both degrees And in 2 E. 3. the Case 2 E. 3. is famous and is known by the name of Roberges Case where Lands were given to her and to the heirs of the husband of her body begotten and it was there held That if her husband were then dead and left any heir which he had by her they might take joyntly with her for that it was not possible to take by descent from the said Roberges because he which takes it must not be heir to her but to the husband who never held any Estate therein And so to be short I am of Opinion That no estate of inheritance be gained by B. by these words The heirs of the body of his father The Case upon the third Point is this a Mannor is granted Third Point to one for his life upon condition to have it for the life of C. then a Copyhold is forfeit and before the Lord seize his Estate is altered or changed if now he can take advantage of this forfeiture or not wherein the altering of the Estate of one to another is of like force as where it alters in the parties self against which it may be said That if Tenant for life make waste and then he in the reversion grant over the reversion the Grantee shall not now punish this waste and so Mr. Perkins fol. 20. If a Tenant alien in Mortmain and Perkins so 20. then the Lord grant away his Signiory the Grantee shall not enter for this Mortmain so by Fitz. in his Nat. bre in his admeasurement Fitz. Har. Nat. brc. of Dower If a Garden assign to a woman more dower then she ought to have and then grant his Gardenship over the Grantee cannot have an admeasurement of Dower against her and so Binghams Case in Sir Edward Cook 2. Rep. where there was Tenant for life remainder in Fee of a Tenancy holden Binghams Case Cook 2 Rep. by Knights service and he in remainder died his heirs within age and then the Lord granted away his Signiory and then Tenant for life dyed by which the said heir was to have been in ward yet because the Signiory was granted away after the inception of the Wardship before it was perfectly due it was there held that neither the grant nor the grantee should have the same So Lessee for life without impeachment Bokenhams Case in Dicr of wast remainder for his own life the priviledge is lost but yet notwithstanding I do hold that in this Case B. after he hath by the performance of the Condition altered his Estate which he had when the forfeiture was committed yet shall he afterward take advantage thereof well enough As if there be Tenant for life the Remainder for life to I. S. and the first Tenant for life commit waste or forfeiture he in the reversion cannot punish this during the life of him in the remainder for life but after his death he may also if one make a Lease for years upon Condition to be void and the Lessor grant away his reversion the Grantee may enter for breach of this Condition by 11 H. 7. 17. and yet here the Estate in reversion is altered from 11 H. 7. 17. one to another and I doubt not but if a Tenant for life be the remainder in Fee to another of a Mannor and a Copyhold is forfeit and then Tenant for life dyed that he in remainder may enter into this Copyhold and yet this Estate is altered into a possession from a remainder and in the Case although the Estate in B. be altered yet it is by decreaser and so thereby it is parcel of the old Estate he had before and therefore it is like to a Case where the husband and wife were Tenants in special Tail and they recovered by Assize and then the husband dyed and after his death without issue the wives Estate being altered from an Estate Tail into an Estate of possibility of issue extinct was again put out and disseized and she brought a Writ of Redisseisin 2 H. 4. 17. 26 H. 6. title Ayd pl. 77. which will not lie but on the first Estate and against the first parties and yet it was maintained because it was parcel of her former Estate And so in this Case although the Estate of B. was altered from his own life into the life of C. yet I am of Opinion That he might take advantage of this forfeiture because the Customary Estate is utterly void thereby Points upon the Statute I am determined before I enter into the discourse of new defences in my Case to deliver my Opinion touching the Walls Banks and other ancient defences which have had their being time out of memory and in truth be the very materials and memorials of Antiquity And because Banks and Walls be the first named in the Commission they shall therefore have the first place in my argument being the most ancient and approved defences as well against the rage of the Seas as against the violence of fresh waters that either Art or Nature have produced Bank THe Bank of the sea is the utmost border of dry land and is of the same materials with the grounds wherein and whereon it standeth it is sometimes natural and in some places artificial Natural as Mountains raised higher then other grounds adjoyning as it pleased the Creator when the first huge Chaos was separated divided and distributed Artificial when it is cast by mans hand Justinian the Emperor treating of these in his Institutes and his title de rerum divisione describeth them in this maner Riparum usus est publicus illar ' verò domin ' ad eos pertinet qui proximior praediis domini sunt itaque naves ad eas appellere funes arboribus ibi natis Religare onus aliquod in his Reponere cuilibet liberum est by which authority it appeareth that the ownership and property of the sea bank and banks of great Rivers be to them whose grounds are next thereto adjoyning and the Trees Grass and other things thereon growing belong to the owner of the soil but the use of the banks is common to all the Kings liege people as to tie the ships and boats to the Trees and to tow them to and fro and to lade and unlade their Merchandizes thereon and for fishers to dry their nets on And as the owner of the soil and proprietor of the grounds cannot justifie the digging or casting of them down whereby the people shall be hindred of their necessary use thereof no more can the people which have but necessarium usum fell up the Trees or mow the grass thereon growing neither ought they to dig ballast there but every one as well owner as user Sic uti suo ut alienum non laedat I cannot more aptly compare a Bank of the Sea or of a navigable River then to a Highway for that the property thereof is to him whose ground is next adjoyning and the
title to Land by Action Condition or Entry or he which hath a contingent use shall not be taxed for them Neither was Cestui que use at the Common Law before the Statute of 27 H. 8. of uses nor is the Bargainee of Land before the Deed be inrolled sessable by this Law Neither is one who hath the presentation or nomination to a Church as Patron or he which is Founder for his foundership Taxable within this Statute yet they be Tenements the largest words of charge within this Law but the Law intends the immediate possession of such Tenements which be proficuous and not these things which be Tenements in Law and which be but conveyances and their fruit is Ceremony without Substance This Law setteth down such things for the which one is chargeable viz. He which hath Lands Tenements Rents Commons of Pasture Profit of Fishing or other Commodities and such as have Safety Profit Defence or any other Commodity These be the words of charge recited by this Law This word Land is of large extent for it reacheth to house Arrable Pasture Meadow Mills Tofts and to all other Edifices Moors Marishs Woods Wood grounds for all these the earth is the substance Et omne solo cedet and the several increases thereof be but qualities The word Tenements is of larger extent then Lands for it containeth all which the word Lands doth and all things else which lyeth in Tenure so that I think it shall be but labor lost to enter further into the particulars thereof Lord and Tenant IF there be Lord and Tenant and the Tenant holdeth of the Lord by yearly Rent services the Lord may be rated as well for his Rent as the Tenant for his Land to Annual repairs as well as to accidental by reason of these words in the Statute that is That every one be rated and taxed according to the rate of every persons Rent Tenure or profit here be full words to charge the Lord for his Rent and so Rent charges and Rent seck shall be subject to sesses in this kinde for otherwise the Tenant of the grounds may be undone thereby in regard the Rents going and issuing out of the grounds may amount to as much almost as the yearly value of the grounds do But if the Rents be so smal as they are scarce worth the gathering then in discretion the Commissioners may spare them for De minimis non Curat Lex Also whether the remainder man and he in Reversion depending upon an Estate in Tail shall be rated and taxed or not by the power of these Laws is an apt question for this place and therein my opinion is That being dry and fruitlesse Remainders and Reversions they shall not be sessed to the repairs but the Tenant in Tail in possession shall be solely charged for it is more to be feared that Tenant in Tail will cut off the Remainder and Reversion by a Recovery then that the Sea shall drown his Estate by an overflow Lessee for years and he in Reversion IN the Case of the Lessee for years and for life and those in Reversion and Remainder there is a greater cause of dispute then between Tenant in Tail and he in the Reversion And because it is an often Case I have therefore taken the more pains to resolve the same First the Lessee is in the present possession and so is subject to all ordinary charges and with this agreeth Jeffrays Jeffrays Case Case in Sir Edwards Cook 5 Report for there the Case was resolved that where the Inhabitants of a Town were assessed towards the repair of a Church there the Lessee for years was charged and not the Lessor though he had a yearly Rent reserved For in point of the Rent this Case and that will differ by reason Rents be expresly within this Law but I now speak of a Lessee where no Rent is reserved In 17 Ed. 4. fol. 6 a Tenth was granted to the 17 Ed. 4. King by Parliament of the value of their Lands and the Lessee for years was charged therewithal and so was the Law there taken if the Parliament had given the Tenth part of the issues and profits of the Lands The Case of the Proxies in the Irish Reports doth in my Opinion in reason resemble this Case for the Case was Case of Proxies there That the Bishop of Meath in Ireland had a Proxy of fifteen shillings payable out of the Commandry of Kells then parcell of the possessions of St. Johns all which came to the Crown by the dissolution of Monasteries in that Kingdom and after the said Bishop granted the said Proxies to Queen Elizabeth and after Q. Elizabeth made a Lease of the Commandry to Dr. Forth reserving a yearly Rent without mentioning the Proxy And it was there resolved That Doctor Forth the Lessee for years should be at the charge to pay the said Proxy with all the arrerages thereof which did incur in his time And so in the case of a Rent charge the Lessee is chargeable and he is to pay the Tythes and the Composition money due therefore So that these Cases sway strongly against the Lessee for years to lay the whole charge upon him and to exempt the Lessor But yet we must here distinguish and make a difference between Annual repairs in ordinary things and extraordinary repairs for to furnish the defence with petty reparations they shall be laid only upon the Lessee for years or for life but if a new Wall Bank or Goat or Sewer be to be built new and erected or if the ancient defences be decayed in the main timber or in the principal parts thereof here as well the Lessor as the Lessee shall be put to the charge for these things be not ordinary and annual charges but do reach from the beginning of the Lease to the top of the Inheritance as for petty reparations they are by intendment to continue but for a short time which are likely to be spent during the term and lease but these new defences are apparantly done to save the Inheritance And this difference holds good correspondency with other Cases in our Law as in 49 Ed. 3. fol. 1. and 3 Eliz. in Dyer fol. 198. and in 49 Ed. 3. 3 Eliz. Dier that Book again fol. 134. and in divers other Books it is holden for Law That if a house in Lease decay in the Groundsels Post or Balk in the great timber in direct wearing by tract of time and not in default of the Lessee the Lessee may take and cut up timber growing on the grounds leased to repair the same and the Lessee shall be at charges of workmanship for the repairs are in matter of right and do the Lessee good during his Lease and the Lessor after the expiration thereof And because these great repairs extend to both their goods therefore they shall both be contributory thereto But if a house be decayed in splinting thack walling or in such
cannot be imparted to another It is true that the personal view cannot be lent to another or divided from the person no more can the personal touch or act of my hand be imparted to another and yet express Livery which is the deed and act of the hand may be done per auter maine Sir Francis Englefields Case in the seventh Report of Sir 7. Reports Englefields Case Edward Cook gives us a pretty difference where the act to be done is unseparably tied to ones person and where not as in the Case of Thomas Duke of Norfolk where upon conveyance of divers Mannors to Philip Earl of Arundel his Son there was a Proviso That the Duke might revoke the same upon signifying of his minde under his own proper hand in writing c. This power of Revocation was not transferred to the Queen by the Attainder of the Duke because it was inseparably tied to his own proper hand But the principal Case there of Englefield where the Canc. in Combs Case Lands were setled upon his Kinsman with power That upon tender of a Ring by him he might revoke the uses and this was forfeit by his attainder and the Queen by a Letter of Attorney made to two did tender the Ring for this was not precisely or literally tied to Englefields person no more then payment of Money or such like And so in our Case though by the Law I take it that Livery within the view must be in the view of both the parties yet this may be done by Attorneys for as my own hand is not precisely tied by the Law to an express Livery no more is my own eye expresly tied to this view And we see in views in an Assize the under Sheriff or 36. H. 8. Dier the Sheriffs Bailiffs by his direction may make the view and yet the Writ is direct to the Sheriff to do the same Morse Penningtons Case and in those Cases an intellectual view will serve as if the Jurors know the Land but such an intellectual view will not serve in a Feoffment but there the view must be actual Yet I take this difference that if a Letter of Attorney be directed to A. B. to make Livery and Seisin he cannot do the same within the view for therein he doth not pursue his warrant but if the Letter of Attorney be special to give or take Livery within the view I am of Opinion then the Livery may in such a Case be given and taken by Attorneys within the view as well as in Combes Case in Sir Edwards Cooks 9. Report where it is affirmed that a surrender of a Copy-hold may be given and taken by Attorneys which is as personal as this is in the taking part because Fealty ought to be made Some things may in this Case be further aleaged in this third point which I now have in hand that is Who must make the Letter of Attorney on the Feoffees part whether the Lessee for years or he in the remainder or both of them For Lessee for years it is to be noted that his Estate hath not any perfection thereby and he seems himself but a Deputy and if so then a Deputy cannot make a Deputy but yet he is not meerly a Deputy for if there be two Lessees the Remainder in Fee to I. S. one of the Lessees may take the Livery and Seisin yet if a letter of Attorney be made to two joyntly one of them cannot take it and if in our Case the Lessee had dyed before entry the Livery might have been made to his Executors and powers and authorities cannot be apportioned and come to Executors in such maner Ergo It is more then a power of a Letter of Attorney for the reasons aforesaid and for these insuing For the Lessee for years cannot be prohibited from taking his Livery by the Lessor but a Letter of Attorney may be countermanded yet the Lessee alone cannot make this Letter of Attorney neither can he in the remainder make the same because he could not himself accept of the present Livery neither can he meddle with the present possession which a Livery and Scisin yields But I am of Opinion That Lessee for years and he in remainder must joyn in the Letter of Attorney for these Reasons First they were both one party to the Deed so ought they to be to the Letter of Attorney which is to give life thereunto Secondly they be but in Law one Tenant Thirdly they should joyn in Advoury And in many Cases the Lessee shall have ayd of him in remainder for the privity between their Estates and although the Lessee gets no Estate by the Livery yet he assists himself thereby with the ayd and strength of him in the remainder and the Livery goes through his Estate and so passeth into the remainder Therefore my conclusion is that they shall joyn in this Letter of Attorney and hereby I suppose I have conveyed a good Estate in the maner to I. S. in the remainder to maintain my position for him in the end of my Case and here I end my three Common Law points and now am come to the Statute The Readers Argument upon the Statute and Commission The Sea within the Realm of England FIrst touching our Mare Anglicum in whom the interest therein is and by what Law the Government thereof is is a fit question and worth the handling And in my Argument therein I hope to make it manifest by many proofs and precidents of great worth and esteem that the King hath therein these powers and properties videlicet 1. Imperium Regale 2. Potestatem legalem 3. Proprietatem tam soli quam aquae 4. Possessionem Proficuum tam Reale quam Personale And all these he hath by the Common Laws of England in the 6. R. 2. Fitz. Prot. 46. it is said That the Sea is within 6. R. 2. the Legiance of the King as of his Crown of England This proves that on the Seas the King hath Dominationem Imperium ut Rex Angliae and this by the Common Law of England The Charter of the Admiral of England hath these words Admirals Charter in it Quod habeat potestatem in causis maritimis ac omnia bona waviata Flotsan Ietsan Lagan ac omnia bona Mercimonia catalla in mare depordita seu extra mare projecta ac omnia singula casualia tam in vel super mare vel littora crecas vel coster as maris quam in vel super aquas dulces portus flumina rivos aut alios locos superinundatos quoscunque inter Fluxum refluxum maris ceu aquae ad plenitudinem à quibuscunque primis pontibus versus Mare per totum Regnum Angliae Imprimis this Charter is under the great Seal of England quod est Lex Angliae The King grants to the Admiral thereby power in Maritine Causes which proves the Kings legal power and jurisdiction on
decree of the sale must be directed by and depend upon the sesse But if after the general sesse be laid the same be after assessed upon particular persons by particular sums by the said Commissioners then upon default of payment their Lands making default may be decreed from them by the power of this Statute If an assesse or charge of payment be laid upon certain Lands without mentioning the Owner the Lands cannot be decreed from him by this Law for the words of the Statute be That if any person or persons assessed to any Lot or Charge do not pay So that I shall take it that no decree for sale of Land can be made but where there is a person certainly assessed by name Lands cannot be decreed away from the owners for default of payment of Fines Amerciaments or Pains for though these be sums of money or charges imposed by the Commissioners of Sewers of persons certain for matters touching these Laws yet because they were not sessed or rated towards the repairs of any works of Sewers but be set upon the parties as mulcts and punishments and be due to the King therefore no decree of Lands can be made for any of them Now the second part of this clause is what Lands may be decreed by the authority of the said Statute and thereby it appears they must be such Lands as lie and be within the power of this Commission of Sewers and herein rests a difference between the case of a Distresse for a sesse which may be taken in any place within this Realm and the decree of sale of Lands for Non-payment of a sesse which must lie within the bounds and extent of the Commission for this Distresse is circumscribed to the extent of the Statute which is over the whole Realm and the sale is tyed to the limits of the Commission And I am also of opinion that no Land can be sold away by the decree of the Commissioners of Sewers but such as were charged with the sesse If one hold his Lands in Comitat ' Eborum to repair a Sea-bank in the County of Lincoln and the Owner is assessed therefore and makes default of payment the Commissioners of Sewers in the county of Lincoln may give warrant to distrain for this sesse in the county of York but they cannot decree away by sale those Lands lying there which were charged with the sesse A Copyholders Land cannot be decreed against him by this Law for if it might then these customary Lands should be transferred from one to another contrary to the Customs of the Manors whereof they be parcel and it would infringe that rule which is delivered in Heidons Case Heidons Case in Cooks 3 Report which is when an Act of Parliament doth alter the service Tenure and interest of the Land or other thing in prejudice of the Lord or of the Custom of the Manor or of the Tenant there the general words of such a Statute doth not extend to Copyholds And in this case if any sale should be made by the Commissioners all the said rules should be infringed for it were contrary to the Custom to passe these Lands without surrender it were in prejudice of the Lord to have Copyhold-land passed and he to have no Fine And I am likewise of opinion that the Freehold of these Lands could not be passed away for a sesse or a lay because the Lord hath but the shadow and the Copyholder hath the substance But if the Lords Rents of Assize should be assessed as they ought to be and he do neglect to pay then these Rents might be decreed from him and so may all other Lands Tenements and Hereditaments decreed in respect whereof one is sessable and sessed by the Laws The third Branch of this clause is the direct point in my case viz. What persons what estates be bound by these decrees And first of the Heirs in Tail whether they be bound by a decree made against the Donees in Tail their Ancestors is the question In the handling whereof I hold it sitting to shew in what cases the Heirs in Tail have been bound by the act of their Ancestors and the reasons and causes thereof And therefore if a Disseisor make a Gift in Tail and the Donee in Tail grant a Rent to the Dissessee for release of his right this will binde the Heir in Tail for that by this release his Estate which before was defeisable is now confirmed as by the Books of 44 Ed. 3. 22. and 20 Ed. 4. 13. 44 Ed. 3. 20 Ed. 4. 46 Ed. 3. appeareth and so in 46 Ed. 3. a gift in Tail was made Ita quod the Donee might alien to the benefit of the Heirs in Tail and and this by Judge Welbey was held a condition which bound the Heir in Tail for his benefit And in 12. Ed. 4. 1. Tregouse and Taltarms Case was That a recovery against Tenant 12 Ed. 4. in Tail with a Voucher by him over did binde the heirs in Tail by the Common Law by reason of the intended recompence which was to come to him by the Voucher and so a lineal warranty with assets and a collateral warranty without assets were and be both of them bars to the Issues by reason also of the intended recompences and these are things which were originally tied to those Estates and were incidents to them ab initio And therefore this shall suffice to treat of bars to the Issues in Tail by the Common Laws and now I shall proceed to shew in what cases they were barred of their Estates by the Statutes of this Realm By the Statute of 16 R. 2. cap. 5. The Lands and Tenements 16 R. 2. of one attaint in a Premunire are to be forfeited to the King and in 21 Eliz. one Trudgin was Tenant in Tail 11 El. and was attainted in a Premunire and the question was Whether Intailed Lands were forfeited against the Issues in Tail or not And in Doctor Forsters case in Cooks 11 Report C. 11 Rep. it is there said to be resolved that the general words of that Statute did not repeal the Statute of Westminster 2. of Intails and so the forfeiture was there resolved to continue but for the life of Trudgin and did not binde the Issues in Tail A Judgement in Debt against Tenant in Tail or if he be bound in a Statute or in a Recognizance in the nature of a Statute the Lands Intailed were not extendable nor to be held in extent by the Statutes of Westminster 2. Acton Burnel or by the Statute de Mercatoribus by any of the general words of these Laws but the Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 39. by expresse words bindeth the heir in Tail for their Lands 23 H. 8. whose Ancestors stood indebted to the King by Judgement Recognizance Obligation or other specialty But the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. Enacts That every 26 H. 8. one which shall be
and a Villain for years and a Captive taken in the Wars be for there shall be paid for him a Ransom as is mentioned in the Register fol. 102. Moneys due upon Statutes Judgements Recognizances Bonds Bills or Contracts be not valueable substances within this Statute for by this Statute it must be clear and not doubtful or accidental as Moneys out of hand be which is like to a Bird in the Bush yet these be all valueable and are valued in Inventories taken in the Ecclesiastical Courts But yet the Executors or Administrators shall not be charged for assets for them till they have received them And in 25 H. 8. in Dier fol. 5. Obligations are not held valueable but things in action and if one 25 H. 8. have got goods by tort and wrong to the value of One hundred pounds yet this is clear valueable substance within this Law for although the word clear be inserted into the Statute yet that relates to the value and not to the title of those goods And if one have goods as Executor or Administrator these are not his own and therefore do not inable him to be a Commissioner within this Law Neither do the goods of the Church inable the Parson Vicar or Curate nor the goods of a Corporation do not inable the Major and Aldermen or Citizens of a City or Town Corporate for these do not belong to their particular persons neither did this stock in my case which is demised to B. and C. make them competent Commissioners within this Statute because they had not the property therein but onely the use and occupation thereof And although in this Statute it is not declared in what place these goods which should inable a man to be a Commissioner of Sewers should be in it will suffice if the party have them in any place within the Realm for this very Law calls them Moveable substance And herein I end my Free Citizen and in my opinion E. had neither Freedom in his person nor real Estate in Land nor moveable substance in any sort to make him a competent Commissioner within this Law yet if a Freeman be destitute of goods or want perfection in his Freedom if notwithstanding he have Lands to the value of forty Marks per annum then he shall be allowed a Commissioner within this Statute Touching which point of Lands I now intend to proceed in In the handling of this matter it is to be considered which be Hereditaments within this Law for the other two words Lands and Tenements need no exposition wherein I am of opinion That Messuages Cortages Toâ—â—s Crofts Houses Land Meadow Pasture Feedings Moors Marishes Heaths Furs Mills Orchards Gardens Hopyards Rents of Annuities Prima vestura terrae Pischaries Tythes Pensions Portions Proxies Parks Warrens are all of them Hereditaments within this part of this Law for the word Hereditament is a word of the larger size and largest extent in our Law being Omne quod Haereditari potest and yet every Hereditament is not within this branch for it hath two other words joyned therewithal videlicet yearly value And therefore Franchises and Liberties as Waifs Strayes Felons goods Deodans Fines Amerciament Profits of Courts Fairs Markets Ferries Hundreds Leets and such like are all of them out of this Statute in this point because they be not of a certain yearly value but be accidental and depend in contingency by the opinion in Butler and Bakers Case Cooks 3 Report But as it is there said If these things have heretofore been usually letten and demised for certain yearly Rents then they may be Hereditaments of clear yearly value within this Law All Offices and Vocations as Physitians Chyrurgions or Trades as Merchants Mercers Grocers Drapers and such like be neither Hereditary nor of certain yearly value and therefore they be not within this Law though perhaps one gain thereby Five hundred pounds per annum Also dry reversions or remainders depending upon Estates for lives are out of this branch for the words of the Statute be having which is in praesenti and not futuro Neither is an Advowson of force in this point though it be assets in a Formdon yet it is no assets in an Action of debt brought against Executors Homages Fealties Escuages Heriots Reliefs Nomine paenes and such like be Hereditaments but because they are not of yearly value they are not therefore within this Law Also if a Commissioner of Sewers be seised of a Rent or Annuity payable every second year it doth not inable him to sit because it is not Annual which is intended yearly and every year as the Pryor of Plymptons Case in Dier fol. 133. is but if one do grant to I. S. an Annuity or Rent of Forty Marks in Fee payable at the feast of Easter yearly if the grantee will then come for it to such a place is of certain yearly value within this Law But put the case that A. is seised of Land in Fee and grant to B. Forty Marks per annum for his life only I am of opinion that B. is no sufficient qualified Commissioner within this Law But if A. be seised of a Rent of Forty Marks per annum in Fee and he grant the same to B. for his life he is a competent Commissioner within this Law differentia apparet Our Statute goeth on in these words That the Commissioner which would sit without exception must have in Lands Tenements or Hereditaments of the clear yearly value of Forty Marks to his own use Therefore a man seised of Lands to that value in the right of his wife although he take the Rents and Profits to his own use yet this will not inable him to be a Commissioner within this Law but he must have them in ejus usu ad ejus usum A Feoffee to a use before the Statute of 27 H. 8. of uses was no competent Commissioner within our Statute for he had the Land then to another mans use Neither was Cestui que use sufficiently qualified to be a Commissioner Two Tenants in common or coparceners of Forty pounds Lands per annum are neither of them of sufficient ability to be Commissioners within this Law And the like Law is of two Joyntenants of Land of that yearly value for though they be seised per my and per tout yet in truth and in a legal construction either of them be seised but of a moyety So that if two Joyntenants Tenants in common or coparceners be seised of Lands of the yearly value of Threescore pounds either of them may sit by this Commission A Dean and Chapter Major and Commonalty Master of a Colledge and Fellows which be seised of Lands and Tenements of the yearly value of a Hundred pounds per annum are not in respect thereof to sit If a Bishop Dean Chancellor Archdeacon Prebend Parson or Vicar be seised of Lands in Jure Ecclesiae of the clear yearly value of Forty Marks I suppose these may