the Cure of Souls than the Enfancy will permit that the Ordinary shall collate to the Church if a Presentment thereto be not made within the six months And he said That if the Patron should present one but a week before the end of the six months and the Ordinary should refuse him for disability If the Patron should have other six months then next after he might then likewise present an Enfant or other disabled person to the Ordinary and so detract the time by fraud and so the Lapse by such great fraud should never devolve to the Ordinary and so the Cure should be unserved And so the Issue would be and arise upon the conveniency of the time And as to that which hath been said concerning the Ability and Disability of the Clerk I conceive the same shall be tryed by the Metropolitan of Canterbury and not by the Metropolitan of York Mounson to that intent and he said There is a good case in 14 H. 7. 21. which is a short case and not the Case which hath been vouched by which it appeareth that the presentment that shall be within 6 months shall be accompted from the time of the Avoydance and not from the time of the presentment by the whole Court And there it is said That the Ordinary shall give notice to the Patron if he be a Lay-man of the Disability of the Clerk but not if he be a Spiritual person But if the party Presentee be Criminous of that the Patron shall take as well notice as the Ordinary And afterwards the Lord Dyer caused the Record to be read and it did not appear therein at what day the Presentment was made to the Ordinary which ought to have been shewed for the great point of the Case doth rest here upon the time of the Presentment if it were before a week that the six months were ended or not Also the Ordinary saith in his Bar That the Clerk was insufficient and that he gave notice to the Plaintiff and that Nullam idoneam personam praesentavit And the Court said That that was no good manner of pleading but it had been better if it had been Nullam etiam personam idoneam praesentavit and the first form would be a Jeosail Manwood said That the time of the notice given to the Patron ought to be alledged because if the Patron sends his Clerk within a month after the Avoydance and the Ordinary will not give notice to the Patron in the mean time the same shall not be any default in the Patron And as to the notice given to the Patron he said the same was well pleaded and it shall be intended that it was given to the person of the Patron And as to the words in the Declaration scil tunc vacantem they are but void words because nothing is spoken before of any time And the Incumbent pleaded the same Plea as the Ordinary pleaded And Dyer asked If the Incumbent were Person impersonee for that none should plead that Plea but he who is Parson in fact and Incumbent LXVII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was That an Information was exhibited into the Court of Common Pleas for the Queen and the party upon a Penal Law And a Subpoena issued forth against two one of them was served with the Writ and the other not and now a new Subpoena was prayed against him who was not served And Dyer Iustice conferred with his Companions and the Prothonotary and demanded of them If the Plaintiff might Exhibit an Information in this Court Who answered That he might for this is a Court of Record and the Statute Law limiteth That it may be exhibited in any of the Queens Courts of Record Then he demanded of them If a Subpoena lay out of this place And Whetley Prothonotary said That it did Dyer said It is a strange thing to have an Attachment at the first day Manwood said In this Court it is the common usage upon an Audita Querela to award a Venire facias against the Conusee Dyer said to the Prothonotaries Advise with your selves against the morrow What Process hath been used to issue forth upon the Presidents of Information which have been before this time If a Subpoena shall be awarded And afterwards it was said by Gawdy who moved for it That he might have a Subpoena upon this matter LXVIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte A special Verdict was found at the Bar and the Issue was taken upon a Traverse And Dyer Iustice said That a special Verdict could not be taken upon a Traverse but precisely according to the Issue and so it was agreed by the whole Court here but some Serjeants at the Bar did doubt of it LXIX Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was thus King Henry the 8th was seised of certain Lands and by his Letter Patents granted the same to Thomas Holt for life the remainder to John Holt his Son who in truth was a Bastard and the Letters Patents were Ex certa scientia mero motu c. And because the Plaintiff did suppose that the same was not a good Purchase he tooke a Lease from the Queen of the Lands intending to make void the Letters Patents because the Defendant was nullius filius And what difference there was in such a Case in Case of the
him any other surety for his Debt he is contented so to do And John Stampe offered to the said P. the said B. and C. and he accepted the same and at the request of the said John Stampe granted his Interest to them 2 Feb. 22 Eliz. P. having notice of the Grant before made to the said G. Vpon which G. enformed against P. upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. It was holden in this Case by Periam and Meade Iustice That P. was not within the penalty of the Statute For P. granted his Interest to B. and C. at the suit and at the request of John Stampe who was the Mortgager for assurance of his Debt which he ought to them And therefore it shall not be intended that that Grant was made for any maintenance or for any unlawful cause against the Statute And also John Stampe who granted unto P. had possession and received the Issues and Profits of the said Lands for a whole year before the Grant notwithstanding that he was not in possession by a whole year next before the day of the date of the Grant. Godb. 450. As if a Man be in possession or hath received the Issues and Profits for a whole year and afterwards a stranger enters upon him and hath the possession for the space of a Quarter of a year or half a year yet he who was in possession by a year before may grant his Interest without danger of the Statute c. CXX Pasch 24 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte Per totam Curiam 2 Len. 35. A man made his Will in this manner scil I Will and Bequeath my Land to A. And the name of the Devisor is not in the whole Will Yet the Devise is good enough by Averment of the name of the Devisor And for proof that the same is his Will If one lying in extremis having an intent to devise his Lands by Word makes such devise but doth not command the same to be put in writing but another without the knowledge or Commandment of the Devisor putteth it in writing in the life-time of the Devisor the same is a good Devise For it is sufficient if the Devise be reduced into writing during the life of the Devisor CXXI Pepy's Case Pasch 25 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WAste was brought by F. and his Wife against Pepy and declared That the said Pepy was seised and enfeoffed certain persons to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Wife of the Plaintiff and her Heirs The Defendant pleaded That the said Feoffment was to the use of himself and his Heirs in Fee c. absque hoc that it was to the uses as in the Count Vpon which they were at Issue And it was found by Verdict That the said Feoffment was to the uses contained in the Count but further found That the Estate of the Defendant by the Limitation of the use was priviledged with the impunity of Waste scil without Impeachment of Waste It was moved If upon that Verdict The Plaintiff should have Iudgment Anderson and Rhodes Iustices conceived That he should for that the matter in Issue is found for the Plaintiff and that is the Feoffment to uses contained in the Count and this impunity of Waste is a Forreign matter not within the Charge of the Iury and therefore the finding of the same is but matter of surplusage As if I plead a Feoffment of J. S. to which the other pleads That he did not enfeoff and the Iury find a Conditional Feoffment the Court shall not respect the finding of the Condition for it was not in Issue and no advantage shall be ever had of such a Liberty if it be not pleaded 30 H. 8. Dyer 41. In Dower the Tenant pleaded Ne unque seisi que Dower c. The Tenant pleaded That before the Coverture of the Demandant one A. was seised and gave the Land whereof Dower is demanded to the Husband of the Demandant in tail who made a Feoffment A stranger took the Demandant to Wife took back an Estate in Fee and died seised having Issue inheritable Now although upon the truth of the matter she is nâ—t Dowable de jure yet forasmuch as the parties were at Issue upon a point certain no forrein nor strange matter not in Question betwixt the parties shall be respected in the point of Iudgment But if the Defendant had pleaded it in Bar he might have foreclosed the Demandant of her Dower See 38 Ass 27. 47 E. 19. In a Praecipe quod reddat upon the default of the Tenant came one and shewed How that the Tenant who made default was but Tenant for life of the Lands in demand the Reversion in Fee to himself and prayed to be received The Demandant counterpleaded the Resceit Dicendo That the Tenant had Fee c. Vpon which Issue was taken And it was found That neither the Tenant nor he who prayed to be received had any thing in the Land. And in that Case The Court did not regard the matter which was superfluous in the Verdict For they were at Issue upon a point certain scil whether the Tenant was seised in Fee For it is confessed of the one side and of the other that he had an Estate for life and of that matter the Iury was not charged and they are not to enquire of that And so it is found against the Demandant by which the Resceit was granted See 7 H. 6. 20. The parties were at Issue upon a Dying seised which is found by Verdict but the Iury find further That the other party made continual Claim The said continual Claim shall not be respected in point of Iudgment because it was not pleaded in Avoidance of the Disceit c. Windham Iustice to the contrary because it appeareth to us upon the Verdict That the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action and therefore he shall not have Iudgment As in Detinue the Plaintiff declares upon a Baylment by his own hands The Defendant pleads Ne Detinue pas the Iury find the Detinue but upon Baylment by another hand In that case notwithstanding that the Detinue be found yet the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment But Anderson Rhodes and Periam conceived That in the principal Case Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff For in no case the party shall have advantage of that liberty of impunity of Waste if he doth not plead it And the Iurors are not to meddle with any matter which is not in issue and if they do It is but matter of surplusage and to no purpose and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff See the Number Roll Pasch 25 Eliz. Rot. 602. CXXII Skipwith's Case Pasch 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Trespass It was found by a special Verdict Godbolt 14 143. Co. of Copy-holds 94. That the Lands were Copy-hold Lands That the Custom of the Mannor was That Quaelibet Foemina Viro Co-operta poterit
devise Lands of which she was seised of an Estate of Inheritance in Fee simple according to the Custom to her Husband And also Surrender the same in the presence of the Steward and 6 other of the Tenants And it was further found That one J.S. was seised of the Copy-hold Lands wherein the Trespass was And that he had Issue 2 Daughters and died seised of the said Lands And that after his Decease his two Daughters entred into the said Lands and afterwards they both took Husbands And that afterwards one of the said Daughters made a Will in writing and by her said Will in the presence of the Steward and six of the Tenants she Devised her part of the said Copy-hold Lands to her Husband and his Heirs and at the next Court surrendred the said Copy-hold Lands in the presence of the Steward and six other of the Tenants to the uses in her Will expressed and shortly after she died and that after her death her Husband was admitted to the said part of her Lands who continued the possession thereof And the Husband of the other Daughter and his Wife entred upon him Vpon whom he re-entred And the Husband brought Trespass This Case was argued at the Bar by Rhodes And he said That the Custom was not good neither for the Devise nor for the Surrender First for the incertainty of the Estate what Estate she might Devise for that is not expressed in the Custom but generally that she might Devise her Copyhold Lands of Inheritance without expressing for what Estate And secondly the Custom is not good for that it is against reason that the Wife should surrender to the use of her Husband And that a Custom to devise is not good where it is incertain he vouched many Cases As 13 E. 3. tit Dum fuit infra aetatem 3. The Tenant said That the Lands lay in the County of Dorset where the Custom is That an Enfant might make a Grant or a Feoffment when he could number 12 d. and because it is incertain when he could do it It was holden to be a void Custom So 19 E. 2. tit Gard. 127. In a Ravishment of Ward It was alledged that the Custom was That when an Enfant could measure an Ell of Cloath or number 12 d. that he should be out of Ward And it was holden to be a void Custom for the incertainty Also he said That in the principal Case the Custom was void for that it was against reason that the Wife should surrender to her Husband for every Surrender is a Gift and a Woman cannot give unto her Husband for the Wife hath not any disposing Will but the Will of her Husband only And therefore the Case is in 21 E. 3. That if the Husband be seised of Lands in the right of his Wife and he maketh a Feoffment in Fee of the Lands and the Wife being upon the Lands doth disagree and saith She will not depart with the Land during her life yet the Feoffment is a good Feoffment and shall bind the Wife during the life of the Husband And see 3 E. 3. Br. tit Devise 43. That a Feme Covert cannot Devise to her Husband for that should be the Act of the Husband to convey the Lands to himself And whereas the Case in 29 E. 3. was Objected against him where the Case was That a Woman being seised of Land deviseable took a Husband and had Issue by him and the Wife Devised her Lands to her Husband for his life and died and a Writ of Waste was afterwards brought against him And it was there holden That the Writ did lie He said That that Case did make rather for him than against him for that Case proves that the Husband did not take the Land by vertue of the Devise in his own right but that he held the Lands having Issue by the Wife as Tenant by the Courtesie and so under another Title and therefore it appeareth that the Writ of Waste was there brought against him as Tenant by the Courtesie Also he said That the Devise was void by the Statute of 34 H. 8. Cap. 5. where it is Enacted That Wills and Testaments made of any Lands Tenements c. by Women Coverts shall not be good or effectual in the Law and he said That that Statute did extend to Copyhold Lands But as to that all the Iustices did agree That Copyhold Lands were not within the words of that Statute But Anderson said That the Equity of that Act did extend to Copyholds And further Anderson said That the Prescription or Custom in the principal Case was not good for it is layed to be That Quaelibet Foemina Viro Co-operta poterit and it ought to be potest and by the Custom have used to Devise to the Husband And a Prescription must be in a thing done and not in posse Also he said That the Custom if it were good is not well pursued For the Custom is that she may Devise and Surrender in the presence of the Steward and six Tenants and that must be intended to be done all at one time for the words of a Custom are to be performed if it may be but in the principal case the Devise is laid to be at one time and the Surrender at another time and so it is not in pursuance of the Custom But to that it was not answered But then it was said Admit that the Custom to devise and the Devise were not good yet the Action did not lie against the Defendant because that the Husband was admitted and his Entry into the Land was countenanced by a lawful Ceremony and also he was Tenant in Common with the other Husband by such Entry It was adjourned CXXIII Rosse's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass brought by Rosse for breaking of his Close and beating of his Servant and carrying away of his Goods Post 94. Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That Sir Thomas Bromley Chancellor of England was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff and one A. which A. assigned his moyety to Cavendish by whose Commandment the Defendant entred It was moved That that Tenancy in Common betwixt the Plaintiff and him in whose right the Defendant justified could not be given in Evidence and so it could not be found by Verdict but it ought to have been pleaded at the beginning But the whole Court were clear of another Opinion and that the same might be given in Evidence well enough It was further moved against the Verdict That the same did not extend to all the points in the Declaration but only to the breaking of the Close without enquiry of the battery c. And for that cause it was clearly holden by the Court That the Verdict was void And a Venire facias de novo was awarded CXXIV Absolon and Andertons Case Mich. 25 26 Eliz. Rot. 479. In the Kings
been Objected that J. cannot be said to die within the Term because by the descent of the Fee the Term is extinct or suspended and so not in esse at the time of the death of J. therefore nothing did accrue to G. because J. did not die within the Term but that is but a Conceit for the intent of Vincent was that the Heir should not meddle with the Land Devised as Heir until the 31 years be expired and words During or Within the Term extend unto the time of the Term and not unto the Estate And although that the Term as to J. be extinct yet the right or possession of G. shall stand and shall be expectant upon the death of J. before the expiration of the said 31 years As A. leaseth for life to B. and afterwards granteth the Reversion with Warranty to C. who releaseth to B. in Fee who is impleaded in a Praecipe although now B. hath a Feesimple yet during his life he shall not recover in value And in the principal Case This further Interest limited to G. cannot be extinct or prevented See Plow Com. Welden and Elkingtons Case Beaumont contrary And that the Term is extinct because he hath the said Term in his own right and not as Executor but as a Man trusted with payment of Debts and Legacies But the same Term which J. had G. cannot have for some of the years are expired and the words of the Will are He shall have such Term but here the Term is utterly extinct As where a Rent Common or Way c. descendeth upon the Ter-Tenant 2 H. 4. A Prior had an Annuity out of a Parsonage and afterwards he purchaseth the Advowson which is afterwards appropriated to his House now the Annuity is extinct and although the Prior afterwards presenteth to the Advowson yet it is-not revived Br. Extinguishment 54. A Man hath a Lease for years as Executor and purchaseth the Inheritance his Term is extinct yet it is Assets c. And it is said in Bracebridges Case Plow Com. 419. 14 Eliz. that Parson Patron and Ordinary Lease for years the Glebe Lands of the Parsonage the Parson dieth the Lessee for years becomes Parson and dieth his Executors shall not have the residue of the said Term for the Term is extinct 1 Inst 338. b. 2 Roll. 472. although he had the Term in his own right and the Freehold in the right of his Church and so in several Capacities And it was holden by some that if the Term for years comes to the Lessor as Executor who dieth the Term is revived Manwood Chief Baron asked this Case of those who Argued A Lease is made for 21 years Proviso That the Lessee shall suffer the Lessor to enjoy the same or to take the profits thereof during the life of the Lessor or so long as the Lessor shall live if the same were a good Proviso or not Pigot Conceived that the Devise to G. was a new Devise and not dependant upon the first Devise to J. nor any parcel of it but this second Devise to G. did take away the absolute Devise to J. before and qualified it so as it determined with his death The words Such Estate shall be intended an Estate to G. to be granted from the death of the Testator Land is Devised to A. and his Heirs and he if dieth without Heir that it shall remain to another the same is no good Devise But a Devise to one and his Heirs and if J.S. dieth living the Devisee B. shall have it the same is good for it is a new Devise and an Estate created de Novo and doth not depend as a Remainder upon the first Devise or upon the first Estate devised as the Case is 29 Ass 17. Br. Condition 111. and Devise 16. So here are several Estates limited one to J. and another to G. which Estate of G. cannot be extinct by unity of possession in J. These words If he die within the Term shall be construed for Effluxion of the time of 31 years and not for the Termination of the Term. Cooper Serjeant to the contrary J. took this Term as purchasor and not as Executor for that no Term was in the Testator See 14 Eliz. Dyer 309. Granmer's Case G. shall have such Term and Interest as before I have willed unto J. Manwood Such Term that is to say The Residue of the Term. Now at another day the Barons delivered their Opinions that the Plaintiff should recover and that was now G. to whom the second Term was devised And by Manwood in Construction of Wills all the words of the Will are to be compared together so as there by not any repugnancy between all the parts of the Will or between any of them so that all may stand And the Intent of the Testator was That his Son J. should have the Lands for 31 years if he so long lived and if he died within the Term That G. his Son should have such Term. And he held That the same was in J. an Estate by Limitation and he could not sell it nor could it be extinct by Act in Law or of the Law. It was a Lease determinable by his death and so shall be the Lease of G. determinable upon his own death and G. upon the death of J. within the Term shall have the residue of the number of the years limited by the former Devise scil so many in number as were not expired in the life of J. who was first Executor to that special purpose Gent Baron to the same intent here he hath the same Term as Executor and it is not like a-Term devised which the party hath as Legatee but in our Case he hath only authority in this Lease as Executor and the Land was tied to the time and the Authority and when the same determines in his person then the Land departs from him to G. who was a special Executor to that purpose as J. was before And G. had not the same Term which J. had but such a Term. Clerk Baron acc And he said that the Will was further that if G. died before his Debts paid and his Will performed and the Iury finding all the special matter concluded that if the Term limited to J. be extinct then they find for the Defendant And he held clearly that J. had this Term of 21 years as Executor and that by the discent of the Inheritance to J. the Term as to himself was gone But as to Creditors and to the Legatees it shall be said in esse and be Assets in his hands And because that the Term as to that purpose shall be said in esse he died within the Term within the intent of the said Will. And this word Term is Vox polysema Terminus status Terminus temporis Terminus loci And in our Case the word Term hath reference to time and not to estate for the Testator did respect the time in which his Will might be performed
Cantarista And it hath always been adjudged That a Chauntry by Reputation is within the Statute of 1 E. 6. CLXV Brian and Cawsen's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass by Brian and his Wife and others against Cawsen It was found by Special Verdict 2 Len. 68. That W. Gardiner was seised in Fee according to the Custom of the Mannor of C. of certain Lands and surrendred them to the use of his last Will by which he Devised them in this manner scil I Bequeath to Jo. Th. my House and Lands in M. called Lacks and Stone To Ste. Th. my House and Lands called Stokes and Newmans And to Roger Th. my House and Lands called Lakins and Brox. Moreover If the said Jo. Ste. or Roger live till they be of lawful age and have Issue of their bodies lawfully begotten Then I give the said Houses and Lands to them and their heirs in manner aforesaid to give and sell at their pleasure But if it fortune one of them to die without Issue of his body lawfully begotten Then I will that the other Brothers or Brother have all the said Houses and Lands in manner aforesaid And if it fortune the Three to die without Issue in like manner Then I Will That all the said Houses and Lands be sold by my Executor or his Assignee and the Mony to be given to the Poor The Devisor dieth Jo. Ste. and Roger are admitted according to the intent of the Will Roger dieth within age without Issue John and Ste. are admitted to his part John comes of full age and hath Issue J. and surrenders his part of the whole and his estate therein to the use of Ste. and his Heirs who is admitted accordingly Ste. comes of full age John the Father dieth Ste. dieth without Issue J. the Son as Cosen and Heir of Ste. is admitted according to the Will and afterwards dieth without Issue The Wives of the Plaintiffs are Heirs to him and are admitted to the Lands called Lacks and Stone and to the moyety of the Lands called Lakins and Brox parcel of the place where c. praetextu quorum they enter into all the Lands where the Trespass is done And it was found that A. the Executor died Intestate And that Cawsen the Defendant is Cosen and Heir to the said Devisor and that he as Heir entred and did the Trespass First It was agreed by all That by the first words of the Will the 3. Devisees had but an Estate for life But Fenner and Walmesley who argued for the Plaintiffs Conceived That by force of the later words scil If the said John Stephen and Roger live till they be of lawful age and have Issue of their body lawfully begotten Then I give the said Lands and Houses to them and their Heirs in manner aforesaid c. They have Fee and the words In manner aforesaid are to be referred not unto the Estate which was given by the first words which was but for life but to make them hold in severalty as the first Devisor willed and not joyntly as the words of the second Devise purported And Fenner said It hath been Resolved by good Opinions That where a Fine was levied unto the use of the Conusor and his Wife and of the Heirs of the body of the Conusor with divers Remainders over Proviso That it shall be lawful to the Survivor of them to make Leases of the said Lands in such manner as Tenant in tail might do by the Statute of 32 H. 8. although those Lands were never Demised before the Fine yet the Survivor might demise them by force of the Proviso notwithstanding the words In manner c. So if Lands be given to A. for life upon Condition the Remainder to B. in manner aforesaid these words In manner aforesaid refer unto the Estate for life limited unto A. and not unto the Condition nor unto any other Collateral manner The words If they live until they be of full age and have Issue are words of Condition and shall not be construed to such purpose to give to them by Implication an estate tail For the words subsequent are That they shall have them to them and their Heirs to give and sell at their pleasure By which it appeareth That his intent was not to make an estate tail For Tenant in tail cannot alien or dispose of his estate c. And as unto the last words And if it fortune they three to die without Issue c. these words cannot make an estate tail and the express Limitation of the Fee in the first part of the Will shall not be controverted by Implication out of the words subsequent As if Lessee for 40 years Deviseth his Lands to his Wife for 20 years and if she dieth the remnant of the Term unto another although that she survive the 20 years she shall not hold over and here the second sale appointed to be made by the Executor shall not take away the power of the first sale allowed to the Devisee's after-Issue Snagg and Shuttleworth Serjeants to the contrary And they Conceived That the Defendant hath right to two parts for no express Inheritance vests in the Devisees until full age and issue and because two of the Devisees died without Issue they never had any Inheritance in their two parts and so those two parts descended to the Defendant as Heir to the Devisor no sale being made by the Executor These words If John Stephen and Roger are to be taken distributive viz. If John live c. are to be taken distributive If John live until c. he shall have the Inheritance in his part and so of the rest As if J. have right unto Land which A. B. and C. hold in Common and J. by a Deed release to them all the same shall enure to them severally 19 H. 6. And here these later words If these three do die without Issue by that they conceived The same to be but an estate in tail And see to that purpose 35 Ass 11. 37 Ass 15. For a Man cannot declare his intent at once but in several parts all which make but one sentence And so it is said by Persay 37 Ass 15. We ought to have regard upon the whole Deed and not upon parcel And see Clark's Case 11 Eliz. Dyer 330 331. And it was said If I give Lands to one and his Heirs so long as he hath Heirs of his body it is a Feesimple determinable and not an estate in tail Quaere of that Then here the Feesimple is determined by the death of the Devisees without issue and therefore the Land ought to revert to the Heir of the Devisor especially being no person in rerum natura who can sell for the Executor before sale by him made died Intestate and if he had made an Executor yet the Executor of the Executor could not sell Which see 19 H. 8 9 10. And afterwards Resolved That no estate tail is
created by this Will but the Feesimple setled in them when they came at their lawful age and had Issue so as the residue of the Devise was void and Iudgment was given accordingly CLXVI Griffith and Agard's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Disceit by Griffith against Agard and his Wife 1 Len. 290. For that a Fine was levied of a Messuage being Ancient Demesne by which it became Frank-Fee and the Fine was levied in the life of A. Griffith Grandfather of the Plaintiff Exception was taken to the Writ because it is brought by the Plaintiff as Cosen and Heir of A. G. his Grandfather And in the beginning of the Writ the words are Si Henricus Griffith fecerit te securum without saying Cousen and heir of A. G. fecerit te securum But the Exception was not allowed For afterwards in the Writ these words are Cujus haeres ipse est See the Register 238. that it is sufficient if there be in the body of the Writ these words Cujus haeres ipse est Another Exception was taken to the Declaration in that it is alledged that the Lands were De antiquo Dominico Dominae Reginae Angliae wereas it ought to have been De antiquo Dominico Dominae Coronae suae c. The Opinion of the Court was That it was good both ways See Book Entries 100. antiquo Dominco Coronae 58. de antiquo Dominico Domini Regis CLXVII Bashpool's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 101. Stiles Rep. 148. THe Case was The Father was seised of Lands in Fee and bound himself in an Obligation and devised his Lands unto his Wife until his Son should come to the age of 21 years the Remainder to his Son in Fee and died and no other Land descended or came to the Son from the Father It was moved by Godfrey That the Heir in this case might elect to waive the Devise and to take the Land by Descent See 9 E. 4. 18. by Needham But it was the Opinion of Gawdy and Shute Iustices That the Son should be adjudged in by Descent and so bounden with the Debt CLXVIII Branthwait's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt brought by J. D. against Branthwait upon an obligation the Condition of which was That whereas J. F. claimed to have a Lease for years of the Mannor of D. made and granted to him by one W. D. If the said Branthwait keep without damage the Plaintiff from all claim and Interest to be challenged by the said J. F. de tempore in tempus during the years c. and also deliver the said Lease to the Plantiff that then c. The Defendant pleaded That the said J. F. had not any such Lease and that after the making of the said Obligation untill the Action brought the Plaintiff was not damnified ratione dimissionis praedictae Exception was taken to the same because where the words of the Condition are Keep without damage the Plaintiff from all Claim and Interest And he hath pleaded That the Plaintiff was not damnified ratione dimissionis c. But the Exception was disallowed by the Court For if he were not damnified ratione dimissionis then he was not damnified by reason of any Claim or Interest Another Exception was taken Because he could not now say there was no such Lease For it is recited in the Obligation That J. F. claimed to have a Lease and therefore by this recital he is estopped c. And see where a Recital is an Estoppel 8 R. 2. Fitz. 2 Len. 11. tit Estoppel 283. 39 E. 3. 3. Fitz. Estoppel 112. 46 E. 3. 12. It was holden by the Court That it was a good Estoppel And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXIX Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt upon an Obligation The words of the Obligation were I am content to give to W. 10 l. at Michaelmas and 10 l. at our Lady day It was holden by the Court That it was a good Obligation And it did amount to as much as I promise to pay c. It was also holden by the Court That an Action of Covenant lay upon it as well as an Action of Debt at the Election of the Plantiff And it was holden That although the Action is for 40 l. and the Declaration is 20 l. and 20 l. at two several days yet it is good enough and the Declaration is well pursuant to it And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXX The Queen and Kettell's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Queen brought a Writ de Valore Maritagii against Kettell and Counted of a Tenure in Chief The Defendant pleaded That pendant the Writ the Queen had granted to one Edmund Kettel Custodiam Maritagium of the said Defendant with whom he had Compounded It was holden by the whole Court to be no Plea for the Letters Patents were void because the Queen was deceived in her Grant for it appeareth by the Count that the Defendant before the Grant of the Queen was of full age And by the Letters Patents the Queen intended that he was within age and by the same granted Custodiam c. CLXXI. Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of Land by his Will Devised 1 Len. 31. That his Executors should sell the Lands and died the Executors levied a Fine thereof to one F. taking Mony for it of F. The Question was If in title made by the Conusee to the said Lands by the Fine It be a good Plea against the same to say Quod partes Finis nihil habuerunt Anderson conceived That it was But by Windham and Periam upon Not guilty the Conusee may help himself by giving in Evidence the special matter in which Case the Conusee shall be adjudged in not by the Fine but by the Devise And Windham said That if A. Devise That his Executors shall sell a Reversion of certain Lands of â—hich he dieth seised and they sell the same without Deed the same is well enough for the Vendee is in by the Devise 1 Iust 113. a. and not by the Conveyance of the Executors Quod vide 17 H. 6. 23. And by Periam The Conusee may help himself in pleading As he who is in by the Feoffment or Grant of Cestuy que use by the Statute of 1 R. 3. CLXXII Lee and Loveday's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail leased for 60 years and afterwards levied a Fine to Lee and Loveday sur Conusans de Droit come ceo c. and their Heirs in Fee And afterwards the Lord of the Mannor of whom the Land was holden brought a Writ of Disceit and upon that a Scire facias against the Conusees supposing the Land to be Ancient Demesne The Defendants made default by which the Fine was annulled and now the Issue in tail entred upon the Lessee for years and he brought an Ejectione firme
hath not any estate in the later Acre for the cause aforesaid Afterwards It was moved What thing passed to the second Son by that Devise And the Lord Anderson conceived That the words in the Will Usually Occupied with it did amount to as much as Land let with it and then the 60 Acres were not let with it and therefore did not pass Windham Iustice held the contrary and he said Although they do not pass by the words Occupied with it yet it shall pass to the Son by the name of Jacks or the Lands appertaining to Jacks To which Anderson mutata opinione afterwards agreed CLXXXIV Wroth and the Countess of Sussex Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Co. 6. Rep. 33. 1 Len. 35. 4 Len. 61. THe Case was this In Anno 4 5 of King Philip and Queen Mary A private Act of Parliament was made by which it was Enacted That the Mannor of Burnham was assured to the Countess of Sussex for her Ioynture with a Proviso in the Act That it should be lawful for the Earl of Sussex to may a Lease or Leases for 21 years and afterwards a year before the first Lease was ended he made another Lease for 21 years and this second Lease was to begin and take effect from the end of the first Lease And if this second Lease were a good Lease within the intent and meaning of the Act was the Question Popham the Queens Attorny General said That it was not 1. Because it was a Lease to begin at a day to come And 2. Because it was made before the first Lease was ended But he said It may be Objected That the Act saith Lease or Leases It is not the sense of the Act that he might make Leases in the Reversion but the sense and meaning of the Makers of the Act was That he might make Leases in possession and not Leases in futuro for if it should be so then he might make a Lease for 21 years to begin after his death which should be a great prejudice to the Countess and against the meaning of the Act which was made for her advantage The Lord Treasurer and Sir Walter Mildmay Knight have a Commission from the Queen to make Leases of the Queens Lands for 21 years because the Queen would not be troubled It was holden That by virtue of that Commission they could not make any Leases but Leases in possession only But all other Leases which did exceed the Term of 21 years and in Reversion were to pass by the hands of the Queen and her Attorny General and not by them only by virtue of their said Commission And if I grant to one power before the Statute to make Leases of my Land for 21 years he cannot make any Lease but only Leases in possession and he cannot Lease upon Lease for by the same reason that he might make one Lease to begin in futuro by the same reason he might make 20 several Leases to begin in futuro and so frustrate the Intent of the Act. It was Marshall's Case upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. of Leases to be made by Bishops The Bishop of Canturbury made a Lease to him for one and twenty years and afterwards he made a Lease unto another for 21 years to begin at the end of the first Lease And it was holden That the second Lease was void But in the great Case which was in the Exchequer-Chamber upon this Point There the second Lease was in possession and to begin presently and to run on with the other Lease and therefore it was adjudged to be good because the Land was charged with more than 21 years in the whole And if the Earl had done so here it had been a good Lease Wray Iustice said That if the second Lease had been made but two or three years before the expiration of the first Lease that then it had been utterly void but being made but 2 or 3 days or months before the expiration of the first Lease he doubted If it should be void or not The Statute of 32 H. 8. makes Leases for 21 years to be good from the day of the date thereof And a Lease was made to begin at a day to come And yet it was holden by two of the Iustices in the Court of Common Pleas That it was a good Lease And by two other Iustices of the same Court it was holden the Lease was not good And Clench Iustice said That there was no difference If it be by one Deed or by two Deeds And therefore he held That if the Earl had made a Lease for 21 years and within a year another the same had been void if it were by one Deed or two Deeds for that he did exceed his authority And he said In the principal Case If there had not been a Proviso he could not have made a Lease and therefore the Proviso which gave a power to make a Lease for 21 years should be taken strictly There was a Case of the Lord Marquess of c. that it should be lawful for him to make Leases for 21 years by a Statute And he made another Lease to begin after the end or expiration of the first Lease and it was doubted Whether it were a good Lease or not because he had not made any Lease before But if both were made by force of the Statute all held That the second Lease was void At another day the Case was argued by Daniel for the Lease in Reversion to begin at a day to come And he said That in a Statute the words alone are not to be considered but also the meaning of the parties and they are not to be severed Also he said That a Statute-Law is to be expounded by the Common-Law And by the Common-Law If one giveth power unto another to make Leases of his Lands he might make Leases in Reversion because an Authority is to be taken most beneficially for them for whose cause it was given So that if a Man grant an authority to another to make Estates of his Lands by those general words he may make Leases for years or for life Gifts in tail Feoffments or any Estates whatsoever If one gives a Commission to another to make Leases for one and twenty years of his Lands he may make a Lease in Reversion and so it was holden in the Dutchy in the Case between Alcock and Hicks Also he said That this Lease was a good Lease by the Statute-Law For the Statute of Rich. 3. gives authority to Cestuy que Use that he may make Estates in Reversion The Statute of 27 H. 8. which gives authority to the Chief Officer of the Court of Surveyors to make Leases if it had stayed there he might have made Leases in Reversion Therefore the Statute goes further and saith Proviso That he shall not make a Lease in Reversion See 19 Eliz. Dyer 357. The Statute of 35 H. 8. of Leases to be made by the Husbands
not bind him to that nor did prescribe any time but left the same generally Yet it was the Opinion of the whole Court That he should have the Averment at the time of the Voucher or not at all So the Statute of 11 H 7. Cap. 20. If a Woman who hath a Ioynture for life or in tail suffereth a Recovery and afterwards the Issue in tail releaseth all his Right by Fine and dieth his Issue may enter for the assent ought to be by Voucher in the same Action or the like for if there be a mean instant between the Recovery and the Assent then any assent after is nothing to the purpose for the Recovery being once void by the Statute cannot be made good by an assent afterwards See Doctor and Student 54. And yet the Statute is Provided That the Statute shall not extend to any such Recovery c. if the next Heir be assenting to the same Recovery c. so as the same assent or agreement be of Record or inrolled And it doth not say That the Assent should be at one time or at another But to come to Leases upon Statutes Before the Statute of 2 E. 6. Cap. 8. If Leases had not been found by Offices the Lessees should have been ousted and put to their traverse But put Case that after that Statute a Lease made to begin at a day to come were not found by Office should it be helped by that Statute No truly And so it is holden in the Court of Wards at this day and the Lord Chief Iustice of England held so in his Reading at Lincolns-Inn The Statute of 1 Eliz. of Leases to be made by Bishops is That Leases other than for 21 years from the time that they begin that is when they may take effect as Deeds and not when they shall take effect to be executed For so they might make Leases infinite c. It was adjourned c. CLXXXV Lewen and Mody's Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. Rot. 2494. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin brought by Lewen Doctor of the Civil Law against Mody who made Conusans as Bailiff to one Fowke and shewed That 14 Elizabeth the morrow of the Purification a Fine was levied between Lovelace and Rutland Plaintiffs and the said Fowke and other Deforceants by which Fine the said Deforceants acknowledged the said Mannor to be the right of the said Lovelace and Rutland come ceo c. And the said Lovelace and Rutland by the same Fine granted and rendred to the said Fowke a Rent of 20 l. per annum in Fee out of the said Mannor And for the Rent arrear c. And the Plaintiff in bar of the Conusans shewed That the said Fowke being seised of the said Rent granted the same to one Horden c. Vpon which Grant they were at Issue And the Iury found That the said Fowke being seised of the said Rent by Indenture reciting That whereas a Fine was levied between Fowke and 7 others Plaintiffs and Lovelace and Rutland Deforceants as the rest ut supra granted redditum praedict to Horden and further found that no other Fine was levied between the parties aforesaid but the said Fine and that the parties to the Fine were seised of the Mannor at the time of the Fine levied and of no other Land And if this Rent so described by the said Indenture should pass or not was the Question And it is to be observed That the Indenture of Grant between Fowke and Horden recited a Fine of the Mannor of Coleshall inter alia where the Iury have found That the Fine was levied of the said Mannor only And it was argued by Shuttleworth That the said Rent did not pass to Horden by the said Indenture for the Rent bescribed by the Indenture is not the Rent which was granted by the Fine And if I let Lands for years to A. and afterwards A. grants the Land which B. holds of me the Grantis void As 13 E. 3. Grants 63. Land is given to Husband and Wife for their lives And the Lessor grants the Reversion of the Land which the Husband holdeth for life nothing passeth Walmesley contrary The variance in the Fine shall not avoid the Grant For the Indenture of the Rent agrees with the Fine in the Term in the year of the Reign and in the name of the parties to the Fine in the quantity of the Rent and in the Land charged the only difference is in the phrase of Law Deforceant for Plaintiff and it is granted that that is but a matter of Circumstance and not of substance Snag Serjeant contrary And first he took Exception to the Verdict for this that a special Verdict is given upon a special Absque hoc And the Lord Anderson interrupted him That it was a clear Case That such a Verdict upon such an Issue might be found And so it was adjudged in the Case between Vavasour and Doleman Fenner argued as Walmesley The Grant agrees with the Fine in the points of greatest importance and one falsity shall not prejudice it where there are so many verities which may induce the Court to judge That the Rent granted by the Indenture is the Rent created by the Fine and in a Fine the substance is not Who was Deforceant who was Plaintiff but who was party to the Fine And that some of the parties to the Fine were seised of the Land of which the Fine is levied And if the Indenture had been Whereas such a Rent was granted by a Fine levied between A. and B. without shewing who was Plaintiff and who Deforceant it had been good enough And although that in this Case the Plaintiff and Deforceant are mis-set down yet the same shall not make the Grant void for utile per inutile non vitiatur So if I reciting The Original Grant was made to me by Indenture Tripartite between A. of the first part B. of the second part and my self of the third part whereas the Indenture it self is Between myself of the first part the same is not material c. For such a small mistaking shall not avoid the Grant. So if I by my Deed reciting That whereas I am possessed of certain Lands for Term of years of the Demise of Sir Christopher Hatton Knight Treasurer of England whereas in truth he is Chancellor that mistaking of the Dignity shall not prejudice the Grant. And it was Agreed by all the Iustices If the said Fine had been pleaded at it is recited in the Indenture mistaking the Plaintiff and Deforceant he who had so pleaded it had failed of his Record But in the Case at Bar the reciting who was Plaintiff who Defendant was matter of surplusage and therefore it shall not hurt the party As 23 Eliz. Dyer 376. A. seised of a House in D. which he purchased of Tho. Cotton he made a Feoffment thereof by these words A House in D. late Richard Cotton's And notwithstanding this variance it was good enough
the now Plaintiff To which Endictment the now Plaintiff peaded Not guilty and upon that he was acquitted The Defendant pleaded That the now Plaintiff was endicted of the said death in the County of S. scil of the stroak and of the death of the dead in the same County To which the Plaintiff by Replication said That the said J.S. was struck in the said County of S. but died in the County of D. so as this Indictment found in the County of S. is void by the Common Law and by the Statute of 2 E. 6. the party ought to be Indicted in the County where the party died and not where the stroke was given And upon that Replication the Defendant demurred in Law. Broughton The Plaintiff ought to be barred 1. The Plaintiff was not lawfully accquitted for the proceedings are not by due process For upon the Writ of Appeal no Pledges are retorned Which see 11 H. 4. 160. Then if the Appeal was not duly sued the Plaintiff was not duly acquitted and then Conspiracy or Action upon the Case doth not lie For such suit doth not lie but where if the Plaintiff had been found guilty he should have Iudgment of life and member Which shall not be upon an insufficient Appeal 9 H. 5. 2. 2. Because it is not shewed in the Declaration If the Defendant did flie or not 3. The Declaration wants these words Falso Malitiose as they are in the Writ of Conspiracy And also it is not shewed If the Plaintiff in the Appeal be sufficient or not For if he be sufficient the Abettors shall not be enquired See Westm 2. And as to the Action it self he conceived That it doth not lie by Bill but by Originial Writ against those who are found Abettors See 2 E. 2. Fitz. Action upon the Statute 28. such suit by Writ But see 25 Eliz. It was holden Such suit doth not lie by Writ And see Book of Entries 43 44. Flemming to the contrary It needs not to be shewed That the Plaintiff found Pledges ad prosequendum For without that the Writ is good enough and although that the Writ be not well executed yet it is good For our Action is not grounded upon the Record of Appeal but at the Common Law and the Record is but Conveyance to our Action And also there needs not in the Declaration falso malitiose for they are implyed in the words Abettavit procuravit And he conceived That this Action is at the Common Law and not only upon the Statute of Westm 2. Which see Stamford 172. And see 3 E. 3. Fitz. Conspiracy 13. Conspiracy lieth upon an Endictment of Trespass as well as upon an Endictment of Felony for the Law hath provided remedy in every Case where a Man is damnified As 43 E. 3. 20. A Writ of Disceit was brought for that the Defendant by Fraud and Collusion had procured J.S. to brign a Formedon against the Plaintiff of such a Mannor by reason whereof the Plaintiff was put to great charges and holden maintainable And the Statute of West 2. is in the affirmative and therefore it doth not abridge the Common Law but the subject may take the advantage of the Common Law if he pleaseth For it may be that the Course according to the Common-Law will more avail him than that upon the Statute For upon the Statute Law If the Abettors have not any thing the party is without remedy but by the Common Law the party grieved shall have excution upon the body 13 E. 2. Conspiracy holden maintainable against one who procured one to sue an Appeal against the Plaintiff See Fitz. Conspiracy 25. Fitzh Na. Br. 98. If A. procures B. to sue an Action against me to vex and molest me an Action of Disceit lieth And as to the matter of the Endictment I conceive that it is not any bar For the Endictment is meerly void because it was found in the County where the stroke was and not in the County where the party strucken died where of right it ought to be and that by the Statute of 2 E. 6. Then if the Endictment be insufficient it is as no Endictment and then the Plea cannot excuse the Defendant Which see 20 E. 4. 6. If the Endictment be not sufficient the Appellee shall wage Battail and the Abettors shall be acquitted Vide inde 19 E. 3. Coron 444. 26 H. 8. 2. And by the Common Law the Plaintiff might at his pleasure bring an Appeal where the Plaintiff was strucken or where he died but in such case the tryal shall be by both Counties And 3 H. 7. 12. Appeal was brought in the County where the party was stricken And 44 H. 7. 18. the Appeal was brought in the County where the party died and there it is said That in an Appeal the Plaintiff may declare as if the thing were done in both Counties but the Endictment ought to be in one County only And 43 E. 3. 18. A Man strucken in one County and dieth in another County the Appeal shall be brought in the County where he died In an Action upon the Case brought in the County of Essex the Plaintiff Declared That the Defendant held certain Lands by reason of which he ought to repair a Wall in the County of Essex juxta le Thames and that the Plaintiff had Land in the County of Middlesex adjoyning to the said Wall and for want of repairing the said Wall his Land in the County of Middlesex was drowned and the Writ was allowed being brought in the County of Essex See 6 H 7. 10. Clench I conceive this Action doth not lie by the Common Law For no Writ of Conspiracy was at the Common Law before the Statute And vide F. N. B. 114. F. If the Plaintiff in an Appeal be Nonsuit Conspiracy lieth but contrary if he be acquitted for he shall have his remedy against the Abettors c. Plowden This Action lieth at the Common Law and an Endictment is no Plea in this Action and it is not grounded upon the Statute as a Conspiracy is and so it well lieth although the Abettors be not Enquired Gawdy Serjeant This is an Action by the Common Law For in all cases where one procures damages to another so as the party is put to charges an Action lieth a fortiori where the procurement extends to the danger of life And see F. N. B. 116. F. Men conspire to have a false Office found of my Lands which Office is found by such procurement Conspiracy lieth And the Statute of 2 E. 6. doth not alter the Law before for it is in the affirmative See the Statute Cap. 24. Gawdy Iustice Conceived That the Endictment did not excuse the Defendants in this Action but against those who are sworn to give Evidence for the King and not others For they may well procure an Appeal malitiously notwithstanding the Endictment Walmesley Serjeant conceived That the Action doth not lie at the Common Law For in
here it is found That she clearly departed out of London but they have not found that she dwelt in the Country c. but only that she went to Melton but she ought to do doth before her Estate shall cease It was argued by Towse for the Plaintiff That the Defendant ought to be found guilty of the Ejectment For it is found That the Defendant entred before the Commandment of Anne but they have not found that Anne was alive Fenner Iustice the same is well enough and so it was holden 18 Eliz. in this Court for although her life be not found yet it shall be intended that she was alive For the Iury did not doubt of it and the Conclusion of the Verdict is That if it shall seem to the Court that his Entry is lawful Then the Defendant is not guilty So as the doubt of the Iury is only upon that point Which Wray concessit Gawdy Iustice If one Deviseth Land to one for life upon Condition That his Estate shall cease which is all one with the Case at Bar and after the breach of the Condition he continueth in possessions he is not Tenant for life but Tenant at sufferance Wray Chief Iustice Tenant for the life of another continues in possession after the death of Cestuy que vie he hath not any Freehold remaining in him for if he dieth nothing descends And so it was lately adjudged by all the Iustices of England upon a Conference had between them And the Book of 18 E. 4. is not Law. Which Gawdy Iustice concessit See 35 H. 8. 57. acc And he said That the same shall be as a Limitation by which the Estate shall cease without an Entry And here in this Case because they have not found That Anne had dwelt in the Country here is no breach of the Condition in the Case And afterwards by the Advice of the whole Court Iudgment was given for the Defendant Quod querens nihil Capiat per Billam CCV Cadee and Oliver's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione Firmae by Cadee against Oliver 1 Cro. 152. Roll. Tit. Grant. 48. of a House in Holborn c. The Case was The Lord Mountjoy and the Lady Katherine his Wife seised of the said House and of other Lands in Fee in the right of the Wife 6 Eliz. acknowledged a Statute-Staple of 1200 l. to Sir Lyonel Ducket Afterwards 9 Eliz. the said Lord Mountjoy and his said Wife Leased the said House to Hoskins for 21 years And afterwards by Indenture 11 Eliz. they Leased the same to Sir Tho. Cotton for 99 years to begin at Michaelmas last past 12 Eliz. Sir Lyonel Ducket extended his Statute and the Land extended was delivered to him at 53 l. 7 s. per annum who held the same until 22 Eliz. Anno 23 Eliz. the Lord Mountjoy and his Wife levied a Fine to Perry to the use of Perry and his Heirs 27 Eliz. Sir Thomas Cotton not being upon the Land granted omnia tunc bona catalla sua to Robert Cotton his Son 28 Eliz. the Lady Mountjoy died Mich. 29 Eliz. the Lease to Hoskins expired Perry entred and Leased the House to Oliver the Defendant for 21 years And afterwards Robert Cotton entred and Leased the House c. to the Plaintiff It was first moved by Brantingham and argued by him If this Lease for 99 years which was made to begin after the Lease made to Hoskins should pass to Robert Cotton by the words aforesaid But the Court eased him from arguing of that point for it was holden That it passed notwithstanding the word tunc 1 Cro. 386. Another matter argued by him was because at the time of the Grant the Lands were in extent and so the said Sir Thomas Cotton had but a possibility If therefore the said Grant made during the Extent was good And he argued That it was for it is more than a bare possibility for it is an Interest vested And in some Cases a possibility may be granted As 19 H. 6. 2. The King granted to a Prior That when any Tenth is granted to the King by the Clergy his House shall be discharged of it c. And 19 E. 2. Avowry 224. The Lord grants to his Tenant That if he dieth his Heir within age that such Heir shall not be in Ward So 21 E. 4. 44. A Grant unto an Abbot to be discharged of the Collectorship of Tenths when it shall be granted by the Clergy It hath been Objected That the Term for 99 years is suspended therefore it cannot be granted during the suspension But the same is not so for a thing suspended may be granted As 15 Eliz. Dyer 319. Husband and Wife Ioynt-Tenants of Lands in Fee The Queen having a Rent out of it in Fee giveth the Rent to the Husband and his Heirs now the Husband Deviseth the said Rent and dieth the same is good a Devise notwithstanding the suspension And he cited the Cases 16 E. 3. Quid juris clamat 22. And 20 E. 3. ibid. 31. A Lease is made to one for life and if he dieth within 20 years that his Executors and Assigns shall hold the Land until the expiration of the 20 years the said Interest may be granted Which Wray Chief Iustice denyed See Gravenors Case 3 4 Ma. Dyer 150. such Interest is void It was further moved by him and argued If the Conusee of the Fine might avoid the Lease made to Sir Thomas Cotten And he said He could not for he is in under the Lessors So is 34 E. 1. Recovery in value 36. see the Case there And here although the Wife after the death of her Husband may affirm or disaffirm the Lease at her Election yet this Election is not transferred to the Conusee by the Fine but the Conusee shall be bound by the Fine See 33 H. 8. Dyer 51. As Tenant in tail makes a Lease for years not warranted by the Statute and dieth the Issue alieneth the Land by Fine before affirmation or disaffirmation of the Lease by acceptance or Entry the Conusee cannot avoid this Lease for the Liberty is not transferred Which Gawdy Iustice concessit And Election cannot be transferred over to the prejudice of another person As if a Rent de novo be granted to the Father in Fee who dieth before Election the Heir cannot make it an Annuity to defeat the Dower of the Wife quod Curia concessit It was also moved by Brantingham If the Lessee might enter upon the Conusee of the Statute after his Extent expired without suing forth a Scire facias But the Court discharged him from arguing that Point for that by the Death of the Lady Mountjoy the Extent was void and therefore the Feoffee or Conusee might avoid it by Entry And so Wray Chief Iustice said it had been adjudged in the Court of Common Pleas. At another day the Case was argued by Stephens on the part of
the Plaintiff who said That the Extent by computation of time according to the value to which it was extended is not yet satisfied The Verdict hath found that the Extent continued until 22 Eliz. hut doth not say that it was then expired and ended And I conceive also that this Extent doth not evict the Interest of Sir Thomas Cotton or turn it into a possibility The extent is Quousque leventur denarii but yet a Limitation of time is in Law understood although by a Casualty such time may be abridged or extended Which see 15 H. 7. 16. by Fairfax Where a Man is bounden by Statute to pay 40 l. and the Conusee sueth Execution upon it and the Land extended is rated at 10 l. per annum now it shall be intended by a common intent that in 4 years the party may be satisfied and therefore after the 4 years the Conusor shall have a Scire facias so upon the matter it is a Lease for 4 years So 7 H. 7. 12. by Keble to the same purpose And 15 E. 4. 5. by Brian for the Law shall not intend a casualty without alledging of it for the same shall not be by imagination And therefore If the Conusor will have the Land within the Term he ought to alledge That the Conusee hath levied the duty by an extraordinary Casualty and shew it specially And so where the Conusor sueth a Scire facias and the Conusee will hold the Land over he ought expresly to surmise some extraordinary occasion wherefore he could not levy the duty upon the Land within the Term Which see by Brian 15 E. 4. 5. and 44 E. 3. The Conusee of a Statute after extent maketh a Lease for 3 years yet it may be that the duty shall be levied within one year but if it be so then a Scire facias shall issue forth against the Conusee and not against the Lessee for the Law intends that the whole estate of the Conusee is not granted but that he hath a Reversion in him but if he hath granted his whole estate then a Scire facias shall issue forth the Grantee So here although that this extent in our Case would continue by computation of time for some of the years of the Term granted to Sir Thomas Cotton yet it is intended that the extent did run out and was determined before the expiration of Sir Thomas Cotton's Term so as notwithstanding that Sir Thomas Cotton hath an Interest left in him which he may grant It will be Objected How can it be said an Estate for years when as he might hold over the years As to that such an Interest may be put off in divers Cases As 15 H. 7. A Man grants to another the third Avoidance of such a Church and dieth seised his Wife is endowed of the Church she shall have the third Avoidance and the Grantee shall have the 4th Avoidance and so per talem intervenientem occasionem the benefit shall be delayed and so here in our case And then the estate by Extent being prima facie certain so as it cannot by intendment surmount the Term of Sir Tho. Cotton as it appeareth upon the Extent the estate shall be taken to continue according to the extent of the years and then a certain Interest doth remain in Sir Thomas Cotton which he may grant over which is not a possibility but rather a Reversion So and to such purpose is the Case of 7 H. 5. 3 4. If the eldest Son entreth after the death of his Father and afterwards his Mother recovereth Dower that shall take away the possessio fratris but if the Son maketh a Lease for life and the Wife recovereth Dower against the Lessee there shall be possessio fratris for the Reversion doth remain in the Lessor notwithstanding the eviction of the estate for life And 7 H. 6. 2. there it is holden by Goddard and Strange That where the Term of the Wife was extended upon the Statute of the Husband who died the Wife shall have the residue of the Term and avoid the extent as to her Term which proves that all the Term is not drawn to the Conusee by the Extent but that an Interest doth remain in the Lessee notwithstanding that And see by Seton 29 Ass 64. If Lessee for life Leaseth to him in the Reversion for life yet he hath a Reversion in him And 31 Ass 6. A. is bound by Statute to B. and his Land extended by force of it C. recovers against B. in Debt and the Land extended by him upon the Statute 1 Roll. 887. is now extented by Elegit A. grants his Estate to the Conusee it is no surrender which proves that B. hath an Interest And so in our Case an Interest doth remain in Sir Thomas Cotton notwithstanding the Extent A. makes a Lease for years to begin at a day to come and before the day A. is disseised The Lessee notwithstanding this Disseisin may grant his Interest for he never was in possession and therefore it cannot be turned into a Right As to the second point If Robert Cotton may enter within the time of the Extent without a Scire facias and that rests upon this point If this Lease shall be subject to the Extent I conceive clearly that it shall not It hath been said That our Lease is not good But I conceive it without question that our Lease is good enough For it is made by the Husband and Wife and the Wife after the death of her Husband by Acceptance of the Rent might affirm the Lease But the Statute is the act of the Husband alone therefore the Conusee of the Fine shall not avoid the Lease for it is but voidable So the King grants Lands durante beneplacito and afterwards grants the Reversion over the Patentee shall not avoid the Estate But if this Lease had been made by the Husband only it had been void and then the Conusee of the Fine should avoid it as it was lately adjudged in Harvy and Thomas 's Case And I conceive That if Tenant in tail acknowledgeth a Statute and afterwards makes a Lease according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. and dieth the Lessee shall not hold the Land subject to the Statute for then the Rent should not be paid to the Issue in tail during the Statute which is against the Stat. of 32 H. 8. And see also 8 Eliz. Dyer 252. The Chaplain of a Donative Chappel Leased for 99 years which was confirmed by the Patron who was Tenant in tail of the Patronage which was appendant to a Mannor whereof he was seised in tail and afterwards he had Issue and died The Statute of Chauntries cometh after the death of the Incumbent the King shall avoid this Lease And in our Case after the Coverture the Conusee is in by the Wife and then he shall avoid the Statute extended upon it And if so then there needeth not any Scire facias as the
Issue in tail may enter upon the Conusee of a Statute acknowledged by his Father For if Execution had been sued against the Issue in tail it had been a Disseisin And see 2 R. 3. 7. That in such case the Wife or her Heirs may enter upon the Conusee And by Consequence the Conusee who is in by her c. Cook contrary I conceive that this Grant of this Lease by Sir Thomas Cotton to his Son is not good 2 Roll. 48 1 Cro. 15. 1 Inst 22. b. for it is but a possibility and no Interest I agree all the Cases which have been put before for Law but they cannot be applyed to this Case The Book in 7 H. 6. 2. is That if the Term of the Wife be extended upon the Statute of the Husband that the Wife shall have the residue after the death of the Husband but it doth not say that the Wife or her Husband may grant it during the Extent which is the matter now in Question And I conceive That Sir Thomas Cotton hath but a possibility For the Conusee upon the Extent hath but an incertain Interest And although it may be by some means reduced to a certainty in the Chancery where the Costs and Damages shall be assessed yet until it be reduced to a certainty it cannot be granted And therefore it is clear That if I have a Term for 8 years in Land and grant it unto another until he hath levied 100 l. and all his Costs of suit for it by this Grant all the Interest of the Term is in the Grantee and nothing is in me but a possibility 8 Co. Mannings Case And so it was holden in the Common Pleas by the Lord Anderson the day when he was made Chief Iustice there At which time this Case was put Lands of the yearly value of 20 l. are Leased to one until he hath levied 100 l. And the matter was What estate the Grantee hath And it was holden That if Livery be not made that he hath but an estate at Will for the profits of the Lands are incertain the one year more and the other year less And Bromley Lord Chancellor was then of the same Opinion Then if in case of a Lease it be so it shall also be so in case of an Extent and in both the Cases the whole Interest is out of the parties And 19 Eliz. the Case was in this Court That the Lessee for years devised his Term to his Executors for the payment of his Debts and Legacies and after the payment of them the residue of the years he devised to his Son The Executors enter which is an assent to the remainder he in the remainder grants his Interest And it was holden void because it was but a possibility and so incertain and although it might be reduced to a Certainty afterwards yet the same is not sufficient for it ought to be reduced to a certainty at the time of the grant And 17 Eliz. in this Court the Case was That Land was given to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Husband the Husband makes a Lease for years and dieth the Wife enters and entermarrieth with the Lessee And it was moved If the Interest of the Lessee by the entermarriage was extinct And it was holden That it was not for it was but a possibility and not an Interest quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam And if a possibility cannot be extinct then it cannot be granted And he denyed the Case put by Stephens Where a Man seised of Lands Leaseth the same for years to begin at a day to come and afterwards before the day the Lessor is disseised now during that Dissesin the Grantee cannot enter for his future Interest For the Feesimple being turned into a Right so also shall be the Interest And that is proved by Delamere's Case A Feoffment in Fee was made to the use of A. for life and afterwards to the use of C. for life and afterwards to the use of D. in Fee and afterwards A. enfeoffed a stranger who had notice of the use The same doth take away all the other uses and said Feoffee although he had notice of the use yet he shall not be seised to the first use for the estate out of which the first uses do arise is taken away and then also the uses And he said also That the Lease made to Sir Thomas Cotton is not good for it was made 11 Eliz. And it is found by Verdict That 10 Eliz. a Writ of Extent issued forth upon the Statute then was the Lands in the hands of c. during which time the Lord Mount joy and his Wife could not make the Lease aforesaid to the said Sir Thomas Cotton And as to that see 5 E. 3. Retorn of the Sheriff 99. See the Case of 3 E. 6. Dyer 67. Stringfellow's Case Then admitting the Lease to Sir Thomas Cotton yet the Lessee cannot put out the Conusee without a Scire facias for the Conusee is in by matter of Record Also here this Lease made by the Husband and Wife without any Rent reserved is utterly void and then the Conusee shall take advantage of it 9 H. 7. 24 18 E. 4. 2. And so was it ruled in the Case of Seniori puero in the case of an Enfant And see 7 Eliz. Dyer 239. Where the Provost of Wells being Parson impersonee of the Patronage of W. Leased the Tythe for 50 years rendring Rent which was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter but not by the Patron and Ordinary And afterwards by Act of Parliament the Provostry was united to the Deanery cum primo vacare contigerit The Provost died the Dean accepteth the Rent The same shall not bind the Church for the Lease is void as it is of a Parson or Prebend c. And so the Dean shall take advantage of it although not privy to it See 16 Eliz. Dyer 337. Lands given to a Parson and his Successors for to find Lights and he Leaseth the same for life The Rent is so imployed accordingly The Incumbent dieth The Successor accepteth the Rent the King grants it over The Patentee shall avoid the Lease as the Successor might have done before the Statute if he had not accepted the Rent but the acceptance before the Statute shall bind the Successor for that it was but a voidable Lease And the Case between Harvy and Thomas which hath been put on the other side serves to our purpose for there the Conusee shall avoid a Lease in Law which is void and here in the Principal Case the Lease is void for that no Rent is reserved upon it Wherefore c. It was adjourned CCVI. Beadle's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was That A. Leased to B. certain Lands for 40 l. per annum 2 Len. 115. And a stranger Covenanted with A. That B. should pay him 40 l. for the Farm and Occupation
laid in a person in such sort as it may be laid and therefore in this Case forasmuch as the seisin cannot be shewed by the hands of the Inhabitants it ought to be layed in the Lord. See 4 H. 6. 29. Br. Avowry 71. In a Recordare the Defendant avowed because the King is seised of the Castle of C. in jure Ducatus sui Cornub. to which he had 20 s. Rent out of the Town of D. Solvend annuatim at Michaelmas of which Rent the King and all the Dukes of Cornwal aforesaid had been seised time out of memory c. by the hands of the Inhabitants of the same Town c. and the same was holden a good Avowry For although that seisin ought to be laid in some person certain by his hands yet in that case it is good enough For the seisin by one of the Inhabitants is the seisin of them all And in the principal Case by Periam and Walmesley It was agreed That the seisin here was well enough confessed For when the Plaintiff hath taken Issue That they have used to distrain all other matters are holden confessed because that the Plaintiff hath not saved them to him by protestation Which Rhodes granted Another Exception was taken to the Avowry because that the Leet by it is supposed to be holden in July therefore void which see Magna Charta 35. But it was holden by Anderson Windham and Rhodes That by reason of this Prescription the Court is well holden in July notwithstanding the said Statute of Magna Charta and it might be holden at what day he pleased For his Liberty and Election is not restrained by the said Statute and such is the common experience And note the words of the same Statute Ita quod quilibet habeat Libertates suas quas habuit vel habere consuevit tempore Regis H. avi nostri c. vel quod postea perquisivit c. And Rhodes conceived That the said Statute is to be intended of Turns only and not of Leets Which see 24 H. 8. Br. Leet 23. in the end of the Case But by Periam A Leet cannot be holden but according to the said Statute for to that purpose was the said Statute made But if a Leet hath been time out of mind c. holden at any other day than that which is limited by the Statute it is a good prescription and it is saved by the Statute The Prescription is That he and all c. have used to hold a Leet once in a year and hath not shewed when the said year begins for it may be that a Leet hath been holden there in this year before July and then this is a void Leet and so no Leet-Fee due and of that Opinion was Periam viz. That the Avowant ought to have shewed the beginning and end of the year viz. That he held the said Leet pro uno anno finito such a day for it may be he hath holden two Leets in one year But it was said by the other Iustices That that shall come on the other side for prima facie it shall be intended that it hath been but once holden in the same year until the contrary be shewed And Note by Anderson and Rhodes If the King grants to one a Leet to hold semel quolibet anno without saying At the Liberty of the Grantee the Grant is good and the Grantee may hold it at what day he pleaseth CCXXXII Putnam and Cook 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 129.193 1 Cro. 52. IN Ejectione Firmae It was found That one Hawkins was seised of 3 Messuages in Bury in Fee and had Issue Robert his Son and Christien and Joan Daughters And Devised all his said Messuages to his Wife for life the remainder of one of the said Messuages to his Son Robert and his Heirs the remainder of another of his said Messuages to his Daughter Christien and her Heirs the remainder of the third to Joan and her Heirs And further willed That if any of his said Issues died without Issue of his body that then the other surviving should have totam illam partem c. between them equally to be divided The Devisor died The Wife of the Devisor died Joan died having Issue Robert died without Issue Christien entred into the whole Messuage of Robert and died and her Husband held in as Tenant by the Curtesie Cook The surviving Child shall have the whole and the Issue of Joan shall have nothing And he conceived That by this Devise they have an Estate in tail for the Fee is not vested in them for that it is incertain which of them shall survive but when one doth survive then he shall have the Fee for these words totam illam partem go to the whole Estate as well as to the whole Land. If I Devise my whole Land to J.S. he hath a Fee. And he conceived That the three had an Estate in tail with a Fee expectant each severally to the House limited to him Golding contrary Each of them hath an Estate tail in the House Devised to him and but an Estate for life expectant upon the death of the other without Issue for there are no words by which it might appear what Estate they shall have by the Survivor c. I grant the Case which Perkins denies but Littleton affirms scil A Devise of Lands to one in perpetuum for there the intent appeareth but where there are not words of Inheritance nor words amounting to so much then it shall be but an Estate for life And as to these words totam illam partem the same is all one as if he had Devised totam illam without partem Also he conceived That where one only survived no estate further vested for there ought to be two to take by the Survivorship for the words are aequaliter inter eos dividend And then if it cannot accrue by Survivor then it shall descend And if it had accrued by Survivor they should thereof have been Tenants in Common and not Ioynt-Tenants by reason of these words aequaliter dividend Clench Iustice The words totam illam partam go to the House and not to the Estate in it Shute to the same intent If both the Daughters had survived they should have Fee in the House of Robert but not by the Will but by descent in Coparcenery Also when two are dead the Son and one Daughter then it cannot be decided therefore the Will as to that is void and then the Common Law shall take place and put the Messuage to the Issue of one Daughter as to the Sister surviving Gawdy Iustice Here is but an Estate for life in the survivor It hath been Objected That then being but an Estate for life that Estate is drowned by the descent of the Feesimple so as now the Estate limited by the Will is void To which it may be answered That although now upon the matter it be void yet ab inition it
Case 18 Eliz. Plow Com. 485 486. Where it is holden That upon Attainder of Treason by Act of Parliament the Lands were not in the King without Office in the life of the person attainted upon the words of the Act shall forfeit See Stamford 54 55. acc 3. He conceived That this Interest which came to the King by this Attainder was but a Chattel and then it is released by the Pardon And so he conceived If it be a Freehold For the words of the General Pardon are large and liberal Pardon and Release all manner of Treasons c. And all other things causes c. and here forfeitures are pardoned And also this word Things is a transcendent c. And although it be a general word yet by the direction of the General Pardon it ought to be beneficially expounded and extended as if all things had been especially set down Also the words are Pardon them and their Heirs therefore the same extends to Inheritances for any Offence not excepted for there is the word Heirs And the third branch doth concern only Chattels and that is by the word Grant where the former is by the words Release and Acquit See Br. Charter of Pardon 71. 33 H. 8. Tenant of the King dieth seised the Heir intrudes Office is found in that case by Pardons of all Intrusions the Offence is pardoned but not the Issues and Profits But by the Pardon aforesaid all is pardoned And here in our Case the Office is void For the Statute makes all Precepts Conditions void c. being awarded upon such Forfeitures See also in the second Branch Vexed and inquieted in Body Good Lands c. And see also amongst the Exceptions That persons standing endicted of wilful Murder and forfeiture of Goods Lands Tenements grown by any Offence committed by such person By which he conceived That if that Exception had not been the Land of such a person if he had been attainted upon such Indictment should be forfeited As to the Traverse he conceived That in as much as the Office is true our plea is a Monstrans de Droit although it concludes with a Traverse We vary from the Office in number of persons and in the day of the Feoffment and every Circumstance in the Kings Case is to be traversed and our plea in substance doth confess and avoid the Office. Although the King here be entituled by double matter of Record i. e. the Attainder and the Office yet one of the said Records is discharged by another Record i. e. the Pardon and then there is but one Record remaining scil the Office and therefore our Traverse doth lie And he conceived That at the Common Law there was a Traverse as where it was found by Office That the Lessee of the King had done Waste or cessed for two years and there it is said That the Lessee and Tenant in an Action brought against them may traverse the Office Therefore traverse was at the Common Law where the King was entituled by single matter of Record So upon an Office finding an Alienation without Licence Traverse was by the Common Law. See Traverse in such Case in the Case of William de Herlington 43 Ass 28. See Br. Traverse 54. Petition is by the Common Law and Traverse by the Statute Frowick in his Reading See Stamf. Prerogat 60. That Traverse in the Case of Goods was at the Common Law but Traverse for Lands found by Office by 34 E. 3. Cap. 14. therefore the remedy was by Petition See now Cook 4. Part the Sadler's Case 55 56. Traverse was at the Common Law concerning Freehold and Inheritance but that was in special Cases when by the Office the Land is not in the Kings hands nor the King by that is in possession but only by the Office and entituled to the Action and cannot make seisure without suit there in a Scire facias brought by the King in the nature of such an Action to which he is entituled the party may appear unto the Scire facias and traverse the Office by the Common-Law CCXXXVII Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Writ was awarded out of the Court of Admiralty against Sir Tho. Bacon and Sir Tho. Heydon to shew cause wherefore Whereas the Earl of Lincoln late High Admiral of England had granted to them by Patent to be Vice Admirals in the Counties of Norfolk and Suffolk the said Letters Patents ought not to be repealed and annulled And so the said Writ was in the nature of a Scire facias It was moved by Cook That although the Admiral had but an Estate for life yet the Patent did continue in force after his death As the Iustices here of the Common Pleas although they have their places but for life may grant Offices which shall be in force after their death And because the same matter is determinable at the Common Law he prayed a Prohibition For in the Admiralty they would judge according to the Civil Law The Court gave day to the other side to shew cause why the Prohibition should not be awarded CCXXXVIII Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Len. 302. Ante 150. Post 230. ACcompt was brought by Harris against Baker and damages were given by the Iury It was moved to the Court That damages ought not to be given by way of damages but the damages of the Plaintiff shall be considered of by way of Arrearges But see the Case Hill. 29 Eliz. in C. B. betwixt Collet and Andrews And yet 10 H. 6. 18. in Accompt the Plaintiff Counted to his damage but did not recover damages 2 H. 7. 13. 21 H. 6. 26. The Plaintiff shall not recover damages expresly but the Court shall given Quoddam incrementum to the Arrearages Cook said That it had been adjudged That the Plaintiff should recover Damages in an Accompt ratione Implicationis non Detentionis CCXXXIX Long 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden in this Case If a Feoffment in Fee be made of a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant and Livery is made in the Demesnes but no Attornment that in such case the Advowson shall pass but none of the Services CCXL Barns Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BArns brought an Action of Trespass for taking of his sack of Corn The Defendants justified in the behalf of the Town of Lawson in the County of Cornwell because That King Phil. and Queen Mary granted to them of the said Town a Market to be holden within the said Town and that the Plaintiff came to the said Town with a sack of Corn and the Vendor would not pay Toll for which cause they took the said sack of Corn. And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Vpon which Error was brought and assigned for Error because that the Defendant pleads the Letters Patents with the date of the place year and day without saying Magno sigillo Angliae sigillat For it was holden that
the Plaintiff That the Grant was before the Lease It was holden by the Court That this Release was meerly void for here was not any Interest to be released but a power to present and an Authority annexed to the person And afterwards by the Award of the Court the Writ was abated See 11 Eliz. Dyer 253. CCCXLI Woodward and Bagg's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. WOodward Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Bagg and Nelson for Tythes of certain Lands called Christen Hill. Roll. 63. 2 Len. 29. 3 Cro. 188. Owen Rep. 103. The Defendant sued a Prohibition and surmised That one Pretiman was seised of the said Land and in Consideration of 5 l. by him paid to the said Parson It was agreed betwixt them That the said Pretiman and his Assigns should be discharged of Tythes of the Land during his life and afterwards the said Pretiman leased the same to the Defendants upon which a Prohibition was granted And it was holden That the party need not to make proof thereof within 6 Months for it is not within the Statute because a Composition with the same Parson But now a Consultation was granted because the Agreement is shewed but no Deed of it which cannot be any discharge But if it had been for a time scil unica vice it had been good but for life not Also it is not an express grant of the Tythes but only a Covenant and Agreement that he shall be discharged upon which he may have an Action of Covenant but not a Prohibition It was said on the other side That although without Deed Tythes cannot pass in point of Interest yet by way of discharge they might Cook It was holden betwixt Pendleton and Green That upon such words of Covenant and Agreement the party should hold the Land discharged of Tythes which was denyed For if the Grantee of a Rent Charge will grant it to the Tenant of the Land the same without Deed is not good And there was very lately a Case between Westbede and Pepper Where it was agreed betwixt the Parson and one of his Parish That for 20 s. Rent by the year the Parishioner should be discharged of Tythes for 20 years if he so long lived And it was holden That no Prohibition should lie upon it a fortiori where the Estate is for life Gawdy In the Case of grant of Tythes for life a Deed is requisite but here it is noâ— but a Contract for Mony c. See 21 H 6. 43. Wray If it had been for years it had been good enough but here is not any Contract but only a discharge for life which cannot be during his life without Deed. And afterwards the Record was read which was That Concordatum aggreatum fuit between the parties pro omnibus decimis during the time that the one should be Parson and the other Occupier of the said Land That in Consideration of 5 l. the said Pretiman and his Assigns should hold the said Land discharged of Tythes Wray The same is no Contract but a Promise for he doth not grant any Tythes Afterwards a Consultation was awarded CCCXLII Sanderson and Ekins's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon a Loan by Sanderson against Ekins who waged his Law and at the day being ready to wage his Law the Court examined him And upon examination it appeared That the Plaintiff and Defendant were reciprocally endebted the one to the other And upon Conference betwixt them before the Action brought there was an Accord betwixt them That the Plaintiff should give to the Defendant such a sum which he had done and that the one should go quit against the other And it was the clear Opinion of the whole Court That upon the matter the Defendant could not wage his Law for a Debt cannot be extinguished by word CCCXLIII The Dean and Chapter of Windsors Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN this Case It was moved If he who hath a Rectory impropriate 1 Len. 146. and by the Statute of 26 H. 8. is to pay an Annual Rent for the same in the name of a Tenth and thereby is discharged of all First-fruits and Tenths shall have the Priviledge of the Exchequer for he is to pay the same sum yearly And it was the Opinion of the Barons That he should not For so every one who is to pay any Tenths or First-fruits should draw other who have sued him into the Exchequer And so all Controversies concerning Tythes and Parsonages should be drawn thither which should be a great prejudice to the Spiritual Courts But Egerton Solicitor vouched a Case viz. Coniers's Case The King gave a Parsonage to a Priory in Frankalmoign and the Tythes thereof being withdrawn The Prior impleaded him who withdrew the Tythes in the Exchequer And it was holden That the Prior should have the Priviledge for the King is endangered to lose his Patronage or rather his Foundership if the Rectory be evicted Gent Baron The Kings Tenant in Chief or he who pays First-fruits or he who holds of the Queen in Fee-Farm shall not have in such respect the Priviledge here CCCXLIV Sledd's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SLedd of Great Melton in the County of Oxon 2 Len. 146. was assessed to 7 s. for a Fifteenth And upon refual to pay the same the Collector distrained the Beasts of Sledd and sold them Thereupon Sledd brought Trespass against him the in the Kings Bench. And the Collector exhibited a Bill against Sledd Who shewed by his Counsel That the Statute of 29 Eliz. which enacted this Fifteenth Provides That the said Fifteenth shall be levied of the moveable Goods Chattels and other things usual to such Fifteenths and Tenths to be Contributory and chargeable And shewed further That his Beasts distrained fuerunt tempore districtionis upon the Glebe-Land of a Parsonage presentative which he had in Lease which Glebe-Land is not chargeable usually to Fifteenths granted by the Temporalty nor the Cattel upon it It was the Opinion of the Iustices That although the Parson himself shall pay Tenths to the King yet the Lay-Farmor shall pay Fifteenths and his Cattel are distrainable for the same upon the Glebe-Lands of the Parsonage And therefore it was awarded That the Distress and the Sale were lawful CCCXLV. Sir Walter Water's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was moved in this Case 2 Len. 77. 4 Len. 44. That if one hath a Iudgment in Debt and upon the same within the year sueth forth a Capias ad satisfaciendum although that he doth not prosecute it by the space of 2 or 3 years yet when he pleaseth he may proceed upon it and shall not be put to a Scire facias And of that Opinion was Philips Manwood I grant That if one hath sued forth a Writ of Execution and the same be continued by Vicecomes non misit Breve for 2 or 3 years yet the Plaintiff may proceed upon
Rent 11 H. 7. 13. 21 H. 6. 24. 14 H. 8. 35. So where the Successor accepts of a Rent upon a Lease made by the Predecessor 37 H. 6. 4. 8 H. 5. 10. 4 E. 4. 14. The same Law in Exchanges and Partitions If the Wife accepteth of Dower of the Land which her Husband hath taken in Exchange she shall be barred of that Land which her Husband gave in Exchange 6 E. 3. 50. 15 E. 3. tit Bar. 125. 12 H. 4. 12. c. And in all these Cases where there is an Agreement and therein an Agreement implyed scil An Agreement to the Lease and a Disagreement to have the Possession c. And so Agreement to the Land received in Exchange and Disagreement to the Land given in Exchange and all that by word and act in pais And so here in these Cases Estates are affirmed and entred and benefit of the possession waived and refused So it is also of a Right and Title of Action 21 H. 6. 25. The Lord entituled to have a Writ of Right upon Disclaimer accepts a Rent of the Tenant Now he is barred of his Action 13 Ass 3. The Disseisee accepts homage of the Disseisor it is a good bar in an Assise 21 Ass 6. Pendant a Cessavit the Tenant aliened the Lord accepted the Services of the Alienee his Action is gone 11 E. 3. tit Dower 63. A Woman entituled to Dower accepteth Homage of the Ter-Tenant the same is a Bar of her Dower And as it hath been said of Entries and Actions of which a Man may refuse the benefit by word and Acceptance in pais So is the Law also in Cases of Estates vested if the party doth not Enter Husband and Wife Tenants in special tail the Husband levyeth a Fine to his own use and afterwards Deviseth the Land to his Wife for life the Remainder over rendring Rent the Husband dieth The Wife Enters and pays the Rent now she hath waived her Remitter 18 Eliz. Dyer 351. 10 E. 4. 12. The Tenant enfeoffed the Lord and a stranger and made Livery to the stranger although the Freehold vested in them both yet if the Lord disagreeth to the Feoffment in futuro he cannot enter and occupy the Land and he may distrain for the services c. If a Disseisin be made to the use of the Husband and Wife and the Husband agreeth to it the Freehold vests in the Husband and Wife but the Wife is not a Disseisor and after the death of the Husband she may disagree unto the Estate by word 12 E. 4. 7. And also an Agreement shall make her a Dissessisor See to the same intent 7 E. 4. 7. and Litt. 129. Although that in such and the like Cases the Estate vests in some manner yet it shall never vest to the prejudice of the party without an express and actual agreement And that disagreement to an Estate in such manner vested may be in pais and by word seems by a Clause in the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 1. Where a Ioynture is made after Marriage there the Wife after the death of her Husband may at her pleasure refuse her Ioynture and have and demand and take her Dower her Writ of Dower or otherwise scil by word and Acceptance in pais And if in a Writ of Dower the Tenant will bar the Demandant by Ioynture made during the Coverture he ought to say Quod intrando agreeavit See Litt. in Dower ad Ostium Ecclesiae If the Wife entreth and agreeth the same is a good Bar in Dower Littl. 8. Now in the principal Case When the Wife agreeth to the Devise of Thoby and the same is executed by entry now the same is a full Disagreement to Hinton It was afterwards Objected That although it be clear That the Wife may waive her Ioynture in Hinton by word and act in pais without matter of Record Yet some conceived That this manner of Devise of Thoby is void by the Statute of 32 34 H. 8. The Statute enables to Devise two parts or so much as amounts to two parts in value at the time of the death of the Devisor for then the Will takes effect which cannot be here in this Case for at the time of his death the Ioynture of Hinton was in force and so continued until the disagreement afterwards Also the words of the Statute are Having a sole Estate in Fee-simple but here the Devisor had but a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate tail c. As to the first Point it was answered That the Disagreement doth relate to the death of the Husband and is now as if no Ioynture had been made ab initio And here the Heir shall have Hinton by descent and he shall be Tenant to every Praecipe and if it be brought against him the same day that the Husband dieth the Writ shall be good by the Disagreement after and the Heir shall have his age c. And if the Father had been a Disseisor and had Conveyed the Land ut supra now by this argeement of the Wife the Heir shall be accounted in by descent and thereby the Entry of the Disseisee taken away And if the Heir in such case taketh a Wife and dieth by this disagreement after the Wife shall have Dower of Hinton and hath such a possession quod faciet sororem esse haeredem And if that the same day that the Husband dieth the Heir levyeth a Fine or acknowledge a Statute or maketh by Indenture enrolled a Bargain and Sale of it by the said agreement Hinton shall be subject to such Acts of the Heir All which Cases prove That the Devisor upon this matter at the time of his death had a sole Estate in Feesimple in the Mannor of Hinton and that the third part in value descended to the Heir and so the Devise of Thoby good It hath been Objected That here is not an immediate descent of which the Statute of 34 H. 8. speaks And here the Mannor of Hinton doth not descend immediatly for there was a mean time between the Death and the Disagreement and so the Will void for Thoby To that it was answered That this word immediatè sumitur dupliciter re tempore and shall be taken here immediatè re statu scil That a Reversion or a Remainder dependant upon a particular Estate in possession which is mean shall not be allowed for the third part descended For a Descent which takes away an Entry ought to be immediate for a mediate descent doth not take away an Entry Litt. 92. as the descent of a Reversion or Remainder And if this word Immediatè had not been in the Statute Then the Statute might have been construed That it should be sufficient to leave the third part to descend in Reversion or Remainder but this word Immediatè makes it clear And therefore the third part which descends ought to descend immediatè in re Statu Yet a Reversion upon a Lease for
Executor shall sell who dies his Executor cannot sell B. 69. To the Heirs of the Body of his Eldest Son is void B. 70. I give my Lease to my Wife for life and then to my Children unpreferred B. 90. To the Heir in see is void and he is in by descent B. 101. C. 18. That his Executor shall pay a Debt this is no Legacy B. 119 120. Devise shall be taken according to the Common not Legal construction B. 120. C. 18 19. Devise of three Closes to three and if any die that the other shall have all his part to be divided between them B. 129. That A. shall pay yearly 10 l. out of a Mannor is a good Devise of the Mannor to A. B. 165. They shall be construed favourably but not against Law B. 165. If the Devisor be distrained and dies before re-entry nothing passeth B. 165. All his Lands called Jacks in the occupation of J S. what passes if not in the occupation of J.S. B. 226. Like Case C. 18 19 132. Of a Mannor to B. and of a third part thereof to C. they are joynt Tenants C. 11. Words in a Devise shall never be judged repugnant if by any rational Construction they may consist C. 11 28 29 Devise of Lands to his Wife for life and after that she may give them to whom she will C. 71. Lands called H. in two Vills A. and B. Devise of H. in A. for life remainder of Hayes Land to L. No Land passes in remainder but Lands in A. C. 77. To J. for thirty one years to pay Debts remainder after the Term expired to his Heirs Males and if he die within the Term that G. shall have it and be Executor J. dies his Issue enters G. evicts him C. 110. Devise that the eldest Son shall take the profits until the younger be of Age and the remainder to the younger Son the elder hath see conditional C. 216. Devise that his Feoffees to Uses shall be seised to other Uses who are accounted Feoffees C. 262. Diminution The manner of alledging it A. 22. With what time it must be alledged B. 3. Disceit Fine reversed by such a Writ because the Land is Ancient Demesne A. 290. C. 3 12 117 120. Not abated by death of one Defendant C. 3. Upon a Recovery in a Quare Impedit A. 293. The manner of proceeding therein A. 294. For an Infant against his Guardian who lost the Land by default in Dower B. 59. Where Estate of the Conusee remains after the Fine reversed C. 12 120. Whom it shall bind without summons C. 120. Discent Takes not away the entry of him who claims by Devise condition broken c. A. 210. B. 192. cont B. 147. Disclaimer He who hath disclaimed shall not have a Writ of Error C. 176. Discontinuance de Process c. Vide Continuance Discontinuance de Terre Remainder in fee after a Lease for life where not discontinued by Fine by the Tenant for life A. 40. B. 18 19. None of Copyholds A. 95. Nor upon a Covenant to stand seised made by Tenant in tail A. 110 111. By Feoffment of Tenant in tail A. 127. B. 18 19. Quid operatur if the Feoffees joyn in the Discontinuance B. 18 19. Lease for years by Cestuy que use pur vy is no Discontinuance but warranted by the Stat. of 32 H. 8. B. 46. None if the Reversion be in the King B. 157. C. 57. Nor by Bargain and Sale by Deed enrolled without Livery C. 16. Disseisin and Disseisor Where a Man shall be a Disseisor at the election of another A. 121. B. 9. If Tenant per auter vy hold over after the death of Custuy que vie if he be a Disseisor B. 45 46. The like if Tenant for years holds over B. 45 46. If the younger Brother enter if he be a Disseisor or Tenant at sufferance B. 48. If Disseisee may give licence to put in Cattle before Entry C. 144. He who Disseiseth a Copyholder gains no Estate C. 221. Disseisin to the use of Baron and Feme he only agrees the Estate vests in both but the Feme is no Disseisor C. 272. Distress Cannot distrain upon the Kings Lands A. 191. Where and who may distrein the Cattle of a Stranger though not Levant and Couchant where and who not B. 7. If one as Bailiff may say he takes a Distress for one cause and carry it away for another B. 196. Dower The Wife not Dowable if the Husband be attaint of Treason although pardoned A. 3. Of what age the Feme must be A. 53. Inquiry of Damages where the Baron died seised A. 56 92. In such an Inquiry the Jury may find above the value of the Dower A. 56. By Custom of Gavel-kind whether demandable as by Common Law A. 62 133. How a Grand-Cape in D. must be executed A. 92. Wife Dowable of a Seisin in Fee defeasible by a Condition A. 168. The Wife shall be endowed at Common Law where the King is to have Primer Seisin A. 285. If a conditional Estate be a good Joynture to bar Dower A. 311. Bar that the Heir granted to the Wife a Rent in satisfaction c. he ought to shew what Estate he had in the Land B. 10. An Infant cannot lose by default in Dower unless per Gardian B. 59 189. Notwithstanding what divorces the Wife shall be endowed B. 169 170. If the Wife shall be endowed where the Husband takes a Fine and renders back presently C 11. If she be barred by Fine and Non-claim if she brings her Writ within five years and desists prosecution six years after C. 50. Touts temps prist a render Dower where necessary to plead it or to give Judgment by default C. 50 52. If the Wise of the Lord shall be endowed of Demeine Lands grantable and granted by Copy by the Lord B. 153. C. 59. Of a Presentation to a Church C. 155. It is a good Bar in Dower that the Feme accepted Homage from the Tenant C. 272. Pleading of agreement to a Joynture made during Coverture C. 272. Divorce If it be causa frigiditatis in the Man who hath Issue by another if the first Marriage be good or the Divorce good until avoided by Sentence B. 169 170 171 172. The several kinds of Divorce B. 169. In pleading of Divorce the Judges name Coram quo must be precisely pleaded B. 170 171. Droit The form of a Writ of Right and what is demandable therein A. 169. B. 36. Whether it lies of an Office Stat. W. 2 cap. 25. A. 169. B. 36. The manner of arrayment of the twelve Recognitors by four Knights A. 303. Droit of an Advowson where it lies A. 316. No challenge to the Polls after the Array made A. 303. Where a Man hath no remedy but by this Writ B. 62 63 65. A Writ of Droit Close directed to the Bailiff and procceeded coram Sectatoribus good C. 63 64. In such Writ twelve Recognitors retorned suffice in an Inferior Court
shall vest the Estate by Livery and prevent the operation of Inrolment A. 6. C. 125. By Letter of Attorny cannot be made by parcels unless so limited A. 34. What is a good Livery what not A. 207. Where the particular Tenant and he in remainder joyn in a Livery how adjudged A. 262. How it must be made by Attorny of Land in several Counties or of a Mannor A. 306 307 308. Made to three where the Feoffment was to four is good in some cases B. 73. Feoffment by Tenant for life and before Livery made by Letter of Attorny the Feoffor purchaseth the Fee and then Livery is made the Fee passeth C. 73. But that shall not pass other Lands purchased by the Feoffor in the same Vill where the Feoffment was of all his Lands in D. C. 73. Livery ouster le main What Leases or Conveyances an Heir may do before Livery sued A. 157. London Scire facias there ad discutiendum debitum A. 52. Quo Warranto lies against the City if the Mayor use authority not agreeable to Law per Gawdy A 106 107. Upon a Recognizance taken before the Mayor by custom Debt lies not but in their own Courts A. 130 131. The custom that a Feme sole Merchant may sue without her Husband A. 130 131. The Statutes of 32 34 H. 8. of Wills how far they extend to Lands in L. A. 267. The Courts at Westminster take notice of their Customs A. 284. It had no Sheriffs in the 13th year of King Edw. the First Ibid. Debt lies in the Common Pleas upon a Recognizance there Ibid. Hustings may be holden every Week B. 14. Upon Indictment at the Sessions Error lies B. 107. The Custom there Quod concessit solvere debitum alterius B. 156. Custom that every Surety shall be chargeable pro rata B. 166 167. If an Action there by Custom be removed to Westm it shall be remanded B. 167. They ought not to be impleaded in real Actions but in their own Courts C. 147. Their Liberties seised and re-granted by King Richard the Second and re-granted for 10000 Marks C. 264. M. Maihem Cutting off any Finger is a Maihem A. 139. Maintenance See Stat. 32 H. 8. For desiring a Juror to appear and to do according to his Conscience done by a Stranger B. 134 135. Against a Counsellor at Law C. 237. Mannor Whether a Rent-Charge may be parcel of a Mannor A. 14. Extending into several Vills a Grant of the Mannor in one Vill how adjudged A. 26. Granted cum pertin another Mannor which holds of it passeth Ibid Where by Grant of part of the Services of Freeholders and Demesnes a Mannor will pass A. 26. B. 41 42. A Lease of a Mannor except all Casualties and Profits of Courts the Court is not excepted A. 118 119. How it may be dissolved and after become a Mannor again A. 204. A moiety thereof by what words conveyed A. 204. B. 42. Whether a Steward of a Mannor deputed by parol may take Surrenders extra curiam A. 228. If Lessee of a Mannor attorn to the Grantee of the Reversion the Mannor passes A. 265. B. 221 222. If the Tenants pay their Rent to a Disseisee they are discharged A. 265. The Service of a Tenant may be changed from one service to another A. 266. What will pass by Grant by name of a Mannor B. 41 42 43. By what name a Mannor may pass B. 47. A Mannor in two Vills is devised to the Heir and the Lands in the one Vill to A.B. he shall have that devised to him B. 190. Lease the Demesnes the Reversion passes not by grant of the Mannor without the Lessees Attornment B. 222. The Services pass not without Attornment C. 193. Market If a stoln Horse be sold by J. S. by the name of J.D. and so entred it alters no property A. 158. Mesne The form of the Count B. 86. If it be extinct by the Lords purchasing the Tenancy Monstrans de Droit Where it lies A. 195 B. 122. Or where only a Petition de Droâ—t B. 122. C. 15. Petition of Right for a Rent-Charge granted out of Lands which are since vested in the Crown C. 190 191. All the Estates must be truly set down else all is void after Judgment C. 242. Monstrans de Faits Upon pleading a Grant of a Reversion the Deed must be shewed A. 310. And upon pleading of an Estate in an Hundred B. 74. Mort vie If the Plaintiff die after Verdict within the time that the Court takes to consider of the Law the Court may if they will give Judgment as at the first day in Bank A. 187. If the Defendant die after the first Judgment in Trespass before the Writ of Inquiry retorned yet the Action does not abate A. 263. C. 68. If one of two Defendants in Assumpsit die before Judgment if Error B. 54. Murder To leave ones Child whereby it perishes by Famine A. 327. N. Name OF a Corporation ought to be strictly alledged as to the substance A. 134 162. C. 18 19. Joan and Jane all one Name A. 147. A Corporation makes a Lease by the same name in substance and sense but not in words yet good A. 159 160 161 162 163 215. B 97 165. C. 220. Garret King of Arms and the manner of his Creation A. 249. What are Names of Dignity and what of Office only Ibid. B. and Nether B. a Vill A. 272. Executor of Executor how named A. 275. If the word Heir be a good name of purchase A. 287 288. Where the names of the Heads of what Corporations must be shewed in pleading A. 307. The best way is to sue the Defendant as he is named in the Bond though his Name be otherwise A. 322. What is a Name of Dignity and must be put in the Writ what not B. 49 In pleading any matter done before Suiters of a Court-Baron if their Names must be shewed C. 8. Ne admittas Where it lieth A. 235. Negative pregnant Defendant pleads that he permitted J.S. to have ingress into all such Lands which lay fresh adjudged good A. 136. That J. G. did not disturb the Plaintiff but by due course of Law B 197. How to avoid the pleading of a Negative praeg by a Modo forma B 198. Nisi Prius If grantable per Proviso pro Def. upon an Information at the suit of the party B. 110. Nolle prosequi As to part before Verdict in a joynt Action if it discharge the whole B. 177. Nomine pene The Heir shall not have Debt for it reserved by his Ancestor B. 179. Nonsuit The Plaintiff may be Nonsuit after Demurrer A. 105. C. 28. No Nonsuit for part of a Writ or Bill B. 177. Non est factum Where the Defendant may plead it or the special matter A. 322. By this Plea the date of the Bond nor the sealing of it at another day than which the Plaintiff declares cannot prejudice the Plaintiff C. 100. Notice How
confirms it is a void Confirmation And 7 E. 6. Br. Grants 154. A Man possessed of a Lease for 40 years grants so many of the said years which shall be to come at the time of his death it is a void Grant for the incertainty Afterwards Shuttleworth moved another point viz. The Plaintiff hath declared of a Trespass done 1 Januarii 23 Eliz. The Defendant shews in Evidence a Lease for years to him made 14 Januarii the same year which is 13 days after the Trespass whereof the Plaintiff hath declared and it shall not be intended that the Plaintiff had another Title than that which he hath alledged and forasmuch as he hath not disclosed in himself any Title Tempore transgressionis the Plaintiff should punish him in respect of his first possession without any other Title And although it may be Objected That where the Defendant hath given in Evidence That Williamson leased to the Defendant that is not sufficient and the words subsequent 14 Januarii are void as a nugation and matter of surplusage Truly the Law is contrary for rather those words ante Transgressionem shall be void because too general and shall give way to the subsequent words after the videlicet because they are special and certain As the Case late adjudged The Archbishop of Canterbury leased three parcels of Land rendring Rent of 8 l. per annum viz. for one parcel 5 l. for another 50 s. and for the third 40 which amounts to 9 l. 10 s. It was adjudged That the videlicet and the words subsequent concerning the special reservation of the Rent was utterly void because contrary to the premisses which were certain viz. 8 l. and that the Fermor should pay but 8 l. according to the general reservation but in our case the words precedent are general i. e. ante Transgressionem and therefore the words subsequent which are special and certain shall be taken and the general words rejected As in Trespass the Defendant pleads That A. was seised of the Land where and held it of the Defendant and that the said A. 1 die Maii 6 Eliz. aliened the said Land in Mortmain for which he within a year after viz. 4 Maii Anno 7 Eliz. entred now the same is no bar for upon the evidence it appeareth that the Lord hath surceased his time and the words within the year shall not help him for they are too general and therefore at the subsequent words viz. c. Cook on the Defendants part took Exception For it appeareth here upon the Evidence of the Defendant which is confessed by the Demurrer of the Plaintiff That upon this matter the Plaintiff cannot punish the Defendant for this Trespass for he was not an immediate Trespassor to the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff hath declared upon a Trespass done 1 Januarii 23 Eliz. And it is given in Evidence on the part of the Defendant and confessed by the Plaintiff c. That 22 Eliz. Cordell Savell levied a Fine to Williamson by force of which the said Williamson entred and was seised and so seised 14 Januarii 23 Eliz. leased to the Defendant Now upon this matter the Plaintiff cannot have Trespass but the Defendant for Williamson was the immediate Trespassor to him for he entred 22 Eliz. And at length after deliberation had of the premisses by the Court The Court moved the Plaintiff to discontinue his suit and to bring de novo a new Action in which the matter in Law might come into Iudgment without any other Exception But the Plaintiff would not agree to it Wherefore it was said by Wray Chief Iustice with the consent of his Companions Begin again at your peril for we are all agreed That you cannot have Judgment upon this Action CXXVI Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his younger Son in tail and after to the use of the Heirs of his body in posterum procreand and at the time of the Feoffment he had Issue two Sons and after the Feoffment had Issue a third Son The younger Son died without Issue Vpon a Motion at the Bar it was said by Wray Iustice That after the death without Issue of the second Son the Land should go to the third Son born after the Feoffment for this word in posterum is a forcible word to create a special Inheritance without that it had been a general tail CXXVII Smith and Smith's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LAmber Smith Executor of Tho. Smith brought an Action upon the Case against John Smith That whereas the Testator having divers Children Enfants and lying sick of a mortal sickness being careful to provide for his said Children Enfants The Defendant in Consideration the Testator would commit the Education of his Children and the disposition of his Goods after his death during the minority of his said Children for the Education of the said Children to him promised to the Testator to procure the assurance of certain Customary Lands to one of the Children of the said Testator And declared further That the Testator thereupon Constituted the Defendant Overseer of his Will and Ordained and appointed by his Will That his Goods should be in the disposition of the Defendant and that the Testator died and that by reason of that Will the Goods of the Testator to such a value came to the Defendants hands to his great profit and advantage And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff And upon Exception to the Declaration in Arrest of Iudgment for want of sufficient Consideration It was said dy Wray Chief Iustice That here is not any benefit to the Defendant that should be a Consideration in Law to induce him to make this promise For the Consideration is no other but to have the disposition of the Goods of the Testator pro educatione Liberorum For all the disposition is for the profit of the Children and notwithstanding That such Overseers commonly make gain of such disposition yet the same is against the intendment of the Law which presumes every Man to be true and faithful if the contrary be not shewed and therefore the Law shall intend That the Defendant hath not made any private gain to himself but that he hath disposed of the Goods of the Testator to the use and benefit of his Children according to the Trust reposed in him Which Ayliffe Iustice granted Gawdy Iustice was of the contrary Opinion And afterwards by Award of the Court It was That the Plaintiff Nihil Capiat per Billam CXXVIII Amner and Luddington's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. In the Kings Bench. A Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. 2 Len. 92. 8 Co. 96. And the Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased to one Peerepoint for 99 years who devised the same by his Will in this manner viz. I Bequeath to my Wife the
Lease of my House during her life and after her death I will it go amongst my Children unpreferred Peerepoint died his Wife entred and was possessed virtute legationis praedictae And took to Husband one Fulsehurst against whom Beswick recovered in an Action of Debt 140 l. Vpon which Recovery issued a Scire facias and upon that a Vendit ' Exponas upon which the Sheriff sold the Term so Devised to one Reynolds Fulsehurst died his Executor brought Error and reversed the Iudgment given against the Testator at the Suit of Beswick the Wife re-entred sold the Term and died Alice a Daughter of Peerepoint unpreferred entred And upon this matter found by Special Verdict in the Common Pleas The Entry of Alice was adjudged lawful Vpon which Iudgment Error was brought in the Kings Bench And it was argued upon the words of the Devise because here the Lease is not Devised but all his Interest in the thing Devised And it is not like to the Case between Welden and Elkington 20 Eliz. Plow Com. 519. where the Case was that Davies being Lessee for years Devised That his Wife should have and occupy his Land demised for so many years as she should live Nor unto the Case betwixt Paramour and Yardley 21 Eliz. Plow Com. 539. For there the Lessee Devised That his Wife should have the Occupation and Profits of the Lands until the full age of his Son For in those Cases the Land it self is quodam modo devised But in our Case all the Estate is Devised i. e. the Lease it self And also in those two Devises a certain person is named in the Will who should take the residue of the Term which should expire after the death of the Wife but in the Case at Bar no person in certain is appointed c. but the Devise as to that is conceived in general words Children unpreferred Ergo neither any Possibility nor any Remainder is in any person certain therefore all the whole Term is intirely in the Wife and then she may well dispose the whole But the whole Court was to the contrary and that in this Case the Possibility should rise well enough upon the death of the Wife to the Daughter Alice unpreferred Another Point was moved If the said Term being sold in the possession of the Wife of the Devisor by force of the Execution aforesaid If now the Iudgment being reversed the sale of the Term should be also avoided for now the party is to be restored to all that which he had lost And by Cook it was argued That notwithstanding the reversal of the Iudgment the sale should stand For the Iudgment for the Plaintiff in a Writ of Error is That he shall be restored to all that which he lost ratione Judicii praedict and the Iudgment was That the Plaintiff should recover 140 l. and therefore by the Iudgment in the Writ of Error he shall be restored to so much but the mean Act scil the Sale of the Lease shall stand and shall not be defeated and avoided As 7. H. 6. 42. A Statute Staple is bailed in Owel Mayn the Conusee brings Debt against the Bailee and hath Iudgment to recover the Statute and upon that Suit he had Execution and the Bailee brought a Writ of Error to reverse the Iudgment in Detinue yet the Execution shall stand and an Audita Querela doth not lie for the Conusor And see 13 E. 3. Fitz. tit Bar. 253. Accomptant found in arrearages committed to the Goal escaped and reversed the Iudgment given against him in the Accompt Ex parte talis yet an Action upon the Escape did lie And as to that Point the whole Court was of the same Opinion with Cook But that Point did not come in Iudgment For by the sale nothing passed but the Interest in praesenti which was in the Wife of the Devisor but the Possibility to the Children unpreferred was not touched by it And afterwards the Iudgment was affirmed CXXIX Bunny and Bunny's Case Hill. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Covenant between Bunny and Bunny the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant had Covenanted to find unto the Plaintiff Meat and Drink at the House of the Defendant The Defendant pleaded That he was always ready to find the Plaintiff Meat and Drink if he had come to his House to have taken it Et de hoc ponit se super Patriam And it was found for the Plaintiff And in this Case the Court awarded That the parties should replead For in all Cases where the Defendant pleads matter of excuse not contained in the Declaration as here he shall say Et hoc paratus est verificare in the perclose of his Plea But if the Defendant had pleaded That he had given the Plaintiff according to the Covenant Meat and Drink then the Conclusion of his Plea had been good Et de hoc ponit se super Patriam c. CXXX Hill. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case supposing certain Goods to have come to the hands of the Defendant and that he had wasted them and shewed in what manner The Defendant pleaded Not guilty And it was found by Verdict That the Goods c. came to the Defendants hands and that he had wasted them but in another manner than the Plaintiff had declared It was the Opinion of the whole Court That upon this Verdict the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment As in an Action of Trespass the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant had distrained his Horse and travelled riding upon him And the Iury found That the Defendant did distrain the Horse and killed him In that case it was holden The Plaintiff should not have Iudgment So in an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declares upon a Promise upon one Consideration and the Iury find the Promise but that it was upon another Consideration in such case the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment Adjudged for the Defendant CXXXI Merry and Lewes's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. MErry brought an Action upon the Case against William Lewes 2 Len. 53. Executor of David Lewes late Master of St. Katherines juxta London And Declared That the said David in Consideration That whereas Quaedam pars Domus fratrum sororum Sanctae Katherinae fuit vitiosa in decasu the said Merry ad requisitionem dicti Davidis repararet eandem promised to pay the said Merry all such monies as the said Merry expenderet in such Reparations And declared further That eandem partem Domus praedict reparavit c. And upon Non Assumpsit It was found for the Plaintiff It was Objected in Arrest of Iudgment That the Declaration is too general Quaedam pars Domus For the Plaintiff ought to have shewed especially what part of the House in certainty as the Hall Chamber or other Rooms But the Exception was disallowed Another Objection was Because he set forth in the Declaration That the
and his diet for himself his servants and horses Vpon which the Debt in demand grew but the said Young was not at any price in certain with the Defendant nor was there ever any agreement made betwixt them for the same It was said by Anderson Chief Iustice That upon that matter an Action of Debt did not lie And therefore afterwards the Iury gave a Verdict for the Defendant CCXI. Heidon and Ibgrave's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 148. A Writ of Right was brought by Heidon against Ibgrave and he demanded the third part of 40 Acres of Land in the County of Hertford and they were at Issue upon the meer Right Vpon which the Grand Assise appeared And first the 4 Knights were specially sworn to say upon their Oath Whether the Tenant hath better right to hold the Land than the Demandant to demand it And afterwards the rest of the Iurors were sworn generally as in other Actions And there was some doubt made Whether the Demandant or the Tenant should first begin to give Evidence And at the last it was Ruled by the Court That the Tenant should begin because he is in the affirmative And it was said by Periam Iustice That so it was late adjudged in the Case betwixt Noell and Watts And upon the Evidence the Case was That King Hen. the 8th by his Letters Patents gave to the Demandant the Mannor of New-Hall and all the Lands in the Tenure and Occupation of John Whitton before demised to Johnson and in the Parish of Watford And the truth was That the said 40 Acres whereof now the third part was in demand were in the Occupation of the said John Whitton but were never demised to Johnson nor in the Parish of Watford And by the clear Opinion of the Court the said 40 Acres did not pass for the circumstances of the Deed are not true scil the Demise to Johnson and the being in the Parish of Watford but both were false But if the said Land had had an especial name in the Letters Patents then it had been well enough notwithstanding the misprision in the rest And by Anderson If upon the particular it had appeared that the Demandant had paid his Mony for the said 40 Acres peradventure they had passed CCXII. The Dean of Gloucester's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Dean and Chapter of Gloucester brough a Writ of Partition against the Bishop of Gloucester upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Partition And it was moved That upon the words of the Statute that the Action did not lie in this Case for the Statute doth not extend but to Estates in Ioynt-Tenancy or in Common of Lands whereof such Ioynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common are seised in their own right And also it is further said That every such Ioynt-Tenant or Tenant in Common and their Heirs shall have Aid to deraign the warranty without speaking of the word Successors And by Periam and Windham Iustices The Writ doth not lie But Anderson seemed to be of a contrary Opinion CCXIII. Hare and Meller's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Philip Meller and declared Ante 138. That the said Defendant had exhibited to the Queen a scandalous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the said Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Forswearing and Cosenage And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. It was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any cause of Action for the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort to her to make their complaints But if a Subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter comprised in it to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is a good cause of Action And so was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter did recover And as to the words themselves It seemeth to the Court That they are not Actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff had used Perjury Forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means the Plaintiff not knowing it and in such case the Plaintiff hath recovered by Forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he could not recover for he could not be sworn in his own Cause And Stanhops Case was remembred by the Court which was That Edward Stanhop of Grays-Inn brought an Action upon the Case against one who had Reported That the said Edward Stanhop had gained his Living by swearing and forswearing And by the Opinion of the Court The Action did not lie for those words do not set forth any actual forswearing in the person of the Plaintiff but it might be in an Action depending between the Plaintiff and a stranger that another stranger produced as a Witness had made a false Oath without any procurement or practice of the Plaintiff in which Case it might be that the Plaintiff had gained by such swearing CCXIV. Cheverton's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HEnry Cheverton brought a Quare Impedit and Counted That he was seised of the moyety of the Church of D. that is to say To present qualibet prima vice and that J.S. is seised of the other moyety that is to say To present qualibet secunda vice c. And Exception was taken to the Count Because it was not shewed how the special Interest did begin scil by Prescription Composition or otherwise for it is clearly against common Right and therefore that ought to be shewed See Dyer 13 Eliz. 229. CCXV Edmond's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case against Edmonds the Case was That the Defendant being within age requested the Plaintiff to be bounden for him to another for the payment of 30 l. which he was to borrow for his own use to which the Plaintiff agreed and was bounden ut supra Afterwards the Plaintiff was sued for the said Debt and paid it And afterwards when the Defendant came of full age the Plaintiff put him in mind of the matter aforesaid and prayed him that he might not be damnified so to pay 30 l. it being the Defendant's Debt Whereupon the Defendant promised to pay the Debt again to the Plaintiff Vpon which promise the Action was brought And it was holden by the Court That although here was no present consideration upon which the Assumpsit could arise yet the Court was clear That upon the whole matter the Action did lie and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXVI Farrington and Fleetwood.'s Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer BEtween Farrington and Fleetwood the Case was upon the Stat. of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries 2
Len. 55. 1 Len. 333. The Abbot and Covent of D. 29 H. 8. makes a Lease of certain Lands for 3 Lives to begin after the death of one J.S. if they shall so long live And afterwards 30 H. 8. within a year before the Dissolution they make another Lease to JS If the first Lease in the life of J.S. be such an Estate and Interest which by vertue of the said Statute shall make the second Lease void was the Question For it was not in esse but a future Interest Manwood All the reason which hath been made for the second Lease is because the first Lease is but a possibility for J.S. by possibility may survive all the 3 Lives and so it shall never take effect But notwithstanding be it a possibility c. or otherwise It is such a thing as may be granted or forfeited and that during the life of the said J.S. And Note also the words of the Statute If any Abbot c. within one year next before the first day of the Parliament hath made or hereafter shall make any Lease or Grant for years life or lives of any Mannors c. whereof and in which any Estate or Interest for life or years at the time of the making of any such Lease or Grant then had his being or continuance or hereafter shall have his being or continuance and then was not determined c. shall be void c. And here is an Interest and that not determined at the time of the making of this Lease to J.S. And of that Opinion was the whole Court and all the Barons and divers other of the Iustices And therefore a Decree was made against that Lease c. CCXVII The Master and Chaplains of the Savoy's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe Master and Chaplains of the Savoy aliened a parcel of their possessions unto another in Fee and afterwards surrendred their Patents and a Vacat is made of the Enrollment of them It was now moved How the Alienee should be adjudged to make title to the said Lands claiming the same by the Letters Patents For the Clerks would not make a Constat of it For the Patents were cancelled and a Vacat made of the Enrolment And the Case of Sir Robert Sidney was vouched in which Case the Statute of 3 E. 6. was so expounded upon great advise taken by the Lord Chancellor who thereupon commanded That no Constat be made in such case Manwood If Tenant in tail by Letters Patents of the King surrendreth his Patent and cancelleth it and a Vacat be made of the Enrollment by that the Issue in tail shall be bound For no other person at the time of the cancelling hath Interest But in the Case at Bar a third person scil the Alienee hath an Interest And therefore he was of Opinion That he should have a Constat c. CCXVIII Inchely and Robinson's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione Firmae It was found by Verdict That King E. 6. was seised of the Mannor and Hundred of Fremmington 2 Len. 41. Owen Rep. 88. and granted the same by his Letters Patents to one Barnard in Fee rendring 130 l. per annum and also to be holden by Homage and Fealty And afterwards Queen Mary reciting the said Grant by King Ed. 6. and the Reservation upon it granted unto Gertrude Marchioness of Exeter the Mannor of Fremmington and the said Rent and Services and also the Mannor of Camfield and other Lands and Tenements Tenendum per vicesimam partem unius feodi Militis Gertrude being so seised Devised to the Lord Mountjoy the Mannor of Fremmington the Mannor of Camfield c. And also bequeathed divers sums of Monies to be levied of the premises And further found that the said Rent of 130 l. was the full third part of the yearly value of all the Lands and Tenements of the Devisor The Question was If by these words of the Devise of the Mannor of Fremmington the Rent and the Services pass i.e. the Rent Homage and Fealty reserved upon the Grant made by King Ed. 6. of the Mannor and Hundred of Fremmington And if the said Rent and Services are issuing out of the Mannor For if the Rent doth not pass then the same is descended to the Heir of the Marchioness and then being found the full third part of the value the King is fully answered and satisfied and then the residue of the Inheritance discharged and is settled in the Devisee And if the Rent doth not pass then is the Heir of the Marchioness entituled by the Statute to a third of the whole c. And Shuttleworth conceived That if the Marchioness had Devised by express words the said Rent and Services they could not pass For as to the Services they are things entire as Homage and Fealty they cannot pass by Devise in case where Partition is to follow for such things cannot receive any partition or division therefore not divideable For the Statute enables the Proprietary to give or devise two parts of his Inheritance in three parts to be divided As Catalla Felonum cannot be devised for the reason aforesaid Quod fuit Concessum per totam Curiam But as to the Rent the Court was clear That the same was deviseable by the said Statute and in respect of that the mischief of many distresses which the Common Law abhors is dispensed with and is now become distrainable of common right And as to the Devise he argued much upon the grounds of Devises and put a ground put by Fineux 15 H. 7. 12. Where every Will ought to be construed and taken according as the words purport or as it may be intended or implyed by the words What the intent of the Devisor was so as we ought to enquire the meaning of the Testator out of the words of the Will. And see also a good Case 19 H 8. 8 9. And he much relyed upon the Case of Bret and Rigden Plow Com. 343. See there the Case So in this Case for as much as such Intent of the Devisor doth not appear upon the words of the Will that this Rent shall pass It shall not pass for there is not any mention of any Rent in the whole Will. Fenner argued to the contrary and he argued much upon the favourable Construction which the Law gives to Wills. 14 H. 8. by Reversion for remainder e contra 17 E. 3. 8. A Man may make a Feoffment in Fee of a Mannor by the name of a Knights Fee a multo fortiori in the Cases of Devises And in our Case the Marchioness conceived That the Rent and Services reserved out of the Mannor of Fremmington was the Mannor of Fremmington and that the Law would give strength to that intent Walmesley conceived That the Rent did not pass by the name of the Mannor c. for this Rent noc in veritate nec in reputatione was ever taken for a Mannor
Gravenor and Parker 3 4 Mar. Dyer 150. A Lease was made to A. for life by Indenture and by the said Indenture a Proviso was That if the Lessee died within the Term of 60 years then next ensuing that then his Executors should have it in right of the Lessee for so many of the years as should amount to the number of 60 years to be accounted from the date of the Indenture And it was holden That the secondary Interest to the Executor was void And that the words concerning the same went only in Covenant CCXLV The Lord Compton's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 211. Kellow 41. 4 Inst 85. NOte It was holden by the Lord Anderson Chief Iustice in this Case That if Cestuy que Use after the Statute of 1 R. 2. Leaseth for years and afterwards the Feoffees Release to the Lessee and his Heirs having notice of the Vse that that Release is to the first Vse But where the Feoffees are disseised and they Release to the Disseisor although that they have notice of the use yet the same is to the use of the Disseisor And no Subpoena lieth against the Disseisor See 11 E. 4. 8. CCXLVI Sir Thomas Gorge and Dalton's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SIr Thomas Gorge and the Lady Helene his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against Francis Dalton Who pleaded That the Queen was seised of the Mannor of D. to which the Advowson c. was appendant and so seised the Church became void And that afterwards the Queen granted the said Mannor with the Advowson to J.S. who presented the Defendant It was the clear Opinion of the Court That by that Grant of the Queen the Advowson did not pass although that the King by his Prerogative may grant a thing in Action Quod vide Dyer 13 Eliz. 300. against F.N.B. 33 16 H 7. CCXLVII. Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Copyholder with the leave of the Lord Leased for years 1 Len. 297. Hob. Rep. 177. and afterwards surrendred the Reversion with the Rent to the use of a stranger who was admitted accordingly It was moved If in this case there needed any Attornment either to settle the Reversion or to create a privity It was holden in this Case by Rhodes and Periam Iustices That the surrender and admittance ut supra are in the nature of an Inrollment and so amount to an Attornment or at the least do supply the want of it CCXLVIII Carter and Marten's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TWo Men made an Obligation joyntly for Debt The principal in the Obligation made him who was surety only for him in the said Obligation for payment of the Mony his Executor who payed the Mony generally And whether it shall be said that he paid it as Executor or as an Obligor was a Quaere not resolved by the Court. CCXLIX Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer A. Was endebted to B. who was endebted to the Queen B. assigned his Debt unto the Queen By all the Barons Process shall be awarded out of the Exchequer to enquire what Goods A. had at the time of the Assignment and not what he had tempore Scripti praedict facti c. CCL Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer A. Was accomptable to J.S. and afterwards J.S. was Out-lawed in an Action personal A. died The Queen by her Letters Patents granted unto B. omnia bona catalla exitus proficua forisfactur advantagia quaecunque which came to her or accrued by reason of the Outlawry of the said J.S. And now B. brought an Action of Accompt against the Executors of the said A. as Executors of their own wrong The Defendants pleaded That they had Letters of Administration committed to them by the Ordinary and demanded Iudgment of the Writ The Plaintiff in maintenance of his Writ Replyed That the Defendants did Administer of their own wrong before that Administration was granted unto them Vpon which the Defendants did demur in Law. It was the Opinion of some of the Iustices That the wrong is urged by taking of Letters of Administration and now they are to be charged as Administrators only and not otherwise See 50 E. 3. 9. 20 H. 6. 1. And see the Case of the Cardinal of Canterbury 9 E. 4. 33. If one Administreth of his own wrong and afterwards takes Letters of Administration he shall be sued not as Executor but as Administrator See 21 H. 6. 8. But Gawdy Iustice conceived That the Defendants might be charged as Executors As to the Grant of the Queen of this Action of Accompt See Br. Pat. 98. 32 H. 8. that the King may grant a thing in action which is personal as debt and damages or the like Or a thing mixt as the Wardship of the body but not a thing real as an Action concerning Lands Rights Entries But it was agreed on all sides That if this Action had been granted specially it had been clearly good And it was Observed That in the principal Case the Accomptant was dead before the Grant so that his Executors were chargeable to the Queen to render an Accompt and the Queen was entituled to it It hath been Objected That this Action of Accompt came to the King by reason of his Prerogative Royal and in vertue thereof the Executors are accomptable to her and therefore the Queen cannot grant the same over to a Subject Certainly the same is not an Incident inseparable from the Crown nor a Flower of the Crown as the King cannot grant over to a Subject power to pardon Felons for that is proper and peculiar to the person of the King nor that a Subject may have a Court of Chancery And although this matter of Accompt is at the first i. e. at the time of the Grant uncertain yet by matter ex post facto it may be reduced to certainty i.e. by the Accompt and although the Accompt be not expresly named in the Letters Patents yet the words of the Grant ut supra do amount to as much And Gawdy Iustice conceived That this Accompt ought to be brought in the name of the Queen And all the Iustices were of Opinion That if the said A. had been living at the time of the said Grant of the Queen the Grant had not been good for then the Action against the Executors which is the matter of Prerogative had not been vested in the Queen CCLI Specot's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 57. HUmphry Specot and Elizabeth his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Exceter c. of the Church of Tedcole in the County of Devon The Bishop pleaded That the Plaintiffs presented to him one John Holmes quem super Examinationem invenit Scismaticum inveterat ' and so non habilem to be instituted vel ad acceptandum aliquod Beneficium cum Cura Animarum for which he refused him and of such Refusal gave notice to