for cause shews 1. That the breach of this promise was in the Testators life time and therefore the Action should have béen brought against him and is not now to be brought against the Executor 2ly The Testator did not promise that his Executors should deliver the goods but that he would deliver them upon request Request and there appears no request to be made to the Testator as there ought to have been 15 Iac. Hob. rep f. 300. Bodwells Case But Roll chief Iustice answered Executor That an Executor may be charged upon a collateral promise if there were a breach of it in the Testators life time and here is a good request and goes to all Therefore let the Plaintif take his judgement except better matter be shewed to the contrary and Osborne Mich. 1649. 1 Reipub. Ang. Banc. super THe Plaintif brought an Action upon the Case upon two several promises the Defendant pleaded non assumpsit Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case Issue and upon this an issue was joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of iudgement and for cause shews that there is no issue joyned as to the second promise alleged for he doth not conclude with petit quod inquitatur per patriam and yet there is a verdict found upon both the promises The Iudgement was arrested till the other should move Mich. 1649. Banc. super VPon a special Verdict the case was this A Case upon a special verdict argued Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in tayl the remainder to the right heirs of him in the remainder for life the remainder man in tayl levies a fine in the life of tenant for life And the question was whether by the levying of this fine the estate tayl were discontinued or no. To prove that the estate tayl was discontinued these Books were cited 1 H 7.22 Lit. Cap. Discents Sect. 34.14 Ed 3. Fitz. Avâ—wry 117.3 Ed 3. Fitz. grants 60.15 Ed. 4 9.2 Rep. Butlers case 5. Cooks Lit. f. 25. Pasch 13 Car. Hungates Case Banc. Reg. Dyer 339. Twisden to the contrary argued that the estate is not altered neither to the right nor by way of Estople 46 Edward 3. f. 23. Estople An Estople supposeth a thing to be done and therefore if the thing be impossible which is alleged by way of estople it can be no estople And one shall not be construed to doe wrong by an Act which may be interpreted so that by it he may doe no wrong Brooks Abridgement Grants 49. Roll chief Iustice The matter here is not how the estates shall pass and how to make them good but the Question is upon the forfeiture Forfeiture for he levies the fine as of an estate in possession and not of a reversion in fée and this is not upon the rule in Bredons case 13 Car. Sir Julius Caesars case an Acceptance of an estate or an Attornment by Tenant for life to a stranger is a forfeiture Jerman Iustice held there was no forfeiture But the Court said the Verdict was ill sound and therefore ordered it should be amended that the whole matter in Law might come in question Amendment Gray against Walye Mich. 1649. Banc. sup VVAlye brought an Action upon the Case against Gray Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the case for speaking these words of him viz. Iack Walye was questioned for stealing of a gray Mare with a snip in her ear and hue and cry went out after him and he durst not shew his face hereabouts The Plaintif had a Verdict and the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable because they were general and uncertain words and it doth not appear the party was damnified by them nor how long ago they were spoken Roll chief Iustice said that the party was defamed by speaking of them and he hath laid it that he lost his Credit thereby Therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement except better matter be shewn But Nicholas Iustice doubted whether they were actionable or no. And Ask Instice nihil dixit Mich. 1649. Banc. sup AN Attorney of this Court that was within age Error against at Attorney in Court for appearing propria persona being within age Error in fact appeared to an Action propria persona and pleaded to issue and had a verdict and a judgment for him and upon this a writ of Error was brought here it being an error in fact because that being within age did not appear per guardianum nor by his Attorney and it was said that it is not helped by the Statute of Ieofails though it be after verdict And thereupon the Court stayed the Execution Mercer against Rule Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved For a Supersedeas attachment for taking out execution after a writ of Error brought and allowed Supersedeas Attachment Execution That a writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement and that it was received and allowed and notwithstanding the Plaintif that had the Iudgement had taken out execution and thereupon it was prayed for a supersedeas to supersede the execution and for an Attachment against the party for his contempt to the Court. And it was urged by the Councel that moved That after a writ of Error is received and allowed the hands of the Court that gave the Iudgement are foreclosed from granting out execution and that the writ of Error is in it self a Supersedeas and cited Dyer 283. and therefore concluded that the execution is not well issued forth Twisden of Councel on the other side said that the writ of Error was not duly pursued because the roll was not marked and therefore the party might well take out execution But Roll chief Iustice answered that the writ was well pursued though the roll were not marked Yet if neither the roll be marked Notice nor notice given to the Attorney on the other side of the bringing the writ of Error if the party procéed to take out execution it is no contempt to the Court otherwise it is a contempt Contempt Supersedeas And it is the duty of the Clerk of the Errors to mark the roll and not the Attorneys and therefore take a Supersedeas quia improvide emanavit to stop execution Pym against Morgan alias Bambery and Baselye Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 1062. IN an Ejectione firmae brought for the Mannor of Caledown Argument upon a special verdict in an Ejectione firmae The Defendant pleads Not guilty and upon this the Iury find a special verdict to this effect That Sir Thomas Morgan was seised in fée amongst other lands of the lands in question and that in 13 Car. he made a settlement of these lands to himself for life the remainder to his daughter Mary for life the remainder to the heirs of the first Tenant for life with a power of revocation
parts it will be naught in all Hill 1649. Banc. sup THe Case of the Vills of Newton and Tyd concerning the presentments made to the Comissioners of Sewers for the Hundred of Wisbitch For quashing presentments and Orders of Commissioners of Sewers and their order made thereupon was again spoken to Twisden against the presentment said That it is not a presentment by Iury as it ought to be by the Statute for the Iury have only power to enquire of things within the Hundred of Wisbitch and it doth not appear that Newton and Tyd are within that Hundred 2ly The substance of the presentment is not good for the Commissioners cannot order that Newton and Tyd which have no benefit by the repairing of the bank shall contribute to the reparations 18 E. 3. f. 22. 3ly They cannot order to make a new wall notwithstanding Callice his opinion in his reading upon the Statute of Seâ—â—ers 4ly The Tax is not well laid for it is not laid upon all the Lands within Newton and Tyd as it ought to be charged if any ought to be Holhead answered to this last exception that it does not appear there are more Lands in Tyd or Newton than are charged And Roll chief Iustice said that is well enough To the third exception Holhead said it is not wholly a new work and therefore they may order to make it To which Roll chief Iustice assented and said it was so notwithstanding the Case of the I le of Ely for that was for the making of a new work totally To the 2d Exception he read the words of the presentment by which it appears that because the adventurers had no Lands to be charged and it is found necessary to be repaired that therefore it is to be repaired by Newton and Tyd for the present necessity Maynard answered that they are not bound to repair for the Act of a Stranger Taxes Roll chief Iustice answered Newton Tyd may take there remedyes against the strange adventurers and it seems there was a present necessity to repair it for publique safety If one be bound by prescription to repair a wall yet to prevent the present and publique danger the Commissioners may tax others to do it and the Law is just that is here made by the Commissioners But the 1. Exception is not answered and so the Commissioners have exceeded their authority Therefore let their be a new Law made by consent and quash the presentments except better matter be shewed But we cannot order you to have your monyes again But for that take your remedy at Law Garret against Blisard Hil. 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 983. VPon a special verdict found in an ejectione firmae The Case was this Grandmother Tenant for life Arguments upon a case upon a special verdict in an ejectione firmae the remainder to the Father for life the remainder to the Son for life the Son levyes a fine come ceo c. of the Land the question was whether it be a forfeiture of his estate or not Hales argued that it was a forfeiture but I could not here him well He cited these books 41 Ed. 3.10 24 E. 3. f. 70. Pasc 11. Car. Banc. Reg. Huttens reports Trin. 7 Car. Banc. Reg. and adjudged 11 Car. in King and Edwards case Dyer 339. And he said that a fine sur conisance de droit come ceo c. as it is in our case is a Feoffment upon Record and doth imply a Livery And said that a remainder may be forfeited by levying such a fine and concluded it was a forfeiture Wadham Windham on the other side argued that it was no forfeiture Forfeiture And cited Mich. 24 E. 3. and Dyer 139. and laid this for a ground that where a Feoffment in Fee made by a Tenant for lise doth displace any remainder that such a Feoffment is a forfeiture but it is not so in this Case and therefore it can be no forfeiture If Tenant for life of a rent or of an Advowson levy a fine it is a forfeiture although that no remainder be displaced this is the great objection 15 E. 4. f. 15 by Littleton and the fine fur conisance de droit implyes a Fee simple 40 Ed. 3. But there a Fee simple really passed with the estate for life But here it passes by way of interest and not by way of estopel and the Conusee may confesse and avoid and therefore here is no estopel and so it differs from the Cases objected 6 Rich. 2 Estopel 211. But it is objected that he hath taken upon him to passe all the estate which is more than he hath to passe and this makes it a forfeiture 43 E. 3. f. 22. It is good for the reversion in Fee and not for the other estate 37 H. 6. f. 5. 41 E. 3 f 14. by Thorpe It was answered that he hath not taken upon him to passe all the estate but only his own estate It is objected that the fine joyns all the estates together and purports the passing of them whole and entire It was answered that the fine doth not purport the entire estate 44 E. 3. f. 10. so much shall passe by the fine as may rightfully passe and no more and so the estate passes by fraction Cooks Instit 345. The Law construes the effect of the fine according to the intent of the parties and that wrong shall not be intended so is it here And if there be Tenant for life the remainder in fail the remainder in Fee to Tenant for life if Tenant for life levie a fine it is no forfeiture 10 H. 4. f. 2. Tenant for life may pray in ayd of all in the remainder and he said that in this case is no forfeiture nor estopel nor hath he passed more than he hath there is no wrong by the fine but it shall only passe what may be passed and he said a fine is a Feoffment when the thing to passe by it lyes in Livery otherwise it is but a grant and devests no estate as a Feoffment doth And in Baker and Hackers Case in this Court Bredons Case was denyed for Law by Bramston Iones and Barkley Hob. 388 389. It is no discontinuance and such estate shall first passe by which no wrong shall be done The Iudges ought to be Aâ—tuti to invent reasons to support estates and to defend from injuries and where the Conusee of the fine hath an interest to passe by it to satisfie the operation of it such a fine is good and doth no wrong as it is in our Case It is objected that there is a Fée simple here but it is of no value for it is after an estate tayl and shall not be assets in the Heir It was answered It is but of little value but it hath more than a right in it and so he prayed judgement for the Defendant Forfeiture Roll chief Iustice held it was a forfeiture although there be no
determined and Hanbury and Cookrells case is not adjudged but if it be it is on my side and Mich. 37 38. C. B. rot 1149. It was adjudged upon solemn argument at the Bar and on the Bench contrary to the Iudgement in Pell and Browns case if lands be devised to one and his Heirs and if he dye without issue that the land shall be to another and his Heirs this is no Estate tail for it cannot stand with the rules of Law to devise â—uth an Estate for it is but a possibility and if it should be more it must be a Fee upon a Fee and so a perpetuity and it cannot be known within what bounds it shall end either in case of years or life or other contingencies and the comparison of Lampets case is not like to this case for that was or a Term but this is of a freehold and a contingent devise of a freehold is not good since the Statute of 32 H. 8. and Brook tit devise 2 Dyer 28 H. 8. f. 3â— is not an opinion against this And though there could be such a devise of other lands yet Copyhold lands cannot be so devised as the case is here for there cannot be so much as a possibility of reverter for there is no custom to warrant it Hill 5. Car. King and Leyden in this Court and Dyer 264. and though there might be a reverter yet he cannot devise it by will and if he could yet here the conbeyance is made up by surrender admittance and devise and the party is here in by the surrender and not by the devise and so is a Copyholder in by Act executed and not upon the contingency and the will is but to direct and though all this be otherwise yet the Plaintiff cannot have Iudgement for it appears not that the surrender is presented at any Court at all and here is nothing but a recitall found Ierman Iustice said by the Common Law there ought to be a presentment at the next Court Roll chief Iustice and Nicholas Iustice There is no certain time for the presentment but it is according to the Custom of the Manor so that it be within the life of the Tenant Roll chief Iustice said it is an inconvenience to devise such a contingent Estate Nicholas doubted for he said it would shake many wills if it might not be and so said Hales The Court would advise Hales confessed the verdict was imperfect but prayed it might be amended But Latch answered it is good enough for us the Defendants for we have primer possession The Court answered it would be good to have it amended and not to have a venire de novo Venire for that will be chargeable but if the verdict be imperfect to bring the matter in Law into question we can grant a new venire although it hath been heretofore doubted Therefore be advised so that it may be argued Antea Heal against Green Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 370. THe case between Heal and Green upon a special verdict formerly argued by Latch was again spoken to and argued by Twisden Argument upon a special verdict upon construction of words of a Will and he held that the Feme had power by the Will to make the lease notwithstanding that she hath but an Estate for life and cited 11 Car. B. R. Hill rot 810. Iob and Whites case and 21 Iac. Danyel and Vgnel and he said that the remainder limited to the daughter doth not hurt for it may very well stand with the will and the intent of the Testator appears upon the whole to be to give such a power to his wife to make this lease and cited 8 Car. Perd and Bensams case And there is a clause in the will that shews that the Testator did intend to advance his wife by this devise And the Feme shall be in by the power which shall make the estate of the lease good and it is not necessary to recite the power as it is held in Rogers case Maynard on the other side said he would not dispute the power but here is no such power given to the wife as it appears by the expresse words of the Will which doth only describe that she shall only make Estates but for her life otherwise she might make Estates in Tail or in Fee and if this should be the last part of the Will which doth limit the remainder would be destroyed and generals in a Will shall not revoke an express devise but they ought so to be construed that all the Will may stand together as Bonhams case is 8. rep Roll chief Iustice It is a difficult thing to shew the meaning of the Testator here but the general must not destroy the particular devise to which Nicholas Iustice assented and Roll enclyned that the Feme had power by the Will to make this Estate otherwise the words of the Will must be idle and void and it may be the Baron intended to give his wife such a power that she might destroy the remainders and otherwise there cannot be any construction made of the Will Ask Iustice differed in opinion and said it was unreasonable the remainder should be destroyed which is expresly limited by the Will and a Will doth differ from a conveyance Nicholas Iustice said that the words shall be expounded to shew his bounty to his wife but not to give her power to destroy the remainder Ierman Iustice There are expresse words for the Feme and the daughter and the Feme hath a power but not to destroy the Estate of the daughter Curia advisare vult Antea Booth against Lambert Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 201. VPon a speciall verdict upon these words Argument and judgement upon special verdict the question whether dower well assiâ—gâ—ed or not viz. I do endow you of a third part of all the lands my Cosen I. S. your husband dyed seised of The question was whether the feme were well endowed by these words because he doth not say that he endows her by metes and bounds Chase held she was not well endowed and cited 8 Ed. 2.15 and said that here is incertainty which begets dissention which ought not to be and the thing is not here entire but may be devided And this is an assignment of dower which differs from a demand of dower for a demand may be general as in the cases of Thyn and Thyn in this Court and of Fairefax and Fairefax and so the book of 8 E. 2. entry congeable S 5. which seems to prove the contrary that is not to our case for it differs from it Merifield of Councell on the other side held the feme was well endowed and agreed the cases put by Chase That of Common right a feme ought to be endowed by metes and bounds yet sometimes it is otherwise as 3 Eliz. Dyer 27. a feme endowed in Common And the feme that is to be endowed and the
his guardian and therefore let the Iudgement be reversed nisi Fortune against Johnson Hill 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for an attachment against Iohnson upon an affidavit For an attachment for putting one out of possession that he had ejected one out of possession that was put in by a habere facias possessionem and that in a very riotous manner and had imprisoned the party so put out of possession and others Windham on the other side by way of answer said that the party came into the land by virtue of an eign Iudgement and an extent upon it Roll chief Iustice answered here is title against title therefore take your course in law for we will make no rule in it Crosthwayt and the Hundred of Lowdon Hill 1651. Banc. sup CRosthwayt brought an Action upon the Statute of Winchester of robberyes Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Statute of Winchester for robbery against the Hundred of Lowdon for being robbed of 160 l. and had a verdict against the Hundred It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Action upon the Statute did not lye for the party that brought it for it appears that he was not robbed but that the mony was taken out of a portmantle which was carryed by the postboy and that only the Plaintiffs hand was upon one end of the portmantle so that the post-boy was robbed and not the Plaintiff But Roll chief Iustice answered Robbery Possession there is no question but that this was a robbery of the Plaintiff and it is all one as where my Servant is robbed in my presence and there the goods shall be said to be in my possession and so is it here and therefore let Iudgement be entred nisi Tayler and Web. Hill 1651 Banc. sup THis case formerly argued at the Bar and broken on the Bench Special Verdict upon the words of a will and some opinion delivered in it was again moved by Maynard and argued by him And he said that by the Will no land passeth because lands are not mentioned in it neither is there any necessary implication that the Testator intended to devise his lands for the making one his Heir and enjoyning him to pay an annuity doth not convey the lands to him and the Will doth not say that he makes him his Heir of his lands but generally his Heir which by the civill Law may be of goods and for the enjoyning him to pay the annuity this may be out of other lands in consideration of the personal estate given unto him In Danyel and Vblies case a gift made by a Feme coparcener of her purparty of land did not convey the lands in Fée In Marshes case the Father gave his lands to his two Sons to be equally divided it was adjudged there that only an Estate for life passed and here is nothing at all expresly given In Gilbert and Withers case Mich. 20 Iac. It was adjudged that there ought not to be made such a construction of a Will as is not agreable to Law And this is only a logical Will by way of argument and not a grammatical Construction or Interpretation and positive Will Roll chief Iustice answered to make a construction of a Will where the intent of the Testator cannot be known is intentio caeca sicca but here although the words of the Will be not proper yet we may collect the Testators meaning to be by making of the party his Heir that he should have his lands and it is all one as if he had said Heir of his lands and here he not only makes him his Heir but his Executor also Will. and therefore if he shall not have his lands the word Heir is meerly nugatory and to no purpose for by being Executor only he shall have the goods and as it hath been observed he is in this case haeres factus though not natus Ierman Iustice to the same effect and said that the word Heir implyes two things 1. That he shall have the lands 2ly That he shall have them in Fee simple Nicholas and Ask Iustices concurred and so it was ruled that Iudgement should be given for Sir Iohn Bridges the Devisee nisi Lockoe against Palfriman Hill 1651 Banc. sup Hill 1651 rot 1002. VPon a special verdict found in an ejectione firmae Special verdict in an ejectione firmae the case fell out to be this Tenant for life the remainder to Baron and Feme and their Heirs Baron and Feme suffer a recovery The question was whether the Heirs of the Feme were bound by this recovery because the Feme being covert it was conceived she was not Tenant to the praecipe because it appears not she was examined and so nothing was recovered from her It was argued that this recovery did bind the Feme 1. because if a precipe be brought against one who hath nothing in the land the writ only is abatable Fitz. Tit. Droyt 29. Next an Estople with recompence excludes not only parties and privies but also strangers as it is in Shellyes case and 3 Iac. C. B. in Duke and Smiths case 15 E. 4 f. 28 In 43 Ed. 3. f. â—8 was the first mention of examination of a Feme upon a Recovery and she shall be intended to be examined here if it be requisite for it is not found she was not examined and in Br. Abridg. recovery in value 27 23 H. 8. It is held that a Feme Covert is barred by a Common recovery and this hath been the continual practice since that time and whereas it is objected that a colourable recovery doth not bind a Feme Covert it is answered that this is not a colourable recovery but a judicial matter of Record and is brought upon an original and there is an intended recompence to the Feme and to urge that there is no Tenant to the praecipe is an objection which reaches to the common practice of assurances and therefore not to be admitted and in time they might have counterpleaded the voucher but now they cannot avert this matter against the Record 19 E. 3. estople 9. and though the Feme be not examined yet she shall be bound by this recovery though in a fine it is otherwise where there is no recompence in value as here there is and in a fine the Iudge ex officio is bound to examine the Feme but not in a recovery nor is there any practice of it in Law 13 Ed. 3 Iudgement 29. A partition made by writ shall bind a Feme Covert because she hath a recompence so is it upon a partition made upon Record in Chancery And by the Barons surviving the Feme here the recompence both not survive to the Baron but shall go to the Heirs of the Feme Br. recovery in value 27 2 Iac. C. B. here is a reall Estate in the Baron and Feme Hales on the other side made the question to be whether by a recovery
And as to the second the Court held that it shall be intended that the Posts and Pales were not fixed to the ground Amendment and there is no necessity to express how many Posts and how many Pales the Defendant took Intendment and it is not material whether they were fixed or not But the Court would advise and ordered Councel to spake again to it Popham against White Mich. 1650. Banc. sup AN Action of Trover an Coversion was brought Exception to a Declaration in a Trover and Conversion wherein the Plaintif declared pro Arboribus Twisden of Councel with the Defendant argued that the Declaration was not good because a Trover cannot lie de Arboribus Roll chief Iustice he may declare de Arboribus if he say that he was possessed sicut de Arboribus suis propriis But Ierman Iustice doubted Therefore the Court would advise Martin against Hendlye Mich. 1650. Banc. sup MArtin brought an Action of Debt against Hendlye a Sherif for an escape and had a Verdict against him Arrest of Iudgement in an action of Debt against a Sherif for an escape Advantage The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took these exceptions 1. That the Action was brought by the Plaintif as an Administrator for the escape which was made in the life of the Intestate only 2ly That there is no Capias issued to the Sherif The Court answered That the Sherif cannot take advantage of an erronious process but the first exception is good for the Action ought to be brought in the Detinet only the Plaintif being but an Administrator Detinet who recovers not to his own use Therefore stay Iudgement till the Plaintif move Dethick against Mich. 1650. Banc. sup DEthick moved for a Prohibition to the Admiralty for preferring an Endictment there For a prohition to the Admiralty Prohibition Certiorari which is not within the Statute touching the Admiralty and so they have no jurisdiction of the cause The Court answered that a Prohibition lies not in cases of Felony but if there be Cause it may be removed by Certiorari But we will advise Bennet and the Hundred of Hartford Mich. 1650. Banc. sup IN a tryal at Bar between the inhabitants of Hartford and Bennet a Caryer upon an Action brought against them upon the Statute of Winchester Evidence by one of the lury to the rest Evidence for a robbery committed within that Hundred upon his servant It was said by the Court that if either of the parties to a tryall desire that a Iuror may give evidence of something of his own knowledge Examination Where a hundred shall be charged for a robbery or where not to the rest of the Iurors that the Court will examine him openly in Court upon his oath and he ought not to be examined in private by his companions And it was also said that if a robbery be done in crepusculo the Hundred shall not be charged but if it be done by cleer day light whether it be before Sun rise or after Son set it is all one for the Hundred shall be charged in both cases Mich. 1649. Banc. sup SErjeant Earl A Iury being ready at the Bar for a tryal challenged the Atray for want of Hundreders A challenge of the array f r want of Hundredors the manner of it and delivered in the challenge in writing to Woodward the Clark of the Court to be read But the Court interrupted him and said to the Serjeant you ought first to read it your self in French which he accordingly did and afterwards Woodward read it in Latin Twisden of Councel on the otherside said that the challenge was taken to no purpose for the Iury was returned by the Secondary by rule of Court and the Hundreders were put out by the consent of the parties But the Court answered that the consent of the parties was to no purpose to avoid the challenge but that it was a good challenge Consent Challenge Tales and there cannot be a tales granted upon a challenge for default of Hundreders and therefore the panel was quashed and a new Iury ordered to be returned by the Sheriff In this case it was said that after the first man of a Iury is sworn the Array cannot be challenged Cage against Dod. Mich. 1650. Banc. sup VPon a tryal betwen Cage and Dod touching a Copyhold it was said by the Court that a Copyholder for life cannot prescribe against his Lord What copy-holder may prescribe against his Lord and what nor but a Copyholder in fee may for he hath the Copyhold in the nature of Land of inheritance And also that if a Copyholder for life cut down tymber trees the Lord may take them And that if an under Lessee for years of a Copyholder cut down tymber Forfeiture it shall not be a forfeiture of the Copy-holders estate The Countesse Rivers Mich. 1650. Banc. sup THe Countesse Rivers put in her plea of Privilege of Peerage into Court A Plea of privilege of peerage by Countess Privilege and prayed by Sejeant Glin of her Councel that it might be read and allowed Vpon which it was read by Woodward Clark of the Court. After which Roll chief Iustice said it is questionable whether a Countess made so by patent only for her life be privileged or no therefore let her remain in the Custody of the Sheriff till Saturday and not be turned over to the Custody of the Mareschall and then move it again Postea Burton against Low Mich. 1650. Banc. sup BUrton brought an Action of debt against Low Demurrer in debt upon a Sheriffs bond upon a Sheriffs bond given by Low to the Sheriff being arrested by him by virtue of an Attatchment directed to him out of the Chancery the condition of the Bond was that the Defendant should appear on such a day in Cancellaria apud Westmonasterium ubicunque suerit The Defendant pleads in Bar the Statute of 3 H. 6. she Plaintiff demurred to this plea. Moseley of Councell with the Defendant argued that the Bond upon which the Action was brought was void and against the Statute 1. Because the party is bound to appear in a Court which is not a fixt Court and so incertain namely the Court of Chancery at Westminster whereas the Chancery is a moveable Court and not fixt to Westminster or any other place 2ly The condition of the Obligation is impossible for it is that the Defendant shall appear in the Chancery at VVestminster wheresoever it shall be and it is impossible for him to appear at VVestminster and at another place at the same time 3ly The Bond varies from the Statute in some things and enjoyns more than the Statute requires in other things VVilmot on the other side held that the Bond is not within the Statute because the King is not within the Statute as was held 13 Car. 7 H. 4. f. 44. 5 rep VVhelpdales case Dyer 119. Roll chief
he was taken and imprisoned The Defendant pleaded an award made by Sir John Rivers and Sir Nicholas Miller two Iustices of Peace between the parties in Bar. Twisden of Councel with the Plaintif said that the award doth not bind the Plaintif for the award concerns only the speaking of the words and speaks nothing of the imprisoment And 2ly the Award is not good for there is not satisfaction made by it on both parties Wild of Councel with the Defendant held that the Declaration was not good and that therefore he needs not to justifie the plea for though it should be ill yet the Plaintif can have no judgement and he said the Declaration was naught because it alleged no day when nor place where the Defendant charged the Plaintif with the felony and made him to be imprisoned Twisden answered that there is a place alleged and that though there were none yet it is well enough for part and judgement may be given for that To which Roll chief Iustice agréed Wild replyed then the plea is good But the Court answered it is not and what say you to the Arbitrement Wild answered it was good to which Ierman and Ask Iustices assented Roll chief Iustice answered It is a benefit to the Parish and so to the Overseers of the poor Nicholas Iustice to the same purpose Roll chief Iustice said that the Declaration is ill and the Plea also for the Plea is entire Declaration Plea and yet goes not to all the matter alleged in the Declaration but the plea is only to part of them and therefore if any part of the Declaration be good judgement ought to be given against the Defendant for that part and the plea in Bar is naught so judgement ought to be entirely for the Plaintif But it is to be considered concerning the damages Rosyer against Langdale Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 100. ROsyer an Executor brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit against Langdale a Feme Administratrix Error to reverse a judgement in an Assumpsit by an Executor against an Administratrix and declares that the Defendant in consideration that he would forbear sute until she had taken out Letters of Administration did assume and promise to pay unto him the Plaintif a certain sum of money owing unto him by the Intestate Vpon Issue joyned and a Verdict and a Iudgement for the Plaintif The Defendant brought a writ of Error to reverse the Iudgement And Baldwin of his Councel took these Exceptions 1. That the Plaintif had set forth no consideration in his Declaration for the Assumpsit for all that is alleged is that the Plaintif should forbear sute till the Defendant had taken out Letters of Administration which is no consideration at all for the Defendant was not lyable to be sued as Administratrix until she had taken out Letters of Administration except there were a cause depending as here is not And he cited Hob. rep Bidwell and Cottons case That if there be a sute commenced though there be no cause for it yet forbearance to sue is a good cause to ground an Assumpsit upon Assumpsit A second Exception was that the Venire facias is not awarded per Curiam nec in Curia Roll chief Iustice held the 1. a good Exception for the Defendant was not chargeable before Letters of Administration taken forth if she do not intermedle with the goods of the Intestate and it doth not appear here that she did neither is the Defendant compellable to take forth Letters of Administration for they may be granted to the next of Kin if the Ordinary pleaseth according as the Statute ordains Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same intent thereupon the rule was reversetur nisi c. But because Day being of Councel on the other side took some Exceptions to the writ of Error and the retorn thereof It was adjourned Staples Hill 1650. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to supersede a scire sacias brought by a prisoner of the Marshalsea For a Supersedeas to a Scire sacias upon the late Act for discharging of poor prisoners because the Certificate of the cause for which he was a prisoner was false and so the procéedings erronious for the party was in execution for Trespass which is not within the Statute made for the prisoners 2ly Because there was no due notice given to the party at whose sute he lay in execution as the Statute doth direct there should The Court ordered to view the Certificate 〈◊〉 Den uneâ— and to file it otherwise there should be no proceedings upon the scire facias and directed the party to demur upon the scire facias if it be not good because the matter alleged cannot be pleaded to it Custodes against Arskot Hill 1650. Banc. sup MAynard moved the Court for one Arskot that was outlawed for murther For time to bring a Writ of Error and had leave to bring his writ of Error that he may have longer time to bring it because the King uses to sign the writ and the Parliament had not ordered who shall do it now and therefore the Attorney General must advise with the Parliament about it which cannot spéedily be done Thereupon time was granted till the Attorney could conveniently do it Newcomin against Leigh Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 16â—0 rot 52. LEigh did assume and promise unto Newcomin Whether a good Assumpsit that if Newcomin would take one Loe for his Debtor in the room of one Cooper and would spare Loe until such a time for the money that then he would pay the money to Newcomin if he did not and upon this Assumpsit Newcomin brought his Action against Leigh The question was whether this were a good Assumpsit And the Court held it was not because it is a collateral thing and he doth not say that he will discharge Cooper and so Newcomin may sue Cooper notwithstanding the Assumpsit For though it may be it was the intention of the parties to discharge Cooper yet it appears not so by the words of the Assumpsit set forth And it was then said by Roll. That if I promise to pay to Iohn a Down a Debt which Iohn a Stile oweth to Iohn a Down Nudum pactum this is nudum pactum Bawsy and Lowdall Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 275. VPon a special verdict in an Action of Trespasse and Ejectment Special Verdict upon the devise of a Copyhold in Fee the case in effect was this A man seised of Copyhold lands in fée devisable by Custom deviseth them in this manner I give and bequeath my lands c. to my son Richard during his natural life and after to the heir of his body for ever Hales of Councel with the Plaintif made these questions 1. whether by the words of the Will a Fee-simple at the Common Law passeth because there is an estate to Richard for life and after
for septuagent and Pary and Dayes case quinquegent for quinquagint and these held no materiall variances Latch on the other side said the word in the Bond is uncertain and the condition hath nothing in it to reduce it to a certain signification and if it make any certainty in it it must make it signifie 400 l. and then the Plaintiff hath failed in his Declarasion and Hobarts case differs from this and as for Osborns case it is variously reported and so not to be relyed on Roll chief Iustice What say you to sessanta But the question here is what shall be meant by the word whether 40. or 400. And in Fiâ—zâ—â— berts case Iudgement was given upon a demurrer Variance that gent for gint was a material variance and our case is all one with that If the doubt be whether it should be 40. or 400. how shall we know the intent of the partyes and if it be certain it must he understood 400. and the Action is brought but for 40. l. 44 Eliz. Mich. rot 1301. Gray and Davis case Sexgint was adjudged to be a Bond of 60 l. and not of 600 l. And it is the gent. and gint in all the cases that makes the difference And the case of sessanta comes not to our case and so concluded Iudgement to be against the Plaintiff Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices of the same opinion Nicholas Iustice said that false Latin in a Bond doth not make it naught but he held this Bond was for 400 l. and not 40 l. and it is not incertain for the grammar rule ginta notat decem sed genta numero centum doth hold here Antea Gay against Gay Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1350. VPon a speciall verdict found in a replevin Whether an estate tail or fee conditionall The case was this A man seised of a Copyhold Borough English devised it to H. his grandchild and to his Heirs and if he dye during the life of his mother the remainder to H. his younger brother and to his heirs The question here was whether here be an Estate tail in H. or a Fee simple executory If it be an Estate tail then the devise was said not good because it is of a Copyhold but if it be a Fersimple Limitation then it is a good devise Roll chief Iustice said that a limitation of an inheritance after an absolute Fee simple is not a good limitation for this would be to make a perpetuity which the Law will not admit Perpetuity but if it be upon a contingent Fee simple it is otherwise Adjournatur Postea Heale against Greene. Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Hill 649 rot 370. IN an Action of Trespass and ejectment Case upon a special verdict in trespass and ejectment upon a speciall verdict sound the case proved to be this A man seised of a manor that had divers Tenants that held for lives by old rents deviseth it to his wife during her life with power to let and set and make estates out of them in as ample maner as the Testator might if he were living The questions were made by Latch 1. Whether this power given her to set and set c. doth not alter her Estate for life in the Lands devised to her 2ly Whether this power given her by the Will adds any power to her estate for life to make estates and he held for the first that the power given her did not alter her Estate And 2ly that it ads no power unto her Estate because the clause in the Will is one entire clause and not double and accumulative and so she can make no greater Estates than her estate for life will bear And for the obiection that is made That then the words that limit the power to her are void and idle He answered that it is not necessary that all the words in a Will should give something but some words may be explanatory of other words and so are these words here and yet the words here may add something to her Estate viz. to enable her to make Estates without impeachment of waste And the words shall not be intended of the time of Execution of the Estates made by the Feme for then they are idle Hill 1 Car. Banc. Reg. Danyel and Vplins case One may dispose an estate by Will for life with power to make Estates to continue after the death of the party that made them But here the estate is made only out of the interest of the wife which cannot endure after her life Pasc 44. Eliz. Bible and Dringhouse and so prayes Iudgement for the Plaintiff Hales for the Defendant made these questions 1. What power was given by the Will 2ly Whether it were well executed and he held the feme being executrix hath but an Estate for life But she hath a power to make estates as she hath done There is no question but such a power may be added The question only is if this power be added here in our case and he said it was added by the express words of the will for else those words are frivolous and operate nothing In Danyel and Vplins case cited which was entred 20 Iac. Hill 720. there is no express Estate given to the party but a meer power only and it was not by reason of the words added for they are only conjunctive words And Iustice Whitlock held there that the first words gave the power Though Iustice Iones differed in opinion and that case is the very same with ours The reason in our case That the words give power to the feme may appear by the comparing this part of the Will with the other parts of it In other parts of the Will where things are devised to his wife these words here used are not added and that argues that the Testator intended the Feme more power than in other things devised to her and the words themselves being a devise of a manor proves by the nature of the thing that the Testator intended to give power to the Feme to make Estates out of the manor And it cannot be intended that the words In as ample maner c do only give the feme power to assign over her term Vaughan and Longs case 24 C. the words were adjudged to be words to enlarge the power of the Legatée and so are they here And the subsequent clause during the term of her life restrains not the power for these words may be either referred to the Estates to be made or to the time of making them and here they are referred to the execution of the power and this is more suitable to the intention of the party in ordinary reason and they are added to expound the intent viz. that the remainder limited over shall not hinder the feme for he hath not barred her out and hath imposed this trust in her as Executrix and as Legatee And for the 2d point here is a good Execution of
alias Heriots with the appurtenances whereof the said Close called Pipers Down was parcell which tenement and Close were parcell of the said manour and was then and had been time out of mind demised and demiseable in Fee by Copy of Court roll of the said manour did build a new messuage upon the said Tenement and did afterwards by his Letters patents under the great seal grant the office of Keeper and keeping of the said messuage to Iohn Gate for term of his life with all the Lands Tenements c. thereto belonging or adjacent and did also by the same Letters patents give and grant unto the said Iohn Gate amongst other things the Lands belonging to the said new built messuage whereof the said Close called Pipers down was part for Term of his life for the exercising of the said office with an averment in the plea that before that time there was no such office of the keeping of the said house and that the King did not know nor was at the time of the grant enformed that the said Tenement and Lands whereof the said Close was parcell were Copyhold of the said manour After the grant made to Iohn Gate as aforesaid H. the 8. dyed seised of the said manour of the reversion of the said Messuage and Close after the death of Iohn Gate and thereby Ed. the 6. became sofâ—ed of them in like manner and from Ed. the 6. they came to Quéen Mary Then Iohn Gate dyes and after his death Quéen Mary enters upon the said manour and Messuage whereof the said Close was a parcell and afterwards by her Letters Patents under her broad Seal doth grant the Manour and Messuage and Premises unto Susan Tong and her heirs for ever From Susan Tong by mean conveyance the said Manour Messuage and Premises came to Humphry White and his heirs and afterterwards Humphrey White being seized thereof in Fée did by his indenture of lease demise the said Manour Messuage and Premises to Leigh for 60. years to begin from Mich. before the making of the indenture afterward Humphrey White grants away the reversion of the said Manour Messuage Premises to Sir John Branch afterwards Sir Iohn Branch grants this reversion to Vdall Vdall grants it to Bathurst and Bathurst grants it to Thomas Boothby the Ancestor of Thomas Boothby whose Baily doth here make the avowry Afterwards Robert Leigh who had the lease of the said Manour and Premises as aforesaid for 60 years deviseth the residue of this lease then unexpired by his last Will and Testament unto Robert Leigh his Son and dyes Robert Lee the son being possessed of the residue or remainder of this Term for 60. years by virtue of the said Will did at his court held for the said Manour of Chingford grant the said Messuage with the appurtenances and Lands thereunto belonging whereof the said Close was parcell unto Edmund Lee his brother to hold of the same Manour in Fée at the will of the Lord by Copy of Court Roll of that Manour Edmund Lee was thereupon admitted accordingly Afterwards the said lease for 60. years made by Humphrey White unto Robert Leigh the Father expires Afterwards Thomas Boothby who had the reversion of the said Manour and Premises as abovesaid entred as in his reversion upon the said Manour and Premises and dyed seised thereof leaving issue Thomas Boothby his Son Thomas Boothby the Son enters into the said Manour and Premises and claims the said Messuage with the apurtenances with the lands thereunto belonging whereof the Close called Pipers down was parcell and was granted by Robert Leigh unto Edmund Leigh by Copy of Court Roll as aforesaid as parcell of the demaines of the said Manour of Chingford and doth deny it to be Copyhold and to the intent to try the title thereof did by the Avowant his Bailiff distrein the Cattel in the said Close as damage feasant in his soil and Freehold This Case was argued first by Arthur Harris of Lincolnes Inn who argued for the Plaintiff viz. he that brought the replevin and in his argument he made the generall question in the Case to be whether the close called Pipers Down in which the distress was taken were at the time of the distress taken demiseable by Copy of Court Roll or whether the Custom was not destroyed and he held it was demiseable and that the custom was not destroyed and hereupon he made four questions 1. Whether the grant of the new house to Sr. Iohn Gate per nomen officii of keeper thereof were a good grant 2ly Whether the King not being enformed at the time of the grant that the house was Copyhold tenure he was not deceived in his grant 3ly Whether by this grant the Custom was not destroyed 4ly Whether the Kings Patentee hath not the same privilege to grant this house c. again by Copy of Court Roll after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate And as to the 1. of these 4. questions he cited 8 E. 4. by Chock and 21 E. 4.79 and Mich 5 Car. Banc. Reg. Monsons case and Pasc 14 Car. Banc. Reg. Messand and Butterfields Case and 5 E. 4. f. 8. and Dyer 269. Savages Case To the 2d question he held that the King was not here enformed of his right and consequently he was deceived and therefore ought not to be prejudiced by his grant which he should be if he had not liberty to demise this house again by Copy of Court Roll after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate and he said that there are two rights in the King 1. At the Common Law and 2ly a customary right and of this Customary right or his jus concedendi he was not enformed and he cited these books 3 H. 7.10 rep 49.8 H. 625 Br. Ayd 45 4. H. 6.1 2 R. 3. Hunsons Case and he said that the book of 5 H. 7. f. 1. which is objected is not to purpose for the protestation is not well taken 19 H. 6. a protestation is to supply a matter which is not so here 41 E. 3. Fitzh protest 9.22 H. 6.37 Br. protestation 6. Plowd Coment Gresbrooks and Foxes Case and 20 Eliz. Burrell and Holcrofts Case 2ly The King is not enformed here in his grant in matter in Law as he ought to be and therefore his grant shall not turn to his prejudice 1 rep 52.18 H. 8. Lovels Case Pasc 2 Eliz. Sr. Thomas Mores Case 1. rep â—3 16 Jac. Needlers case and whereas it is said that the words ex certa scientia in the patent do declare that the King was enformed I answer that those words do intend no more but that the King was enformed of matters of fact and not of matters in Law and the Kings grant shall only be taken secundum intentionem and whereas it may be objected that by the granting of the Estate for life unto Sr. Iohn Gate the custom is destroyed I answer that this being in the Case of the King it is an extraordinary Case and not
the grant of the Office of the Custody of the house is a good lease for life notwithstanding it was Copyhold and it is not necessary to recite in the grant that it is Copyhold 2. That after the estate for life is determined the King may grant the house and land again by Copy of Court Roll because the Kings grants shall be taken favourably and not extended to two intents where there is no necessity for it as there is not here and we are not here to intend a collateral intent and so the Copyhold is not destroyed for the Law takes care to preserve the inheritance of the King for his Successors and it may be a benefit to the King to have it continue Copyhold viz. to have Common c. and his election is also destroyed if he may not have it Copyhold So Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi Pawsey and Lowdall Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1650. rot 275. IN this Case formerly argued Roll chief Iustice Iudgement reversed upon a special Verdict touching a Devise of Copyhold lands and Nicholas and Ask Iustices agreed that the devise of the Copyhold here is a devise to the Heirs of the Father and so a Fee-simple and that the party comes not in as a purchaser and for this cause the judgement was reversed nisi As to the other point whether the surrender of a Copyhold by a Tenant for life be good in this case the Court delivered no opinion Antea Trundall and Trowell Pasch 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 670. IN this Case it was held that Tenant in antient Demesn cannot after imparlance plead antient Demesn for he hath made a full defence Where antient Demesne cannot be pleaded for he says Defendit vim et injuriam quando c. which implyes all the rest Mich. 22 Car. Banc. Reg. Yet it was ruled to be again spoken to Peck against Ingram Pasch 1651. Banc. sup THis Case formerly spoken in was moved again and Latch held Whether a good notice that the words obtulit se in maritagium conjungi was a good notice upon the whole matter and therefore that the Action did well lye Roll chief Iustice answered this is a personal thing and ought to be offered to the party himself otherwise it is no notice and that doth not appear here and if there be no notice implyed then the Action lies not and Holmes and Twists case is that there ought to be notice if the thing be to be done by the party himself otherwise if it be to be done by a stranger so is it here but the question only is if notice be implyed here or not Ierman Iustice said there is no tender of mariage if the other party be not there The rule was for the Plaintif to take his Iudgement Rooke against Smith Pasch 1651. Banc. sup ROoke brought an Action upon the case against Smith for speaking these words of him Thou art a poor fellow Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case for words and art not able to pay 2s in the pound and art not able to pay thy debts Vpon an Issue joyned and a Verdict for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable for 1. the Plaintif is not by them charged with the crime of being a Bankrupt and so there is no particular losse to him 2ly It is not showed that the Plaintiff got his living by buying and selling or that he is indebted and 11. Iac. Brook and Clarks case was cited Twisden on the other side answered that the Plaintiffs credit was impaired by the words and by his credit his livelyhood is in part mainteyned And he cited Viccary and Barns case Adjourned to the next Term. Wild afterwards moved again for Iudgement because the words being spoken of a tradesman he conceived them to be actionable Maynard on the other side held them not actionable because there is no particular damage alleged to grow to the Plaintif by speaking of them and because there is no crime objected against the Plaintiff for poverty is no crime but a man may be poor and honest at the same time and he cited two cases to be adjudged that a particular damage ought to be alleged And said that these Actions are not favoured in Law and therefore if the words be not cleerly Actionable it was not reason to make a forced construction of them to make them so Next the Plaintiff hath not averred that he was able to pay all his debts for all the things bought but only of a debt contracted by the buying of the Oyl mentioned Twisden denyed the cases put by Maynard of the particular damage and held the words actionable Roll chief Iustice said a man may be a Bankrupt and yet be honest for he may become so by accident Averment and not of purpose to deceive his creditors But here is no need for the Plaintiff to shew he had a particular losse by the words for it is enough that he is generally scandalised by them neither is it necessary for him to averr that he was able to pay all his debts as Maynard hath alleged Therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement nisi Antea Owen against Jevon Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 211. OWen brought an Action of the case against Ievon for speaking these words of her Arrest â—f judgement in Action for words viz. This is the whore that my man Cowell begat a bastard on and spent all my mony upon and the quean hath been too long in Town to my ease Vpon an issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintiff Twisden for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgment urged that the words are not actionable because there is no special losse or damage alleaged by the Plaintiff hapning to her by reason of the words said that in one Lighfoot and Pigots case it had béen ruled that an Action lies not for saying a woman had a Bastard and he cited also Winter and Barnards case Trin. 1650. in this Court. Vpon these reasons Iudgment was stayed till the other side should move Iay against Iay. Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1350. THis case formerly put and spoken to Argument in a special verdict touching the consideration of the words of a will was again spoken unto by Latch wherein he made this question viz. whether the limitation to I. and his Heirs were good or not and he held it was not good for he said that such limitation in case of a freehold is void He confessed that in the case of Pell and Brown 17 Iac. rot 44. the contrary was adjudged but that there did appear such apparent inconvenience in it that upon it the Court was afterwards divided and 21 Iac. in the Serjeants case it was made a flat quaere and ever since it hath been disputable whether a contingent devise be good or not and in Iacob and Tellings case it is not
is a Iudgement well given Plea and it is too late to assign it for Error But the Court advised Postea Kerman against Iohnson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 153. KErman brought an Action of Trespass and Ejectment against Johnson Special verdict in Trespass and Ejectment and upon a special Verdict found the Case was this A man devised to I. S. his whole estate paying his debts and Legacies and dies possessed of Goods and Chattels to the value of five pounds only and dyed also seised in fee of divers lands and was indebted forty pounds at the time of his death The question was whether the lands passed by the Devise Barry of Councel with the Plaintif argued that the lands did pass because that wills ought to receive a favourable construction And 2ly The intent of the Testator is to be considered who by the words all his estate did mean to comprehend as well his land as his goods and chattels for there is no restraint of the words here 7 Ed. 3.10 The word estate is a word of large extent and extends as well to the real as personal estate if it were in Case of grant much more in the case of a Will And there is another word used here to explain the Testators meaning to be to devise his lands as well as his goods and that is the word All which comprehends all manner of estates without exception Next if the land should not pass his debts and Legacies cannot be paid according to the express intent of the Testator and the intent of the party ought to be satisfied although the words be not proper because it is in a will though it might be other wise in a grant And whereas it is objected that the Iuries finding of the value of the debts and Legacies is to no purpose because the will cannot be helped by the averment of the Iury. I answer that averments if they stand with the will may be received to make the Testators intent to appear But besides this is not an averment only but a true stating of the Case to the intent to find out the Testators meaning 3ly The devisee of the land is not made Executor but Trustee or Devisee this is since the Statute of Devises 32 H. 8. The 2. question is what estate the Devisee hath in the lands I conceive he hath Fee simple because he hath all the Estate which must be the largest and that is Fee-simple Hob. rep pl. 280. The word whole goes both to the quantity and quality of an estate also And here the consideration that he is to pay all his Debts and Legacies is a good consideration to pass the fee-simple of his lands and though there may be a surplusage after the Debts and Legacies paid this hinders nothing for it is his intent that the Devisee shall have that surplusage and so he prayed Iudgement for the Plaintif Twisden for the Defendant argued that either nothing passeth by the Will or if any thing then only an estate for life passeth He agreed that improper words may sometimes pais things yet sometimes proper words will not passe things viz. if the intent of the party appear to be contrary 24 Eliz in the Earl of Northumberlands case A Devise of all his Iewels did not pass his Collar of Esses and his Iewels annexed to his Parliament Robes and the words here are not that he deviseth all his estate in his lands but his whole estate generally and if the words here should pass the lands yet the fee simple passeth not but only an estate for life in the lands which do pass nor do the words paying his Debts and Legacies cause the Fee-simple to pass for here is no likelyhood of any loss to the Executor for the words are not that he shall pay all his Debts and Legacies and if he be an Executor as the contrary appears not he shall not be charged with more than the personal estate will discharge The words do amount to a Condition and it is not found that there are any Debts or Legacies paid and so it is not performed and the heir may well enter into the lands in question for the Condition broken 2ly The Verdict doth not find how the lands are held whether in Socage or by Knights service and so it appears not whether they can be devised or no and they shall not be intended to be Socage lands Dyer f. 207. Hill 32 El. rot 2. and Pell and Browns case 3ly It is not found that the Testator dyed seised of the lands as it ought to have been and he prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Special Verdict Roll. chief Iustice to the second Exception to the Verdict answered that in a Special verdict it is not necessary to find whether lands be held in Sorage or by Knights Service and he said that the words in the Will do goe to the nature and extent of the estate as Barry urged and he doubted how the verdict shall supply the Will if it be defective for that is only to make the intent of the Will certain Adjourned to be argued again Postea Marshal against Ledsham Trin. 1651. Banc. sup MArshal as Administrator brings an Action of Debt for rent Arrest of Judgement in Debt and upon a Verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and takes exception that the Plaintif had not shewn by whom the Letters of Administration were granted unto him as he ought to do but only says that the Administration debito more commissa fuit But it was answered that it is too late to move this Exception after a Verdict for the Iury have now found that the Administration was duly granted and the Letters of Administration were produced in Court and therefore not necessary to shew who granted them Declaration and it was said that in a Declaration it is not necessary to shew by whom Letters of Administration are granted or to say they were granted by him Cui pertinuit or per loci illius Ordinarium But in a Plea in Bar it is otherwise for this is not the cause of the Action Plea and effect of the sute but to shew they have been in the Spiritual Court Judicium nisi pro quaerente was afterwards given Antea Giles against Timberley Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 176. AN Ejectione firmae vi et armis was brought in the Common Pleas Error to reverse a judgement in an Ejectione firmae and a judgement given for the Plaintif upon a nihil dicit and in a writ of Error brought in this Court to reverse the judgement the Error assigned was in the judgement which was entred thus Ideo consideratum est quod recuperet and the word Capiatur was omitted which ought not to be because the Action is a Trespass vi et armis Roll chief Iustice said It is an ill course they use in the Common Pleas to enter
had where the Feme being Covert is not Tenant to the praecipe she shall be bound by it and he said she is not In other cases the party may be bound by estople namely where he might have pleaded to the writ or might have counterpleaded the voucher but here the Feme is not subject to be admitted to these things 17 E. 3. f. 37. and the Feme Covert here is not so concluded by her admission that she shall not be admitted to speak against this recovery if she survive her husband neither are her Heirs concluded if she do not survive although peradventure as to the warranty they may be concluded â—0 Ass pl. â— 11 E. 3 Fitz. voucher 1432 E. 3. Fitz. estople 246. 21. E. 3 13. and the recovery here is not duely had because there is no tertenant Roll chief Iustice said it is not to be questioned whether a recovery bind a Feme Recovery Examination Averment for it is the Common practice 2ly It is not necessary to examine a Feme Covert upon suffering a recovery although it be a prudentiall thing to do it but if it be not done it is not averrable that it was not done but the single question material here is whether the Feme be Tenant to the praecipe or not Feme Covert so that she shall be estopped to speak against the recovery and he held she was estopped for she joyns in the recovery with her Husband and here is no default made by the Baron and now the record is perfect and a thing contrary to it ought not to be averred against it but before the Record was perfect she might have pleaded Plea and the recompence in value here shall go to the Heirs of the Feme and the Tenant for life is also bound by this recovery and the Feme is party and also privy to the recovery Party and privy and therefore if it will bind her it will bind her Heirs also If a stranger had been Tenant to the praecipe and the Baron and Feme had been vouched the Feme had been bound and this is a stronger case and this case may concern many mens estates and therefore such recoveries are not to be questioned Therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement nisi Hill 1651 Banc. sup ONe Turner and Marian were Bail for one by the names of Turner and Mary Motion to alter the name of a Bail Amerdment Bail the Court was moved that the name Mary might be made Marian But Roll chief Iustice answered let the party come and find other Bail for upon the matter this is no Bail Hill 1651. Banc. sup AN Endictment was removed by a certiorari into this Court For a procedendo and the Court was moved for a procedendo because no Bail was put in here Roll chief Iustice answered If no Bail be put in you may proceed below without any procedendo Hill 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to supersede an Execution against one quia erronice To supersede an execution because he was taken in Exeeution whereas there was no declaration given against him in the Term time as it ought because the party was in custodia and the Declaration against him was upon the by viz. at another mans sute and not at his at whose sute he was in custody Roll chief Iustice answered if it be a Declaration on the by it ought to be given in the Term time Hill 1651. Banc. sup VPon a rule to shew cause why an attatchment should not be granted against Cox an Attorney of this Court and Maior of Newberry Cause why no attatchment for issuing out of Execution upon a judgement given there after a writ of Error brought and allowed there Wild shewed for cause that the Malor was enformed by Councell that the Record was not removed thence because the writ of Error was not good This was allowed for cause and the former rule discharged quod nota Hill 1651. Banc. sup LEtchmore moved the Court that the word publicae might be put into an Endictment which was removed hither by a certiorari To mend an endictment Amendment Fine But the Court answered it could not be but because the endictment was of another Term the Clark of the peace was fined at 10 l. for his carelessenesse and grosse oversight Pasch 1652. Banc. sup THe court was moved for a habeas corpus For a habeas corpus for one committed by an order of Sessions of the peace Surety for one that was committed to prison by an order of Sessions of the peace untill he should find sufficient suretyes for the peace whereas he had tendred suretyes which would not be accepted but extraordinary suretyes were required such as he was not able to procure Roll chief Iustice answered a thousand pound bond may be required for the keeping of the peace as the case may stand viz. if the party to be bound be a dangerous person Yet take a habeas corpus but be sure you bring good suretyes Pasch 1652. Banc. sup AN action of debt was brought against one for 50 l. due for divers pieces of lixnen cloath sold to the Defendant Wager of law waived and a plea put in The Defendant was ready at the Bar to wage his Law but the Court being enformed that the Defendants wife kept a shop and used to buy and sell by her husbands privity and allowance and that these parcells of cloath were bought by her to furnish her shop and that the Defendant her husband although he was a Sea man and medled not in buying and selling of any of the wares in the Shop yet his wife did it by his allowance Roll chief Iustice advised the Defendant to take heed he waged not his Law for that he could not do it with a good conscience because his allowance of his wifes buying the wares was all one as if he had bought them himself and counselled him to plead to which the Defendant consented and the ley gager was waived by consent of the partyes and an emparlance given till the next Term. Emparlance Dudley against Born Pasc 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved on the part of the Defendant that in regard Motion to put in security for costs denyed the Plaintiff had obteyned the cause between them to be tryed at the Bar that therefore he might be ordered by the Court to give security to pay the costs in case the tryal should be against him But the Court would make no such rule but said if he will not pay the costs in case the verdict be against him he shall take no benefit here afterwards upon it Garland against Yarrow Pasc 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1651. rot 1295. THe Plaintiff brought his Action upon the case against the Defendant for speaking these scandalous words of him Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words viz you are a knave and keep a bawdy house after a verdict for the
professision and cited one Hinkes case where these words spoken of the Plaintif being a Brasier were held actionable viz. Thou hast cozened me of a Pan. And if one say to another Thou hast poisoned a man If the man be dead the words are actionable although he doe not say that he did it wilfully The Court enclined the words are actionable because they are scandalous And the rule was Iudicium nisi c. Hill 1652. Banc. sup VVAdham Windham moved for a Certiorari to remove an Endictment preferred against one in Newgate Motion for a Certiorari to remove an Endictment Roll chief Iustice He lies there for murder and is outlawed thereupon yet take a Certiorari to remove the Record for his fact was the stabbing of a man and stabbing is in its nature but felony Felony Murther and is not murther although the party cannot have his Clergy for it by reason of the Statute made by King Iames against Stabbing else by the Common Law he might have had it Ashworth and Sir Tho. Stanley Hill 1652. Banc. sup VPon a Verdict given for the Plaintif in an Ejectione firmae Arrest of Iudgement in an Ejectione firmae Damages Ejectione firmae It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement That the Ejectment is laid to be of three Messuages or Tenements and a Toft which as to the Messuages or Tenements is incertain Roll chief Iustice You move too soon for it may be the Plaintiff will release the damages as to the Messuages or Tenement and take his judgement only for the toft and the Action lies well enough for that Hill 1652. Banc. sup TWisden moved to discharge Sir Thomas Revell and others of their recognisances for the peace in which they were bound the last Michaelmas Term Motion to discharge recognizances of the peace because the Affidavit upon which they were bound was only to this effect That the Prosecutor goes in fear of his life when he goes into such parcels of land whereas in truth those lands are setled upon Sir Thomas Revell by decree in Chancery and the Prosecutor hath also brought 18 several Actions against the Tenants of the lands and hath declared against none of them and there are four Affidavits against the first Affidavit Green on the other side said that the party is in Court and says he is still in fear of his life Peace and prays he may not be discharged But because upon reading the Affidavits and examining the matter it appeared to the Court that they were bound to the peace upon malice and for vexation they were discharged Hill 1652. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Who ought to repair High-ways of Common right All High ways of common right are to be repaired by the Inhabitants of that Parish in which the way lies But if any particular person will enclose any part of a way or waste adjoyning he thereby takes upon him to repair that which was so enclosed Massey and Aubry Hill 1652. Banc. sup AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation to stand to an Award Arrest of judgement in debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award The Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrators made no Award The Paintif replies that the Vmpire made an award and sets it forth and assigns the breach and upon issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the assignment of the breach was not good for the incertainty of it for the breach is assigned upon but a part of the Award for the breach assigned is that the Defendant should pay the Arrears of rent due after the purchase of certain lands and doth not shew what these Arrears are But Roll chief Iustice said That the words since the purchase thereof seem to make this certain yet stay till the other moves At another day the case was moved again and the same exception insisted upon by Barry of the Inner Temple who formerly moved it Hales held the Exception not good and that the breach was well assigned because though it seem uncertain of it self yet it relates to a thing which makes it certain As an Award for one to deliver to another all the goods in such a Shop which belonged to him hath been held to be good But Barry answered That it is utterly incertain and that there is nothing in the Award which can make it certain and here is a four-fold incertainty in the Award 1. It cannot be known what these arrears are that are awarded to be paid 2ly It appears not by the Award for what lands these arrerages of rent awarded to be paid are due for there are no lands mentiond but only two leases of land 3ly It appears not by whom the arrerages are due 4ly It appears not to whom the arrerages are due Roll chief Iustice All the matter is whether it appears that these arrerages of rent awarded to be paid were in question or no and it seems they were because the lease and the rent thereupon reserved are both in question but it is not certain what these arrears of rent are and so the party that is awarded to pay them cannot tell what sum of mony he is to pay Ierman Iustice said he may know because he was Tenant of the land Barry replyed he cannot know when the purchase was made and the arbitrement is that the party shall pay all the arrears since the purchase Curia advisare vult At another day the case was again moved by Barry and exceptions taken that the breach was assigned upon a thing not submitted unto or awarded to be performed And secondly The award is incertain in many things First It appears not what rent was due to be paid but only by implication which is not good Secondly It appears not for what the rent is due nor 3ly How much rent is due and Salmons case in the 5. rep was cited Also it was objected that the award was not finall and concluding and therefore not good Also the Award is unreasonable and for that cause also it is not good and he cited 21 E. 4. f. 40. and 17 E. 4. f. 51. and prayed for the Defendant that judgement might be stayed Hales on the other side prayed for judgement said That the Arbitrators were not to ascertain particularly the rent to be paid but it is sufficient for them to make the Award touching all the differences betwixt the parties and an averment may ascertain the particular things being they are only matters of fact although one may not be admitted by an averment to supply an Award in a matter wherein it was in the substance of it defective before Roll chief Iustice What certainty is there by the Award that the party shall enjoy all his right in the two leases in difference between the parties for the payment of the rent Both parties know what rent is due reserved by the leases but how can the party know what the
Iustice answered Denied It appears not to us but that the Parliament was sitting at the time and peradventure it will be made appear at the tryal Therefore plead and go to tryal and then move in Arrest of judgement if you have any thing to move Page and Parr Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1654. rot 1687. PAge brought an Action of Covenant upon a Covenant conteined in an Indenture of a demise for years Covenant upon an Indenture for the not paying the rent reserved by the Indenture according to the Covenant The Defendant pleads in bar that the Plaintif entred into part of the land demised before the rent due for which the Action was brought and so had suspended his rent The Plaintif replyed the Defendant did re-enter and so was possessed as in his former estate Suspension of ren and to this replication the Defendant demurred and for cause he shewed that here was no confession and avoidance or traverse of the plea in bar Roll chief Iustice Have you shewed that he continued in possession until the rent grew due for you ought to shew that he entred and was possessed untill after the rent-day but here you have only said that he was possessed in his former right Nil capiar per Billam Therefore nil capiat per Billam nisi Hill 1654. Banc. sup VPon an Affidavit read in Court Not to plead till costs paid assessed in a former Action that 20 l. costs were taxed upon a non-sute in an Action of Trespass and Ejectment brought to the Bar and that the Plaintif had not payed them nor was to be found and yet had brought another Action for the same land The Court was moved that the Defendant might not be ruled to plead to this second Action until the Plaintif had paid the costs taxed upon the former non sute and that another Plaintif might be named or that security might be given to pay the costs if the Plaintif should be non-sute again Shew cause The rule was to shew cause why it should not be so Hill 1654. Banc. sup DArcy moved that an Endictment of Michaelmas Term last might be amended in the Caption But Roll chief Iustice answered To amend an Endictment of a former Term denied It cannot be if it be of the last Term but had it been an endictment of this Term it might have been amended Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment for entring forcibly upon a Tenant for years against the Statute of 21 Iacobi To quash an Endictment and the Exception was that the Endictment doth not say that he entred manu forti Roll chief Iustice answered The Statute is only that if one enter by force and the words manu forti are not expressed in the Act Therefore move it again if you will Hill 1654. Banc. sup A Habeas Corpus cum causa was granted for Elizabeth Bayne To discharge a prisoner turned over to the Mareschal For a habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to the intent to charge her with an Action and upon the return thereof she was committed to the Mareschal Wild moved that she might be discharged because the return of the Habeas Corpus is erronious But Roll chief Iustice answered It could not be whereupon he moved for another Habeas Corpus for her ad subjiciendum to be directed to the Mareschal which was granted Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment preferred against one for practising Phisick not being skilfull in the profession To quash an Endictment for practising Phisick without licence and not having a License to practice from the College of Phisicians The Exceptions were 1. That no Endictment at the Common Law lies for the offence supposed to be committed for it is not an offence against the Common Law and 2ly an Endictment upon the Statute lies not and so no Endictment lies And upon these Exceptions it was quashed The Protector and Hart. Hill 1654. Banc. sup ONe Hart committed to the Gatehouse appeared in Court upon the return of a Habeas Corpus granted for him To remand a prisoner appearing upon a Habeas Corpus and turned over Denied and upon the prayer of his Councel the return was filed upon which it was moved on his behalf that he might be remanded to the Keeper of the Gatehouse and not turned over to the Mareschal to the intent to save his fees but the Court said it could not be because upon filing of the return there ought to be entred upon it a Committitur to the Mareschal whereby he becomes his prisoner Torret and Frampton Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1653. rot 178. VPon a special Verdict the Case was this Special verdict upon a Devise A man deviseth his lands to his wife for her life the remaindar to A. B. and C. and their heirs respectively for ever The question was whether A. B. and C. were joynt tenants or tenants in common Serjeant Twisden held that they were joynt renants Whether joynt tenancy or a tenancy in common and that this case differs from Radcliffs case and cited Wilds case in the 6 Rep. that a Will must be clear and conspicuous but so it is not here and here is no enforcement by these words respectively and they do relate to the persons and not to the lands bequeathed and a Covenant made by three respectively is a joynt Covenant and not a several Covenant and the word respectively hath relation to the survivorship which may happen betwixt the parties and a devise to one and his heir is a fee-simple Latch For the Defendant held that here is a tenancy in Common and not a joynt tenancy for the Estate ought to be whole out either a tenancy in Common or whole out a joynt tenancy and this of necessity for there cannot be a joynt tenancy for life and several inheritantes in the remainder and Littletons ground proves this to be so And 2ly It is against all construction to be otherwise as the word respectively is here placed and Ratclifs case which is not so strong a case as this case proves it to be so and although the word respectively may sometimes make a distribution of heirship as hath been objected viz. of several heirships yet here the placing of the word respectively shews it cannot be so Distribution of heirship and this using of the word is not operative but idle if here should be a joynt tenancy for the law says as much though the word respectively were left out and the word would be the more idle in explicating a thing so obvious to common understanding and no ways doubtfull and therefore we cannot think but that these extraordinary words do enforce an extraordinary construction and not a common one and an idle application and this comes not within the rule objected for the certainty for this word hath a proper meaning to make a several distribution
to the surrender or otherwise the admittance is not good Thurle and Madison Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at the Bar between Thurle and Madison Enrolment of a Deed. It was said by Glyn chief Iustice that if divers persons do seal a Deed and but one of them acknowledge the Déed and the Déed is thereupon enrolled this is a good enrollment within the Statute and may be given in evidence as a Deed enrolled Evidence at a Tryal It was then also said that if a deed express a consideration of money upon the purchase made by the Deed yet this is no proof upon a tryal Consideration that the monies expressed were paid but it must be proved by witnesses MEorandum Copy proved That upon the same Tryal an Act of Parliament produced in point for the selling of Delinquents estates was sworn to have been examined by the Parliament Roll and that it was a true Copy before it was read in evidence Nota. VVood and Gunston Mich. 1655. VPon a motion for a new tryal between Wood and Gunston Memorandum New tryal for miscarriage of the Iury. upon a supposition of excessive damages given by the Iury in an Action upon the case tryed at the Bar for words viz. Calling the Plaintif Traytor c. 1500 l. being the damages given It was said by Glyn chief Iustice that if the Court do believe that the Iury gave their verdict against their direction given unto them the Court may grant a new Tryal And a new Tryal was gronted in this Case after a full debate had by Councell on both sides Culliar and Iermin Mich. 1655. Banc. sup CUlliar brought an Action upon the Case upon a promise and declared Arrest of judgement upon a promise that the Testator of the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would mary such a Woman did promise that he would leave him half his Estate at his death and thereupon he did mary the party and yet he did not leave him half his estate at his death Vpon a verdict found for the Plaintif it was moved in arrest of judgement that the Declaration was not good for whereas the promise was that the Defendant should leave him half of all his estate which might be intended both of his real and also of his personal Estate and of any estate in reversion as well as of an estate in possession the Plaintif only says that the Testator died worth 3000 l. in possession and that he did not leave him half of that estate and it may be he left him part of his real estate or estate in reversion to the full value of half his whole estate But Glyn chief Iustice disallowed the exception and gave judgement for the Plaintif Iudgement Lance and Blackmore Mich. 1655. Banc. sup Hill 1654. rot 191. LAnce an Executor brought an Action upon the Case against Blackmore Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the Case upon a pro and declared that in consideration that the Testator would suffer the Defendant to enjoy such a Close of land the Defendant did assume and promise to pay 53 s. a year for the rent thereof for so long time as he should enjoy it and for so much rent due for it for so long time in the Testators life time and for so much rent due since his death he brings the Action Vpon non assumpsit pleaded a verdict was found for the Plaintif and entire dammages given It was moved in arrest of Iudgement That an Action of the Case doth not lie it being for the non-payment of rent which follows the nature of the land and doth sound in the realty for which a personal Action lies not 2ly Here doth not appear by the Daclaration Personal act on Consideration to the any consideration to ground the promise upon for the Declaration is that if the Testator in her life time would permit the Defendant to enjoy the Close then c. and it is not averred Averment that the Testator did in her life time suffer the Defendant to enjoy the Close Glyn chief Iustice If a promise be made to the Testator the Executor may have an Action Executor and it is a good consideration as to him for the executor is representative of the Testator And 2ly An Action upon the Case will not lie for rent upon a promise in law but upon a special promise of the party to pay it Promise in Law Special as our Case is it will lie Ingram and Fawset Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN this Case it was said by Glyn chief Iustice Administratâ—r must shew how Administrator That if an Administrator bring an Action against an Administrator it is not necessary for the Plaintif to shew by whom the letters of Administration were granted unto the Defendant but he must shew by whom the letters of Administration were granted to himself to entitle himself to the Action for if it appear not to the Court that he is Administrator he cannot sue by that name Mich. 1635. Banc. sup IT was said by Wild and agreed by Whitwick one of the Masters of the Vpper Bench office How far special bayl is lyable for the principal that if an Attorny do appear for one in the Vpper Bench special bayl is entred for his Clyent to that Action that that Bayl is not bound to stand Bayl to all other Actions that shall be declared in against the party upon the by but the Attorny for him is bound to appear for him in all such Actions and to put in Common bayl Wagstaff and Tempest Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IT was said by Glyn chief Iustice upon evidence given in a Tryal at the Bar Dispensation with a forfeiture of an Estate bayl between VVagstaff and Tempest that if tenant for life do levy a Fine of the Lands he is so seised of whereby he should forfeit his estate yet if he in the remainder will joyn with the Tenant for life in declaring the uses this is a dispensation with the forfeiture and Le Gay Mich. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was enformed For a time to accompt before Auditors that in an Action of Accompt brought there was a verdict that the Defendant should accompt before Auditors and that Auditors were assigned and the parties were now before the Auditors and thereupon it was moved on the Defendants part that this Court would grant him time to accompt for the reasons alleged But Wild answered that it was not proper to move here for the Auditors are now Iudges of the matter Auditors Iudges by the Statute and may give time if they see cause To which Glyn chief Iustice agreed and said the Auditors are Iudges by the Statute and therefore move before them and trouble not us with it Sergeant Bradshaw and Procter Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN the Case of Sergeant Bradshaw and Mr. Procter of Grays Inne Challenge to an array no part of