word extends to no other than Webbs Bargains Body to his Son Francis and that Margaret should have it for Life Cann dies the Meadow was not one of Webb's Bargains Thomas had Issue Thomas the Lessor of the Plaintiff Henry made a Feoffment in Fée to A. and B. to the use of himself and his Wife and to the Heirs of their two Bodies Remainder to his own right Heirs with Warranty against all persons and died without Issue the Lessor of the Plaintiff enters being his Cousin and Heir and of full age when Henry died In this Case it was held that if it had béen found that Margaret had an Estate for Life and that Henry entred in her Life time that it had beén then a Warranty commenced by Disseisin and would not have bound Thomas the Reversioner But as it was those two Iudges held it no Barr because the Warranty began with the Feoffment to uses and Henry being himself the Feoffeé it returned instantly to him and was extinct as to the Reversion because that was revested in him in Fée and therefore they held he could have no benefit either by Voucher or Rebutter it being destroyed at the same time it was created But Berkly and Richardson Iustices held that quoad the Estate of Henry's Wife the Warranty had a Continuance and the ground of the contrary opinion might be because Iustice Jones said there was no such Resolution as is mentioned to be the fourth in Lincoln Colledge Case yet he affirmeth that very Resolution in his own Reports fol. 199. There is a Clause in the * 27 H. 8. c 10. Statute of Vses difficult to be understood by which 't is Enacted That every Cestuy que use may take such Advantage of vouching c. as the Feoffees themselves might so that Cestuy que use have the Estate executed in him before the first day of May 1536. which was a year after the making that Statute so that the Clause seems to be exclusive of all others who shall come in afterwards Answ But he supposed the Intention of the Law Makers to be That there should be no more Conveyances to Vses But because they presumed that at first Men might not know of it therefore lest the Parties should be any ways prejudiced they gave liberty till such a time to Vouch or Rebutt within which time they might have some knowledge of the Statute and then it was supposed they would make no more Limitations to Vses But though they imagined them to be left expiring yet they revived Since then the Parliament gave leave to Vouch or Rebutt whilst they could in reason think there would be any Conveyance to Vses 't is but reasonable whilst they do continue that the Parties should Rebutt especially since most Conveyances at this day are made to Vses Windham Iustice accord in omnibus and so Iudgment was given as aforesaid Anonymus DOwer The Tenant pleads That a Lease was made by the Husband for 99 years before any title of Dower did accrue which Lease was yet in being and shews that the Lessor afterwards granted the Reversion to J. S. and died and that J. S. devised to the Tenant for Life The Demandant replies That the Lessor made a Feoffment in Fee absque hoc that the Reversion was granted prout c. The Tenant Demurrs Newdigate Serjeant for the Demandant argued That the Plea was not good to which he tooke several Execeptions 1. Except The Tenant by his Plea confesseth That the Demandant ought to have Iudgment of the Reversion expectant upon the Lease for 99 years de tertia but doth not say parte 2. Except Here is the Grant of a Reversion pleaded and 't is not hic in Curia prolat ' Then for the Matter as 't is pleaded 't is not good He agreed if Dower be brought against Lessee for years he may discharge himself by pleading the continuance of his Lease during which time the Demandant can have no Execution but here the Tenant is no ways concerned in the Lease 't is Littleton's Case None shall take advantage of a Release but he who is party or privy and therefore the Lessee in this Case being party might have pleaded this but the Tenant is altogether a Stranger Before the Statute of Gloucester cap 11. If the Demandant had recovered in a real Action against the Tenant the Termor had been bound because at the Common Law no body could falsifie the Recovery of a Free-hold but he who had a Free-hold himself this Statute prevents that Mischief and Enacts That the Termor shall be received before Judgment to defend the Right of his Term upon the default of the Tenant and though the Iudgment cannot be hindred thereby yet Execution shall be suspended during the Term and therefore in Dyer 263. b. The Lady Arundel brought Dower against the Earl of Pembroke who made default and before Iudgment the Termor prays to be received upon this Statute and pleads a Lease made by the Husband after Coverture which was assigned to him and that Dower de tertia parte of the Rent of this Lease was assigned to the Demandant by the Court of Augmentations which was afterwards confirmed by Letters Patents that she accepted it and concludes That the Plea of the Tenant was by Collusion between him and her to make him lose his Term And this was held ill for the Reason given by my Lord * Hob 316. Not for that reason but because that Court could not assign Dower and so the Letters Patents of Confirmation could not make that good which was void before Hobart That it is absurd to admit two Persons to dispute the Interest of a third Man But whether the Traverse is good or not if the Plea is naught Iudgment ought to be given for the Demandant Jones Serjeant contra The Pleading is well enough 1. The Tenant confesseth That the Demandant ought to have Iudgment of the Reversion de tertia which is well enough omitting the word parte because he claims a third part of such Tenements and the Tenant confesses she ought to have Iudgment which is full enough if the words de tertia parte were wholly omitted 2. He agreed That whoever Claims under a Deed must shew it but the Tenant in this Case did not defend himself by any Title from the Deed for the substance of the Plea which secured him was That a Lease of 99 years was in being and by his alledging the Devise of an Estate to him for Life made by the Grantee of the Reversion he did but allow the Demandant's Writ to be true which mentions him as Tenant of the Free-hold Then for the Matter of the Plea he says it was good and that the Tenant might well plead the Lease for years By the * 3 Inst 32. b. Statute of Merton Damages are given in Dower where the Husband died seised which he did in this Case but yet no Damages ought to be paid here but for the third part
by Serjeant Jones that they should not pass for though Lands would pass so by a Fine because it was the Agreement of the Parties yet in a Recovery 't is otherwise because more certainty is required therein But in Fines no such Certainty is required and therefore a Fine de Tenementis in Golden-Lane hath beén held good though neither Vill Parish or Hamlet is mentioned Cro Eliz. 693. Cro. Jac. 574. Addison and Ottoway Postea But there being a Vill called Walton in the Parish of Street and a Fine being levyed of Land in Street the Lands in Walton did not pass unless Walton had béen an Hamlet of Street and the Fine had beén levied of Lands in the Parish of Street And the reason of this difference is because in Fines there are Covenants which though they are real in respect of the Land yet 't is but a personal Action in which the Land is not demanded ex directo but in a Recovery greater preciseness is required that being a Praecipe quod reddat where the Land it self is demanded and the Defendant must make Answer to it Cro. Jac. 574 5 Co. 40. Dormer's Case The Word * Antea 41. Liberty properly signifies a Right Priviledge or Franchise but improperly the extent of a place Hill 22 23 Car. 2. Rot. 225. B. R. Waldron's Case Hutton 106. Baker and Johnson's Case Liberties in Iudgment of Law are incorporeal and therefore 't is absurd to say that Lands which are corporeal shall be therein contained They are not permanent having their existence by the Kings Letters Patents and may be destroyed by Act of Parliament they may also be extinguish'd abridged or increased and a Vinire fac of a * Rast Ent. 267. Liberty or Franchise is not good 't is an equivocal Word and of no signification that is plain and therefore is not to be used in real Writs Rast Entr. 382. There is no Praecipe in the Register to recover Lands within a Liberty neither is there any authority in all the Law Books for such a Recovery and therefore if such a thing should be allowed many inconveniences would follow for a good Tenant to the Praecipe would be wanting and the intent of the Parties could not supply that But Barton Serjeant said that this Recovery would pass the Lands in Cotton for as to that purpose there was no difference betweén a Fine and a Recovery Postea 2 Roll. Abr. 20 Godb. 440. they are both become Common Assurances and are to be guided by the agreément of the Parties Cro. Car. 270 276. 'T is true a Fine may be good of Lands in an Hamlet Lieu conus or Parish 1 H. 5. 9. Cro. Eliz. 692. Jones 301. Cro. Jac. 574. Monk versus Butler Yet in a * Godb. 440. contra Scire Fac̄ to have Execution of such Fine the Vill must be therein mentioned Bro. Brief 142. The demand must be of Lands in a Vill Hamlet or at farthest in a Parish Cro. Jac. 574. And of that Opinion was the whole Court absente Ellis who was also of the same Opinion at the Argument and accordingly in Michaelmas Term following Iudgment was given that by this Recovery the Lands in Cotton did well pass And North Chief Iustice denied the Case in Hutton 106. Postea to be Law where 't is said A Common Recovery of Lands in a Lieu conus is not good and said that it had béen long disputed whether a Fine of Lands in a Lieu conus was good and in King James his time the Law was settled in that Point that it was good and by the same reason a Recovery shall be good for they are both amicable Suits and Common Assurances and as they grew more in practice the Iudges have extended them farther A Common Recovery is held good of an Advowson and no Reasons are to be drawn from the Visne or the Execution of the Writ of Seisin because 't is not in the Case of adversary Procéedings but by Agréement of the Parties where 't is to be presumed each knows the others meaning Indeed the Cursitors are to blame to make the Writ of Entry thus and ought not to be suffered in such practice Where a Fine is levied to two the Fée is always fixed in the Heirs of one of them but if it be to them and their Heirs yet 't is good though incertain but a Liberty is in the nature of a Lieu conus and may be made certain by Averment The Iury in this Case have found Cotton to be a Vill in the Liberty of Shrewsbury and so 't is not incorporeal Alford versus Tatnel JVdgment against two who are both in Execution Mod. Rep. 170. and the Sheriff suffers one to escape the Plaintiff recovers against the Sheriff and hath satisfaction the other shall be discharged by an Audita Querela Osbaston versus Stanhope General Replication good DEBT upon Bond against an Heir who pleaded that his Ancestor was seised of such Lands in Fee and made a Settlement thereof to Trusteés by which he limited the Vses to himself for Life Remainder to the Heirs Males of his Body Remainder in Feé to his own right Heirs with power given to the Trusteés to make Leases for threé Lives or 99 years The Trustées made a Lease of these Lands for 99 years and that he had not Assets praeter the Reversion expectant upon the said Lease The Plaintiff replies protestando that the Settlement is fraudulent pro placito saith that he hath Assets by discent sufficient to pay him and the Defendant demurrs Ex parte Def. Newdigate Serjeant The Barr is good for the Plaintiff should not have replied generally that the Defendant hath Assets by discent but should have replyed to the praeter Hob. 104. Like the Case of Goddard and Thorlton Yelv. 170. where in Trespas the Defendant pleaded that Henry was seised in Fee who made a Lease to Saunders under whom he derived a Title and so justifies The Plaintiff replies and sets forth a long Title in another person and that Henry entred and intruded The Defendant rejoyns that Henry was seised in Fée and made a Lease ut prius absque hoc that intravit se sic intrusit and the Plaintiff having demurred because the Traverse ought to have been direct viz. absque hoc quod intrusit and not absque hoc that Henry intravit c. it was said the Replication was ill for the Defendant having alledged a Seisin in Fée in Henry which the Plaintiff in his Rejoynder had not avoided but only by supposing an intrusion which cannot be of an Estate in Fée but is properly after the death of Tenant for Life for that reason it was held ill Ex parte Quer. But Pemberton Serjeant for the Plaintiff held the Replication to be good The Defendants Plea is no more than Riens per descent for though he pleads a Reversion 't is not chargeable because 't is a Reversion after
Construction can be made of them but that an Estate in possession was thereby intended to pass 4. Object That this Fine and Grant must be construed to enure according to the intent of the Parties ut res magis valeat and they never intended to make a Forfeiture Answ Certainly no Man ever intended to make a Forfeiture of his own Estate those are generally the effects of Ignorance and not of the Will as the Case of Gimlet and Sands Cro. Car. * 1 Roll. Abr. 856. 391. where Tenant in Fee makes a Feoffment to two to the use of himself for Life then to the use of his Wife for Life Remainder in Tail to his Son and Heir Remainder to his own right Heirs and afterwards he made another Feoffment to Smith with Warranty the Mother and Son join in another Feoffment adjudged that this was a Forfeiture of her Estate for life though she had no notice of the Warranty made by her Husband for the Feoffment made by him was a publick Act upon the Land and she ought to have taken notice of it and though by her joining in the Feoffment with her Son she did not intend to forfeit her Estate yet the Law adjudges according to what is done But in the Case at Barr the intention of the Parties may be collected by the Act done and there is great reason to presume that the Parties thereby intended to displace the Reversion for the Husband joyning in the Fine and in the Warranty if it was no divesting the Warranty is of no use Another Objection has been only mentioned which is that admitting this should amount to a displacing if the Estate had been in possession yet in this Case it would not because it was prevented by the Lease for years in being But that cannot hinder the execution of this Fine 't is a Fine sur concessit which is executory in its nature and doth not pass any Estate or take any effect 'till executed and so is the Book 41 5. 3. 14. b. But in this Case the Fine was executed which may be by matter in pais as well as by Scire facias and as to this purpose may be executed by the entry of the Conusor 1 Rep. 106. Dyer 376. b. without suing out any Execution 38 Ed. 3. Brook tit Scire facias 199. If there had been a Fine executed there would have beén little doubt left in this Case and by the Attornment of the Lessee for years it must be admitted that this Fine was executed as 8 Ed. 3. f. 44. For a Fine of a Reversion may be executed to all purposes by the Attornment of the Lessee for years and if so when a Fine executory is once executed 't is as good as a Fine sur Conusance de droit come ceo to make a forfeiture of the particular Estate Where a Feoffment is made and a Lease for years is in being the Feoffment is not good because in such case there must be a present transposition of the Estate Postea Moor and Pitt which is hindred by the Lease But in case of a Fine which is a Feoffment upon Record a Lease for years is no impediment or displacing of the Reversion for if Tenant in Tayl expectant upon a Lease for years levy a Fine 't is a discontinuance of the Tayl and notwithstanding this Lease the Fine has such an operation upon the Free-hold that it displaces the Reversion in Fee Co. Lit. 332. And therefore if a Lease for years prevents not a Discontinuance it will much less hinder a displacing in this case But no Iudgment was given now in this Case another matter being debated whether the Plaintiff could have Iudgment because he was barred by the Statute of Limitations for it did not appear that he had been in possession for twenty years past and the Verdict hath not found any Claim or that the Plaintiff was within the Proviso of the Act. Waterfield versus the Bishop of Chichester Oath Ex Officio not to be administred A Prohibition was granted last Easter-Term to the Bishop of Chichester upon a Suggestion made by Waterfield that he being chosen Churchwarden of the Parish Church of Arundel in the County of Sussex the Bishop tendered him an Oath ex officio which was that he should Present every Parishioner who had done any Offence or neglected any Duty mentioned in certain Articles contained in a printed Book delivered to him some of which Articles concern the Church-warden himself and so in effect he was to swear against himself in case of any default which is expressly against the Statute of 13 Car. 2. Sid. 232 cap. 12. which prohibits any person having Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction to administer the Oath ex officio or any other Oath whereby the person to whom 't is administred may be charged to accuse himself of any criminal matter whereby he may be lyable to any Censure or punishment and because the Bishop had Excommunicated him for refusing such Oath he prayed a Prohibition which was granted quoad the compelling him to make any answer to the said Articles concerning himself and the Excommunication was discharged But now upon the motion of Serjeant Brampston a Consultation was awarded because it appeared by the Affidavit of the Commissary who tendred this Oath and likewise by the act of the Court that he was Excommunicated for refusing to take the Oath of a Church warden according to Law which was the only Oath tendred and therefore the ground of the Prohibition being false a Consultation was awarded In this Prohibition it was recited That the Bishop cannot give an Oath but in two cases viz. in matters Testamentary and Matrimonial whereas they have authority in many cases more 't is true also that until his Iurisdiction was increased by Act of Parliament he could hold Plea in none but those two causes 2 Inst 487 537. but by the Statute De circumspecte agatis and of Articuli Cleri he may now hold Plea in many other cases The Bishop informed the Lord Chief Iustice that the Plaintiff Waterfeild had caused 2000 of the Prohibitions to be printed in English and had dispersed them all over the Kingdom intituling them a true translated Copy of a Writ of Prohibition granted by the Lord Chief Iustice and other the Iustices of the Court of Common Pleas in Easter-Term 1676. against the Bishop of Chichester who had proceeded against and Excommunicated one Thomas Waterfield a Churchwarden for refusing to take the Oath usually tendred to persons in such Office by which Writ the Illegality of all such Oaths is declared and the said Bishop commanded to take off his Excommunication And this was declared by the Court to be a most seditious Libel and gave order to enquire after the Printer that he might be prosecuted Eleanor Plummer versus Sir Jeremy Whitchot Intr. Trin. 27 or 28 Car. 2. Rot. 301. in B. R. IN an Action of Debt for an Escape Vpon Nil debet
to such person or persons and to such use and uses intents and purposes as she should think fit and that the Plaintiff should assent thereunto and not impeach the same in Law or Equity The Marriage shortly afterwards took effect and Philippa by Will in Writing gave all her Estate away in Legacies and Charitable Vses and she devised to the Plaintiff 20 l. to buy him Mourning and gave to Sir William Turner the Defendant 100 l. and made him Executor and she devised to Mr. Hays and to Mr. Grace 20 l. apiece whom she made Overseers of her Will and died There was neither Date or Witnesses to this Will save only the Month and Year of our Lord therein mentioned and that this Will not being proved in the Spiritual Court the Plaintiff moved for a Prohibition and the Defendant took Issue upon the Suggestion In which Case these Points were resolved by the Court. Mod. Rep. 211. 1. If there be an Agreement before Marriage that the Wife may make a Will if she do so 't is a good Will unless the Husband disagreés and his Consent shall be implyed till the contrary appear And the Law is the same though he knew not when she made the Will which when made 't is in this Case as in others ambulatory till the death of the Wife and his dissent thereunto but if after her death he doth consent he can never afterwards dissent for then he might do it backwards and forwards in infinitum 2. If the Husband would not have such Will to stand he ought presently after the death of the Wife to shew his dissent 3. If the Husband consent that his Wife shall make a Will and accordingly she doth make such a Will and dieth and if after her death he comes to the Executor named in the Will and seems to approve her choice by saying He is glad that she had appointed so worthy a Person and seemed to be satisfied in the main with the Will and recommended a Coffin-maker to the Executor and a Goldsmith for making the Rings and a Herald Painter for making the Escutcheons this is a good assent and makes it a good Will though the Husband when he sees and reads the Will being thereat displeased opposes the Probate in the Spiritual Court by entring Caveats and the like and such disagreément after the former assent will not hurt the Will because such assent is good in Law though he know not the particular Bequests in the Will 4. When there is an express Agreement or Consent that a Woman may make a Will a little proof will be sufficient to make out the continuance of that Consent after her death and it will be needful on the other side to prove a Disagreement made in a solemn manner and those things which prove a dissatisfaction on the Husbands part may not prove a disagreement because the one is to be more formal than the other for if the Husband should say that he hoped to set aside the Will or by a Suit or otherwise to bring the Executor to terms this is not a dissent Sir Robert Howard versus the Queens Trustees and the Attorney General In the Dutchy UPON a Bill exhibited in the Dutchy Court Jones 126. The Question was whether the Stewardship of a Mannor was grantable in Reversion or not The Attorny General and the Queens Council Butler and Hanmore held that it was not But Serjeant Pemberton and Mr. Thursby would have argued to the contrary for they said it might be granted in Fée or for any less Estate and so in reversion for it may be executed by Deputy But this Question arising upon a Plea and Demurrer the Debate thereof was respited till the hearing of the Cause which was the usual Practice in Chancery as North Chief Iustice who assisted the Chancellor of the Dutchy informed the Court. And he said that in all Courts of Equity the usual course was when a Bill is exhibited to have Mony decreed due on a Bond upon a Suggestion that the Bond is lost there must be Oath made of it for otherwise the Cause is properly triable at the Common Law and such course is to be observed in all the like Cases where the Plaintiff by surmise of the loss of a Déed draws the Defendant into Equity but if the Case be proper in its own nature for a Court of Conscience and in case where the Déed is not lost the Remedy desired in Chancery could not be obtained upon a Trial at Law there though it be alledged that the Déed is lost Oath need not be made of it as if there be a Déed in which there is a Covenant for farther Assurance and the Party comes in Equity and prays the thing to be done in specie there is no need of an Oath of the loss of such Deed because if it 't is not lost the Party could not at Law have the thing for which he prayed Relief for he could only recover Damages Note also That he said in the Case of one Oldfeild that it was the constant practise where a Bill is exhibited in Equity to foreclose the right of Redemption if the Mortgagor be foreclosed he pays no Costs and though it was urged for him that he should pay no Costs in this Case because the Mortgagee was dead and the Heir within Age and the Mony could not safely be paid without a Decree yet it being necessary for him to come into Equity he must pay for that necessity Note also the difference between a Mortgage in Fee and for Years for if 't is in Fee the Mortgagor cannot have a Reconveyance upon payment of the Mony till the Heir comes of Age. It was agreed in this Case by the Court that if there be Tenant for Life Remainder in Fee and they joyn in a Deed purporting an absolute Sale if it be proved to be but a Mortgage he shall have his Estate for Life again paying pro rata and according to his Estate and so it shall be in the Case between Tenant in Dower and the Heir Loyd versus Langford Lessee for Years makes an Assignment of his Term where Debt lies upon the Contract and where not IN a special Verdict the Case was Viz. A. being Tenant in Fee of Lands demised the same to B. for seven years B. re-demises the same Lands to A. for the said Term of seven years reserving 20 l. Rent per Annum A. dyes his Wife enters as Guardian to the Heir of A. her Son and receives the Profits B. brings Debt against her as Executrix de son tort in the debet and detinet and whether this Action would lie or not was the Question Serjeant Baldwyn who argued for the Plaintiff held that it did lie for though the Rent in this Case reserved did not attend the Reversion because the Lessee had assigned over all his Term yet an Action of Debt will lie for that Rent upon the Contract Cro. Jac. 487.
Heir Male of the Body of the Devisor had by this Limitation an Estate Tayl as by Purchase and that the Inheritance in Fee simple did not vest in Francis 2. If Thomas the Covenantor had no Estate executed in him yet William his Son in this Case may take by way of future springing use because the Limitation of an Estate upon a Covenant to stand seised may be made to commence after the Ancestors Death for the old Seisin of the Covenantor is enough to support it There is a great difference between a Feoffment to Vses and a Covenant to stand seised for by the Feoffment the Estate is executed presently 1 Co. 154. Rector of Cheddington's Case So if there be a Feoffment to A. for Life Remainder to B. in Fee if A. refuse B. shall enter presently because the Feoffor parted with his whole Estate but if this had been in the Case of a Covenant to stand seised if A. had refused the Covenantor should have enjoyed it again till after the death of A. by way of springing use like the Case of Parsons and Willis 2 Roll. Abr. 794. Where a Man Covenants with B. That if he doth not marry he will stand seised to the use of B. and his Heirs B. dies the Covenantor doth not marry this Vse arises as well to the Heir of B. as to B. himself if he had been living and he shall have the Land in the nature of a descent But if William cannot take it either by purchase or by descent he shall take it 3. Per formam doni as special Heir to Thomas This Case was compared to that in Littleton Sect. 23. If Lands are given to a Man and the heirs Females of his Body if there be a Son the Daughter is not Heir but yet she shall take it for voluntas donatoris c. So if Lands are given to a Man and the Heirs Males of his Body the youngest Son shall have it after the death of the eldest leaving Issue only Daughters for these are descents secundum formam doni So in this Case the Estate Tail vested in Edward and when he died without Issue it comes to William per formam doni Object The Case of Greswold in 4 5 Ph. Mariae Dyer 156. seems to be express against this Opinion which was that Greswold was seised in Fee and made a Grant for Life the Remainder to the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to his own right Heirs he had Issue two Sons and dyed the eldest Son had Issue a Daughter and dyed and if the Daughter or her Vncle should have the Land was the question in that Case And it was adjudged that the Limitation of the Remainder was void because Greswold could not make his right Heir a Purchasor without departing with the whole Fee Postea Brittain and Charnock and therefore Iudgment was given against the special Heir in Tail for the Heir general which was the Daughter Answ Admit that Case to be Law yet the Iudges there differed in their Arguments 'T is not like this at Bar for that Case was not upon a Covenant to stand seised but upon a Deed indented and so a Conveyance at the Common Law But for an Authority in the point the Case of Pybus and Mitford was cited and relied on which was Trin. 24 Car. 2. Rot. 703. Mod. Rep. 159. 1 Ventris 372. adjudged by Hales Chief Iustice Rainsford and Wild but Iustice Twisden was of a contrary Opinion Serjeant Stroud who argued on the other side made three Points 1. Whether this Limitation be good in its creation 2. If the Estate Tail be well executed in Thomas the Covenantor 3. If it be good and well executed whether when Edward died without Issue the whole Estate Tail was not spent 1. And as to the first Point he held that this Limitation to the Heirs Males of Thomas was void in the creation because a Man cannot make himself or his own right Heir a Purchasor unless he will part with the whole Estate in Fee Dyer 309 b. If A. being seised in Fee makes a Lease for Life to B. the Remainder to himself for years this Remainder is void so if it had been to himself for Life because he hath an Estate in Fee and he cannot reserve to himself a lesser Estate than he had before 42 Ass 2. If I give Lands to A. for Life the Remainder to my self for Life the Remainder in Fee to B after the death of A. in this Case B. shall enter for the Remainder to me was void 1 H. 5. 8. 42 Edw. 3. 5. Bro. Estate 66. Dyer 69. b. 'T is true these Cases are put at the Common Law but the Statute of Vses makes no alteration for according to the Rules laid down in Chudleigh's Case by my Lord Chief Iustice Popham 1 Co. 138. 1. Vses are odious and so the Law will not favour them 2. A Rule at Common Law shall not be broke to vest an Vse and the Vses here cannot vest without breaking of a Rule in Law 3. Vses are raised so privately that he who takes them may not know when they vest and for that reason they are not to be favoured 4. The Statute annexes both the Possession and the Vse together as they vest and divest both together Moor 713. 2 Co. 91. Co. Lit. 22. Moor 284. 2. As to the second Point The Estate is not executed in Thomas and therefore William cannot take it by descent Heirs of his Body or Heirs Male are good Words of Limitation to take by Purchase from a Stranger but not from an Ancestor for there he shall take by descent and for this there is an Authority Co. Lit. 26. b. John had Issue by his Wife Roberga Robert and Mawd John dies Michael gave Lands to Roberga and to the Heirs of her Husband on her Body begotten Roberga in this Case had but an Estate for Life for the Fee Tail vested in Robert and when he died without Issue his Sister Maud was Tenant in Tail per formam Doni and in a Formedon she counted as Heir to Robert which she was not neither was she Heir to her Father at the time of the Gift yet it was held good for the Words Viz. Heirs of the Body of the Father were Words of Purchase in this Case If therefore no Vse for Life vested in Thomas then William cannot take by descent Dyer 156. Co. Lit. 22. Hob. 31. Dyer 309. 1 Co. 154. Lord Paget's Case cited in Hob. 151. 3. To the third Point Admitting both the former to be against him yet since Edward is dead without Issue the Estate Tail is spent But the whole Court were of Opinion Judgment That William should Inherit this Land in question for though at the Common Law a Man cannot be Donor and Donee without he part with the whole Estate yet 't is otherwise upon a Covenant to stand seised to Vses And if any other Construction should be made
Estate for years and so having no Freehold the Contingent Remainder could not be supported that Mary could not take by way of Executory Devise because Robert was living when his Son Benjamin dyed within Age that therefore 't is quasi a Condition precedent Grant's Case 10 Co. cited in Lampet's Case 1 Leon. 101. There is a difference between Boraston's Case and this at the Barr for that was a Devise to Executors till Hugh shall attain his Age of 21 years and the mean Profits in the mean time to be applyed by them for payment of the Testators Debts and because he might have computed how long it would be before his Debts could be paid therefore it was adjudged that after the death of Hugh within Age the Executors should continue in possession till Hugh might have attained his full Age had he lived and so a present Devise to them But here the Devise is generally till Benjamin Wharton shall attain his Age of 21 years so that nothing vested in him until that time and he dying before then the Estate shall descend to the general Heir who is the Plaintiff 2. Admitting this should be taken as an executory Devise there must be some person capable to take when the Contingency happens and there was no such person in this Case for Robert was alive when Benjamin dyed and Mary could not then take as Heir of his Body for Nemo est haeres viventis like the Case of 2 Cro. 590. Vaugh. 272. Pell and Brown viz. Brown had Issue William and Thomas he devises Land to his youngest Son Thomas and his Heirs and if he dye living William then to William and his Heirs Thomas did dye without Issue living William and it was adjudged that if those Words Living William had been left out of the Will Thomas would have a Fee Tail which he might have docked by a Common Recovery but by reason of those Words he had only a limited Fee because the Words viz. If he dyed without Issue are not indefinite to create a Tail but are restrained to his dying without Issue Living William which is a limited Fee and his Estate being determined William then had a Fee but if he had died before the Contingency happened viz. in the Life time of Thomas and then Thomas had dyed without Issue the Heirs of William would not have an Estate in Fée for the Reasons aforesaid If therefore nothing vested in Benjamin Wharton nor in Mary his Sister then the Land descends to Augustine Smith as Heir at Law to Elizabeth who was Heir to the Testator and so the Plaintiff hath a good Title Ex parte Def. Newdigate Serjeant contra Here is only an Estate for years in the Sister of the Testator and an Estate in Fee presently vested in Benjamin Wharton and he relyed upon Boraston's Case where the Father having Issue Humfry and Henry devised to his Executors till Hugh his Grandson the Son of Henry should be of Age and then to him in Fée it was there adjudged that the Executors had a Term till Hugh might have attained his full Age and that though he dyed at the Age of nine years yet the Remainder did immediately vest in him in possession upon the death of his Grandfather and that by his dying without Issue the Lands did descend to his Brother So here the Fee descends to Benjamin Wharton in possession and he dying without Issue and within Age the Land shall then descend to his Sister and Heir The like Iudgment was given in the Case of Taylor and Wharton about 12 years since and in Dyer 124. a. A Devise to his Wife till his Son shall be of the Age of 24 years then to the Son in Fee and if he die before 24 years without Issue then to the Wife for Life the Remainder to A. c. The Testator dyed 2 Leon. 11. pl. 16. Dyer 354. a. it was adjudged that the Son had a Fee simple presently for an Estate tail he could not have till he was 24 years old and after the death of his Father there was no particular Estate to support that Estate in the Remainder till he should come to the Age of 24 years so that he took by descent immediately So here a Feé vested in Benjamin presently and he being dead within Age Mary may take as Heir however when she is of Age she shall take as Heir of the Body of Robert by way of executory Devise arising out of the Estate of the Devisor Stiles 240. Owen 148. which needs no particular Estate to support it as in case of a Contingent Remainder for before Mary was of Age Robert her Father was dead and so she might well take Trin. 19 Car. 2. in B. R. Snow versus Cutler Rot. 1704. North Chief Iustice Curia Favourable distinctions have béen always admitted to supply the meaning of Men in their last Wills and therefore a Devise to A. till he be of Age then to B. and his Heirs this is an Estate for years in A. with a Remainder in Feé to B And if such a Devise to A. who is also made Executor or for payment of Debts it shall be for a certain Term of years viz. for so long as according to computation he might have attained that Age had he lived Contingent Remainders are at the Common Law and arise upon Conveyances as well as Wills one may limit an Estate to A. the Remainder to another and so it may be by Devise if the intent of the Parties will have it so But as at the Common Law all Contingent Remainders shall not be good so in Wills no such latitude is given as if none could be bad they are subject to the same Fate in Wills as in Conveyances In this Case Elizabeth had a Term till Benjamin Wharton be of Age for she is Executrix she was likewise Heir at Law to the Devisor and this Land had gone to her had it not béen for this Will so that 't is plain the Testator never intended that a Fee-simple should vest in her but somewhere else for he could never intend the Descent of the Inheritance to that person to whom he had devised the Term. It has beén argued that Mary is Heir at Law to Benjamin as well as Heir of the Body of Robert and so if she can take either way 't is good but to make her Heir to Benjamin 't is necessary that the Estate vest in him before he comes to 21 years and for that Boraston's Case was much relyed on which was also said not to differ from this at the Barr that an Estate passes to Benjamin Wharton in praesenti and that there was no Incapacity for Mary to take by way of Executory Devise as was urged on the other side and therefore why should she not take by way of Executory Devise as Heir of the Body of her Father or at least as Heir of Benjamin her Brother An Executory Devise needs no
and takes notice that this Writ is not returnable into that Court from Wales and therefore orders that the Significavit shall be sent by Mittimus out of the Chancery to the Chief Iustice there and gives them power to make Process to inferior Officers returnable before them at their Sessions for the due Execution of this Writ all which had beén in vain if the Capias might go into Wales before the making this Act. Answ But that is an original Writ and so comes not up to this Case Wyndham Iustice agreed in omnibus and said that the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. was very needful for if a Man should be outlawed if the Process should be sent to the Sheriff of the next adjoining County in England he could not have any notice that he was outlawed and so could not tell when oulawed or at whose Suit Vaughan late Lord Chief Iustice held strongly Vaugh. 395. 2 Saund. 194. that no Execucution would go into Wales when this Case was argued before him and of the same Opinion was Iustice Twisden Williamson versus Hancock Collateral Warranty Mod. Rep. 192. A Special Verdict was found in an Ejectment where the Case was Richard Lock the Father was Tenant for Life with Remainder in Tail to Richard his Son Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father who levies a Fine with Warranty to the use of Susan and Hannah Prinn in Feé they by Bargain and Sale convey their Estate to the Defendant The Son in his Fathers life time before the Warranty attached comes of full age the Father dies The Question was whether the Sons Entry was barred by this collateral Warranty thus discended And the thrée Iustices absente North Chief Iustice were clear of Opinion that the collateral Waranty was a barr to the Son and so Iudgment was given for the Defendant Ellis Iustice held that his Entry is taken away for in every Warranty two things are implied a Voucher and Rebutter he that comes in by Voucher calleth the person into Court who is bound in the Warranty to defend his Right or yield him other Land in recompence and must come in by Privity but if a Man have the Estate though he comes in the Post he may rebut that is he may repel the Action of the Heir by the Warranty of his Ancestor without shewing how the Estate came to him Fitzh Nat. Br. 135. In a Formedon in the Discender to say the Ancestor enfeoffed J.S. with Warranty without shewing how J. S. came by his Estate is good Object It was objected by Serjeant Maynard that no person can take advantage of a Warranty who comes in by way of use as in this Case Answ But 't is expresly resolved otherwise in Lincoln Colledge Case 3 Co. 62. b. and the Prinns in this Case came in by Limitation and Act of the Party and the Defendant who hath the Reversion likewise by Limitation of Vse though he be in the Post shall take benefit of the Warranty as Assignee within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Mod. Rep. 181. c. 34. and so it was resolved in Fowl and Dobles Case in this Court that he who comes in by way of use may rebut and Iustice Jones in his Report fol. 199. affirms the fourth resolution in Lincoln Colledge Case to be Law It was formerly objected by the Lord Chief Iustice Vaughan that this Warranty goes only to the Heirs not to the Assigns and here the Estate was conveyed by the two Prinns before the Warranty attached Answ But when the Estate passeth the Warranty and Covenant followeth and the Assignée shall have the benefit thereof though not named and so is the Authority of 38 E. 3. 26. if a Warranty be made to a Man and his Heirs the Assigneé though not named shall Rebutt but he cannot Vouch. So if A. enfeoff B. with Warranty and B. enfeoff C. without Déed C. shall vouch A. as Assigneé of the Land of B. for the Warranty cannot be assigned In this Case though the Warranty did not attach before the Estate in the Land was transferred yet if it attach afterwards 't is well enough and he who hath the Possession shall Rebutt the Demandant without shewing how he came by the Possession If a Warranty be to one and his Heirs without the word Assigns the Assignée indeéd cannot Vouch but he may * 1 Inst 265. a 384. Rebutt for Rebutter is so incident to a Warranty that a Condition not to Rebutt is void in Law But 't is otherwise of a Condition not to Vouch for in such case you may Rebutt 'T is true it hath béen an Opinion that he who claimeth above the Warranty if it be not attached cannot take benefit of it by way of Voucher or Rebbutter as if Tenant in Dower maketh a Feoffment to a Villain with Warranty and the Lord entreth upon him before the descent of the Warranty the Villain can never take advantage of this Warranty by way of Rebutter because the Lords Title is paramount the Warranty and he cometh not under his Estate to whom the Warranty was made If Land be given to two Brothers in Feé with Warranty to the eldest and his Heirs the eldest dies without Issue the Survivor shall not take benefit by this Warranty for the reason aforesaid But in the Case at Barr the Warranty being collateral and annexed to the Land goeth with the Estate and whilst that continues the Party may Vouch or Rebutt so here the Defendant though he be only Tenant at Will for the Estate is in the Bargainors and their Heirs there being no Execucution of it either by Livery or Enrolment yet he may Rebutt Iustice Atkins was of the same Opinion that by this collateral Warranty the Entry of the Lessor of the Plaintiff was taken away for 't is the nature of a collateral Warranty to be a Barr a * Jones Rep. 199 200. 1 Inst 366 385. 25 H. 6. 63. Bro. Gar. 4. Right is bound by it it extinguishes a Right 't is annexed to the Land and runs with it If then a collateral Warranty be of this nature 't is against all reason that he who is thus bound should make any Title to the Land but 't is very reasonable that he who comes in quasi by that Estate should defend his Title The Opinions of Iustice Jones and Iustice Crook in the Case of * Cro. Car. 368. Spirt and Bence has occasioned this doubt The Case was shortly thus Cann being seised in Fée had thrée Sons Thomas Francis and Henry and devised Lands to the two eldest in Tail and to Henry the Meadow called Warhay which was the Land in question but doth not limit what Estate he should have in it then he adds these Words viz. Also I will that he shall enjoy all Bargains I had of Webb to him and his Heirs and for want of Heirs of his * Notwithstanding the word Body he had but an Estate for Life in Warhay for that
Execution yet he may extend the very Lands so released so if the Debtee release to the Debtor all his right and title which he hath to his Lands and afterwards gets a Iudgment against him he may extend a Moiety of the same Lands by Elegit the reason is because at the time of these Releases given they had no title to the Land but only an inception of a right which might happen to take place in futuro so here a Release by the Executor of the Debtee to the Administrator of the Debtor before Probate of the Will is not good because by being made Executor he had only a possibility to be entituled to the Testators Estate and no Interest 'till Probate for he might refuse to prove the Will or renounce the Executorship It is true a Release of all * Godol 145. pl. 4. Actions had been good by the Executor before Probate because a right of Action is in him and a Debt which consists meerly in Action is thereby discharged but in such case a Release of all right and title would not be good for the reasons aforesaid Ex parte Def. But for the Defendant it was insisted that this Release was a good Plea in Barr for if a Release be made by an Executor of all his right and title to the Testators Estate and then the Executor sues the Party Released as the Administrator is sued in this Case for a Debt due to the Testator the Release is good because if he had recovered in this Case the Iudgment must be de bonis Testatoris which is the subject matter and that being released no Action can lye against the Administrator Adjornatur DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 28 Car. II. in Banco Regis Piggot Lessee of Sir Thomas Lee versus the Earl of Salisbury Intrat ' Pasch 26 Car. 2. Rot. 609. IN Ejectment for fourteén Houses and some Gardens in the Parish of St. Martin in the Fields Warranty where by displacing of a Right by a Fine sur concessit it shall barr the Heir Jones 68. the Iury find as to all but one Moiety for the Defendant as for the other Moiety they find that these were formerly the Houses of one Nightingale who was seised thereof in Fée and made a Lease of them which commenced 1 Apr. 7 Jac. yet in being That the Reversion descended to Briget his Daughter and Heir who married William Mitton by whom she had a Daughter named Elizabeth That upon the Marriage of the said Elizabeth with Francis the Son of Sir Oliver Lee by Fine and other Settlements these Houses were settled to the use of the said Bridget for Life then to the use of Francis Lee and the said Elizabeth and the Heirs on the Body of the said Elizabeth to be begotten by Francis And for want of such Issue to William Mitton for Life and afterwards to the right Heirs of Bridget Mitton for ever William Mitton and Bridget his Wife before the expiration of the Term levy a Fine sur concesserunt to two Cognisees wherein the said Husband and Wife conced ' tenementa praed ' totum quicquid habent in tenementis praed ' cum pertin̄ for the Life of the said Husband and Wife and the Survivor of them with Proclamations They find that the Lessee for years attorned and that the Fine thus levied was in Trust for the Earl of Salisbury and that before the first day of February before the Action brought he entred by the direction of the two Cognizees and that he was seised prout Lex postulat That 1 Febr. 7 Jac. Sir Oliver Lee Francis Lee his Son and Heir and Elizabeth his Wife William Mitton and Bridget his Wife by Bargain and Sale convey the Premises to the Earl and his Heirs which was enrolled in Chancery in which Deéd there was a Warranty against Sir Oliver and his Heirs That in the same Term viz. Octab. Purificationis William Mitton and Bridget his Wife levyed a Fine sur Cognisance de droit come ceo c. to the Earl That Francis Lee was Son and Heir of Sir Oliver Lee. That Sir Oliver and Elizabeth died in the Life-time of Francis and that Francis died leaving Issue Sir Thomas Lee the now Lessor of the Plaintiff That the Warranty discended upon him being inheritable to the Estate Tail That the Estate of the Earl of Salisbury descended to the present Earl who was the Defendant That Sir Thomas Lee entred and made a Lease to the Lessor of the Plaintiff Question The Question upon this Special Verdict was if by the Fine sur concesserunt levied 7 Jac. the Estate which the Husband and Wife had in possession only passed or whether that and the Estate for Life which the Husband had after the Tail spent passed likewise If the latter then they passed more than they could lawfully grant because of the intervention of the Estate Tail and then this Fine wrought a * Co. Lit. 338. b displacing or divesting the Estate of William Mitton for Life in Reversion and turned it into a Right and if so then this collateral Warranty of Sir Oliver Lee will discend on Sir Francis and from him to the Plaintiff and will barr his Entry But if the Estate was not displaced and turned into a Right at the time of the Warranty then the Heir is not barred by this collateral Warranty of his Ancestor This Case was argued by Serjeant Pemberton for the Plaintiff and by Sir William Jones the Attorny General for the Defendant Ex parte Quer. And for the Plaintiff it was said that this Fine passed only the Estate which William Mitton and his Wife had in possession and no other and therefore worked no divesting and his Reasons were 1. Such a Construction seems most agreeable to the intention of all the Parties to the Fine 2. It may well stand with the Nature and the Words of the Fine 3. It will be most agreeable both to the Iudgments and Opinions which have formerly béen given in the like Cases And as to the first of these it will be necessary to consider what will be the effect and consequence of levying this Fine both on the one side and the other It cannot be denyed but that there was a Purchase intended to be made under this Fine and that the Parties were willing to pass away their Estate with the least hazard that might be to themselves neither can it be imagined that they intended to defeat this Purchase as soon as it was made which they must do if this Fine works a Forfeiture for then he in Remainder in Tail is entituled to a present Entry and so the Estates for Life which the Baron and Feme had are lost and there was a possibility also of losing the Reversion in Feé which the Tenant in Tail after his Entry might have barred by a Common Recovery And had not the Parties intended only to pass both the Estates which they lawfully might
an Estate for the Life of the Husband and Wife and the Survivor What is this but one entire Estate in possession No other Interpretation can be agréeable to the sense of the Words for if it had been granted according to the true Estate which each had then it should have been first for the Life of the Wife and after the Tail spent then for the Life of the Husband The next thing to be considered is Whether the Estate shall pass entire or by fractions And as to that I need say no more than only to quote the Authority of that Iudgment given in Garret and Blizard's Case 1 Roll. Abr. 855. which is shortly thus viz. Tenant for Life Remainder for Life Remainder in Tail Remainder in Fee to the Tenant for Life in Remainder this Tenant for Life in Remainder levies a Fine come ceo c. it was adjudged a Forfeiture of his Estate for Life so that the Remainder Man in Tail might enter after the death of the Tenant for Life in possession for it shall not be intended that he passed his Estate by fractions viz. an Estate in Remainder for Life and a Remainder in Feé expectant upon the Estate Tail but one entire Estate in possession and 't is not like the Authority in Bredon's Case for there the Estate for Life and the Estate Tail followed one another Next it is to be considered whether after they granted omnia illa tenementa the subsequent Words totum statum suum c. do not come in by way of Restriction and qualifie what went before But those subsequent Words are placed in this Fine not by way of Restriction but of Accumulation Litt. 345 In Littleton Sect. 613. 't is said that if Tenant in Tail grants all his Estate in the Tenements Habendum all his Estate c. in this Case the Alienee hath but an Estate for the Life of the Tenant in Tail and 't is observable that totum statum in the Case put by Littleton is both in the Premisses and the Habendum But if I will grant tenementa praedicta in the Premisses and then make another Limitation in the Habendum there totum statum quicquid can make no Restriction if it should it will spoil most Conveyances It is agréed that if those Words had béen omitted in this Case then by this Fine the Reversion would be displaced and therefore much weight is laid upon these Words to explain the meaning of the Parties thereby and that when they granted tenementa praedicta they meant totum statum c. But here is no ground for such an Interpretation 't is an entire Grant of the Houses by the Words Tenementa praedicta and the subsequent Words shall never be allowed to make such a Restriction which shall overthrow the frame of the Déed If a Man who has no Estate in the Land passes it by Deéd this shall work against him by way of Estoppel and these Words totum quicquid c. which are usual in all Conveyances shall make no alteration of the Law for if such construction should be made of these Words as hath béen objected then in all Déeds where they are inserted if it happen that the Party hath no Estate or a void Estate nothing passes and then Covenants Estoppels and Warranties would be no Securities in the Law 2. These Words totum quicquid c. come in a distinct Clause of the Grant the precedent Words are Tenementa praedicta totum statum quicquid c. reddiderunt which are two parts a Grant and a Release and have no dependance upon each other being distinct Clauses and therefore these Words shall not be any Restriction of the former but if one Clause be carried on with a connexion so as 't is but an entire sentence in such Case a Man may restrain either general or particular Words Hob. 171. in Stukely and Butler's Case 3. Admitting these Words are a Restriction of the former yet the Estate is so limited that if the first Words were out of the Case this later Clause he said was enough for his purpose for the Grant is not in the usual Words by which Estates pass viz. Estate Right Title Interest but Totum quicquid c. for the Lives of the Grantors and the Survivor which shews that they took upon themselves to grant for a longer time than they had in possession if they had only granted it for both their Lives they might have some colourable pretence 4. 'T is apparent from the Clause of the Warranty that the intent of the Parties was to grant an Estate expresly in possession for the Lives both of the Husband and his Wife for 't is that which the Grantée shall hold c. during their Lives and the longest Liver Object The Case of * 2 Rol. Abr. 36 403. Eustace and Scaven has been objected 'T is reported in 2 Cro. 696. which is Feme Covert and A. are Iointenants for Life the Husband and Wife levy a Fine to A. the other Iointenant and grant the Land and totum quicquid habent c. to him during the Life of the Wife with Warranty the Wife survives A. her Companion Adjudged that these Words Totum quicquid shall not enure by way of Grant and severance of the Iointure of the Moiety for then there would be an Occupancy but they are restrictive only to the Estate of the Wife and shall enure by way of Release to A. so that after his death he in Reversion may enter Answ It would not be a Question in that Case whether these Words were restrictive or not for nothing was granted but what might lawfully pass viz. during the Life of the Wife the other Ioyntenant neither was there any stress laid on those Words for Mr. Iustice Jones who was a Learned Man and reported the same Case fol. 55. hath made no mention thereof but hath wholly omitted those Words which he would not have done if the Case had depended upon them 2. Object Next the Form of this Fine has been objected and a President was cited Rast Entr. 241. where such a Fine was levied and nothing passed but for the Life of the Conusor Answ But no Authority can be produced where a Man that had an Estate for Life in Possession and another in Remainder and granted by the same Words as in this Case but that it was a Forfeiture 3. Object That the Law will not make a Construction to work a Wrong and therefore if Tenant for Life grant generally for Life it shall be interpreted during the Life of the Grantor Answ That Case is without express Words or shewing any time for which the Grantee shall have the thing granted and therefore the Law restrains it to the Life of the Grantor because it will not make Words which are doubtful and of incertain signification to do any Wrong But where there are express Words as in this Case no other
Witton versus Bye 45 Ed. 3. 8. 20 E. 4 13. Covevenant will lie upon the Words Yeilding and Paying If then here is a good Rent reserved the Wife who receives the Profits becomes Executrix de son tort and so is lyable to the payment It hath been held there cannot be an Executor de son tort of a Term but the Modern Opinions are otherwise as it was held in the Case of Porter and Sweetman Trin. 1653. in B. R. And that an Action of Debt will lie against him Indeed such an Executor cannot be of a Term in futuro and that is the Resolution in Kenrick and Burgesses Case Moor Rep. Where in Ejectment upon Not Guilty pleaded it appeared that one Okeham had a Lease for years of the Lands in question who dyed Intestate which Lease his Wife assigned by parol to Burgess and then she takes out Letters of Administration and assigns it again to Kenrick who by the Opinion of the Court had the best Title But if one enter as Executor de son tort and sell Goods the Sale is good which was not so in this Case because there was a Term in Reversion whereof no Entry could be made for which reason there could be no Executor de son tort to that and therefore the Sale to Burgess before the Administration was held void And that there may be an Executor de son tort of a Term there was a late Case adjudged in Trin. 22 Car. 2. between Stevens and Carr which was Lessee for years rendring Rent dies Intestate his Wife takes out Letters of Administration and afterwards Marries a second Husband the Wife dies and the Husband continues in Possession and receives the Profits It was agreed that for the Profits received he was answerable as Executor de son tort and the Book of 10 H. 11. was cited as an authority to prove it Pemberton Serjeant for the Defendant Ex parte Def. would not undertake to answer these Points which were argued on the other side but admitted them to be plain against him for he did not doubt but that Debt would lie upon the Contract where the whole Term was assigned and that there may be an Executor de son tort of a Term but he said that which was the principal point in the Case was not stirred The question was whether an Action of Debt will lie against the Defendant as Executor de son tort where there is no Term at all for 't is plain there was none in being in this Case because when the Lessee Re-demised his whole Term to the Lessor that was a Surrender in Law and as fully as if it had been actually surrendred and therefore this was quite different from the Case where Lessee for years makes an Assignment of his whole Term to a Stranger Debt will lie upon the Contract there because an Interest passes to him in Reversion and as to this purpose a Term is in esse by the Contract of the Parties and so it would here against the first Lessor who was Lessee upon the Re-demise but now because of the Surrender the Heir is intituled to enter and the Mother who is the Defendant enters in his Right as Guardian which she may lawfully do If therefore Debt only lies upon the Contract of the Testator as in truth it doth where the whole Term is gone the Plaintiff cannot charge any one as Executor de son tort in the debet and detinet And the whole Term is gon here by the Re-demise which is an absolute Surrender and not upon Condition for in such Case the Surrenderor might have entred for non-performance and so it might have been revived And of this Opinion was the whole Court in both points and would not hear any farther Argument in the Case the Plaintiff having no remedy at Law the Court told him that he might seek for relief in Chancery if he thought fit Harman's Case IN Covenant the breach assigned was that the Defendant did not repair He pleads generally quod reparavit de hoc ponit se super patriam this was held good after a Verdict Quadring versus Downs al' Wardship cannot be where there is no descent IN a Writ of right of Ward the Case was Viz Sir William Quadring being seised of Lands in Fee by Deed and Fine settles them upon his Son William and his Wife for their Lives the Remainder to the second Son in Tail with divers Remainders over The Grandfather dyes the Father and Mother dyes the eldest Son dyes without Issue and so the Land came to the second Son The Plaintiff intitles himself as Guardian in Socage to the Wardship both of the Person and Lands of the Infant whom the Defendant detained and Serjeant Newdigate for him demurred because where there is no descent there can be no Wardship for the second Son is in by purchase and not by descent for here is no mention of the Reversion in Fee and therefore it may be intended that it was conveyed away and besides if it should be intended to continue to Sir William Quadring the Grandfather after this Settlement yet it cannot be thought to descend to the Ward because 't is not said who was Heir for though it be said that the Father of the Ward was Son to Sir William yet 't is not said Son and Heir and of that Opinion was the whole Court in both points for there must be a descent or else there can be no Wardship and it doth not appear that any descent was here because 't is not said that the Reversion did descend nor who was Heir to Sir William which the Plaintiff perceiving prayed leave to amend and it was granted In this Case it was said at the Bar that one might be a Ward in Socage though he be in by Purchase for the Guardian is to have no profit but is only a Curator to do all for the benefit of the Ward and so there need be no descent as is necessary in the Case of a Ward in Chivalry for that being in respect of the Tenure the Guardian is to have profit The Lord Chief Iustice North said Nota. he knew where there was some doubt of the sufficiency of the Guardian in Socage that the Court of Chancery made him give good Security Harding versus Ferne. IN an Action of Assault Battery and Imprisonment Antea Anonymus 'till the Plaintiff had paid 11 l. 10 s. The Defendant pleads and justifies by reason of an Execution and a Warrant thereupon for 11 l. and doth not mention the 10 s. And upon demurrer for this Cause Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff upon the first opening because it appeared the Defendant took more than was warranted by the Execution Ellis versus Yarborough Sheriff of Yorkshire IN an Action of Escape the Plaintiff sets forth that the Defendant Arrested a Man upon a Latitat directed to him at the Suit of the Plaintiff Case lies not against
Remainder for Life surrenders the Copyhold to the Lord pro tempore who was a Disseisor only of the Mannor ut inde faciat voluntatem suam the Disseisor grants it to a Stranger for Life the Disseiseé enters the Stranger dies and whether the Disseisor or he in the Remainder for Life who made the Surrender had the better Title was the Question So that the Point was Cro. Car. 205. 2 Sid. 151. 1 Roll. Abr. 540. whether this Surrender by a Copy-holder in Remainder into the Hands of the Disseisor be good and shall so extinguish the Right to the Copyhold that it shall not be revived by the Entry of the Disseisee into the said Mannor It was said that in some Cases a Surrender into the Hands of a Disseisor was good that is when the Surrender is made to him to the use of another and his Heirs and he admits him there the person admitted claims not under the Lord but under the Copyholder who made the Surrender 1 Inst 59. b. for nothing passes to the Lord but only to serve the Limitation of the Vse 1 Rol. Abr. 503. litt Q. pl. 1. 4 Co. 24. But in this Case the Grantée must claim from the Lord himself and not from the Copyholder because he had but an Estate for his own Life with which he wholly departed when he made the Surrender to the use of the Disseisor himself In Trinity-Term following this Case was argued by Serjeant Maynard on the other side There are two sorts of Surrenders of a Copyhold 1. Proper 2. Formal and Ceremonious If a Surrender be to the Lord to the use of another this is no proper Surrender for no Estate passeth to the Lord he being only the Instrument to convey it to the Surrendree and this is but nominal But here the Surrender was to the use of the Lord himself which is a proper Surrender and in such Case 't is necessary that the Lord have a Reversion for one Estate is to be turned into the other and there must be a continuing of Estates But Dominus pro tempore who is a Disseisor hath no such Estate Executor de son tort shall sue but he cannot retain If therefore he is not capable to take a Surrender to himself unless he hath such an Estate then here is no Disseisin of the Copyhold 't is only of the Mannor and then no greater Interest passeth to the Disseisor than to a Stranger whilst the true Lord had been in possession for so he is quoad this Copyhold if he was not disseised of it for if the Copyholder had the possession there could be then no Disseisin if he was out of possession then he had nothing but a Right and that cannot be surrendred for it must be an Estate as if a Lessee for years keep possession 't is the possession of the Lord and the Law is the same in case of a Copyhold 2 Co. Bettisworth's Case Piggot and Lord Salisbury's Case Ante The true Owner makes a Feoffment in Fee if Lessee for years continue in possession no Fréehold passeth If Tenant at Will of parcel of the Mannor be in possession that prevents a Disseisin of the Freehold much more in Case of a Copyhold Lessee for years the Remainder to B. for Life the Remainder to C. in Fee C. by Deed makes a Feoffment to B. and Livery c. 't is a void Conveyance because the possession of Lessee for years is the possession of him in the Remainder for Life and as long as the Lessee for years is in the possession the Owner of the Inheritance cannot be out Lit. 324. cap. Attornment North Chief Iustice and Wyndham enclined that the Surrender was not good for it was a material distinction where the Surrender was made to the use of a Stranger and where it terminates in the Lord that a Surrender made by a Copyholder for Life could not transfer but extinguish his Right for he could not give a greater Estate than he had that there must be a Reversion in the Lord to make a Surrender to him to be good and that if a Copyholder keeps in possession there could be no Disseisin But Iustice Atkins contra That this Surrender must have operation to extinguish his Right for though a Copyholder for Life cannot surrender for longer time than his own Life yet if a Surrender be made of such a Copyhold to an Vse 't is good and works by way of Extinguishment of his Right though the Vse be void and if a Copyholder of Inheritance surrender to a Disseisor ut faciat voluntatem who regrants to the said Copyholder an Estate in Tail according to the Surrender this shall bind the Disseisee 1 Roll. Abridg. 503. pl. 3. Tamen quaere The Copyholder in this Case might have sold his Estate to the Disseisor and it had béen good and though the Acts of a Disseisor shall not prejudice the Disseisee yet he could see no reason why the Copyholder who had parted with his Estate should have it again Taylor versus Biddal SPecial Verdict in Ejectment The Case was thus Devise till he be of Age then to him in Fee he dyed within Age yet a Fee vested in him presently Richard Ben was seised in Fee of the Lands in question and had a Sister named Elizabeth formerly married to one Smith by whom she had Issue Augustine Smith now Lessor of the Plaintiff and she afterwards married one Robert Wharton by whom she had Issue a Son called Benjamin and a Daughter called Mary the now Defendant Richard Ben devised these Lands to Elizabeth his Sister and Heir for so long time and until her Son Benjamin Wharton should attain his full Age of 21 years and after he shall have attained his said Age then to the said Benjamin and his Heirs for ever and if he dye before his Age of 21 years then to the Heirs of the Body of Robert Wharton and to their Heirs for ever as they should attain their respective Ages of 21 years Richard the Testator dies Benjamin dyed before he came to the Age of 21 years living Roberr Wharton his Father afterwards Robert dyed And the Question was Whether the Lessor of the Plaintiff as Heir to Elizabeth or Mary either as Heir to her Brother Benjamin or as Heir of the Body of Robert should have this Land This Case was argued by Serjeant Pemberton this Term Ex parte Quer. and by Serjeant Maynard in Easter-Term following for the Plaintiff and they held that Augustine Smith the Lessor of the Plaintiff should have this Land because no Estate vested in Benjamin Wharton he dying before he had attained his Age of 21 years and the Testator had declared that his Sister should have it till that time and then and not before he was to have it so that if he never attained that Age as in this Case he did not the Land shall descend to the Heir of the Testator that Elizabeth had only an
particular Estate to support it for it shall descend to the Heir till the Contingency happen 't is not like a Remainder at the Common Law which must vest eo instanti that the particular Estate determines but the Learning of Exeecutory Devises stands upon the Reasons of the old Law wherein the intent of the Devisor is to be observed For when it appears by the Will that he intends not the Devisee to take but in futuro and no disposition being made thereof in the mean time it shall then descend to the Heir till the Contingency happen but if the intent be that he shall take in praesenti and there is no incapacity in him to do it he shall not take in futuro by an executory Devise Sid. 153. pl. 2. A Devise to an Infant in ventre sa mere is good and it shall descend to the Heir in the mean time for the Testator could not intend he should take presently he must first be in rerum natura 3 Co. 20. a. 1 Inst 378. a. If an Estate be given to A. for Life the Remainder to the right Heirs of B. this is a contingent Remainder and shall be governed by the Rules of the Law for if B. dye during the Life of A. 't is good but if he survive 't is void because no Body can be his right Heir whilst he is living and there shall be no descent to the Heir of the Donor in the mean time to support this contingent Remainder that so when B. dies his right Heirs may take In this Case a Fée did vest in Benjamin presently and therefore after his death without Issue the Defendant is his Heir and hath a good Title if not as Heir at Law yet she may take by way of Executory Devise as Heir of the Body of her Father which though it could not be whilst he was living because nemo est haeres viventis yet after his death she was Heir of his Body and was then of Age at which time and not before she was to take by the Will That Elizabeth the general Heir had only an Estate for years till Benjamin should or might be of Age And so by the Opinion of the whole Court Iudgment was given for the Defendant Evered versus Hone. SPecial Verdict in Ejectment wherein the Case was thus viz. A Man hath Issue two Sons Thomas his eldest and Richard his youngest Son Thomas hath Issue John Richard hath Issue Mary The Father devised Lands to his Son Thomas for Life Constructi-of Words in a Devise and afterwards to his Grandson John and the Heirs Males of his Body and if he die without Issue Male then to his Grandaughter Mary in Tail and charged it with some Payments in which Will there was this Proviso viz. Provided if my Son Richard should have a Son by his now Wife Margaret then all his Lands should go to such first Son and his Heirs he paying as Mary should have done Afterwards a Son was born and the Question was whether the Estate limited to Thomas the eldest Son was thereby defeated And the Court were all clear of Opinion that this Proviso did only extend to the Case of Mary's being intituled and had no influence upon the first Estate limited to the eldest Son Anonymus IN the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor Executor of an Executor de son tort not liable at Law the Lord Treasurer and two Chief Iustices the Case was thus viz. The Plaintiff had declared against the Defendant as Executor of Edward Nichols who was Executor of the Debtor The Defendant pleads that the Debtor died intestate and Administration of his Goods was granted to a Stranger absque hoc that Edward Nichols was ever Executor but doth not say or ever administred as Executor for in truth he was Executor de son tort The Plaintiff replies that before the Administration granted to the Stranger Edward Nichols possessed himself of divers Goods of the said Debtor and made the Defendant Executor and dyed and the Defendant demurred and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff but reversed here for an Executor of an Executor de son tort is not lyable at Law though the Lord Chancellor said he would help the Plaintiff in Equity But here Administration of the Goods of the Debtor was granted before the death of the Executor de son tort so his Executorship vanished and nothing shall survive The Lady Wyndham's Case IF Flotsam come to land and is taken by him who hath no Title the Action shall not be brought at the Common Law and no Proceedings shall be thereon in the Court of Admiralty for there is no need of Condemnation thereof as there is of Prizes By the Opinion of the whole Court of Common Pleas. Rose versus Standen Action where misconceived by the Plaintiff and Verdict against him no Barr to a new Action IN Accompt for Sugar and Indigoe the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff brought an Indebitatus Assumpsit a quantum meruit and an insimul computasset for 100 l. due to him for Wares sold to which he pleaded Non assumpsit and that there was a Verdict against him and then averrs that the Wares mentioned in that Action are the same with those mentioned here in the Action of Accompt The Plaintiff demurred and it was said for him that he had brought his former Action on the Case too soon for if no Accompt be stated the Action on the Case on the Insimul computasset will not lye and so the former Verdict might be given against him for that Reason Ex parte Def. But on the contrary the Defendant shall not be twice troubled for the same thing and if the Verdict had been for the Plaintiff that might have been pleaded in Barr to him in a new Action Curia 2 Cro. 284. But the Court were of another Opinion that this Plea was not good and that if the Plaintiff had recovered it could not have been pleaded in Barr to him for if he misconceives his Action and a Verdict is against him and then brings a proper Action the Defendant cannot plead that he was barred to bring such Action by a former Verdict Antea Putt and Roster Postea Rosal and Lamper Ante. because where 't is insufficient it shall not be pleaded in Barr as in Debt upon Bond the Defendant pleaded another Action upon the same Bond and the Iury found Non est factum the Entry of the Verdict was that the Defendant should recover damages eat inde sine die but not quod Querens nil capiat per Breve so no Iudgment to barr him 2 Cro. 284. But pending one Action another cannot be brought for they cannot both be true If no Accompt be stated the Action on the Case upon an Insimul computasset would not lye the Insimul computasset implies an Accompt and upon Non assumpsit pleaded the Defendant might have given payment in Evidence and for that
Nomen collectivum and if twenty Breaches had been assigned he still counts de placito quod teneat ei Conventionem inter eos fact ' And of that Opinion was the Court and that the Breach being of all three Covenants the Recovery in one would be a good Barr in any Action afterwards to be brought upon either of those Covenants Parrington versus Lee. INdebitatus Assumpsit Limitation of personal Actions only extends to accompt between Merchants Mod. Rep. 268. 2 Sand. 125 127. Pl. Com. 54. for Mony had and received to the use of the Plaintiff a quantum meruit for Wares sold and an Insimul computasset c. The Defendant pleads the Statute of Limitations viz. non assumpsit infra sex annos The Plaintiff replyed that this Action was grounded on the Trade of Merchants and brought against the Defendant as his Factor c. The Defendant rejoyns that this was not an Action of Accompt and the Plaintiff demurred for that this Statute was made in restraint of the Common Law and therefore is not to be favoured or extended by Equity but to be taken strictly and that if a Man hath a double remedy he may take which he pleaseth and here the Plaintiff might have brought an Action of Accompt or an Action on the Case grounded on an Accompt But Baldwyn Serjeant insisted that the Declaration was not full enough for the Plaintiff ought to set forth that the Action did concern Merchants Accompts and that the Replication did not help it The Court were of another Opinion for that it need not be so set forth in the Declaration because he could not tell what the Defendant would plead so that supposing him to be within the Saving of the Act his Replication is good and 't is the usual way of Pleading and no departure because the Plea of the Defendant gives him occasion thus to reply But the Saving extends only to Accompts between Merchants their Factors and Servants and an Action on the Case will not lie against a Bayliff or Factor where Allowances and Deductions are to be made unless the Accompt be adjusted and stated as it was resolved in Sir Paul Neals Case against his Bayliff Where the Accompt is once stated as it was here the Plaintiff must bring his Action within six years but if it be adjusted and a following Accompt is added in such case the Plaintiff shall not be barred by the Statute Mod. Rep. 71. because 't is a running Accompt but if he should not be barred here then the Exception would extend to all Actions between Merchants and their Factors as well as to Actions of Accompt which was never intended and therefore this Plea is good and the Saving extends only to Actions of Accompt whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Astry versus Ballard In Banco Regis Principals in Execution the Bail are lyable 1 Ventris 315 THE Defendant became Bail for six persons against whom the Plaintiff got a Iudgment and two were put in Execution the Plaintiff afterwards brought a Scire Facias against the Bail who pleaded that two of the Principals were taken in Execution before the Scire Facias brought and whether the Bail was not discharged thereby was now the Question It was agreed that if five had surrendred themselves after Iudgment 2 Cro. 320. 1 Roll. 897. yet the Bail had been lyable but are not so if the Plaintiff as in this Case hath once made his Election by suing out Execution against the Principals and thereupon two are taken and in Custody Before the Return of the second Scire Facias they have Liberty by the Law to bring in the Principals but the Plaintiff having taken out Execution he hath made it now impossible for the Bail to bring them in to render themselves But Sypmson argued that the Bail was not discharged for he ought to bring in the other four or else he hath not performed his Recognizance and so it was adjudged by the Court Sid. 107. for the Law expects a compleat satisfaction The like Resolution was in this Court between Orlibear and Norris Steed versus Perryer IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment the Case was this Republication makes it a new Will viz. Robert Perryer being seised in Fee of the Lands in question had Issue two Sons William his eldest and Robert his youngest Son and being so seised he devises these Lands to his youngest Son Robert and his Heirs Robert the Devisee dies in the Life time of his Father Jones 135. 1 Ventris 341 Mod. Rep. 267. and leaves Issue a Son named Robert who had a Legacy devised to him by the same Will The Grandfather afterwards annexed a Codicil to his Will which was agreed to be a Republication and then he expresly publishes the Will de novo and declared that his Grandson Robert should have the Land as his Son Robert should have enjoyed it had he lived And whether the Grandson or the Heir at Law had the better Title was the Question Pemberton and Maynard Serjeants argued for the Title of the Plaintiff who was Heir at Law That if a Devise be to S. and his Heirs if S. dye living the Devisor the Heir shall take nothing because no Estate vested in his Ancestor so if a Devise be to the Heirs of S. after his decease the Heir shall take by Purchase for he cannot take as Heir for the Reason aforesaid By the death of Robert the Son the Devise to him and his Heirs was void and the annexing a Codicile and Republication of the Will cannot make that good which was void before if it cannot make it good then the Heir cannot take by Purchase and by descent he cannot take for his Ancestor had no Estate and therefore he shall have none Besides this is not a good Will within the Statute which requires it to be in Writing Now the Devise by the written Will was to the Son and the Republication to the Grandson was by Words and not in Writing so that if he cannot take by the Words of the Will he is remediless and that he cannot take as Heir because his Ancestor dyed in the Life time of the Testator Moor 353. Cro. Eliz. 243. Cro. Eliz. 422. Moor 353 404. Skipwith and Barrel on the other side That the new Publication makes it good for it makes a new Will in Writing and it shall take according to the Publication which makes it have the effect of a new Will 'T is true Deeds shall not be extended father than the intent and meaning of the Parties at the time of the Delivery but Wills are to be expounded by another Rule therefore though by the death of the Son the Will was void yet by the Republication it hath a new Life 1 Roll. Abr. 618. 5 Co. 68. 8 Co. 125. The Chief Justice Wyndham and Atkins Iustices were of Opinion for the Grandson against the Heir at Law viz. That the Republication made it a
Termino Paschae Anno 27 Car. II. in Communi Banco Naylor versus Sharpless and other Coroners of Lancashire AN Action on the Case was brought for a False Return in which the Plaintiff sets forth Case for a false Return Mod. Rep. 198. that upon a Writ issuing out of this Court to the Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster Process was directed to six Coroners being the Defendants which was delivered to one of them being then in the presence of the Party who was to be arrested but he did not execute it and afterwards at the Return of the Writ they all returned Non est inventus This Action was laid in Middlesex and upon Not-Guilty pleaded the Cause came to Tryal and there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff Baldwyn Serjeant moved in arrest of Iugdment 1. Except That the Action ought not to be laid in Middlesex but in Lancashire where the Tort was committed But as to that it was answered by Serjeant Turner when two Matters both of which are material and are laid in two Counties the Action may be brought in either as if two libel in the Admiralty for a Contract made at Land in Dorsetshire and for which the Plaintiff brings an Action in London against one of them it has been adjudged the Action lies in either County 2. Except The Action will not lie against the six Coroners for the Tort was done by one alone As to that it was said all the Coroners are but one Officer so if one Sheriff suffer an Escape both are liable but in this Case it had been ill to have brought the Action only against one because the ground of it is the false Return which was made by six Coroners And as to the first Exception there could be no doubt now since after Verdict 't is * Stat. 16 17 Car. 2. c. 8. helped though the Trial be in a wrong County But the Court said that Statute helps a Mistrial in the proper County but not where the County is mistaken and inclined likewise that this Action was well brought against the six for this Tort committed by one Coroner but if it had béen for not arresting the Party in such a Case it ought to have been brought against the Coroner who was present with the person to be arrested for that had béen a personal Tort which could not have been charged upon the rest Edwards versus Roberts That he did totally forbear and doth not say hucusque good THE Plaintiff declares that the Defendant promised to pay him so much Mony in consideration that he would forbear to sue him and then he avers that he did extunc totaliter abstinere c. Vpon Non Assumpsit pleaded a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And it was now moved by Turner Serjeant in Arrest of Iudgment 1. Except The consideration intends a total forbearance and the averment is that from the making of the promise he did totally forbear but doth not say hucusque Sed non allocatur for that shall be intended And it was the Opinion of the whole Court that if the Consideration be as in this Case wholly to forbear the Plaintiff by an Averment that from the making the promise hucusque he did forbear is well entituled to an Action A like Case was this Term where the Consideration was as before and the Averment was that he forbore seven Months and being moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant Baldwyn because 't is not said hucusque which implies that after the seven Months he did not forbear it was notwithstanding held good it being a reasonable time and the rather because if the Action had been brought within the seven Months and the Plaintiff had averred that hucusque he forbore it had been good enough Quaere Reed versus Hatton IN a special Verdict in Ejectment the Question did arise upon the construction of the Words in a Will Devise paying 5 l. per annum 't is a Fee The Case being this John Thatcher was seised in Feé of the Houses in question and did devise them to his Son Robert in which Will there was this Clause viz. Which Houses I give to my Son Robert upon this Condition that he pay unto his two Sisters five pounds a year the first payment to begin at the first of the four most usual Feasts that shall next happen after the death of the Testator so as the said Feast be a Month after his death with a Clause of Entry for Non-payment The Testator dies the Houses are worth 16 l. per annum and whether Robert the Son shall have an Estate for Life only or in Fee was the Question This was argued by Jones Serjeant for the Plaintiff and by Seys Serjeant for the Defendant And for the Plaintiff it was said Ex parte Quer. that Robert had but an Estate for Life 'T is true in most Cases the Word paying makes a Fee where there is no express Fee limited but the difference is viz. where the Mony to be paid is a Sum in gross let it be equivalent or not to the value of the thing devised the Devisee shall have a Fee though the Estate be not devised to him and his Heirs but if it be an annual payment out of the thing devised as in this Case it will not create a Fee without apt words because the Devisée hath no loss and therefore it hath beén held that if a Devise be made to two Sons to the intent that they shall bear equal share towards the payment of 40 l. to his Wife for Life the Sons had only an Estate for Life because 't is quasi an annuel Rent out of the Profits and no Sum in gross * Jones 211. Cro. Car. 157. Broke Abr. tit Estate 78. And * 6 Co. 16. Colliers Case was much relied on where this very difference was taken and allowed that paying 25 l. in gross makes a Fee but paying 50 s. per annum creates only an Estate for Life All Devises are intended for the benefit of the Deviseé and therefore where a Sum in gross is devised to be paid which is done accordingly in such Case if the Deviseé should die soon after the Mony would be lost if he should have only an Estate for Life but in the Case at Bar the Testator by a nice calculation had appointed when the first payment should be made viz. not until a Month after his decease which hath prevented that damage which otherwise might have happened to the Devisee if no such provision had béen made Vide Hob. 65. Green's Case Ex parte Def. But on the other side it was said that Robert had a Fée for though here is a Sum to be paid annually 't is a Sum in gross and Collier's Case was also relied upon on this side It was agreed where payment is to be made by which the Devisee can sustain no loss the Word Paying there will not make a Fée but if there
after the Partition 2. The Rejoynder is a departure from the Plea which is that the Plaintiff never had any thing but joyntly with others and the Rejoynder is that at the time of the conversion he was joyntly possessed which is a manifest difference in point of time and such as will make a Departure 33 H. 14. Bro. Departure 28. 13. Ex parte Def. It was argued by Serjeant Hopkins for the Defendant that the Replication was not good for the Plaintiff therein had alledged a Partition by Deed and doth not say hic in Curia prolat̄ And in all Cases where a Man pleads a Deed by which he makes himself either party or privy he must produce it in Court As where the Defendant justifies in Trespass that before the Plaintiff had any thing One Purfrey was seised in Fee of the place where c. And by Indenture c. demised it to Corbet excepting the Wood c. Habendum for the Life of Ann and covenanted quod licitum foret for the said Corbet to take House-boot c. That he assigned his Interest to Ann and that the Defendant as her Servant took the Trees and upon Demurrer the Plea was held naught because though a Servant having justified by force of a Covenant he did not shew the Indenture 2 Cro. 291. Purfrey versus Grimes 6 Rep. Bellamy's Case 1 Leon. 309. Rol. Rep. 20. If a thing will pass without a Deed yet if the Party pleads a Deed and makes a Title thereby he must come with a * profert hic in Curia As to the Objection That there was a Departure he argued to the contrary For the Defendant in his Rejoynder insists only on that which was most material and the Plaintiff in his Replication had given him occasion thus to Rejoyn and though he had left out some of the time mentioned in the Bar yet the would hurt the Pleadings because a fair Issue was tendred for if at the time of the conversion he was joyntly seised he could not be entituled to the Action alone Judgment And afterwards in Trinity-Term following the Chief Iustice delivered the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was good in Barr though pleaded in Abatement and the Defendant hath election to plead either in Barr or Abatement the nature of a Plea in Abatement is to intitle the Plaintiff to a better Writ but here the Defendant shews that the Plaintiff hath no cause of Action and so it shall be taken to be in Barr And it hath been expressly resolved That where the Plea is in Abatement if it be of necessity that the Defendant must disclose matter of barr he shall have his election to take it either by way of Barr or Abatement 2 Roll. Rep. 64. Salkil versus Shilton So where Waste was brought in the tenet the Tenant pleads a Surrender to the Lessor and demands Iudgment if he should be charged in the tenet because it should have been in the tenuit and this was held a good Plea 10 H. 7.11 Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant the Chief Iustice at first doubting about the Departure and advised the Plaintiff to wave his Demurrer and to take issue upon payment of Costs Daws versus Harrison THE Plaintiff intitles himself as Administrator to Daws Administration pleaded and not loci istius ordinarius good and shews that Administration was granted to him by the Official of the Bishop of Carlisle but did not alledge him to be loci istius Ordinarius And Jones Serjeant demurred to the Declaration because it did not appear that the Official had any Iurisdiction Pl. Com. 277. a. 31. H. 6. 13. Fitz. Judg. 35. 22 H. 6. 52. 36 H. 6. 32 33. Sed non allocatur For the whole Court were of Opinion That the Declaration was good and that he shall be intended to have Iurisdiction but if it had been in the Case of a Peculiar Cro Jac. 556. Palm 97. Sid. 322. it cannot be intended that they have any authority unless set forth And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mason versus Caesar IN Trespass for pulling down of Hedges Commoner may abate Hedges made upon his Common the Defendant pleads that he had right of Common in the place where c. and the Hedges were made upon his Common so that he could not in ea parte enjoy his Common in tam amplo modo c. and so justifies the pulling them down And they were at issue whether the Defendant could enjoy the Common in tam amplo modo c. and there was a Verdict for the Defendant and Iudgment being staied 'till moved on the other side Scroggs Serjeant moved in Arrest of Iudgment because the Plea was ill and the Issue frivolous for 't is impossible that he should have Common where the Hedges are 5 Rep. 100. 9 Rep. 55. And therefore the Defendant ought to have brought an Action upon the Case or a quod permittat He cannot abate the Hedges though he might have pulled down so much as might have opened a Way to his Common 2 Cro. 195 229. The Lord hath an Interest in the Soil and a Commoner hath no authority to do any thing but to enter and put in his Beasts and not to throw down Quick-Set Hedges for that is a shelter to his Beasts But the Court were of Opinion That the Defendant might abate the Hedges for thereby he did not meddle with the Soil but only pulled down the erection and the Book of 29 E. 3. 6. was express in this point Vide 17 H. 7. 10. 16 H. 7. 8. 33 H. 6. 31. 2 Ass 12. And nothing was said concerning the Plea and so the Defendant had Iudgment Hocket and his Wife versus Stiddolph and his Wife Verdict cured a bad Declaration IN an Action of Assault and Battery brought by the Plaintiff and his Wife against the Defendant and his Wife the Iury found quoad the beating of the Plaintiffs Wife only that the Defendants are Guilty and quoad resid ' they find for the Defendants And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment by Scroggs Serjeant That the Declaration is not good because the Husband * Yelv. 106. Drury versus Dennis Sid. 376. joyns with the Wife which he ought not to do upon his own shewing for as to the Battery made upon him he ought to have brought his Action alone and the finding of the Iury will not help the Declaration which is ill in substance and thereupon Iudgment was staied but being moved again the next Term the Court were all of Opinion That the Declaration was cured by the Verdict and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Goodwin qui tam c. versus Butcher AN Information was brought upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. Buying a pretended Title cap. 9. made against buying pretended Titles which gives a Forfeiture of the value of the Land purchased unless the Seller was in possession within a
is altogether incertain for it doth not appear what is due 28 H. 8. Dyer 28. 9 Ed. 4. 16. 12 H. 8. 6. a. Ex parte Def. But it was argued for the Defendant that he need not Traverse the Accompt As to the first Objection made that the Plea is not good because it doth not answer the Declaration the Rule as to that purpose is generally good but then the Plaintiff must tell all his Case which if he omits he must then give the Defendant leave to tell where his omission is Sometimes a thing which belongs properly to another may be pleaded in bar or discharge to avoid circuity of Actions as one Covenant may be pleaded to another 1 H. 7. 15. 20 H. 7. 4. So where the Lesseé is to be dispunishable of waste he may plead it to a Writ of waste The Books note a difference where the Covenant is one or two Sentences for in the first case one Covenant may be pleaded in discharge of another but not in the last Keilway 34. 'T is true if the second Covenant had been distinct and independent it could not have been thus pleaded but in this Case 't is not said that the Covenantor for himself his Executors and Administrators doth Covenant c. but ulterius agreat̄ provisum est so that as t is penned provisum est makes a Condition and then the sense is I will accompt if you will discompt and if you refuse to discompt I cannot be charged Dyer 6. 'T is inutilis labor to make up an accompt If the other will not allow what he ought if there be an Annuity pro consilio impenso c. and he will not pay the Mony the other is not to be compelled to give his advice Fitzh Annuity 27. 25 E. 2. Annuity 44. Curia The Chief Iustice and the whole Court were of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for Arbitrations Wills and Acts of Parliament are to be taken according to the meaning of the Parties and Damages are to be given according to the merit of the Case In this Case the Defendant is bound to accompt upon request and to pay what Mony is due upon the Accompt and 't is an impertinent question for the Defendant to ask him to make allowance for Parsons Dinners before they come to accompt 'T is as if a Bailiff should say to his Lord I have laid out so much Mony and I will not accompt with you unless you will allow it this is a Capitulation before-hand and is very insignificant by way of discharge They have each a remedy upon these mutual Covenants and the provisum agreat̄ est doth not amount to a Condition but is a Covenant and Iudgment was given accordingly Iustice Ellis said he had a Manuscript Report of the Case of Ware and Chappel which he said was adjudged upon great Debate Stoutfil's Case PRohibition Tythes not to be paid for Brick or Pidgeons It was agreed clearly that no Tythes ought to be paid for Brick because 't is part of the Soil and so it has been often adjudged And it was also said that Tythes shall not be paid for Pidgeons unless it be by special Custom Columbel versus Columbel THE Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond of 500 l. Award pleaded under Seal and not under Hand not good The Defendant demands Oyer of the Bond and Condition which was to observe an Award of A. B. Arbitrator indifferently chosen to determine all manner of Controversies Quarrels and Demands concerning the Title of certain Lands so as the said Award were made and put into writing under the Hand and Seal of the Arbitrator c. and then he pleads that the Arbitrator made no Award The Plaintiff replies an Award by which such things were to be done and sets it forth in haec verba under the Seal of the Arbitrator The Defendant rejoyns that the Arbitrator made no Award under his Hand and Seal according to the Condition of the Bond. The Plaintiff demurrs for that the Defendant ought to plead the Award under the Hand as well as the Seal of the Arbitrator for when he produces it in Court as he doth by a profert hic in Curia he must plead it formally as well as produce it and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Norris versus Trist Livery secundum formam Chartae where good IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment The Case was A Deéd is made to threé Habendum to two for their Lives Remainder to the third for his Life and Livery and Seisin is made to all thrée secundum formam Chartae And whether the Livery so made as if they had all Estates in possession whereas in truth one of them had but an Estate in Remainder was good was the Question On the one side it was said by Serjeant Seys that possession in this Case was delivered according to the form of the Deéd within mentioned which must be to two for Life Remainder to the third person and Livery and Seisin being only to accomplish and perfect the Common Assurances of the Land ought to be taken favourably ut res magis valeat quam pereat and therefore if a Feoffment be made of two Acres and a Letter of Attorny to give Livery and the Attorny only enters into one Acre and gives Livery secundum formam Chartae both the Acres pass Dyer 131 40. Coke Litt. 52. a. But on the other side Serjeant Maynard said that there was something more in this Case than what had béen opened for there was a Letter of Attorney made to give Livery to two and instead of doing that he makes Livery to them all which is no good Execution of his Authority and therefore no Livery was made the Authority not being pursued As to the Case in the 1st Institutes my Lord Coke errs very much there in that discourse for in saying that if there be a Feoffment of two Acres and a Letter of Attorney to take possession of both and he maketh Livery of both but taketh possession but of one and that both pass 't is not Law but if the Authority be general as to make Livery and Seisin and he take possession of one and then makes Livery of more secundum formam Chartae that is good and this is the difference taken in the Books 5 Ed. 3. 65. 3 Ed. 3. 32. 43 Ed. 3. 32. 27 H. 8. 6. The Remainder Man in this Case is a méer Stranger to the Livery There is also a manifest difference betwéen a Matter of Interest and an Execution of an Authority for in the first Case it shall be construed according to the Interest which either hath but an Authority must be strictly pursued The Court were all of Opinion that the Livery in this Case was good to two for their Lives Remainder to the third person Curia And the Chief Iustice said that whatever the ancient Opinions were about pursuing
pass why did they levy this Fine sur concessit They might have levyed a Fine sur Cognisance de droit come ceo c. and that had beén a Disseisin Besides what need was there for them to mention any Estate which they had in these Houses if they had intended a Disseisin But this being done such a Construction is to be made as may support the intent of the Parties and it would be very unreasonable that what was intended to preserve the Estate should now be adjudged to work a Dissesin so as to forfeit it and such a Disseisin upon which this collateral Warranty shall operate and barr the Estate in Remainder And therefore no more shall pass by this Fine than what lawfully may and rather than it shall be construed to work a Wrong the Estate shall pass by fractions for both the Estates of William Mitton for Life are not so necessarily joyned and united by this Fine that no room can be left for such a Construction 2. Such a Construction will not agreé with the Nature and Words of this Fine 'T is true a Fine as it is of the most solemn and of the greatest Authority so 't is of the greatest force and efficacy to convey an Estate and the most effectual Feoffment of Record where 't is a Feoffment and likewise the most effectual Release where 't is to be a Release But on a bare Agreément made in Actions betwéen the Demandant and Tenant at the Barr and drawn up there the Iudges will alter and amend such Fines if they did not in all things answer the intention of the Parties 24 Ed. 3. 36. Postea 'T is agreed that Fines can work a Disseisin when they can have no other Interpretation as if Tenant pur auter vie levy a Fine to a Stranger for his own Life 't is more than such a Tenant could do because his Estate was during the Life of another and no longer So a Fine sur Cognisance de droit c. implies a Fée which being levyed by any one who has but a particular Estate will make a Disseisin But this Fine sur concessit has beén always taken to be the most harmless of all others and can be compared to nothing else than a Grant of totum statum suum quicquid habet c. by which no more is granted than what the Cognisor had at the time of the Grant and so it hath been always construed Indéed there is a Fine sur concessit which expresses no Estate of the Grantor and this is properly levyed by Tenant in Fée or Tail but when particular Tenants pass over their several Estates they generally grant totum quicquid habent in tenementis praedictis being very cautious to express what Estate they had therein When this Fine sur concessit was first invented the Iudges in those days looked upon the Words quicquid habent c. to be insignificant and for that reason in Anno 17 E. 3. 66. they were refused The case was Two Husbands and their Wives levied such a Fine to the Cognisee and thereby granted totum quicquid habent c. which Words were rejected and the Iudge would not pass the Fine because if the Party had nothing in the Land then nothing passed and so is 44 Ed. 3. 36. By which it appears that the Iudges in those times thought these Fines did pass no more than what the Cognisor had and for this there are multitude of Authorities in the Year Books Now these Words cannot have a signification to enlarge the Estate granted they serve only to explain what was intended to pass for in the Case at the Barr if the Grant had béen totum quicquid habent in tenementis praedictis there would have been no question of the Estate granted but the Cognisors having granted tenementa praedicta they seem by these subsequent Words to recollect themselves viz. totum quicquid habent in tenementis praedictis Object But it may be objected that the Limitation of the Estate viz. durante vita eorum alterius eorum diutius viventis works a Disseisin because by those Words two Estates for Life pass entire in possession whereas in truth there was but one Estate for Life of the Husband in possession and therefore this was more than they could grant because the Estate Tayl came between the Estate which the Husband and Wife had for their Lives and for the Survivor of them and the Estate which the Husband had for his own Life And this is farther enforced by that Rule in Law That Estates shall not pass by fractions for otherwise there can be no reason why they should not thus pass Answ But this Rule is very fallible and not so much to be regarded 't is true the Rule is so far admitted to be true where without inconveniency Estates may pass without fraction but where there is an inconveniency it may be dispensed withal it being such an inconveniency as may appear to the Iudges to make the thing granted to go contrary to the intent of the Parties And that such Interpretations have been made agrees with the third Reason proposed in this Case viz. That it hath received countenance by judicial Opinions and determinations in former Iudgments 14 E. 4. 4. 27 H. 8. 13. 1 Co. 67. Bredons Case which was thus Tenant for life remainder in tayl to A. remainder in tayl to B. Tenant for life and he in the first remainder levied a Fine sur cognisance de droit come ceo 't was adjudged that this was no Discontinuance of either of the Remainders 1 Roll. Abr. lit I. pl. 4. 1 Inst 45. a. Cro. Car. 406. because each of them gave what he might lawfully viz. The Tenant for Life granted his Estate and the Remainder-man passed a Fee-simple determinable upon his Estate Tail and yet each of their Estates were still divided On the other side it was said that in all Cases where the person who hath a particular Estate takes upon him either by Feoffment in pais or by Fine which is a Feoffment on Record to grant a greater Estate than he hath as in this Case is done though possibly the Estate of the Grantée may determin before that of the Grantor yet 't is a displacing the Reversion as if a Man has an Estate for ten Lives and makes a Grant for the Life of another here is a possibility that the Estate which he granted may be longer than the Estate he had in the thing granted because one Man may survive the Ten and for that reason 't is a divesting 1. In this Case the Estate which the Husband and Wife had is to be considered 2. What they granted And by comparing of these together it will appear whether they granted more than they had The Husband and Wife had an Estate for the Life of the Wife and after the Estate Tail the Husband had an Estate for his own Life now they grant
pleaded Debt for Escape lies against the Warden of the Fleet as superior the Grantee for life being insufficient Jones 60. 1 Vent 314. the Iury found a special Verdict upon which the Case was this Viz. That Sir Jeremy Whitchot was seised in Fee of the Office of Warden of the Fleet and of several Mesuages thereunto belonging and being so seised did make a Grant thereof to one Duckenfield for life and for the lives of three more Duckenfield by Rule of Court was admitted into the said Office being approved by the Court and esteemed a Man of an Estate He suffers a Prisoner afterwards to Escape and being not able to make the Plaintiff satisfaction this Action was brought against Sir Jeremy Whitchot the now Defendant and whether he was chargeable or not with this Action was the Question Wallop who argued for the Plaintiff said Ex parte Quer. That he would not take up any of their time to make a Narrative of Imprisonment for Debt or what remedy there was for Escapes at Common Law and what remedy by the Statute but supposing an Action of Debt will lye whether it be by the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 11. for at the Common Law before the making of that Act Sid. 306 397. an Action of Debt would not lye against the Goaler for an Escape but a special Action on the Case grounded on a Trespass or whether this Action lay against the Defendant by the Statute of 1 R. 2. 2 Inst 382. cap. 12. which gives it against the Warden of the Fleet who in this case had not the actual Free-hold in possession but the inheritance and not the immediate Estate but the Reversion is in Question The Office of the Warden of the Fleet may be taken in two capacities either as an Estate or common Hereditament wherein a Man may have an Inheritance and which may be transferred from one to another or as a publick Office wherein the King and the People may have a special Interest As 't is an Inheritance transferrable 't is subject to the Rules of Law in point of Descent and is demisable for Life in Fee Tayl Possession or Reversion and in many things is common and runs parallel with other Estates of Inheritance 'T is true he cannot grant this Office for years not for any disability in the Grantor but in respect of the matter and nature of the thing granted it being an Office of Trust and Personal for otherwise it would go to the Executor which is inconvenient 9 Co. 96. Sir George Reynell's Case To enquire what superiority the reversioner hath over the particular Estate is not to the point in Question but there is such an intimacy and privity between them that in Iudgment of Law they are accounted as one Estate And therefore Littleton Sect. 452 453 saith that a Release made to a Reversioner shall aid and benefit him who hath the particular Estate and likewise a Release made to the Tenant of the Freehold shall enure to him in Reversion because they are privies in Estate so that these two Estates in the Case at Bar make but one Office This is a publick Office of great Trust and concerns the Administration of Iustice and therefore 't is but reasonable to admit the Rule of Respondeat Superior lest the Party should be without remedy and the rather because Execution is the life of the Law 39 H. 6. 33. He who is in the Office as Superiour whether it be by droit or tort is accountable to the King and his People and this brings him within the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 11. or 1 R. 2. If the Defendant had granted the Office in Fee to Duckenfeild before any Escape had been and the Grantee had been admitted the Defendant then had been discharged or if he dye before or after the Action brought and before Iudgment moritur actio cum persona for if he had not reserved something he could not be charged and if he had parted with the Inheritance the privity had been gon but by reserving that he hath made himself liable for now he is Superiour he may exact Homage and Fealty and the particular Tenant is said to be attendant upon the Reversion and these are marks of Superiority And this Rule of respondeat superior holds not only between the principal Officer and his Deputy and between the Master and his Servant but in many other Cases one is to be answerable for another as 1. Where a Man has power to elect an Officer he is chargeable so the County hath power to elect Coroners and if they fail in their Duty the County shall be charged for by reason of the power they had to elect they are esteemed Superiours 4 Inst 314. 2 Inst 175. 2. Where one Man recommends another to an Office concerning the Kings Revenue the person who recommends is liable if the other prove insufficient and for this there is a notable Case 30 E. 3. 6. 'T is Porter's Case cited in the Case of the Earl of Devonshire 11 Co. 92. b. Where Porter being Master of the Mint covenanted with the King to deliver him Mony within 8 days for all the Bullion delivered ad Cambium Regis to Coyn which he did not perform Et quia Walwyn Picard duxerunt praesentaverunt the said Porter ideo consideratum est quod onerentur versus Dominum Regem 4 Inst 466. And why not the Defendant in this Case who praesentavit the said Duckenfeild to the Court tanquam sufficientem the reason being the same and the King is as much concerned in the ordering this Court of Iustice as in the ordering of his Coffers for as the Treasure is Nervus Belli so the execution of the Law is Nervus Pacis 3. In the Case of a dependant Officer though he is a proper Officer and no Deputy the person who hath the Reversion shall answer as in 32 H. 6. 34. 2 Inst 382. 9 Rep. 98. Dyer 278. b. The Duke of Norfolk who had the Inheritance of the Marshalsea was charged for an Escape suffered by one Brandon who was Tenant for Life in possession of the said Office and there is great reason it should be so for when a principal Officer may make an inferiour Officer who afterwards commits a Forfeiture the superiour shall take advantage of this Forfeiture and 't is as reasonable he should he answerable for his Miscarriage Cro. Eliz. 384. Poph. 119 The Earl of Pembrook against Sir Henry Berkley And therefore admitting the Defendant is out of the Statute yet he is within the Maxim of Respondeat Superior which is not grounded upon any Act of Parliament as appears in the Case of the Coroner and the Statute of Westm 2. And all other Acts which inculcate this Rule are but in affirmance of the Common Law and this is not only a Rule of the Common but also of the Civil Law which is served with the Equity of this Maxim in
unruly and endeavour to escape but 't is expresly against the Law to do it where there is no such reason because a Prison is for the safe Custody of Men and not to punish them 1 Inst 260. a. So that it appears by this that a stricter remedy was provided for Executions in Accompt than for those in Debt 3. There are certain persons also who are made chargeable by this Statute when the Execution is in Accompt who cannot be charged in Debt for the Statute Enacts That if the Party escape the Officer in whose Custody he is shall answer sive infra Libertatem sive extra so that the Gaoler shall be charged whether he be of a Franchise or of the County at large but if a Man is in Execution for Debt and then escapes the Gaoler is not lyable but the Sheriff though the * 3 Co. 71. Westby's Case Gaoler hath the Custody of the Body of one whom the late Sheriff did not deliver over to the present Sheriff So that in this also there is a difference upon this Statute between Actions of Accompt and Actions of Debt and therefore the Clause therein of Respondeat Superior being made upon a particular occasion only in the Case of Accompt shall not be extended to other Matters and can in no wise influence this Case which for other Reasons cannot be governed by that Rule if extended to all who have power to depute an Officer and thereby give him an Interest or to appoint one for a time 2. Point 1. Because he in Reversion is not in propriety of Speech a Superior for 't is not said that a Reversioner after an Estate for Life is Superior and of more accompt in the Law than he who hath the particular Estate but on the contrary he who hath the Fréehold is of greater accompt and regard in the Law than the Reversioner after him and if as it hath been objected both make but one Estate then there can be no Superiority and it would be very hard and difficult for any Man to prove that any Attendancy is made by the Tenant for Life upon him who hath the Reversion 2. Here is room enough within the Statute to satisfie that word Superior by a plain and clear construction without bringing in the Reversioner for if the Sheriff makes a Deputy or a Lord makes Bayliff of a Liberty the Sheriff and the Lord are properly the Superiors 3. This word Superior is used in the Statute made the same year with this cap. 2. in signification agreeable with the Case in question for it recites that where Lords of Fees distrain their Tenants for Rents and Services and they having replevied their Cattle do alien or sell them so that a Return cannot be made then it provides that the Sheriff or Bailiff shall take Pledges to prosecute the Suit before they make deliverance of the Distress and if the Bayliff be not able to restore that is if he take insufficient Pledges the Superior shall answer by which the Parliament could mean no other than the Lord of that Liberty for if it should be otherwise there would be no end of Superiors as if there is a Bailiwick in Fee of a Liberty and the Bayliff thereof grants it for Life in this Case there are two Superiors for the Lord of the Bayliff is one and the Bayliff himself is another which cannot be 2 Inst 382. There is a Congruity in Law in saying the Sheriff and Lord are Superiors but there can be none in making the Reversioner a Superior The Lord may lose the Liberty if his Bayliff for Life or in Fee commit a Forfeiture as by not attending the Iustices in Eyre but a Reversion cannot be lost by the Forfeiture of the Tenant for Life if the Bayliff make an ill Execution of a Writ or suffer the Party to escape the Lord shall answer so if the Marshal of England appoint a Marshal there may be a Forfeiture of his Office because 't is but still the same Office and therefore the Case in Cro. Eliz. 386. where 't is said If an Office be granted for Life the Forfeiture of Tenant for Life shall be the Forfeiture of the whole Office is mistaken for in Moor pl. 987. 't is held otherwise and upon the true difference between a Deputy and a Granteé for Life for in the first Case there may be a Forfeiture of the Superior because 't is still but the same Office but in the other Case the Superior shall not forfeit for any Misdemeanour of the Grantée for Life because he hath the Freehold of the whole Office and the other nothing but the Reversion and therefore if the Defendant be liable in this Case 't is in respect 1. That he hath granted the Estate 2. That he hath the Reversion or Residue after the Life of the Grantee He cannot be charged in respect that he hath granted the Estate because the Freehold is gone and in another neither can he be charged in respect of the Reversion because then not only his Heir but the Assigneé of the Reversion will be chargeable also which cannot be As to the second Point of this Argument if the Defendant is not chargeable by this Statute he is not to be charged at the Common Law Sid. 306 397. 2. Because the Common Law doth not give an Action of Debt for an Escape but an Action on the Case only neither doth it give any Remedy but against the Party offending As to the Case that hath beén objected upon the Statute de Scaccario where the several Officers in the Exchequer shall answer in their degrées of Superiority that cannot be applicable to this Case because there can be no proportion betweén things which concern the Kings Revenue and Prerogative and those of a common person The Cases of the Coroner and the Sheriff and of the recommending of a Receiver to the King are not like this Case because the King cannot inform himself of the sufficiency of the Party recommended and therefore 't is but reasonable that he who recommends should be liable and can it be said that when the Defendant was about to sell this Office to one Norwood which he hath since done that if a Stranger had recommended Norwood and he had proved insufficient that the Stranger would have béen liable As for the Civil Law and the Authorities therein cited to govern this Case he did not answer them because they judge after their Law and the Common Lawyers after another way This Office hath béen granted time out of mind for Life and no doubt but many Escapes have been made but never was any Action brought against him in the Reversion before now The Court of Common Pleas always examine the sufficiency of the Grantee for Life which shews that in all succession of Ages the Opinions of Learned Men were that no Escape could be brought against the Reversioner for if so what need is there of such Examination This was urged
By the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 5. the Ordinary is to grant Administration to the Widow of the Intestate or to the next of his Kin or to both as by his discretion he shall think good and in Case where divers persons claim the Administration as next of Kin which be in equal degree the Ordinary may commit Administration to which he pleaseth and his power was not abridged but rather revived by this late Act by which 't is Enacted 22 23 Car. 2. That just and equal distribution shall be made amongst Wife and Children or next of Kin in equal degree or legally representing their Stocks pro suo cuique jure and the Children of the half Blood do in the Civil Law legally represent the Father and to some purposes are esteemed before the Vncles of the whole Blood 'T is no Objection to say that because the Law rejects the half Blood as to Inheritances therefore it will do the same as to personal Estates because such Estates are not to be determined by the Common but by the Canon or Civil Law and if so the half Blood shall come in for distribution for this Act of Parliament confirms that Law Winnington Sollicitor General contra He agreed that before this Act the half Blood was to have equal share of the Intestates Estate but that now the Ordinary was compelled to make such distribution and to such persons as by the Act is directed for he had not an original power to grant Administration in any case that did belong to the Temporal Courts Sid. 370 371. but it was given to him by the Indulgence of Princes not quatenus a Spiritual Person Hensloes Case 9 Co. Bendl. 133. And if he had not power in any Case he could not grant to whom he pleased But admitting he could his power is now abridged by this Statute and he cannot grant but to the Wife and Children or next of Kin in equal degrée or legally representing their Stocks Now such legal representation must be according to the Rules of the Common and not of the Civil Law for if there be two lawful Brothers and a Bastard eigne and a Question should arise concerning the distribution of an Intestates Estate the subsequent Marriage according to the Law in the Spiritual Court would make the latter legitimate and if so a legal Representative amongst them but this Court will never allow him so to be But the Court were all of Opinion that in respect of the Father the half Blood is as near as those of the whole and therefore they are all alike and shall have an equal distribution and that such Construction should be made of the Statute as would be most agreeable to the Will of the dead person if he had devised his Estate by Will and it was not to be imagined if such Will had been made but something would have been given to the Children of the half Blood And thereupon a Consultaion was granted Anonymus In C. B. FAux Judgment viz. Serjeant Turner took this Exception that the Plaintiff in the Court below had declared ad damnum 20 l. whereas it not being a Court of Record and being sine Brevi the Court could not hold Plea of any Sum above 40 s. and for this Cause the Iudgment was reversed DE Termino Paschae Anno 29 Car. II. in Communi Banco Southcot versus Stowel Intrat ' Hill 25 26 Car. 2. Regis Rot. 1303. IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment The Case was Covenant to stand seised how it differs from a Conveyance at the Common Law Mod. Rep. 226. Thomas Southcot having Issue two Sons Sir Popham and William and being seised in Fée of a Farm called Indyo the Lands now in question did upon the Marriage of his eldest Son Sir Popham covenant to stand seised of the said Farm to the use of the said Sir Popham Southcot and the Heirs Males of his Body on Margaret his Wife to be begotten and for want of such Issue to the Heirs Males of the Covenantor and for want of such Issue to his own right Heirs for ever Sir Popham had Issue begotten on his Wife Margaret Edward his Son and five Daughters and dies Thomas the Covenantor dies Edward dies without Issue And whether the five Daughters as Heirs general of Thomas or William their Vncle as special Heir Male of Thomas per formam doni shall inherit this Land was the Question Two Objections were made against the Title of William the Vncle. 1. Vaugh. 49. Because here is no express Estate to Thomas the Covenantor for 't is limited to his Heirs Males the Remainder to his own right Heirs so that he having no Estate for Life the Estate Tail could not be executed in him and for that reason William cannot take by descent 2. He cannot take by Purchase for he is to be Heir of Thomas and Heir Male the Limitation is so but he cannot be Heir for his five Nieces are Heirs In answer to which these Assertions were laid down 1. That in this Case Thomas the Covenantor hath an Estate for Life by implication and so the Estate Tail being executed in him comes to William by descent and not by purchase for though the Covenantor had departed with his whole Estate and limited no Vse to himself yet he hath a Reversion because he can have no right Heir while he is living and therefore the Statute of 27 H. 8. Hob. 30. creates an Vse in him till the future use cometh in esse and by consequence the right Heirs cannot take by purchase for wherever the Heir takes by purchase the Ancestor must depart with his whole Fee for which reason a Fee cannot be raised by way of purchase to a Mans right Heirs by the name of Heirs either by Conveyance of Land or by Vse or Devise but it works by descent 1 Inst 22. b. And that Vses may arise by Implication by Covenants to stand seized the Authorities are very plentiful Moor 284. 1 Co. 154. Lord Paget's Case cited in the Rector of Cheddington's Case Cro. Eliz. 321. 1 Roll. Rep. 239 240 317 438. Lane vers Pannel Cor. Car. And in the Case of Hodgkinson and Wood in a Devise there was the same limitation as this the Case was Thomas being seised in Fee had Issue Francis and William by several Venters and devised Land to Francis his eldest Son for Life then to the Heirs Males of his Body and for default of such Issue to the Heirs Males of William and the Heirs Males of their Bodies for ever and for default of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Devisor then he made a Lease to William for 30 years to commence after his death and dies William Enters and Surenders this Lease to Francis who Enters and makes a Lease to the Defendant and dyes without Issue and William Enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff it was adjudged for William because he being
the space of 14 days after complaint made then the Sub-Commissioners of the Excise are to determine the same from whom no Appeal doth lye to the Justices of the Peace at their next Sessions which Commissioners of Excise Justices of the Peace and Sub-Commissioners amongst other things are inabled by the said Act to Issue out Warrants under their Hands c. to levie the Forfeitures and so justified the Entry under a Warrant from the Sub-Commissioners three Iustices having refused to hear and determine this Offence To this Plea the Plaintiffs demurred and had Iudgment in the Court of Kings-Bench and a Writ of Inquiry of Damages was Executed and 750 l. Damages given and it was alledged that the Defendant could not move to set aside the Iudgment in that Term it was given because the Writ of Inquiry was executed the last day of the Term and the Court did immediatly rise and that he could not move the next Term because the Iudgment was given the Term before the Writ of Error was brought The Attorny General therefore said that this was a hard Case and desired a Note of the Exceptions to the Plea which he would endeavour to maintain which Mr. Pollexfen gave him and then he desired time to answer them The Exception to the Plea upon which the Iudgment was given was this Viz. The Act giveth no power to the Sub-Commissioners to hear and determine the Offences and so to issue out Warrants for the Forfeitures but where the Iustices or any two of them refuse And though it was said by the Defendant that three refused yet it was not said that two did refuse for there is a great difference between the allegation of a thing in the Affirmative and in the Negative for if I affirm that A. B. C. did such a thing that affirmation goes to all of them but negatively it will not hold for if I say A. B. C. did not such a thing there I must add nec eorum aliquis So if an Action be brought against several Men and a Nolle prosequi is entred as to one and a Writ of Enquiry awarded against the rest which recites That the Plaintiff did by Bill implead naming those only against whom the Inquiry was awarded and leaves out him who got the Nolle prosequi this is a variance for it should have been brought against them all 'T is true where a Iudgment is recited 't is enough to mention those only against whom it is had but the Declaration must be against all so in a Writ of Error if one is dead he must be named and so the Iustices ought all to be named in this Case viz. that the three next Iustices did not hear and determine this Offence nec eorum aliquis Wells versus Wright In Communi Banco DEBT upon Bond conditioned Bond with an insensible Condition good that if the Obligée shall pay 20 l. in manner and form following that is to say 5 l. upon four several days therein named but if default shall be made in any of the Payments then the said Obligation shall be void or otherwise to stand in full force and vertue The Defendant pleads that tali die c. non solvit 5 l. c. and upon this the Plaintiff demurred Barrel Serjeant The first part of the Condition is good which is to pay the Mony and the other is surplusage void and insensible but if it be not void it may be good by transsposing thus viz. If he do pay then the Obligation shall be void if default shall be made in Payment then it shall be good and for Authority in the Point the Case of Vernon and Alsop was cited Sid. 105. 1 Sand. 66. 2 Sand. 79. Hill 14 Car. 2. Rot. 1786. in B. R. Where the Condition was that if the Obligée pay 2 s. per Week until the Sum of 7 l. 10 s. be paid viz. on every Saturday and if he fail in Payment at any one day that the Bond shall be void and upon the like Plea and Demurrer as here it was adjudged that the Obligation was single and the Condition repugnant The Court were all of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff and the Chief Iustice said that he doubted whether the Case of 39 H. 6. 9 10. was Law Brittam versus Charnock Where the the Heir takes by the Will with a Charge he is a Purchaser and the Lands shall not be Assets DEBT upon Bond against the Defendant as Heir Vpon Riens per discent pleaded the Iury found a Special Verdict in which the Case was viz. The Father was seized of a Messuage and thrée Acres of Land in Fee and devised the same to his eldest Son the Defendant and his Heirs within four years after his decease provided the Son pay 20 l. to the Executrix towards the Payment of the Testators Debts and then he deviseth his other Lands to be sold for payment of Debts c. The Father dies the Son pays the 20 l. and if this Messuage c. was Assets in the Hands of the Defendant was the Question Cro. Car. 161. Cro. Eliz. 431. 833. Vaugh. 271. That it was not Assets it was said because the Heir shall not take by descent but by Purchase for the Word Paying is no Condition if it should the Heir is to enter for the breach and that is the Defendant himself and for that reason it shall be a Limitation Southcot and Stowel Antea 'T is true where there is no alteration of the Estate the Heir must take by descent but in this Case there is an alteration of the Estate from what is directed by the Law viz. the manner how he shall come by the Estate for no Fee passeth to him during the four years But this was denyed by Serjeant Pemberton for he said if a Devise be of Land to one and his Heirs within four years it is a present Devise and if such be made to the Heir 't is a descent in the mean time and those Words within four years are void so that the Question will be whether the Word Paying will make the Heir a Purchaser and he held it would not He agreed that it was usual to make that a Word of Limitation and not a Condition when the Devise is to the Heir and therefore in a Devise to the Heir at Law in Fée he shall take by descent Styles Rep. 148. But if this be neither a Condition or Limitation 't is a Charge upon the Land and such a Charge as the Heir cannot avoid in Equity North Chief Iustice and Atkins Where the Heir takes by a Will with a Charge as in this Case he doth not take by Descent but by Purchase and therfore this is no Assets Moor versus Pit SPecial Verdict in Ejectment The Case was this Surrender of a Copyhold to a Disseisor whether good to extinguish the Right viz. A Copyholder for Life the Remainder for Life he in
Heirs and Assigns that he and they from time to time during the said Lease should have liberty and full power to Fell the said Trees and root them up repairing the Hedges where they did grow That the said Martin granted some of the Trees to the Defendant by virtue whereof he and the rest of his Servants did cut them down which is the same breaking of the Close of which the Plaintiff complains To which Plea Mr. Pollexfen did demurr for the Insufficiency because the Defendant did not shew that upon cutting down the Trees he did repair the Hedges as by the Agreement ought to have been done for this being a limited and qualified power ought to be set forth at large and that it was a power only annexed to the Reversion and not assignable to any one else and so the Defendant hath wholly failed in his Plea he might have justified under Martin but not in any of their own Rights But the Court were of Opinion That an Action doth lie in this Case both against the Lessor and his Assignee acting under his Power and they agreed that a bare power was not assignable but where 't is coupled with an Interest it may be assigned and here was an Interest annexed to the power for the Lessor might sever the Trees from the Reversion Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Scoble versus Skelton Presciption must be alledged with a Seisin in Fee THE Plaintiff declared That he was seised of a Tenement called East and the Defendant of another Tenement called West Travallock and that he and all those whose Estate he had did use to fetch Pot Water from the Defendants Close c. Issue was taken upon this Prescription and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Mr. Pollexfen moved in Arrest of Iudgment That the Declaration did set forth generally that he was seised and it did not appear it was in Fee for if it be for Life only then the Action doth not lie because a Prescription cannot be annexed to an Estate for Life Tremain insisted that the Declaration was sufficient and certain enough for when the Plaintiff doth alledge that he was seised generally it shall be intended a seisin in Fee especially after Verdict But the Court held the Declaration to be defective in Substance because a Prescription cannot be annexed to any thing but an Estate in Fee and therefore 't is not helped after Verdict The Iudgment was reversed Putt versus Roster A Recovery in Trespass good Plea in bar to an Action of Trover TRespass for taking of his Cattle The Defendant justifies for a Herriot and upon a Demurrer had Iudgment The Plaintiff did afterwards bring an Action of Trover and Conversion for the same Cattle and the Defendant pleaded the former Iudgment in Trespass in barr to this Action of Trover and the Plaintiff demurred Serjeant Maynard argued That the Plea was not good because Trespass and Trover are distinct Actions and one may be where the other is not as if an Infant give Goods to one an Action of Trover doth lie to recover them but Trespass will not So if Goods be delivered to another and he refuse to deliver them upon demand Trover but not Trespass will lie and therefore these being different Actions a Recovery in one shall be no barr to the other A Formedon brought in the Descender and Iudgment thereon is not pleadable in barr to a Formedon in Remainder There is a great difference between a barr to the Action 5 Co. 33.6 Co. 37. a. Cro. El. 667. Eo Entr. 38. b. 2 Cro. 15. pl. 20. Antea and to the Right as where an Administrator sues not knowing that he was made Executor and Iudgment against him and he afterwards proved the Will and brought an Action as Executor the former Iudgment had against him as Administrator shall not be a barr to this new Action because 't is not a barr to the Right for by misconceiving his Action the former abated But Mr. Holt argued That these were Actions of the same nature and therfore a Iudgment in one was a good Plea in barr to the other Trespass or Trover lies for taking or carrying away the Goods of another and when he hath made his Election which to bring a Recovery there shall be a perpetual barr to the other In an Appeal of Mayhem 4 Co. 39. the Defendant pleaded a former Recovery in an Action of Assault and Battery and held good though one is of a higher nature than the other But the Court were of Opinion Curia Rose and Standen Antea That an Action of Trover doth lie where a Trespass doth not and if the Plaintiff hath mistaken his Action that shall be no barr to him As to the Case put of the Mayhem Rozal and Lampen Antea that doth not agree with this because there can be no Mayhem without an Assault but there may by a Trover without a Trespass and though the Appeal of Mayhem be of a higher nature than the Assault because it doth suppose quod felonice Mayhemiavit yet the Plaintiff can only recover damages in both If a Man bring Trespass for the taking of a Horse and is barred in that Action yet if he can get the Horse in his possession the Defendant in the Trespass can have no Remedy because notwithstanding such Recovery the Property is still in the Plaintiff The Defendant in this Case hath justified the taking of the Cattle for a Herriot and by the Demurrer the justification is confessed to be true in fact now by the taking for a Herriot the property of the Goods was altered and wherever the Property is determined in Trespass an Action of Trover will never lie for the same but 't is a good Plea in barr and so it was adjudged here James versus Trollop Prescription for a Modus good ERror of a Iudgment in the Common-Pleas on an Action upon a Prohibition where the Plaintiff did suggest That William late Prior of Norbury in Staffordshire was seised of the said Mannor and of the Tythes thereof simul semel as of a portion of Tythes c. That the said Prior 25 H. 1. granted the said Mannor and Tythes to William Fitzherbert and his Heirs rendring Rent That the said Fitzherbert did Enter and was seised and held it discharged of Tythes that his Heirs afterwards granted two Hides of Land part of the said Mannor to S. with the Tythes at 5 s. Rent and so draws down a Title by Descent for 300 years to F. who being seised devised the same to Dorothy James under whom the Plaintiff in the Prohibition claimed and then concludes That Fitzherbert and all those whose Estate c. did pay the said Rent to the said Prior which since the Dissolution was paid to the King and his Assigns in discharge of all Tythes c. The Defendant having craved Oyer of the Deed demurred to the Suggestion and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff
Habens legale jus titulum need not shew what Title the disturber had after Verdict 213 In a Bond to pay 40 l. when an Accompt is stated by two Attornies to be chosen between the Parties 't is a Covenant and not a solvendum 266 Breach is assigned relating to three Covenants and concludes sic Conventionem fregit 't is good 311 Where an Agreement to pay will amount to a Covenant 269 Covenants reciprocal cannot be pleaded in bar to each other 34 75 76 309 Breach where assigned and not necessary to aver performance on the part of the Plaintiff 309 Court Inferiour the cause of Action must arise within the Jurisdiction 30 Judgment therein arrested because the Damages were laid to 30 l. 101 102 For not saying that the Jurors were electi ad triand ' 102 Taliter processum fuit and the proceedings not set forth at large well enough in a Plea but not in a Writ of Error 102 195 Vi armis contra pacem whether good or not 102 Cannot hold Plea for work done without the Jurisdiction though the Promise be made within 141 Cause of Action must appear to be within the Jurisdiction to oust the Courts above 197 Where it doth not appear that the Court was held either by Grant or Prescription good 197 198 If the cause of Action doth not appear to be within the Jurisdiction though there is a Judgment recovered below yet an Action of Trespass will lye and false Imprisonment upon the taking out of that Judgment 197 If upon Evidence it appear that the cause of Action did arise extra Jurisdictionem the Plaintiff must be non-suit 273 If Jurisdiction be admitted in pleading and Verdict and Judgment thereon t is too late for a Prohibition Ibid. Court Ecclesiastical In what Case a Bishop shall administer an Oath in Temporal Matters 118 Custom One cannot be pleaded in bar to another 105 In pleading it must be strictly alledged 41 Where 't is a reasonable Custom for the Lord to have derelict Lands 107 D. Day Vide Plea WHere 't is excluded being alledged in the Declaration it makes the Plea ill 146 'T is but punctum temporis and of no consideration in the Law 281 Release of all demands usque 26 April a Bond dated that day is not released 281 Debt Upon the Sheriffs Bond will be good though the Statute be not pleaded 36 Will lye upon the Contract where the whole Term is assigned 174 175 176 Whether it will lye for a Fine set by a Steward for 't is ex quasi contractu 230 It must be upon the Contract or ex quasi contractu 262 Deed. Where 't is lost the Party must make Oath of it to entitle himself to a Bill in Equity to have it performed in Specie 173 Demand Must be made where an Interest is to be determined 264 Devise To a Man and his Heirs if the Devisee die in the Life time of the Devisor his Heir takes nothing 313 Republication makes it a new Will ibid. To the Heir at Law makes a Limitation and not a Condition 7 To an Infant in ventre sa mere if there is a sufficient description of him 't is good 9 Where the word paying makes a Fee where not 26 To him till he be of Age then to him in Fee he dyed within Age yet a Free-hold vested in him presently 289 To him in Fee when of Age if he dye before then to the Heirs of the Body of R. and their Heirs he died living R. within Age his Sister and Heir shall take by way of Executory devise 289 Executory devise how it differs from a contingent Remainder at Common Law ibid. Construction of words therein 290 Departure From his Plea 31 Disability By a Statute where it ought to be removed by the Party to enable himself to execute an Office 299 Discharge By Parol good before the breach of promise but not afterwards 259 Discontinuance Where amendable 316 In pleading the Plaintiff declared of taking several things the Defenant justifies as to part and saith nothing of the residue 259 In the Adjournment of a Court where a day certain is not given 59 Distress Cannot be of Sheaves of Corn in Shocks for Rent 61 Distribution Shall be equally made amongst the Children of the whole and half Blood 204 205 206 Disturbance Coactus fuit to pay is a sufficient Disturbance 55 E. Escape THE Plaintiff declared upon Process in an Inferiour Court and the Bond was not made infra Jurisdictionem the Action would not lye 29 30 Debt thereon lies against the Warden of the Fleet as Superior where the Grantee for Life is insufficient 119 After an Escape the Plaintiff may have a Capias ad satisfaciendum or Scire facias at his Election 136 Whether it will lye against the Sheriff for taking insufficient Bail 181 Election In disjunctive Conditions where the Election is in the Obligor 201 304 'T is at the Plaintiffs Election to have a Ca. Sa. or Scire facias after an Escape 136 Enclosure Where a Custom is good to Enclose in a Common Field 105 Entry Not necessary to avoid an Estate in case of a Limitation 7 Error Where a Writ of Error will lye upon a Fine in the Old Bayly 219 Error in Fact cannot be assigned in the Exchequer-Chamber 194 If one be dead after the Judgment he must be named in a Writ of Error 285 Where a Judgment shall be avoided by a Plea without a Writ of Error 276 Estate Where the word Body makes an Estate for Life and no Tail 16 Estoppel Good by a Fine levied by a Remainder man in Tail 90 No Uses can be declared of a Fine by Estoppel 90 One who has no Estate levies a Fine 't is good by Estoppel 115 Evidence A Decree in Chancery or Sentence in in the Ecclesiastical Court read as Evidence of the fact 231 232 Excuse If one Man doth not perform his Covenant 't is no Excuse for the breach on the other side 75 76 What is a good Plea by way of Excuse and what not 27 28 29 Executor De son tort cannot retain 51 Where the Judgment shall be de bonis Testatoris 108 What is requisite to make an Executor 147 What must be done when he refuseth Ibid. De son tort where he may be of a Term but not of a Term in futuro because he cannot enter 175 Cannot plead non detinet where the Testator could not plead nil debet 266 Executor of an Executor de son tort where not liable at Law 293 294 Where he pleads a Judgment kept on Foot by fraud 36 Explain A Man grants Tenementa praedicta then follows totum quicquid habet whether these subsequent words shall explain or enlarge the Grant 112 113 c. Execution Payment of the Mony to the Marshal the Defendant may be taken again in Execution at the Suit of the Plaintiff 212 213 Executory Decree Is of no force in Equity 232 Existen
be in an Act of Parliament to restrain the power of the Courts at Westminster 128 Negative pregnant 138 Negative Plea that three did not such a thing it must be said nec eorum aliquis 284 285 Non Obstante Where it makes a Grant good 107 Where a general Non obstante will not dispense with a particular Statute 261 Notice Where the Agreement is that it shall be in writing it must be so pleaded 268 Where 't is made to the Testator alone it shall not be personal but is good if given to the Executor 268 269 O. Oath EX Officio lawful 118 Where it ought to be made of the loss of a Deed to entitle a Man to a Bill in Equity 173 Office and Officer Grant thereof to two and the Survivor one surrenders and another is admitted the benefit of Survivorship is gon 95 96 Of the Warden of the Fleet not to be granted for years 120 Where a person recomended proves insufficient the recommender shall be liable 121 In an Office of Trust there shall be no Survivorship 260 Officer excusable for executing an erroneous Process 196 Ordinary When his Power began 148 Outlary Pleaded in Disability to an Information and good 267 268 Where it needed not to be pleaded sub pede sigilli being in the same Court 267 P. Parish HOW it differs from a Vill 237 Pardon Where nothing vests but by Office found a Pardon restores the Party 53 Where the thing it self is pardoned and the consequence not 52 Parliament Where the time of the Session is misrecited and yet good 241 Where the Court ought to take notice of the commencement of a private or general Act 241 Difference between an Adjournment and a Prorogation 242 Partners The Action cannot be brought against one without setting forth the death of the other 280 If Judgment be against one the Goods of the other may be taken in Execution ibid. Paying In the Case of an Heir is not a Condition but a Limitation 286 Place Where it shall be intended not being laid in the pleadings 304 Pleas and Pleading What the Parties have admitted in pleading shall be good though the Jury find otherwise 5 Shall not afterwards be assigned for Error 193 194 Pleading of a Grant of a Reversion without hic in Curia prolat ' whether good or not 19 In Dower that the Demandant ought to have Judgment de tertia and doth not say parte and yet good 17 18 19 Award nullum fecerunt arbitrium de praemissis whether good without adding nec de aliqua parte 27 28 29 Plea to a Bond not good 33 A Judgment ultra quod no Assets where good 36 Estoppel you must relie upon it and not conclude with a Traverse 37 38 One promise in discharge of another where good or not 43 44 Of an accord in must be averred to be executed in all points 43 Replication where the Heir pleads a Settlement in Tail and a Lease for 99 years and that he had not Assets praeter the Reversion a general Replication of Assets is good because the praeter is idle 50 51 Justification in Trespass for taking corrupt Victuals held good 56 Justification by Arrest upon process out of an Inferiour Court 58 59 Justification by the Defendant where he must shew the Commencement of his Estate or not 70 71 Where 't is incertain 76 Touts temps prist not good after Imparlance 62 Profert hic in Curia where it must be pleaded formally 77 78 It must be pleaded when the Title is by Deed either as party or privy 64 De injuria propria sua where a Servant is Defendant 't is good without a Traverse 68 Plea where 't is naught with a Traverse ibid. Where the Defendant may plead any thing which amounts to a performance 139 Where the Defendant was charged with receiving 80 Pigs of Lead and he saith that he was not Receiver but omits aliquam partem inde the Plea was ill 146 Hoc paratus est verificare where good or not ibid. The Defednant was charged as Bayliff 1 Martii he saith he was not from the 1st of March and so excludes the day 146 In Covenant for not Repairing the Defendant pleads recuperavit generally and held good after Verdict 176 Affirmative Plea ought to be particular as if the Defendant pleads a Conveyance made he must shew what 239 Of another Action depending for the same Cause in another Court 246 Where good though it amounts to the general Issue 274 275 276 277 278 Argumentative Plea where good 276 Negative Plea viz. that three did not such a thing the Defendant must say nec eorum aliquis 284 Otherwise in an affirmative Plea ibid. Plea puis darrein Continuance must be certified as part of the Record of Nisi Prius 307 Non damnificatus generally no good Plea where the person and Lands are to be indempnified 305 Where a Judgment shall be avoided by a Plea without bringing of a Writ of Error the party being a Stranger to it 308 Prescription Not to be pleaded against another without a Traverse of the first 104 Must be alledged with a Seisin in Fee and not for Life 318 To a Modus where good 320 Presentation The King being entituled by the Symony of the Patron presents though the Symony be pardoned the Presentee shall not be removed 52 53 54 Between three by turns they are Tenants in Common of the Advowson and one may grant the next Avoidance the Church being full 97 How it must be pleaded tempore pacis 184 185 Possibility A Grant made thereof and good 106 107 By an Executor before Probate is but a Possibility and yet good 108 Priviledge Will not extend to a Case of necessity 182 Of a Serjeant at Law 296 Of an Attorny of the Kings Bench 181 Process Where an Action will not lie against the Defendant for doing a thing in Execution of the Process of Law 244 Prohibition To the Bishops Commission to set Rates upon the Parishioners to repair the Church 8 Prohibition printed in English and dispersed a Crime fit to be punished 119 Not granted for a Rate for building of a Church 222 223 Where it shall be granted at any time 273 Where a Sentence of Divorce was intended to adnul a Marriage 314 Upon a Suggestion of Excommunication because he refused to accuse himself 278 Power Where 't is coupled with an Interest 't is assignable 317 Promise Where they are mutual the performance need not be averred 33 34 Purchase Where the Heir takes by Purchase the Ancestor must depart with his whole Fee 208 Where the Heir shall take by Purchase and where by Descent 286 Q. Quare Impedit REal Mainpernors must be returned upon the Summons Pone and Grand Cape if the disturber do not appear and not John Doe and Richard Roe 264 265 Que Estate Where 't is pleadable 143 144 R. Rates FOR building of a Church shall be set by the Parishioners 222 Recital Where a Title is set