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
contra As to the first Exception it was said that the Wardmote Court was held before the Mayor for the Iuries there are not to try any Matter but only to make Presentments which are carried before the Mayor Exceptions were taken against the Indictment which was for not serving at a Wardmote Inquest for such a year 1. Because 't is a thing not known at the Common Law that a Man should be of a Iury for a whole year The Indictment was that the Defendant was an Inhabitant of such a place and elected a Iury Man 2. But doth not say that he ought to hold the Office to which he was elected It was quashed Calthrop versus Axtel THE Husband being seized in Fee had Issue two Daughters Ejectment upon the Statute of Ph. Mar. for marrying under 16 without the Parents Consent Antea Hicks versus Gore and dyed his Wife survived who was then by Law Guardian in Socage to her Children one of which under the Age of sixteen years married one Mr. B. without her Mother's Consent by reason whereof her Estate became forfeited during life to her Sister by vertue of the Statute of 4 5 Ph. Mar. who now brought an Ejectment which was tried at the Bar. The Mother was produced as a Witness at this Trial against the married Daughter but it was objected against her that she was Tenant in Possession of the Lands in question under her other Daughter that some part of the Estate was in Houses and that she had made Leases thereof to several Tenants for 99 years c. and covenanted with the Lessees that she together with the Infants when of Age shall and will joyn to do any â—â—â—rther Act for the quiet enjoyment thereof therefore this is like the Case of a Bailiff or Steward who if they put themselves under such Covenants shall never be admitted as Witnesses in any Cause where the Title of such Lands shall come in question The Proofs that the Mother did not consent were That she made Affidavit of the whole matter and got the Lord Chief Iustice's Warrant to search Mr. B's Houss for her Daughter and upon application made to my Lord Chancellor she obtained a Writ of Ne exeat Regnum and got a Homine replegiando and gave notice of the Fact in the Gazett and exhibited an Information in the Crown Office against Mr. B. and his Father and his Maid Attorny General contra E contra The Preamble of this Act will be a Guide in this Case which is For that Maids of great Substance in Goods c. or having Lands in Fee have by Rewards and Gifts been allowed to contract Matrimony with unthrifty persons and thereupon have been conveied from their Parents by sleight or force c. Then it enacts That no person shall convey away a Maid under 16 years without her Parents Consent which Assent is not necessary within the meaning of this Act unless the Child be taken away either by sleight or force which must be proved The Mother was no good Guardian to these Children for she did set up one G. to be a Curator for her Daughter in the Spiritual Court to call her self to an accompt for the personal Estate of which her Husband died possessed she having given Security to exhibit a true Inventory This Accompt was stated in the Prerogative Court between her and the Curator to 300 l. only for which she gave Bond when in truth the Personal Estate was worth more and afterwards obtained a Decree in Chancery thinking thereby to bind the interest of the Infants In this Case it was said that there must be a continued refusal of the Mother for if she once agree though afterwards she disassent yet 't is an assent within the Statute There must likewise be proof of the stealing away Obrian versus Ram. Mich. 3 Jac. 2. Rot. 192. Angl ' ss Entry of a Writ of Error out of Ireland DOminus Rex mandavit praedilecto fideli Conciliario suo Willielmo Davis Militi Capitali Justic suo ad placita in Curia ipsius Domini Regis coram ipso Rege in Regno suo Hiberniae tenend ' assign ' Breve suum Clausum in haec verba ss Jacobus secundus Dei gratia Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hiberniae Rex Fidei defensor c. pradilecto fideli Conciliario nostro Willielmo Davis Militi Capital ' Justic ' nostro ad placita in Curia nostra coram nobis in Regno nostro Hiberniae tenend ' assign ' salutem Quia in Recordo Processu acetiam in redditione Judicii loquelae quae fuit in Curia nostra coram nobis in praed Regno nostro Hiberniae per Billam inter Abel Ram Mil. nuper dict Abel Ram de Civitate Dublin Alderman ' Elizabetham Grey de Civitate Dublin Viduam de quodam debito quod idem Abel a praefat ' Elizabetha exigebat Quae quidem Elizabetha postea cepit Donnough Obrian Armigerum in virum suum obiit Necnon in adjudications executions ejusdem Judicij super Breve nrÌ„um de Scire FacÌ„ extra eandem Curiam nostram coram nobis emanen ' versus ipsum praed In adjudicatione Executionis super Scire Fac. Donnogh in loquela praed ut dicitur Error intervenit manifestus ad grave dampnum ipsius Donnogh sicut ex querela sua accepimus Nos Error si quis fuerit modo debito corrigi partibus praed plenam celerem justiciam fieri volentes in hac parte vobis mandamus qd ' si judicium in loquela praed ' reddit ' ac adjudicationem executionis judicii praed super breve nostrum de Scire facÌ„ praed adjudicatÌ„ tunc record ' process tam loquel ' quam adjudicationis executionis judicii praed ' cum omnibus ea tangen ' nobis sub sigillo vestro distincte aperte mittatis hoc Breve ita qd ' ea habeamus in Crastino Ascentionis Domini ubicunque tunc fuerimus in Angl ' Ut inspect ' record ' process praed ' ulterius inde pro Errore illo corrigendo Fieri fac ' quod de jure fuerit faciend ' Et Scire fac praefat ' Abel qd ' tunc sit ibi ad procedend ' in loquela praed ' faciend ' ulterius recipiend ' quod dicta Curia consideraverit in praemissis Teste meipso apud Westm xxii Januarii Anno Regni nostri secundo Price Record ' Process The Return loquelae unde infra fir mentio cum omnibus ea tangen ' coram Dno Rege ubicunque c. ad diem locum infracontent ' mitto in quodam Record ' huic Brevi annex ' Scire feci Abel Ram qd ' tunc sit ibi ad procedend ' in loquela praed prout interius mihi praecipitur Respons ' W. Davis Placita coram Domino Rege apud the Kings Courts de Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno Regni Domini
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
and now he brought a Scire Fac. against the Bail who pleaded that no Declaration was delivered or filed against the Principal within two Terms after the Action commenced and the Bail entred and upon a Demurrer the Plaintiff had Iudgment against them for the Bail are liable so as the Principal in the Action declare soon after the Injunction dissolved and it s no fault in the Plaintiff that he did not declare sooner for if he had he would have been in contempt of the Court of Chancery for a Breach of the Injunction Anonymus A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Recovery suffered in the grand Sessions of Wales Error to reverse a Recovery there must be a Scire Fac. against the Heir and Tertenants Dyer 321. The Question now was whether there ought to be a Scire Fac. against the Tertenants and the Heir It was said that t is discretionary in the Court and that the first Case of this nature was in my Lord Dyer where a Writ of Error was brought in B. R. to reverse a Fine levyed in the County Palatine of Chester and a Scire Facias was brought against the Heir but not against the Tertenants But the Heir in this Case is an Infant so that if he be admitted to be a Defendant he ought not to appear during his Minority and there is no remedy till his full Age. Curia 'T is not necessary in point of Law but it seems to be the course of the Court and that must be followed and 't is reasonable it should be so because the Errors upon a Recovery should not be examined before all the Parties are in Court therefore there should be a Scire Facias against the Heir and the Tertenants Sid. 213. Lambert versus Thurston TRespass Quare vi armis clausum fregit c. Trespass Quare vi Armis lies for small Damages which the Plaintiff had laid to his Damage of 20 s. The Defendant demurred to the Declaration and for cause shewed that B. R. hath not cognizance either by the Common Law or by the Statute of Gloucester to hold Plea in such an Action where the Damages are laid to be under 40 s. But the Court were of another Opinion That an Action of Trespass Quare vi armis will lie here let the Damage be what it will So the Plaintiff had Iugment DE Termino Paschae Anno 2 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1690. Whitehal versus Squire TRover for a Horse What shall be a Conversion what not the Defendant pleaded Not Guilty and a special Verdict was found viz. That John Mathers was possessed of this Horse who on the 4th day of December in the first year of King James the II. put him to Grass to the Defendant who kept him till the first day of May following That John Mathers died Intestate and before Administration was granted the Plaintiff desired the Defendant to Bury the said Mathers and that he would see him satisfied for his Expences and accordingly the Defendant did Bury him Then the Plaintiff gave this Horse to the Defendant in part of satisfaction for the Charges of the Funeral and a Note under his Hand to pay him 23 l. more The Plaintiff afterwards took out Administration and brought his Action against the Defendant for this Horse and whether this was a conversion or not was the Question Iustice Dolben and Eyre held that it was not but the Chief Iustice was of another Opinion Cole versus Knight Hill 1 2. Rot. 810. SCire Fac. upon a Iudgment of 6000 l. Release by one Executor of a Legacy is not a good bar to a Sci. Fa. upon a Judgment brought by the Plaintiffs Knight and Donning as surviving Executors of John Knight against the Defendant Cole and his Wife as Executrix of John Lawford setting forth That Sir John Knight Mr. Eyre and John Knight had recover'd a Iudgment of 6000 l. against John Lawford That John Knight survived who made his Will and appointed John Kent Thomas Knight and William Donning to be his Executors that he died the Debt and Damages not being satisfied that they the said Knight and Donning proved the Will that John Kent died and that John Lawford made his Will and appointed his Daughter Mary now the Wife of Thomas Cole to be sole Executrix and soon after departed this Life that Cole proved Lawford's Will and that the Debt was not yet paid The Defendant Cole and his Wife pleaded a Release from Donning one of the Plaintiffs by which he acknowledged to have received of the said Cole and his Wife as Exetutrix of the last Will and Testament of John Lawford the Sum of 5 l. being a Legacy given to him by Lawford and then in general words he released the said Cole and his Wife of the Legacy and of all Actions Suits and Demands whatsoever which he had or might have against the Defendants Cole and his Wife as Executrix of John Lawford or may or can have for any matter or thing whatsoever To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Question was whether the Release is a good Bar or not It was argued to be no Bar for it being given upon the receipt of the Legacy is tied up to that only and shall not be taken to release any other thing If a Man should receive 10 l. and give a Receipt for it and doth thereby acquit and release the person of all Actions Debts 2 Roll. Abr. 409. Duties and Demands nothing is released but the 10 l. because the last words must be limited to those foregoing 'T is no new thing in the Law for general words to be restrained by those which follow as for instance if a Release be of all Errors Actions Suits and Writs of Error whatsoever Het 15. it hath been held that an Action of Debt upon a Bond was not released but only Writs of Error And this seems to be the intent of the Parties here that nothing but the Legacies should be released and therefore those general words which follow must be confined to the true meaning and intention of him who gave the Release So 't is if a Man promise to pay 40 s. Yelv. 156. to another during Life a Release of all Quarrels Controversies and Demands which he had or may have will not discharge this Annuity because the Execution of the Promise was not to be 'till the Rent should be due So likewise a Release of all Demands will not discharge a growing Rent 1 Sid. 141. 2. If this should be a good Release it discharges only such Actions which he hath in his own Right for by the words all Actions which he had are released Cro. Eliz. 6. 1 Leon. 263. now if an Executor grant omnia bona sua the Goods which he hath as Executor do not pass E contra E contra It was argued that this is a good Bar for by
IT lies to remove Causes and Orders from an inferior Jurisdiction where 't is not prohibited in express words by any Statute 95 2. Will not lie to the Grand Sessions nor to a County Palatine to remove Civil Causes quaere whether it lies to the Royal Franchise of Ely 230 Charter Usage shall expound ancient Charters 9 2 The Common Law doth operate with it ibid. 3. One Clause of a Charter may expound another 10 4. A Charter which establishes a Corporation must provide for a new Election in order to a Succession otherwise the Common Law will not help 13 Church See Prohibition Commitment By the Lord Chancellor and several others Dominos Concilii for a Misdemeanour whether it should not be Dominos in Concilio 213 2. Of a Peer for a Misdemeanour which amounts to a Breach of the Peace for which Sureties are to be given 214 3. When a person is brought in by a Capias for any offence he ought to plead instanter 215 Common and Commoner See Ioytenancy 4 Ioynt Action 7 Prescription 7 A Common cannot pass without Deed and if the Plaintiff sheweth a Que Estate he must produce the Deed 52 2. If a Prescription is made for a Common and doth not say for Cattle Levant and Couchant 't is not good 162 246 3. But this fault is cured by a Verdict 162 Confederacy See Indictment Condition See Infant 2. Notice 2 4. A bare denial without doing any more is no Breach of the Condition 31 2. How it differs from a Limitation 32 3. To restrain Marriage to the consent of particular persons is void ibid. 4. Where 't is of two parts in the disjunctive and both possible at the time of the Bond given and one becomes impossible afterwards by the Act of God the Obligor is not bound to perform the other part for the Condition being made for his benefit shall be taken very beneficially for him who had election to perform either part 233 5. When the Condition is but of one part 't is otherwise as if A. promise B. that if C. do not appear such a day at Westminster he will pay 20 s. C. died before the day the Mony must be paid 234 6. Condition was to pay Rent at Michaelmas or Lady-day during the Life of a Woman or within thirty days after she died after the Feast but within the thirty days the payment which was due at the Feast was discharged thereby ibid. 7. To save harmless Non damnificatus generally is a good Plea but if it be to save harmless acquit and discharge then 't is not good without shewing how acquitted and discharged 252 Confederacy See Agreement Consideration See Action on the Case Construction Where it shall be made of an Act of Parliament according to the intent of the Law-makers 33 2. Where it shall be made of an entire Sentence so as the intent of the Law may appear 220 3. Where particular words are in the first part of a Sentence and general words follow both shall stand 278 279 Contract Where an Agreement is entire to do or perform a thing for a certain Sum it shall not be apportioned pro rata for the performance of part 153 2. There must be a recompence of each side to make the Contract good 237 Copyhold and Copyholders See Baron and Feme 8 9. Lord may seize the Land of a Copyholder till a Fine is paid 222 2. A Man by Custom may assign a person to take the Profits of a Copyhold Estate during the Minority of an Infant without rendring an accompt when he comes of Age ibid. Corporation See Charter 4. In all proceedings which concern a Corporation it must be alledged that there is one and how erected whether by Grant or Prescription 6 2. Mayor hath no more Power than an Alderman in the Coporation where he is Mayor 9 3. Is not of the Quorum for electing of an Alderman 10 4. The Mayor is named in the Grant as part of the Name of the Corporation and is not of the Quorum without naming him to be so 9 10 5. He is a Mayor in respect of Reverence but not of Power 11 6. At the Common Law neither his Name or Office require his presence at the choosing of an Alderman 11 14 7. He cannot act eo nomine but by the express Power given in the Charter 12 8. Elections of Officers of a Corporation must be free 21 9. Mayor of a Corporation is no Officer at the Common Law 12 10. Original of Corporation was preservation of Trade ibid. 11. Corporation by Charter without setting forth their Duty or Office hath no Power ibid. 12. A Company in London made a By-Law that none of them should buy such a Commodity within 24 Miles of London but two Men 't is too large to bind at such a distance out of their Jurisdiction 159 Costs See Amendment 3. Trespass for breaking of a Close and impounding of Cattel and Damages given under 40 s. the Plaintiff shall have his Costs 39 2. Amendment after a Writ of Error brought Costs must be paid 113 Covenant See Local Action Where a thing is lawful at the time of the Covenant made and afterterwards prohibited by Law yet the Covenant is binding 39 2. To find Meat Drink and other Necessaries the Breach was assigned in not finding Meat Drink alia necessaria and entire Damages though this Breach was too general yet 't is good for it may be as general as the Covenant 69 3. There must be such certainty in it that if the Defendant should be sued again he may plead the former Recovery in Bar ibid. 4. Need not so much certainty in assigning a Breach upon a Covenant as upon a Bond for performance of Covenants ibid. 5. For quiet enjoyment the Breach was that a Stranger habens jus titulum and doth not say what Title for it may be under the Plaintiff himself therefore not well assigned 135 6. To make an Assignment according to an Agreement between the Partis as Council should direct whether the Council of the Plaintiff or Defendant should advise 192 7. Give grant and confirm are words at the Common Law where they shall be taken to amount to a Covenant to stand seized 237 Court Cause not to be removed out of an inferiour Court unless the Habeas Corpus is delivered to the Steward before Issue or Demurrer joyned so as 't is joyned within six Weeks after Arrest or Appearance 85 2. If the Cause is tried in an inferior Court the Steward not being an Utter Barister an Attachment shall go ibid. 3. Amerciament in a Court Leet is a Duty vested in the Lord for which he may distrain 138 4. Presentment in a Court Leet is the proper remedy when a Man is disturbed in a common Passage or Way 294 Custom See Admittance Infant 10. Prescription 8. Pleading 12. Must have nothing to support it but Usuage 133 2. 'T is made of repeated Acts ibid. 3. Must be very
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
they are not properly sua 278 Exposition of Words and Sentences See Number Subsequent words may explain a former Sentence in a Deed but in Wills the first words guide all which follow 82 2. Action was brought by Original for that the Defendant prosecut ' fuit adhuc prosequitur in the Admiralty those words adhuc prosequitur shall not be construed to make it subsequent to the Original but must refer to the time of suing it forth 103 157 3. Doubtful Words must be Expounded always against the Lessor 230 4. To make an Assurance to the Obligee and his Heirs the Conjuction and shall be taken in the disjunctive 235 F. Fair See Trade IF the place where it should be kept is not limited by the Grant it may be kept where the Grantee will 108 False Imprisonment It will not lye against a Sheriff for taking the Body by vertue of a Casa upon an Erronious Judgment for the Execution is good till avoided by Writ of Error 325 Fees Of the Clerks of the Crown-Office the Court will not regulate upon a Motion but if oppressive they must be indicted for Extortion 297 Fines levied See Tenant at Will 6. One of the Cognisors died before the return of the Writ of Covenant 't is Error but not in the case of a Purchaser for a valuable consideratino for the Court will interpose 99 2. If the Cognisor doth dye after the Entry of the Kings-Silver the Fine is good 140 3. Writ of Covenant Teste 15th of January returnable in Crastino Purificationis taken by Dedimus 18th of Januarii The Cognizor died in Easter-Week following but four days before her Death the Kings-Silver was entred as of Hillary-Term precedent this was held a good Fine 141 4. Where a person is in possession by vertue of a particular Estate for Life and accepteth a greater Estate it shall not divest the Estate of those in Remainder for Life so as the same may be barred by Fine and Non-claim 195 5. Lease for one hundred years in Trust to attend the Inheritance cestuy que Trust being in possession Demises to another for fifty years and levied a Fine and the five years passed the Term for a hundred years is divested by this Fine and turned to a right and so barred 196 6. In what Cases a Fine is a Bar and what not 198 Fines upon Admittance See Admittance Copihold Debt 2. Infant 9. The Judges are to determine whether it be reasonable or not 134 2. Lord cannot enter for non-payment of an unreasonable Fine 134 Forfeiture If Tenant for years make a Feoffment 't is a Forfeiture but if he make a Lease and Release ' tho 't is of the same Operation yet 't is no forfeiture 151 Fraud See Evidence G. Grants Grantor and Grantee WHere an Interest is coupled with a Trust in a Grant it shall go to the Executor of the Grantee 43 2. Grants must be certain otherwise they are void 134 Grants of the King Not good for the sole Printing of Blank Bonds exclusive of all other Printers 75 2. A Grant to restrain trading to particular places is good 77 3. But of sole making Cards not good because it restrains a whole Trade ibid. 4. A Grant cannot divest the Subject of a Right enjoyed long before it was made ibid. 5. Cannot discharge a person of a Duty to which he is made lyable by a subsequent Act of Parliament 96 6. Difference between his Grants and Prohibitions 7. Where his Grants ought to be taken very strictly 168 8. In a Quo Warranto the Defendant pleaded that the King was seised in Fee of a Franchise who granted it to another Habendum the Hundred whether good or not 199 Gun See Iustice of Peace 3. Conviction before a Justice of Peace upon the Statute of H. 8. for keeping a Gun not having 100 l. per Annum quashed because it was said non habuisset instead of nunquam Habuit 100 l. per Annum 280 H. Habendum WHere it shall be said to explain the general Words preceding 81 2. Nothing passes in the Habendum but what was mentioned in the Premisses 199 Heir Error by the Plaintiff ut Consanguineus Haeres viz. Filius c. 't is sufficient without shewing the descent from more Ancestors 152 2. Where he shall take by Descent and where by Purchase 205 3. In a Bond where the word Heir is a word of Limitation and not a designation of the person 233 4. Reversion in Fee descended to an Heir after the Estate Tail spent and an Action was brought against him upon a Bond of his Ancestor 't is not necessary that the Plaintiff name all the intermediate Remainders but him who was last actually seized of the Fee 255 Heriot Lease for 99 years if A. B. C. so long live paying an Heriot upon the death of either A. assigns the term no Heriot shall be taken of the Assignee 231 2 May seize or distrain for Heriot Service if distrain it may be the Beast of any man upon the Land but if he seise it must be the very Beast of the Tenant ibid. 3. Where an Heriot is reserved upon a Demise it differs from those which are due by Tenure 231 4. Lease for 99 years if M. and D. so long live reserving an Heriot after death of either provided if D. survive no Heriot to be paid but M. survived the Court was divided whether a Heriot should be paid 230 Highways A Man cannot be exempted from repairing by the Grant of the King if made before the Statute of Ph. Mar. which charges him to repair 96 Homine Replegiando Brought for a Monster and upon the Return of the Sheriff that he had replevyed the Body he was bailed 121 2. Brought for a young Woman taken out of her Parents Custody and married against her Consent 169 Hue and Cry See Robbery Hundred Court This Court was first derived from the County Court 200 2 Hundreds were usually granted to Abbots and their Possessions coming to the Crown by dissolution of their Abbies are merged and cannot be regranted 200 I. Ideot HOW it differs from a Lunatick 43 2. The King hath power to grant his Estate to any person without Accompt to be given ibid. 3. Grant of an Ideot by the King the Grantee dieth his Executor hath an Interest in him ibid. Ieoffails See Indictment 8. Travers 4. Variance 2. None of the Statutes help an insufficient Indictment 79 2. Variance between original and declaration not aided by the Statute of Ieofails 136 3. Want of concluding without a Travers is but matter of form and aided 319 Indictment For using of Alias Preces than enjoined by the Book of Common Prayer it may be upon an extraordinary occasion and so no Offence 79 2. For scandalous words whether it lieth as it doth for Libels the one being a private the other a publick Offence 139 3. For Baretry in soliciting of a Suit against another who was not indebted to the person 97