lie Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XCVII Baspoles Case THe Father seized of Lands is bound in an Obligation 3 Leon. 118. 2 Leon. 10 1. Stiles 148 Devise to his Son and Heir and devised his Land to his Wife until his Son shall come to the age of 21 years the remainder to the Son in Fee and no other Land descends to the Son from his Father It was moved that the Heir in this case at his Election might wave the Devise and take by descent or è contra Vide 9 E. 4. 18. per Needham It was the Opinion of Gawdy and Fenner Iustices that the Son should be adjudged in by descent Clench held the contrary Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XCVIII Onions Case IN an Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for hunting in his Park the Statute gives treble damages It was the Opinion of the Iustices that notwithstanding that the Statute gives treble damages Costs that the Plaintiff should have Costs also XCIX Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover and a Scire Facias issued against the Bail before any Capias issued against the Principal Bail. and the Bail was taken and now they came and shewed this matter to the Court and prayed to be discharged Wray Iustice said They shall be put to their writ of Error for being but Error in Process we may reverse our own Iudgment C. Mich. 14 Eliz In the Common Pleas. A Man seized of a Pasture within which are two great Groves and Wood known by the name of a Wood leased the same by Indenture for years and also in the same Pasture were certain Hedgrows and Trees there growing sparsim by the same Indenture bargained and sold to the Lessee all Woods and Vnderwoods in and upon the Premisses and further that it shall and may be lawful to the Lessee to cut down and carry away the same at all times during the term Harper said the Hedg-rows did not pass by these words for they are not known by the name of Woods 14 H. 8. 2. Manwood held the contrary Mounson contrary to Manwood for the words of the Grant may be supplied by other in it viz. Woods Dyer held that these Hedgrows should pass for the Grant is general It was further moved if by these words the Lessee might again cut them c. or but once Harper Manwood and Mounson three of the Iustices held That he might cut them but once But Dyer held the contrary said so it should be if the words had been growing upon the Premisses and this word growing although it sounds in the present tense yet it shall be taken also in the future tense if not that the word tunc be laid for that is a word of restraint The case which was argued in the Chancery 27 H. 8. where I was present was this The Prior of St. Johns let a Commandry Provided that if the said Prior or any of his Brethren there being Commanders will dwell thereupon then the said Lease to be void And it was doubted if that Proviso did extend to the Successor for this word being in the present tense and yet it was holden by Fitzherbert that it should be taken in the future tense and so to extend to the Successor but otherwise if the words had been nunc being 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CI. Conies Case A Man seized of Lands in Fee devised Devises that his wife should take the profits of his Lands until Mary his daughter and Heir should come to the age of sixteen years and if the said Mary died that J.S. should be his Heir Manwood said Tail. That the daughter after she had attained the age of sixteen years should have the Lands in Tail for Devises shall be construed according to the interest of the Devisor if they have any certainty or reason but no intent shall be taken against reason and certainty It is certain the daughter shall not have Fee-simple for that should have descended to her without any Devise and these words if she dye cannot be intended a condition for it is certain that she shall dye but if the words had been If she dye before the age of sixteen years J. S. should be his Heir that had been a condition and if the words had been That after the death of Mary J. S. should be his Heir So as the Estate Tail remains in the daughter Mounson and Harper contrary And that she shall have but for life Mounson said That if Mary had been a Stranger to the Devisor she had taken nothing Devisee who shall first take And this case was put by Barham Serjeant A man devised 100 l. to his youngest daughter and 100 l. to his middle daughter and 100 l. to his eldest daughter and that all these sums should be levied of the Profits of his Lands It was holden by the better Opinion that the youngest daughter should be first paid and then the middle and then the eldest daughter c. and that he said was Conies Case CII 6 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man made a Lease for life and afterwards made a Lease to another for years to begin after the death of the Tenant for life the Lessee for years died intestate the Ordinary committed Letters of Administration to A. the Tenant for life and A. joyned in the Purchase of the Fee-simple of the Land demised It was holden by the Iustices in this Case that the Fee was executed for one Moiety for the remainder for years Estate executed was not any impediment to the execution of it Manwood conceived that the Term was not extinct for the same is not properly a term Extinguishment but only an Interest of a Term which cannot be surrendred Mounson He hath the Term in auter droit as Administrator and therefore it cannot be extinct Dyer If an Executor hath a Term and purchaseth the Fee-simple the Term is determined A woman Termor for years takes Husband who purchaseth the Fee the Term is extinct by Manwood for the Husband hath done an act which destroys the Term scil the Purchase But if a woman being a Termor marrieth with him in the Remainder the Term continueth for here it is not the act of the Husband but the act of Law. It was the Opinion of Dyer Tenants in Common that in this case the Tenant for Life and the Administrators should be Tenants in Common of the Fee. CIII Mich. 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe husband is seized in right of his wife of certain customary lands in Fee and he and his wife by licence of the Lord make a Lease for years by Indenture rendring rent have Issue two daughters and the husband dyeth the wife takes another husband and they have Issue a son and a daughter the husband and wife dye the son is admitted to the Reversion and dyeth without Issue and by Manwood
where the Suit is Tam pro Domina Regina quam pro seipso CXXII Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Debt IF Rent-corn be reserved upon a Lease for years and it is behind for two or three years the Lessor may have Debt for the Corn and shall declare of so much Corn and it shall be in the Detinet but yet he shall not have Iudgment to have Corn but so much mony as the Corn was worth every several year being accompted Clark Baron doubted if he shall recover the price of the Corn as it was at the time when it was payable or it was at the time of the Action brought Manwood The Law is clear that the Lessee shall pay according to the price it was at the time of the payment and delivery limited by the Lease Clark said A is bound to pay and deliver to the Obligee 10 Bushels of Wheat and no place is appointed where the payment shall be made the Obligor is not bound to seek the Obligee in what place soever as it is in Case of payment of mony for that the importableness therefore shall excuse him which Manwood granted CXXIII Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by the Barons Fine for Alienation without Licence that for Fines for Alienation without licence not only the Land aliened but the other Lands of the Alienor shall be chargeable Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXXIV Prowses Case IT was holden in the Case of one Prowse by Egerton Solicitor Tythes upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. where an Abbot had a Rectory impropriate and also Land within the same Parish c. and so paid no Tythes because he could not pay them to himself and for no other cause was discharged and after the Dissolution the Rectory is granted to one and the Land to another that in such Case the King nor his Patentees should not be discharged of Tythes for the Lands were not discharged in Right but if the Lands in the hands of the Abbot were discharged in Right as by composition or lawful means there the King and his Patentee should be discharged from payment of Tythes And it was said by Burliegh Lord Treasurer that if the Composition or Custom was that the Abbot and his Successors should be discharged without extending to Farmors or Lessees if the Abbot made a Lease and the Lessee paid Tythes as he ought and after the Reversion cometh to the King the Lessee should pay Tythes during his Lease but after the Lease determined the King and his Patentee should not pay but should be discharged by the said Statute and said the like matter was in the Chancery Trin. 30 Eliz. The Abbot of Tewkesbury having the Rectory impropriate of Tewkesbury 11 H. 7. purchased Lands within the said Parish to him and his Successors Unity no discharge of Tythes after the dissolution the King granted to G. the Rectory and to W. the Lands and if W. should pay Tythes was referred to Manwood and Periam who gave their Resolution that Tythes were payable Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXV Ropers Case ROper was robbed by Smith and within a week after the Robbery he preferred an Indictment against him and within a month after the Robbery he sued an Appeal against Smith and prosecuted it until he was out-lawed and thereupon Cook moved to have Restitution and they of the Crown Office said that the Fresh-suit was not enquired for upon an Appeal one shall not have Restitution without Fresh-suit Restitution Cook The Books are if the Defendant in the Appeal of Robbery be attainted by Verdict Fresh Suit. the Fresh-suit shall be enquired of But here he was attainted by Outlary and not by Verdict and so the Fresh-suit could not be enquired of and here the Indictment is within a week and the Appeal within a month after the Robbery is a Fresh-suit Wray Chief Iustice In our Law he is to pursue the Felon from Town to Town but the suing of the Appeal is no Fresh-suit vide 21 F. 4.16 Restitution grounded upon Outlawry and Appeal of Robbery without Fresh-suit enquired of 1 H. 4. 5. if he confess the Felony and so is 2 R. 3. 13. Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVI Piers and Leversuches Case IN Ejectione firmae by Piers against Leversuch It was found by Verdict that one Robert Leversuch Grandfather of the Defendant was Tenant in Tail of the Land whereof c. and made Lease for years to Purn who assigned it over to Piers the Plaintiffs Father Robert Leversuch died W. his Son entred upon Piers who re-entred W. demised the Lands without other words to P. for life the remainder to Joan his wife for life the remainder to the Son of P. for life with warranty and made a Letter of Attorney to re-enter and deliver seisin accordingly P. died before that the Livery was executed and afterwards the Attorney made Livery to Joan W. died Edward his Son and Heir entred upon his Wife she re-entred and let the Land to the Plaintiff who upon an Ouster brought the Action Heal Serjeant When P. entred upon W. Leversuch the Issue in Tail he was a Disseisor and by his death the Land descending to his Heir the entry was taken away of W. Leversuch Cook contrary P. by his entry was not a Disseisor but at the Election of W. for when P. accepted such a Deed of W. it appeared that his intent was not to enter as a Disseisor and it is not found that the said P. had any Son and Heir at the time of his death and if not then no descent and there is not any disseisin found that P. expulit Leversuch out of the Land and Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And Cook cited a Case which was adjudged in the Common Pleas it was Skipwiths Case Grandfather Tenant in Tail Father and Son the Grandfather died the Father entred and paid the rent to the Lessor and died in possession and it was adjudged the same was not any descent for the paying of the rent explained by what title he entred and so shall not be a Disseisor but at the Election of another Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVII Penhalls Case PEnhall was indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for drawing his Dagger in the Church against J. S. without saying that he drew it with intent to strike the Party and for that cause the Indictment was holden void as to the Statute It was moved if it should not bee a good Indictment for the Assault so as he should be fined for the same By Sands Clerk of the Crown and the whole Court the Indictment is void in all for the conclusion of the Indictment is contra formam Statuti and then the Iury cannot enquire at the Common Law. Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXVIII Weshbourns Case WEshbourn and Brown were Indicted upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. and exception was
that It was agreed by the Court that that had been a good Exception if the matter had not been relieved by the Statute of 27 Eliz. of Demurrers Another matter was objected upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 37. upon the words of the said Statute so long as the Lands remain in the possession of the Tenant in Demeasn who ought immediately to have paid the said Rent And it was said by Anderson and Rhodes that the Conusans was good enough and within the relief of that Statute For Lewknor was the immediate Purchaser and although he had let the Lands to another at will that did not make any thing for yet the Estate of the Land is within the words of the Statute for the Land remains in the Seisin of the first Purchaser And note that in this case Bouchier dyed before the Lease expired so as the Rent was not determined in his life And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Defendant Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXXXV Rawlins and Somerfords Case IN Ejectione firmae the Case was Cartwright possessed of a house for the term of 30 years demised a Stall parcel of it to Wartow for two years and afterwards assigned the whole house to Rawlins for all the years Rawlins redemised the same Stall to Cartwright for twenty years but Wartow did not attorn but before the said Redemise Cartwright by Deed indented demised the said Stall to Wartow for six years after the said two years ended and afterwards Rawlins redemised all the house to Cartwright for 21 years rendring rent with clause of re-entry and upon the Indenture of the said Redemise was endorsed that before the sealing and delivery c. it was agreed between the Parties that Wartow should have the said Stall according to the Lease for six years to him made And afterwards Cartwright redemised the said Stall to Rawlins for ten years and afterwards the Rent was behind And if the Rent reserved by Rawlins upon his demise to Cartwright was suspended or not was moved a question Cook argued it was not suspended for Rawlins had in the Estate but an Interest in futuro which cannot suspend the Rent before in possession And he put the Case 31 E. 1. Fitz. Discent 17. Lord and Tenant the Tenant is attainted of Felony and dyeth now the Seignory is not presently extinct For if the Lord takes Fealty of the Son the Seignory doth continue in Esse and Vide Acc. Fitz. N. B. 144. 26 E. 3. 72. Houghton the rent is suspended as if I lease Land and an Advowson rendrint rent and I take back an Estate in the Advowson now the rent is suspended But as to that it was answered That there the party hath a present interest in the Advowson but so it is not in the Case at Bar. And by Cook A. seized in Fee of three Acres makes a Lease of two of them for 21 years rendring rent and afterwards the Lessee leaseth one of the said Acres for years to the Lessor to begin two years after it is not a present suspension of the rent until the Lease come into possession c. And afterwards it was adjudged that by the Lease in futuro the rent was not suspended Pasch 28 Eliz. Rot. 255. Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer CCXXXVI The Guardians of the Monastery of Otleries Case IN the Exchequer it was found by Special Verdict 1 Leon. 4. That the Guardian and Chanons Regular of Otlery were seized of the Manor of O c. and that 22 H. 7. at a Court holden granted the Lands in question to W. and W. his Son for their lives by Copy according to the Custom of the said Manor and afterwards 30 H. 8. they leased the same Land by Indenture to H. rendring the ancient and accustomed rent and afterwards surrendred their Colledge c. and afterwards W. and W. dyed And if the said Lease so made during the Estate Customary notwithstanding the Statute of 31 H. 8. were good or not that was the Question being within a year before the Surrender c. And it was argued by Egerton Solicitor That the said Lease was void by the Statute the words of which are Whereof or in the which any Estate or Interest for term of Life year or years at the time of the making of any such Lease had his Being or Continuance and was not then determined finished or expired And therefore we are to see if this right or possession which W. and W. had at the time of the making of the said Lease was an Interest or Estate for Life And as to the word Estate est nihil aliud than measure of time for an Estate of Fee-simple is as much as to say an Interest in the Lands for ever and so of the rest and therefore W. and W. had at the time of the making of the Lease an Estate for the thing demised And although such Customary Tenants are termed in Law Tenants at will yet they are not simply so nor meer Tenants at will but Tenants at will secundum Consuetudinem Manerii which Custom warrants his possession here for life and therefore it is a more certain estate than an estate at will for the Copyholder may justifie against his Lord and so cannot a Tenant at will whose estate is determinable at the will and pleasure of his Lessor and although this estate is but by custom and by no conveyance yet it is such an estate which the said Statute intends non refert by what conveyance the estate is raised so it be an estate and this estate being supported by custom is acknowledged in Law to be an estate and so accounted in our Law and the Law hath notably distinguished Copyhold tenancies by the custom and tenancies at will at the Common Law for a Copyholder shall do fealty and have aid of his Lord in an Action of Trespass he shall have and maintain an Action of Trespass against his Lord his wife shall be endowed the husband shall be Tenant by the Curtesie without a new Admittance So customary Tenancies are within the Rules and Maxims of our Law As in the Case of Horewood There shall be a possest o fratris of it without admittance and it was adjudged 8 Eliz in the Kings Bench That if a Copyholder surrender to the use of another for years and the Lessee dyeth his Executors shall have the residue of the term without any admittance M. 14 15 Eliz. A Copyholder made a Lease for years by Indenture warranted by the custom the Lessee brought Ejectione firmae it was adjudged maintainable in the Common Pleas Although it was objected That if it be so then if the Plaintiff recover he should have an Habere facias possessionem and there Copyholds should be ordered by the Common Laws of the Land. 10 Eliz. Lord and Copyholder for Life the Lord grants a Rent-charge out of the Manor whereof the Copyhold is parcel the Copy-holder surrendreth to the use of
A. who is admitted he shall not hold the Land charged and so it was adjudged in the Court of Common Pleas. CCXXXVII Mich. 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was holden by all the Iustices in the Common Pleas That the Queen might be put out of possession of an Advowson by two Vsurpations and shall be put to her Writ of Right of Advowson as a common person shall be for it is a thing transitory and if the Queen after such Vsurpations grant the Advowson the Grant is void and so it was adjudged CCXXXVIII Mich. 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Tenant in tail the remainder over to another in Fee makes a Lease for life according to the Statute and afterwards dyes without Issue and afterwards he in the Remainder grants his Remainder by Fine before any Entry and by Fenner the Conusee cannot now enter upon Tenant for life nor avoid his lease for by the Livery to the Tenant for life a Freehold passeth which cannot be avoided without an Entry As if a Parson makes a lease for life rendring rent and dyeth the Successor accepteth the rent now the lease is affirmed vide 18 E. 4. 25. and then when before any Entry he in the remainder grants his remainder the Grantee shall have it but as a remainder and so the Estate of the Tenant for life which before was voidable is now made good and so it was holden by Windham and Periam But by Mead and Dyer by the death of Tenant in tail without Issue the lease for life is become void for the Estate out of which the Estate for life is derived is determined by the dying without Issue Ergo c. Vide 21 H. 7. 12. A lease for life is made upon condition That if the Lessor pay to the Lessee at such a day 20 l. that his Estate shall cease now by the performance of the Condition the Estate is determined without any Entry CCXXXIX 32 H. 8. In the Common Pleas. NOte by all the Iustices of the Common Pleas That if a man holds of the King in chief by Knights Service and also holds of another Lord by Knights Service and dyeth his heir within age and the King seizeth the Wardship of the Body and Land and afterwards the heir cometh of full age and before Livery sued the other Lord grants over his Seignory to another and the heir Attorns It is a good Attornment and also Seisin of the Services had by such Lord by the hands of such an heir before Livery sued is good enough and shall bind him afterwards in an Avowry c. Temps H. 8. Vide 31 H. 8. Rot. 420. CCXL Sir William Hollis Case SIr William Hollis brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Coventry Godfrey Fuliamb Kt. and William Waltham Clark The Case was Sir Ralph Langford Kt. was seized of the Manor of D. to which the Advowson was appendant and presented to the same Church one A. his Clark who was admitted c. And afterwards the said Sir Ralph granted the next Avoidance of the same Church to Sir Godfrey Fuliamb James Fuliamb George Fuliamb and William Walton eorum uni conjunctim divisim afterward the said Sir Ralph granted by fine the said Manor with the Advowson to Sir William Hollis in Fee the Church became void the said Sir Godfrey Fuliamb presented the said Waltham his Clark who was admitted c. And upon Argument at the Bar and Bench It was adjudged against the Plaintiff and the Presentment of Sir Godfrey sole without the others was good Notwithstanding also that Waltham the Presentee was one of the Grantees of the next Avoidance Tr. 31 H. 8. Rott 420. Vide 21 E. 4. 66. 35 H. 6. 62. See this Case lately Reported in Sir George Mores Reports by the name of Sir Godfrey Fuliambs Case CCXLI. Temps Roign Eliz. NOte by Hind and Hales the Kings Attorney Iustices of Assize in the County of Essex in the Case of the Bishop of London and one Heron Keeper of Cronden Park if the Keeper of my Park or any of his Servants without his assent of their own heads and without my commandment kill my Deers within the said Park being within his keeping or abateth or pulleth down any house within the Park or Barn for to lay Hay for the Deer there or cutteth any Trees Wood or Vnderwoods there growing and sells the same or gives it to another that in all these cases the Keeper of the Park shall forfeit his Office And it was agreed by them That such a Keeper hath not any estate or possession in the Park or in the Lodge but the possession remains always in the Owner of the Soil of the Park and the Keeper hath but the occupation and keeping and the surveying of the same for such a Keeper cannot justifie the holding of the Lodge with force in a Writ brought upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. by the Owner of the Park but it was agreed that he who hath the inheritance in such an Office shall not forfeit his Office for the causes aforesaid Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXLII. Fitz and Pierces Case IN Ejectione firmae by Fitz against Pierce Pierce was outlawed and now came and shewed by way of Plea that the outlawry was erronious in this videlicet ad Com' meum tent ' 30 Jan. 29 Eliz. whereas the said day was Dies Dominicus and so there was no County Court It was the Opinion of Windham that the same matter did well lye in Plea for it is matter apparent within the Record as in the case of Brecket and Fish Plowd Com. 266. Rhodes and Periam were of a contrary Opinion and said the case cited is not like to the case at Bar for there it appeareth to the Court as Iudges when every Term beginneth and endeth but it is otherwise in our case si 30 die Januarii be dies Dominicus necne for it shall be tryed by the Country c. Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLIII Keenes Case RAlph Keene Vicar of B. was Indicted for stopping quandam viam valde necessariam Indictment Nusance for all the Kings Subjects there passing Exception was taken to it because it wanted the word Regiam and the word necessariam doth not imply any matter for a Foot way is necessary Addition Also here the Party hath not any addition It is R. K. but it is not said Clarke and for these causes the Party was discharged Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLIV Peake and Pollorts Case ACtion upon the Case by Peake against Pollort Words upon these words Thou art a malicious and sedicious man and movest the Queens Subjects to Sedition It was the Opinion of the Court that the words were not actionable for they were too general for it may be that the Defendant hath stirred up the Tenants of a Manor to Tumults and Sedition which is not any great Scandal And the Statute of
defence c. and therefore if he maketh default or confesseth the Action it is a Forfeiture And as to the supposed recompence the same doth not help the Case for this common Recovery is no other but an Assurance and Recoverors are but Assignees and they shall take advantage of Conditions by 32 H. 8. and a recoveror shall be seized to the use of him who suffers the recovery if no other use be expressed And he also held that when Tenant for life bargains and sells his Land by Deed inrolled although no Fee passeth 1 Leon. 264. 3 Inst 251. b. Mores r. 212. 2 Leon. 60 65. yet it is a Forfeiture and that by reason of the Inrollment which is matter of Record And he said that if an Infant Tenant for life be disseised the Disseisor dyeth seized and afterwards the Infant dyeth that he in the remainder may enter Gent. to the same intent If Tenant for life c. the same is not simply a Forfeiture for he may have a Warranty or a Release or a Confirmation made to him Attornment doth not give a right but is only a consent yet if he who hath nothing in the reversion will levy a Fine of it to another and afterwards the Conusee bringeth a Quid juris clamat against the tenant of the Land and he Attorns it is a Forfeiture Manwood to the same intent This is a new Case and I have not read the Case in any Book nor seen any President of it And it is a great Case and a general Case and worthy to be argued and I conceive clearly that here is a direct and express Forfeiture at the Common Law without any aid or restraint of any Statute to make it a Forfeiture The dignity of Iudgment in the repute of Law hath been urged which ought to stand in force until they be reversed by Error or Attaint And also Littleton hath been urged 481. where upon the Statute of West 2. cap. 3. he saith that before the Statute aforesaid If a Lease had been made to one for life the remainder to a stranger and afterwards a stranger by feigned Action had recovered against the tenant for life by default and also the tenant for life dyed that he in the remainder had not any remedy But there Littleton doth not report the same as his own Opinion but as an Opinion conceived by a remainder upon the said Statute and it is in truth but a meer conceit And as to the main point he took this diversity Such Recoveries in which the title of the demandant stands indifferently to the Court and Non constat if it be good or not being suffered by tenant for life by default or confession without Aid prayer of him in the reversion do not make any Forfeiture although the tenant for life hath not dealt well with him in the reversion not having prayed in aid of him And in such Case If a Lease be made for life the remainder over in Fee upon such a recovery he in the remainder shall have a Formedon in the remainder or a Writ of Right and shall not oust him who recovered without Action and that by the Common Law. Then came the Statute of West 2. cap. 3. which gave to the Wife Cui in vita upon a Recovery against the Husband by default whereas before she had not any recovery but a Writ of Right and notwithstanding her former recovery ulterius necesse habet ostendere jus suum secundum formam brevis quod prius impetraverat and if his right be not better than the right of him in the Reversion he shall lose the Land notwithstanding the Iudgment given before for him And that Statute gave Resceit or Entry ad terminum qui praeteriit and that Statute is to be intended of such Recoveries where a good or at least an indifferent Title is so as non constat Curiae if it be good or not After that Tenant for life was driven to a near shift and would not make default or lose by nient dedire but would plead but yet faintly for the remedy of which Mischief the Statute of 13 R. 2. was made which gave Resceit in such Case the particular Tenant being restrained by that Statute He jugled yet and practised to suffer a Recover secretly without notice of him in the Reversion To remedy which Mischief the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made and that made such Recovery had against such particular Tenant void against him in the Reversion It hath been objected That the Statute of 32 H 8. doth not give any Forfeiture in that Case but makes that the Recovery be void therefore he in the reversion ought to tarry till after the death of the particular Tenant To that I shall speak after But how our Case is a common Recovery and constat Curiae that the Demandant hath not any right for the Tenant might have barred him and in truth he who recovereth is but a Purchasor Also this recovery is not to the use of the recoverer but to the use of him who was Tenant in it and not paramount as in the Case of a recovery upon a good title a Lease for years made by him who after suffers a recovery is good and shall not be defeated by the recoveree otherwise it is where the recovery is upon a good Title Vide Statute of Gloucest cap. 11. Where upon default of the Tenant resceipt is given for Lessee for years yet if the Tenant vouch upon default of the Vouchee the Lessee for years shall be received and now resceipt of Lessee for years is out of the Book for by the Statute of 21 H. 8. he may falsifie But no resceipt lyeth in the Case of a common recovery for he who recovereth cannot oust the Termor As to that which my Brother Clark hath said That the Bargain and Sale in this Case is not any Forfeiture but when the Deed of Bargain and Sale is inrolled it is a Forfeiture I am not of that Opinion for although that the inrollment be of record yet the Deed is not of record for against the Deed inrolled a man may plead Infancy although none can plead Non est factum to it Also he held that although by the Bargain and Sale and the inrollment of it the Bargainee had not Fee for by such act the reversion is not removed yet by the recovery and the Execution of it the Bargainee had gained the Fee out of the Lessor for the recovery is to the use of the Bargainee against whom it was had c. It hath been objected That he is only a Voucher which peradventure was lawful in this Case by reason of the Warranty paramount or of a release or confirmation with Warranty and two Cases have been vouched to such purpose viz. 5 E. 4. 2. Tenant for life being impleaded in a Praecipe vouched a stranger the Demandant counterpleaded the Voucher which was found for him he in the reversion had no remedy but
he could not put in a true Inventory and upon that the Plaintiff prayed a Prohibition surmising that he himself claimed Property in the said Goods and the Ecclesiastical Court would not allow of it and the Trial of the said Goods did belong to the Common Law And a Prohibition was granted Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLXII Mountjoyes and Andrews Case IN Scire Facias upon a Iudgment in Debt The Defendant pleaded that heretofore a Fieri Facias at the Suit of the now Plaintiff issued directed to the Sheriff of Leiceâ—â—er by force of which the said Sheriff took divers Sheep of the Defendant Execution adhuc doth detain them Retorn of Writ It was holden by the Court a good Plea although he doth not say that the Writ was returned for the Execution is lawful notwithstanding that and the Plaintiff hath remedy against the Sheriff CCLXIII Vide this Case reported by Cook 1 Part by the name of Capells Case THe Case between Hunt and Gately in the Exchequer Chamber was now argued by Fenne That the Rent granted by him in the Remainder upon an Estate tail is good and shall bind the Land after the Estate tail determined notwithstanding the common Recovery suffered by the Tenant in tail in possession Before the Statute of Westm 2. of Donis Condic c. no Remainder could be limited upon an Estate tail for that which remained in the Donor was but a possibility and therefore then a Formedon in Remainder did not lye But the said Statute which provided a Formedon in the Descender provided also by Equity a Formedon in the Remainder for a Formedon in the Reverter as appeareth by the said Statute was in use in Cancellaria And now here in our case is a Remainder lawfully vested in the Grantor which he may dispose of as he sees good and therefore when he grants a Rent-charge out of it the same is a thing vested in the Grantee and by no subsequent act can be divested and although the Estate which was charged be now charged by the Recovery yet it is the same Land which was charged and therefore the charge shall continue as if a gift in tail be rendring Rent and the Donee levieth a Fine yet the Rent remaineth and the Donor shall distrain 48 E. 3. 3 9. So here If after the grant of this Rent Tenant in tail in possession levies a Fine by which the Remainder which was charged is discontinued and afterwards the Conusor dyes without Issue the Grantee shall distrain upon such possession which passed by the Fine As if A. lease to B. for life and afterwards grants a Rent out of the same Land to C. B. aliens in Fee and dyes although that A. cannot re-enter but suffers the said torcious Estate gained de novo by wrong to continue yet B upon such possession shall distrain for the Rent for it is the same Land which was charged and by Law a thing in abeyance may be charged As if a Parson grant a Rent-charge to begin after his death and the Patron and Ordinary confirm it it shall bind although the Grant doth not take effect in the life of the Grantor but when the Freehold is in abeyance So if the Patron and Ordinary in the time of Vacation grant a Rent-charge out of the Parsonage the same is good and shall bind the Successor and yet at the time of the Grant the Freehold of the thing granted is in abeyance Vide 5 E. 6. Dyer 69. That a Rent which is not in esse shall be bound by a Iudgment 22 E. 3. 19. 5 E. 3. Fitz. Dower 343. By Bracton Jus concerning a real thing is threefold 1. Jus terrae scil the Ownership of the Land. 2. Jus in terra as a Rent Common c. 3. Jus ad terram scil Right permanent And by this Common Recovery in our case Jus terrae shall be bound but not Jus in terra And he said That if Land be given to A. in tail the Remainder to the Kings Villain in Fee and before any claim by the King A. suffers a common Recovery and dyes without Issue this Recovery shall not bind the King. And as to the Case of 26 H. 8. 2. which hath been Objected against the falsifying of the Recovery where a Parson made a Lease for years and afterwards in a Quare Impedit brought against him and the Patron they pleaded faintly to the intent to make the Lessee lose his Term now such a Lessee cannot falsifie in such case the Parson by another way might have defeated the Lease as by Resignation but in our case the Grantor of this Rent by no way might defeat his Grant And he said a common recovery did not bind Dower therefore nor this rent And if Tenant in tail in possession grants such a rent and after suffers a common recovery the rent shall stand why not also in the case of a remainder for upon them both as well the remainder as the possession the recovery operatur And recoveries shall always bind the possession and no farther and shall not disprove the right but the possession And the recovery by it self doth not bind the possession but in respect of the Voucher without which no recovery shall bar and that in respect of the recompence which the Law presumes c. which recompence cannot extend to this Rent-charge and then there is no reason that he to whom it was granted should be prejudiced by this recovery and always in case of recompence the Law is very precise As if I grant unto you an Annuity of 30 l. per Annum until you be presented to a competent Benefice a litigious Benefice is not a recompence intended nor shall determine the Annuity nor a Benefice of 15 l. If two make an exchange for their Lives and one of them dyeth the exchange is not determined but the Heir of him who dyeth shall enter and retain the Land as long as the other shall live Ad quod Manwod Chief Baron subsidebat And there is a great difference between a Lease for years and a Rent-charge for at the Common Law upon such Recovery the Lessee for years was bound contrary of a Rent-charge for it was unreasonable that a thing not demanded by the recovery should be bound by it especially because that the Land rendred in value shall not be charged with the rent Walmesley Serjeant contrary A remainder upon an Estate tail is debile fundamentum and cannot uphold with assurance a Rent-charge against a common recovery and it cannot be found in any Book but in 5 E. 4. 2. That a remainder upon an Estate-tail expectant may be charged for an Estate-tail is in Law presumed to be perpetual and therefore what Lands are entailed by Fee the words of the Fine are Sibi haeredibus de Corpore suo exeuntibus imperpetuum And it is the common learning in our Books that every Estate of Inheritance be it Fee-simple or Fee-tail shall be
infra Messuagium praedict ' modo forma and thereupon it was demurred in Law for it was said That the Defendant ought to have said Non usurpavit Libertates praedictas nec eorum aliquam for he ought to answer singulum and also he ought to have pleaded as well to the Manor as to the Messuage for if the Defendant hath holden Court within any place of the Manor it is sufficient And the Case 33 H. 8. Br. Travers sans ceo 367. was cited and Information was in the Exchequer That the Defendant had bought Wools of A.B. contrary to the Statute the Defendant pleaded That he had not bought of A. B. and the Plea was not allowed for he ought to have said That he had not bought modo forma for if he had bought of A. B. or J. S. the same is not any matter nor traversable which Cook denied to be Law And he conceived also that the Information upon the Quo Warranto is not sufficient for by the same the Defendant is charged to hold a Court and it is not shewed what Court and it may be it was a Court of Pypowders Turn c. And Vide 10 E. 4. 15 16. a Quo Warranto contains two things 1 Claim 2. Vsurpation And here the Defendant hath answered but to the Vsurpation and it hath said nothing as to the Claim And it hath been holden here heretofore that he ought to make answer to both And it hath been holden in a Reading upon the Statute de Quo Warranto which is supposed to be Frowicks Reading That a Quo Warranto doth not lye of such Liberties which do not lye in Claim as Goods of Felons c. which lyeth only in point of Charter CCCXIX. Temps Roign Eliz. THe Prior of Bath leased his Manor of A. to C. for life rendring rent and afterwards the Priory was dissolved the King leased the whole Manor cum pertinenciis to Sir Walter D. Kt. Dyer The matter depends upon this point If the Demesne be severed from the Services during the life of the Lessee And he conceived That the Lord cannot hold a Court if such a power be not reserved to him upon the Lease Weston The Manor nor is in suspence during the Lease for a Reversion upon an Estate for life and Services in possession cannot be united to make a Manor but contrary if but parcel had been leased Quod Curia concessit Welch The Demesnes are severed from the Services for ever as if they had been granted in Fee but here having regard to the Lessor the Demesnes and Services are united and made one Manor but as to the Lessee and all others the Services are in gross and of that Opinion was also Dyer And he said If a Bishop leaseth his Demesnes of his Manor for life and dyeth the Reversion shall be in his Successor and was in himself for his life in the right of his Church And if Husband and Wife seized of a Manor in the right of his Wife lease the Demesnes of the said Manor for life yet he hath the Reversion in the right of his Wife and in such Case it doth remain a Manor but if the Husband sole had made the Lease he had gained the Reversion to him and so severed it from the Manor CCCXX Temps Roign Eliz. Devises A. Devised that his Wife should take the Profits of his Lands until his daughter should come to the full age of 25 years and if the daughter dyed within the age of 18 years then his wife should have the Land for her life the remainder over to J. S. The daughter became of the age of 18 years and dyed before she came of the age of 20 years and Dyer held clearly That the Remainder was gone for the daughter accomplished and survived the age of 18 years And he said that the case late depending in the Kings Bench was this The Husband devised the Profits of his Lands to his Wife for 25 years and that then his Son should have it in Tail to him and to the Heirs of his Body c. now before the 25 years expired he hath Fee and if he hath Issue then his Estate is changed into Tail But by Carus he hath both Estates scil Fee-tail and Fee-expectant CCCXXI. Temps Roign Eliz. Surrenders A Woman Tenant in Tail made a Lease not warranted by the Statute took a Husband had Issue and dyed the Husband being Tenant by the Courtesie surrendred to the Issue It was holden that he should not avoid the Lease during the life of the Tenant by the Courtesie But yet some held That the Surrender ought to be by Deed as a Lease to A. for life the Remainder to B. for life the Remainder to C. in Fee if B. surrenders to C. it must be by Deed. CCCXXII Temps Roign Eliz. THe Case was this A. leaseth Lands to B. for years Extent rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry and afterwards Debt is recovered against him It was holden That now the Moiety of the Rent and the Reversion was extendable by Elegit and upon such Extent Condition suspended the Condition is suspended during the Extent as well in the Lessor as in the Party who hath the Extent Temps Roign Eliz. CCCXXIII Mitchell and Nordens Case Procedendo upon Aid-Prayer in Dower ELizabeth ' c. Dilectis Jacobo Dyer c. Monstravit nobis Elizabeth ' Mitchell quae fuit uxor c. Quod cum ipsa prosecuta fuit coram vobis sociis vestris c. Breve nostrum de Dote unde nihil habet versus Thomam Norden c. Et praedictus Thomas venit dixit Quod vir praedictae Elizabethae was seized and leased to him for life with warranty and for that cause he vouched to warranty Tristriam ' Mitchell Filium Haeredem dict' Richardi infra aetatem existen ' in Custodia eo quod dictus Richardus die quo obiit c. Et hoc paratus est verificare Unde non intendit quod vos praefati Justiciarii nostri nobis inde inconsultis ulterius procedere velletis Et petiit auxilium de nobis habuit Et super hoc dies datus est tam praefatae Eliz. quam dict Tho. Norden à die Pasc c. Et dictum fuit praefatae Eliz. Quod sequatur penes vos quarum quidem allegatione praetextu vos in placito praedict ulterius procedere distulistis adhuc differtis in ipsius Eliz. dispendium gravamen Et super hoc eadem Eliz. venit hic coram nobis in Cancellaria nostra Et petit Breve nostrum de Procedendo inde in hac parte vobis dirigend ' Super quo quaesita fuit in eadem Curia Cancellariae nostrae à Gilberto Gerrard Attornato nostro generali qui pro nobis in hac parte sequitur si quid dicere scivit aut potuit per quod dict' Tristriamus infra aetatem in custodia nostra
Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Prior of Bath let his Manor of A. to C. for life rendrint Rent and after the Priory dissolved the King let the whole Manor with the appurtenances to J. S. Dyer The matter depends upon this point If the Demesus be severed from the Services during the life of the Lessee And he conceived that the Lord could not hold a Court if such power were not reserved upon the Lease contrary if but parcel had been leased quod fuit concessum Welch The Demesns are severed from the Services for ever as if they had been granted in Fee but here having regard to the Lessor the Demesns and Services are united and make one Manor But as unto the Lessee and all others the Services are in gross and such also was the Opinion of Dyer And he said That if a Bishop Leases the Demesns of his Manor for life and dyeth the Reversion shall be in his Successor and was in him in his life time in the right of his Church and if Husband and Wife seized of a Manor in the right of the Wife let the Demesns of the said Manor for life yet he hath the Reversion in the right of his Wife and in such Case it remains a Manor but if the Husband alone had let it he had gained the Reversion to him and severed it from the Manor CCCLXVIII Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was 3 Leon 252. A man 30 Eliz. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his first Son and his Heirs The Father and the Feoffees before Issue For mony by Deed gave granted and enfeoffed J. S. and his Heirs who had no notice of the use the Tenant for life had Issue and dyed the Issue entred Glanvill The use limited to the first Son is destroyed for without regress of the Feoffees it cannot rise and it is gone by the Livery Vide Plow Com. 347. And also he put the Case of the Earl of Kent who by the Release of the surviving Feoffees a dormant use was destroyed and could not afterwards be revived Harris The use might rise without the entry of the Feoffees and he put a difference betwixt an use created before the Statute and created after for in the first case they ought to enter and if they be disabled by any Act as in the case of Gascoign and the Earl of Kent it shall never rise but in the latter case all the authority and confidence is by the Statute taken out of the Feoffees and the use contingent shall rise without aid of the Feoffees by the operation of the Law for the Land is bound to the uses and charged with them as upon a Recovery in a Warrantia Chartae the Land of the Defendant is charged pro loco tempore and according to the common Experience in Conveyances for payment of the Kings Debts as in the case of Bowden and Dennis the Debtor of the King made a Feoffment in Fee unto the use of himself and his Heirs until he should make a default of payment of such a Sum to the Queen at such a day and for default to the use of the Queen and her Heirs Cooper There needs no entry of the Feoffees and he put the difference before put by Harris between an use created before and an use created after the Statute and now the Feoffees have not any power to revive or destroy such uses but are only as instruments to convey the uses for the use is created upon the Livery and is transferred by the Statute if the person to whom the use is limited be capable thereof at the time of the limitation and he put the Case of Feoffments to uses 30 H 8. and there is a great difference betwixt uses limited before and after the Statute for they have not such a Seisin whereof they may make a Feoffment And he put the Case of Cheny and Oxenbridge Cheny let to Oxenbridge for 60 years and afterwards enfeoffed Oxenbridge to the use of Cheny himself and his Wife for their lives with divers Remainders over and it was adjudged in the Court of Wards that by that Feoffment the term was not extinct And he put the Case of the Lord Paget adjudged in the Kings Bench A Feoffment was made to the use of the Feoffor for life the Remainder to him whom the Feoffor should name at his death in Fee the Feoffor and the Feoffees for good consideration levy a Fine to a stranger and afterwards the Feoffor names one and dyes the party named by the Feoffor shall have the Land notwithstanding the Fine Beaumount The contingent use here is utterly destroyed and it appears by the preamble of the Act of 27 H. 8. that the makers of the said Act did not favour Vses but their intent was utterly to root out Vses and if contingent Vses which are not nor can be executed by the Statute should stand in force the mischief would be That no Purchasor would be secured of his Purchase but should always be in danger of a new born use not before known And he grounded his further Argument upon the reason of Manwood and Dyer Where a man makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife that shall be and afterwards he and his Feoffees and those in remainder make a Feoffment to divers new Feoffees and unto new Vses and afterwards takes another wife and dyes it seemed to the said 2 Iustices that by that Feoffment ut supra the contingent Vse was destroyed for when the Estate which the Feoffees accepted of is taken away which is the root and foundation of the Vses which are the Branches and Body of the said Tree it necessarily follows that they also be taken away And forasmuch as the Feoffees by their Livery are barred to enter for to recontinue the Estate which should yield the said Vses they also are gone and extinguished Yelverton conceived that notwithstanding the Feoffment that the use did rise in its due time according to the limitation of it Quaere the Case was not Resolved but Adjourned CCCLXIX Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin the Defendant avowed for Damage feasant the Plaintiff in bar of the Avowry shewed That he is inhabitant of such a Town and shewed that every inhabitant in every Messuage in the said Town had used to have Common in the place where c. Glanvill The Prescription is not good for want of capacity in the party who pretends interest for it is not certain but applyed to a multitude and he put divers cases to prove the same as 22 H. 6. 21 H. 7. 1. Mariae Dyer 100. The King grants a Rent probis hominibus de Islington the same is void for they are not capable Harris The Prescription is good and he agreed that a confused multitude could not prescribe in matter of Interest but in an Easement or Discharge as
or his Servant had put the Horse to grass and afterward the Horse is stollen there an Action upon the Case doth lye Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCVII Neals Case IN a false Imprisonment by Neal against the Mayor Sheriffs Citizens and Commonalty of the City of Norwich the Original Writ was directed to the Coroners of the said City And Exception was taken to the Writ because it was not directed to the Sheriffs of the said City but to the Coroners Sed non allocatur for the Sheriffs are parcel of the Corporation as it is to see by the name by which they of Norwich are incorporated And also it hath been adjudged That a Sheriff cannot summon himself and therefore by the Award of the Court the Writ was allowed to be good Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCVIII. Sir John Bromes Case SIr John Brome 33 H. 8. acknowledged a Fine of certain Lands the Kings Silver was entred and the Conusans taken but the Fine was never engrossed and now he who claimed under the Fine came in Court and prayed that the Fine might be engrossed and the Court examined them upon their Oaths to what use the Fine was levied and in the Seisin and Possession of what persons the Lands whereof the Fine was levied had been after the Fine Vpon which Examination it appeared fully to the Court that the Party to whom the Fine was levied was seized after the Fine and suffered a Common Recovery of the Land and that the said Land had been enjoyed according to the said Fine at all such times since c. Whereupon the Court commanded that the Fine be ingrossed Vide Acc. 8 Eliz. Dyer 254. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXCIX The Lord Dacres and Philip Fines Case THe Case between the Lord Dacres and Fines was Tenant in Tail in remainder upon an Estate for Life of Lands holden in Capite levied a Fine thereof without Licence 3 Leon. 261. and Process issued against the Tenants for Life It was holden by all the Barons that by Plea he should be discharged it was holden That if the Conusor had any other Lands ubicunque in Anglia the Fine for Alienation should be levied upon them But it was moved If the Tenant should be driven to plead it because it appears upon Record that the Conusor was but Tenant in Tail in Remainder and that was in an Office containing such matter which was pleaded by another in another Cause before by which Office it appeared that the Lord Dacres was Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail to Philip Fines and now Fines had levied a Fine sur Conusans de droit c. and because the same appeared on Record Manwood awarded that the Process against the Tenants of the Lord Dacres should be stayed Trin. 29 Eliz. CC. Paston and Townsends Case IN Trespass by Paston against Townsend The Defendant pleaded that Tindal was seized in Fee by protestation and dyed seized and the Land descended To which the Plaintiff replyed and said c absque hoc that Tindal was seized in Fee upon which they were at Issue On the part of the Defendant to prove the Issue it was given in Evidence to prove the Issue in his right that the said Tindal long time before his death was seized and aliened and never after was seized It was said that that Evidence did not prove the Issue for the Defendant for the Seisin in Fee intended in the Issue is in the nature of a dying seized and so Periam conceived that the Defendants Plea did not intend any other Seisin a dying seized and the dying seized is taken by Protestation to avoid the doubleness So as the Seisin upon which the Issue is taken ought to be intended a Seisin continuing until the time of the death of Tindal and Seisin at large or a general Seisin at any time during the life of Tindal quod Anderson concessit Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCI. Griffith and Prices Case ERror by Griffith against Price upon a Iudgment in Chester in Ejectione firmae and the Error assigned was because the Original bore date 16 April 28 Eliz. and the Plaintiff declared of an Ejectment 17 April 28 Eliz. So as it appeareth that the Action was brought before there was any cause of Action and that was holden to be Error And also Ejectione firmae is not a personal Action and afterwards the Iudgment was Reversed Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCII. Harris and Caverleys Case A Iudgment was given in London between Harris and Caverley upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for buying of Woolls and upon that Error was brought in the Kings Bench quod nota For this Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given in London ought to be sued before the Maior Vide â— N. B. 22 23. And Wray asked Wherefore the Writ of Error was brought here To which it was answered by Dodding Clark that the Record was removed by Certiorari out of the Kings Bench at the Suit of the Defendant to the purpose to bring a Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet And the Error was assigned in this that by the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. it is enacted that upon every Information that shall be exhibited a special Note shall be made of the Day Month and Year of the exhibiting of the same into any Office or to any Officer who lawfully may receive the same And here upon this Information there is not any such Note according to the said Statute And in truth no Information may be exhibited for there is not any Officer there appointed for that matter for the entry in such Cases in that Court is Talis venit deliberavit hic in Curia Miloni Sands c. But in the Case at Bar the Entry is Talis venit deliberavit in Curia but without shewing to whom But note that the words of the said Statute of 18 Eliz. are in the disjunctive into any Office or to any Officer and that such Information shall not be of Record but from that time forwards and not before wherefore here this Information is not upon Record and then no Iudgment can be given upon it Cook This Information may be well sued in London for the words of the said Statute of 5 E. 6. give Suit in any Court of Record of the King And the Court in London is a Court of Record of the King and every Court of Record hath an Officer to receive Declarations and Pleas and if it be delivered into the Office it is good enough 2. The Offence is laid in the Parish of Bow in Warda de Cheap alibi in Civitate London and so there is not any place laid where the Offence shall be tryed Cook This Alibi is a Nugation Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCIII Peuson and Higbeds Case IN Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared that in consideration that he by his Servant had delivered to the Defendant two Bills
any thing which sounds to the disinheriting of him in the reversion although in truth the same doth not touch the Inheritance yet it is a forfeiture Vid. 39 E. 3. 16. If Tenant for life pleads any thing against the right of him in the reversion it is a forfeiture and by Finchden and Belknap he cannot plead in the right 5 Ass 3. Tenant for life is impleaded in a Praecipe by a stranger and confesseth the Action upon which the Demandant hath Iudgment the Lessor enters against whom the Demandant sueth Execution The Lessor brought an Assise and had Iudgment to recover for it is a forfeiture because the Tenant for life hath admitted the reversion in another because it is an alienation to the disinheriting of the Plaintiff and of the Lessor 12 E. 3. Fitz Resceipt 14. where Tenant for life pleaded in chief or cannot deny or gainsay the Action of the Demandant or makes default by Covin he shall forfeit his Estate But if a rent be demanded against Tenant for life and he rendreth the same it is no forfeiture 12 Ass 31. Tenant for life is impleaded by Covin between him and the Demandant and pleads in chief without aid prayer upon which Iudgment is given he in the reversion enters in a Juris utrum against Tenant for life who pleads feintly traversing the point of the Action he in the reversion shall not be received for in as much as the Tenant hath traversed the Action he is not within the Statute of West 2. 3 5. Default Reddition but he in the Reversion may enter by the Common Law 22 E. 3. 2. In Scire facias to execute a Fine against Tenant for life who pleaded to the Inquest whereas in truth the Land in demand was not comprised within the Fine Iudgment is given for the Demandant in the Scire facias he in the reversion may enter In our principal case here is apparent and manifest Covin for the Tenant for life voucheth without cause and this Recovery is by assent and is to the use of the Vendee who is Tenant for the life of another and therefore by the Common Law he in the Remainder may enter before Execution sued And it is well known that these common Recoveries are used for to dock Remainders in Tail and that was the scope of this Recovery And as to the Case of 5 E. 4. 2. Tenant for life is impleaded in a Praecipe quod reddat who voucheth a stranger the Demandant counterpleads the Voucher and it is found for him he in the Reversion hath no remedy but by a Writ of Right and if the Vouchee entreth and loseth by Action tryed or default ut supra that Book is to be intended of a Recovery executed for there in such case he in the Reversion hath not an Entry but is put to his Writ of Entry by the Common Law Vide Br. Title Forfeiture 87. 24 H. 8. Tenant for life is impleaded and prays in the Aid of a stranger he in the Reversion may enter but if he doth not enter until the other hath recovered then he cannot enter but is put to his Writ of Entry Ad terminum qui praeteriit vel de ingressu ad Communem Legem and therein he shall falsifie the Recovery and there by Brook Voucher of a stranger is not cause of Forfeiture for it doth not disaffirm the Reversion in the Lessor And he vouched 24 E. 3. 68. where Tenant for life pleaded in the right with aid prayer And so he argued that before Execution he in the Remainder might enter but after Execution is put to his Action But in our Case although that Execution be good yet he in the Remainder may enter for it is found by Verdict that at the time of the Recovery he was within age and that when he dyed that he in the next Remainder was within age and then no Entry shall be imputed and then he shall not be driven to his Action As if Tenant by the Courtesie makes a Feoffment with warranty and dyeth and the same descends to his Heir within age yet he shall enter although he hath not avoided the warranty in the life of his Ancestors Also he said that the Statute of 32 H. 8. extended to this Case for Sir William Pelham the Vendee was but Tenant for life and although that he be but Tenant for the life of another yet he is Tenant for life as fully as if he were Tenant for his own life or otherwise Tenant for life or lives Note this the words of the Statute As upon the Statute of 20 E. 1. which gives Resceipt de defensione juris the words are Cum quis aliquod breve Domini Regis impetret versus Tenentem per Legem Angliae vel feod taliat ' vel sub Nomine Dotis vel alio modo ad terminum vitae upon these words it is holden 11 H. 4. That where Land was given to one and his heirs for the life of another that upon such an Estate he in the reversion should be received by reason of these words vel alio modo ad terminum vitae c. And although he who enters at the time of the recovery was not next in remainder to the particular Estate yet he is within the Statute of 32 H. 8. For he was in remainder at the time of the recovery and at the time of the entry he in the immediate remainder was dead and then he the next in remainder Vide 15 E. 4. 9. by Litt. If I grant my Services to one for life and he in a Praecipe brought against him pleads in the right or grants to another the said Services in Fee it is not a Forfeiture for it is no Discontinuance It will be objected That the words of the Statute of 32 H. 8. are That such recoveries shall be utterly void and if so then he in the reversion cannot be damnified and then no cause of Forfeiture So that it may be easily answered That where Tenant for life doth any thing which sounds to the disinheriting of him in the reversion by matter of record although the same doth not devest or otherwise prejudice the Inheritance yet it is a Forfeiture Cook to the contrary Here in our Case is not any Covin in Sir William Pelham the Bargainee he was deceived by the Bargainor for he did not know but that the Bargainor was seized in tail according to the Covenant in the Indenture by which the Bargainor covenanted that he was seized in tail at the time of the Bargain and also to do any other act for assurance of the Estate of the Bargainee and it was lawful for him to Vouch his Bargainor and although he voucheth a stranger it is not a Forfeiture 39 E. 3. 16. Aid prayer of a stranger is a Forfeiture and the reason of that is because he acknowledgeth the reversion to be in a stranger and that is the cause of Forfeiture Vide Book of Entries 254. Where upon
by a Writ of Right So if the Vouchee had entred and lost c. As to that Case we ought to consider That every Book reported in our Law is not Law But let us observe of what Authority the Case is truly it is the conceit of the Reporter himself for he puts the Case and resolves it but there is no Iudge or Serjeant named in the Case c. The other Case is 5 E. 4. 2. Note by Hendon clearly If my Tenant for life voucheth a stranger who entreth into the Warranty generally and doth not know how to bar the Demandant the Tenant shall recover in value and the reversion of him who hath in value shall be to me in lieu of my former reversion as release to Tenant for life shall enure to him in the reversion But that is but the Opinion of one Serjeant c. But I answer to these Books If the Demandant in such recovery have a good title so as the Tenant or the Voucher as Hendon saith know not how to bar the Demandant there such a Voucher of a Stranger is not a Forfeiture nor such recovery suffered thereupon for against his will and volens nolens he suffered it But if the Tenant had good matter to bar the Demandant and no good cause of Voucher that the vouching of a stranger or suffering of a recovery is a Forfeiture of his Estate And here in our Case the Defendant had not any title The Tenant or Vouchee had not any Warranty or cause of Voucher But the Tenant might have barred the Demandant if he pleased And he said That the Voucher only doth not make the Forfeiture but much rather the Recovery for when Iudgment is given and Execution had then is the Fee plucked out of him in the reversion 6 R. 2. If Tenant for life claimeth a Fee it is a Forfeiture but here Pelham hath done more for he hath gained Fee by the Iudgment therefore à Fortiori it shall be a Forfeiture But let us a little see what medlings or attempts by the particular Tenant are causes of a Forfeiture and what not 5 Ass 3. Where A. brings an Entry against Tenant for life by collusion to oust B. of his reversion supposing that the Tenant for life held of his Lease The Tenant confesseth the Action upon which Iudgment is given B enters and his entry adjudged lawful for that recovery is adjudged in Law but an Alienation to the disinherisin of him in the reversion and here it appears That such recovery by Covin is but an Alienation and without any strength of a recovery And he cited many other Cases cited before by Altham 14 E 3. Resceit 135. Where Tenant for life pleads in chief or prays in aid of a stranger where he might bar the Demandant and will not it is a Forfeiture And also 22 E. 3. 2. 27 E. 3. where Tenant for life in a Quid juris clamat Attorns unto the Conusee upon a Fine levyed by him who hath not any thing in the Land the same is a Forfeiture and yet that Attornment doth not divert the Reversion out of the Lessor 50 E. 3.7 8. Land was given by Fine in tail the remainder over to a stranger in Fee the Donee took a Wife and dyed without Issue the Wife accepted Dower assigned by a stranger he in the Remainder brought a Scire facias against the Wife that she is Tenant in Dower of the Assignment of a stranger and pleaded to the Title the Demandant recovered she hath lost her Dower for she hath not pleaded dutifully as she ought being a particular Tenant Temps H. 4. Tenant for life loseth his Land in a Recovery against him against his will and thereupon brings Quod ei deforceat and declares upon an Estate tail and recovers the same is a Forfeiture because he hath challenged a higher Estate c. 5 H. 7. Tenant for life joyns the Mise upon the meer Right 2 H. 6. Lessee for years being ousted brings an Assise and recovers 1 H. 7. Accepts a Fine of a stranger sur Conusans c. come ceo que il ad de son done All these are Forfeitures In our principal Case here the Tenant who suffered the Recovery did not plead at all to defend the Right but where he might have barred the Demandant he gave strength to his pretended Title and made it a perfect Title and by suffering the Recovery and Iudgment to pass had taken away the Reversion out of the Lessor to whom he owed Fealty and therefore it is a Forfeiture And without doubt it is apparent to the Court that the Demandant in this Recovery hath not any Title for the Recoverers in such Cases are but Assignees and Purchasors which appeareth by the Statute of 7 H. 8. cap. 4. which gives Distress and Avowry to Recoverers c. As to the inventing of Recoveries it was a necessary Device for it was to take away Estate tails which were the causes of grand Mischiefs and Inconveniencies in this Realm and it was great reason for Tenant in tail might by the Common Law alien his Land post prolem suscitat and then he had an Inheritance and might commit Waste But he was so restrained by the Statute of Westm 2. all the Realm and the Subjects of it were inveigled thereby Ioyntures of Wives Leases of Farmers Mortgages to Creditors Statutes and other Assurances defeated by their deaths which was against the Common Law and all Conscience These matters tending to the knowledge of the Iustices and the Mischiefs thereupon ensuing very frequent and that Tenant in tail was become a perillous Fellow and there was no safe dealing with him Then they taking into consideration that several Warranties and Assets and collateral Warranty without Assets for that in it self implyed Assets did bar him Icil. the Entail upon that consideration they grounded the practice and usage of common Recoveries so that by that means Tenant in tail has potestatem alienandi as he had at the Common Law because his authority was restored to him and injury done to no man But as to Tenant for life he never had potestatem alienandi And as to that which hath been said That the Recovery shall stand in force till after the death of the Tenant for life and in our Case here Tenant in tail is living certainly if the Law should be such great mischief would follow for then greater Ioyntresses the Widows of great Persons having allowed unto them great and sumptuous Houses and Lands furnished with Timber of great value might suffer such Recoveries and so having plucked the Fee out of the Heirs might commit Waste and the same should be dispunishable c. which should be an intolerable Mischief And so he concluded that this suffering of a Recovery was a Forfeiture and Iudgment was given accordingly CCLII Grendon and Albanies Case JOhn Grendon brought Trespass for breaking of his Close against Tho Albany And upon the pleading the Case
the Statute of 33 H. 8. gives to the King Conditions yet it doth not give the performance of them or ability to the King to perform them And there are three Reasons wherefore this Condition cannot pass to the King 1. There is a Condition in the Proviso which precedes the Condition of the Tender viz. If the said Francis my Nephew be given to intolerable Vices then if the said Sir Francis deliver or offer c. and in the whole pleading it is not averred that the Nephew was given to intolerable Vices therefore the precedent Condition not being performed the second Condition is not ripened nor in season 2. The substance of this Condition consists in the will and pleasure of Sir Fr. Englefield therefore it cannot be given to the Queen 3. The prejudice which should come to Francis the Nephew if this Condition should come to the Queen Vide Br. Temps H. 8. A Foundership cannot Escheat or be forfeited by Attainder of Felony or Treason for it is a thing annexed to the Blood which cannot be separated and he said also that the Condition was gon before that tender for the Conveyance by which the Condition was granted was made void by the Act of 29 H. 8. cap. 3. by which it is Enacted That every person within two years after the last day of this Session shall openly shew and bring forth into the Exchequer his Conveyance and there in the Term time in open Court shall Exhibit the same to be entred and inrolled of Record and here the end of the Session was such that all the Terms of the said two years were passed before the tender made by the Queen and although the two years were not past yet all the Terms were past and the Conveyance ought to be shewed in Term time therefore the true time is incurred before the Tender and then the Conveyance is void and by that the Condition gon When the Queen was Tenant for the life of Sir Francis and makes a Lease for years and afterwards by the Condition hath the Inheritance if now she shall avoid the Lease made by her when she was Tenant for life A Disseisor makes a Lease or grants a Rent-charge and afterwards the Disseisee releases unto him he shall not avoid his own Act. A man seized in the right of his Wife makes a Lease for years hath Issue and so is intitled to be Tenant by the curtesie the Wife dyeth he shall not avoid his Lease Feoffor and Feoffee upon condition joyn in a Lease for years the Condition is performed on the part of the Feoffor he shall not avoid his Lease And the Prerogative of the Queen shall not alter the matter against aequum bonum As to the Statute of 29 Eliz. it was not the intent of that to avoid Estates claimed for or by the Queen for the Estate was made for the benefit of the Queen As to the words of the Statute every person or persons which hath or claimeth to have c. the Queen is not within the words If a Statute ordains attendance or restraint of any Liberty which was before at the Common Law there the Queen shall not be within it As to attendance the Queen is not bound to make claim upon a Fine levied As to re-grant the Queen is not bound by the Statute of Westm 3. Quia emptores terrarum also where matter of penalty is imposed Also here is an Oath to be taken c. the Queen being Tenant for the life of another leaseth the Woods and grants to the Lessee power to cut the Woods and convert them to his own use Now if after the Inheritance cometh to the Queen if the Queen may impeach her Grantee truly the property of the Woods and Trees was in the Queen at the time of the Grant and although the Inheritance came to the Queen afterwards yet the same shall not overthrow the first Interest of the Grantee Lessee for life or for years before the Statute of Gloucester could not be impeached for Waste therefore as I conceive the property of the Trees was in him for there was no remedy for them against him See the reason of that in Dr. and Student Quasi the property of the Trees pass to the Lessee with the Demise which shall be taken strongly against the Lessor If the Lessee cutteth the Trees the Lessor shall not have Trespass against him nor Detinue for the Trees Lessee without impeachment of Waste cutteth the Trees and leaves them upon the Land and dyes his Executors shall have them and not the Lessor The Lessor grants omnes boscos arbores suas nothing passeth for they pass to the Lessee if they be not excepted The Lessor against his own Lease cuts the Trees without the agreement of the Lessee Trespass lyeth 5 H. 4. 56. The Heir being in Ward cut Trees in his Lands in the possession of his Guardian who brought an Action against the Heir it was adjudged maintainable although the Free-hold was in the Heir Egerton Solicitor to the contrary Admit the use in Sir Francis be the ancient use yet it is but for life and then when the Queen having the Estate of Sir Francis makes a Lease for 40 years with the grant of the woods the said Lease was void for the Queen was deceived in her Grant Sir Francis was punishable for Waste therefore the Queen having his Interest ought not in Iustice to have cut the great Wood. And it is to be presumed That if the Queen had known the smallness of her Estate she would not have made so great a Lease nor such a Grant of the Wood. The King seized of Land in his own right reciting by his Letters Patents that he hath it by Attainder of J. S. gives the same to another the Gift is void The King licenceth one to appropriate an Advowson without being informed that the same is holden in chief it is void A licence to alien whereas in truth the Land is holden in tail the Reversion or Remainder in the King is also void and here in our case the Queen hath but a particular Estate for the life of another and here out of that petty Estate is drawn a Lease for 40 years where Lessee for life was 60 years of age at the least and also a Grant of all the Trees If the Queen hath a particular Estate and grants totum Statum suum without reciting of such particular Estate the Grant is void the Queen hath the Profits of the Lands of one who is Outlawed in a personal Action and grants to another the Land it self it is void for it is a wrong to a third person which the King cannot do But here the Special Interest of the Queen ought to be recited Now when the Queen being Tenant for the life of another makes Leases ut supra and afterwards the Fee cometh to the Queen the Estate out of which the Leases are derived being determined the Leases also are determined scil
he is not to have Damages because the Waste was not to his disinheresin and the Land he shall not recover against the Defendant for the Term is not determined and such was the Opinion of the Court. As to the matter in â—aw Shuttleworth said That the Action of Waste ought to be brought against the Lessee himself and not against the Assignee for when he grants over his Term excepting the Trees it is a good Exception for when the Land upon which the Trees grow is leased to another the Trees pass by the Lease as well as the Land and the property of them is in the Lessee during the Term by which when he grants his Land he may well except them as the first Lessor might have done and if the Lessee for years cutteth down the Trees the Lessor cannot take them for that he hath other sufficient remedy scil an Action of Waste Fenner and Walmsley contrary And they conceived that the Lessee had but a special Property in the Trees scil for Fire-bote Plough bote House-bote c. But if he demiseth the Land or granteth his Interest in it he cannot except the Trees nor his special Property in them no more than he who hath Common appendant may grant the Land excepting the Common And in such case the general Property in the Trees remains in the Lessor as parcel of his Inheritance And this appeareth by many cases 27 H. 8. 13. Lessee for life and he in the remainder joyn in a lease for life the Lessee commits Waste the Tenant for life and he in the remainder joyn in an Action of Waste the Tenant for life shall recover the place wasted and he in the reversion all the damages Vide 2 H. 7. 10 H. 7. cited before That the Lessor may licence the Lessee to cut the Trees which proves that the Property is in him And Vide 40 Ass 22. the Lessor shall have the Windfalls And as to that which hath been said That by the Exception of the Trees the Soil it self is also excepted that is true as to the Trees for nourishment and not otherwise for if the Lessor cutteth down the Trees or roots them up he shall not after meddle with the Land where c. but the Soil shall be entirely to the Lessee The Lessor during the Term may grant the Trees so cannot the Lessee therefore the greater and better Property in the Trees is in the Lessor and not in the Lessee and the Trees proprie loquendo are not parcel of the thing demised If this Exception of the Trees or Woods should hold place Inconvenience would follow for as it is holden in 15 H. 7. 11. If the Termor of Wood commits Waste in one corner of the Wood he should not lose all the Wood but that place only But if in the said Wood there are divers Plats of Land in divers places of the Wood if the Termor commits Waste in that Wood he shall lose all the said Plats although he hath not done waste in them for they are parcel of the Wood. Vide Temps E. 1. Fitz. Waste 127. and Vide ibidem Waste 112. 8 E. 2. Waste done in parcel of an House the whole House shall be recovered Vide also 30 E. 3. Fitz. Amendment 67. and 4 E. 3. Waste 10. Now if that be Law and the Exception be good how shall the place wasted be recovered here and against whom It seemed to the Lord Anderson That the Exception was void and that the Action was brought against the Assignee and he said it was a knavish and foolish Demise and if it should be effectual in Law some Mischiefs would follow which he would not remember Windham was of the same Opinion and that the Lessee could not assign his Estate with such Exception for he hath but a special Interest in the Trees scil for Fire-bote Plough-bote c. which should go with the Land. Periam conceived That as to such special Property that none could have it but he who hath the Land and therefore the Exception is void but as to the Fruit-trees such an Exception might be good and although that the Trees are not expresly demised yet quodam modo and after a sort they may be said demised as annexed to the Land and if waste be brought against him who made the Exception scil the Lessee he cannot say they were not let to him and therefore he doubted of the Exception And Rhodes doubted also of the Exception and Anderson said that he was clear of opinion that the Lessor should have the Windfalls and afterwards the Case was adjorned to be further argued c. Temps Roign Eliz. CCLXX. Audleys Case Uses THe Lord Audley 12 H. 7. enfeoffed Hoddy and others of certain Lands in the County of Somerset and afterwards by Indenture reciting the said Feoffment and the date of it and also that it was to the intent that his Feoffees should perform his Will as followeth in effect viz My Will is that my said Feoffees shall stand seized to the use that the said Hoddy shall receive of the said Lands â—00 l which he had lent to the said Lord Audley and also to stand seized to pay all his Debts upon Bills signed with his hand and after â—he Debts paid that the Feoffees shall make an Estate of the said Lands to him the said Lord Audley and Joan his wife and to the heirs of their Bodies c. with divers Remainders over The said Lord Audley had Issue by the said Joan and also having Issue by a former wife a daughter the Feoffees never made any Estate to the said Lord and his wife and by the opinion of divers Iustices and Sages of the Law upon this matter no use was changed for it is not a last Will but an Intent and although that the Feoffees shall be seized to the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs because no consideration was wherefore they should be seized to their own uses yet the same could not make a new use to the said Lord and his wife in tail without conveying an Estate c. for the wife is a stranger to the Land and the same cannot be a Will or Testament for the Estate mentioned in the said writing ought to be made to the said Lord and his wife who could not take by his own Will and this matter was depending in the Chancery And the advise of the Iustices being there required they delivered their Opinions That by that writing no use was changed nor any use vested in the said Lord and his wife and a Decree was made accordingly until proof was made that such an Estate was made c. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCLXXI. Walgrave and Somersets Case IN Trespass by Walgrave against Somerset the Case was That tenant at will cut down Trees and the Lessor brought Trespass vi armis And the Court was clear of opinion that the Action was well maintainable modo forma and Iudgment
Bayliff of his Lord could not do better than admonish the said Bayliff of his duty for it concerned the Honour of his Master and also his Inheritance in the said Liberty But if the said Townsend had been a meer stranger to the said Earl so as no such privity had been betwixt them the same had been clearly Maintenance in Townsend as it was lately adjudged in that Court in the case of one Gifford where the parties being at Issue and a Venire Facias to the Sheriff to retorn a Iury a stranger wrote to one of the Iurors who was retorned in the Pannel praying him to appear at the day and to do in that cause according to his Conscience and the same was adjudged Maintenance And afterwards upon full hearing of the cause the said Townsend by the Sentence of the Court was acquitted of any Maintenance with great allowance and approbation of many Lords of the Counsel there present Bromley Cancellario tantum exclamante CCCXXVII Mich. 15 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Partition the Defendant prayed in Aid the Plaintiff counterpleaded the Aid upon which Issue was joyned and found for the Plaintiff It was the Opinion of the Court That it was peremptory for the Defendant And the Plaintiff shall have the Partition scil Quod fiat Partitio and the reason thereof is for the delay of the Plaintiff and for the vexation of the Country who are to try it otherwise it had been if it had been adjudged against the Defendant upon a Demurrer CCCXXVIII Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN a Formedon of a Manor the Tenant pleaded Ioynt-tenancy by Fine with J. S. The Demandant averred the Tenant sole Tenant as the Writ supposed and upon that Issue was joyned and found for the demandant Vpon which a Writ of Error was brought and Error assigned in this That whereas upon Ioyntenancy pleaded by Fine the Writ ought to abate without any Averment by the Demandant against it the Averment hath been received against the Law And by Southcote at the common Law If the Tenant plead Ioyntenancy by Deed the Writ should abate without any Averment but that was remedied by the Statute of 34 E. 1. but Ioyntenancy by Fine doth remain as it was by the common Law for he hath punishment enough in that because by that Plea if it be false he hath by way of conclusion given away the Moiety of the Land in demand to him with whom he hath pleaded Ioyntenancy and the Law doth not intend that he will so slightly depart with his Land for the abatement of a Writ Else in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant confesseth himself to be Villain to a Stranger the Writ shall abate without any Averment of Frank-estate for the Law intends that the Tenant will not enthrawl himself without cause Wray to the same intent But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he who levied the Fine was his Disseisor upon whom he hath before entred c. And if Tenant in Fee-simple be impleaded and he saith he is Tenant for life the Remainder over to A. in Fee and prayeth in Aid of A. the Demandant shall not take Averment That the Tenant the day of the Writ brought was seized in Fee. Note That in this Fine Ioyntenancy was pleaded but for parcel and it was holden by â—ray and Southcote That the whole Writ should abate as in a Writ against many the misnosmer of the one shall abate the whole Writ against all the Defendants and so where the Demandant enters into parcel of the Land in demand if the Land in demand be one entire thing it shall abate the Writ in all In this Case the Demandant ought to have in his Writ a Foreprise of the Land parcel of the Land in demand whereof the Ioynt-tenancy by Fine is pleaded for this dismembring of the Manor and destruction of the Land whereof the Ioyntenancy is pleaded is peravail and beneath the Gift whereof the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Manor and therefore it ought to be demanded accordingly with a Foreprise But if A. gives to B a Manor except 13 Acres in Tail there if after upon any Discontinuance the Issue in Tail is to have a Formedon in such Case there needs not any Foreprise for the said 10 Acres were never severed from the Manor upon the Gift But if Land in demand be several as 20 Acres but two this Foreprise is not good Vide Temps E. 1. Fitz. Br. 866. Praecipe unam bovat ' terrae except a Selion and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Selion is a parcel of Land uncertain as to the quantity in some places it is an Acre in some more and in some less Another point was That because that the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this Averment scil Sole Tenant as the Writ supposeth if the Court notwithstanding the admittance of the Tenant ought without exception of the party ex Officio abate the Writ And Wray conceived that it might for it is a possitive Law As if a Woman bring an Appeal of Murder upon the death of her Brother and the Defendant doth admit it without Challenge or Exception yet the Court shall abate the Appeal 10 E. 4. 7. And Vide the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus And if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the common Custom of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named Common Hostler and the Defendant doth accept of such a Writ without any Exception unto it yet the Court shall abate the Writ ex Officio Vide 38 H. 6. 30. CCCXXIX Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte this Case A. makes a Feoffment in Fee to B. and binds himself only to warranty without more B. is impleaded and voucheth A. who enters into the Warranty and loseth so as Iudgment is given against B. and also to recover in value against A. who before Execution dyeth It was the opinion of the Court that B. should have Execution in value against the Heir of A. CCCXXX Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seized of Lands in the right of his Wife for the term of the life of the Wife made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his said Wife for her life In that case the wife is remitted and it is not like Townsends Case Plowd Com. 111. for in that case the Entry of the Wife was not congeable for she was Tenant in tail which Estate was discontinued by the Feoffment of her Husband Periam Iustice cited Siâ—enhams case Baron seized in the right of his Wife for the term of the life of the Wife They both surrendred and took back the Land to them and a third person And it was holden that the Wife was not presently remitted but after the death of her Husband
of the first disturbance for that presentment did not pass to him being a thing in Action without mention thereof in his Grant. And if the Patentee brings a Quare Impedit of a second avoidance he shall make his presentment by the presentment of the King not making mention of the Vsurpation Yet if a Bishop present for Lops in the case of a common person he ought to make mention of it for that is a title to the Patron CCCXL Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench adjudged NOte In the Case of one Manning it was adjudged That where an Infant Executor sold the Goods of his Testator for a lesser price than they were worth and afterwards brought an Action of Detinue against the Vendee upon that Detinue in retardatione executionis Testamenti that the said Sale was good and should bind the Executor notwithstanding his Nonage 28 Eliz. In the Chancery CCCXLI The Lord Awdleys Case THe Lord Awdley 12 H. 7. enfeoffed Hoddy and others of certain Lands in the County of Somerset and afterwards by Indenture reciting the said Feoffment and the date of it and also that it was to the intent that his Feoffees should perform his Will as followeth in effect viz. My Will is That my said Feoffees shall stand seized to the use that the said Hoddy shall receive of the profits of the Lands 100 l. which he had sent to the said Lord Awdley and also stand seized to pay all his debts upon Bills signed with his hand and after the debts paid that the said Feoffees shall make Estate of the said Lands unto him the said Lord Awdley and Jone his Wife and to the Heirs of their two Bodies with divers Remainders over The said Lord had Issue by the said Jone and also had Issue by a former Wife a daughter the Feoffees never made any Estate to the said Lord and his Wife And by the Opinion of divers Iustices and Sages of the Laws that upon that matter no use was changed for it is not any last Will but an Intent And although that the Feoffees shall be seized to the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs because that no consideration was by which they should be seized to their own uses yet the same cannot make any Vse unto the said Lord and his Wife in tail without containing an Estate for the Wife is a Stranger to the Land And also it cannot be a Will for the Estate mentioned in the said writing ought to have been made to the said Lord and his Wife who cannot take the same by his Will. This matter depended in the Chancery And the advice of the Iustices being there required they delivered their Opinions That by the said Writing no Vse was changed nor any Estate vested in the said Lord and his Wife And a Decree was there made accordingly until proof be made that such an Estate was made CCCXLII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was in the Kings Bench in Debt It was found by Special Verdict That the Testator being possessed of divers Goods in London where he dyed and also at the time of his death the Queen being indebted unto him in the Sum of 4 l. 10 s. she then residing at Whitehall the Archbishop as Metropolitan granted licence of Administration to the Queen and the Bishop of London afterwards granted licence of Administration to J.S. The Court sent to the Civilians to appear in Court and to deliver their Opinions in this case And thereupon Lloyd Doctor of Law appeared and argued to this effect viz. That in ancient times in such cases the several Ordinaries committed several Administrations for the Goods in their Diocess respecive In which case the mischief was very great for the Creditor was driven to bring several Actions of the Administrators of the several Ordinaries Vide H. 7. 13 R. 2. Administrators 21. But afterwards upon a Decree upon a Composition in such cases the Metropolitan committed the Administration He further argued That debts cannot be said Bona Notabilia for they cannot be said within or without any County or Diocess and are things transitory and therefore called aes alienum And he said That the Administration granted by the Archbishop was void for as Archbishop he had not to intermeddle within the Diocess of another but as Legatus Papae And in the time of Hen. 2. Becket Archbishop of Canterbury was stiled Legatus Natus but now that power Legantine is determined and therefore the authority to commit Licences of Administration in another Diocess but in case of Bona Notabilia is determined And he said That by the Civil Law Jones Rep. 225. if a man deviseth all his Goods in such a County by that debts do not pass and yet by especial words a man may devise his debts Awbrey Doctor argued to the contrary and he confessed that in ancient times every Ordinary in such cases committed licences of Administration But he denied that the Prerogative which is now practised in such cases by the Metropolitan was given upon any Composition but that it began by Prescription If a man in his Iourney dyed in another Diocess notwithstanding that he had out with him but his necessary and ordinary Apparel in such case the Metropolitan committed the Administration and he said That as he conceived debts are Bona Notabilia secundum fictionem Legis they are local and he said to make Bona Notabilia it is sufficient if the Intestate have 3 l. in one Diocess and 2 l. in another Diocess But he said That posito that Bona Notabilia are not in the case yet the Administration granted by the Metropolitan is not void until it be revoked For although that the Metropolitan on the right of his Bishoprick hath not to intermeddle in another Diocess yet in this case because the Archbishop of Canterbury is a Patriarch For in Christendom there are four great Patriarchs and eight lesser Patriarchs whereof the Archbishop of Canterbury is one and by reason thereof he hath general Iurisdiction through all England Ireland c. But now by the Statute his Authority is restrained For he cannot cite any other out of other Diocess by any Process But notwithstanding he may do many great Acts by himself or his Chancellor in every Diocess and he argued very much upon the Prerogative of the Archbishop of Canterbury The Iustices did not then deliver any Opinion in this case Quaere If Letters of Administration of the Goods of a common person be committed to the Queen if good The case was adjourned Vide Cook 5 part Ucre and Jeffreys Case and Cook 8 part in Sir John Needhams Case for the Resolution of this Case CCCXLIII Pasc 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man made a Lease for life and afterwards made a Lease to another for years The Ordinary committed Licences of Administration to A. the Tenant for life and A. joyned in the purchase of the Fee-simple of the Land demised It was
and before the 13 Weeks past the Lessor dyed and the Plaintiff his Executor brought Debt for the Rent It was adjudged by Cook and the other Iustices That the Action did not lye forthe Rent For the Rent being to be paid at Mich. or within 13 Weeks after the Lessee hath Election to pay it at any of the days and before the last day it is not due and when the Lessor dyeth before that day his Executors have not any right to the Rent but after the death of the Lessor having but an Estate for life the Rent is gone But if the Lessor had had a Fee-simple in the Land and had dyed before the last day the Heir should have had the Rent as incident to the Reversion But if the Lessor had survived both days the Rent had been a thing vested in him and his Executors should have had it but if the Rent had been reserved at Mich. and if it be behind by 13 Weeks that then it should be lawful for the Lessor to enter if the Lessor survive Mich his Executors shall have Debt for the Rent for then the Rent is due and the 13 Weeks are but a Dispensation of the Entry of the Lessor until that time And in this case as well as where the Rent is reserved at two days in the disjunctive it is sufficient that the Rent be demanded at the latter day without demanding of it at the first day Mich. 10 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCCIV Sir Baptist Hix and Fleetwood and Gotts Case Roll. tit Condition THe Case was Fleetwood and Gotts bargained and sold Weston Park being 300 Acres of Land to Sir Baptist Hix for 11 l. for every Acre which did amount to 25 30 l. and in the premises of the Indenture of Bargain and Sale it was agreed by the parties That the said Park being Wood-Land should be measured by a Pole of 18 Foot and a half And further it was covenanted That Fleetwood and Gotts should appoint one Surveyor and Hix another who should measure the said Park and if it by the measure should exceed the Number of Acres mentioned in the Indenture that then Hix should add to them according to the proportion of 11 l. for every Acre and if it wanted of the Measure then the said Fleetwood and Gotts should repay to Hix the Surplusage of that Mony according to the proportion of 11 l. the Acre And upon the Indenture Hix brought Covenant and Assigned a Breach because upon Measure it wanted 70 Acres and the Defendants did demur upon the Declaration because the Plaintiff had not therein shewed by what measure it was measured for they said by Shirley That although it was agreed in the first part of the Indenture that the measure should be by a Pole of 18 Foot and a half yet when they come to the Covenants there they do not speak of any Measure for which cause it shall be taken for such a Measure as the Statute speaks of scil a Measure of 16 Foot and a half the Pole and by such Measure there wants not any part of the Acres Dodderidge contr And he put this ground That if certainty once appeareth in a Deed and afterwards in the same Deed it is spoken indifferently Reference shall be unto the certainty which appeareth And therefore if by an Indenture Lands be given to a man Haeredibus masculis and afterwards in the same Deed it appears it is Haeredibus de Corpore suo It shall be an Estate-tail because the first words were indefinite and the last certain by which it appeared that he passed but an Estate in Tail And 4 E. 4. 9. b. the words of a Declaration was Noverint universi per praesentes nos J. S. teneri c. W. B. in 20 l. solvendum eidem J.S. It was holden by the Court the same did not make the Obligation void because it appeared by the first part of the Obligation that he should be bound to the Plaintiff and therefore the intent being so the Plaintiff might declare of a Solvendum to himself And the words J. S. should be Surplusage And 22 E. 3. 4. the Abbot of Selby granted quandam annuam pencionem 〈◊〉 ad rogatum J.E. illam scilicet quam idem J. E. habuit ad terminum vitae suae Et solvendam quousque sibi de beneficio Competo provisum fuerit It was holden by the Court in a Writ of Annuity brought That the word sibi should have reference to B. the Grantee and not to J. E. And Cook said That the original Contract did leave the Measure in this Case and for that he vouched Redwellys Case in Plowd Comment A Lease rendring Rent at Mich. at D. and if it be behind for a month after demand that the Lessor shall re-enter it shall be demanded at the first place Trin. 12 Jac. In the Star-Chamber CCCCV. Sir Richard Egertons Case IN this Case the Wife of Sir John Townsend being sentenced in 1000 l. and in Execution in the Fleet for the Costs of the Plaintiff these Points were resolved by the Court 1. If a man be Sentenced in the Star-Chamber to pay a Fine and to Imprisonment and the Delinquent renders his Body to Prison that notwithstanding the Body continues in Prison the King shall be satisfied the Fine out of the Profits of the Delinquents Lands 2. If a Feme Covert be sentenced there and she renders her Body to Prison and there abides That the Lands of her Husband shall be sequestred and the Profits thereof for the Fine of his Wife And that now upon the Statute of Recusancy the Lands of the Husband for the Recusancy of his Wife if he do not render her to Prison and discharge the same 3. If a man be Sentenced in the Star Chamber to pay a Fine and to have Imprisonment and he yield himself to Prison That before his Fine be also paid he shall not proceed in any Action at the Common Law against the Party in the same Suit. Pasc 12 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCCVI Crane and Parkins Case IN Trespass The Defendant pleaded that the Land in which was parcel of the Manor of Broughton Astley demisable by Custom and shewed That the Custom of the Manor was that if any Tenant for life dyed that the Lord for three years Fine ought to grant the same to his Heir and pleaded a Grant of the Manor to the Lord Grey of Grooby And also pleaded another Custom of the said Manor That if any Tenant for life of the said Manor had a Wife and dyed that the Wife shall have in the Land her Widows Estate And that after the death of the Wife that the Son for a Fine of three years paid to the Lord should have it for his life and that the Defendant claimed as Son according to that Custom The Plaintiff made Title as Lessee for years to the Lord Gray of the Manor and traverseth that there was not any such Custom
being sown the Executors of A. take the Corn it was holden the Obligation was not forfeited for that by the Laws the Corn did belong to the Executors II. Pasc 23 Eliz. A Man possessed of a Term devised the same to his Son when he came to the age of 18 years Devise and that his Wife should have it in the mean time and made his Wife his Executrix and died before the Son came to the age of 18 years the Wife took Husband It was holden that she should have the Term as Executrix till the Son came of the age of 18 years III. Mich. 23 Eliz. A Man made a Feoffment in Fee sub Conditione ea intentione that his Wife should have the Land for her life the remainder to his younger Son in Fee The Feoffee died without making such an Estate the Heir of the Feoffor entred it was resolved that it was not a Condition but an Estate which was executed presently according to the intent Trin. 8 Eliz. IV. Manning and Andrews Case Vide 1 Leon. 256. 1 Leon. 345. Fine levied a Bar. HVsband and Wife Donees in special tail the Husband levied a Fine of the Lands It was holden if the proclamations pass in his life time or before the Wife by her entry had avoided the Fine the Issue should be barred otherwise if the Husband had died before the proclamation had passed 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. V. Buckhursts Case Extinguishment LEssee for 10 years granted a Rent Charge to his Lessor for the said years the Lessor granted the remainder in Fee to the Lessee for years It was the opinion of the Iustices that the rent was gone because the Lessor who had the rent was Party to the destruction of the Lease which is the ground of the rent 26 Eliz. VI. Pulmants Case Assumpsit ONe who is indebted promiseth to pay it upon request in an Action upon the Case upon that Promise the Party needs not to express the Assumpsit with the request it being an old debt but otherwise it is where there is such a promise without any duty precedent VII Hill. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assumpsit A Man in consideration of 20 l. paid him promiseth to assign to J. S. the Lease of a Stranger It was adjudged that an Action would lie upon such a promise because the Assumor might purchase the House and then assign it Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. VIII Rawson and Browns Case A. Being in prison at the suit of B upon an account Assumpsit and in custodia Marescalli The Marshal suffers him to escape A. being at liberty promiseth to B. that if he will permit him to be at large and further if he do such an act that he will pay to him 10 l. which he doth not pay whereupon B. brings Assumpsit against him it was adjudged that the Action would not lie for that both the considerations ought to be proved and A. was at large before 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IX Strangborough and Warners Case NOte Assumpsit That a Promise against a Promise will maintain an Action upon the Case as in consideration that you do give to me 10 l. on such a day I promise to give you 10 l. such a day after 31 Eliz. X. Escrigs Case IF an Executor promiseth to a Creditor Assumpsit that if he will forbear to sue him until such a time that then he will satisfie the Creditor his debt in that case the Execuor is liable to pay the debt of his own goods adjudged 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench Rot. 30. XI Kirkman and Reignotts Case A Lease was made to two Habendum to them Occupant and to two others for their four lives and the longer liver of them It was resolved that the two named in the Habendum should not take any thing and that if the two first die there should be no Occupancy for the lives of the two in the Habendum was intended an Estate to them and not a Limitation of the Estate of the first two Pasc 30 Eliz. XII Barkhouse Case DEbt against Lessee for years for rent Forfeiture The Defendant claimed Fee in the Land whereas he had no Fee It was resolved that it was a forfeiture XIII Pasc 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Avowry IT was resolved by the Iustices that an Avowry might be for part of a Rent Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XIV Strangden and Burnets Case IN an Action of Trover and Conversion of Goods to his proper use in Ipswich The Defendant pleaded that the Goods came to hands in Dunwich in the same County and that the Plaintiff gave unto him all Goods which came to his hands in Dunwich Pleadings absque hoc that he is guilty of any Trover or Conversion in Ipswich It was ruled to be a good manner of pleading by reason of the special Iustification Vide 27 H. 6. But where a Iustification is general the County is not traversable at this day Vide 19 H. 6 7. 24 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. XV. Infant AN Infant made a Lease for years rendring rent and when he came to his full age he said to his Lessee God give you joy of it It was holden by Mead Iustice that thereby the Lease was affirmed and made good Pasc 25 Eliz. XVI Fullers Case ONe is bound to pay his rent at a day certain payment before the day adjudged doth not discharge him 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XVII Carter and Martens Case Payment TWo are bound for a Debt the Principal makes the Surety his Executor who pays the Debt generally Quaere if it shall be as Executor or as Obligor XVIII Pophams Case Bargain and Sale. LAnd was bargained and sold the Bargainee levies a Fine of the Lands and afterwards within the six months the Deed is enrolled It shall pass by the Fine and the Conusee shall have the Land for the Enrollment shall relate to the time of the bargain and sale 18 Eliz. XIX Henninghams Case IT was adjudged in this Case that he who is special Heir by the Custom as of Borough English Land shall have the Writ of Error and not the Heir at the Common Law. Hil. 19 Eliz. Adjudge XX. Parry and Herberts Case LEssee for years upon Condition that he shall not grant over the Land by Will or otherwise Condition and he deviseth the same to his Executors who except it only as Executors and not as Devisees It was holden that the Condition was broken because he had done as much as in him lay to have granted it over In the Exchequer XXI Sir Thomas Hobbies Case A Man hath issue two Sons and is attainted Heirs the eldest Son purchaseth Land and dyeth without issue the second Son shall inherit the Land as Heir to him notwithstanding the attainder of the Father because the blood is not corrupted between the two Sons
the contrary for the Estate of Tenant for life and he in the Remainder are but one Estate and the admittance of the particular Tenant is the admittance of him in the Remainder XXXIX Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN an Information upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 4. Upon Statute of 5 Eliz. Apprentices against one for exercising the Trade of a Chandler not having been an Apprentice to the same by the space of 7 years It was holden by the Iustices That for as much as he had been Apprentice to a Taylor for 7 years which is one of the Trades mentioned in the said Statute that the penalty thereof did not extend to him but Iudgment was given against the Informer For it was holden clearly upon the said Statute That if one hath been an Apprentice for 7 years at any Trade mentioned within the said Statute he may exercise any Trade named in the said Statute although he hath not been an Apprentice to it Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer XL. Sir John Hawkins and Chapmans Case IF A. be bounden to B. by Obligation with Condition for the performance of Covenants although the Covenants Assignment of Bonds to the Queen or some of them be for payment of money yet the assignment of such Bonds to the Queen shall not be received and if it be assigned it shall be put out of the Court For no Bonds shall be assigned ut supra but such which are made for payment of money XLI Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer A. Lessee for years the remainder to B for years the term of A. came to the Queen and afterwards the Reversion Clark Baron said That the Lease of B. should begin presently and cited the Case 1 Eliz between Wortesly and Adams where a Lease for years is made to A. and afterwards a Lease in Reversion is made to B. for years A. obtains an Estate for life from him in the reversion the Lease of B. shall begin presently But Manwood Chief Baron held that the first Lease was not extinct XLII Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer Upon Stat. 31 Eliz. of Inmates UPon the Statute 31 Eliz. cap. 7. the Case was this A Woman having a great Messuage viz. a Brewhouse alotted to her for her Dower let the same to another reserving to her self two or three Rooms of it and now an Information was exhibited against the Lessee upon the said Statute Clark Baron A Cottage proprie loquendo is where a poor man inhabits and this being a great Messuage cannot be said a Cottage Inmates are where there are more Families than one Manwood Be it a Messuage or a Cottage for more Families than one makes a Messuage a Cottage as to this Statute Gent. The words of the Statute are There shall not be more Families than one in any Cottage made or to be made and I conceive it ought to be a Cottage accounted in Law before the inhabitations of the Inmates Clark If I grant to you all my Cottages in D. my Messuages shall not pass If I marry my Daughter and she and her Husband inhabit with me in the same house are these Inmates Manwood An Inmate is such an one who is at his own finding and therefore if the Husband and Wife are entertained there at the charge of the Father of the Daughter they are not Inmates And if in our Case any Inmate be the same is the Woman for she hath the lesser part of the Messuage Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer XLIII Cursons Case 3 Leon 239. Execution of a Statute binds the King. CUrson acknowledged a Statute to Alderman Starkey of London and afterwards he acknowledged another Statute to one Hampden who assigned the same to Fitton who assigned the same to the Queen Starkey sued forth Execution upon his Statute and the Lands of Curson are Extended and he hath a Liberate of it Assignment to the Queen It was agreed by all the Barons if Starkey had Execution upon his Statute before the Queen the Execution shall stand against the Queen and the Queen should not put him out A. recovers Debt in the Kings Bench so as he hath Title to sue Execution by Elegit The Defendant sold his Lands and afterwards A. assigned his Execution to the Queen It was holden that the Queen should not have Prerogative against the Feoffee to have Execution of the whole Land and it was holden by Manwood Chief Baron If Execution be had upon a puisne Statute and that is afterward avoided by an elder Statute and the elder Statute is satisfied by the Execution now the younger Recognizee shall enter without suing forth a new Execution Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XLIV Clarks Case IN Ejectione firmae The Case was the Master Brothers Leases by Corporations Misnosm and Sisters of the Hospital of the blessed Mariae Virginis by Indenture by the name of the Hospital Beatae Mariae c. leaving out the word Virginis leased the Land It was resolved that notwithstanding the want of the word Virginis that the Lease was good Then it was moved that the words of the Indenture are Haec Indentura inter Magistrum Fratres Sorores Hospital Beatae Mariae c. Testatur that the said Master with the assent of the Brothers and Sisters aforesaid had leased to A. in cujus rei testimonium the said Master with the assent of the Brothers and Sisters aforesaid had put their common Seal Ayliffe and Clench Iustices held that the Lease was void for here the Brothers and Sisters being one entire Body with the Master are not parties to the Indenture but give their consent only And it is not like to the Case where Abbot or Prior makes a Lease for years with the assent of their Covent for the Monks and Friers being dead persons in Law cannot be parties to the Lease but here in the Case at Bar the Brothers and Sisters are persons able in Law And it is not like to the Case of Parson Patron and Ordinary where the Parson with the assent of the Patron and Ordinary grant a Kent-charge for there the Parson is the principal Grantor and the others have not any express interest in the Land charged Gawdy Iustice contrary It is more honourable for Iudges to maintain Leases made by Corporations than for to permit them to avoid the same And he said for law If two Ioyntenants be of Lands and they make the like Indenture viz. Testatur that one of them with the assent of the other deviseth the Land Leases in witness whereof he with the assent of the other hath put his Seal it is a good demise by them both But Clench said that is not like our Case for the two Ioyntenants are distinct persons and the one of them may assent to the other but in our Case the Master Brothers and Sisters are but one person in Law and a Body cannot be distinct so as one can consent to the other
Common Pleas. LII Frice and Fosters Case IN Ejectione firmae the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease made 14 Jan. 30 Eliz. to have from the Feast of Christmas then last before for three years and upon the Evidence the Plaintiff shewed a Lease bearing date the 13 day of January the same year and it was found by Witnesses that the Lease was sealed and delivered upon the Land the 13 day of January Variance Whereupon Puckering and Cowper Serjeants moved on the part of the Defendant that for that variance between the Declaration and the Evidence of the Plaintiff that the Iury might be discharged Evidence good to maintain Issue But Anderson Chief Iustice said that the Evidence was good enough to maintain the Declaration for if the Lease was sealed and delivered the 13 of January it was then a Lease 14 January Quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt LIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield The Case was that A. seised of an Advowson in Fee Quare Impedit by Executors the Church voided the Bishop collated wrongfully A. dyed Collation it was holden that his Executors might have a Quare Impedit upon that disturbance and that by the equity of the Statute which gave an Action of Trespass to Executors of Goods carried away in the life of the Testator 4 E. 3. cap. 7. and that the Clerk should be removed at the suit of the Executors Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LIV. Harvey and Thomas Case THe Case was that the Husband seised of Land in the right of his Wife made a Lease of it for years Fine by the Husband where avoids a Lease ê contra 1 Roll. tit Charge in Marg. 389. Plow Quaer 31. 261. ib. plus and afterwards he and his Wife conveyed the Land to a stranger by Fine the Husband died Wray Chief Iustice was of opinion that the Conusee should hold the Land discharged of the Lease Gawdy contrary In case of a Rent granted or a Recognizance acknowledged by the Husband the Conusee of the Fine shall avoid any of them But in this Case the Conusee meddles with the Land it self and an Estate in the Land is conveyed by the Husband which none but the Wife or her Heirs shall avoid and if the Wife after the death of her Husband accept the Rent upon such a Lease by that the Lease is confirmed Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench LV. Blaby and Estwicks Case IN Assumpsit It was moved in stay of Iudgment Assumpsit that one of the Defendants was dead after verdict but notwithstanding that Allegation Iudgment was given Attornment for the Court cannot take Notice of it judicially nor any of the Parties hath day in Court to plead it and therefore the Court is not to have regard to such Informations Wray It is not honourable for us upon such surmises which cannot be tryed to delay Iudgment and also the Party is not without remedy for he may have a Writ of Error 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVI Hore and Briddleworths Case HOre brought Trespass against Briddlesworth Quare clausum Domum suam fregit the Defendant pleaded and put the Plaintiff to a new Assignment i. e. a House called a Stable a Barn and another House called a Carthouse and Garnier And that was assigned for Error for that Assignment is not warranted by the Declaration Gawdy said it was good enough for Domus in the Declaration contains all things contained in the new Assignment but if the Declaration had been of a Close and the new Assignment of a Barn it had not been good Wray Chief Iustice Domus est nomen collectivum and contains many Buildings as Barns Stables c. And such was the Opinion of the Court. Mich 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVII Mans Case Prohibition MAn was sued before the Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes for an Incestuous Marriage viz. for marrying his Wives Sisters Daughter and although it be not expresly within the Levitical degrees yet because more farther degrees are prohibited the Archbishop of Canterbury and other the Commissioners gave Sentence against him Consultation upon which he sued a Prohibition upon the Stat. of 32 H. 8. c. 38. The Prohibition was general where it ought to be special that it be not within the Levitical degrees and therefore a Consultation was granted Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVIII Doylies Case Appeals IN an Appeal de Roberie against Doyly It was agreed by the Iustices that the Party robbed shall have an Appeal of Robbery 20 years after the Robbery committed and shall not be bound to bring it within a year and a day as in the Case of an Appeal of Murder Vide contr 22 Ass 97. vide Stamford 62. Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LIX Ruishbrook and Pusanies Case THe Plaintiff brought Trespass for pulling down his Hurdles in his Close The Defendant justified by reason that one Beddingfield was Lord of the Mannor of D. and that the said Beddingfield and all those whose Estate he had in the said Mannor had had a free course for their sheep in the place where c. And that the Tenant of the said Close could not there erect Hurdles without the leave of the Lord of the Mannor and that the said Beddingfield let to the Defendant the said Mannor and because the Plaintiff erected Hurdles without leave c. in the said Close he cast them down as it was lawful for him to do The Plaintiff replyed of his own wrong without cause c. It was holden by the Iustices to be an ill Plea Traverse for the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the Prescription 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LX. Par Marquess of Northamptons Case PAr Marquess of Northampton took to Wife the Lady Bourchier Heir of the Earl of Essex Leases by a Baron contrary to Act of Parliament void 3 Leon. 71. who levied a Fine of the Lands of the Lady sur Conusans de Droit c. with a Grant and Render to them for Life the remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the said Lady And afterwards by Act of Parliament â—5 H. 8. It was enacted That the said Lady should retain part of her Inheritance and dispose thereof as a Feme sole and that the said Marquess should have the residue and that he might lease the same by himself without the Wife for 21 years or lesser term yielding the ancient Rent being Land which had been usually demised c. The Marquess leased the same for 21 years and afterwards durante termino praedict he let the same Land to another for 21 years to begin after the determination of the former Lease It was moved that the last Lease was void for three Causes 1. Because the Marquess had but for Life and then it cannot be intended that the Statute would enable
the Exchequer lend unto another 500 l. of the Queens money and takes a Bond for it in his own name yet the Queen shall have an Accompt against the Borrower Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer XC Pelhams Case IN the Exchequer Chamber before the Chancellor Treasurer Savile Rep 43. Grant of Office of Sheriff and Barons there in the Case of Pelham the Case was That the Queen had granted by her Letters Patents that Pelham should not be Bailiff Constable nor other Officer or Minister Licet eligatur yet it was holden that the Queen might make him Sheriff for that Grant doth not extend to Officers Royal as Grants of Amercements do not extend to Amercements Royal and also the Office of Sheriff doth not lye in Election but if the words had been Licet eligatur per nos then it should have been otherwise And such was the Opinion of Bromley then Lord Chancellor Trin. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench XCI Godbolts Case IN the Case of one Godbolt It was agreed Sales that the sale of a Bailywick of a Hundred was not within the Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 16. For such an Office doth not concern the Administration of Iustice nor is it an Office of Trust XCII In Temps Eliz. A. Granted to B. a Rent-charge out of his Lands to begin when J. S. died without Issue of his Body J. S. dyes having Issue which Issue dyes without Issue Dyer held that the Grant shall not take effect for J. S. at the time of his death had Issue and therefore from thence the Grant shall not begin and if not then then not at all And Manwood said that if the words had been to begin when J. S. is dead without Issue of his Body then such a Grant shall take effect when the Issue of J. S. dies without Issue c. If Donee in Tail hath Issue which dies without Issue the Formedon in the Reverter shall suppose that the Donee himself died without Issue for there is an Interest Difference between an Interest and a Limitation and there is a diversity between an Interest and a Limitation for if I give Land between A. and B. for term of their lives if any of them dye the Survivor shall hold the whole but if I give Lands to A. for the lives of B. and C. now if B. and C dye the whole Estate is determined because it is but a Limitation and B. and C. have not any Interest Vide to this purpose 34 Eliz. Brudnels Case in Cook 5. p. 9. XCIII Temps Roign Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seized of a Manor leased the same for years rendring rent with clause of re-entry and afterwards levied a Fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to the use of himself and his Heirs the rent being demanded is behind Dyer A. cannot re-enter for although the rent in right passeth without Attornment yet he is without remedy for the same without Attornment and it would be hard without Attornment to re-enter It was here moved further if the Conusor be an Assignee within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Manwood The reversion of a Termor is granted by Fine there wants Privity for an Action of Debt Waste and Re entries But if the Conusee dieth without Heir although that in right it was in the Conusee yet the Lord by Escheat shall make Avowry and yet the Conusee by whom he claims could not And in the Case at Bar the Conusee himself could not but the Conusor being Cestuy que use who is in by Act of Law shall Avow and re-enter without Attornment for the Conusor is in by the Statute of 20 H. 8. Harper The Heir of the Conusee shall Avow and re-enter before Attornment Dyer 13 H. 4. The Father leaseth for years rendring rent with clause of re-entry the Father demands the rent which is not paid the Father dyeth the Son cannot re-enter for the rent doth not belong unto him and therefore in the Case at Bar the Conusor cannot Avow for the rent before Attornment therefore not re-enter And in Case of Bargain and Sale the Bargainee is Assignee within the Statute but not the Conusor in this Case Temps Roign Eliz. XCIV 15 Eliz. Sir Francis Leak and Sir Walter Hollis Upon Attainder of Treason who shall seize the Goods for the Queen AT the Assizes the Opinion of Dyer and Stamford was demanded upon this matter One seized of Lands and Tenements and possessed of Goods within the Duchy of Lancaster was Attainted of High Treason and a great Question arose between Sir Francis Lake Kt. Bailiff of the Duchy and Sir Walter Hollis Sheriff which of them ought to seize for the Queen and their Opinion then was that the same did appertain to the Office of the Sheriff if in the Patent of the Sheriff there were not special words to the contrary XCV 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant at Will made a Lease from year to year Lease by Tenant at Will if a Disseisin Dyer conceived that it was not a Disseisin but the Lease was void and he said that the Book of 12 E. 4. 12. was not Law. For he who disseiseth a man ought to claim Inheritance in the land whereof the disseisin is done Harper conceived that the said Book of 12 E 4. 12. was good Law for a Lease at Will is a Lease at the will of both parties and therefore when the Lessee makes a Lease for years his will is determined and he will not hold at will. Manwood agreed with Dyer for if Tenant at Will lease for years rendring rent before that the Lessee for years entreth the Tenant at Will shall not have any rent for it was not a perfect contract otherwise it is where a man seized of Lands leaseth the same ut supra If one entreth into my land and occupieth the same of his own head claiming to hold the same at my will and afterwards I demand of him a certain rent for the occupation of my land he is now my Tenant at Will which all the Iustices granted Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XCVI Cutter and Dixwels Case ACtion upon the Case for that the Defendant exhibited a Bill to the Iustices of Peace against the Plaintiff containing and complaining That the Plaintiff is an enemy to all quietness seeking by all means to disquiet his neighbours and hath used himself as a lawless person and having Process to serve upon one in the Parish scil J. S. did keep the Process and would not serve it but on the Sunday in the time of divine Service not having regard to her Majesties laws or the quiet of his neighbors Vpon which Bill the Iustices to whom it was exhibited awarded Process against the Plaintiff to find Sureties for his good behaviour by virtue of which he was taken and imprisoned It was the Opinion of all the Iustices in this Case that upon this Matter an Action upon the Case would not
that Reversion shall descend to all the daughters notwithstanding the half blood for the Estate for years which is made by Indenture by license of the Lord is a demise and a Lease according to the order of the Common Law and according to the nature of the demise the Possession shall be adjudged which possession cannot be said possession of the Copyholder for his possession is customary and the other is meer contrary therefore the possession of the one shall not be the possession of the other therefore there shall be no Possessio Fratris in this case Possesso Fratris But if one had been the Guardian by custom or the Lease had been made by Surrender there the Sister of the half blood should not inherit And Mead said the Case of the Guardian had been adjudged Mounson agreed And it was said that if a Copyhold doth descend to the Son he is not a Copyholder before admittance but he may take the profits and punish a Trespass before admittance CIV Pasc 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Parson let his Rectory for three years and covenanted that the Lessee shall have and enjoy it during the said term without expulsion or any thing done or to be done by the Lessor and is also bound in an Obligation to the Lessee to perform the said Covenant Forfeiture Quaere Afterwards for not reading of the Articles he was deprived ipso facto by the Statute of 13 Eliz. The Patron presented another who being inducted ousted the Lessee wherefore an Action was brought upon the Obligation It was the Opinion of all the Iustices That this matter is not any cause of Action for the Lessee was not ousted by any Act done by the Lessor but rather for Non feasans and so out of the compass of the Covenant aforesaid as if a man be bound that he shall not do any waste permissive waste is not within the danger of it Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CV King and Cottons Case IN Ejectione firmae the Case was Lessee for years the Remainder for life the Remainder in Tail to Lessee for years Lessee for years made a Feoffment in Fee with warranty and dyed he in the Remainder for life dyed the Issue in Tail entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff It was clearly resolved by the Court in this Case Entre Congeable That the entry of the Issue in Tail was lawful notwithstanding that the disseisin was done to another Estate than that which was to be bound by the warranty scil to the Estate for life Vide 50 E. 3. 12 13 46 E. 3. 6. Fitz. Garr 28. Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CVI. Scot and Scots Case BArtholomew Scot brought a Writ of Accompt against Thomas Scot Accompt Thomas Scot sum ' fuit ad respondend Barth Scot quod reddat ei rationabilem computum suum de tempore quo fuit receptor denariorum c. And declared quod cum the said Thomas Scot fuit receptor denariorum c. recepisset so much by the hands of such a one c. Cumque idem Thomas habuisset recepiâ—â—et diversa bona and shewed what ad merchandizand c. Exception was taken to the Declaration because the Writ and Declaration is general against the Defendant as Receiver whereas for such goods as the Defendant had received ad merchandizand he ought to have been charged as Bayliff Quod Curia concessit Vide Book Entries 19. 46 E. 3. 9. and afterwards the Defendant traversed severally both the Charges whereupon several Issues were joyned and both found for the Plaintiff And as to the monies with the Receipt of which he was charged as Receiver the Plaintiff had Iudgment and as to the others Abatement of Writ which he received ad Merchandizandum the Writ abated And it was said by the Court That the Writ should have abated in the whole unless the several Issues had helped the matter because the Plaintiff might have had an Action for part in other manner Vide 9 H. 7. 4. by Brian 17 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber CVII Morgan and Coxes Case MOrgan exhibited a Bill of Perjury in the Star-Chamber against one Cox setting forth that whereas he was bound to his good behaviour by Recognizance acknowledged in the Kings bench and he in discharge of the said Recognizance had obtained a Writ De Fama gestu to enquire of his Conversation and therefore at the Sessions in the County of Devon where the said Morgan was dwelling the grand Iury charged with the said Matter the said Cox gave Evidence to the said grand Iury in maintenance and continuance of the said Recognizance and upon the Evidence given by Cox the said Bill was conceived It was moved by the Counsel of the Defendant That that Bill upon the matter did not lye for that the Evidence in the Bill for the Perjury was given for the Queen in maintenance of the Recognizance and that to the grand Iury which was charged for the Queen But as to that it was said by the Lord Chancellor and both the Chief Iustices that the Writ De fama gestu Brief de Fama gestu is an especial Writ at the Suit of the Party and not of the Queen and the Court cannot deny it to him who asketh it and the grand Iury as to that matter shall be accounted a special Iury c. Mich. 16 Eliz In the Common Pleas. CVIII Jackson and Darcys Case Tail barred by a Fine 3 Leon. 57. IN a Writ of Partition betwixt Jackson and Darcy the Case was Tenant in Tail the Remainder to the King levied a Fine had Issue and dyed it was adjudged that the Issue was barred and yet the Remainder to the Queen was not discontinued for by the Fine an Estate in Fee-simple determinable upon the Estate in Tail passed to the Conusee Trin. 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CIX Stroads Case Tenures IN a Replevin the Case was Lands holden of a Subject came to the possession of the King by the Statute of 1 E. 6. of Chauntries The King granted the Lands over unto another it was holden in this Case that the Patentee should hold of the King according to his Patent and not of the ancient Lord but the Patentee should pay the rent by which the said Land was before holden as a Rent-seck distrainable of Common right to the Lord and his Heirs of whom the Land was before holden CX Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seized of Lands in Fee devised them to his Wife for life and after her decease Estate she to give the same to whom she will He had Issue two daughters and died Devises Leon. 121â— the wife granted the Reversion to a Stranger and committed waste and the two daughters brought an Action of waste In this Case it was holden that by that Devise the wife had but an Estate for life but she had also an authority
upon it and shall not be put to a Scire facias and of that Opinion was Philips Manwood Chief Baron I agree that if one hath sued a Writ of Execution and the same be continued two or three years by Vicecomes non misit breve yet the Plaintiff may proceed upon it Discontinuance of Suit. and shall not be put to a Scire facias But if such Writ be sued forth but not continued but discontinued for a year and a day he shall be put to a Scire facias for it is the negligence of the Plaintiff not to continue it which within the year and day he might do without Order of the Court but not after the year by any Order of the Court. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber CXX Russel and Prats Case RUssel as Executor of Russel brought an action upon the Case against Prat and his Wife of Trover and Conversion of Goods and 700 l. in money and declared that the Testator was possessed of these Goods 6 Feb. 1 Eliz. at which day they came to the hands of the Defendant dum ipsa sola fuit and converted them c. and Licer the Wife dum sola fuit was required and the said Prat and she after their marriage to deliver them yet they not only refused so to do but knowing the said Goods and Money de jure to belong to the Testator in his life and to his Executors after his death machinantes â—psum inde callâ—de decipere defraudare the said Wife dum ipsa sola fuit converted them to her use the said 6 day of February And Error was assigned in the Declaration because it is not alledged there whether the said conversion was in the Life of the Testator or after his death for that ought to be shewed certainly for if it was in the life of the Testator then it was not punishable by the Common Law or Statute Law and the conversion is the principal point of the action This action is personal moritur cum persona for it is grounded upon a personal wrong and ariseth upon a disceit and wrong and if there was no conversion then an Action of Detinue should lye 7 E. 3. Replevin by Executors of Goods taken in the time of the Testator Fitz. Exec. 106. And it was said that this Action here doth not lye upon the Statute of 4 E. 3. which gives to Executors an Action of Trespass De bonis asportatis in vita Testatoris for the said Statute gives remedy in Cases where there was no remedy before but here the Plaintiff might have Detinue And in our Case it appeareth not whether the Conversion was in the life of the Testator or after his death therefore for the incertainty it is not good Also here is a repugnance in the Declaration scil Sciences the said Goods de jure pertinere to the Testator in his life and after his death to his Executors machinantes ipsum inde decipere defraudare the said wife dum ipsa sola fuit converted them to her use which cannot be c. Popham Attorney General contrary And he agreed that the Executor should not have an accompt against one who was accomptable to the Testator because the privity was gone But it hath been granted on the other side that here upon the matter Detinue lieth and if c. then also this Action lieth for this is the nature of it If the Testator lends a Horse to a special purpose scil to ride to such a place and the party rideth further and the Testator dyeth the Executor may have Detinue or this Action be the Conversion in the life or after the death of the Testator and yet the damages recovered for the Goods converted shall be Assets Two Ioyntenants possessed of Goods lose them and they come to A. by Trover who converts them to his use be it in life or after the death of one of them is all one Anderson The Conversion may be well intended after the death and as to the Exception for the Repugnancy it was said by the Iustices that the words â—cienteâ— c. are but surplusage and not traversable Cook. If I deliver Goods to a Carrier being in a Chest and he breaks it and takes them out in that Case Trespass lieth vi armis notwithstanding the delivery Anderson praedicta tamen i. e. Non obstante that the Testator was dead did not redeliver them c. which proves that the Testator was dead Periam praedicta tamen refers to the Non deliâ—eravit not to the Conversion Cook I find your Goods and use them the same is a Conversion and in the Case of Knight against Vinchcomb it was holden that a Conversion is traversable therefore it ought to be certainly alledged and in our Case the Executor might have detinue or Trespass for the personal wrong where the thing it self certain is to be recovered there the Executor is sure to have an Action as Detinue Replevin c. but where damages only or things uncertain there the Executors shall not have Action and that difference was in a manner agreed by all Anderson Where it is said That upon the Assumpsit of the Testator the Executor shall have an Action upon the Case the reason is because the duty upon the Assumpsit is certain and the Statute of 4 E. 3. shall not be taken by Equity for by the said Statute the Executor of an Executor shall not have an Action before the Statute of 25 E. 3. Also there is not any wrong for then moritur cum Persona If one finds my Goods and denies the having of them the same is not Trespass Periam This Case is not within the Statute of 4 E. 3. for the Statute is to be intended where Goods are taken vi armis and if it be at all within the Statute it must be within the Equity of it Manwood Where one takes my Horse and dies I shall not charge his Executor and that is our Case At another day some held That the Action did not lye against Executors therefore not for Executors And Executors of Executors shall not be charged with a Devastavit made by the first Executors Manwood The Executor of the Gaoler shall not be charged in an Escape Anderson It is not within the Equity of the Statute of 4 E. 3. Cook. A Smith pricks my Horse my Executors shall not have an Action for it Anderson If one takes my Goods I shall have Detinue for it therefore this Action Cook If one take my Goods he is a Trespasser and I shall have Detinue for that affirms a property Manwood If my Goods be taken from me I cannot give them to a stranger but if my Goods come to another by Trover I may give them over to another CXXI Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Attaint IT was holden by all the Barons That where the Queen is sole Party against the Subject and the Iury find for the Queen no Attaint lyeth contrary
is not punishable by the Law of the Land no more than if many conspire to indict one but do not put it in Execution it is not punishable but if A. saith that B. lyeth in wait to kill him or rob him there an Action lyeth for insidiatores viarum are punishable But the Opinion of the whole Court was that because these words sound in great discredit of the Plaintiff it is reason he have his Action and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXL The Lord Stafford and Sir Rowland Heywoods Case THe Lord Stafford brought an Action upon the Case against Sir Rowland Heywood Kt. Abatement of Writ Exception was taken to the original Writ viz. ad respondend c. Quare colloquium quoddam habebatur inter Dominum Stafford Row. Heywood de assurando Castrum to the said Lord Stafford by the said Sir Rowland c. Dictus Rowlandus Castrum illud non assuravit c. where the said Writ said cum colloquium quoddam habebatur for the cause of the Action is not colloquium habitum but the not assurance of the Castle according to the promise made super colloquium praedictum and for that cause the Writ was abated CXLI Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte by the Court If one who is not a common Informer be barred in any Information or Action upon a penal Statute he shall pay costs notwithstanding the Preamble of the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. be for the redressing of divers Disorders in common Informers but if pars gravata be barred in such case he shall not pay costs Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXLII Robinsons Case GEorge Robinson Lessee for years of the Manor of Drayton Basset the Reversion to the King devised his term to his wife as long as she should keep her self a Widow with the Remainder over if she married or died and made his Wife and his Son William his Executors the said William being within age and therefore the administration was committed to the Wife alone and she only proved the Will and afterwards the Wife granted all her Interest to the said William and dyed And by Cook nothing passed by this Grant for William had the same before for every Executor hath the whole Interest Popham contrary for at the time of the Grant the Son was within age and had not administred nor proved the Will therefore in effect the wife was sole Executrix and by Egerton Solicitor if during the said Executorship by the wife one doth trespass upon the Lands the wife only shall have the Action of Trespass without naming her Co-Executor which Cook denied and he cited the Case 10 H. 7. 4 where two Executors are and the one only is possessed of goods of the Testator and a Stranger takes them our of his Possession to whom the other Executor releaseth and after the Executor out of whose possession the goods were taken brings an Action of Trespass against the Trespasser who pleads the Release of the other Executor and it was holden a good Plea for the possession of the Plaintiff was also the possession of his Companion The Case was further that Thomas Robinson in pleading shewing that G. Robinson was possessed and the same devised to his wife who granted to William Robinson who devised it to the Defendant And the other side shewed that the said Thomas granted the said term to Paramour and upon that grant they were at Issue if now against his own pleading Thomas might give in evidence that Thomas could not grant for that he had not any thing to grant for if the gift made by the wife to William was void and he had the term as Executor then he could not devise it but his devise to Thomas was void and then Thomas could not grant it and so Ne grant pas It was also shewed that the said Thomas granted the same to Paramour by Indenture if now against that Indenture he might give in evidence such special matter ut supra and if the Party shall be concluded if the Iury shall be concluded to give the Verdict Secundum veritatem facti for they are sworn to say the truth and by Popham and Egerton as well the Iurors as the Parties are bound and concluded by the confession of the Parties on the Record and here all confess that William devised to him virtute cujus he was possessed The Queens Attorney to that said That true it is that Thomas Robinson was possessed but further said that the said Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides Therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary And by Manwood Chief Baron if the Parties admit a thing by not gainsaying it Jurors where bound by confession of the parties where not the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed the Iury shall be bound thereby And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXLIII Applethwait and Nertleys Case IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant promised in consideration that the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant would marry his Daughter to give to the Plaintiff 40 l. and said he had married his Daughter and yet the Defendant Licet saepius requisitus would not pay it It was moved by Cook in stay of Iudgment that the Declaration is vitious because there is not set forth the place and time when the request was made for the Assumpsit being general it is by Law to be paid upon request Fenner If the promise was expresly to be paid upon request the Declaration was not good And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXLIV Wats and Kings Case SAmuel Wats Plaintiff in Ejectione firmae against W. King upon a Special Verdict it was found that W. Wallshot was seized in Fee and he with one Oliver Shuttleworth Octab. Mich. 3 4 Phil. Mary levied a Fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to John Hooper who granted and rendred by the same Fine to Oliver for a month the remainder to the said W. Wallshot and to one Anne Cook and the heirs of their bodies c. the remainder to the right heirs of the said W. Wallshot in Fee and that with Proclamation William and Anne intermarry have issue John now alive W. Wallshot 4 5 Phil. Mary levy a Fine with Proclamation to Edward Popham Esq to the use of the said Edward and his heirs W. Wallshot 18 Eliz. died Anne took to husband Richard Stephens and they in the right of the said Anne entred and by Indenture demised the said Land to Richard Hoose the Father Richard the Son and Mary his wife for the term of their lives rendring to the said Richard Stephens and Anne his wife and to the heirs of the body
neither at the time of the Will nor at the time of her death she had nothing of the said Manor of Tremington but the said Rent of one hundred thirty and six pounds Also it may be taken that she who devised was ignorant of the Law and conceived that it was a Manor when she had Rents and Services out thereof notwithstanding that those who are learned in the Law know that a Manor could not pass without there was two Suitors at the least 21 R. 2. Devise 27. Lands are devised to one for life the remainder Ecclesiae Sancti Andreae in Holborn there it is holden in an Ex gravi Querela that the Parson should recover for otherwise the Devise should be void if the Parson should not have the Lands and in Wills shall subserve and give place to the intent of the Party and therefore if a man deviseth that his Lands shall be sold for the payment of his debts his Executors shall sell them and to that intent the naming of them Executors is sufficient Plow Com. 523. in Weldens Case it is vouched to be adjudged that if one after the Statute of 27 H. 8. deviseth that his Feoffees shall be seized to the use of A. in Fee that it was a good Devise of the Lands to A. and yet then he had not nor could have any Feoffees c. But the Party was ignorant of the Statute and his intent to pass the Land was apparent in that Case the words were as much impertinent to the matter as in our Case for there he had not any Feoffees as here she hath not any Manor Br. recites That in 38 H. 8. it was holden by Baldwin Shelly and Morgan that if a man who had Feoffees to his use would after the Statute of 27 H. 8. that his Feoffees should make an Estate to J. S. that the Land should pass to J. S. 26 H. 8. Feoffments Faits 12. Land cannot pass by the Deed of an House for it cannot be parcel of an House but an Acre of Land may be given by the name of a Carve and a Carve of Land by the name of a Manor and yet a Carve can be no more a Manor than this rent yea Rents and Services more resemble a Manor than a Carve of Land. It cannot be intended that her Will was here to pass the Manor it self which was not in her but in another Also she by four years before had the rent and therefore it shall be intended that it was her meaning to pass the same which she her self received and no other thing and although in the Devise the rent be specially named and the Manor also yet the same shall not alter the Case for if a man grant the Reversion upon an Estate for life and by the said Deed grants the Land and the Tenant attorns and the Grantee deviseth all his Land the Reversion shall pass without all question If a man grant the Advowson of D. and in the same Deed the Church and Rectory of D. and the Grantee deviseth the Rectory of D. the Advowson shall pass In Adams Case Plow Com. 195. a man leaseth his Capital Messuage rendring rent there the question is If the Reversion or Rent shall pass It was adjudged That all which he had passed As to that that it cannot be levied out of the Rent for that no place is therein of Distress I say that she did not know whether a lesser rent might be paid out of a greater rent and 1 H 4. Multure was granted reserving rent and the Grant was good The words of the Will are All which Manors Lands and Tenements c. she devised to the Lord Mountjoy and these words expound her meaning for although the word Rent be not within the word Manor yet the words Lands and Tenements do comprehend it and words subsequent in Wills may express the Premisses As 16 Eliz. Dyer 333. Chapman seized in Fee of two Houses having three Brothers devised the House in which A. inhabited to his three Brethren and A. to dwell there and they not to raise the rent and devised the House in which B. his Brother dwelt to him and that he pay to C. his Brother 3 l. for to find him at School and otherwise to remain to the House Proviso that the Houses shall not be sold but shall go to the next of the Name and Blood which are Male and dyed B. his brother dyed without Issue the eldest of the two middle brothers entred and had Issue a Son and dyed It was a Question If the Son or the middle brother should have the House And it was holden that the Son of the eldest should have it in Tail which Exposition was by reason of the words in the Proviso that it should not be Sold and that it should go to the Heirs Males Shuttleworth The rent shall not pass by the Devise for the construction of a Will ought to be according to the words or according to the intent collected out of the words and not by a thing out of the Will for then a stranger shall be the maker of the Will of another And 19 H. 8. if a Will be doubtful it ought to be expounded for the Heir at the Common Law. And if the rent ought to pass it ought to have apt words and not the name of a Manor And thereupon he put the Case that where one deviseth certain Lands to one and afterwards his Goods Leases and other things to another All his Goods and Terms shall pass but not his Lands for that there wanteth apt words to pass them for the word other things shall not pass them and this set order ought to be observed for the avoiding of confusion And the Rent and Services shall not pass for the two parts admitting the words sufficient for they cannot be divided But Periam said That the rent might be divided Anderson said That it should be but a Rent-seck Periam said it was a Rent distrainable of Common Right but Anderson doubted of it but they all agreed that it might be divided but there should not be two Tenures Fenner The Rent should pass by the Devise of the Manor for there is do difference betwixt a Manor and a Seigniory in gross amongst Lay-men and then their intent shall be taken although it was not written by apt words for in Grants a Reversion shall be taken for a Remainder and à Fortiori a Devise And 7 E. 3. a Manor shall pass by the name of a Knights Fee and 19 H. 8. a Wood shall pass by the name of Land and 38 E. 3. by grant of totam terram which A. held in dower the Reversion shall pass Afterwards in Mich. Term the Plaintiff discontinued his Ation And Periam told me I being at his House that the Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff and if it had not been discontinued they would have given Iudgment accordingly Now this was the intent of the Lord Mountjoy The
upon all that matter it was holden that the said Francis was inheritable 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXXIV. Grey and Edwards Case IN an Attaint by Grey against Edwards it was holden by Wray Gaudy and Jeoffries That if one makes a Deed and that by these words Dedi conveyeth Lands to another without any words of Bargain and Sale and that for a sum of mony If the Deed be debito modo enrolled the use shall pass as well as if the words of Bargain and Sale had been in the Deed because that a sum of mony was paid for the Land. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXXV. Webbs Case IN Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That whereas Cobham was indebted to J. S. and J. S. to the Defendant the said Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would procure the said J. S. to make a Letter of Attorney to the Defendant to sue the said Cobham promised to pay and give to the Plaintiff 10 l. It was objected Here was not any Consideration for to induce the Assumpsit for the Defendant by this Letter of Attorney gets nothing but his Labour and Travel But the Exception was not allowed of For in this Case not so much the Profit which redounds to the Defendant as the Labour of the Plaintiff in procuring of the Letter of Attorney is to be respected Temps Roign Eliz. CCXXVI Heggor and Felstons Case IN Trespass the Case was A Copyholder surrendred to the use of his Wife for Life and after to the use of his Daughter in Fee the Wife is admitted It was holden that the Daughter after the death of the Wife Copyholder Surrender by Attorney might without any admittance surrender the same Land for the first admittance was sufficient And Manwood said that Roper was Steward of a Mannor and one of the Copyholders of the said Manor being in Ireland he made a Commission to one to receive a Surrender from him there and it was holden a good Surrender CCXXVII Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte by Manwood chief Baron for a Rule to all Counsellors That they do not advise any Collectors of Subsidies or Fifteens to exhibite any Bills in the Exchequer Chamber for the not payment of Subsidies for such Bills shall not be allowed hereafter because they have remedy by Distress Also it was That if any be assessed for the Fifteens which he ought to pay or if two Towns ought to pay together and one Town be taxed more than it ought to be or hath been accustomed those who are grieved by such Assessment may have a Commission out of the Exchequer which is called ad aequaliter taxand and that was put in practice in a case between Bartace and Hind where one of these was Lord of Little Marlow and the other of Hedsore It was also holden That Fifteens are to be levied of Goods and Chattels properly and a Township is sometimes richer than at other times and therefore it is not reasonable they pay their Fifteens always according to the same proportion But Clark Baron held where the Custom hath always been that the Fifteens shall be taxed according to the quantity of Acres then the rate and proportion shall be always on whosoever holdeth the Land. And as to the Commission ad aequaliter taxand Manwood and Fanshaw said That they could shew twenty Presidents of it Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXXVIII Harris Case THe Case of Harris of the Middle Temple was Tenant in tail in remainder upon an Estate for life is attainted of Felony 2 Leon. 122. Hughs Qu. 13. 3 Leon. 185. 1 Inst â— If he hath forfeited his Remainder during his Life Popham Attorney General He hath forfeited it to the Queen for after his attainder the Law will not suffer it to remain in him and it cannot vest in the Lord of whom the Land is holden for the person attainted being Tenant in tail in remainder was not very Tenant to the Lord therefore if in none of them the Queen shall have it and the Law shall punish the offence so sharply that it suffer nothing to remain in him So Tenant in Dower and by the Courtesie And it is a Maxim What a man hath in his own right he may forfeit but it is not a certain rule Whatsoever a man may grant he may forfeit as Guardian in Socage and Executors may grant that which they cannot forfeit 2 Leon. 126. A man seized in the right of his wife is attainted of Felony the Queen shall have but the profits of the Land during the life of the Husband Vide Register 292. Where the husband seized in the right of his wife of certain Lands is outlawed of Felony the King seizeth and hath the Lands during the life of the husband after the death of whom issued a Diem clausit extremum Vide F.N.B. 254. D. Cook Tenant in tail in possession is attainted of Felony the King shall have but the profits but as our Case is being Tenant in tail in remainder upon an Estate for Life nothing shall be forfeited during his life and after the death of the Tenant in tail so attainted of Felony the Issue in tail may enter for the King hath not the Freehold for if the King had the Freehold the Issue in tail could not enter without Office vide Old Natura Brevium in the Writ of Escheat That the King shall have only the profits At another day it was argued by Egerton Solicitor That the Queen hath the Interest of him in the Remainder during his life for a man so attainted cannot be receiv'd against the Queen and if a man attainted of Felony purchaseth Land and dyeth his wife shall not be endowed of it And he said that this Remainder vested in the Queen without Office then not pardoned by 23 Eliz. It hath been objected That if the Remainder be in the Queen without Office by this attainder of Felony by the Common Law then also in case of attainder for Treason and then what need was there that the Statute of 33 H. 8. should be made which enacteth That in cases of Treason it shall vest in the King without Office. As to that I answer That that Statute was made in affirmance of the Common Law and also for other things given to the King by the Statute which were not given by the Common Law as Conditions Rights c. So as the King might grant over without Office and also the Subject have a Petition of Right before Office which was not at the common Law 33 H. 8. 20. in the saving in the end of it And as to the Statute of 18 H. 6 cap. 6. such things were in the King without Offce for by the common Law before Office the King might grant them but he could not grant them if they were not vested in him and the said Statute was made to such intent that the Queen should be fully informed of her Title c. by
23 Eliz. is If any Person do any thing to move the People to Sedition the same is Felony but then it must be Sedition against the Queen and of that Opinion was the whole Court. Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLV Ratcliffe and Shirleys Case THe Lady Ratcliffe brought an Action upon the Case against Shirley for these words Words My Lady Ratcliffe is a beggerly Lady and giveth thread-bare Coats she bought Sheep and cosen'd men of their money and she is as very a Thief as he that robbeth by the High-way Vpon Not Guilty the Iury found that the Defendant spake these words She is a worse Thief than he that robbeth by the High-way It was holden that the words found by the Verdict were actionable as well as if the Defendant had called the Plaintiff Thief generally But it seemed to the Court that upon that Verdict the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment for it may be that the Defendant dixit utrumque at several times and so several Causes of Action And it is not like to the Case 3 Ma. 118. where part of the words is found quoad alia verba non dixit and so expresly acquit him of the remnant so it is not here for this Verdict doth not acquit him of the other words and for that Cause Iudgment was stayed Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLVI Herne and Crowes Case IN an Action upon the Case by Herne against Crowe and declared that whereas certain Irish Merchants had imported Furs here into England which were offered to be sold in London which Furs the Defendant desired to buy but because he was a Foreigner he could not buy them without peril of forfeiture and then the Plaintiff was in communication with the Merchants to have bought them that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that when he had bought the said Furs the Defendant should have such a quantity of the said Furs as he pleased upon equal price assumed and promised that he would speak no more with the said Merchants for the buying of the said Furs yet that notwithstanding he proceeded in the said bargain and offered to the said Merchants sixty pound more than any other by reason of which the Plaintiff could not have them for such reasonable price as he might have had them before It was holden by Wray Chief Iustice That the Declaration here was insufficient upon which the Defendant might have well demurred Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXLVII. Bakers Case A Writ of Partition by Baker Heir of Gertrudi Marquess of Exeter who devised all his Lands to Blunt by which the third part descend to the Plaintiff Estrepement and prayed a Writ of Estrepement and it was the Opinion of the Court that the Writ is not to be granted for the Plaintiff may have a more proper remedy upon the Statute Cum duo vel tres and in a Writ of Partition no Land is demanded CCXLVIII Mich. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Conditions A Man was bound in an Obligation that he should release all his right in Black Acre to the Obligor and in the performance of the said Condition he made such a Lease and delivered the same to C. to the use of the Obligor The Opinion of the whose Court was That the Condition was not performed because the Obligor had not the Lease in his own hands to plead but is put to his Writ of Derinue against C. which was not the intent of the Condition Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXLIX Seaman and Brownings Case SEaman brought Debt in an Obligation against Broshnin and others Executors of one Marshall The Condition was That whereas the said Marshall had sold certain Lands to the Plaintiff If the Plaintiff peaceably and quietly enjoyed the said Lands against the said Marshall c and assigned the breach That the said Marshall had entred upon them and cut down five Elms there upon which they were at Issue And it was found that a Servant of the said Marshall had entred and cut them and that in the presence of the said Marshall his Master and by his commandment It was the Opinion of the Court that the Condition was broken and that the Master was the principal Trespasser Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCL Babingtons Case HUmphrey Babington brought a Writ of Disceit and counted that T. S. was seized of Land and held the same of the Manor of Rodely which Manor is ancient Demeasn And that the said T. S. being so seized a Writ of Entre sur Disseisin was brought against him in which T. S. pleaded and lost and Iudgment was given against him Et quod ipse Humphridus extitit Dominus Manerii praedicti and concluded ad exhaeredationis ipsius Humphrâ—di periculum manifestum Exception was taken to the Count because the words are quod cum ipse existit Dominus Manerii praedicti where he ought to say further Amendment Et tempore Judicii praedicti existebat for if the Recovery was before he purchased the said Manor his Action doth not lye which Rhodes and Anderson concesserunt wherefore day was given to the Plaintiff to amend his Count. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer CCLI Sir William Pelhams Case THe Case was A. Tenant for life the remainder in tall to B. c. A by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the Messuage so conveyed to W. P. in fee who suffered a common recovery in which A. is vouched and so a common recovery had and executed and this was before the Statute of 14 Eliz. And if the recovery should bind B. and his remainder in tail was the question or if it be a forfeiture Altham argued that here is a forfeiture 1. It is to see if a common recovery suffered by Tenant for life which here is the Bargainee be a forfeiture or no by the common Law 1 Leon. 264. it s not forfeited 2 Leon. 60 65. if no Execution be sued upon the same Recovery 2. If it be executed then if he in the remainder may enter for the forfeiture When the Tenant for life bargains and sells the Messuage although upon it an estate in fee be limited yet nothing passeth from him but what he may lawfully pass and that was the estate for life of the Bargainor for such an estate only he might lawfully pass and here the Vendee is but Tenant for the life of another and when of his own assent he suffers a common recovery and that without right it is a forfeiture By matter in Fait a particular Tenant may commit a forfeiture as well as by matter of Record By matter in Fait he cannot commit a forfeiture if not thereby the reversion be not pulled out of him in the reversion As if a Lessee for 10 years make a Lease for 1000 years it is not a forfeiture for by that the reversion is not touched but if he by matter of Record do
Aid prayer the Party to have Aid shewed such Special matter But in our Case the Tenant for life hath vouched his Bargainor and not without cause for he hath a warranty from him and the Demandant cannot Counterplead it for he had a Seisin whereof he might make a Feoffment As to the Case 14 E. 3. Fitz. Resceit 135. Lessee for life in a Praecipe against him without Aid prayer pleadeth to the Enquest the first day he in reversion may enter It is true he may enter and enter into the Resceit but not into the Land for a Forfeiture For then Fitzherbert would have abridged that Case in the Title of Entre Congeable and not in the Title of Resceit And the Book in 5 Ass 3. is good Law for there the Tenant doth confess the reversion to be in another but in our Case the Tenant voucheth which is a lawful Act and according to the Covenants of his Purchase And although the recovery was by agreement yet it is not for that a Forfeiture for if the Tenant for life voucheth truly it is not a Forfeiture Before the Statute of West 2. cap. 3. which gave resceit to a woman and to those in reversion where the particular Tenant is impleaded and made default reddere noluerit no remedy for these Cases but a Writ of Right but no Entry and that was for the credit which the Law gave to recoveries car si puissoit then is resceit given but that only in the two Cases aforesaid But afterward because it was found that many particular Tenants being impleaded would plead faintly The Statute of 13 R. 2. gave resceit in such case And upon what reasons were these Acts made if in such cases the Entry was lawful But after these two Statutes another practise was devised for such particular Tenants would suffer recoveries secretly in such sort that those in the reversion could not have notice of it so as they could not ante judicium and prayer to be received for the remedy of which mischief the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made by which all recoveries had against the Tenant by the Curtesie or otherwise for life or lives by agreement of the Parties of any Land whereof such particular Tenant is seized should be void as Tenant by the Curtesie c. should be void against him in the reversion And yet an Evasion was found out of that Statute for such particular Tenant would make a Feoffment with warranty and then the Feoffor should be impleaded in a Writ of Entry and he vouch the Tenant for life who should vouch over and such a Recovery was out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. for the recovery was not against such particular Tenant c. For the remedy of which mischief the Statute of 14 Eliz. was made by which it was provided that such recoveries had where such particular Tenant shall be vouched should ve void if such recovery be had between them by Covin And he conceived That the Forfeiture is not in respect of the recovery it self but of the Plea pleaded by the Tenant And here in our Case there is not any Covin found or that Sir William Pelham knew that he was but Tenant for life but it was found that the recovery was with their assent and that was lawful as this Case is for they may agree to have such recovery for further assurance and so Sir William Pelham hath not vouched any but his Bargainor and that according to their Covenants and this Bargainor was not a bare Tenant for life but had also a remainder in tail although not immediately depending upon the Estate for life which he cut off therefore it was not meerly a feigned recovery And Vide 5 E. 4.2 Br. Forfeiture 87. where Tenant for life being impleaded in a Praecipe voucheth a stranger it is not a Forfeiture for it doth not disaffirm the reversion c. contra of Aid prayer for a stranger may release with warranty to Tenant for life upon which he may vouch And he reported in his Argument That Bromley Chancellor of England sent him to the two chief Iustices to know their Opinions upon these Points and they were of opinion That the Voucher of a stranger was not any Forfeiture and also that after the recovery was executed he in the remainder could not enter but they conceived that the right of him in the remainder was not bound And he said That after the recovery executed he in the remainder could not enter which see Br. Forfeiture 87. 24 H. 8. For if Entry in such Case had been lawful infiniteness of Suits would follow which would be a thing against the credit of recoveries As to the Objection of the Infancy the same will not help the matter 6 H. 8. Br. Saver default 30. Recovery had against an Infant in which he voucheth and loseth is not erronious contrary upon default And if an Infant Tenant in tail suffereth a recovery it is discontinuance for in such Recovery Infancy is not respected And in a Scire Facias upon a Iudgment had against the Father the Heir shall not have his age And he cited a Case out of Bendlowes Reports 5 Eliz. Tenant for life the remainder over to a stranger in Fee Tenant for life is disseized by Covin in a Praecipe quod reddat against the Disseisor he voucheth the Tenant for life who entreth into the Warranty generally and voucheth over the common Vouchee It was adjudged that that recovery was out of 32 H. 8. for the recovery was not had against the particular Tenant but he was but Tenant in Law quia Vouchee and also the recovery is a good bar to him in the remainder notwithstanding that he was within age at the time of the recovery And at another time it was argued by the Barons and Clark said That he conceived that the Entry of him in the remainder was lawful It hath been objected that Pelham did not know that the Bargainor had but for life or that any other person had any remainder in the Land that is to no purpose to excuse him for 42 E. 3. every Purchasor ought at his own peril to take notice of the Estates and Charges upon the Lands which he purchaseth For the Law presumes that none will purchase without advice of Counsel and without knowing the Titles of the Land. And although Statutes have been made to provide against the practises of particular Tenants yet that is no Argument that no other remedy was before And by Littleton If Tenant for life joyneth the Mise upon the meer right it is a Forfeiture And he held strongly That the Iudgment did not take away the Entry a cause of Forfeiture being given before the Iudgment 5 Ass 3. He in the Reversion after Iudgment and Execution may enter See also 22 Ass 31 to the same purpose For where Tenant for life is impleaded he ought to wait upon him in the Reversion and expect Instructions from him in
was That Francis Bunny was seized and 1 May 20 Eliz. by Deed indented enfeoffed N. H. to the use of the said Fr. Bunny for term of his life the Remainder to D. in tail the Remainder to E. in tail the Remainder over to F. in Fee In which Deed of Feoffment a Proviso was That if it should happen one P. P. to dye without Issue Male of his Body that then it should be lawful for the said Fr. Bunny at any time during his life by his Deed Indented to be Sealed and Delivered in the presence of three credible Witnesses to alter change diminish or amplifie any use or uses limited by the said Deed aliquem usum vel usus inde alicui personae c. Limitare post mortem ipsius Fr. to begin After which the said Fr. Bunny 1 Aprilis 23 Eliz by his Deed Indented did renounce relinquish and surrender to the said N. H. D. E. F. all such Liberty Power and Authority which he had after the death of the said P.P. without Issue ut supra And further remised released and quit-claimed to them the said Condition Promise Covenant and Agreement and all his said Power Liberty and Authority and further granted to them and their Heirs that at all times then after as well the said Condition Promise Covenant and Agreement as the said Power Liberty and Authority should cease and to all purposes should be void after which P. P. dyed without Issue 1 Maij 23 Eliz. after which 20 March 24 Eliz. the said Fr. Bunny by Indenture between him and the said D. Sealed and Delivered ut supra altered the former uses and covenanted and agreed with the said D. that from thenceforth the said N. H. and his Heirs should be seized to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs c. And note that in this Case Fr. Bunny being but Tenant for life enfeoffed one Tomson upon whom the said D. entred for a Forfeiture And it was argued by Altham That by the Feoffment by Fr. Bunny to Tomson the Liberty and Power aforesaid was not extinct or lost for this Liberty and Power was not then a thing in esse for then was P. P. alive and also the Liberty is meerly collateral to the Land whereof the Feoffment was made 39 E. 3. 43. Fitz The Son and Heir apparent disseised his Father and thereof made a Feoffment to a stranger the Father dyed now against his own Livery the Son shall not enter but if the Son dyeth then his Son shall enter which proves that the Livery is not so violent to determine a future right but that afterwards it may be revived à fortiori in our Case where the thing pretended to be extinct is meerly collateral 36 E. 3. Fitz. garr 69. In an Assise of Common the Release of the Father with Warranty is not a bar because it is of another thing 15 H. 7. 11. Cestuy que use wills by his Will that his Feoffees shall sell his Lands and dyes the Feoffees make a Feoffment to the same use yet they may well Sell so as against their Livery the authority to sell remains to them And he put Brents Case Dyer 340. A future use limited to a Wife which shall be shall not be prevented by a Fine or Feoffment and so by the Statute of fraudulent Conveyances 27 Eliz. cap. 4. where a Conveyance is made with clause of Revocation if afterwards the party who made such a Conveyance shall Bargain Sell or Grant the said Land to another for Money or other good Consideration paid or given the first Conveyance not being revoked that then such former Conveyance against the latter Purchasor shall be void c. The other matter was admitting that the said Power and Liberty be not extinct by the said Feoffment if by the Indenture of Renunciation Relinquishment Release c. it be destroyed and he said that a thing which is not in esse cannot be released Litt. 105. 4 H. 7. 10. A Lease for years to begin at a day to come cannot be released before it comes in esse 11 H. 6. 29. Br. Damages 138. In Detinue the Defendant would confess the Action if the Plaintiff would release the Damages and the Plaintiff would have so done but could not before Iudgment for before Iudgment the Plaintiff had not Interest in the Damages but he is intituled to them by the Iudgment So Lands in ancient Demesne are recovered at the Common Law and Execution had accordingly and afterwards the Tenant releases to him who recovers and afterwards the Lord reverseth the Iudgment the Tenant notwithstanding his release may enter for his Title which accrued to him by the reversal was not in esse at the time of the release Vide 98. contr And it was adjudged 23 Eliz. in the Case of one Falsor That where Lessee for years devised his term to his Wife if she should so long live and if she dyed within the term that then the residue of his term should go unto his Daughter which should be then unpreferred and dyed his Daughter unpreferred released to her mother all her right in the said Land the mother dyed within the said term the release shall not bind the daughter for that at the time of that release she had no title Cook to the contrary And he said That by the Feoffment the said Power and Liberty is extinct And he agreed the Case cited before 15 H. 7 for in such Case the Vendee of the Feoffees shall be in by the Devise and not by the Feoffees 9 H. 7. 1. The Husband makes Discontinuance of the Lands of his Wife and takes back an Estate to him and his Wife by which the Wife is remitted they have Issue the Wife dyeth the Husband shall not be Tenant by the Curtesie for he hath extinguished his future right by his Livery 12 Ass P. ultimo A Praecipe against A who loseth the Land by an erronious Iudgment and after Execution had enters upon the Demandant and makes a Feoffment his Writ of Error is gone 38 E. 3. 16. In a Scire Facias to execute a Fine the Plaintiff recovers and makes a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards the Tenant by Scire Facias by Writ of Disceit reverseth the Iudgment now the Plaintiff in the Scire Facias shall not have a new Scire Facias 34 H. 6. 44. A. recovers against B. by false Oath and after Execution had B. enters and makes a Feoffment to a stranger who Enfeoffs him who recovers it is a good Bar in an Attaint 27 H. 8. 29. The Feoffees to an use are disseised the Disseisor Enfeoffs Cestuy que use who Enfeoffs a stranger now by that Feoffment his right to the use is gone And as to the release the same is not properly a release but rather a defeasance to determine the Power and Authority aforesaid as if A enfeoffed B. with Warranty and afterwards B. covenants with A. that the said Warranty shall be void
of that which she her self hath done The Queen makes a Lease for years upon Condition that the Lessee surrender to her the Manor of B here for the not doing of it no Office is requisite Tenant of the King in Capite aliens by Fine that needs no Office for that appears upon Record so here And although the Condition be returned in the Exchequer after the Term yet it is well enough for the Exchequer is never shut as to take and receive Money Certificates made to be Inrolled although it be shut as to all Iudicial Acts. And although no tender at all be certified it is not to the purpose for the tender makes the Estate void without any other thing And it is not like to a Capias ad satisfaciendum for that is Ita quod Habeas Corpus c. therefore the Arrest is not sufficient by it self but the same ought to be remembred with an Ita. quod c. But as to that which hath been said That the Queen shall not avoid her own Lease the same is not so nor in case of a common Person As if Tenant in tail enfeoffeth his Heir within age who makes a Lease for years at his full age Tenant in tail dyes Now the Issue shall avoid his own Lease for he is remitted A Disseisor levies a Fine to a stranger the Disseisee enters upon the Conusee and enfeoffs the Disseisor now he shall avoid his own Fine à multo fortiori in the Case of the King. Now it is to see If the Grant of the Wood by the Queen being Tenant for the term of anothers life be good or not He conceived it was not for she was deceived in her Grant not knowing that she was but a particular Tenant It was Objected That the Queen hath property and right in the Trees and Woods forasmuch as no Waste or Trespass lyeth against her if she cast them down Certainly the Lessee if the Trees and Woods be not excepted hath the property in them but not the absolute property for the Writ of Waste shall say ad exhaered ' Qâ—erentis for he cannot cut them Id enim tantum possumus quod de jure possumus perhaps the Lessee shall have the Wind-falls because they are severed from the Inheritance by the act of God not of the Lessee himself and see 27 H. 6. Waste 8. and also in Statham titulo Waste A. leaseth to B. for life without impeachment of Waste a stranger cuts Trees and the Lessee brings Trespass he shall not recover damages for the value of the Trees for the property of the Body and the Tree is in him who hath the Reversion he may give it by which it appeareth that the Lessee is not to recover but only for the cropping and the breaking of his Close à fortiori in case where the Lease is made without the clause absque impetitione vasti as the Case at bar is And therefore when the Queen having so feeble an Estate makes such a Grant scil Grants all the Woods c. the Grant is void for she was deceived in her Grant by which if it should be good she should wrong her Subject A Grant to the Queen shall have a reasonable construction as the Grant of a common Person A. grants to the Queen Common in all his Lands the Queen by that Grant shall not have Common but in Lands commonable not in his Land where his Corn is growing or in his Orchard or Gardens Tenant for life grants all the Wood upon his Land nothing passeth but that which he may lawfully grant So in Cases of Grants of the King 22 Ass 49. the King grants to one bona catalla tenent ' suorum fugitivorum qualitercunque dampnorum the Grantee shall not have the Goods and Chattels of one who hath killed the Kings Messenger So in Grants of Amercements the Grantee shall not have a Special Amercement c. So here the Grant of all Woods ought to be intended of such Woods as Vnderwoods which the Queen might lawfully grant without wrong to another And he said That when the Queen hath granted the Land and the Woods for 40 years that Grant cannot be divided and the words of the Grant are That it shall be lawful to cut the Woods during the space of 43 years Now forasmuch as the Lease is surrendred ut supra the liberty of cutting the Woods is gon also A man bargains and sells his Manor with all Woods upon it growing the Deed is not Inrolled so as the Manor doth not pass the Woods shall not pass in gross for the Grant shall not be divided See more after Sect. 276. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLIV Brown and Peters Case PHilip Brown Executor of Eliz. Brown brought an Action upon the Case against John Peter as Executor of W. Brown and declared That the said William Brown was indebted to the said Eliz. in 80 l. Cumque ad specialem instantiam of the said William Brown It was agreed that the said William Brown should retain the said Sum in his hands until the said Eliz. should come of full age In consideration thereof he promised to give her 100 l. It was found for the Plaintiff who had Iudgment to recover and now the Defendant brought Error and assigned for Error because the place of the Agreement was not shewed Sed non allocatur for that is the Consideration which is not traversable also it is not shewed certain that Brown retained the 80 l. for so long time Sed non allocatur for he shews in his Declaration That the said Sum was in the hands of the said William Brown and it shall be intended that so it there continued Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLV. Higham and Cookes Case EJectione firmae by Higham against Cooke The Plaintiff declared upon a Lease for years to have and to hold to him from the Sealing and Delivery of it and declared that the Sealing and Delivery was 1 Maij and the Ejectment the same day And this matter was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Ejectment could not be supposed the same day for the Lease did not begin till the next day ensuing the Sealing Ejectment c. But the Exception was not allowed by the Court for where the Lease is to begin from the time of the Sealing and Delivery or by these words for 21 years next following the Ejectment may be well supposed to be the same day for the beginning of the Lease is presently upon the Sealing and Delivery and such a Lease shall end the same time and hour as it began CCLVI. Trin. 28. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit the Case was Land was devised to a Feme-sole for term of her life and she let the same to the Plaintiff for 5 years to begin after the death of the said Woman and afterwards by Deed bearing date 18 October leased the same Land to the same Plaintiff
Defendant And further found That as it appeared by an Exemplification out of the Exchequer That it was a Chauntry of H. G. and that Tho. was then a Chauntry Priest there and that the said Chauntry with all the Profits and Obits were 6 l. 13 s. 4 d. the tenth of which is a Mark which was payable to the King 26 H. 8 And that by another Exemplification in 2 E. 6. it appeared that the Dean and Chapter of Pauls certified to the Commissioners of the said King Cantaria H. G. A. B. Executores Testamenti H. Gilford by force of the said Will 7 E 2. granted and assigned to the Dean and Chapter aforesaid and their Successors the said Lands and Tenements to the intent that they should maintain for ever a Chaplain to pray for the Soul of the said H. G. and all Souls And the Incumbent of the said Chauntry is one G. and that the said Executors granted to the Mayor and Commonalty of London the Rent of 20 s. out of a Shop in Cheap with the Patronage of the said Chauntry to the intent that they should maintain the Chauntry accordingly and recited all the said Lands and Rents assigned and that the Rent of them was 14 l. 1 s. the Salary of the Priest 6 l. 13 s. 4 d. for Bread and Wine 3 s. 4 d. the Chamberlain of London 20 s. being deducted and so there remaineth 4 l. 3 s 4 d. And that the said Chaplain received above his Wages yearly by reason of the said Obit other Profits as Procession pence and Feeding days 33 s. 4 d. And found further the Act of 1 E. 6. and further said That the Church of St. Paul at the time of the said act was a Cathedral Church and the Fee of the Bishop of London and that the profits and rents devised and ordained to the said Dean and Chapter were in the said Certificate of 2 E. 6. and that the said Lands at the time of the making of the said Act and for five years before were not in the actual possession of the said King H. 8 nor E. 6. and that by force of the Statute of 1 E. 6. the said Lands came to the possession of the said King as Chauntry Land and that the said King granted it to Tho. Butcher in Fee who bargained and sold the same to Dobson who thereof enfeoffed Thoragill upon whom the said Nicholas Wilford entred claiming his Lease And further found That 45 s. parcel of the said rent of 9 l. due at the Feast of St. John Baptist 11 Eliz. for the said Capital Messuage was arrear by half a year after the said Feast and was lawfully demanded by the said Rich. Thoragill and for not payment he re-entred and let the same to Tho. Buttell c. Bell. The Executors by this Devise have not a bare authority but an interest for if one seized of Lands in Fee deviseth That his Executors grant a Rent-charge to one in Fee out of his said Lands by that Devise the Executors have a Fee-simple in the Land otherwise they could not make such a Grant So here in the Case in question and also by the same reason the Executors have a Fee-simple in the Land for otherwise they could not grant a Rent in Fee nor the Land to the Dean and Chapter in Fee by which the Chaplain in perpetuity ought to be found And although but one Chauntry was erected where three were intended but the Land devised was not sufficient for all three so that now by the erecting of one Chauntry only the Executors performed the trust as near to the intent of the Devisor as it could be and as the Land devised might extend unto it is not material if here be a Condition or a Confidence in the words of the Grant to the Dean and Chapter ad inveniendum c. for if it be a Condition and broken no advantage shall be taken of it for it is out of the Statute and if it be a Confidence then it is performed as near the intent of the Devisor as it might be and the Condition being performed although not exactly yet so near as it may be it is well enough performed As a Feoffment upon Condition that the Feoffee shall make a Gift in tail to Husband and Wife and the Heirs of the Body of the Husband the Husband dyeth now the Gift cannot be modo forma and therefore if it be it may be scil as near the intent of the parties as it may be it is good and therefore if the Land be given to the wife for life without impeachment of waste the remainder over it is sufficient in case of a Trust and Confidence 1. It was moved If here be any Chauntry in the Case And a Chauntry is nothing else but a Sustentation for a Priest that chaunts in a place certain for the Souls of the dead And Chauntries are in two sorts the one incorporated as by the King by his Letters Patents the other not incorporated as our case is And truly the greatest number of Chauntries were not corporal but were Chauntries but in reputation and not Revera but yet such Chauntries in reputation are within the Statute which see by the words of it accepted taken or reputed as Part or Member of any Chauntry It hath been Objected That nothing passeth to the King by that Statute but that which is parcel or belonging to the Chauntry but this Land is not parcel nor belonging to any Chauntry for all the Land is in the Dean and Chapter As to that we ought to have regard unto the intent of the Devisor which was to make the Land a Chauntry And so in the time of Hen. 8. it was retorned in the Exchequer for the First-fruits of the Chauntry of Hen. Gilford and we ought not to respect the Conveyance it self which was made by the Executors to the Dean and Chapter but also the disposition of the Devisor so as both ought to be put together if they be not contrary one to the other and if they be then the last shall be taken And when the intent of the Devisor may stand with the act of the Executors to construe That the Land shall make the Chauntry according to the intent of the Devisor for the Executors have given all the Land to the Dean and Chapter to find a Priest and things belonging to a Chauntry and the Executors have given the said Land to the said intent and the assignment of the special portion out of it is but a shewing how the profits of the Lands shall be bestowed For I conceive That the Land at the time of the disposition aforesaid was not of any better value than it was appointed to be imployed as aforesaid and if the Dean and Chapter by their industry have made and improved it to a greater value they shall take advantage thereof till it be given to the King by the Statute and it shall not be said properly a Rent but
Common Law the King by such Attainder shall have such benefit and advantage as well of Vses Rights Entries Conditions c. as of Possessions Reversions c. as if it had been done and declared by Authority of Parliament that is as much as to say as if the Condition in its proper terms had been given to the King by Act of Parliament c. and vouched Dacres case 17 Eliz. cited by him before where upon a Grant of all his Goods and Chattels revokable upon tender of 5 s. it was resolved That such a Condition was given to the King and by special Grace of the Queen Sir Tho. Gorge had the benefit of it And here although the cause of the Proviso be private and special yet the Condition is not tyed in the cause and the Statute gives to the Queen all Conditions which are usual and for the benefit of the Queen and at the time of the making of this Statute such Conditions were usual tunc temporis the Condition was pen'd not by way of re-entry but that the use should be void and that such Conditions were usual at the time of the making of the Statute of 29 Eliz. appeareth by the Statute made two years before scil 27 Eliz. for the repressing of fraudulent Conveyances By which it is provided by an express branch of it against such Conditions containing power of Revocation and Laws are for the most part made to give order for things which may happen And I conceive That this tender for the Queen is well enough for the time notwithstanding all the terms are past yet the two years are not incurred I covenant within a year to suffer a common Recovery all the terms are past without any Recovery suffered yet no Action lyeth upon that covenant before the year be fully expired although that the terms be past it being impossible to suffer a Recovery within the time prefixed A. covenants with B. in consideration of Marriage to suffer a Recovery before the Feast of St. Michael and if A. before the said Feast doth not suffer such Recovery that then he shall be seized to the use of C. Trinity Term passeth without any Recovery had yet no use shall rise before the said Feast And I conceive that there needs not here any Office but if the Condition be to be performed on the part of the Patentee then the breaking of the Condition ought to be found by Office contrary where the condition is to be performed on the part of the King For acts which Subjects do are matters in paâ—s therefore an Office is requisite to make them of Record but where the Queen doth any thing there needs not any Office to make it of Record The Queen herself might tender the King but by commission under the Great Seal she hath authorized another to do it and she hath taken sufficient notice that there was such a condition And when the Certificate is made and retorned the same is sufficient to inform her that the condition is performed for the Certificate being retorned is of record as well as the Commission as the retorn of the Writ And he cited the Case before cited Bartues Case 2 Eliz. Dyer The King leased the Manor of D. for years to A. upon condition that if the King at any time during the term shall make a Lease to the said A. of the Manor of S. for life then the Lease for years shall cease and be void the King makes the Lease for life the lease for years is void without any Office for the Lease for life is upon record The case of Auditor 3 Eliz. Dyer 197. where the Forfeiture of the Office appears of record And Baron Plags Case 15 H. 8. ibidem the determination of the Office of Remembrancer by acceptance of the Baron shall bind in the Exchequer void without a Scire Facias or Office. Vide etiam Dyer 5 Ma. 159. he being Iustice of the Common Pleas was made Iustice of the Kings Bench his first Office was gone and determined Also he said That the Condition being performed ut supra sua vi virtute without any Office shall make void the Conveyance to which it was annexed And if Sir Francis being attainted had tendred the King ipso facto as it worked to him so ipso facto it should work to the Queen When the Act of 29 Eliz. had made the Assurance void the Land is in the Queen presently by means of Sir Francis to whom the Land returned and from him in the same instant vested in the Queen Cook to the contrary The Condition is not given to the Queen Words make the Plea therefore the words of the Condition are to be considered in which it is to be seen if this Condition be annexed to the privity of Nature or be general The Form of the Condition is Sir Francis being a man of great Living and having a great Manor of his own Name in consideration of the preservation of his Name and Blood c. covenanted to stand seized c. And further pro eo quod his said Nephew was of tender age and his proof could not now appear and it might be that in time to come he might be given to intolerable Vices therefore the said Sir Francis did not think it convenient to settle the said Inheritance in his said Nephew absolutely without a bridle to restrain him therefore it was provided That if the Vncle delivered a King of Gold to his Nephew to the intent to make void c. And this is a special Condition private and peculiar to the person of Sir Francis incident to him and to no other and incommunicable and therefore it is not given to the Queen But such Conditions which the Heir Lord by Escheat or Executors may have the Queen shall have by the Statute 10 H. 7. 18. Lessee for years of a House covenants to repair it within six years within which term he dyeth no reparation being made covenant lyeth against the Executors contrary if the covenant had been that he should repair during his life It hath been said That the things which are matters of privity are the considerations which caused Sir Francis to make this Proviso but they are not any part of the condition or Proviso Truly the consideration raises the use and precedes the Proviso which is tyed to the consideration with an Ideo and all is but one Sentence knit together with the Ideo And although consideration of Blood be not parcel of the Proviso yet that which follows is scil for that his Nephew c. And in this Conveyance Sir Francis praestitit utrumque munus Nutricis ubera verbera And Acts of Parliament do not give away things knit to Nature by the general words All things Vide the Lord Brays case 2 Eliz. Dyer 90. The Father having the Wardship of his Son and Heir apparent if he Outlawed shall not forfeit the same for it is inseparable to him notwithstanding that
and a Writ de novo awarded CCXCVIII A. Is bound to B. upon Condition to stand to the Arbitrement of certain persons who award that B shall make a Release to A. of all Actions Debts Duties and Demands at the request of A. and afterwards A. comes to B. and requires him to make him a Release who said to him That he was unlearned and that he would go to one to make it and the next day after the request he seals and delivers it to A. who accepts of it It was holden by Windham and Mead That notwithstanding that Acceptance the Obligation was forfeited for they said That presently after request he ought to have done it in the speediest manner that might be Vide acc ' 15 E. 4. 31. Vide also Wottons Case 16 Eliz. Dyer 338. Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXCXI The Dean and Chapter of Christ Church and Parotts Case Grants of the King. NOte in the Common Pleas in a Case between the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church in Oxford and Parott It was holden by the Iustices that if the King grants Lands unto a Corporation by another name than that which they were named before yet the Land shall pass and the Letters Patents shall be to them as a new Incorporation c. Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCC Beechers Case Jurors BEecher being a Gentleman of the Middle-Temple was Retorned in an Attaint and before the Retorn of the Pannel he became a Minister of the Church and now at the day of the Retorn he appeared and prayed to be discharged according to the Priviledge of those of the Ministry But the Court would not allow of his prayer because that at the time of the Pannel made he was a Lay-man Wherefore he was sworn one of the Iury. Hil. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCI. Vernon and Sir Thomas Staveleys Case TEnant in Tail made a Lease for the life of the Lessee according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. Discontinuance and by Wray and Gawdy Iustices the same was not a Discontinuance But if Tenant in Tail levyeth a Fine which bindeth his Issue by the Statute of 4 H. 7. 32 H. 8. that same is a Discontinuance Look upon the Statute of Leases and of Fines the words in the former are scil Such Fines shall be good and effectual in the Law but in the other scil Such Fines shall be a bar against the Conusor and his Heirs And if Tenant in Tail after such a Fine dyeth without Issue the Donor cannot enter but is put to his Formedon And as to the principal Case Dyer agreed in opinion with Wray and Gawdy Trin. 28 Eliz. Rot. 1027. CCCII Milborne and the Inhabitants of Dunmowes Case MIlborne brought an Action upon the Statute of Winchester against the Inhabitants within the Hundred of Dunmow in the County of Essex It was found by Special Verdict Upon Statute of Hue and Cry. That the Plaintiff was robbed the 23 of April inter horam secundam Matutinam tempore Nocturno ante Lucem ejusdem diei and the Opinion of the Court was clear That the Plaintiff should be barred for the said Statute provides for ordinary Travel as in the case of Archpole who came to his Inn after Sun-set ante Noctem in tempore diurno which is an usual time for Travellers to come to their Inn but the Law doth not receive any in protection of this Statute which travel in extraordinary hours for it is the folly of the traveller to take his journey so out of season and the inhabitants are not bound to leave their houses and attend the high-ways tempore Nocturno And another reason was alledged by the Iustices because that the said Statute appoints Watch to be kept in the time of night à festo Assensionis usque festum Sancti Mich. and this Robbery was done the 23 of April so out of the said time And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCCIII. Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Devises SErjeant Fenner demanded the Opinion of the Court upon this Case A. devised Lands to his Wife for life and afterwards to B. his Son and his Heirs when he should come to the age of 24 years and if his Wife dyed before that his said Son should attain to the said age of 24 years that then J S. should have the said Lands until the said age of the said Son A dyed J. S. dyed the Wife dyed the Son being within the age of 24 years If the Executors of J. S. should have the Lands after the death of J. S. until the said age of the Son was the question Anderson and Periam conceived that he should not for this Interest limited by the Will to J. S. was but a possibility which was never vested in him and therefore could not by any means come to his Executors Rhodes and Windham doubted of it And Fenner put the Case 12 E. 2. Fitz. Condition 9. where Land is Mortgaged to J. S. upon payment of Money to the said J. S. or his Heirs such a day and before the said day J. S. by his Will deviseth That if the Mortgagor pay the Money that then A. B. shall have them that this Devise of that possibility is good which Case all the Iustices denied And Windham put the Case between Welden and Elkington 20 Eliz. Plowd 519. where Lessee for years devised his term to his Wife for so many of the years of the said term as she should live and if she dyed within the term that then his Son Francis should have the residue of the years not incurred Francis dyed intestate the Wife dyed within the term the Administrator of Francis had the residue of the term and yet nothing was in Francis the intestate but a possibility A Lease was made to one Hayward his Wife and one of his Children Habendum to Hayward for 99 years if he so long live and if he dye within the said term that then the said Wife should have the said term for so many of the years as should be to come at the time of the death of her Husband and if she dyed also within the said term that then the Child party to the Demise should have the same for so many of the years of the said term as should be not expired at the time of the death of the Wife And the case of Cicell was cited Dyer 8 Eliz. 253. A Lease was made to William Cecill pro termino 41 annorum si tam diu vixerit Et si obierit infra praedictum terminum extunc Eliz. uxor praedict Will Cicell habebit tenebit omnia singula praemissa pro residuo termini praedict incompleti si tam diu vixerit Et si praedict Eliz. obierit infra terminum praedict Tunc Willielmus Cicell the Son c. shall have and hold it pro residuo termini praedict completi And it was holden by Catlin and
Dyer that these Remainders were void for the term is determinable upon the death of William Cecill the Father and the residue of the said term cannot remain And by the Lord Anderson the Remainders of the term limited ut supra are utterly void for every Remainder ought to be certain but here is no certainty for it may be that the first possessioner of the term may live longer so as he in the Remainder cannot know what he shall have And such was also the Opinion of Rhodes And he put the Case between Gravenor and Parker 3 4 Phil. Ma. Dyer 150. A Lease was made to A. for life by Indenture Et provisum fuit by the same Indenture That if the Lessee dyed within the term of sixty years then next ensuing that then his Executors should have in right of the Lessee so many of the years as should amount to the number of sixty years to be accounted from the date of the Indenture and it was holden That that secondary Interest to the Executors was void and that the words concerning the same did sound in Covenant CCCIV. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A made B. and C. his Executors Executors Action they took upon them the charge of the Administration and afterwards B. dyed and now an Action of Debt was brought against the surviving Executor and the Executor of the other Executor and the Writ was abated because against the surviving Executor it ought only to be brought Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCV Smith and Babbs Case SMith brough an Action upon the Case against Babb for stopping of Water incessanter decurrent by his Land Action upon the Case Stopping of Water by which his Land was drowned and his Grass rotted Exception was taken to it because it is not alledged That the Water had so run time out of mind Gawdy Iustice If the Water hath run there but for one year if the Defendant hath diverted it so as he hath drowned the Plaintiffs Land the Action will lye well enough Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCVI Basil Johnsons Case BAsil Johnson one of the Clerks of the Chancery Priviledge of a Clerk in Court. was impleaded in the Common Pleas by Bill of Priviledge by an Attorney of the said Court and now Basil came into Court and shewed that he is one of the Clerks ut supra and prayed his Priviledge but the whole Court was against it because the Plaintiff is as well priviledged in this Court as the Defendant is in the Chancery and was first interessed in his Priviledge by the bringing of his Writ but the Defendant was not entituled to his Priviledge before the Arrest and afterwards by the award of the Court the said Basil was ousted of his Priviledge 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCVII Collier and Colliers Case Prohibition BEtween Collier and Collier the Case was That the Plaintiff was Sued for Incontinence in the Spiritual Court and there they would have him Answer upon his Oath if he ever had Carnall Knowledge of such a Woman upon which he prayed a Prohibition Vide inde F. N. B. 41. a. Register 36. Et nemo tenetur seipsum prodere But the Court would advise of it 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCVIII Mountney and Andrews Case Execution IN a Scire Facias by Mountney against Andrews of Grays-Inn upon a Iudgment in Debt the Defendant pleaded That heretofore a Fieri Facias at the Suit of the now Plaintiff issued to the Sheriff of Leicester by force of which the said Sheriff took divers Sheep of the Defendants and that as yet he doth detain and keep them It was holden by the whole Court to be a good Plea although he did not say That the Writ was retorned for the Execution is lawful notwithstanding that and the Plaintiff hath his remedy against the Sheriff Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCIX Dawbney and Gores Case BEtween Dawbney Plaintiff and Gore and Gon Defendants in a Writ of Disceit In Arrest of Iudgment it was moved That two are accountable to one and the one of them accounts without the other that that is not any account and then no account can be assigned in that As to that it was said by Popham Attorney-General That notwithstanding that one be not compellable to account without his Companion and by way of Action of Account the one shall not account without the other unless the Process be determined against him and then he who appeareth hath accounted and the other against whom the Process is determined hath purchased his Charter of Pardon the account made by his Companion shall bind him Vide inde 41 E. 3. 13. Yet if one of the Accomptants will account willingly the same is a good account And in account if one confesseth and the other pleadeth in bar the confession of the one shall bind the other and such was the Opinion of the Court. Another matter was moved in this case because that one Tedcastell and Swinnerton being accountable to the said Gores and Dawbney they have accounted to Dawbney only and he alone hath accepted of the account and that is not any account therefore no desceit but the Action of Account doth remain To which it was answered by Popham That the same was a good account being accepted by Dawbney and should bind the Gores for an Account is a personal thing as an Obligation which may be released by one of the Obligees Vide 14 E. 4. 2. Where one was accountable to two and the one of them did assign Auditors before whom the Accountant is found in Arrearages and thereupon both of them brought Debt upon Account and well And so none of the Exceptions were allowed by the Court. Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCX Trivilians Case THo Trivilian Tenant in tail of White Acre Black Acre and Green Acre leased White Acre for years to B. and Black Acre to C. and afterwards made a Feoffment of all three Acres to F. and others by Deed in which Deed was comprised a Letter of Attorney in which he ordained Harris and three others his Attorneys joyntly and severally to enter in the Premises and every part thereof in the name of the whole and possession in his name to receive and afterwards to make Livery c with other ordinary and usual words and it was expressed in the said Deed of Feoffment that the Feoffment should be to the intent to perform his last Will and afterwards one of the said Attorneys entred into the Land demised for life and expelled the Tenant for life and made Livery and Seisin to the Feoffees accordingly and afterwards the said Harris another of the Attorneys scil one of the Ioynt Lessees being one of the three Attorneys made Livery of the Land demised for years and after the Feoffor in the time of Queen Eliz. by his last Will devised That the Feoffees should be seized of the
she might disagree CCCXXXI Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. B. and C. three Brothers A. hath issue and dyeth the middle Brother Purchaseth Land and deviseth the same to his Son in Tail and if he die without Issue that the Land shall remain to the King and Lineage of the Father sc of the middle Brother and if the Son of the eldest Son or the youngest Brother should have the Land was the Question and it was the opinion of the Lord Dyer That the Son of the eldest Brother should have it CCCXXXII Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Lease for life was made to B the Remainder to C. and D. in Tail It was holden that in this case C. and D. cannot disagree to that Remainder without matter of Record for they are Tenants in Common but if the Remainder had been limited to them in Fee so as they took joyntly it had been otherwise for then by the disagreement of the one the other shall take the whole Land. Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXIII Waite and Coopers Case IN Ejectione firmae between Waite and Cooper It was found by Verdict That Cranmer late Archbishop of Canterbury was seized of the Manor and Borough of Southwark in the right of his Bishoprick and that the Prior of Morton was seized of the House in which the Ejectment is supposed and held the same of the said Archbishop as of his said Manor and Borough after which 30 H. 8. the said Archbishop gave to the King the said Manor and Borough with confirmation of the Dean and Chapter and that the same year the said Prior surrendred by which the said King was seized as well of the said Manor and Borough as of the said House and afterwards the King by his Letters Patents gave the said House and other Lands in Middlesex and Essex to Curson and Pope in Fee tenend in Libero Burgagio per fidelitatem tantum non in Capite pro omnibus serviciis demandis And afterwards King Edw. 6. gave the said Manor and Borough to the Mayor and Commonalty of London Curson and Pope covey the said House to Welsh in Fee who dyed without Heir All the Question was What Tenure is here reserved upon the Words and Grant made by King Hen. 8. to Curson and Pope It was said It could not be a Tenure in Burgage because here is not any Rent reserved which see by Littleton 162 163 164. And the Lord Anderson at the first very strongly insisted upon that Another matter was because here is reserved for all the Lands and Tenements but one Tenure so that if the Court should adjudge the Tenure reserved to be Burgage then Lands at the Common Law out of Boroughs should be holden in Burgage Also a Tenure in Burgage cannot be created without these words ut de Burgagio And to that purpose Shute Iustice agreed Vide Br. Tenures 94. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXIV Fullers Case NOte It is holden by the whole Court in Fullers case That if one give 300 l. to another to have an Annuity of 50 l. assured to him for 100 years if he his Wife and four of his Children so long shall live That this is not within the Statute of Vsury So if there had not been any Condition but care is to be taken that there be no Communication of borrowing of any Money before Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXV Goore and Winkfields Case 3 Leon. 223. DEbt upon an Obligation by Goore against Winkfield the Obligation was written in this Form Know all by these Presents That I H. Winkfield am bound to William Goore in the Sum of c. for the payment of which Sum I give full power and authority to the said Goore to keep the said Sum upon the Profits of the Bayliwick of Swinstall from year to year until the same be paid To which the Defendant pleaded That the Plaintiff had levied parcel of the said Sum c. and did not shew how much and therefore the pleading was holden not good And it was clearly agreed by the whole Court That the Plaintiff was at Liberty either to bring his Action upon the said Obligation or to levy the Debt according to the Clause aforesaid Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXVI Powley and Siers Case POwley brought Debt against Sier Executor of the Will of one A. The Defendant demanded Iudgment of the Writ For he said That one B. was Executor of the said A. and that the said B. constituted the said Defendant his Executor so as the Writ ought to have been brought against the Defendant as Executor of an Executor and not as immediate Executor of the said A. The Plaintiff replyed That the said B. before any probate of the Will or any Administration dyed and so maintained his Writ upon which the Defendant demurred Wray was for the Writ for although here be not any Probate of the Will of A. or any other Administration yet when B. makes his Will and the Defendant his Executor it is an acceptation in Law of the Administration and Execution of the first Will. Gawdy and Ayliff Iustices that the Writ was not good Vide 23 Eliz. Dyer 372. Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXXXVII Taylors Case TAylor was Outlawed in Debt where a Supersedeas upon Record was delivered to the Sheriff before the award of the Exigent It was holden that the Party should avoid the same by Plea Then it was moved If the Plea should be pleaded by Attorney or in Person To which it was said by the Iustices That where matter in fact is pleaded in avoiding of an Outlawry he ought to plead it in Person but matter of Record by Attorney And so Ford Prothonotary said it was agreed in the Case of Sir Thomas Chamberlain 7 Eliz. and so it ought to be in the principal Case here CCCXXXVIII Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was agreed for Law in the Kings Bench if Lessee for years grant all his Estate and Interest to A rendring rent by Indenture and for default of payment a re-entry And the Grantor demandeth the rent and A. demands an Acquittance but the Lessee for years refuseth in such case A. may refuse to pay such rent for the rent is to be paid in this nature without an Acquittance but contrary if Lessee for years had leased parcel of his Estate rendring Rent with Clause of Re-entry c. CCCXXXIX Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe King seized of a Manor to which an Advowson is appendant a Stranger presented and his Clerk in by 6 Months It was holden that in such case the Grantee may present for the Advowson was always appendant and the Inheritance thereof passed to the Grantee for it was not made disappendant by the usurpation as in the case of a common person for the King cannot be put out of possession But the Patentee shall not have Quare Impedit
holden by the Iustices that the Fee was executed for a Moiety for the Remainder for years was not any impediment unto the Execution thereof Manwood conceived that the Term was not extinct for it is not properly a term but as an interest of a term which cannot be surrendred Mounson He hath the term in auter Droit viz. as Administrator therefore it cannot be extinct Dyer If an Executor hath a term and purchaseth the Fee-simple the term is determined A Woman Tenant for years taketh a Husband who purchaseth the Fee the term there is extinct Manwood True there for the Husband doth an act which destroyeth the term viz the purchase But if a Woman being a termor marrieth with him in the reversion the term continueth for here is no act of the husband but the act of the Law. Dyer was of Opinion That the Tenant for life and the Administrator should be Tenants in Common of the Fee. The Case was adjourned CCCXLIV Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Husband is seized in the right of his Wife of certain customary Lands in Fee. He and his Wife by Licence of the Lord makes a Lease for years by Indenture rendring rent have Issue two Daughters the Husband dyeth the Wife takes another Husband and they have Issue a Son and a Daughter the Husband and Wife dye the Son is admitted to the reversion and dyes without Issue And by Manwood the said reversion shall descend to all the Daughters notwithstanding the half blood for the Estate for years which is by Indenture by licence of the Lord is a Demise or Lease according to the order of the Common Law and according to the nature of the Demise the possession shall be adjudged which possession cannot be said the possession of the Copyholder for his possession is customary and the other is contrary and therefore the possession of the one shall not be the possession of the other and so no Possessio Fratris in this case But if there had been a Guardian by the custom or this Lease had been made by surrender then the Sister of the half blood should not inherit And by Mead the case of the Guardian hath been so adjudged Mounson to the same intent And if a Copyhold descend to the Son he is not a Copyholder before admittance but he may take the profits of the Lands and punish a Trespasser CCCXLV. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A man seized of Lands in Fee devised that his Wife should take the profits of his Lands until Mary his Daughter and Heir should come to the age of 16 years and if the said Mary shall dye that J. S. should be his Heir Manwood The Daughter after she hath attained the age of 16 years shall have the Land in tail for Devises ought to be construed according to the intent of the Devisor as near as it may be collected but no intent shall be taken against all reason and certainty It is certain that the Daughter shall not have the Fee-simple for the same should have descended to her without any Devise and these words if she dyed cannot be intended a Condition for it is certain that she shall dye But if the words had been before the age of 16 years That after her death J. S. should be his Heir in such case it had been a Condition And when it is said That J. S. should be his Heir it shall be intended his Collateral Heir so as the Estate tail remains in the Daughter Mounson and Harper contrary And that she should have but for life And by Mounson if J. S. had been a Stranger to the Devisee she should take nothing And this case was put by Barham Serjeant A man devised 100 l. to his youngest daughter 100 l. to his middle daughter and 100 l. to his eldest daugher and that all these Sums should be levied out of the profits of his Lands And it was the better Opinion of the Court that the youngest daughter should be first paid and then the middle and then the eldest daughter and that was one Coniers Case Mich. 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCXLVI The Archbishop of Yorks Case 3 Leon. 159. THe Case was The King granted to the Archbishop of York the Toll of Corn sold in the Market of Rippon and afterwards the King granted to the Mayor and Citizens of York to be discharged of Toll through the whole Realm and afterward the Archbishop exchanged his Manor of Rippon with the King for another Manor It was moved if now the Citizens of York should be discharged of Toll for the Grant to the Archbishop was eigne to the Grant to the Citizens of York to be discharged of Toll in Rippon Dyer conceived that they should not be discharged for the King had no right and when the King grants over the Manor of Rippon the Grantee shall have the Toll notwithstanding the Grant made to the Citizens for the Grant made to them was void as to discharge them of Toll at Rippon for the Grant to the Citizens shall not take effect after the Exchange for the Grant was void ab initio But if the Grant of the King to the Archbishop had been but for life then the Grant afterwards made to the Citizens should have taken effect after the Estate for life determined And the better Opinion of the Court was that Toll should be paid Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer CCCXLVII The Bishop of Londons Case THe Case was The King Lord Mesne and Tenant the Mesnalty is holden in Chief and the Tenancy by Service the Mesnalty Escheats by Attainder now if the Tenancy shall be holden in Chief Manwood It hath been holden that no Tenure in Capite may be if not by the making of the King And he said That if before the Statute of West 3. the Tenant of the King had made a Feoffment to hold of him so that now there is Lord Mesne and Tenant and afterwards the Mesnalty comes to the King by Attainder and if by the said Mesnalty to the Crown the Seigniory paramount be extinct then the Tenancy is not holden in Chief but if the Mesnalty be drowned in the Seignory it is otherwise Some held That there was a difference where the Mesnalty comes to the Seigniory and where the Seigniory comes to the Mesnalty Quaere Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCXLVIII Burgess and Fosters Case IN Ejectione firmae the Case was That the Dean and Chapter of Ely were seized of the Manor of Sutton whereof the place c. is parcel demised and dimisable by Copy according to the custom And that the said Dean and Chapter by their Deed granted the Stewardship of the said Manor to one Adams to execute the said Office per se vel legitimum suum deputat ' eis acceptabilem After which the said Adams made a Letter of Deputation to one Mariot ad Capiend ' unam sursam redditionem of
against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Everingham It was argued by Serjeant Shuttleworth for the Hundred and he insisted upon this That the Robbery for which the Suit was brought was committed in the night and Vide Stamford 33 38. If a man be robbed in the day and the Chief escape and be not taken the Town or Hundred shall answer for it as if he should have said If the Robbery was not done in the day the Town or Hundred should not answer for it and by 11 H. 7 5. the Lord cannot distrain in the Night for Rent arrear for the Tenant is not bound to tender his rent in the night time And although there are no express words in the Statute of Winchester that Huy and Cry shall be made by the party robbed yet in reason it is to be presumed that the same was intended by the Statute Vide that by these words in the Statute it may be implyed viz. That no pain as yet hath been appointed for their Concealments and Lachess which Lachess imports That none ought to be charged in such case but here there was a defalt and no defalt can be where there was not notice and all the course is Hutesiam clamorem fecit notitiam inhabitantibus dedit and also this word Concealment amounts to as much for none can be said to conceal that whereof he had no notice And vide Stamford 35 36. if the Felon escape the Hundred shall answer to the party robbed who hath made Huy and Cry But the whole Court was clear that Huy and Cry or Notice to the Inhabitants was not requisite by the Statute for as it was said by the Lord Anderson it might be that the party robbed was bound so as he could not give notice or make Huy and Cry or it may be he was killed by the Thieves and b. 28 E. 3. 11. Fresh suit is to be made from Town to Town and from Country to Country and that Fresh suit is to be made by the Inhabitants of the Hundred and not by the party robbed for no mention is made of such Fresh suit And that will more clearly appear if we take to the Common Law before the Statute of Winchester for before the said Statute the Law was That every Town and City should be guarded by the Inhabitants c. so that if any suspected persons did resort to such Town or City he should be stayed until the next Sessions in which Case he should have deliverance according as he could acquit himself And if any Town or City failed therein and then a Robbery had been done the County should answer for it for at their own peril they were bound to guard the Country But there was some difference betwixt Robberies committed in the day time and Robberies done in the night which see 3 E. 3. so Corone 293. Where a man killed another in the day and the Felon was not taken but escaped in the night and the Town was amerced for the same because there the Adventurers came in the day time and the Felon was not taken And as to that which is found by the Verdâ—ct That the Robbery was done post occasum solis per lucem diurnam the Opinion of all the Iustices was That with such a Robbery the Hundred should be charged for that at such time of the day Travellers are commonly drawing to their Lodgings And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasc 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCCLIII Neals Case IN a false Imprisonment by Neal against the Mayor Sheriffs and Commonalty of the City of Norwich The Writ was directed to the Coroners of the said City and Exception was taken to the Writ because it was not directed to the Sheriff of the same City but to the Coroners But the Exception was disallowed by the Court for the Sheriff was part of the Corporation And also it hath been adjudged That a Sheriff cannot summon himself The Writ was holden good CCCLIV. JOhn Grendon brought Trespass for breaking of his Close against Thomas Albany and upon the pleading the Case was That Francis Bunney was seized and 1 Maij 20 Eliz. by Deed indented enfeoffed M. H. to the use of the said Francis Bunney for the term of his life the remainder to D. in tail the remainder to E. in tail the remainder over to F. in Fee In which Deed of Feoffment there was a Proviso That if it should happen one P. P. to dye without Issue Male of his Body that then it should be lawful for the said Francis Bunney at all times during his life by his Deed indented to be sealed and delivered in the presence of three credible Witnesses to alter change diminish or amplifie any Vse or Vses limited by the said Deed or any Vse or Vses thereof to any person or persons and to limit after the death of the said Francis to begin After which the said Francis Bunney 1 Aprilis 23 Eliz. by his Deed indented did renounce relinquish and surrender to the said M. H. D. E. F. all such liberty power and authority of revocation which he had after the death of the said P. P. without Issue c. and further did remise release and quit-claim to them the said Condition Promise Covenant and Agreement aforesaid and all his said Power Liberty and Authority and further granted to them and their Heirs that at all times then after the said power liberty and authority should cease and to all intents and purposes should be void After which P. P. dyed without Issue Note that in this Case Francis Bunney being but Tenant for life enfeoffed one T. upon whom the said D. entred for a Forfeiture 1 Maij 23 Eliz. after which 20 Maij 24 Eliz. the said Francis Bunney by Indenture between him and the said D. sealed and delivered as abovesaid altered the former Vses and covenanted and agreed with the said D. that from thenceforth the said M. H. and his Heirs should be seized to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs It was argued by Altham That by that Feoffment made by the said Francis Bunney to the said F. the liberty and power aforesaid was not extinct or lost for the liberty and power was not then a thing in esse because then P. P. was alive and also the liberty is collateral to the Land whereof the Feoffment is made 39 H. 6. 43. The Son and Heir apparent disseiseth his Father and hereof enfeoffeth a Stranger the Father dyeth now against his own Livery the Son doth not enter but if the Father dyeth then the Son shall enter which proveth that the Livery is not so violent as to destroy a future Right but that afterwards it may be well revived à fortiori in our case where the thing pretended to be extinct is meerly collateral 34 E. 3. Fitz. Garr 69. In Assize of Common the Release of the Father with Warranty of the Land is no bar because it is of
shall be special and shall make special recital of the Estate And so is the Case 26 H. 8. 6. where Cestuy que use makes a lease and the Lessee commits waste there the Action was brought by the Feoffees containing the special matter and it was good although there was not any such Writ in the Register cujus haeredes de Corpore and we are not to devise a new form in such case but it is sufficient to shew the special matter to the Court. And the words of the Writ are true for they are Heirs to Sir Roger Lewknor and the Count is sufficient pursuant and agreeing to their Writ for they are Heirs although they are not special Heirs of the Body and so the Court was of Opinion that the Writ was good notwithstanding that Exception And Anderson and Periam Iustices said That the Case is not to be compared to the Case in Fitz. Nat. Brevium 57. for there he cannot shew by whose demise the Tenant holdeth if he doth not shew the special Conveyance viz that the Land was given to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Body of the Wife Nor is it like to the Case of 26 H. 8. for the same cause For always the demise of the Tenant ought to be specially shewed and certainly which it cannot be in these two Cases but by the disclosing of the title also to the reversion Another Exception was taken because that the Writ doth suppose Quod tenuerunt which as they conceived is to be meant that tenuerunt joyntly whereas in truth they were Tenants in Common Walmsley contrary because there is not any other form of Writ for there is not any Writ which doth contain two tenuerunts and the words of the Writ are true quod tenuerunt although tenuerunt in Common but although they were not true yet because there is no other form of Writ it is good enough as Littleton If a Lease be made for half a year and the Lessee doth Waste yet the Writ shall suppose Quod tenuit ad terminum annorum and the Count shall be special 40 E. 3. 41 E. 3. 18. If the Lessee doth commit Waste and granteth over his term the Writ shall be brought against the Grantor and shall suppose Quod tenet and yet in truth he doth not hold the Land and the Writ shall not contain two Tenets and such also was the Opinion of the Court. The third Exception was because that the Writ was brought by the two Coparceners and the Heir of the third Coparcener without naming of Tenant by the Courtesie And thereupon Snag cited the Case of 4 E. 3. That where a Lease is made for life the Remainder for life and the Tenant for life doth waste he in the Reversion cannot have an Action of Waste during the life of him in the Remainder So in the like case the Heir of the third Coparcener cannot have waste because there is a mean Estate for life in the Tenant by the Courtesie And to prove that the Tenant by the Courtesie ought to joyn in the Writ he cited the Case of 3 E. 3. which he had seen in the Book at large where the Reversion of a Tenant in Dower was granted to the Husband and to the Heirs of the Husband and the Tenant in Dower did waste and they did joyn in the Action of Waste and holden good And so is 17 E. 3. 37. F. N. B. 59. 22 H. 6. 25. Walmsley contrary for here in our Case there is nothing to be recovered by the Tenant by the Courtesie for he cannot recover damages because the disinherisin is not to him and the term is expired and therefore no place wasted is to be recovered and therefore it is not like to the Books which have been vouched For in all those the Tenant was in possession and the place wasted was to be recovered which ought to go to both according to their Estates in Reversion but so it is not here for in as much as the term is expired the Land is in the Tenant by Courtesie and so he hath no cause to complain And such also was the Opinion of the whole Court that the Writ was good notwithstanding the said Exception Then concerning the principal matter in Law which was whether the Writ was well brought against the second Lessee or whether it ought to have been brought against the first Lessee It was argued by Shuttleworth That it ought to have been brought against the first Lessee for when he granted over his term excepting the Trees the Exception was good ergo c. For when the Land upon which the Trees are growing is leased out to another the Trees pass with the Lease as well as the Land and the profit of them is in the Lessee during the term and therefore when he grants his term he may well except the Trees as well as the Lessor might have done And that is proved by the Statute of Marlbridge for before that Statute the Lessee was not punishable for cutting down the Trees and that Statute doth not alter the property of the Trees but only that the Lessee should render damages if he cut them down c. Also the words of the Writ of Waste proveth the same which are viz. â—n terris domibus c. sibi dimissis And the Lessee might have cut them down for Reparation and for Firewood if there were not sufficient Vnderwood which he could not have done if the Trees had not been excepted And in 23 H. 8. Br. it is holden that the excepting of the Trees is the excepting of the Soil And so is 46 E. 3. â— where one made a Lease excepting the Woods and afterwards the Lessee did cut them down and the Lessor brought an Action of Trespass Quare vi armis clausum fregâ— c. and it was good notwithstanding Exception was taken to it And it is holden 12 E. 4. 8. by Fairfax Littleton That if the Lessee cut the Trees that the Lessor cannot carry them away but he is put to his Action of Waste Fenner and Walmsley Serjeants contrary And they conceived that the Lessee hath but a special property in the Trees viz. for Fire-boot Plough-boot House-boot c. and if he pass over the Lands unto another that he cannot reserve to himself that special property in the Trees no more than he who hath Common appendant can grant the principal excepting and reserving the Common or grant the Land excepting and reserving the Common or grant the Land excepting the Foldage The grand property of the Trees doth remain in the Lessor and it is proved by 10 H. 7. 30. 27 H. 8. 13. If Tenant for life and he in the Reversion joyn in a Leafe and the Lessee doth Waste they shall joyn in an Action of Waste and the Tenant for life shall recover the Free-hold and the first Lessor the damages which proves that the property of the Trees is in him As to
But all the Court held the contrary and that the Copy should bind the Feoffee and the ceremony of admittance was not necessary For otherwise every Copyholder in England might be defeated by the sole act of the Lord viz. his Feoffment But the Lord by his own act which shall be accounted his folly hath lost his advantages viz. Fines Heriots and such other Casualties Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLXV Boxe and Mounslowes Case THomas Boxe brought an Action upon the Case against John Mounslowe That the Defendant slandred him in saying That the said Thomas Boxe is a perjured Knave and that he would prove the said Thomas Boxe had forsworn himself in the Exchequer c. and supposed the said words to be spoken in London 4 Feb. 28 Eliz. Et praedict ' Johannes Mounslowe per Johannem Lutrich Attornatum suum venit defendit vim injuriam quando c. Et dicit quod praedict ' Tho. Boxe actionem suam versus eum habere non debet quia dicit quod praedict ' Thomas Boxe being one of the Collectors of the Subsidies before the speaking of the said words viz. 27 28 Eliz. in Curia Scaccarij apud Westm ' did Exhibt a Bill against the said John Mounslowe containing That the said John being assessed in ten pounds in Goods the said Thomas Boxe came to him and demanded of him sixteen shillings eight pence which the said John Mounslowe did refuse to pay and that demand and refusal was supposed to be in London in Breadstreet Et pro verificatione praemisiorum adâ—unc ibid ' Sacramentum Corporale per Barones praefat ' Thomae Boxe praestitit The said Thomax Boxe swore the said Bill in substance was true ubi revera the said John Mounflowe did not refuse per quod the said John Mounslowe postea viz. praedict tempore quo c. dixit de praefat ' Thoma Boxe praedict verba c. pâ—out ei bene Leuit The Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant spake the words de injuria sua propria absque causa per praefat Johannem Mounslowe superius allegata Et hoc petit quod inquiratur per Curiam praedict defendens similiter And a Venâ—re Facias was awarded to the Sheriffs of London and it was found for the Plaintiff and damages 400 l. And now it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that there was no good Trial nor the Issue well joyned for the Issue doth consist upon 2 points triable in several Counties viz the Oath which was in the Exchequer and that ough to have been tryed in Middlesex and the matter which he affirmed by the Oath viz the demand and the refusal to pay the subsidy and that was alledged to be in London and is there to be tryed and the Issue viz. de 〈…〉 propria goeth to both for the ubi revera will not amend the Case as Penam Iustice said and both are material For the Defendant ought to prove that the Plaintiff made such Oath and also that the substance and matter of the Oath was not true for otherwise the Plaintiff cannot be proved perjured And therefore the Counties here if they might should have joyned in the Tryal And the Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff For Anderson and Wincham said That if this Issue could have been tryed by any one of the Counties without the other it should most properly and naturally have been tried in Middlesex where the Oath was made for the Perjury if any were was in the Exchequer But they said The Issue here was ill joyned because it did arise upon two points triable in several Counties which could not joyn whereas the Plaintiff might have taken Issue upon one of them well enough for each of them did go to the whole and if any of them were found for the Plaintiff that he had sufficient cause to recover Gawdy moved that it should be helped by the Statute of Ieofails which speaks of mis-joyning of Issues Anderson The Issue here is not mis-joyned For if the Counties could joyn the Issue were good but because that the Counties cannot joyn it cannot be well tryed But the Issue it self is well enough Windham and Rhodes were of the same Opinion but Periam doubted it Anderson said That if an Issue tryable in one Court be tryed in another and Iudgment given upon it it is Error And afterwards Lutrich the Attorney said That it was awarded that they should re-plead Nota quod mirum For first the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 30. speaks of mis-joyning of Process and not mis-joyning of Issues and admit that this Case is not within any of those Clauses each of them being considered by it self yet I conceive it is contained within the substance and effect of them being considered together Also I conceive it is within the meaning of both Statutes viz. 32 H. 8. cap. 30. 18 Eliz. cap. 14. for I conceive the meaning of both Statutes was to waste delays circuits of Actions and Molestations and that the party might have his Iudgment notwithstanding any defect if it were so that notwithstanding that defect sufficient title and cause did appear to the Court. And here the Plaintiff hath sufficient cause to recover if any of the points of the Issue be found for him For if it be found that the matter and substance of the Oath be found true which might be tryed well enough by those in London the Plaintiff had cause to recover Wherefore I conceive that the Verdict in London is good enough and effectual And note that Rhodes said that he was of Counsel in such a case in the Kings Bench betwixt Nevil and Dent. CCCLXVI Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Leon. 103. THe Case was A. granted B. a Rent-charge out of his Lands to commence when J. S. dyes without Issue of his Body J. S. dyes having Issue and the Issue dyeth without Issue Dyer said That the Grant shall not take effect for J. S. at the time of his death had Issue and therefore the Grant shall not then commence and if he dyeth then not at all by Manwood And Dyer and Manwood said If the words had been to begin when J. S. is dead without Issue of his Body then such a Grant should take effect when the Issue of J.S. dyes without Issue c. And they said That if the Donee in tail hath Issue which dyeth without Issue the Formedon in Reverter shall suppose that the Donee himself dyed with Issue for there is an Interest And there is a difference betwixt an Interest and a Limitation For if I give Lands to A and B. for the term of their lives if either of them dyeth the Survivor shall hold the whole But if I give Lands to A. for the lives of B. and C. now if B. or C. dyeth the whole Estate is determined because it is but a Limitation and B. and C. have not any Interest CCCLXVII Temps Roign
in a way to the Church and that by reason of the custom of the Land and not in their Person Vide 7 E. 4. 26. Where it is pleaded That all the Inhabitants within such a Town have used to have Common there and for a Township to have a way to the Church and by Danby it is good and Littleton said it ought to be pleaded by way of Vsage and 18 E. 4. 3. All the Inhabitants of such a Town time out of mind have used to have Common c. Where a difference was taken where the Prescription is in the Person and where in the Land. 15 E. 4. 29. Cooper Inhabitants of a Town may well prescribe and he vouched Bracton 222 223. Quando acquiritur ex longo usu sive constitutione cum pacifica possessione continua non interrupta ex scientia negligentia patientia Dominorum Et etiam omitti potest per negligentiam and he vouched Britton 144. Common is obtained by long sufferance and also may be lost by long negligence c. The Case was adjourned CCCLXX Mich. 5 Jac. In the Common Pleas. TEnant for life of a Rent acknowledgeth a Statute and releaseth to the terr-Terr-tenant the Statute is forfeited It was holden by Cook and two other of the Iustices in Communi Banco That the Rent as to the Conusee was in esse CCCLXXI IT was holden by Yelverton in his Reading That if a man makes a Lease for two years and confirms the Estate of the Lessee for 20 years it is a good confirmation for 20 years because that all is but a Chattel CCCLXXII IF 2 Ioyntenants are for life and the one grants his Estate for the life of his Companion it was holden to be a Forfeiture for first it is a Severance of the Ioynture and then a Lease for the life of another CCCLXXIII Mich. 5 Jac. In the Common Pleas. TWo men were joyntly bound in an Obligation the one is Principal the other is Suerty the Principal dyed the Suerty took Administration and the Principal having forfeited his Obligation the Suerty made an Agreement with the Creditor and took upon him by Bond to discharge the Debt In Debt brought by another Creditor of the Intestate upon fully Administred pleaded by the Administrator it was a Question if upon shewing of the Obligation and that he had satisfied it and contented it in his proper Debt he should be relieved upon that Plea. It was adjudged he should not because by the joyning with the Principal the Debt became his own Debt CCCLXXIV IF Land be given to A. and B. for the life of C. the remainder to the right Heirs of A. or B. who shall survive It was holden That if A do release to B that the remainder was destroyed And if Land be given to one in Tail and if J. S. comes to Westminster such a day the remainder to J. S. in Fee if the Estate-tail descends to two Coparceners who make Partition now if J. S. come to Westminster the Fee shall not accrue because the particular Estate is not in the same plight as it was before CCCLXXV Mich. 5 Jac. In the Common Pleas. IT was resolved That a Copyholder was not within the Statute of Wâ—â—ls CCCLXXVI Mich. 5 Jac. In the Common Pleas. A Man makes a Feoffment with warranty If the Feoffee brings a Warrantia Chartae against the Heir who pleads riens per discent at the time of the Voucher and it is found for the Tenant It was holden That the Plaintiff should never after have Execution of Lands which after descend for that it is peremptory for the Demandant CCCXXLVII Mich. 5 Jac. adjudge acc ' THe Queen hath the Isle of Garnsey and cognisance of Pleas within it for her Ioynture A man within Garnsey being disturbed to present to a Church which is void brings a Quare Impedit in Communi Banco It was holden in this Case That Garnsey is an Island where our Law runneth not but it is otherwise of the Isle 〈◊〉 Man c. And it was said That if the King grants cognisance of Pleas a man shall not have cognisance of Quare Impedit Assise Redisseisin c. CCCLXXVIII Mich. 5 Jac. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was resolved by the Iustices That if a Parson takes a Benefice above the value of 8 l. with a Dispensation and afterwards takes a 3 l. Benefice that the first Benefice is void by the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. CCCLXXIX 44 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was said that it was adjudged 44 Eliz. in Banco Regis That if Lessee for life granteth his interest to his Lessor that the same shall not enure as a Surrender because there wants words of Surrender but shall enure by way of Grant only CCCLXXX Hil. 5 Jac. In the Kings Bench by Cook. IT was holden by Cook Chief Iustice 1 Roll. 844. Syderf 445. If a man seized in Fee deviseth that after the death of his Son without issue that J. S. shall have his Lands that in that case the Son hath an Estate in Fee determinable and that the Remainder is good Mich. 5 Jac. In the Kings Bench. CCCLXXXI Balls Case A Copyholder pleaded That the Custom of the Manor was that every Copyholder for life might appoint in the presence of two others that such a man should have his Copy-hold after his death without any Surrender to his use and that the two Tenants should assess for his Fine what Sum they pleased so as it was not lesser than had used to be paid where the Lord would assess a reasonable Fine and it was adjudged that it was a good Custom Pasc 6 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCLXXXII Glascocks Case A Copyholder alledges the custom to be That all the Tenants within such a Manor in Essex had used to cut down Trees to repair their Copyhold and Freehold Tenements within the Manor and also to sell their Trees at their pleasure And adjudged a good custom Mich. 1 Jac. In the Common Pleas Rot. 854. CCCLXXXIII Sapland and Ridlers Case IT was adjudged after long Argument That where the custom of a Copyhold Manor was to admit for life and in remainder for life at any time when there is but one Copyholder for life in possession And during the minority of the Heir within the age of 14 years his Guardian in Soccage in his own name admits a Copyholder in remainder for life that it was a good Admittance according to the custom and he was Dominus pro tempore well enough as to that purpose although it was objected by Walmsley That the Guardian is but a Servant and not Dominus but because it was agreed that he had a lawful interest the admittance was good And so it was adjudged Pasc 3 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCLXXXIV Duke and Smiths Case IT was agreed That if he in the Reversion suffereth a Common Recovery to Vses his Heir cannot plead that his Father had not any thing at the
time of the Recovery for he is estopped to say that his Father was not Tenant to the Praecipe and therefore it is a good Recovery against him by way of Estoppel CCCLXXXV Mich. 6 Jac. In the Kings Bench. IN a Writ of Error brought upon a Iudgment given in Communi Banco in an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease of a Running Water it was agreed by the Court That no Livery could be made of Running Water because it is fugitive but otherwise it is of Water in a standing Pool for that is certain and peramount and of that Livery ought to be with a dish of part of the Water CCCLXXXVI Duncombs Case In the Common Pleas. THe Grantee of a Rent-charge for life acknowledgeth a Statute and afterwards he released to the terr-Terr-tenant It was the Opinion of Cook Chief Iustice in Communi Banco that the Rent after the Release should be put in Execution upon the Statute CCCLXXXVII The Opinion of Popham Chief Justice in the Kings Bench. IT was the Opinion of Popham Chief Iustice That if a man covenant to stand seized to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of his Executors that in that Case the Executors shall take to the use of their Testator But if a man covenant upon good consideration to stand seized to the use of the Executors of a stranger that the word Executors is a word of Purchase and they shall take to their own use CCCLXXXVIII Mich. 7 Jac. In the Common Pleas. COok Chief Iustice put this case If the custom of a Manor is that every Tenant at his death shall pay his best Beast for a Heriot if a Feme sole who is Tenant for life of this Manor taketh a Husband and afterwards dyeth if the Lord shall have a Heriot Dodderidge the Kings Serjeant said that he should not because that the Wife had not Goods Mich. 7 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCLXXXIX Wards Case AN Information was against Ward and his Wife for his Wives not coming to the Church upon the Statute of 28 35 Eliz. It was said by Cook Chief Iustice That the Husband is chargeable for the Recusancy of his Wife and he said there needed no Conviction but before an Information the Husband shall not be chargeable for his Wife but where he is named with the Wife and he said That the King had a Fee-simple in their Lands for he hath it to him and his Heirs and Successors until conformity with satisfaction of the Arrearages Vide Statut. 28 Eliz. Rastal Tit. Corone Mich. 3 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCXC Wheelers Case A Copyhold custom is That a Woman shall have a Free Bench quam diu se bene gesserit and live chaft and she is incontinent of which the Lord hath not notice and the Lord admits her Tenant It was holden it should bind the Lord although he had not notice of the Incontinency Mich. 5 Jac. In the Star-Chamber CCCXCI Edwards and Wattons Case NOte for Law in the Star-Chamber If a man write a scandalous Letter unto another and put his name to it if the party who writ it publisheth the same either before or after the delivery an Action upon the Case lyeth against him at the Common Law But if the party who writes it doth not publish it yet he may be sued for the same in the Star-Chamber And it was said in this Case That he who receives Books which are written against the Religion established in the Kingdom and shews them to others with Comments of them he runs into a Praemunire by the Statute of 4 Eliz. CCCXCII Rolls tit Waste THe Case was A. made a Lease of White Acre to B. upon condition he should do no Waste in which there was a Fish-pond stored with Carps Pikes and their Fry C. destroys all the Fish B. being upon the Land for which A. enters 1. If the destruction of all the Fish and their Fry be Waste within the Statute of Gloucester It was said that it was for they are parcel of the Inheritance as are Deer within a Park enclosed But it was adjudged 29 Eliz. in Communi Banco in Moyle and Ewers Case That where a Lease of a Manor was in which was a Warren of Conies and the Lessee destroyed the Conies that it was not waste for they were ferae naturae and the Land bettered by them and such was the Opinion of Walmsley Iustice although the Conies were in a Warren paled and enclosed with a Wall but the destroying of Doves in a Dove-house is Waste And it was adjudged in Sir Francis Palmers Case 9 Jac. in B.R. That although the cutting of Vnderwood was not Waste yet the eradicating of it was Waste The other matter was If the destruction of the Fish by a Stranger the Lessee being upon the Land were waste it was said it was waste for qui non vetat peccare cum possit jubet and it was said That if a man commit waste or suffer another to do it he did incur the penalty in the Statute But in this case it was said That a Condition to defeat an Estate should be taken strictly As if a Custom be that if a Copyholder for waste done shall forfeit his Estate if a stranger doth the waste it is no Forfeiture for three things in Law shall be taken strictly Conditions Customs Penal Laws As if the Custom be That an Infant at the age of 15 may make a Feoffment he cannot make it by Attorney And it was adjudged 1 Jac. in Communi Banco in Woodleys Case So the Statute of 5 E. 6. a Penal Law is That a man shall not buy any Victual to sell the same again Yet it was adjudged That where a man buys Meal and makes the same into Starch and sells it he may well justifie the sale thereof and it is out of the Statute because it is not the same thing Pasc 8 Jac. In the Kings Bench. CCCXCIII Wards Case IT was adjudged in this Court That if a Mill be set upon Posts that no waste lyeth for it and that a Copyhold might be of a Mill as it was adjudged in Green and Harris's Case Also it was said That there is a real and personal Forfeiture of Copyhold Lands Real is not necessary to be found by the Homages as was resolved in Brocks Case but otherwise it is of a Personal Forfeiture And Hil. 8 Jac. a Woman Copyholder built a new House upon the Land and it was agreed to be a Forfeiture Pasc 8 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCXCIV Brown and Tuckers Case IF a man have Estovers to such a House 4 Co. 84. and he enlargeth his House or buildeth more Houses or Chimneys the Estovers remain to all the Houses and Chimneys which were there before and not to those added or new builded as it was adjudged Pasc 8 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCXCV Batcliffe and Chaplins Case 1 Roll. 623. IN an Ejectione firmae between Ratcliffe and Chaplin upon not
that the Son for a Fine of three years paid should have the Land for his life Hutton said That the Traverse was good for if there was not any such Custom that the Son should have it so for life then ex consequente sequitur that there is not any such Custom that the Son should have it after the death of the Wife or her Surrender and therefore he needed not to Traverse the last Custom alledged But the whole Court was against him and ruled That the Traverse was not good for he ought to have traversed the last Custom because there are several Customs and the one is immediately to him the other not and the Defendant claimed by the Second Custom and therefore the Court awarded That he should amend his Plea. Pasc 12 Jac. In the Common Pleas. CCCCVII Sir Henry Rolls and Osborns Case Hob. Rep. 20. More Rep. 859 2 Brownl 169. SIr Henry Rolls brought a Writ of Warrantia Chartae against Sir Robert Osborn and Katharine his Wife and shewed That the Defendant ought to warrant him a Messuage 40 Acres of Land 700 Acres of Pasture in Kelmarsh and shewed That Sir Robert Osborn and his Wife levied a Fine to him and his Heirs of a Manor and of the Lands aforesaid with warranty to him and his Heirs and further shewed That a Writ of Entre sur disseisin was brought against him of the said Messuage 40 Acres of Land 700 Acres of Pasture and that he had demanded the Warranty of the Defendant or that he would minister to him a Plea which the Defendant hath refused to do to his damage of 1000 l. the Defendant confessed the Fine and Warranty as aforesaid but further pleaded That in the same Term that the Fine was levied a Writ of Entry was brought against Sir Henry Rolls in which Writ he vouched to Warranty the said Defendant who alone entred into the Warranty and vouched over the common Vouchee and so a Recovery was had accordingly And averred That the said Recovery was to the use of Sir Henry Rolls for his life and if there was a Marriage between him and A. S. within 4 years then to the use of the said A. S. for her Ioynture with divers remainders over and averred the life of Sir H. Rolls Vpon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Shirley Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff That the Warranty was not destroyed but that the Plaintiff might well mantain his Warrantia Chartae and for the same he vouched 22 H. 6.22 Cliffords Case That there ought to be an alteration of the Estate to which the Warranty is annexed and here is no alteration of the Estate for although the Recovery was had the said Term and a Voucher upon it yet because the uses did not take effect presently but were contingent uses he remained Tenant in Fee-simple as he was before and so the first Warranty remained and was not destroyed Mountague Serjeant contrary and that the Warrantia Chartae was gone and that for four Causes 1. He who comes to an Estate in the Post shall not have a Warrantia Chartae but Sir Hen. Rolls cometh to the Estate in the Post ergo he shall not have Warrantia Chartae And for that vide 29 Ass 34. Lord by Escheat shall not have Warrantia Chartae 22 Ass 57. The Lord of a Villain shall not have a Warrantia Chartae 21 H. 6. Disseisor shall not have Warrantia Chartae and so 19 H 6.25 10 H. 7.10 Tenant by the Courtesie shall not have the Writ because all these come to the Lands in the Post But see Cook 3. part Lincoln Colledge Case they may have peradventure benefit of a Rent or of a Condition but not of a Warranty 27 E. 3. garr ' Statham acc ' 2. Every Warranty ought to have the same Estate continuing to which the Warranty is annexed but Sir Hen. Rolls had not the same Estate continuing ergo he shall not have the Warranty because the Fine was to him and his Heirs with Warranty but this Recovery which was but a further assurance was but to the use of himself for life with divers Remainders over so as the first Estate is altered And 42 E. 3.2 40 E. 3. 14. it is a good Plea in a Warrantia Chartae that the Demandant is not Tenant And 41 Eliz. in Bointon Chesters Case it was adjudged in this Court That if a man makes a Feoffment with Warranty who enfeoffs the first Feoffor upon Condition that that Warranty remains he shall vouch by reason of the first Warranty but if upon that Feoffment he had limited any new use there because the Estate was altered the Voucher was gone Vide F. N. B. 135. 19 E. 3. T. Voucher 12.2 48 E. 3. 18. acc ' And it was Resolved 34 Eliz in Banco Regis in Kempe Henninghams Case That in such Case he should not have several Warrantia Charta's And therefore because in the principal Case he hath once vouched upon this Recovery and upon that the Estate is altered he cannot now have Warrantia Chartae 3. Every Warranty is a Covenant real which consists in privity and therefore destroy the privity and the warranty is gone But now in this Case the first privity is destroyed therefore the warranty is gone And therefore 11 H. 4. 8. if two Ioyntenants be with warranty and one of them maketh a Feoffment in Fee the warranty is destroyed because the first privity is destroyed 21 H. 6. 51. acc ' But Vide 19 E. 3. Statham Garr ' 31. If two Ioyntenants are with warranty and the one Releases to the Feoffor there the warranty remains because the privity remains Vide 2 H. 6. 7. Cook 1 Part Chudleighs Case 125. acc ' And see M. 31 Eliz. in this Court King and Watts Case Land is given to Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Body of the Husband and Wife the Husband levies a Fine and dyes without Issue the Wife is impleaded and adjudged that she could not have Aid nor Warrantia Chartae because the Estate was bound by the Fine the Husband being Tenant in special Tail. 4. No warranty can have but one recompence and if there be recompence given the warranty is gone and extinct But here is a recompence made by the Voucher in this Recovery therefore the warranty is extinct 34 Ass pl. 15. 23 E. 3. garr ' 77. acc ' and 15 E. 4. 13. 12 E. 4. 12. If he will not take advantage of the warranty when he may he shall never have it after Vide F. N. B. 134. acc ' And 36 Eliz. it was adjudged in Owens Case That if Tenant in Tail bargains and sells his Lands and suffers a Recovery and afterwards Inrolls the Deed that that Recovery is a good bar to the Estate tail because there is a supposition of recompence and so he prayed Iudgment for the Defendants It was adjourned Vide this Case now Resolved in the Lord Hoberts Reports
Copy-hold 88 Not within the Statute of Wills. 236 If a Copyholder in possession surrender the Reversion of his Land post mortem suam to the Lord to an use nothing is thereby passed 8 Tenant for Life of a Copyhold remainder in fee he in the remainder may surrender his Estate if there be no Custom to the contrary 9 In what Case a Copyholder ousted cannot make a Lease for years upon which the Lessee may maintain Ejectione firmae 30 If a Copyholder dyeth his Heir within age he is not bound to come to any Court during his Non-age to pray admittance or tender his Fine 31 If the death of his Ancestor be not presented nor proclamations made he is not at any mischief although he be at full age ibid. A Copyholder may surrender by Attorny 111 241 Costs The Plaintiff shall have Costs upon 5 Eliz. for hunting in his Park notwithstanding the Statute gives treble damages 36 If the Plaintiff be Non suited in an Action upon an Escape the Defendant shall not have Costs 182 Debt SHall not be brought against the Husband upon a Contract by the Wife 42 For Rent 18. For Rent-Corn reserved upon a Lease for years shall be brought in the Detinet 47 Upon a Concessit solvere according to the Law Merchant and Custom of the City of Bristol 105 Devise To a Colledge in Vacancy of a Head. 223 If one possessed of a Term deviseth that his Son shall have the same when he comes to the age of 18 years and that his Wife whom he makes Executrix shall enjoy it in the mean time and dye and the Wife take Husband she shall have the Term as Executrix till the Son accomplish the age of 18 years 1 Of Lands part to the eldest Son in Tail and part to the younger Son in Tail with this clause That if any of the Sons dyed without Issue the whole Land to remain to a Stranger in Fee the Sons entred respectively and the younger dyed without Issue the Stranger entred but his Entry was not lawful for the eldest Son shall have the Land by the implicative Devise 14 By a Father to his Son and Heir 35 200 237 Who shall first take by a Devise 37 Emblements WHere by Law they belong to the Executors 1 Entry If a Disseisor of 100 Acres le ts the same to divers for years the Entry in one Acre by the Disseisee is an Entry against them all 8 And if one makes a Lease for years rendring 10 l. for the first two years and afterwards 30 l. every year with Condition to Re-enter if the Rent of 30 l. or any part be behind the Lessor enters for Non-payment of the 10 l. his Entry is lawful for it was but one Rent of which the 10 l. was parcel ibid. Entry Congeable 39 Error He who is special Heir by the Custom as of Burrough English shall have the Writ of Error and not the Heir at Common Law. 5 Estate Executed 37 Estrepement In Partition ought not to be granted and why 60 Evidence Maybe good enough to maintain a Declaration though it vary from it 14 Execution An Infant once discharged out of Execution shall never be in Execution again 6 Execution of a Statute shall bind the King. 10 Where not good upon a Capias without a Scire Facias 24 If the Bail be taken in Execution before the Capias ad Satisfaciend against the Defendant be filed they may avoid this Execution by Error but not by Plea or Surmise 24 If the Plaintiff takes out Execution within a year and a day after Judgment obtained although he doth not prosecute it in two or three years yet when he pleaseth he may proceed upon it and shall not be put to a Scire Facias 44 Exposition of Words The words sub Conditione ea Intentione in a Feoffment be not a Condition but an Estate executed presently according to the intent 2 Domus est nomen collectivum and contains many Buildings as Barns Stables c. 16 Omnes Dimissiones being general words shall not be restrained to special Leases 17 The word growing though it sound in the Present Tense yet it shall be taken also in the Future Tense 36 So the word being but otherwise if the words had been tunc being 37 The word paying if it creates a Condition or not Quaere 50 Proviso semper put on the part of the Lessee upon the words of the Habendum makes a Condition but contrary of a Proviso on the part of the Lessor 71 The Provost Fellows and Scholars of Queens Colledge in Oxford as Guardians of the Hospital c. in S. make a Lease of Lands parcel of the Possession of the said Hospital by the name of Praepositus Socij Scholares Collegij Reginalis in Oxonia Gardianus Hospitalis c. and good without saying Gardiani in the Plural Number 85 Extinguishment If Lessee for 10 years grant a Rent-Charge to his Lessor for the same years and the Lessor grant the Remainder in Fee to the Lessee for years by this the Rent is extinguished 2 Felo de se IF the Queen grants to A. Catalla Felonum de se within such a Precinct where one indebted to the Queen having Goods is Felo de se the Queen shall have the Goods to satisfie her Debt 6 Feoffment To Uses 23 By one Coparcener cestuy que use of the whole is not only a Feoffment of that moiety she might lawfully dispose of but also of the other moiety by disseisin 52 Fines of Lands Where a Fine levied by the Husband of Lands whereof he and his Wife are Donees in Special Tail shall bar the Issue and where not 2 Fine by the Husband where avoids a Lease e contra 15 Fines levied to Uses 22 Issue of a Tenant in Tail the Remainder to the King shall be barred by a Fine 40 Fine for Alienation Not only the Land aliened but the other Lands of the Alienor shall be chargeable for the Fine for Alienation without Licence 47 Forfeiture If Lessee for years being sued for Rent claims Fee in the Land and hath none it is a Forfeiture 3 Of an Obligation with Condition That the Grantee of the next Avoidance of an Advowson should enjoy the same without any disturbance or claim of the Grantor 18 An Obligation to perform a Covenant that the Lessee of a Term shall enjoy it without expulsion or any Act done or to be done by the Lessor shall not be forfeited by Non-fesance 38 39 Of an Obligation conditioned to perform an Award 190 If Tenant for life joyn the Mise upon the meer Right it is a Forfeiture 128 Where Tenant for life is impleaded if he maketh default or confesseth the Action it is a Forfeiture ibid. If Tenant for life bargains and sells his Land by Deed inrolled although no Fee passeth yet it is a Forfeiture 129 contra 124 Grant. BY the King of the Office of the Kings Bench. 19 Recital in Grants of the King.
Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XXII Barton and Edmunds Case AN Infant and another were bound for the debt of the Infant Infant the Infant at his full age promised to save the other harmless the Infant died It was adjudged that upon this Assumpsit Assumpsit an Action upon the Case did lie against his Executors XXIII Mich. 36 Eliz. In the Kings Bench adjudged IF an Executor promise to pay a Debt when he hath not Assets It was the Opinion of all the Iustices that no Action upon the Case lieth against him but if he hath assets then it is otherwise And the Heir if he hath nothing by descent is not subject to an Action upon such a promise Mich. 28 Eliz. XXIV The Lord Pagets Case Indictments AN Indictment was Quare vi armis clausam A. B. apud D. fregit whereas A. B. then had a Lease at Will of the land the matter was for digging of Turfs the Indictment was holden to be good XXV 25 Eliz In the Kings Bench. Indictments INdictment De uno Equo where it was a Gelding holden not good But otherwise it is where Trespass was brought de Equo castrato and the Iury found a Gelding and adjudged for the Plaintiff 26 Eliz. XXVI Tucker and Nortons Case Execution AN Infant in Execution upon condemnation in Debt sued a Writ of Error his Father and Brother bailed him It was said the Recognisance shall be by them two only that the Infant shall appear and if the Iudgment be affirmed that they pay the mony and not that they shall render his body to prison for when he is once discharged out of Execution he shall never be in Execution again XXVII Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Nobleman Recognizance IT was holden by the Iustices That a Nobleman shall be bounden with his bail in a Recognizance that he shall render his body and that upon the Statute of 13 E. 1. If he hath not goods or lands his body shall be taken in execution for the Law in such case excepts only Clarks XXVIII Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer Felo de se THe Queen granted to one Catalla utlagatorum felonum de se within such a Precinct One indebted to the Queen having Goods is felo de se within the Precinct Resolved the Queen should have the Goods to satisfie her debt 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XXIX King and Cottons Case LEssee for life the remainder in tail the remainder in fee Disseisin Lessee for life makes a Deed of Feoffment of the Land and delivers it and makes a Letter of Attorney to another to deliver Seisin who enters and makes Livery accordingly adjudged that the Attorney is a Disseisor 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XXX Gerrards Case THe Owner of the Lands severed his Tythes Prohibition and a stranger took them and carried them away The Parson libelled in the Spiritual Court against the Owner of the Land for the Tythes who thereupon prayed a Prohibition It was adjudged no Prohibition should issue in this Case for that he might plead the same matter in Bar in the Spiritual Court. Hil. 31 Eliz. XXXI Willet and Wilkinsons Case NOte it was adjudged Surrender that if Lessee for years take another Lease from the Guardian in Soccage that the same is a Surrender of his first Lease Note the second Lease was made in the name of the Guardian Trin. 26 Eliz. XXXII Ould and Conyes Case IT was adjudged Commoner Conies that a Commoner cannot kill Conies which destroy his Common though he hath not any other remedy Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XXXIII Mayes Case ONe sent a Letter by a Carrier to a Merchant for certain Merchandizes to send them to him receiving a certain sum of mony the Merchant sent the Merchandizes by the Carrier without receiving the mony It was the opinion of the Iustices that the Buyer should not be charged for the mony for it was a conditional bargain and it was the folly of the Merchant to trust the Carrier with the Wares Mich. 30 Eliz. XXXIV Haltons Case A Recognizance was acknowledged before Sir N. Read one of the Masters of the Chancery Recognizance Inrollment and the Recognizor died before it was enrolled it was doubted if it might be enrolled at the Petition of his Executors it was agreed by the Iustices that it might be well enough for it is like to a Conusans of a Fine before a Iudge which may be removed out of the hands of the Iudge by Certiorari and yet it is not a Record till the perfection of it At the same time it was doubted also if the Chancery would aid a man when there wanted the words Heirs in a Deed where the land was sold for mony Chancery compel Attornment But it was agreed that after a Fine levied the Chancery might compel the Tenant to Attorn Hil. 27 Eliz. XXXV Holland and Hopkins Case IN Ejectione firmae it was agreed by the Court that if a Disseisor be of an 100 Acres and he lets the same to divers for Years that the entry into one Acre by the Disseisee is an entry against them all but if they had been Tenants for life Quaere for that then he might have his Action against them And it was said Entre congeable that if one makes a Lease for years rendring for the first two years 10 l. and afterwards 30 l. every year with condition if the rent of 30 l. or any part of it be behind that the Lessor enter The Lessor enters for not payment of the 10 l. that his entry is lawful for the 10 l. was parcel of the rent for it was but one rent Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. XXXVI Clamp and Clamps Case Copyholder Surrender A Copyholder in possession surrendred the Reversion of his land post mortem suam to the Lord to an use c. It was adjudged that thereby nothing passed XXXVII Trin. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Lease was made of a Mannor with all Gardens Orchards Yards c. and with all the profits of a Wood except to the Lessor forty Trees to take at his pleasure It was a Question if the Lessee should have the Wood It was the opinion of Dyer That the Wood was not comprised within the Lease but the Lessee should only have the profits as pawnage Leases herbage c. And he said it was a Case adjudged a man made a Lease of a Wood ad faciendum maximum proficuum meliori modo quo poterit that the Lessee thereby could not cut the Trees nor do waste Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer XXXVIII Butler and Lightfoots Case IT was holden by the Barons Copyholder Surrender 3 Leon. 239. That if Tenant for life be of a Copyhold the Remainder over in Fee to another he in the Remainder may surrender his Estate if there be no custom to