was peritus in legibus Angliae and that he was retained to he of Councel and adjudged no good plea for he should alledge that he was Student for a certain time and was elected by the Benchers to be a Barrester And Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Michaelm 41 42 Eliz. Swan against Gateland Rot. 3267 or 3667. IN a ravishment of Ward the Plaintiff demurred that T. B. was seized of land in socage and dyed and J B his son is of the age of two years and that the Guardianship belongs to him because he is next friend 〈◊〉 parâ—… maâ—…s J.B. viz. the brother of E.B. the infants mother The Defendant pleaded that E.B. the infants mother was his mother also and that he was begotten by one Gateland on the said E.B. and the said Gatelaâ—e dyed and the said E.B. did marry the said T.B. and had issue the infant and so concluded quod erat propinquior am cus absque hoc that the Plaintiff is propinquior amicus and upon this was a Demurr Hern for the Plaintiff The question is whether the uncle shall be Guardian in socage or the brother of the half blood and he said the uncle should have the Wardship because there is a more natural affection between the uncle and the infant than between the infant and the brother of the half blood and if there be not love he cannot be the procheme amy although in judgement of Law he be the next of kin 31 Ed. 3. Gawdy 157. In a Writ of Ward the Plaintiff declared that he was next of kin of the Plaintiff the mother of the infant and it was pleaded against him that the infants mother was alive but he replyed that the mother had made a Charter of Feoffment to the disherison of the infant and that she was attaint of Treason And in 15 Eliz. the brother who claimed the Wardship of his younger brother was also within age and therefore it was ruled that the uncle should have the Wardship because alterum â—…quâ—r regeâ—… qui seâ—psum nequit And 5 Ed. 6. the brother of the half blood is next of kin to whom administration shall be given before the mother for the Statute of 27 H. 8.15 sayes that the next of kin shall have it and the brother of the half blood is the next of â—in but Guardianship shall be given by the Law to the nearest friend and that is the uncle Williams contr For although the brother be but oâ— the half blood yet he shall have the Wardship for the brother is the next of kin to whom the inheritance cannot descend and the 31 Ed. 1. does not gainsay this for the mother was denyed the Wardship because she was attaint of Treason for the Law will not suffer that the infant shall be in Ward to any who may be suspected to do wrong to the infants land or to his person and therefore he shall not be in Ward to any that may inherit him for there is a suspicion that he may kill the infant And 5 Ed. 6. Brook Administration 47. it is agreed that the brother of the half blood is next of kin and that is the cause of the nearness of love and it cannot be intended that there should not be love between persons so nearly allyed And 30 Assi 47. a remainder was limited propinquioribus de sanguine and there it is agreed that the brother is next of blood Warburton contr The uncle shall have the Wardship for two causes for there is not such natural love between two brothers of the half blood as is between the uncle and the infant of the whole blood Also the Statute sayes that he shall be in custody parentum haeredis and therefore he ought to be in custody of those who are of most antient degree who are the parents but one brother cannot be parent to the other Walmesley contr For the brother is the procheine amy and so hath it been ruled in the time of the Lord Dyer in 7 Eliz. in C. B. for he ought to be in Ward to him that is next of blood and most remote in succession And the 5 Ed. 6. proves that he is next of kin and such nearness must needs procure love and although it sometimes happens that there is not such love yet this cannot alter the Law that alwayes intends amity and although the Statute of Mariebirdge speaks of parents that is intended of such as are of full age and of sound memory for if he be not then some other that is the next of kin shall have the Wardship and he told Warburton that he would shew him a report of such a Case where it was ruled accordingly before the Lord Dyer Hillar 43 Eliz. Peck against Charnell in C. B. Rot. 1703. IN an Ejectment upon a special Verdict the Case was this John Burly seized in Fee of land doth devise it to his wife for life the remainder to William Burly in tail the remainder to his next heir-male being of his sirname in Fee and dyes and then his wife does intermarry with William Burly who had the remainder in Tail and then they levyed a Fine come ceo c. to J.S. and by the same Fine J.S. rendred to the wife for life the remainder to the husband in Fee and then a common recovery was had against the husband and wife and that was to the uses contained in the Fine then the wife dyes and the husband dyes without issue and the right heir male of the sirname of the Devisor enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff who being outed by the Lessee of William Burly brought the Action Williams Here are two points first if this be a discontinuance â—y the wife secondly if the recovery barrs him in the remainder And as to the first point when woman tenant for life and he in the remainder in Tail being her husband do joyn in a Fine this shall not be a discontinuance of the estate Tail for by Littleton discontinuance cannot be by way of grant although it be in case of a Fine but ought to be by Livery And as to the second point Knivetons Case Bâ— 252. is express in the point that notwithstanding the common recovery yet the entry of him in the remainder is legal for as to the point of recovery a base Fee doth pass to the Conusee of the Fine which is rendred back again to the woman for life and her husband in Fee and by the Common Law there was no remedy for him in the reversion against a recovery had against Tenant for life 7 H. 7.12 5 Ed. 4.2 untill the Statute of Westminster the 2. which gives to him a Writ of ad terminum qui praeteriit and by the Statute of the 23 of H. 8. he may enter but now the question is whether this recovery will bar him in the remainder of his entry because the recovery was of another estate and not against his Tenant for life But I conceive
the Reversion Warburton I conceive he shall have the Ayde 7 H. 4.2 where ayde is prayed against him in the Remainder and Reversion and and he cited a Manuscript 11 R. 2. direct in the point that the ayde would lye But the other Iustices cont for the Tenant for life hath as high an estate as he in the remainder and may plead all that the other may but if there be Tenant for life the remainder in Taile there he shall have ayde of the Tenant in Taile 23 H. 6.6 11 Edw. 3.16 If there be Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in Fee tenant for life shall have ayde of them both for else he in the remainder shall not come in to plead 11 E. 3. ayde 32. Where it is resolved that tenant for life shall have ayde of the Reversioner for life Hillar 28 Eliz. VVatkins against Astwick A Man makes a feofment on condition that if he his heirs or Executors do pay the Rent of 100 l. before such a day that he may re-enter the Feoffer dyes his heire within age the mother without any notice of the son requests J.S. that he would pay the money for her son And all this was found by speciall verdict but it was not found of what age the son was Clinch If the Iury had found that the son was of the age of 17 years the payment had been good Wray If a Bond be upon condition that the Obligor or his heirs should pay 100 l. and the Obligor dyes his heire within age I conceive payment by the Guardion or by some other friend is good And afterwards all the Iustices agreed That if the Infant were within the age of 14. years the tender of the money by his mother had been good but contra if he had been more than 14 years and because no age was proved here but that he was within age it shall not be intended that he was within the age of 14. years and therefore they advised the party to begin de novo and that it may be found that the Infant was within the age of 14. years Trinit 25. Eliz. Moris against Paget in C. B. Rot. 2215. IN a Replevin a speciall Verdict was found that Sir Francis Ascough was seised of the Mannor of Castor in Lincolne which Mannor extended it self into four Towns v z. Castor North Kelsey Dale â—ale and that there were demesne lands and Freeholders in each of the said Towns and that Moris the Plaintiff held the land where c by Fealty and suit of Court to the Mannor of Castor and the lands did lie in one of the Towns viz. in Norch Kelsey And Ascough being so seised sold to the Defendant Totum illud Manerium sive Dominium de North Kelsey cum pertinentiis in North Kelsey ac omnia ac singula Messuagia redditus Herriot and all other things used or reputed as parcell thereof with all Courts c. To have and to hold to the Vendee and his heires and Moris the Plaintiff and other freeholders in North Kelsey did attorne to the Vendee The Question was if the Vendee had the Mannor of North Kelsey or not Peryam He has not yet by the feofment and attornment all the Tenants and services are conveyed to him but not as a Mannor for a Mannor is made and incorporate by continuance of time and this entire Mannor of Castor cannot be divided no more than other liberties as if the King grant to three partners who have three Mannors a Leet or Warren and one of them makes a feofment the Feofee shall not have the Leet and heâ—tted Dyer 362. a. and he sayd if I grant my Mannor of â—except certain Demesn lands and services the feofee shall have the Mannor and I shall have the Lands and services in grosse and so if I have a Mannor that extends into two Towns and I grant my Mannour to you in one Town you shall have no Mannor but the lands and services in gross Windham Iustice cont For where he grants his Mannor of North Kelsey in North Kelsey there it shall be construed his Mannor in reputation Ander on agreed for although a Mannor cannot be created at this day yet is it not so intire but it may be divided Hillar 30. Elizab. Sir Thomas Howards Case A Man makes a Lease for years the 10th of May and then the Lessor bargains and sells this to another by Deed enroll'd bearing date the 10th of Aprill and it was entred to be conveyed the 10th of Aprill before but in truth it was delivered and acknowledged and enrolled afterwards And it was held that the bargaine was without remedy at the Common Law for he cannot plead that it was acknowledged or delivered after the date of the day of acknowledging it and so was the opinion of Rhodes Peryam and Windham Anderson being absent for he cannot aver that it was inrolled or acknowledged at another day then it is recodred because it is contrary to the Record for it is entred that it was acknowledged the 10 of Aprill and then if such a plea should be admitted it would shake most of the Assurances in England Note Shuttleworth put this case A man makes a Lease rendring Rent at two Feasts and if the Rent be behind at any of the said Feasts or 40. dayes after and no distress to be found that the Lessor shall re-enter the Lessor comes upon the ground the last day of the 40. and demands his Rent and because no distress was sound on the land at the time of his demand he entred But it was averred that always before this day there was sufficient distress and the question was if his entry were good Fenner and Rhodes said they had seen a Report of the same Ease 8 Eliz. That the distress ought to be on the Land on the last day yea at the last instant of the day which is a legall time to make a demand or else the Lessor may enter Walmsley The same Ease was resolved a year agoe in the Kings Bench between Ward and VVare But if it were and no distress to be found at any time within forty dayes there if there be a distress found at any time it is sufficient Vid. 1. Inst 202. a. 28 Eliz. VVood against Ash IN a Replevin the Ease was thus Puttenham made a Lease of Land with a Stock of Sheep for 20. years rendring Rent and the Lessee doth Covenant to render back to him at the expiration of the Lease 1000 Sheepe of the age of three or four years and that the Lessor grants all his Chattells and this stock of Sheepe to Elizabeth Vavafor the Defendants now wife but in Truth the Sheepe of the old stock were all spent and others supplyed part by increase and part by buying of other Sheepe Walmesley for the Defendant The grant made by the Lessor is good for the generall propertie does remain in him although that the Lessee hath a speciall
propertie To which it was answered that if the ancient stock of Sheepe were still it had been godd but it was not and therefore the grant is voyd Walmesley Although the first stock was changed yet the new stock does supply it and is in place thereof and shall be in the same condition as the other stock is and therefore the Lessor shall have propertie in it But the whole Court was against him for they said that the increase of the stock of Sheepe should be to the Lessee and the Lessor shall never have them at the end of the terme but they agreed that if the lease were of the stock with Lambs Calves and Piggs there the increase belongs to the Lessor And all the Court took this difference sc when a lease is made of dead goods and when of living for when the lease is of dead goods and any thing is added to them for reparations or otherwise the Lessor shall have this addition at the end of the terme because it belongs to the principle but in case of a stock of Cattle which hath an increase as Calves and Lambs there these things are severed from the principle and Lessor shall never have them for then the Lessor shall have the Rent and the Lessee shall have no profit Trinit 29 VViseman against Rolfe in in C. B. Rot. 1454. IN a Writ of right the Case was thus A man selfed of Land in Fee makes his will and gives to D. his wife such Land for life the remainder to T. his son and heires of his body and also gives to T. his son his Land in B. and also his Land in C. and also he gives his Land called Odyum to the seed of his son habendum all the demised premisses to his T. son and the heires males of his body The Question was it T. should have an estate in Taile in B. and C. or if the last words shall relate only to that which was last named Fenner for the Plaintiff For the last Clause is a new Clause and shall not be preferred to the first for it begins with a verbe viz. I give my Land called Odyum and therefore the limitation afterward shall be referred only to this And 10 H. 7.8 There was a grant by Dedi custodiam Parci Arbores vento prostrat The Grantee shall have the trees by this Clause and 14 Eliz. A man deviseth thus I give my Mannour of C. to my second son Item I give my Mannor of S. to my second son to have and to hold to him and to his heirs And by Dyer Welsh and Weston he had an estate but for life but Brown cont for if a Lease be made to A. B. and C. successively it is adjudged that they are Ioyntenants but if it be to them as they are named they shall have it one after the other and if a devise be to one and his heirs and after to another for life the Law will conster that the estate for life is to procede for that words of Relation in Wills shall be taken stricttly as if a devise be to A. and his heirs of his body and he does devise other land in Forma praedicta this shall be but for life Walmesley cont and said that this limitation did go to all whereof no limitation was made before for the rules of reason are uncertain and therefore such matters shall be expounded according to the best sense that may be and here the sense is most naturall to refer it to all and the word all imports this and the Case of the fourth of Elizabeth under favour accords with this viz. that the Devisee shall have Fee in both But if the Devise had been I devise D. to my son Thomas and also to him and his heirs the Mannor of S. there he shall have D. but for life And if a man devise to his 4. sons A. B. C. and D. to have to the persons last named to them and their heirs there all shall have Fee 19 Ed. 4. In a precipe of a house and an acre of land in three severall Towns and that the Defendant Ibidem ingressus est and did not say into the house and land and yet it was held good Periam and Rhodes He shall have an estate Taile in all and the relation shall be to all Anderson doubted at first but agreed afterwards and Iudgement was given accordingly 32 33 Eliz. Mathewson against Trott in C. B. Rot. 1904. UPon a speciall verduit the Case was this A man seised of land in soccage devised it to his yonger son and died seised the elder son enters and dies seised and his heir enters and the yonger son enters upon him the Question was if his entry be taken away by this descent VValmesley It is not and he compar'd this case to a title of entry for a condition broken or a Conusee of a Fine upon grant and render c. in which Cases no descent shall take away entry Anderson The Devisee hath interest presently and the land does not descend for the devise prevents the descent and the Freehold is presently in the Devisee and the Statute 32 H. 8. which gives power to Devise lands does make a Title in the Devisee as a Title of entry for condition of Mortmaine and the Devisee shall not have an ex gravi querela upon this Statute but he must enter Walmesley The Devisee hath not a Freehold presently for if it were so the Devisee at the Common Law ought not to sue an Ex gravi Querela but certainly if the freehold be in the Devisee his entry is taken away And afterwards Iudgment was given by Anderson that descent does not take away the entry of the Devisee but delivered no reason for it Hillar 33 Eliz. Mosgrave against Agden Rot. 2529. IN an action of the Case on a Trover and conversion of six barrells of Butter The count was that they came to the hands of the Defendant and after the trover they were impared and decayed ratione negligentis custodiae And the Court held cleerly that the action would not lie for he who finds goods is not bound to preserve them from putrefaction but it was agreed that if the goods were used and by usage made worse the action would lie 44 Eliz. Ayer against Joyner in C. B. Rot. 2529. IN a second Deliverance it was said by the Court that if Lessee for years does assign over his terme and yet continues possession that he hath but a naked possession and no interest nor estate but the estate and interest does remain in the grantee so that he may grant it over And Walmesley said that if the Lessee makes waste the Lessor may have an action of waste against him and there is a casâ— that if a man makes a Lease and the Lessee waves the possession and a stranger commits waste the Lessor shall have an action of waste against the Lessee but the principall question
shall present for there is no reason the patron should for by his precedent presentment he hath dismist himself untill resignation or death as if a man lets land for another mans life he shall not have the land during the life of Cestuy que vie great mischief would be if it should not be so for els all the presentments that the King hath made shal be usurpations The second matter was that no presentment is pleaded against the King by the Patron for it is pleaded that the Parson was admitted and instituted but not that he was inducted but the Court held it good notwithstanding that omission But as to the first point the Court asked Williams if he could shew presidents that the King should have such presentment for they said that the usage by the Pope is no argument at all for that he used to usurpe many things Walmesley I conceive this custome began by the Popes usurpation but he said there is a Book in the time of Edâ— 2. where this point is argued and adjudged that the Patron shall present and not the King VVilliams shewed eight or nine Presidents in the time of H. 8. that the King used to present in such case but all of them were between spirituall persons And the Court said they did not regard those presidents for all spirituall persons were the Popes servants vid. 6 Elizab. 72.8 South against Whitewit IN a prohibition the case was thus the wife of VVhitewit had spoken scandalous words of South and therefore the was excommunicated by the high Commissioners and by Letters Missive a Pursevant came at twelve of the clock at night and broke the house of VVoâ—tewit and tooke the body of VVhi ewâ—… wife who was rescued wherefore VVhitewit her husband was called before the Commissioners and hereupon VVhitew t prayed a prohibition And the question was if a Pursevant could break a house by such Commission or not And it was agreed that by the Common Law neither the Pope nor any other spirituall Iudge had any thing to do with the body and goods of any one for only the sword spirituall belongs unto them VValmesley At the Common Law after Excommunication a Capias Excommunicaâ—um was awarded and I conceive this writ is of force at this day and is not taken away by the Statute of 5 Eâ—…z Kingsmâ—ll agreed for this Statute gives power onely to correct the spirituall law and to take away the authority of the Pope but gives the same means to execute it as before and he further said that the Statute that did erect the Court of Wards doth appoint a Seale belonging to it and other process according to the course of the Common Law and therefore by the same reason if this Statute of â— Eliz. intended to give them such authoritie they would have appointed a Seale also and a course according to the Common Law but as the course is here used a man may be robb'd in his house by a beggerly Pursevant which is no Officer known by the Law And so was the opinion of the Iustices Pasch 40 Eliz. Goosey against Pot in C. B. IN a Replevin the Case was thus two Hundreds were adjoyning together to two several Mannoure of two several persons and the avowant was seized of one of them and he prescribed that all the Tenants of the other Hundred have used to make suit to the Leet within his Hundred and also that the Lord of the other Hundred used to appear or to pay him 4 s. pro anno futuro and if it were not paid the Defendant prescribed that he and all those whose estates he hath have used to distreyn any Inhabitant within the Hundred for the same and therefore for 4 s. not paid he did avow the Distress whithin the Mannour of the Plaintiff who was one of the Inhabitants Williams A man may prescribe by a que estate in a Hundred for a man may have it by disseisin and there are divers presidents which the Prothonotaries have shewed me to warrant this in a Replevin for the seisin is the matter of the title And to this Littletons rule may be added that of all things which lye in grant and whereof a man cannot be disseised against his will a man shall not plead a que estate Kingsmall A que estate cannot be pleaded of a Hundred unless if be appendant to the Mannour and a second matter was moved in this Case viz. that he prescribed to distreyn the Cattle of a stranger for the essence of the Lord. Williams It is not good by the 41 Ed. 3. but by the 47 Ed. 3. for suit and service the Cattle of the Lord may be distreyned on any land within the Hundred Anderson I do agree to the Case of my Lord Dyer that the Cattle of a stranger cannot be taken for a Herriot Walmesley In the 12 of H. 7. it is said by Fineux that a Lord of a Mannour may inlarge his services by prescription and so the Cattle of a stranger may be taken but for a personal matter as for amercement in default of suit no stranger may be distreyned And afterwards agreed by all the Iustices that the strangers Cattle could not be distreyned Holt against Lister IN a Replevin the Case was thus he in the reversion after Tenant in Dower grants it over to the use of himself for life the remainder to his nert son in Tail the remainder to the use of himself in Fee and after this he levyes a Fine to the Plaintiff and his heirs of land which he claimeth de haered tate sua after the death of the Tenant in Dower The Plaintiff brought a Quid Juris clamat against the Tenant in Dower and upon non sum informatus Iudgement was given that the Tenant should attorn and now he prayed that she should not attorn for if she atterns she will torfeit her estate Walmesley If he in the remainder for life grants over by Fine it is no forfeiture for he gives no more right than he hath and so hath it been adjudged in the time of my Lord Dyer Glanvill I agree to that but in this Case he grants that which he hath de haereditate sua and this recital will make a forfeiture and then if the Tenant in Dower attorn this is a forfeiture Anderson This attornment is no forfeiture because it is by judgement of the Court. Walmesley I agree for the Grant it self is no forfeiture unless it be by reason of the recital but the Attornment shall have relation onely to the substance of the Grant And it was much disputed between Walmsley and Glanvill If Lessee for life of a Rent grants this in Fee by Fine if this be a forfeiture and Walmesley vouched a Iudgement that it was no forfeiture and Glanvill voucht 31 Ed. 3. Grant 60. to the contrary and 15 Ed. 4.9 by Littleton If Lessee for life of a Rent grants this by Fine in Fee it is a forfeiture by reason of the
that when he is sued as King at armes in such case wherein his Office or other thing belonging to his Office comes in question then he ought to be named according to his Patent but when he is sued as I.S. then it is sufficient to name him by his proper name Popham Vpon the creation of any Deanery which is ordained and granted by Patent of the King the Dean shall sue and be sued by the name of Dean of such a place yet if such Dean doth sue or is sued about any matter concerning his naturall capacity it is not necessary to name him Dean Fenner But this is a name of dignity and by his installation is made parcell of his name and if a man be made a Knight in all Actions he shall be so named wherefore it seemed to him that the Writ ought to abate Et Adjournetur Hil. 37 Eliz. Hugo against Paine HUgo brought a Writ of Error against Paine upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas upon a Verdict the Error assigned was That one Tippet was returned in the Venire facias but in the Habeas Corpus and the Distringas he was named Tipper and so another person then was named in the Venire tryed the issue Curia Examine what person was sworne and what was his true name to which it was answered that his name was Tippet according to the Venire facias and that he was summoned to appeare to be of the Iury and he inhabits in the same place where Tipper was named and that no such man as Tipper inhabited there and therefore it was awarded by the Court that the Habeas Corpus and Distringas should be amended and his true name put in and Iudgment was affirmed c. Hil. 38 Eliz. Rot. 944. Rainer against Grimston RAiner brought an Action of the case against Grimston in the Kings Bench for these words He was perjured and I will prove him so by two Witnesses without speaking in what Court he was perjured and the Plaintiff had Iudgment and upon Error brought by the Defendant it was moved that the words were not actionable But in the Exchequer Chamber the first Iudgment was affirmed Hil. 39 Eliz. Rot. 859. Chandler against Grills IN a Trespasse the parties were at issue and a Venire facias was awarded on the Roll returnable Octabis Trinitat and the Venire was made six daies after the day of Octabis returnable at a day out of the terme and the Distringas was made and the Iury Impanelled and a Verdict and Iudgment for the Plaintiff And in a Writ of Error brought this matter was assigned And the first Iudgment affirmed for this is aided by the Statute being it is the default of the Clark and the case was cited between Thorne and Fulshaw in the Exchequer Chamber Mich. 38 39 Eliz. where the Roll being viewed and the Venire not good it was mended and made according to the Roll being that which warrants it and is the act of the Court and the other matter but the mistake of the Clarks But if the Roll were naught then it is erroneous because the Venire is without warrant and no Record to uphold it and so was it held in the case of Water Hungerford and Besie Hil. 39 Eliz. During against Kettle DUring brought an Action against Kettle after a Tryall by Verdict in London and in Arrest of Iudgment it was alledged that the Venire facias is Regina vicecomit London salut praecipimus tibi quod c. where it should be praecipimus vobis c. But ruled by the Court that this Venire being as it were a Iudiciall Writ that ought to ensue the other proceedings it was holden to be amendable and so it was accordingly Pasch 39 Eliz. East against Harding IT was moved Whether if a Lord of a Mannor makes a Lease for years after a Copyholder commits a Forfeiture the Lessee for years shall take advantage hereof and it was said by Popham that the Feoffee or Lessee shall have advantage of all Forfeitures belonging to Land as in case of Feoffment and the like but on the contrary for not doing of Fealty Mich. 39 Eliz. Collins against Willes THe Father makes a promise to Willes that if he would marry his Daughter to pay him 80 l. for her portion but Willes demanded a 100 l. or else did refuse to marry her wherupon the daughter prayed her Father to pay the 100 l. and in consideration therof she did assure him to pay him 20 l. back again The 100 l. is paid and the marriage took effect And the Father brought his Action on the case against the Husband and Wife for the 20 l. Gawdy and Fenner said that the Action would lye but Popham held the consideration void Mich. 39 and 40 Eliz. Penn against Merivall IN an Ejectment the Case was If a Copyholder makes a Lease for years which is a forfeiture at the Common Law and after the Lord of a Mannor makes a Feoffment or a Lease for years of the Freehold of this Copyhold to another if the Feoffee or Lessee shall take advantage hereof was the question Popham He shall not for the lease of the Freehold made by the Lord before entry is an assent that the Lessee of the Copyholder shall continue his Estate and so is in nature of an affirmance and confirmation of the Lease to which Clench and Fenner agreed and therefore upon motion made by Yelverton Serjeant and Speaker of the Parliament Iudgment was given Quod querens nihil caplat per Billam Mich. 6 Eliz. ONe enters a plaint in a base Court to pursue in the nature of a writ of entry in the Post and had Summons against the party untill such a day at which time and after Sun-set the Steward came and held the Court and the Summons was returned served and the party made default and Iudgment given the question was If the Iudgment was good Dyer Welch and Benlowes held the Iudgment good although the Court was held at night and Dyer said that if it were erroneous he could have no remedy by Writ of false Iudgment nor otherwise but onely by way of petition to the Lord and he ought in such case to do right according to conscience for he hath power as a Chancellor within his own Court Lane against Coups IN an Ejectment by John Lane against Coup and the Plaintiff declared on a Lease made by William Humpheston the Case was William Humpheston being seised of land in see suffered a common recovery to the use of himself and his wife for life the remainder Seniori puero de corpore Gulielmi Humpheston and to the Heirs Males of the body dicti senioris pueri Plowden One point is that when a remainder is limitted Seniori puero in tail if Puer shall be intended a Son or a Daughter also and methinks it shall be intended a Son onely for so are the words in common and usuall speech and words in Deeds ought to be
this very cause prescribed as we do in this case so they may prescribe in a way or other thing of easement or pleasure 7 Ed. 4.26 a. 15 Ed. 4.29 a. Anderson There is no question but Parishioners may justify their going over any bodies land in their Perambulation Warberton Parishioners shall not prescribe in an easement as in â—y way to the Church Owen The books make a difference between things of interest as in common for in such things Parishioners cannot prescribe and things of easement as a waste for in such things a man may prescribe Anderson It is plain that Parishioners cannot prescribe for none may prescribe but those that have perpetuall continuance and therefore Tenant for years or for life or Parishioners cannot prescribe but must be aided by custome Walmsley of the said opinion for there is no descent or succession in Parishioners And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 37 Eliz. in B. R. Norton and Sharp against Gennet Rot. 178. A Prohibition was sued by the Plaintiffe as Executors to I.S. who surmised that the Defendant sued them in the Court Christian for a Legacy of 200 l. and that the Testator had goods but to the vale of 350 l. and set forth how he was Keeper of the Prison of Ludgate that he was bound to A. and M. Sheriffs of London to discharge and save harmlesse the same Sheriffs from all escapes which bond was to the value of a 1000 l. And shewed that one Holmes was taken by a Capias utlegatum at the suit of a stranger and how the Testator suffered him to escape whereupon an action of debt was brought against the Sheriffs and a Iudgment whereby the Obligation made to them by their Testator is forfeit and pleaded riens intermaines and because the Court Christian would not allow this plea they prayed a Prohibition upon which Coke Attorney-generall demurred And it was agreed by Gawdy Iustice Coke and Tanfeild that if the Bond to the Sheriff be not forfeit then is the Surmise good and the Legacy shall be paid But Fenner said to Coke Quomodo probas Who answered The difference is when a bond is made by the Testator for payment of money in a Suit at the Court Christian for a Legacy such a bond is a good plea although the bond be not forfeit as in the 9 Ed. 4.12 13. for the Condition of the Bond is part of the Bond and a duty but otherwise it is where the Condition is collaterall for the performance of Covenants but in our case the Condition is not broken as is supposed for the Capias utlegatum issued the 25 of Eliz. and so the Arrest meerly void for every Capias ought to be returned the next term after the Teste 21 H. 7.16.6 8 Ed. 4.4 6. Sed alii contra But after a Consultation was moved for if a Recovery was afterwards had against the Executors And it was answered that it was not the course to make a Bond to the party but to the Court But Fenner said that it such course be allowed no Legacy would be paid And Iudgment was given that a Consultation should be awarded if the Legatee would enter into a Bond to the Executor to make restitution if c. or otherwise not Hil. 38 Eliz. in B. R. Haddon against Arrowsmith IN an Ejectment the case was The Queen being Lady of the Mannor of Winterburne in the County of Berks by her Steward did license a Copyholder for life to make a Lease for three years if he should so long live the Copyholder did make a Lease generally to the plaintiff for three years who being ejected brought this Action Stephen The Action will not lye because the Copyholder hath not pursued his licence for license or authority must be pursued very strictly as well in form as substance 10 H. 7. license to enfeoff by Deed or license to impark 300. acres he cannot enfeoff by paroll or impark but 100. acres and it was resolved the last Terme in the Exchequer that if the King license his Tenant to alien he cannot alien to one in tail the remainder to the Donor in fee And so in our case where he makes a Lease for 3. years absolutely he hath not performed his license Gawdy contra for when his license is to make a Lease for yeares if he so long live these words If he so long live are but Surplusage for the Law saies that if Copyholder for life makes a Lease for years and dies the Lease is determined and therfore the clause in the License is no more then the Law saies and so is void Quod suit concessum per totam curiam Fenner The Condition in the License is meerly void for the Lord gives nothing by the License but only doth dispence with the forfeiture and the Lessee is in by the Copyholder and not by the Lord for the Lord cannot condition with him in his License Clench The Lord may license on Condition as where the Lord doth licence his Copyholder on condition that the Lessee shall repair the house or shall not cut Trees for otherwise the Copyholder may cut them and the Lord hath no remedy for his License is a dispensation of the forfeiture Popham contra A Condition to a License is void as a License to make a Lease for years on condition that he pay 20 l. the second year this is void for the reason given by my brother Fenner for the license does not give a right but only executes it as a Livery or Attornment but a Limitation to such License is good as license to alien for two years he cannot alien for three but in our case the Condition the Limitation made by the Lord is void and the difference is between a Copyholder in fee and a Copyholder for life for if the Lord doth license his Copyholder in fee to make a Lease for three years if he so long live and he makes a Lease absolutely this is no forfeiture for this Lease shall be a good interest against the Heir of the Copyholder but otherwise of a Copyholder for life And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasch 38 Eliz. in C. B. Bishop of Rochesters Case THe Bishop of Rochester brought a Writ of Annuity against the Deane and Chapter of Rochester and declared of an Annuity by Prescription from the Prior of S. Andrewes of Rochester which Priory was dissolved the 28 H. 8. 31 H. 8. their possessions were committed by the King to the Dean Chapter of Rochest Anderson The Annuity does not remain for an Annuity chargeth the party and not the possession and therfore when the Corporation is dissolved which is the person the Annuity is gone Walmesley But in 2 H. 6 9. it is said there If a Priory be charged with an Annuity the Annuity shall continue although it be charged to an Abby Anderson That is true for there the Corporation is changed only but here it is
nupserit ignobili desinit esse nobilis Brookes There is a difference where a noble woman marries a noble man of less noble degree than she is and when she marries one that is not at all noble for in the first case the shall hold the dignity of her second husband but in the last case she shall retain her antient dignity And so it was observed where the Marquis of Dorâ—eâ— had two daughters the elder was married to the Lord Audley and the youngest to a Gentleman and the eldest took place alwayes as wife to a Baron but the youngest kept her place as a Marquisses daughter Dyer I was a Counsel in the Case of the Lady Powes already mentioned and she would by no means lose her dignity and an Herauld was brought into Court that said she had such dignity although it was held clearly on the contrary by our Law by Montague and Hales and the Writ did abate Stanford A noble man loseth his honour by his own act as by attaint and so hath the woman here by taking such husband and the nobility of such woman is lost also by attainder Brookes said That he knew where the sons of a Duke and Marquiz had a trespass brought against them for hunting a Park by the name of Squires and it was good wherefore it was said to Benlows that he must plead to the Writ Pasch 4 5 Ph. Mary in C. B. A Feme sole having the custody of the land and body of an Infant took husband and she and her husband did tender convenient marriage to the Infant which he refused and married himself elsewhere and at his full age entred into the land if it be necessary that both shall joyn in a Writ of forfeiture upon the marriage or that the husband alone shall have it was the question Brown Justice Both shall joyn and so is it ruled in a Book Dyer contr The husband alone shall have this Writ for he may discharge it or release it and by the 5 Ed. 3.14 6. the husband alone may have a Writ of Trespass and if the wife have an advouson and a stranger present the husband alone shall have a Quare impedit and the same Law is where the woman hath a Rent and the husband distreyns and Rescous is made the husband alone shall have a Rescous Prideaux The Wardship of a Ward and Land is a thing real and the Survivor shall have it and not the Executors of the Baron and if an Action be accrued before marriage as if a Bond be made to her before marriage she shall joyn with her husband in the Action upon the Bond but if a right to an Action does accrew after marriage there she shall not joyn as here the right of the husband does not accrew untill marriage for the Action is not in respect of the Wardship but of the tender and refusal and his marriage elsewhere all which do accrew after the Coverture Stanford If a man bring a Quare impedit for an Advowson which he hath in right of his wife and hath Iudgement to recover and dyes the wife shall present and not the Executors of the husband so if he recover in a Trespass the wife shall have execution for the damages Prideaux If a Lease be made to a woman and a Rent reserved â—…mine poenae and she takes husband and the Rent is behind both shall joyn in the Action for the pain Dyer This Action is grounded upon a real Covenant Stanford Damages recovered in a Trespass are not real yet the wife shall have them if the husband dye before Execution Dyer The Trespass is done to the inheritance of the wife and therefore she shall have damages and in 43 Ed. 1. Statham The husband alone brought a ravishment of a Ward for a Ward he had in right of his wife and the Writ held to be good but there it is said that otherwise it is in right of a Ward and if they joyn in a Writ of ravishment of Ward and recover and the husband dye before Execution his Executors shall have Execution and not the wife but it is said there Quaere and at last it was agreed that the Action should be allowed but the surest way is to have bosh joyn Pasch 6 Eliz. Powtrells Case in C. B. IN an Ejectment the case was a woman-tenant in Tail did make a Lease for 31 years and took husband and had issue the wife dyes and the husband is tenant by the curtesy and surrenders to the heir who puts out the Lessee who brings this Action Dyer I doubt whether this surrender be good for tenant by the curtesy is but in reversion and hath nothing in possession and it is dubious how he can surrender Weston and Brown He may surrender for a term or franktenement may be surrendred to him that hath the estate in reversion or remainder if it be not a mean estate as tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in fee the first tenant for life cannot surrender to him that hath the fee. But the great point of the Case was if the issue could avoyd the Lease during the life of the tenant by curtesy and the Court held he could not for the tenant is in as a purchaser And by Walsh and Carus If tenant by the curtesy grants over his estate and then enters into religion the Grantee shall have his estate during the tenants natural life Quod omnes concesserunt and it was said also that if the heir had been impleaded during the life of the tenant by curtesy he shall not have his age quod fuit concessum Mich. 14 15 Eliz. Tottenham against Bedingfield IN an Account the Defendant pleaded he was never his Baily for to render account Gawdy prayed the opinion of the Court if the Action would lye for otherwise he would not trouble the Court. The Case was the Plaintiff had a Lease of a Parsonage and the Defendant being no Lessee nor claiming any interest takes the Tithes being set forth and carries them away if the Plaintiff could have this Action was the question Manwood It will not lye for an account lyes where there is privity but wrongs are alwayes without privity but I agree that it one receive my rents I shall have an account against him for by my consent afterwards I do make a privity for although that he hath received the Rent he hath not done wrong to me inasmuch as it is not my money untill it be paid to me but otherwise it is where a man disseiseth me of land for that is meerly a wrong and so is it in this case for when the Tithes were set forth by the Parishioners the Law sayes they are in the possession of the Parson and therefore when the Defendant took them away he does it wrongfully and therefore no account will lye against him and so was it adjudged in Londâ—… in the Case of one Monax who under colour of a
Devise did occupy land for 20 years and after the Devise was adjudged voyd he that had right to the land brought an account against him and adjudged that it does not lye Harper contr For an account does lye against a Proctor and the Plaintiff may charge him as Proctor and it is no Plea for him to say that he did not occupy as Proctor no more than it is a Plea for him who occupies as Guardian to say he was not the prochein amy Dyer There are three Actions of Account 1. Against a Baily 2. Against a Receiver 3. Against a Guardian in socage and if an Account be brought against one as Receiver he ought to charge him with the receipt of money and I conceive that there ought to be a privity to charge one with the receipt of money but if one claim as Baily or as Guardian in socage he is chargeable in account but an Abator or a Disseisor is not because they pretend to be owners and in this case because by the setting forth the Tithes the property is in the Parson therefore he being Lessee for years he shall have an ejectione firma and not an Account Hillar 32 34 Eliz. Carter against Kungstead in C. B. Rotulo 120. IN a Trespass the Iury gave this special Verdict John Berry was seizin of the Mannour of Stapeley in Odiam and of other lands in Odiam and the 32 H. 8. suffered a common recovery of all his lands in Odiam Stapeley and Winkfield to the use of himself and his wife for life the remainder to the heirs males of his body quod â—lterius starent of the Mannour of Stapeley with the appurtenances to the use of himself for life the remainder to the heirs males of his body whereby they were seized prout Lex postulat The husband dyes the wife makes a Lease for 19 years and whether the Mannour of Stapeley were conveyed or not was the question Harris She shall have all for when the whole estate is limited at the beginning of a Deed it shall not be abridged afterwards Periam The estate is by way of use which shall be expounded according to the intent and will of the Limiter and if this had been done by will it is clear the woman should not have the Mannour of Stapeley Anderson If I devise my land to J.S. and afterwards by the same Will I devise it to J.D. now J.S. shall have nothing because it was my last Will that J.D. should have it But otherwise it is of a use for if I do limit an estate to the use of J.S. and in the last clause do limit the same estate to J.D. the limitation to J.D. is voyd for the repugnancy Periam As to the case of the Will I conceive it is voyd to both because it cannot be known who shall have it Anderson I am sure the Law hath been taken as I have said and there was a Case in the Vpper Bench where a man one day made part of his Will and another day made another part which was repugnant to the first part and adjudged that the last was good and the first voyd Periam I agree to this Case for here is a difference in time Anderson So is there in my Case for when I am writing my Will I am thinking how I shall dispose of my estate and it shall be intended that I have least advised concerning that which I have done last Walmesley A Vse is not to be compared to a Will for the Statute of 27 H. 8. hath made it an estate and then by the 19 of Edw. 3. If a man limits an estate at the beginning of a Deed he cannot after abridge it Periam I put this Case If a man covenants upon consideration to be seized to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his son but he further sayes that his meaning is his wife shall have it for her life this is not a voyd Clause but good to the wife and the Case was adjourned till next Term. And Harris argued again and said that a Vse was but matter of trust and for that it is apparent that the intention was that the wife should have nothing there is no reason that another construction should be made Walmesley The limitation of the Vse is but a declaration how the Vse shall be and does not give any thing and the opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff who was Lessee of the woman and that the last Clause does countermand the first as to the Mannour of Stapeley Michael 31 32 Eliz. Brokesbyes Case in C. B. Rot. 18.15 BArtholomew Brokesby brought a Quare impedit and it appeared by his Declaration that the next avoydance was granted to him and one Humphrey Brokesby and then the Church became voyd and Humphrey did release to Bartholomew totum statum titulum c. and then Bartholomew being disturbed brought a Quare impedit in his name alone Harris The Plaintiff shall be barred for the other shall be named with him for the Release is voyd for when the Church becomes voyd it is a thing in action and of privity and confidence and cannot be released nor transferred Dyer 283. a. 28 H. 8.26 a. Where it is said that it cannot be granted over no more than an Executor may release his Executorship to his companion Beaumont In my opinion it is not a Chose in action but an interest which the Executors have and by the 14 H. 4. and 14 H. 6. If a man be seized of an Advowson in the right of his wife and the Church is voyd and the wife dyes yet the husband shall present which proves it is not a Chose in action for in the 49 Edw. 3.23 the husband shall not have an obligation that was made to his wife and in our case by this avoydance the Church is become an interest and a Chattell and therefore one Ioyntenant may release to another by reason of their privity although they have no possession Fenner The release is Totum Statum jus titulum but here he hath no estate nor possession and therefore the release is void And to prove that there is no estate nor possession it is proved by the pleadings of the grant of the next avoydance for he shews that the Church became voyd and that ea ratione pertinet ad ipsum presentare and not by force whereof he was possest and if none hath the advowson which becomes voyd and the Lord claymes the advowson yet he shall not have the present avoydance and as to the case of the Ioyntenants one cannot release to the other for default of possession for the release inanes by reason of their joynt possession which is out of them but release of the Demandant to the Vouchee is good by reason of the privity of Law that is betwixt them and in 11 H. 4. He who hath right after the Incumbent is instituted and inducted may confirme his
reason appears that the nature of the Lapse is to be taken hac vice and the King must take it then or not at all and where it is objected that by this means every Lapse may be taken from the King I conceive that far greater inconvenience will be to the Patrons on the other side for when a Lapse is devolded to the King and a stranger presents if then the true Patron may not present untill the death of such Incumbent perhaps the Incumbent will resign or be deprived and a stranger shall be presented again and again in like manner and so by this means the Patron shall never continue his advowson for by the Couin between the stranger and the neglect of the King to take his Lapse the Incâ—mbent shall never die And afterwards in this term it was adjudged that such usurpation shall not take away the Lapse from the King because the avoydance accrued by the act of the Incumbent Cook ib. 7.27 a. Hillary 29 Eliz. Lassell's Case LAssell brought an action of debt upon an obligation the Defendant pleads that the condition was that he should personally appear before the Iustices and set forth how he was taken by a Latitat by the Plaintiff who was Shiriff who took this obligation upon his deliverance and urged the Statute of 23 H. 6. and said that the obligation was not according to the Statute And by the Opinion of three Iustices Anderson being absent If it were in such an action wherein a man may appear by Atturney then it is void And the Plaintiff shewed a Iudgment given in the Kings Bench wherein in such case Iudgment was given for the Sheriffs and it was between Seekford and Cutts 27. 28. Eliz. Rot. 373. And the next Terme it was moved again Anderson The Obligation is voyd for when an express form is limited by the Statute no variance ought to be from it But the other three Iustices were against him for they held that he ought to appear in his proper person in case of a Latitat Anderson I deny that for Latitats have not been of above 60 years continuance Vid. Cook lib. 10. Beufages Case and his first Institutes 225. a. Pasch 25 Eliz. Kayre against Deurat in C. B. Rot. 603. IN a Waste the Plaintiff declared how the Defendant was seized in Fee and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life the remainder to the Plaintiff in Fee after which he committed waste The Tenant said that he was seized in Fee without that he made a Feoffment as the Plaintiff declared and upon issue joyned it was found that the Defendant was seized in Fee and that he made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life of J.S. without impeachment of waste the remainder ut supra and whether this was the Feoffment which the Plaintiff alledged they prayed the advice of the Court. Anderson Chief Justice If the impeachment of waste be not part of their issue then the Verdict is voyd for that point and that which is found more than their issue is voyd 33 H. 6. the Defendant pleaded that he was not Tenant of the Free-hold and the Iury found that he held joyntly with another there the Plaintiff shall recover And then at another day it was said by the Iustices that the Iury had found such an estate as was alledged by the Plaintiff and although that they further found this priviledge to be dispunisht of waste which upon the matter proves that the Plaintiff hath no cause of action yet because the Tenant may choose whether he would take hold of this priviledge or not the Iury cannot finde a thing that is out of their Verdict and whereof the Defendant will not take advantage by pleading and for this cause their Verdict was voyd 7 H. 6.33 21 H. 7.12 where one pleaded in Bar a Feoffment and traversed the Feoffment and hereupon they were at issue and the Iury found that he had enfeoffed the Tenant after the Fine levyed to the Plaintiff this cannot be found because it is out of their issue 31 Assi 12. and Iudgement was given for the Demandant Hillar 29 Eliz. Michell against Donton in C. B. Rot 639. IN an Ejectment a man makes a Lease rendring Rent with a Covenant that the Lessee shall repair the houses with other Covenants and Conditions of re-entry for not performance and then he devised the same land to the same Lessee for divers years after the first years expired yielding the same Rent and under the same Covenants as in the former Lease and he devised the remainder in fee to the Plaintiff and the first Lease expires and the Defendant being possest by force of his second Lease doth not repair the houses and if the Plaintiff might enter was the question Shuttleworth In as much as he devised the land under the same Covenants as the first Lease was and the first was with Covenants and Conditions the second shall be so also the rather because he deviseth the remainder over so that the Devisee cannot take advantage of the Covenants but of the Conditions he may and the second Lease is conditional But the whole Court was against him Shuttleworth To what purpose then are these words in the Devise Under the same Covenants Periam They shall be voyd And by all the Iustices the intent of the Will was not that the Lease should be conditional for Covenants and Conditions differ much for the one gives an action but not the other but the intent was that he should perform the Covenants upon pain to render damages in a Writ of Covenant Bottenham against Herlakenden 29 30 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 1620. HErlakenden was seized of land and devised the same to the Plaintiff for years the remainder to his wife for life Proviso that the Plaintiff should pay to the woman 20 l. per annum and if he failed of his payment c. wherefore the woman entred and if this shall be called reservation or reversion was the question Anderson A man cannot make a Reservation on a Devise Periam A man may to himself and his heirs but not to a stranger Anderson Every Devisee is in in the sier by the Devisor and why shall not this then be a reservation to the Devisor and a grant of the reversion to the woman Gawdy Wherefore cannot a man devise land reserving rent when by the Statute 32 H. 8. he may devise at his pleasure Periam Because his pleasure must correspond with the Law Anderson If I devise land to another reserving rent to me and my heirs and then devise the reversion he shall have the rent as incident to the reversion and the Iudges were divided wherefore c. 29 Eliz. Glover against Pipe in B. R. Rot. 838. IN debt upon a Bond the Condition was that where Glover the Plaintiff had a Copyhold of inheritance and had leased it to the Defendant if the Defendant should not commit any manner of waste and
21. years that is good and the Executor shall have it as in right of his Testator But where a man makes a Lease for years or life the remainder after his death for 40. years to his Executors the Executors shall have it as purchasors for this word remainder divides it from the Testator and makes the Executors purchasors Walmesley Glanvill and Kingsmill cont And their chief reason was from the intent of the parties and their intent was that the Lessee should have an estate during life for it is to him for 89. years if he so long live and because by common intendment he cannot survive those years their intent was that his Executors should have it after his death and that the certainty of the time might be known it was limited for 40. years And W lmsley said that the Administrator could not have this by purchase for when a man takes by purchase he must be named by an apt name of purchase by which he may be known as if there be tenant for life the remainder to the right heirs males of J.S. and J.S. hath issue two sons and the eldest hath issue a daughter and J.S. dies this daughter shall never take any estate because she is not heir male she hath no name of purchase and therefore here the Administrator cannot take by purchase for the Administrator comes in by the ordinary and therefore cannot be an assignee And at last Iudgment was given That the Administrator should hold it as a thing vested in the Intestate Michaelm 41 42 Eliza. VVhite against Gerish in C. B. Rot. 366. IN a Replevin the Defendant avowd for Rent The case was this Two persons did joyne in leavying a fine to J. S in Fee â—ur coâ—…ns de droit come ceo c. J.S. by the same Fine renders the Lands to one of the Conusors in taile reserving Rent and further would quod tenementa preâ—…cta remanerent to the other who is the avovee Walmesley The Rent shall passe as if a man grants land for life and also grants quod tenementa predicta remaneâ—unt to another these words Quod tenementa predicta do make a grant of the reversion and also these renders are as severall Fines and so it shall be taken as a grant in Taile rendring Rent and after a grant of the reversion Glanvill accorded Warburton If a man makes a gift in Taile rendring rent the remainder over in Fee the Donor shall have the Rent and not he in the remainder Walmesley That is true in a grant but not in a Fine Anderson If a man makes a gift in Taile rendring rent and at the same instant grants the Reversion and the Deeds are delivered accordingly this shall passe as a reversion And after it was adjudged to be a grant of the reversion and that the rent passeth Crawleys Case IN Replevin the case was thus A Rent is granted to two during the life of J.S. to the use of J.S. the grantee dieth and if the Rent were determined was the Question Walmsley The rent remains to J.S. for the grantees have an estate during the life of J.S. and by the Statute of the 27. l. 8. the use is raised and conjoynd with the possession whereby the Rent it self is carryed to J.S. whereby J.S. hath an absolute estate for his life and the life of the grantees is not materiall as if Rent be granted to two for the life of J.S. if he does not grant over the rent their lives are not materiall And if they grant over and dse the Rent shall not cease but the grantee shall have it during the life of J.S. And here the Statute 27 l. 8. vests this in cestuy que vie otherwise if it were before the Statute of use quod fuit concessum per curiam Pasch 41 Eliz. Shaw against Sherwood Rot. 2504. THe Executors of Shaw brought an Action of Debt for 20 l. upon a Bill and the Bill was thus I William Shaw have received of Thomas Pret 40 l. to the use of Robert Shaw and Elizâ—beth Shaw equally to be divided which said sum I acknowledge my self to have received to the use aforesaid and the same to re deliver again at such time as shall be most fit for the profit and commodity of the said Robert Shaw and Eâ—…zabeth Walmesley Two points are here First if this be a Debt to cestuy que use or to him who gave it Secondly if it be divided so that each of them shall have an Action for 20 l. And as to the first he held that it was a debt to him for whose use the money was delivered and as to the second that they shall have a debt as of several debts by reason of these words equally to be divided Kâ—…gâ—…m Here is no Obligation for the words are not obligatory but onely an acknowledgement of the receipt Glanyâ—ll accorded Walmesley When he acknowledged the receipt to both their uses without question such Receiver is a Debtor And agreed by the Court that admitting it was a Debt that then it shall be a divided Debt and not joynt Quod nota Lane against Cotton IN Debt upon a Bond on condition to pay 20 l. within a month after the Obligee had a son that did or could speak the Lords Pâ—…er in English that he could be understood the Plaintiff pleaded that he had a son qui loqui potuiâ— praecationem Domini uâ—intelligâ— potuerit and the Defendant demurr'd because it was pleaded that he had a son qui loqui potui for that is a secret ability that cannot be known Kingsmill The plea is good and shall be tryed as in case of a Writ of non comâ—…s mentis Glanvill accorded for it may be proved by the testimony of those who have heard him speak and if he ever spoke it it is good evidence that he had ability to speak Walmesley contr Because it is a secret thing it cannot be tryed Kingsmill A man is bound in a Bond to give me 20 l. when the River of Varâ— is novigable it is a good plea to say that the River is navigable without saying that some have navigated upon it Herâ— Serjeant cited a Case adjudged in a Quare impedit by the Patron against the Bishop who had pleaded that the Parishioners were Welshmen and that they could not understand English and that the Clerk he presented could not understand Welsh and the Patron pleaded that the Clerk could speak Welsh and upon Demurr it was adjudged a good issue and that such matter might be tryed Anderson The issue is good and it is at the election of the party to plead quod loqui potuit vel loquutus est And if I am obliged to you to give you a 100 l. when I am able to go to Pauls this may â—e tryed although in facto I never went to Pauls and if I am able I shall pay the money And he cited Broughtons Case where in Maintenance the Defendant pleaded that he
that the wife is not in her former or antient estate but takes hereby a new estate for if Tenant for life grants his estate to J.S. and his heirs and J.S. grants a Rent and then re-grants an estate to the Tenant for life the Tenant for life shall be liable for the Rent Dyer 252. Harris contr For by the rendring of the estate by the Fine she shall be in her antient state and he cited the Case of Peter Cary here adjudged who being Tenant in T. the remainder to the Earl of Devonshire was attainted and then the King pardon'd him and gave him his land again and then he suffered a common recovery and thereby barred the remainder in the Earl of Devonshire But Anderson was against this Case and said that by the render the woman was in her antient estate and so the remainder discontinued and the entry of him in the remainder taken away Warburton The Fine does make no discontinuance for they give away but that which they may lawfully do and so is Bredons Case Cook 1 Rep. 67. and as to the common recovery it is out of the Statute of the 32 H. 8. because she remains party to the Fine and by the render upon the Fine they shall be as in by a new estate and then the recompence shall not be to the antient estate and therefore he in the remainder is not barred nor impeached by this Fine but he may enter within five years Kingsmill accorded for it is plain that by the render to the husband and wife they are in a new estate and the recompence shall go as to that and not to the antient estate but contr if it had been by way of voucher Walmesley accorded but notwithstanding the Fine and recovery the entry of him in the remainder is good and as to the woman it is clear that there is no discontinuance to him in the remainder in Fee for he in the remainder in Tail cannot discontinue because he is seized by force of the estate Tail as the 4 H. 7.17 Tenant in Dower and he in the reversion in Tail joyn in a Fine this is no discontinuance of the estate Tail because he was never seized and therefore it is a forfeiture in the Tenant for life although he in the remainder joyn'd with him by the 41 Ed. 3. but otherwise if Tenant for life and he in remainder in Fee joyn in a Fine Vid. Bredons Case 1 Rep. 76. Anderson I conceive he in the remainder may enter for all passeth from the Tenant for life and it is her Feoffment and the confirmation of the other and so the estate Tail being spent he in the remainder shall enter for forfeiture and the recovery shall be no bar because it was of another estate and also this title of entry for forfeiture shall not be barr'd by the common recovery no more than if a Feoffee upon condition does suffer a common recovery yet may the Feoffor enter for the condition broken and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff so that his remainder was neither discontinued by the Fine nor his entry taken away by the Recovery 43 Eliz. Hall against VVood in C. B. IN an Action on the Case for a Trover and conversion of 40 l. on not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff Walmesley How can an Action lye for a Trover of money if it be not within a bag for this Writ supposeth a loss and when the money was lost how doth it appear that the money found is the same money that was lost Davies There are many presidents in the Kings Bench to prove that this Action will well lye for corn and money and I have been of Counsel in many of those Cases Warburton If the money were lost in view of a third person upon such Trover the Action will lye for there it may be proved that it was the money of the Plaintiff And Walmesley agreed And note that a president was shewn tempore 40 41 Eliz. inter Holloway and Higgs which was thus a master delivered to his servant 30 quarters of corn to be sold and the servant sold them and converted the money and the master brought his Action on the Case for the Trover and conversion against the servant who pleaded not guilty and it was sound against him and two things were moved in arrest of Iudgement first that the master was never possessed of the money and therefore could not lose it secondly because the money cannot be known and so non constat whether it was the money of the masters or no. But notwithstanding this Case Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff because the possession of the servant was the possession of the master and when the servant converts this to his own use by this the master loseth the property and is also a conversion in the servant Mich. 42 43 Eliz. Leeke against the Bishop of Coventry in C. B. Rot. 3579. IN a Quare impedit the Case was thus Langford and Bussy were Patrons of an Advowson to which they and their Ministers use to present by turn Langford presented according to his turn and his Clerk dyed and then Bussy presented in his turn also and his Clerk was deprived after which Langford grants his Advowson in Fee to Leeke the Plaintiff and then the Bishop without any notice does collate Dr. Babington who dyes after whose death the question was if Leeke should present or Bussy and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff because that notwithstanding the Church was voyd by deprivation yet the Patron may transpose his Advowson over Bethell against Sir Edward Stanhop IN Debt against Sir Edward Stanhop as Executor to Francis Vaughan he pleaded that he is not Administrator and the said Vaughan gave 40 l. to his daughter within age with power of revocation upon the payment of 20 s. and it was found that this was done to defraud Creditors and then he dyed possest of the goods and the Defendant sold these goods which made him Executor in his own wrong and afterwards takes Letters of Administration Walburton I conceive the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgement for the Statute of 21 Eliz. of fraudulent conveyances annuls this gift of the Intestate because he did it to defraud his Creditors and then when he dyed it was assets in the hands of the Administrator And if a Testator have goods wrongfully taken from him out of his possession these are not Assets to the Executors or Administrators but if they be taken out of the possession of the Administrators or Executors they shall be Assets for they may take them again but for goods taken from the Testator they have but an Action But here the Administrator may take the goods which were given by the Intestate to defraud Creditors for the gift was voyd and therefore they shall be accounted Assets And as to the Action it is well brought for when a man does administer as Executor and then takes Letters of
the wife is at large to have the twelve pound and her Dower also But the Court held that she could not have her joynture for by the recovery of the Dower her joynture is barred for the Rent was given her in recompence of her Dower so that it cannot be intended that she shall have Rent Dower also wherefore it was adjudged that her entry on the Land was not good 30 31 Eliz. The King against the Bishop of Canterbury and Hudson Rot. 1832. IN a Quare impedit Hudson the Incumbent did plead that King Edw. the 4th did grant the Rape of Hastings Et bona catalla Fellonum Fugitivorum ategat of all Residents and non-residents within the said Rape to the Earl of Huntington And pleaded that John Ashborne was seized of the Mannor of Ashborne and of the advowson appending to it and held the same of the Earl of Huntington as of his Rape of Hastings and that the said John Ashborn was outlawed during which the Incumbent of the said Church dyed and the Earl presented the said Hudson Shut I conceive this avoydance does not belong to the Earl by reason of this grant for by the same Patent libertie is given to the said Earl his heirs to put himself into possession and of such things as he cannot put himself into possession they will not passe and here this is a thing in action which by these words will not passe 19 H. 6.42 by the grant de Catalla Fellonum obligations do not passe VValmesley Stanford in his prerogative saith that by the words Bona catalla the King shall have the presentation to the Church of him that is outlawed or Attaint and by the same reason he may grant it by such a name and although the party cannot seise such a thing yet it shall passe 39 H. 3.35 Rent for years shall passe by the grant of bona Catalla Periam It will passe by these words for it is an ancient grant for in that time the Patents of the King were not so specially penned as now they are Anderson I conceive the avoydance will not passe by thse words for within this word bona moveables are contained both dead and living and Avoydance is no Chattell nor right of Chattell Quod Peryam negavit c. Mich. 37 38 Eliz. Townsend against VVhales IN an Ejectment the Iury found that J.S. was seized of land in possession and also in reversion for terme of life and made a Devise by these words That his Executors take the profit of all his Lands and tenements Free and Copy for ten years for the payment of his debts and Legacies and after the end of the said ten years that all the aforesaid lands and tenements with their appurtenances should be sold by his Executors or one of them and the silver to be bestowed in the performance of his Will or by the Executors of his Executors or any of them and then one of the Executors dyed within the ten years and the two surviving Executors did grant all aswell in possession as in reversion to House who made a Lease to the Plaintiff And two points were resolved 1. That the Executors may grant the reversion 34 H. 6. for by these words Free and Copy his intent appears that all should be granted 2. That although one of the Executors died yet the other two Executors may sell Anderson If such bevise had been at the Common Law and one Executor had refused the two others could not sell but if one die the survidors may sell the land for there the authority doth survive Which difference the other Iustices agreed to And at another day Anderson said there was difference where the Devise is that Executors should sell his and the money divided between them there if one die the others shall not sell but otherwise here because the money is the performance of his will Walmesley The sale by the two Executors is good for it is said the Executors or any of them c. And Beaumond agreed Wherefore judgment was given for the Plaintiff Note that there were two verdicts in this case and the first only found that the Executors shoull sell after the ten years and that one dyed and the other two did sell within the ten years and the opinion of the Court was that the sale was voyd but in the 39 and 40 Eliz. all the whole will was found and Iudgment given ut supra The Earle of Rutlands Case Roger Earl of Rudand and John Maners and others Executors to John late Earl of Rudand Executor to Edward Earl of Rutland brought an action on the case against Isabell Countess of Rutland And Declared for divers Iewells and goods c. that came to the hands of John Earl of Rudand as Executor to the said Edward and the said John the 10th of July 29 Eliz. did casually loose them which after came to the hands of the Defendant licet saepius requisita she would not deliver them to the said John in his life time nor to the said Plaintiffs after his death but knowing the goods did belong to the Plaintiffs in D. in the County of Notingham converted them to her proper use And a verdict for the Plaintiff And it was moved often in arrest of Iudgment but all the Iustices agreed that the action of Trover and converversion would lie by the Executors upon the Satute of the 4 Ed. 3. upon a conversion in vita Testatoris and so hath it been adjudged in the Kings Bench and although the Statute mentions onely a Writ of trespass that is only put for example Also they all agreed that the sole cause of action to the Conversion for it there were no conversion they shall be put to their Detinue therefore the great doubt did arise because the day and time of the conversion was not shewed for perhaps it was after the Writ and before the Declaration And also if it was in vita Testatoris they should have this action by the 4th of Ed. 3d. But at length Walmesley said That all Iustices of the Common Pleas and of Serjeants Inne in Fleet-street besides Peryam Chief Baron were of opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiffs for that some of them held that the day of the Conversion is not materiall to be shewn and others that of necessity as this case is it shall be intended that the conversion was in the Plaintiffs time wherefore Iudgment was entredfor the Plaintiffs but a Writ of Errour was brought and the Case much debated Michaelm 38 39 Eliz. Carew against Warren in C. B. Rot. 1945. GUnter Tenant in Tasle of Lands in antient Demesn made a Lease for 60. years to J.S. and for security thereof levied a Fine to Lee and Loveland who rendred to Gunter in Fee who devised the reversion to his wife for life the remainder in Fee and dyed And then the Lord of Andover which is an ancient Mannor by an
but part of the house and Waste may be brought for part of a house 3. Error was because the other Coparcener was not joyned with him in the Action But resolved that it was good enough And the Iustices made this diversity viz. When both the parties have an equall Estate and Inheritance and when one of them hath but a particular Estate as in the 27 H. 8.13 Lessee for life and he in the remainder shall joyne in an Action of Waste but where they had equal estate of Inheritance as two Coparceners or two Tenants in Common and one makes a Lease and the Lessee commits Waste there the Writ of Waste shall be brought by the Lessor only for it is not like to a personall injury done upon an Inheritance for an action of Waste is now in the nature of the realty although that at the Common Law before the Statute of Glocester there was but a Prohibition yet the Statute gives the place wasted and damages and therefore it is mixt wherefore both of them shall not joyne and the Writ saies to his â—isheritance that made the Lease vide 22 H. 6 24. by the Court and agreeing with this resolution 4. Error was that the Waste is a permissive Waste and no such Waste lies between Coparceners for each of them are bound to contribution and reparation but the Court would take no notice of this 5. Error was in the entring Iudgment for Iudgment was entred by default whereupon a Writ of Inquiry of damages issued out to the Sheriff and the Sheriff went to the place wasted which he needed not have done And the Iudgment was Quod recuparet locum vastatum per visum Juratorum which was nought for the going to the place was Surplusage But divers Presidents were produced to prove that that was the course as Hilar. Rot. 501. between the Earl of Bedford and William Smith upon a Demurrer and a Writ of inquiry of damages and the Iudgment was Quod recuparet locum vastatum per visum Juratorum and Trin. 31 H. 8. Rot 142. and the book of Entries fol. 620. wherefore Iudgment was affirmed 34 Eliz. in Com. Ban. Gaytons Case Resignation of a Benefice RObert Gayton Parson of the Church of little Eyesingham in the County of Norfolk did by Instrument in writing resign his Benefice before Edmund Langdon publick Notary and others into the hands of the Bishop and the resignation was absolute and voluntary and to the use of Miles Mosse and Paul Britback or either of them And it was further infâ—rred in the said Instrument of Resignation Protestatione sub conditione quod si aliqui eorum non admissi fuerant per assessioneÌ„ Episcop infra sex menses quod tunc haec present resignatio mea vacua pro nulla habeatur nunc prout tunc tunc prout nunc and Cestuy que use came within the time limited to the Bishop and did offer to resigne to him which the Bishop refused to except c. Crooke for the Plaintiff Forasmuch as the Plaintiff may resigne on Condition as well as a particular Tenant may surrender upon condition and two Parsons may exchangâ— and iâ— the estate be executed on the one part and not on the other that Parson whose part was not executed may have his Benefice again as it is adjudged in the 46 Ed. 3. But Coke Solicitor and Godfrey were on the contrary opinion For that the Incumbent may not transfer his Benefice to another without presentation as appeares in the recited case of 46 Edw. 3. Also the resignation is not good and the Condition void because it is against the nature of a Resignation which must be Absolute sponte pure simpliciter and is not like to a Condition in Law as in the said case of Exchange in 46 Edw. 3. for the Law doth annex a condition to it but a collaterall condition cannot be annext by the parties themselves Also this is an Act Iudiciall to which a condition cannot be annext no more then an Ordinary may admit upon condition or a Iudgment be confessed on Condition which are judiciall Acts. But admitting the Condition good yet a new Induction ought to be made by the Ordinary for the Church became one time void and is not like to the case in 2 R. 2. Quare Impedit 143. where sentence of deprivation was given and the sentence presently reversed by Appeal there need no new Institution for that the Church was never void And after in Easter Tearm 36 Eliz. upon Arguments given in writing by the Civillians to the Iudges the Iudgment was entred Quod querens nihil capiat per billam Hiliar 35 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Rot. 56. Carters Case Action on the case for words WIlliam Crow brought an Action on the Case against Warham Carter for speaking of these words The said William is forsworn and perjured in swearing at the common place Bar upon the Deeds which he then had in his hand Harris Serjeant did move in Arrest of Iudgment for that the words shall be construed according to the common and vulgar sense viz. That he is forsworne upon the Deeds But the Court was against him For the vulgar sense is that men do not use to sweare but upon a Book and the Plaintiff had Iudgment Hil. 36 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. William Bartues Case Prohibition WOodroffe and Cooke brought a Prohibition against Bartue the C se was thus The Abbot of Langley did let Land to one Raston for ninety nine years who let the same to Woodroff for sixty years who granted parcell of the said Land to Cooke during the whole terme And Bartue did libell against them both in the Spirituall Court for Tythes and they joyned in a Prohibition Godfrey They may not joyne in a Prohibition for by the Statute of 34 H. 6.13 If two men are sued in the Court Christian for slander bâ—ttery c. which are severall in themselves there they cannot joyne in a Prohibition but where they be sued for the finding of a Lampe c. by reason of their Land there they shall joyne but in this case the Tythes are severall But it was resolved 1. That their joyning in the Prohibition was good enough 2. That the death of one of them shall not abate the Writ of Prohibition because nothing is by them to be recovered but they are onely to be discharged of Tythes Pasch 33 Eliz. in the Kings Bench Rot. 292. Haslewoods Case Error in Avowry THe Lord of a Mannor did avow on the taking of a Gelding as an Estrey within his Mannor and had Iudgment to have return and damage to twenty pounds And hereupon a writ of Error was brought and adjudged that no Damages shall be had in such case For the Avowant cannot recover damages at the Common Law and by the Statute of the 7 H. 8. and 4. no damages shall be given to the Avowant for Damage-feasant but where he avowes for Rents
Customes or Services and this is neither Rent Custome or Service for that of common right the Estrey belongs to the King and no common person may have it unlesse by grant or by prescription and the Statute is to be taken strickly for the Avowant for Damage-feasant or for Rent Charge should not recover Damage by this Statute before the Statute of 21 H. 8.19 where the Plaintiff hath remedy as it is holden in Dyer 141. B. But because divers Presidents were shewn out of the Common Pleas from time to time since the making that Statute that damages shall be recovered by the Avowant who avowes for Amercements c. it was said that it would be very difficult to controll so many Presidents Gawdy no great credit is to be given to such Presidents as passe sub silentio without any exception taken to them Another Error was assigned because the Iudgment was to have return averiorum predictorum whereas there was but one Guelding wherefore Iudgment was reversed and the Roll markt Trin. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Fulgeambs Case Trespass against the Constables of Cambridge FUlgeambe brought an Action of Trespasse against the Constables of Cambridge the Case was The Plaintiffs horses estrayed into Cambridgeshire and were thereupon Impounded in Cambridge and then one A. came with a Commission from the Lord Hunsdon Captaine of Barwick to take Horses to ride to Barwick and the Constables delivered to him the Plaintiffs Horses and then one of the Horses died And the opinion of all the Iustices was that the Action did well lye for the Constables cannot take Horses out of the Pound to deliver them to any by vertue of such a Commission Trin. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Tauntons Case Lease on condition COles made a Lease to Taunton for ninety nine years on condition â—hat if he demised it in other manner then in such manner as he let the same to him that then it should be lawfull for him to re-enter the Lessee devises it by his Will to his youngest Son Resolved that Rigore Juris this is a breach of the Condition for a Devise is an Alienation as is holden 31 H. 8 Dyer 6. and although Conditions shall be taken strickly yet not directly against the intent of the parties and the reasonable disposition of the words and therefore a Devise shall be intended to be within this word Demise yet it was said that it was very hard according to equity that the Estate should be lost For he intended by this Will to prefer one of his youngest Children and not to break the Condition and thought not it was any breach of the condition and for this cause some doubt was made of the Case but Hil. 38 Eliz. Iudgment was given as aforesaid Pasch 36 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 41. Leighs Case Ejectment THe Queen being seised of lands as Dutchesse of Lancaster did make a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff the Lessee is outed by A. the Plaintiff makes a Lease to B. for years and B. being outed brought an Ejectione firmae 1. It was resolved that the Queen as Dutchesse of Lancaster cannot be disseised for although she be not seised in jure Coronae yet is it in Seisin of the Queen and cannot be taken away from her in respect of her person 2. Gawdy and Fenner held that the Lessee being outed the terme is turned into a Right and therefore it hath been adjudged that an Ejectment will lye as the case is in Dyer 29 H. 8. It Tenant in taile the reversion in the King suffers a Recovery although this shall not be to the prejudice of the Kings Reversion yet shall it bar the Estate-tail So if a Parson makes a Lease for years and the Patron and Ordinary confirme it and the Parson dies and during the Vacation the Lessee is outed he is hereby outed of his terme yet is not the Frank-tenement touched Clench on the contrary That he who is outed hath an Estate but at sufferance for he cannot have an Estate for years without a Lease and it is agreed he shall not have an Estate of Freehold by reason of the Reversion in the Queen and the possession of the Lessor shall maintain the possession of the Lessee as well as the possession of the Lessee shall keep the Freehold of the Lessor and if he have but an Estate at sufferance then cannot the Lease to B. he good For if Tenant at sufferance of a common person makes a Lease for years this is a Disseisin And Popham was of opinion with Gawdy and Fenner wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff I have seen a Report 24 Eliz. in the Kings Bench upon a Demurrer between Edmund Frough and Henry Dixe where the better opinion was That if one enters on the terme of the Queen he shall not thereby gaine any possession but notwithstanding the Termor may grant over his Terme but it was agreed that he shall have an Ejectione firmae for by Plawden an Assise will lye of a Mill where the water is divers for the possession of the Mill continues in him But the Justices doubted whether it was an Ejectment wherefore the parties did compound In the 4. H. 6. Intrusion If Lessee for life the Remainder in the King be outed he shall have an Assise Trin. 36 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 134. Thurstons Case Ejectment GOffe brought an Ejectment against Thurston the Case was this The Abbot of Kingswold in Wiltshire being seised of Land in the 28th yeare of H. 8. did with consent of the Covent make a Lease for years by Deed indented and then the Abby came into the hands of H. 8. and from him to Edw. 6 and from him to the present Queen And it was pleaded that the Defendant hath the Lease and that Henry Thinne did intrude on the Defendant and made a Lease to the Plaintiff who being ejected by the Defendant brought this Action and on this matter the parties demurred 1. It was said that the Plaintiff cannot bring this Action inasmuch as Henry Thinne by his entry on Lessee for years the Reversion being in the Queen cannot gaine any possession so that nothing passeth by his Lease to the Plaintiff But the Court was against this for he is a sufficient Lessee to maintain an Action of Ejectment And it was adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber that the Queens Lessee for years being outed may have an Ejectione firmae which proves that he is put out of possession of his terme and this very point was in a manner agreed the last terme in the case of Norris Fenner If H. enters on the possession of the Queen and makes a Lease for years nothing doth passe and the Lessee cannot maintain an Ejectione firmae for he gains no possession at all but it is on the contrary heâ—e when he enters on the Queens Lessee Gawdy That is no difference for the Lessee for years of an Intrudor shall maintain at Ejectione firmae And I have seen
opinion he relied upon the intention of the Donors which ought to be observed For if the Habendum does crosse the Premisses it shall be void but a Remainder is good for the benefit of a stranger but a Rent cannot be reserved upon such a Gift during the foure degrees but after the Reversion is good if he do attorne to the Gâ—…ntee of the Reveâ—sion Windham Frank-marriage is not an Estate in taile for there wants the word Heires Coke lib. 1.103 So a Gift to a man semini suo 10 Ass 26. and after Meade â—greeâ— with Windham although the grounds of Frank-marriage were not observed yet that it was good for although there be no Tenure between the Donor and Donee yet is it a good Frank-marriage Dyer It is no good Frank-marriage because the usuall words are not observed and if the word Liberum be omitted it is not Frank-marriage neither is it good given to a man but it must be to a woman for a man cannot give land to a woman Causa matrimonii praelocuti And in this case the party ought to be of the blood of the Donor who by possibility may be inheritable to him and there ought to be a Tenure between them and an acquittall and if any faile it is no Frank-marriage and he said further that if it once takes effect as Frank-marriage and then the Donor grants the Reversion or the Reversion discends to the Donees yet it shall not be destroyed but shall remaine as an Estate in taile and not for life because it once took effect in the Donees and their issues and if land be given to a man in Frank-marriage the remainder in taile yet this shall not destroy the Frank-marriage and the Donee shall hold of the Donor and not of him in the remainder And if one give land in Frank-marriage the remainders to the Donees in taile yet is this a good Frank-marriage and if the Donor grants over his Services yet doth the Frank-marriage continue although the Donees attorn for they are incident to the Reversion and therefore the Grant is void but if the Reversion be granted the Services will passe and he concluded that the Husband had all and the Wife nothing because no Estate to her is mentioned in the Premisses and he could not construe the words to be the intent of the Donor for here is an expresse limitation of the fee to the Husband and his Heirs which cannot be controlled by intendment And after 25 Eliz. It was adjudged to be no Frank-marriage nor gift in taile but a Fee-simple And the Iustices said that the ancient Books were that where it took not effect as a Frank-marriage it should be in especiall taile yet those at this time are not Law But they agreed that this at one time took effect as Frank-marriage and by matter ex post facto may be made an Estate in taile Mich. 30 Eliz. Gibbs Case GIbbs brought an Action of Trover against Basil for a Gelding the Case was One Porter stole this Gelding from the Plaintiff and sold him to the Defendant in open Market by the name of Lister and it was entred so in the Toll Book that Lister sold him The question was if this alteration of his name shall make any alteration of the property although the sale was in open Market Windham and Rhodes Iustices held this no good sale to bar the Plaintiff and grounded their opinion on the Statute of the 2 and 3 Phil. and Mar. cap. 7. which provides that no property of stollen Goods shall be altered that are sold unlesse the name and surname of the parties to the sale be written in the Toll-book And Shuttleworth moved that it should be in the Market and walked there for an houre together which is not set forth by the Defendant in his Bar but the Iustices said that such speciall plea need not to be but shall be intended Rouses Case IT was moved in this Case that if Tenant for terme Dauter vie does continue and hold in his Estate after the death of Cestuy que vie If he be a Disseisor and whether in pleading the plea ought to be seised and not possest Shuttleworth He was legally in at first and therefore cannot be a Disseisor 15 Ed. 4.41 A Freehold could not be gained where he came in by the agreement of the party and 12 Ass 22. Where the Husband and Wife were seised of a Freehold and after were divorced by Suit on the womans part whereby the woman is to have all the land yet if the Husband continue possession and dies seised this discent shall not take away entry because he was no Disseisor Gawdy He is Tenant at sufferance and no Disseisor and there it was moved that if Tenant at sufferance or a Disseisor makes Copies of Copyhold Lands if they be good or voidable And note that Wilde took here a diversity between a Termor that holds over and a Tenant at sufferance for in case of a Tenant at sufferance there is no Freehold taken from the Lessor which the continuance of possession doth not take from him but where the Tenant holds over his terme there the Freehold is disturbed and therefore there is a disseisin But at that present it seemed to the Iudges that there was no diversity But the next terme Godfrey moved that if Tenant for anothers life held over his Estate he had Feesimple and he granted that it was otherwise in some cases for if he claim to be Tenant at the Will of the Lessor he shall not gaine a Fee-simple For Littleton in his Chapter of Releases 108. saith that Tenant at sufferance is where a man in his own wrong doth convey Lands and Tenements at the will of him that hath the Freehold and such Occupyer claimeth nothing but at Will But in this case the Tenant claimes otherwise then at Will of the Lessor he does not claim any thing but at the Will of the Lessor as in the case of Littleton but claimes to hold over against the Will of the Lessor which is no Tenant at sufferance and 10 Ed. 4. If a man makes a Lease at Will and the Lessor dies and he continues possession and claims fee the Heire shall have a Mortdancester and 18 Ed. 4.25 If Cestuy que use dies and the Tenant continues in and the Tenant is impleaded the Lessor shall not be received and the reason is because there is no reversion in him but the Tenant hath it and 22 Ed. 4.38 by Hussey Iustice If a Termor holds over his Terme there an Estate in fee is confest to be in him by matter of Law but it is a deubt whether he be a Disseisor or not but it seemeth not for a Trespasse doth not lye against him before Regresse and in the 7 H. 4.43 If a Guardian holds the possession at the full age of the Heir or Tenant for years after his terme expired the Estate shall be judged in Fee And in our case he hath
not claimed to hold at Will for he hath done contrary for he hath made Copies By all the Iustices if Tenant at will or for years or at sufferance make a Lease for years this is a Disseisin and a Tenant at will doth thereby gaine a Freehold and thereby doth claim a greater Estate then he ought and so it is in this case 2. Admitting him to be Tenant at sufferance the question is if he may grant Copies and if whether they be good and it seems he may for no trespasse lies against him because he is Dominus pro tempore and it is not like a Copy made by an Abator or Disseisor for it hath been adjudged that Copies made by them are void but in this case his act of making Copies agrees with the Custome as in Grisbrooks case If an Administrator sells Goods and paies debts with the money and after he who is Executor proves the Will he shall never avoid this sale for that it was done according to the Will which the Executors were compelled to do So in the 12 H. 6. If a Baily cuts Trees and repaires an ancient Pale this is good and 6 R. 2. if he paies quit-rents it is good Coke He comes in by right and therefore is Tenant at sufferance and like this case is Dyer 35 H. 8.57 Lord Zouches case where Cestuy que use for life the remainder over in taile made a Lease for the terme of the life of the Lessee and dies and the Lessee continues his Estate And the opinions of the Iustices of both Benches were that he is but Tenant at sufferance Popham If a Mannor be devised to one and the Devisee enters and makes Copies and then the Devise is found to be void yet the Copies of Surrender made by such Devisee are good but contrary where new or voluntary Copies are made by him 7 Eliz. and in the Lord Arundells case a Feoffment in fee was made of a Mannor upon condition the Feoffee upon Condition grants voluntary Copies those are good Atkins on the contrary And he made a difference between a Tenant at will and a Tenant at sufferance for a Tenant at will shall have aid but so shall not the other as in the 2 H. 4. and a Release to one is good to the other not c. and when he holds over he doth assume an Interest which shall not be thought wrongfull for he is neither Abator nor Disseisor and therefore Dominus and therefore the Copies made by him are good 4 H. 7.3 Tenant at sufferance may justifie for Damage-feasant And all the Iustices held for the Plaintiff and that he that made the Copy was but Tenant at sufferance and not Disseisor and that he had no Fee And the Iudgment was to be entred unlesse the Defendant shewed better matter Trin 28 Eliz. Rot. 329. Smiths Case SMith assumed upon himselfe that when I. N was indebted to I.D. in an Obligation of forty pounds that if I.D. would not implead the said I.N. that then if the money were not paid at such a day that then he viz. the said Smith would pay the money Vpon which Assumpsit after the day I.D. brought his Action on the case and did set forth in his Declaration that he did not implead I.N. and it was moved by Kingsmill that he could not have this Action untill I.N. be dead for so long as he lives I.D. hath time to implead him As if a man promiseth another that he will be named in his Action that he hath against a third person and if the third person payes not the money at such a day then he will he cannot sue unlesse he shewes he hath discharged the other of the Obligation Clench It is implied that he will never implead him Shuttleworth Iustice not so for if hereafter he sue him contrary to his promise then the other who made the Assumpsit shall have his Action on the case and recover to the value of the sunâ—m in the Bond. And after the case was moved again and the Plaintiff brought the Obligation in Court and thereupon the Obligation was entred so that now the Plaintiff could not implead I. N in posterum for which Iudgment was entred for the Plaintiff 29 Eliz. Cosens Case COsen the Father had issue three Sons John George and Thomas John the eldest died in the life-time of his Father his Wife Enseint with a Daughter the Father makes a Devise in these words That if it shall please God to take to his mercy my Son Richard before he shall have issue of his body so that my Lands shall descend to my Son George before he shall be of the age of one and twenty years then my Overseers shall haue my Land untill George come to the age of one and twenty years If Richard who is yet living had an Estate in taile by these words was the question And all the Iustices agreed that it was a plain implication to make an Estate-taile in Richard the second Son 13 H. 7.17 29 Eliz. in C. B. Warrens Case WIlliam Warren brought an Action of Debt for forty pounds and in his Declaration confessed satisfaction of twenty pounds and hereupon a Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench and the Iudgment reversed For by his Declaration he had abated his owne Writ and he ought to have Iudgment according to his Writ and not to his Count. And Error was brought upon the Outlawry for if the first Record was reversed the Outlawry thereupon is reversed 4 and 5 Phil. Mar. BEnlowes Serieant moved this case a man seised of Lands and Teâ—ements in London devises them by these words I will and bequeath unto my Wife Alice my livelyhood in London for terme of her life By this Will the lands in London passe to the Wife by this word Livelyhood Nota for Brook Iustice said that it was in ancient time used in divers places of this Realm and had been taken for an Inheritance To which Dyer agreed Case of Slander BRook said that if a man speak many slanderous words of another he who is slandred may have an Action on the case for any one of these words and may omit the others But if a man write many slanderous things of another in a Letter to a friend an action upon the case will not lye for it shall not be intended that it is done to the intent to have it published Mich. 1 and 2 Eliz. N. Arch-bishop of York and I.B. Executors of the last Will and Testament of Thomas Duke of Norfolk did bring a Writ of Ravishment de Guard and then he was deprived by his own consent The question is if the Writ shall abate Benlowes It shall abate for if a Dean and Parson of a Church bring an Action for such a Custome and then resigne the Writ shall abate because it is their own Act. Dyer The Writ shall not abate for the Action is not brought in their own persons but in their Testators and
Oathes and they who had eaten were fined five pounds and committed to the Fleet. And some of the Iustices did doubt if the Verdict were good and upon many Presidents had it was adjudged good and they relyed much on the President of the 12 H. 8. Rot. 102. where one of the Iury did eat before they were agreed and yet the Verdict was good And after a Writ of Error was brought and the Iudgment affirmed 20 H. 7.3 13 H 4.13 Pasch 27 Eliz. A Man gives land to I.S. in the Premisses Habendum to him and three others for their lives Et eorum diutius viventium successive The question was what Estate I.S. had and whether there be any occupancy in the case Coke hâ—ld that I.S. had but an Estate for his own life because he cannot have an Estate for his own and anothers life where the interest of both begin at one instant and the Habendum by no means can make a Remainder as if a Lease be made to one for life habendum to him and his first begotten Son this makes no remainder to the Son although some have held to the contrary so of a Lease to one for years habendum to him and another does not make any remainder to the other also the word Successive will not make a remainder as in the 30 H 8. Br. Joynt-tenant 53. Also one cannot have an Estate for life and for anothers life also in present interest for the greater doth drowne the lesse but if the greater be present and the other future as a Lease to him for life the remainder to him for anothers life or a Lease for life and three years over this is good but if a Lease be made for life and for years the Lease for years is drowned 19 Ed. 3. Surrender 8. where Tenant for life of a Mannor did surrender to him in the Reversion c. Gawdy If a Lease be made to one for life and so long as another shall live quaere what Estate he hath And as to the second point certainly there cannot be an Occupancy for if the Estate be void the Limitation is void also the Occupancy is pleaded Que un tiel and does not say Claymant comme occupant c. for if a man comes a hawking on Land he is not an Occupant and the Book of Entries is that he ought to plead it Clinch Iustice every Occupant ought to be in possession at the time of the death of the Tenant for otherwise the Law casts the Interest upon him in the Reversion But Gawdy and Chute denied this and after viz. 29 Eliz. the Case was moved again by Popham and he made three points 1. If the other three had a joynt Estate 2. If they had a Remainder 3. If there be an Occupancy And he was of opinion that they had nothing by the habendum for they were not named in the Premisses they cannot have a Remainder for the incertainty but if those three had been named in the Premisses habendum to them Successive as they had been named there they had a Remainder for there the certainty appeared 30 H. 8.8 Dyer 361. Also there can be no Occupancy during the lives of the other three but he agreed to the Book of the 18 Ed. 3.34 that a Lease for life the Remainder to him for anothers life was good And that if a Lease be made to I.S. and a Monk it is void to the Monk and the other hath all and that during the life of the Monk there can be no Occupancy And if I make a Lease to I. S. for the life of a Monk it is a good Lease And till the same terme Iudgment was given that they could take nothing in possession joyntly nor by way of Remainder and that no Occupancy could be in the Case and that I.S. had Estate for terme of his owne life onely Stile against Miles STile Parson did suggest that the Land was parcell of the Glebe of the Parsonage and that the said Stile did let the said Glebe being foure and twenty acres to Miles for years rendring thirteen shillings foure pence Rent and in a Prohibition the case was if Tythes were to be paid And Wray said that although it was parcell of the Glebe yet when it was leased out Tythes ought to be paid and if no Rent be reserved Tythes ought to be paid without question but there may be a doubt where the Rent is reserved to the true value of the Land but here the Rent is of small value wherefore Tythes shall be paid also And the Reservation of the Rent was Pro omnibus exactionibus demandis yet the Iustices took no regard of those words But Godfrey said that those words would discharge him but Wray on the contrary for that this Tythe is not issuing out of the Land but is a thing collaterall and if a Parson do release to his Parishioners all demands in the Land yet Tythes are not thereby released for such generall words will not extend to such a speciall matter And in the 15 of R. 2. Avowry 99. one held of another by ten shillings for all Services Suits and Demands yet the Tenant shall pay Relief because it is incident to the Rent and 8 Ed. 3.26 Mich. 29 Eliz. Rot. 2574. or 2375. Stephens against Layton IN an Ejectione firmae upon issue joyned the case in a speciall Verdict was that a Lease by Indenture was made by William Beale to one William Pyle and Philip his Wife primogenito habend to them diutius eorum viventi successive for terme of their lives and then the Husband and Wife had issue a Daughter The question was if the Daughter had any Estate And three Iustices held that she had no Estate because she was not in being at the time of the Lease made and a person that is not in esse cannot take any thing by Livery for Livery ought to carry a present Estate where the Estate is not limited by way of Remainder 18 Ed. 3.3 17 Ed. 3.29 30. adjudged but it was said at the Bar that if the Estate had been conveyed by way of use it is otherwise And the said Iustices held clearly that the word Successive would not alter the case And the case was further found that William Beale and Sampson Beale did covenant with one Lendall that if Tho. Beale Son of Sampson Beale should marry Margaret the Daughter of the said Lendall if she would assent and also that the said Lendall did covenant that the said Margaret should marry the said Thomas if he would assent Pro quo quidem Maritagio sic tum postea habendo the said William Beale covenanted that he would make or cause to be made an Estate to the said Thomas and Margaret and to the Heirs of their bodies for the Ioynture of the said Margaret and it was further found that afterward a Fine was levied between the said Thomas and Margaret Plaintiffs and Sampson Beale and William Beale
that the Action might be against the Husband onely because that the woman could not convert them to his own use during the Coverture but onely to the Husbands use And the opinion of the Court was that the Writ was good against them both and that the conversion was in nature of a Trespasse and so the Action would well lye Mich. 32. and 33 Eliz. Kent against Wichall IN a Trespasse Quare clausum fregit herbam conculcavit the Defendant pleaded that he tendied sufficient amends to the Plaintiff and he refused the same and demanded Iudgment c. And upon a Demurrer the opinion of the Court was that this is no plea in Trespasse but in a Replevin it is a good plea Sed non dierunt causam diversitatis 21 H. 7.30.9 H. 7.22 F.N.B. 69. G. 31 H. 4.17 Drew demanded of the Court that whereas Edmund Leusage had bound himself in an Obligation by the name of Edward Leusage if this was good or not and it seemed to the Court Quod non est factum and Anderson and Walmesley said expresly that it was void 34 H. 6.19 6. Dyer 279 21 H. 7.8 Sir John Arrundell and his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Glocester and others who pleaded in Bar that William Sturton was seised of a Mannor to which the Advowson was appendant and bound himself in a Statute-merchant of two hundred pounds to one Long and the Statute was extended and conveyed the interest of the Statute to one of the Defendants and then the Church became void And by the Court the Advowson may be extended and if it become void during the Conusees Estate the Conusee may present Note it was said by the Iustices of the Common Pleas that if a man promise another that he shall have a Lease in his land for eight years or it is agreed amongst themselves that one shall have a Lease of the others land for eight yeares that is no lease of the land but onely a Contract and Agreement but if one promise another that he shall have his land for eight years or openly agree that one shall have the others land for eight years this is a good lease for eight years by force of the agreement A. came before the Major of Lincolne and acknowledged a Statute-merchant and the Seal of the Major was not put to it and it was adjudged that the Statute was not good but a man may sue upon it as an Obligation because the Seal of the party is to it Pasch 36 Eliz. IN a Waste the Case was that a Lessee for yeares purchased Trees growing upon the land and had liberty to cut them within eighty yeares and after the said Lessee purchased the inheritance of the land and devised it to his Wife for life the Remainder to the Plaintiff in see and made his Wife Executrix and died who after married with the Defendant who cuts the Trees whereupon the Action is brought And by opinion of all the Court the Action was maintainable for although the Trees were once Chattels yet by the purchase of the Inheritance they were united to the land and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff accordingly Pasch 36 Eliz. UPon an Exigent the Sheriff returned that after Divine Service he made proclamation and did not say that there was no Sermon and therefore the Iudges held that the return was not good for by the Statute if there be a Sermon in the Church the Sheriff shall make his proclamations after the Sermon and if there be no Sermon then after Divine Service and because it did not appeare whether there were any Sermon or not the opinion of the Court was ut supra It was said that a man shall not aver against a Postea in the Kings Bench or the Common Pleas to say that it was contrary to the Verdict nor shall he be received to say that the Iudges gave a Iudgment and the Clarks have entred it contrary to their Iudgment but otherwise is it in Court Barons or other base Courts not Courts of Record 10 Ed. 3.40 35 and 36 Eliz. Newman against Beaumond IF the Ordinary grants the Administration of the Goods of B. to A. and after grants the Administration to R. this second Grant is an appeale of the first without any further sentence of repeale for the Administrator is but a servant to the Ordinary whom he may charge at any time In an Action of Debt on a Bond bearing date the nineth of July the Defendant pleaed a Release of all Actions the same day usque diem dati ejusdem scripti and it was adjudged that the Obligation was not discharged because the Release does exclude the nineth day on which it was made Mich. 37 and 38 Eliz. Rot. 211. Holman against Collins HOlman brought a Writ of Error against Collins upon a Iudgment given in the Court of Plymmouth in the County of Devon the case was Collins was possessed of a peece of Ordnance and in Consideration that he would tender this to Holman for to put into his Ship which was then going to Sea and that Collins would stand to the hazard of losing it The said Holman did assume upon himself and did promise to give Collins certain Goods which he should gain by the Voyage and after the said Ship did return laden with certain Goods and for non-satisfaction the said Collins brought his Action on the Assumpsit and had Judgment to recover And Crook assigned these Errors 1. That the Stile of the Court was not good for it was Curia Dominae Reginae Burgi praedict tent coram Majori de Plymmouth without saying secundum consuetudinem villae praedict and he who is Iudge of the Court ought to be either by Patent or Prescription and then for not expressing the stile of the Court nor by what authority they held their Court it is error and he cited the case in the Lord Dyer 262. and a Iudgment 30 Eliz. Rot. 32. given in the very point Another Error was that no day was prefixed for the Defendant to appear but generally ad proximam curiam which is Error although it be held every munday And for these Errors Iudgment was reversed Trin. 28 Eliz. Rot. 948. Mercer against Sparks MErcer had Iudgment to recover against Sparks in the Common Pleas upon an Action of the Case for words and Sparks brought a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and assigned for Error that the Plaintiff did not expresse in the Declaration that the Defendant spake the words malitiose but it was adjudged that it was no Error because the words themselves were malicious and slanderous wherefore Iudgment was affirmed Savacres Case IT was adjudged in the Common Pleas that if a Baron or others mentioned in the Statute of 21 H 8. take divers Chaplaines which have many benefices and after they discharge their Chaplaines from their Service they shall retain their Benefices during their lives and if the Baron takes others to be his
that it was enacted by the Major of London and common Councel that if any Citizen takes the Son of an Alien to be his Apprentice that the Covenants and Obligations shall be void and he shewed that he was the Son of an Alien and became an Apprentice to the Plaintiff who is a Citizen and made the Covenants with him for his Apprentiship And demanded Iudgment And it was held no Bar for notwithstanding the Act the Covenant is good for it is the Act of the Defendant although the Act of the Common Councell be against it but the said Act may inflict punishment on any Citizen that breakes it And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 41 Eliz. in B. R. Knotts against Everstead LEssee for life the remainder for life the remainder in taile he in the reversion who had the fee does enter and enfooffs the Lessee for years and adjudged that by this Feoffment Nihil operatur Popham said that he who hath a term cannot license another that hath nothing in the land to make a Feoffment for he who hath the Freehold wants nothing but possession to make a good Livery but in this case he who makes the Livery had not the Freehold and therefore the license is void But Tanfeild said that if Lessee for life gives leave to a stranger to make Livery it is void but if he consent that the stranger shall make a Feoffment it shall amount to a Disseisin and the Feoffment is good Which was denied by the Court. And Clench said if a Lessee for ten years makes a Lease for one year to him in reversion there he in the reversion who hath the land for a year may make a Feoffment to the Lessee for ten years and it is good Trin. 41 Eliz. Moyle against Mayle MOyle brought an Action of Waste against Mayle and declared that he had leased to him a Mannor and a Warren and that he had destroyed a Cony-borough and subverted it and assigned otherwastes in cutting down certain Thornes Williams The Action of waste will well lye and said that a Warren consisted or two things of a place of Game and of liberty and to prove that a waste did lye for a liberty he cited the Statute of Magna Charta Cap. 5. in which a Warren is intended also the Statute of Marlebridge cap. 24. and the Statute Articuli super Chartas cap. 18. by which Statutes it is evident that a waste does lie for Warrens and a Warren is more then a liberty for a Writ lies Quare warrenam suam intravit and by the 12 H. 8. if Lessee of a Warren does break the Pale it is a waste also if Lessee of a Pigeon-house stop the holes so that the Pigeons cannot build a waste doth lye as it hath been adjudged Also if Lessee of a Hop yard ploweth it up and sowes Graine there it is waste as it hath been adjudged Also the breaking a Weare is waste and so of the Banks of a Fish-pond so that the water and fish run out To all which cases the Court agreed except to the principal For the Court held it was not waste to destroy Cony-boroughs for wast will not lye for Conies because a man hath not inheritance in them and a man can have no property in them but only possession and although by a speciall Law Keepers are to preserve the land they keep in the same plight they found it yet thiâ— does not bind every Lessee of land Walmsley The subversion of Cony-boroughs is not waste and it was usuall to have a waste against those who made holes in land but not against those who stop them up because therby the land is made better And it was said that to dig for stones was a waste unlesse in an ancient Quarry although the Lessee fill it up againe And Walmsley said that in Lancashire it is waste to dig Marle unlesse it be imployed upon the land And said it was not waste to cut thornes unlesse they be in a Wood stubbed and digged up by the roots but if they grow upon the land then they may be stubbed and it is no waste But to cut down Thorne-trees that have stood sixty or a hundred years it is waste Hil. 32 Eliz. in B. R. Sir George Farmer against Brook IN an Action of the Case the Plaintiff claimeth such a Custome in the Town of B. that he and his Ancestors had a bake-house within the Town to bake white bread and houshold-bread and that he had served all the Town with bread that no other could use the Trade without his license and that the Defendant had used the Trade without his license upon which the Defendant demuâ—'d Morgan This is a good Prescription and it is reason that a Prescription should bind a stranger vide 11 H. 6.13 A. prescribed to have a Market and that none should sel but in a Stall which A. had made and was to pay for the Stall and held there a good Prescription And the Arch-bishop of Yorks Case in the Register 186. is a good case A man prescribed that he had a Mill and he found a horse to carry the Corn thither and that therfore they ought to grind there and because they did not he brough his Action on the case Buckley contra It cannot be intended to have any commencement by any Tenure 11 H 4. A. procured a Patent that none should sell any thing in London without paying him a penny adjudged not good and the case of the Arch-bishop was good because he had it ratione dominii tenuri And adjudged the principall case that the action will not lye 23 Eliz. in C. B. Farrington against Charnock KIng Henry the 8 granted Turbariam suam in D. at Farrington rendring rent sur 21. years and then the Lessee imployed part of it in arable land and relinquisht part of it in Turbary and then Q. Mary grants Totam illam TurbariaÌ„ before demised to Farrington and adjudged that that passed only which was Turbary and the other part that was converted into Tillage did not passe Mich. 18 Eliz. in B. R. SIr Arthur Henningham brought an Action of Error against Francis Windham to reverse a common recovery had against Henry Henningham his brother and the Error assigned was that there was no warrant of Attorney of the Record And it was agreed by the Bar and Bench and adjudged error But the great point was if the Plaintiff could have a writ of Error The Case was Henry the Father had Henry his Son and three Daughters by one Venter and the Plaintiff by another Venter and died seised of the land intailed to him and the Heirs Males of his body Henry enters and makes a Feoffment the Feoffee is impleaded and voucheth Henry who looseth by default in the recovery and dies without issue and whether the Daughters which are Heirs generall or the Plaintiff which is Heir in tail shall have the Error Gawdy and Baker for the Defendant who said
not a good Feoffment for White-acre Michaelm 29. 30. Eliz. Knowles against Powell in Scaccario THe Queen seized in Fee made a Lease for years to one who was out-lawed at the time of the Lease rendring rent and after he was out-lawed again and before seizure comes out the general pardon of all Goods and Chattels forfeited and in this Case it was agreed that a man out-lawed was capable of a Lease from the Queen as Farmer to the Queen And Manwood said that the pardon with restitution is sufficient to revive the term forfeited by the second out-lawry and it was also agreed that a man out-lawed and pardoned had property in his goods Egerton Sollicitor said that in the 4 Eliz. it was adjudged in the Common Pleas that if the Queen made a Lease under the Exchequer-seal to begin immediatly after forfeiture surrender or expiration of a former term and the Lessee is out-lawed shat the second Lease shall not commence for it is a Royal forfeiture Trinit 41 Elizab. Ferrers against Borough in B. R. Rot. 185. UPon a special Verdict the Case was thus A man makes a Lease for years upon condition that if he paid 10 l. before Michaelmas that it should be lawfull for him to re-enter and before Michaelmas he lets the land to another by Indenture for years and then performed the Condition and entred the first Lessee brought a Trespass and it was adjudged that it does not lye Trinit 35 Elizab. Lambert against Austen in B. R. Rot. 185. IN a Replevin the Case was thus A man seized of land in Fee grants a Rent-charge out of it to A. for life with a Clause of Distress and then makes a Lease to B. for years and grants the reversion for life to J.S. the Rent becomes behind the 15 of Eliz. untill the 18 of Eliz. and the Grantee makes the Defendant his Executor and dyes the term of B. ends in the 33 Eliz. and then J.S. enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff the Executor of A. distreyns for the arrearages and the Plaintiff brings a Replevin Gawdy and Fenner This Distress is well taken for the arrearages upon the Statute of the 32 H. 8. cap. 37. for the Rent doth not issue out of the term for years but out of the Free-hold and upon grant thereof as Littleton saith the Tenant of the Free-hold ought to attorn and not the Termor and so is it 9 H. 6. and if an Assize be brought for this Rent it ought to be brought against the Tenant of the Free-hold and all the Tenants of the Free-hold ought to be named in a Rent-charge by Cook 6 Rep. 58. but otherwise for a Rent-service for that is against the Termor onely and a Termor cannot give seizin of the Rent to maintain an Assize by Cook 6 Rep. 57. and for the same reason Executors shall have an Action of Debt at the Common Law for arrearages because the estate is determined Cook 4 Rep. 49. but an Avowry is given by this Statute Onely so long as the land shall continue in the seisin and possession of the said Tenant in demesn And they much relyed on this word demesn which ought to be intended of a Free-hold and of a Reversion upon a Lease for years it is pleaded quod seisitus in dominico suo c. and so cannot a Tenant for years say for which reasons it seemed to them that the Distress was well taken Clench contr For the Termor ought to pay it for he takes the profits of the land as if a Lease be made to a woman rendring Rent who takes husband and dyes the husband shall pay the Rent by the 10 H. 6. for he hath taken the profits and by the words of the Statute they are in the possession or seisin and seisin refers to the Tenant of the Free-hold and possession to the Tenant for years and the words are which ought immediatly to pay the Rent and so ought the Termor in our Case who is chargeable to the Distress of the Testator Popham chief Iustice of the same opinion The Distress is not well taken for he who hath the profits of the land ought to answer for the Rent Gawdy Although the Cattel of the Lessee be distreynable by the Testator that is onely because they are upon his land as a strangers Cattel may be so distreyned and therefore this proves not that the Lessee should pay the Rent And if a man grants a Rent-charge and lets the land at will afterwards the Rent is behind and the Grantee dyes and the Lease at will determines without question in that Case the Lessor is subject to the Distress of the Executor And in our Case if the Grantee had released to the Tenant for life this had extinguisht the Rent otherwise of a Release to Tenant for years Fenner If Tenant in Tail granta a Rent-charge and after makes a Lease for 21 years according to the Statute and dyes the Rent by the death of the Tenant in Tail is determined To which Gawdy agreed which proves that the Rent issues out of the Freehold Vid. Cook 5 Rep. 118. Hillar 37 Eliz. Butler against Ruddisley IN a Trespass the Defendant pleaded the Free-hold of Edward Devereux and so justified as his Bailiff without saying at his commandment the Plaintiff replyed that the said Edward was seized in Fee and made a Lease to him by vertue whereof he was possest absque hoc that the Lessor made the Defendant his Bailiff post dimissionem and hereupon the Defendant demurred Crook By this Lease a Free-hold passeth to the Plaintiff and then the Plaintiffs traverse is naught for he hath now traverst that the Defendant is Bailiff whereas he ought to traverse the Free-hold in the Lessor for that would have destroyed the justification of the Defendant And to prove that the Free-hold doth pass he cited the Case of Littleton where if a Lease be made to the husband and wife during Coverture they are Ioynt-tenants for life So in the 30 H. 6. a Lease to a woman dum sola vixerâ—t And 14 Ed. 2. a Grant to a man till he be promoted to such a Benefice or dummodo se bene gesserit all these are Free-holds And it is clear that a Tenant at will cannot assign over And also an estate at will is an estate at the will of both parties but here it is at the will of the Lessor onely when he will make a Bailiff Haughton contr An estate at will doth pass and not a Free-hold for here he hath not pleaded that Livery was made and Livery shall not be intended in this case unless it be specially alledged but if Livery had been made then he agreed that a Free-hold conditional had past and for the pleading of a Livery he took a difference that where an express estate either in fee or for life be pleaded there Livery shall be intended but where a Free-hold passeth by implication or operation of Law and not
for the goods themselves are not to be recovered in this action nor damages for them and so they are but collaterall to the action as in 10 Edw. 3.30 In a Rescous the Court was for taking of Cattle without shewing what Cattle and the Iury found them to be two horses and the Plaintiff had judgment where note that a verdict did help an insufficient Court and 22 Aâ—si 21 Ed. 3. a trespass was brought for taking away of Writings concerning land without shewing what they were or the quality of the land But otherwise in a detinue for Charters for there the Writings themselves are to be recovered The second and great doubt was when a man doth promise to another that if he will deliver the pawn he will pay the debt if this be a sufficient consideration to maintain an Assumpsit Foster Justice It is not for he that hath the pawne hath not such an interest in it as he may deliver it over to another or make a legall contract for it and that his delivery being illegall he cannot by his own wrong raise an action to himself and a man shall never maintain any action where the consideration is illegall and not valuable 9 Ed. 4. In an action on the Case the Defendant pleaded an accord and that he delivered the writing to the Plaintiff which concern'd the land and it was held no plea because the Plaintiff having land the writtings belonged to it And cited Reynolds Case where a man promised another 100 l. to solicite his business and it was holden that no action would lie for the money because the soliciting his business was illegall he being no man of Law Dier 355 356. Cook Warburton and Daniell cont Who said that the consideration was good legall and profitable and sufficient to maintain an assumpsit for he who hath goods at pawn hath a speciall property in them so that he may work such pawn if it be a Horse or Oxe or may take the Cowes milk and may use it in such manner as the owner would but if he misuseth the pawn an action lyes also he hath such interest in the pawn as he may assign over and the assignee shall be subiect to a detinue if he detaines it upon payment of the money by the owner as in the 2. assise Land was leased untill he had raised 100 l. he hath such interest as is grantable over And Foster agreed to this because he had power to satisfie himself out of the profits And it was agreed by the Court that if a man takes a distress he cannot work the distress for it is only the act of the Law that gives power to the distress for he hath no propertie in the distress nor possession in jure as in the 21 H. 7. Replevin A man hath returne Irreplevisable he cannot worke them for the Iudgment is to remit them to the pound ibid. remansurum vid. 13 R. 2 Brook 20 H. 7 1 a. 34 H. 8. Bâ— pledges 28.22 Edw. 4 11. goods pawned shall not be put into execution untill the debt be satisfied And it was agreed by Cook and Warburton that when a man hath a speciall interest in a thing by act in Law that he cannot work it or otherwise use it but contrary upon a speciall interest by the act of the partie as in case of a pawn Daniell There is difference between pawns which are chargeable to the parties as Cowes and Horses and things that are not chargeable and also there is a difference between pawnes that will be the worse by usage as Clothes c. For if the pawn be the worse by usage an action of the Case will lie against him that hath them pawned to him But contra of goods that are not the worse for usage Cook If I deliver goods to you untill you are promoted to a benefice you may use them which Foster denied And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and that they may be granted over and so a good assumpsit will lie 26 Eliz. Earl of Northumberlands Case THis case was privately argued before the Lord Treasurer because the parties agreed to refer themselves to the opinion of Wray and Anderson And the case was this the Earl of Northumberland devised by his will his Iewells to his wife And dyed possessed of a Collar of Esses and of a Garter of gold and of a Buckle annexed to his bonnet and also of many other buttons of gold and pretious stones annexed to his robes and of many other chains bracelets and rings of gold and pretious stones The question was if all these should passe by the devise under the name of Iewells And both Iustices did Resolve that the Garter and Collar of Esses did not pass because they were not properly Iewells but ensignes of Honour and State and that the Buckle in his bonnet and the buttons did not pass because they were annexed to his Robes and were therfore no Iewells But for all the other chaines rings braceletts and Iewells they passed by vertue of the said Will. Michaelm 40 41 Eliz. Sperke against Sperke in C. R. Rot. 2215. IN an ejectment the Case was this M. Sperke made a Lease of the land in question to William Sperke for 89. years if William should so long live the remainder after his death to the Executors or Assignes of the said William for 40. years afterwards William dyes Intestate and administration is committed to Grace Sperke his wife who entred clayming the 40. years and the Defendant clayming by another Lease entred upon him and he brought this action Aâ—dâ—…on Executor is as good a name of purchase as Heire is And I conceive the points in this case are two First if the Administrator be an assignee Secondly If the lease for 40. years be a Chattell vested in the Intestate in his life for if it be then his Administrator shall have it And as to the first I conceive that she is not assignee to take these 40 years For in the 19 Ed. 3. It is there said that Administrators are not assignees for administration is appointed by the ordinary and assignees must be in by the party himself and not by a stranger and therefore an Administrator cannot be an assignee as an Executor that comes in by the partie or as a husband for his wife Walmesley and Glanyâ—… accorded But Kingsmill cont for he said that although one could not be assignee in Deed without the act of the partie yet one may be assignee in Law by the act of the law And so the opinion of the â— Iustices to the first point was that the Administrator could not have it as assignee and as to the second point Anderson said that it could not vest for if a man have a Lease for life the remainder for 40. years the remainder is voyd because there is no person named to whom it is limited but if a man make a Lease for life and after his death to his lessee for
Iustices Cook being against it that this is not within the Statute but they agreed that if one bought corn and thereof made meale or oat-meale and sold it that this was within the Statute for that is usuall and is no alteration and therefore remaines the same corn but starch is altered by a trade or science which is a mysterie and so it is not the same thing that was sold But Cook Chief Iustice contra And cited one Franklinghams Cass Michaelm 39 40 Eliza. in B. R. where one bought Barley and because it was of such Quantity that he could not make Malt of it in his own house he made Malt thereof in anothers house by his own servants And it was resolved First That the conversion of corn into Malt in his own house with an intent to sell it was within the Statute unless there be a saving for it Secondly Forasmuch as it was in anothers house he is out of the proviso and so within the penalty of the Statute And in Pasch 42 Eliz. between Reynolds and Gerret That if a Miller buyes corne and grinds it and sells it within his house this is within the Statute And in the Checquer Chamber in a writ of Errour there between Baron and Brise adjudged there that a Coster-monger who buyes Pippins to sell them again was out of this Statute because they are necessary victuall And divers exceptions were taken to the Information viz. where he saith Ligamen anglicè Starch whereas there is no such word but it is Ligumen and the anglicè will not help this mistake Cook 10. Rep. 134. and this exception was taken by Iustice Winch. But Warburton Iustice cont for Starch is a thing newly devised and there is no Latin word for it and therefore the anglice there is good Foster Iustice took an exception because the information concluded contra formam Statuti whereas it ought to have been contra formam Statutorum For this Statute was of force untill the 8 Elizab. and then was determined untill the 13th of Elizabeth and then it was revived so there are two Statutes but 't was agreed that where a Statute continued de tempore in Tempus and was never discontinued nor determined there it shall be said contra formam Statuti and this diversity hath been twice adjudged upon this very Statute viz. 9 Eliz. in Palmers Case and in the 35 Eliz. Warburton cont for the Information doth intend only the Statute of 5 Ed. 6 and 14. and he did recite the words thereof in his Information also this Statute only makes the offence and declares the manner of it and no other Statute makes any addition to it or increaseth the penalty but only revives it to endure in perpetuum But if a Statute doth prohibit a thing and another Statute gives a penalty there upon Information upon the penalty both Statutes ought to be recited and to conclude contra formam Statutorum vid. Commentar 206. Morgans Case And so the Statute of Vsury 37 H. 8. is revived the 13th Eliz. and an addition made to it there such inclusion ought to be contra formam Statutorum but where the Statute is only revived it is otherwise as the Statute of Perjury 5 Eliz. was continued untill the 14 Eliz. and then it was determined and 27 Eliz. was revived yet all informations upon that Statute are contra formam Statuti 5 Elizab. Cook This is no good exception and cited Talbot and Sheldens Case Hillar 33 Eliz. who were indited for Recusancy contra formam Statuti 23 Eliz. and in a writ of Error the Iudgment was reversed because the penalty was demanded for the 10th Eliz. made the Offence and the 23 Eliz. gave the penalty but if the Information be for the offence only there it had been good See the new Book of Entries 182. but if there be divers Statutes in the point of Information contra formam Statuti is good because the best shall be taken for the King Vid. 5 H. 7. 17. 8 Ed. 3.47 ◠Pasch 10 Jacob. VValler against the Deane and Chapter of Norwich IN an action of Covenant the Plaintiff declared on a Lease made from the Deane the Case was thus The Deane in the 38 Eliz. had made a Lease for 99. years to one Themilthorpe and then in the 42 Eliz. made a Lease to the Plaintiff for three lives rendring Rent with a Letter of Attorney to make livery and a Covenant to save the Plaintiff harmelesse against Themilthorpe afterwards the Attorney makes livery sc after Michaelmass which was a Rent day and he being disturbed by Themilthorpe brought this Covenant And two points were moved in the Case First Inasmuch as the Lease was voyd to Walter whether that the Covenant was voyd also Secondly If the livery made after the Rent day be voyd Hoghton Serjeant If the Covenant depended on the interest of the Lease as a Covenant to repay the thing devised or to pay rent these had been voyd because the Lease it self is voyd for they do immediatly depend upon the Lease but where the Covenant is for a thing collaterall as a Covenant that the Lessor is owner at the time of the Lease or that the Lessee shall enjoy it or shall be discharged and saved harmeless these Covenants being collaterall to the Lease and interest are good although the Lease be voyd and the 43 Ed. 3. proves this where a Lease was made by a Baron and Feme a Covenant by them shall not binde the wife contra where the Covenant concernes the interest as payment of Rent c. Also the Covenant was broken immediatly upon the sealing of the Lease to the Plaintiff And as to the second point he held it was a good livery because no time was limited in the Letter of Attorney Dodderidge Serjeant The Covenant is voyd because the Lease is voyd but contra if it had been a Covenant to enjoy for three lives and he relyed much on the difference between tempus annorum and terminum annorum in Cook 1. Rep. 124. Nichols cont The Covenant is good and yet in force for when an estate is created in which is implyed a Covenant in Law there if the estate be voyd the Covenant is voyd also but when there is an express Covenant in Deed there it is otherwise although the Lease be voyd or voydable as if he Covenant that the Lessee shall enjoy during the terme and the lessee resign yet is the Covenant good although the terme is gone And as to the second point The livery is good for untill the livery be made the lessor shall retaine his land and no Rent is due vid. Commentat 423. for by intendment the possession is better than the Rent And Cook agreed to this And the Iustices agreed with Nicholls Trinit 10 Jacob Barnes Case TEnant for life the Reversion in the Lessor a Formedon is brought against the tenant for life who prays in ayde of him in the remainder for life without him in
Estoppell otherwise if it were by Deed. Vid. 1 H. 7.12 Mich. 32 33 Eliz. Marshes Case in B. R. Rot. 1011. MArsh and his wife brought a Writ of Errour as Executors to Nicholson to reverse an Outlawry upon an Indictment of Felony pronounc'd against the Testator Altham of Grayes-Inne The sole point was whether the Executors may have a Writ of Errour and I hold that they may for if there be no heir it is great reason that the Executors should have it for otherwise the erroneous judgement cannot be at all reverst and every one shall have a Writ of Errour that is damaged by the erroneous judgement and Executors have right to the personal estate to have Errour For if a man recovers damages in a Writ of Cosenage and the land also and dyes his heir shall have Execution for the land and the Executors Execution for the damages by the 19 Ed. 4.5 43 Eâ— 3. 13 Ed. 4.2 If a man does recover my villain by a false Verdict the heir shall have an attaint for the villany and the Executors for the damages and a Writ of Errour shall be given to him to whom the right of the thing lost doth descend as it was adjudged in the Case of Sir Arthur Henningham and he cited two presidents in the point 1 Tâ—…ity 11 H. 8. Rot. 3. where an Administrator brought a Writ of Errour to reverse a Iudgement given in an exigent Vid. 2 Rep. 41. a. Cook contr In Natura Brevium 21 M. he sayes an Executor shall have a Writ of Errour upon a Iudgement given in Debt against the Testator and the heir shall have Error to reverse Outlawry in Felony and to restore him in his blood and he said that it was part of the punishment in Felony to have the blood corrupted sic filius portat iniquitatem patris and by reason of the attainder he cannot inherit any Ancestor wherefore he having the damage it is reason that he should reverse it And although Executors shall have a Writ of Errour for Chattels personal yet they shall not have one when they are mixt with things real 5 H. 7.15.18 Ed. 4. If Writings be in a Box the heir shall have the Box because real things are more regarded than personal Nevertheless in this Case the Writ of Errour is in a real Action for the Law sayes that it is in the same nature as in original action whereupon it is brought as if Errour be brought to reverse a Iudgement given in a personal action the Writ of Errour is personal and so in like manner is it real if the first action be real 47 Ed. 3.35 35 H. 6.19 23. and although the first action be mixt yet the Law does rather respect the reality 30 H. 6. Barr. 59. where two brought an assize and one did release and there it was said that although this were a mixt action yet it shall be according to the most worthy and that is the reality and 16 Assi 14. divers Disseisors being barr'd in an assize did bring a Writ of attaint for the damages and summons and severance was suffered for damages were joyned with the reality and Stanford 184. If a man be indicted before a Coroner quod fugam fecit if he after reverse the Indictment yet he shall have his goods for de minimis non curat Lex But note that the Iustices said that the fugam fecit was the cause of forfeiture of the goods and not the Felony And as to the presidents he agreed to the Case of the 18 H. 7. for an Executor shall have a Writ of Errour to reverse Iudgement given in an exigent for there nothing but the goods are forfeit 30 H. 6. Forfeiture 31. and for the president in 11 H. 8. it cannot be proved that the Outlawry was for Felony Vid. Rep. fol. 3. 33 Eliz. Lilly against Taylor in B. R. Rot. 467. MArsh seized of the land in question did devise this to Rose Lilly for life and if she fortun'd to marry and after her decease should have any heirs of her body lawfully begotten then that heir should have the land and the heirs of the body of such heir and for default of such issue the land shall revert to Philip Marsh his son and his heirs and the question was if the husband of Rose shall be Tenant by the curtesy or not and so if Rose had estate Tail or for life onely Godfrey She hath estate but for life and he cited a Case adjudged in Benlowes Reports 40 Eliz. where lands are devised to A for life and after his decease to the male children of his body and it was adjudged that the male children have an estate Tail by purchase and nothing by descent and so A had nothing but for life Gawdy agreed for she hath but for life and when she dyes her issue shall have it Popham agreed if the words were that if she had issue that he should have it But Clench held that she had an estate in Tail executed and that her husband shall be Tenant by the curtesy Fenner The issue is as a Purchaser for the Devisor intended that Rose should not have a greater estate than for life And also it was agreed by all the Iustices that a Devise to a man and his heir shall be accounted a Foe-simple for that the word heir is collective and so is the 29 Assi where land was given to a man and to the heir of his body uno haeredi ejusdem haeredis this is an estate Tail Popham He shall be Tenant by the curtesy and he agreed that heir of the body was a good name of purchase but if a Frank-tenement be limited to his Ancestor and by the same Deed it is also limited to his heir the heir shall be in by descent But Fenner on the contrary Pasch 38 Eliz. Bolton against Bolton Rot. 882. 582. TEnant for life being impleaded doth pray in aid of him in the Reversion who joyn and lose c. and the Tenant for life brings a Writ of Errour and the Record is removed and he in the remainder brings a Writ of Errour also De Recordo quod coram vobis residet and the question was upon which Writ of Errour the Iudgement should be reverst and it was objected that if it should be reverst by the Tenant for life that he in the remainder should be restored But Gawdy Fenner and Clench contr Who held that it should be reverst at his suit who first brings the Writ as in case of Interpleader it shall be alwayes upon the first Writ And notwithstanding the removing of the Record by the Tenant for life at the next term the Court said it was at their discretion to reverse this at suit of anâ— of the parties as they pleased and because they observed some indirect practices by him in the remainder it was reverst at suit of Tenant for life Pasch 5 Jacob. Sir Henry Dimmocks Case in the
Replevin against Edmund Brach and others the Defendant made Conulance as Baily to John Levison and said that long time before the taking c. one William Coup was seised of a house and eight acres of Meadow c. whereof the place is parcell in his Demesne as of Fee and did demise the same to Richard Coup for one and twenty years reserving Rent and the Lessee died and the Land came to his Wife as his Executrix who married Roger Owseley and that William Coup did levy a Fine of the Premisses to Stephen Noke and others to the use of Stephen and his Heires and after Stephen entred and outed the Termor and infeoffed John Leveson and his Heires and then the Termor re-enters claiming his Terme and for Rent arreare the Defendant made Counsans as aforesaid and it was adjudged against the Defendant because this entry and Feoffment by Noke to Leveson and the re-entry of the Termor is no Attornment and this varies from Littleberries case where the Lessor entred and made a Feoffment and the Lessee re-entred for Noke the Lessor had not any Attornment and can have no Distresse and his Feoffee cannot be in better case then he himself And if the first Feoffee makes Feoffment to B. who enfeoffs C. and the Lessee re-enters that is Attornment but to the first Feoffee and not the other for he may be misconusant of it because he was outed by the Lessor but note Iudgment was not given till Trin. 36 Eliz. Pasch 36 Eliz. in C. B. Owens Case EDward Owen brought an Action of Waste against Peerce for land in ancient Demesne the Defendant made defence and pleaded to the Iurisdiction of the Court because the land was ancient Demesne and the Defendant was ruled to plead over for it is but a personall Action and the Statute is a beneficiall Statute for the Common-wealth and by the opinion of all the Court except Walmsley does extent to ancient Demesne 40 Ed. 3.4 Ancient Demesne is a good plea in Replevin 2 H. 7.17.21 Ed. 4.3 it is no good plea in an action upon the Statute or Glocester Mich. 33 and 34 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 2122. Sir Edward Cleeres Case SIr Edward Cleere brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Norwich Edward Peacock and Robert Hinston Clerk to present to an Addowson holden in Capite Anderson A Devise of an Addowson in grosse is void because it is of annuall value whereof the King shall have the third part But Owen Beaumont and Walmsley held the contrary and so it it was adjudged See the Case of the Earle of Huntington against the Lord of Montjoy of a Devise of Liberties of Cramford which were not of any annuall value and yet the opinion of Wray and Anderson Iustices was certified to some of the Councell being Arbitrators that the Devise was not good Trin. 36 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 2145. Brownes Case ANthony Brown brought an Action of Trespasse against Richard Pease the Case was this John Warren was seised in fee of the Mannor of Warners and of the Mannor of Cherchall and demised his Mannor of Warners to the youngest Son of Richard Foster his Cosin in fee. at which time Richard the Father had issue George Foster and John Foster And he demised his Mannor of Cherchall in haec verba I will my Mannor of Cherchall to Margery Water for her life and if she die and then any of my Cosin Fosters Sons then living then I will my foresaid Mannor of Cherchall unto him that shall have my Manner of Warners and after the Devisor died without issue and the Reversion of the Mannor of Cherchall discended to Henry Warner as Brother and Heire of the Devisor And after the said Henry Warner by Deed Inrolled did bargain and sell the Mannor of Cherchall to Anthony Browne who devised it to the Plaintiff And then George Foster dies without issue and the Mannor of Warners does discend to Iohn Foster his Brother and Heire who enters and enfeoffs the Lord Rich and after marriage the Tenant for life of the Mannor of Cherchall dies and the Plaintiff enters and the Defendant enters upon him as Servant to Iohn Foster whereupon the Plaintiff brought this Action And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because that the words and the intent of the Devise was that the Mannors of Warners and Cherchall should go together and therefore the Mannor of Warners was sold before the death of Margery by John Foster and after the death of Margery John can take nothing by the Devise Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 2325. or 2929. Hambletons Case JOhn Hambleton had issued foure Sons John the eldest Robert the second Richard the third and Thomas the fourth and devised to each of them a parcell of land to them and the Heirs Males of their body begotten and if it happen that any of their Heirs dye without issue Male of his body lawfully begotten then the Survivor to be each others Heire If these words make a Remainder or are void was the question And it was adjudged against the Plaintiff for the Court held that all those that survived were Ioynt-tenants and one Ioynt-Tenant cannot have a Trespasse against the other for by the intent of the Will it appears that the Survivors should have that part and the survivority of each other Heire each Survivor that is all that survive shall be each others Heire and so the remainder should be to every one of them 29 Eliz. Fenners Case argued before the Lord Mayor of London at Guildhall IN this Case it was adjudged that if a man Covenants that his Son then within age and infra annos nubiles before such a day shall marry the Daughter of I.S. and he does marry her accordingly and after at the age of consent he disagrees to the marriage yet is the Covenant performed for it is a marriage and such a one as the Covenantee would have untill the disagreement vide 7 H. 6.12 Dyer 143.313 369. 25 Eliz. Webbe against Potter IN an Ejectione firmae by Webbe against Potter the Case was Harris gave Land in Frank-marriage to one White and the Deed was Dedi concessi Iohan. White in liberum maritagium Iohannae filiae meae habend dictae Ioannae heredibus in perpetuum tenend de capitalibus Dominis feodi illius with Warranty to Iohn White and his Heires Periam The usuall words in Frank-marriage shall not be destroyed for the words of Frank-marriage are Liberum maritagium cum Ioanna filia mea in the Ablative case and although here it be in the Dative case it is good And of the same opinion were all the Iudges Also a Gift in Frank-marriage made after the Espousals was held good by all the Iustices 2 H. 3. Donor 199.4 Ed 3.8 Dyer 262 B. And a Gift in Frank-marriage before the Statute was a Fee-simple but now speciall taile and if it be not a Frank-marriage he shall have an Estate for life and to prove this his
by express words there Livery ought to be pleaded as a Lease to one for years the remainder to another for life there Livery ought to be pleaded So in the 21 Assi If a man pleads a Feoffment and Livery within the view he must plead Livery within the view expresly and so upon Grant of a reversion attornment ought to be pleaded And whereas it was said that it cannot be an estate by will because it was not the will of both parties Vid. 9 Ed. 4.1 and 15 Ed. 4. But Gawdy and Fenner denyed the diversity put by Haughton for in pleading of an estate for life all necessary circumstances in pleading shall be intended And so it was agreed that an estate for life should pass for Livery shall be intended Sed adjournatur Pasch 35 Eliz. Pendigate against Audley in B. R. Rot. 242. IN a Writ of Errour upon recovery of a Debt the Errour was assigned because the Action of Debt upon the Obligation was brought against the Father of the Plaintiff and in the Writ he was named the Son and Heir apparent of the Obligor for this implyes that the Father was alive for if he were dead then is the Plaintiff Heir in facto and not apparent Gawdy It is but Surplusage and in the 11 Ed. 3. the Writ was good although he was not named Son and Heir omnino But this was denyed and agreed that he ought to be named Heir and Iudgement was reverst Hillary 37 Eliz. Tanfield against Rogers in B. R. IN a Replevin the Case was thus Tenant in Tail seized of a Mannour with 3 Acres thereof in Demesn makes a Lease of the three Acres also of the Mannour habendum the three Acres and the Mannour for 21 years rendring Rent for the 3 Acres and all other the premisses therewith demised 5 l. The question was if this be a good Lease within the Statute of the 32 H. 8. Stephens This Lease is not within the Statute for this Lease of 3 Acres and of the Mannour whereof they are parcel is an entire Demise and not several as in 13 H. 4. Grants 88. A man seized of a Mannour with an Advowson appendant makes Feoffment of one Acre of the Mannour and then in the same Deed he grants the Advowson appendant and not in gross and yet they are in several clauses Vid. 48 Ed. 3.41 33 H. 8. Dyer 48. Gawdy and Clench When the Lease is of three Acres and of the Mannour although the Mannour comprehends the three Acres yet in construction of Law they shall be taken as several Demises Fenner I am of the fame opinion and as I remember in the 10 Assis is this Case A Lease is made of the Grist and also of the Mill reserving by the year 5 s. and for the other 10 s. they are several Leases and so is it here Note that Popham was absent But after in the same term he declared that he agreed with the other Iustices and Iudgement was given that the Lease was good for the three Acres Pasch 37 Eliz. Carus Case PEter Carus was indicted for drawing his Sword in Westminster-hall the Court then sitting in resisting the Sheriff who was making an Arrest and being found guilty upon his Arraignment it did appear that this fact was done upon the stairs of the Court of requests out of the view of the Courts yet it was held that being in the Hall it was as much as if it had been in view of the Court But because the Indictment was not good for it was not coram Regina as it ought to be the Iudgement was only to have perpetual Imprisonment and to pay 1000 l. Fine to the Queen But if the Indictment had been as we have seen a president in 1 Ed. 4. then the Iudgement ought to be to have his hand cut off and to forfeit all his lands and goods and to have perpetual Imprisonment 22 Ed. 3.13 Cromptons Justice 246. Mich. 3 Jacob. Walgrave against Skinner in B. R. Rot. 174 IN a Trespass the Plaintiff declared that he was robbed of 20 l. and that he pursued the Felon with hue and cry to such a Town where he discovered the Felon to the Defendant who was Constable of the said Town wherefore he apprehended the Felon and found the 20 l. about him which sum the Defendant fook and detained in his own possession The Defendant confest the taking the 20 l. ut supra but because the Town was of no strength he carried the 20 l. to the next Town and as he was going upon the High-way he was robb'd of it and so he concluded that he ought not to be charged in this Action Johnson for the Plaintiff It appears in 4 H. 7. that the Thief hath no property in the money which is found in his possession and in the 15 Ed. 4. it is resolved that if A robs B and C robs A yet C hath not gained any property and if the Constable takes this out of his possession he cannot seize it to any other use than to the use of the King and therefore if he takes Felons goods and does not keep them safe the first Owner shall have a Trespass against him for by the 21 H. 7. If a man does carry the Parsons tithe to the Parsons barn because it is like to perish yet the Parson may have a Trespass against him And by the opinion of Stanford 44 Assi If goods are taken from a Felon and he will give sufficient surety he himself shall have the keeping of them or else the Town and therefore the â—oâ—stable hath no authority to meddle with them Erby contr For a Constable is Conservator â—acis and 〈…〉 the peace does consist as much in keeping of goods as of 〈…〉 a Felon And here the Constable doubting of the 〈…〉 Town by reason of the Inhabitants who were riotous 〈…〉 he thought it the best course to carry them to the next Town and so no default was in him for his taking and meoling with them was lawfull And 22 Assi 96. If a Felon flying be taken in any Village the Bailiff thereof may take the custody of the goods and I suppose that a Constable may keep goods as well as a Bailiff for he is a Minister of the Law and if they be taken from him he is no more chargeable than if goods were taken out of the possession of my servant Williams Iustice Pasch 2 H. 7. Common same is enough to apprehend any man but if you arrest a person who is possest of money and he dye you are chargeable with the money And so here although the taking of the Felon by the Constable be justiciable yet he is to keep safe the money at his peril and because he hath not he is liable to this Action Popham He might have pleaded not guilty for he said that if a Town hath the possession of my goods a Detinue lyes und not a Trespass but if a stranger takes them out of their