the one took 70 l. and the other 30 l. damages shall be assessed severally It was admitted that regularly the damages ought to be entire especially where the Action is joint but where the Facts are several damages may likewise be so assessed but in this Case the Iury hath done what the Court would do had it béen in a Criminal Cause Curia This is all but one Fact which the Iury is to try 'T is true when several Persons are found Guilty criminally then the damages may be severed in proportion to their Guilt but here all are equally guilty of the same offence and it seems to be a contradiction to say that the Plaintiff is injured by one to the value of 50 l. and by the other to the value of 1000 l. when both are equally Guilty Every Defendant ought to answer full as much as the Plaintiff is damnified now how is it possible he should be damnified so much by one and so little by the other But notwithstanding this Opinion Iudgment was afterwards given for the Plaintiff Peak versus Meker IN an Action on the Case for Words the Plaintiff declared that he was a Merchant and bred up in the Church of England and that when the present King came to the Crown the said Plaintiff made a Bonfire at his Door in the City of London and that the Defendant then spoke of him these words for which he now brought this Action viz. He innuendo the Plaintiff is a Rogue a Papist Dog and a pitiful Fellow and never a Rogue in Town has a Bonfire before his Door but he The Plaintiff had a Verdict and 500 l. Damages were given A Writ of Error was brought but it was adjudged without argument that the words were actionable Joyner versus Pritchard AN Action was brought upon the Statute of R. II. Admiralty for prosecuting of a Cause in the Admiralty Court which did arise upon the Land it was tried before the Chief Iustice in London and a Verdict for the Plaintiff Mr. Thompson moved in Arrest of Iudgment for that the Action was brought by Original in which it was set forth that the Defendant prosecut fuit adhuc prosequitur c. in Curia Admiralitat now the prosequitur is subsequent to the Original and so they have recovered Damages for that which was done after the Action brought Curia These words adhuc prosequitur must refer to the time of suing forth this Original like the Case of a Covenant for quiet Enjoyment and a breach assigned that the Defendant built a Shed whereby he hindred the Plaintiff that he could not enjoy it hucnsque which word must refer to the time of the Action brought and not afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Dominus Rex versus ........ AN Information was brought against the Defendant for Forgery Forgery setting forth that the Defendant being a man of ill fame c. and contriving to cheat one A. did forge quoddam scriptum dated the 16th day of October in the year 1681. continens in se scriptum obligatorium per quod quidem scriptum obligatorium praed A. obligatus fuit praed Defend in quadraginta libris c. He was found Guilty and afterwards this Exception was taken in arrest of Iudgment Viz. That the Fact alledged in the Information was a contradiction of it self for how could A. be bound when the Bond was forged 2. It is not set forth what that scriptum obligatorium was whether it was scriptum sigillatum or not Curia The Defendant is found Guilty of the forging of a Writing in which was contained quoddam scriptum obligatorium and that may be a true Bond. Iudgment was arrested MEMORANDUM On Tuesday April the 27th Sir Thomas Powes of Lincolns-Inn was made Sollicitor General in the Place of Mr. Finch and was called within the Bar. Hanchet versus Thelwal IN Ejectment a special Verdict was found Devise What words in a Will make an Estate for Life and what in Tail in which the Case did arise upon the construction of the words in a Will Viz. The Testator being seised in Fee had Issue Two Sons and Four Daughters He made his Will and devised his Estate being in Houses by these words Viz. Irem I give and bequeath to my Son Nicholas Price my Houses in Westminster and if itplease God to take away my Son then I give my Estate to my four Daughters naming them share and share alike and if it please God to take away any of my said Daughters before Marriage then I give her or their part to the rest surviving And if all my Sons and Daughters dye without Issue then I give my said Houses to my Sister Anne Warner and her Heirs Nicholas Price entred and died without Issue then the four Sisters entred and Margaret the eldest married Thellwel and died leaving Issue a Son who was the Lessor of the Plaintiff who insisted upon his Title to a fourth part of the Houses The Question was what Estate the Daughters took by this Will whether joint Estates for Life or several Remainders in Tail If only joint Estates for Life then the Plaintiff as Heir to his Mother will not be entituled to a fourth part if several Remainders in Tail then the Father will have it during his Life as Tenant by the Curtesie This Case was argued this Term by Mr. Pollexfen for the Plaintiff And in Hillary Term following by Councel for the Defendant The Plaintiffs Council insisted that they took joint Estates for Life and this seemed to be the intent of the Testator by the words in his Will the first Clause whereof was Viz. I give and bequeath my Houses in W. to Nicholas Price Now by these words an Estate for Life only passed to him and not an Inheritance for there was nothing to be done or any thing to be paid out of it 2. The next Clause is Viz. If it please God to take away my Son then I give my Estate to my four Daughters share and share alike Now these words cannot give the Daughters a Fee-simple by any intendment whatsoever but if any word in this Clause seems to admit of such a Construction it must be the word Estate which sometimes signifies the Land it self and sometimes the Estate in the Land But here the word Estate cannot create a Fee-simple because the Testator gave his Daughters that Estate which he had given to his Son before and that was only for Lise Then follow the words share and share alike and that only makes them Tenants in Common 3. The next Clause is Viz. If it please God to take away any of my said Daughters before Marriage then I give her or their part to the rest surviving These words as they are penned can have no influence upon the Case 4. Then followeth the last Clause Viz. And if all my Sons and Daughters dye without Issue then I give c. These words create no Estate tail in the
the Fine and Non-claim the Substance of which was That Robert Basket was seized in Fee of the Lands in Question who by Will devised it to Philip Basket and others for 99 years with power to grant Estates for the payment hf the Debts and Legacies of the Testator the Remainder in Tail to John Basket his Brother but that if he gave Security to pay the said Debts and Legacies or should pay the same within a time limited that then the Trustees should assign the Term to him c. John Basket entred after the death of his Brother with the assent of the said Trustees and received the Profits and paid all the Legacies and all the Debts but 18 l. The Iury find that John had Issue a Daughter only by his first Wife after whose death he married another Woman and levied a Fine and made a Settlement in consideration of that Marriage upon himself for Life and upon his Wife for Life with divers Remainders over that he died without Issue by his second Wife who entred and five years were past without any claim c. And now the Heir at Law in the name of the Trustees brought this Action The Questions were 1. Whether the Term for 99 years thus devised to the Trustees was bound by this Fine and Nonclaim or not 2. Whether it was divested and turned to a Right at the time of the Fine levied For if it was not then the Fine could not operate upon it It was agreed that as a Disseisin is to a Freehold so is a divesting to a Term and that a Fine and Non-claim is no Barr but where the Party at the time of the levying thereof had a Will to enter and when the Estate of which 't is levyed is turned to a Right That in the Case at the Barr the Entry of John Basket was tortious because the legal Estate was still in the Trustees But if he had gained any Right by his Entry 't is only a Tenancy at Will to them for they took notice of the Devise and he entred by their consent and such a Right is not assignable and then a Fine levyed is no Barr. To prove this 9 Co. 106. Margaret Prodger's Case was cited where the the Lord granted a Copyhold to John Elizabeth and Mary for their Lives and afterwards by Deed enrolled sold the Land to John in Fee and levyed a Fine to him and his Heirs c. and five years passed without any Claim John dyed his Son entred and levyed another Fine to Trustees to the use of himself and Margaret his Wife for Life the Remainder to his own right Heirs the Son died and his Wife survived who having a Freehold for Life distrained and the Husband of Elizabeth brought a Replevin It was adjudged that this Fine and Nonclaim did not barr those in Remainder becase the Bargain and Sale to John did not divest their Estate and turn it to a Right for the Lord did what he might do and John accepted what he might lawfully take who being in possession by virtue of a particular Estate for Life could not by this acceptance divest the Estate of her who had the Freehold and the Fine and Nonclaim could not do it for to what purpose should he make any Claim when he was in actual possession of the thing to be demanded And he who is so in possession need not make any Claim either to avoid a Fine or a collateral Warranty Now though at the Common Law there must be Livery and Seisin to create an Estate of Freehold 3 Co. Fermer 's Case yet any thing is sufficient to make an Estate at Will in which neither the Inheritance or the Title of the Land is concerned and therefore a Fine levyed by such a Tenant is no Barr. 'T is true Sid. 458. Freeman versus Barns if a Lease be made for an hundred years in Trust to attend the Inheritance and Cestuy que Trust continues in possession and devises to another for fifty years and levies a Fine and the five years pass without Claim he being still in possession after the first Lease made is thereby become Tenant at Will and by making the second Lease the other is divested and turned to a Right though he was not a Disseisor and so 't is barred by the Fine because the Cestuy que Trust of the term of one hundred years was also Owner of the Inheritance But in the Case at the Barr John shall not be a Disseisor but at the Election of the Trustees of the Term of 99 years to prove which there are many Authorities in the Books As if Tenant at Will make a Lease for years and the Lessee enters Latch 53. 1 Leon. 121. Lit. Sect. 588. 't is not a Disseisin but at the Election of him who hath the Freehold and even in such Case if the Tenant of the Freehold should make a Grant of the Land 't is good though not made upon the Land it self for he shall not be taken to be out of possession but at his own Election 'T is like the common Case of a Mortgagee for years where the Mortgagor continues in possession twenty years afterwards and pays the Interest and in that time hath made Leases and levyed a Fine this shall not barr the Mortgagee for the Mortgagor is but Tenant at Will to him The Trustees need not make any claim in this Case because there was no transmutation of the possession so they could take no notice of the Fine 'T is true John Basket entred by their consent but still as Tenant at Will to them and the Acts done by him after his Entry will not didest this Term for though he made a Bargain and Sale of the Lands yet nothing will pass thereby but what of right ought to pass He likewise demised the Lands to Vndertenants for years but 't is not found that they entred but admitting they did enter yet that could not displace this Term for these Tenants claimed no more than for one or two years and made no pretence to the whole Term. But if by either of these Acts the Term should be divested yet still it must be at the election of those who have the Interest in it Dyer 61 62 173. The Case of * Cro. Car. 302. 1 Rol. Abr. 661. Blunden and Baugh which is grounded upon Littleton's Text Sect. 588. is an Authority to this purpose which was The Father was Tenant in Tail and his Son was Tenant at Will who made a Lease for years then both Father and Son join in a Fine to the use of the Son for Life and to Elizabeth his Wife for Life the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the Body of the Son who died without Issue Male the Lessee being in possession made a Conveyance of the Estate by Bargain and Sale to Charles Lord Effingham who was Son and Heir of the Tenant in Tail who made a Lease to the Plaintiff who was ousted by the
place as the Parish of St. James Westminster only And upon a Demurrer it was argued that this Plea was not good for it being in Abatement the Appellee ought to have pleaded over to the Murder Cro. Eliz. 694. so it was adjudged in the Case of Watts and Brain the Pleadings of which Case are at large in my Lord Coke's Entries 2. He ought to have pleaded in person and not by Attorney the Statute of Gloucester is plain in this Point Curia If the Plea is in Abatement and the Party doth not answer over to the Murder yet that doth not oust him of his Plea but the Appellant ought to have prayed Iudgment 'T is a Question whether he ought to plead over to the Felony or not for the Presidents are both ways there is no Iudgment entred Proud versus Piper THere was a Libel brought in the Spiritual Court for a Mortuary Mortuary due only by Custom 21 H. 8. c. 6. The Defendant suggests that by the Statute of H. 8. no Mortuary ought to be paid but in such places where it had been usually paid before the making of that Statute and that there was no Custom in this place to pay a Mortuary and it was thereupon moved for a Prohibition Cro. Eliz. 151. for Mortuaries are not due by Law but by particular Custom of places 'T is true 2 Inst 491. 1 Cro. 237. Seld. of Tithes 287. a Prohibition was denied in the Case of * Sid. 263. Mark and Gilbert but it was because 't was admitted that there a Mortuary was due by Custom but they differed in the person to whom it ought to be paid Curia Prohibitions have been granted and denied upon such Suggestions therefore the Defendant was ordered to take a Declaration in a Prohibition as to the Mortuary and to try the Custom at Law Lutwich versus Piggot IN Ejectment for Lands in Northumberland Lease whether made pursuant to the power in the Reservation tried at the Bar the Case was thus viz. Peter Venables was seised in Fee of the Manor of Long Witton in the said County and being so seised made a Settlement thereof by Lease and Release to the use of himself for Life without impeachment of Waste then to the Trustees for seven years to raise Portions for Daughters then to William Venables and the Heirs Male of his Body and if he dye without Issue then to Ann his Daughter for Life with Remainders over In which Settlement there was this Proviso viz. Provided that it shall be lawful for William Venables by Will or Deed to dispose of any part of the said Manor to his Wife for Life And another Proviso to this purpose viz. Provided that it shall and may be lawful to and for the said William Venables by any Deed in Writing under his Hand and Seal to Demise for 3 Lives or 21 years or under or for any time or term of years upon one two or three Lives or as Tenant in Tail in Possession may do all or any part of the said Manor Lands c. which were in Lease for the space of forty years last past The Defendants Title was a Lease for 99 years made by the said William Venables to one Mary Venables if three Lives should so long live And the Question was whether that Lease was pursuant to the power in the last Proviso It was objected that it was not for it ought to be a Lease for 21 and not 99 years determinable for three Lives But the Plaintiff was Non-Suit Rex versus Fairfax al. AN Order made at the Quarter-Sessions of Gloucester Who shall be bound to take an Apprentice in Husbandry was removed hither confirming another made by the Iustices there for placing of a poor Boy to be an Apprentice in Husbandry and it was moved that it might be quashed Mr. Pollexfen argued that the Iustices had no power given them by the Law to compel a Man to take such an Apprentice and this will depend upon the construction of such Statutes which relate to this matter The first is that of Queen Elizabeth which enacts 5 Eliz. cap. 4. Paragraph 25. that for the better advancing of Husbandry and Tillage and to the intent such who are fit to be made Apprentices to Husbandry may be bound thereunto that every person being an Housholder and having or using half a Plough Land at the least in Till age may take any to be an Apprentice above ten and under eighteen years to serve in Husbandry until the Party be of the Age of twenty one or twenty four years the said Reteiner and taking of an Apprentice to be by Indenture Now before the making of this Statute the practice of putting out poor Children was only in Cities and great Towns to particular Trades and Employments The next Statute is 43 Eliz. by which power is given to the Church-Wardens or Overseers of the Poor 48 Eliz. cap. 2. to raise weekly or otherwise by Taxation of every Inhabitant such competent Sum or Sums of Mony as they shall think fit for relief of the Poor and putting out of Children to Apprentice And then in the fifth Paragraph power is given to them by the Assent of two Iustices of Peace to bind poor Children where they shall see convenient c. which words were the foundation for the making of this Order But the construction thereof can be no otherwise than viz. Whereas before the making of this Act poor Children were bound Apprentices to Tillage now the Church-wardens may raise Mony to bind them out to Trades for if they could compel Men to take them what need was there of raising Mony to place them out This must be the natural construction of that Law 1 Jac. cap. 25. Paragraph 23. which appears yet more plain by the words of a subsequent Statute which continues that of the 43th of Eliz. with this addition that all persons to whom the Overseers of the Poor shall according to that Act bind any Children to Apprentice may take receive and keep them as Apprentices 'T is true the general practice of putting out poor Children seems to warrant this Order but this hath been occasioned upon a Mistake in Mr. Dalton 's Book Dalt 114. who Reported the Resolution of the Iudges in 1633. to be That every Man who by his calling profession or manner of living and who entertaineth and must use Servants of the like quality such must also take Apprentices By this Resolution the Iustices of Peace have been governed ever since But Iustice Twisden would often say that those were not the Resolutions of the Iudges as Reported by Mr. Dalton and therefore the Book was mistaken 2. The Order it self doth not mention that the party to whom this poor Boy was bound Apprentice did occupy any Land in Tillage for so it ought to be otherwise the Overseers of the Poor may bind him to a Merchant or to an Attorny which he called a Free
3 Willielmi Judicium Iudgment was given for the Defendant absente Dolbin Iustice who was also of the same Opinion It was held that the Custom was well alledged both as to the manner and matter 't is true all Customs must have reasonable beginnings but it would be very difficult to assign a lawful commencement for such a Custom as this is so it would be for the Custom of Gavelkind or Burrough English which are circumscribed to particular places and since 't is sufficient to alledge a Custom by reason of the place where t is used it may be as reasonable in this Case to say that there hath been an ancient Ferry-Boat kept in this place 't is but only an inducement to the Custom which did not consist so much in having a Right to the Passage as to be discharged of Toll This might have a lawful beginning either by a Grant of the Lord to the Ancestors of the Defendant or by the agreement of the Inhabitants A Custom alledged for all the Occupiers of a Close in such a Parish to have a Foot-way Cro. Car. 419. Co. Lit. 110. b. Cro. Eliz. 746. 1 Roll. Rep. 216. c. is not good the reason is because the Plaintiff ought to prescribe in him who hath the Inheritance but where a thing is of necessity and no manner of profit or charge in the Soil of another but only a thing in discharge or for a Way to a Market or to be quit of Toll in such cases not only a particular person but the Inhabitaints of a Vill may alledge a Prescription This may be as well alledged as a Custom to turn a Plow upon another mans Land or for a Fisherman to mend his Nets there 'T is good as to the matter for 't is only an easment 't is like a Custom alledged for a Gateway or Watercourse and for such things Inhabitants of a Vill Cro. Eliz. 441. or all the Parishioners of a Parish may alledge a Custom or Vsage in the place 2. Point But as to the Plea in Bar 't is not good because the execting of a Bridge is but laying out a Way t is a voluntary act and no man by reason of his own act can be discharged of what he is to do upon the interest he hath in the Ferry If the Defendant had petitioned the King to destroy the Ferry and got a Patent to erect a Bridge and had brought a Writ ad quod dampnum and it had been found by inquisition to be no damage to the People then he might safely have built this Bridge 3. But notwithstanding the Plea is not good yet the Plaintiff can have no advantage of it because he cannot have an Action on the Case for this matter for by his own shewing 't is a common Passage Cro. Car. 132 167. 1 Inst 56. a. Cro. Eliz. 664. 13 Co. 33. Davis 57. which is no more than a common High-way now for disturbing him in such a Passage no Action on the Case will lie unless he had alledged some particular damage done to himself for if he could maintain such an Action any other person is entituled to the like and this would be to multiply Suits which the Law will not allow but hath provided a more apt and convenient remedy which is by presentment in the Leet If Toll had been extorted from him F. N. B. 94. 22 H. 6.12 then an Action on the Case had been the proper remedy but no such thing appeared upon this Declaration Prince 's Case THE Suggestion in a Prohibition was that Prince was seized of the Rectory of Shrewsby ut de feodo jure and that he being so seised de jure ought to present a Vicar to the said place but that the Bishop of the Diocess had of his own accord appointed a person thereunto This Exception was taken to it viz. He doth not say that he was Impropriator but only that he was seised of the Rectory in Fee so it not appearing that he had it Impropriate he ought no to present the Vicar Iustice Dolben replied That in several places in Middlesex the Abbots of Westminster did send Monks to say Mass and so the Vicaridges were not endowed but he put in and displaced whom he pleased That he had heard my Lord Chief Iustice Hales often say that the Abbot had as much reason to displace such Men as he had his Butler or other Servant Curia Declare upon the Prohibition and try the Cause Harrison versus Hayward Pasch 2 Gulielmi Rot. 187. AN Agreement was made to assign a Stock upon Request When a thing is to be done upon request the performance must be when the person requires it and the Defendant cannot plead that he was ready to assign after the promise made and for non-performance an Action was now brought setting forth the Agreement and that the Plaintiff did request the Defendant at such a time c. The Defendant pleaded that he was ready to assign the Stock after the promise made c. and upon a Demurrer it was ruled if the thing was not to be done upon Request then the Defendant was bound to do it in a convenient time after the promise but it being to be done upon request the time when the Plaintiff will require the performance of the Agreement is the time when the Defendant must do it Iudgment pro Quer. Thompson versus Leach WRit of Error upon a Iudgment in Ejectment given in the Common-Pleas Surrender not good without acceptance of the Surrendree 2 Vent 198. the Case upon the special Verdict was thus Viz. Simon Leach was Tenant for Life of the Lands in question with Remainder in contingency to his first second and third Son in Tail Male Remainder to Sir Simon Leach in Tail c. This Settlement was made by the Will of Nicholas Leach who was seised in Fee The Tenant for Life two months before he had a Son born did in the absence of Sir Simon Leach the Remainder man in Tail seal and deliver a Writing by which he did Grant Surrender and Release the Lands which he had for Life to the use of Sir Simon Leach and his Heirs and continued in possession five years afterwards and then and not before Sir Simon Leach did accept and agree to this Surrender and entred upon the Premisses But that about four years before he thus agreed to it Simon Leach the Tenant for Life had a Son born named Charles Lessor of the Plaintiff to whom the Remainder in contingency was thus limited The Tenant for Life died then Sir Simon Leach suffered a Common Recovery in order to bar those Remainders 1. The Question was whether this was a legal and good Surrender of the Premisses to vest the Freehold immediately in Sir Simon Leach without his Assent before Charles Leach the Son of Simon Leach the Surrenderor was born so as to make him a good Tenant to the Precipe upon which the Recovery was
visitation of God by which he was disabled for a time to do any reasonable thing whatsoever and this may be as well done as to plead duress from Men which the Law allows to make compulsary Acts void My Lord Coke in Beverly's Case taking notice of the great reason of the Civil Law in Cases of this nature 4 Co. 123. which maketh all Acts done by Ideots void without their Curator's concurrence and that it was objected as a defect in the Common Law that Tutors were not assigned to such persons he answereth that our Law hath given the custody both of them and their Lands to the King which is directly contrary to his own Opinion in his 2d Institutes 2 Inst 14. where paraphrasing upon the fourth Chapter of Magna Charta which prohibits Wast in the Land of Wards from thence he inferrs that at that time the King had no Prerogative to entitle him to the Lands of Ideots for if he had that Act would have as well provided against Wast in their Lands as in those of Wards He farther adds that the Guardianship of Ideots did belong to the Lords according to the course of the Common Law Be it how it will 't is clear by all the Books that both by the Common and Civil Law their Acts are void and my Lord Coke esteemed it as a very unreasonable thing that they should not be avoided even during the life of the Party himself but it was never yet denied that they may be avoided after his death by his Heir or Executor and by parity of reason the Law will prevent Strangers from being prejudiced by such Acts. There is an Objection that some Acts done by Ideots are unavoidable as Fines levyed by them c. 'T is true such are not to be avoided not because they are good in themselves but the reason is because they are upon Record against which the Law will not suffer any Averment to be made presuming that the Courts and Iudges in Westminster-Hall would not admit an Ideot or Infant to levy a Fine This being therefore a void Surrender by a person Non compos the Estate is still in the Surrenderor and so the contingent Remainder upon his death is well attached in Charles Leach the Lessor of the Plaintiff But supposing 't is not void yet there will be scintilla juris left in Simon Leach to support the Contingency and to prove this the Case of Lloyd and Brookin was relied on which was this viz. Thomas Bradshaw was Tenant for Life 1 Mod. 92. 1 Vent 188. 2 Keb. 881. the Remainder in Tail to his first Son c. the Remainder to Paul for Life the Remainder to his first second and third Sons in Tail Thomas accepted a Fine from Paul who had then a Son born then he made a Feoffment and afterwards Paul had another Son born His eldest Son died without Issue and it was adjudged that the contingent Remainder to his second Son was not destroyed by this Feoffment because it was preserved by the right of Entry which his elder Brother had at the time it was made 2. If this Surrender is only voidable then whether Charles Leach claiming by a collateral Title can avoid it It was argued that he may for it would be absurd that he should have a Right to the Remainder and yet have no Remedy to recover it My Lord Coke in Beverly's Case tells us that there are four sorts of Privities 1. In Bloud as Heir 2. In Representation as Executor 3. In Estate as Donee in Tail the Reversion or Remainder in Fee 4. In Tenure as Lord by Escheat He affirms that the two first may shew the Disability of their Ancestor and Testator and avoid their Grants 'T is true in the third Article he is of Opinion that Privies in Estate shall not avoid the Acts of their Ancestors and he puts the Case of a Donee in Tail making a Feoffment in Fee within age and dying without Issue the Donor shall not enter because no Right did accrew to him by the death of the Donee there being only a Privity of Estate between them But this Opinion is denied to be Law by Iustice Dodderidge in his Argument of the Case between Jackson and Darcy Palm 254. who said that the Donor might enter because otherwise he would be without remedy for he could not maintain a Formedon because the Feoffment made by the Infant was no Discontinuance Besides 't is not possible there should be any Privity in Blood between the Donee in Tail and the Reversioner in Fee so that Article must be intended where they are Strangers in Blood and Privies in Estate which doth not at all concern the Case in question because William Leach is privy in Blood to his Father who made the Surrender and my Lord Coke tells us in the first Article of his distinction that such a Privy may avoid the Acts of his Ancestor It may be objected that this distinction was not then the Iudgment of the Court for it was not material to the Point in Issue which was no more than thus viz. Snow gave Bond to Beverley and exhibited his Bill in the Court of Requests to be relieved against it because at the time of the sealing and delivery thereof he was Non compos mentis But the like distinction was made in Whittingham 's Case many years afterwards 8 Co. 42. which was thus viz. Whittingham being seised of Lands held of the Queen in Soccage devised the same to Prudence his Bastard Child and her Heirs she during her Infancy made a Feoffment thereof to another and died in her Nonage without Issue the Question then was whether that Feoffment should prevent the Queen of the Escheat And adjudged it should not In which Case it was held that Privies in Blood inheritable shall take advantage of the disabilities of their Ancestors as if an Infant who is seised in Fee maketh a Feoffment and afterwards dieth his Heir may enter and avoid it The Law is the same in the Case of one Non compos mentis as in that of an Infant as to the avoiding of the Acts of their Ancestors so that Mr. Leach being privy in Blood according to my Lord Coke's Opinion in those Cases shall avoid the Acts of his Father he being Non compos at the executing of this Surrender If it should be objected that this part of the distinction ought to be taken restrictively and must be tied up to such an Heir at Law who takes an immediate possession by descent from his Ancestor the Answer is that if this Surrender is avoided Mr. Leach will take by immediate descent from his Father for though nothing but a Reversion in Fee descended to him yet he is a compleat Heir But after all this distinction made by my Lord Coke is founded upon no manner of Authority 't is only his extrajudicial Opinion for there is no reason to be given why Privies in Estate should
eldest Son for sixty years if he so long lived Remainder to Thomas for Life and that John made a Lease to the Plaintiff for a year The Defendant replied that after the Devise R. Frances made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands amongst others to the use of himself for Life Then as to the other Lands to divers Vses contained in the Deed but as to those Lands in which the Distress was taken to the same Vses as in the Will in which Conveyance there was this Priviso That if John should disturb his Executors in the quiet Enjoyment c. or if he shall not suffer them to carry away the Goods in his House then the Uses limited to him should be void He did hinder the Executors to carry away the Goods yet it was adjudged that he should keep his Estate because being a Stranger to the Feoffment he shall not lose it without notice of the Proviso But in answer to that Case notice was not the principal matter of that Iudgment it turned upon a point in Pleading for the Avowant had not shewed any special act of disturbance and a bare denial without doing any more was held to be no breach of the Condition Some other Authorities may be cited to prove notice necessary Green's Case 6 Co. 24. as where Tenant for Life of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant did in the year 1594. present Durston who neglecting to read the Articles was deprived nine years afterwards by the Ordinary at the Suit of the Patron who presented him who also dyed two years after the Deprivation then the Queen presented by Lapse whose Presentee was inducted and six years afterwards Durston dyed after whose death he in Remainder presented Green now though the Patron was a Party to the Suit of Deprivation and thereby had sufficient notice that the Church was vacant yet it was adjudged that a Lapse should not incurr but only after notice given by the Ordinary himself and not by any other person whatsoever But this Case may receive this Answer viz. That notice had not been necessary at Law but it was provided by a particular Act of Parliament 13 Eliz. ca. 12. that no Title by Lapse shall accrue upon any deprivation but after six months notice thereof given by the Ordinary himself to the Patron 'T is true the Law is very tender in divesting the Rights of the Subject but where an Estate is created by the Act of the Party and restrained by particular limitations without any appointment of notice there the Law will not add notice and make it necessary because the person who made such a disposition of his Estate might have given it upon what conditions he pleased Therefore it may seem hard that this Estate should be determined by the neglect or omission of the Trustees to give notice of this Proviso but 't is apparent that it was the intent of the Father it should be so for by this Limitation the Estate is bound in the Hands of an Infant the reason is because there is a Privity between an Heir and an Ancestor and therefore the Heir is bound to take notice of such Conditions which his Ancestor hath imposed on the Estate 2. This Estate is determined by the Marriage of the Daughter with Mr. Villiers because there is an express Limitation in the Deed for that very purpose she is enjoyned to marry a Fitzgerald or one who should take upon him that name which is still more extensive and she having neglected to do the one and her Husband having refused to do the other the Aunt in Remainder shall take advantage of this Non-performance And 't is this Remainder over which makes it a Limitation 1 Ventr 202. Owen 112. Goldsb 152. Lit. Sect. 723. for if it had been a Condition then the intent of the Father had been utterly defeated for none but the Heir at Law can enter for the breach of a Condition and such was Katharine in this Case The Proviso in this Deed depends upon another Sentence immediately going before 2 Co. 70. to which it hath reference and then by the express resolution in Cromwel's Case 't is a Limitation or Qualification of the Estate and not a Condition which Estate is now determined without Entry or Claim It was argued that in this Case three things are to be considered E contra 1. The Nature of the Proviso 2. That Notice is absolutely necessary 3. That the Notice given was not sufficient being not such as is required by Law As to the 1st The very nature of this Proviso is condemned by the Civil Law and because it works the destruction of Estates it hath never been favoured at the Common Law All Conditions to restrain Marriage generally are held void by both Laws so likewise are such which restrain people from marrying without the consent of particular persons because they may impose such hard terms before they give their consent that may hinder the Marriage it self and therefore a bare request of such without their subsequent assent has been always allowed to preserve the Estate 2. And which was the principal Point Notice in this Case is absolutely necessary both by the intent of the Father and by the construction of the Law There are three things of which the Law makes an equal Interpretation viz. Uses Wills and Acts of Parliament in which if the intention of the Parties and of the Law makers can be discerned the Cases which severally fall under the direction of either shall be governed by the intention without respect to the disagreeing words nay sometimes the Law will supply the defect of words themselves The Books are full of Authorites where Constructions have been made of Acts of Parliament according to the intent of the Makers and not according to the Letter of the Law As in Eyston and Stud's Case in the Commentaries Plowd Com. 2 pt 463. where the Husband and Wife levyed a Fine of the Lands of the Wife and declared the Vses to their Heirs in Tail the Remainder to the Heirs of the Wife they had Issue and the Husband died the Widow married a second Husband and he and his Wife join in a second Fine and declared the Vses thereof to themselves for Life the Remainder to the Husband and his Heirs for sixty years the Remainder in Tail to their Issue the Remainder to the Heirs of the Wife the Issue of the first Husband entred supposing the Estate had been forfeited by the Statute of H. 7. 11 H. 7. c. 20. which Enacts That if a Woman hath an Estate in Dower or in Tail jointly with her Husband or to her self of the Inheritance or Purchase of him and she doth either sole or with another Husband discontinue it shall be void and he in the Remainder may enter Now this Case was directly within the words of the Statute for the Woman had an Estate Tail in possession jointly with her first Husband
day of Appearance he is to see that he appear at the day either by keeping of him in Custody or letting of him to Bail the end of the Arrest is to have his Body here If he had not been bailed then he had still remained in Custody and the Plaintiff would have his proper remedy but being once let to Bail and not appearing in Court according to the Condition of the Bond that seems to be the fault of the Defendant who had his Body before the day of Appearance Iudgment for the Defendant DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 1 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1685. Serjeant Hampson's Case BY the Statute of Queen Elizabeth 't is Enacted 5 Eliz. c. 23. That if the person excommunicated have not a sufficient Addition or if 't is not contained in the Significavit that the Excommunication proceeds for some cause or contempt or of some original Matter of Heresie refusing to have his Child baptized to receive the Sacrament to come to Divine Service or Errors in Matters of Religion or Doctrine Incontinency Usury Simony Perjury in the Ecclesiastical Court or Idolatry he shall not incurr the Penalties in the Act. Serjeant Hampson was excommunicated for Alimony and now Mr. Girdler moved that he might be discharged because none of the aforesaid Causes were contained in the Significavit Curia He may be discharged of the Forfeiture for that reason but not of the Excommunication Anonymus ONE who was outlawed for the Murder of Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey now brought a Writ of Error in his Hand to the Bar praying that it might be read and allowed It was read by Mr. Astry Clerk of the Crown The Errors assigned were viz. That it did not appear upon the Return of the Exigent in the first Exact ' that the Court was held pro Comitatu That the Outlawry being against him and two other persons 't is said in the last Exact ' that Non comperuit but doth not say nec eorum aliquis comperuit For these Reasons the Outlawry was reversed and he held up his Hand at the Barr and pleaded Not-guilty to his Indictment and was admitted to Bail and afterwards he was brought to his Trial and no Witness in behalf of the King appearing against him he was acquitted The Mayor and Commonalty of Norwich versus Johnson A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given for the Plaintiff in the Common-Pleas in an Action of Waste Waste lies against an Executor de son tort of a Term. The Declaration was that the Plaintiff demised a Barn to one Took for a certain Term by vertue whereof he was possessed and being so possessed died that the Defendant was his Executor who entred and made Waste by pulling down of the said Barn The Defendant pleaded that Took died intestate and that he did not administer The Plaintiff replyed that he entred as Executor of his own Wrong and to this Plea the Defendant demurred and the Plaintiff joined in the Demurrer This Case was argued by Mr. Appleton of Lincolns-Inn for the Plaintiff who said That an Action of Waste would not lie against the Defendant because the Mayor and Commonalty c. had a remedy by an Assise to recover the Land upon which the Barn stood and a Trover to recover the Goods or Materials and that such an Action would not lie against him at the Common Law because he neither was Tenant by the Curtesie nor in Dower against whom Waste only lay So that if the Plaintiff is entituled to this Action it must be by vertue of the Statute of Gloucester 6 Ed. 1. c. 5. but it will not lie against the Defendant even by that Statute because the Action is thereby given against the Tenant by the Curtesie in Dower for Life or Years and treble Damages c. But the Defendant is neither of those and this being a penal Law which not only gives treble damages but likewise the Recovery of the place wasted ought therefore not to be taken strictly but according to Equity Tenants at sufferance or at Will by Elegit or Tenants by Statute Staple 11 H. 6. c. 5. and also Pernors of Profits were never construed to be within this Statute and therefore a particular Act was made to give him in Reversion an Action of Waste where Tenant for life or years had granted over their Estates and yet took the Profits and committed Waste Then the Question will be Co. Lit. 371. what Estate this Executor de sontort hath gained by his Entry And as to that he argued that he had got a Fee-simple by Disseisin and that for this reason the Plaintiff was barred from this Action for if the Son purchase Lands in Fee and is disseised by his Father who maketh a Feoffment in Fee to another with Warranty and dieth the Son is for ever barred for though the Disseisin was not done with any intention to make such a Feoffment 1 Roll. Abr. 662. yet he is bound by this Alienation So where a man made a Lease for life and died and then his Heir suffered a Recovery of the same Land without making an actual Entry this is an absolute Disseisin because the Lessee had an Estate for life but if he had been Tenant at Will it might be otherwise But admitting that the Defendant is not a Disseisor then the Plaintiffs must bring their Case to be within the Statute of Gloucester as that he is either Tenant for life or years If he is Tenant for Life he must be so either by right or by wrong He cannot be so by right because he had no lawful Conveyance made to him of this Estate besides 't is quite contrary to the Pleading which is that he entred wrongfully Neither can he be so by wrong for such particular Estates 6 Co. 25. as for life or years cannot be gained by Disseisin and so is Heliar's Case in 6 Co. Then if this should be construed an Estate for years it must be gained either by the Act of the Party or by the Act of the Law but such an Estate cannot be gained by either of those means First it cannot be gained by the Act of the Party Moor 126. Kendrick versus Burges because an Executor de son tort cannot have any interest in a Term and for this there is an express Authority in this Court which was thus viz. A Lease in Reversion for years was granted to a man who died intestate his Wife before she had administred sold this Term to the Defendant and afterwards she obtained Letters of Administration and made a Conveiance of the same Term to the Plaintiff and Iudgment was given for the last Vendee because it was in the case of a Reversion of a Term for years upon which no Entry could be made and of which there could be no Executor de son tort though it was admitted by the Court that such an Executor might make a good sale of
Daughters for the Testator having two Sons and four Daughters it cannot be collected by these words how they shall take and by consequence it cannot be an Estate Tail by implication Now suppose one of the Daughters should dye without Issue 't is uncertain who shall have her part and therefore there being no appointment in what order this Estate shall go it cannot be an Estate Tail and to maintain this Opinion this Case was cited One Collier was seised in Fee of three Houses 2 Cro. 655. Gilbert versus Witty and had Issue three Sons John Robert and Richard he devised to each of them a House in Fee Proviso if all my Children dye without Issue of their Bodies then the Houses to be to his Wife The two eldest Sons died without Issue the younger had Issue a Daughter who married the Lessor of the Plaintiff The Question was Whether by the death of the eldest Son without Issue there was a cross Remainder to Richard and the Heirs of his Body or whether the Wife shall take immediately or expect till after the Death of all the Sons without Issue And it was adjudged that the Wife shall take immediately and that there were no cross Remainders nor any Estate by implication because it was a devise to them severally by express limitation So that if no Estate tail ariseth to the Daughters in this Case by implication Cro. Eliz. Taylor versus Sawyer then 't is no more than a devise to his Issue which extends to them all and gives only an Estate for Life For the Defendant it was argued Ex parte Def. that the Sons and Daughters have no Estate Tail by implication It was agreed that Nicholas had only an Estate for Life and that the word Estate in this case means the Houses and not the Interest in them 'T is true there is no express Limitation of any Estate to them but there is an express determination of it Now if this be not an Estate Tail by implication then the words dying without Issue are void A devise to his Son More 127. and if he dye not having a Son then 't is devised over This is an Estate tail in Remainder It cannot be a doubt who shall take first for the Daughters shall take it Dyer 333. and after them as 't is most natural the eldest Son for where there is the same proximity of Blood the Estate shall go to the eldest As for instance Hob. 33. one Chapman being seised in Fee of two Houses and having three Brothers devised the House which A. dwelt in to his said three Brothers and the House in which his Brother Thomas Chapman did dwell he devised to the said Thomas paying so much c. or else to remain to the Family of the Testator provided that the Houses be not sold but go to the next of the Males and the blood of the Males Thomas died without Issue the eldest of the two surviving Brothers had Issue a Daughter and died the Question was whether that Daughter or the youngest Brother of the Testator should have the House It was adjudged that the Daughter should have it in tail For the Proviso that the Houses be not sold c. made it a tail and the words viz. to remain to the Family must be intended to the eldest If this be not an Estate tail then the Devise over to Anne Warner is void As to the Case of Gilbert and Witty that moves upon another reason for there every one took by a distinct and separate Limitation Curia In that Case all the Estate was limited distinctly to the three Sons but in this 't is otherwise for the Testator had two Sons and no Estate was limited to one of them before then he saith If all my Sons and Daughters dye without Issue then c. And thus the Cases differ which creates the difficulty But no reason can be given why this Court should not construe Wills according to the Rules of Common Law where an Estate by implication is so incertain for when Men are sick and yet have a disposing power left they usually write Nonsense and the Iudges must rack their Brains to find out what is intended This cannot be an Estate tail in the Daughters and therefore the Heir must come in for his fourth part Iudgment for the Plaintiff Dixon versus Robinson THIS was a special Issue directed out of Chancery Wayhil Fair. and tried this day at the Bar by a Middlesex Iury. The Question was Whether Ballivus probi homines Burgenses Burgi de Andover in Hampshire had power to keep a Fair at Wayehil in any one place where they please the Bill being Exhibited to confine the Fair to a particular place which Fair was granted to them by Charter from Queen Elizabeth They who would have it confin'd to a certain place gave in Evidence that the Hospitaller of Ewelme in Oxfordshire was seised in Fee of the Manor of Rambridge within which Manor the place was where the Fair was always kept and that the Parson of Andover had Glebe there That this place was called Wayehil and that the profits did arise by Piccage and Stallage to the yearly value of 200 l. That it was an ancient Fair held there by Prescription before the Town of Andover had a Charter That upon the late Surrender of Charters the Town of Andover did likewise surrender and took a new Charter in which liberty was given to them to keep this Fair in what place they would That both the Hospitaller and Parson petitioned the King in Council and obtained an Order to Try where the Fair ought to be kept which was tried accordingly at the Exchequer Bar and a Verdict for the Parson Chief Justice If the Fair belongs to Andover they may chuse whether they will keep it at any place and that may create another Question Whether they may not forfeit this Franchise by disuser But certainly if the place be not limited by the King's Grant they may keep it where they please or rather where they can most conveniently and if it be so limited they may keep it in what part of such place they will Dawling versus Venman AN Action on the Case was brought against the Defendant Action for a Scandalous Affidavit in Chancery for making a Scandalous Affidavit in Chancery in which were these words Viz. Mr. Dawling is a Rogue and a Knave and I will make it out before my Lord Chancellor and I will have him in the Pillory Vpon not Guilty pleaded there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and damages entire It was moved in arrest of Iudgment for that the truth of on Oath shall not be liable to a Trial in an Action on the Case for the Law intendeth every Oath to be true Before the Statute of 3 11 H. Cro. Eliz. 521 2 Cro. 607. Sid. 50. Hutt 11. 7. which gives power to examine Perjury there was not any Punishment at
is likewise insufficient for it sets forth the Deed of Settlement c. coram praetextu the Defendant juxta fiduciam in eo positam was possessed of the Office ad eorum voluntatem Now an Office is a thing which lies in Grant 1 Leon. 219. and cannot be transferred from one to another without Deed and here is no Deed pleaded and as no Estate at will can be granted of an Office without Deed so likewise there cannot be a deputation of such Offce without it If then there can be no Tenant at Will of an Office but by Deed and no such Deed is pleaded then Mr. Lenthal had no power to make a Deputation to Cooling but neither Tenant at will nor Tenant for Life can make a Deputy if in the very Grant made to them there is not an express Clause for the execution of the Office per se vel sufficientem Deputatum suum The substance of all which is viz. First here is no Tenant at will But admitting him to be so he hath no authority to make a Deputy and if he should appoint a Deputy he executes the Office without Authority and may suffer Escapes Lastly by pleading of this Deed he hath alledged that the Estate was in the Trustees and that they permitted him to enjoy the Office coram praetextu he did execute it and receive the Profits now this is too general and an issue cannot be taken upon such a Plea he should have pleaded positively that it was demised to him at will and that he made a Deputy and then also the authority in rolls is against him where 't is held 2 Rol. Ab … that the Marshal of the Kings-Bench may grant the Office for Life but cannot give power to such grantee to make a Deputy Now if a Tenant for Life cannot make a Deputy certainly a Tenant at will hath no power so to do But suppose a Deputy might be made his neglect in the execution of the Office shall make a Forfeiture of the Estate of the Grantee for Life It cannot be reasonably objected in this Case Rol. Abr. 155. that 't is any hardship for Mr. Lenthal to lose this Office for any defect in Pleading for admitting the Plea to be good yet there is a cause of Forfeiture because the Marshal of the King's Bench being a ministerial Officer is required by Law to be a person of such Ability as to answer all Escapes that so Men may have the benefit of their Suits for otherwise he having nothing to answer they may lose their Debts Now here by a secret Grant Mr. Lenthal hath conveyed the Estate out of himself and yet still continues Officer in possession by which means the People are deprived of the Remedy which the Law provides for them and this is a sufficient cause of Forfeiture Then as to the Trustees they have not said any thing of the Escapes 't is true Mr. Lenthal hath traversed those which are alledged to be voluntary but that signifies nothing to them because they cannot take any benefit by the Plea of another for every one must stand and fall by his own Plea If therefore their non-attendance be a Forfeiture the entruders shall not help them because they come in without any colour of Right But the Council on the other side argued this last Point first E contra which was thus Viz. A Man seised of the Inheritance of the Office of Marshal of this Court conveys it in Trust the cestui que trust enjoys it and receives the Profits the Question now is whether the non-attendance of the Trustees being never required by the Court be a Forfeiture of this Office And as incident to this Question it was debated whether Mr. Lenthal was Tenant at will T is no Forfeiture for they are not bound to attend It cannot be denied but that this Office doth concern the Administration of Iustice but 't is to be considered what Estate Mr. Lenthal hath in it He had once an Estate in Fee but if it had been for Life or in Tail it may be setled as this is done but not for years because it may then come to an Administrator If Mr. Lenthal be the cestui que use Co. Lit. 404. Godb. 64. then he hath an Estate of which the Law takes notice for he may be a Iuror at the Common Law 'T is plain that he hath an Estate created by operatian of the Law for he is Tenant at Will and for that reason the attendance of the Trustees is not necessary but if the Estate had been directly granted to them then the Office had been forfeited for Non-attendance It cannot be denied but that this Office may be granted at Will for so is Sir George Reynell's Case 9 Co. 98. now if it may be granted at Will by the Possessor it may likewise be so granted by him who hath an Estate created by the Law for fortior est dispositio legis quam hominis and in this Case no Inconveniency would happen for if the Will be determined then the Grantor is the Officer When Mr. Lenthal had assigned this Office to the Trustees and they by a subsequent Deed had declared it to be in trust for him and that he should take the Profits during life he hath thereby a legal Estate at Will for a Cestuy que Trust by Deed is a Tenant at Will It hath been objected that a Tenancy at Will of an Office is void and to prove this a Case in Jones's Rep. was cited Jones 128. but the reason of that Case is guided by the particular nature of that Office which could not be aliened without the consent of the King If this Office is not alienable in its nature then Mr. Lenthal hath still the Fee-simple but that will not be admitted But this is not only a bare Estate at Will but a Trust for Life and such a Trust which hath a legal construction Godbolt 6◠for if a Feoffment be made in Trust that he should convey the Estate to another which the Feoffee afterwards refused to do the Cestuy que Trust may bring an Action against him so if he should be returned on a Iury 't is no Exception to say that he hath not liberum tenementum and therefore he is not an incompetent person to have the charge of Prisons if he may be impannelled on a Iury to try men for their Lives 1. Then as to the first Question upon the last point whether Mr. Lenthal had done any thing to determine his Tenancy at Will The Grant of this Office by him to Cooling will not amount to a determination of his Will because 't is a void Grant 'T is true this is denied by my Lord Coke in his Comment upon Littleton Sect. 71. where he saith If Tenant at Will grant over his Estate and the Grantee entreth he is a Disseisor for though the Grant be void yet it amounts to a determination of his Will What
c. yet one Commoner may bring an Action against his Fellow besides in this Case they are not Tenants in Common for every Man is seized severally of his Freehold Adjornatur Ayres versus Huntington AScire Facias was brought upon a Recognizance of 1000 l. Amendment of the word Recuperatio for Recognitio after a Demurrer to shew cause quare the Plaintiff should not have Execution de praedictis mille libris recognitis juxta formam Recuperationis where it should have been Recognitionis praed And upon a Demurrer it was held that the words juxta formam Recuperationis were Surplusage The Record was amended and a Rule that the Defendant should plead over Mather and others versus Mills THE Defendant entred into a Bond to acquir Non damnificatus generally where 't is a good Plea discharge and save harmless a Parish from a Bastard Child Debt was brought upon this Bond and upon Non damnificatus generally pleaded the Plaintiff demurred and Tremain held the Demurrer to be good for if the Condition had been only to save harmless c. then the Plea had been good but 't is likewise to acquit and discharge c. and in such Case Non damnificatus generally is no good Plea 1 Leon. 71. because he should have shewed how he did acquit and discharge the Parish and not answer the Damnification only E contra E contra 2 Co. 3. 2 Cro. 363 364 2 Sand. 83 84. It was argued that if the Defendnat had pleaded that he kept harmless and discharged the Parish such Plea had not been good unless he had shewed how c. because 't is in the affirmative but here 't is in the negative viz. that the Parish was not dampnified and they should have shewed a Breach for though in strictness this Plea doth not answer the Condition of the Bond yet it doth not appear upon the whole Record that the Plaintiff was dampnified and if so then he hath no cause of Action Iudgment for the Defendant DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 1 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1689. Memorandum That on the 4th day of November last past the Prince of Orange landed here with an Army and by reason of the Abdication of the Government by King James and the Posture of Affairs there was no Hillary-Term kept Coram Johanne Holt Mil ' Capital ' Justic Gulielmo Dolben Mil ' Justiciar Gulielmo Gregory Mil ' Justiciar Egidio Eyre Mil ' Justiciar Kellow versus Rowden Trin. 1 Willielmi Mariae Rotulo 796. IN Debt by Walter Kellow Where the Reversion in Fee is expectant upon an Estate Tail and that being spent it descends upon a collateral Heir he must be sued as Heir to him who was last actually seized of the Fee without naming the intermediate Remainders Executor of Edward Kellow against Richard Rowden The Case was this viz. John Rowden had Issue two Sons John and Richard John the Father being seized in Fee of Lands c. made a Settlement to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to John his eldest Son in Tail Male the Remainder to his own right Heirs The Father died the Reversion descended to John the Son who also died leaving Issue John his Son who died without Issue so that the Estate Tail was spent Richard the second Son of John the elder entred and an Action of Debt was brought against him as Son and Heir of John the Father upon a Bond of 120 l. entred into by his Father and this Action was brought against him without naming the intermediate Heirs viz. his Brother and Nephew The Defendant pleaded Quod ipse de debito praed ut filius haeres praed Johannis Rowden Patris sui virtute scripti obligatorii praed onerari non debet quia protestando quod scriptum obligatorium praed non est factum praed Johannis Rowden pro placito idem Richardus dicit quod ipse non habet aliquas terras seu tenementa per discensum haereditarium de praed Johanne Rowden patre suo in feodo simplici nec habuit die exhibitionis billae praed Walteri praed nec unquam postea hoc parat est ' verificare unde pet judicium si ipse ut filius haeres praed Johannis Rowden patris sui virtute scripti praed onerari debeat c. The Plaintiff replied that the Defendant die Exhibitionis billae praed habuit diversas terras tenementa per discensum haereditarium a praed Johanne Rowden patre suo in feodo simplici c. Vpon this pleading they were at Issue at the Assises in Wiltshire and the Iury found a special Verdict viz. that John Rowden the Father of Richard now the Defendant was seized in Fee of a Messuage and 20 Acres of Land in Bramshaw in the said County and being so seised had Issue John Rowden his eldest Son and the Defendant Richard that on the 22th of Januarii 18 Car. I. John the elder did settle the Premisses upon himself for Life Remainder ut supra c. That after the death of the Father John his eldest Son entred and was possessed in Fee-Tail and was likewise entituled to the Reversion in Fee and died in the 14th year of King Charles the II. that the Lands did descend to another John his only Son who died 35th Car. II. without Issue whereupon the Lands descended to the Defendant as Heir of the last mentionted John who entred before this Action brought and was seised in Fee c. But whether upon the whole matter the Defendant hath any Lands by by descent from John Rowden in Fee-simple the Iury do not know c. The Council on both sides did agree that this Land was chargable with the Debt but the Question was whether the Issue was found for the Defendant in regard the Plaintiff did not name the intermediate Heirs It was argued that the Defendant ought to be sued as immediate Heir to his Father and not to his Nephew for whoever claims by descent must claim from him who was last actually seised of the Freehold and Inheritance this is the express Doctrine of my Lord Coke in his first Institutes and if so Co. Lit. 11. the Defendant must be charged as he claims Seisin is a material thing in our Law for if I am to make a Title in a real Action I must lay an actual seisin in every Man 8 E. 3.13 Bro. Assise 6. F.N. B. 212. F. 't is so in Formedons in Descender and Remainder in both which you are to run through the whole Pedegree But none can be Filius Haeres but to him who was last actually seised of the Fee-simple and therefore the Brother being Tenant in Tail and his Son the Issue in Tail in this Case they were never seised of the Fee 1 Inst 14. b. for that was expectant upon the Estate Tail which being spent then John the Father was last seised thereof and
so his Son is justly and rightly sued as Son and Heir In some Cases the persons are to be named not by way of a Title but as a Pedigree as if there be Tenant for Life the Reversion in Fee to an Ideot and an Vncle who is right Heir to the Ideot levied a Fine and died living the Ideot leaving Issue a Son named John who had Issue William who entred the Question was whether the Issue of the Vncle shall be barred by this Fine It was the Opinion of two Iudges that they were not barred because the Vncle died in the life-time of the Ideot and nothing attached in him March 94. Cro. Car. 524. and because the Issue claim in a collateral Line and do not name the Father by way of Title but by way of Pedigree But Iustice Jones who hath truly Reported the Case Jones 456. was of Opinion that the Issue of the Vncle were barred because the Son must make his Conveyance from the Father by way of Title The Iury have found that the Reversion did descend to the Defendant as Heir to the last John 't is true it descends as a Reversion but that shall not charge him as Heir to the Father Jenk's Case 1 Cro. for the other was seised of the Estate Tail which is now spent and the last who was seised of the Fee was the Father and so the Defendant must be charged as his Heir 'T is likewise true that where there is an actual Seisin you must charge all but in this Case there was nothing but a Reversion Tremaine Serjeant for the Defendant In this Case the Plaintiff should have made a special Declaration for the Estate-Tail and the Reversion in Fee are distinct and seperate Estates John the Nephew might have sold the Reversion and kept the Estate Tail if he had acknowledged a Statute or Iudgment it might have been extended and if so then he had such a Seisin that he ought to have been named A Man becomes bound in a Bond and died Debt is brought against the Heir it is not common to say that he had nothing by descent but only a Reversion expectant upon an Estate Tayl. In the Case of Chappel and Lee Covenant was brought in the Common-Pleas against Judith Daughter and Heir of Robert Rudge She pleaded Riens per descent Issue was joyned before Sir Francis North then Chief Iustice and it appearing upon Evidence that Robert had a Son named Robert who died without Issue a Case was made of it and Iudgment was given for the Defendant the Plaintiff took out a new Original and then the Land was sold so the Plaintiff lost his Debt Adjornatur Afterwards in Hillary Term a Gulielmi Mariae Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff by the Opinion of three Iustices against Iustice Eyre who argued that the Defendant cannot be charged as immediate Heir to his Father 't is true the Lands are Assets in his Hands and he may be charged by a special Declaration Dyer 368. pl. 460. In this Case the intermediate Heirs had a Reversion in Fee which they might have charged either by Statute Iudgment or Recognizance they were so seised that if a Writ of Right had been brought against them they might have joyned the Mise upon the Mere right which proves they had a Fee and though it was expectant on an Estate Tail 3 Co. 42. Ratcliff's Case yet the Defendant claiming the Reversion as Heir ought to make himself so to him who made the Gift The person who brings a Formeden in Descender must name every one to whom any Right did descend 8 Co. 88. F.N.B. 220. c. Rast Ent. 375. otherwise the Writ will abate A Man who is sued as Heir or who entitles himself as such must shew how Heir The Case of Duke and Spring is much stronger than this 2 Rol. Abr. 709. 2 Cro. 161. for there Debt was brought against the Daughter as Heir of B. She pleaded Riens per descent and the Iury found that B. died seised in Fee leaving Issue the Defendant and his Wife then with Child who was afterwards delivered of a Son who died within an hour and it was adjudged against the Plaintiff because he declared against the Defendant as Daughter and Heir of the Father when she was Sister and Heir of the Brother who was last seised But the other three Iudges were of a contrary Opinion The Question is not whether the Defendant is lyable to this Debt but whether he is properly charged as Heir to his Father or whether he should have been charged as Heir to his Nephew who was last seised It must be admitted that if the Lands had descended to the Brother and Nephew of the Defendant in Fee that then they ought to have been named but they had only a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate Tail which was incertain and therefore of little value now though John the Father and Son had this Reversion in them yet the Estate Tail was known only to those who were Parties to the Settlement 'T is not the Reversion in Fee Bro. Fit Descent pl. 30.37 Ass pl. 4. but the Possession which makes the party inheritable and therefore if Lands are given to Husband and Wife in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband then they have a Son and the Wife dies and the Husband hath a Son by a second Venter and dies the eldest Son enters and dies without Issue and his Vncle claimed the Land against the second Son but was barred because he had not the Remainder in Fee in possession and yet he might have sold or forfeited it But here the Reversion in Fee is now come into possession and the Defendant hath the Land as Heir to his Father t is Assets only in him and was not so either in his Brother or Nephew who were neither of them chargeable because a Reversion expectant upon an Estate Tail is not Assets Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 1 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1689. Young versus Inhabitants de Totnam AN Action was brought against the Hundred for a Robbery in which the Plaintiff declared that he was Robbed apud quendam locum prope Faire Mile Gate in such a Parish He had a Verdict And now Serjeant Tremaine moved in arrest of Iudgment and the Exceptions taken were these viz. 1. That it doth not appear that the Parish mentioned in the Declaration was in the Hundred 2. Neither doth it appear that the Robbery was committed in the High-way 3. The Plaintiff hath not alledged that it was done in the day time for if it was not the Hundred is not lyable by Law But these Exceptions were all disallowed because it being after a Verdict the Court will suppose that there was Evidence given of these Matters at the Trial so the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Eggleston al' versus Speke alias Petit.
certain or 't is not good 134 4. Must be taken strictly when it goes to the destruction of an Estate 224 5. A Custom that every Copyholder who leases his Land shall forfeit it doth not bind an Infant 229 6. Amongst Merchants where it must be particularly set forth 226 7. It must be certain and therefore where it was laid for an Infant to sell his Land when he can measure an Ell of Cloth 't is void for the incertainty 290 8. To have solam separalem pasturam hath been held good 291 9. Prescription must have a lawful commencement but 't is sufficient for a Custom to be certain and reasonable 292 10. Whether a Custom likewise ought to have a lawful commencement 293 D. Damages See Ejectment 3. Ioint Action 2. Trespass 2. Baron and Feme brought an Action for words spoken of the Wife and concluded ad damnum ipsorum 't is good for if she survive the Damages will go to her 120 Det See Admittance 5. Assignment 1. Iudgment 1. Quantum meruit Where 't is brought upon a Specialty for less than the whole Sum it must be shewed how the other was discharged 41 2. Whether it lies for a Fine upon an admission to a Copyhold Estate for it doth not arise upon any Contract 240 3. There must be a personal Contract or a Contract implyed by Law to maintain an Action of Debt ibid. Deceit See Action on the Case Deputy See Office 6 7 9. Devise See Tail Where it shall not be extended by implication 82 2. Where the word Estate passeth a Fee where not 45 105. 3. I give All to my Mother passeth only an Estate for Life for the Particle All is a Relative without a Substantive 32 4. To A. and the Testator's Name is omitted in the Will yet 't is good by averring his Name and proving his Intention to devise it 217 5. The Testator after several Specifick Legacies and Devises of Lands gave all the rest and remaining part of his Estate c. by those Words the Reversion in Fee passed 228 6. By the Devise of an Hereditament the Reversion in Fee passeth 229 Disseisin See Election 1. Interest 2. The Son Purchased in Fee and was disseised by his Father who made a Feoffment with Warranty the Son is bound for ever 91 2. Lessor made a Lease for Life and died his Son suffered a Common Recovery this is a Disseisin ibid. 3. Where an Estate for Life or years cannot be gained by a Disseisin ibid. 4. A wrongful Entry is never satisfied with any particular Estate nor can gain any thing but a Fee-simple 92 Distribution Before the Statute if there was but one Child he had a right of Administration but it was only personal so that if he died before Administration his Executor could not have it 62 E. Ejectment THE Demise was laid to be the 12th of Junii habendum a praed duodecimo die Junii which must be the 13th day by vertue whereof he entred and that the Defendant Postea eod 12 die Junii did Eject him which must be before the Plaintiff had any Title for his Lease commenced on the 13th day not good 199 2. De uno Messuagio sive Tenemento not good because the word Tenementum is of an incertain signification but with this addition vocat ' the Black Swan 't is good 238 3. If the Term should expire pending the Suit the Plaintiff may proceed for his Damages for though the Action is expired quoad the possession yet it continues for the Damages 249 Election Where the Cause of Action ariseth in two places the Plaintiff may choose to try it where he pleases 165 2. Tenant at Will made a Lease for years the Lessee entreth this is no disseisin but at the Election of him who had the Interest in it 197 Entry In Feoffments Partitions and Exchanges which are Conveyances at the Common Law no Estate is changed until actual Entry 297 2. Lease for years not good without Entry 297 3. Tenant for Life Remainder in Tail Male levied a Fine and made a Feoffment having but one Son then born and afterwards had another Son the eldest died without Issue the Contingent Remainder to the second was not destroy'd by this Feoffment for it was preserved by the right of Entry which his elder Brother had at the time of the Feoffment made 305 Escape Debt upon an Escape would not lie at the Common Law against the Goaler it was given by the Statute of W. 2. 145 2. The superior Officer is liable to the voluntary Escapes suffered by his Deputy unless the Deputation is for life 146 3. If an Escape is by negligence it must be particularly found 151 4. A person was in Execution upon an erroneous Judgment and escaped and Judgment and Execution was had against the Gaoler and then the first Judgment was reversed yet that against the Gaoler shall stand 325 Evidence See Witness An Affidavit made in Chancery shall not be read as Evidence but only as a Letter unless Oath is made by a Witness that he was present when it was taken before the Master 36 2. What shall be Evidence of a fraudulent Settlement ibid. 3. An Answer of a Guardian in Chancery shall not be read as Evidence to conclude an Infant 259 4. Whether the return of the Commissioners in a Chancery Cause that the person made Oath before them is sufficient Evidence to convict of Perjury 116 5. Whether a true Copy of an Affidavit made before the Chief Justice is sufficient to convict the person for the like Offence 117 6. A Verdict may be given in Evidence between the same Parties but not where there are different persons unless they are all united in the same interest 142 7. Conviction for having two Wives shall not be given in Evidence to prove the unlawfulness of a Marriage but the Writ must go to the Bishop because at Law one Jury may find it no Marriage and another otherwise 164 Exchange Ought to be executed by each Party in their Life time otherwise 't is void 135 Excommunication Stat. 5 Eliz. For not coming to the Parish Church the Penalties shall not incurr if the person hears Divine Service in any other Church 42 2. The Causes are enumerated in the Statute which must be contained in the Significavit otherwise the Penalties are not to incurr 89 Executor See Grants Notice 5. Whether an Executor de son tort can have any interest in a Term for years 91 93 2. An Executor may sell the Goods before Probate 92 3. May pay Debt upon a simple Contract before a Bond of which he had no notice 115 4. Whether an Action of Debt will lie against an Executor upon a Mutuatus 5. By what words he hath an Authority only without an Interest in the thing devised 209 210 6. He had both Goods of his Testator and of his own and granted omnia bona sua that which he hath as Executor will not pass for
of a person dying intestate and tells what share his Relations shall have and 't is probable that the Custom of London might guide the Parliament in the making of this Law which Custom distributes the Estate of a Freeman amongst his Wife and Children This shews that an Interest is vested in them which goes to the Administrator the consequence whereof is very considerable for if such Children should marry they have a Security by this Act that a Portion shall be paid and if the Wife should take another Husband he will be entituled to her share and this may be a means of giving credit in the World when the certainty of their Portions are so well known and secured 'T is such an Interest which is known in the Law and may be compared to that in Sir Thomas Palmer's Case 5 Co. 24. who sold 1600 Cord of Wood to a Man who assigned it to another and afterwards the Vendor sold 2000 Cord to one Maynard to be taken at his Election the Assignee of the first person cutt 600 Cord and Maynard carried it away thereupon an Action was brought and the Plaintiff had Iudgment because the first Vendee had an Interest vested in him which he might well assign This Case is a plain proof that a Man may have an Interest in a Chattle without a Property and such an Interest which gives the person a remedy to recover and where there is a remedy there must be a Right for they are convertibles 'T is not a new thing in the Law that a contingent Interest in the Ancestor shall survive to the Heir Wood's Case cited in Shelleys Case 1 Co. 99. as if a Man be seized of the Mannor of S. and covenants that when B. shall make a Feoffment to him of the Mannor of D. then he will stand seized of the said Mannor of S. to the use of the Covenantee and his Heirs who dyed leaving Issue an Heir who was then an Infant B. made a Feoffment to the Covenantor accordingly it was held that no Right descended to the Heir of the Covenantee but only a possibility of an Vse which might have vested in the Ancestor and therefore the Heir shall claim it by descent 'T is like a Debt to be paid at a day to come Lit. Sect. 512. which is debitum in praesenti though solvendum in futuro and though the Obligee cannot have an Action before the day is come yet such an Interest is vested in him that he may release it before that day and so bar himself for ever Now if this Act makes a Will it ought to be construed as such and it cannot be denied that if this Case had happened upon a Will the Executor of the Son would have a very good Title 'T is a weak Objection to affirm that this Law was made to establish the practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts and that 't is only explanatory of the Statutes of Ed. 3. and H. 8. because 't is plainly introductory of a new Law for Distribution is now made otherwise than it was before 2. An Interest is vested where there is but one Child For the better understanding of this Point the Clause in the Act ought to be considered which is viz. If there be no Wife then to be distributed amongst the Children if no Child then to the next of Kin of the Intestate upon which Clause these Objections have been made Object 1. That 't is insignificant because the Statute of H. 8. gives the right of Administration to the Child 2. That Distribution cannot be made where there is but one 3. That this Clause ought to be construed according to the Law in the Spiritual Courts Answ Now as to the first Objection 't is true that before this Act the Child had a Right of Administration but that Right was only personal so that if he had died before he had administred his Executor or Administrator could not have it Besides many inconveniences did attend this personal Right of Administration which are now prevented by the vesting of an Interest For when the Right was personal and the Administrator gave Bond with Sureties to administer truly and the Ordinary had appointed Distribution to be made the Administrator was bound to perform it though not in equal degree and if he died before the Estate was got in it was lost for ever But now by this Clause Distribution must be made equally viz. one third part of the Surplus to the Wife the rest by equal portions to the Children so that what was very incertain before and almost at the Will of the Ordinary is now reduced to a certainty and therefore an Interest must vest in such persons to whom such equal Distributions of filial Portions are given 2. Object That Distribution cannot be made where there is but one Child Answ This also is true in propriety of Speech and taking the Word distribute in the strict sense But this was never intended by the Statute as may plainly appear upon the construction of the whole for the Word Children doth comprehend a Child and more and the form of the Bond directed by this Statute is that the Administrator shall deliver the Goods to such person and persons c. which shews that one is comprehended and therefore Distribuere in this Case is no more than Tribuere and must be so taken The Parliament never intended that Distribution should not be made where there is but one Child as may be easily collected from the reason of the thing and the inconveniences which would ensue 1st If a Man should die leaving a Wife and one Child the Wife would be entituled to one third and the Child to the other two thirds of the personal Estate now if the Child shall have two thirds being comprehended under the Word Children what reason can be given why he should not have the whole where there is no Wife which he could not have if the Word Children did not comprehend Child in this Case 2dly If a Man hath a personal Estate to the value of 2000 l. and dieth leaving Issue three Sons but hath in his life time made provision for the second Son to the value of 1000 l. the eldest Son dies intestate shall the youngest be totally excluded from the remaining 1000 l. because there is none left to have distribution his second Brother being preferred in the life time of his Father by an equal portion with what remains 3dly If the Father hath a Son married and two Brothers and dies intestate now if his Estate should not be vested in the Son then if he should also die intestate his Wife could have nothing but it would go to the Vncles and this would be a very hard construction of this Law to carry the Estate to the Vncles and their Executors from the Son and his Administrator But there is a Case which proves that a Child is intended by the Word Children 8 Co 96. 't is between Amner
and Lodington cited in Mathew Manning's Case which was A Man being possessed of a Term for years devised it to his Wife for life and after her death to her Children unpreferred and made her Executrix and died she married again and had but one Daughter unpreferred and after the death of the Mother this Executory Devise was held good to the Daughter though it was by the Name of Children and she enjoyed the Term. 3. Object That this Act should be construed according to the Spiritual Law Answ That cannot be for all Statutes ought to be expounded according to the Rules of the Common Law and not according to their Law for they have no Law which gives power to sue nor to distribute to the Wife or next of Kin but the usual course was for the Ordinary to dispose of Intestates Goods to pious uses Then admitting this to be an Interest vested the consequence will be that it shall go to the Administrator and then Administration must be granted where the Estate legally ought to go The Administration of the Husband to the Goods of the Wife is grounded upon this reason 4 Co. 51. Ognel's Case 1 Cro. 106. because the Marriage is quasi a gift to him in Law It was not the only mischief before this Law that the Administrator run away with the whole Estate for if a Man died intestate leaving but one Son then beyond Sea and Administration was granted to a Stranger he who had right could not appeal after fourteen days which the Son could not do at that distance and so by this means a wrongful Administrator was entituled to the whole and he whose right it was had no remedy to recover at his return But now this inconvenience is likewise redressed by the Statute of Distributions for when the Son returns he may put the Bond in suit and for these reasons it was prayed that the Prohibition might stand Mr. E contra Williams argued for the Defendant in Easter-Term 2 Jacobi the substance of whose Argument was that though the Plaintiff had gotten Administration yet no Interest was thereby vested in him but that the Appeal was proper and for this he cited the Case of Beamond and Long Cro. Car. 208. which was Baron and Feme Administratrix of her former Husband recover in Debt the Feme died the surviving Husband brought a Scire Facias to have Execution and upon a Demurrer all the Court but Hide agreed that the Scire Facias would not lie for the Husband alone because it was a debt demanded by the Administratrix in auter droit This Statute hath not wholly altered the Common Law in this matter it only limits the Practice of Ecclesiastical Courts and makes provision for particular purposes viz. That Distribution shall be made to the Wife and Children and their Children which is so far introductory of a new Law but no farther so that the Right of Administration is as it was before and therefore must be granted to the next of Kin of the Father This Court hath no power to grant a Prohibition in such a Case and if it should 't is the first which ever was granted of this kind for it ought not to be determined here but in an Ecclesiastical Court which hath an original Iurisdiction of this Cause and the Appeal is in proprio loco To which Mr. Pollexfen answered that the contrary was very plain for here have been many Prohibitions granted even upon this very Act and the Question now before the Court is not concerning the manner of Distribution but the Right of Administration whether any Interest is vested in the Son or not 'T is true the Estate in Law goes to the Administrator but the Interest and Right to sue for and to recover the Estate goes to the Son so that if he should die before he is in actual possession his Administrator shall have it to pay Debts and to distribute c. In the Case of a Will if a Man should devise his Estate to his Wife and Children after Debts and Legacies paid an Interest vests in those Children which doth not differ from the Case at the Bar but that in the one Case the Testator makes the Will and in the other 't is made by an Act of Parliament Some Inconveniencies have been already mentioned if the Law should be otherwise taken but there be many more for if no Interest should vest in the Child till actual Distribution he could neither be trusted for his Education or Necessaries whilst living and no body would bury him if he should happen to die before the year and a day for the Funeral Charges would be lost It will likewise occasion delays in Administrators to make Distribution in hopes of gain neither will any honest man take an Administration upon himself because he can neither pay Mony safely or take a Release for if the Infant die before distribution it is void But notwithstanding these Reasons the Court gave Iudgment in Michaelmas-Term following That a Consultation should go the Chief Iustice being absent DE Termino Paschae Anno 1 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1685. Coram Georgio Jefferies Mil ' Capital ' Justic ' Francisco Wythyns Mil ' Justiciariis Richardo Holloway Mil ' Justiciariis Thoma Walcot Mil ' Justiciariis Rex versus Marsh and others JAmes Marsh Information for a Forgery John W. and John L. were indicted upon the Coroners Inquest for the Murder of R. D. at H. in Kent and upon this Indictment they were arraigned and tried at the Barr this Term. The Fact upon the Evidence appeared to be that the Prisoners were Custom-House Officers who suspecting that some Wool would be transported went to the Sea-side in the Night time where there happened an Afray and the Prisoner Marsh was twice knocked down and recovering himself shot the deceased they were all acquitted of the Murder and then upon complaint made that Marsh was only found guilty upon the Coroners Enquest two of the said Iury were now sworn in Court who deposed that they upon the Coroners Enquest found the Indictment against Marsh alone which Indictment was in English but that one J.D. who was then Mayor of H. and who by virtue of that Office was also Coroner took the Indictment and told the Iury it must be turn'd into Latin which was done and he then inserted the Names of the two other Prisoners now at the Barr whereupon the said Mr. D. was now called and he appearing was bound in a Recognizance to answer this matter and the two Prisoners who were acquitted were likewise bound to prosecute him and the Iury Men were ordered to put their Affidavit in writing and swear it in Court An Information was afterwards exhibited against Mr. D. which was tried at the Barr in Trinity-Term following and he was found guilty but having spoke with the Prosecutor in the long Vacation he was only fined 20 Nobles in Michaelmas-Term Roberts versus Pain IN a Prohibition to
shall not alien or sell the Lands given to her from the Heirs Male of her Body lawfully to be begotten but to remain upon default of such Issue to W. and the Heirs Males of his Body to be begotten according to the true intent and meaning of this my Will Dorothy Hopkins had Issue Richard who had Issue Henry who had Issue a Daughter now the Defendant The Question was Whether the Son of Dorothy did take an Estate Tail by this Will to him and to the Heirs of his Body in general or an Estate in Tail Male This Case was argued in Michaelmas Term 36 Car. II. And in the same Term a year afterwards by Council on both sides Those who argued for the Plaintiff held that the Son had an Estate in Tail Male and this seems plain by the intention of the Testator that if Dorothy had Issue Daughters they should have no benefit for no provision is made for any such by the Will and therefore the Daughter of her Son can have no Estate who is more remote to the Testator This is like the Case of Conveyances Turnam vers Cooper 2 Cro. 476. Poph. 138. id 25 Ass pl. 14. wherein the Habendum explains the generality of the precedent words as if Lands be given to Husband and Wife and to their Heirs habendum to them and the Heirs of their Bodies Remainder to them and the Survivor to hold of the chief Lord with Waranty to them and their Heirs this is an Estate Tail with a Feé expectant So it is here tho' the first words in the Will extend to Heirs which is general yet in the Memorandum 't is particular to Heirs Males and the words Heirs and Issues are of the same signification in a Will The Memorandum is a confirmation of the Will Ex parte Def. and the construction which hath been made of it is not only inconsistent with the Rules of Law but contrary to the intent of the Testator and against the express words of his Will Cases upon Wills are different from those which arise upon Deeds because in Conveyances subsequent words may be explanatory of the former but in Wills the first words of the Testator do usually guide those which follow As if Land be devised for Life Dyer 171 a. 1 And. 8. id Golds 16. Moor 593. Remainder to F. and the Heirs Males of his Body and if it happen that he dye without Heirs not saying Males the Remainder over in Tail this was held not to be a general Tail but an Estate in Tail Male therefore the Daughter of F. could not inherit Now to construe this to be an Estate Tail Male doth not only alter the Estate of the Sons of Dorothy but of the Issue of W. and nothing is mentioned in this Memorandum of the Limitation over to Jones so that the whole Will is altered by it But this Memorandum cannot enlarge the Estate of Dorothy because 't is inconsistent with the intention of the Testator who gave her only an Estate for Life by the Will but if she should have an Estate Tail she might by Fine and Recovery bar it and so alien it contrary to his express words Besides there is no Estate limited to Dorothy by this Memorandum and she having an express Estate for Life devised to her by the Will it shall never be enlarged by such doubtful words which follow As where a Man had 100 Acres of Land 2 Leon. 226. Moor 593. called by a particular Name and usually occupied with a House which House he lett to S. with 40 Acres parcel of that Land and then devised the House and all the Lands called by that particular Name c. to his Wife Adjudged she should only have the House and the 40 Acres and that the Devise shall not be extended by implication to the other sixty Acres So that to make the design of this Will and Memorandum to be consistent the latter words must be construed only to illustrate the meaning of the Testator in the former Paragraph of the Will and must be taken as a farther declaration of his intention Viz. that the Heirs Males mentioned in the Memorandum is only a description of the Persons named in the Will The Law doth usually regard the intention of the Testator and will not imply any contradictions in his Bequests The Court was of Opinion that it was a plain Case Judicium for in the Limitation 't is clear that 't is a general Tail and it doth not follow that the Testator did not design any thing for his Grandaughters because no provision was made for Daughters For where an Estate is entailed upon the Heirs of a Man's Body if he hath a Son and a Daughter and the Son hath Issue a Daughter the Estate will go to her and not to the Aunt Now this Memorandum doth not come to make any alteration in the Limitation because it directs that the Estate shall go according to the true intent and meaning of the Will and is rather like a Proviso than an Habendum in a Deed. And therefore Iudgment was given accordingly for the Defendant DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 1 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1685. Hicks versus Gore ON Tuesday the 17th day of November there was a Trial at the Barr by a Somerset-Shire Iury in Ejectment The Case was thus The Plaintiff claimed the Lands by virtue of the Statute of 4 5 Ph. Mar. cap. 8. by which 't is enacted That it shall not be lawful for any person to take away any Maid or Woman Child unmarried and within the Age of sixteen years from the Parents or Guardian in Soccage and that if any Woman Child or Maiden being above the Age of twelve years and under the Age of sixteen do at any time assent or agree to such person that shall make any Contract of Matrimony contrary to the Form of the Act that then the next of Kin of such Woman Child or Maid to whom the Inheritance should descend return or come after the decease of the same Woman Child or Maid shall from the time of such Assent and Agreement have hold and enjoy all such Lands Tenements and Hereditaments as the said Woman Child or Maid had in Possession Reversion or Remainder at the time of such Assent and Agreement during the Life of such person that shall so contract Matrimony and after the decease of such person so contracting Matrimony that then the said Land c. shall descend revert remain and come to such person or persons as they should have done in case this Act had never been made other than him only that so shall contract Matrimony Benjamin Tibboth being seised in Fee of the Lands in question to the value of 700 l. per annum had Issue a Son and four Daughters the Son had Issue Ruth his only Daughter who was married to the Defendant Gore her Father died in the time of her Grandfather and her Mother
the Indictment for be it before or after the Offence the Iury ought to find according to the truth of the Case upon the Evidence for they are sworn ad veritatem dicendam c. This must be assigned for Error for if the contrary be said 't is against the Record the Custos Brevium having retorned that the Fine was taken 30 July which could not be in Trinity Term for that ended 8 July otherwise 't is repugnant to it self Econtra It was argued that this is not assignable for Error Dyer 220. b. 12 Co. 124. 't is true if the Party had died before the Entry of the King's Silver it had been Error but if afterwards 't is not so Thus was the Case of Warnecomb and Carril which was Husband and Wife levied a Fine of the Lands of the Wife and this was by Dedimus in the Lent Vacation she being then but 19 years of Age the King's Silver was entred in Hillary Term before and she died in the Easter week and upon a Motion made the first day of Easter Term to stay the engrossing of the Fine it was denied by the Court for they held it to be a good Fine Another reason why this is not assignable for Error 2 Cro. 11. Yelv. 33. is because 't is directly against the Record which is of Trinity Term and can be of no other Term and to prove this he cited Arundel's Case where a Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Fine taken before Roger Manwood Esq in his Circuit he being then one of the Iustices of the Common-Pleas and the Dedimus was returned per Rogerum Manwood Militem for he was Knighted and made Chief Baron the Eerm following the Fine passed and this was afterwards assigned for Trror that he who took the Caption was not a Knight but it being directly against the Record they would not intend him to be the same person to whom the Writ was directed Adjurnatur Afterwards the Fine was affirmed Lock versus Norborne UPon a Trial at Bar in Ejectment for Lands in Wiltshire Verdict shall only be given in Evidence amongst privies the Case was thus Viz. Mary Philpot in the year 1678. made a Settlement by Lease and Release to her self for Life then to Trustees to support contingent Remainders then to her first second and third Son in Tail Male c. then to Thomas Arundel in Tail Male with divers Remainders over It was objected at the Tryal that she had no power to make such Settlement because in the year 1676. her Husband had setled the Lands in question upon her for Life and upon the Issue of his Body c. and for want of such Issue then upon George Philpot in Tail Male with several Remainders over the Remainder to Mary Philpot in Fee Proviso that upon the tender of a Guinea to George Philpot by the said Mary the Limitations as to him should be void George Philpot having afterwards made a Lease of this Land to try the Title the Trustees brought an Ejectment but because the tender of the Guinea could not be proved there was a Verdict for the Defendant And now Mr. Philpot would have given that Verdict in Evidence at this Trial but was not suffered by the Court for if one Man hath a Title to several Lands and if he should bring Ejectments against several Defendants and recover against one he shall not give that Verdict in Evidence against the rest because the Party against whom that Verdict was had may be relieved against it if 't is not good but the rest cannot tho' they claim under the same Title and all make the same defence So if two Tenants will defend a Title in Ejectment and a Verdict should be had against one of them it shall not be read against the other unless by Rule of Court But if an Ancestor hath a Verdict the Heir may give it in Evidence because he is privy to it for he who produceth a Verdict must be either party or privy to it and it shall never be received against different persons if it doth not appear that they are united in Interest Therefore a Verdict against A. shall never be read against B. for it may happen that one did not make a good defence which the other may do The tender of the Guinea was now proved DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 3 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1687 8. Wright Chief Justice Holloway Justices Powel Justices Allibon Justices Powis Attorny General Wm. Williams Sollicitor General THIS Vacation Sir Robert Sawyer had his Quietus and Sir Thomas Powis was made Attorny General and Sir William Williams of Greys-Inn was made Sollicitor General Rex versus Lenthal AN Inquifition was taken in the second year of this King under the Great Seal of England by which it was found that the Office of Marshal of the Kings-Bench did concern the Administration of Iustice and that Mr. Lenthal was seised thereof in Fee and that upon his Marriage he had setled the said Office upon Sir Edward Norris and Mr. Coghill and their Heirs in Truff that they should permit him to execute the same during his Life c. That the said Trustees had neglected to give their attendance or to execute the said Office themselves that this Canveyance was made by Mr. Lenthal without the notice of this Court that he received the Profits and afterwards granted the said Office to Cooling for Life That Cross and his Wife had obtained a Iudgment in this Court against Bromley and had sued forth Erecution for the Debt and Damages for which he was committed to the custody of the said Cooling and being so in Execution did go at large They find that Cooling had not sufficient to answer Cross and his Wise for the said Debt c. whereupon they impleaded Mr. Lenthal in the Common-Pleas for 121 l. 2 s. 4 d. to answer as superior that at the Trial Mr. Lenthal gave this secret Deed of Settlement in Evidence whereupon the Plaintiffs in that Action were non-suited ad dampnum c. They find that Cooling went out of the said Office and the Trustees neglecting the execution thereof Mr. Lenthal granted the same to Glover for Life that during the time he executed this Office one Wordal was convicted of Forgery and commited to his Custody and that he permitted him voluntarily to Escape by which the said Office was forfeited to the King The King had granted the Office to the Lord Hunsdon Sir Edward Norris and Mr. Coghill come in and plead that Mr. Lenthal was seised in Fee and that he made a Settlement of the Office upon his Marriage with Mrs. Lucy Dunch with whom he had 5000 l. Portion viz. upon them and their Heirs in trust prout in the Inquisition and that he did execute the Office by-their permission Mr Lenthal pleads and admits the Grant to Sir Edward Norris and the other Trustee bearing date such a day c. but saith that the next
day afterwards viz. the 10th day of August a Trust of the said Office was declared by another Deed viz. to himself for Life with Remainders over and that by virtue thereof and the consent of the Trustees he took upon him the execution of the said Office and was thereof possessed either by himself or his Deputy until the time of the Inquisition taken then he traversed that the Escapes were voluntary but did not answer the concealing of the Grant and concludes viz. per quod petit that the King Hands may be amoved c. The Attorny General demurred to the Plea of the Trustees he likewise demurred to the Plea of Mr. Lenthal and took issue that the Escapes were voluntary It was argued this Term and Trinity following by Council on both sides and as to the matter of Law they made these Points 1. That this Office cannot be granted in Trust 2. The Escapes found in the Inquisition and not answered by the Trustees are sufficient causes of Forfeiture of this Offce 3. Another Point was raised whether the assignment of this Office to Trustees admitting it could be so granted and their declaration of the Trust did create an Estate at will in Mr. Lenthal If it was a Tenancy at will 1. Then whether Mr. Lenthal had done any thing to determine his will 2. Whether he can by Law make a Deputy 3. Whether the assigning of this Trust without giving notice thereof to this Court be a Forfeiture 1. This Office cannot be granted in Trust Jones 128. because 't is a personal Inheritance and will not pass by such Conveyances as are used to convey Lands so is my Lord of Oxford 's Case in which it was held that a Covenant to stand seised of an Office is void neither can Mr. Lenthal take upon him the execution of this Office by the consent of the Trustees for that cannot be without Deed. If the Law should be otherwise this inconvenience would follow viz. Mr. Lenthal might grant the Office to another without leave of the Court and the Grantee might suffer voluntary Escapes having no valuable Interest to answer the parties injured who must then sue Mr. Lenthal and he hath no Estate in him for he hath conveyed the Inheritance to the Trustees and if they should be likewise sued no recovery could be against them because they are only nominal 'T is almost like the Grant of an Office of chief Prothonotary of the Court of Common-Pleas to two persons for Life 18 Ed. 4. f. 7. which cannot be good because the Rolls of the Court cannot be in the keeping of two persons at one time It hath been adjudged that this very Office cannot be granted for years Cro. Car. 587. Jones 437. because 't is an Office of Trust and daily Attendance and such a termor for years may dye intestate and then it would be in suspence 'till Administration is committed which is the act of another Court 2. Point That the Escapes found in the Inquisition and the non-attendance of the Trustees are sufficient cause of Forfeiture 'T is true at the Common-Law Debt upon an Escape will not lie against the Goaler that Action was afterwards given by the Statute of W. 2. For before that Act the only remedy against the Goaler was to bring an Action on the Case against him founded upon a wrong done Dyer 273. But now Debt will lie and if the party is not sufficient at the time of the Escape 2 Inst 382. respondeat superior The Marshal who executes this Office be it by right or wrong is answerable to the King and his People for Escapes If they are voluntary 't is a Forfeiture of his Office nay if a Deputy suffer such Escapes 't is a Forfeiture by the Principal unless such Deputation be made for Life and then the Grantee for Life only forfeits the Office As to the non-attendance of the Trustees if Mr. 39 H. 6.32 Lenthal be Tenant at will and hath granted this Office to another for Life this is a determination of the Tenancy at will and a Forfeiture as to him Now this Grantee for Life cannot be said to be a Deputy for such a Grantee himself cannot make a Deputy and therefore a fortiori a Tenant at will cannot do it But admitting he should be Deputy yet a Forfeiture by him is a Forfeiture by his Superior and therefore Mr. Lenthal 's tenancy at will being gone the Trustees ought to attend and their non-attendance ought to be a Forfeiture The non-attendance of an Officer Cro. Car. 491. who was only a Searcher in a Port Town was adjudged a Forfeiture much greater is the Fault of that Officer who hath the administration of Iustice if he do not give his attendance Besides 39 H. 6.34 a. 9 Co. 46. Dyer 198. Sid. 81. Dyer 150 151. if they do not attend by consequence they cannot act in the Office and non-feazance is as sufficient a cause of Forfeiture as any other mis-behaviour whatsoever But if the Trustees had given attendance they are persons inexperient and therefore incapable to execute this Office for which they may be lawfully refused by this Court Mr. Pollexfen chiefly insisted upon the point of Pleading that the matter found by the Inquisition was not answered by the Plea First he excepted that the Defendant had not by his Plea entituled himself to any Estate in this Office 1 Leon. 202. 2 Inst 695. Stamf. 62 64. 2 Leon. 123. and therefore he could not traverse the Title of the King without making a Title to himself for why should he desire that the Kings Hands may be amoved and he restored to his Office if he hath not shewen a Title to it His pleading of this Deed of Trust by which he is permitted to receive the Profits c. during Life cannot create such an Estate in him as will be executed by the Statute of Vses therefore he can have no Estate for Life for if a Man is seised in Fee of an Estate and makes a Declaration thereof in Trust for J. S. this is no colour to make an Estate for Life in J. S. The Defendant hath therefore no more than a Trust in this Office which is nothing in the Eye of the Law and for which there is no remedy but by Subpoena in Chancery so that being only a Cestui que trust he hath neither jus in re nor ad rem He cannot be Tenant at will for he is not made so by the Deed of Trust There is a great deal of difference between Evidence and Pleading for this very Deed may be an Evidence of an Estate at will but 't is not so in pleading therefore he ought to have pleaded that coram praetextu he was possessed of the Office and took the Profits c. but he having otherwise pleaded and not entituled himself to any Estate therein he ought to be laid aside as an incompetent person The Plea of Sir Edward Norris
same to Mrs. Berkley for Life remainder over to Henry Killigrew in Tail and that he made Mrs. Berkley Executrix of his Will which was found in haec verba That afterwards in the year 1645. the said Sir Henry Killigrew made aliud Testamentum in Writing but what was contained in the said last mentioned Will juratores penitus ignorant They find that Sir Henry Killigrew in the year 1646. died seised of those Lands and that Mrs. Berkley conveyed the same to Mr. Nosworthy 's Father whose Heir he is and that the Defendant Sir William Basset is Cosin and Heir to Sir Henry Killigrew c. The Question upon this special Verdict was whether the making of this last Will was a revocation of the former or not It was argued this Term by Mr. Finch and in Michaelmas Term following by Serjeant Maynard for the Plaintiff that it was not a revocation In their Arguments it was admitted that a Will in it's nature was revocable at all times but then it must be either by an express or implied revocation That the making of this latter Will cannot be intended to be an implied revocation of the former for if so then the Land must also be supposed to be devised contrary to the express disposition in the first Will and that would be to add to the Record which finds Viz. that what the last Will was penitus ignorant It is possible that a subsequent Will may be made so as not to destroy but consist with a former for the Testator may have several parcels of Land which he may devise to many persons by divers Wills and yet all stand together A man may likewise by a subsequent Will revoke part and confirm the other part of a former Will and therefore admitting there was such a Will in this case 't is still more natural that it should confirm than revoke the other If the Testator had purchased new Lands and had devised the same by a subsequent Will no person will affirm that to be a revocation of the former Will When a Man hath made a disposition of any part of his Estate 't is a good Will as to that part so is likewise the disposal of every other part they are all several Wills tho' taken altogether they are an intire disposition of the whole Estate Nothing appears here to the contrary but that the latter Will may be only a devise of his personal Estate or a confirmation of the former which the Law will not allow to be destroyed without an express revocation The Case of Coward and Marshal is much to this purpose Cro. Eliz. 721. which was a devise in Fee to his younger Son and in another Will after the Testators Marriage to a second Wife he devised the same Lands to his Wife for Life paying yearly to his younger Son 20 s. It was the Opinion of Anderson and Glanvil that both these Wills might stand together and that one was not a revocation of the other because it appeared by the last Will that he only intended to make a Provision for his Wife but not to alter the Devise to his Son So where a Man had two Sons by several Venters Cro. Car. 24. Hodgkinson vers Whood Co. Lit. 22. b. 1 Co. 104. a. 319. b. and devises the Lands to his eldest Son for Life and to the Heirs Males of his Body and for default of such Issue to the Heirs Males of his second Son and the Heirs Males of their Bodies Remainder to his own right Heirs and then made a Lease of 30 years to his youngest Son to commence after the death of the Testator the youngest Son entred and surrendred the Term to his elder Brother who made a Lease to the Defendant and then dyed without Issue afterwards the youngest Brother entred and avoided this Lease made by his Brother It was held that the Lease thus made to him was not a revocation of the devise of the Inheritance to his Brother tho' it was to commence at the same time in which the devise of the Inheritance was to take effect but it was a revocation quoad the Term only that the elder Brother should not enter during that time for the devise shall not be revoked without express words and that tho' the Testator had departed with the whole Fee without reserving an Estate for Life to himself yet the Law created such an Estate in him till the future Vse should commence and in such case the right Heirs cannot take by Purchase but by Descent so that here the Inheritance in Fee simple was not vested in the elder Brother by Descent for then the Lease which he made would be executed out of the Feé and the younger Brother would be bound thereby But in the Case at the Bar there is no colour of a Revocation 1. Vpon the nature of the Verdict to which nothing can be added neither can it be diminished for whatever is found must be positive and not doubtful because an Attaint lies if the Verdict be false Therefore the Court cannot take notice of that which the Iury hath not found Now here the entry of the Iudgment is Viz. Quibus lectis auditis per Curiam hic satis intellectis c. But what can be read or heard where nothing appears That Case in the Year-Book of the 2 R. 3. 2 R. 3. f. 3. comes not up to this question it was an Action of Trespass for the taking of his Goods The Defendant pleaded that the Goods did appertain to one Robert Strong who before the supposed Trespass devised the same to him and made him Executor c. The Plaintiff replied that the said Strong made his last Will and did constitute him Executor And upon a Demurrer to this Replication because he had not traversed that the Defendant was Executor it was argued for the Plaintiff that this last Will was a Revocation of the former for tho' there were no express words of Revocation yet by the very making another the Law revoked the former and to prove this two Instances were then given viz. That if a Man devise his Lands to two and by another Will gives it to one of them and dies he to whom 't is devised by the last Will shall have it So likewise if the Testator by one Will giveth Lands to his Son and by another Will deviseth the same again to his Wife then makes an Alienation and taketh back an Estate to himself and dieth and in an Assise brought between the Widow and the Son he was compelled by the Court to shew that it was his Father's intention that he should have the Land otherwise the last Devisee will be entituled to it Now both these Instances are not sufficient to evince that the last Will in this Case was a revocation of that under which the Plaintiff claims because those Wills were contradictory to each other for by one the Land was devised to the Son and by the other to
Commitment and that for two reasons 1. Because the persons committing had not any Authority so to do for upon the Return it appears that they were committed by several Lords of the Council whereas it should have been by so many Lords in Council or by Order of Council 2. They ought not to be committed for this Fact which is only a Misdemeanour The Bishops are Peers and therefore the Process ought to be a Summons by way of Subpoena out of the Crown Office and not to commit them the first time If a Man comes in voluntarily he cannot be charged with an Information neither can a person who is found in Court by any Process be so charged if it be illegal as if a Peer be committed by Capias Iustice Allybon replyed that when a Commitment was made by the Lord Chief Iustice of this Court his Name is to the Warrant but not his Office 't is not said Committitur per Capitalem Justiciarium Angliae c. for he is known to be so and why should not a Commitment by such persons Dominos Concilij be as good as a Commitment by Sir Rob. Wright Capitalem Justiciarium That it was enough for the Officer to return his Warrant and when that is done the Court will presume that the Commitment was by the Power which the Lords in Council had and not by that Power which they had not To which it was answered by Mr. Finch that the Lord Chief Iustice always carries an Authority with him to commit where-ever he goes in England but the Lords of the Privy Council have not so large a Power for though they be Lords of the Council always yet they do not always act in Council Then the Statute of 17 Car. 1. cap. 10. was read in which there is mention made of a Commitment by the Lords of the Privy Concil c. But it was answered that that Statute was to relieve against illegal Commitments and those enumerated in that Act were such only and none else And it was strongly insisted that Peers of the Realm cannot be committed at the first instance for a Misdemeanour before Iudgment and that no President can be shewed where a Peer hath been brought in by Capias which is the first Process for a bare Misdemeanour The constant Proceedings in the Starr-Chamber upon such Informations were Crompt Jurisdiction 33. Dyer 315. 4 Inst 25. Regist 287. viz. First the Lord Chancellor sent a Letter to the person then if he did not appear an Attachment went forth The Kings Council answered Sir Baptist Hick's Case Hob. that a Peer may be committed for the Breach of the Peace for which Sureties are to be given and can there be any greater Breach of the Peace than a Libel against the King and Government 'T is certainly such a Breach of the Peace for which Sureties ought to be demanded for where there is any seditious Act there must be a Breach of the Peace and if Sureties are not given then the person must be committed The Objections were over-ruled by three Iudges Then the Information was read which in Substance was viz. That the King by vertue of his Prerogative did on the 4th day of April in the third year of his Reign publish his gracious Declaration for Liberty of Conscience which was set forth in haec verba That afterwards viz. 27 Aprilis in the fourth year of his Reign the King did publish another Declaration reciting the former in which he expressed his care that the Indulgence by him granted might be preserved c. that he caused this last Declaration to be printed and to manifest his favour more signally towards his Subjects on the 4th day of May 1688. it was Ordered in Council that his Declaration dated the 27th day of April last be read on two several days in all Churches and Chappels in the Kingdom and that the Bishops cause the same to be distributed through their several Diocesses c. That after the making of the said Order c. the Bishops naming them did consult and conspire amongst themselves to lessen the Authority and Prerogative of the King and to elude the said Order and in further prosecution of their said Conspiracy they with Force and Arms did on the 18th day of May c. unlawfully maliciously c. frame compose and write a Libel of the King subscribed by them which they caused to be published under the pretence of a Petition Then the Petition was set forth in haec verba In contemptum dicti Domini Regis c. The King's Council moved that the Defendants might plead instanter for so they said is the course of the Court when a Man is brought thither in Custody or appears upon Recognizance But the Council on the other side prayed an Imparlance and a Copy of the Information and argued that the Defendants ought not to plead instanter because their Plea ought to be put in Writing and that they ought to have time to consider what to plead that it was impossible to make any Defence when they did not know the Accusation and that the Practice of the Court anciently was with them 'T is true when a Subpoena is taken out and the Party doth not appear but is brought in by Capias he shall plead instanter and the reason is because he hath given delay to the Cause So 't is likewise in Cases of Felony or Treason but not to an Information for a Misdemeanour Then the Clerk of the Crown informed the Court that it was the Course to plead instanter in these following Cases viz. when the person appears upon a Recognizance or in propria persona or is a Prisoner in Custody upon any Information for a Misdemeanour where no Process issued out to call him in As to the Objection that the Defendants cannot make any Defence without a Copy of the Information the Vsage is otherwise even in Cases where a Man's Life is concerned and what greater difficulty can there be to defend an Accusation for a Misdemeanour than a Charge for High-Treason certainiy the Defendants all know whether they are innocent or not These Points being over-ruled by the Court the Archbishop offered a Plea in writing the Substance of which was that they naming all the Defendants were Peers of Parliament and ought not to be compelled to answer this Misdemeanour immediately but they ought to appear upon due Process of Law and upon their Appearance to have a Copy of the Information and afterwards to imparle and because they were not brought in by Process they pray the Iudgment of the Court. This Plea was offered to the end that what was denied before upon a Motion might be settled by the Opinion of the Court but it was over ruled Then they pleaded severally Not-Guilty and were tried at the Barr a Fortnight afterwards by a Middlesex Iury and acquitted Anonymus In the Common-Pleas AN Action of Debt was brought upon a Bond against the Defendant
Revocation or not at all which revocation must depend upon the construction and exposition of the sixth Paragraph in the Statute of Frauds c. the words whereof are Viz. That no Devise of Lands c. or any clause thereof shall be Revoked otherwise than by some Codicil in Writing or other Writing declaring the same or by burning cancelling tearing or obliterating the same by the Testator himself or in his presence and by his direction or consent But all devises of Lands c. shall be good until burnt cancell'd torn c. by the Testator c. or unless the same be altered by some other Will or Codicil in Writing or other Writing of the Devisor signed in the presence of three Witnesses declaring the same So that the Question will be whether a Will which revokes a former Will ought to be signed by the Testator in the presence of three Witnesses 'T is clear that a Will by which Lands are devised ought to be so signed and why should not a Will which revokes another Will have the same formality The Statute seems to be plain that it should for it saies that a Will shall not be revoked but by some Will or Codicil in writing or other writing of the Devisor signed by him in the presence of three or four Witnesses declaring the same which last Clause is an entire sentence in the disjunctive and appoints that the Writing which revokes a Will must be signed in the presence of three Witnesses c. Before the making of this Act it was sufficient that the Testator gave directions to make his Will tho' he did never see it when made which mischief is now remedied not in writing the Will but that the Party himself should sign it in the presence of three Witnesses and this not being so signed but only published by the Testator in their presence 't is therefore no good Revocation Iustice Street was of a contrary Opinion that this was a good Revocation That the words in the fifth Paragraph of this Statute which altered the Law were Viz. That all Devises of Lands c. shall be in Writing and signed by the Party so devising or by some other person in his presence and by his express Directions and shall be attested and subscribed in the presence of the Devisor by three or four credible Witnesses In which Paragraph there are two parts 1. The act of the Devisor which is to sign the Will but not a word that he shall subscribe his Name in the presence of three Witnesses 2. The act of the Witnesses viz. that they shall attest and subscribe the Will in the presence of the Devisor or else the Will to be void But the sixth Paragraph is penn'd after another manner as to the Revocation of a Will which must be by some Codicil in writing or other Writing declaring the same signed in the presence of three Witnesses Now here is a Writing declaring that it shall be revoked not expresly but by implication and though that Clause in the disjunctive which says that the revocation must be by some Writing of the Devisor signed in the presence of three Witnesses c. yet in the same Paragraph 't is said that it may be revoked by a Codicil or Will in Writing and therefore an exposition ought to be made upon the whole Paragraph that the intention of the Law may more fully appear Such a construction hath been made upon a whole Sentence Sid. 328. 1 Sand. 58. where part thereof was in the disjunctive as for instance viz. A Man was possessed of a Lease by disseisin who assigned it to another and covenanted that at the time of the assignment it was a good true and indefeasable Lease and that the Plaintiff should enjoy it without interruption of the Disseisor Or any claiming under him in this Case the Diffeisee re-entred and though the Covenant was in the disjunctive to defend the Assignee from the Disseisor or any claiming under him yet he having undertaken for quiet enjoyment and that it was an indefeasable Lease it was adjudged that an exposition ought to be made upon the whole Sentence and so the Plaintiff had Iudgment The Chief Iustice Herbert was of the same Opinion with Iustice Street Rex versus Grimes and Thompson THE Defendants were indicted for being Common Pawn-Brokers Two are indicted for a Confederacy one is acquitted and that is the acquittal of the other and that Grimes had unlawfully obtained Goods of the Countess of c. and that he together with one Thompson per confoederationem astutiam did detain the said Goods until the Countess had paid him 12 Guineas Thompson was acquitted and Grimes was found Guilty which must be of the first part of the Indictment only for it could not be per confoederationem with Thompsom and therefore it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that to obtain Goods unlawfully was only a private injury for which the party ought not to be indicted To which it was answered that a plain Fraud was laid in this Indictment which was sufficient to maintain it and that tho one was acquitted yet the Iury had found the other guilty of the whole But the Court were of Opinion that the acquittal of one is the acquittal of both upon this Indictment and therefore it was quash'd King versus Dilliston Hill 2 3 Jacobi Rot. 494. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment in Ejectment given in the Common-Pleas Infant not bound by a Custom for one Messuage and twenty Acres of Land held of the Manor of Swafling There was a special Verdict found the substance of which was viz. That the Land in question was Copy-hold held of the said Manor of Swafling in the County of Suffolk and that Henry Warner and Elizabeth his Wife in right of the said Elizabeth were seized thereof for Life Remainder to John Ballat in Fee That the Custom of the said Manor was that if any Customary Tenant doth surrender his Estate out of Court that such Surrender shall be presented at the next Court of the said Manor and publick Proclamation shall be made three Court days afterwards for the Party to whose use the Surrender was made to come and be admitted Tenant and if he refuseth then after three Proclamations made in each of the said Courts the Steward of the said Manor issueth forth a Precept to the Bailiff thereof to seise the Copyhold as forfeited They find that Henry Warner and his Wife and John Ballat made this Surrender out of Court to the use of Robert Freeman and his Heirs who died before the next Court and that John Freeman an Infant was his Son and Heir That after the said Surrender three Proclamations were made at three several Courts held for the said Manor but that the said John Freeman did not come to be admitted Tenant thereupon the Steward of the said Manor made a Precept to the Bayliff who seized the Lands in
question as forfeited to the Lady who entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff upon whom the Defendant re-entred The single Question upon this special Verdict was whether this was a Forfeiture and so a good seisure to bind the right of an Infant It was argued for the Plaintiff in the Action that it was a good Seisure and a Forfeiture till the Infant should come of Age for as a Copyhold is established by Custom so likewise 't is Custom which obligeth the Infant to the Conditions thereof and therefore where one under Age hath an Estate upon a Condition to be performed by him 8 Co. 44. b. Whittingham 's Case Latch 199. Jones 157. and that Condition is broken during his Minority the Estate is lost for ever In this Case the Custom obligeth the Heir to be admitted that the Lord may be entituled to a Fine which if he should lose because his Tenant is an Infant then that priviledge of Infancy works a wrong which the Law will not permit 'T is true an Infant shall not be prejudiced by the Laches of another but shall be answerable for himself and therefore if he is Tenant of Lands and the Rent should be unpaid for two years and no Distress can be found a Cessavit lies against him and the Lord shall recover the Land because of the Non-performance which arises by his own default So if one under Age be a Keeper of a Gaol and suffer a Prisoner to escape out of Execution 2 Inst 382. an Action of Debt will lie against him upon the Statute of W. 2. It was agreed that such a Custom and Non-claim will not foreclose an Heir 8 Co. 100. Sir Rich. Letchford 's Case who is an Infant and beyond Sea at the time of his Ancestors Death though he is bound by the Custom to claim it at the next Court but that if he will come over and tender himself though after a Seisure he shall be admitted and so shall the person in this Case if after his Minority he offer himself to be admitted But it cannot be denied 2 Cro. 226. but that the Lord may seize when the Heir is beyond Sea till he return and tender himself to be admitted and by the same reason he may also seize in this case during the Minority A Temporary Forfeiture is no new thing in the Law Cro. Car. 7. for if a Feme Covert be a Copyholder and marrieth and her Husband makes a Lease for years without License of the Lord 't is a Forfeiture and shall bind her during the Coverture So the Law is Cro. El. 351. that the Lord may seize the Land till a Fine is paid for 't is a reasonable Custom so to do It hath been a good Custom for the Lord to assign a person to take the Profits of a Copyhold Estate descended to the Infant during his Minority without rendring an Accompt when he came of Age. 1 Leon. 266. 2 Leon. 239. So that all taht is to be done in this Case is to enforce the Infant to be admitted that the Lord may be entituled to a Fine The Inheritance is not bound but the Land is only seized quousque E contra It was argued that here is a general Seizure E contra which cannot extend to an Infant for he is not bound in a Writ of Right much less in an inferior Court after three Proclamations but if this had been a Temporary Seisure the Iury ought to have found it so which is not done There are many Authorities in the Books which affirm that an Infant is not obliged to be admitted during his Non-age 1 Leon. 100. 3 Leon. 221. or to tender the Fine in order to an Admittance that the Law was settled in this Point and therefore without any further Argument he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant Afterwards in Hillary-Term 1 Willielmi Mariae this Case was argued seriatim at the Bench three Iudges being of a contrary Opinion to the Chief Iustice for the affirming of the Iudgment Iustice Eyre premised two things 1. That he could not intend but that this Verdict had found an absolute Forfeiture the Iury having no way qualified it as to a certain time and therefore he would give a Iudgment upon the whole Record 2. He agreed that a Feoffment of an Infant was no Forfeiture at the Common Law and that as a particular Custom may bind an Infant for a time so it may barr him for ever but whether this Custom as 't is found in general words shall bind an Infant after three Proclamations is now the Question he not coming then to be admitted And he held that it shall not and that for these reasons 1. The Right of Infants is much favoured in the Law and their Laches shall not be prejudicial to them as to Entry or Claim upon a Presumption that they understand not their Right 1 Inst 380. 2 Inst 401. and therefore in a Cessavit per biennium which is a remedy given by the Statute of W. 2. and which extends to Infants Westm 2. c. 31. who have not the Land by descent for if a Cesser be in that Case the Infant shall have his Age because the Law intends that he doth not know what Arrerages to tender 'T is admitted that if an Infant doth not present to a Church within six Months or doth not appear within a year that his Right is bound but this is because the Law is more tender of the Church and the life of a Man than of the Priviledges of Infancy So if an Office of Parkship be given or descends to an Infant if the Condition in Law annexed to such an Office which is skill be not observed the Office is forfeited But that a Proclamation in a base Court should bind an Infant when he is not within the reason of the Custom is not agreeable either to Law or Reason 2. Cro. Jac. 80. Cro. El. 879. Noy 42. 1 Rol. Abr. 568. All Customs are to be taken strictly when they go to the destruction of an Estate and therefore a Custom was that if a Copyholder in Fee surrender out of Court and the Surrendree doth not come in after three Proclamations the Lord shall seize it A Copyholder in Fee surrendred to another for Life the Remainder over in Fee if the Tenant for Life will not come in he in the Remainder shall not be barred for the Custom shall be intended to extend only to those in possession But the Infant in this Case is not within the Letter of the Custom for 't is found that the Surrender was made to one Freeman who died before the next Court-day and that John Freeman the Infant was his Son and Heir so they have found a Title in him for the word Heir is not here a word of Purchase but of Limitation 3. Jones 157. Noy 92. Infants are not bound by other Customs like this as a Custom that every Copyholder
who makes a Lease of his Land shall forfeit it but this doth not conclude an Infant 4. There is not any necessity to construe an Infant to be within this Custom for 't is not found that the Lord was to have a Fine upon admittance and 't is no consequence to say that the Lord shall have a Fine because usually Fines are taken upon admittances 1 Leon. 100. 3 Leon. 221. for an Infant may be admitted to a Copyhold but not be bound to tender his Fine at any time during his Non-age Justice Gregory was of the same Opinion which he chiefly grounded upon Sir Richard Letchford's Case between which and the Case at the Barr he said there was no material difference only in that Case the Heir was beyond Sea and in this at the Barr 2 Cro. 226. Latch 199. Godb. 364. Jones 391. Dyer 104. he was an Infant 'T is very true that the Books mention a Seisure quousque 't is so said by Iustice Williams in Croke but he gives no reason for it 't is only an Opinion obiter but it is clear by many Authorities that Infants may be bound by Acts of necessity and so they may by a Custom Iustice Dolben of the same Opinion which he said was agreeable to the reason of the Law in parallel Cases An Infant is priviledged in a Fine for he is excepted by the Statute because he knows not how to make his Claim He said this was likewise agreeable to the Custom of 26 Mannors of which he was formerly Steward for in such Cases he always marked the Court Roll Nulla Proclamatio quia Infans It cannot be a Forfeiture quousque because an Infant is wholly exempted by the Custom and therefore 't is no Forfeiture at all 'T is an Objection of no moment to say that the Lord by this means will lose his Fine and that he hath no remedy to make the Infant when of Age to be admitted for no Fine is due to him before admittance But this Objection will be of less weight if the loss of the Infant be compared to that of the Lord who looseth only the Interest of a Fine before Admittance and shall this Infant who is now but three years of Age loose the Profits of his Estate for 18 years But there may be a way found out that neither may loose for if it should be that when the Infant comes of Age his Estate should be then forfeited if he doth not tender himself to be admitted after three Proclamations Now upon his admittance the Lord may set a reasonable Fine having respect to the length of time in which it was deteined from him Stowel's Case was no more but this viz. Pl. Com. 356. A Disseisor levied a Fine with Proclamations and lived three years his Heir being under Age and the five years incurred after the said Heir came of Age and then he entred within a year and his Entry was adjudged unlawful But that will not concern this Case because it was a Iudgment upon the Statute of H. 7. 4 H. 7. c. 24. for the five years being once attached and begun in the life of his Ancestor shall incurr and go on and bind the Infant if he do not pursue his Claim within that time after he comes of Age but 't is to be observed that my Lord Dyer in the Argument of that Case said nothing of a Seisure quousque The Chief Iustice was of a contrary Opinion from the other three Iustices and that the Iudgment ought to be reversed Because until the Infant is admitted the Estate remains in the Surrenderor and without an Admittance he cannot enter but by a special Custom to warrant it and for this reason 't is that the Surrenderor shall have an Action of Trespass against any person who enters because he shall be intended still in possession till the Admittance of another If so 2 Cro. 368. Yelv. 16. then Infancy cannot protect an Estate to which the Infant hath no Title till Admittance for till then he hath neither Jus in re nor Jus ad rem This is a Condition annexed to the Estate to be performed by the Infant by which he is bound notwithstanding his Non-age otherwise his Estate is forfeited The Custom which obligeth him to be admitted is to entitle the Lord of the Mannor to a Fine to which he hath a right Now Infancy was never yet extended to endanger that remedy which Men have to recover their Rights it has been often so far extended as to delay such a remedy but never to destroy it for if the Infant should die the Lord looseth the Fine and then another person is to be admitted but he cannot encrease the Fine upon him who is a Stranger for the neglect of the Infant 'T is true Bridg. 83. Yelv. 144. Poph. 127. where an Infant hath a Right it shall be preserved though a Fine be levied and the five years pass but in this Case he hath no Right before Admittance If a Feme Covert be an Heir to a Copyhold Estate where the like Custom is and she marrieth and the Husband after three Proclamations will not come and be admitted 't is a Forfeiture during the Coverture Now the reason in the Cases of Coverture and Infancy is the same for if there shall be a Seisure during the time the woman is Covert why not during the Infancy As to Sir Richard Letchford's Case the Heir was beyond Sea but when he came into England he desired to be admitted but this Infant never yet desired to be admitted he stands upon his Priviledge of Infancy But upon the Opinion of the other three Iustices the Iudgment was affirmed that the Custom doth not bind the Infant Carter versus Dowrich A Covenant to pay so much Mony to the Plaintiff or his Assigns as should be drawn upon the now Defendant by a Bill of Exchange Custom of Merchants where it must be particularly set forth c. The Breach was assigned in Non-payment The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff secundum legem Mercatorum did assign the Mony to be paid to A. who assigned it to B. to whom he paid 100 l. and tendred the rest drawn upon by Bill of Exchange c. And upon a Demurrer Mr. Pollexfen insisted that this was not a good Plea because the Defendant had not set forth the Custom of Merchants without which all these Assignments are void of which Custom the Court cannot take any judicial notice but it must be pleaded and 't is not sufficient to say that the Assignment was made secundum legem Mercatoriam but it must be secundum consuetudinem Mercatoriam otherwise 't is not good E contra E contra Litt. 182. It was argued that the Custom of Merchants is not a particular Custom and local but 't is of an universal extent and is a general Law of the Land The pleading it as 't is here is good for if an Action is brought against
Dorothy Margery survived and is since dead The Question was whether upon this Reservation the Beast of any person being upon the Land may be distreined for an Heriot Mr. Pollexfen argued that it could not because the words in the Reservation ought to be taken very strictly and not to be carryed farther than the plain expression Where words are doubtful they have been always expounded against the Lessor Cro. Eliz. 217. 2 Roll. Abr. 448. Latch 99. as if a Lease be made for years reserving a Rent durante termino to the Lessor his Executors or Assigns the Lessor dies his Heir shall not have the Rent because 't is reserved to the Executors But here is no room for any doubt upon these words for if a Lease for years be made in which there is a Covenant that the Lessee shall pay the Rent without any other words this determines upon the death of the Lessee So where a Lease was made for 99 years if A. B. C. 2 Rol. Abr. 451. Hetley 58. Cro. Car. 314. or any of them should so long live reserving Rent to him and his Executors and also at or upon the death of either his or their best Beast in the name of an Heriot provided that if B. or C. die living A. no Heriot shall be paid after their deaths A. assigns his Term and the Beast of the Assignee was taken for an Heriot but adjudged that it could not for the words his or their shall not be carried farther than to the persons named in the Limitation The Books that affirm that a Man may seize for an Heriot Service cannot be brought as Authorities in this Case because they are all upon Tenures between Lord and Tenant and not upon particular Reservations as this is The old Books say that if a Tenant by Fealty and Heriot-Service Broke tit Heriot 2. made his Executor and died that the Lord might seize the best Beast of his Tenant in the Hands of the Executor and if he could not find any Beast then he might distrain the Executor Plo. Com. 95. and the reason of this seizure was because immediately upon the death of the Tenant a Property was vested in the Lord but it was held always unreasonable to put him to distrain when he might seise And it is now held that for Heriot-Service the Lord may either distrain or seise but then if he makes a seisure Cro. Car. 260. Jones 300. it must be the very Beast of the Tenant but if he distrain he may take any persons Cattle upon the Land So that admitting this to be Law yet it proves nothing to this matter because such Services being by Tenure shall not be extended to those which are created within time of memory upon particular reservations for by those ancient Tenures the Lords had many Priviledges which cannot be upon Reservations Besides the seisures in those Cases were by the Lords who continued so to be at the very time of the seisure but in our Case the Lease is determined by the death of the last Life so the Priviledge is lost and then it must stand upon the particular words in the Deed. Sed adjornatur into the Exchequer Chamber the Iudges being divided in Opinion Vid. 2 Sand. 165. Shipley versus Chappel Pasch 3 Jac. Rot. 404. THE Plaintiff Shipley as Administrator of Hannah his Wife Condition of two parts in the disjunctive and one part becomes impossible to be done yet the other must be performed according to the subsequent matter brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Chappel an Attorny for 140 l. The Defendant craved Dyer of the Condition which was Viz. Whereas Hannah Goddard who was Wife to the Plaintiff and Thomas Chappel of Greys-Inn in the County of Middlesex are Coparceners according to the Common-Law of one House with the Appurtenances in Sheffeild in the possession of William White and whereas the said Hannah Goddard hath paid unto Thomas Chappel the Father for the use of his Son the Sum of 72 l. in consideration that the said Thomas Chappel the Son when he attains the Age of 21 years which will be about Midsomer next do by good Conveyance in the Law at the costs and charges of the said Hannah Goddard convey his said moiety of the said House with the Appurtenances unto her and her Heirs Now the Condition of this Obligation is such That if the said Thomas Chappel the Son shall at the Age of 21 years convey his said moiety of the said House or otherwise if the said Thomas Chappel the Father his Heirs Executors or Administrators shall pay or cause to be paid the sum of 72 l. with lawful Interest for the same unto the said Hannah Goddard her Executors Administrators or Assigns that then this Obligation to be void Then he pleaded that his Son Thomas Chappel was Coparcener with Hannah Goddard as Co-heires of Elizabeth Goddard that Thomas came of Age and that before that time Hannah died without Issue The Plaintiff replied that true it is that before Thomas Chappel the Son came of Age the said Hannah died without Issue of her Body that Elizabeth Goddard before the making of the said Bond died seised in Fee of the said Messuage but that she first married with one Malm Stacy by whom she had Issue Lydia that Malm her Husband died and Elizabeth married John Goddard by whom he had Issue Hannah their only Daughter and Heir that John Goddard died and that Lydia Stacy married the Defendant Thomas Chappel by whom he had Issue Thomas Chappel his Son that Lydia died in the life-time of Elizabeth that Thomas Chappel hath not paid the 72 l. to Hannah in her life time or to John Shipley after her death The Defendant demurred and the Plaintiff joyned in Demurrer The Question was since the word Heirs in the Condition being a word of Limitation and not of any designation of the person whether the death of Hannah Goddard before Chappel the Son came of Age and who was to make the Conveyance shall excuse the Defendant from the payment of the Mony Those who argued for the Defendant 5 Co. 21. b. chiefly relied upon Laughter's Case which was viz. Laughter and Rainsford were bound that if R. after marriage with G. together with the said G. shall sell a Messuage c. if then R. do or shall in his life-time purchase for the said G. and her Heirs and Assigns Lands of as good value as the Mony by him received by the said Sale or leave her as much Mony at his decease then c. G. died R. did not purchase Lands of an equal value with that he sold and upon Demurrer it was held that where a Condition consisteth of two parts in the disjunctive and both possible at the time of the Bond made and afterwards one is become impossible by the act of God there the Obligor is not bound to perform the other part because the Condition is made for
on the 29th day of April seize the Goods of the said Toplady that after the seizure and before any Venditioni exponas viz. 4 Maij an Extent which is a Prerogative Writ issued out of the Exchequer against two persons who were indebted to the King and by inquisition this Toplady was found to be indebted to them whereupon parcel of the Goods in the Declaration was seized by the Sheriffs upon the said Extent and sold and the Mony paid to the Creditors but before the said Sale or any execution of the Exchequer Process a Commission of Bankrupcy was had against Toplady and that the Commissioners on the second of June assigned the Goods to the Plaintiff The Question was whether this Extent did not come too late And it was held it did or whether the Fi. Fa. was well executed so that the Assignees of the Bankrupts Estate could not have a Title to those Goods which were taken before in Execution and so in Custodia Legis And it was held that they had no Title Fitzgerald versus Villiers WRIE of Error upon a Iudgment in Dower Infant must appear by Guardian and the Error assigned was that the Tenant in Dower was an Infant and no Warrant was alledged of the admission of any Guardian 29 Assise pl. 67. Bridg. 74. Lib. Entr. 45. Hut 92. 4 Co. 53. Lit. 92. Hetl. 52. 3 Cro. 158. Moor 434. Hob. 5. that it might appear to be the act of the Court 't is true an Infant may sue by Prochein Amy but shall not appear by Attorny but by Guardian because 't is intended by Law that he hath not sufficient discretion to chuse an Attorny therefore 't is provided that he appear per Guardianum which is done by the Court who are always careful of Infancy and a special Entry is made upon the Roll. Viz. Per Guardianum ad hoc per Curiam admissum c. 2. The Appearance is by the Guardian in his own Name Viz. Et praedicta Katherina Fitzgerald per Richardum Power Guardianum suum venit dicit quod ipse c. it should have been in the name of the Party quod ipsa c. Adjurnatur Harrison versus Austin A Settlement was made as followeth Viz. What words amount to a Covenant to stand seised That if I have no Issue and in case I dye without Issue of my Body lawfully begotten then I give grant and confirm my Land c. to my Kinswoman Sarah Stokes to have and to hold the same to the use of my self for Life and after my decease to the use of the said Sarah and the Heirs of her Body to be begotten with Remainders over c. The Question was whether this did amount to a Covenant to stand seised so as to raise an use to Sarah without transmutation of the possession The Objection against it was Sid. 26. Moor 687. Dyer 96. 2 Roll. Abr. 786. Winch 59. Plowd 300. that Vses are created chiefly by the intention of the Parties and that by these words grant and confirm the Feoffor did intend the Land should pass at Common Law so it could not be a Covenant to stand seised 't is like the Case where a Letter of Attorny is in the Deed or a Covenant to make Livery there nothing shall pass by way of use but the possession according to the course of the Common Law and therefore there being neither Livery and Seisin or Attornment no use will pass to Sarah It cannot be a Bargain and Sale for that is only where a Recompence is on each side to make the Contract good besides 2 Inst 672. the Deed is not inrolled To this it was answered 1 Vent 137. that it shall be construed to be a Covenant to stand seised though the formal words are wanting to make it so and for that purpose it was compared to Fox 's Case 8 Co. 93. who being seised in Fee devised his Land to C. for Life remainder over for Life reserving a Rent and afterwards by Indenture in consideration of Mony did demise grant and set the same Lands to D. for 99 years reserving a Rent the Lessee for Life did not attorn in which Case there was not one word of any use or any attornment to make it pass by Grant and the Question was whether this Lease for years shall amount to a Bargain and Sale so that the Reversion together with the Rent shall pass to the Lessee without Attornment Hob. 277. and it was held that by construction of Law it did amount to a Bargain and Sale for the words import as much And in this Case it was adjudged that it was a Covenant to stand seised Hexham versus Coniers IN Ejectment the Plaintiff declared de uno Messuagio sive Tenemento An Ejectment will lye for a Tenement and had a Verdict but Iudgment was arrested because an Ejectment will not lye of a Tenement for 't is a word of an uncertain signification it may be an Advowson House or Land but it is good in Dower so is Messuagium sive Tenementum vocat ' the Black Swan for this addition makes it certain that the Tenement intended is a House Rex versus Bunny A Motion was made for a Melius inquirendum to be directed to a Coroner who had returned his Inquisition upon the death of Bunny that he was not compos mentis when in truth he was Felo de se But it was opposed by Serjeant Pemberton and Mr. Pollexfen who said that the Law gives great credit to the Inquest of a Coroner and that a Melius inquirendum is seldom or never granted tho' it appear to the Court upon Affidavits that the Party had his Senses Mod. Rep. 82. It hath been granted where any fault is in the Coroner or any incertainty in the Inquisition returned That there is such a Writ it cannot be denied Cro. Eliz. 371. but 't is generally granted upon Offices or Tenures and directed to the Sheriff 3 Keb. 800. but never to a Coroner in the case of a Felo de se who makes his Enquiry super visum Corporis DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 4 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1688. In Trinity-Vacation last Mr. Justice Holloway and Mr. Justice Thomas Powell had their Quietus and Mr. Serjeant Baldock and Mr. Serjeant Stringer were made Justices of this Court And Mr. Justice Allibon who was a Roman Catholick died in the same Vacation and Sir John Powell one of the Barons of the Exchequer was made a Justice of this Court Sir Thomas Jennor another of the Barons of the Exchequer was made a Justice of the Common-Pleas and Mr. Serjeant Rotheram and Mr. Serjeant Ingoldby were made Barons of the Exchequer Wright Chief Justice Powel Justices Baldock Justices Stringer Justices Shuttleworth versus Garnet Intratur Trin. 1 Willielmi Mariae Rotulo 965. THE Defendant was Tenant of Customary Lands held of the Manor of A. of which Manor B. was Lord
Intratur Trin. 1 W. M. Rot. 249. THis was a Trial at the Bar A Will shall not be revoked by a subsequent Writing unless that be also a good Will by a Wiltshire Iury in an Ejectment brought by the Plaintiffs as Heirs at Law to Ann Speke who died seized in Fee of the Lands in Question Vpon not Guilty pleaded this Question did arise at the Trial Whether the Answer of a Guardian in Chancery shall be read as Evidence in this Court to conclude the Infant There being some Opinions that it ought to be read and the Defendants Council insisting on the contrary Mr Iustice Eyres being the Puisne Iustice was sent to the Court of Common-Pleas then sitting to know their Opinions who returning made this Report That the Judges of that Court were all of Opinion that such Answer ought not to be read as Evidence for it was only to bring the Infant into Court and to make him a Party Then the Plaintiffs proceeded to prove their Title as Heirs at Law viz. by several Inquisitions which were brought into Court and by the Heralds Office The Defendants Title likewise was thus proved viz. That the Lady Speke being seised in Fee c. did by Will dated in March 1682. devise the Lands to John Petit for Life Remainder to the Defendant and his Heirs for ever That the Lady Speke died so seised that John Speke the Tenant for Life and Father to the Defendant was also dead c. This Will was proved by several Witnesses one of which likewise deposed that my Lady Speke made two other Wills subsequent to this now produced and a Minister prov'd that she burnt a Will in the Month of December which was in the year 1685. Then the Plaintiffs produced another Will made by her at Christmas 1685. attested by three Witnesses but not in the presence of my Lady so that though it might not be a good Will to dispose the Estate yet the Council insisted that it was a good Revocation of the other for 't is a Writing sufficient for that purpose within the sixth Paragraph of the Statute of Frauds The Case of Sir George Sheers was now mentioned whose Will was carried out of the Chamber where he then was into a Lobby and signed there by the Witnesses but one of them swore that there was a Window out of that Room to his Chamber through which the Testator might see the Witnesses as he lay in his Bed Vpon which Evidence the Iury found this special Verdict viz. That Ann Speke being seised in Fee c. did on the 12th day of March 1682. make her Will and devised the Lands to John Pettit for Life and afterwards to George his Son and to his Heirs for ever upon condition that he take upon him the Name of Speke That the 25th of December 1685. she caused another Writing to be made purporting her Will which was signed sealed and published by her in the presence of three Witnesses in the Chamber where she then was and where she continued whilst the Witnesses subscribed their Names in the Hall but that she could not see them so subscribing They find that the Lessors of the Plaintiff are Heirs at Law and that they did enter c. This matter was argued in Easter Term following and the Question was whether this Writing purporting a Will was a Revocation of the former or not and that depended upon the Construction of the sixth Paragraph in the Act of Frauds viz. All Devises of Lands shall be in Writing and signed by the party or some other in his presence and by his express Directions and shall be attested by three or four Witnesses c. and that such devise shall not be revocable but by some other Will or Codicil in Writing or other Writing c. declaring the same Now the want of Witnesses doth not make the last Will void in it self but only quoad the Lands therein devised it hath its operation as to all other purposes It must therefore be a Revocation of the former and this is agreeable to the Resolution of the Iudges in former times for there being nothing in the Statute of Wills which directs what shall be a Revocation 32 H. 8. cap. 1. Dyer 143. the Iudges in Trevilian's Case did declare that it might be by word of mouth or by the very intention of the Testator to alter any thing in the Will for before the late Statute very few words did amount to a Revocation Moor 429. 1 Roll. Abr. 614 615 616. If Lands are devised and afterwards a feoffment is made of the same but for want of Livery and Seisin 't is defective yet this is a Revocation of the Will though the Feoffment is void The Council on the other side argued that this Will was not void by any Clause in the Statute of Frauds E contra for if this is a Revocation within that Statute then this second Writing purporting a Will must be a good Will for if 't is not a good Will then 't is not a good Revocation within that Law No Man will affirm that the latter Writing is a good Will therefore the first being a Devise of Land cannot be revoked but by a Will of Land which the second is not This Statute was intended to remedy the mischief of parol Revocations and therefore made such a solemnity requisite to a Revocation It cannot be denied but that this latter Writing was intended to be made a Will but it wanting that perfection which is required by Law it shall not now be intended a Writing distinct from a Will so as to make a Revocation within the meaning of that Act. If a Man hath a power of Revocation either by Will or Deed and he makes his Will in order to Revoke a former this is a Writing presently but 't is not a Revocation as long as the person is living Therefore a Revocation must not only be by a Writing but it must be such a Writing which declares the intention of a Man that it should be so which is not done by this Writing Vpon the first Argument Iudgment was given for the Defendant that the second Will must be a good Will in all Circumstances to Revoke a former Will Cross versus Garnet THE Plaintiff declared that on such a day and year there was a discourse between him and the Defendant concerning the Sale of two Oxen then in the possession of the Defendant and that they came to an agreement for the same that the Defendant did then sell the said Oxen to the Plaintiff and did falsly affirm them to be his own ubi revera they were the Oxen of another Man The Plaintiff had a Verdict Cro. Eliz. 44. 1 Rol. Rep. 275. 2 Cro. 474 1 Roll. Abr. 91. More 126. Yel 20. Sid. 146. and Serjeant Thompson moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Declaration was not good because the Plaintiff hath not alledged that the Defendant did affirm the
Cattle to be his own sciens the same to be the Goods of another or that he sold them to the Plaintiff fraudulenter deceptive or that there was any Warranty for this Action will not lie upon a bare Communication But notwithstanding these Exceptions the Plaintiff had his Iudgment it might have been good upon Demurrer but after Verdict 't is well enough Lea versus Libb IN Ejectione firmae for Lands in Hampshire Two Witnesses to a Will and two to a Codicil one whereof was a Witness to the Will these are not three Witnesses to the Will it self the Iury found a special Verdict the substance of which was this viz. That the Lessor of the Plaintiff was Heir at Law to one John Denham his Ancestor who being seised in Fee of the Lands in question did by Will bearing date the 28th day of January in the year 1678. devise the same to the Defendant which he subscribed and published in the presence of two Witnesses and they likewise attested it in his presence They find that on the 29th day of December 1679. he made another Will or Codicil in Writing reciting that he had made a former Will and confirming the same except what was excepted in the Codicil and declared his Will to be that the Codicil should be taken and adjudged as part of his Will They find that he published this Codicil in the presence likewise of two Winesses one of which was Witness to the first Will bue the other was a new Man They find that these were distinct Writings c. The Question was whether this was a good Will attested by three Witnesses since one of the Witnesses to the Codicil was likewise a Witness to the Will so that the new Man if any must make the third Witness Serjeant Thompson argued that it was not a good Will The Clause of the Statute is That all Devises of Lands shall be in Writing and signed by the Testator in the presence of three Witnesses and they to attest it in his presence But here are not three subscribing Witnesses in the presence of the Testator so that the first Will must be void for one of the Witnesses to the Codicil did never see that Will Besides the Codicil is not the same thing with the Will 't is a confirmation of it and this being in a Case wherein an Heir is to be disinherited ought not to have a favourable Construction Attorney General contra A Will may be contained in several Writings and yet but one entire Will 'T is true if it be attested only by two Witnesses 't is not good but if the Testator call in a third person and he attests that individual Witing in his presence this is a good Will though the Witnesses were not all present together and at the same time for there is the Credit of three persons to such a Will which is according to the intent of the Statute And therefore it cannot be objected that these are distinct Wills or that the Papers are not annexed for no such thing is required by Law for a Man may make his Will in several Sheets of Paper and if the Witnesses subscribe the last Sheet 't is well enough or if he doth put up all the Sheets in a blank piece of Paper and the Witnesses attest that Sheet 't is a good Will In these Cases the intent of the Law-makers must and ought to be chiefly regarded and for what reasons and purposes such Laws were made and what Iudgments have been given in parallel Cases If a Man grants a Rent-Charge to his youngest Son for Life 2 Cro. 144. Noy 117. and afterwards devises that he shall have the Rent as expressed in the Grant Now though the Writing was no part of the Will but of another nature yet the Will referring to the Deed is a good Devise of the Rent-charge within the Statute of Wills But in this Case the Codicil is part of the Will 't is of the same nature and being made animo restandi the end of the Statute is performed for both Will and Codicil joined together make a good Devise the first was a Will to all purposes it only wanted that circumstance of a third Witness to attest it which the Testator compleated after by calling in of a third person for that purpose Curia If a Man makes a Will in several pieces of Paper and there are three Witnesses to the last Paper and none of them did ever see the first this is not a good Will Afterwards in Hillary-Term Iudgment was given that this was not a good Will Tippet versus Hawkey TIppet the Elder and his Son covenant with John Hawkey to sell and convey Land to him free from all Incumbrances and that they will levy a Fine c. and deliver up Writings Where two covenant the Action may be brought in the name of one Item 'T is agreed between the Parties that the said Hawkey shall pay to Tippet the younger so much Mony c. The Action is brought in the name of both and upon a Demurrer to the Declaration it was held ill for the Duty is vested in Tipper the younger and he only ought to have brought this Action Iudgment for the Defendant Rees versus Phelps DEBT upon a Bond conditioned for performance of an Award Award where good Vpon nullum fecerunt arbitrium pleaded the Plaintiff replied and shewed an Award that the Defendant should pay 5 l. to the Plaintiff presently and give Bond for the payment of 10 l. more on the 29th day of November following and that this should be for and towards the Charges and Expences in and about certain differences then depending between the Parties and that they should now sign general Releases And upon a Demurrer it was argued to be a void Award because mutual Releases were then to be given which would discharge the Bond payable in November following 1 Roll. Abr. 259 260. But the Court held it to be good for the Releases shall discharge such Matters only which were depending at the time of the Submission Godfrey al' versus Eversden THere was a Parish Church and a Chappel of Ease in the Parish of Hitchen Prohibition denied upon Suggestion that there was a Chappel of Ease and so ought not to repair the Parish Church the Defendant was taxed towards the Repairs of the Church and a Livel was brought against him for the refusing of the payment of that Tax He now suggests that there was a Chappel of Ease in the same Parish to which the Inhabitants do go and that they have always repaired that Chappel and so prayed a Prohibition But Serjeant Tremain moved for a Consultation because the Parishioners of common right ought to repair the Church and though there is a Chappel of Ease in the same Parish yet that ought not to excuse them from repairing of the Mother Church He produced an Affidavit that there had been no Divine Service there for
ought to be left out and of that Opinion was the Court and therefore a Rule was made that he might discontinue this Action without Costs Mordant versus Thorold Hill 1 2 Gulielmi Rotulo 340. THE Plaintiff brought a Scire Fac. upon a Iudgment The Case was thus Viz. Ann Thorold recovered in Dower against Sir John Thorold in which Action Damages are given by the Statute of Merton 20 H. 3. c. 1. Sir John Thorold brought a Writ of Error in B. R. and the Iudgment was affirmed Then the Plaintiff in Dower brought a Writ of Enquiry for the Damages and married Mr. Mordant and died before that Writ was executed Mr. Mordant takes out Letters of Administration to his Wife and brought a Sci. Fa. upon the Iudgment and the question was whether it would lie This depended upon the construction of the Statute of King Charles the II. which enacts That in all personal Actions 17 Car. 2. c. 8. and real and mixt the death of either party between the Verdict and the Iudgment shall not hereafter be alledged for Error so as such Iudgment be entred within two Terms after such Verdict Serjeant Pemberton insisted that this was a judicial Writ and that the Administrator had a right to it though the Wife died before the Profits were ascertained by the Writ of Enquiry 't is no more than a plain Sci. Fa. upon a Iudgment which an Executor may have and which was never yet denied though this seems to be a Case of the first Impression The Council on the other side argued that 't is true an Executor may have a Scire Facias upon a Iudgment recovered in the life of the Testator by reason only of such Recovery but this Scire Facias is brought for what never was recovered because the Wife died before any thing was vested in her for the Iudgment will stand so as to effect the Lands but not for the Damages Curia When a Statute which gives a remedy for mean Profits is expounded it ought to be according to the Common Law Now where entire Damages are to be recovered and the Demandant dies before a Writ of Enquiry executed the Executor cannot have any remedy by a Scire Facias upon that Iudgment because Damages are no duty till they are assessed Sed adjornatur DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 2 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1690. Shotter versus Friend Vxor ' Hill 2 Willielmi Rot. 39. THE Plaintiff and his Wife declared upon a Prohibition setting forth Proof by one Witness good in the Spiritual Court that John Friend on the 13th of October 22 Car. 2. made his Will by which he bequeathed to Mary Friend 10 l. to be paid to her within two years after his decease and that he made Jane the Wife of the Plaintiff Shotter Executrix and dyed that the said Executrix whilst sole and unmarried paid the said Legacy to Mary Friend who is since dead that Thomas Friend the Husband of the said Mary did after her death demand this Legacy in the Consistory Court of the Bishop of Winton that the Plaintiff pleaded payment and offered to prove it by one single Witness which Proof that Court refused though the Witness was a person without Exception and thereupon Sentence was given there against the Plaintiff which Sentence was now pleaded and upon Demurrer to the Plea The Question was whether upon the whole matter the Defendant should have a Consultation or whether a Prohibition should be granted because the proof by one Witness was denied by that Court. It was argued that the Defendant should not have a Consultation because Matters Testamentary ought to have no more favour than things relating to Tythes in which Cases the Proof by one Witness hath been always held good So 't is in a Release to discharge a Debt which is well proved by a single Testimony and it would be very inconvenient if it should be otherwise for Feoffments and Leases may come in question which must not be rejected because proved by one Witness A Modus decimandi comes up to this Case upon the Suggestion whereof Prohibitions are never denied and the chief reason is because the Spiritual Court will not allow a Modus to be any discharge of Tythes of Kind The Courts of Equity in Westminster-Hall give Relief upon a Proof by one Witness so likewise do the Courts of the Common Law if the Witness is a good and credible person 'T is true a Prohibition shall not go upon a Suggestion that the Ecclesiastical Court will not receive the Testimony of a single Witness If the Question is upon Proof of a Legacy devised or Marriage or not or any other thing which originally doth lie in the Cognizance of that Court but payment or not payment is a matter of Fact triable at the Law and not determinable there if therefore they deny to take the Evidence of a single Witness a Prohibition ought to go 2 Inst 608. 2. The Sentence is no obstacle in this Case because the Plaintiff had no Right to a Prohibition until the Testimony of his Witness was denied and Sentence thereupon given and this is agreeable to what hath been often done in cases of like nature As for instance Cro. Eliz. 88. Moor 907. Prohibitions have been granted where the Proof of a Release of a Legacy by one Witness was denyed So where the Proof of payment of Cythes for Pidgeons was denied upon the like Testimony Cro. Eliz. 666. Moor 413. 2 Rol. Rep. 439. 2 Rol Abr. 300. pl. 9. 299 pl. 14 17. Yelv. 92. Latch 117. 3 Bulst 242. Hutt 22. So where a Suit was for Subtraction of Cythes and the Defendant pleaded that he set them out and offered to prove it by by one Witness but was denied a Prohibition was granted And generally the Books are that if the Spiritual Court refuse such Proof which is allowed at the Common Law they shall be prohibited There is one Case against this Opinion which is that of Roberts in 12 Co. 12 Co. 65. Rep. but it was only a bare Surmise and of little Authority Those who argued on the other side held that a Consultation shall go E contra and that for two Reasons 1. Because a Prohibition is prayed after Sentence 2. Because the Ecclesiastical Court have an original Iurisdiction over all Testamentary things As to the first Point 'T is plain that if that Court proceed contrary to those Rules which are used and practised at the Common Law yet no Prohibition ought to go after Sentence but the proper remedy is an Appeal 2. It cannot be denied but that that Court had Cognizance of the principal matter in this Case which was a Legacy and Payment or not is a thing collateral Now wherever they have a proper Iurisdiction of a Cause both that and all its dependences shall be tried according to their Law which rejects the Proof by a single Witness
the six Months by this means the Conusee of the Statute is defeated for after the inrollment the Land passeth ab initio and the Bargainee in Iudgment of Law was seised thereof from the delivery of the Deed but not by way of Relation but by immediate Conveyance of the Estate by vertue of the Statute of Vses But the Law will not suffer contingent Remainders to waver about and to be so incertain that no Man knows where to find them which they must be if this Doctrine of Relation should prevail Now suppose the Surrendree had made a Grant of his Estate to another person before he had accepted of the Surrender and the Grantee had entred would this subsequent assent have divested this Estate and made the Grant of no effect if it would then here is a plain way found out for any Man to avoid his own acts and to defeat Purchasors Therefore 't is with great reason that the Law provides that no person shall take a Surrender but he who hath the immediate Reversion and that the Estate shall still remain in the Surrenderor until all acts are done which are to compleat the Conveyance Those who argued against the Iudgment E contra held that the Estate passed immediately without the assent of the Surrenderor and that even in Conveyances at the Common-Law 't is divested out of the person and put in him to whom such Conveyance is made without his actual assent 'T is true in Exchanges the Freehold doth not pass without Entry nor a Grant of a Reversion without an Attornment but that stands upon different Reasons from this Case at the Bar for in Exchanges the Law requires the mutual acts of the Parties exchanging and in the other there must be the consent of a third person But in Surrenders the assent of the Surrendree is not required for the Estate must be in him immediately upon the execution of the Deed if he doth not shew some dissent to it If a Man should plead a Release without saying ad quam quidem relaxationem the Defendant agreavit yet this Plea is good because the Estate passeth to him upon the execution of the Deed. It may be a Question whether the actual assent must be at the very time that the Surrender was made for if it should be afterwards t is well enough and the Estate remaineth in the Surrendree till dis-agreement Presumption stands on this side for it shall never be intended that he did not give his Assent but on the contrary because t is for his benefit not to refuse an Estate Therefore where a Feme Sole had a Lease and married Hob. 203. the Husband and Wife surrendred it to another in consideration of a new Lease to be granted to the Wife and her Sons c. this Estate vests immediately in her tho' a Feme Covert and that without the assent of her Husband for the Law intends it to be her Estate till he dissent 't is true in that Case his assent was held necessary because the first Lease could not be divested out of him without his own consent So a Feoffment to three 2 Leon. 224. and Livery made to one the Freehold is in all 'till disagreement So if a Bond be given to a Stranger for my use and I should die before I had agreed to it my Executors are entituled to an Action of Debt and will recover A Feme Covert and another were Ioint-tenants for Life 1 Rol. Rep. 401 441. she and her Husband made a Lease for years of her moiety reserving a Rent during her Life and the Life of her partner then the Wife died this was held to be a good Lease against the surviving joint-Ioint-tenant till disagreement which shews that the agreement of the Parties is not so much requisite to perfect a Conveyance of this nature as a disagreement is to make it void And this may serve as an answer to the second point which was not much insisted on that Mens Titles would be incertain and precarious if after the assent of the Surrendree the Estate should pass by Relation at the very time that the Deed was executed and that it was not known where the Free-hold was in the mean time for if he had agreed to it immediately it had been altogether as private Then as to the Pleadings 't is true that generally when a Surrender is pleaded 't is said ad quam quidem sursum redditionem the Party adtunc ibidem agreavit which implies that the Surrendree was then present and in such Case he ought to agree or refuse Besides those Actions to which an Agreement is thus pleaded were generally brought in disaffirmance of Surrenders and to support the Leases upon which the Plaintiffs declared and then the proper and most effectual Bar was to shew a Surrender and express Agreement before the Action brought It might have been insufficient pleading not to shew an Acceptance of the Surrendree but 't is not substance for if Issue should be taken whether a Surrender or not Cro. Eliz. 249. and a Verdict for the Plaintiff that defect of setting forth an Acceptance is aided by the Statute of Ieofails In this Case there is not only the Word Surrender but * Grant and Release which may be pleaded without any consent to it and a Grant by operation of Law turns to a Surrender because a Man cannot have two Estates of equal dignity in the Law at the same time Neither can it be said that there remained any Estate in Simon Leach after this Surrender executed for 't is an absurd thing to imagine that when he had done what was in his power to compleat a Conveyance and to divest himself of an Estate yet it should continue in him Therefore the Remainder in Contingency to the Lessor of the Plaintiff was destroyed by this Surrender of the Estate to him in reversion for by that means when it did afterwards happen there was no particular Estate to support it But notwithstanding the Iudgment was affirmed and afterwards Anno quarto Gulielmi Mariae upon a Writ of Error brought in the House of Lords it was reversed Idem versus Eundem THIS Point having received a legal determination the same Plaintiff brought another Action of Trespass and Ejectment against the same Defendant Surrender by a person Non compos is void and at a Trial at the Barr in Easter Term nono Gulielmi Regis another special Verdict was found upon which the Case more at large was viz. That Nicholas Leach being seised in Fee of the Lands in question made his Will in these Words viz. In the Name of God Amen c. I devise my Mannors of Bulkworth Whitebear and Vadacot in Devonshire and Cresby Goat and Cresby Grange in Northallerton in Yorkshire unto the Heirs Males of my Body begotten and for want of such Issue Male I devise the same unto my Brother Simon Leach for Life and after his decease to the
said Feoffees made a Feoffment of the Land in Fee without any consideration afterwards Christopher had Issue two Sons Now the Vses limited by the Feoffment of Sir R. C. being only contingent to the Sons of Christopher and they not being born when the second Feoffment was made to their Father the Question now was whether they shall be destroied by that Feoffment before the Sons had a Being in Nature or whether they shall arise out of the Estate of the Feoffees after their Births And it was adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber that the last Feoffment had divested all the precedent Estates and likewise the Vses whilst they were contingent and before they had an existence and that if the Estate for Life which Christopher had in those Lands had been determined by his death before the birth of any Son the future Remainder had been void because it did not vest whilst the particular Estate had a being or eo instanti that it determined So in this Case Mr. Leach cannot have any future Right of Entry for he was not born when the Surrender was made so that the contingency is for ever gone Suppose a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife and to the Heirs of the Survivor The Husband afterwards makes another Feoffment of the same Lands Cro. Car. 102. and dies and the Wife enters the Fee shall not vest in her by this Entry for she had no right the Husband has destroyed the contingent use by the last Feoffment so that it could not accrew to her at the time of his death Nay tho' the particular Estate in some Cases may revive yet if the contingency be once destroyed it shall never arise again As where the Testator being seized in Fee of Houses 2 Sand. 380. devised the inheritance thereof to such Son his Wife should have after her Life if she baptized him by his Christian and Sir-Name and if such Son dye before he attain the Age of 21 years then to the right Heirs of the Devisor He died without Issue the Widow married again then the Brother and Heir of the Testator before the birth of any Son conveyed the Houses thus Viz. To the Husband and Wife and to their Heirs and levied a Fine to those uses Afterwards she had a Son baptised by the Testator's Christian and Sir-Name Then the Husband and Wife sold the Houses to one Weston and his Heirs and levied a Fine to those Vses It was adjudged that by the Conveyance of the Reversion by the Brother and Heir of the Testator to the Baron and Feme before the Birth of the Son her Estate for Life was merged and tho' by reason of her Coverture she might waive the Joint-tenancy 2 Roll. Abr. 796. Wigg versus Villiers and reassume the Estate for Life yet that being once merged the contingent Remainders are all destroied Curia Cro. Car. 502. The Grants of Infants and of persons non compos are parallel both in Law and Reason and there are express Authorities that a Surrender made by an Infant is void therefore this Surrender by a person non compos is likewise void If an Infant grants a Rent-charge out of his Estate 't is not voidable but ipso facto void for if the Grantee should distrain for the Rent the Infant may have an Action of Trespass against him In all these Cases which have been cited where 't is held that the Deeds of Infants are not void but voidable the meaning is that non est factum cannot be pleaded because they have the form though not the Operations of Deeds and therefore are not void upon that account without shewing some special matter to make them of no efficacy Therefore if an Infant maketh a Letter of Attorny though 't is void in it self yet it shall not be avoided by pleading non est factum but by shewing his Infancy Some have endeavoured to distinguish between a Deed which giveth only authority to do a thing and such which conveys an interest by the delivery of the Deed it self that the first is void and the other voidable But the reason is the same to make them both void only where a Feoffment is made by an Infant 't is voidable because of the solemnity of the Conveyance Now if Simon Leach had made a Feoffment in Fee there had still remained in him such a Right which would have supported this Remainder in Contingency This Surrender is therefore void and all persons may take advantage of it Afterwards a Writ of Error was brought to reverse this Iudgment in the House of Lords but it was affirmed Cases Adj. 150. Hall versus Wybank THE Statute of Limitations is Statute of Limitations whether it extendeth to the Defendant being beyond Sea six years 21 Jac. cap. 16. that if any person be entituled to an Action and shall be an Infant Feme Covert Imprisoned or beyond Sea that then he shall bring the Action at full Age Discovert of saue Memory at large and returned from beyond Sea The Plaintiff brought an Indebitatus Assumpsit to which the Defendant pleaded non assumpsit infra sex Annos The Plaintiff replied that the Defendant was all that time beyond Sea so that he could not prosecute any Writ against him c. And upon a Demurrer Serjeant Tremaine argued that the Plaintiff was not barred by the Statute which was made to prevent Suits by limiting personal Actions to be brought within a certain time and it cannot be extended in favour of the Defendant who was a Debtor and beyond Sea because 't is incertain whether he will return or not and therefore there is no occasion to begin a Suit till his return 'T is true the Plaintiff may file an Original and Outlaw the Defendant and so seise his Estate but no Man is compelled by Law to do an act which is fruitless when 't is done and such this would be for if the Plaintiff should file an Original 't is probable the Defendant may never return and then if the Debt was 1000 l. or upwards he would be at a great Expence to no purpose or if the Party should return he may reverse it by Error 'T is a new way invented for the payment of Debts for if the Debtors go beyond Sea and stay there six years their Debts would by this means be all paid The words of the Statute do not extend to this Case for the Proviso is That if the Plaintiff be beyond Sea when the cause of Action doth accrew Cro. Car. 246. 333. that then he have shall liberty to continue it at his return yet 't is within the equity of Law for him to bring his Action when the Defendant returns who cannot be sued 'till then That Statutes have been expounded according to Equity is not now a new Position 2 Roll. Rep. 318. for Constructions have been made according to the sense and meaning and not according to the Letter of many Statutes
Mony for putting them out which must be to such who are willing to to take them for Mony 270 Arbitrament To pay 5 l. presently and give Bond to pay 10 l. more on a day following and now to sign general Releases it shall only discharge such matters which were then depending at the time of the submission and not the Bond 264 2. A person who was a Stranger to the Submission was awarded to be a Surety 't is void 272 3. Submission was so as the Award be made c. ready to be delivered to the Parties or to such of them who shall desire it the Defendant must desire the Award and plead the matter specially and the Plaintiff need not aver that it was ready to be delivered 330 Assent See Agreement Assets Reversion in Fee Expectant upon an Estate Tail is not Assets but when it comes into possession then and not before 't is Assets 257 Assignment See Privity of Contract 2. Executor of a Lessee for years shall be liable to an Action of Debt for Rent incurr'd after an assignment of the Term for the privity of Contract of the Testator is not determined by his Death but his Executor shall be charged with his Contracts so long as he hath Assets 326 Assizes The Method of arraigning an Assize the Title must be set forth in it 273 Attornment See Bargain and Sale Ejectment of a Manor parcel in Rents and parcel in Services the Attornment of the Tenants must be proved 36 Averment See Devise 4 The consideration of a Duty ought to be precisely alledged as in an Action on the Case for a Duty to be paid for weighing Goods it must be averred that the Goods were such which are usually sold by weight 162 2. The nature of an Averment is to reduce a thing to a certainty which was incertain before 216 3. Where it may be made against the express words of a Condition 217 4. Not allowed to be made against a Record 305 B. Bail IT was demised in a Scandalum Magnatum 4 2. Writ of Error pending in the Exchequer-Chamber the principal in the Action rendred himself the Bail are discharged 87 3. Scire Facias against Bail upon a Writ of Error who plead that the Principal rendred himself before Judgment 't is not good for the Bail are liable not only to render the Body but to pay the Debt ibid. 4. Proceedings were staied by Injunction above two Terms after the Bail was put in and before the Declaration delivered which was pleaded to a Scire Facias brought against them but held not good 274 Bankrupts An Inn-keeper is not within the Statutes of Bankrupcy 327 2. 'T is not actionable to call a Man Bankrupt unless it be laid that he was a Trader at the time of the words spoken 329 3. Inn-keeper buys and sells under a Restraint of Justices and Stewards of Leets which though for a Livelihood yet cannot be a Bankrupt 329 4. Whether a Farmer or Master of a Boarding-School be within the Statutes 330 Baretry Difference between Baretry and Maintenance 97 2. 'T is not Baretry to arrest a Man without a cause ibid. 4. If one design to oppress and to recover his own right 't is Baretry 98 5. Mony may be laid out to recover the just right of a poor man and no Baretry ibid. 6. But mony may not be expended to promote and stir up Suits ibid. Barbadoes It was gotten by Conquest and therefore to be governed by what Law the King willeth 161 Bargain and Sale What words by construction of Law shall amount to a Bargain and Sale to make the Reversion pass with the Rent without Attornment 237 Baron and Feme See Slander 7 Administrator 9 11 Sci. Fa. 7 1. Whether Sci. Fa. will lie against the Husband alone after the death of the Wife upon a Judgment had against her Dum sola 186 2. If a Judgment is recovered against her while sole then she marries and dies the Husband is not chargeable unless had likewise against him during the Coverture ibid. 3. A Debt is due to her whilst sole she marries and dies before 't is recovered it shall not go to the Husband by virtue of the marriage but he may have it as Administrator to his Wife ibid. 4. Judgment is obtained against her whilst sole she marries and a Sci. Fa. is brought against Husband and Wife and Judgment quod habeat executionem the Wife dies a Scire Fa. may be brought against the Husband alone 189 5. The Recovery upon a Sci. fa. is against both and is therefore joynt against both 188 6. Husband may have Execution of a Judgment recovered by him and his Wife after the Death of his Wife without a Sci. fa. 189 7. Devastavit against both the Wife being an Executrix and Judgment that the Plaintiff have Execution de bonis propriis the Wife dies the Goods of the Husband are liable ibid. 8. A Woman who had a Term for years married the Rent is arrear she died the Husband shall be liable because by the Marriage he is entituled to the Profits of the Land ibid. 9. Feme Covert Copy-holder her Husband made a Lease for years without Licence of the Lord 't is a Forfeiture during the Coverture 222 9. Feme Covert Heir to a Copyhold Estate her Husband after three Proclamations will not be admitted 't is a Forfeiture during Coverture 226 10. The Husband hath a Lease in Right of his Wife who was an Executrix and he grnats all his Right and title therein the Right which he had by his Wife passeth 278 12. A. Feme Sole had a Lease and Married then Husband and Wife Surrender in consideration of a new Lease to be granted to the Wife and to her Sons the Estate vests immediately in her without the assent of her Husband for the Law intends it her Estate till he dissassent 300 13. Feme Covert and another joint-Tenant for Life she and the Husband Lease their Moiety reserving a Rent during Life and the Life of her Partner the Wife died 't is a good Lease against the Surviving joint-joint-Tenant till disagreement 300 14. The Husband made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and Wife and to the Heirs of the Survivor he afterwards made another Feoffment of the same Lands and died the Wife entred but the Fee was not vested in her by the first Conveyance because the contingent right was destroyed by the last 310 Barr. Recovery in a personal Action is a Barr to an Action of the like nature where the same Evidence supporteth both Actions 2 Judgment in Trespass is no Barr to an Action of Detinue 2 Bill of Exchange The Drawer and Endorsers are all liable to payment but if Recovery be against one 't is a good Bar to an Action which may be brought against the rest 86 By-Law See Corporation 12. Trade 8. Where 't is too general and where not 193 C. Carrier See Pleading 11. Certainty See Custom Grants Certiorari