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
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
one as if the party had appeared for if he had appeared the Case would have béen otherwise So Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi c. Pasch 1652. Banc. sup MEmorandum One brought by Habeas Corpus from the Fleet remaâ—â—ed One was brought into the Court by the Mareschall of the Fléet by vertue of a habeas Corpus directed to him out of this Court and because it did appear upon Record that the party was charged with divers debts when he was turned over to the Fleet he was not suffered to put in Bail here but was remanded Gossage against Tayler Pasch 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 117. IN an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease for years of a Messuage Special verdict in Trespass and Ejectrueâ—â— and certain lands in Hatfield Broad-Oak in the County of Essex upon a special verdict found the case fell out to be this Rich. Frank seised amongst other lands and Tenements of the Messuage and lands in question upon the mariage of his Son Leventhorp Frank with Susan Cotele levies a fine of the lands to the use of himself during his own life and the life of Leventhorp his Son and after during the life of Susanna Cotele the wife of Leventhorp the remainder to the use of the heirs to be begotten upon the body of Susanna by Leventhorp her Husband The question here was whether the word heirs shall be intended the heirs of Leventhorp and Susanna his wife or whether the estate shall be intended to be limited to the heirs of Susanna only and that Leventhorp shall have barely an estate for life in the lands Serjeant Glyn of Councel with the Plaintif held That Susanna Cotele hath an estate tayl executed in the lands and that the word heirs shall relate only to the heirs of Susanna and not to the heirs of Leventhorp 1. Because that here is an estate limited for life unto Susanna by an express limitation and her heirs shall take immediately after the estate for life ended and they shall not come in as purchasors By express Terms the word heirs is not limited to any person but it is left to the construction of the Law and that doth apply it to Susanna as to a person to whom Richard that setled the lands hath expressed most affection as appears by the Deed Lit. f. 6. Sect. 28. There is an expression of the party to whom the word heirs shall relate but so is not here and therefore the cases differ In 3 Ed. 3. f. 31 32. It is ruled that both parties have an estate tayl because the estate is limited to both but so it is not in our case so those books are not against me In our case it doth not appear that Richard did intend to advance the Husband of Susanna and therefore it is not reason that the word heirs should relate to him but to Susanna his wife only for in case of limitation of estates the intention of the party is to be considered and doth direct the matter and the preceding limiting of the estate to Susanna and not to Leventhorp doth shew that the party did mean to promote the heirs of Susanna Lit. Sect. 27. Dyer 27. A second reason is drawn from the penning of the déed which in the limitation of it doth encline more that the word heirs should be applyed to Susanna than to Leventhorp for the words upon her is as much as to say of her and then it is the same case with Littletons case 3ly The Intention of the Donor appears to be such by the circumstances of the entire limitations which do shew that he did intend that Leventhorp should not have such an estate whereby it should be in his power to deprive his issue and therefore the word heirs are to be applyed to Susanna and not to Leventhorp for if it should be applyed to both then Leventhorp might destroy the estate of the issue contrary to the Donors intent And whereas Dyer 99 is objected against me I answer that case is not against me for there the word heirs is expresly limited to a certain person viz. to the heirs of the body of both of them but so it is not in our case and whereas Hill 13 Iac. Lane and Panels case in this Court is also objected against me I answer that that case is in effect the same case with Dyer and the question in our case came not in dispute And the will of the Donor in deeds is to be ohserved Lit. 22. C. Tayl. 1. rep Shelleys case 103. 〈◊〉 Notwithstanding in gifts in tayl this rule holds not so that a gift in tayl may be limsted contrary to the rule of the Common Law And I know not of any authority in print or writing against me but in 13 Ed. 3. Fitz. tit variance 81 there is an expresse authority for me and 4 H. 4. Fitz. br 448. in my experience I have known many estates limited as this is in the Southern parts held good estates tayl if it should be otherwise many estates would be shaken Roll chief Iustice We have delivered our opinions before against you viz. that it was not the meaning of the donour to apply the word Heirs to the body of Susanna only for this construction would offer violence unto the words as appears by Littleton who interprets that they are to be applyed to the Heirs of both the partyes and your reason is founded upon a wrong ground and expresly against Litletons case and for your second reason it is of no waight for the words are all one as if he had said to the Heirs of the Husband and wife begotten upon the wife 3ly We are not to frame a meaning against plain words which shew the Donors intent to be against you And the Baron cannot Bar the Estate tayl as you suppose Tayl. for the Feme hath an Estate for life and if she survive she may revive the remaining Estate and we must not consider of inconveniences which possibly may happen against the expresse words of the deed and the multitude of conveyances made in this manner are of no force to alter the Law Ierman Iustice as Roll. That the word Heirs shall be applyed to the Heirs of both partyes because voluntas donatoris secundum formam chartae expressa est observanda Nicholas and Ask Iustices of the same opinion Garland against Yarrow Pasc 1652. Banc. sup THis case being in arrest of Iudgement formerly spoken unto in an Action upon the case for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Act on for words you are a knave and keep a Bawdy house was again moved by Christ Turner who held that the words are not actionable 1. Because they are of spiritual cognisance 2ly It is not said that he kept a common Bawdy house 3ly here is no special damage laid 10 Car. These words he is a pimp adjudged not actionable in Lewis and Whittons case 4ly It is not alleged that he
to alter all or any part of the settlement made at any time during his life The verdict finds further that there was an Ordinance of Parliament made in the year of our Lord 1645. that Sir Thomas Morgan should forfeit all his lands and estate which he was then seised or possessed of or had been seised or possessed of from the year 1641. and that by the same Ordinance the lands in question were given to Mr. Pym that by virtue of the said Ordinance he encred was seised pro ut that Mr. Pym died so seised after whose death the Plaintifs lessor as his heir entred made a lease to the Plaintif after that Sir Tho Morgan died Mary the Defendant claiming as tenant in remainder for life after the death of Sir Thomas her father by vertue of the settlement made 13 Carol. entred into the lands in question and the Plaintif as lessée of Pym brings the action Vpon this special verdict the Question was Whether by the Ordinance of Parliament made not till the year 1645. yet looking back to the year 1641. the remainder of the lands in question which was setled 13 Car. being before the making of the Ordinance and also before the time to which the Ordinance looks back be forfeited by the Ordinance or not Forfeiture Latch of Councel with the Defendant argued That it was not forfeited 1. Because that the Ordinance is penal and retrospective or looking back and therefore it is odious in Law and shall not be largely interpreted but as strictly as may be 2ly The preamble of the Ordinance sets forth 2. things as the reasons why the Ordinance was made 1. Mr. Pyms deserts to whom the lands were given 2ly Morgans offences for which he was thus punished and both these grounds for making the Ordinance can extend no further than to the year 1641. and so not to the time of the settlement made 13 Car. by Sir Thomas Morgan for then neither of these causes alleged were in being 2ly The purview of the Ordinance is double 1. punitive 2ly remunerative 1. the punitive part which concerns the punishing of Sir Thomas Morgan 2ly the remunerative part concerning the rewarding of Mr. Pym and the punitiue part made in the year 1645. cannot reach the estate setled upon Mary his daughter so long before viz. 13 Car. for it can reach no further back than to the year 1641. at the most to which time and no further the Ordinance is retrospective and in the Statute of 23 H. 8. general words of an Act are restrained Besides there is a demonstration in the Ordinance that shews the Ordinance doth not extend to the estate of the Defendant as may appear by the provisoes conteined in it for although the children of Morgan are to be punished within the Ordinance by the second proviso of it yet this extends not to so long time as to 13 Car. when the estate was setled but only to the estate as it was in the year 1641. And therefore prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Wadham Windham on the other side argued that the estate of Morgan though it was said to be setled 13 Car. was forseited by the Ordinance Because the estate was not absolutely setled at that time for there was a proviso in the conveyance to revoke the settlement so that at the time of the Ordinance made the estate was in Sir Thomas Morgan absolutely to dispose off as he pleased and by the words of the Ordinance all Morgans estate is passed without any saving and the provisoes of the Ordinance do prove that the Children of Sir Thomas Morgan were excepted out of the savings made to preserve the estates of others Also Boons and Favours bestowed use to be amply expounded and this being a Boon bestowed by the Parliament shall receive as large a construction as is possible Besides Morgan was a Papist therfore it may well be supposed that he intended not this for any real settlement but only by way of subtility for some private reasons for we know that Papists do use to make such settlements as this was to preserve them from penalties of the Law And the words of the Ordinance are accumulative to convey all Morgans estate and there are no restrictive words and if there were they should be void here for the Manor of Callidown being the Lands in question are expresly given by the Ordinance and as to these Lands the rights of all men are bound and therefore if there were a saving it would be void as it is Cook rep Alton Woods Case And an act of Parliament sometimes is as a conveyance sometime as a judgment and both waies a saving in it is void and srivolous 1 Rep. 4. A conditional estate or a right may be saved by Iudgment or fine but not an entire estate or interest Saving and therefore the estate of Mary in the Manor of Callidown cannot be saved by any proviso and he cited Alton Woods Case for authority in the principal Case f. 51. But admitting a general saving had been good to save Maries estate yet as the words of the Ordinance were penned her estate is not saved by it for the words were put in the Ordinance for the advantage of Pym and not to provide for Mary for she claims from Thomas Morgan and so prayed Iudgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice said that the provisoes in the Ordinance are not void to all persons as Windham argued for Strangers are clearly provided for by them But let the Case be argued again Saturday fortnight Postea Hatwood against Payte Mich. 1649 Banc. sup Entred Hill 24 Car. rot 78. THe question insisted upon in this Case was Whether Tithes be extendible upon an Elegit whether upon a recovery in an Action of Debt against a Parson the Tithes be extendible by Elegit Hales of Councel with the Plaintif held that they are because that Tithes may be said to be Tenements and the Parson hath a Free-hold in them although he hold them jure Ecclesiae But Roll chief Iustice said Elegit that a Parsonage cannot be extended but that the Debt may be levyed out of the profits of it by the Sherif as it was wont to be done Extent for now there being no Bishops the profits cannot be sequestred by the Bishop of the Dioces Sequestration as they used to be But Ierman and Nicholas Iustices doubted Clergy Ask Iustice agreed with Roll and said that by the Common-law the Clergy are no more privileged from paying their debts than Lay men are Roll chief Iustice said it hath been heretofore questioned whether a Clergy-man be subject to watch and ward or to contribute to satisfie for a robbery done within the Hundred but now it is no question but they are subject and shall contribute Adjourned till Saturday to be argued again Postea Tyndal and others against Harington Mich. 1649. Banc. sup TYndal brought an Action of Debt
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
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
to his heir in the singular number And he argued that the word heir includes heirs because it is Nomen Collectivum Next Whether the devising the land to Richard for his natural life and after to his heir for ever makes any difference in the Case and he held it did not and said that Archers case that is objected by the other side differs much from this for there the words are restrained for it is Proximo Haeredi and not Haeredi generally as it is in our Case and there the words next heir are not words of limitation but of purchase and to decipher the person but not to limit the estate and in our case if there should not be a limitation Richard should only take for life which is not the intent of the Will as may appear by the passages and clauses of it And Thomas and Kemishes case in 5 Car. in this Court makes an end of our Case Neither doth the adding of the word in perpetuum make a difference in the Case for if the words had béen omitted the same estate had passed to the Tenant Richard and his Estate is not enlarged by them 2ly The words in perpetuum relate to all the Estate and not to any particular Estate and so the surrender made by R. Hunt is good Next of all supposing that it be a limited Estate and a contingent remainder the question will then be whether this contingent remainder be destroyed or no and I conceive it is because the particular Copyhold estate which must support this contingent remainder is destroyed and the Law is the same in that point in Copyhold cases as it is in other cases at the Common Law for Copyholds are directed by the rules of the Common Law 13 Iac. Banc. Reg. It is also held that there is the same rule to support a contingent remainder of a Copyhold as there is of Land at the Common Law Next it is to be considered whether the particular Copyhold estate be extinguished or not And it is cléer that it is for the customary Estate is in the Lord who hath the Fée simple which cannot both stand together and so there is no estate to support the contingent remainder Copyhold and consequently all objections are by this answered 1. That the surrender shall not do wrong 2ly That the surrender destroys not the Custom Turner on the other side argued that only an estate passeth to Richard for life and that the word Heir is not a word of limitation to make the Ancestor take a Fée simple neither shall the word Heir be taken Collective here but singulariter and so according to the common sence number and matter ought it to be construed And Nowns Collective in the singular number do not signifie the same thing that they do in the plurall number as may be proved by other examples and there is no proper name to signifie one particular Heir in Law if the word Heir in the singular number shall not do it Shellyes case 1. Rep. f. 101. â—ooks institut f. 8.1 Rep. Archers case And there are two Iudgements in the Common pleas in the very point as I am informed by the Attorney on our side In a Will the word Heir shall not be taken Coliective out in the natural grammaticall sence and not as a word of art but it is otherwise taken perchance in conveyances which are made by men of Art and learned in the Laws whereas wills are made commonly by lay gents and unskilfull in the Law And the rule is that words shall be interpreted to make all the parts of a déed in which they are to stand together and to bear sence and to be in esse and effectual which cannot be here if the word heir shall be taken Collective but may be if it be taken singulariter Hob. rep Stukely and Butlers case Next if the word heir should be taken Collective then the Estate for life would merge 30 El. C. B. Hill 3 Iac. C. B. Hiller and Lewis his case 3ly Rich. hath only an Estate for life if it were otherwise the Testator would have otherwise expressed it and he hath well expressed an estate for life and no other Estate in him If one grant 4. parts of his mannor it shall passe 4. parts of 5. and not all For the other poynt the contingent remainder is not here destroyed by the destruction of the Copyhold Estate for Copyhold Estates do not depend one upon another as Estates of the Common Law do and here is one in esse to take the Estate Another question he spoke to viz. whether a Lessee at will being ousted by a stranger can reenter and he held he cannot for he hath but a meer right 38 H. 6. f. 27. Fortescue and Yelverton 3. Iac. Banc. Reg. rot 501. Carpenter and Collins But to this Roll chief Iustice Entry and Nicholas Iustice answered that he may enter notwithstanding it hath been heretofore controverted and the reason is because he hath the primer posseâ—sion Roll chief Iustice enclined that the contingent remainder is not destroyed because it doth not here depend upon the particular Estate but it ought to expect till the remainder happen and he conceived that the word heir and heirs were all one here by the intent of the partyes and the frame of the conveyance Ask Iustice said that it is a good Estate of Fee simple conditionall executed in Richard Ierman Iustice The intent in a Will if it be not contrary to Law ought to be taken and there must be words to make the intent appear and these words must stand together and shall not be made void and he conceived the contingent remainder not destroyed Adjourned till the next Term. Postea Port against Midleton Hill 1650. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action of debt upon an obligation Error to reverse a judgment in debt and the Error insisted upon was in the entring of the Iudgement which was quod recuperet Debitum suum and doth not say praedictum Roll chief Iustice answered Delivery Escrow that the debt is confessed by the party and the question is whether the deed was delivered as an escrow or not but it was delivered to the party himself and therefore could not be delivered as an escrow Ierman Iustice said that debitum suum without praedictum is not good for the word praedictum is verbum operativum Ask Iustice as Roll and there is but one debt Implication and the word ideo in the record implyes it to be the same debt Nicholas to the same effect The rule was affirmetur nisi causa die Iunae sequenti Hill 1650. Banc. sup AN administrator had a Iudgement against one to recover a debt due to the Intestate and then the Administrator dyed Intestate For a scire facias to revive a judgement denyed Scire facias and another took out new letters of administration de bonis non
words of a will which were these I give all my free lands wheresoever to my Brother Iohn Sanders and his heirs upon condition that he suffer my wife to enjoy all my Freelands in Holford for life the Testator having only a portion of tithes of inheritance in Holford and no lands The question here was whether this portion of tithes shall be accompted free lands within the intent of the will and so the wife be to have them during her life Twisden held the tithes were not devised by the will to the Feme for if I devise my fee-simple lands to Iohn a Stile and his heirs tithes do not pass by this devise for tithes are a collateral thing arising out of land and not part of the land it self 42 Ed. 3. f. 13. 10 Iac. Moyle and Ewers case 31 Eliz. Perkins and Hyndes case In the will here they pass not for there are no words in the will to devise them nor can the words he so expounded and here are other lands devised to satisfie the words of the will A term for years hath more relation to land than tithes and a term could not have passed by the words of the will Next the second Clause doth not pass the tithes for there is no such thing as is expressed in it but if it should pass to the wise by implication yet it cannot pass to Iohn Sanders the Brother for there are neither expresse words nor any implication to devise this portion of tithes to him but the contrary rather is to be collected from the Will Wadham Windham on the other side answered that the Testator calls the tithes in Holford his free lands It is true generally that by the devise of lands tithes do not pass but in a will by the intent of the Devisor they may pass and the word land includes all real things in common intention and legal construction as Lutrels Case is 1 Mar. Bro. Tit. Elegit An Elegit may be of a rent and tithes have a nearer relation to land than rent have 2ly Here is an apparent intention to devise the tithes for he explains his meaning in his second clause of the Will that he intends tithes by the word lands 44 Eliz. Com. Banc. Gery against Gery the question there was what passed by the word rents whether lands passed The words were as to all my lands in Dale I devise my rents c. and here the matter comes in by a Proviso which enlarges the matter Trin. 3 Iac. Fitz. Williams case One devised all his goods Iewels and Plate excepting his lease in C There it was adjudged that all his other Leases passed 4 Ed. â— Br. grants 51. Another circumstance in the Will enforceth this construction viz. the word wheresoever which word expresseth the intent of the Devisor to be so otherwise that word will be idle and to no purpose Hob. rep Stukely and Butlers case It may also appear out of the body of the Will for it appears thereby that his Daughter was provided for in his will by his personal estateâ— and that the intention was to dispose of his lands to the Heir and his Copyhold lands which he had in Holford were surrendred at the time of the making of the Will and so the devise cannot refer to them and besides this is called free lands which distinguisheth them from Copyhold lands and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice There is a Condition annexed to the Devise Condition that his wife shall enjoy this land though the words in the Will are not very proper to erpress it but we must consider them as used in a Will not in a conveyance Nicholas Iustice said the Devisor himself calls them free-holds and this distinguisheth them from Copyhold lands Adjourned till Saturday following to be argued again Dowse against Masters Pasc 1651. Banc. sup DOwse brought an Action of Debt upon an Indebitatus Assumpsit against Masters for five pound Demurrer to a plea in Debt upon Indebitatus assumpsit in which the Defendant pleaded that he did deliver bils to the Plaintif to the value of 6 l. in which the Plaintif was indebted to him which bills the Plaintif did accept in full satisfaction the Plaintif replyed protestando that he was not indebted to the Defendant that he did not receive bills to the value of 6 l. in satisfaction Vpon this a Demurrer was joyned Roll chief Iustice said Plea the Plea of the Defendant is ill for he doth not say that he delivered the Bills in full satisfaction but that the Plaintif received them in full satisfaction which is not good for the Plaintifs receiving of the Bills must be as they were delivered and not other ways and that is not expressed Therefore let the Plaintif take his judgement nisi c. Ross against Lawrence Pasch 1651. Banc. sup ROss brought an Action of the Case against Lawrence for speaking these Welch words of him viz. Dedingues Will Rols in mudon Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case for Welch words Englished which are in English William Ross hath forsworn himself upon Issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable as they are rendred in English and so the Action lies not Roll chief Iustice If the words sound in Welch that the Plaintif was perjured yet if the Plaintif do English them in English which doth not amount to perjury it is ill Case and an action will not lie for them Therefore let judgement be stayed Peck against Ingram Pasch 1651. Banc. sup PEck brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit and declares Arrest of Judgement in an action upon the case upon an Assumpsit that the Defendant in consideration that she the Plaintif would leave her Fathers house and come to the House of the Defendant in such a place did assume and promise unto her that he would mary her and that thereupon she did leave her Fathers House and did come to the Defendants House et obtulit se in maritagium conjungi and because he had not performed his promise Actio accrevit Vpon issue joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took Exceptions that the Plaintif did not shew in her Declaration when she left her Fathers House and came to the Defendants house nor that she gave him any notice thereof Wild moved for judgement notwithstanding the Exceptions for he said though it be not expresly said that she gave the Defendant notice when she came to his House yet it is said quod obtulit se in maritagium conjungi which implies the Defendant had notice and besides here is no need of notice for the Assumpsit is that if she will come to the Defendants house he will marry her and it is not said that when she comes he will marry her so that he is bound by
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
and that by the Will the Land and personal Estate passed unto him for he said if by my Will I make one my Heir This is a devise to him of all my Lands in Fee for the Devisee is put in loco haeredis and shall be like an Heir by descent for he is haeres factus although he be not haeres natus Mich. 31 32 Eliz. rot 235 Godfreys Reports Hob. rep f. 34. b. Coundens case Hob. new edition 75. Spark against Burrell the very case in point adjudged 7 E. 6. Br. Done 44. and Devise 48. and in this Case the Devisee had annuities to pay and monies for Legacies which shews the intent of the Testator to be that he shall have his Lands and Goods neither shall the misspelling of the word Heir hurt the Will for the intent of the Testator shall be followed if it may be known as it may well be here Hob. f. 32.15 H. 7. f. 12. Cooks Lit. f. 323. Dyer 325. 2ly Misnaming in a Will shall not hurt the Will Dyer 323.21 Rich. 2. Fitzh devise 27.10 rep 57. 3ly False Latin shall not destroy deeds nor pleadings though it will abate writs a fortiori false English shall not destroy a Will 9 H. 7.16.10 rep Osborns case Hob. 227.10 rep 133. a. 9. H. 6.7 a. and here is only vitium scriptoriâ— and that cannot destroy a Will Hob. f. 162. Walkers case f. 104 104.9 rep 48. a. Dyer 17 Eliz. f. 342. Digbyes case Another reason is the word Heir is here written according to the pronunciation and sound of the word though it agree not in letters and H. that is left out is no letter but an asperte note and the language in England as it differs in time so it differs in place for men speak not nor write English in all parts of England alike and a Will in latin or greek is a good Will within the Statute so that it is not necessary for a Will to be good English and the Testator was bred in France and could neither write nor speak good English and his Will so much the rather is to be favoured And false English hath been allowed in a Bond viz. senteen for seventeen pounds 9. rep 48. a. much more may it be in a Will and so he prayed Iudgement for the Plaintiff Latch for the Defendant argued that the Will was not good he considered 2. points 1. When a man makes one his solle Ayeare and Yexecutor what construction the words shall have 2ly What Estate is conveyed by them And first he said that Hoberts Case cited by Powis was not to the purpose 1. Because it is not the principal case And 2ly It is but an opinion there and an Heir may be without land And for Counden and Clarks case that was cited as it was urged it is for me and not against me and there can be no authority cited that if one make a man his Heir that his lands are thereby conveyed to him in Fee simple But in our case there can be no certain intent of the Testator found out and the making of one his Heir in France where the Testator was bred according to the Civil Law there used is but to make him his Executor and so the Testator might mean it And if one in his Will say I make one of my Daughters my Heir and do not say of his Lands this shall not disinherit the other Daughters and if there should be any Estate conveyed here it cannot be but an Estate for life Brook Done 44.8 Jac. C. B. Inkersalls case 3ly The ill orthogrophy here makes the Will naught for a Will cannot be made good by conjectures Hob. 34. Mich. 23 Car. Robinsons case the Iudgement was reversed for writing the word Aeris insteed of aeris with a dipthongue Trin. 17 Car. C. B. rot 74. and in Skirret and Skinners case libis with a dash over put for libris was adjudged ill and in our case here are divers words miswritten And for the variation of our English dialect which is objected it is to no purpose because this will was lately made the dialect alters not in so short a time and the dialect of the County where the Will was made viz. Glocester Shire agrees not with the Will And Hill 6. Car. this Will came in dispute in the Court of wards and a decree there passed against the Will in this point The Court said the case is doubtful Will. because the Will doth not say I make him heir of my Land but generally my heir and Executor but the false writing hurts not a Will if the Testators mind may be found out Adjourned to be argued again Wood against Topham Mich. 1651 Banc. sup VVOod brought an Action of Trespasse upon the case quare filium baeredem rapuit et maritavit against Topham Arrest of judgement in an Action on the case upon not guilty pleaded and a verdidict found for the Plaintiff the Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and takes these exceptions to the Declaration 1. That the Plaintiff doth not say cujus maritagium ad ipsum pertinet 2ly That he doth not say that the Heir was within age and Maynard of Councel with the Defendant said that the exceptions are not to the writ but to the Declaration and the Action being a Trespasse to recover the Damages the Plaintiff ought to entitle himself to the mariage for the losse whereof he would recover damages for the Heir it may be is not Heir apparent to him and then is no mariage due to him and here is a special Declaration for the losse of the mariage Roll chief Iustice answered Writs Declaration the writs are good both wayes and so may the Declaration be either with those words or without them and he makes not the ground of his Action to be that the mariage belonged to him Common right but of Common right it doth belong to him and the words are used to be alleged only to increase the Damages and the ground of the Declaration is only quare filium suum haeredem rapuit and for this the Plaintiff ought to have his Iudgement Ierman Iustice differed and said the Plaintiff doth not shew he had any damage by the mariage it may be that he had been maryed before or was of full age so no cause of Action Nicholas Iustice as Roll and said that by the Law the mariage belongs to the Father and it may prove a dishonour to the family to have his son taken away and maryed without the Fathers consent Ask Iustice to the â—ams effect and so Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff nisi Antea Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to mitigate fines Motion to mitigate fines for riots that were to be set upon rioters that were found guilty upon an information exhibited against them for the riotous cutting down of wood But Wild on the other side prayed there might be good fines set
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