things 1. Leases the number of the years 21 non ultra 2. antiquus redditus vel eo amplior yet in reason and good understanding we ought to think that the intent of the Act was that the said Manor should now come to the said Lady Frances surcharged with Leases in Reversion or to begin at a day to come for if by this Act the said Earl might make a Lease to begin three months after by the same reason he might make a Lease to begin twenty years after and also to begin after his death It hath been objected that the Lord Treasurer had a Commission to make Leases of the Queens Lands and that by virtue thereof he made Leases in Reversion I know the contrary to that for every such Lease is allowed by a Bill assigned and not by the ordinary Commission aforesaid the words of our Act are Dimissiones facere pro termino 21. annorum that shall be meant to begin presently As if I lease to you my Lands for one and twenty years it shall be intended to begin presently and he cited the Case betwixt Fox and Collier upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. cencerning Leases made by Bishops That four years of a former Lease being in being the Bishop leased for one and twenty years the same was a good lease notwithstanding the former lease for the lease began presently betwixt the parties And it hath been adjudged that a lease for years by a Bishop to begin at a day to come is utterly void And he cited the Case of the late Marquess of Northampton who by such an Act of Parliament as ours was enabled to make leases of the Lands of his Wife for one and twenty years and of the said Lands an ancient lease was made before the said Act which was in esse and before the expiration thereof he made a lease by virtue of the said Act to commence after the expiration of the former lease and that lease was allowed to be a good lease warranted by the said Statute because that the first lease which was in esse was not made by force of the said Act but if the said former lease had been made by virtue of the said Statute the second lease had been utterly void XLV Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Copy-hold Surrender by Attorney not good A Copy-holder of the Manor of the Earl of Arrundel did surrender his customary Lands to the use of his last Will and thereby devised the Lands to his youngest Son and his Heirs and died the youngest Son being in prison makes a Letter of Attorney to one to be admitted to the Land in the Lords Court in his room and also after admittance to surrender the same to the use of B. and his Heirs to whom he had sold it for the payment of his debts And Wray was of opinion that it was a good surrender by Attorney but Gawdy and Clench contrary 3 Cro. 218. 9 Co. 75. and by Gawdy If he who ought to surrender cannot come in Court to surrender in person the Lord of the Manor may appoint a special Steward to go to the prison and take the surrender c. and by Clench Lessee for years cannot surrender by Attorney but he may make a deed purporting a surrender and a letter of Attorney to another to deliver it XLVI Troublefield and Troublefields Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Dy. 337. b. Co. 1 Inst 15. 2. b. 52. 245. b. 252. 6. Post 51. Entry THe Case was that a Copy-holder did surrender to the use of his Will and thereby devised the Land to his Wife for life the remainder over to his son in tail and died the Wife entred and died a stranger did intrude upon the Lands and thereof made three several Feoffments to three several persons he in the Remainder entred upon one of the said three Feoffees in the name of all the Lands so devised and made a lease of the whole Land And by Clench and Wray it was a good Entry for the whole and by consequence a good lease of the whole Gawdy contrary Note all the Lands were in one County See 16 Eliz. Dyer 337. 9 H. 7. 25. XLVII Parmort and Griffina's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation by Parmort against Griffina a Merchant-stranger the Defendant pleaded Debt that the Obligation was made upon condition for the performance of certain Covenants contained within certain Indentures and shewed what c. and alledged further that in the said Indenture there is a proviso that if aliqua lis vel controversia oriatur imposterum by reason of any clause article or other agreement in the said Indenture contained that then before any sute thereupon attempted the parties shall choose four indifferent persons for the ending thereof which being done the Indenture and Obligation shall be void And in fact saith that Lis controversia upon which the Action is brought groweth upon the said Indenture upon which there was a demurrer in Law. And because the Defendant hath not shewed specially upon what controversie or strife and upon what article certain The Court was clear of opinion that the Bat was not good And also the Court was of opinion Proviso taken strictly that the said Proviso did not extend to subject and submit the breach of every Covenant or Article within the said Indenture to the Arbitrament of the said four persons but only where strife and controversie doth arise upon the construction of any Covenant c. within the said Indenture so as the Defendant ought to have shewed such matter which fell within the Arbitrament by the meaning of the said Indenture and Iudgment was given against the Defendant XLVIII Partridge and Partridges Case Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Dower by Partridge against Partridge the Case was Dower that Land was given to the Father for life the reversion to his Son and Heir for life the remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the Father The Father and Son joyn in a Feoffment to the Vncle in Fee scil to the Brother of the Father The Vncle takes a Wife the Father dieth the Son being his Heir in tail the Vncle dieth without issue so as the Land descendeth to the Son as Heir to his Vncle against whom the Wife of the Vncle brought Dower It was moved if the Son being Herein can to his Father and Heir also to his Vncle for the Fee descended be now remitted for then no Dower accrueth to the Wife of the Vncle for the estate of which she demands Dower is gone but if the livery in which the Son joyned with his Father be the livery of the Son Remittâ— the same lies in his way in the impediment and preventing of the Remitter so as during his life he shall be adjudged seised of the Lands in Feesimple by descent from his Vncle Then Dower lyeth for the same
Ancestor of the Demandant was pleaded in Bar by the name of W the Demandant in avoidance of it would have said that the name of his Father was R. to have avoided the Fine but to that he was not received And 3 E. 3. 32. scil Averment 42. In a Formedon the Tenant pleaded Ne dona pas The Demandant by Replication said That a Fine was levied of the same Lands between the Father of the Demandant and one T. by which Fine the Father of the Demandant did acknowledge to T. the Lands come ceo c. and the said T. gave by the said Fine to the Father of the Demandant the Land in tail Where it is said by Stone that since the gift is proved by as high a Record a man shall not aver against such matter in avoidance of the said Fine c. and yet the party against whom it was was a stranger to the Fine And see 38 E. 3. 7. The Lord shall not be received against a Fine levied by his Tenant to aver the dying seised of his Tenant in his Homage And as to the Issue in tail he conceived that the Averment doth not lie for him for the Issue in tail is as much privy as the Heir of a Tenant in Fee-simple And see 33 E. 3. scil Estoppel 280. In a Formedon the Tenant voucheth the Demandant Counter-pleaded that the Vouchee nor any of his Ancestors had any thing in the Land in demand after the seisin c. to which the Tenant said that to that the Demandant should not be received for the Father of the Demandant after the gift levied a Fine to the Ancestor of the Vouchee of the said Land in demand sur conusans de droit come ceo c. and the same was holden a good bar to the Counter-plea And it was said by the Iustices That although the Statute of West 2. of Donis conditionalibus doth not avoid the Fine as to the fore-closing of the Issue in tail of his Formedon yet it remaineth in force as to the restraining of the heir in tail to aver a thing against the Fine as well as against the heir in Fee-simple and in all Cases where he against whom a Fine is pleaded claims by him who levieth the Fine he shall not have the same Averment but where he claims by a stranger to the Fine there he shall have it well enough see 33 H. 6. 18. If my Father Tenant in tail or in Fee grant the Land by Fine and afterwards I make Title to the same Land by the same Ancestor and the Fine is pleaded against me I shall not be received to say that those who were parties to the Fine had not any thing at the time of the Fine levied but such a one an estranger whose estate c. but it is a good Plea for me to say that after the Fine such a one was seised in Fee and did enfeoff me vid. 22 E 3. 17. before 33 E. 3. Estoppel 280. And Dyer 16 Eliz. 334. The Father is Tenant for life the Remainder in Fee to his Son and Heir levieth a Fine to a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. with warranty and takes back an estate by the same Fine in that case it was holden that the heir should not be received to aver continuance of the possession and seisin either ante finem tempore finis or post finem in the Tenant for life for it is a Feoffment upon Record and makes a discontinuance of the Remainder and Reversion The only Book in our Law to maintain the Averment is 12 E. 4. 15. by Brian who although he was a reverend Iudge in his time yet he erred in this that if Tenant in tail be disseised and levieth a Fine unto a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. that the Issue in tail may well say that partes ad finem nihil habuerunt but Coke and Lit. were clear of a contrary opinion and see in the same year fol. 12 by Fairfax and Littleton that if Tenant in tail where the Remainder is over to a stranger levieth a Fine sur conusans dodroit come ceo c. he in the Remainder may aver continuance of seisin against that Fine for he is not party nor heir to the party c. And the Stat. of 4 H. 7. goes strongly to extort such Averment out of the mouth of the Issue in tail for the words concerning the same point are saving to every person or persons not party nor privy to the said Fine their exception to avoid the said Fine by that that those which were parties to the said Fine nor any of them had ought in the Land at the time of the said Fine levied And it is clear that the Issue in tail is privy to his Ancestor whose heir to the tail he is which see agreed 19 H. 8. 6. 7. And he vouched the Case of one Stamford late adjudged Land was given to the eldest Son in tail the Remainder to the Father in tail the eldest Son levied a Fine sur conusans de droit come ceo c. and died without Issue in the life of his Father and afterwards the Father died the second Son shall inherit but if the eldest Son had survived the Father and afterwards died without Issue the second Son should have been barred Periam to the same intent It should be very dangerous to the Inheritances of the Subjects to admit of such Averments and by such means Fines which should be of great force and effect should be much weakned and he put many Cases to the same purpose as were put before by Rhodes Iustice and he shewed how that Fines and the power of them were much weakned by the Statute of non-claim whereof followed as the preface of the Statute of 4 H. 7. observeth the Vniversal trouble of the Kings Subjects and therefore by the said Statute of 4 H. 7. Fines for the good and safety of the Subjects were restored to their former Grandure and authority which should be construed by us who are Iudges strongly and liberally for the quiet and establishment of present possessions and for the barring and extinguishing of former rights and so did the Iudges our Predecessors which see in the Argument of the said Case between Stowel and the Lord Zouch So see such liberal construction 19 Eliz. Dyer 351. Where if Land be given to Husband and Wife in special tail and the Husband alone levieth a Fine and dieth having Issue the Issue is barred And it hath lately been adjudged by the advice of all the Iudges of England upon the Statute of 1 Ma. viz. All Fines levied whereupon Proclamations shall not be dayly made by reason of Adjournment of any Term shall be of as good force and strength to all intents and purposes as if such Term had been holden and kept from the beginning to the end thereof and not adjourned and the Proclamations shall be made in the following
petit quod inquiratur per patriam praedict Brett similiter It was moved that the parties should replead for this matter upon which they are at Issue scil the appearance is not triable by Iury but by the Record And the Court was clear of opinion that the parties should replead for the cause aforesaid And it was moved by the Lord Anderson that if A. be bound to appear in the Kings Bench at such a day and A. at the said days goe to the Court but there no process is returned then the party may go to one of the chief Clerks of the Court and pray him to take a Note of his appearance And by Nelson we have an acient form of entry of such Appearance in such Cases Ad hunc diem venit I. S. propter indemnitatem suam Manucaptorum suorum petit quod comparentia sua in Curia hic recordetur And see for the same 38 H. 6. 17. And afterwards the Lord Anderson inspecto Rotulo ex assensu sociorum awarded a Repleader And so by Nelson it hath been done oftentimes here before and put in ure The same Law is where at the day of appearance no Court is holden or the Iustices do not come c. he who was bound to appear ought to have an Appearance recorded in such manner as it may be and if the other party pleadeth Nul tiel Record it behoveth that the Defendant have the Record ready at his peril for this Court cannot write to the Iustices of the Kings Bench for to certifie a Record hither CXV Baxter and Bales Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt not extinct by administration BAxter brought Debt upon a Bond as Executor of I. against Bale who pleaded that the Plaintiff after the death of the Testator was cited to appear before the Ordinary or his Commissary to prove the Will of the said I. and at the day of his appearance he made default upon which the Ordinary committed Letters of Administration to the Defendant by force of which he did administer so the debt is extinct c. but the whole Court was clear of opinion that the debt was not extinct for now by the probate of the Will the administration is defeated and although the Executor made default at the day which he had by the Citation before the Ordinary yet thereby he is not absolutely debarred but that he may resort to the proving of the Will whensoever he pleaseth But if he had appeared and renounced the Executorship it had been otherwise and the debt is not extinct by the Administration in the mean time CXVI Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Franchise the parties are at Issue upon a matter triable out of the Franchise And it was moved if now the Record should be sent into the Common Pleas and there tryed and after trial sent back into the Franchise Which Periam and Anderson utterly denied and by Periam there is no reason that we should be their Ministers to try Issues joyned before them And it is not like 2 Len. 37. where in a Liberty or Franchise a Forrein Voucher is to warrant Lands in such cases we shall determine the Warranty but that is by a special Statute of Glocester cap. 12. And Nelson Prothonotary said that such an Issue was tryed here of late Quod nota CXVII The Earl of Arundel and the Lord Dacres Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. At Serjeants Inne PHilip Earl of Arundel and the Lord William Howard his Brother marryed the Daughters and Co-heirs of the late Lord Dacres And now came Francis Lord Dacres as heir male of the said Family and claimed the Inheritance c. And after long sute betwixt both parties they submitted themselves to the award of Gilbert Lord Talbot and of Arthur Lord Grey of Wilton and Windham and Periam Iustices And before them at Serjeants Inne the matter was well debated by the Council learned on both sides and as unto Greistock Lands parcel of the Lands in question the Case was That Tenant in tail makes a Feoffment in fee unto the use of himself for his life the Remainder in tail to his eldest Son with divers Remainders over with a Proviso that if any of the Entailees do any act to interrupt the course of any entail limited by the said Conveyance that then the use limited to such person should cease and go to him who is next inheritable And afterwards Tenant in tail dieth his eldest Son to whom the use in tail was first limited entreth and doth an Act against the said Proviso and yet held himself in and made Leases the Lessees enter the Lessor dieth seised his Heir being within age and in ward to the Queen It was holden by Shutleworth Serjeant Yelverton Godfrey Owen and Coke who were of Council with the Heirs general of the Lord Dacres that here is a Remitter for by this Act against the Proviso the use Remitter and so the possession doth accrue to the enfant Son of him to whom the use in tail was limited by the Tenant in tail Then when the Tenant in tail after his said Feoffment holds himself in this is a disseissin for a Tenancy by sufferance cannot be after the cesser of an estate of Inheritance But admit that he be but a Tenant at sufferance Hâ—b 255. Dy. 54. yet when he makes Leases for years the same is clearly a disseisin and then upon the whole matter a Remitter and although the Enfant taketh by the Statute yet the right of the tail descending to him afterwards by the death of his Father doth remit him as if Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life the Remainder in tail to his eldest Son inheritable to the first intail notwithstanding that the eldest Son takes his Remainder by the Statute and so be in â—â— force thereof yet when by the death of his Father the right of the Entail descends to him he is remitted CXVIII Butler and Ayres Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower BUtler and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Thomas Ayre Son and Heir of Bartholmew Ayre first Husband of the said Margaret Wife of the Plaintiff and demanded Dower of Lands in A. and B the Tenant pleaded never seised que Dower and the Iury found that the said Bartholmew was seised during the Coverture de omnibus tenementis infra script preterquam the Tenements in sic ut dicta Margareta dotari potuit Exception was taken to this Verdict because that this preterquam c. doth confound the Verdict To which it was said by the Court that the preterquam is idle and surplusage for it is of another thing than that which is in demand and the seisin of the first Husband of Lands in A. and B. is confessed and the preterquam works nothing Another matter was objected because here the Iury have assessed damages
Kings Bench. PRowse brought an Action upon the Case against Cary for words That the Plaintiff did subborn procure and bring in false Witnesses in such a Court at Westminster c. The Defendant pladed Not guilty And it was found that he did procure and brought in false Witnesses but was acquitted of the suborning It was objected 1 Cr. 296. 554. 607. That the Action doth not lie for it may be that the Defendant did not know that he would depose falsly Thou art a forger of false Writings are not actionable and so it was adjudged for it may be understood of Letters of small importance but that Exception was not allowed for it shall be taken in malam partem and cannot be spoken of any honest man. CXXXII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A. Was bounden in an Obligation to B. upon condition that if A deliver to B. twenty Quarters of Corn the nine and twentieth of February next following datum presentium that then c. and the next February had but eight and twenty days And it was holden that A. is not bounden to deliver the Corn until such a year as is Leap-year for then February hath nine and twenty days and at such nine and twentieth day he is to deliver the Corn and the Obligation was holden good CXXXII Allen and Palmers Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was a Copy-holder did surrender his Lands to the use of a stranger for life Copy-holder surrenders where his heir shall be in by purchase 2 Roll. 416. Co. 1 Inst 226. and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the Copy-holder who afterwards surrendred his Reversion to the use of a stranger in Fee died and the Tenant for life died and the right Heir of Palmer the Copy-holder entred And by Cook nothing remained in the Copy-holder upon the said surrender but the Fee is reserved to his right Heirs for if he had not made any such second surrender his Heir should be in not by descent but by purchase And the common difference is where a surrender is to the use of himself for life and afterwards to another in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of him who surrendreth there his Heirs shall have it by descent contrary where the surrender hath not an estate for life or in tail limited to him for there his Heir shall enter as a purchasor as if such use had been limitted to the right Heirs of a stranger And by him if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of his right Heirs the Land shall remain in the Lord until the death of the Copy-holder for then his Heir is known c. See Dyer 99. The Husband made a Feoffment to the use of his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Husband and Wife begotten they have issue the Wife dieth the issue cannot enter in the life of his Father for then he is not his Heir See Dyer 7 Eliz. 237. The Husband is sole seised in Fee and levieth a Fine of the Land to the use of himself and his Wife and the Heirs of the Husband and they render the Land to the Conusor for the life of the Husband the remainder to B. for life the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband The Husband dieth B. dieth Now the Wife shall have the Land for the life of the Wife for she shall not lose her estate by that render and this remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband is void and the Land and estate in it is in him as a Reversion and not as a Remainder And a man cannot tail a Remainder to his right Heirs whilest he is living unless it begin first in himself See Br. 32 H. 8. Gard. 93. CXXXIV Pearle and Edwards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was that the Defendant had leased Lands to the Plaintiff rendring Rent for certain years Assumpsit Consideration 1 Cro. 94. and after some years of the Term expired the Lessor in consideration that the Lessee had occupied the Land and had paid his Rent promised the Plaintiff to save him harmless against all persons for the occupation of the Land past and also to come And afterwards H. distrained the Cattle of the Plaintiff being upon the Lands upon which he brought his Action Golding Here is not a sufficient consideration for the payment of the Rent is not any consideration for the Lessee hath the ocupation of the Land for it and hath the profits thereof and also the consideration is past Cook The occupation which is the consideration continues therefore it is a good Assumpsit as 4 E. 3. A Gift in Frank-marriage after the espousals and yet the marriage is past but the blood continues so here and here the payment of the Rent is executory every year and if the Lessee be saved for his occupation he will pay his Rent the better Godfrey If a man marrieth my Daughter against my will and afterwards in consideration of that marriage I promise him one hundred pounds the same is no good consideration 2 Len. 111. which Clench Iustice denied And afterwards the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover his damages CXXXV Wakefords Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Extinguishment of Copy-hold by Release THe Earl of Bedford Lord of the Manor of B. sold the Free-hold Interest of a Copy-holder of Inheritance unto another so as it is now no part but divided from the Manor and afterwards the Copy-holder doth release to the purchasor It was holden by the Court that by this Release the Copy-hold Interest is extinguished and utterly gone but if was holden that if a Copy-holder be ousted so as the Lord of the Manor is disseised and the Copy-holder releaseth to the Disseisor nihil operatur CXXXVI Docton and Priests Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass for breaking of his Close 1 Cro. 95. it was found by special verdict that two were Tenants in common of a house and of a close â—djoyning to the house and they being in the house make partition without deed of the house and the close see 3 E. 4. 9. 10. Partition without deed upon the Land is good enough Vide 3 H. 4. 1. And it seems by 3 E 4. Partition made upon the Land amounts to a Livery Vide 2 Eliz. Dyer 179. Partition by word out the County void 19 H. 6. 25. Betwixt Tenants in common not good without deed 2 Roll. 255. 47 E. 3. 22. being upon the Land it is good without deed Two Ioynt-tenants make partition by word make partition in another County the same is no partition for as to that matter the common Law is not altered by the Statute but as to compel such persons to make partition Wray Iustice conceived that the partition here being without deed was not good although made upon the Lands Vide 18 Eliz. Dyer 35.
parties as if the condition were to go to Rome And as to the Request he conceived that it ought to be shewed specially and certainly for it is for the benefit of the Covenantee for without request the Action doth not lie which Clench granted And it was holden by the whole Court that the bar shall not help the insufficient Declaration No more if the Defendant plead Non Assumpsit yet the defect in the Declaration of a Request not duly shewed remaineth Gawdy The bringing of the Action is a Request Clench A Writ of Debt is a Praecipe for which there licet saepius requisitus is sufficient but a Writ of Covenant is not so CLXXI. Piers and Hoes Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass it was found by special verdict Trespass 1 Cro. 131. 1 Roll. 854. that A. seised of Land in the right of his Wife being her Ioynture by a former Husband he and his Wife made a Feoffment to a stranger and his Heirs Habend to the use of the stranger and his Heirs during the life of the Wife only Shutleworth The same is a forfeiture for if the same Feoffment had been without any use expressed Forfeiture then it should be to the use of the Feoffor and his Heirs and by consequence a forfeiture and as the case is here it is also a forfeiture for during the life of the Wife the use is expresly to the use of the Feoffee and his Heirs and the remainder of the Fee-simple is to the use of the Feoffor scil the Husband and his Heirs Popham I conceive that here is a forfeiture Owen 64. 2 Cr. 200 201. 3 Cr. 167. Hob. 373. for here are several limitations limitation of the estate unto one and of the use unto another And the words for the life of the Wife do not refer to the estate but to the use with proximum antecedens And he resembled the same to the case of Leonard Sturton in which he was of Councel A man granted Lands Habend unto the Grantee to the use of the Grantee and the Heirs of his body the same is no estate tail in the Grantee but only an estate for life for the Limitation of the use cannot extend the estate Cook contrary The case is that A. Wife of one Piers being Tenant for life of the Ioynture of the said Piers took to Husband Hoe they both by Deed grant totum suum Messuagium to one Clarke Habendum to him and his Heirs for the life of the Wife only I conceive that here is not any forfeiture for it is but one intire sentence And if there be a double construction of a deed that which is most reasonable shall be taken so as wrong be not done Construction of Deeds and therefore these words for the life of the Wife shall refer unto both scil the estate and the use and their intent was not to commit a forfeiture as appeareth by the words of the Deed for they grant solum messuagium and that was not but for the life of the wife ad solum usum of the Feoffee and his Heirs during the life of the Wife and violence should be offered to this word solum if the Feoffee or his Heirs should have ultra the life of the Wife and the word tantum cannot otherwise be expounded but that the estate for life only shall pass from them And he cited the Case of 34 E. 3. Avowry 258. A. gives Lands unto B. in tail and for default of such issue to the use of C. in tail rendring Rent the same render shall go to both the estates So a Lease for life to A. the remainder to B. to the use of C. the same use goeth out of both the estates and not only out of the Remainder so here upon the same reason Regula these words for the life of the wife shall refer to the first estate as well as to the use And in such Cases the rule of Bracton ought to be observed viz. Benignae faciendae sunt interpretationes verborum ut res magis valeat quam pereat As the Case in 6 H. 7. 7. in a Cessavit the Plaintiff counted that the Tenant held by Homage Fealty Sute at Court and certain Rent and in the doing of the services aforesaid the Defendant had cessed and in not doing of Homage and Fealty a man cannot cesse by two years But it was holden that the said Cessavit should be referred to such services only in which one might cease and that is Sute of Court and Rent And if pleadings shall have such favourable construction a multo fortiori shall a Deed 4 E. 3. Wast 11. A man leased for life and by the same deed granted power unto the Lessee to take and make his profit of the said Lands in the best manner should seem good to him without contradiction of the Lessor or his Heirs yet by those words it is not lawful for him to do wast for there it is said that in construction of Deeds we ought to judge according to that intent which is according to Law and Reason and not to that which is against reason See 17 E. 3. 7. accordingly so in the principal Case the words in the Deed of Feoffment shall be so expounded that the estate be saved and not destroyed Popham contrary The Cases put by Coke are not like to the Case in question For where the Rent is out of both estates the same is but reason for the Rent is in respect of the Land and because he departs with both estates it is reason the Rent issue out of both and the like reason is of the Case of an use for if a man makes a Lease for life to A. the Remainder over to B. the same shall be to their use respectively and if he do express the use the same shall be accordingly and shall bind both estates but there Clark hath two estates one by the common Law and the other by the Statute 3 Cro. 167. But the words subsequent for the life of the wife only cannot refer to both estates A. gives Lands to one his Heirs for forty years the same is but a plain Term for years But if a Feoffment in Fee be made to one his Heirs to the use of another for forty years there the Fee passeth to the Feoffee and the Term to Cestuy que use Gawdy conceived that it is not any forfeiture for these words during the life of the wife only were put in the Deed to express the intent of the parties and therefore the same shall not be void and he conceived that they were put in to exclude the forfeiture and therefore they shall serve for that purpose And afterwards it was resolved by all the Iustices except Gawdy that it was a forfeiture for by the Feoffment the Fee-simple passeth and that to the use of the Feoffor the estate and the use are several things and
and it shall be intended the Rent mentioned before See 21 H. 7. 30. b. Where Villa West shall be intended Villa praedict 19 E. 4. 1. In a Quare Impedit the Plaintiff doth entitle himself by grant of the next Avoydance cum acciderit and doth not shew in his Count that the same was the next Avoydance and yet the Count was holden to be good for so it shall be intended so here And he said It is not necessary that a Declaration be exactly certain in every point but if one part of it expound the other it is well enough And although the Identity of the Rent doth not appear by the word praedict yet it appeareth by other circumstances as by the days of payment c. and no other Rent can be intended And now this Exception is after Verdict and therefore favourably to be taken And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXLI. Musted and Hoppers Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Assumsit p 1 Cro. 149. That where he and one Atkinsal were joyntly and severally bounden by Obligation in fifty pounds to a stranger for the only Debt of the said Atkinsal which Atkinsal died and the Defendant married afterwards his Wife and so the Goods of Atkinsal came to his hands yet the Plaintiff the first day of May after which was the day of payment of the money paid five and twenty pounds for avoiding the Forfeiture of the penalty The Defendant as well in consideration of the Premisses as in consideration that he might peaceably enjoy the Goods of the Testator promised to pay the said sum cum inde requisitus fuer And upon Non Assumpsit the Iury found the payment of the said sum and all the precedent matter And that the Defendant in consideration praemissiorum promised to pay the said sum if he might peaceably enjoy the Goods of the said Testator It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that although here the Iury have found sufficient cause of Action yet if the Declaration be not accordingly the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment Verdict And here the Plaintiff hath declared upon two Considerations and the Iury hath found but one scil if he peaceably enjoy the Goods of the Testator Also the Plaintiff declared of a simple promise and the Iury have found a Conditional Si gaudere potest c. And so the promise set forth in the Declaration is not found in the Verdict Gawdy was of opinion That the first consideration is good Consideration for the Plaintiff entred into Bond at the request of the Defendant and then the promise following is good But the second consideration is void scil That the Defendant shall enjoy the goods of the Testator c. as if it had been that he should enjoy his own goods And all the Iustices were clear of opinion That the Promise found by the Iury is not the promise alledged in the Declaration and so the issue is not found for the Plaintiff and so the judgment was stayed CCXLII. Creckmere and Pattersons Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Rot. 568. Devise conditional 1 Cro. 146. 1 Roll. 410. 1 Inst 236. b. UPon a special Verdict the Case was this Robert Dookin was seised of certain Lands in Fee and having issue two Daughters devised the same to Alice his Eldest Daughter that she should pay forty pound to Ann her Sister at such a Day the money is not paid whereupon Ann entreth into the moiety of the Land And it was holden by the whole Court that the same is a good Condition and that the Entry of Ann was lawful It hath been adjudged That where a man devised his Land to his wife Proviso My will is That she shall keep my house in good Reparations that the same is a good Condition Wray A man deviseth his Lands to B. paying 40 l. to C. it is a good condition for C. hath no other remedy and a Will ought to be expounded according to the intent of the Devisor CCXLIII Dove and Williots and others Case .. Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 160. IN an Ejectione firmae upon a special Verdict the case was That W. was seised of the Land where c. and held the same by Copy c. and surrendred the same unto the use of E. for life the Remainder to Robert and A. in Fee Robert made a Lease to the Defendant E. Robert A. surrendred the said Land scil a third part to the use of Robert for the life of E. the Remainder to the Right heirs of Robert and of another third part to the use of Robert for life the Remainder to E. the Remainder to Richard c. and of another third part to the use of A. and his Heirs After which Partition was made betwixt them and the Land where c. was allotted to Richard who afterwards surrendred to the use of the Plaintiff It was holden That Iudgment upon this verdict ought not to be given for the Plaintiff For the Lessee of Robert had the first possession and that Lease is to begin after the death of E. who was Tenant for life and when E. and he in the Reversion joyn in a surrender thereby the estate for life in that third part is extinct in Robert who hath the Inheritance and then his Lease took effect for a third Part. So that the Parties here are Tenants in Common 1 Inst 200. betwixt whom Trespass doth not lye CCXLIV Bulleyn and Graunts Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Copyhold UPon Evidence to a Iury the Case was That Henry Bulleyn the Father was seised of the Land being Copyhold and had Issue three Sons Gregory Henry andy Thomas and afterwards surrendred to the use of the last Will Devise 1 Cro. 148. and thereby devised the said Land to Joan his Wife for life the remainder to the said Henry and the Heirs of his body begotten Joan died after admittance Henry died without Issue and afterwards the Lord granted it to Thomas and his Heirs who surrendred to the use of the Defendant then his Wife for life and afterwards died without Issue Gregory eldest Son of Henry Bulleyn entred c. Coke When the Father surrendreth to the use of his last Will thereby all passeth out of him so as nothing accrueth to the Heir nor can he have and demand any thing before admittance Wray The entry of Gregory is lawful and admittance for him is not necessary for if a Copyholder surrendereth to the use of one for life who is admitted and dieth he in the Reversion may enter without a new Admittance It was moved by Coke if this Estate limited to Henry be an Estate tail or a Fee conditional For if it be a Fee-simple conditional then there cannot be another Estate over but yet in case of a Devise an Estate may depend upon a Fee-simple precedent but not
Will he cited Chicks case 19 Eliz. 357 and 23 Eliz. 371. Dyer At another day it was argued by Cook That both the Houses pass and the words take the profit do not restrain the general words before viz. All my Lands and Tenements but rather expounds them sci such profits that they might take of a Reversion cum acciderit for it may be that the Brother shall die within ten years And he cited the case 34 H. 6. 6. A man seised of diverse Reversion upon estates for life devises them by the name of omnium terrarum tenementorum which were in his own hands and by those parols the Reversion did pass and yet the Reversion to speak properly was not in his hands and if the Brother had died in the life of the devisor they had clearly passed and then his death or life shall not alter the case And he resembled the case to the case in 39 E. 3. 21. The King grants to the Abbot of Redding That in time of vacation the Prior and Monks shall have the disposition of all the possessions of the said Abbey ad sustentationem Prioris Monachorum 3 Cro. 290. and if in the time of vacation they shall have the Advowsons was the question for it was said That advowsons could not be to their sustentation But yet by the better opinion the grant of the King did extend to Advowsons for it shall be intended such sustentation as Advowsons might give Godfrey Our Case is not like to the case of 34. H. 6. for there the Devisor had not any thing in possession and therefore if the Reversion did not pass the devise should be utterly void Gawdy conceived that the house in possession only passed for the devise extends to such things only whereof the Profits might be taken but here is not any profit of a Reversion Clench and Wray contrary The intent of the devise was to perform the Will of his Father and also of his own Will and in case the house in possession was not sufficient to perform both the Wills all shall pass and therefore the devise by favorable construction is to be taken largely so as the Wills might be throughly performed and also the devise is general and further all his Lands and Tenements which are not restrained by the Subsequent words to take the profits for to have and to hold and to have and to take the profits is all one CCLV. Slugge and the Bishop of Landaffs Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SLugge libelled against the Bishop of Landaff in the Ecclesiastical Court because where he was presented by the Dean and Chapter of Gloucester to the Church of Penner the Bishop did refuse to admit him and now the Bishop sued a Prohibition and shewed Prohibition Quod non habetur talis Rectoria cum cura animarum in eadem diocesi sed perpetua vicaria And by Popham a Prohibition doth not lye but the matter ought to be determined in the Ecclesiastical Court and when he who is presented to the same Church whether it be a Church or not shall be tried in an action of trespass and the like matter was ruled Mich. 14. Eliz. betwixt Weston and Grendon who was presented by the Queen and it was holden that because institution and admission do belong to the Ecclesiastical Court and not to the Kings Court that no Prohibition should lye and therefore he prayed a Consultation And note That the Defendant in the Prohibition did not demur formally upon the suggestion for the Iudges use if the suggestion be not sufficient to maintain the Prohibition to grant a Consultation without any formal demurrer upon the Suggestion if the insufficiency of the Suggestion be manifest Trial. which was granted by the whole Court. Cook That a Consultation ought not to be granted for whether there be such a Rectory or not shall be tried here So 2 H. 4. 30. Prior or not Prior 49 E. 3. 17 18. Wife or not Wife but never accoupled in loyal matrimony by the Bishop Ante. 53. 54. 44 E. 3. So within or without the Parish 50 E. 3. 20. So 45 E. 3. Quare Impedit 138. In a Quare Impedit no such Church within the County Afterwards at another day Popham put the case Slugge was presented to the vicaridge of Penner the Bishop refused to admit him and admitted one Morgan Bletthen unto the Parsonage of Penner at the presentment of the Lord St. John Slugge sued the Bishop for contumacy per duplicem querelem The Bishop said Non habetur talis vicaria upon which matter he sued a Prohibition and he conceived That the Prohibition did not ly for a Vicar is but he that gerit vicem Personae to supply his place in his absence so as the same is a spiritual matter which ought not to be tried here Also the libel is to have Admission and Institution and the other matter ariseth by their Plea sci Quod Rectoria de Penner est Ecclesia cum cura animarum absque hoc quod habetur talis Vicaria and so it is but an incident to the principal matter wherefore it shall be tried there and he prayed a Consultation Cook We have shewed That in the time of E. 3. one L. was seised of the Manour of Penner to which the Church of Penner is appendant and we alledge presentments from the time and we convey it to the Lord St. John which now is and they would now defeat us by this surmise That there is no such Church with cure of Souls which is triable here Popham the libel doth contain nothing but contumacy in the Bishop in that he hath not admitted Slugge and the other matter comes in the Replication and afterwards by assent of the parties a Consultation was granted quoad institutionem of Slugge only but that they should not proceed further CCLVI. Fennick and Mitfords Case Pasch 31 Eliz. Rot. 154. In the Kings Bench. Moâ—e 284. 2 Co. 91. THe Case was A man seised of Lands in Fee levieth a Fine to the use of his wife for life the remainder to the use of his eldest son the heirs males of his body the Remainder to the use of the right heirs of the Conusor The Conusor makes a Lease for a thousand years to B. the eldest son dieth without issue male having issue a daughter the Conusor dieth the wife afterwards dieth the eldest son enters and leaseth the Lands to the Plaintiff Atkinson That upon this conveyance a Reversion was left in the Conusor although by the fine all is conveyed out of the Conusor and so as it hath been objected the use limited to the right heirs of the Conusor is a new thing For it is to be observed When a man is seised of Lands he hath two things the Land or the Estate and secondly the use which is the profits and if he make a Feoffment without consideration by that the estate and possession passeth
both not lye of a Tenement nor a forcible entry supposed in a Tenement 11 H. 7. 25. 38 H. 6. 1. Another error was because the Fine was levyed in the Court of the City of Exceter Which see 44 E. 3. 37 38. Those of Exceter can prescribe to have the Conusans but the same ought to be by special Charter of the King by express words Egerton the Queens Solicitor who sate under the Iustices and was not of Counsel in the case said 2 Inst 515. 1 Roll. 489. That he was of Counsel in a case betwixt Bunbery and Bird where such a Fine levyed in Chester by prescription was in question was by a Writ of Error reversed And afterwards in the principal case the Fine was reversed for the first Error CCLXVI. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 96. 97. THe Case was this Grandfather Father and Son The Grandfather seised of a house called the Swan in Ipswich devised the same to his eldest Son for life the Remainder to A. Son of his eldest Son and the heirs males of his body Devises the Remainder to the right heirs of the Devisor and to the heirs males of his body and died The Father and Son died without issue male the Son having issue a Daughter who entred and assured the Land unto one Hawes and covenanted That she was seised of the said Messuage of a certain and sure estate in Fee-simple Godfrey That the Daughter shall take the last Remainder as right heir at the time that it ought to be executed to the heirs males of her body as if it had been devised to her by her proper Name so she hath but an estate tail and so the covenant is broken Cook contrary At the time that the devise took effect by the death of the Devisor the Father was his Right heir so as the Remainder vested in him immediately Antea 182. and shall not expect in abeyance until the Father and Son dye without heir male of the Son for the Father is a person able to take so that upon the death of the Devisor the Father is Tenant for life the Remainder to the Son and the heirs males of his body the Remainder to the Father in tail ut supra the Reversion to the Father in fee and the Daughter hath the same Reversion by discent after the Entayls spent all which Wray Iustice granted CCLXVII Galliard and Archers Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas Intrat Trin. 31 Eliz. Rot. 1529. GAlliard brought an Action upon the Case against Archer Trover and Conversion The Plaintiff declared That he himself was possessed of certain goods which by trover came to the hands of the Defendant who hath converted them to his own use The Defendant pleaded Postea â—â—â— That before the Trover supposed one A. was possessed of the said goods as of his proper goods and sold them to the Defendant and that he had not any notice that the said goods were the goods of the Plaintiff upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. And by Anderson the plea is not good for the Plaintiff may chuse to have his Action against the first finder or against any other which gets the goods after by Sale Gift or Trover And by some Postea 253. The Defendant having the goods by Sale might traverse the finding See Contr. 27 H. 6. 13. a. And see by some In detinue where the Plaintiff declares of a Bailment The Defendant may say That he found them and traverse the Bailment 39 H. 6. 37. by Moile and by Windham Iustice The Defendant may traverse the property of the goods in the Plaintiff 12 E. 4. 11. CCLXVIII Edwards and Tedbuties Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. EDwards of London was endebted unto one A. of the same City Bailment of goods to a Carrier and Edwards delivered goods to one Tedbury Carrier of Exceter who went to him to carry for him certain Wares to be carried to Exceter to certain Tradesmen there the said goods to be delivered to them c. And so the said goods Wares and Merchandizes being in the possession of the Defendant Tedbury to be carried to Exceter the said A. caused them to be attached in the hands of the said Carrier for the Debt of the said Edwards The said Carrier being then priviledged in the Common Pleas by reason of an Action there depending And by the clear opinion of the whole Court the said Attachment ought to be dissolved Attachment of goods For the Carrier for the reason aforesaid is priviledged in his parson and his goods and not only in his own goods whereof the property belongs to him but also in such goods in his possession for which he is answerable to others c. And so it was adjudged CCLXIX Cockshal and the Mayor c. of Boaltons Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HEnry Cockshal brought an Action upon the case against the Mayor Conâ—piâ—â—â—â— Town-Clark and Goal or of Boalton in the County of L. and declared That where he himself had affirmed a Plaint of Debt in the Court of the said Town before the said Mayor c. against I.S. and thereupon had caused the said I.S. to be arrested The said Defendants did conspire together to delay the Plaintiff of his said suit in peril of his Debt had let the said I. S. go at large without taking Bail. Periam Iustice conceived That upon that matter the Action doth not lye for the not taking of Bail is a judicial act for which he shall not be impeached But all the other Iustices were strongly of opinion against him for the not taking of Bail is not the cause of the Action but the Conspiracy CCLXX. Erbery and Lattons Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 234. IN a Replevin The Defendant doth avow because he is seised of such a Manor within which there is a Custom That the greater part of the Tenants at any Court within the said Manor holden appearing may make By-laws for the most profit and best government of the Tenants of the said Manor c. and that such By-laws should bind all Tenants c. and shewed further That at such a Court holden within the said Manor the Homage there being the greater part of Tenants of the Mannor aforesaid at the Court aforesaid appearing made this By-law scilicet That no Tenant of the said Manor should put into such a Common any Steer being a year old or more upon pain of six pence for every such Offence and that it should be lawful to distreyn for the same And the Court was Clear of opinion That the By-law was utterly void For it is against Common Right where a man hath Common for all his Cattel Commonable to restrain him to one kind of Cattel c. But if the By-law had bin That none should put in his Cattel before such a
CCLXXVIII Arrundel and the Bishop of Gloucesters and Chaffins Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Quare Impedit SIir John Arrundel brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Gloucester and Chaffin and counted upon a disturbance to present 1 Novembris Chaffin as incumbent pleaded That 1 Maii next after the said 1 Novemb. he himself was presented to the Church by the Queen the presentment to the said Church being devolved unto her by Lapse Vpon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And the plea was holden insufficient for the Plaintiff counted upon a Disturbance to him 1 Novem. and the Defendant entitleth himself to an incumbency 1 May after in which case the disturbance set forth in the Count is not answered by traverse nor confessed nor avoided And of that opinion was the whole Court For the disturbance of which the Plaintiff hath declared is confessed And afterwards It was moved by the Queens Serjeants That the Queen might have a Writ to the Bishop Writ to the Bishop for the title of the Queen appeareth to be by Lapse which is confessed But the whole Court were clear of opinion against it For although it appeareth that he was lawfully presented to the said Church and so once lawfull Incumbent yet it appeareth also That the title of the Queen is once executed and so gon and nothing remains in the Queen and now when the Defendant hath lost his incumbency by ill pleading as he may as well as by Resignation or Deprivation yet the same shall not turn to the advantage of the Queen for where the Queen presents for laps and her Clark is instituted and inducted the Queen hath no more to do but the Incumbent must shift as well as he can for the holding of it for by what manner so ever he loseth his incumbency the Queen shall not present again otherwise it had been if the Queen be Patron and afterwards the Plaintiff had a Writ to the Bishop CCLXXIX The Lord Pagets Case in a Monstrans de Droit The Case was Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber More 193 194 1 Co. 154. 1 And. 259. THomas Lord Paget Father of William Paget was seised of the Mannor of Burston and divers other Mannors in three several Counties in his demesne as of fee and so seised by Indenture between the said Lord of the one part and Trentham and others on the other part and in consideration that the said Trentham and others with the profits of the said Mannors should pay his debts and such sums of money which were contained in such a Schedule and which he should appoint by his last Will covenanted to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of the said Trentham of one Eusal c. for the term of four and twenty years and after the Expiration or end of the said Term of twenty four years unto the use of the said William Paget his Son in tail with diverse Remainders over And afterwards the said Lord Paget was attainted of high Treason It was here holden and agreed by all the Iustices and by the Council of both sides That the uses limited to Trentham and others are void for here is not any consideration sufficient to raise an use for the mony which is appointed for the payment of his debts is to be raised of the profits of the Lands of the said Lord Declaration of uses which is not any consideration on the part of Trentham and others But if the consideration had been That they with the Profits of their own Lands should pay the debts c. It had been a good Consideration It was agreed also That the term for twenty four years to Eusal is void for want of sufficient consideration And then it was moved If this Lease being void The use limited to the said William Paget Son of the said Lord Paget should being presently upon the death of the Lord Paget or should expect until the twenty four years were encurred after the death of the Lord Paget or not at all And it was argued That an use to be raised upon an impossibility should never rise as if I covenant to stand seised to the use of B. and his Heirs after the end of the term for years which I.S. hath in the Mannor of D. whereas in truth I. S. hath not any term in it the said use shall never rise so here Use cannot rise out of a possibility No use to the Son can rise for the lease for twenty four years shall never end for it never can begin for want of sufficient consideration as is aforesaid and if the said use in tail should at all rise it should not rise before the expiration of the said twenty four years As if I covenant to stand seised of certain Lands to your use when my Son and Heir shall come to the age of one and twenty years now if my Son dieth before such age The use shall not begin before the time in which my Son if he shall live should attain unto his said age Egerton the Queens Solicitor Vses may be limited to begin at times certain before which they shall not begin and so in our case the use in tail in limited to begin when the term of twenty four years is ended and therefore until the Term be ended no use shall rise and the use is limited to rise upon the end of the time or term of four twenty years and not upon the end of the estate and so William Paget hath begun his Monstrans de Droit before his time The Lord Paget had but an estate for life and if so Then the Remainders are not continggent uses but vest presently as if a man covenant That after his death his Son and Heir shall have his Lands now the Father hath but an estate for life and the inheritance is vested in the Son. Cook I covenant That after twenty four years ended I and my Heirs will stand seised to the use of my Son c. there the use in Fee doth vest in my Son presently So I covenant That after my death I and every one who shall be seised c. shall be seised of the said Land to the use of my Brother the said use shall rise to my Brother presently I devise That after the death of such a Monk I.S. shall have the Land nothing passeth to I.S. till the death of the Monk but if Land be devised to a Monk for life and afterwrds to another in Fee the Devisee in Fee shall have the Land presently Manwood A devise or use limited to one for life the Remainder in tail the first devisee doth disagree Cook the Remainder doth vest presently Manwood I devise lands unto one until my Son comes of full age Cook The remainder doth vest presently Manw. A use limited to one to begin at Mich. next the remainder over if in the mean time the Lessee obtain the
should beget on the said woman should come unto the age of 21. years and then to the use of the woman during her widow-hood They are married the Husband dieth without issue the Wife shall hold the land But by him if this use had bin raised by way of Covenant it should be otherwise Coke Admit that all the uses be good yet his meaning was That the debts and legacies being paid W. Paget should have his land for it is provided by the Indenture That when the debts legacies are paid the estate for 24. years shall cease Manwood The payment of the debts cannot end that which never was and as to the two first estates they were never out of him therefore they came unto the Q. by his attainder Coke After debts and legacies paid all other estates but the estate of W. Paget cease therefore William Paget shall have the Land. And the rule of Shelly 35 H. 8. 56 is worthy to be received scil That learning is honest wished to be used that every man learned in the Law do construe Deeds according to the meanings of the makers Manwood A Feoffment to the use of Salisbury Plain for the life of I. S. the Remainder over the same use shall come into possession presently for there is not any person capable of the particular estate but where the first use is limited to a Bastard the remainder over there the Remainder shall not come into possession presently for the Bastard is a person capable but not by such form of conveyance in consideration of natural affection Popham In the case of Bastard there was an estate for life executed to the Father in possession then a Remainder to a Bastard the Remainder to the Sons lawfully begotten but here in our Case no estate is created to precede the estate of William Paget upon which the Remainder can depend At another day It was argued by Coke It is to be agreed on both sides That the estate for four and twenty years is meerly void and also the first use limited to Trentham and others and it is not reason that the use limited to William Paget should expect until the four and twenty years be expired by effluxion of time and to that purpose he cited Cranmers Case where an estate in use was limited to Cranmer for life the Remainder to his Executors for one and twenty years the Remainder over in tail to his Son and Heir c. Cranmer is attainted of Treason and Heresy so as he could not make a Will or Executors there it is holden That the term is void because no Executors and that the Remainder in use should vest presently and should not expect until the said number of years expire by effluxion of time And difference hath been put betwixt the case of Cranmer and the Case at Bar because in Cranmers Case there was a possibility at the beginning that the Term for years might be good for the term became void by matter ex post facto sci By the attainder of him which disabled him to make Executors but in the Case at Bar the term for twenty four years was expresly void ab initio But that difference is without reason for what reason is there That the Remainder should be father off the possession when the estate for years is originally void than when it becomes void by matter ex post facto Suppose that the Lord Paget had by Indenture covenanted as above for the two first uses being in truth void in Law and afterwards by another Indenture reciting That whereas he had covenanted That in consideration That A. with the profits of his Lands should pay his debts c. to stand seised of the said Lands for his own life Now he covenants to stand seised to the use of William Paget and his Heirs should not he presently be seised to the use of William Paget and his Heirs although the words be That then and from thenceforth For I hold it a clear case that his estate begins presently being limited to begin upon a void estate althouh the limitation be by words de futuro And to this purpose he cited the case 3 E. 6. Br. Lease 62. A man leaseth for years Habendum post dimissionem inde fact to J.S. finitam where no such demise is made the same Lease shall begin presently If an Indenture be made to a Monk and another Habend to the Monk for one and twenty years and after the end of that to the other for one and twenty years the other shall have it presently And he put a Case 7 E. 3. in the new Impression 19. and in the old Impression 317. Where one Maud brought a Formedon in the Remainder and counted that one Hamond was seised and gave the said Tenements to one Robert c. in tail and that for want of such issue that the Tenements should return to the said Hamond for life the Remainder to the Demandant in Fee and counted further That Robert is dead without issue and that Hamond is also dead c. It was holden although that the Remainder reserved to the Donor be void yet the Remainder over in Fee is good c. And in that case although that the Remainder in Fee was future sci After the death of Hamond the estate reserved to Hamond meerly void that originally not by matter ex post facto yet the Remainder in Fee was good and should begin presently upon the death of Robert without issue and should not expect the death of Hamond Mr. Attorney hath given a Rule That the intent of the parties is the Direction of uses as also of Wills and therefore I will put one Case of Wills 37 H. 6. 17. If a man devise Lands to a Monk for four and twenty years and after the same ended to another in Fee here the Monk being a dead person cannot take the estate limited to him therefore it is void but the Fee limited to the other is good and shall take effect presently If it be so in a Will why not so also in uses For the intents of the parties do direct the constructions of both And our case here is a stronger case than the case cited 37 H. 6. 36. for there where Land is devised to a Monk for life there may be colour of an Occupant during the life of the Monk who might take it although the Monk himself cannot take it and so the Remainder doth not take effect presently as to the possession but shall stay till after the death of the Monk But here is not any colour of an Occupancy for the estate here is a Lease for years which cannot admit an Occupant And see also 37 H. 6. 36. If a man devise that his Feoffees shall make an estate to I. S. for life the Remainder over to C. in Fee and I. S. will not take his estate C. shall have a Sub-poena against the Feoffees to make an estate to him
leaving out I. S. and see Amy Townsends Case in the Commentaries where the Husband seised in the Right of his Wife makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his wife for their lives the Remainder over to another the husband dyeth the wife refuseth the estate limited to her by the Husband she brings Sur cui in vita not against the heir but against him in the Remainder to whom the Land doth accrue by the refusal of the wife not against the heir of the Feoffor and I grant That where an estate in use or otherwise is to begin upon a condition precedent which is impossible or against the Law the estate shall never rise or begin And here the Case of the Lord Borroughs 35 H. 8. Dy. 55. was cited Where the Father covenanted in consideration of marriage of his Son that immediately after his death his eldest Son shall have the possession or use of all his Lands according to the same course of inheritance as then they stood and that all persons now seised or to be seised should be seised to the said use and intent and it was holden That upon that matter no use is changed But if the Words had bin Immediately after his death they should remain then although the words of the Limitation be In futuro the use of the Fee shall rest in the Son presently and the words In futuro ought not to be interpreted but in benefit of him to whom the use and estate is limited 9 Eliz. Dyer 261. A. Leaseth for thirty years and four years after the beginning of the said term he makes another Lease for years by these words Noverint c. dictis 30 annis finitis completis demisisse omnia praemissa to the said c. Habendum tenendum a die confectionis praesentium termino praedict finito usque ad finem 30 annorum And by the opinion of all the Iustices This new Lease shall commence in possession at the end of the former term and not before and if it should not be expounded the second Lease should be in effect an estate but for ten years which was not the intent of the parties and every grant shall be expounded most strongly for the grantee and to his advantage to which purpose he said he had vouched this Case Also by him there is not any difference where the use is limited by way of covenant or upon a Feoffment And if a man enfeoffeth B. upon condition that he shall enfeoff C. now if he offer to enfeoff C. and he refuseth the Feoffor may re-enter But if the condition were to give to C. in tail then upon such refusal of C. the Feoffor shall not re-enter See 2 E. 4. 2. 19 H. 6. 34. E. si Equitas sit adhibenda in construction of conditions a multo fortiori in case of Vses A Feoffment in Fee upon condition that the Feoffee shall grant a Rent charge to J. S. who doth it but J. S. refuseth the Feoffor shall not re-enter for that was not the intent of the condition If in the principal case Post 266. the limitation of the use had been after the expiration of twenty four years then no use should rise before the twenty four years expire but where not the time but the estate is material there if the estate be void the use shall go to him in the Remainder presently and shall not stay the time 1 Co. 154. c. Egerton Solicitor first it is to see if the use limited to William Paget be good secondly if William Paget doth not come before his time to shew his Right If this use limited to William Paget be a Remainder or an estate to begin upon a contingent or a present estate the estates formerly limited being void and he conceived that it is not a Remainder for there is not any estate upon which it may depend And the words are after the estate for twenty four years ended or expired that then and from thenceforth to the use of William Paget c. so that no use is limited to him before the particular estate is ended therefore no Remainder for a Remainder ought to begin when the particular estate begins Without doubt that was not the intent that William Paget should have the Land during the life of his Father and yet the use limited during the life of his Father was void and if the Remainder should take effect during the said twenty four years against Eusall and his companions wherefore should it not also take effect against Trentham and the others to whose use it was limited during the life of the Lord Paget And here the use limited to William Paget is to begin upon a collateral contingent upon which if it cannot rise it shall not rise at all and I conceive that the use limited to William Paget shall never rise or begin for it is limited to begin when the term of twenty four years is ended and that is never for that which cannot begin cannot end and this Term is meerly void Ergo it cannot begin Ergo it cannot end then this thenceforth cannot be and so this contingent can never fall H. 6. 7. E. 6. A Lease was made for years upon condition that if the Lessee do not pay such a sum of money that he should lose his Indenture the meaning and sense of these words is not that he should lose the Indenture in parchment but that he should lose his Term The Iudgment in an Eectjone firmae is Quod querens recuperet terminum suum that is to be understood not the time but his Interest in the Land for the Term And Coke secretly said that in that case there is not any contingent for the estates precedent never began And as to the Case cited before by Coke Br. Leases 62. If the last Lease be made by Indenture reciting the former Lease certainly the second Lessee shall not be concluded to claim the Land demised presently but shall tarry until the years of the first Term be expired by effluction of time And as to Mawnds Case cited before there is an estate upon which a Remainder may depend scil the estate tail alledged to Robert c. If such as now is limited to William Paget had been limited at the Common Law to a younger Son the eldest Brother should have the Land in the Interim discharged of any use and now after the Statute no use limited to William Paget before the contingent where therefore is it in the mean time In the Lord Paget who being attainted it accrues to the Queen and out of the possession of the Queen this use shall never rise although that the contingent be performed for now the use is locked up A use doth consist in privity of the estate and confidence of the person if these be severed the use is gone And here if the possession be in the Queen she cannot be seised to another use Note by Godfrey that
33 Eliz. In the Common Bench. IT was found by special Verdict that Berwich and Tesdel seised of certain Lands conveyed the same to Sir Thomas Cotton for life Fines levied to use Co. 2 Inst 519. 1 Cro. 219. the Remainder to VVil. Cotton primogenito filio suo haeredi masculo sic de primogenito ad primogenitum dict VVilliam the Remainder to the right Heirs of the body of Sir Tho. Cotton and VVil. Cotton lawfully issuing the Remainder to the right Heirs of Sir Tho. Cotton VVil. had Issue a Son born here in Eng. and went beyond Sea to Antwerp and there continuing and his Son being within age in England Sir Thomas Cotton levied a Fine of all the Land sur conusans de droit come ceo c. And afterwards by Indenture convenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of Rober Cotton his Son in Fee William died at Antwerp his said Son being within age in England Sir Tho. Cotton died Robert entred and leased the Lands for years to Sary and the Infant Son and Heir of William leased the Land to one Chewn at Will who entred and ousted Sary who thereupon brought Ejectione firmae It was here holden by the Court that Sir Tho. Cotton was Tenant for life the Estates Remainder to William for term of his life the Remainder to the Heirs of both their bodies issuing So as unto one Moyety Sir Thomas Cotton had an Estate tail dependant upon the said Estates for life and so the Fine levied by him was a Bar to the Issue of William for a Moyety And as to the other Moyety they held that the said Fine was not any Bar but that the party interessed at the same time might avoid the Fine at any time during his Nonage five years after for Wil. his Father was not bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. because at the time of the Fine levied he was beyond the Seas and although he never returned but died there yet by the equity of the Statute his Issue shall have five years after his death to avoid the Fine if he were of full age and if he were within age then during his Nonage and five years after At another day the Case was argued and put in this manner viz. Lands were given to Sir Thomas Cotton for life without Impeachment of Wast the Remainder over to Cheny Cotton his eldest Son primogenito filio haeredi Masculo of the said Cheny sic de primogenito filio in primogenitum filium the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the body of the said Cheny for want of such Issue the Remainder to Wil. Cotton his second Son primogenito filio in primogenitum filium the Remainder over to the said Sir Thomas and the said William and the Heirs Males of their bodies lawfully begotten Cheny Cotton died without Issue William having Issue went beyond the Sea Sir Thomas Cotton 19 Eliz. levied a Fine with Proclamation and afterwards William the Father died in Antwerp his Son being within age Sir Thomas by Indenture limited the use of the Fine to himself for life the Remainder over to Robert Cotton his third Son in Tail Sir Thomas died but it doth not appear at what time William the Son being yet within age entred but non constat quando and 31 Eliz. leased the Lands to the Defendant at Will. Drue Serjeant argued for William Cotton And he conceived that William the Father had an Estate-tail and then the entry of William the Son was congeable for the whole But admitting that it is not an Estate-tail in VVilliam the Father for the whole yet he hath by the second Remainder an Estate-tail in the Moyety and then his Entry good as to one Moyety and then Robert being Tenant in Common of the other Moyety Tails his Lessee without an actual Ouster cannot maintain an Ejectionae firmae against the Lessee of his Companion And he conceived here is a good Estate-tail in VVilliam Cotton by virtue of the Limitation to William primogenito filio haeredi Masculo ipsius Guliel sic de primogenito filio in primogenitum filium c. for according to the Statute of VVest 2. the will of the Donor ought to be observed and here it appeareth that the intent of the Donor was to create an Estate-tail although the words of the Limitation do not amount to so much And the Estates mentioned in the Statute aforesaid are not Rules for Entails but only Examples as it is said by Trew 33 E. 3 F. Tail 5. see Robeiges Case 2 E. 2. 1 Fitz. Tail and 5 H. 5. 6. Land given to A. and B. uxori ejus haeredibus eorum aliis haeredibus dicti A. si dict haeredes de dictis A. B. exeuntes obierint sine haeredibus de se c. and that was holden a good Entail so a gift to one and his Heirs si haeredes de carne sua habuerit si nullos de carne sua habuerit revertatur terra and adjudged a good tail So 39 E. 3. 20. Land given to Husband and Wife uni haeredi de corpore suo ligitime procreat uni haeredi ipsius haeredis tantum And that was holden a good Tail and so he conceived in this Case that although the words of the Limitation are not apt to create an Estate-tail according to the phrase and stile of the said Statute of VVest 2. yet here the intent of the Donor appears to continue the Land in his Name and Blood for VVilliam the Son could not take with his Father by his Limitation for he was not in rerum natura and therefore all shall vest in VVilliam the Father which see 18 E. 3 Fitz. Feoffments Fait 60. Now it is to see if upon the Limitation to Sir Thomas Cotton and VVilliam his Son by which the Remainder is limited to Sir Thomas Cotton and VVilliam and the Heirs Males of their bodies issuing the said Sir Thomas Cotton Wil. have a joynt Estate-tail in respect that the Issue of the body of the Son may be Heir of the Body of the Father and so because they might have one Heir which shall be inheritable to his Land it shall be one entire Estate-tail in them But he conceived that they are several Estates-tail and that they are Tenants in Common of an Estate tail 3 4 Phil. Mar. Dyer 145. Land given to the Father and Son and to the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten the Remainder over in Fee the Father dieth without other Issue than the Son only and afterwards the Son dieth withou Issue a stranger abates Or if the Son hath made a Discontinuance if he in the Remainder shall have but one or two several Formedons was the Question And by Saunders Brook and Brown but one Formedon and Quaere left of it yet admitting that yet notwithstanding that it might be
the Right of the Complainants come ceo c. with warranty of the said Husband and Wife for which the Complainants did render a Rent of fifty pounds per annum with clause of distress in dictis Manerijs to the said John Amy the Heirs of Amy and also rendred the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances to the said John and Amy for their lives the Remainder to the said Francis their Son in tail the Remainder to the said Amy and her Heirs and that John and Amy dyed by force whereof the said Rent descendeth to the said Plaintiff as Son and Heir of the said Amy and that the said Francis entred into the said Mannors as in his Remainder and was seised in tail and was seised of the said Rent by the Hands of the said Francis and afterwards thereof did enfeoff the said Garmons the Defendant c. The Tenant pleaded That the Plaintiff was never seised so as he could be disseised and if c. Nul tor nul disseisin which was found for the Plaintiff who had Iudgment and Execution upon which the Tenant brought a Writ of Error Stephens assigned Error First the Fine is levyed of two Manors inter alia so as no other Lands passed by the Fine besides the Manors and so the Rent is granted out of the said Lands and Manors and no other Lands which passed by the Fine and then upon the Plaintiffs own shewing it appears that all the Tenants of the Lands charged with the Rent in demand are not named in the Assize Second Error This Rent is granted only out of the Estate tail for Amy hath Fee in both as well the Rent as the Land and then when the Estate tail is determined the Rent is also determined and he hath not averred the life of the Tenant in tail or any of his Issue wherefore it shall be intended that he is dead without issue and then the Rent is gone and then he hath not any cause to have Assise Bourchier As to the first conceived and argued that it is not Error for although these words inter alia c. yet it shall not be intended that the Conusor had any other Lands or that the Rent is issuing out of other Lands than those two Manors which are expressed not inter alia As to the second the continuance of the tail needs not to be averred for the Tenant in tail hath enfeoffed the Tenant of the Land by which the estate tail is discontinued And although the Tenant in tail be dead without issue yet the Rent doth remain until Recovery of the Land by Formedon in the Remainder Fenner Iustice was of opinion Vaugh. Reâ— 175. That the Per nomen should go unto the Mannors only and should not extend to the inter alia For if a man in pleading saith that J.S. was seised of twenty acres of Land and thereof inter alia did enfeoff him per nomen of Green-wead the same shall not have reference to the inter alia but only to the twenty acres And the averment of the continuance of the Tail needs not for the Estate-tail is discontinued Gawdy Iustice was of opinion That the per nomen should go as well to the inter alia as to the two Manors and then all the Ter-tenants are not named in the Assise and the same not to be pleaded for it appears of the Plaintiffs own shewing and there needs no averment of the continuance of the Tail for the cause aforesaid Clench Iustice The per nomen doth refer to all which see by the Fine which shews that other Lands passed by the Fine than the said two Manors And as to the second point he said There needed no averment Gawdy As to the first Error the same cannot be saved by any way but to say That the Conusor was not seised of any other Lands than the said two Manors and then the Fine doth not extend unto it and then no Rent is granted out of it Fenner In the Common Pleas in the great case of Fines it was holden that in pleading of a Fine it needs not to say That the Conusor was seised for if the Conusor or Conusee were seised it is sufficient for such pleading is contrary in it self for a Fine sur conusance de droit come ceo c. doth suppose a precedent Gift It was also objected That here is a confusion in this Fine for the Rent is rendred to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Wife and the Land is rendred to the Husband and Wife for their lives the Remainder to Francis in Tail the remainder to the Wife and her Heirs And these matters cannot stand together in a Fine but the one will confound the other But as to that it was said that the Law shall Marshall these two renders so as they both shall stand And it is not like unto a Rent-service for a Rent-service issueth out of the whole Estate And therefore if a Remainder upon an Estate for life Eschears the Seigniory is gone even during the life of the Tenant for life which see 3 H. 6. 1. contrary of a Rent-charge For if the Grantee of a Rent in Fee purchaseth the remainder of the Land out of which it is depending out of an Estate for life he shall have the Rent during the life of the Tenant for life And of that opinion were all the three Iustices for the Conusors took by several Acts and the Estate is charged for it cometh under the Grant. Fenner Iustice There is a difference betwixt a Rent service and a Rent-charge or Common for that shall charge only the Possession but a Rent-charge shall charge the whole Estate And therefore if he who hath a Rent-service releaseth to him in the Remainder upon an Estate-tail or for life the Rent is extinct which Gawdy denied And this Case was put The Disseisee doth release to the Lessee for years of his Disseisor nihil operatur But if the Disseisor and Disseisee joyn in a Release to such Lessee the same is good for first it shall enure as the Release of the Disseisor and then of the Disseisee c. CCCXLIV Tedcastle and Hallywels Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Debt 2 Roll. 594. 1 Cro. 234 235. IN Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded That the Condition was That whereas John Hallywel had put himself to be an Apprentice to the Plaintiff if the Defendant John Hallywel during his Apprenticeship or any other for him by his consent or agreement take or riotously spend any of the Goods of his said Master the Plaintiff If then the Defendant within one month after notice thereof given to him do pay and satisfie the Plaintiff for all such sums of Monies Wares c. so taken or riotously spent by the Defendant or by any other by his procurement or consent the same being sufficiently proved that then c. The Defendant by protestation Quod nec
ipse nor any other by his procurement or consent had taken or riotously spent the Goods of the Plaintiff for Plea saith That the Plaintiff before the Writ brought had not sufficiently proved that the said John Hallywel took or riotously spent any of the Plaintiffs Goods Vpon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. It was argued by Daniel That the proof is sufficient and good for the time if it be tried in the Action upon this Obligation and the proof intended is proof by twelve men for it is not set down before what person it shall be proved nor any manner of proof appointed and therefore it shall be tried according the Law of the Land which see 10 E. 4. 11. 7 R. 2. Bar. 241. Godfrey contrary This case is not like to the cases before for here is a further matter First warning and a month after Notice pay c. And if the proof shall be made in this Action the Defendant shall lose the benefit of the Condition which gives time to pay it within a month after for in all such cases the precedent Act of the Obligee is traversable as 10 H. 7. 13. I am bound by Obligation to enfeoff such a person of such Lands as the Obligee shall appoint In an Action brought against me I shall say-that the Plaintiff hath not appointed c. And here ought to be Notice first and proof ought to precede the Notice by the meaning of the Condition and so this differs from the other cases put for here proof is not the substance of the whole Owen Serjeant It is the folly of the Defendant to put himself to such an inconvenience for now he ought to pay the mony without delay of any month And here the Defendant ought to plead That he hath not imbezelled any goods of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Replicando shall say and shew the Special matter that he hath given Notice to him thereof See 15 E. 4. 25. CCCXLV. Manning and Andrews Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Devise 4 Len. 2. IN Ejectione firmae the Iury found by special Verdict That Richard Hart and Katharine his Wife and divers other persons 1 H. 8. were seised of the Lands in question to the use of Richard and his Heirs ad per implend ultimam volunt dict Rich. who the first of August 8 H. 8. by his Will in writing devised That his Feoffees should be from thenceforth seised to the use of his said Wife for her life and after to the use of W. H. his Son for his life without impeachment of Wast and after the death of the said Katharine his Wife William his Son and Joan Wife of the said William his Feoffees should be seised to the use of the next Heir of the Body of the said William and Joan lawfully begotten for the term of the life of the same Heir and after the decease of the same Heir to the use of the next heir of the same heir lawfully begotten and for default of such issue to the use of the heirs of the body of the said William and Joan lawfully begotten for the term of life or lives of every such heir or heirs More Rep. 368. and for default of such heirs to the use of the heirs of the body of the said William and for default c. to the right heirs of William And further he willed That if any of the said heirs shall set alien say to mortgage the right title and interest which they or any of them shall have in or out of the same Lands or by their consent or assent suffer any Recovery to be had against them c. or do any other Act whereby they or their heirs or any of them may or ought to be disinherited that then the use limited to such heir so doing shall be void and of no effect during his life And that his said Feoffees shall be thenceforth seised to the use of the heir apparent of such Offender as though he were dead Richard Hart died William had issue by the said Joan his wife a Son named Thomas and died and afterwards 31 H. 8. Joan died Katharine died Thomas entred and had issue Francis and Percival Thomas by Deed indented 1 August 4 Eliz. bargained and sold to Andrews and levied a Fine to him with warranty And afterwards 6 Eliz. Francis levied a Fine to the said Andrews Sur conusans de droit come ceo And further by the said Fine released to him with warranty at the time of which Fine levied Percival was heir apparent to the said Francis Francis after had issue I. and F. who are now living The heir of the Survivor of the Feoffees within five years after the age of Percival and seven years after the Fine levied enter to revive the use limited to Percival who entred and leased to the Plaintiff This case was argued by the Iustices of the Kings Bench c. First It was agreed by the whole Court That Richard Hart being seised with seven others unto the use of himself and his heirs might well devise all the use Use suspended yet the Land devised although his use was in part suspended because he was joyntly seised with seven others to his own use and so the use for the eighth part suspended for when this Devise is to take effect i. e. at the time of his death all the possession of the Land by the Survivor passeth from the use and then the use being withdrawn from the possession shall well pass And by Wray A use suspended may be devised As if Feoffees to use before the Statute of 27 H. 8. be disseised by which disseisin the use is suspended and afterwards during the disseisin Cestuy que use by his Will deviseth That his Feoffees shall re-enter and then make an estate to I. S. in Fee the same is a good devise for by that disseisin the trust and confidence reposed by Cestuy que use in the Feoffees is not suspended Secondly It was holden that here a use implied was limited to Joan the wife of William although there be not any express devise of it according to the Book of 13 H. 7. 17. Thirdly when a use is limited to the Heir of the body of William and Joan lawfully begotten for life and afterwards to the Heir of the body of the same heir for life c. Geofry Iustice was of opinion That here is in effect an estate tail for the estates limited are directed to go in course of an estate tail for he wills That every heir of the body of his Son shall have the Land and the special words shall not make another estate to pass but that which the Law wills As if Lands be given to one for life the Remainder after his death to the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten notwithstanding that the words of the limitation imply two several estates yet because the Law so wills it is but one estate Gawdy Iustice said That
every issue begotten betwixt William and Joan should have an estate for life successive and a Remainder in tail expectant as right heir of the body of William A Contingent shall hinder the execution of an estate in possession and this estate tail shall not be executed in possession by reason of the mesne Remainder for life limited to the heir of the body of William and Joan and although that these mesne Remainders are but upon a contingent and not in esse yet such regard shall be had to them that they shall hinder the execution of the estates for life and in tail in possession As if an estate be made to A. for life the Remainder to the right heirs of B. in tail the Remainder in Fee to A. although the estate tail be in abeyance and not in esse during the life of B. yet in respect thereof the Free-hold and Fee shall not be conjoyned Southcote Iustice To the same purpose And he put a case lately adjudged betwixt Vaughan and Alcock Vaughan and Alcocks case Land was devised to two men and if any of them dieth his heirs shall inherit these devisees are Tenants in common because in by devise but contrary if it were by way of Grant Lands are devised to A. and B. to be betwixt them divided they are Tenants in common Wray William and Thomas have but for life for they are purchasors by the name heir in the singular number but when he goes further and says for want of such issue to the heirs of the body of William in the plural number now Will. hath an Inheritance And if a devise be made to one for life and then to his heir for life and so from heir to heir in perpetuum for life here are two estates for life and the other Devisees have Fee for estates for life cannot be limited by general words from heir to heir but by special words they may And here Thomas being next heir of the body of William and Joan hath an estate for life and also being heir of the body of the said William hath a Remainder in tail to him limited the mesn remaineth limited to others i. e. to the next heir of the body of Thomas being in abeyance Co 11. Rep. 80. because limited by the name heir his Father being alive shall not hinder the execution of these estates but they shall remain in force according to the rules of the common Law Then Thomas so being seised levyeth a Fine against the Provision of the Will by which Thomas hath forfeited his estate for life and so his next heir shall have the Land during his life And a great reason wherefore the heirs ut supra after the two first limitations shall have tail is because that if every heir should have but for life they should never have any Interest in the Lands by these limitations for by the express words of the devise none shall take but the heir of the first heir for ever i. e. When Thomas aliens by which the use vests in Francis and when afterwards Francis levieth a Fine then the use vests in Percival Hâ—rt being next heir of the said Francis at the time of the Fine levyed notwithstanding that afterwards Francis had a Son which is his next heir and therefore the use in Percival by the birth of the said Son in Francis shall not be devested Estate vested shall not be devested because it was a thing vested in him before by purchase 9 H. 7. 25. A enfeoffs B. upon condition on the part of A. to be performed 1 Cro. 61. and dyeth having issue a Daughter the Daughter performs the condition and afterwards a Son is born the Daughter shall hold the Lands against the Son So 5. E. 4 6. A woman hath issue a Daughter and afterwards consents to a Ravisher the Daughter enters and afterwards a Son is born yet the Daughter shall hold the Lands for ever i. e. And Geofries Iustice said Francis being in by force of the Forfeiture shall not be subject to the limitation of the Will i. e. to any forfeiture if he alien for the estate which Francis hath for his life is but an estate gained by the offence of his Father and the use was limited to him upon the Will of Richard and then the said estate is not subject to the Proviso of the Will and then hath not Francis committed any forfeiture And admit Francis shall forfeit yet Percival shall get nothing thereby but the estate which Francis had at the time of the Fine levied scil the Free-hold only for no estate of Inheritance was in him living his Father As to the regress of the Feoffees Geofries was of opinion That where an use is limited to a person certain and thereupon vested in the person to whom it is limited That the Entry of the Feoffees in such case is not requisite notwithstanding that the first estates be discontinued but where the use as in our case is not limited to a person certain in esse but is in abeyance not vested in any person upon the limitation of it some estate ought to be left in the Feoffees to maintain that use and to render it according to the limitation and in our case these uses not in esse at the time of the making of the Statute of 27 H. 8. could not be executed by the said Statute but now at the appointed time by the limitation shall be raised and revived by the Entry of the Feoffees but here by the Fine and Non-claim the Feoffees are bound and their Entry taken away and so no use can accrue to Percival Hart by such Entry Southcote Iustice was of opinion that the Feoffees cannot enter at all because that by the Statute of 27 H. 8. nothing is left in them at the time of the making of the Statute which saves the right of every person c. other than the Feoffees so as no right is saved to them but all is drawn out of them by the operation of the Statute and the second saving of the Statute saves to the Feoffees all their former Right so as the Right which the Feoffees had by the Feoffment to the use is utterly gone But Percival Hart may well enter for he is not bound to the five years after the Fine levied for he had not right at the time of the Fine levied but his right came by the Fine Wray chief Iustice The Feoffees are not to enter for the Statute of 27 H. 8. hath two branches 1. gives the possession to Cestuy que use in such manner as he hath in the use 2. takes away all the right out of the Feoffees and gives it to Cestuy que use so as nothing at all remains in the Feoffees for if an Act of Parliament will give to me all the Lands whereof my brother Southcote is seised and that I shall be in the Seisin thereof now is the actual possession in me without my
Nonage of every Heir but admitting that the Custom were void yet this Action doth not lye for the Defendant hath not entred and taken the profits as Prochein amy in which Case although he was not Prochein amy c. he is chargeable Oâ—â—â—â— Rep. 36 â—3 84. as Prochein amy according to his Claim but here he claimeth by the Custom and Grant of the Lord and not in the right of the Heir and therefore it was adjudged in this time of this Quaere that if one entreth into Lands claiming by Devise where in truth the Land devised is entailed he should not be charged in accompt c. CCCLVIII 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was holden by the whole Court Exposition of the Statute of 32 and 34. Of Wills. That the Statute of 32 34 H. 8. of Wills did not extend to Lands in London but that the devise of the whole is good And if Houses in London parcel of the possessions of Abbies came to the Crown by Dissolution and he grants them over to hold in chief by Knights service these Lands are devisable But it was holden That the said Statutes as Acts executed extended to Lands in London and shall be good but for two parts And if a man hath Lands in tail and in Fee-simple which are of double the value of the Lands in tail and deviseth all his Lands all the Land in Fee-simple shall pass Dyer One seised of three Manors the one in Capite in Fee and two in Socage in tail and deviseth all his Land in Capite it is good against the King for all Capite Land and he shall be tied to have the Lands in Socage but it shall not bind the Heir And a devise of the third part where all is devised is void as well against the Heir as against the King. And he said That if a man be seised of twenty Acres in Socage and ten Acres in Capite and deviseth two parts of his Lands it is reasonable to say That all the Socage Lands shall pass but if the devise was of two parts of all his Lands it is otherwise for this word All implies that the two parts shall be per my per tout as well Capite as Socage i. e. It was argued by Fenner That the Lands in London are now devisable as they were before the Statute for if the Devisee of Lands in London be disturbed he shall have Ex gravi Querela otherwise it is of Lands at the Common Law and if an Assize of Mortdancester be brought of Lands in London it is a good Plea to say That the Lands are devisable But in an Assise of Mortdancestor of Lands at the Common Law it is not any Plea And if a man gives Lands at the Common Law i. e. not devisable by the Common Law he cannot devise the Reversion for the Statute shall not do wrong to the person i.e. to the Donee who there shall lose his Acquittal But of Lands devisable by custom it is otherwise And if Land in a Burrough was devisable for life by the Custom and afterwards came the Statute of 23 H. 8. which made all Lands devisable now that Land is devisable for life by the Custom and the Reversion by the Statute CCCLIX 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Wast of Wast assigned in a Wood Wast the Iury viewed the Wood only without entring into it And it was holden that the same was sufficient for otherwise it should be tedious for the Iury to have had the view of every stub of a Tree which had been felled Yet Meade Iustice said That if Wast be assigned in several corners of the Wood then the Iury is to have the view of every corner but contrary where Wast is assigned in the whole Wood Vieâ— And if Wast be assigned in every Room of a House the view of the House generally is sufficient And Dyer Iustice said That if Wast be assigned in several places and of some of them the Iury had not the view of that they may find no Wast done CCCLX Sir Thomas Lees Case 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was holden per Curiam That whereas Sir Thomae Lee was seised of a Manor Election and aliened the Manor except one Close parcel of the said Manor called Newdick and there were two Closes parcel of the said Manor called Newdick the one containing nine Acres and the other containing three Acres That the Alienee should not chuse which of the said Closes he would have but the Alienor or Feoffor should have the Election which of the said Closes should pass CCCLXI. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail the Remainder in tail c. Tenant in tail in possession Fines levied by Tenant in tail in Remainder 3 Cro. 211. makes a Lease for three lives according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. and afterwards dieth without issue he in the Remainder before any Entry levieth a Fine the same is good for by the death of Tenant in tail without issue the Free-hold is vested in him in the Remainder in tail And of that opinion was the whole Court. CCCLXII Ferrand and Ramseys Case 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae brought of a House in London the Defendant pleaded That long time before the Lessor of the Plaintiff had any thing c. One Ann Ramsey was seised in Fee and died seised and that the same descended to William Ramsey as Son and Heir to the said Ann who was disseised by Israel Owen who leased to the Plaintiff upon whom the said William Ramsey did re-enter The Plaintiff Replicando That the said Ann did not die seised said That before the Ejectment one Robert Owen was seised and died seised and from him descended the said House to Israel Owen as Son and Heir of the said Robert absque hoc that the said Israel did disseise the said Ann upon which they were at issue and at Nisi prius in London it was given in Evidence of the Defendants part That Crofton and Langhton were seised in Fee of the said Messuage and by Deed indented conveyed it to one John Ramsey Robert Dakins and four others and their Heirs upon condition that the said Feoffees their Heirs or Assigns should pay to the said Ann and her Heirs six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence And also should enfeoff the said Ann if to the same they were required by the said Ann in her life or within four days next following such Request in Fee unto the use of the said Ann and her Heirs cum quando ad hoc per eandem Annam requisit fuerint and if the said Ann died before such Request that then the said Feoffees or their Heirs should enfeoff such issues of the said Ann or such other persons which the said Ann should name cum quando ad hoc per eandem Annam requisit fuerint or within four days after such
But if they be collateral considerations which are not pursuant as if I in consideration that you are of my Counsel and shall ride with me to York promise to give to you 20 l. in this case all the considerations ought to be proved otherwise the Action cannot be maintained So in our case the considerations are collateral and therefore they ought to be proved and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCVI Fooly and Prestons Case Hill. 28 and 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 200. 2 Len. 105. That whereas John Gibbon was bound unto the Plaintiff in quodam scripto obligatorio sigillo suo sigillat and coram c. recognito in forma Statuti Stapul The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would deliver to him the said Writing to read over promised to deliver the same again to the Plaintiff within six days after or to pay to him 1000 l. in lieu thereof upon which promise the Plaintiff did deliver to the Defendant the said Writing but the Defendant had not nor would not deliver it back to the Plaintiff to the great delay of the Execution thereof and the Defendant did demur in Law upon the Declaration It was objected that here is no sufficient consideration appearing in the Declaration upon which a promise might be grounded but it was the opinion of the whole Court that the consideration set forth in the Declaration was good and sufficient and by Anderson it is usual and frequent in the King Bench If I deliver to you an Obligation to rebail unto me I shall have an Action upon the Case without an express Assumpsit and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCVII Wallpool and Kings Case Hill. 28 and 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WIlliam Wallpool was bound to King by Recognizance in the sum of 400 l. and King also was bound to Wallpool in a Bond of 100 l. Wallpool according to the Custom of London Attachment in London affirmed a Plaint of Debt in the Gulldhall London against the said King upon the said Bond of 100 l. and attached the debt due by himself to Wallpool in his own hands and now King sued Execution against the said Wallpool upon the said Recognizance and Wallpool upon the matter of Attachment brought an Audita querela and prayed allowance of it and by Gawdy Serjeant such a Writ was allowed in such case 26 Eliz. Anderson at the first doubted of it but at last the Court received the said Writ de bene esse and granted a Supersedeas in stay of the Execution and a Scire facias against King but ea lege that Wallpool should find good and sufficient Sureties that he would sue with effect and if the matter be found against him that he pay the Execution CCCCVIII Hill. 28 and 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Copy-holder with license of the Lord leased for years Copyholder Surrender Hob. 177. 1 Roll. 294 3 Len. 197. and afterwards surrendred the Reversion with the Rent to the use of a stranger who is admitted accordingly It was moved if here need any Attornment either to settle the Reversion or to create a Privity and Rhodes and Windham Iustices were of opinion that the surrender and admittance are in the nature of an Inrolment and so amount to an Attornment or at least do supply the want of it CCCCIX. Ruddall and Millers Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Devise IN Trespass the Case was this William Ruddall Serjeant at Law 18 H. 8. made a Feoffment in Fee to divers persons to the use of himself and his Heirs and 21 H. 8. declared his Will by which he devised his Lands to Charles his younger Son and to the Heirs Males of his body the Remainder to John his eldest Son in Fee upon condition That if Charles or any of his issue should discontinue or alien but only for to make a Ioynture for their wives for the term of their lives that then c. and died The Statute of 27 H. 8. came Charles made a Lease to the Defendants for their lives according to the Statute of 33 H. 8. And levied a Fine with Proclamation Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. to the use of himself and his wife and the heirs Males of their two bodies begotten the Remainder to himself and the heirs Males of his body the Remainder to the right heirs of the Devisor John the eldest Son entred for the Condition broken upon the Defendants who re-entred upon which Re-entry the Action was brought Gawdy Fleetwood and Shuttleworth Serjeants for the Plaintiffs This Condition to restrain unlawful discontinuance is good Conditions as a Condition to restrain Wast or Felony See 10 H. 7. 11. 13 H. 7. 23. And before the Statute of Quia Emptores terratum If A. had enfeoffed B. upon Condition That B. nor his heirs should alien the same was a good Condition by Fleetwood which was granted per Curiam And this Condition was annexed to good purpose or the Serjeant well knew that Cestuy que use might have levied a Fine or suffered a Recovery by the Statutes of 1 R. 3. 4 H. 7. And this Condition annexed or tied to the use by the Will is now knit to the possession which is transferred to the use by the said Statute Although it may be objected that the Condition was annexed to the use and now the use is extinct in the possession and by consequence the Condition annexed unto it as where a Seignory is granted upon Condition and afterwards the Tenancy escheats now the Seignory is extinct and so the Condition annexed to it But as to that it may be answered That our Case cannot be resembled to the Cases at Common Law but rests upon the Statute of 27 H. 8. scil Cestuy que use shall stand and be seised deemed and adjudged in lawful seisin estate and possession of and in such Lands to all intents constructions and purposes in Law of an in such like estates as he had in the use and that the estate right title and possession that was in the Feoffee shall be clearly deemed and adjudged to be in Cestuy que use after such quality manner form and condition as he had in the use And therefore in the common assurance by bargain and sale by Deed enrolled if such assurance be made upon Condition As in case of Mortgage the possession is not raised by the Bargainee but by the Bargain an use is raised to the Bargainee and the possession executed to it by the Statute and the Condition which was annexed to the use only is now conjoyned to the possession and so it hath been adjudged So if the Feoffees to use before the Statute had made a Lease for life the Lessee commits Wast the Statute comes now Cestuy que use which was shall have an Action to Wast as it was ajudged in Iustice
Bench. WIlliam Wade brought an Action of Debt against Presthall the Defendant pleaded That he was attainted of Treason Debt Ante 326. not restored nor pardoned and demanded Iudgment if he should be put to answer upon which the Plaintiff did demur It was argued for the Plaintiff that the Plea is not good for the Defendant shall not take benefit of his own wrong A person attainted gives his goods Plea in disability of himself not aâ—loâ—ed he shall not avoid it A Woman takes a Husband thereby she hath abated her own Writ It is true That a person attainted is a dead man it is so as to himself but not as to others 33 H. 6. a person attainted is murdered his Wife shall have an Appeal so as to all respects he is not dead and although as yet the Plaintiff cannot have any Execution against the Defendant yet here is a possibility to have Execution if the Defendant get his pardon As a man shall have Warrantia Chartae although he be not impleaded and yet cannot have Execution but there is a possibility to have Execution 22 E. 3. 19. A Rent granted to one in Fee upon condition that if the Grantee die his heir within age that the Rent shall cease during the nonage the Grantee dieth his heir within age his Wife brought Dower presently and recovered and yet she cannot have Execution but yet there is a possibility to have Execution viz. upon the full age of the heir Coke contr By his Attainder he hath lost his Goods Lands Life Degree for he is now become Terrae filius and he cannot draw blood from his Father nor afford blood to his Son or his posterity so as he hath neither Ancestor nor Heir and as to the possibility the same is very remote for the Law doth not intend that he shall be pardoned and see 6 H. 4 64. A man committed a Felony and afterwards committed another Felony and after is attainted of one of them he shall not be put to answer to the other but if he obtain his Charter of pardon he shall answer to the other See also 10 H. 4. 227. tit Coronae Popham Attorney General The Defendant ought to answer for none shall have advantage of his own wrong The Plaintiff is made a Knight pendant the Writ it shall abate because his own Act but here Treasons are so heinous that none shall have ease benefit or discharge thereby And if the Defendant shall not be put to answer until he hath his pardon then the Action is now suspended and an Action personal once suspended is gone for ever and he cited 29 E. 3. 61. in the Book of Assizes where it is said by Sharp Execution upon a Statute may be sued against a man attainted and he said Execution against a person Attainted That if the Enemy of the King comes into England and becomes bounden to a Subject in twenty pounds he shall be put to answer notwithstanding that interest that the King hath in him Harris Serjeant to the same intent he conceived by 33 H. 6. 1. That Traitors are to answer for if Traitors break the Goal the Goaler shall answer for their escape for the Goaler hath remedy against them contrary of the Kings Enemies Burchets Case and he cited the case of one Burchet who being attainted of Treason struck another in the Tower for which notwithstanding his Attainder he was put to answer Egerton Solicitor General And he said That the Action is not suspended but in as much as every Action is used to recover a thing detained or to satisfie a wrong if it can appear that the party cannot be satisfied according to his case he shall not proceed And in this case the Plaintiff if he should obtain Iudgment could not have Execution by the Common Law Ante 213. for he hath no Goods nor by the Statute of Westm 2. by Elegit for he hath no Lands nor by the Statute of 25 E. 3. by his body for it is at the Kings pleasure and then to what purpose shall the Plaintiff sue and it is a general Rule Regula That in all Actions where the thing demanded cannot be had or the person against whom the thing is demanded cannot yield the thing that the Writ shall abate As in a Writ of Annuity by Grantee of an Annuity for years the term expireth the Writ shall abate Abatement of Writ Tenant in special tail brings Wast and pendant the Writ his issue dieth the Writ shall abate c. 2 E. 4. 1. A man Outlawed of Felony pleaded in dis-affirmance of the Outlawry and yet he was not put to answer until he had his pardon and then he shall answer And as to the Case of 33 H. 6. 1. It doth not appear that the Traitors were attainted and then there is good remedy enough And Burchets Case cannot be resembled to our Case for although that by the Attainder the body of the party might be at the Kings pleasure yet his body may be punished for another offence for the example of others And as to Tressels Case who in such case was put to answer I grant it for he concluded Iudgment if Action and so admitted him a person able to answer and then it could not be a good plea in Bar. And in Ognels Case the Retorn of the Sheriff shall bind them for upon Process against a person attainted they returned Cepi where they ought to have returned the special matter without a Cepi but now this general Return shall bind them and by that he shall be concluded to say that the party was not in Execution And this Plea is not any disabling of the Defendant but he informs the Iudges that he is not a person able to answer to the Plaintiff As in a Praecipe quod reddat the party pleads Non-tenure the same is no disabling of his person but a shewing to the Court that he cannot yield to the party his demand A man shall not take advantage of his own wrong i. in the same thing in which the wrong is supposed or against him against whom the wrong is supposed to be done but in other Cases he shall take advantage of his own wrong as Littleton If a Lease for life be made the Remainder over in Fee and he in the Remainder entreth upon Tenant for life and disseiseth him the same is a good Seisin Cases where a man shall take advantage of his own wrong Marbery and Worrals Case upon which he may have a Writ of Right Littleton 112. 35 E. 3. Droit 30. And yet this Seisin was by wrong And there was a Case betwixt Marbery and Worral in the Exchequer The Lessor entred upon his Lessee for life made a Feoffment in Fee with clause of Re-entry the Lessee re-entred the Lessor at the day came upon the Land and demanded the Rent which was not paid it was holden the same is a good demand of the Rent and yet
formally expressed in the usual Terms As to the second payment Where a man bargains and sells his Lands by Deed indented to be enroled and before enrolment he makes Livery to the Bargainee and afterwards the Indentur is enroled the Court discharged Beamount from the arguing of that Point Liveâ—y where it prevents operation of an Enrolment for by Wray the Livery doth prevent the operation of the Enrolment and Sir George shall be accounted in by the Livery and not by the bargain and sale for Livery is of more worth and more worthy ceremony to pass estates and therefore shall be preferred and then the Livery being made in such part of the Mannor which was in the possession of the Feoffor in the name of the whole Mannor no more of the Mannor passeth but that which was then in the possession of the Feoffor And the Reversion of such part of the Mannor which was in Lease shall not pass without Attornment but when the Enrolment cometh now the whole passeth and then the Reversion being setled by the Enrolment the Attornment coming afterwards hath no relation See 48 E. 3. 15 16. The Iury here have found the default of payment whereby the conditional use which passed by the bargain and sale upon the condition broken shall be reduced to the Bargainor without any Entry 1. Cro. 382. and then the uses limited after are void for an use limited upon an use cannot rise quod fuit concessum per totam curiam Then Bracebridge the Father having the Inheritance of the said Mannor in his own right and the interest de futuro for years in the right of his Wife joyntly with the said A. when he sells the said Mannor by Deed indented and enroled now thereby the interest for years which he hath in the Right of his Wife doth not pass for a bargain and sale is not so strong a conveyance as a Livery As if I have a Rent-charge in the right of my Wife out of the Manor of D. which Manor afterwards I purchase and afterwards by Deed indented and enroled I bargain and sell the said Manor c. the Rent shall not pass Then the said Thomas Bracebridge the Father having the said Right of an entail to him and to the Heirs Males of his body and being Tenant for life by his own conveyance the Remainder in tail to his Son and Heir apparent the now Defendant when he levyeth a Fine and the Son enters for forfeiture before Proclamations pass and his Father dyeth in that case the Defendant is not remitted unto the first entail although after Proclamations pass in the life of the Father and so he shall not avoid the Leases for notwithstanding that the Issue in tail by that Entry hath defeated the possession which passed by the Fine yet as to the right of the old entail the Fine doth retain its force and so he entred quodam modo in assurance of the Fine As if Tenant in tail doth discontinue and disseiseth the Discontinuee and levieth a Fine with Proclamations and the Discontinuee enters within the five years now although the Fine as to the Discontinuee be avoided so as the possession which passed by the Fine is defeated yet the right of the entail doth continue bound Egerton Solicitor contrary and he conceived that all the Mannor doth pass by the Livery to Sir George and nothing of it by the Enrolment and that the meaning of the parties was that all should pass by the Livery for if the assurance should enure by the bargain and sale then the second uses limited upon default of payment should never rise for an use upon an use cannot rise and then the said uses limited for the payment of the debts of the Feoffor c. should be defeated and also where at the begining of the assurance the condition was entire the warranty entire c. and if such construction should be allowed here shall be a divided condition a divided warranty And also the meaning of the parties that the whole Mannor should pass by such construction should be dismembred and part pass by the Livery and part by the bargain and sale and we ought to make such constructions of Deeds that things may pass by them according to the meanings of the parties as if I be seised of a Mannor to which and Advowson is appendant and I make a Deed of Feoffment of the same Mannor cum pertinencijs and deliver the Deed to the party but no Livery of seisin is had the Advowson shall not pass for then it should be in gross whereas the meaning of the parties was that it should pass as appendant and that in such case cannot be for there is no Livery therefore it shall not pass at all and so it hath been adjudged So if I bargain and sell my Mannor of D. and all the Trees in the same and I deliver the Deed but it is not enrolled the Trees shall not pass for the intent of the parties was that the Trees should pass as parcel of the Free-hold and not as Chattels And as to the remitter I conceive that the Heir entring as Heir by the Law is remitted but where the Entry is given by a special Statute there the Entry shall not enure further than the words of the Statute As Land is given to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the Husband levieth a Fine and dieth the wife entreth this Entry shall not avail to the issue in tail for the Entry is given to the Wife by a special Law And he cited Sir Richard Haddons Case the Husband aliened the Lands of his Wife they are divorced the Husband dieth the Wife shall not enter by 32. H. 8. but is put to her Writ of Cui in vita ante divor And afterwards the same Term the Iustices having considered of the Case delivered their opinions upon the matters by Wray chief Iustice viz. That the one moyety of the Lease was extinct by the Livery viz. the moyety of Ioyce the Wife of the Lessor and as to the other moyety it is in being for here is no remitter for if any remitter had been in the Case it should be after the use raised which is not as yet raised for the Land ought to remain in Sir George until the said five hundred pounds be levyed and that is not found by the Verdict and therefore for the said moyety the Plaintiff had Iudgment XI Treshams Case Mich 25 26 Eliz. in the Exchequer SIR John Tresham seised of the Manor of D. holden of the King in Capite by Knights service 4 H. 7. enfeoffed Edmund Earl of Wilts and N. Vaux Knight who gave the said Manor to the said Sir John in tail upon condition that he should not alien c. quo minus c. John Tresham dyed seised by whose decease the Manor descended to Tho. Tresham who entred 2 Len. 55 56. and 18 H. 8. aliened with
Tanfield contrary I confess that the Father ought to have the marriage of his Son and Heir so long as he is sub potestate patris but here the Father hath committed all his interest power and authority in his Son to the Defendant his Master with whom he hath bound his Son Apprentice for seven years during which term the Father hath not any thing to do with his Son or his Marriage Wray The Action Quare filium haeredem c. is not given to the Father because his marriage belongs to him but because of the Education and such was the opinion of Clench Iustice and the marriage doth not belong properly to the Father For if the Son marrieth himself without the leave of the Father there is not any remedy for the Father And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff LXIV Bullers Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. â—â—â—â—evin EDmund Buller brought a Replevin against two who make Conusans as Baylies to A. for rent arrear reserved upon a lease for life To which the Plaintiff in Bar of the Conusans pleaded that two strangers had right of Entry in the place where 2 Len. 196. c. and that the said two Defendants by their Commandment entred c. and took the Cattle of which the Replevin is brought damage feasant absque hoc that they took them as Baylies to the said A. and upon that Traverse the Defendants did demur in Law. 2 Len. 216. Post 327. Shuttleworth Serjeant the Traverse is not good for by that means the intent of the party shall be put in issue which no Iury can try but only in Case of Recaption See 7 H. 4. 101. by Gascoign If the Bayly upon the distress shews the cause and reason of it he cannot afterwards vary from it but the other party may trice him by Traverse but if he distrain generally without shewing cause then he is at large to shew what cause he will and the other party shall answer to it â— Co. 7â— And it was said by the Court that when a Bayly distreins he ought if he be required to shew the cause of his distress but if he be not required then he is not tied to do it Anderson We were all agreed in the Case betwixt Lowin and Hordin that the Traverse as it is here was well taken The Number Roll of that Case is M. 28 29 Eliz. 2494. LXV Hudson and Leighs Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HUdson recovered against Leigh in an Action of Battery for which a Capias pro fine issued against Leigh and also a Capias ad Satisfaciendum returnable the same Term at one and the same Return Process As to the Capias pro fine the Sheriff returned Cepi and as to the Capias ad Satisfaciendum non est inventus And for this contrariety of the Return the Court was of opinion that the Sheriff should be amerced but it was moved by the Council of the Sheriff Return of the Sheriff that the awarding of the Capias pro fine was meerly void for the Fine is pardoned by the Parliament And it is also Enacted That all process awarded upon such Fines shall be void and then the Capias pro fine being void it matters not how or in what manner it be returned for the Court shall not respect such process nor any return of it and then the Court not having resepect to that Return there is not any contrariety for the Capias ad Satisfaciendum only is returned and not the Capias pro fine And at another day it was moved again the Battery was supposed Junij 1586. and Iudgment given the thirteenth of February the same year upon which issued Capias pro fine Escape 5 Co. â—â— and before the Return thereof the Parliament ended which pardoned such Fines and made all process thereupon void And it was said by the Court that if the Sheriff in such Case takes the party by a Capias pro fine now upon that taking he is in Execution for the party and if the Sheriff let him go at large he shall answer for the escape And in that case the Capias pro fine was well awarded and the Court ought to regard it and the Defendant lawfully taken by virtue of it and also in execution for the party in Iudgment of Law and afterward when the Parliament came and Enacted ut supra although the process be made void thereby the same ought to be meant as to the interest of the King in the Fine and the vexation of the Subject by it but not as to the Execution of the party but the Sheriff shall answer for that Execution And it was also holden by the Court that if the Plaintiff sueth an Elegit then upon the Capias pro fine executed the Defendant shall not be adjudged in Execution for the party for he hath made his Election of another manner of Execution scil of the Land and he shall never resort to an Execution of the body 13 H 7. 12. And as our case is there was an Elegit obtained but it was not on Record nor any Record made of it and therefore the election of the Execution remained to the Plaintiff And as to the point aforesaid that such process shall be void as to the King only not as to the party See now 5 Ja. C. 6. part 79. Sir Edward Phittons Case LXVI Potter and Stedals Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trepass by Samuel Potter against Stedal the Case was Trespass Tenant for life of Land leased parcel thereof to hold at Will and being in possession of the residue levyed a Fine of the whole the Lessor entred into the Land which was let at will in point of forfeiture in the name of the whole it was holden the same is a good entry for the whole Ante 56. But if the Disseisor leaseth for years part of the Land whereof the disseisin was committed Entry 1 Inst 252. and the disseisee afterwards entreth into the Land which continueth in the possession of the Disseisor in the name of the whole the same Entry shall not extend to the Land leased for here the Lessee is in by title but in the other Case not for when Tenant for life leaseth it at will and afterwards levies a Fine the same is a determination of the Will. 16 Eliz. Dyer 377. 1. In the same plea it was holden that if there be lessee for life the remainder for life the remainder in fee Lessee for life in possession levyeth a Fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to his own use upon that Fine a Fee-simple accrues LXVII Leigh and Hanmers Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt upon a Recognizance THomas Leigh Esquire brought an Action of Debt upon a Recognizance in the nature of a Statute Staple against John Hanmer Esquire before the Mayor and Aldermen
one of them dieth her Heir within age and in Ward to the King The Church voideth and the King is disturbed in his presentment he shall have a Scire facias upon such composition notwithstanding that he be a stranger to it See F.N.B. 34 H. And by all the Iustices if one recover in Debt upon a simple contract and before execution the Plaintiff is out-lawed in an Action personal the King shall sue execution And see 37 H. 6. 26. Where in Debt upon an Obligation it was surmised to the Court that the Plaintiff was out-lawed And the Kings Attorney prayed delivery of the Obligation c. LXXXV Moile and the Earl of Warwicks Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Quare Impedit A Quare Impedit was brought by Walter Moile against Ambrose Earl of Warwick and the Archbishop of Canterbury And now came the Serjeanes of the Queen and shewed an Office to entitle the Queen to have a Writ to the Bishop containing such matter viz. That one Guilford was seised of the Manor of D. to which the Advowson of the Church was appendant and that Manor was holden in chief by Knights service and that Guilford and his Wife levied a Fine thereof to the use of themselves for their lives the remainder over in tail to their eldest Son and that Guilford is dead but who is his next Heir ignorant And it was shewed by the Council of the other side that the truth of the Case was that the said Guilford was seised of the said Manor in the right of his Wife and so levied the Fine in which Case the said coveyance is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. for it was for the advancement of the Husband not of the Wife which Anderson granted Vide Dyer 19 Eliz. 354. Caverlies Case but that is not in the Office And it was moved at the Bar that the Office is imperfect because no Heir is found But Anderson the Office is sufficient for the King to seise although it be insufficient for the Heir c. And it was agreed by the whole Court Office trove that the Court ought not to receive the Office although one would affirm upon oath that it is the very Office but it ought to be brought in under the Great Seal of England and also the Court shall not receive it without a Writ and yet Nelson Prothonotary said that the Statute of Huy and Cry of Winchester was brought into the Court without a Writ under the great Seal A Record not to be brought into Court without a Writ 63. and that was out of the Tower And in that Case also the Iustices held that if a Record be pleaded in the same Court where it abides the other party against whom it is pleaded may plead Nul tiel Record as if the said Record had bin remaining in another Court which all the Prothonotaries denied that always it had been used to the contrary At another day the Case was moved again The Plaintiff in the Quare Impedit counted that Richard Guilford was seised of the said Manor c. in the right of Bennet his Wife and so seised they both levied a Fine thereof to a stranger Sur Conusans de droit come ceo who rendred it to the Husband and Wife for their lives the remainder to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband and they so being seised the Husband alone levied a Fine to a stranger Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. and by the same Fine the Conusee rendred to the Husband and Wife in tail the remainder to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband the Husband died seised the Wife entred and leased the said Manor to the Plaintiff and then the Church did become void And now the Queens Serjeants came and shewed unto the Court an Office which came in by Mittimus In which Writ the perclose is Mandamus vobis quod inspectis c. pro nobis fieri faciatis quod secundum leges consuetudinem Regni nostri Angliae faciend Statuetis And the Office did purport that the said Richard was seised of the said Manor and held the same of the Queen as of her Castle of Dover by Knights service in chief and levied the Fine ut supra and that the said Richard died sed quis sit propinquior haeres dict Ric. penitus ignorant and upon that Office prayed a Writ to the Bishop for the Queen And two Exceptions were taken to the Office First because it is not found by the said Office that the said Richard died seised 1 Cro. 895. in which Case it may be for any thing that appeareth in the Office that the said Richard after the said Fine had conveyed his estate in the said Lands unto others or that he was disseised c. See 3 H. 6. 5. If it be not found of what estate the Tenant of the King died seised the Office is insufficient But see there by Martin that such an Office is good enough for the King but not for the Heir to sue his Livery upon it And by Anderson Periam and Rhodes that defect in the Office is supplyed by the Count for there it is expressly alledged that the said Richard died seised Secondly because no Heir is found by the said Office. To which it was said by the Lord Anderson that peradventure at the Common Law the same had been a material Exception But we ought to respect the Statutes of 32 and 34 H. 8. of Wills. And therefore as to the Wife the Queen is entitled to Primer seisin because the conveyance was made for her advancement And by Windham the Queen in this Cale shall not have Primer seisin for by the Statute the Queen shall not have Primer seisin but in such Case where if no conveyance had been made the Queen should have had Primer seisin but in this Case for any thing that appears before us if this conveyance had not been made the Queen should not have had Primer seisin forasmuch as no Heir is found and if he died without Heir there is no Primer seisin because there is not any in rerum natura to sue livery Rhodes Periam and Anderson contrary Admitting that Richard died withou Heir the Queen shall have Primer seisin against the Wife of Richard notwithstanding the escheat Walmesley Serjeant If the Tenant of the King by Knights service in chief dieth seised of other Lands holden of a common person by Knights service without Heirs the King shall not have Primer seisin of such Lands holden of a Subject which Windham granted But by Anderson the Lord is put to sue an Ouster le mayne of the Land holden of him And afterward Exception was taken to the Count because the Plaintiff hath not averred the life of the Tenant in tail that is of Bennet the Wife of Richard to whom
amount to a Re-entry And afterwards to prove a Re-entry it was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part that the Defendant put in his Cattel in the Field where the Brick-kill was and that the Cattel did estray into the place where the Defendant had supposed that the Plaintiff had entred And by Anderson Iustice the same is not any Re-entry to revive the Rent because they were not put into the same place by the Lessee himself but went there of their own accord And such also was the opinion of Iustice Periam CL. Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail covenanted with his Son to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son in tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father The Father levyed a Fine with proclamation and died It was moved by Fenner if any estate passed to the Son by the Covenant for it is not a discontinuance and so nothing passed but during his life and all the estates which are to begin after his death are void Anderson The estate passeth until c. and he cited the case of one Pitts where it was adjudged that if Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grant the same in Fee and an Ancestor collateral releaseth with warranty and dieth That the same is a good Bar for ever CLI Staffords Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe case was Attachment upon a Prohibition More 599. that the Parson of the Church of B. did libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for Ttithe-milk of eight Kine depasturing within such a Field within his Parish The Defendant said that he and all those c. had used time out of mind c. to pay every year a certain sum of mony to the Parson c. for the Tithes of the same Field which plea the Iudges of the Ecclesiastical Court would not allow and therefore the party had now a Prohibition and an Injunction against the Iudges Doctors Proctors c. And afterwards the same Parson libelled again for the same Tithes against the same Parishioner and in both libels there was no difference but that in the later libel it was for a less number of Kine and now the Parishioner upon this matter prayed an Attachment upon the Prohibition which was granted unto him by the Court for otherwise a Prohibition should be granted to no purpose CLII. Samford and Wards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SAmford brought a Ravishment of Ward against Ward Ravishment of Ward and counted hat one A. Ancestor of the Infant whose Heir he is was seised of certain Lands in Fee and held the same of the Bishop of Winchester in Socage and died his Heir within the age of 14 years and that the custody of the Infant did belong unto him as his prochein Amy by force of which he seised him and was possessed c. The Defendant saith that the Land was holden of him by Knights service absque hoc that it is holden of the Bishop of Winchester as the Plaintiff hath counted And upon the Issue was joyned And it was moved by Serjant Puckering on the Plaintiffs part that the truth of the Case was that all the Land descended is holden in Socage and no part in Knights service but that part of it is holden of another in Socage And prayed the opinion of the Court if that matter shall trench to the Issue as the same is joyned And the Court was of opinion that it did not for if all be holden in Socage it is not material if part of it be holden of another so as it be holden in Socage CLIII Stamp and Hutchins Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was the Obligor makes his Executors and dieth 1 Cro. 120. the Executors become bounden to the Obligee for the payment of the said Debt and the Obligee doth deliver back the Obligation of the Testator to them and afterwards another Creditor of the Testator sues the Executors who pleaded that they have fully administred upon which they are at issue and the said especial matter was found by verdict And by Shuttleworth and Walmesley The Iury have found for the Plaintiff and that the Defendants have not fully administred And yet they agreed the case of 20 H. 7. 2. The Executors paying to the Creditors of the Testator a Debt with their own goods they may retain so much of the goods of the Testator but that case is not like to this for here the Executors have not made any payment or satisfaction of the Debt nor disbursed any mony c. nor other things but only have made an Obligation to pay a sum of mony at a day to come before which day it may happen that the Obligation be cancelled or released but it may more fitly be compared to the case of 27 H. 8. 6. where an Executor had compounded with a Creditor of the Testator for the payment of 20 l. for a debt of 40 l. and had an Acquitance testifying the payment of the 40 l. where it was holden that the other 20 l. is Assets And by Rhodes this making of an Obligation by Executors Administration Assets although the Obligation in which the Testator was bounden be delivered to the Executors and cancelled is not any administration nor payment of the said debt due So if the Executors pledge the goods for the payment of such a debt yet they shall be accounted Assets until payment be made which Periam denied And Periam and all the other Iustices held clearly Retainer by administrations that if in such case the Executors make a sufficient Obligation to the Creditor of the Testator and sufficiently discharge the Testator without fraud or covin that they may retain the goods of the Testator for so much and the goods retained shall not be said Assets And this case is all one with the case of 20 H. 7. for here they have discharged the Testator and the Executors do remain charged with the same to the Creditor and it is so fully administred as if the Executors had expresly paid the debt And it is not like to the case of 27 H. 8. cited before for there although they have discharged the Testator yet they have not charged themselves otherwise it is in the principal case and although they have appointed ulteriorem diem for the payment of the said debt yet the same is not material But the Lord Anderson conceived that if the Creditor doth deliver unto the Executors the Obligation as an Accquittance or discharge and in consideration thereof they promise to pay the debt the same is not any administration as to the said debt And by some of the Serjants If the plea stand good to prove fully administred then Executors in such case may make an Obligation to pay the debt 40 years after and so defraud the other Creditors which is not reasonable If a Feoffment in Fee
otherwise it should be idle And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Queen CLXIII Piers and Leversuchs Case In Ejectione firmae Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IT was found by special verdict that one Robert Leversuch Grand-father of the Defendant was Tenant in tail of certain Lands whereof c. and made a Lease for years to one Pur. who assigned it over to P. father of the Plaintiff Robert Leversuch died W. his Son and Heir entred upon P. who re-entred W. demised without other words the Land to the said 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 therein to enter and deliver seisin accordingly P. died before that the Livery was executed and afterwards the Attorney made livery to Joan. W. died Ed. his Son and Heir entred upon the Wife she re-entred and leased to the Plaintiff who upon an ouster brought the Action Heale 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 of W. Leversuch the issue in tail was taken away 3 Cro. 222. Cook contrary P. by his entry was not a disseisor but at the Election of W. for when P. accepted such a deed from W. it appeareth 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 and it was the Case of Shipwith Grand-father Tenant in tail Father and Son The Grand-father died the Father entred and paid the Rent to the Lessor and died in possession and adjudged that it was not any descent for the paying of the Rent doth explain by what title he entred and so he shall not be a Disseisor but at the Election of another CLXIV Severn and Clerks Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. â—ts THe Case was that A. by his Deed Poll recited That whereas he was possessed of certain Lands for years of a certain Term By good and lawful conveyance he assigned the same to I. S. with divers Covenants Articles and Agreements in the said deed contained which are or ought to be performed on his part It was moved if this recital whereas he was be an Article or Agreement within the meaning of the condition of the said Obligation which was given to perform c. Gawdy conceived that it is an agreement For in such case I agree that I am possessed of it for every thing contained in the deed is an Agreement and not only that which I am bound to perform As if I recite by my deed that I am possessed of such an interest in certain Land and assign it over by the same deed and thereby covenant to perform all Agreements in the deed if I be not possessed of such Interest the covenant is broken And it was moved if that recital be within these words of the condition which are or ought to be performed on my part And some were of opinion that it is not within those words for that extends only in futurum but this recital is of a thing past or at the least present Recital 2 Cro. 281. Yyl. 206. Clench Recital of it self is nothing but being joyned and considered with the rest of the deed it is material as here for against this recital he cannot say that he hath not any thing in the Term. And at the length it was clearly resolved that if the party had not that Interest by a good and lawful conveyance the Obligation was forfeited CLXV Page and Jourdens Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trepass betwixt Page and Jourden the case was A Woman Tenant in tail took a Husband who made a Feoffment in Fee and died The Wife without any Entry made a Lease for years It was moved that the making of this Lease is an Entry in Law. As if A. make a Lease for years of the Land of B. who enters by force of that Lease A general entry amounts to a disseisin now the Lessor without any Entry is a Disseisor And it was resolved that by that Leasâ— the Free-hold is not reduced without an Entry CLXVI Havithlome and Harvies Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 9. 1 Cro. 130. 3 Cro. Goodwin vers West HAvithlome brought an Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 9. against Harvy and his Wife for the penalty of ten pounds given by the said Statute against him who was served with process ad testificandum c. and doth not appear not having any impediment c. and shewed that process was served upon the Defendants Wife and sufficient charges having regard to her degree and the distance of the place c. tendred to her and yet she did not appear And it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Declaration is not good because the Plaintiff in setting forth that he was damaged for the not appearance of the Wife according to the process hath not shewed how damnified Also it was moved that a Feme Covert is not within the said Statute for no mention is made of a Feme Covert and therefore upon the Statute of West 2. cap. 25. If a Feme Covert fail of her Record she shall not be holden disseisseress nor imprisoned Also here the Declaration is that the Plaintiff tendered the charges to the Wife where he ought to have tendered the same to the Husband To these three Exceptions it was answered 1. That although the party be not at all damnified yet the penalty is forfeited 2. Feme Coverts are within the said Statute otherwise it should be a great mischeif for it might be that she might be the only witness And Feme Coverts if they had not been expresly excepted had been within the Statute of 4 H. 7. of Fines 3. The wife ought to appear therefore the tender ought to be to her And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXVII Dellaby and Hassels Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case 1 Cro. 132. the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant in consideration that he had retained the Plaintiff to go from London to Paris to Merchandize diverse goods to the profit of the Defendant promised to give to him so much as should content him and also to give him all and every sum of money which he should expend there in his Affairs and further declared that he was contented to have twenty-pounds for his labour which the Defendant refused to pay And exception was taken to the Declaration because there is
the limitation for the life of the Wife cannot extend to both And as to the Book of 24 H. 8. Br. Forfeiture 87. 3 Cro. 167 168. Tenant for life aliens in Fee to B. Habendum sibi haeredibus suis for Term of the life of the Tenant for life the same is not a forfeiture for the whole is but the limitation of the estate And afterwards it was adjudged that it was a forfeiture Gawdy continuing in his former opinion And VVray said that he had conferred with the other Iudges of their House and they all held clearly that it is a forfeiture CLXXII Toft and Tompkins Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Rot. 528. UPon a special Verdict the case was that the Grand-father Tenant for life the Remainder to the Father in tail Discontinuance 1 Cro. 135. that the Grand-father made a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the Father in Fee And afterwards they both came upon the Land and made a Feoffment to Tompkins the Defendant Coke There is not any discontinuance upon this matter for the Father might well wave the advantage of the forfeiture committed by the Grand-father then when the Father joyns with the Grand-father in a Feoffment the same declares that he came upon the Land without intent to enter for a forfeiture It was one Waynmans Case adjudged in the common Pleas where the Disseissee cometh upon the Land to deliver a Release to the Disseissor that the same is no Entry to revest the Land in the Disseissee Then here it is the Livery of the Tenant for life and the grant of him in the Remainder and he in the Remainder here was never seised by force of the tail and so no discontinuance Godfrey Here is a Remitter by the Entry and afterwards a discontinuance for by the Entry of both the Law shall adjudge the possession in him who hath right c. Gawdy This is a discontinuance for when the Father entreth ut supra he shall be adjudged in by the forfeiture and then he hath gained a possession and so a discontinuance for both cannot have the possession Clench The intent of him in the Remainder when he entred was to joyn with the Grand-father and when his intent appeareth that the estate of the Grand-father and his own also shall passe that doth declare that he would not enter for the forfeiture Shute agreed with Gawdy CLXXIII Broake and Doughties Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 798. Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Case for words Action upon the Case for words 1 Cro. 135. viz. Thou wast forsworn in the Court of Requests and I will make thee stand upon a Stage for it It was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Action will not lye for these words for he doth not say that he was there forsworn as Defendant or witness And Trin. 28 Eliz. betwixt Hern and Hex thou wast forsworn in the Court of Whitchurch And Iudgment given against the Plaintiff for the words are not Actionable and as to the residue of the words I will make thee stand upon the Stage for it they are not Actionable as it was adjudged between Rylie and Trowgood If thou hadst Iustice thou hadst stood on the Pillory and Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Daniel contrary thou wast forsworn before my Lord chief Iustice in an Evidence these words are Actionable for that is perjury upon the matter and between Foster and Thorne T. 23 Eliz. Rot. 882. Thou wast falsly forsworn in the Star-Chamber the Plaintiff had Iudgment for it shall be intended that the Plaintiff was Defendant or a Deponent there And yet the words in the Declaration are not in the Court of Star-Chamber Wray Thou art worthy to stand upon the Pillory are not Actionable for it is but an implication but in the words in the Case at the Bar there is a vehement intendment that his Oath was in the quality of a Defendant or Deponent which Gawdy granted In the Case 28 Eliz. Thou wast forsworn in Whit-Church Court there the words are not actionable for that Court is not known to you as Iudges And it may be it is but a great House or Mansion house called Whit-church Court But here in the principal case it cannot be meant but a Court of Iustice and before the Iudges there juridice and the subsequent words sound so much I will make thee stand upon a Stage for it And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXXIV Gatefould and Penns Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Prescription for tythes 1 Cro. 136. 3 Len. 203 265. Antea 94. GAtefould Parson of North-linne libelled against Penne in the spiritual Court for tythes in Kind of certain pastures The Defendant to have prohibition doth surmise that he is Inhabitant of South-linne and that time out of mind c. every Inhabitant of South-linne having pastures in North-linne hath paid tythes in Kind for them unto the Vicars of South-linne where he is not resident and the Vicar hath also time out of mind payed to the Parson of North-linne for the time being two pence for every acre Lewis This surmise is not sufficient to have a prohibition for upon that matter Modus Decimandi shall never come in question but only the right of tythes if they belong to the Parson of North-linne or to the Vicar of South-linne and he might have pleaded this matter in the spiritual Court because it toucheth the right of tythes as it was certified in the Case of Bashly by the Doctors of the Civil Law. Gawdy This prescription doth stand with reason for such benefit hath the Parson of North-linne if any Inhabitant there hath any Pastures in South-linne And afterwards the whole Court was against the prohibition for Modus Decimandi shall never come in debate upon this matter but who shall have the tythes the Vicar of South-linne or the Parson of North-linne and also the prescription is not reasonable CLXXV Gomersal and Bishops Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 175. Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 136. BIshop libelled in the Spiritual Court for tythe Hay the Plaintiff Gomersal made a surmise that there was an agreement betwixt the said parties and for the yearly sum of seven shillings to be paid by Gomersal unto Bishop Bishop faithfully promised to Gomersal that Gomersal should have the tythes of the said Land during his life And upon an Attachment upon a Prohibition Gomersal declared that for the said annual sum Bishop leased to the Plaintiff the said tythes for his life And upon the Declaration Bishop did demur in Law for the variance between the Surmise and the Declaration for in the Surmise a promise is supposed for which Gomersal might have an Action upon the Case and in the Declaration a Lease But note that the Surmise was not entred in the Roll but was recorded
plead it specially but as our case is here is no Act to be done but a permittance as abovesaid and it is in the Negative not a disturbance in which case permisit is a good plea and then it shall come on the other side on the Plaintiffs part to shew in what Lands the Defendant non permisit Which difference see agreed 17 E. 4. 26. by the whole Court. And such was the opinion of the whole Court in the principal case 1 Co. 127. Another Exception was taken to it that the Defendant had covenanted that his brother Edward should pay to the Plaintiff the said Rent To which the Defendant pleaded that his said brother had payed to the Platntiff before the said Feast of Michaelmas in full satisfaction of the said Rent three shillings and that was holden a good plea and upon the matter the Covenant well performed for there is not any Rent in this Case for here is not any Lease and therefore not any Rent For if A. covenant with B. that C. shall have his Land for so many years rendring such a Rent 1 Roll. 847. 1 Cro. 173. Owen 97. here is not any Lease and therefore neither Rent But if A. had covenanted with C. himself it had been otherwise because it is betwixt the same parties And if the Lessee covenant to pay his Rent to the Lessor and he payeth it before the day the same is not any performance of the Covenant causa patet contrary of a sum in gross Another Covenant was that the said Humphry solveret ex parte dicti Edwardi 20 l. to which the Defendant pleaded that he had paid ex parte dicti Humfridi 20 l. and that defect was holden incureable and therefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CLXXXVII Geslin and Warburtons Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 128. IN an Ejectione firmae by Joan Geslin against Hen. Warburton and Sebastian Crispe of Lands in Dickilborough in the County of Norf. Mich. 30. 31 Eliz. rot 333. upon the general Issue the Iury found a special verdict that before the Trespass supposed one Martin Frenze was seised of the Lands of which the Action was brought in tail to him and his Heirs males of his body so seised suffered a common Recovery to his own use Devises and afterwards devised the same in this manner I give my said Land to Margaret my Wife until such time as Prudence my Daughter shall accomplish the age of nineteen years the Reversion to the said Prudence my Daughter and to the Heirs of her body Lawfully begotten upon condition that she the said Prudence shall pay unto my said Wife yearly during her life in recompence of her Dower of and in all my Lands 12 pounds and if default of payment be made then I will that my said Wife shall enter and have all my Lands during her life c. the Remainder ut supra the Remainder to John Frenze in tail c. Martin Frenze died Margaret entred the said Prudence being within the age of fourteen years Margaret took to Husband one of the Defendants John Frenze being Heir male to the former tail brought a Writ of Error upon the said Recovery and assigned Error because the Writ of Entry upon which the Recovery was had was Praecipe quod reddat unum Messuag and twenty acras prati in Dickelborough Linford Hamblets without naming any Town And thereupon the Iudgment was reversed And it was further found that in the said Writ of Error and the process upon it Hutt 106. 2 Cro. 574. 3 Cro. 196. no Writ of Scire facias issued to warn dictam Prudentiam ten existentem liberi ten praemissorum ad ostendendam quid haberet vel dicere sciret quare Judicium praedict non reversaretur The Iury further found that the said Margaret depending the said Writ of Error was possessed virtute Testamenti ultimae voluntatis dict Martini reversione inde expectant dictae Prudentiae pro ut lex postulat And they further found Error that six pound of the said tewlve pounds were unpaid to the said Margaret at the Feast c. and they found that the said John Frenze praetextu Judicii sic reversat entred into the premisses as Heir male ut supra And so seised a Fine was levyed betwixt John Frenze Plaintiff and one Edward Tindal Owen 157. Dyer 321. 1 Cro. 471. 739. and the said Prudence his Wife Deforceants and that was to the use of the said John Frenze And that afterwards Humphry Warburton and the said Margaret his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against the said John Frenze Edw. Tindal and Prudence his Wife of the said Lands The said Edward and Prudence made default and the Demandants counted against the said Frenze and demanded against him the moity of the third part of the said Lands To which the said Frenze pleaded that the default of the said Edward and Prudence idem John Frenze nomine non debet quia he said that he the said John was sole seised of the Lands aforesaid at the time of the Writ brought c. and pleaded in Bar and it was found against the said John and Iudgment given for the Demandants of the third part of the whole Land and seisin accordingly And that afterwards 17 Eliz. the said Frenze levyed the Fine to the said Tindal to the use of the said Tindal and his Heirs And they found that after the said Feast the said Henry Warburton and Margaret his Wife came to the Messuage aforesaid half an hour before Sun-set of the said day and there did demand the Debt of the said twelve pounds Dower to the said Margaret by the said Martin Frenze devised to be paid unto them and there remained till after Sun-set of the said day demanding the Rent aforesaid and that neither the said Tindal nor any other was there ready to pay the same And first it was moved if the said yearly sum of twelve pounds appointed to be paid to the said Margaret were a Rent or but a sum in gross And the opinion of the Court was that it was a Rent and so it might be fitly collected out of the whole Will where it is said that Prudence his Daughter should have the Land and that she should pay yearly to Margaret twelve pounds in recompence of her Dower c. But if it be not a Rent but a sum in gross it is not much material to the end of the case For put case it be a Rent the same not being pleaded in Bar the Dower is well recovered and then when default of payment is made if the Wife of the Devisor shall have the whole was the Question And the Court was clear of opinion that by the suit and Iudgment in the Writ of Dower the Wife of the Devisor had lost all the benefit which was to come to her by the devise For the said Rent was devised to her in recompence of
the Plaintiff and thereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCV Read and Nashes Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an action of Trespass by Read and his Wife against Nash for entring into a house called the Dayry-house upon Not guilty pleaded The Iury found this special matter Sir Richard Gresham Knight was seised in Fee of the Mannours of I. and S. and of diverse other Lands mentioned in his Will and 3 Edw. 6. devised the same to Sir Thomas Gresham his Son for life the Remainder to the first son of the said Sir Thomas Gresham in tail the Remainder to the second son c. the Remainder to the third son c. The Remainder to Sir John Gresham his brother Proviso That if his Son go about or made any Alienations or discontinuance c. whereby the premisses cannot remain descend and come in the form as was appointed by the said Will otherwise than for Ioyntures for any of their Wives for her life only or leases for 21. years whereupon the old and accustomed Rent shall be reserved That then such person shall forfeit his estate Sir John Gresham dyed Sir Thomas Gresham his son built a new House upon the Land and 4 Mariae leased to Bellingford for one and twenty years rendring the antient Rent And afterwards 2 Eliz. he levyed a fine of the said Manours and of all his Lands and 5 Eliz. he made a Iointure to his Wife in this manner sci He covenanted with certain persons to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives and afterwards to the use of his Right Heirs and afterwards 18 Eliz. he leased unto Read and his wife for one and twenty years to begin presently which was a year before the expiration of the said Lease made unto Bellingford which Lease being expired Read entred It was argued by Cook That here upon the words contained in the Proviso Sir Thomas had power and authority not being but Tenant for life to make a Lease for years or Iointure and that upon implication of the Will which ought to be taken construed according to the intent of the parties for his meaning was to give a power as well as an estate otherwise the word otherwise should be void and it is to be observed That the parties interessed in the said conveyance were Knights and it is not very likely That the said Sir Richard Gresham did intend that they should keep the Lands in their own manurance as Husbandmen but set the same to Farm for Rent And it is great Reason although he willeâ— that the order of his Inheritance should be preserved yet to make a Provision for Iointure and it is great reason and cause to his family to enable and make them capable of great Matches which should be a strengthning to his posterity which could not be without great Iointures wherefore I conceive it reasonable to construe it so That here they have power to make Iointures for their Wives It hath been said That no grant can be taken by implication as 12 E. 3. Tit. Avow 77. Land was given to I. and A. his wife and to the heirs of the body of I. begotten and if I. A. dy without heir of their bodies betwixt them begotten that then it remain to the right heirs of I. and it was holden that the second clause did not give an estate tail to the wife by implication being in a grant but otherwise it is in Case of a devise as 13 H. 7. 17. and there is no difference as some conceive when the devise is to the heir and when to a stranger but these cases concern matter of Interest but our case concerns an Authority And admit that Sir Thomas hath power and authority to make this lease Then we are to consider if the Iointure be good for if it be Then being made before the Lease Use cannot rise out of a power it shall take effect before and the woman Iointress is found to be alive But I conceive That this Iointure is void and then the Lease shall stand for an use cannot rise out of a power but may rise out of an estate of the Testator and out of his Will 19 H. 6. A man deviseth That his Executors shall sell his reversion and they sell by Word it is a good Sale for now the Reversion passeth by the Will. But an use cannot be raised out of an use and a man cannot bargain and sell Land to another use than of the Bargainee And it is like unto the case of 10 E. 4 5. The disseisee doth release unto the disseisor rendring Rent the render is void for a rent cannot issue out of a right so an use cannot be out of a Release by the disseisee for such release to such purpose shall not enure as an Entry and Feoffment Also here after that conveyance Sir Thomas hath built and erected a New house and no new Rent is reserved upon it and therefore here it is not the ancient Rent for part of the sum is going out of the new house But as to that It was said by the Iustices do not speak to that for it appears that the Rent is well enough reserved Another matter was moved for that That a year before the Expiration of the Lease made to Billington this Lease was made to Reâ—d for 21 years to begin presently from the date of it although by the same authority he cannot make Leases in Reversion for then he might charge the Inheritance in infinitum But yet such a Lease as here is he might make well enough for this Lease is to begin presently and so no charge to him in the Reversion as in the Case betwixt Fox and Colliers upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. A Bishop makes a Lease for three years before the Expiration of a former Lease to begin presently It was holden a good Lease to bind the Successor for the Inheritance of the Bishop is not charged above one and twenty years in toto But if a Bishop make a Lease for years and afterwards makes a Lease for three lives the same is not good 8 Eliz. Dy. 246. Tenant in tail leaseth to begin at Michaelmas next ensuing for twenty years it is a good Lease by the Statute of 32 H. 8. so is a lease for 10 years and after for eleven years and yet the Statutes are in the Negative but this power in our Case is in the Affirmative and the Inheritance is not charged in the whole with more than one and twenty years CCVI. Kinnersly and Smarts Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 〈◊〉 upon a usurious Contract 1 Cro 155. IN Debt upon a Bond The Plaintiff declared That the Bond was made in London The Defendant pleaded That an usurious Contract was made betwixt the parties at D. in Stafford-shire that the Obligation was made for the same contract The Plaintiff by Replication saith that the Bond was made bona
good will of I.S. which he cannot obtain the same remainder is not good And if one covenant to stand seised to the use of Salisbury plain for the life of I. S. and after the remainder to A it is a plain case That he in the remainder shall take presently 37 H. 6. 36. Cestuy que use willed That his Feoffees should make an estate to A. for life the remainder to C. in fee A. would not take the estate C. shall have a Subpoena against the Feoffees after the death of A. See there the case And if Land deviseable be devised to one for life the Remainder over to another in Fee and the Devisee for life doth refuse Quaere if the Devisee in Remainder shall enter presently See Fitz. Subpoena And also he put the Case where Land is devised to a Monk for life the Remainder over to another in Fee he in the Remainder shall enter presently see the same Case in Perkins 108. for the Monk never took any thing by the devise notwithstanding that there is not any particular estate upon which a Remainder can depend yet the intent of the Devisor shall be observed in as much as it may and the particular estate limited to the Monk is meerly void of which every stranger shall take advantage c. And it was resembled to a Case in Baintons Case where an use in Remainder limited upon good consideration shall be good in Law although the particular use be not grounded upon good consideration so faileth And he urged a Case alleadged by Popham in the Case of the Earl of Bedford that if in Cranmers Case the estate for years limited to the Executors 2 Leâ— 5. 6. had been limited to Administrators it had been meerly void and the use in tail limited in tail should begin presently that was by reason of the interval betwixt the death of Cranmer the taking of the Letters of Administration in which mean time there is not any person capable and therefore the Remainder shall vest presently which is a fit case to prove the Case at Bar And he remembred that in the Argument of Cranmers Case Lovelace Serjeant would have an Occupancy in the Case of such a Term limited to Administrators quod omnes Justiciarii negaverunt and in the said Case of Cranmer it was holden that the Lease for years being void the estate in the Remainder did begin presently without expecting the effluxion of the years c. And truly a Term imports in it self an Interest but if the limitation had been after the Term of twenty four years c. the same implyeth but a bare time And to that purpose he cited the Case 35 H. 8. Br. Exposition 44. A. Leaseth to B. for ten years it is covenanted betwixt them that if B. pay unto A. within the said ten years one hundred pounds that then he shall be seised to the use of B. in Fee B. surrenders his Term to A. and within the said ten years pays the one hundred pounds to A. here B. shall have Fee for the years are certain contrary if the Covenant had been If he pay within the Term. Popham Attorney General Contrary The use shall not go beyond the Contract here the Term doth not vest in that it was Limited for want of sufficient consideration of the Lord Paget the intent was not that his son should have possession of the land before the term of 24. years expired Use what it is A use is a thing in Conscience according to confidence to be guided by the intent of the parties upon such Case at the Common Law W. Paget should not have a Subpoena before the years expired and this word Term doth not alter the Case and there is a great difference betwixt an use raised by Feoffment and an use raised by Covenant For in the first case the Feffor doth dipossess himself utterly if it takes not effect to one purpose it shall take effect to another purpose But in the Case of a Covenant it is otherwise for the use riseth according to the contract not otherwise here the Contract is That W. Paget shall have the Land not immediatly after the death of his Father but after the 24 years expire Owen Serjeant It hath been agreed of both sides That every use shall go according to the intent of the parties and here it appeareth That it was the intent of the Lord Paget to put all the use out of himself and I see not any difference betwixt an use raised by Covenant and a use raised by Feoffment For a use limited utrovis modo to Pauls Steeple for the life of A. and after to the use of B. in Fee the first use is void but the second good and here the meaning of the Lord Paget plainly appears for there is a Proviso in the Indenture That after the said debts and legacies paid the use limited for 24 years shall cease and it is exprestly averred that they are paid 11. H. 4. A. leaseth for life the remainder in tail to himself the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee the mean Remainder limited by A. to himself is void and the remainder over shall be immediate to the estate for life Egerton The words of the Indenture and the intent of the parties are the rules of uses The first use is void For the intent of the Lord Paget was void because contrary to the Law and Eusal to whom the use for years was limited could not take presently for his estate is limited to begin after the death of the Lord Paget and there is a great difference betwixt uses raised by Covenant and by Feoffment For when a use is raised by Feoffment there all is out of the Feoffor the land is gone the use is gone the trust is gone nothing remaineth but a bare authority to raise uses out of the possession of the Feoffees being new uses there although some of them be void yet the other shall stand but where a use is raised by way of Covenant there the covenantor continues in possession there the uses limited if they be according to Law shall raise draw the possession out of him but if not the possession shall remain in him until a lawful use shall arise which before its time shall not rise for any defect in the precedent use And here is no Term therefore no end for that which hath not a begining hath no ending And if there be no estate then no Term if there be so then it is to be taken for the time of 24. years which is not as yet expired and then was there in the Lord Pawlet an estate descendable for 24 years which by the Attainder doth accrue unto the Queen And he cited the Case of 13 Eliz. Dyer 300. Feoffment to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of a woman which he entendeth to marry until the issue which he
that they had several Estates-tail 17 E. 3. 51. 78. Land given to a man and his Sister and to the Heirs of their two Bodies issuing they have several Estates tail and yet one Formedon And see 7 H. 4. 85. Land given to a man and his Mother or to her Daughter in Tail here are several Entails And here in the principal Case Sir Thomas Cotton hath one Moyety in Tail expectant upon his Estate for life and therefore as to the Moyety of Sir Thomas Cotton he is bound by the Fine And the other Moyety is left in the Son who may enter for a Forfeiture upon the alienation made by his Father as well in the life of the Father as afterwards Now after this Fine levied the entry of VVilliam the Son by virtue of his Remainder is lawful after the death of Sir Thomas although that VVilliam the Father was beyond the Sea at the time of the Fine levied and there afterwards died VVilliam the Son being within age The words of the Statute of 4 H. 7. are Other than Women Covert or out of this Realm c. so that they or their Heirs make their Entry c. within five years after they return into this Land c. So that by the bare letter of the Act VVill. the Son hath not remedy nor relief by this Act against the Fine because that William the Father died beyond the Sea without any return into England yet by the Equity of the Statute he shall have five years to make his Claim although his Father never return for if such literal construction should be allowed it should be a great mischief and it should be a hard Exposition for this Statute ought to be taken by Equity as it appeareth by diverse Cases 19 H. 8. 6. My Vncle doth disseise my Father and afterwards levies a Fine with Proclamations my Father dieth and after within five years my Vncle dies that Fine is no Bar to me yet the Exception doth not help me for I am Heir to him that levied the Fine and so privy to it but my Title to the Land is not as Heir to my Vncle but to my Father So if an Infant after such a Fine levied dieth before his full age his Heir may enter within five years after and yet that Case is out of the Letter of the Statute And by Brown and Sanders If the Disseisee dieth his Wife enseint with a Son the Disseisor levieth a Fine the Son is born although this Son is not excepted expressly by the words because not in rerum natura at the time of the Fine levied c. yet such an Infant is within the equity and meaning of the said Statute See the Case betwixt Stowel and Zouch Plow Com. 366. And by him It was holden 6. Eliz. that an Infant brought a Formdon within age and adjudged maintainable although the words of the Statute be That they shall take their Actions or lawful Entries within five years after they come of full age And he also argued that here when Sir Thomas being Tenant for life levyed a Fine which is a Forfeiture he in the Remainder is to have five years after the Fine levyed in respect of the present forfeiture and also five years after the death of the Tenant for life And that was the case of one Some adjudged accordingly in the Common Pleas It hath been objected on the other side That the Defendant entring by color of the Lease at Will made to him by William who was an Infant that he was a Disseisor as well to the Infant as to the Lessor of the Plaintiff who had the Moyety as Tenant in common with the Infant and then when the Lessor of the Plaintiff entred upon the Defendant and leased to the Plaintiff and the Defendant enentred and ejected the Plaintiff he is a Disseisor to which he answered That the Defendant when he entred by the Lease at Will he was no Disseisor for such a Lease of an Infant is not void but only voidable c. and then a sufficient Lease against the Plaintiff although not against the Infant Beaumont Serjeant to the contrary By this manner of gift William the Son took nothing but the estate setled only in William the Father but not an estate tail by the words haeredi masculo c. And voluntas Donatoris without sufficient words cannot create an estate tail but where the intent of the Donor is not according to the Law the Law shall not be construed according to his intent But this intent shall be taken according to the Law. And he held that Sir Thomas and VVilliam had several estates in tail and several Moyeties and not one entire estate and here upon all the matter Sir Thomas is Tenant for life of the whole the Remainder of one moyety to him in tail the Remainder of the other moyety unto VVilliam in tail and rebus sic stantibus Sir Thomas levying a Fine of the whole now as to one moyety which the Conusor had in tail the Fine is clearly good and so as to that Robert the Lessor of the Plaintiff had a good Title as to the said moyety and as to the other moyety he conceived also that VVilliam is bound for this Statute shall not be construed by Equity but shall bind all who are expresly excepted and that is not VVilliam the Son for his Father never returned and then his Heir is not releived by the Statuteâ— Also VVilliam had a Right of Entry at the time of the Fine levyed scil for the Forfeiture and because he hath surceased the time for the said Right of Entry he shall not have now five years after the death of Tenant for life for he is the same person and the second saving which provides forfuture Rights extends to other persons than those who are intended in the first saving and he who may take advantage of the first saving cannot be releived by the second saving for no new title doth accrue to him in the Reversion or Remainder by the death of Tenant for life for that title accrued to him by the forfeiture so as the title which he hath by the death of the Tenant for life is not the title which first accrued unto him Also by this Forfeiture the estate for life is determined as if Tenant for life had been dead for if Tenant for life maketh a Feoffment in Fee the Lessor may have a Writ of Entry ad terminum qui praeterijt Fitz. 201. which proves that by the Forfeiture the estate is determined and then no new title doth accrue to him in the Remainder by the death of the Tenant for life but that only which he had before the alienation so that his non-claim after the five years shall bind him Then when VVilliam the Infant having a Right to a moyety and Robert the Lessor of the Plaintiff a Right to the other moyety and the Infant leaseth unto the Defendant at Will who entreth now is he a
covenanteth and granteth to the others eorum utrique to make assurance and there it was holden that the word uterque doth amount to quilibet Wray Admit it shall be so taken in a Bond yet it shall not be so taken in an Indictment As if a man make a Lease for years rendring Rent payable at the day of St. Martin although there be two days of St. Martin in the year yet the reservation is good and the Rent shall be taken payable at the most usual day of St. Martin there in the Country But in an Indictment if an offence he laid to be done on St. Martins day without shewing which in certain it is not good Fenner The word uterque is matter of surplusage and therefore shall not hurt the Indictment CCCXXVII Blunt and Whiteacres Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Error A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas in a Replevin where the Defendant did avow as Fermor of the Manor of F. in the County of Berks to St. Johns Colledge in Oxford and laid a Prescription there in him and his Fermors to distrain for all Amercements in the Court of the said Manor Amercement and shewed that the Plaintiff in the Replevin was presented by the Homage for not repairing of a House being a customary Tenant of the said Manor according to a pain imposed upon him at a former Court for which he was amerced by the Steward to ten shillings and was also presented for not ringing of his Swine for which he was amerced three shillings four pence and for these Amercements he distrained And upon Nihil dicit Iudgment was given for the Avowant to have return upon which a Writ of Error was brought And Error assigned in that there is not any Prescription laid in the Avowry for the Lord to amerce the Tenants and of common Right he cannot do it See 48 E. 3. And such Amercement is Extortion for the Lord cannot be his own Iudge and therefore he ought to enable himself to distrain by Prescription Another Error because the Fine is laid to be assessed by the Steward 1 Cro. 748. 886. whereas by the Law it ought to be by the Suitors for they are Iudges and not the Steward Another because that in the Avowry it is set down quod praesentatum fuit that he had not repaired a certain House but he doth not say in facto categorice c. that he had not repaired for that is matter traversable 4. Here is no offence for a Copy-holder is not bound to repair by the Common Law if it be not by Prescription for he cannot have House-boot upon the Land as a Termor may if it be not alledged a custom Fenner The Steward may assess Fines for a contempt but not Amercements if not by Prescription Gawdy The Lord of a Mannor cannot assess Amercements for a Trespass done to himself upon his own Lands but otherwise it is of a common Trespass or a Trespass done in the Land of another but for the Distress he ought to prescribe and the Iudgment was reversed CCCXXVIII Page and Fawcets Case Pasch 29 Eliz. Rot. 121. In the Kings Bench. Error 3 Cro. 227. ERror was brought upon a Iudgment given in Lyn where by the Record it appeareth that they prescribe to hold Plea every Wednesday and it appeared upon the said Record that the Court was holden 16 Feb. 26 Eliz. which was dies Dominicus and that was not assigned for Error in the Record but after in Nullo est erratum pleaded it was assigned at the Bar And Almanacks were shewed to the Court in proof of it and it was holden clearly to be Error but the doubt was if it should be tried by Iury or by the Almanacks and it was said that the Iustices might judicially take notice of Almanacks and be informed by them and that was the Case of one Robert in the time of the Lord Catline and by Coke so was the Case betwixt Galery and Bunbury and afterwards the Iudgment was reversed CCCXXIX Geofries and Coites Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IT was found by special Verdict 1 Cro. 25â— that one Avice Trivilian was Tenant for life the Remainder to her Son in tail the Remainder over Tenant for life and he in the Remainder in tail make a Lease for life the Remainder for life rendring Rent Tenant for life dieth he in the Remainder dieth and his Son accepteth of the Rent of the Tenant for life in possession who dieth The Issue in tail entreth he in the Remainder for life entreth c. And it was conceived that this acceptance of the Rent of the Lessee for life doth affirm also the Remainder See Litt. Sect. 521. and such was the opinion of Gawdy and Fenner Iustices CCCXXX The Lord Mordant and Vaux Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Lord Mordant brought an Action of Trespass against George Vaux and declared of a Trespass done in quodam loco 1 Inst 225. 1 Cro. 269. called N. parcel of the Manor of Hawarden The Case was William Lord Vaux was seised thereof and thereof levied a Fine to the use of the Lord Vaux which now is for life and after his decease to the use of Ann and Muriel Daughters of the Lord Vaux and their Assigns until Ambrose Vaux should return from the parts beyond the Seas and should come to the Age of 21 years or dye if they should so long live And after the return of Ambrose from beyond the Seas and the age of 21 years or death whichsoever of the said days or times should first happen to the use of the said Ambrose and the Heirs of his body begotten with divers Remainders over Ambrose returned Plow Com. 376. 2. Ante 18. 76. and 31 Eliz. before he came of full age for it is not pleaded that he was of full age levied a Fine to the use of George Vaux the Defendant in tail with divers Remainders over Afterwards the Lord Vaux being Tenant for life enfeoffed the Lord Mordant in Fee upon whom the said George Vaux entred for a forfeiture upon which Entry the Lord Mordant brought the Action Buck argued for the Plaintiff Amb. Vaux had nothing in the Lands in question until his return from beyond the Seas and his full age and the estate doth not begin until both be past and he said that no use did arise to Ambrose until the time incurred for the time of the beginning is uncertain and upon a Contingent as 13 Eliz. Dyer 301. A. makes a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life and after to the use of B. who he intendeth to marry until the Issue which he shall beget on her shall be of the age of 21 years and after the Issue shall come of such age then unto the use of the said B. during her Widowhood the Husband dieth without Issue the Wife entreth and her
Entry holden lawful But Error was brought upon it And also Calthrops case was cited to the same purpose 16 Eliz. Dyer 336. This estate limited to Ambrose doth refer to the estate limited to Muriel and Ann and not to the time for ever the first estate is to be respected as 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. He in the Remainder in Fee upon an estate for life deviseth it to his Wife yielding and paying during her natural life yearly 20 shillings and dieth living Tenant for life the Rent shall not begin until the Remainder falleth So as the general words refer to the beginning of the estate although the words imply that the Rent shall be paid presently And see also such construction 9 Eliz. 261. A Lease was made for thirty years and four years after the Lessor makes another Lease by these words Nos dictis 30 annis finitis dedisse concessisse c. Habend tenend a die confectionis praesentium termino praedict finito usque terminum c. And although prima facie the beginning of this Term seems incertain yet the Iustices did respect the former estate and so the Lessee hath the Interest of the Term from the making of the Deed but no estate until the first Term expire Then Ambrose before his age of 21 years levying a Fine the Fine shall not bind the Feoffee for it enures only by way of conclusion and so binds parties and privies but not a stranger And the party needs not to plead against this Fine quod partes to the Fine Nihil habuerunt for that appeareth upon their own shewing Wiat contrary The state of Ambr. accrues and rises when any of the said times come first full age return death for the words are And after the return of Ambrose from beyond the Seas and the age of 21 years or death c. This word or before death disjoyns all and makes the sentence in the Disjunctive and he cited a case lately judged in the Common Pleas A Lease was made to Trewpeny and his Wife for one hundred years if he and his Wife or any Child or Children betwixt them begotten should so long live the Wife died without Issue the Husband held the Land c. for the Disjunctive before Child made the sentence Disjunctive Gawdy Iustice That had been Law if no such word had been in the Case And Wiat said That although the return be incertain yet it is certain enough that he shall come to the age of 21 years or dye And also this is by way of use which needs not to depend upon any estate and if the Remainder shall vest presently upon his return then it would be doubtful what Remainder it is if it be a Remainder depending upon the estate for the life of Ann and Muriel or for years i.e. until Ambrose shall come of the age of 21 years But be it incertain yet the Fine is good for here is a Remainder in Ambrose and both are but particular estates and there is not any doubt but that one may convey by Fine or bar by Fine such contingent uses for which see the Statute of 32 H. 8. All Fines to be levied of any Lands intailed in any wise to him that levieth the Fine or to any his Ancestors in possession reversion c. which word use goes to contingent uses for at the time of the making of that Statute there was no other use Fenner Iustice remembred the Case adjudged M. 30 31 Eliz. betwixt Johnson and Bellamy 2 Len. 36. which ruled this Case Gawdy Iustice Here is a certainty upon which the Remainder doth depend i. e. the death of Ambrose but the Case had been the more doubtful if no certainty at all had been in the Case Atkinson contrary Here the Lord Vaux is Tenant for life the Remainder to George in tail now when the Lord Vaux levies a Fine this is a forfeiture and then the Entry of George is lawful It hath been objected on the other side that this Remainder was future and contingent and not vested therefore nothing passed to George by Ambrose The words are quousque Ambrose shall return This word quousque is a word of Limitation and not of Condition and then the Remainder may well rise when the Limitation hapneth It hath been said that this Remainder is contingent and then the Remainder which is to vest upon a contingency cannot be granted or forfeited before that the contingent hapneth And he cited the Case of 14 Eliz. 314. Dyer A Fine is levied to A. to the use of B. for life the Remainder to E. in Tail the Remainder to B. in fee. Proviso That if B. shall have Issue of his Body that then after such Issue and 500 l. paid to c. within six months after the birth of such issue the use of the said Lands after the death of the said B. and the said six months expired shall be to the said B. and the heirs of his body And it was holden that before the said contingent hapneth B. had not any estate tail for there it was incertain if the said contingent would happen but in our case the contingents or some of them will happen or run out by effluxion of time and that makes the Remainder certain in Ambrose And he also argued that the Limitations are several by reason of the Disjunctive and the last part of the sentence and that the said sentence is in the Disjunctive appeareth by the subsequent words which of the said days or times shall first happen And then the return of Ambrose for that first hapned vests the Remainder in him and therefore the Plaintiff ought to be barred Buckley contrary The estate of the Daughters doth depend upon a Copulative i.e. the return of Ambrose and his full age and both is but one Limitation it is clear that the first Limitation is upon a contingent and the remainder cannot vest until both are performed And as to that which hath been said that there is a certain Limitation i. e. the return of Ambrose 18 Eliz. the Case was Lands were given to Husband and Wife the Remainder to such of them as should survive the other for years the Husband makes a Lease for years and dieth it was holden that although the Limitation was upon a certain estate yet because it is not known in which of the parties the estate secondly limited shall begin the Lease is void So here it is not certainly appointed when the estate limited to Ambrose shall begin upon the return full age or death of Ambrose and he said that here are but two times of Limitation first return and full age second death return and full age determines the estate of the Daughters and also the death if it shall first happen and if these three times shall be construed in the Disjunctive 2 Len. 2â— the same would overthrow the estate of the Daughters which is an estate for years determinable upon the death of themselves or Ambrose
Entry so where an use is often executed by the Statute Cestuy que use without any Entry hath an actual possession i. As to the uses contingent nothing remains in the Feoffees for the setling of them when they happen but the whole estate is setled in Cestuy que use yet subject to such use and he shall render the same upon contingency And if any estate should remain in the Feoffees it could be but an estate for life for the Fee simple is executed in Cestuy que use with an estate in possession and then the Feoffees should be seised to another use than was given them by the Livery Also if a Feoffment be made unto the use of the Feoffor and his heirs until J.S. hath paid unto the Feoffor 100 l. from thenceforth the Feoffor and his heirs shall be seised to the use of the said J.S. and his heirs if upon such Feoffment any thing should remain in the Feoffees before the payment by I.S. the same should be a Fee-simple and then there should be two Fee-simples of one and the same Lands one in the Feoffor and the other in the Feoffees which should be absurd and therefore the best way to avoid such inconveniences is to continue the Statute that it draws the whole estate of the Land and also the confidence out of the Feoffees and reposeth it upon the Lands the which by the operation of the Statute shall render the use to every person in his time according to the limitation of the parties And also if any Interest doth remain in the Feoffees Then if they convey to any person upon consideration who hath not notice of the use then the said use shall never rise which is utterly against the meaning of the said Statute and the meaning of the parties and therefore to construe the Statute to leave nothing in the Feoffees will prevent all such mischief And if a Feoffment in fee be made to the use of the Feoffor for life and afterwards to the use of his wife which shall be for life and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor The Feoffor enfeoffeth a stranger taketh a wife now cannot the Feoffees enter during the life of the Feoffor and after his death they cannot enter because they could not enter when the use to the wife was to begin upon the intermarriage and then if the Entry of the Feoffees in such case should be requisite the use limited to the wife by the Act of the Feoffor should be destroyed against his own limitation which is strong against the meaning of the Act aforesaid for by the said act the Land is credited with the said use which shall never fail in the performance of it And such contingent estates in Remainder may be limited in possession a Fortiori in use which see 4. E. 6. Coithirsts case 23. And Plesingtons case 6 R. 2. And it is true at the common Law the Entry of the Feoffees was requisite because the wrong was done unto them by reason of the possession which they then had but now by the Statute all is drawn out of them and then there is no reason that they medle with the Lands wherein they have now nothing to do and the scope of the Statute is utterly to disable the Feoffees to do any thing in prejudice of the uses limited so as the Feoffees are not to any purpose but as a Pipe to convey the Lands to others So as they cannot by their Release or confirmation c. bind the uses which are to grow and arise by the limitation knit unto the Feoffment made unto them which see Br. 30. 30 H. 8. Feoffments to uses 50 A. covenants with B. That when A. shall be enfeoffed by B. of three Acres of Lands in D. that then the said A. and his Heirs shall be seised of Land of the said A. in S. to the use of B. and his Heirs and afterwards A. enfeoffeth a stranger of his Lands in S. And afterwards B. enfeoffeth A. of his Lands in D. now the Feoffee of A. shall be seised to the use of B. notwithstanding that the said Feoffee had not notice of the use for Land is bound with the use in whose hands soever it come And see the like case ibid. 1. Ma. 59. Vpon the reason of which cases many assurances have been made for it is the common manner of Mortgage i. e. If the Mortgag or pay such a sum c. that then the Mortgagee and his Heirs shall be seised after such payment to the use of the Mortgagor and his Heirs In that case although that the Mortgagee alien yet upon the payment the use shall rise well enough out of the possession of the Alienee and the Lands shall be in the Mortgagor without any Entry For the Mortgages could not enter against his own alienation to revive the use which is to rise upon the payment and therefore without any assistance of such Entry it shall arise As at the Common Law Land is given to A. in tail the Remainder to the right heirs of B. A. levies a Fine makes a Feoffment suffers a Recovery c. although the same shall bind the Issues yet if B. dyeth and afterwards A. dyeth without issue now notwithstanding this Fine c. The right Heir of B. may enter And always a use shall spring out of the Land at his due opportunity and it is a collateral charge which binds the Lands by the first Liberty and cannot be discharged vi 49. Ass 8. 49 E. 3. 16. Isabell Goodcheapes case A man deviseth that his Executors shall sell his Lands and afterwards dyeth without heir so as the Land escheats to the King yet the authority given to the Executors shall bind the Lands in whose hands soever it comes c. And so a title of Entry continues notwithstanding twenty alienations But an use is a less thing than a Title of Entry especially an use in contingency and an use as long as it is in contingency cannot be forfeited As if the Mortgagor be attainted and pardoned mean betwixt the Mortgage and the day of Redemption c. Then when Thomas levies a Fine Francis may well enter And Thomas before the Fine had an estate tail executed to his Free-hold and therefore by the Fine he gave an estate of Inheritance to the Conusee and then no right of entail remained in Francis but he took an estate for life only and that as a Purchasor by the limitation of the Will and then when Francis levied a Fine his estate was gone which was but for life and then the right of the entail and all the other estates which are especially limited are also gone and so Percival Hart to whom no estate was specially limited hath not any cause to enter c. And it was further said by Wray Husband and Wife Tenants in special tail the Husband levies a Fine with Proclamations and dieth the Wife enters the issue in tail is
barred but if the Wife enter after the death of her Husband and before the Proclamations pass the issue is not bound by the Fine And if Tenant in Tail granteth totum statum and after levieth a Fine thereof with Proclamations come ceo c. The Issue is barred contrary where the Fine is upon a Release c. CCCXLVI Henningham and Windhams Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ARthur Henningham brought a Writ of Error against Francis Windham upon a common Recovery had against Henry his Brother Error Owen Rep. 68. and the Case was That Land was given in special tail to Thomas Henningham Father of the said Henry and the said Arthur the Remainder in general tail the estate tail in possession was to him and the Heirs Mairs of his body Thomas had issue the said Henry and three Daughters by one woman and the said Arthur and two other Sons by another woman and dyed seised Henry entred and made a Feoffnent a common Recovery is had against the Feoffee in which Henry is vouched who vouched over the common Vouchee according to the usual course of common Recoveries Henry dyed without issue Error and Attaint by him to whom the Land is to descend and Arthur brought a Writ of Error being but of the half blood to Henry And it was resolved by the whole Court That Error and Attaint always descends to such person to whom the Land should descend If such Recovery or false oath had not been As if Lands be given to one and the Heirs Females of his body c. and suffers an erronious Recovery and dyeth the Heir female shall have the Writ of Error So upon Recovery of Lands in Borough English for such Action descends according to the Land quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam But it was objected on the Defendants part That because that the Feoffee being Tenant to the Praecipe is to recover in value a Fee-simple and so Henry is to yield a Fee-simple which should descend to the heir at the Common Law if this Recovery had not been therefore he to whom the same should descend should have the Writ of Error for he hath the loss But the said Exception was not allowed And it was said That Tenant in tail upon such a Recovery shall recover but an estate in tail scil such estate which he had at the time of the warranty made c. And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Action was maintainable So if a man hath Lands of the part of his mother and loseth it by erronious Iudgment and dyeth That the Heir of the part of the Mother shall have the Writ of Error CCCXLVII Foster and Pitfalls Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae the Case was 1 Cro. â— Brook devised Lands to his Wife in general Tail the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee and dyed he took another Husband and had issue a Daughter The Husband and Wife levyed a Fine to a stranger The Daughter as next Heir by 11 H. 7. entred It was agreed by the whole Court That an estate devised to the wife is within the words but not within the meaning of the Statute Secondly It was resolved That no estate is within the meaning of the Statute unless it be for the Ioynture of the Wife Thirdly Resolved That the meaning of the Statute was That the wife so preferred by the Husband should not prejudice the issues or heirs of her Husband and here nothing is left in the Issues or heirs of the Husband so as the Wife could not prejudice them for the Remainder is limited over CCCLXVIII Greenes Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Acceptance of Rent 1 Cro. 3. 3 Co. 64. b. GReene made a Lease for years rendring Rent with clause of Re-entry and the Rent due at the Feast of the Annunciation was behind being demanded at the day which Rent the Lessor afterwards accepted and afterwards entred for the condition broken and his Entry holden lawful Entry Plow Com. in Browning and Bestons Case for the Rent was due before the condition broken but if the Lessor accepts the next Quarters Rent then he hath lost the benefit of Re-entry for thereby he admits the Lessee to be his Tenant And if the Lessor distrain for Rent due at the said Feast of the Annunciation after the forfeiture he cannot afterwards re-enter for the said forfeiture for by his Distress he hath affirmed the possession of the Lessee So if he make an Acquittance for the Rent as a Rent contrary if the Acquittance be but for a sum of mony and not expresly for the Rent all which tota Curia concessit CCCXLIX 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Lessee for life the Remainder for life the Remainder in tail the Remainder in fee The two Tenants for life make a Feoffment in fee. Dyer A woman Tenant for life in Ioynture the Remainder for life the Remainder in fee the Tenants for life joyn in a Feoffment Entry for Forfeiture the Entry of him in the Remainder in fee is lawful by 11 H. 7. And if Tenant for life be impleaded and he in the Remainder for life will not pray to be received he in the last Remainder may and so in our case inasmuch as he in the Remainder for life was party to the wrong he in the Remainder in tail shall enter Which Harper and Munson granted Dyer 339. a. i. e. Manwood Although that this Feoffment be not a Disseisin to him in the Remainder in tail yet it is a wrong in a high degree as by Littleton A Disseisor leaseth for life to A. who aliens in fee the Disseisee releaseth to the Alienee it is a good Release and the Disseisor shall not enter although the Alienation was to his disinheritance Lit. 111. which Dyer granted And if Tenant for life alieneth in fee and the Alienee enfeoffeth his Father and dieth the same descent shall not avail him no more than in case of Disseisin Livery of Seism It hath been objected that this is the Livery of the first Tenant for life and the confirmation of him in the Remainder for life Dyer was of opinion That by this Livery the Remainder for life passeth and this Livery shall be as well the Livery of him in the Remainder as of the Tenant in possession and although where an estate is made lawfully by many it shall be said the Livery of him only who lawfully may make Livery Yet where an estate is wrongfully made it shall be accounted in Law the Livery of all who joyn in it And in this the Remainder for life is extinguished by the Livery in the Feoffee and the Livery of him in the Remainder for life shall be holden a void Livery especially when he joyns with such a person who hath not authority to make Livery As if the Lord and a Stranger Disseise the Tenant and make a Feoffment over the whole Seigniory is
extinct as if he solely had been seised so if he in the Reversion and a Stranger disseise for life and make a Feoffment over the Seigniory is gone and yet it is the Livery of the Lessee only And although it be but the confirmation of him in the Remainder for life yet thereby the Remainder is gone and extinct And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Entry of him in the Remainder in tail was lawful And it was said by the L. Dyer That if Tenant for life be the Remainder for life the Remainder in fee Tenant for life in possession alieneth in fee that he in the Remainder in fee cannot enter for it was not to his disinheriâ—in CCCL 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was That a Capias ad Satisfaciend was delivered to the Sheriff 5 Co. 88 89. and after the Sheriff did arrest the party against whom the Capias issued by force of a Capias Utlagatum and then the party in the Capias came to the Sheriff and prayed that the party remain in Execution for his debt also and notwithstanding that the Sheriff let the Prisoner go at large and upon both Writs returned Non est inventus It was the opinion of all the Iustices That the Sheriff was not bound in point of Escape to detain the Prisoner for the Debt of the Plaintiff and it is not like where one is in the Fleet in Execution there if other condemnations in other Courts be notified to the Warden of the Fleet he shall be chargeable with them all It was holden also per Curiam That if the Body had been returned by Capias Utlagatum that the Court at the prayer of the party would grant that the Prisoner might remain in Execution for the debt as in case of a Capias pro fine CCCLI The Lord Saint John and the Countess of Kents Case 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Evidence given to the Iury in an Action of Debt brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Grants of Executors of omnia bona sua 1 Cro. 6. It was said by Dyer and Manwood Iustices That if Executors grant omnia bona sua that the goods which they have as Executors do not pass which see 10 E. 4. 1. b. by Danby but the contrary was holden by Wray chief Iustice of the Kings Bench and by Plowden in Bracebridges case P. 18 Eliz. and they denied the opinion of 10 E. 4. to be Law for by such Grant made by Executors the goods of the Testator do pass CCCLII. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was said by Dyer and Manwood Iustices That if one be condemned in an Action upon the Case Abatement of Writ 3 Len. 68. or Trespass upon Nihil dicit or demurrer c. And a Writ issueth forth to enquire of the Damages and before the return of it the Defendant dieth that the Writ shall not abate for the awarding of the said Writ is a Iudgment And it was said by Manwood Account In a Writ of Account the Defendant is awarded to account if the Defendant account and be found in Arrearages and dieth the Writ shall not abate but Iudgment shall be given that the Plaintiff shall recover and the Executor shall be charged with the Arrearages and yet account doth not lye against them CCCLIII 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A. Did recover in Debt against B. whereupon a Fieri facias issued to the Sheriff of Devon and the Defendant seeing the Writ of Execution in the Sheriffs hands Attachment of Goods after the Money is in the Sheriffs hand is void said to him that he would pay the Debt recovered at Exeter such a day to satisfie the Execution at which day the Defendant paid the mony accordingly and presently came an Officer of the City of Exeter and attached the mony in the Sheriffs hand supposing the said A. to be indebted so much to one C. in whose name he made the Attachment Antea 29. 1 Cro. 6â— and now on the behalf of the said A. a Certiorare was prayed to remove the Attachment hither and it was therefore holden by the whole Court that the Attachment was void and a Certiorare granted And Wray said If it can be proved by Oath that if the Defendant did procure or was assenting to the said Attachment that Process of Contempt should issue against him and the Sheriff demanded of the Court what return he should make because the monies were attached in his hands and taken from him by force to which Wray answered That the Sheriff ought to answer the monies to the Plaintiff which were once in his hands by force of the Execution and that it was his folly to suffer the mony to be taken from him by colour of the said Attachment and if the mony was taken by force the Sheriff had his remedy by an Action of Trespass for the Attachment was void but the Sheriff at the return of the Writ ought to answer for the Mony. CCCLIV. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant for life bargained and sold his Lands to A. and his Heirs and afterwards levied a Fine to the Bargainee Forfeiture 4 Len. 124. â— Len. 60 65. Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. It was holden by the Court that it was a forfeiture committed by the Bargainee not by the Bargainor who at the time of the Fine had nothing to forfeit and it was said by Manwood Iustice That if Tenant for life be disseised and takes a Fine ut supra of a Stranger it is a forfeiture and yet he in the Reversion hath but a right in Reversion so that if Tenant for life be disseised and the Disseisor commits Wast he in the Reversion shall have an Action of Wast against Tenant for life and if two Tenants for life be disseised by two A. and B. and one of the Tenants for life doth release unto A. and the other Tenant for life doth re-enter he hath the Moiety in common with the other to whom the Release was made and he hath revested the intire Reversion in him in whom the Reversion was before c. CCCLV. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Bracebridges Case THe Case was Thomas Bracebridge seised of a Manor in Fee leased a Messuage parcel of it to one Curtes for 21 years and afterwards 35 H. 8. leased the same to one Moore for 26 years to begin after the expiration of the former Lease and afterwards 5 E. 6. he enfeoffed Griffith and others to the use of the Feoffees themselves and their Heirs upon condition That if the Feoffees did not pay to the said Thomas Bracebridge 2000 l. within 15 days after that then immediately after the said 15 days the Feoffees should stand seised of the said Manor to the use of the said Thomas Bracebridge and Joyce his wife for their lives without impeachment of Wast and afterwards to the use of T. B. their second Son in tail with divers Remainders
over the Feoffees do not pay the said mony within the said 15 days afterwards Curties attorns to the Feoffees It was moved if the Reversion of the Lands passed to Curties passeth by the Feoffment of the Manor without attornment which see Littleton 133 134. 2. Attornment If by the attornment of Curties after the 15 days the uses can rise to Bracebridge and his wife c. and it was said That the Case 20 H. 6. Avowry 11 12. If a Manor be granted for life the remainder over in Fee Tenant for life dieth if the Tenants attorn to him in the Remainder the same is good and if a Reversion be granted to two and one of them dieth attornment to the survivor is good and if a Reversion be granted to Husband and Wife in special tail the Wife dieth afterwards without issue Attornment to the Husband is good and if a Reversion be given in Frank-marriage and afterwards the Husband and Wife are divorced and afterwards the particular Tenant attorns to the Wife the same is good and by Manwood If a Man seised of a Manor the demesns of which extends into two Counties and hath issue a Son and a Daughter by one woman and a Son by another woman and dieth the eldest Son enters into the Demesns in one County only and takes the profit in one County only and dieth without issue the Daughter shall have and inherit the Demesns or Services whereof her Brother was seised and the Son of the half-blood the rest And by Manwood the attornment of Curties who was the first Lessee shall bind Moore the second Lessee for he ought to attorn against whom lieth the Quid juris clamat And if a Lease for years be made of a Manor and the Reversion of it be granted to another in fee if the Lessee for years attorneth it shall bind the Tenants of the Manor 18 E. 2. A man seised of a Manor in the right of his Wife leased parcel of it for years without his wife the Reversion thereof is not parcel of the Manor contrary if the Lease had been made by Husband and Wife And by Dyer if Tenant in tail of a Manor leaseth parcel for years and afterwards makes a Feoffment of the whole Manor and makes Livery in the Demesns not leased the Reversion of the Land leased doth not pass for by the Feoffment a wrong is done to the Lessor which the Law shall not further enlarge than appeareth by the Deed contrary in case of Tenant in fee of a Manor and that without Deed with Attornment And it was the Case of one Kellet 25 H. 8. Kellet was Cestuy que use before the Statute of 27 H. 8. of divers Lands by several Conveyances the use of some being raised upon Recovery of some upon Fine and of some upon Feoffment and he made a Feoffment of all these Lands by Deed with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery the Attorney entred into part of the Land and made Livery in the name of the whole and it was agreed by all the Iustices that the Lands passed notwithstanding in others possession i.e. other Feoffees And by Dyer If the Tenants of a Manor pay their Rents to the Disseisor they may refuse again to pay them and if a Lease be made for years the Remainder for life if the Lessor will grant over his Reversion the Lessee for years shall Attorn and his attornment shall bind him in the remainder for life and if a Lease be made to one for years the remainder over for life the remainder to the Lessee for years in Fee. Now if the Lessee for years grant all his interest c. there needs no attornment and if Grantee of a Rent in fee leaseth for life and afterwards grants the Reversion to another the Attornment of the Ter-tenant is not requisite but only of the Grantee for life It was also holden Relation That this Attornment by Curties two years after the Livery was sufficient for it shall have relation to the Livery to make it parcel of the Manor but not to punish the Lessee for waste done mean between the Livery and the Attornment but betwixt the Feoffor and the Feoffee it shall pass ab initio It was holden also That although the uses for it limited are determined by the default of payment within the 15 days yet the Feoffees shall take the Reversion by this Attornment to the second uses 2 Len. 222. and if I enfeoff one upon condition to enfeoff J.S. who refuseth now the Feoffee shall be seised to my use but if the condition were to give in tail contrary So here is a Limitation beyond the first use which shall not be defeated for want of Attornment to the first uses and here it was not the meaning of Bracebridge to have the Lands again upon breach of the condition in his former estate but according to the second use and Iudgment was given in the principal case according to the resolutions of the Iudges as aforesaid And it was said by Harper Iustice That if a Feoffment in Fee be made to J. S. upon condition that he shall grant to A. a Rent-charge who refuseth it J.S. shall be seised to his own use Antea 199. CCCLVI. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this Lord and Tenant by service to pay every year such a quantity of Salt but since 10 H. 7. the Tenant hath always paid the money for Salt. The question was If the Lord might resort to the first service Seisin and if the money be Seisin of the Salt. And Manwood took this difference i.e. where the Lord takes a certain sum of money for the Salt the same is not any Seisin for the service is altered as at the first Socage Tenure was a work done by labor i.e. Plowing but now it is changed into certain Rent and the Lord cannot resort to have his Plowing and in Kent divers Tenants in ancient time have paid Barley for their Rent but the same afterward was paid in a certain sum of money so as now the Lord of Canterbury who is Lord of such Tenements cannot now demand his Barly c. but if the sum which hath been used to be paid be incertain one year so much according to the price of Salt then such a payment of money is a sufficient Seisin of the Salt. Quod fuit concessum per Curiam CCCLVII 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Accompt brought by an Heir Copyholder for the profits of his Copyhold Lands taken during his Nonage the Defendant pleaded That by the Custom of the said Manor Accompt by the Heir of a Copyholder the Lord of the Manor might assign one to take the profits of a Copyhold descended to an Infant during his Nonage to the use of the Assignee without rendring an accompt and the same was holden to be a good Custom as a Rent granted to one and his Heirs Custom to cease during the
as other Writs and Praecipes are returnable in any Court but the Queen her self from whom originally it came shall receive it and also the Message upon it and she her self in such case is Iudge of the contempt and no Record of that Privy Seal doth remain in any Court but the Queen her self shall keep it and then when the Queen is informed of the contempt she makes a Warrant somtimes to the Chancellor to award a Commission somtimes to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer to the same purpose to seize the Lands and that Warrant is signed with the Seal manual of the Queen and the Queen may certifie and set down the cause of such seizure in such Warrant and no other Certificate is made by the Queen and the Queen may certify the same Commission by word of mouth and if the other party will say that the Queen hath not certified it he shall be concluded by the commission which is under the great Seal and diverse Prsidents were shewed openly in Court to that effect And all the matter aforesaid was agreed by the Chancellor Treasurer and the said Iustices and no certificate at all needs to be in the Case and then a superfluous Certificate being nought shall not hurt for Nugation is surplusage Another matter was to consider what interest the Queen hath in the Lands of Fugitives by the common Law And as to that they were all clear of opinion Fugitives that the Queen in such case as aforesaid may seize and assign her interest over And that such Assignees may grant Copy-holds parcel of the Manor assigned which grants shall bind him who cometh in after cum manus Domini regis amoventur and also when the Statutes of 13 and 14 Eliz. come Dy. 375 b. the Statutes do not amend the estate of the Queen but the estate of the Queen doth continue as before and all the Estates under it And there was shewed unto the Court divers Presidents of seizures in such Cases 18 E 2. Edmond de Woodstock Earl of Kent went beyond Sea without Licence of the King and he went with Robert de Mortimer and the King did certifie the same into the Chancery reciting that he had sent his Privy Seal c. but that the said Edmond spretis mandatis nostris redire recusavit upon which issued a commission to seize c. And it was holden that the Queen having seised hy force of the common Law and making a grant of a Copy-hold out of it now when the Statutes of 13 14 Eliz. are made she hath not any estate thereby for she had such interest before and this new seisure after the Statutes works nothing and nothing accrues to her thereby whereof she can make a seisure For she hath departed with the whole before See 23 Eliz. Dyer 376. And note that the grant of the Queen in the case at Bar was quamdiu in manibus nostris fore contigerit And afterwards Iudgment was given that judicium praedictum in omnibus affirmetur XIII Sutton and Dowses Case Ter. Mich. 25 26 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. SUtton Vicar of Longstoke Libelled against Dowse in the spiritual Court Tithes and shewed in his Libel that upon the Erection and Endowment of his Vicaridge four quarters of Corn were assigned to the Vicar out of the Granary of the Prior of B. of the Tithes of the Parson of Longstoke and that the Parson or Fermor of the said Rectory of Longstoke had always paid the said four Quarters of Corn to the said Vicar and all his Predecessors and alledged further that the Lord Sands was seised of the said Rectory and leased the Barn and Tithe-Corn parcel of the said Rectory to the said Dowse his Wife and Son Habendum to Dowse for Term of his life the Remainder to the Wife for Term of her life the Remainder to the Son for life And shewed further that the said Dowse had covenanted with the said Lord Sands to render the said four Quarters of Wheat to the Vicar and his Successors upon which Dowse procured a Prohibition and Sutton prayed a Consultation and it was moved in stay of the Consultation that the Vicar had Libelled upon a Covenant wherein Dowse is taxed to pay the said Corn and that is a lay Title and determinable by the Law of the Land and not in the Ecclesiastical Court But as to that the opinion of the Court was that the Libel is not grounded upon the covenant as the sole Title to the said Corn against Dowse but upon the Endowment of the Vicaridge and the Lease by which Dowse is become Fermor of the Rectory Another matter was moved because that upon the Libel it appeareth that the Lease aforesaid made by the Lord Sands was made to Dowse his Wife and his Son joyntly in the Premisses Habendum ut supra in which case it was objected that Dowse his Wife and his Son are all three Fermors of the said Barn and Tithes joyntly in possession against all whom Sutton ought to have Libelled c. and not against Dowse only for the Habendum hath not severed their estates which were joynt before Co. 1 Iust 783 l. qund tota curia negavit for the Habendum hath severed the joynt estates limited by the Premisses and hath distinguished it into Remainders but if the Habendum had been Habendum successive the estate had remained joynt Another matter was moved because it appeareth upon the Libel that the Parson or Fermor of the said Rectory ought to pay to the Vicar the said Corn and also it appeareth upon the matter that Dowse is not Parson nor Fermor of the said Rectory for the Lord Sands had leased to Dowse and his Son only the Barn and the Tith-Corn parcel of the said Rectory so as Dowse is Fermor but of parcel of the Rectory and the residue of the Rectory doth remain in the Lord Sands in which the said Sut. ought to have Libelled against the Lord Sands and Dowse and not against Dowse only And for that cause the Consultation was denyed And in this case it was further agreed by the Court that if upon a Libel in the spiritual Court the Defendant makes a surmise in Banco to have a Prohibition if such surmise be insufficient the other party needeth not to demur upon it and to have it entred upon Record but as amicus Curiae he shall shew the same to the Court and the Court shall discharge him XIV Punsany and Leaders Case Mich. 25 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. OSmond Punsany brought an Action upon the case against Leader and declared Prescription of Foldage that one Bedingfield was seised of the Manor of D. and that he and all those whose estate he hath in the said Manor time out of mind have had Libertatem Faldagij cursum Ovium in the Town of D. pro meliori pasturatione omnium Ovium suorum the Inhabitants of the said Town having any
such Tithes which are of such nature as Tithe-corn and Tith-hay And Manwood chief Baron held clearly that the Lease of these Tithes is good enough notwithstanding the defect by the special Reservation which is limited and appointed by the Statute and so by him a Lease of a House Rent Mill Ferry c. are out of the said Statute And as to the Tithes notwithstanding the words of the Statute are general any Tithes yet he conceived the Statute ought to be intended of Tithes of common Right and not of such customary Tithes as those of London are and therefore if all the Parishoners prescribe in modo Decimandi scil to pay a certain sum of mony for all manner of Tithes upon demise of such a Rectory such special Reservation is not necessary for these are Tithes against common Right and no Tithes are within the purview of the said Statute but those which are annual and therefore a Lease of Tithe-wood is out of the meaning of this Statute for non renovantur in annum and he said that upon a Lease of the Tithes of Chery Trees a rent ought to be reserved according to the Statute and the Farmer may bring his Cheries to the Market and buy Corn. Shute Iustice contrary for the words of the Statute are general And note that this Lease was of the Rectory of Saint Lawrence in the City of London There was another matter moved in this case because the lease whereof the Action is brought was made by the name of Master or Guardian and the Fellows whereas the true name of their Colledge is Master and Fellows Misnosmer And it was argued by Atkinson that the same is not such a Misnosmer which makes the Lease void for sive custos are words of surplusage v. 7 H. 6. 13. And also the case of the Cooks 20 Eliz. Plow 531. The Corporation was by the name of Masters or Governors and Comonalty mysterii coquorum c. And they made a conveyance by the name of Masters or Governors and Comunalty artis sive Mysterii c. the same is no such Misnosmer as shall make void the conveyance for Art and Mistery are both of one sense XXVI Harvey and Harveys Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Consultation CLare Harvey one of the Daughters of Sir James Harvy Alderman of London Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Sebastin Harvy Son and Executor of the said Sir James for a Legacy bequeathed to her by her Father Sebastian did not appear for which he was excommunicated and taken by a Writ of excommunicat capiendo and imprisoned and afterwards he came into this Court and surmised to the Court That the said Sir James in his life had given to the said Sebastian all his Goods and Chattells and was also bound unto the said Sebastian in a Statute-staple of two thousand pounds whereupon he had prohibition and now the Plaintiffs counsel prayed a Consultation quatenus non agitur ad validitatem facti aut Statuti And Egerton Solicitor of Counsel with the Plaintiff cited a Iudgment given in the like Case betwixt Lodge and Luddington where such a special Consultation was granted But Wray put a difference betwixt the said Case and the Case at Bar for here in this Case is a gift by the Testator himself but in the Case cited the gift was by the Executor and also here is a Statute of two thousand pounds in which Case the Obligations which could not pass by the deed shalll be subject to the said Statute XXVII The Duke of Northumberlands Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe late Duke of Northumberland seised of five Messuages in the Parish of St. Sepulchres London in the Tenure of W. Gardiner Bargain and sale 3 Co. 9. by deed intented and enrolled for money bargained and sold to I. L. all his Tenements situate in the Parish of St. Andrews in Holborn in the Tenure of W. Gardiner to have to the said I. L. for life the remainder to K. his Daughter in Fee. Atkinson The bargain and sale is void by reason of the Misnosmer of the Parish notwithstanding the truth of the Tenure for by the grant and bargain and sale of all his Tenements in the Parish of St. Andrews nothing passeth and the truth of the Tenure subsequent shall not help it And by Manwood chief Baron the sale is utterly void for the falsity doth preceed the truth and certainty And it was argued that I. L. entring by colour of the same bargain and sale is a disseisor as the Case is betwixt Croft and Howel 20. Eliz. Com. 537. Yet if he was but Tenant at Will when he made the Lease for years the same was a Disseisin to the said Duke and then the Duke being disseised he is attainted of treason 10. Mariae And now we are to see what things accrue to the Queen by the said Attainder and as to that it was said that at the Common Law a Right of Entry should Escheat but not without office found thereof no more than Lands in possession And by the Statute of 26 H. 8. it is enacted that every person attainted of high treason shall forfeit all his Lands and Tenements which he had of any estate of Inheritance by which Statute a Bishop Abbot or Tenant in tayl in such Case shall forfeit even without Office But in the Statute of 33 H. 8. there is a saving to every other person all such right possession so as in that Case by that Statute the King shall not be in possession without Office but shall have a right but cannot enter before Office or after And he is to have Sci. facias against him who hath the possession and he shall make his defence as well as he can and the words of the said Statute That the King shall be in actual possession shall not be construed to extend to an actual and absolute possession but such a possession only which he had at the Common Law after Office found so as the Statute doth not give to the King a larger possession but an easier without the circumstance of an Office And of that opinion was Manwood chief Baron and Shute second Baron And then it was moved further by Cook because that the Quen by the Attainder hath but a Right and the Queen makes the grant of the Messuages themselves the same grant is void And he granted that the Queen might grant a real Action and a Right of Entry but such a grant ought to be conceived in special words as to say That the Duke of Northumberland was seised of five Messuages and by such a one disseised and after the Duke was attainted and so granted for the Queen may grant such a Right by reason of her Prerogative and therefore the same ought to be granted by special words as in the Case of Mynes in the Commentaries and according to that was the opinion of the Iustices in Cromers Case 8 Eliz. which Case see
the said Goods to the Defendant at London by force of which he took them at London absque hoc that he took them at Coventry and that traverse not holden good for the Defendant by such a gift might justify the taking of the Goods in any place as well as in the place where the gift was made but if in such case the Defendant had pleaded that the Plaintiff delivered the said goods to him at London to deliver them over to A. by force of which he took them at London and delivered them over accordingly in such Cases the Defendant may well traverse the place supposed by the Declaration for by his Plea he hath confessed an immediate delivery of the said goods to him by the Plaintiff and the delivery and the taking all at one time and at one place and it had not been a good plea for the Defendant to say that the Plaintiff delivered to him the said goods at London by force of which he took them at Coventry for the possession is confessed by the first delivery of the goods at London and the supposal of the Plaintiff of a taking in Coventry and the justification of the Defendant of a taking by reason of a delivery at London cannot stand together But if the Defendant plead that the Plaintiff gave to him the goods in London by force of which he took them there there he may take traverse to the place supposed by the Declaration for by the gift it is lawful to the Defendant to take the goods in any place So see 19 H. 6. 35. In false Imprisonment supposed in the County of W. the Defendant doth justify as Sheriff of the County of B. by force of a Writ to him directed to attach the Plaintiff and so he attached him and imprisoned him at C. in the County of B. there the Defendant traversed the County supposed by the Declaration for otherwise he doth not meet with the Plaintiff and the authority of the Defendant doth not extend to the County supposed by the Declaration See also to the same purpose 22 E. 4. 39. by Hussy where the difference is taken when justification is by reason of a Warrant to take goods in any place whatsoever and where in a place certain as to the traverse of the Foundation absque hoc quod praedict Collegium fundatum fuit per nomen Decani Capituli Ecclesiae colleglatae Sancti Petri de Ethelborough apud Westm he hath here traversed that which was not alledged for the placing of the last words of the traverse scil apud Westminst in the end of the traverse seems by common construction to be intended thereby that there is no such Colledge at Westm and not that the Colledge was not founded at Westm for then the traverse should be absque hoc quod collegium praedictum fundatum fuit at Westminster per nomen c. But the most proper traverse that the Defendant could have taken in this case had been absque hoc quod Decanus Capitulum Ecclesiae collegiat de Ethelborough was seised for the Corporation mentioned in the Bill and that which is mentioned in the Bar are not all one but differ in this manner scil in the Bill the Dean and Chapter c. in the Bar the Dean Cannons and Bretheren and perhaps there are two such Corporations and then both cannot be seised and therefore upon the seisin of one of them the traverse shall be taken And afterward Iudgment was given for the Queen L. The Queen against the Bishop of London and Scot. Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Quare Impedit 3 Len. 175. THe Queen brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of London and Scot and the Case was that A. seised of an Advowson in gross holden of the Queen in chief aliened the same by Fine without Licence the Church became void the Conusee presented The Queen without office found brought a Quare impedit the question was if the Queen without office found Office trove should present And it was argued by the whole Court that if the Alienation had been by Deed only that there the Queen without office found should not have had the presentment for upon such an Alienation by matter in fact without Licence no Scire facias should issue without office found of the Alienation Scire facias but upon an Alienation without Licence by matter of Record a Scire facias lyeth before office which was granted by the whole Court And in the last case the Queen shall have the mean profits from the time of the Scire facias returned but in the first case from the time of the office found See for that Stamford Prerogative fol. penult 8 E. 4. 4. It was also moved if the Queen intituled to the presentment as above pardoneth to the Conusee all Alienations without Licence and Intrusions if the estate of the Incumbent be thereby confirmed but the Court would not argue that point but it was adjorned until another day LI. Braybrooks Case Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Pines levyed THe Case of one Braybrook was moved which was Land was given to A. for life the Remainder to B. for life the Remainder to the said Braybrook in Fee B. being in possession levyed a Fine to a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. A. dyed if now Braybrook might enter for the forfeiture was the question And it was agreed by the whole Court that by that Fine the Remainder in Fee is not touched or discontinued Co. 1 Inst 251 b. 252. 2 Forfeiture 9 Co. 104. Post 211 212. 1 Cro. 219. 220. but because B. had done as much as in him lay for the disposing of Fee-simple by the Fine and hath taken that upon him the same amounts to a forfeiture And it was also agreed by Anderson and Periam that if Tenant for life in possession leveyeth a Fine c. if the Lessor doth not enter within five years after he shall be bounden Windham contrary for by him it is in the election of the Lessor to re-enter immediatly for the forfeiture or to expect the death of the Lessee LII Willshalge and Davidges Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber WIllshalge brought Error in the Exchequer Chamber Enâ—r upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. Cap. 8. against Davidge upon a Iudgment given in the â—ings Bench Hill. 28. Eliz. and assigned for Error that where Davidge had heretofore brought Debt against the now Plaintiff and declared upon diverse Contracts scil that he had sold to Willshalge such Merchandizes for so many Portugues and such Merchandizes for so many Ducats which in toto amounted to seven hundred pounds Sterling which sum he demanded scil in Sterling many 2 Cro. 88. 3 Cro. 536. Yel 80. 135. 136. and not in Ducats and Portagues according to the Contract And upon the Declaration the said Willshalge had demurred in Law and the Court
upon the Evidence Notwithstanding that the number set down in the plaint be by the plea of the Defendant quodam modo admitted and the lesser number surmised and the contrary not proved shall go in mitigation of the damages and the Iury shall conform their verdict in the right of damages according to the proof of the number notwithstanding that the number set forth in the plaint be not by the Plea denied by the Defendant and so it was put in ure in this Case for the Plaint was of the taking of one thousand Cattle but the proof extended but to eight hundred sixty five Note also in the same Plea it was holden that whereas one Chock was returned upon several Iuries in two several Courts at Westminster and both the Iuries are adjourned to one day now in which of the said two Courts the said Chock was sworn he shall be discharged of his attendance at the other Court the same day LV. Carters Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CArter brought an Action upon the Case against I.S. and declared Assumpsit that A. was possessed of certain Lands for years the Inheritance thereof being in the Wife of the Plaintiff upon which Lease a Rent was reserved The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would procure the said A. to assign the said Lease to the Defendant promised to pay the said Rent to the Plaintiff for all the residue of the Term It was objected that upon this matter the Action doth not lie because that the Plaintiff hath a higher remedy scil an Action of Debt or Distress but the opinion of the whole Court was that the Action did lie for here upon the promise an Action is given to the Husband alone in his own right whereas the Rent is due to the Husband in the right of his Wife in its nature and the Rent is also to be paid for the Land. But upon this Assumpsit it is payable to the person of the Husband And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff LVI Kimpton and Bellamyes Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. GEorge Kimpton brought a Replevin against Wood and Bellamy Replevin who make Conusance as Baylies to George Burgain for Damage Feasance The Plaintiff in Bar of the Conusance sheweth That he himself and all those whose estate he hath in one hundred and forty Acres of Land time out of mind c. have had common for all manner of Cattle in six Acres of Lands whereof the place where c. is parcel and so put in his Cattle c. against which the Defendants say that the Plaintiff c. had common in forty Acres of Land whereof the said six Acres are parcel all lying in Communi campo and that the Plaintiff a long time before the taking had purchased two Acres parcel of the said forty Acres c. upon which there was a demurrer in Law It was argued by Serjeant Shuttleworth that the Replication to the Bar to the avowry is not good for in the Bar to the Avowry the Plaintiff hath shewed that he hath common in six Acres and the same shall be intended common in six acres only for common in forty acres cannot be the common in six acres as 35 H. 6. 38. In Debt for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years the Plaintiff declared that he leased to the Defendant ten acres of Land rendring the Rent in demand the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff leased to him the said ten acres and also such a Rectory rendring the same Rent the same is no plea without traverse absque hoc that he leased the ten acres only See Dyer 29 H. 8. 32. And the whole Court was clear of opinion that for want of such traverse Traverse the plea is not good for by Periam the Common supposed in the bar to the Conusans out of the six acres cannot be intended the Common supposed in the Replication scil out of the forty acres And by him if in Trespass the Defendant justifie by reason of Common in six acres of Land upon which the parties are at issue and the Defendant in Evidence shews that he hath common in forty acres whereof the said six acres are parcel the same doth not maintain his title but the issue shall be found against him Post 80 81. But by the Lord Anderson because that this Demurrer is general the other party shall not take advantage of that defect of pleading for the want of the Traverse and that by reason of the Statute of 27 Eliz. For Traverse is but matter of form and the want of the same shall not prejudice the other party in point of Iudgment but the Iudges ought to judge upon the substance and not upon the manner and form of the pleading And as to the matter of the Common Extinguishment the Court was clear of opinion that by the purchase of the said two acres the whole Common was gone LVII Knights Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. KNight brought Debt against three Executors and now surmised by his Counsel that one of the Executors is dead pendant the Writ Debt and prayed the opinion of the Court if the Writ should thereby abate or not for by some it is not like where a Writ is brought against two Executors Abatement of Writ for there if any of them dieth pendant the Writ it shall abate for now the plural number is gone for there is but one Executor but in our Case the plural number continues But notwithstanding that the Court was clear of opinion that the Writ should abate Wherefore the Plaintiff seeing the opinion of the Court prayed that upon his surmise aforesaid he might have a new Writ by Iourneys Accounts which was granted to him The Queen and Middletons Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Quare Imped THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against Middleton and counted that W. Lord Say was seised of the Manor of Bedington in the County of Hertford to which Manor the advowson of the Church was appendant ad Ecclesiam praedict praesentavit Coo Clericum suum and afterwards died seised having issue two Daughters Mary married to the Earl of Essex and Ann to the Lord Mountjoy who make partition and the said Manor of Bedington inter alia was allotted to the said Mary for her part and afterwards the said Earl and Mary died having issue Ann who took to Husband the Marquess of Northampton and afterwards 33 H. 8. a Fine was levyed of the said Manor inter c. Querent and the said Marquess and Ann Deforceants by which Fine the said Manor was granted and rendred to the said Marquess for term of his life the remainder to the said Ann his Wife in tail the remainder over to Hen. the eighth in Fee the Marquess is attainted of High Treason by which the King seised and afterwards Ann died without issue after which
did not lie in the said Court. 18 Eliz. Dyer 250. F. B. 22. That upon Erronious Iudgment given in the Kings Bench in Ireland Error shall be brought in the Kings Bench in England 15 E. 3. Error 72. Fenner who was of Council with the Archbishop demanded of the Court how and in what manner the Record shall be remanded to the Iustices of Assize so as the Archbishop might have execution To which the Court said that the surest way is to have a Certiorare out of the Chancery into the Common Pleas directed to the Iudges there and then out of the Chancery by Mittimus to the Iustices of Assize But Fenner made a difficulty of it to take such course for the remanding of it for doubt they would not allow it to be a Record where it is not a Record for upon the matter the Record is not removed but remains with the Iustices of Assize Then Anderson said Sue Excution out of the said Record but because the Record came before us by Writ of Error it shall be also removed and remanded by Writ and so it was LXX Kempe and Carters Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THomas Kempe brought Trespass Copyhold for breaking of his Close against Carter and upon pleading they were at issue if the Lord of the Manor aforesaid granted the said Lands per copiam rotulorum curiae manerii praedict secundum consuetudinem manerii praedict and it was given in Evidence that within the said Manor were divers customary Lands and that the Lord now of late at his Court of the said Manor granted the Land c. per copiam rotulorum curiae where it was never granted by copy before It was now holden by the whole Court that the Iury are bound to find Dominus non concessit for notwithstanding that de facto Dominus concessit per copiam rotulorum curiae yet non concessit secundum consuetudinem manerii praedict for the said Land was not customary nor was it demisable for the custom had not taken hold of it In the same Case it was also shewed that within the said Manor some customary Lands are demiseable for life only Evidence of customs and some in Fee and it was said by the Lord Anderson that he who will give in Evidence these several customs ought to shew the several limits in which the several customs are severally running as that the Manor extends into two Towns and that the Lands in one of the said Towns are grantable for lives only and the Lands in the other in Fee and he ought not to shew the several customs promiscuè valere through the whole Manor And he remembred a Case of his own experience scil The Manor of Wadhurst in the County of Sussex consisted of two sorts of Copy-hold scil Sook-land and Bond-land and by several customs disseverable in several manners As if a man be first admitted to Sook-land and afterwards to Bond-land and dieth seised of both his Heir shall inherit both but if he be first admitted to Bond-land and afterward to Sook-land and of them dieth seised his youngest Son shall inherit and if of both simul semel his eldest Son shall inherit But if he dieth seised of Bond-land only it shall descend to the youngest and if customary Land hath been of ancient time grantable in Fee and now of late time for the space of forty years hath granted the same for life only yet the Lord may if he please resort to his ancient custom and grant it in Fee. It was also moved in this case If customary Land within a Manor hath been grantable in Fee if now the same Escheat to the Lord and he grant the same to another for life the same was holden a good grant and warrantable by the custom and should bind the Lord for the custom which enables him to grant in Fee shall enable him to grant for life and after the death of the Tenant for life the Lord may grant the same again in Fee for the grant for life was not any interruption of the custom c. which was granted by the whole Court. LXXI Walker and Nevils Case Pasch 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower WAlker and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Jervice Nevil and judgment was given upon Nihil dicit and because the first Husband of the Wife died seised a Writ of Enquiry of Damages was awarded by which it was found that the Land which she ought to have in Dower the third part was of the value of eight pound per annum and that eight years elapserunt a die mortis viri sui proximè ante inquisitionem assident damna to eight pounds and it appeared upon the Record that after Iudgment in the Writ of Dower aforesaid the Demandants had execution upon habere facias seisinam Damages so as it appeareth upon the whole Record put together that damages are assessed for eight years where the Demandants have been seised for part of the said eight years upon which the Tenant brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error because damages are assessed untill the time of the Inquisition where they ought to be but to to the time of the Iudgment but the Exception was not allowed Another Error was assigned because that where it is found that the Land was of the value of eight pounds per annum they have assessed damages for eight years to eighty pounds beyond the Revenue for according to the rate and value found by verdict it did amount but to sixty four pounds but that Error was not also allowed for it may be that by the long detaining of the Dower the Demandants have sustained more damages than the bare Revenue c. Another Error was assigned because Damages are assessed for the whole eight years after the death of the Husband where it appeareth that for part of the said years the Demandants were seised of the Lands by force of the Iudgment and execution in the Writ of Dower and upon that matter the writ of Error was allowed LXXII Archpool against the Inhabitants of Everingham Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Statute of Winchester of Huy and Cry by Archoopl against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Everingham the Iury found that the Plaintiff was robbed 2 Januarii post occasum solis sed per lucem diurnam and that after the Robbery committed the Plaintiff went to the Town of Andover and advertised the Baylies of the said Town of the said Robbery and further found that the said Town of Andover is not within the said Hundred of Everingham and that there is another Town nearer to the place where c. the Robbery was done than the said Town of Andover within the said Hundred but the said Town of Andover was the nearest place where c. by the Kings high-way It was moved that upon this matter the Plaintiff should not have judgment
for that he hath not made his Fresh sute according to the Law for he ought to have begun his Fresh sute within the Hundred where the Robbery was done and it was also objected that the Robbery was done post occasum solis in which Case the Hundreders are not to pursue the Malefactors And Walmsley Serjeant cited a Case out of Bracton Si appellatus se defenderit contra appellantem tota dle usque ad horam in qua Stellae incipiunt apparere recedat quietus de appello and it is not reason to drive the Hundreders to Follow felons at such a time 1 Cro. 270. when for want of light they cannot see them And all the Iustices were clear of opinion that if the Robbery was done in the night time the Inhabitants are not bound to make the pursute And by Rhodes if in a Praecipe quod reddat of Lands the Sheriff summons the Demandant upon the Land in the time of night such a summons is meerly void LXXIII Wiseman and Wisemas Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Trin 28. Rot. 1458. IN an Action of Debt by Wiseman against Wiseman the Case was Debt 1 And. 160. Owen 140. that one Wiseman was seised of the Lands and by his Will devised 1. I will and bequeath unto my Wife B. acre for the Term of her life the remainder to my Son Thomas in tail Item I will and bequeath unto my Son Thomas Devises all my Lands in D. and also my Lands in S. and also my Lands in V. Also I give and bequeath unto the said Thomas my Son all that mâ— Island or Land enclosed with water which I purchased of the Earl of Essex To have and to hold all the said last before devised premisses unto the said Thomas my Son and the Heirs of his Body The only matter was If the Habendum shall extend to the Island only in which Case Thomas shall have but for life in the Lands in D. S. and V. or unto the Island and also to the Lands in D. S. and V 2 Roll. 60. Roph. 126. in which Case he shall have Fee-tail in the whole And it was argued by Fenner that the Habendum should extend to the Island only as he said the opinion of the Iustices of this Court was in 4 Eliz. in another Case I devise my Manor to D. my eldest Son and also my Land in S. in tail in that Case the entail limited for the Land in S. shall not extend to the 1 Roll. 844. said Manor and of such opinion was Weston Welsh and Dyer Brown contra that the Son hath tail in both But if the words of the devise had been I devise my Manor of D. and my Lands in S. to my Son in tail here the Son had an estate tail in both So it hath been adjudged that if I devise Lands to A. B. and C. successively as they be named the same is good by way of Remainder Walmesley contrary and he relied much upon this that the words of the Habendum are in the plural number 2 Bulst 180. 181. All the last before devised premisses whereas the thing lately devised by the Will was an Island in the singular number which cannot satisfie the Habendum Extent of an Habendum which is in the plural number and therefore to verifie the plural number in the Habendum the Habendum by fit construction shall extend to all the Lands in D. S. and V. and so upon his motion made at another day it was resolved by all the Iustices that the Habendum should extend to all the said Lands and the Habendum should not streighten the Devise to the Island only LXXIV Fullwood and Fullwoods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Bail renders himself in Court. IN an Action upon the Case the Defendant put in bail to the Court to answer to the Action and now Iudgment being given against him he came into Court and rendred himself and prayed that in discharge of his sureties that the Court would record the rendring of himself which was granted And the Court demanded of the Plaintiff if he would pray execution for the body against the Defendant who said he would not whereupon the Court awarded that the sureties should be discharged and the Rule was entred that the Defendant offered himself in discharge of his sureties and Attornatus Querentis allocatus per curiam c. dixit se nolle c. Ideo consideratum fuit per curiam quod tam praedict defend quam praedict Manucaptores de recognitione praedict denariis in eadem contentis exonerentur LXXV Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was He in the Reversion upon a Lease for years makes a Charter of Feoffment to divers persons to the use of himself for life Feoffments and after to the use of his eldest Son in tail and the words of the Charter were Dedi Concessi Barganizavi Feoffavi and he sealed and delivered the deed but no livery of seisin was made and afterwards he came to his Lessee for years and said to him that he had made a Feoffment and shewed also the uses but did not shew to whom the Feoffment was made to whom the Lessee said you have done very well I am glad of it Attornment And if that were a good Attornment was the Question It was said that that was the Case of one Arden And Gent and Manwood were of opinion that the same was no Attornment because it was not made to the Feoffee scil to the Grantee of the Reversion and so it was ruled in this Case for Attornment ought to be to the Grantee himself and not to Cestuy que use 1 Cro. 251. Tythes and where the spiritual court shall have jurisdiction of them LXXVI The Parson of Facknams Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Parson of great Facknam brought an Action of Trespass against the Parson of Hannington and the Case was If the Parson of one Parish claim by prescription a portion of Tythes out of the Parish of another if the Spiritual Court shall have the Iurisdiction for the tryal of it And the opinion of the whole Court was clear that it should because that the matter is betwixt two spiritual persons and concerning the right of Tithes As 35 H. 6. 39. I. Vicar of B. brought Trespass for taking away of forty loads of Beans c. The Defendant pleaded that he is Parson of the said Church of B. and the Plaintiff is Vicar c. and before the Trespass c. the Beans were growing in the same Town and severed from the nine parts and he took them as belonging to his said Church and demanded Iudgment of the Court c. The Plaintiff said that he and all his Predecessors Vicars c. time out of mind c. have used to have the Tithes of such a Close c. belonging to his Vicaridge and
the Land was entailed by the second Fine But that Exception was disallowed by the whole Court and a difference put by Anderson Where a man pleads the grant of an Advowson in gross by Tenant in tail in such case the life of the Tenant in tail ought to be averred for by his death the grant ceaseth But where a man pleads the Lease of Tenant in tail of a Manor with an Advowson appendant in such case such averment is not necessary So accordingly Smith Stapletons Case 15 Eliz. 431. And here it was moved if in as much as by the first Fine an estate for life was rendred to the Wife and by the second Fine in which she did not joyn an estate tail was limited unto her and now when the Husband dieth if he shall be remitted to her estate for life Co. 1 Inst 357. 2 Cro. 489. which Windham granted for that was her lawful estate and the second estate tortious But by Rhodes Periam and Anderson the Wife is at liberty to make her election which of the two estates she will have And as to the Writ to the Bishop for the Queen the Court was clear of opinion that it ought not to be granted upon this matter But all the question was if Regina inconsulta the Court would or ought to proceed And it was holden clearly by the whole Court that the tenure alledged modo forma could not be a tenure in chief for it is said that the Land was holden of the King as of the Castle of Dover in Capite LXXXVI Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Intr. Pasc 28 Eliz. Rot. 602. Wast â— Cro. 40. 4â— WAst was brought by F. and his Wife agaist Pepy and counted that the said Pepy was seised and enfeoffed certain persons to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Wife of the Plaintiff and her Heirs The Defendant pleaded that the said Feoffment was unto the use of himself and his Heirs in Fee c. without that that it was to the uses in the Count Vpon which they were at issue And it was found by verdict that the said Feoffment was unto the uses contained in the Count But the Iury further found that the estate of the Defendant by the limitation of the use was priviledged with the impunity for Wast that is to say without impeachment of Wast And it was moved if upon this verdict the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment And Anderson and Rhodes Iustices he shall for the matter in issue is found for the Plaintiff and that is the Feoffment to the uses contained in the Count and this impunity of Wast is a forrein matter not within the charge of the Iury and therefore the traverse of it but matter of surplusage As if I plead the Feoffment of I. S. To which the other pleads that he did not enfeoff and the Iury find a conditional Feoffment the Court shall not respect the finding of the condition for it was not in issue and no advantage shall ever be had of such a liberty if it be not pleaded 30 H. 8. Dyer 41. In Dower the Tenant pleaded Ne unques seisi que Dower the Tenant pleaded that before the coverture of the Demandant one A. was seised of the Lands of which Dower is demanded in tail who made a Feoffment to a stranger and took the Demandant to Wife and took back an estate in Fee and died seised having issue inheritable Now although upon the truth of the matter she is not dowable de jure yet when the parties are at issue upon a point certain Hob. 53. Owen 91. no foreign or strange matter not in question betwixt the parties shall be respected in the point of the Iudgment But if the Defendant had pleaded it in bar he might have foreclosed the Demandant of her Dower Vide 38 H. 6. 27. 47 E. 3. 19. In a Praecipe quod reddat in the default of the Tenant one cause and shewed how the Tenant who made default was but Tenant for life of the Lands in demand the reversion in Fee to himself and prayed to be received The Demandant did counter-plead the receit saying the Defendant had fee upon which issue was joyned And it was found that neither the tenant nor he which prayed to be received had any thing in the Land In that case the Court did not regard the matter which was superfluous in the verdict for they were at issue upon a point certain that is whether the Tenant was seised in Fee for it was confessed of both sides that he had an estate for life and with that matter the Iury was not charged and they are not to enquire of it and so it was found against the Demandant for which cause the Receit was granted 7 H 6. 20. The parties were at issue upon a dying seised which is found by verdict but the Iury further find that the other party made continual claim this continual claim shall not be regarded in the point of Iudgment because it was pleaded in avoidance of the descent Windh Iustice contrary Forasmuch as it appeareth unto us upon the verdict that the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action and therefore he shall not have Iudgment As in Detinue No advantage of impunity for Wast shall be taken where the same is not pleaded though found by verdict Judgment Hob. 53. Owen 91. The Plaintiff counteth of a bailment by his own hand the Defendant pleadeth that he doth not detain c. the Iury find the Detinue but upon a bailment by another hand In this case notwithstanding that the Detinue be found yet the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment But Rhodes Periam and Anderson in the principal case were of opinion Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for in no case the party shall have advantage of such a Liberty of impunity of Wast if he do not plead it And the Iurors are not to meddle with any matter which is not in issue And if it be but matter of surplusage it is to no purpose And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff LXXXVII Bracebridge and Baskerviles Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco AN Action of Debt is brought against three Executors Debt against Executors one of them pleads in Bar a Recovery against himself in the Kings Bench The other two plead plene administr Against the first plea the Plaintiff did aver covin and upon the second plea they are at issue The first issue is found for the Plaintiff and as to the other plea it was found that the Defendants have in their hands thirty pounds of the goods of their Testator not administred Note the debt in demand was one hundred pounds upon which the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover the goods of the Testator and thereupon had execution Now the Plaintiff brought a Scire facias against the said Executors supposing that many other goods of the Testator have come unto their
because without summons but where summons issueth and the same is entred upon the Roll there may the vouchee at the Return appear in person or by Attorny at his Election And that was the clear opinion of all the Iustices and also of the Prothonotaries CV Keys and Steds Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN a Formedon by Keys against Sted the Case was the Sted and his Wife were Tenants for life Formodon 2 Len. 9. the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee and the Writ of Formedon brought against Sted only who made default after default whereupon came his Wife and prayed to be received to defend her right which was denied her by the Court for this Recovery doth not bind her and it is to no purpose for her to defend her right in that Action which cannot here be impearched Whereupon he in the Remainder came and prayed to be received and the Court at first doubted of the Receit forasmuch as if the Demandant shall have Iudgment to recover he in the Remainder might falsify the Recovery because his estate upon which he prayeth to be received doth not depend upon the estate impleaded scil a sole estate whereas his Remainder doth depend upon a joynt estate in the Husband and Wife Falsifier of Recovery not named in the Writ But at the last notwithstanding the said Exception the Receit was granted See 40 E. 3. 12. CVI. Liveseys Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Writ of Right IN a Writ of Right against Thomas Livesey of the Mannor of D. de duabus partibus Custodiae Forrestae de C. the Tenant did demand the view and he had it and return was made and now the Writ of Habere facias visum was viewed by the Court and it was Visum Manerii duarum partium Custodiae c. And it was holden by the Court not to be a sufficient view for the Forrest it self ought to be put in view scil the whole Forrest View and not duae partes tantum as where a Rent or Common is demanded the Land out of which the Rent or Common is going ought to be put in view and there a Writ of Habere facias visum de novo issued forth CVII Germys Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco GErmy brought Debt upon a Bond against A. as Executor Debt 2 Len. 119. and the Case was That the Testator of A. by his Will did appoint certain Lands and named which should be sold by his Executors and the moneys thereof arising distributed amongst his Daughters when they have accomplished their ages of one and twenty years the Lands are sold if the moneys thereof being in the hands of the Executors until the full age of the Daughters shall be assets to pay the debts of the Testator And by the clear opinion of the whole Court Assets Post 224. the same shall not be assets for that this money is limited to a special use CVIII Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN an Action of Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant saith that the Plaintiff shall not be answered for he is out-lawed and shewed the Outlawry in certain by the name of I. S. of D. in the County of c. The Plaintiff shewed that at the time of the sute begun against I.S. upon whom the Out-lawry was pronounced the said I.S. now Plaintiff was dwelling at S. absque hoc that he was dwelling at D. Vide 21 H. 7. 13. And it was holden a good Replication to avoid the Out-lawry without a Writ of Error by Anderson 10 E. 4. 12. For if he were not dwelling at D. then he cannot be intended the same person See 39 H. 6. 1. CIX Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IT was agreed by the whole Court and affirmed by the Prothonotaries That if in Account the Defendant be adjudged to account and be taken by a Capias ad computandum and set to mainprize pendent the Account before the Auditors and doth not keep his day before them that now a Capias ad computandum de novo shall issue forth against him CX Glosse and Haymans Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. JOan Glosse brought an Action of Trespass vi armis Trespass vi armis against a Servant for carrying away his Masters goods Owen 52. Morâ— 248. against John Hayman who pleaded the general Issue and the Iury found this special matter That the Plaintiff was a Grocer in Ipswich and there held a Shop of Grocery quod illa reposuit fiduciam in the Defendant to sell the Grocery Wares of the Plaintiff in the said Shop And further found that the said Defendant being in the said Shop in form aforesaid cepit asportavit the said Wares and did convert them c. It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that this Action vi armis upon this matter doth not lie but rather an Action upon the Case But the Court was clear of opinion that the Action doth well lie for when the Defendant was in the Shop aforesaid the Goods and Wares did remain in the custody and possession of the Plaintiff her self And the Defendant hath not any Interest possession or other thing in them and therefore if he entermeddle with them in any other manner than by uttering of them by sale according to the authority to him committed he is a Trespassor for he hath not any authority to carry the Wares out of the Shop not sold but all his authority is within the Shop And Rodes put the Case of Littleton 25. If I deliver my Sheep to another to manure his Land or my Oxen to plow his Land and afterwards he kills them I shall have an Action of Trespass against him And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXI Martin and Stedds Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. RIchard Martin Alderman of London brought an Action upon the Case against Stedd and declared That whereas the Queen by her Letters Patents dated the 27. of August anno 24. of her Reign had granted to the Plaintiff the Office of Master of the Mint through all England to exercise the said Office secundum formam quarundam Indent betwixt the said Queen and the said Plaintiff conficiendam and that in January following the said Indenture was made by which it was agreed betwixt the said Queen and the Plaintiff that the money in posterum should be made in such manner c. according to the true Standard and declared that he had duly and lawfully made all the money according to the said Standard Yet the Defendant machinans c. had slanderously spoken and given out speeches in these words Mr. Martin hath not made the money as good and fine as the Standard by an half penny in the ounce and so he hath saved four thousand pounds It was objected against this Declaration by Walmesley Serjeant that here the Plantiff hath declared upon
Curiam the same is no offence in the Court but it was an ill act of the Master of the Rolls For we oftentimes have persons here upon Habeas Corpus who are also arrested by Process out of the Exchequer or of the Common Pleas but we will not discharge them before they have found Sureties for their appearance c. and so the said Courts use to do reciprocally and we cannot punish the Sheriff for the Hebas Corpus was first returnable before the Latitat but the party may have an action against the Sheriff but we will speak with the Master of the Rolls c. and afterwards Baill was put in But afterwards another Exception was taken to the Return scil a custodia nostra exoneratus fuit which might be intended as to the Cause in the Chancery only and not for the Cause here for he hath not alledged that he hath not alledged That he was committed to any other in custody and for that cause day was given to the Sheriff to amend his Return CCII. Upton and Wells Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae by Upton against Wells Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and upon the habere facias possessionem The Sheriff retuned that in the Execution of the said Writ he took the Plaintiff with him and came to the house recovered and removed thereout a woman and two children which were all the persons which upon diligent search he could find in the said house and delivered to the Plaintiff peaceable possession to his thinking and afterwards departed and immediately after three other persons which were secretly lodged in the said house expulsed the Plaintiff again 2 Len. 12 13. Latch 165. upon notice of which he returned again to the said house to put the Plaintiff in full possession but the other did resist him so as without peril of his life and of them that were with him in company he could not do it And upon this Return the Court awarded a new Writ of execution for that the same was no Execution of the first Writ and also awarded an Attachment against the parties CCIII Marsh and Astreys Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 175. MArsh brought an Action upon the Case against Astrey and declared That he had procured a Writ of Entry sur disseisin against one A. and thereupon had a summons for Lands in London and delivered the said Summons to Astrey being Vnder-Sheriff of the same County virtute cujus the said Astrey summoned the said A. upon the Land but notwithstanding that did not return the said Summons Astrey pleaded Not guilty And it was tryed in London where the action was brought for the Plaintiff and it was moved by Cook in arrest of Iudgment That here is a mis-trial for this issue ought to be tryed in the County where the Land is because that the cause is local but the Exception was not allowed for the action is well layed in London and so the trial there also is good Trial. Another Exception was moved because the action ought to be against the Sheriff himself and not against the Vnder-Sheriff for the Sheriff is the Officer to the Court and all Returns are in his Name and I grant that an action for any falsity or deceit lyeth against the Vnder-Sheriff as for embesseling rasing of Writs c. but upon Non feasans as the Case is here the not Retorn of the Summons it ought to be brought against the Sheriff himself See 41 E. 3. 12. And if the Vnder-Sheriff take one in Execution and suffereth him to escape debt lyeth against the Sheriff himself Another Exception was taken because the Declaration is that the said Astrey Intendens machinans ipsum querent in actione sua praedict prosequend impedire c. did not retorn the said Summons but doth not say tunc exist Vnder-Sheriff Snag contrary If a Baily Errant of the Sheriff take one in Execution and he suffer him to escape an action lieth against the Baily himself And that was agreed in the Case of a Baily of Middlesex and Sir Richard Dyer Sheriff of Huntington and his Vnder-Sheriff who suffered a Prisoner to escape the action was brought against the Vnder-Sheriff for it may be the Sheriff himself had not notice of the matter because the Writ was delivered to the Vnder-Sheriff and he took a Fee for it and therefore it is reason that he shall be punished As if a Clerk in an Office mis-enter any thing he himself shall be punished and not the Master of the Office because he takes a fee for it But if the Retorn made by the Baily be insufficient Then the Sheriff himself shall be amerced but in the principal case it is clear That the action lieth against the Vnder-Sheriff if the party will and such was the opinion of Gawdy and Clench As to the other matter because it is not alledged in the Declaration That the Defendant was Vnder-Sheriff at the time the Declaration is good enough notwithstanding that for so are all the Presidents and if the Defendant were not Vnder-Sheriff the same shall come in of the other side See 21 E. 4. 23. And afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCIV. Hedd and Chaloners Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 176. 2 Roll. 42. 176. IN an Ejectione firmae by Hedd against Chaloner upon a Demise for years of Jane Berd It was found by especial Verdict That William Berd was seised in fee made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life afterward to the use of his two Daughters Joan Alice in fee and died and Joan entred into the Land and by Indenture by the name of Jane Berd leased the same to the Plaintiff for three years And it was further found That Joan intended in the Feoffment and Jane who leased are one and the same person Wray It hath been agreed here upon good advice and Conference with Grammarians that Joan and Jane are but one Name And Women because Joan seems to them a homely name would not be called Joan but Jane But admit that they were several Names Then he and Gawdy were of opinion it should not be good But afterwards it was said by Gawdy That this action is not grounded meerly upon the Indenture but upon the Demise and that is the substance and the Indenture is but to enforce it sci the lease 44 E. 3. 42. Another matter was moved here the remainder was limited to Joan and Alice in fee by which they are Ioint Tenants and then when one of them enters the same vests the possession in them both Then by the demise of Joan a moyety passeth only to the Plaintiff Wray Here the Term is incurred and the Plaintiff is to recover damages only and no title at all is found for the Defendant and so there is no cause but that Iudgment should be given for
demanded by the name of a house And afterwards the Writ was awarded good but a special Iudgment was given ita quod querens recuperet Messuagium praedict viz. so many feet in length and so many in breadth according to that which was found by the Verdict CCXI. Degory and Roes Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt DEgory brought Debt upon an Obligation against Roe as heir to his Ancestor The defendant pleaded That his Ancestor by his deed did covenant with Sir W. Winter and A. Marsh to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Defendant and his heirs and so he had nothing by descent The Plaintiff replicando said non convenit and it was found by special verdict That such a deed of Covenant was made by the Ancestor of the Defendant but the first use was limited to the Covenantor and his wife for their Lives c. And that he delivered the same to I. S. as his deed to the use of the said Sir W. VVinter and the said Marsh if the said Sir W. VVinter would agree to the same and take the charge of it upon him and if he will not agree That then it should not be his deed and further found That Sir W. Winter died before any agreement and it was moved by Periam If the same be presently the Deed of the Ancestor or if it do not take effect till the condition be performed sci until Sir W. Winter hath agreed to it See 14. H. 8. 17 18 19 20 23. And by Walmesly Deeds when to take effect The same is not the Deed of the Ancestor until Sir William hath agreed But by Anderson and Periam although Sir William Winter doth not agree to it yet it is the deed of Roe for although a deed be upon condition ut supra yet because he delivered it as his deed and the Condition is subsequent to it It shall be taken for his deed and the condition after shall be void because repugnant For although that in Estates limited to men the estate may be precedent and the condition subsequent the not performance of the condition may destroy the estate for the estate is always subject to the condition yet it is not so in Deeds for being once the deed of the party it can never cease to be his deed after it is once delivered as his deed Owen Although the same be the deed of the party yet it is not well pleaded he conceived the issue is found against him for the Covenant is pleaded to stand seised unto the use of himself for life the Remainder over To which the Plaintiff Replicando saith non convenit so as the Issue is if any such Deed of Covenant was and the Iury find That the Covenant was to stand seised to the use of himself and his wife c. so as it is not such a Deed as the Defendant hath pleaded for other estates are limitted by it and therefore it shall not be intended the same Deed. Periam The same is not material for the substance of the Plea is Nothing by descent c. and it was adjourned CCXII. The Scholars of All-souls in Oxford and Tamworths Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Night by the Colledge of All-souls in Oxford against Tamworth Writ of Right 1 Cro. 232. the Writ was Quod clamat tenere de nobis in liberam puram et perpetuam Elemosinam And exeception was taken to it because it ought to be in liberam Eleemosinam sans pura perpetua also it ought to be Eleemosina with a Double e and not Elemosina with a single e but the exception was not allowed For as to the first Exception it is but surplusage and as to the other It is the common course Another exception was taken to the Writ because the words are quod clamat esse jus haereditatem suam without saying in jure Collegii Anderson The Writ is good enough If a Parson plead that he is seised he shall say in jure Ecclesiae for he hath two capacities and without such words here shall be intended seised in his own Right But if an Abbot plead that he was seised there needs not such words for he hath no other capacity so of Dean and Chapter Mayor and Comminalty And afterwards the Writ was awarded good and that the Tenant should answer over c. See Book Entries 236 237. It was also moved If the Colledge shall count of its seisin within 30 years because that the Corporation never dies and then if he count of its own possession the same is without limitation And it was holden that if the Guardian of the Colledge which now is was ever seised he ought to count upon a seisin within thirty years But upon the seisin of his Predecessor he ought to count of a seisin within 60 years as another common person for the change of the Teste of such a seisin is as the dying seised and descent of a common person CCXIII. The Lord Buckhurst and the Bishop of Winchesters Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In Communi Banco Quare Impedit THe Lord Buckhurst brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Winc. and counted that he was seised of the Manor of D. to which the Advowson was appendant and that the said Church became void and that he presented Maurice Sackvil his Clark. The Defendant pleaded that he was seised of the said Advowson as in gross and presented one Maurice Sackvil absque hoc that the Advowson was appendant It was moved that the Defendant ought to traverse the Presentment and not the Appendancy especially as the cause is here where they both present one and the same person To which it was said that that doth not appear for the Defendant hath pleaded that he presented Maurice Sackvil but doth not say praedict Maurice Sackvil so as it may be he is not the same person but another See 10 H. 7. 27. The Traverse is well taken contrary where the Plaintiff declares of an Advowson in gross and that he to the same presented and the Defendant pleadeth that he is seised of such a Manor to which the Advowson is appendant c. without that that the Advowson is in gross there he shall traverse the presentment for the presentment shall make it in gross See 13 H. 8. 12. CCXIV. Jennings and Winches Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Assumpsit IN an Action upon the Case by Jennings against Winch. The Plaintiff declared upon an Assumpsit by the Defendant 1 Maii. 32. Eliz. and counted upon a Mutuatus for twenty shillings and an Indebitatus for four pounds The Defendant pleaded that he being endebted to the Plaintiff in five pounds and W. S. in another five pounds they became bounden to the Plaintiff in twenty pounds for the payment of ten pounds in satisfaction of the said sum of five pounds and
Godfrey in arrest of Iudgment That it is apparent upon the Declaration That the Trespass was done in the time of their Predecessors of which the Successor cannot have action and actio personalis moritur cum persona See 19 H. 6. 66. But the old Church-wardens shall have the action Cook contrary and that the present Church-wardens shall have the action and that in respect of their office which the Court granted And by Gawdy Church-wardens are a Corporation by the Common Law. See 12 H. 7. 28. by Frowick That the New Church-wardens shall not have an action upon such a Trespass done to their Predecessors contrary by Yaxley See by Newton and Paston That the Executors of the Guardian in whose time the Trespass was done shall have Trespass CCXLIX Hauxwood and Husbands Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared for disturbing of him to use his common c. and shewed that A. was seised of certain Lands to which this Common was appendant Prescription 1 Cro. 153. for the term of his Life the Remainder to B. in tail and that the said A. and B. did demise unto him the said Lands for years c. Pepper The Declaration is not good for it is not shewed how these particular estates did commence See 20 E. 4. 10. By Piggot Lessee for life and he in the Remainder cannot prescribe together and he in the Remainder cannot have common Also he declares That Tenant for life and he in Remainder demised to him whereas in truth it is the demise of Tenant for life and the Confirmation of him in the Remainder also he doth not aver the life of Tenant for life Popham He needs not to shew the commencement of the particular estates for we are a stranger to them the Prescription in them both is well enough for all is but one estate and the Lease of both See 27 H. 8. 13. The Lessee for life and he in the Reversion made a Lease for life and joyned in an action of wast and there needs no averment of the life of the Tenant for life for he in the Reversion hath joyned which Gawdy granted as to all And said the particular estates are but as conveyance unto the action Wray conceived the first Exception to be material c. CCL Sweeper and Randals Case Rot. 770. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close and carrying away his goods by Sweeper against Randal upon Not guilty pleaded i Cro. 156. The Iury found That one John Gilbert was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff at Will who sowed the Land and afterwards the Plaintiff agreed with the said Gilbert to surrender to him the said Land and his interest in the same and the said Gilbert entred and leased to the Defendant who took the Corn. It was moved if these words I agree to surrender my Lands be a present and express surrender Gawdy It is not any surrender for Tenant at will cannot surrender but it is but a relinquishing of the estate if it be any thing Surrender but in truth it is not any thing in present but an act to be done in future Wray I agree A. demiseth the Manor of D. at will it is no Lease no more shall it be here any Surrender or any relinquishing of the estate Clench conceived That the intent of the Party was to leave his estate at the time of the speaking otherwise those words were void for he might leave it at any time without those words Gawdy If such was his intent the Iury ought to find it expressly and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCLI Ward and Blunts Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 146. IN an Action upon the Case of Trover of certain Loads of Corn at Henden in Middlesex and the conversion of them The Defendant pleaded That before the conversion he was seised of certain Lands called Harminglow in the County of Stafford and that the Corn whereof c. was there growing and that he did sever it by force of which he was possessed and the same casually lost and that the same came to the hands of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff casually lost the same and the same came to the hands of the Defendant at Henden aforesaid and he did convert the same to his own use as it was lawful for him to do upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Atkinson The Plea is good for the conversion is the point of the action and the effect of it For if a man take the same and do not convert he is not guilty And here the Defendant doth justifie the conversion wherefore he cannot plead Not guilty The general issue is to be taken where a man hath not any colour but here the Defendant hath colour because the Corn whereof c. was growing upon his Land which might enveigle the Lay people and therefore it is safest to plead the special matter But admit that it doth amount but to the general issue yet there is not any cause of Demurrer but the Plaintiff ought to shew the same to the Court and pray that the general issue be entred and the Court ex officio ought to do it Egerton the Queens Solicitor contrary The Plea in Bar is not good The Plaintiff declares of a Trover of his goods ut de bonis suis propriis and the Defendant pleads That he took his own goods which is not any answer to the Plaintiff See 22 E. 3. 18. In Trespass of taking and carrying away his Trees The Defendant pleads That they were our Trees growing in our own soil and we cut them and carryed them away and the plea was challenged wherefore the Defendant pleaded over without that that he took the Trees of the Plaintiff So 26 Ass 22. and 30 E. 3. 22. Another matter was The Plea in Bar is That before the time of the Conversion the Defendant was seised of the Land and sowed it and that after the Corn was severed but he doth not say that he was seised at the time of the severance and then it might be that he had severed the Corn of the Plaintiff c. and that was holden by the Court to be a material exception wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff But as to the first Exception the same was disallowed For the Court ex Officio in such case ought to cause the general issue to be entred but the Plaintiff ought not to demur upon it CCLIV Cheiny and Langleys Case Hill. 31. Eliz. Rott 638. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe case was That Tenant for life of certain Lands leased the same for years by Indenture with these words I give grant 1 Cro. 157. Leases bargain and sell my interest in such Lands for twenty years To have and to hold
Mich. 31. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae by Richard Sutton against Robert Holloway and Thomas Dickons Sâ—vil 99. Owen 96. Co. 1 Inst 227. a 3 Cro. 77. upon not guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That the said Thomas Dickins had not any thing in the Lands in question at the time of the making of the Lease upon which the Action is brought scil Who leased by Indenture to the Plaintiff for certain years who entred and afterwards the said Thomas Dickins contra Indenturam suam praedictam intravit upon the Plaintiff and If the same should be a good Lease by Estoppel was the question the Iury having found the truth of the matter scil That the Lessor had not any thing at the time of the demise Walmesley objected That the Iury ought not to find the Indenture because it was not pleaded for the Plaintiff doth not declare upon any Indenture Hob. 227. but the Exception was not allowed but in old time the Law was such 22 E. 3. but at this day the Law is otherwise See Scholastica's Case 14. Eliz. Plowd 411. But where a Release or other writing ought to be pleaded there it ought to be shewed to the Court. VValmesley In rei veritate the Lease is void for a man cannot let Land in which he hath not any thing but in respect of the parties themselves the Lessors and Lessee both are concluded to say That is no Lease for none of them can say to the contrary But here the Iury which is a third person Estoppel is not estopped to say the truth but they may find the special matter and the truth of the Case and the Estoppel hath not place there but the truth of the matter appearing to the Iudges the Iudges ought to adjudge upon the same scil If a man may make an effectual lease of Lands in which he hath not any thing At another day it was moved by Shuâ—l Although that the Iury be not estopped yet the parties themselves are estopped for the Law makes the Estoppel betwixt the parties and the Law will not permit a man to say any thing against his own Deed being indented nor any matter contained in it Periam and Anderson clearly for the Plaintiff That it is a Lease by Estoppel and by Periam It hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench That the Iury in such case are compellable upon pain of Attaint to find the Estoppel VValmesley Here the Estoppel is out of Doors for the truth of the matter disclosed by the Verdict not by the parties only maketh the Estoppel he much replied upon the case of Littleton 149. a. A woman seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Husband who alieneth to another in Fee the Alienee leaseth to the Husband and Wife for their lives now the Wife is remitted and seised in Fee as before here if the Alienee i. e. the Lessor brings an Action of Wast against the Husband and Wife the Husband cannot bar the Plaintiff by the truth of the matter scil the Remitter of his Wife for he is estopped to say against his own Feoffment and his retaking of the particular estate to himself and his Wife But if in an Action of Wast the Husband make default at the Grand Distress and the Wife prayeth to the received she may well shew the whole matter So here the Iury VVindham The Plaintiff ought to have demurred upon the Evidence Periam What if the Defendant will not joyne with the Plaintiff in the Demurrer VVindham there the Court ought to over-rule them if the parties had demurred upon the Evidence we should have adjudged upon that Evidence that a man cannot lease lands in which he hath not any thing And here the Estoppel could not be pleaded for the Defendant hath pleaded the general Issue but if he had pleaded Non demisit then the Estoppel should have holden place CCLXXXVII Mills and Snowballs Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Iury did surmise at the Bar that he was a Tenant in Ancient demesne and had his Charter in his hand Priviledge of Exemption from Juries 1 Cro. 142. and prayed to be exempted from the Iury and discharged but the Court did not regard it but caused him to be sworn And Windham said that he might have his remedy against the Sheriff and Nelson Prothonotay said if he had made default and lost Issues he might shew his Charter in the Exchequer upon the Amercement estreated and there he should be discharged In that Case it was holden by the Court That if a Feoffment be made of a House and the Deed be delivered in the House without other circumstance the same doth not amount to a Livery of seisin but if he do any act by which the intent of the Feoffor appeareth that the Feoffee should have Livery and Seisin Livery of seisin as if the parties go of purpose to the place intended to pass to the intent that the Deed may be delivered in that kind the same doth amount to a Livery by Anderson and the whole Court. CCLXXXVIII Bradstocks Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco RObert Bradstock seised in Fee of certain Lands made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself in tail Estates and for want of such Issue to the use of John Bradstock his Brother in tail and for want of such Issue to the use of Henry Bradstock another Brother in tail Conditions Provided always That if the said John or Henry do go about to avoid any estate or demise by Copy made or to be made of the Premisses or any part thereof that then his estate should cease Robert died without Issue John entred and levyed a Fine Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. of the Land And the opinion of the whole Court was That this Fine was not any offence against the said Proviso for these words made or to be made do not extend to estates made or limited by the said Feoffment but only to estates before made and to be made afterwards CCLXXXIX Long and Hemmings Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN a Quare Impedit by Long against Hemming and the Bishop of Gloucester or the Church of Frombillet upon the pleading the Issue was Quare Impedit 1 Cro. 209. If Tho. Long Father of the Plaintiff did enfeoff the Plaintiff of the Manor of From. to which the Advowson of the said church was appendant before he granted the Advowson to one Strengtham who granted it to the Def. or not And the Iury gave a special Verdict scil That the Abbot of S. was seised of a capital Messuage in Frombillet of one hundred Acres of Land there And that there was a Tenancy holden of the said capital Messuage by such Services and that the said capital Messuage had been known time out of mind by the name of the Manor of Frombillet and that the Advowson was
If now because the Tithes are not expresly named in the Habendum the Grantee shall have them for life only was the Question It was moved by Popham Attorney General That the Grantee had the Tithes but for life and to that purpose he cited a Case adjudged 6 Eliz. in the Common Pleas A man grants black Acre and white Acre Habendum black Acre for life nothing of white Acre shall pass but at will and in the argument of that case Anthony Browne put this case Queen Mary granted to Rochester such several Offices and shewed them specially Habendum two of them and shewed which in certain for forty years It was adjudged that the two Offices which were not mentioned in the Habendum were to Rochester but for life and determined by his death And so he said in this Case The Tithes not mentioned in the Habendum shall be to the Grantee for life and then he dying his Executors taking the Tithes are Intrudors But as to that It was said by Manwood chief Baron That the cases are not alike for the Grants in the cases cited are several intire and distinct things which do not depend the one upon the other but are in gross by themselves But in our Cases The Tithes are parcel of the Rectory and therefore for the nearness betwixt them i. the Rectory and the Tithes the Tithes upon the matter pass together with the site of the Rectory for the term of twenty years and Iudgment was afterwards given accordingly CCCLXXXI The Lord Darcy and Sharpes Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas Mich. 27 28 Rot. 2432. Debt THomas Lord Darcy Executor of John Lord Darcy brought Debt upon a Bond against Sharpe who pleaded that the Condition of the Bond was That if the said Sharpe did perform all the Covenants c. contained within a pair of Indentures c. By which Indentures the said John Lord Darcy had sold to the said Sharpe certain Trees growing c. And by the same Indentures Sharpe had covenanted to cut down the said Trees before the seventh of August 1684. and shewed further That after the sealing and delivery of the said Indenture the said Lord Darcy now Plaintiff Razure of Deeds 11 Co. 27. caused and procured I. S. to raze the Indenture quod penes praedict Querentem remanebat and of 1684. to make it 1685. and so the said Indenture become void And the opinion of the whole Court was clear against the Defendant for the razure is in a place not material and also the razure trencheth to the advantage of the Defendant himself who pleads it and if the Indenture had become void by the razure the Obligation had been single and without Defeasance CCCLXXXII Rollston and Chambers Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Costs where Damages are given 2 Len. 52. ROllston brought an Action of Trespass upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible Entry against Chambers and upon Issue joyned it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages assessed by the Iury and costs of suit also and costs also de incremento were adjudged And all were trebled in the Iudgment with this purclose quae quidem damna in toto se attingunt ad c. and all by the name of Damages It was objected against this Iudgment that where damages are trebled no costs shall be given as in Wast c. But it was clearly agreed by the whole Court That not only the costs assessed by the Iury but also those which were adjudged de incremento should be trebled and so were all the Presidents as was affirmed by all the Prothonotaries and so are many Books 19 H. 6. 32. 14 H. 6. 13. 22 H. 6. 57. 12 E. 4. 1. And Book of Entries 334. and Iudgment was given accordingly And in this case it was agreed by all the Iustices That the party so convicted of the force at the suit of the party should be fined notwithstanding that he was fined before upon Indictment for the same force CCCLXXXIII Jennor and Hardies Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Trin. 27 Eliz. Rot. 1606. THe Case was Lands were devised to one Edith for life upon condition that she should not marry and if she died or married Devises that then the Land should remain to A. in tail and if A. died without Issue of his body in the life of Edith that then the Land should remain to the said Edith to dispose thereof at her pleasure And if the said A. did survive the said Edith that then the Lands should be divided betwixt the Sisters of the Devisor A. died without Issue living Edith Shutleworth Serjeant Edith hath but for life and yet he granted That if Lands be devised to one to dispose at his will and pleasure without more saying That the Devisee hath a Fee-simple but otherwise it is when those words are qualified and restrained by special Limitation As 15 H. 7. 12. A man deviseth that A. Goldsb 135. Shepherds Touch-stone 439. shall have his Lands in perpetuum during his life he hath but an estate for life for the words During his life do abridge the Interest given before And 22 Eliz. one deviseth Lands to another for life to dispose at his will and pleasure he hath but an estate for life And these words If A. dieth without Issue in the life of Edith That then the Lands should remain to Edith to dispose at her pleasure shall not be construed to give to Edith a Fee-simple but to discharge the particular estate of the danger penalty and loss which after might come by her marriage so as now it is in her liberty And also he said That by the Limitation of the latter Remainder i. That the Lands should be divided betwixt the Daughters of his Sister the meaning of the Devisor was not that Edith should have a Fee-simple for the Remainder is not limited to her Heirs c. if A. dieth in the life of the said Edith for the Devisor goeth further That if A. overlives Edith and afterwards dieth without Issue that the said Land should be divided c. Walmesley contrary And he relyed much upon the words of the Limitation of the Remainder to Edith Quod integra remaneat dictae Edithae and that she might dispose thereof at her pleasure Ante 156. for the said division is limited to be upon a Contingent i. if A. survive Edith but if Edith survive A. then his intent is not that the Lands should be divided c. but that they shall wholly remain to Edith which was granted by the whole Court and the Iustices did rely much upon the same reason and they were very clear of opinion That by those words Edith had a Fee-simple And Iudgment was given accordingly Anderson conceived That it was a Condition but although that it be a Condition so as it may be doubted if a Remainder might be limited upon a Condition yet this devise is as
word Children a good name of purchase But the whole Court was against that conceit for these words in the case At the Assignment of Friendship are not void but shew what person should take if the intent of the party should take effect i. he who the Father by Assignment should enable for no Child shall take but he who the Father shall assign that is part of the contract and although by such Assignment no title accrues to the Child assigned yet without Assignment no Child is capable for by the Lease the Father hath such Liberty that he may assign what Child he will And by Wray If the words of the Lease had been at the assignment of the Father within one month and the Father surcease his month Antea 275. the Interest should not vest in any of the Children And by Ayliff Iustice If the words of the Lease had been to the Husband and wife and their Son John where his name is William nothing should vest And peradventure in this case at the Bar if the Father had assigned his Son then born and had assigned him before or at the time of the Lease i. the delivery of the Lease it had been well enough Note that this Action was brought by Cole Lessee of the Son of the Husband and VVife born at the time of the Lease made And afterwards Wray with the assent of all the rest of the Iustices gave Iudgment that the Plaintiff Nihil capiat per Billam CCCXCII Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Execution where joynt where several NOte It was agreed by the whole Court and affirmed by the Clerks That if Debt be brought upon an Obligation against two upon a joynt Praecipe and the Plaintiff hath judgment to recover that a joynt Execution ought to be sued against them both But if the suit were by one Original and several Praecipes execution might be sued against any of them CCCXCIII Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Replevin IN a Replevin The Defendant doth avow for Damage Feasant and shewed that the Lady Jermingham was seised of such a Mannor whereof c. and leased the same to the Defendant for years c. The Plaintiff said That long befor King H. 8. was seised of the said Manor and that the place where is parcel of the said Manor demised and demisable by copy c. and the said King by his Steward demised and granted the said parcel to the Ancestor of the Plaintiff whose Heir he is by copy in fee c. upon which it was demurred because by this Bar to the Avowry the Lease set forth in the Avowry is not answered for the Plaintiff in the Bar to the Avowry ought to have concluded and so was seised by the custom until the Avowant praetextu of the said Term for years entred And so it was adjudged CCCXCIV The Lord Dacres Case Trin. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ante 227. Stewardship of a Manor Office of Trust Grants per Copy Deputy Steward IN Ejectione firmae the case was That the Lord Dacres was seised of the Manor of Eversham and that I.S. held the place where of the said Manor by copy for term of his life and the said Lord granted the Stewardship of the said Manor to the now Marquess of Winchester who appointed one Chedle to be his Deputy to keep a court ad traden dum the said Lands I.S. being now dead to one Wilkins by copy for life afterwards the said Chedle commanded one Hardy his Servant to keep the said court and grant the said Land by copy ut supra which was done accordingly the copy was entred and the Lord Dacres subsigned it confirmed it It was further found That Hardy had many times kept the said court both before and after and that the custom of the Manor was that the Steward of the said Manor for the time being or his Deputy might take Surrenders 1 Co. 48. 49. and grant estates by copy And if this estate so granted by Hardy were good or not was the question because by the Servant of the Deputy whereas the custom found did not extend further than the Deputy It was argued that the estate granted ut supra was void for a Deputy cannot transfer his authority over for it is an office of trust See 39 H. 6. 33 34. 14 E. 4. 1. and 6 Eliz. it was adjudged That the Duke of Somerset had divers Stewards of his Lands and they in the name of the said Duke made diverse Leases of the Lands of the said Duke rendring Rent and the Duke afterwards assented to the said Leases and received the Rents reserved upon them and yet after the death of the said Duke the Earl of Hertford his Son and Heir avoided them So here the assent and the subsignment of the copy by the Lord Dacres doth not give any strength to the copy which was void at the beginning against which it was said That to take a Surrender and to grant an Estate by copy is not any judicial Act but meerly an Act of service and no matter of trust is transferred to Hardy for trust is reposed in him who may deceive which can't be in our Case for here is an express commandment which if Hardy transgress it is absolute void for nothing is left to his discretion And the admitting of a Copy-holder is not any judicial Act for there need not be any of the Suitors there who are the Iudges And such a Court may be holden out of the Precinct of the Manor for no Pleas are holden which was concessum per totam Curiam And by Ayliff Iustice If the Lord of such a Manor makes a Feoffment of a parcel of his Manor which is holden by copy for life and afterwards the Copy-holder dyeth although now the Lord hath not any Court yet the Feoffee may grant over the Land by copy again And the whole Court was clear of opinion That the grant for the manner of it was good especially because the Lord Dacres agreed to it And Iudgment was given accordingly CCCXCV Burgesse and Fosters Case Trin. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae the case was 1 Cro. 48 49. That the Dean and Chapter of Ely were seised of the Manor of Sutton whereof the place where c. is parcel demised and demisable by copy according to the custom and by their Deed granted the Stewardship of the said Manor to one Adams to execute the said office per se vel legitimum suum Deputatum eis acceptabilem Surrenders Afterwards Adams made a Letter of Deputation to one Mariot ad capiendum unum sursum redditionem of one I. W. and I. his Wife and to examine the said I. aforesaid ea intentione that the said I.W. and A. might take back an estate for their lives the Remainder over to one John Buck in Fee Note the Surrender ought be de duobus Messuagiis Mariot took two several
Williams and Powell for that the said Williams had before brought a Quare Impedit against the said Blower and the Bishop Dyer 353. b. 354. and had recovered against them by default whereupon Williams had a Writ to the Metropolitan to admit his Clerk and in the Writ of Disceit Iudgment was given for the Plaintiffs For it was found That the Summons was the Friday to appear the Tuesday after and so an insufficient Summons and in that Writ of Disceit the Defendants Williams and Powell pleaded That Blower the Incumbent was deprived of his Benefice in the Court of Audience which sentence was affirmed upon Appeal before the Delegates and notwithstanding that Plea Iudgment was given against Williams and Powell Defendants in the said Writ of Disceit And upon that Iudgment this Writ of Error is brought Beaumont assigned four Errors First 1 Cro. 65. because the Bishop and Blower joyned in the Writ of Disceit for their Rights are several 12 E. 4. 6. Two cannot joyn in an Action of Trespass upon a Battery done at one time to them So if one distrain at one and the same time the several Goods of divers persons they according to their several properties shall have several Replevins 12 H. 7. 7. By Wood. So if Lands be given to two and to the Heirs of one and they lose by default in a Praecipe brought against them they shall have several Writs the one Quod ei deforceat Joynder in Action the other a Writ of Right 46 E. 3. 21. A Fine levied to one for life the Remainder to two Husbands and their Wives in tail they have Issue and die Tenant for life dieth the Issues of the Husbands and Wives shall have several Scire facias's to execute the Fine by reason of their several Rights Lands in ancient Demesn holden severally of several Lords are conveyed by Fine the Lords cannot joyn in a Writ of Disceit but they ought to have several Writs so here the Plaintiffs in this Writ of Disceit and the Bishop claims nothing but as ordinary and he loseth nothing in the Quare Impedit and therefore by the Writ of Disceit he shall be restored to nothing The second Error was Because the Bar of the Defendants in the Writ of Disceit was good i. the deprivation c. and the Court adjudged it not good for the Clerk being deprived he could not enjoy the Benefice if the Iudgment in the Qu. Impedit had been reversed Regulâ— Post 330. and where a man cannot have the effect of his suit it is in vain to bring any Action Lessee for the life of another loseth by erronious Iudgment Cestuy que use dieth his Writ of Error is gone for if the Iudgment be reversed he cannot be restored to the Land for the estate is determined 31 E. 3. Incumbent 6. The King brought a Quare Impedit against the Incumbent and the Bishop the Bishop claimed nothing but as Ordinary The Incumbent traversed the title of the King against which it was replyed for the King That the Incumbent had resigned pendant the Writ so as now he could not plead any thing against the title of the King for he had not possession and so could not counterplead the possession of the King. And here in our Case by this deprivation the Incumbent is disabled to maintain this Action of Disceit 15 Ass 8. If the Guardian of a Chappel be impleaded in a Praecipe for the Lands of his Chappel and pendant the Writ he resign the Successor shall have a Writ of Error and not he who resigns for he is not to be restored to the Lands having resigned his Chappel So in our Case A deprivation is as strong as a Resignation The third Error because in the Writ of Disceit it is not set forth that Blower was Incumbent for the Writ of Disceit ought to contain all the special matter of the Case as an Action upon the Case 4 E. 3. Disceit 45. The fourth Error That upon suggestion made after Verdict that Blower was Incumbent and in of the presentment of the Lord Stafford Deprivation and that he was removed and Griffin in by the Recovery in the Quare Impedit by default a Writ to the Bishop was awarded without any Scire facias against Griffin for he is possessor and so the Statute of 25 E. 3. calls him and gives him authority to plead against the King 6 Co. 52. and every Release or Confirmation made to him is good 18 E. 3. Confirmation made by the King after Recovery against the Incumbent is good And 9 H. 7. If a Recovery be had in a Contra formam collationis the possessor shall not be ousted without a Scire facias so in Audita Querela upon a Statute Staple Scire facias Scire facias shall go against the Assignee of the Conusee 15 E. 3. Respon 1. See also 16 E. 3. Disceit 35. 21 Ass 13. A Fine levied of Lands in Ancient Demesn shall not be reversed without a Scire facias against the Ter-tenant Walmesley contrary The case at the Bar differs from the case put of the other side for they are cases put upon original Writs but our case is upon a judicial Writ and here nothing is demanded but the Defendant is only to answer to the disceit and falshood And in this Case the Issue is contained in the Writ which is not in any original Writ and the Iudges shall examine the issue without any plea or appearance of the Tenant and here the Defendant is not to plead any thing to excuse himself of the wrong And here the Iudgment is not to recover any thing in demand but only to restore the party to his former estate and possession and if he hath nothing he shall be restored to nothing And he put many cases where persons who have several Rights may joyn in one Action as a Recovery in an Assize against several Tenants they may joyn in one Writ of Error 18 Ass Recovery in Assize against Disseisor and Tenant they shall both joyn in Error why not also in Disceit 19 E. 3. Recovery against two Coparceners the Survivor and the heir of the other shall joyn in Error As to the second Error Williams and the Sheriff ought not to joyn in the Plea and also the Plea it self is not good for the Writ of Disceit is That Williams answer to the Disceit and the Sheriff shall certifie the proceedings and therefore he shall not plead and also the Plea it self is not good for although the interest of the Incumbent be determined in the Church yet his Action is not gone as if in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant alieneth pendant the Writ and afterwards the Demandant recovereth yet the Tenant although his Interest be gone by the Feoffment yet he shall have a Writ of Error and so here and as to the Scire facias there needs none here against the new Incumbent for he comes in pendant the Writ
be taken or comprehended under the name of a Benefice having Cure of Souls in any Article above specified CCCCXLIII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Aâ—iâ—d ONe was bounden to stand to the award of two Arbitrators who award that the party shall pay unto a stranger or his assigns 200 l. before such a day the stranger before the day dieth and B. takes Letters of Administration and if the Obligor shall pay the mony to the Administrator or that the Obligor should be discharged was the Question and it was the opinion of the whole Court that the mony should be paid to the Administrator for he is Assignee and by Gawdy Iustice If the word Assignee had been left out yet the payment ought to be made to the Administrator quod Coke affirmavit CCCCXLIV Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe sued in the Kings Bench for Costs given upon a Suit depending in the Hundred Court and the sum of the Costs was under 40 s. and the Plaintiff declared Steward That at the Court holden before the Steward secundum consuetudinem Manerii praedict It was objected that the Steward is not Iudge in such Court but the Suitors to which it was answered by the Iustices That by a Custom in a Hundred Court a Steward may be Iudge and so it hath been holden and here the Plaintiff hath declared upon the Custom for the Declaration is secund consuetudinem Manerii also the Subject may sue here in the Kings Bench for a lesser sum than 40 s. as if 10 s. Costs be given in any Suit here Suit to such costs lieth here in this Court. CCCCXLV Pigot and Harringtons Case Mich. 30 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. PIgot brought a Writ of Error upon a Fine levied by him within age Error 1 Cro. 11. the Case was That the Husband and Wife were Tenants for life the Remainder to the Infant in Fee and they three levied a Fine and the Infant only brought the Writ of Error It was objected by Tanfield that they all three ought to joyn in this Writ and the Husband and Wife ought to be summoned and severed Atkinson contrary for here the Husband and Wife have not any cause of action but the Infant only is grieved by the Fine 35 H. 6. 19 20 21 c. In conspiracy against many it was found for the Plaintiff and one of the Defendants brought Attaint and assigned the false oath in omnibus quae dixerunt but afterwards abridged the assignment of the false oath as to the damages and so the attaint well lies Two women are Ioynt-tenants they take Husbands the Husbands and their Wives make a Feoffment in Fee Attaint the Husbands dye the Wives shall have several Cui in vita's for the coverture of the one was not the coverture of the other 7 H. 4. 112. In Appeal against four they were outlawed and two of them brought Error upon it and good 29 E. 3. 14. In Assize against three Coparceners they plead by Bailiff nul tenent de Franktenement c. and found that two of them were disseisors and Tenants and that the third had nothing and afterwards the three Coparceners brought attaint and after appearance the third Sister who was acquit was nonsuit and afterwards by Award the Writ did abate Tanfield Although that the cause be several yet the erronious act was joynt and the receiving of the Fine and that Record being entire ought to be pursued accordingly and then the Husband and Wife shall be summoned and severed and it is not like to the case of 29 E. 3. cited before for there the third coparcener had not any cause of attaint for no verdict passed against her Wray As the Error is here assigned the Writ is well brought for the Error is not assigned in the Record but without it in the person of the Infant Fine upon an Infant reversed and that is the cause of the Action by him and for no other Two Infants levy a Fine although they joyn in Error yet they ought to assign Errors severally and they may sue several Writs of Error and afterwards it was holden by the Court that the Writ was good and the Fine reversed as to the Infant only CCCCXLVI Scovell and Cavels Case Mich. 30 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae by Scovell against Cavel Leases 1 Cro. 89 the Declaration was general upon a Lease made by William Pain and it was found by special verdict That William Leversedge was seised of the Lands c. and leased the same to Stephen Cavel John Cavel and William Pain habend to them for their lives and for the life of the survivor of them Provided always and it was covenanted granted and agreed betwixt the parties that the said John Cavel and William Pain should not take any benefit profit or commodity of the Land during the life of Stephen Cavel and further that the said William Pain should not take any benefit c. during the life of John Cavel c. Stephen Cavel died John Cavel entred and afterwards William Pain entred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff upon whom the Defendant entred and if the Entry of William Pain were lawful was the Question Gawdy Serjant his Entry is not lawful It will be agreed That if a man lease to three for their lives they are Ioynt-tenants but if by the habendum the estate be limited to them by way of Remainder the joynt estate in the Premises is gone and the Land demised shall go in Remainder and I agree that in deeds Poll the words shall be taken strong against the grantor contrary in the Case of Indentures the words there shall be taken according to the intent of the parties for there the words are the words of both See Browning and Beestons Case 2. and 3. Ma. Plowd 132. where by Indenture the Lessee covenanted to render and pay for the Land Leased such a Rent the same is a good reservation although it be not by apt words and here in our Case this Proviso and Covenant Grant and Agreement doth amount to such a limitation by way of Remainder especially when such a clause followeth immediately after the Habendum Coke contrary The Office of the Habendum is to limit and explain the estate contained in the premises and here the Habendum hath done its Office and made it a joynt estate and therefore the Clause afterward comes too late and in truth is repugnant and utterly void as to such purpose but perhaps an action of Covenant lies upon it Wray It hath been by me adjudged if a Lease be made to three Habendum successive the same is a void word and the Lessees are joynt-tenants contrary of Copyhold by reason of Custom and here the proviso and the clause following is contrary to the Habendum and repugnant and so void as to the dividing of the estate by way of Remainder which Gawdy Iustice granted Heale
Serjeant this case hath been adjudged 16 Eliz. A Lease to three Habendum to the use of the first for life and after to the use of the second for life and after to the use of the third for life the same is good Clench Iustice this proviso follows the Habendum and is a sentence to explain the sentence Wray Shute it is another sentence although it immediately follows the Habendum Clench if the words had been provided that although it be limited ut supra in the Habendum scil the first named shall have the Lands to himself for life c. it had been good by way of Remainder Wray Our case at Bar is not that any person shall take the Remainder but that any of them shall not take the profits during the life of the other Tanfield took exception to the verdict because the life of Pain is not found in the verdict Coke this is a verdict and no pleading and the opinion of the Court was that the verdict was good notwithstanding the said Exception and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCXLVII Hudson and Leighs Case Mich. 30 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Appeal of Maheim 4 Co. 43. RObert Hudson brought an appeal of Mayhem against Robert Leigh for maiming his right hand and for cutting of his veins and sinews which by that means are become dry so as thereby he hath lost the use of his fingers To which the Defendant pleaded that heretofore the Plaintiff had brought against him an Action of Assault and Battery and wounding and therein had Iudgment to recover and Execution was sued forth by Scire facias and satisfaction acknowledged upon Record Damages of 200 Marks assisted by the Iury for the damages and 11 l. 10 s. de incremento by the Court with averment of all identities Cooper Serjeant the same is a good Bar and although that an Appeal and an Action of Trespass are diverse Actions in nature and in many circumstances yet as to the recovery of Damages the one shall bind the other See 38 E. 3. 17. a good case In Trespass for breaking of his Close and Battery the Defendant pleaded that before that the Plaintiff by Bill in the Marshalsey hath recovered his Damages for the same Trespass c. and vouched the Record and the Record was sent the which was varying from the Record pleaded for the Record vouched was only of Battery without any thing of breaking of the Close and also the Battery is taxed at another day c. and with averment yet as to the Battery it was holden good enough with averment and as to the breaking of the Close the Plaintiff had Iudgment See 41 E. 3. brev 548. 12 R. 2. Coronae 110. and the Case betwixt Rider Plaintiff and Cobham Defendant Pasch 19 Eliz. Rot. 74. it was clearly holden and adjudged that after a Recovery in Trespass an Appeal of Maheim doth not lie and the Book which deceives the Plaintiff is 22 E. 3. 82. where it is said by Thorp That notwithstanding Recovery in Appeal of Maheim yet he may after recover in Trespass but Non dicite contra Popham contrary the Plea in Bar is not good for the Averment is that the stroke and the wounding supposed in the Writ of Trespass and in his Appeal of Maheim are all one but it is not averred that any damages were given for the Maheim or that the Maheim was given in Evidence for it might be that there was not any Maheim when the Trespass was brought but that after by the drying of the wound it became a Maheim and then the Action did rise as if a man upon a Contract promiseth to pay me 10 l. at Michaelmas and other 10 l. at Christmas if he doth not pay the 10 l. at Michaelmas I may have an Action upon the promise for the not payment of that 10 l. and afterwards I may have another Action and recover damages for the not payment of the 10 l. at Christmas but if I do not begin any Action before Christmas I cannot recover damages but once for the whole promise and damages shall be given in Evidence and if I be disseised I may recover damages for the first Entry and notwithstanding that I shall have an Assise and if I do reenter I shall have Trespass and recover damages for the mean profits Ante 302. and the damages recovered for the first Entry shall be recouped and the Book cited before Fitz. Coronae 110 doth not make for the Defendant but rather for the Plaintiff for there it is averred that the Maheim was given in Evidence in the Action of Trespass which it is not in our Case Egerton Solicitor we have shewed That succisio venarum in this appeal specified is eadem succisio vulneratio mentioned in the Trespass Coke Although the identity of the wounding and cutting of the veins are averred yet it is not averred that the damages recovered in the Trespass were given for this Maheim Wray chief Iustice The Iurors are to take consideration of the wound in an action of Trespass and to give damages according to the hurt and we ought to think that they have done accordingly and if they have not so done the party may pray that the Court by inspection would adjudge upon it and so increase the damages But now when the Iury hath given great damages scil 200 Marks with which the party hath been contented it should be hard to give the Plaintiff another Action and if there be any such special matter that it was not become a Maheim at the time of the Action of Trespass brought but it is become a Maheim of later time by drying the Plaintiff ought to have shewed the same to the Court and so have helped himself for otherwise it shall not be so intended but that the averment made by the Defendant is good enough to oust the Plaintiff of this Action and the Iudgment cited 19 Eliz. before was given by me after I was constituted chief Iustice and this Bar as I conceive was drawn out of the pleading in 19 Eliz. and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCCCXLVIII Crosman and Reads Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Intermarriage 1 Cro. 114. THe Case was that I.S. made his wife his Excutrix and dyed I. D. being then endebted to the Testator in sixty pounds upon a simple Contract the Wife Executrix took to Husband the said I.D. I.D. made his Executor and dyed a Creditor of I.S. brought an Action of Debt against the Wife Executrix of I.S. and upon the pleading the matter in question was Debt by Executors If by the entermarriage of the wife with the Debtor of the Testator the same was a Devastavit or not And if the said Debt of sixty pounds due by I.D. should be Assets in her hands And per Curiam It is no Devastavit nor Assets as is supposed For the woman may have an
appeareth upon his own shewing as it was holden in a Hampshire Case betwixt Sutton and Dowze Sutton and Dowzes Case 2 Len. 55. 3 Len. 155 164. which see Mich. 25 26 Eliz. and in that case the Lease is void for it was made within a year after the Statute of 31 H. 8. the January before and the Statute in April after for he hath not averred that the usual Rent is reserved nor that the Land was usually let to farm for which Leases otherwise made within the year are absolutely void by the said Statute But it will be objected Ante 306. 1 Cro. 707 708. Heydons Case That this matter shall come in of our part and it is sufficient for them to plead the Case but it is not so as it was lately agreed in Heydons Case in the Exchequer where the Case was That the Warden and Canons of the Colledge of Otery leased certain Lands to Heydon for years and he in pleading of his Lease did not shew that the ancient Rent was reserved and therefore naught and so was the opinion of the Iustices of the Common Pleas Lord Cromwel and All-Souls Case in the Case betwixt the Lord Cromwel and All-Souls Colledge upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 6. upon a branch of it by which it was provided that the third part of the Rent reserved upon any Lease should be paid in Corn c. and the Leases made to the contrary should be void and in an Ejectione firmae brought upon such Lease because it was not shewed in the Declaration that the Corn was reserved according to the Statute Iudgment was arrested and we need not to plead the Statute for although the Statute be particular yet because the King hath interest in it it shall be holden in Law a general Act and the Iudges shall take notice of it although it be not alledged by the party as it was ruled in the Lord Barcklays Case 4 Eliz. Plow 231. but if such Rent was reserved yet the Lease cannot be good for the King cannot have his Rent because it is not incident to the Reversion nor passeth by the Grant of the Reversion for it is not a Rent but rather a sum due by reason of contract which see 30 Ass 6. A man leaseth a Hundred rendring Rent or grants a Rent out of a Hundred the same is not a good Rent but meerly void for a Hundred is not Manorable nor can be put in view nor any Assize lieth of such Rent See 9 Ass 24. and in 20 Eliz. in the Case betwixt Corbet and Cleer 7 Co. 5. Corbet and Cleers Case the Dean and Chapter of Norwich leased a Parsonage and common of Pasture rendring Rent 1 E. 6. they surrendred their possessions to the King and afterwards the King granted the Parsonage without speaking of the common of Pasture It was holden that the Patentee of the Parsonage should have all the Rent and no apportionment should be in respect of the Common for all the Rent issueth out of the Parsonage and nothing out of the Common So here 2 Co. 48. for Tithes are not an Hereditament which cannot support a Rent within this Statute for which cause the Lease is void Also he said that the traverse of the Defendant was not well taken for the Plaintiff hath said That time out of mind c. the Abbot and his Predecessors were seised of the Rectory and Manor aforesaid simul semel and ratione inde was discharged c. at the time of the dissolution the Defendant traverseth absque hoc that the Abbot and his Predecessors held discharged of Tithes time out of mind c. which is not good for he hath traversed our conclusion for our plea is an argument wheresoever is unity time out of mind c. there is a discharge of Tithes but in the Abbot was such an Vnity ergo he held discharged of Tithes as 21 E. 3. 22. In a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant saith that the Land in demand is parcel of the Manor of D. which is ancient Demesn and c. to which the Plaintiff saith That it is Frank-fee and the same was not good for he denies the conclusion but he ought to plead to the nature of the Manor that it is not ancient Demesn or that the Land in demand is not parcel of it Another matter was because it is pleaded fuit in tenura occupatione of Goodman and others but he did not shew by what Title Disseisin or Lease or other Title c. Buckley contrary And he said This unity of possession is not any discharge of Tithes by the said Statute and as to the Case cited before of 3 H. 7. 12. where Tenant in tail of a Rent entreth upon the Tenant of the Land now is the Rent suspended and then after when he makes a Feoffment in fee by that Feoffment the Rent is extinguished which was but suspended at the time of the Feoffment and therefore some have holden that if after such Entry he makes a Lease for life of the Land that his Rent or Seigniory is utterly gone in perpetuum for by the Livery all passeth out of him which he said cannot be Law and so it seemed to Gawdy Iustice Then upon such Feoffment with warranty he could not vouch as of Land discharged of the Rent generally but as of Land discharged at the time of the Feoffment which proves that the suspension is not a discharge for it was suspended before the Feoffment and discharged by the Feoffment and so suspension is not a discharge à fortiori in the Case of Tithes for in the case of Common and Rent although they are suspended so as they cannot be actually taken yet they are to some intent in esse As where Lands holden of other Lords are in the hands of the King for Primer seisin by reason of Prerogative and during such seisin of the King the Lord gets seisin the same is a good seisin notwithstanding that it was suspended so as he could not distrain And also in Assize of Land damages as to the Rent out of the Land shall be recouped therefore the rent in some sort is in esse and à multo fortiori this Tithe which is a thing of common Right shall be in esse but goes with the Land A Rent in esse to some purposes and suspended to other and therefore by unity of possession shall not be suspended 35 H. 6. He who hath liberty of Warren in the Lands of another entreth into the Land the Warren is not suspended nor by Feoffment of the Land is extinct and in this Case upon the matter during the unity of possession the Tithes were paid although not in specie Also the Abbot had the Tithes as Parson of B. and the Land as Abbot and therefore no suspension for the Tithes were always in esse although not taken in the manner as Tithes commonly are but by way of Retainer 22
prohibition And the Court upon the first Motion conceived a prohibition should pass for if the grant be without deed nothing passed and then hath not Withy cause to claim these Tithes against the said Saunders And notwithstanding that Tithes are quodam modo spiritual things and so demandable in a Court of that nature yet now in divers respects they are become a Lay-fee and lay-things for a Writ of Assise of Mortdauncester and an Assise of novel disseisin lyes of them and a Fine may be levyed of them But it hath been doubted whether Tithes be devisable by Will But at another day the matter was moved and the Court was clear of opinion that a Consultation should be awarded for whether Withy hath right or not right to these Tithes Saunders of common right ought to pay his Tithes and he ought to sever them from the nine parts and whosoever takes them whether he hath right to them or no right Saunders is discharged But Saunders may prescribe in modo decimandi without making mention of any severance and may surmise that the Tithes do belong to I. S. with whom he hath compounded to pay such a sum for all Tithes and afterwards a Consultation was awarded XXX Stacy and Carters Case Trin. 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. STacy brought an Action of Trespass for breaking his Close against Walter Carter And declared of a Trespass in Somers-Land in Tunbridge The Defendant pleaded that heretofore he himself brought an Assise of Novel disseisin against the now Plaintiff and supposed himself to be disseised of his Free-hold in Lee juxta Tunbridge and the Land where the Trespass supposed to be done was put in view to the Recognitors of the said Assise and further averred that the Land where c. and the Land then put in view is one and the same c. upon which there was a Demurrer Exception was taken to the form of the Demurrer because in the perclose and conclusion of the Demurrer these words are omitted Averment Et hoc paratus est verificare But as to that it was said by the Court that the Demurrer was well enough with or without such Averment in the conclusion of it which see oftentimes in the Commentaries c. and in the Book of Entries 146. the greater part of the Demurrers have not any such conclusion Another Exception was taken to the bar because the Defendant pleads that heretofore Walter Carter had brought an Assise against the now Plaintiff c. and that the Land put in view to the Recognitors of the Assise per praefatum Warrhamum Carter c. and the Land where c. is all one c. here is Warrhamum for Walterum and notwithstanding that it was after demurrer and not after verdict it was adjudged amendable and as to the matter of the bar it was said by the Defendants Council that recovery of Lands in one Town by Praecipe quod reddat is not a bar for Lands in another Town but where the recovery is by Assise it is otherwise for there the Plaint is general De lib. ten̄to and the Plaintiff shall recover per visum Juratorum and the view is the warrant of the Iudgment and Execution And therefore if a recovery in an Assise be pleaded in bar Not comprised is not any Plea against it as in the Case of recoveries upon a Praecipe quod reddat but not put in view and so not comprised c. which proves that the Record doth not guid the recovery but the view of the Iurors See 26 E 3. 2. Assise brought of Lands in D. the Tenant saith that he holdeth the said Lands put in view joyntly with A. not named in the Writ c. and sheweth the deed of Ioynt-tenancy which speaks of Tenements in B. and the plea holdeth good because he alledgeth the Ioynt-tenancy and the Lands put in view See 24 E 3. It was said on the Plaintiffs side that recovery in Lee juxta Tunbridge could not extend to Lands in Tunbridge no more than a recovery of Lands in one County can extend to Lands in another County See 23 E 3. 16. Assise of Novel disseisin brought of Lands in N. the Defendant pleads recovery in Assise c. brought before by him against the now Plaintiff of Lands in H. and the same Lands put then and now in view and adjudged no bar See also 16 E 3. 16. in an Assise of Tenements in W. the Tenant pleads a Recovery of the same Lands agaist one A. by Assise brought of Tenements in C. which was found by the Assise and that C. is a Hamlet of W. and the Plaintiff notwithstanding that recovery so pleaded had Iudgment for a recovery of Lands in one Town shall not be a bar in an Assise of Lands in another Town See Br. Tit. Iudgment 66. 10 E 3. And the whole Court was clear of opinion that the plea in bar was not good for in the Assise which is pleaded in bar in the principal Case the Tenant there who is now Plaintiff in this Action of Trespass pleaded Nul tort nul disseisin which is no plea as to the Free-hold in Lee juxta Tunbridge and therefore it cannot be like to the Case which hath been put of 26 E 3. for there the Tenant pleaded that he held the said Lands put in view joyntly for there he agreeth with the Plaintiff in the Lands demanded the which Lands are put in view but if in the Case at bar the Defendant being Plaintiff in the Assise the now Plaintiff being then Tenant had pleaded to the Land put in view in bar and the Plaintiff in the Assise had recovered now in this Action of Trespass the Plantiff in the Assise being Defendant in the Action of Trespass might well plead this Recovery in bar for by his plea in the Assise he hath tyed himself to the view and to the Land put in view but it is not so in the Case at Bar where the Tenant in the Assise pleads nul tort nul disseisin for there he doth not plead expresly to the Land put in view but to the supposal of the Plaintiff sc de libero tenemento in Lee juxta Tunbridge afterwards Wray with the assent of the other Iustices awarded that the Plaintiff should recover his damages See by Wray 44 E 3. 45. in Assise of Tenements in B. the Plaintiff pleads that he himself brought an Assise of the same Tenements and his plaint was of Tenements in E. and the same Tenements put in view and recovered and holden a good Plea because the Tenant hath said that the same Tenements were put in view and that took by Assise upon which the Plaintiff said not put in view and so not comprised XXXI Benicombe and Parkers Case Trin. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass the Iury found this special matter that the Grandfather of the Plaintiff was seised and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life
the remainder to the use of John Father of the Plaintiff in tail the Grandfather died the Father entred Feoffments and by Indenture by words of bargain and sale without any words of Dedi concessi conveyed the Lands to the use of A. in Fee and in the same Indenture was a Letter of Attorney to make Livery which was made accordingly and the said A. by the said Indenture covenanted that if the said John should pay before such a day to the said A. forty shillings that then the said A. and his Heirs would stand seised c. to the use of the said John and his Heirs and if the said John did not pay c. then if the said A. did not pay to the said John within four days after ten pounds that then the said A. and his Heirs from thenceforth shall be seised to the use of the said John and his Heirs c. and the said John covenanted further by the said Indenture to make such further assurance as the Council of the said John should advise Each party failed of payment John levied a Fine to A. without any consideration it was adjudged upon this matter a good Feoffment well executed by the Livery Hob. 151. Dyer 361. a More 194. Post 195 196 197. More 35. b. notwithstanding that the words of the conveyance are only by bargain and sale and that the Covenant to be seised to the new uses upon payment and not payment being in one and the same deed should raise the use upon the contingency according to the limitation of it and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff accordingly XXXII Bedows Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bill sealed against one Bedow he demanded Dyer of the Bill which was Memorandum that I John Bedow have agreed to pay to R. S. the Plaintiff twenty pounds and thereupon there was a Demurrer first that the Deed wanted the words In cujus rei testimonium c. but notwithstanding that the Court held the Deed good and said so it was lately adjudged Another matter was because the words of the contract are in the preter Tense I have agreed but notwithstanding that exception the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover as by Wray these words dedi concessi according to the Grammatical sence imply a gift precedent but yet they are used as words of a present conveyance Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XXXIII Marsh and Smiths Case Pasch 27. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 38. 39. GEorge Marsh brought a Replevin against Smith and Paget who make Conusans as Baylies to Ralph Bard and upon the pleading the Case was That Sir Francis Askew was seised of the Mannor of Castord in his Demesne as of Fee which Mannor did extend unto Daston North-kelsey Grants Mannor 2 Len. 41 42. South-kelsey D. and C. and had demesnes and services parcel of the said Mannor in each of the said Towns and so seised granted totum manerium suum de North-kelsey in North-kelsey to the said Bard and his Heirs and granted further all his Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in North-kelsey and to that grant the Tenants in North-kelsey did attorn And the Land in which the said Distress was taken is in North-kelsey the only question in the case was if by this grant to Ralph Bard a Mannor passed or not And the case was argued by the Iustices And Periam Iustice argued That upon this grant no Mannor passed for before the grant there was no Mannor of North-kelsey or in North-kelsey therefore no Mannor can pass but the Lands and services in North-kelsey shall pass as in gross for they were not known by a Mannor but for parcel of a Mannor And a Mannor is a thing which cannot be so easily created Mannor what it is for it is an Hereditament which doth consist of many real things and incorporated together before time of memory common reputation cannot be intended of an opinion conceived within three or four years but of long time And appendancy cannot be made presently but by a long tract of time As an Advowson in gross cannot be made by an Act appendant and the Queen her self by her Letters Patents cannot make a Mannor at this day à multo fortiori a subject cannot and the Queen cannot by her Letters Patents without an Act of Parliament annex a Mannor to the Dutchy of Lancaster which see 1 Ma. Dyer 95. And where it is usual that the Queen doth grant Lands Reputation tenendum de manerio suo de East Greenwich in communi soccagio if upon the death of such a Grantee without heir the said Land doth revert unto the Queen in point of Escheat the said Land shall not be parcel of the said Mannor for the Land was not parcel of the Mannor in truth but in reputation And he cited a case that the Lord Sturton was seised of the Mannor of Quincamore and was also seised of the Mannor of Charleton which was holden of the said Mannor of Quincamore The Lord Sturton was attainted of Felony and afterwards Queen Mary gave the said Mannor of Quincamore to Sir Walter Mildmay cum omnibus suis juribus parcellis it was adjudged that the Mannor of Charleton did pass for it is now become parcel of the Mannor of Quincamore and I grant that things which go with the Land shall pass well enough As if the Queen grant to three Coparceners of three Mannors 1 Inst 122. a 32 â—â— 6 11. the liberty of Warren in all the said three Mannors they afterwards make partition so as each Coparcener hath a Mannor and the one of them grants her Mannor the Grantee shall have Warren Grants of the King. But if the Queen grant a Leet ut supra and the Coparceners make Partition and each of them hath a Mannor she shall not have also a Leet but the Leet which was grantted doth remain in common and there shall not be there upon such partition several Leets And also I grant that in the case of two Coparceners of a Mannor if to each of them upon partition be allotted demeans and services each of them hath a Mannor for they were compellable to make partition by the common Law being in by descent See 26 H. 8. 4. 9 E. 4. 5. contrary of Ioynt-tenants for they are in by purchase and were not compellable by the common Law to make partition and therefore upon partition betwixt them a Rent cannot be reserved for the equality of the partition And in every Manor a Court is requisite for a Court Baron is incident to a Manor Court Baron but a Court cannot at this day be founded or erected but it ought to be of long time And in our Case no Court hath ever been holden in North-kelsey And if I be seised of the Manor of B. which extends into C. and B. and I grant my Manor of B. in D. now a Manor
Action against the Executor of I.D. And it was agreed by the Court that if a man makes his Debtor and a stranger his Executors and the Debtor dieth the surviving Executor may have an Action of debt against the Executor of the Debtor and so it was adjudged in the principal case CCCCXLIX Wollman and Fies Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assumpsit 1 Cro. 179. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit that the Plaintiff should enjoy such Lands for so many years The Defendant pleaded the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. because the Land is the Glebe Land of such a Parsonage and in truth the Defendant did mis-recite the Statute For the Statute is No Lease after the fifteenth day of May And the pleading is hereafter to be made Secondly the Statute is of any Benefice with cure the pleading is of any Benefice Thirdly The Statute is without absence above eighty and the pleading is without absence by the space of eighty days And for these Causes the Plaintiff had Iudgment CCCCL Frond and Batts Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Debt Payment to the wife not good IN debt upon a Bond upon condition to stand to the Award of I.S. The Defendant pleaded That the said I.S. had Arbitrated that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff ten pounds and he said he had paid it to the Plaintiffs wife who received it upon which the Plaintiff did demur And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCLI Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Grants of the King of the Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench. THe Queen granted to George Earl of Shrewsbury An. 15. of her reign the Office of Earl Marshal of England and now came the said Earl and prayed that I. S. one of his Servants to whom he had granted the Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench might be to it because the same is an Office incident to his Office and in his power to grant and that Knowles to whom the Queen had granted the said Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench by the Attainder of North. be removed And a President was shewed 14 15 Eliz. Betwixt Gawdy and Verney where it was agreed That the said office was a several office from the said great office and not incident to it And as to the Case of 39 H. 6. 33 34. the truth is the said office of Marshal of the Kings Bench was granted expresly by the Duke by express words and so he had it not as incident to his office of Marshal of England On the other side there were three Presidents shewed first in the time of E. 2. That the office of the Marshal of the Kings Bench was appendant to the said office of Marshal of England Secondly 8 R. 2. When the said great office was in the King he granted the said office of Marshal of the Kings Bench But 20 R. 2. both offices were rejoyned as they were before in ancient time and there were also shewed Latters Patents of 4 E. 4. and 19 H. 8. by which it appeared That the said inferiour office had time out of mind been part of the great office And it was moved That when the said great office is in the Kings hands and the King grants the said under office if now this office be not severed from the great office for ever Wray It is no severance for the chief office is an office of Dignity which may remain in the King but this under office is an office of necessity and the King himself cannot execute it by which of necessity he ought to grant it Another matter was moved If the Grant of the King unto the Earl of Shrewsbury were good because in it the Grant to Verney of the said under office is not recited according to the Statute of 6 H. 8. 9. As 26 E. 3. 60. The King seised of the Honor of Pickring to which a Forrest was appendant the Bayliwick of which Forrest he granted in fee rendring rent and afterwards he granted the Honor with Appurtenances and afterwards the Bailiff committed a Forfeiture and that was found in Eyre the Grantee of the Honor shall seise it yet the King shall have the Rent And here the Earl of Shrewsbury shall have this office in his power to grant And so much the rather because it was granted but for life CCCCLII Michill and Hores Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. MIchil did affirm a Plaint in the Court of the City of Exeter against Hore for twenty pounds and upon Nihil returned Attachment of goods by custom of Exeter it was surmised That Trosse had certain monies in his hands due to Hore and according to the custom of Exeter the said monies were attached in the hands of Trosse who appeared upon the Attachment and pleaded That he owed nothing to Hore upon which there was a Demurrer Error and Iudgment given against Trosse because that Trosse ought to have pleaded not only that he owed him nothing but further that he had not any goods of Hores in his hands And thereupon Trosse brought a Writ of Error and assigned the Error in the principal matter upon which it was demurred and Iudgment given against the Plaintiff because that the Plea of Trosse that he owed him nothing is good enough for if there be not a Debt it is not attachable upon such Attachment And it is a good Plea to a common intent and altogether in use in London were such custom is Another Error was assingned for that Michill had recovered Costs against Trosse where it ought not to be And also Iudgment is not given that Trosse should be discharged against Hore And afterwards the Iudgment given in Exeter was reversed CCCCLIII Dennis and Saint Johns Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt 1 Cro. 494. IN Debt upon an Obligation against Oliver Saint John and Alice his wife as heir of her Father The Defendants pleaded Non est factum of the Father And it was found by special Verdict That the Obligation was made by the Father of the Wife to the Plaintiff and another whereas in truth The Plaintiff hath declared upon an Obligation made to himself only without speaking of any other joynt Obligee Non est factum and that the Plaintiff as Survivor hath brought the Action and if upon the matter it shall be said the Deed of the Defendant in manner as the Plaintiff hath declared the Iury refer unto the Court And the case 14 E. 4. 1. b. If three enfeoff me and I plead That two did enfeoff me and the same be traversed it shall be found against me for the Feoffment is a joynt act by them all But if a man enfeoffeth me and two others and they dye so as I have all by Survivor in pleading I may shew the Feoffment was made to me alone So 46 E. 3. 17. a. Three Joynt-tenants in Fee make a
Lease for life and afterwards two of the Ioynt-tenants release to the third who brings an Action of Wast against the Lessee and the Writ was That he held of his Lease only and the Writ was awarded good Walmesley This Plea Non est factum upon this matter is no good Plea for he hath not pleaded it Respective as to the Obligation but generally Non est factum suum which refers to the Obligor only and the Issue is not whether he made the Deed to the Plaintiff or not but generally whether he made it at all For there is a difference Nihil debet for that refers to te Plaintiff and where he pleads Non est factum Which that refers to the Plaintiff and where he pleads Non est factum Which Shutteleworth granted See 1 Eliz. Dyer 167. Tawes Case this Plea Non est factum hath not any respect to the Obligee be a Monk and there is another who bears the name of the Obligee yet in those Cases the Obligor cannot safely plead Non est factum but where one is sued who bears the name of the Obligor there Non est factum is a good Plea And see 10 Eliy Dyer 279. W.S. was bound in an Obligation to one H. by the name of I.S. and upon that Obligation an Action was brought against him by the name of W.S. and he pleaded Non est factum and the special matter was found and it was ruled that upon that Verdict the Plaintiff should not recover but the best way for the Plaintiff was to sue the Defendant by the name by which he is bound and then if he appear and plead ut supra he shall be concluded by the Obligation And the Court was clear of opinion That the Plaintiff ought to have declared upon the special matter CCCCLIV Willis and Whitewoods Case Hill. 31. Eliz. Rot. 1428 In the Common Pleas. Leases Ow. â—5 56. Hutt 105. Ant. 158. Surrenders THe case was That A. was seised of certain Lands holden in Socage and leased the same to I.S. for many years and dyed his heir within the age of fourteen years the wife of A. being Guardian in Socage leased the same Land by Indenture to the same I.S. for years if the first Lease was surrendred or determined was the Question Anderson Surrendred it cannot be for the Guardian hath not any Reversion capable of a Surrender but only an Authority given to her by the Law to take the profits to the use of the Heir But yet perhaps it is determined by consequence and operation of Law As if A. lease to B. for one hundred years and afterwards granteth the Reversion to C. for two years who leaseth to B. for two years who accepts the Lease the same is not any Surrender Ante. 303. for a term of one hundred years cannot be drowned in a Reversion for two years yet the first Lease is determined which Periam granted And by Windham If a Lease be made to begin at Michaelmas and before that time the Lessor makes a new Lease to the same Lessee to begin presently the same is not any Surrender and yet thereby the first Lease is determined and so in the principal case which Anderson granted but Periam doubted of it and he said Guardian in Socage hath such an estate in the Reversion that he may enter for a condition broken Anderson The same is not in respect of any estate that he hath but in the name and right of the heir and not by reason of any Reversion CCCCLV Norwood and Dennis Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit by Norwood against Dennis the Issue was Quare Impedit If the Advowson was appendant to the Manor of D. or in gross and the Iury â—â—und that it was appendant and further found that the Queen had right and title to present for she had presented at the two last Avoidances Anderson and Periam Iustices If it appeareth unto the Court upon the pleading that the King hath title to present The Court shall award a Writ to the Bishop for the King but here appeareth no title for the the Queen upon the pleading but only upon the Verdict so as the one part or the other may answer to it And because the Iury have found for the Plaintiff the title found for the Queen shall not be respected but as a meer Nugation and Surplusage for the same was out of their Issue and their Charge and it is no more then if one comes into the Court and informs us of any title for the Queen there the Court ought not to regard it CCCCLVI Green and the Hundred of Buccle-churches Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Statute of Huy and Cry the Case was Action upon the Statute of Huy and Cry. 1 Cro. 14. That Green did deliver a certain sum of money to a Carryer who put the â—ame amongst other things in his Cart and sent a boy of the age of twelve years with the Cart before and he himself stayed a short time in the Inn and afterwards went his way and before he could get to the Cart the Cart was robbed and the money carryed away The boy made Huy and Cry and came unto a Iustice of Peace and prayed he would examine him but he would not but the Carryer himself would not go to be examined wherefore Green himself wen to a Iustice of Peace to be examined and so was and afterwards brought this Action And it was holden by the Court that here the Plaintiff had failed of his Action for want of sufficient examination for the Servant who was robbed ought to be examined and the examination of the Master or Owner of the goods who was not present at the Robbery is not at any purpose to enable the Plaintiff to this Action for the party robbed ought to be examined And it was said by some That where an Action doth not lye upon the new Statute of 27 Eliz. the party may have an Action upon the old Statute but others were against it for the Statute of 27 Eliz. is in the Negative so as if the Action doth not lye upon it no Action lyeth at all And it was moved by Periam and Anderson That the Plaintiff might have an Action upon his Case framed upon the said Statute of 27 Eliz. against the Iustice of Peace who refused to examine the boy But Windham doubted of it because the Iustice of Peace is a Iudge of Record and for such thing as he doth as Iudge no Action lieth To which it was answered by Periam and Anderson That the Examination in such case is not made by him as Iudge or Iustice of Peace but as a Minister appointed for the examination by the Statute c. CCCCLVII Stevinson Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt IN Debt upon a Bond the Condition was That whereas the Plaintiff had covenanted with the Defendant that