for cause shews 1. That the breach of this promise was in the Testators life time and therefore the Action should have béen brought against him and is not now to be brought against the Executor 2ly The Testator did not promise that his Executors should deliver the goods but that he would deliver them upon request Request and there appears no request to be made to the Testator as there ought to have been 15 Iac. Hob. rep f. 300. Bodwells Case But Roll chief Iustice answered Executor That an Executor may be charged upon a collateral promise if there were a breach of it in the Testators life time and here is a good request and goes to all Therefore let the Plaintif take his judgement except better matter be shewed to the contrary and Osborne Mich. 1649. 1 Reipub. Ang. Banc. super THe Plaintif brought an Action upon the Case upon two several promises the Defendant pleaded non assumpsit Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case Issue and upon this an issue was joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of iudgement and for cause shews that there is no issue joyned as to the second promise alleged for he doth not conclude with petit quod inquitatur per patriam and yet there is a verdict found upon both the promises The Iudgement was arrested till the other should move Mich. 1649. Banc. super VPon a special Verdict the case was this A Case upon a special verdict argued Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in tayl the remainder to the right heirs of him in the remainder for life the remainder man in tayl levies a fine in the life of tenant for life And the question was whether by the levying of this fine the estate tayl were discontinued or no. To prove that the estate tayl was discontinued these Books were cited 1 H 7.22 Lit. Cap. Discents Sect. 34.14 Ed 3. Fitz. Avâ—wry 117.3 Ed 3. Fitz. grants 60.15 Ed. 4 9.2 Rep. Butlers case 5. Cooks Lit. f. 25. Pasch 13 Car. Hungates Case Banc. Reg. Dyer 339. Twisden to the contrary argued that the estate is not altered neither to the right nor by way of Estople 46 Edward 3. f. 23. Estople An Estople supposeth a thing to be done and therefore if the thing be impossible which is alleged by way of estople it can be no estople And one shall not be construed to doe wrong by an Act which may be interpreted so that by it he may doe no wrong Brooks Abridgement Grants 49. Roll chief Iustice The matter here is not how the estates shall pass and how to make them good but the Question is upon the forfeiture Forfeiture for he levies the fine as of an estate in possession and not of a reversion in fée and this is not upon the rule in Bredons case 13 Car. Sir Julius Caesars case an Acceptance of an estate or an Attornment by Tenant for life to a stranger is a forfeiture Jerman Iustice held there was no forfeiture But the Court said the Verdict was ill sound and therefore ordered it should be amended that the whole matter in Law might come in question Amendment Gray against Walye Mich. 1649. Banc. sup VVAlye brought an Action upon the Case against Gray Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the case for speaking these words of him viz. Iack Walye was questioned for stealing of a gray Mare with a snip in her ear and hue and cry went out after him and he durst not shew his face hereabouts The Plaintif had a Verdict and the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable because they were general and uncertain words and it doth not appear the party was damnified by them nor how long ago they were spoken Roll chief Iustice said that the party was defamed by speaking of them and he hath laid it that he lost his Credit thereby Therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement except better matter be shewn But Nicholas Iustice doubted whether they were actionable or no. And Ask Instice nihil dixit Mich. 1649. Banc. sup AN Attorney of this Court that was within age Error against at Attorney in Court for appearing propria persona being within age Error in fact appeared to an Action propria persona and pleaded to issue and had a verdict and a judgment for him and upon this a writ of Error was brought here it being an error in fact because that being within age did not appear per guardianum nor by his Attorney and it was said that it is not helped by the Statute of Ieofails though it be after verdict And thereupon the Court stayed the Execution Mercer against Rule Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved For a Supersedeas attachment for taking out execution after a writ of Error brought and allowed Supersedeas Attachment Execution That a writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement and that it was received and allowed and notwithstanding the Plaintif that had the Iudgement had taken out execution and thereupon it was prayed for a supersedeas to supersede the execution and for an Attachment against the party for his contempt to the Court. And it was urged by the Councel that moved That after a writ of Error is received and allowed the hands of the Court that gave the Iudgement are foreclosed from granting out execution and that the writ of Error is in it self a Supersedeas and cited Dyer 283. and therefore concluded that the execution is not well issued forth Twisden of Councel on the other side said that the writ of Error was not duly pursued because the roll was not marked and therefore the party might well take out execution But Roll chief Iustice answered that the writ was well pursued though the roll were not marked Yet if neither the roll be marked Notice nor notice given to the Attorney on the other side of the bringing the writ of Error if the party procéed to take out execution it is no contempt to the Court otherwise it is a contempt Contempt Supersedeas And it is the duty of the Clerk of the Errors to mark the roll and not the Attorneys and therefore take a Supersedeas quia improvide emanavit to stop execution Pym against Morgan alias Bambery and Baselye Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 1062. IN an Ejectione firmae brought for the Mannor of Caledown Argument upon a special verdict in an Ejectione firmae The Defendant pleads Not guilty and upon this the Iury find a special verdict to this effect That Sir Thomas Morgan was seised in fée amongst other lands of the lands in question and that in 13 Car. he made a settlement of these lands to himself for life the remainder to his daughter Mary for life the remainder to the heirs of the first Tenant for life with a power of revocation
parts it will be naught in all Hill 1649. Banc. sup THe Case of the Vills of Newton and Tyd concerning the presentments made to the Comissioners of Sewers for the Hundred of Wisbitch For quashing presentments and Orders of Commissioners of Sewers and their order made thereupon was again spoken to Twisden against the presentment said That it is not a presentment by Iury as it ought to be by the Statute for the Iury have only power to enquire of things within the Hundred of Wisbitch and it doth not appear that Newton and Tyd are within that Hundred 2ly The substance of the presentment is not good for the Commissioners cannot order that Newton and Tyd which have no benefit by the repairing of the bank shall contribute to the reparations 18 E. 3. f. 22. 3ly They cannot order to make a new wall notwithstanding Callice his opinion in his reading upon the Statute of Seâ—â—ers 4ly The Tax is not well laid for it is not laid upon all the Lands within Newton and Tyd as it ought to be charged if any ought to be Holhead answered to this last exception that it does not appear there are more Lands in Tyd or Newton than are charged And Roll chief Iustice said that is well enough To the third exception Holhead said it is not wholly a new work and therefore they may order to make it To which Roll chief Iustice assented and said it was so notwithstanding the Case of the I le of Ely for that was for the making of a new work totally To the 2d Exception he read the words of the presentment by which it appears that because the adventurers had no Lands to be charged and it is found necessary to be repaired that therefore it is to be repaired by Newton and Tyd for the present necessity Maynard answered that they are not bound to repair for the Act of a Stranger Taxes Roll chief Iustice answered Newton Tyd may take there remedyes against the strange adventurers and it seems there was a present necessity to repair it for publique safety If one be bound by prescription to repair a wall yet to prevent the present and publique danger the Commissioners may tax others to do it and the Law is just that is here made by the Commissioners But the 1. Exception is not answered and so the Commissioners have exceeded their authority Therefore let their be a new Law made by consent and quash the presentments except better matter be shewed But we cannot order you to have your monyes again But for that take your remedy at Law Garret against Blisard Hil. 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 983. VPon a special verdict found in an ejectione firmae The Case was this Grandmother Tenant for life Arguments upon a case upon a special verdict in an ejectione firmae the remainder to the Father for life the remainder to the Son for life the Son levyes a fine come ceo c. of the Land the question was whether it be a forfeiture of his estate or not Hales argued that it was a forfeiture but I could not here him well He cited these books 41 Ed. 3.10 24 E. 3. f. 70. Pasc 11. Car. Banc. Reg. Huttens reports Trin. 7 Car. Banc. Reg. and adjudged 11 Car. in King and Edwards case Dyer 339. And he said that a fine sur conisance de droit come ceo c. as it is in our case is a Feoffment upon Record and doth imply a Livery And said that a remainder may be forfeited by levying such a fine and concluded it was a forfeiture Wadham Windham on the other side argued that it was no forfeiture Forfeiture And cited Mich. 24 E. 3. and Dyer 139. and laid this for a ground that where a Feoffment in Fee made by a Tenant for lise doth displace any remainder that such a Feoffment is a forfeiture but it is not so in this Case and therefore it can be no forfeiture If Tenant for life of a rent or of an Advowson levy a fine it is a forfeiture although that no remainder be displaced this is the great objection 15 E. 4. f. 15 by Littleton and the fine fur conisance de droit implyes a Fee simple 40 Ed. 3. But there a Fee simple really passed with the estate for life But here it passes by way of interest and not by way of estopel and the Conusee may confesse and avoid and therefore here is no estopel and so it differs from the Cases objected 6 Rich. 2 Estopel 211. But it is objected that he hath taken upon him to passe all the estate which is more than he hath to passe and this makes it a forfeiture 43 E. 3. f. 22. It is good for the reversion in Fee and not for the other estate 37 H. 6. f. 5. 41 E. 3 f 14. by Thorpe It was answered that he hath not taken upon him to passe all the estate but only his own estate It is objected that the fine joyns all the estates together and purports the passing of them whole and entire It was answered that the fine doth not purport the entire estate 44 E. 3. f. 10. so much shall passe by the fine as may rightfully passe and no more and so the estate passes by fraction Cooks Instit 345. The Law construes the effect of the fine according to the intent of the parties and that wrong shall not be intended so is it here And if there be Tenant for life the remainder in fail the remainder in Fee to Tenant for life if Tenant for life levie a fine it is no forfeiture 10 H. 4. f. 2. Tenant for life may pray in ayd of all in the remainder and he said that in this case is no forfeiture nor estopel nor hath he passed more than he hath there is no wrong by the fine but it shall only passe what may be passed and he said a fine is a Feoffment when the thing to passe by it lyes in Livery otherwise it is but a grant and devests no estate as a Feoffment doth And in Baker and Hackers Case in this Court Bredons Case was denyed for Law by Bramston Iones and Barkley Hob. 388 389. It is no discontinuance and such estate shall first passe by which no wrong shall be done The Iudges ought to be Aâ—tuti to invent reasons to support estates and to defend from injuries and where the Conusee of the fine hath an interest to passe by it to satisfie the operation of it such a fine is good and doth no wrong as it is in our Case It is objected that there is a Fée simple here but it is of no value for it is after an estate tayl and shall not be assets in the Heir It was answered It is but of little value but it hath more than a right in it and so he prayed judgement for the Defendant Forfeiture Roll chief Iustice held it was a forfeiture although there be no
his guardian and therefore let the Iudgement be reversed nisi Fortune against Johnson Hill 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for an attachment against Iohnson upon an affidavit For an attachment for putting one out of possession that he had ejected one out of possession that was put in by a habere facias possessionem and that in a very riotous manner and had imprisoned the party so put out of possession and others Windham on the other side by way of answer said that the party came into the land by virtue of an eign Iudgement and an extent upon it Roll chief Iustice answered here is title against title therefore take your course in law for we will make no rule in it Crosthwayt and the Hundred of Lowdon Hill 1651. Banc. sup CRosthwayt brought an Action upon the Statute of Winchester of robberyes Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Statute of Winchester for robbery against the Hundred of Lowdon for being robbed of 160 l. and had a verdict against the Hundred It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Action upon the Statute did not lye for the party that brought it for it appears that he was not robbed but that the mony was taken out of a portmantle which was carryed by the postboy and that only the Plaintiffs hand was upon one end of the portmantle so that the post-boy was robbed and not the Plaintiff But Roll chief Iustice answered Robbery Possession there is no question but that this was a robbery of the Plaintiff and it is all one as where my Servant is robbed in my presence and there the goods shall be said to be in my possession and so is it here and therefore let Iudgement be entred nisi Tayler and Web. Hill 1651 Banc. sup THis case formerly argued at the Bar and broken on the Bench Special Verdict upon the words of a will and some opinion delivered in it was again moved by Maynard and argued by him And he said that by the Will no land passeth because lands are not mentioned in it neither is there any necessary implication that the Testator intended to devise his lands for the making one his Heir and enjoyning him to pay an annuity doth not convey the lands to him and the Will doth not say that he makes him his Heir of his lands but generally his Heir which by the civill Law may be of goods and for the enjoyning him to pay the annuity this may be out of other lands in consideration of the personal estate given unto him In Danyel and Vblies case a gift made by a Feme coparcener of her purparty of land did not convey the lands in Fée In Marshes case the Father gave his lands to his two Sons to be equally divided it was adjudged there that only an Estate for life passed and here is nothing at all expresly given In Gilbert and Withers case Mich. 20 Iac. It was adjudged that there ought not to be made such a construction of a Will as is not agreable to Law And this is only a logical Will by way of argument and not a grammatical Construction or Interpretation and positive Will Roll chief Iustice answered to make a construction of a Will where the intent of the Testator cannot be known is intentio caeca sicca but here although the words of the Will be not proper yet we may collect the Testators meaning to be by making of the party his Heir that he should have his lands and it is all one as if he had said Heir of his lands and here he not only makes him his Heir but his Executor also Will. and therefore if he shall not have his lands the word Heir is meerly nugatory and to no purpose for by being Executor only he shall have the goods and as it hath been observed he is in this case haeres factus though not natus Ierman Iustice to the same effect and said that the word Heir implyes two things 1. That he shall have the lands 2ly That he shall have them in Fee simple Nicholas and Ask Iustices concurred and so it was ruled that Iudgement should be given for Sir Iohn Bridges the Devisee nisi Lockoe against Palfriman Hill 1651 Banc. sup Hill 1651 rot 1002. VPon a special verdict found in an ejectione firmae Special verdict in an ejectione firmae the case fell out to be this Tenant for life the remainder to Baron and Feme and their Heirs Baron and Feme suffer a recovery The question was whether the Heirs of the Feme were bound by this recovery because the Feme being covert it was conceived she was not Tenant to the praecipe because it appears not she was examined and so nothing was recovered from her It was argued that this recovery did bind the Feme 1. because if a precipe be brought against one who hath nothing in the land the writ only is abatable Fitz. Tit. Droyt 29. Next an Estople with recompence excludes not only parties and privies but also strangers as it is in Shellyes case and 3 Iac. C. B. in Duke and Smiths case 15 E. 4 f. 28 In 43 Ed. 3. f. â—8 was the first mention of examination of a Feme upon a Recovery and she shall be intended to be examined here if it be requisite for it is not found she was not examined and in Br. Abridg. recovery in value 27 23 H. 8. It is held that a Feme Covert is barred by a Common recovery and this hath been the continual practice since that time and whereas it is objected that a colourable recovery doth not bind a Feme Covert it is answered that this is not a colourable recovery but a judicial matter of Record and is brought upon an original and there is an intended recompence to the Feme and to urge that there is no Tenant to the praecipe is an objection which reaches to the common practice of assurances and therefore not to be admitted and in time they might have counterpleaded the voucher but now they cannot avert this matter against the Record 19 E. 3. estople 9. and though the Feme be not examined yet she shall be bound by this recovery though in a fine it is otherwise where there is no recompence in value as here there is and in a fine the Iudge ex officio is bound to examine the Feme but not in a recovery nor is there any practice of it in Law 13 Ed. 3 Iudgement 29. A partition made by writ shall bind a Feme Covert because she hath a recompence so is it upon a partition made upon Record in Chancery And by the Barons surviving the Feme here the recompence both not survive to the Baron but shall go to the Heirs of the Feme Br. recovery in value 27 2 Iac. C. B. here is a reall Estate in the Baron and Feme Hales on the other side made the question to be whether by a recovery
determined and Hanbury and Cookrells case is not adjudged but if it be it is on my side and Mich. 37 38. C. B. rot 1149. It was adjudged upon solemn argument at the Bar and on the Bench contrary to the Iudgement in Pell and Browns case if lands be devised to one and his Heirs and if he dye without issue that the land shall be to another and his Heirs this is no Estate tail for it cannot stand with the rules of Law to devise â—uth an Estate for it is but a possibility and if it should be more it must be a Fee upon a Fee and so a perpetuity and it cannot be known within what bounds it shall end either in case of years or life or other contingencies and the comparison of Lampets case is not like to this case for that was or a Term but this is of a freehold and a contingent devise of a freehold is not good since the Statute of 32 H. 8. and Brook tit devise 2 Dyer 28 H. 8. f. 3â— is not an opinion against this And though there could be such a devise of other lands yet Copyhold lands cannot be so devised as the case is here for there cannot be so much as a possibility of reverter for there is no custom to warrant it Hill 5. Car. King and Leyden in this Court and Dyer 264. and though there might be a reverter yet he cannot devise it by will and if he could yet here the conbeyance is made up by surrender admittance and devise and the party is here in by the surrender and not by the devise and so is a Copyholder in by Act executed and not upon the contingency and the will is but to direct and though all this be otherwise yet the Plaintiff cannot have Iudgement for it appears not that the surrender is presented at any Court at all and here is nothing but a recitall found Ierman Iustice said by the Common Law there ought to be a presentment at the next Court Roll chief Iustice and Nicholas Iustice There is no certain time for the presentment but it is according to the Custom of the Manor so that it be within the life of the Tenant Roll chief Iustice said it is an inconvenience to devise such a contingent Estate Nicholas doubted for he said it would shake many wills if it might not be and so said Hales The Court would advise Hales confessed the verdict was imperfect but prayed it might be amended But Latch answered it is good enough for us the Defendants for we have primer possession The Court answered it would be good to have it amended and not to have a venire de novo Venire for that will be chargeable but if the verdict be imperfect to bring the matter in Law into question we can grant a new venire although it hath been heretofore doubted Therefore be advised so that it may be argued Antea Heal against Green Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 370. THe case between Heal and Green upon a special verdict formerly argued by Latch was again spoken to and argued by Twisden Argument upon a special verdict upon construction of words of a Will and he held that the Feme had power by the Will to make the lease notwithstanding that she hath but an Estate for life and cited 11 Car. B. R. Hill rot 810. Iob and Whites case and 21 Iac. Danyel and Vgnel and he said that the remainder limited to the daughter doth not hurt for it may very well stand with the will and the intent of the Testator appears upon the whole to be to give such a power to his wife to make this lease and cited 8 Car. Perd and Bensams case And there is a clause in the will that shews that the Testator did intend to advance his wife by this devise And the Feme shall be in by the power which shall make the estate of the lease good and it is not necessary to recite the power as it is held in Rogers case Maynard on the other side said he would not dispute the power but here is no such power given to the wife as it appears by the expresse words of the Will which doth only describe that she shall only make Estates but for her life otherwise she might make Estates in Tail or in Fee and if this should be the last part of the Will which doth limit the remainder would be destroyed and generals in a Will shall not revoke an express devise but they ought so to be construed that all the Will may stand together as Bonhams case is 8. rep Roll chief Iustice It is a difficult thing to shew the meaning of the Testator here but the general must not destroy the particular devise to which Nicholas Iustice assented and Roll enclyned that the Feme had power by the Will to make this Estate otherwise the words of the Will must be idle and void and it may be the Baron intended to give his wife such a power that she might destroy the remainders and otherwise there cannot be any construction made of the Will Ask Iustice differed in opinion and said it was unreasonable the remainder should be destroyed which is expresly limited by the Will and a Will doth differ from a conveyance Nicholas Iustice said that the words shall be expounded to shew his bounty to his wife but not to give her power to destroy the remainder Ierman Iustice There are expresse words for the Feme and the daughter and the Feme hath a power but not to destroy the Estate of the daughter Curia advisare vult Antea Booth against Lambert Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 201. VPon a speciall verdict upon these words Argument and judgement upon special verdict the question whether dower well assiâ—gâ—ed or not viz. I do endow you of a third part of all the lands my Cosen I. S. your husband dyed seised of The question was whether the feme were well endowed by these words because he doth not say that he endows her by metes and bounds Chase held she was not well endowed and cited 8 Ed. 2.15 and said that here is incertainty which begets dissention which ought not to be and the thing is not here entire but may be devided And this is an assignment of dower which differs from a demand of dower for a demand may be general as in the cases of Thyn and Thyn in this Court and of Fairefax and Fairefax and so the book of 8 E. 2. entry congeable S 5. which seems to prove the contrary that is not to our case for it differs from it Merifield of Councell on the other side held the feme was well endowed and agreed the cases put by Chase That of Common right a feme ought to be endowed by metes and bounds yet sometimes it is otherwise as 3 Eliz. Dyer 27. a feme endowed in Common And the feme that is to be endowed and the
Iustice answered Denied It appears not to us but that the Parliament was sitting at the time and peradventure it will be made appear at the tryal Therefore plead and go to tryal and then move in Arrest of judgement if you have any thing to move Page and Parr Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1654. rot 1687. PAge brought an Action of Covenant upon a Covenant conteined in an Indenture of a demise for years Covenant upon an Indenture for the not paying the rent reserved by the Indenture according to the Covenant The Defendant pleads in bar that the Plaintif entred into part of the land demised before the rent due for which the Action was brought and so had suspended his rent The Plaintif replyed the Defendant did re-enter and so was possessed as in his former estate Suspension of ren and to this replication the Defendant demurred and for cause he shewed that here was no confession and avoidance or traverse of the plea in bar Roll chief Iustice Have you shewed that he continued in possession until the rent grew due for you ought to shew that he entred and was possessed untill after the rent-day but here you have only said that he was possessed in his former right Nil capiar per Billam Therefore nil capiat per Billam nisi Hill 1654. Banc. sup VPon an Affidavit read in Court Not to plead till costs paid assessed in a former Action that 20 l. costs were taxed upon a non-sute in an Action of Trespass and Ejectment brought to the Bar and that the Plaintif had not payed them nor was to be found and yet had brought another Action for the same land The Court was moved that the Defendant might not be ruled to plead to this second Action until the Plaintif had paid the costs taxed upon the former non sute and that another Plaintif might be named or that security might be given to pay the costs if the Plaintif should be non-sute again Shew cause The rule was to shew cause why it should not be so Hill 1654. Banc. sup DArcy moved that an Endictment of Michaelmas Term last might be amended in the Caption But Roll chief Iustice answered To amend an Endictment of a former Term denied It cannot be if it be of the last Term but had it been an endictment of this Term it might have been amended Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment for entring forcibly upon a Tenant for years against the Statute of 21 Iacobi To quash an Endictment and the Exception was that the Endictment doth not say that he entred manu forti Roll chief Iustice answered The Statute is only that if one enter by force and the words manu forti are not expressed in the Act Therefore move it again if you will Hill 1654. Banc. sup A Habeas Corpus cum causa was granted for Elizabeth Bayne To discharge a prisoner turned over to the Mareschal For a habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to the intent to charge her with an Action and upon the return thereof she was committed to the Mareschal Wild moved that she might be discharged because the return of the Habeas Corpus is erronious But Roll chief Iustice answered It could not be whereupon he moved for another Habeas Corpus for her ad subjiciendum to be directed to the Mareschal which was granted Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment preferred against one for practising Phisick not being skilfull in the profession To quash an Endictment for practising Phisick without licence and not having a License to practice from the College of Phisicians The Exceptions were 1. That no Endictment at the Common Law lies for the offence supposed to be committed for it is not an offence against the Common Law and 2ly an Endictment upon the Statute lies not and so no Endictment lies And upon these Exceptions it was quashed The Protector and Hart. Hill 1654. Banc. sup ONe Hart committed to the Gatehouse appeared in Court upon the return of a Habeas Corpus granted for him To remand a prisoner appearing upon a Habeas Corpus and turned over Denied and upon the prayer of his Councel the return was filed upon which it was moved on his behalf that he might be remanded to the Keeper of the Gatehouse and not turned over to the Mareschal to the intent to save his fees but the Court said it could not be because upon filing of the return there ought to be entred upon it a Committitur to the Mareschal whereby he becomes his prisoner Torret and Frampton Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1653. rot 178. VPon a special Verdict the Case was this Special verdict upon a Devise A man deviseth his lands to his wife for her life the remaindar to A. B. and C. and their heirs respectively for ever The question was whether A. B. and C. were joynt tenants or tenants in common Serjeant Twisden held that they were joynt renants Whether joynt tenancy or a tenancy in common and that this case differs from Radcliffs case and cited Wilds case in the 6 Rep. that a Will must be clear and conspicuous but so it is not here and here is no enforcement by these words respectively and they do relate to the persons and not to the lands bequeathed and a Covenant made by three respectively is a joynt Covenant and not a several Covenant and the word respectively hath relation to the survivorship which may happen betwixt the parties and a devise to one and his heir is a fee-simple Latch For the Defendant held that here is a tenancy in Common and not a joynt tenancy for the Estate ought to be whole out either a tenancy in Common or whole out a joynt tenancy and this of necessity for there cannot be a joynt tenancy for life and several inheritantes in the remainder and Littletons ground proves this to be so And 2ly It is against all construction to be otherwise as the word respectively is here placed and Ratclifs case which is not so strong a case as this case proves it to be so and although the word respectively may sometimes make a distribution of heirship as hath been objected viz. of several heirships yet here the placing of the word respectively shews it cannot be so Distribution of heirship and this using of the word is not operative but idle if here should be a joynt tenancy for the law says as much though the word respectively were left out and the word would be the more idle in explicating a thing so obvious to common understanding and no ways doubtfull and therefore we cannot think but that these extraordinary words do enforce an extraordinary construction and not a common one and an idle application and this comes not within the rule objected for the certainty for this word hath a proper meaning to make a several distribution
to the surrender or otherwise the admittance is not good Thurle and Madison Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at the Bar between Thurle and Madison Enrolment of a Deed. It was said by Glyn chief Iustice that if divers persons do seal a Deed and but one of them acknowledge the Déed and the Déed is thereupon enrolled this is a good enrollment within the Statute and may be given in evidence as a Deed enrolled Evidence at a Tryal It was then also said that if a deed express a consideration of money upon the purchase made by the Deed yet this is no proof upon a tryal Consideration that the monies expressed were paid but it must be proved by witnesses MEorandum Copy proved That upon the same Tryal an Act of Parliament produced in point for the selling of Delinquents estates was sworn to have been examined by the Parliament Roll and that it was a true Copy before it was read in evidence Nota. VVood and Gunston Mich. 1655. VPon a motion for a new tryal between Wood and Gunston Memorandum New tryal for miscarriage of the Iury. upon a supposition of excessive damages given by the Iury in an Action upon the case tryed at the Bar for words viz. Calling the Plaintif Traytor c. 1500 l. being the damages given It was said by Glyn chief Iustice that if the Court do believe that the Iury gave their verdict against their direction given unto them the Court may grant a new Tryal And a new Tryal was gronted in this Case after a full debate had by Councell on both sides Culliar and Iermin Mich. 1655. Banc. sup CUlliar brought an Action upon the Case upon a promise and declared Arrest of judgement upon a promise that the Testator of the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would mary such a Woman did promise that he would leave him half his Estate at his death and thereupon he did mary the party and yet he did not leave him half his estate at his death Vpon a verdict found for the Plaintif it was moved in arrest of judgement that the Declaration was not good for whereas the promise was that the Defendant should leave him half of all his estate which might be intended both of his real and also of his personal Estate and of any estate in reversion as well as of an estate in possession the Plaintif only says that the Testator died worth 3000 l. in possession and that he did not leave him half of that estate and it may be he left him part of his real estate or estate in reversion to the full value of half his whole estate But Glyn chief Iustice disallowed the exception and gave judgement for the Plaintif Iudgement Lance and Blackmore Mich. 1655. Banc. sup Hill 1654. rot 191. LAnce an Executor brought an Action upon the Case against Blackmore Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the Case upon a pro and declared that in consideration that the Testator would suffer the Defendant to enjoy such a Close of land the Defendant did assume and promise to pay 53 s. a year for the rent thereof for so long time as he should enjoy it and for so much rent due for it for so long time in the Testators life time and for so much rent due since his death he brings the Action Vpon non assumpsit pleaded a verdict was found for the Plaintif and entire dammages given It was moved in arrest of Iudgement That an Action of the Case doth not lie it being for the non-payment of rent which follows the nature of the land and doth sound in the realty for which a personal Action lies not 2ly Here doth not appear by the Daclaration Personal act on Consideration to the any consideration to ground the promise upon for the Declaration is that if the Testator in her life time would permit the Defendant to enjoy the Close then c. and it is not averred Averment that the Testator did in her life time suffer the Defendant to enjoy the Close Glyn chief Iustice If a promise be made to the Testator the Executor may have an Action Executor and it is a good consideration as to him for the executor is representative of the Testator And 2ly An Action upon the Case will not lie for rent upon a promise in law but upon a special promise of the party to pay it Promise in Law Special as our Case is it will lie Ingram and Fawset Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN this Case it was said by Glyn chief Iustice Administratâ—r must shew how Administrator That if an Administrator bring an Action against an Administrator it is not necessary for the Plaintif to shew by whom the letters of Administration were granted unto the Defendant but he must shew by whom the letters of Administration were granted to himself to entitle himself to the Action for if it appear not to the Court that he is Administrator he cannot sue by that name Mich. 1635. Banc. sup IT was said by Wild and agreed by Whitwick one of the Masters of the Vpper Bench office How far special bayl is lyable for the principal that if an Attorny do appear for one in the Vpper Bench special bayl is entred for his Clyent to that Action that that Bayl is not bound to stand Bayl to all other Actions that shall be declared in against the party upon the by but the Attorny for him is bound to appear for him in all such Actions and to put in Common bayl Wagstaff and Tempest Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IT was said by Glyn chief Iustice upon evidence given in a Tryal at the Bar Dispensation with a forfeiture of an Estate bayl between VVagstaff and Tempest that if tenant for life do levy a Fine of the Lands he is so seised of whereby he should forfeit his estate yet if he in the remainder will joyn with the Tenant for life in declaring the uses this is a dispensation with the forfeiture and Le Gay Mich. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was enformed For a time to accompt before Auditors that in an Action of Accompt brought there was a verdict that the Defendant should accompt before Auditors and that Auditors were assigned and the parties were now before the Auditors and thereupon it was moved on the Defendants part that this Court would grant him time to accompt for the reasons alleged But Wild answered that it was not proper to move here for the Auditors are now Iudges of the matter Auditors Iudges by the Statute and may give time if they see cause To which Glyn chief Iustice agreed and said the Auditors are Iudges by the Statute and therefore move before them and trouble not us with it Sergeant Bradshaw and Procter Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN the Case of Sergeant Bradshaw and Mr. Procter of Grays Inne Challenge to an array no part of
if it be a free Chapel it is presentative 11. rep 150. Cowel Tit. free Chapel Lynwood 149 150. Grendous Case 4. rep Institution gives cure of soules 13 E. 4. f. â— There may be a benefice with cure not presentative VVords and if it be with cure then it was not for a superstitious use and cannot then be within the intent of the Statute 1. rep 23. And for the word all it is not alwayes taken generally but restrictively 2 H. 6. To the objection made to the Verdict that it is not found by whom it is presentative I answer Special verdict This is a special verdict and it is the expression of the lay gens and shall be interpreted according to common acceptation The rule of Court was to argue it again the Next Term because it is a cause of great consequence Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. BAron and Feme bring an Action of Trespass of Assault and Battery Arrest of Iudgement in assault and battery Ioyning in an Action and declare of an assaulting and beating of the Feme and have a verdict the Defendant moves in arrest of Iudgement and for cause shews that the Baron and Feme ought not to joyn in this Action though the Assault and Battery was done to the Feme particularly but that the Baron ought to have brought the Action alone because what ever damages should be recovered would go to the Baron only and cited 9 E. 4. fol. 51. The Iudgement was arrested till the Plaintiff should move Vandicoote Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintiff brings an Action of Debt against Vandicoote Arrest of Iudgement in Debt for rent against an Executor Debt in the detinet and debet the Executor of I. D. for rent due unto him by the Testator in his life time and hath a verdict The Defendant moves in arrest of Iudgement and for cause shews that the Plaintiff had declared that the Defendant detinet et debet which ought not to be but in the detinet only the Action being brought against him as an Executor for rent due in the Testators life and cited Smith and Nichols case 7 Car. But Wild of Councell with the Plaintiff said it was good enough in the detinet and debet though it might have been in the Detinet only Hales on the contrary part said it was not good for it could not be the Debt of the Executor though he be to be charged and so he cannot be said debere but it is the proper debt of the Testator and the Executor may be said detinere because he ought to pay it Executors VVaiver and doth not Roll Justice said that it had been adjudged good both wayes and said that Executors cannot waive a Term come to them and yet they cannot be charged in the debet and detinet And prima facie in the case at the bar the Action may be brought in the debet and detinet Yet put the cause in the paper and argue it again Tanner and Laurence Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. TAnner brings an Action upon the Case against Lawrence Arrest of Iudgement in an indebitatus assumpfit upon an indebitatus Assumpsit to pay unto him two shillings a piece for every cloath he should buy for the Defendant and declares for so much money due unto him and hath a verdict the Defendant moves in arrest of Iudgement and shews for cause 1. That it is not averred by the Plaintiff Averment Notice that he gave any notice to the Defendant how many cloaths he had bought for him and so it is not certain what is due to him To this it was answered that the cloaths were bought for the Defendant himself and he may very well take notice of the number of them without any notice given him A second answer was that here is a request set forth for the payment of the mony and this implyes a notice But Roll Iustice to this answer replyed Implication that the request doth nor imply a notice and so is I wists Case and besides the notice ought not to be by implication but must be averred certainly Yet let it be moved again Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintiff in an Action upon the Case upon an indebitatus declares that the Defendant in consideration of a certain sum of mony Arrest of Iudgement in an indebitatus assumpsit due to the Plaintiff by the Defendant for rent behind upon a lease for years did assume and promise to pay the same unto him at a certain day and had not done it and for this he brings his Action and hath a verdict the Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and for cause shews that there is no consideration declared to ground an Action of the Case upon for rent is a reall thing and an Action of Debt ought to have been brought for it Consideration and not this Action Roll Iustice said that here is only a consideration in law set forth which is not good to warrant this Action Debt But it may be there was some new consideration that sprung from the being of the rent behind that did ground this Action but no such thing doth appear in the Declaration Therefore the Plaintiff nil capiat per billam if cause be not shewn within 14 dayes why he should have his Iudgement Wood and Salter Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. IN an arrest of Iudgement in an Action of Trespasse for carrying away 24 load of tymber Arrest of Iudgement in Trespasse The exception was that the Tymber is not said to be the Tymber ipsius querentis and so no cause of Action Vpon this Iudgement was arrested Burnet and Bird. Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. BUrnet the Administrator of I. S. brings an Action upon the Case against Bird Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case upon a promise and declares against him upon an Assumpsit made by the Defendant to the intestate for the payment of a certain sum of mony for a mariage portion at 2 severall dayes of payment equally and that for not performing the same in the life time of the intestate he brings this Action The Plaintiff hath a Verdict The Defendant moves in arrest of Iudgement and shews for cause that the Plaintiff doth not well set forth the granting of the letters of Administration to him for he sayes they were granted unto him by the Arch-deacon of such a place and doth not say loci illius ordinarium nor cui administratio-pertinuit 2ly It is said that the mony was to be paid at 2 severall payments which amounts to two several promises viz. a promise to pay the first ten pound on such a day and a promise to pay the other sum at another day to come and doth not allege any particular request made by the intestate for the first ten pound But Bacon Iustice over-ruled both the exceptions and said to the first Notice Ordinary Letters of ad ministration-Peculiar
really a Copyholder and cited Shellyes case and prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice said This Case differs from surrendring into the hands of Tenants for it is into the hands of the Steward out of Court Surrend Admission which is good and the Lords acceptance of his rent is an admission But Bacon doubted and therefore the rule was for the Case to be argued again the next Term and then by reason of sicknesse I was absent But that Term held not by reason of the Kings death Dunch against Smith Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. DUnch brought an Action of Debt as Executor for arrerages of a rent charge due to the Testator against Dunch Arrest of Iudgement in Debt brought by an Executor an occupyer of the land out of which the rent was issuing and hath a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and for Cause shewed that the Plaintiff doth not shew any title that the Defendant hath in the Land but only sayes generally that he entred into the Lands and so it appears not that he is to pay the rent To this the Councel on the other side answered that the Plaintiff being but an Executor cannot know the title and therefore is not bound to shew it Roll chief Iustice said there can be no Iudgement for the Declaration is too generall But Bacon Iustice held the Declaration good enough Antea Brown against Poyns Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case was this a man made his last Will and made two Executors For a prohibition to repeal an administration Prohibition Appeal the Executors dye in the life of the Testator the Testator dyes having two Sisters the eldest Sister procures Administration the younger Sister moves for a Prohibition to repeal the Administration because she being in equal degree of king ought to have equall share of the Administration But the Court answered that a prohibition lies not for you may appeal if the Administration be not rightly granted Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. A Processe issued out of this Court for a Cart and Horses that were cause of a mans death as a deodand 12. Iac. To stay processe for a deodand and it was moved that there hath been a generall pardon by Parliament since that time by which deodands were pardoned and therefore it was prayed the processe might be stayed General pardon The Court asked whether there be not an exception of deodands or the Almoners interest in the pardon The Councell answered there is not The Court demanded by what words in the pardon are deodands pardoned The Councel answered by the generall words The Court ordered thereupon it should be stayed till the Almoner be heard what he can say Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for a habeas Corpus for one that was taken in Execution by the Sheriff and was afterwards set at liberty For a habeas corpus for one taken upon one Execution Audita querela and after that retaken upon the same Execution The Court answered take it but you are in the wrong way for you ought to bring your audita querela The King against Bray Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of forcible entry made upon a Lessee for years upon the Statute of 21 Iac. To quash an Endictment of forcible entry The exceptions taken to it were 1. It doth not appear by the Endictment that the Lessee had any title to the Land at the time of the force committed for the force is supposed to be done before the lease commenced 2ly The lease is supposed to be a lease for so many years if I. S. shall so long live and it is not averred that I. S. was alive at the time of the forcible entry made Averment Roll chief Iustice cited the Lady Morlyes case that there ought to be a direct allegation of the life Therefore let it be quashed Mich. 24. Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of Assault and Battery of an overseer of the poor villae de A. in executing of his office The exceptions taken to it were To quash an Endictment for assaulting a Collector for the poor 1. That there is no such officer as an overseer of the poor villae but it ought to be parochiae but the Court said it was well enough as it was though it had been more proper the other way 2ly The Endictment is for the Assaulting and beating a Collector for the poor in executing his office whereas there is no such office appointed for any one particular man by the Law for the Statute is that there shall be two Collectors for the poor in every Parish and so the office is joynt and not several But the Court over-ruled this exception also 3ly It wants vi et Armis Vpon this exception the Court bid the Councel move it again Gill against Crosse Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt against two as Administrators upon fully administred pleaded issue was ioyned Speciall verdict in Debt against Executors and a speciall verdict was found to this effect viz. that one of the Administrators had fully administred and that the other Administrator had assets It was urged against the Verdict that the issue that was found is impertinent and impossible Verdict Iudgement and so there can be no judgement given upon it But the Court answered that the verdict is good yet if Iudgement should be given upon it the Iudgement would be ill and Nevills and Greenwoods case Hill 7. Car. in the Exchequer rot 1189. was cited and it was said that Iudgement may be against that Executor who hath assets and nil capiat per billam against the other that hath fully administred But take Iudgement at your peril Preston against Holmes Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. or Mich. 24 Car. rot 2052. VPon a special verdict found the Case in effect was this Arguments upon a special verdict upon a Will one in see having one Son by one venter and another Son by a second venter did by his last Will devise all his Lands to his wise for life and after her death to I. his eldest Son and to his Heirs and the question was whether the Son shall take these Lands by the devise or as Heir at Law and so the devise to be of no effect to make him come to the Lands by purchase Christopher Turner held that the devise is void because it sayes no more than the Law says for if there had been no such devise Iohn his Heirs should have had the Land and he cited Paramour and Yardlves Case in the Comentaries and Hob. rep Counden and Clarks case But it is objected that in this case the Law speaks one thing and the devise another thing and so the devise says not the same thing To this I answer there is no difference concerning the alteration of the Estate
case for the Riot is found upon the view View Record and so there néeds no enquiry and the Record ought to be made up by the two Iustices that had the view and by the Sherif and it is not made by them as Iustices but as Iudges joyned with the Sherif by the Statute Iustices that find a Riot may either bring in the Record in Court propriis manibus of their own accord or may send it into Court as they have done here The prisoners committed upon the first Record read for there were two here read in Court were bailed but not discharged Discharge although the retorn was not good because the Court said it was not usual to discharge prisoners at the first reading of the retorn For the other prisoners The Court advised Bendir against Oyle Mich. 1649. Banc. sup For a Prohibition to the Court of Pollicy of assurance A Prohibition was prayed to the Court of the Commissioners of pollicy for assurance upon a surmise that they proceeded there in the tryal of the Assurance of a mans life which was said to be tryable at the Common law as it was before the Statute made that erected that Court Assurance as may appear by the preamble of the Statute Roll chief Iustice said that the Assurance of the life of a man is not within the Statute of Assurance as the Assurance of a mans life upon the buying of an office but this case is different for the man whose life is here assured is going to sea upon Merchants affairs and his life may be as well assured as the safe return of the ship he goes in But let Councel be heard on both sides Wednesday next but wee will stay nothing in the interim Postea Mich. 1649. Banc. super AN Information was exhibited against the Inhabitants of the Town of Burmingham for not repairing Burmingham-bridge To amend a Record after verdict two of the Defendants plead to issue and a verdict was found for them in paiis It was moved for the Defendants that Mr. Attorney General had mistaken the Christian name of one of the Defendants in his replication and prayed that the Record might be amended before Iudgement entred Amendment that the Iudgement may not be erronious by reason of this mistake The Court answered Bring a Copy of the Record to us to advise upon Issue but they said they did not see how it could be amended for that they conceived there was no issue joyned Hobbs against Blanchard Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Pasch 20 Car. rot 220. BLanchard brought an action of Trespas in the Court at Norwitch against Hobbs and had a verdict and a judgement Error to reverse a judgement in trespass The Defendant brought a writ of Error to reverse the judgement The error assigned was that the Iury had not found the issue joyned for the issue joyned is de injuria sua propria absque tali causa and the Iury have found not guilty generally Panel of Councel with the Defendant in the writ of Error said that the Iury have found the effect of the issue though they have not found the very words and therefore it is good enough and he cited Fabian Kingstons case 32 Eliz. and Wingrave Homes his case 3 Car. entred 2 Car. rot 632. Roll chief Iustice answered That the verdict found the issue argumentatively only and not directly and therefore it is not good Verdict Ierman Iustice was of the same opinion and the Iudgement was reversed except better cause shewn Carew against Bawd Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Trin. 24 Car. rot 1607. CArew brought an Action of trespas against Bawd for entring into his ground and taking away a certain parcel of Tynn Demurrer to a plea of privilege of Parl. in an action of trespass The Defendant pleaded that he was servant unto the Lord Moone who was a Lord of the Parliament and that he took the Tynn by his Command and claims his privilege as his servant not to be impleaded to this plea the Plaintif demurrs and for cause shews that the Defendant doth not shew that he was the Lord Moons menial servant Privilege and attending upon his person and it may be he was his Carter or Plowman and such servants are not privileged Roll chief Iustice said The privilege is not claimed here méerly as his servant but he justifies here as his servant in defence of his Masters title to the Tynn Waiver which he took by his command But let the Defendant plead in Chief and let the Plaintif waive the Demurrer Or else let the Plaintif enter his suggestion upon the roll that the House of Lords is now dissolved and so let them take issue and go to tryal Or else let the party plead what he will upon record and we will advise in the mean time Paroch de Hardingham versus Paroch de Brisley Mich. 1649. Banc. sup AN order of Sessions made for the setling of a poor woman in the parish of Hardingham was returned hither by a Certiorari granted to the said parish For quashing an Order of Sessions for the setling of a Vagrant and upon the return read and opening the matter by Councel the case was this An inhabitant dwelling within the parish of Brisley did hire a maid servant for a year and Covenanted to give her Forty shillings for her wages and entertained her into his service The maid servant some time after fell sick in his service her Master thereupon turns her out of his service without giving her any thing the maid for necessity in travelling from Brisley toward Hardingham where her friends lived and where she was born was forced to beg for relief whereupon she was sent as a Vagrant to Hardingham where she was born The Vill of Hardingham send her back to Brisley where she was entertained as a Covenant servant whereupon they of Brisley procure an order of Sessions to settle her at Hardingham The Question was Whether this were a good order or not for setling her at Hardingham according to the Statute Or whether she ought to be setled at Brisley where she was entertained as a Covenant servant and turned out of service and forced to begg by that means Roll chief Iustice said That here séems to be fraudulency in the Master to make his servant a Vagrant Vagrant that so he may be rid of her but if one begg meat and drink for necessity in passing betwéen one Town and another this is not begging to make one a beggar within the Statute And therefore the Court ordered that the party should be setled at Brisley Setlement where she was entertained for a Covenant servant and not at Hardingham where she was born if cause were not shewn to the contrary Harwood against Paty Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe case betwéen Harwood and Patye was again spoken unto Argument in trespass whether Tithes be extendible by Wild of Councel
Case was within that Statute and is to be tryed by the Court of Policy and that this case doth properly concern merchandizing and is within both the Letter and reason of the Law And by the words of the policy it appears plainly that the Contract concerns merchandizing the party ought not now to suggest the contrary against his own words in the policy Roll chief Iustice said the words of the policy are not material for the words may be false and the Contract may be for things not touching merchandizing notwithstanding and the intent of the Statute is for things merchantable and if it appear they be not so a prohibition ought to be granted Serjeant Glyn replyed Prohibition that the voyage depended upon the skil of the party whose life was assured by the policy and although the party were indebted and there were security given by bail for his debt to the intent he might goe the voyage yet this is within the Statute Roll chief Iustice answered This is a far fetch'd construction and we cannot avoid the granting of a prohibition but â—raw the suggestion and deliver it on Monday next and joyn issue and try it this term The Case in which this prohibition was moved for and granted was this Denoir and Oyle were baileâ— for one Captain Parr whose life was assured by the policy in a sute against him in the Admiralty brought by one Bushel for 100 l. for fraight due by Parr unto him Assurance and upon that Parr having part in a plantation in the Barbadoes and a quarter part in the ship he was to make his voyage and his life was assured by Denoir and Oyles who were his bail Weston against Plowden Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Rot. 505. THe Court was moved for time for Sir Edmund Plowden the Defendant to plead For time to plead because the Plaintif had declared against him by the name of Sir Edmund Plowden Knight whereas he is by Creation Count Palatine of Nova Albion and that is now part of his name and he must also plead a special plea. Roll chief Iustice answered he is also called a Count of Ireland and neither the one nor the other is part of his name as is suggested and therefore if you will plead in Chief take a wéeks time more for it otherwise plead at your peril for a Count Palatine of Nova Albion or a Count of Ireland are not additions in England Addition Mich. 1649. Banc. sup A Petition was presented to Commissioners of Sewers against one for obstructing a navigable River Against an Order of Commissioners of Sewers and prayed that the Commissioners would remove the obstructions upon which an Order was made by the Commissioners to make a view and to certifie the matter to them and upon this certificate a Iury was returned to enquire of the nusance and a verdict was given by the Iury upon Articles presented unto them to enquire of it This Order of the Commissioners and the procéedings thereupon were removed hither by a Certiorari and these exceptions were taken upon reading of the return 1. That it doth not appear by what authority the Commissioners did sit 2. The presentment made was not good for it is said that antiently the river was so and so and this is incertain 3ly The presentment is that they know not when the Mill was made which is supposed to be an obstruction and if the Mill were made beyond time of the memory of man the Commissioners have no power to enquire concerning it Roll chief Iustice Give notice to the Councel for the Commissioners of Sewers to answer the exceptions Wednesday next Shayler against Bigg Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Mich. 24 Car. rot 90. BIgg brought an Action of Trover and Conversion of a Horse Writ of Error brought by the bail and had a Verdict and a Iudgement The bail for the Defendant in the Action brought a writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement given against the principal The Court was moved to abate the writ The Court answered If the writ of Error be brought upon the principal Iudgement it ought to be abated It hath been a question heretofore whether a writ of Error brought upon the principal Iudgement Error and also upon the Iudgement given against the bail together be good in part and ill for other part But of later times it hath been ruled that it ought to abate for all Therefore let the party shew cause why the writ shall not be abated here Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment for a forcible Entry For quashing an Endictment upon these Exceptions 1. The party hath made no title 2ly The Endictment is not said to be found by the Iury but by the Iustices 3ly It doth not say that the force was contra pacem publicam as the late Act of Parliament directs but contra pacem reipublicae The Court answered it was a foul riot and deserved no favour yet the Endictment was quashed upon the 1 and 3 exceptions Dell against Brown Mich. 1649. Banc. sup BRown brought an Action of Trespass against Dell in the Common Pleas Error for taking away three Cowes and had Iudgement against him upon a nihil dicit The Defendant brought a writ of Error in this Court to reverse the Iudgement Entire damages The Error assigned was that for two of the Cowes there was no value declared and yet entire damages were given for them all which was not good Roll Chief Iustice This is a Iudgement upon a Nihil dicit and so there is no Verdict to help it Postea 136. Barber against Pomeroy Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Entred Hill 24 Car. rot 595. or 1095. BArber brought an Action of debt against Pomeroy for arrerages of rent due for 7. years and for 7. Capons the Defendant pleaded nil debet Arrest of judgement in an action of debt for rent upon this an issue was joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took this exception that the Plaintif of his own shewing had demanded more than was due so ought not to have Iudgement The Question here was Whether the Plaintif might not relinquish that part which is not due and have judgement for so much as is due Yard of Councel with the Plaintif held that he might Relinquishment and cited Godfryes case 11 Rep. f. â—5 b. and Hubbards case 4 Rep. and prayed for Iudgement Twisden of Councel on the other side prayed judgement might not be given and he agreed the cases cited by Yard and cited other cases of the same nature where the Plaintif may release part and have Iudgement for the rest But he said that here the thing is entire and cannot be apportioned for then he shall falsifie his own writ 1 Ed. 4.24 But Roll chief Iustice held Release Damages that the relinquishing of part is not the falsifying of his own writ
And as to the second the Court held that it shall be intended that the Posts and Pales were not fixed to the ground Amendment and there is no necessity to express how many Posts and how many Pales the Defendant took Intendment and it is not material whether they were fixed or not But the Court would advise and ordered Councel to spake again to it Popham against White Mich. 1650. Banc. sup AN Action of Trover an Coversion was brought Exception to a Declaration in a Trover and Conversion wherein the Plaintif declared pro Arboribus Twisden of Councel with the Defendant argued that the Declaration was not good because a Trover cannot lie de Arboribus Roll chief Iustice he may declare de Arboribus if he say that he was possessed sicut de Arboribus suis propriis But Ierman Iustice doubted Therefore the Court would advise Martin against Hendlye Mich. 1650. Banc. sup MArtin brought an Action of Debt against Hendlye a Sherif for an escape and had a Verdict against him Arrest of Iudgement in an action of Debt against a Sherif for an escape Advantage The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took these exceptions 1. That the Action was brought by the Plaintif as an Administrator for the escape which was made in the life of the Intestate only 2ly That there is no Capias issued to the Sherif The Court answered That the Sherif cannot take advantage of an erronious process but the first exception is good for the Action ought to be brought in the Detinet only the Plaintif being but an Administrator Detinet who recovers not to his own use Therefore stay Iudgement till the Plaintif move Dethick against Mich. 1650. Banc. sup DEthick moved for a Prohibition to the Admiralty for preferring an Endictment there For a prohition to the Admiralty Prohibition Certiorari which is not within the Statute touching the Admiralty and so they have no jurisdiction of the cause The Court answered that a Prohibition lies not in cases of Felony but if there be Cause it may be removed by Certiorari But we will advise Bennet and the Hundred of Hartford Mich. 1650. Banc. sup IN a tryal at Bar between the inhabitants of Hartford and Bennet a Caryer upon an Action brought against them upon the Statute of Winchester Evidence by one of the lury to the rest Evidence for a robbery committed within that Hundred upon his servant It was said by the Court that if either of the parties to a tryall desire that a Iuror may give evidence of something of his own knowledge Examination Where a hundred shall be charged for a robbery or where not to the rest of the Iurors that the Court will examine him openly in Court upon his oath and he ought not to be examined in private by his companions And it was also said that if a robbery be done in crepusculo the Hundred shall not be charged but if it be done by cleer day light whether it be before Sun rise or after Son set it is all one for the Hundred shall be charged in both cases Mich. 1649. Banc. sup SErjeant Earl A Iury being ready at the Bar for a tryal challenged the Atray for want of Hundreders A challenge of the array f r want of Hundredors the manner of it and delivered in the challenge in writing to Woodward the Clark of the Court to be read But the Court interrupted him and said to the Serjeant you ought first to read it your self in French which he accordingly did and afterwards Woodward read it in Latin Twisden of Councel on the otherside said that the challenge was taken to no purpose for the Iury was returned by the Secondary by rule of Court and the Hundreders were put out by the consent of the parties But the Court answered that the consent of the parties was to no purpose to avoid the challenge but that it was a good challenge Consent Challenge Tales and there cannot be a tales granted upon a challenge for default of Hundreders and therefore the panel was quashed and a new Iury ordered to be returned by the Sheriff In this case it was said that after the first man of a Iury is sworn the Array cannot be challenged Cage against Dod. Mich. 1650. Banc. sup VPon a tryal betwen Cage and Dod touching a Copyhold it was said by the Court that a Copyholder for life cannot prescribe against his Lord What copy-holder may prescribe against his Lord and what nor but a Copyholder in fee may for he hath the Copyhold in the nature of Land of inheritance And also that if a Copyholder for life cut down tymber trees the Lord may take them And that if an under Lessee for years of a Copyholder cut down tymber Forfeiture it shall not be a forfeiture of the Copy-holders estate The Countesse Rivers Mich. 1650. Banc. sup THe Countesse Rivers put in her plea of Privilege of Peerage into Court A Plea of privilege of peerage by Countess Privilege and prayed by Sejeant Glin of her Councel that it might be read and allowed Vpon which it was read by Woodward Clark of the Court. After which Roll chief Iustice said it is questionable whether a Countess made so by patent only for her life be privileged or no therefore let her remain in the Custody of the Sheriff till Saturday and not be turned over to the Custody of the Mareschall and then move it again Postea Burton against Low Mich. 1650. Banc. sup BUrton brought an Action of debt against Low Demurrer in debt upon a Sheriffs bond upon a Sheriffs bond given by Low to the Sheriff being arrested by him by virtue of an Attatchment directed to him out of the Chancery the condition of the Bond was that the Defendant should appear on such a day in Cancellaria apud Westmonasterium ubicunque suerit The Defendant pleads in Bar the Statute of 3 H. 6. she Plaintiff demurred to this plea. Moseley of Councell with the Defendant argued that the Bond upon which the Action was brought was void and against the Statute 1. Because the party is bound to appear in a Court which is not a fixt Court and so incertain namely the Court of Chancery at Westminster whereas the Chancery is a moveable Court and not fixt to Westminster or any other place 2ly The condition of the Obligation is impossible for it is that the Defendant shall appear in the Chancery at VVestminster wheresoever it shall be and it is impossible for him to appear at VVestminster and at another place at the same time 3ly The Bond varies from the Statute in some things and enjoyns more than the Statute requires in other things VVilmot on the other side held that the Bond is not within the Statute because the King is not within the Statute as was held 13 Car. 7 H. 4. f. 44. 5 rep VVhelpdales case Dyer 119. Roll chief
to the Sheriff for his appearance and therefore it was prayed that the party arrested might be discharged and that the bond given to the Sherif might be delivered up Roll the chief Iustice answered Endict the Bailies that made the Arrest or bring your Action against them if you please Discharge for we will not discharge the party arrested Bois against Cranfield Mich. 1650. Banc. sup rot Q. BOis as Executor to another brought an Action of Debt upon divers Obligations made to his Testator Debt upon divers Obligations by an Execution The Defendant pleaded that he did pay a lesser sum than is expressed in the Obligations to the Testator during his life and that he did accept there of in full satisfaction of the said Obligations To this plea the Plaintif demurred Roll Chief Iustice upon opening the matter said that the question here is whether the payment or the acceptance of the money paid in satisfaction be to be traversed And he held it was indifferent to traverse either of them Traverse but he said it was more proper to joyn issue upon the payment but the Court would advise It was then also said that if one pay money in satisfaction of an Obligation and the party to whom it is paid saith that he will receive it for another cause Satisfaction payment yet if he receive it it shall be judged to be paid in satisfaction of the Obligation for he must receive it upon such terms as the other will pay it Brian against Stone Mich. 1650. Banc. sup STone moves the Court for an Attachment against Brian and others For an Attachment for that he was arrested by a Latitat out of this Court in the County of Wilts and thence carried into the Town of Malborow and there arrested by a Serjeant of that Town by a writ out of that Corporation and the Plaintif procéeds there against him upon that writ and not upon the latitat by which he was first arrested which is a contempt to this Court. Attachment Habeas Corpus cum causa The Court ruled the party should have an Attachment nisi c. and also should have a Habeas Corpus cum causa Mich. 1650. Banc. sup THe Recorder of London moved for the Inhabitants of Bishopsgate against one Withringes For the setting a moderate fine upon one that submitted to a fine who for refusing to serve upon the Ward mote Enquest was indicted for his refusal in London and convicted and fined 20 l. the Defendant being committed for not paying his fine removed himself hither by a Habeas Corpus but now hath submitted himself to a fine it was therefore prayed he may be moderately fined here The Court thereupon fined him 20 l. Beal against VVyman Mich. 1650. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 849. VPon these words of a will Question upon words of a Will viz. I give and bequeath one half of my lands to my wife after her death I give all my lands to the heirs males of any of my Sons or next of Kin Latch made these questions in the Case 1. Whether there were a good estate created by these words of the will 2ly Whether the estate were destroyed by the fine levied of the lands For the 1. he held that the heirs males of any of his Sons are words certain enough to create an estate for it is all one as if he had said to the heirs males of all his sons if they have heirs males or to those who have heirs males and the words or to the next of Kin are also certain enough being joyned with the precedent words and shall be meant to the next of Kin and their heirs males if his sons have no heirs males For in a Win if there be words to express the meaning of the Testator it is sufficient enough though the words be not apt And he cited 21 Rich. 2. Devise 27. and 8 Rep. 46 and said that the case in 30 Ass pl. 47. is the same with this in terminis And here is no contingent remainder but only a contingent devise there is no necessity for a particular estate to support it for it ariseth out of the estate of the Devisor yet if there were néed of a particular estate here to support the remainder here is a particular estate in the wife who by implication of the will doth take all the land during her life as it is 13 H. 7.29 H. 8. Br. Devise 48. Trin. 3 Ed. 6. Bendloes Plow Com. 521. Whelpdales case Pasch 25 Eliz Com. Ban. To the 2 point he spake not holding it not material Hales of Councel on the other side held that the wife had not an estate for life in all the land by implication of the will but only an estate for life in a moyety of the land and so there is no particular estate to support the contingent remainder which he held was in this case that it is not a contingent Devise as Latch urged for the remainder here depends by way of remainder and not as a contingent Devise And he held the Devise it self to be void admitting all the precedent matter alleged to be true 1. Because the devise is uncertain for the intent of the deviser doth not appear for it appears not what heir male shall have the land whether the heir male of his son or the heir male of his next of Kin for the words are disjunctive 41 42 Eliz. Com. Banc. in the Case of Tayler Sawyer land devised to a Mans Issue was adjudged a void devise for the incertainty of it And he held that the intent was that the heir male of his son should inherit before the heir male of the next of Kin otherwise the further off of Kin should have the land before the nearer of Kin. And he said that Hill 2. Car. Rot. 1288. Com. Banc. in Hunt and Fishers case the case at the Bar was adjudged in point Roll chief Iustice said That the intention of the Testator here is coeca sicca Intention and senceless and cannot be known Will. and we ought not to frame a sence upon the words of a Will where we cannot find out the Testators meaning Ierman Iustice held that the devise was not void but that the words are to be interpreted as they may stand with Law and as the words will bear Nicholas Iustice prima facie that the devise is void but yet it is questionable Ask Justice to the same intent Roll chief Iustice said that there is too much way usually given to ambiguous devises But let it be argued again the next Term. Parker against Cook Mich. 1650. Banc. sup Hill 23 Car. rot 660. THe Action was an Action of Trespass quare Clausum fregit Upon a Demurrer the question was whether a Copyhold were forfeited or not The Defendant pleaded a special plea of justification viz. That the Plaintif was a Copyholder to his Manor and that for
he was taken and imprisoned The Defendant pleaded an award made by Sir John Rivers and Sir Nicholas Miller two Iustices of Peace between the parties in Bar. Twisden of Councel with the Plaintif said that the award doth not bind the Plaintif for the award concerns only the speaking of the words and speaks nothing of the imprisoment And 2ly the Award is not good for there is not satisfaction made by it on both parties Wild of Councel with the Defendant held that the Declaration was not good and that therefore he needs not to justifie the plea for though it should be ill yet the Plaintif can have no judgement and he said the Declaration was naught because it alleged no day when nor place where the Defendant charged the Plaintif with the felony and made him to be imprisoned Twisden answered that there is a place alleged and that though there were none yet it is well enough for part and judgement may be given for that To which Roll chief Iustice agréed Wild replyed then the plea is good But the Court answered it is not and what say you to the Arbitrement Wild answered it was good to which Ierman and Ask Iustices assented Roll chief Iustice answered It is a benefit to the Parish and so to the Overseers of the poor Nicholas Iustice to the same purpose Roll chief Iustice said that the Declaration is ill and the Plea also for the Plea is entire Declaration Plea and yet goes not to all the matter alleged in the Declaration but the plea is only to part of them and therefore if any part of the Declaration be good judgement ought to be given against the Defendant for that part and the plea in Bar is naught so judgement ought to be entirely for the Plaintif But it is to be considered concerning the damages Rosyer against Langdale Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 100. ROsyer an Executor brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit against Langdale a Feme Administratrix Error to reverse a judgement in an Assumpsit by an Executor against an Administratrix and declares that the Defendant in consideration that he would forbear sute until she had taken out Letters of Administration did assume and promise to pay unto him the Plaintif a certain sum of money owing unto him by the Intestate Vpon Issue joyned and a Verdict and a Iudgement for the Plaintif The Defendant brought a writ of Error to reverse the Iudgement And Baldwin of his Councel took these Exceptions 1. That the Plaintif had set forth no consideration in his Declaration for the Assumpsit for all that is alleged is that the Plaintif should forbear sute till the Defendant had taken out Letters of Administration which is no consideration at all for the Defendant was not lyable to be sued as Administratrix until she had taken out Letters of Administration except there were a cause depending as here is not And he cited Hob. rep Bidwell and Cottons case That if there be a sute commenced though there be no cause for it yet forbearance to sue is a good cause to ground an Assumpsit upon Assumpsit A second Exception was that the Venire facias is not awarded per Curiam nec in Curia Roll chief Iustice held the 1. a good Exception for the Defendant was not chargeable before Letters of Administration taken forth if she do not intermedle with the goods of the Intestate and it doth not appear here that she did neither is the Defendant compellable to take forth Letters of Administration for they may be granted to the next of Kin if the Ordinary pleaseth according as the Statute ordains Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same intent thereupon the rule was reversetur nisi c. But because Day being of Councel on the other side took some Exceptions to the writ of Error and the retorn thereof It was adjourned Staples Hill 1650. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to supersede a scire sacias brought by a prisoner of the Marshalsea For a Supersedeas to a Scire sacias upon the late Act for discharging of poor prisoners because the Certificate of the cause for which he was a prisoner was false and so the procéedings erronious for the party was in execution for Trespass which is not within the Statute made for the prisoners 2ly Because there was no due notice given to the party at whose sute he lay in execution as the Statute doth direct there should The Court ordered to view the Certificate 〈◊〉 Den uneâ— and to file it otherwise there should be no proceedings upon the scire facias and directed the party to demur upon the scire facias if it be not good because the matter alleged cannot be pleaded to it Custodes against Arskot Hill 1650. Banc. sup MAynard moved the Court for one Arskot that was outlawed for murther For time to bring a Writ of Error and had leave to bring his writ of Error that he may have longer time to bring it because the King uses to sign the writ and the Parliament had not ordered who shall do it now and therefore the Attorney General must advise with the Parliament about it which cannot spéedily be done Thereupon time was granted till the Attorney could conveniently do it Newcomin against Leigh Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 16â—0 rot 52. LEigh did assume and promise unto Newcomin Whether a good Assumpsit that if Newcomin would take one Loe for his Debtor in the room of one Cooper and would spare Loe until such a time for the money that then he would pay the money to Newcomin if he did not and upon this Assumpsit Newcomin brought his Action against Leigh The question was whether this were a good Assumpsit And the Court held it was not because it is a collateral thing and he doth not say that he will discharge Cooper and so Newcomin may sue Cooper notwithstanding the Assumpsit For though it may be it was the intention of the parties to discharge Cooper yet it appears not so by the words of the Assumpsit set forth And it was then said by Roll. That if I promise to pay to Iohn a Down a Debt which Iohn a Stile oweth to Iohn a Down Nudum pactum this is nudum pactum Bawsy and Lowdall Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 275. VPon a special verdict in an Action of Trespasse and Ejectment Special Verdict upon the devise of a Copyhold in Fee the case in effect was this A man seised of Copyhold lands in fée devisable by Custom deviseth them in this manner I give and bequeath my lands c. to my son Richard during his natural life and after to the heir of his body for ever Hales of Councel with the Plaintif made these questions 1. whether by the words of the Will a Fee-simple at the Common Law passeth because there is an estate to Richard for life and after
to his heir in the singular number And he argued that the word heir includes heirs because it is Nomen Collectivum Next Whether the devising the land to Richard for his natural life and after to his heir for ever makes any difference in the Case and he held it did not and said that Archers case that is objected by the other side differs much from this for there the words are restrained for it is Proximo Haeredi and not Haeredi generally as it is in our Case and there the words next heir are not words of limitation but of purchase and to decipher the person but not to limit the estate and in our case if there should not be a limitation Richard should only take for life which is not the intent of the Will as may appear by the passages and clauses of it And Thomas and Kemishes case in 5 Car. in this Court makes an end of our Case Neither doth the adding of the word in perpetuum make a difference in the Case for if the words had béen omitted the same estate had passed to the Tenant Richard and his Estate is not enlarged by them 2ly The words in perpetuum relate to all the Estate and not to any particular Estate and so the surrender made by R. Hunt is good Next of all supposing that it be a limited Estate and a contingent remainder the question will then be whether this contingent remainder be destroyed or no and I conceive it is because the particular Copyhold estate which must support this contingent remainder is destroyed and the Law is the same in that point in Copyhold cases as it is in other cases at the Common Law for Copyholds are directed by the rules of the Common Law 13 Iac. Banc. Reg. It is also held that there is the same rule to support a contingent remainder of a Copyhold as there is of Land at the Common Law Next it is to be considered whether the particular Copyhold estate be extinguished or not And it is cléer that it is for the customary Estate is in the Lord who hath the Fée simple which cannot both stand together and so there is no estate to support the contingent remainder Copyhold and consequently all objections are by this answered 1. That the surrender shall not do wrong 2ly That the surrender destroys not the Custom Turner on the other side argued that only an estate passeth to Richard for life and that the word Heir is not a word of limitation to make the Ancestor take a Fée simple neither shall the word Heir be taken Collective here but singulariter and so according to the common sence number and matter ought it to be construed And Nowns Collective in the singular number do not signifie the same thing that they do in the plurall number as may be proved by other examples and there is no proper name to signifie one particular Heir in Law if the word Heir in the singular number shall not do it Shellyes case 1. Rep. f. 101. â—ooks institut f. 8.1 Rep. Archers case And there are two Iudgements in the Common pleas in the very point as I am informed by the Attorney on our side In a Will the word Heir shall not be taken Coliective out in the natural grammaticall sence and not as a word of art but it is otherwise taken perchance in conveyances which are made by men of Art and learned in the Laws whereas wills are made commonly by lay gents and unskilfull in the Law And the rule is that words shall be interpreted to make all the parts of a déed in which they are to stand together and to bear sence and to be in esse and effectual which cannot be here if the word heir shall be taken Collective but may be if it be taken singulariter Hob. rep Stukely and Butlers case Next if the word heir should be taken Collective then the Estate for life would merge 30 El. C. B. Hill 3 Iac. C. B. Hiller and Lewis his case 3ly Rich. hath only an Estate for life if it were otherwise the Testator would have otherwise expressed it and he hath well expressed an estate for life and no other Estate in him If one grant 4. parts of his mannor it shall passe 4. parts of 5. and not all For the other poynt the contingent remainder is not here destroyed by the destruction of the Copyhold Estate for Copyhold Estates do not depend one upon another as Estates of the Common Law do and here is one in esse to take the Estate Another question he spoke to viz. whether a Lessee at will being ousted by a stranger can reenter and he held he cannot for he hath but a meer right 38 H. 6. f. 27. Fortescue and Yelverton 3. Iac. Banc. Reg. rot 501. Carpenter and Collins But to this Roll chief Iustice Entry and Nicholas Iustice answered that he may enter notwithstanding it hath been heretofore controverted and the reason is because he hath the primer posseâ—sion Roll chief Iustice enclined that the contingent remainder is not destroyed because it doth not here depend upon the particular Estate but it ought to expect till the remainder happen and he conceived that the word heir and heirs were all one here by the intent of the partyes and the frame of the conveyance Ask Iustice said that it is a good Estate of Fee simple conditionall executed in Richard Ierman Iustice The intent in a Will if it be not contrary to Law ought to be taken and there must be words to make the intent appear and these words must stand together and shall not be made void and he conceived the contingent remainder not destroyed Adjourned till the next Term. Postea Port against Midleton Hill 1650. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action of debt upon an obligation Error to reverse a judgment in debt and the Error insisted upon was in the entring of the Iudgement which was quod recuperet Debitum suum and doth not say praedictum Roll chief Iustice answered Delivery Escrow that the debt is confessed by the party and the question is whether the deed was delivered as an escrow or not but it was delivered to the party himself and therefore could not be delivered as an escrow Ierman Iustice said that debitum suum without praedictum is not good for the word praedictum is verbum operativum Ask Iustice as Roll and there is but one debt Implication and the word ideo in the record implyes it to be the same debt Nicholas to the same effect The rule was affirmetur nisi causa die Iunae sequenti Hill 1650. Banc. sup AN administrator had a Iudgement against one to recover a debt due to the Intestate and then the Administrator dyed Intestate For a scire facias to revive a judgement denyed Scire facias and another took out new letters of administration de bonis non
for septuagent and Pary and Dayes case quinquegent for quinquagint and these held no materiall variances Latch on the other side said the word in the Bond is uncertain and the condition hath nothing in it to reduce it to a certain signification and if it make any certainty in it it must make it signifie 400 l. and then the Plaintiff hath failed in his Declarasion and Hobarts case differs from this and as for Osborns case it is variously reported and so not to be relyed on Roll chief Iustice What say you to sessanta But the question here is what shall be meant by the word whether 40. or 400. And in Fiâ—zâ—â— berts case Iudgement was given upon a demurrer Variance that gent for gint was a material variance and our case is all one with that If the doubt be whether it should be 40. or 400. how shall we know the intent of the partyes and if it be certain it must he understood 400. and the Action is brought but for 40. l. 44 Eliz. Mich. rot 1301. Gray and Davis case Sexgint was adjudged to be a Bond of 60 l. and not of 600 l. And it is the gent. and gint in all the cases that makes the difference And the case of sessanta comes not to our case and so concluded Iudgement to be against the Plaintiff Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices of the same opinion Nicholas Iustice said that false Latin in a Bond doth not make it naught but he held this Bond was for 400 l. and not 40 l. and it is not incertain for the grammar rule ginta notat decem sed genta numero centum doth hold here Antea Gay against Gay Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1350. VPon a speciall verdict found in a replevin Whether an estate tail or fee conditionall The case was this A man seised of a Copyhold Borough English devised it to H. his grandchild and to his Heirs and if he dye during the life of his mother the remainder to H. his younger brother and to his heirs The question here was whether here be an Estate tail in H. or a Fee simple executory If it be an Estate tail then the devise was said not good because it is of a Copyhold but if it be a Fersimple Limitation then it is a good devise Roll chief Iustice said that a limitation of an inheritance after an absolute Fee simple is not a good limitation for this would be to make a perpetuity which the Law will not admit Perpetuity but if it be upon a contingent Fee simple it is otherwise Adjournatur Postea Heale against Greene. Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Hill 649 rot 370. IN an Action of Trespass and ejectment Case upon a special verdict in trespass and ejectment upon a speciall verdict sound the case proved to be this A man seised of a manor that had divers Tenants that held for lives by old rents deviseth it to his wife during her life with power to let and set and make estates out of them in as ample maner as the Testator might if he were living The questions were made by Latch 1. Whether this power given her to set and set c. doth not alter her Estate for life in the Lands devised to her 2ly Whether this power given her by the Will adds any power to her estate for life to make estates and he held for the first that the power given her did not alter her Estate And 2ly that it ads no power unto her Estate because the clause in the Will is one entire clause and not double and accumulative and so she can make no greater Estates than her estate for life will bear And for the obiection that is made That then the words that limit the power to her are void and idle He answered that it is not necessary that all the words in a Will should give something but some words may be explanatory of other words and so are these words here and yet the words here may add something to her Estate viz. to enable her to make Estates without impeachment of waste And the words shall not be intended of the time of Execution of the Estates made by the Feme for then they are idle Hill 1 Car. Banc. Reg. Danyel and Vplins case One may dispose an estate by Will for life with power to make Estates to continue after the death of the party that made them But here the estate is made only out of the interest of the wife which cannot endure after her life Pasc 44. Eliz. Bible and Dringhouse and so prayes Iudgement for the Plaintiff Hales for the Defendant made these questions 1. What power was given by the Will 2ly Whether it were well executed and he held the feme being executrix hath but an Estate for life But she hath a power to make estates as she hath done There is no question but such a power may be added The question only is if this power be added here in our case and he said it was added by the express words of the will for else those words are frivolous and operate nothing In Danyel and Vplins case cited which was entred 20 Iac. Hill 720. there is no express Estate given to the party but a meer power only and it was not by reason of the words added for they are only conjunctive words And Iustice Whitlock held there that the first words gave the power Though Iustice Iones differed in opinion and that case is the very same with ours The reason in our case That the words give power to the feme may appear by the comparing this part of the Will with the other parts of it In other parts of the Will where things are devised to his wife these words here used are not added and that argues that the Testator intended the Feme more power than in other things devised to her and the words themselves being a devise of a manor proves by the nature of the thing that the Testator intended to give power to the Feme to make Estates out of the manor And it cannot be intended that the words In as ample maner c do only give the feme power to assign over her term Vaughan and Longs case 24 C. the words were adjudged to be words to enlarge the power of the Legatée and so are they here And the subsequent clause during the term of her life restrains not the power for these words may be either referred to the Estates to be made or to the time of making them and here they are referred to the execution of the power and this is more suitable to the intention of the party in ordinary reason and they are added to expound the intent viz. that the remainder limited over shall not hinder the feme for he hath not barred her out and hath imposed this trust in her as Executrix and as Legatee And for the 2d point here is a good Execution of
to be measured by ordinary rules of Law And 2ly Antient grants are to be construed as the Law was at that time when they were made 9. rep 27.6 rep 48. 〈◊〉 H. 7. 〈◊〉 14 E. 3. Fitzh Scire facias 23. and the King is not bound by a general custom as Common persons are 35 H. 6.29 by Prisot 22 Ed. 3. The King shall not pay a heriot upon the purchase of heriatable Lands and we shall find that many maximes of Law upon serious scanning of them are not so certain to be relyed on as they are commonly held to be 5. rep Knights Case Pasc 3 Eliz. B. R. Conisby and Risby Dyer 10 Eliz. and the patentee of the King shall have the same privilege that the King should have had if he had not granted the Letters patents 27 Eliz. Stubs and Rigfords case At another day Arthur Harris spake again to the point that the King had no legall intent to destroy the Copyhold Estate by his patent and therefore it should not be destroyed and cited Grotius de jure belli et pacis 343. and that no such intent can appear in the words of the patent and cited 7. rep Inglefields Case and 17 E. 3. f. 19. and Cooks Institutes 373. and 1. rep 46. and Plow 333. and as to the last point he argued that the Patentée of the King shall be in the same condition as to the reviving of the Copyhold Estate as the King should have been if he had not made the grant because that the King hath the Fee and he may grant it as he pleaseth Dyer 16 Eliz. 337.1 rep 31.10 Eliz. Dyer 266.24 Ed. 3. Fitz. Tit. guard 27. and no priority can be pleaded against the King nor against his Patentee Hill 30 Eliz. Stubs and Rightwayes Case an Action of Accompt against Executors doth lye only for the King It is true that prerogatives inseparable and annexed to the person of the King cannot be granted away by the King but prerogatives separable may be granted away 12 H. 4. Fitzh guard 81. The Grantee of the Grantee of the King shall have the prerogative of the King by reason of the thing granted by the King Brook praerog 17. 21 H. 7.2 Br. entre congeable 4â—â— The King may distrein for a rent seck but not his Grantee because it is a prerogative executory and not executed for in such case it is otherwayes and as to the objection to the cause of the demurrer set forth that the Concessit is not answered because it only sayes mentionat esse concessum I hold it well enough but if it should not be yet it is helped for both partyes do agree in the setting forth of the Letters Patents 34 Eliz. B. R. in Harâ— and Smiths case and the grant is confessed in our rejoynder and though the demurrer should not be good yet the Avowant cannot have Iudgement for he hath not entitled himself to the Action as appears by his grant for his grant is void and cannot take effect rep 46.8 rep 201.39 Eliz. in the Chequer Chamber Where 2. Manours are granted by the name of one of them the grant is not good And in our case Thomas Boothby had nothing in the land at the time of making of the deed of Covenant to stand seised to use as it appears by the Avowants own pleading and the postea cannot help it Dyer 111. Clarks Case Hill 15 Iac. entred Trin. 15 Iac. rot 29. Desmons case 20 H. 615. Hales on the other side argued for the Avowant and prayes a return of the Cattel distreyned first he put the Case at large And he said that the Plaintiff hath not well set forth the Kings grant in his bar and so it is all one as if he had not set it forth at all Plowd 563. and he hath disputed that which we have not alleged and the sur rejoynder is but argumentaive and not positive and nothing appears to the Court and he hath quite mistaken his course and way But admitting the case and the points to be as they are made viz. 1. Whether the new Office be well granted because the word Constituimus is omitted 2. Whether the grant for life be good 3. Whether the grant of the Copyhold for life be a suspension of the Copyhold estate or an extinguishment of it which is the great question in the Case For the 1 point I hold that here is a good grant of this new Office and that the word Constituimus is not necessary because that there are special fées also newly granted 2ly This is not an Office in gross consisting and resting upon it self but it is a relative Office or an imployment incident in the interest of the house granted and therefore the word Constituimus is not here necessary Dyer 200. 3ly If it be not a formal Office yet here is a good grant of an employment to which a recompence may be added although an Assize cannot be brought for it 3 Ass Trin. 6 Iac. Abercromies Case And here the protestation that the King was not informed that this was Copyhold land is unnecessarily alleged and therefore it is not of necessity it should be answered and if it be not well set forth it is not material For the 2 question whether the King was deceived in his grant he said that the King needed not to take notice of any former estates and that the Statute expresseth that it is not necessary to recite them 24 H. 8. 2â— To the 3 point the chief question whether the Copyhold estate be suspended or extinguished he held it was extinguished and cited Knights case Alton woods case and said that the rules of the Civil Law ought not to be applyed to the Common Law nor to be cited to perplex the proceedings thereof and were this in the case of a Common person without doubt the Copyhold estate would be destroyed 20 Eliz. by Popham and Fenn and the King here hath the Fee simple and there is no difference between the case of the King and of a Common person in this regard a thing which will not pass by the King without notice will not pass with notice and here is no prejudice to the King in not taking notice whether by the Patent the Custom to grant Copyhold estates be destroyed or not and here is a necessary consequence in Law that the custom is destroyed because the King that had the fee in the Manor hath suspended the Copyhold by his grant All the Arguments used on the other side are to destroy the Kings grant and the cases put do all differ from our case and do stand upon their own bottoms Nor shall the King be intended to be mis-conusant of his particular grant such as this is although he may be in a general grant lib. Ass 21. pl. 19. Pasch 12 Car. C. B. Glover and Edgars case and it would be a great mischief if the Copyhold estate should be revived As to the last point whether the
but if it be interrupted but in part it is not so as it is in the case cited where the King hath Gavelkind lands Com. Plowd 114. and so prays judgement for the Plaintif Adjourned Latch at another day argued for the Avowant and said that the Plaintif in his rejoynder hath made no title unto Susan Tong from whom he claims It is objected that by the grant of the Manor of Chingford Comitis per nomen duorum illorum maneriorum c. that Tong cannot be intituled It is answered that the other side hath confessed that Tong hath a title for they derive from her also and the contrary doth not appear to the Court and it being agreed the Court will not make a doubt of it He made 3 Questions 1. Whether the Manor of Chingford Comitis passeth per nomen duorum illorum maneriorum de c. 2ly Whether if the grant be ill it be aided by Statute 3ly Whether it be helped by the Averment For the 1. he held that here is a good grant without any averment or aid of the Statute for if the King grants two Manors one shall pass and e converso it shall not be so in the Case of the King but it is good in the case of a Common person with an Averment The grant of the Manor of Saperton cum Rippen is an ill grant for the incertainty of it but here is no such incertainty here is no non nosmer of the thing for the word nomina requires not a proper name but it is all one as if it had been expressed by words comprehending it and the word Manors doth comprehend it If the King grant his two Acres of Land lying in a Common field although but one Acre is to be found yet the grant is good and it is not like to the grant of a Manor with the Advowson where the King hath but a moyety of the Advowson or a moyety of the Manor for the Moyety is not actual in the whole but one is actually in two and so it is well named here 2ly Whether it be good without an averment that the land was in the Lord Darcy and he held it was If the words were general in the grant all of them ought to be true otherwise nothing will passe by the grant as Dodingtons case is but here is a proper name to express it and therefore the grant is not destroyed although the latter description do not agree to it 10. Rep. Harpers Case 2 H. 4. f. 2. If the King grant all the lands in the Patent annexed bearing date 10 of Iune though the Patent bear date the 10 of Iuly yet is the grant good for veritas nominis tollit errorem demonstrationis and if the grant should not be good at the Common Law yet it is ayded by the Statute of 3. 4 Phil. Mar. and here is a full and a strong averment in the pleading for it is Manerium praedictum and not Manerium generally and here is not only a possibility but also a facility for it to pass and it may be called Manor or Manors and in a feofment a thing may pass per nomen because that the livery passeth it where one pleads per nomen he is to make the Plea agree with the Record or specialty otherwise per nomen shall not be pleaded and Newtons opinion against this is but a single opinion 33 H. 8. Br. Averment 42. The word praedict makes an averment in the name of the Feoffor â—4 H. 4.30.22 H. 6.40 Barton and Escott here is also a full averment of the thing granted this is in grants 7 E. 4.24.33 H. 6. f. 22 26 Ass 2.24 Ass 6. so in Letters Patents Dyer 86. the Serjeants case and if this be authority it is in the very point Dyer 207. praedict per nomina is a good averment Pasch 7. Iac. Rot. 430. B. reg Stonehouse and Reeds case where there was not so much as a per nomina but only decimas praedict and yet adjudged to be a good intitling by the word praedict because it was held a good averment although it was not led on by a per nomina and there admitted to be clear if it had been with a per nomina as the Case here is so Tong is well intitled 2ly The Plaintifs title is well avoided and we have well destroyed his Copy without doubt if a Common person had granted the Copyhold for life the Copy-hold had been thereby extinguished and our case is not a prerogative case for the King is bound by the Custom of the Manor and the Custom is here destroyed and the prerogative cannot create the Custom anew and it is against the Kings Prerogative to have things drawn out of the King without matter of Record and it is prejudice to the King to have the Custom revived for the lands are now made free and shall never return again to the Vassalage The Kings Prerogative exalts him above a Common person but this custom makes him equal to a common person 2ly The Custom here cannot be supported but here is an absolute extinguishment of the Copyhold so that it cannot be regranted The law will confirm things necessary to the grant of the King in some cases where it is prejudicial to the King 16 H. 7. f. 8. Nicholas case Plowd 489. The king seised of a donative makes it presentative if he do but once present unto it so if he turn an Annuity into a rent charge by taking a distress And the nature of this Custom here ought not to be examined with other Customs for it is more strict than in other cases for if it be once destroyed it is always destroyed and cannot be suspended and it is not for the Kings dis-advantage to have the Copyhold destroyed but it is for his advantage and conveniency and so he prays judgement for the Avowant Roll chief Iustice All will come and rest upon the last point for all the other things are admitted The grant is good by the per nomen and it is only nominal and doth not imply that there are two Manors and it may stand well enough with reason that it may be known per nomen But the last point is considerable he enclined to Latch Nicholas Iustice to the same effect and that the praedict is a good averment The last point is considerable but prima facie here the custom is not destroyed Ask Iustice to the same effect and that it appears that the King intended to grant but one Manor Roll We will take time till the next term to speak to the last point which is only doubtfull and to deliver our opinions Ierman Iustice the pleading of the party per nomen helps not the Patent if it be not good in it self The next Term Roll chief Iustice for himself and the rest of the Iudges who he said concurr'd in opinion with him delivered the opinion of the Court to this effect 1. That they were agreed that
the grant of the Office of the Custody of the house is a good lease for life notwithstanding it was Copyhold and it is not necessary to recite in the grant that it is Copyhold 2. That after the estate for life is determined the King may grant the house and land again by Copy of Court Roll because the Kings grants shall be taken favourably and not extended to two intents where there is no necessity for it as there is not here and we are not here to intend a collateral intent and so the Copyhold is not destroyed for the Law takes care to preserve the inheritance of the King for his Successors and it may be a benefit to the King to have it continue Copyhold viz. to have Common c. and his election is also destroyed if he may not have it Copyhold So Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi Pawsey and Lowdall Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1650. rot 275. IN this Case formerly argued Roll chief Iustice Iudgement reversed upon a special Verdict touching a Devise of Copyhold lands and Nicholas and Ask Iustices agreed that the devise of the Copyhold here is a devise to the Heirs of the Father and so a Fee-simple and that the party comes not in as a purchaser and for this cause the judgement was reversed nisi As to the other point whether the surrender of a Copyhold by a Tenant for life be good in this case the Court delivered no opinion Antea Trundall and Trowell Pasch 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 670. IN this Case it was held that Tenant in antient Demesn cannot after imparlance plead antient Demesn for he hath made a full defence Where antient Demesne cannot be pleaded for he says Defendit vim et injuriam quando c. which implyes all the rest Mich. 22 Car. Banc. Reg. Yet it was ruled to be again spoken to Peck against Ingram Pasch 1651. Banc. sup THis Case formerly spoken in was moved again and Latch held Whether a good notice that the words obtulit se in maritagium conjungi was a good notice upon the whole matter and therefore that the Action did well lye Roll chief Iustice answered this is a personal thing and ought to be offered to the party himself otherwise it is no notice and that doth not appear here and if there be no notice implyed then the Action lies not and Holmes and Twists case is that there ought to be notice if the thing be to be done by the party himself otherwise if it be to be done by a stranger so is it here but the question only is if notice be implyed here or not Ierman Iustice said there is no tender of mariage if the other party be not there The rule was for the Plaintif to take his Iudgement Rooke against Smith Pasch 1651. Banc. sup ROoke brought an Action upon the case against Smith for speaking these words of him Thou art a poor fellow Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case for words and art not able to pay 2s in the pound and art not able to pay thy debts Vpon an Issue joyned and a Verdict for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable for 1. the Plaintif is not by them charged with the crime of being a Bankrupt and so there is no particular losse to him 2ly It is not showed that the Plaintiff got his living by buying and selling or that he is indebted and 11. Iac. Brook and Clarks case was cited Twisden on the other side answered that the Plaintiffs credit was impaired by the words and by his credit his livelyhood is in part mainteyned And he cited Viccary and Barns case Adjourned to the next Term. Wild afterwards moved again for Iudgement because the words being spoken of a tradesman he conceived them to be actionable Maynard on the other side held them not actionable because there is no particular damage alleged to grow to the Plaintif by speaking of them and because there is no crime objected against the Plaintiff for poverty is no crime but a man may be poor and honest at the same time and he cited two cases to be adjudged that a particular damage ought to be alleged And said that these Actions are not favoured in Law and therefore if the words be not cleerly Actionable it was not reason to make a forced construction of them to make them so Next the Plaintiff hath not averred that he was able to pay all his debts for all the things bought but only of a debt contracted by the buying of the Oyl mentioned Twisden denyed the cases put by Maynard of the particular damage and held the words actionable Roll chief Iustice said a man may be a Bankrupt and yet be honest for he may become so by accident Averment and not of purpose to deceive his creditors But here is no need for the Plaintiff to shew he had a particular losse by the words for it is enough that he is generally scandalised by them neither is it necessary for him to averr that he was able to pay all his debts as Maynard hath alleged Therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement nisi Antea Owen against Jevon Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 211. OWen brought an Action of the case against Ievon for speaking these words of her Arrest â—f judgement in Action for words viz. This is the whore that my man Cowell begat a bastard on and spent all my mony upon and the quean hath been too long in Town to my ease Vpon an issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintiff Twisden for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgment urged that the words are not actionable because there is no special losse or damage alleaged by the Plaintiff hapning to her by reason of the words said that in one Lighfoot and Pigots case it had béen ruled that an Action lies not for saying a woman had a Bastard and he cited also Winter and Barnards case Trin. 1650. in this Court. Vpon these reasons Iudgment was stayed till the other side should move Iay against Iay. Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1350. THis case formerly put and spoken to Argument in a special verdict touching the consideration of the words of a will was again spoken unto by Latch wherein he made this question viz. whether the limitation to I. and his Heirs were good or not and he held it was not good for he said that such limitation in case of a freehold is void He confessed that in the case of Pell and Brown 17 Iac. rot 44. the contrary was adjudged but that there did appear such apparent inconvenience in it that upon it the Court was afterwards divided and 21 Iac. in the Serjeants case it was made a flat quaere and ever since it hath been disputable whether a contingent devise be good or not and in Iacob and Tellings case it is not
pacty who is to assign the dower may agrée that the dower shall be assigned without bounding it For consensus tollit errorem But dower ad ostium ecclesiae must be more certain Dower Mich. 43 44 Eliz. Bullock and Finches case Hill 4 Iac. C. B. Roll chief Iustice Of Common right a feme ought to be endowed per metas bundas where the Sheriff assigns dower who is an officer of the Law and ought to prevent incumbrance and disputes But it may be assigned generally of the third part in some cases Consent and the partyes may agree against Common right and here both partyes agreed to take dower in this Manor And though here the termer for years of the land who is a third person be prejudiced by this assignment yet this alters not the case because it is only an estate for years and toucheth no freehold Nicholas and Ask Iustices as Roll. Ierman Iustice If dower be of a third part it ought to be by metes and bounds generally but if it be of a moyety it is not so or if the partyes consent it shall be otherwise Roll if the Sheriff assign dower and do it not per metas bundas it is Error Error if it might have been so assigned and where a feme cannot be endowed per metas bund as she may enter without assignment Iudgement was given for the Defendant nisi c. Smith against the Earl of Dorset Trin. 1651. Banc. sup SMith moved the Court against the Earl of Dorset Motion for an attatchment for disobeying a rule of Court Attatchment for an attatchment for disturbing of him in the possession of certain Lands contrary to the rule of this Court for the Plaintiff to have possession The Court answered that for only disturbing his possession there ought not to be an attatchment granted but if he be put out of possession he shall have an attatchment The Councel replyed that the partyes cattel were driven off from the land which they conceived was an ousting of the party from his possession To this the Court answered that this seemed to be a putting out of possession And therefore ordered that the Defendant should shew cause why an attatchment should not be granted Owen against Ievon Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 211. THis case formerly spoken unto in arrest of Iudgement and then stayed Iudgement prayed in an Action for words was again moved and Iudgment prayed for the Plaintiff by Serjeant Glyn who argued that the words were actionable because if they were true the party of whom they are spoken is punishable by the Statute of 7 Iac. with corporal punishment and besides the words were spoken since the last Statute made against Adultery which doth aggravate the words and make them more actionable Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff nisi In this case it was said by the Court that it was adjudged in one Thecker and Duncombes case that a woman may have a child in 38. weeks and that a woman by cold or hard usage may go with child above 40 weeks Antea Nelson against Tompson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 24 Car. rot 343. NElson brought an action of the Case against Tompson Demurrer in an Action upon the Case upon a promise and did declare that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would cease to prosecute a sute in Law against him did assume and promise unto the Plaintif that he would pay unto him 8 l. the charges of sute which he had been at for breach of this promise Actio acrevit sets forth his damage To this Declaration the Defendant demurs in Law takes this Exception viz. That there is no time nor place set forth where or when he did forbear to sue the Defendant as it ought to be because it is a traversable matter But Roll chief Iustice answered It is not necessary to allege a place of a negative thing to be done viz. to say that he did not prosecute the sute in such a place or at such a time for he ought to surcease prosecution in all places and at all times Therefore let judgement be for the Plaintif except better matter be shewn Friday next Lydaâ—e and Lyster Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 387. AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation made to a Bishop and his Commissary for the payment of Debts and Legacies Iudgement in Debt upon a Bond reversed the Action was brought by an Executor and judgement given by Default against the Defendant the Iudgement was reversed by a Writ of Error because the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet whereas it ought to have been brought in the Detinet only because it was brought by an Executor Saunders against Ritch Trin. 1651 Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 758. IN an Action of Trespass and Ejectment upon a special verdict found The Case fell out to be this Special Verdict in Trespass and Ejectment A man by his last Will and Testament devised all his Fée simple land wheresoever to his Brother upon condition that he suffer his wife to enjoy all his free lands in Holford during her life and the jury found that the Testator had only a portion of tithes in Holford The question was whether the portion of tithes did pass to the wife by this devise Merifield held That the Tithes passed not by the devise because the word lands cannot extend to tithes for that would be a very forced construction and cited Trin. 17 Iac. Banc. Reg. Knight and Knights case and Mich. 39 40 Eliz. Entred 38 Eliz. rot 269. Yow and Hardings case Banc. Reg. That Houses are not devisable by the name of lands and he said that the word wheresoever makes no difference as to make the tithes pass and though there be an implication and an intent in the Testator here to dedevise the tithes yet that will not serve because there wants words to express this intent and though this be in a will yet there must be words used to support the intent of the Testator for wills must be ruled by the rules of the Common Law Ashinghurst and Curtice his case Mich. 7 Iac. Hob. rep 34. the last Edition Mich. 42 43 Eliz. Banc. Reg. a devise of Lands extend not to tithes for tithes are not lands but a meer collateral thing to them and have no relation to them Mich. 1. Iac. rot 192. Mills and Hides case Banc. Reg. 11 Rep. Bridle and Napers case f. 13. b. Trin. 42 Eliz. B. Reg. Sherwood and Winston held that tithes cannot be appendant to a Manor 1 Rep. 111. Albanies case and here are no words in the Proviso to pass the tithes It is true that tithes may lie in tenure and that an Action of debt lies for them but that is by the Statute 19 Eliz Dyer f. 354. The word land in a will doth not extend to tithes and heirs ought not to be
for another man he had unwillingly committed a Trespass against the Plaintif in taking away 2 or 3 wheele-barroughs of Earth of the Plaintifs soil and therefore it was prayed that the matter might be referred to the Secondary to tax the damages and Costs for the Trespass which he was ready to pay that the proceedings might be stayed But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be but you may confess the Action Reference He le against Green Hill 1651. Banc. sup IN an Ejectione firmae a special Verdict was found upon which the Case fell out to be this A man being Lessee of a Manor for 199 years Special Verdict in an Ejectione firmae deviseth the Term to his wife for life with power to make such estates in as ample manner as he himself might have done during her life and the remainder in Tall to his Daughter and dies the Feme proves the Will and accepts of the Legacy and after makes a Lease for 99 years and dies and the daughter brings an Ejectione firmae against the Lessee of the Feme The question was whether this Lease made by the Feme were a good Lease or not Merifield argued that the Lease was not good after the death of the Feme because she having but an estate for life Lease and the Lease for 99 years being derived out of it when the estate for life ends the estate derived out of it must end also And 2ly If the Feme had any power to dispose of any part of the Term longer than for her life by the same reason she might have disposed of all of it which cannot be intended for the Testator did not mean that she should have power to destroy the Entayl made upon his Daughter And as to the Objection that she hath dissposed of but part of the Term and therefore hath not destroyed the Entayl I answer It matters not what she hath done but what she might have done for by the same reason that she disposed of part she might have disposed of the whole The rest of the Argument I could not hear Henage Finch on the other side argued That the Lease made by the Feme continues after her death because the Feme had a power given her to make such a Lease and by vertue of that power the Lease continues for the power given unto her relates to the Estates to be made by her and not to the continuance of her life And here the intent of the Testator is to be considered which was that his wife should have the power to dispose of all the Term if she would for he trusted her with it because she was his Wife and Mother of his Daughter to whom the Entayl was made and the very subject matter shews his intent to be so and because there is no other power expressed against this in any other part of the Will and the words that give her this power would be idle and trifling if they should receive any other Construction 2 Car. Banc. Reg. Danyel and Ogleys case and Gibs and Whites case 1 Car. nor does the assent of the Feme to the Legacy to have the Term for life destroy her power to make estates 2ly She hath well executed this power for the Iury have found that it is the Lease of the Feme 9 Iac. Suckham and Hawkins case a power given to an Executor may be executed by parts Roll chief Iustice held Lease the Lease was good for a Will ought to be so interpreted that all the parts of it may stand together and if the Feme here have not power to make this Lease the Clause of giving her this Lease is idle and the meaning is so without doubt the Feme hath the sole estate in Law in her and the power given here is but a restoring to her of that which she had before by the Law and her consenting to the Legacy doth not take away her power to make Estates And this limited power and the remainder to his daughter may stand together for it might be that the wife would not make such a lease and then the daughter should have had the land in tayl but if she dispose of it the daughter shall not have it Ierman as Roll. Nicholas Iustice held that the Feme could only dispose of the land during her life and that the Testators intent by the words was that the Feme should not be tyed to occupy the lands her self during her life but might dispose of them Ask as Nicholas that she can dispose of the lands only during her life for the power is only given during her life and this interpetation will make all parts of the Will stand together better than the other interpretation Adjourned Antea Dekins against Latham Hill 1651. Banc. sup Entred Hill 22 Car. rot 946. IN an ejectione firmae a special verdict was found Special verdict in an ejectione firmae upon which the Case fell out to be this One seised of lands covenanted to levy a fine to the use of himself and his wife for life and after he leased the lands for 21 years for 3 l. rent per annum by equal portions and after the death of I.S. to pay a gross sum of 125 l. by way of fine payable by 5 l. a year quarterly with a proviso in the Indenture that for default of payment of the rent or fine or for want of reparations it should be lawfull for the Lessor to re-enter After the Lessor levyes a fine and assigneth over his interest in the reversion The question here was whether the condition of entry be transferred over to the Assignee by the transferring over of the reversion Hales of councell with the Plaintiff held that the lease proceeds from the Husband only and not from the Baron and Feme and the condition is transferred over for the condition runs joyntly as well to the fine reserved as to the rent and is as it were a several condition in Law although it be comprised but in one clause and not several clauses and the condition as to the rent is transferred though not as to the fine In 19 E 4. f. 7. The law makes a several distribution of one praecipe and so may it do here of one condition and Rawlins case in the â— rep cited against this comes not to this case for there the question was of the suspension of a condition but here it is of the transferring over of a condition 2ly If it be but one condition yet it is well transferred by the Statute of 32 H. 8. C. â—4 an extinguishment in part is not extinguishment of all although a suspension of part be a suspension of all and the Grantee of the reversion shall have advantage of the condition because 1. He is within the words of the condition as to the condition 2ly The clause of re-entry is within the words of the Statute and Knights case objected comes not to this case for there
had where the Feme being Covert is not Tenant to the praecipe she shall be bound by it and he said she is not In other cases the party may be bound by estople namely where he might have pleaded to the writ or might have counterpleaded the voucher but here the Feme is not subject to be admitted to these things 17 E. 3. f. 37. and the Feme Covert here is not so concluded by her admission that she shall not be admitted to speak against this recovery if she survive her husband neither are her Heirs concluded if she do not survive although peradventure as to the warranty they may be concluded â—0 Ass pl. â— 11 E. 3 Fitz. voucher 1432 E. 3. Fitz. estople 246. 21. E. 3 13. and the recovery here is not duely had because there is no tertenant Roll chief Iustice said it is not to be questioned whether a recovery bind a Feme Recovery Examination Averment for it is the Common practice 2ly It is not necessary to examine a Feme Covert upon suffering a recovery although it be a prudentiall thing to do it but if it be not done it is not averrable that it was not done but the single question material here is whether the Feme be Tenant to the praecipe or not Feme Covert so that she shall be estopped to speak against the recovery and he held she was estopped for she joyns in the recovery with her Husband and here is no default made by the Baron and now the record is perfect and a thing contrary to it ought not to be averred against it but before the Record was perfect she might have pleaded Plea and the recompence in value here shall go to the Heirs of the Feme and the Tenant for life is also bound by this recovery and the Feme is party and also privy to the recovery Party and privy and therefore if it will bind her it will bind her Heirs also If a stranger had been Tenant to the praecipe and the Baron and Feme had been vouched the Feme had been bound and this is a stronger case and this case may concern many mens estates and therefore such recoveries are not to be questioned Therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement nisi Hill 1651 Banc. sup ONe Turner and Marian were Bail for one by the names of Turner and Mary Motion to alter the name of a Bail Amerdment Bail the Court was moved that the name Mary might be made Marian But Roll chief Iustice answered let the party come and find other Bail for upon the matter this is no Bail Hill 1651. Banc. sup AN Endictment was removed by a certiorari into this Court For a procedendo and the Court was moved for a procedendo because no Bail was put in here Roll chief Iustice answered If no Bail be put in you may proceed below without any procedendo Hill 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to supersede an Execution against one quia erronice To supersede an execution because he was taken in Exeeution whereas there was no declaration given against him in the Term time as it ought because the party was in custodia and the Declaration against him was upon the by viz. at another mans sute and not at his at whose sute he was in custody Roll chief Iustice answered if it be a Declaration on the by it ought to be given in the Term time Hill 1651. Banc. sup VPon a rule to shew cause why an attatchment should not be granted against Cox an Attorney of this Court and Maior of Newberry Cause why no attatchment for issuing out of Execution upon a judgement given there after a writ of Error brought and allowed there Wild shewed for cause that the Malor was enformed by Councell that the Record was not removed thence because the writ of Error was not good This was allowed for cause and the former rule discharged quod nota Hill 1651. Banc. sup LEtchmore moved the Court that the word publicae might be put into an Endictment which was removed hither by a certiorari To mend an endictment Amendment Fine But the Court answered it could not be but because the endictment was of another Term the Clark of the peace was fined at 10 l. for his carelessenesse and grosse oversight Pasch 1652. Banc. sup THe court was moved for a habeas corpus For a habeas corpus for one committed by an order of Sessions of the peace Surety for one that was committed to prison by an order of Sessions of the peace untill he should find sufficient suretyes for the peace whereas he had tendred suretyes which would not be accepted but extraordinary suretyes were required such as he was not able to procure Roll chief Iustice answered a thousand pound bond may be required for the keeping of the peace as the case may stand viz. if the party to be bound be a dangerous person Yet take a habeas corpus but be sure you bring good suretyes Pasch 1652. Banc. sup AN action of debt was brought against one for 50 l. due for divers pieces of lixnen cloath sold to the Defendant Wager of law waived and a plea put in The Defendant was ready at the Bar to wage his Law but the Court being enformed that the Defendants wife kept a shop and used to buy and sell by her husbands privity and allowance and that these parcells of cloath were bought by her to furnish her shop and that the Defendant her husband although he was a Sea man and medled not in buying and selling of any of the wares in the Shop yet his wife did it by his allowance Roll chief Iustice advised the Defendant to take heed he waged not his Law for that he could not do it with a good conscience because his allowance of his wifes buying the wares was all one as if he had bought them himself and counselled him to plead to which the Defendant consented and the ley gager was waived by consent of the partyes and an emparlance given till the next Term. Emparlance Dudley against Born Pasc 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved on the part of the Defendant that in regard Motion to put in security for costs denyed the Plaintiff had obteyned the cause between them to be tryed at the Bar that therefore he might be ordered by the Court to give security to pay the costs in case the tryal should be against him But the Court would make no such rule but said if he will not pay the costs in case the verdict be against him he shall take no benefit here afterwards upon it Garland against Yarrow Pasc 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1651. rot 1295. THe Plaintiff brought his Action upon the case against the Defendant for speaking these scandalous words of him Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words viz you are a knave and keep a bawdy house after a verdict for the
one as if the party had appeared for if he had appeared the Case would have béen otherwise So Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi c. Pasch 1652. Banc. sup MEmorandum One brought by Habeas Corpus from the Fleet remaâ—â—ed One was brought into the Court by the Mareschall of the Fléet by vertue of a habeas Corpus directed to him out of this Court and because it did appear upon Record that the party was charged with divers debts when he was turned over to the Fleet he was not suffered to put in Bail here but was remanded Gossage against Tayler Pasch 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 117. IN an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease for years of a Messuage Special verdict in Trespass and Ejectrueâ—â— and certain lands in Hatfield Broad-Oak in the County of Essex upon a special verdict found the case fell out to be this Rich. Frank seised amongst other lands and Tenements of the Messuage and lands in question upon the mariage of his Son Leventhorp Frank with Susan Cotele levies a fine of the lands to the use of himself during his own life and the life of Leventhorp his Son and after during the life of Susanna Cotele the wife of Leventhorp the remainder to the use of the heirs to be begotten upon the body of Susanna by Leventhorp her Husband The question here was whether the word heirs shall be intended the heirs of Leventhorp and Susanna his wife or whether the estate shall be intended to be limited to the heirs of Susanna only and that Leventhorp shall have barely an estate for life in the lands Serjeant Glyn of Councel with the Plaintif held That Susanna Cotele hath an estate tayl executed in the lands and that the word heirs shall relate only to the heirs of Susanna and not to the heirs of Leventhorp 1. Because that here is an estate limited for life unto Susanna by an express limitation and her heirs shall take immediately after the estate for life ended and they shall not come in as purchasors By express Terms the word heirs is not limited to any person but it is left to the construction of the Law and that doth apply it to Susanna as to a person to whom Richard that setled the lands hath expressed most affection as appears by the Deed Lit. f. 6. Sect. 28. There is an expression of the party to whom the word heirs shall relate but so is not here and therefore the cases differ In 3 Ed. 3. f. 31 32. It is ruled that both parties have an estate tayl because the estate is limited to both but so it is not in our case so those books are not against me In our case it doth not appear that Richard did intend to advance the Husband of Susanna and therefore it is not reason that the word heirs should relate to him but to Susanna his wife only for in case of limitation of estates the intention of the party is to be considered and doth direct the matter and the preceding limiting of the estate to Susanna and not to Leventhorp doth shew that the party did mean to promote the heirs of Susanna Lit. Sect. 27. Dyer 27. A second reason is drawn from the penning of the déed which in the limitation of it doth encline more that the word heirs should be applyed to Susanna than to Leventhorp for the words upon her is as much as to say of her and then it is the same case with Littletons case 3ly The Intention of the Donor appears to be such by the circumstances of the entire limitations which do shew that he did intend that Leventhorp should not have such an estate whereby it should be in his power to deprive his issue and therefore the word heirs are to be applyed to Susanna and not to Leventhorp for if it should be applyed to both then Leventhorp might destroy the estate of the issue contrary to the Donors intent And whereas Dyer 99 is objected against me I answer that case is not against me for there the word heirs is expresly limited to a certain person viz. to the heirs of the body of both of them but so it is not in our case and whereas Hill 13 Iac. Lane and Panels case in this Court is also objected against me I answer that that case is in effect the same case with Dyer and the question in our case came not in dispute And the will of the Donor in deeds is to be ohserved Lit. 22. C. Tayl. 1. rep Shelleys case 103. 〈◊〉 Notwithstanding in gifts in tayl this rule holds not so that a gift in tayl may be limsted contrary to the rule of the Common Law And I know not of any authority in print or writing against me but in 13 Ed. 3. Fitz. tit variance 81 there is an expresse authority for me and 4 H. 4. Fitz. br 448. in my experience I have known many estates limited as this is in the Southern parts held good estates tayl if it should be otherwise many estates would be shaken Roll chief Iustice We have delivered our opinions before against you viz. that it was not the meaning of the donour to apply the word Heirs to the body of Susanna only for this construction would offer violence unto the words as appears by Littleton who interprets that they are to be applyed to the Heirs of both the partyes and your reason is founded upon a wrong ground and expresly against Litletons case and for your second reason it is of no waight for the words are all one as if he had said to the Heirs of the Husband and wife begotten upon the wife 3ly We are not to frame a meaning against plain words which shew the Donors intent to be against you And the Baron cannot Bar the Estate tayl as you suppose Tayl. for the Feme hath an Estate for life and if she survive she may revive the remaining Estate and we must not consider of inconveniences which possibly may happen against the expresse words of the deed and the multitude of conveyances made in this manner are of no force to alter the Law Ierman Iustice as Roll. That the word Heirs shall be applyed to the Heirs of both partyes because voluntas donatoris secundum formam chartae expressa est observanda Nicholas and Ask Iustices of the same opinion Garland against Yarrow Pasc 1652. Banc. sup THis case being in arrest of Iudgement formerly spoken unto in an Action upon the case for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Act on for words you are a knave and keep a Bawdy house was again moved by Christ Turner who held that the words are not actionable 1. Because they are of spiritual cognisance 2ly It is not said that he kept a common Bawdy house 3ly here is no special damage laid 10 Car. These words he is a pimp adjudged not actionable in Lewis and Whittons case 4ly It is not alleged that he
professision and cited one Hinkes case where these words spoken of the Plaintif being a Brasier were held actionable viz. Thou hast cozened me of a Pan. And if one say to another Thou hast poisoned a man If the man be dead the words are actionable although he doe not say that he did it wilfully The Court enclined the words are actionable because they are scandalous And the rule was Iudicium nisi c. Hill 1652. Banc. sup VVAdham Windham moved for a Certiorari to remove an Endictment preferred against one in Newgate Motion for a Certiorari to remove an Endictment Roll chief Iustice He lies there for murder and is outlawed thereupon yet take a Certiorari to remove the Record for his fact was the stabbing of a man and stabbing is in its nature but felony Felony Murther and is not murther although the party cannot have his Clergy for it by reason of the Statute made by King Iames against Stabbing else by the Common Law he might have had it Ashworth and Sir Tho. Stanley Hill 1652. Banc. sup VPon a Verdict given for the Plaintif in an Ejectione firmae Arrest of Iudgement in an Ejectione firmae Damages Ejectione firmae It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement That the Ejectment is laid to be of three Messuages or Tenements and a Toft which as to the Messuages or Tenements is incertain Roll chief Iustice You move too soon for it may be the Plaintiff will release the damages as to the Messuages or Tenement and take his judgement only for the toft and the Action lies well enough for that Hill 1652. Banc. sup TWisden moved to discharge Sir Thomas Revell and others of their recognisances for the peace in which they were bound the last Michaelmas Term Motion to discharge recognizances of the peace because the Affidavit upon which they were bound was only to this effect That the Prosecutor goes in fear of his life when he goes into such parcels of land whereas in truth those lands are setled upon Sir Thomas Revell by decree in Chancery and the Prosecutor hath also brought 18 several Actions against the Tenants of the lands and hath declared against none of them and there are four Affidavits against the first Affidavit Green on the other side said that the party is in Court and says he is still in fear of his life Peace and prays he may not be discharged But because upon reading the Affidavits and examining the matter it appeared to the Court that they were bound to the peace upon malice and for vexation they were discharged Hill 1652. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Who ought to repair High-ways of Common right All High ways of common right are to be repaired by the Inhabitants of that Parish in which the way lies But if any particular person will enclose any part of a way or waste adjoyning he thereby takes upon him to repair that which was so enclosed Massey and Aubry Hill 1652. Banc. sup AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation to stand to an Award Arrest of judgement in debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award The Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrators made no Award The Paintif replies that the Vmpire made an award and sets it forth and assigns the breach and upon issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the assignment of the breach was not good for the incertainty of it for the breach is assigned upon but a part of the Award for the breach assigned is that the Defendant should pay the Arrears of rent due after the purchase of certain lands and doth not shew what these Arrears are But Roll chief Iustice said That the words since the purchase thereof seem to make this certain yet stay till the other moves At another day the case was moved again and the same exception insisted upon by Barry of the Inner Temple who formerly moved it Hales held the Exception not good and that the breach was well assigned because though it seem uncertain of it self yet it relates to a thing which makes it certain As an Award for one to deliver to another all the goods in such a Shop which belonged to him hath been held to be good But Barry answered That it is utterly incertain and that there is nothing in the Award which can make it certain and here is a four-fold incertainty in the Award 1. It cannot be known what these arrears are that are awarded to be paid 2ly It appears not by the Award for what lands these arrerages of rent awarded to be paid are due for there are no lands mentiond but only two leases of land 3ly It appears not by whom the arrerages are due 4ly It appears not to whom the arrerages are due Roll chief Iustice All the matter is whether it appears that these arrerages of rent awarded to be paid were in question or no and it seems they were because the lease and the rent thereupon reserved are both in question but it is not certain what these arrears of rent are and so the party that is awarded to pay them cannot tell what sum of mony he is to pay Ierman Iustice said he may know because he was Tenant of the land Barry replyed he cannot know when the purchase was made and the arbitrement is that the party shall pay all the arrears since the purchase Curia advisare vult At another day the case was again moved by Barry and exceptions taken that the breach was assigned upon a thing not submitted unto or awarded to be performed And secondly The award is incertain in many things First It appears not what rent was due to be paid but only by implication which is not good Secondly It appears not for what the rent is due nor 3ly How much rent is due and Salmons case in the 5. rep was cited Also it was objected that the award was not finall and concluding and therefore not good Also the Award is unreasonable and for that cause also it is not good and he cited 21 E. 4. f. 40. and 17 E. 4. f. 51. and prayed for the Defendant that judgement might be stayed Hales on the other side prayed for judgement said That the Arbitrators were not to ascertain particularly the rent to be paid but it is sufficient for them to make the Award touching all the differences betwixt the parties and an averment may ascertain the particular things being they are only matters of fact although one may not be admitted by an averment to supply an Award in a matter wherein it was in the substance of it defective before Roll chief Iustice What certainty is there by the Award that the party shall enjoy all his right in the two leases in difference between the parties for the payment of the rent Both parties know what rent is due reserved by the leases but how can the party know what the
estate may pass by Attorney and so although here be but a bare power given yet it is well executed notwithstanding his death that gave it 2ly This Letter of Attorney was not countermandable by the Copyholder himself during his life and therefore it shall not be countermanded by his death and though it had been countermandable during his life yet it being not countermanded by him in his life his death shall not countermand it and the custom doth strengthen this power Next this custom is not contradictory for here is no Attorney made but a writing made in the nature of a Letter of Attorney and a power to surrender given by it and it is no more than for one Copyholder to surrender for another which is usual and in Cooks 9 Rep. f. 76. A Copyholder is called an Attorney also Copyhold estates are made by customs and therefore such customs which are to confirm estates are to be favoured in Law although they do differ from conveyances of estates at the Common Law and this custom is not only reasonable but convenient also for the passing of Copyhold estates And this custom enlarges the power of alienations and such customs have generally been admitted good though different from the Common Law And when a custom is become a Law it is very dangerous to alter it and the doing of it would overthrow many estates Ellis Sollicitor General on the other side argued That the custom is not good because it is against the rule of Law That an authority given should survive the party that gave it and a custom cannot strengthen it for a custom ought to be reasonable and agreeing to the nature of the thing which it concerns otherwise it cannot be good for Ratio est formalis causa consuetudinis Dalisons Rep. 32. 1 Instit f. 59. And this cause cannot be reasonable because it cannot give an authority to another to do such a thing for him after his death which he could not do during his life And this custom doth purely destroy the nature of the Common Law and therefore cannot be good And it is against the very nature of an authority to survive and so consequently it is against the nature of the thing Dyer 357. 10 E. 3. f. 5. 18 Rep. Vnyers case The party in his life time might have revoked this authority and therefore his death doth revoke it and by the death of the Copyholder the Copyhold is descended and cannot be surrendred by a dead man and here was no incoation of the estate of the party that is dead and I hold there is a difference betwixt a will and an authority And also here the Letter of Attorney is not pursuant to the custom and therefore it is a void Letter of Attorney 16 Iac. rot 530. Greenwood and Onslaes case Customs are to be taken strictly Copyhold and to be so pursued and it is not so here for here is an addition to the custom and this makes all void Roll chief Iustice Copyholds are much led by the customs of the Manor and me thinks here is little difference betwixtt surrendring into the hands of another Copyholder to make a surrender for him and this case and the variances are not so considerable as to make it void here The Court would advise At another day the case was again put Custom and the Court delivered their opinion that the custom was good and Roll chief Iustice said that the death of the party doth not revoke this writing made in the nature of a Letter of Attorney Revocation for it is strengthned by the custom and it is not like an ordinary Letter of Attorney which becoms void by the death of him that made it Authority Executor for this custom is a Law and the authority here survives as an Executor may sell the Testators lands it he be impowered to do it by the will and therefore the Custom is good and let the Plaintif have judgement nisi c. Child Trin. 1654. Banc. sup AN Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. was brought for using a Trade not having served an Apprentiship in it That the Defendant might not plead to the Action Serjeant Fletcher moved that the Defendant might not be compelled to plead because he ought not to be sued out of the County where he useth the Trade Roll chief Iustice proceed according to Law and plead this matter or move it in arrest of Iudgement Rule for we will make no rule Trin. 1654. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Where an Action on the Case lies and where not an Action upon the case doth not lie against one for causing another to be endicted for a Trespass but for causing one to be endicted for a thing which deserves corporal punishment or a thing which sounds in scandal of the party endicted an Action upon the case will lie Nota. Stevens against Ask. Mich. 1654. Banc. sup STephens brought an Action upon the case against Ask for these words Action on the Case for words Arrest of judgement Adjective words Thou art a common Bastard-bearing Whore and hadst two Bastards by a Butcher and I will prove it Vpon not guilty pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintif Twisden moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the first words viz. Thou art a common Bastard-bearing Whore are not actionable because they are adjective words and are not positive And for the other words they are not actionable because they were spoken of a Feme Covert who cannot have a Bastard Vpon this the judgement was arrested till the next Term and then Wild moved for judgement for that he conceived that the words taken together are actionable and cited Owen levons case adjudged in this Court to prove it Roll chief Iustice If she were married at the time of the words spoken she could not have a Bastard but yet why should not the words be actionable for the words purport that she was not maried when she had the Bastards and the Iury hath found for the Plaintif Therefore let her take her judgement nisi Barker and Weston Mich. 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved that the bail to an Action might be discharged To discharge Bail because they had now brought in the principal and it was but one day after the return of the writ But Roll chief Iustice answered that it may not be because they come in upon the return of the second Scire facias Harvey and Mountney Mich. 1654. anc sup IN this Case the Action being a Trespass and Ejectment and the title concerning Hugh Audley of the Inner Temple the Defendant was by rule of Court at the tryal which was to be at the bar to appear and confess the lease entry and ouster and to stand upon the title only Plaintif non-sute and yet judgement for him yet at the tryal he would not appear upon which the Plaintif was non-sute and yet the judgement was for the Plaintif upon
Operative words which makes it certain enough the word is used here absolutely shall be so taken in 3 Car. Iaques and Thorowgoods case in the Common pleas the word equally was taken operatively and not in common construction and in Lewin and Dods case in the Common pleas 36 and 37 Eliz. the word equally was held by two Iudges to make a joynt-tenancy and not a tenancy in common and in this Court also the Iudges were divided at the first but afterwards Popham changed his opinion and it was adjudged a tenancy in common and afterwards a writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber and there the judgement was affirmed Pasch 41 Eliz. B. r. rot 270. Also the subject matter here is apt to receive a tenancy in common here being intended a provision for children and their several posterities which a survivorship would destroy 37 H. 8. Bro. Devise 29. and the very intent of the Devisor appears in the will to be as I have argued Roll chief Iustice I hold here is a tenancy in common and that it shall goe throughout Words not to be construed to make them idle and is not to be divided and the intent of the devisor appears in the will that every one shall have his part and their heirs for here is a provision made for Children and the word respectively would be idle if another construction should be made Iudgement for the Plaintif and would signifie no more than what the law said without it Ask and Newdigate ad idem and Newdigate cited Dyer 316 Huntlyes case so judgement was given for the Plaintif nisi Shepheard and Gray Hill 1654. Banc sup Trin. 1654. r. 672. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in an Action upon the Case in the Court at Doncaster Error in Action upon the Case and the Error assigned was in the judgement which was entred thus and the said Shepheard to wit the Defendant shall be in mercy of W. Gray to wit the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice This is erronious for he ought not to be in mercy of the Plaintif but of the State Therefore let the judgement be reversed Reversed Lamplew and Hewson Hill 1654. Banc. sup AFter a verdict in an Action upon the Case brought for these words Arrest of judgement in an Action for words viz. I was never a Traytor to the State as you have been It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement by Turner for the incertainty of the Declaration for that it appears not thereby that the words were spoken of the Plaintif or to the Plaintif and because it is not said that the words were spoken falso et malitiose Shafto of Councel on the other side answered that it appears the words were spoken upon conference betwixt the parties and thereby doth appear a sufficient averment that the words were spoken of the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice The Declaration implies that the words were spoken falso et malitiose Implyed averment good Iudgement ther néeds not an express averment that they were so spoken as there ought to be in an Endictment and this Declaration is laid two years after the words were spoken Therefore take your Iudgement except better matter be shewn Hill 1654. Banc. sup A Forein plea To swear a forein plea. which is to out the Court of the Iurisdiction in the cause depending ought to be sworn to be true or else is not to be allowed by the Court. So ruled by the Court. Dod and Herbert Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1655. rot Q. DOd brought an Action of Debt against Gregory Herbert an Attorny of this Court upon an Obligation to stand to an Award Debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award The Defendant pleads no Award made The Plaintif replies and sets forth the Award which was that the Defendant should pay unto the Plaintif 100 l. at two several daies of payment and assigns the breach in not paying the 100 l. accordingly To this replication the Defendant demurs and the exception taken was that it doth not appear in the Award that the Award is reciprocal but that is only made on one part It is true by the allegation in the pleading it doth appear but this helps it not for it ought to appear in the Award it self Award de super praemissis Breach not well assigned Roll chief Iustice the Award appears to be made de super praemissis and that may help it But the Plaintif hath not well assigned the breach for the breach is not assigned upon a good part of the Award for there is no cause set forth in the Award why the Defendant should pay the 100 l. Therefore nil capiat per billam nisi c. Henly and Baynton Trin. 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1654. rot 1384. HEnly brought an Action upon the Case against Sir Edward Baynton Arrest of judgement in an Action up the Case for words for speaking of these words of him viz. You have cousened the State of 20000 l. and I will prove it for you have received five and twenty thousand pounds profits of the Office and not compounded for it and have foisted in words into the order for your composition After a verdict found for the Plaintif it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the words as they are laid in the Declaration are not actionable for the Plaintif doth not entitle himself to the Office but only to eleven parts of the profits of the Office and so he cannot be scandalized by the words as an Officer Hob. 267 268. Sir Miles Fleetswoods case was cited and Hob. 76. Bray and Humes case and 4 Iac. Cars and Rans case and Hill 14 Iac. Snails case and 20 Iac. Curle and Tucks case 2ly Here is no averment that Whitwick during whose life he claims the office was alive when the words were spoken and if he were dead then he was no officer And the subsequent words do qualifie the former part of the words for the receiving of the mony is not an offence or cosening of the State 14 Iac. Godard and Gilberts case in the Common-pleas and for the word foisting it is an insensible word Insensible word and therefore cannot be actionable and the Plaintif doth not aver that he did not foist in words into this order No Action where no dammages but only sayes he did not foist in words into any order And though the words were actionable yet at the time when the Action was brought Henly was pardoned by the Act of Oblivion if he had done it and so could not be damnified by the Defendants speaking the words if they were true and so no Action lies for no dammages could be recovered Hob. 82.294 Chuddington and VVilkins case 1 E. 3.3.12 Eliz. Bartons case 20 Ass Pl. 7.6 Rep. 13.16 Iac. Serles case Shafto on the same side urged that it appears not by the Declaration that Henly was an
Officer or that Sir Edward Bayâ—ton knew him to be so and so here is an ill inducement and Sir Miles Fleetwoods case is that he ought to know that he was an Officer and there the words were positive and certain but so they are not here nor do relate to his Office and the words are to be construed as they lye together and so some of them are of a very ambiguous construction and uncertain and others of them are insensible and an averment cannot make senseless words to be sense And in the case of Curle and Tuck 20 Iac. no judgement was ever given and yet that was stronger than our case It was also urged by Powis on the same side that it appears not that the mony spoken of did belong to the State or was to be compounded for for it may be he received the monies before he was a Delinquent and then he was not to compound for them Hob. 3.23 Bradshaw and Walkers case cited Sergeant Twisden for the Plaintif held the words to be actionable and cited 8 Car. Culme and Denhams case where it was adjudged that to say a man was a cosening Knave are actionable words and 16 Iac. Sir VVilliam Brunkers case and Hill 1651 Strode and Homes case in this Court and Trin. 1653. Townesend and Barkers case and in this Case is an instancing wherein the Plaintif hath cosened which makes it more plain and it is also aggravated by saying he had cosened the State for he hath thereby incensed the State against the Plaintif and the words in themselves are scandalous and prejudicial also for if he hath not compounded he is no Officer but hath lost his Office being lyable to be sequestred and the words here shall be taken in sensu composito and not in sensu diviso Sensus compositus et sensus divisus for they are positive words 8 Car. Redwood Smiths case and the last words are only spoken to instance the Cause of speaking of the former and it is not material whether they be actionable or not but the meaning of the word foisting is not so doubtfull but is very well known and shall be intended that he had falsely put in words into the order and so they are scandalous as well as the former 5 Car. Alleyns Case And there is no necessity here to aver the life of VVhitwick as is objected on the other side for the Office was for the life of Henly and VVhitwick and the surviver of them and if the averment were necessary in some Cases yet here it is not because Whitwick is an Officer upon Record in this Court where the Action is brought and seen to be alive here in Court and besides the Statute of 21 Iac. would help this if need required it being after a verdict and not upon a demurrer and besides here is an averment that he hath not foisted words into this order in effect for he hath averred that he hath not foisted words into any order and so consequently not into this 2 R. 3. f. 7. 12 H. 7. f. 23. And the Act of oblivion hath not pardoned this offence as is also objected and though it should yet it must be pleaded that the party may appear not to be excepted on t of it as many are and the Iury have here found for the Plaintif and so it shall be intended that he is out of the Act and he ought to have averred it before or have given it in evidence and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice you mistake the exception for they say that Mr. Henly is pardoned by the Act and so cannot be damnified by the words if they were true and so they are not actionable Twisden By their pleading it appears not that Mr. Henly is within the pardon for there are many persons excepted out of it Roll chief Iustice But if it be so yet if the words do not relate to him as an Officer they are not actionable Wild The words are spoken intentionally in relation to his Office Roll chief Iustice He was not an Officer at the time of the words spoken for he was sequestred and then what scandal can they be to him Wild The Iury hath found that he was damnified though the words were true The first question here is whether the words as they are laid relate to his Office for he is not an Officer nor can the Action be brought by him as he is so but this is not much to the purpose but the deceit alleged to be done to the State charged upon him is the cause of the Action and it is said that he deceived the State in his composition for his fine and for foisting words into the order and if he foisted not any words into any order then he did it not into this Averment And there is no need to aver Whitwicks life for he could not receive the profits of the Office if Whitwick were dead and therefore he shall be intended to he alive and there doth dammage arise to the Plaintif by the speaking of the words for he is in danger thereby of sequestration by such foisting of the words and in the common understanding of the words they shall be taken to be meant of falsifying of the Committees order and one man ought not to slander another and say that you had not notice of the Ordinance touching which he is slandered it is not to the purpose for you ought to take notice of the Ordinance Newdigate Iustice to the same effect that the words are actionable for as they are laid Henly is brought therby within the compass of Sequestration and the words in themselves are actionable because they instance in what thing he cosened the State and the subsequent words do not qualifie the former but aggravate the matter Iudgement for the Plaintiff and I conceive it not necessary to aver Whitwicks life but if it be it is averred here and so judgement was given for the Plaintif nisi c. North and Iames. Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1651. rot 1666. A Writ of error was brought to reverse a judgement given in an Action of Trespass in the Common-pleas upon a demurrer Error to reverse a judgement in Trespass Discontinuances the error assigned was that there were discontinuances in the Process and it was shewed by Howell of Councell with the Defendant in the Writ of error that this is helped by the late Statute which sayes that no Writ of error shall stay execution and Iudgements upon Demurrers as this is are within the Statute Roll chief Iustice By your reason a Writ of error will not now lye for any thing The branch of the Statute is to be intended of matter in form only but this is matter of substance notwithstanding the branch of the Statute alleged Reversed Therefore let the judgement be reversed nisi c. Yokehurst against Scott Hill 1654. Banc. sup Hill 1653. rot 35. YOkehurst brought
Common Councel man of London and here the party hath an imployment for his life Imployment for life though he have not a freehold in it and there is a setled profit accruing to him and so prayed he might be restored Wild on the other side held that a Mandamus lies not in this case and said this case differs from the cases put on the other side for the Schoolmaster Durante beneplacito though he have a freehold yet it is but durante beneplacito and he is in truth no more than a servant and in all the cases put on the other side the publique is more concerned than in this case 11 H. 4. f. 47. A Schoolmaster hath no freehold as Skreen there held and it is not like the case of a Churchwarden Churchwarden which is an Office that the common Law takes notice of 12 H 7. and a Town Clark is a publique officer of the Town and Boremans case is very like to this and the office of a high Steward is a publique office and so is a Steward of a Leet and one may put away a servant retained for his life and so may the Schoolmaster here be discharged and this School is a private School and is not a Corporation as Westminster School is Glyn chief Iustice by the same rule that the Schoolmaster should be restored may ever Schollar claim to be restored and I conceive the Visitors may remove the Master of the School if he observe not the rules for government of the School and it seems as reasonable for them to turn out the Masters as to receive them into the place But let the whole matter be referred to the Justices of the Assize one of whom viz. my Lord chief Iustice St. Iohn Referrence is the Chancellor of the Vniversity of Cambridge where the School is Fowke and Prescott Trin. 1655. Banc. sup FOwke brought an Action upon the case upon a promise against Prescott The Case was this Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the case upon a promise Prescott being a Coachman did by careless driving of his Coach break a pipe of wine of Fowkes which lay in the street whereby much of the wine ran out and was lost Fowke apprehends the Coachman who thereupon promiseth that if he would for bear to sue him for the wine that he would pay him as much as he had damnified him and for breach of this promise he brings his Action and obtains a verdict against the Defendant It was moved in Arrest of judgement 1. That the Plaintif had not averred how much the wine was worth that was spilt and so he could not tell what satisfaction to make the Plaintif for it Averment for he knows not the value Request 2ly Here doth not appear to be any request made for the satisfaction by the Plaintif Serjeant Twisden answered Here doth appear to be an apparent damage and he hath not satisfied the damage we have laid in our Declaration nor hath the Defendant pleaded any tender of damages at all Tender of damages Implication Notice and the Iury have found the damages 2ly We say that we have forborn to sue him and this implies no satisfaction made at the time of the Action brought Alleyne on the other side The Plaintifs Declaration doth not intitle him to the Action and the finding of the Iury cannot make this good Glyn chief Iustice Both parties did see the wine and the Defendant is bound to take notice of the damage and the Plaintif is not bound to give him notice Iudgement and the Iury hath made it certain Therefore let the Plaintif have his judgement Dod and Herbert Trin. 1655. Banc. sup DOd brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation to stand to an award Demurrer in debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award Satisfaction Charges Submission In Curia prolata against Herbert the Defendant pleaded nil debet and upon a Demurrer these exceptions were taken to the Award why it should not be good 1. That here is 100 l. awarded to be paid to the party and it doth not appear that it is to be paid unto him in satisfaction of the wrong done unto him 2ly Here is 8 l. ordered to be paid for charges and expences which thing is not submitted unto by the parties and so no Award ought to be made for them 3ly The Action here is meerly grounded upon the Award and therefore the award ought to have been brought into Court which is not done for ought appears here Wild on the other side answered that upon the penning of the whole Award it appears that the 100 l. is to be payd for the wrong done to the party by the speaking of the scandalous words and the Award is set forth to be made de et super praemissis De super praemissis which makes it good as my Lord chief Iustice Rolls opinion was upon the first opening of the Record and so was Burbidges case 16 Car. And as is the second Exception he held that the 8 l. awarded to be payed for charges was within the submission for the Arbitators have power to allow charges And as to the last Exception he said it is not necessary to produce the Award in Court Glyn chief Iustice It is to be intended that the 100 l. is to be paid for the wrong done Intendment and the 8 l for costs is as well within the submission as the other and the Award is recited and it is said to be made de et super praemissis The only question is whether the Award ought to be produced in Court and I conceive it is not necessary to do it although he must plead the Award in writing for the Action is not brought upon the Award but upon the submission for the Award is but the inducement and the Court hath nothing to do with the Award Submission Inducement but to see whether it be in writing or no For a Deed that must I confess be produced in Court that the Court may judge whether it bind the party or not and you your selves have here set forth the Award in your pleading But speak to it at another day at which time the case being only put Glyn chief Iustice said if an Action of debt be brought upon an Obligation Where a thing must be produced the Obligation ought to be produced and in all other cases where things cannot be demanded but by Deed otherwise is it if they may be demanded either by Deed or without Deed but here is no Deed in the case for an Arbitrement under seal is no Deed the arbitrement may be made without a Deed Deed. Arbitrement Writing Iudgement nisi therefore it is not necessary to be produced in Court for it is but a writing under hand and seal Iudicium nisi pro quereute Maynell and Mackallye Trin. 1655. Banc. sup MAynell brought an Action upon
the power for it ariseth partly out of her interest and partly out of her Authority and both may well stand together and the Estate made out of both is a good Estate or if not the Estate may be intended to arise out of the power given her to make such an Estate and not out of her interest and the joyning of her daughter is not materiall though no good estate be derived from her and so he prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice It is usual in the West of England to make Estates for lives upon the old rent but it is not here expressed of what nature this manor is or whether it used to be let and here is no limitation to let for lives But here either the laster words are idle or else the Feme hath such a power that she may destroy the remainder And itsh all not be intended that he trusted his Executrix with more than he gave her and the words of the Will do not express that and the question is how it shall be interpreted The words may be interpreted Cumulative Interpretation otherwise the feme hath power to destroy the remainder which would be a hard construction To which Nicholas assented Roll chief Iustie The intention of the Testator is not cleer to give this power to the Feme but if it did appear to be his meaning it might be otherwise and here it is in a Will And the Verdict is not well drawn up for the Case might have been made better for all the land may be in Demesite for ought appears by the Verdict Adjourned to be argued again Postea VVebb against Wilmer Pasch 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 309. VVEbb brought an Action of Debt for rent reserved by him upon a lease for years made to Wilmer Arrest of Iudgement in Debt for rent reserved upon a Lease for years and obtains a Verdict The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and alleged for cause that the Plaintif had abated his writ The case was this Webb leaseth certain lands to Wilmer for years reserving a rent with a clause of re-entry for not payment the rent being behind the Lessor brings an Action of Debt for the rent and pending the sute re-enters into the land and after the Lessee re-enters The question here was whether the writ once abated by the Plaintifs entry Reviver Abatement pending the writ were revived by the Defendants re-entry Roll chief Iustice held it was not Twisden argued that the writ is not abated but only abatable by plea and so this matter is not to be offered to stay the Iudgement 5 H. 7. f. 47. and he hath pleaded nothing in abatement but to the Action only and he said that it now being after a verdict it is helped by the Statute Hales on the other side said that it doth here appear that the Plaintif hath no cause of Action for he was in possession when he brought the Ejectment Roll answered If one declare having no cause of Action Declaration Departure if there be cause afterward it is well enough But here is a departure and the 1. Ejectment is not revived for it is purged by the re entry The rule was nil capiat per billam nisi The Custodes Libertatis c. against Hall Pasch 1651. Banc. sup HAll was endicted for forestalling of Butter Error to reverse a judgment upon an Endictment for forestalling and pleaded and had judgement given against him whereupon he brought his writ of Error and took these exceptions 1. That it doth not appear that the Endictment was at the Quarter Sessions as it ought to be by the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. for it is only said to be ad generalem Sessionem Roll chief Iustice answered if it be ad generalem Sessionem it may be intended the Quarter Sessions Intendment 2ly It was objected that there is no Capiatur awarded in the judgement as there ought to be The Court answered they would advise VVillis against Bond. Pasch 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 86. BOnd an Administrator brought an Action of Debt in Bristow against Willis upon an indebitatus assumpsit Error to reverse a judgement in debt and had a judgement The Defendant brought a writ of Error and took these Exceptions 1. That the Plaintif declares for a thing the conusance whereof lyes out of the jurisdiction of the Court Iurisdiction for it is for wages to be paid upon the performance of a Voyage to be made in locis transmarinis Roll chief lustice said this was a good Exception for they cannot enquire at Bristow whether the party hath performed his Voyage or not The 2d Exception was that the Plaintif declares that the Defendant was indebted to him in such a sum of money to render him an accompt The Court answered this is not good Accompt Debt for in such case an Action of accompt lies and not an indebitatus assumpsit And for these causes the Iudgement was reversed nisi and pronounced by Ierman Iustice at the prayer of the Plaintifs Counsel in English being the first that was pronounced so in this Court according to the late Act for proceedings in Law to be in English Quod nota Gowr against Pasch 1651. Banc. sup IN Arrest of Iudgement upon a Verdict found for the Plaintif Arrest of Iudgement in a Trover and Conversion Demand Trover in a Trover and Conversion brought by Baron and Feme for goods of the Feme dum ipsa sola suit The Exception was that it is not expressed that the goods were demanded by the Feme Roll chief Iustice said the Demand of the Feme is good to found the Action and it was then also said that a Trover and Conversion lies for goods found and converted although they come afterwards to the hands of the party that lost them The Rule was judicium nisi Pasch 1651. Banc. sup MEmorandum The first rule of this Court made in English was between White and Keblewhite Pasch 1651. Pease against Shrimpton Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 191. THe Court was informed by Councel that the Habeas Corpus and Bail-piece were lost and therefore it was prayed that there might be a new Habeas Corpus and that the old Bail put in may be allowed by the rule of Court Roll chief Iustice answered make a new Habeas Corpus Habeas Corpus Bail and a new Bail-piece but first let Tutt the Attorney that was Clark of the Bails attend here to be examined whether the Habeas Corpus Bail-piece be lost as is suggested Ritch against Sanders Pasch 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 758. RItch brought an Action of Trespass against Sanders for taking away his Corn set forth for tithes Special verdict in Trespass for tithes upon the words of a Will upon issue joyned a special Verdict was found whereupon the case fell out to be upon the construction of the
words of a will which were these I give all my free lands wheresoever to my Brother Iohn Sanders and his heirs upon condition that he suffer my wife to enjoy all my Freelands in Holford for life the Testator having only a portion of tithes of inheritance in Holford and no lands The question here was whether this portion of tithes shall be accompted free lands within the intent of the will and so the wife be to have them during her life Twisden held the tithes were not devised by the will to the Feme for if I devise my fee-simple lands to Iohn a Stile and his heirs tithes do not pass by this devise for tithes are a collateral thing arising out of land and not part of the land it self 42 Ed. 3. f. 13. 10 Iac. Moyle and Ewers case 31 Eliz. Perkins and Hyndes case In the will here they pass not for there are no words in the will to devise them nor can the words he so expounded and here are other lands devised to satisfie the words of the will A term for years hath more relation to land than tithes and a term could not have passed by the words of the will Next the second Clause doth not pass the tithes for there is no such thing as is expressed in it but if it should pass to the wise by implication yet it cannot pass to Iohn Sanders the Brother for there are neither expresse words nor any implication to devise this portion of tithes to him but the contrary rather is to be collected from the Will Wadham Windham on the other side answered that the Testator calls the tithes in Holford his free lands It is true generally that by the devise of lands tithes do not pass but in a will by the intent of the Devisor they may pass and the word land includes all real things in common intention and legal construction as Lutrels Case is 1 Mar. Bro. Tit. Elegit An Elegit may be of a rent and tithes have a nearer relation to land than rent have 2ly Here is an apparent intention to devise the tithes for he explains his meaning in his second clause of the Will that he intends tithes by the word lands 44 Eliz. Com. Banc. Gery against Gery the question there was what passed by the word rents whether lands passed The words were as to all my lands in Dale I devise my rents c. and here the matter comes in by a Proviso which enlarges the matter Trin. 3 Iac. Fitz. Williams case One devised all his goods Iewels and Plate excepting his lease in C There it was adjudged that all his other Leases passed 4 Ed. â— Br. grants 51. Another circumstance in the Will enforceth this construction viz. the word wheresoever which word expresseth the intent of the Devisor to be so otherwise that word will be idle and to no purpose Hob. rep Stukely and Butlers case It may also appear out of the body of the Will for it appears thereby that his Daughter was provided for in his will by his personal estateâ— and that the intention was to dispose of his lands to the Heir and his Copyhold lands which he had in Holford were surrendred at the time of the making of the Will and so the devise cannot refer to them and besides this is called free lands which distinguisheth them from Copyhold lands and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice There is a Condition annexed to the Devise Condition that his wife shall enjoy this land though the words in the Will are not very proper to erpress it but we must consider them as used in a Will not in a conveyance Nicholas Iustice said the Devisor himself calls them free-holds and this distinguisheth them from Copyhold lands Adjourned till Saturday following to be argued again Dowse against Masters Pasc 1651. Banc. sup DOwse brought an Action of Debt upon an Indebitatus Assumpsit against Masters for five pound Demurrer to a plea in Debt upon Indebitatus assumpsit in which the Defendant pleaded that he did deliver bils to the Plaintif to the value of 6 l. in which the Plaintif was indebted to him which bills the Plaintif did accept in full satisfaction the Plaintif replyed protestando that he was not indebted to the Defendant that he did not receive bills to the value of 6 l. in satisfaction Vpon this a Demurrer was joyned Roll chief Iustice said Plea the Plea of the Defendant is ill for he doth not say that he delivered the Bills in full satisfaction but that the Plaintif received them in full satisfaction which is not good for the Plaintifs receiving of the Bills must be as they were delivered and not other ways and that is not expressed Therefore let the Plaintif take his judgement nisi c. Ross against Lawrence Pasch 1651. Banc. sup ROss brought an Action of the Case against Lawrence for speaking these Welch words of him viz. Dedingues Will Rols in mudon Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case for Welch words Englished which are in English William Ross hath forsworn himself upon Issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable as they are rendred in English and so the Action lies not Roll chief Iustice If the words sound in Welch that the Plaintif was perjured yet if the Plaintif do English them in English which doth not amount to perjury it is ill Case and an action will not lie for them Therefore let judgement be stayed Peck against Ingram Pasch 1651. Banc. sup PEck brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit and declares Arrest of Judgement in an action upon the case upon an Assumpsit that the Defendant in consideration that she the Plaintif would leave her Fathers house and come to the House of the Defendant in such a place did assume and promise unto her that he would mary her and that thereupon she did leave her Fathers House and did come to the Defendants House et obtulit se in maritagium conjungi and because he had not performed his promise Actio accrevit Vpon issue joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took Exceptions that the Plaintif did not shew in her Declaration when she left her Fathers House and came to the Defendants house nor that she gave him any notice thereof Wild moved for judgement notwithstanding the Exceptions for he said though it be not expresly said that she gave the Defendant notice when she came to his House yet it is said quod obtulit se in maritagium conjungi which implies the Defendant had notice and besides here is no need of notice for the Assumpsit is that if she will come to the Defendants house he will marry her and it is not said that when she comes he will marry her so that he is bound by
the day it was offered for cause that there ought to be no prohibition because where an administration is granted to one unto whom the Ordinary is not bound by the Statute to grant it as it is in this case there the Ordinary may take a bond of the party with condition to make an equal distribution of the goods but otherwise it is where Letters of administration are granted to one to whom by the Statute they ought to be granted and one Sharp and Sympsons case 14 Iac. was cited Ordinary and Hob. 191. On the other side it was urged that the Ordinary hath no authority to take such a bond for the equal distribution of the goods and the difference put on the other side was denied and it was said that when the Ordinary hath once committed the Letters of Administration to the party Power determined Administration upon condition his power is then determined and he cannot grant Letters of Admistration upon Condition Glyn chief Iustice The taking of the Bond is against the Statute for the wife ought to be preferred before the next of the Kin notwithstanding the Statute and so is the common practice except there be a special cause for the contrary as where the wife hath had a former provision made for her by her husband Prohibition granted c. Therefore let there be a prohibition nisi Trin. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved on the behalf of an Infant to discharge a Guardian assigned by the Court To discharge a Guardian with an intent to make Richard Somers Attorney of this Court Guardian in his room and that the former inspection may be discharged Inspection and that the infant may by now inspected again because when the former inspection was and the Guardian assigned there was no action depending in Court against the Infant Glyn chief Iustice Let it be so for the cause you have alleged and give notice of it to the former Guardian Sherlock Trin. 1655. Banc. sup rot 1320 or 1315. ONe Sherelock a Widow of the Parish of Earth in Sussex Error by an Infant to reverse a fine an Infant brought writ of Error to reverse a fine levied by her of her lands whilst she was a Covert Baron and the Court was moved that she might have a Guardian assigned her to prosecute for her and that she might be inspected by the Court Inspection and that the inspection might be recorded and there was an Affidavit made by one in Court that he knew the Infant who was there present and the time of her birth and baptising and swore the times precisely the Church book was also produced in Court and proved by Oath wherein the time of her baptising was entred and that she was the same person upon which she had by her own election Aâ—twood an Attorney of this Court assigned for her Guardian Guardian assigned Entry and the Affidavits were ordered by the Court to be recorded and the inspection to be entred and a scire facias awarded against the heir The Protector and Craford Trin. 1655. Banc. sup VPon a return of a Mandamus directed to the Master and Fellows of Gonvile and Cayus Colledge in Cambridge A Mandamus to restore one to an Ushers place in a Free-school and the return and exceptions to 〈◊〉 Au hority Notice Action at Law Extraordinary course to restore one to an Ushers place of a Free-school in Cambridge of which they are visiters It was excepted against it that they had not shewed that they had any authority to deprive the party of his place And 2ly It doth not appear that they gave him any notice of their proceedings against him whereby he might prepare to defend himself Serjeant Twisden made question whether a Mandamus did lie in this case because a School masters place is a temporal Office and an Action at the Law lies for the party to recover it and therefore it seems a Mandamus which is an extraordinary course ought not to be granted and he rited 8 Ass and Sir Iames Bags case and Dyer 200. and said it is not like an Office without see Latch on the other side answered The Mandamus is allowed already and the legality of it is not now to be disputed and Sir Iames Bags case is not repugnant to this case for this is a publique office and not a private and tends much to the publique good Office publique private and is like to the case of an Alderman or Freeman of a Corporation or a Fellow of a College Glyn chief Iustice A Mandamus to restore one to a Churchwardens place hath been adjudged good It is true that for a private office a writ of restitution doth not lie but if the publique be concerned in the office it doth lie and though it be an office with a fee belonging to it that makes no difference for a Recorders place is an office with a fee and yet a writ of restitution lies for it But it appears here that the Schoolmaster hath much abused himself and therefore we will advise Writ of restitution Office with and without a Fee Mandamus Freehold At another day this case was moved again and then Glyn chief Iustice said I doubt whether a Mandamus doth lie in this case for it lies not for every taking away of a mans freebold as in the cases of a Keeper of a Park or a Stewardship of a Court Baron Wild questioned to whom the Mandamus could be here directed for he said that the Master and Fellows are no Corporation and he cited Boremans case of the Middle Temple Corporation Innes of Court voluntary societies who prayed a Mandamus to be restored to that society where it was held that the Innes of Court are not Corporations but only voluntary societies Latch on the other side said that it was very proper to have a Mandamus in this case for it is a publique office and not a private as a Keepers place of a Park or a Stewards place of a Manor are Iurisdiction and a Steward of a Court Leet is a publique Officer And this Court hath jurisdiction to reform all grievantes of this nature and to keep other jurisdictions in good order that they do not intrench one upon another here is no Visiter to whom the party may appeal and it were very unreasonable to leave him without remedy and Mandamusses have been granted for places of less consequence than this as in Pasch 2 Car. a Mandamus was granted to restore one to the place of Town Clark which is a private office and 19 Iac. a Mandamus was granted to restore one to a common Clarks place of a Will and 5 Car. and 18 Car. to restore the parties to Parish Clarks places And if the place be publique this Court will not leave the party to seek his remedy at Law and Alderman Estwicks case is well known who was restored to the place of a